Infant Communion and Confirmation

[Hesychios]

**This implies we have to have some mental understanding for God to act in our lives through the Holy Mysteries.

I think you misunderstand bpbasilphx, if one believes that a particular understanding is the key to salvation, or is necessary for salvation it actually is an example of the error of the gnostics. So he is right.

There really is nothing wrong with having a more complete understanding (as in the case of a convert who may weigh all of the arguments carefully, and is well informed before the initiatory sacraments). But it is not a justification for delaying the sacraments to “members of the household”, which in our case would be the children we are raising to be Christians. So you are right.

I also think it is valid to say that no one has an adequate understanding of the Divine, regardless of how well prepared we are. You may know more than me, and Joe Schmoe may know more than you, but none of us will know enough. If we rely only on our own intellect, with these little pea-brains of ours, we are doomed. We do our best, living out the life in Christ… and put it in God’s hands.

Michael

 

[Corki]

Does “Age of Reason” mean anything to you guys? What about knowing what is being received?

I’m kinda guessing that if one is receiving the Body of Christ, its a good idea to know what is going on. A child, before he/she reaches the age of reason, if he/she has been baptised, will go to heaven if he/she dies. (he = he/she from now on)

Then, once he reaches the age of reason, he is capable of sinning. So, confession and communion are introduced - they are needed. If, God forbid, the child dies in the state of mortal sin - he goes to Hell. Not nice for one so young. The confession cleanses the soul, and the communion nourishes it.

Confirmation gives the 7 gifts of the Holy Ghost: Wisdom, Understanding, Counsel, Fortitude, Knowledge, Piety and Fear of the Lord. A 7 year old isn’t capable of studying and understanding everything that is reqd for proper reception of the sacrament of Confirmation. In theory, and 13 or 14 year old is. (I received at 13, and I still can’t remember alot of stuff I learnt then - so how would a 7 year old?).

I am glad you posted this, it is a point I was going to make.

The whole “age of reason” argument is a problem on more than one level.

First, we know that sacraments are efficacious whether or not we understand. It is the Holy Spirit at work, not us at work.

Secondly, this idea of understanding the sacrament is all part of a complex of ideas we have inherited out of the scholastic era. A sort of “glorification of the intellect”. It isn’t what we know that saves us, it is our values and virtues, and how we act them out. In other words we “put on Christ” and become new men.

Thirdly, this concept (of the value of understanding) when carried to a logical extension leads to the idea that one must be cognizant before baptism. In other words, that is where the Baptists got their ideas from.

Well put! Another point I should like to bring up is that by delaying communion until the age of reason, we have made confession an initiatory sacrament. I first read this in a Catholic article, and I agree that is wrong.

One theory I have for the delay of communion is that the withdrawal of the cup from the laity and the introduction of the dry unleavened hosts (which were not at first universally used in the west, I believe this originated in North Africa) made it difficult for infants to commune. It literally becomes a choking hazard. This is just speculation on my part of course.

The idea of “age of reason” is incorrectly applied to the Sacraments of initiation. The term refers to the age where a person is capable of personal sin by knowing what offends God and willfully chosing it. It does NOT refer to the age where a person understands the Sacraments he/she is receiving. It only applies to the Sacrament of Confession because it is necessary for a good examination of Concscience, and even then is not key to the reception of the Sacrament. For Communion, it is important to understand if one is in a state of grace but prior to the age of reason, personal failings are not an impediment to Communion. So, at best, the age of reason argument should be used to ensure that children are taught to receive Sacramental Reconcilliation at the earliest possible age (as soon as they are capable of discerning sin and being contrite) but not as a reason to delay any other Sacrament.

 

[pickguard1]

The idea of “age of reason” is incorrectly applied to the Sacraments of initiation. The term refers to the age where a person is capable of personal sin by knowing what offends God and willfully chosing it. It does NOT refer to the age where a person understands the Sacraments he/she is receiving. It only applies to the Sacrament of Confession because it is necessary for a good examination of Concscience, and even then is not key to the reception of the Sacrament. For Communion, it is important to understand if one is in a state of grace but prior to the age of reason, personal failings are not an impediment to Communion. So, at best, the age of reason argument should be used to ensure that children are taught to receive Sacramental Reconcilliation at the earliest possible age (as soon as they are capable of discerning sin and being contrite) but not as a reason to delay any other Sacrament.

