Should we have infant Holy Communion in the Latin Church?

[UncleBill]

Here is a great article on Infant communion being a Latin tradition…any thoughts?

Should we work to recover this venerable tradition?

preachersinstitute.com/2012/12/08/infant-communion-the-ancient-western-tradition/

 

[Aelred_Minor]

To some degree I would take issue with the author’s apparent assumption that developments of tradition that happened after the first few centuries of the Church’s history are automatically innovations that lack any authority. Certainly habitual reference back to the liturgy and practices of the Fathers is a healthy sign for the Church, but it should not become exaggerated to the point that later Church-approved developments are regarded as inauthentic and inherently undesirable.

Also some aspects of the author’s language, such as his choice of the phrase “forbidding of the chalice to the laity” to describe centuries of prudent Church policy for the reverent and orthodox reception of the Eucharist (even if for reasons that are now outweiged by modern pastoral concerns) suggests to me a less than desirable approach to the entire subject of Church history and policy.

Regarding infant communion itself, it is clear that it is not sacrilegious and was in fact the primitive policy of the entire Church, East and West. From a Western Catholic perspective, the current Eastern policy of continuing this practice provides a valuable check against exaggerated opposition to infant communion in the West (of course the overriding concern should be what is the best pastoral policy for those Eastern Churches themselves, which is a determination best made by their own bishops).

Nevertheless, the cumulative pastoral experience of the second millennium led (complications in the history that the author describes notwithstanding) to a Western perspective that reception of the Eucharist is best delayed until the child can distinguish it from ordinary food. So strong is this tradition in the modern Latin Church and so enshrined in law and teaching that we should be extremely cautious about even suggesting a change.

Now the reservation of Confirmation until after receiving First Communion is of much more recent origin and is less firmly rooted in the Church’s pastoral teaching. Furthermore, by changing the actual order in which the sacraments of initiation are given it presents what might be interpreted as a much more radical departure from historical practice and an undesirable separation between the very connected sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation. The fact that even now adult converts are given Confirmation before First Communion preserves the impression, even in the West, that this is in some sense the ideal order. I would therefore see much more potential for a proposition that Confirmation should be given at an earlier age, before first communion, than for a proposed restoration of Latin infant communion.

 

[Zekariya]

“Those who say that infancy has nothing in it for Jesus to save, are denying that Christ is Jesus for all believing infants. Those, I repeat, who say that infancy has nothing in it for Jesus to save, are saying nothing else than that for believing infants, infants that is who have been baptized in Christ, Christ the Lord is not Jesus. After all, what is Jesus? Jesus means Savior. Jesus is the Savior. Those whom he doesn’t save, having nothing to save in them, well for them he isn’t Jesus. Well now, if you can tolerate the idea that Christ is not Jesus for some persons who have been baptized, then I’m not sure your faith can be recognized as according with the sound rule. Yes, they’re infants, but they are his members. They’re infants, but they receive his sacraments. They are infants, but they share in his table, in order to have life in themselves.” - St Augustine of Hippo, Sermon 174

“And what else do they say who call the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper life, than that which is written: “I am the living bread which came down from heaven;” and “The bread that I shall give is my flesh, for the life of the world;” and “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye shall have no life in you?” If, therefore, as so many and such divine witnesses agree, neither salvation nor eternal life can be hoped for by any man without baptism and the Lord’s body and blood, it is vain to promise these blessings to infants without them. Moreover, if it be only sins that separate man from salvation and eternal life, there is nothing else in infants which these sacraments can be the means of removing, but the guilt of sin…” - St Augustine of Hippo, On the Forgiveness of Sins and the Baptism of Infants, Book 1, Ch 33

"Question XVII [to Pope St Leo of Rome]. Concerning those who have been captured by the enemy and are not aware whether they have been baptized but know they were several times taken to church by their parents, whether they can or ought to be baptized when they come back to Roman territory?
“[Pope St Leo of Rome’s] Reply. Those who can remember that they used to go to church with their parents can remember whether they received what used to be given to their parents. But if this also has escaped their memory, it seems that that must be bestowed on them which is not known to have been bestowed because there can be no presumptuous rashness where the most loyal carefulness has been exercised.” - Pope St Leo of Rome, Letter CLXVII, Ch 3

 

[ConstantineTG]

The first step is to restore Communion under both species as the norm.

