If infant baptism is acceptable, why not infant communion?
Yesterday marked the 100th anniversary of the papal decree which lowered the age of first communion in the Roman Catholic Church. Instead of waiting until the age of 12 or 13, first communicants are now allowed to receive the Eucharist at the “age of reason”, which is usually interpreted to be around 7 or 8 years old. This decree has been a wonderful blessing in the Church and I know that I am very thankful that my own children have been able to receive the Eucharist before they reach their teen years. However, at the risk of sounding ungrateful for this decision, I do have to say:
I wish children could receive the Eucharist at an earlier age, even as infants.
Some might argue that communion should not be given to someone until he understands what it is that he is receiving; in fact, this is one of the primary arguments for waiting until the “age of reason.” However, this fails to appreciate the mystery involved in all the sacraments, including the Eucharist. After all, does anyone really understand what they receive at communion? Sure, we can acknowledge that it is the Lord Himself, body, blood, soul and divinity that we receive in the Eucharist, but it is impossible for the human mind to comprehend this great mystery. Reason simply is unable to grasp what is happening. So connecting the Eucharist to “reason” seems to me to be a tenuous connection at best.
Another argument against an earlier communion age is that one should receive confession before receiving communion. And it is true that once one has reached the age of reason, he should go to confession before making his first communion. Since a person can truly sin after they can reason, they should learn that confession is an integral part of receiving our Lord in the Eucharist. But obviously an infant cannot commit actual sin, and since he is baptized, he has been washed clean of the stain of original sin. So in fact such a child would be more pure to receive the Eucharist than most adults.
A third argument for waiting for the age of reason is that small children might not be properly respectful of this great gift – they may simply look at it as a “treat” they receive at Mass and not as the life-giving food it really is. However, children have always received the Eucharist in the Eastern churches (including Eastern Catholic churches) and they have never encountered this problem. Furthermore, this argument sounds much like the apostles’ protests about children “bothering” our Lord during his ministry. Christ told them, “Let the children come to me, and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these” (Matthew 19:14). Jesus treated little children as co-heirs to his kingdom, not as “extras” that needed to wait until they were mature to be full members of it.
The Western practice today is to baptize infants, give first communion at the “age of reason” and confirm in the teenage years. Aside from the ages that these sacraments are given, there is something irregular about this setup, as it changes the ordering of the Sacraments of Initiation from its original order of baptism, confirmation, then communion. This order is still preserved for adult converts such as myself, who receive confirmation at the Easter Vigil before they receive their first communion. But for cradle Catholics, it is communion first, then confirmation. So I would argue for embracing the complete Eastern practice of infants receiving all three Sacraments of Initiation at once: baptism, confirmation, then first communion. In today’s world I believe our children need as much grace as possible, and as early as possible, to withstand the enormous obstacles to holiness that they will face growing up. Receiving all three sacraments soon after birth, and regular reception of the Eucharist after that, would go a long way in helping them. Our Lord wants all children to come to him, and infant communion would be one way to obey that command.
Obviously, I submit to the practice of the Church and I follow her rules in this matter. Individuals like myself do not have any authority to change such practices and should never break the guidelines set out by the successors to the apostles. But I do wish and pray that one day the Church will change the practice of the Latin rite so that even the smallest children can be part of the Eucharistic feast.
Even very young children understand broken relationships (such as when a child cries when he or she upsets his or her mother or is disciplined), which is why they must have Reconciliation prior to receiving the Eucharist.
By opening the door to Eucharist we diminish Reconciliation in the process. The message sent is this:
It does not matter if you are sinful or even understand what is going on, you’re welcome to the Eucharist.
This is in direct opposition to St. Paul’s take on the Eucharist, and is in opposition to Church teaching for a good reason. You can pray on this all you want, but the Church will have the final say, and I believe they are more than correct on this.
I would like the age RAISED.
Interesting that you mention the Eastern Orthodox practice of giving communion to infants, because yesterday(out of curiosity) I attended a neighborhood Greek Orthodox church and was surprised to see infants(under 6 months) receiving wine and bread. I was nervous about them choking. One girl(about 4 years old) spit out the wine, so I’m not sure giving communion to infants/toddlers is a great idea.
Dear Bruce,
There is nothing illicit about giving the Holy Eucharist to infants. If it was then the eastern church would not practice this, and there would be condemnations of it to the point where the eastern rites would have had to phase this out.
The next question is whether or not it benefits these infants. I think the position is an obvious yes – otherwise baptism for infants would be problematic for the same reason.
The problem is not in lowering the age for reception of Communion it is in making confession available far more often and encouraging youngsters who have the age of reason to confess those little things that children do.
P
I think here of those certain children Saints who either almost died of love or really did die of love when they first received Holy Communion. Not that I would want to see anyone die when they receive the Eucharist, but I think if we ever are graced to be in the presence of such a child, it would be a very beautiful thing to know that this child was receiving Communion for the first time and with such piety that they would never forget that moment for the rest of their lives. If only we really tried to live our faith to be a good example to our children, teaching them good habits of prayer, solid Catholic education, etc., perhaps we would be more fortunate to see more child Saints and more beautiful First Communions.