Excellent point, and one I failed to see at first, but yes - the age of reason has to do with one’s ability to commit actual sin. If it meant the ability to understand, we are technically at the age of reason from before birth, since our understanding is a continuous process of development.

 

[diggerdomer]

The idea of “age of reason” is incorrectly applied to the Sacraments of initiation. The term refers to the age where a person is capable of personal sin by knowing what offends God and willfully chosing it. It does NOT refer to the age where a person understands the Sacraments he/she is receiving. It only applies to the Sacrament of Confession because it is necessary for a good examination of Concscience, and even then is not key to the reception of the Sacrament. For Communion, it is important to understand if one is in a state of grace but prior to the age of reason, personal failings are not an impediment to Communion. So, at best, the age of reason argument should be used to ensure that children are taught to receive Sacramental Reconcilliation at the earliest possible age (as soon as they are capable of discerning sin and being contrite) but not as a reason to delay any other Sacrament.

The way I’ve understood it is that we actually tend to use age of reason to mean two things that are really distinct (though related):

1. the age of discretion, which is necessary for confession, meaning one’s ability to know right from wrong i.e. a basic level of moral understanding (that’s what I think you’re noting above)
2. the age of reason which became important for communion in the Roman Rite so that the communicant knows enough to realize that the consecrated bread and wine (Body and Blood) are not just regular bread and wine

 

[pickguard1]

The way I’ve understood it is that we actually tend to use age of reason to mean two things that are really distinct (though related):
…
2. the age of reason which became important for communion in the Roman Rite so that the communicant knows enough to realize that the consecrated bread and wine (Body and Blood) are not just regular bread and wine

I think you’re right-that is the logic I have typically used explaining the sacraments to my kids, even if I didn’t actually realize it’s the logic I was using. After further thought on it though, the second “age of reason” can’t really be a prerequisite, since the only thing that can absolutely prohibit the valid reception of communion is not being in a state of grace. (This doesn’t mean that certain circumstances are always licit, but there are always exceptions to the rule). Since children before the age of reason don’t have this impediment there isn’t really any *objective *obstacle that prohibits them from receiving, it all comes down to the discipline of the particular church.

Also, there really isn’t an objective way to determine what the second “age of reason” really is. I received my First Holy Communion in 2nd grade, with all my classmates - as did every 2nd grade class in my school (a practice I assume the school still follows). Now is every one of those second graders at that magical second “age of reason” at Eastertime? I don’t think it’s possible to know, other than on a case by case basis - but I don’t remember being individually questioned or quizzed on my understanding of the Eucharist, just in a group/class setting. Regardless, how do we judge what understanding that it is the Body and Blood of Christ means? Does the child have to just recite this? Do they have to have just a vague understanding? (I know I did until my early twenties). Do they have to be able to discuss and understand the Sacrament using the contemporary theological vocabulary (i.e. transubstantiation vs. consubstantiation)? This would amount to a one size fits all requirement of understanding that may not be possible to attain.

There is of course the argument for adult converts that at least a cursory understanding and acceptance of the doctrines be there for reception, but the emphasis, I think is more on the acceptance of the doctrines, rather than the understanding of them.

 

[Sr_Sally]

One factor that led to the change in the Roman Rite was that this Sacrament being reserved to the bishop, as the Church grew it was not as easy to have access to the Bishop to celebrate it. The “local Church” was too big for the bishop to be as present as in previous times. So, people celebrated it when the Bishop was present regardless of their age. Over time, it became somewhat neglected in that way, and depended on how often or when the Bishop came to a certain town or community. As a result, later the Church often passed legislation mandating a “no later than” age for Confirmation. Human nature being what it is, “no later than” became the norm (just like when we tell our kids to be home “no later than” you can bet they’ll wait until that last possible time to be home).

One practical reason why confirmation was reserved for the Bishop was to ensure that he did indeed get around to all the parishes in his diocese. In my huge diocese, we always have visiting bishops who assist with getting to all the confirmations each spring. For example, confirmation this year at my parish was done by the bishop of the military diocese (not sure what the offical name is).

 

[diggerdomer]

One practical reason why confirmation was reserved for the Bishop was to ensure that he did indeed get around to all the parishes in his diocese. In my huge diocese, we always have visiting bishops who assist with getting to all the confirmations each spring. For example, confirmation this year at my parish was done by the bishop of the military diocese (not sure what the offical name is).

I think that may be a practical benefit that resulted, but I don’t think that was an influence in the development of the practice (though it may have helped justify it to some).