 

[babochka]

Nevertheless, the cumulative pastoral experience of the second millennium led (complications in the history that the author describes notwithstanding) to a Western perspective that reception of the Eucharist is best delayed until the child can distinguish it from ordinary food.** So strong is this tradition in the modern Latin Church and so enshrined in law and teaching that we should be extremely cautious about even suggesting a change.
**

I think it could be done incrementally, and I believe this has already begun. Here are excerpts from the 1910 decree of Pope Pius X, which established a much lower age for the reception of Holy Communion, than had become the custom. It is well worth reading the entire decree, which can be found here (papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10quam.htm). I’m sure that many who had become accustomed to a 1st Communion age of 13 or 14 believed strongly that the theology of the church was being dramatically changed by this “new” practice. I don’t know what form the next step might take. Perhaps giving children a few drops of the Precious Blood at baptism? If indeed the practice was halted because the laity no longer received from the cup, it seems that the restoration of the cup to the laity would eventually lead to the restoration of infant communion.

The Catholic Church, bearing this in mind, took care even from the beginning to bring the little ones to Christ through Eucharistic Communion, which was administered even to nursing infants. This, as was prescribed in almost all ancient Ritual books, was done at Baptism until the thirteenth century, and this custom prevailed in some places even later … But to remove the danger that infants might eject the Consecrated Host, the custom obtained from the beginning of administering the Eucharist to them under the species of wine only.

This practice later died out in the Latin Church, and children were not permitted to approach the Holy Table until they had come to the use of reason and had some knowledge of this august Sacrament. This new practice, already accepted by certain local councils, was solemnly confirmed by the Fourth Council of the Lateran, in 1215, which promulgated its celebrated Canon XXI, whereby sacramental Confession and Holy Communion were made obligatory on the faithful after they had attained the use of reason, in these words: “All the faithful of both sexes shall, after reaching the years of discretion, make private confession of all their sins to their own priest at least once a year, and shall, according to their capacity, perform the enjoined penance; they shall also devoutly receive the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist at least at Easter time unless on the advice of their own priest, for some reasonable cause, it be deemed well to abstain for a while.”

This practice of preventing the faithful from receiving on the plea of safeguarding the august Sacrament has been the cause of many evils. It happened that children in their innocence were forced away from the embrace of Christ and deprived of the food of their interior life; and from this it also happened that in their youth, destitute of this strong help, surrounded by so many temptations, they lost their innocence and fell into vicious habits even before tasting of the Sacred Mysteries. And even if a thorough instruction and a careful Sacramental Confession should precede Holy Communion, which does not everywhere occur, still the loss of first innocence is always to be deplored and might have been avoided by reception of the Eucharist in more tender years.
**But worse still is the practice in certain places which prohibits children who have not yet made their First Communion from being fortified by the Holy Viaticum, even when they are in imminent danger of death; and thus, when they die they are buried with the rites due to infants and are deprived of the prayers of the Church. **

Moreover, the fact that in ancient times the remaining particles of the Sacred Species were even given to nursing infants seems to indicate that **no extraordinary preparation should now be demanded of children who are in the happy state of innocence and purity of soul, and who, amidst so many dangers and seductions of the present time have a special need of this heavenly food. **

Also, it would only take a generation or two for infant communion to become normal and expected. In many cases, the Eastern Churches had taken to following the western practice, and by default, the western theology. There was resistance from many. In cases of resistance, infant communion was restored by strong decrees from the Bishops. After some grumbling, it has once again become a normal,expected practice in our churches.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I agree that infant communion is more plausible after the reforms of St. Pius X and Paul VI than they were previously. Whether these are incremental reforms towards restoring infant communion is something that will best be assessed in the more distant future when things can be seen in greater perspective and with knowledge of what will come in the twenty-first century. It’s similar in this way to the question of whether married deacons, and even married priests in the Anglican Ordinariates, are incremental steps towards ending the Western priestly celibacy discipline or simply minor adjustments of that discipline.

This discussion does put me in mind of something I have noticed before, though it is difficult to express without the danger of being wrongly perceived as hostile. I have noticed that while Eastern Christians are often adamantly opposed to what is called Latinization in Eastern Churches, they often vocally support what could easily be called Easternization in the Latin Church. No doubt this partially reflects the numerical difference between Eastern and Western Catholics (and even, to a lesser degree, Eastern and Western Christians in general) and certain nasty episodes of history, both of which cause Eastern absorption into Western ecclesial culture to be seen as a much more serious threat than the other way around. Still, I do think a little more consistency might be appropriate. Surely this question is one to be decided from a Western theological and cultural perspective and in response to Western pastoral concerns, not Eastern.