 

[Filioque]

Only from observation at Eastern Rite churches, I have noticed that infants are usually given some of the precious blood, however as they become toddelers, they only get a blessing, until “the age of reason”. I’ve not really asked anyone, just never really considered it. If I have a chance this Sunday, I’ll ask the priest. The only place I’ve seen toddlers administered communion is in the Maronite Rite. But then again, I don’t go to the Eastern Rite Every week, and I rotate among the various Rites, as there are so many to choose from in Los Angeles.

 

[pickguard1]

Here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say on the recipients of Confirmation:

"They should also be in the state of grace; for the Holy Ghost is not given for the purpose of taking away sin but of conferring additional grace. This condition, however, refers only to lawful reception; the sacrament is validly received even by those in mortal sin. In the early ages of the Church, confirmation was part of the rite of initiation, and consequently was administered immediately after baptism. When, however, baptism came to be conferred by simple priests, the two ceremonies were separated in the Western Church. Further, when infant baptism became customary, confirmation was not administered until the child had attained the use of reason. This is the present practice, though there is considerable latitude as to the precise age. The Catechism of the Council of Trent says that the sacrament can be administered to all persons after baptism, but that this is not expedient before the use of reason; and adds that it is most fitting that the sacrament be deferred until the child is seven years old, "for Confirmation has not been instituted as necessary for salvation, but that by virtue thereof we might be found well armed and prepared when called upon to fight for the faith of Christ, and for this kind of conflict no one will consider children, who are still without the use of reason, to be qualified." (Pt. II, ch. iii, 18.)

Such, in fact, is the general usage in the Western Church. Under certain circumstances, however, as, for instance, danger of death, or when the opportunity of receiving the sacrament is but rarely offered, even younger children may be confirmed. In the Greek Church and in Spain, infants are now, as in earlier times, confirmed immediately after baptism. **Leo XIII, writing 22 June, 1897, to the Bishop of Marseilles, commends most heartily the practice of confirming children before their first communion as being more in accord with the ancient usage of the Church. **"

It appears from this, that the moving of Confirmation from infants to older children has more to do with the sign that Confirmation represents - i.e. that it is essentially spiritual armor for defense of the faith. The argument from Trent is that no one logically assumes that a child without the use of reason would be called on to defend the faith. It appears that the intention is that they should receive it when they can understand that by their reception they are called to defend the faith, not that they understand completely the mysteries of the sacrament.

It is interesting though that the Pope still maintains that Confirmation is more fitting before Communion, even though this is largely NOT the practice in the Western Church anymore. What happened?

 

[diggerdomer]

It appears from this, that the moving of Confirmation from infants to older children has more to do with the sign that Confirmation represents - i.e. that it is essentially spiritual armor for defense of the faith. The argument from Trent is that no one logically assumes that a child without the use of reason would be called on to defend the faith. It appears that the intention is that they should receive it when they can understand that by their reception they are called to defend the faith, not that they understand completely the mysteries of the sacrament.

It is interesting though that the Pope still maintains that Confirmation is more fitting before Communion, even though this is largely NOT the practice in the Western Church anymore. What happened?

Confirmation got delayed/separated from baptism, and as we’ve said became somewhat neglected such that the Church often passed laws mandating a “no later than” age for Confirmation. But that didn’t (thankfully) stop people from receiving communion…although that practice too unfortunately decreased in the Middle Ages. I think it was Pius X who, around the same time as the encyclopedia you quote was published, in an effort to return people to the sacrament of communion, lowered the normal age for first communion to 7. There was no similar ruling about Confirmation so it stayed where it was, i.e. whenever people/bishops had been celebrating it (currently the requirement is to be between 7 and 18 years of age).

 

[pickguard1]

Confirmation got delayed/separated from baptism, and as we’ve said became somewhat neglected such that the Church often passed laws mandating a “no later than” age for Confirmation. But that didn’t (thankfully) stop people from receiving communion…although that practice too unfortunately decreased in the Middle Ages. I think it was Pius X who, around the same time as the encyclopedia you quote was published, in an effort to return people to the sacrament of communion, lowered the normal age for first communion to 7. There was no similar ruling about Confirmation so it stayed where it was, i.e. whenever people/bishops had been celebrating it (currently the requirement is to be between 7 and 18 years of age).

I didn’t know that the age of First Communion was higher - what was it before St. Pius X lowered it?

 

[diggerdomer]

I didn’t know that the age of First Communion was higher - what was it before St. Pius X lowered it?