 

[UncleBill]

I agree that infant communion is more plausible after the reforms of St. Pius X and Paul VI than they were previously. Whether these are incremental reforms towards restoring infant communion is something that will best be assessed in the more distant future when things can be seen in greater perspective and with knowledge of what will come in the twenty-first century. It’s similar in this way to the question of whether married deacons, and even married priests in the Anglican Ordinariates, are incremental steps towards ending the Western priestly celibacy discipline or simply minor adjustments of that discipline.

This discussion does put me in mind of something I have noticed before, though it is difficult to express without the danger of being wrongly perceived as hostile. I have noticed that while Eastern Christians are often adamantly opposed to what is called Latinization in Eastern Churches, they often vocally support what could easily be called Easternization in the Latin Church. No doubt this partially reflects the numerical difference between Eastern and Western Catholics (and even, to a lesser degree, Eastern and Western Christians in general) and certain nasty episodes of history, both of which cause Eastern absorption into Western ecclesial culture to be seen as a much more serious threat than the other way around. Still, I do think a little more consistency might be appropriate. Surely this question is one to be decided from a Western theological and cultural perspective and in response to Western pastoral concerns, not Eastern.

Why would you consider reclaiming an Apostolic Tradition an Easternization? I certainly didn’t mean to present the article for that reason.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Why would you consider reclaiming an Apostolic Tradition an Easternization? I certainly didn’t mean to present the article for that reason.

Some Western Catholics would claim that insisting on sexual constancy for any married priests, or the use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist, or the use of two fingers rather than three for making the sign of the cross, would be a reclaiming of Apostolic or at least primitive Tradition for the East. I don’t know if either of these claims are true, but even supposing they are I would not presume to tell Eastern Catholics to retain a part of antique tradition which their own traditions have modified.

Eastern Christians have found that continuing the early practice of infant communion is the best way for them. Western Catholics have found that delaying first communion until the age of reason is the best way for us. Either might in principle be wrong or at least be taking an inferior approach, but this is to be decided within that Church, not by those outside.

 

[babochka]

I agree that infant communion is more plausible after the reforms of St. Pius X and Paul VI than they were previously. Whether these are incremental reforms towards restoring infant communion is something that will best be assessed in the more distant future when things can be seen in greater perspective and with knowledge of what will come in the twenty-first century. It’s similar in this way to the question of whether married deacons, and even married priests in the Anglican Ordinariates, are incremental steps towards ending the Western priestly celibacy discipline or simply minor adjustments of that discipline.

This discussion does put me in mind of something I have noticed before, though it is difficult to express without the danger of being wrongly perceived as hostile. I have noticed that while Eastern Christians are often adamantly opposed to what is called Latinization in Eastern Churches, they often vocally support what could easily be called Easternization in the Latin Church. No doubt this partially reflects the numerical difference between Eastern and Western Catholics (and even, to a lesser degree, Eastern and Western Christians in general) and certain nasty episodes of history, both of which cause Eastern absorption into Western ecclesial culture to be seen as a much more serious threat than the other way around. Still, I do think a little more consistency might be appropriate. Surely this question is one to be decided from a Western theological and cultural perspective and in response to Western pastoral concerns, not Eastern.

That was very carefully (and respectfully) worded.

I’m not sure if I agree that this is true. One doesn’t generally hear Eastern Catholics clamoring for the West to abolish kneeling on Sundays and every day between Pascha and Pentecost. Nor is there great pressure from the East for the Latin Church to ordain married men to the priesthood. We don’t ask you to sing Alleluia during Lent. If anything, most Easterners would be happy to see a true restoration of Western liturgical traditions, as the current state of the Mass can make the Orthodox look upon us with a bit of suspicion, making the possibility of reunion more remote.

In the case of infant communion, I am arguing that the the Western Church should look at its own history and restore its own venerable tradition, just as it has been done in once again offering the cup to the laity. If the initial reasons for the change no longer exist, it seems appropriate to re-examine the change.

 

[babochka]

Some Western Catholics would claim that insisting on sexual constancy for any married priests, or the use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist, or the use of two fingers rather than three for making the sign of the cross, would be a reclaiming of Apostolic or at least primitive Tradition for the East. I don’t know if either of these claims are true, but even supposing they are I would not presume to tell Eastern Catholics to retain a part of antique tradition which their own traditions have modified.

Eastern Christians have found that continuing the early practice of infant communion is the best way for them. Western Catholics have found that delaying first communion until the age of reason is the best way for us. Either might in principle be wrong or at least be taking an inferior approach, but this is to be decided within that Church, not by those outside.

I guess I look at these as completely different things. The first examples are simply a matter of practice and custom. The issue of the reception of the mysteries is a question of the very life of Christ in our souls. I think they are on different planes.

I suspect the moderators will be stepping in here soon, as this is outside the scope of this forum. Maybe we should carry it over to the Eastern Catholicism forum?

 

[Zekariya]

Eastern Christians have found that continuing the early practice of infant communion is the best way for them. Western Catholics have found that delaying first communion until the age of reason is the best way for us. Either might in principle be wrong or at least be taking an inferior approach, but this is to be decided within that Church, not by those outside.

Pope St Leo and St Augustine are Western Fathers who show (not to mention supported) the practice of infant Communion in the West. This is not a solely Eastern topic.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Some Western Catholics would claim that insisting on sexual constancy for any married priests, or the use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist, or the use of two fingers rather than three for making the sign of the cross, would be a reclaiming of Apostolic or at least primitive Tradition for the East. I don’t know if either of these claims are true, but even supposing they are I would not presume to tell Eastern Catholics to retain a part of antique tradition which their own traditions have modified.

Eastern Christians have found that continuing the early practice of infant communion is the best way for them. Western Catholics have found that delaying first communion until the age of reason is the best way for us. Either might in principle be wrong or at least be taking an inferior approach, but this is to be decided within that Church, not by those outside.

Sorry, obviously the word I’ve here put in bold was supposed to be “continence.” I think we are all agreed that priests of any sort should display constancy in their lives. There’s at least two other typos too, “either” instead of “any” and “retain” instead of “restore.” I was interrupted, and may have to call it a day for CAF.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Pope St Leo and St Augustine are Western Fathers who show (not to mention supported) the practice of infant Communion in the West. This is not a solely Eastern topic.

Western Tradition has to be viewed in the context of its whole history and not only in its earliest phases.

 

[babochka]

Western Tradition has to be viewed in the context of its whole history and not only in its earliest phases.

Then consider the more recent words of Pope Pius X, which I quoted in my previous post.

This practice of preventing the faithful from receiving on the plea of safeguarding the august Sacrament has been the cause of many evils. It happened that children in their innocence were forced away from the embrace of Christ and deprived of the food of their interior life; and from this it also happened that in their youth, destitute of this strong help, surrounded by so many temptations, they lost their innocence and fell into vicious habits even before tasting of the Sacred Mysteries.

Although he did not choose to implement/restore infant communion, the principle remains the same and can certainly be applied to younger children.

The council of Trent explicitly stated that children fruitfully receive Holy Communion prior to the age of reason, while at the same time teaching that it is not necessary for their salvation.

I don’t think that the theology/practice of the western church is as solidly in favor of delayed communion as is commonly believed. Can you cite a western theologian or Pope who has actually taught the necessity, from a theological point of view, of waiting until the age of reason to receive Holy Communion?

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I guess I look at these as completely different things. The first examples are simply a matter of practice and custom. The issue of the reception of the mysteries is a question of the very life of Christ in our souls. I think they are on different planes.

I suspect the moderators will be stepping in here soon, as this is outside the scope of this forum. Maybe we should carry it over to the Eastern Catholicism forum?

This strikes me as a rather severe assessment of a discipline which has been held up by Church for several centuries. Latin rite babies are not denied sanctifying grace and divine indwelling in their souls, because they are not denied baptism. While it is clear that nothing is wrong with infant communion the West has developed a practice and custom, mandated by law in fact, of delaying the first reception of communion until the person can have some awareness of what is happening. No injustice is being committed against the child, and we get the combined benefits of reducing the chances of accidental profanation of the Eucharist (although use of only a small amount of the Precious Blood would presumably achieve this too if administered properly), giving the child a memorable experience of First Communion, and reminding adults of the necessity, in their case, of discerning the body and blood.

The whole subject could be regarded through the lens of Western and Eastern traditions emphasizing different points, the Western perspective emphasizing our (partial) awareness of what we are receiving and the way the Eucharist strengthens us against sin, the Eastern perspective emphasizing the grace which is inherently given in the sacrament, the unity of the sacraments of initiation, and continuity with the practices of the early Church.

Certainly though I don’t think there is any call for one side to declare the other’s approach actually wrong.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Then consider the more recent words of Pope Pius X, which I quoted in my previous post.

Although he did not choose to implement/restore infant communion, the principle remains the same and can certainly be applied to younger children.

The council of Trent explicitly stated that children fruitfully receive Holy Communion prior to the age of reason, while at the same time teaching that it is not necessary for their salvation.

I don’t think that the theology/practice of the western church is as solidly in favor of delayed communion as is commonly believed. Can you cite a western theologian or Pope who has actually taught the necessity, from a theological point of view, of waiting until the age of reason to receive Holy Communion?