I think it varied. Here’s Pius X’s decree:

papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10quam.htm

 

[pickguard1]

I think it varied. Here’s Pius X’s decree:

papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10quam.htm

Thanks for this!

The Pope mentions that the practice of giving Eucharist to infants in the form of the leftover small particles later died out in the western church. It must be presumed that this would be due to the errors he condemned that assumed a much more mature age was necessesary for first reception of the sacrament. I wonder why, even after calling out this abuse, the option of giving Eucharist to infants and children prior to the age of reason is still not given. It seems that at the most, the Lateran Council only mandated that receiving the Eucharist becomes an annual requirement binding under penalty of sin after one obtains the use of reason - not that it is proscribed before. Also, Trent never declared the ancient practice to be in error.

Is there any cannon in the Western Church that specifically proscribes communion before reaching the age of reason? Or do they all still point to the annual requirement after reaching the age of reason? If there isn’t one that says “under no circumstance shall a person under the age of reason be admitted to the sacrament of Communion,” it would seem to me that it would still be licit to have one’s child receive communion (notwithstanding the ability to find a priest who would do this in the Latin Church).

 

[diggerdomer]

Is there any cannon in the Western Church that specifically proscribes communion before reaching the age of reason? Or do they all still point to the annual requirement after reaching the age of reason? If there isn’t one that says “under no circumstance shall a person under the age of reason be admitted to the sacrament of Communion,” it would seem to me that it would still be licit to have one’s child receive communion (notwithstanding the ability to find a priest who would do this in the Latin Church).

Canons 913 and 914 are relevant, I think:

Can. 913 §1 For holy communion to be administered to children, it is required that they have sufficient knowledge and be accurately prepared, so that according to their capacity they understand what the mystery of Christ means, and are able to receive the Body of the Lord with faith and devotion.

§2 The blessed Eucharist may, however, be administered to children in danger of death if they can distinguish the Body of Christ from ordinary food and receive communion with reverence.

Can. 914 It is primarily the duty of parents and of those who take their place, as it is the duty of the parish priest, to ensure that children who have reached the use of reason are properly prepared and, having made their sacramental confession, are nourished by this divine food as soon as possible. It is also the duty of the parish priest to see that children who have not reached the use of reason, or whom he has judged to be insufficiently disposed, do not come to holy communion.

These laws could, of course, be changed, if the Church so decided.

 

[pickguard1]

Canons 913 and 914 are relevant, I think:

These laws could, of course, be changed, if the Church so decided.

Thanks again

So, I wonder if with all the thrust that seems to be swirling around now about “returning” to more ancient traditions (which I won’t get into on this thread), wouldn’t this logically be one of those areas that could use a little dusting off? Just my opinion.

 

[Hesychios]

For Communion, it is important to understand if one is in a state of grace but prior to the age of reason, personal failings are not an impediment to Communion. So, at best, the age of reason argument should be used to ensure that children are taught to receive Sacramental Reconcilliation at the earliest possible age (as soon as they are capable of discerning sin and being contrite) but not as a reason to delay any other Sacrament.

By this reasoning then, it is not appropriate to deny young children communion at all, until such a time that they may be sinners and need to make a good confession.

 

[Hesychios]

Only from observation at Eastern Rite churches, I have noticed that infants are usually given some of the precious blood, however as they become toddlers, they only get a blessing, until “the age of reason”. I’ve not really asked anyone, just never really considered it. If I have a chance this Sunday, I’ll ask the priest. The only place I’ve seen toddlers administered communion is in the Maronite Rite. But then again, I don’t go to the Eastern Rite Every week, and I rotate among the various Rites, as there are so many to choose from in Los Angeles.

You did not mention the rite in which you observed this, but if it is a Byzantine rite church, that “stopping” is a Latinization. The tradition does not allow for stopping the reception of communion at all.

Such abuses are still widespread, but are in the process of being corrected in many Byzantine Catholic parishes.

http://ocaphoto.oca.org/filetmp/2004/July/2/Detail/DSC_0076.jpg

http://ocaphoto.oca.org/filetmp/2004/August/102/Detail/DSC_0048.jpg

The “First Holy Communion” idea is very popular still, and many EC parents (often in mixed families with relatives or one partner from another Catholic church) want to see their little girls and boys dress up for the occasion, so in fact it is often the laity who resist the restoration of infant communion, as strange as that may seem. Any parishes on maintenance (stagnant - little growth or declining membership) may not survive in the long run so the bishops are not going to hassle with the congregation (in other words they will be ‘pastorally sensitive’) and will instead work with the more flourishing parishes on restoring the traditions.