In the paragraph you quote St. Pius X seems to be speaking of older children who while still innocent are in danger of soon falling into sin. I say this because of his explicit words about the loss of innocence and because of the sentence immediately following your quote in which he mentioned the prayers of the Church for the dead, implying he is taking about children who could plausibly go to Purgatory. He sees it as an injustice that a [older] child should die without viaticum and be buried according to the rites due to infants, but this implies that these things are probably not improper for true infants, and indeed his declining to change the Church’s law with regard to true infants seems to confirm this. The perspective in this paragraph is that of the Eucharist strengthening against sin and even forgiving venial sins, as well as apparently a tie that had been made between whether a child had received communion and what form of funeral they were given, all of these being concerns that do not apply to infants.

Ultimately Pius X’s reform corrected an exaggerated application of the West’s instincts regarding reception of Holy Communion but left the substance intact.

I would be surprised to find a Catholic theologian or Pope who taught, from a theological rather than pastoral or canonical point of view, that it is necessary to delay First Communion until the age of reason. This after all would contradict the practice of the early Church, not to mention the Eastern practice. Again it is not a question of inherent necessity but of pastoral policy.

 

[Zekariya]

I would be surprised to find a Catholic theologian or Pope who taught, from a theological rather than pastoral or canonical point of view, that it is necessary to delay First Communion until the age of reason. This after all would contradict the practice of the early Church, not to mention the Eastern practice. Again it is not a question of inherent necessity but of pastoral policy.

Please note that I have an upmost respect for the Western Church and the Eastern Churches and do not intend any offense to anyone while discussing this topic.

Here is a Western doctor of the Church teaching from a theological view (not pastoral) about the importance of infant Communion:

“And what else do they say who call the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper life, than that which is written: “I am the living bread which came down from heaven;” and “The bread that I shall give is my flesh, for the life of the world;” and “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye shall have no life in you?” If, therefore, as so many and such divine witnesses agree, neither salvation nor eternal life can be hoped for by any man without baptism and the Lord’s body and blood, it is vain to promise these blessings to infants without them. Moreover, if it be only sins that separate man from salvation and eternal life, there is nothing else in infants which these sacraments can be the means of removing, but the guilt of sin…” - St Augustine of Hippo, On the Forgiveness of Sins and the Baptism of Infants, Book 1, Ch 33

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Please note that I have an upmost respect for the Western Church and the Eastern Churches and do not intend any offense to anyone while discussing this topic.

Here is a Western doctor of the Church teaching from a theological view (not pastoral) about the importance of infant Communion:

“And what else do they say who call the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper life, than that which is written: “I am the living bread which came down from heaven;” and “The bread that I shall give is my flesh, for the life of the world;” and “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye shall have no life in you?” If, therefore, as so many and such divine witnesses agree, neither salvation nor eternal life can be hoped for by any man without baptism and the Lord’s body and blood, it is vain to promise these blessings to infants without them. Moreover, if it be only sins that separate man from salvation and eternal life, there is nothing else in infants which these sacraments can be the means of removing, but the guilt of sin…” - St Augustine of Hippo, On the Forgiveness of Sins and the Baptism of Infants, Book 1, Ch 33

St. Augustine’s words here obviously reflect the fact that at his time Baptism, Confirmation, and First Communion were given in quick succession on the same day, and so for this question he treated them as a whole. Thus he felt free to use passages about the Eucharist in making an argument more naturally related to infant baptism and its removal of Original Sin. If he is to be interpreted as implying that a child who is baptized only and does not receive Holy Communion before he or she dies does not receive sanctifying grace and cannot go to heaven, then we would have to say he was in error on that particular point. I am not sure he really meant to imply this, though, and in any case even Augustine’s clearer conclusions about infant damnation are not Church doctrine nor particularly popular in the modern West.

 

[Zekariya]

St. Augustine’s words here obviously reflect the fact that at his time Baptism, Confirmation, and First Communion were given in quick succession on the same day, and so for this question he treated them as a whole. Thus he felt free to use a passage about the Eucharist in making an argument more naturally related to infant baptism and its removal of Original Sin.

I see. That makes sense.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Here is a great article on Infant communion being a Latin tradition…any thoughts?

Should we work to recover this venerable tradition?

preachersinstitute.com/2012/12/08/infant-communion-the-ancient-western-tradition/

The logic of delaying communion until the age of reason I think of as similar to the logic of delaying baptism until the age of reason. If we have infant baptism, why not infant communion? If the Eucharist is truly a sacrament and not just symbolic, it helps get the infant off to a good spiritual start.

Regarding the worry of spilling the precious blood, that applies to adult communion as well.