It’ rather interesting, I have also seen Orthodox parishes with the “First Holy Communion” tradition (although in fact it is not the children’s first communion) inherited from the days when they were in the Unia, they often call it ‘First Solemn Communion’ or ‘First Confession’ or some such thing, so the families can still have the party .

http://www.stmichaelniles.org/displ...&archive=0&final_h=300&final_w=448&percent=70
First Confession

 

[Hesychios]

Only from observation at Eastern Rite churches, I have noticed that infants are usually given some of the precious blood, however as they become toddlers, they only get a blessing, until “the age of reason”. I’ve not really asked anyone, just never really considered it. If I have a chance this Sunday, I’ll ask the priest. The only place I’ve seen toddlers administered communion is in the Maronite Rite. But then again, I don’t go to the Eastern Rite Every week, and I rotate among the various Rites, as there are so many to choose from in Los Angeles.

You did not mention the rite in which you observed this, but if it is a Byzantine rite church, that “stopping” is a Latinization. The tradition does not allow for stopping the reception of communion at all.

Such abuses are still widespread, but are in the process of being corrected in many Byzantine Catholic parishes.

http://ocaphoto.oca.org/filetmp/2004/July/2/Detail/DSC_0076.jpg

http://ocaphoto.oca.org/filetmp/2004/August/102/Detail/DSC_0048.jpg

The “First Holy Communion” idea is very popular still, and many EC parents (often in mixed families with relatives or one partner from another Catholic church) want to see their little girls and boys dress up for the occasion, so in fact it is often the laity who resist the restoration of infant communion, as strange as that may seem. Any parishes on maintenance (stagnant - little growth or declining membership) may not survive in the long run so the bishops are not going to hassle with the congregation (in other words they will be ‘pastorally sensitive’) and will instead work with the more flourishing parishes on restoring the traditions.

saintelias.com/foto/big/ambosouth.jpg

http://www.saintelias.com/foto/big/iconostascandlelitne2_vsp.jpg

http://www.catherinecollege.net/moodle/file.php/24/Baptism_Images/Baptism_07.jpg

It’ rather interesting, I have also seen Orthodox parishes with the “First Holy Communion” tradition (although in fact it is not the children’s first communion) inherited from the days when they were in the Unia, they often call it ‘First Solemn Communion’ or ‘First Confession’ or some such thing, so the families can still have the party .

http://www.stmichaelniles.org/displ...&archive=0&final_h=300&final_w=448&percent=70
First Confession

 

[pickguard1]

You did not mention the rite in which you observed this, but if it is a Byzantine rite church, that “stopping” is a Latinization. The tradition does not allow for stopping the reception of communion at all.

Such abuses are still widespread, but are in the process of being corrected in many Byzantine Catholic parishes.

http://ocaphoto.oca.org/filetmp/2004/July/2/Detail/DSC_0076.jpg

http://ocaphoto.oca.org/filetmp/2004/August/102/Detail/DSC_0048.jpg

The “First Holy Communion” idea is very popular still, and many EC parents (often in mixed families with relatives or one partner from another Catholic church) want to see their little girls and boys dress up for the occasion, so in fact it is often the laity who resist the restoration of infant communion, as strange as that may seem. Any parishes on maintenance (stagnant - little growth or declining membership) may not survive in the long run so the bishops are not going to hassle with the congregation (in other words they will be ‘pastorally sensitive’) and will instead work with the more flourishing parishes on restoring the traditions.

saintelias.com/foto/big/ambosouth.jpg

http://www.saintelias.com/foto/big/iconostascandlelitne2_vsp.jpg

It’ rather interesting, I have also seen Orthodox parishes with the “First Holy Communion” tradition (although in fact it is not the children’s first communion) inherited from the days when they were in the Unia, they often call it ‘First Solemn Communion’ or ‘First Confession’ or some such thing, so the families can still have the party .

http://www.stmichaelniles.org/displ...&archive=0&final_h=300&final_w=448&percent=70
First Confession

What beautiful pictures!

 

[Filioque]

I also gave myself the out of stating that I did not assist at the eastern rites every week, and left room for someone with more knowledge to further explain the practices, which thankfully you did. While I have a deep and abiding love for both Western and Eastern Rites of the Church, I am no expert on the East.