Very thought-provoking column. My grandchildren, ages three and two, were baptized early in infancy and have had stellar Catholic parents who offer strong guidelines, have taught them their prayers and read good books to them. Their mom is a stay-at-home mom, and they do not see TV unless it is an approved video, yet these two children still struggle with tantrums and issues with sharing and obedience. My daughter keeps asking herself what more can she do. Perhaps that extra dollop of grace from receiving the Holy Eucharist would be a great assistance. We need all the grace we can get.
The only thing that would concern me is the absence of Confession. Until reaching the age of the first Confession, perhaps a short examination of conscience on the way to Mass would be sufficient: Did you share your toys? Did you listen to Mommy and Daddy? Did you get angry? Are you sorry? Can you tell Jesus you are sorry?
I am a convert to the Roman Catholic Church but my husband and children are technically Byzantine Catholics. We have recently decided to raise our children in this tradition so this is an issue which has come up, and we are meeting with the priest this week to discuss it further. There are three young ones who are not fully initiated (my oldest two are converts; one received Baptism, Holy Communion, and Confirmation last Easter; the other will next Easter if not sooner). Because of the ages of the three youngest, the priest’s concerns are more about our intentions than about the children’s “readiness,” etc.
Personally, I agree with Eric, which is that we can never earn Baptism or any of the Sacraments. I believe they are real; why wouldn’t I want my children receiving the Body and Blood of our Lord from birth? Granted, I plan to catechize them and ensure they are receiving the Sacrament of Reconciliation as well, once it is reasonable.
An atheist person once made a misguided comment to my mother that the Eucharist, our Blessed Sacrament, is actually a form of cannibalism. “On the contrary”, my mother replied without hesitation, “it goes back to our most innate desire of infancy: to be fed!” In fact, a mother understands that love and affection is communicated during nurture and feeding, as the infant interacts with the affectionate gaze of the mother, and receives a part of herself in return. I could also imagine that the mother’s diligent assistance of the Sacrament would be passed on to the infant during breast feeding in a mysterious manner.
But whether infants could receive Holy Communion is beyond my farthest reach to speculate on. I certainly have a special devotion to the Eucharist and was not breast fed. The first time I realized the presence of Jesus in the Sacrament (see: http://fmwjits.blogspot.com/ ) was when my mother pointed to the Tabernacle, and said, “Look! There is Jesus!” And I believed her. I must have been around five or six.
Bruce…I will definitely pray for you. I have four young children and would love nothing more than for them to receive Holy Communion from such a young age. The Grace available to them in the sacrament is amazing and truly sad we don’t allow it at a younger age. The world they must approach is full of challenges. Pope Pius X’s decree is only a stepping stone toward infant reception. My children understand the need for reconciliation, but one cannot subjectively sin without full knowledge. Hence, why should we withhold such a sacred and Grace filled sacrament? My children will make their First Reconciliation as soon as possible. The problem is not the children. It is the one’s responsible for their catechesis. We should not keep the little ones away because the big ones don’t do their jobs. Keep praying!!! You’ll come to a much better conclusion once you see the good instead of the evil in children.
Infants are permitted to receive Communion in the West, when their life is threatened (viaticum).
Look again at your argument about the age of reason and the mystery of the Eucharist. It borders on a statement of disbelief. We can understand certain aspects of the Eucharist, it is both reasonable and profoundly mysterious.
I agree with bringing forward confirmation so that it is before first Communion, and I think that a child should be able to receive before 7 if the child wishes to and can discern that the Eucharist is Jesus (because Jesus said so is enough.
An Orthodox Deacon passed this post onto me. A good read on this subjext is by J.D.C. Fisher entitled “Baptism in the Medieval West”. It is a study by a Roman Catholic Scholar who traces the Patristic texts of the 1st Millenium on the Initiatory Rites in the West. The overwhelming evidence shows that the undivided Church of East and West chrismated and communed infants and small children; but as the church grew things changed. In the West the Bishops refused to allow the Priests to Chrismate/Confirm; thus the rites became disconnected. In the East, the Priests were entrusted with blessed Chrism; the tripartite initiation rite remained intact. The latter practise safeguards the faith as a mystery; the former rationalizes it.
I received my First Communion when I was eight years old, and that was back in 1959. I then received Confirmation in fifth grade – in 1963. I wish that the Church would change its practice. I like the idea of receiving Baptism, Eucharist and Confirmation for infants as is done in the Eastern Church. It definitely makes more sense, and would encourage more cooperation between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches.
Eric,I agree with you on this. There was a time I might have disagreed, but having been coordinator of RCIA and having learned Church history of the sacraments, what you explain makes good sense.
I think you advance a strong argument for giving communion at an earlier age. I would agree with confirmation at an earlier age too. By the time kids are teenagers, some will skip confirmation, when it is a sacrament that could have been helping them through their lives all the while.
After all, does anyone really understand what they receive at communion? . . . Reason simply is unable to grasp what is happening.
Ours is NOT an unreasonable faith. While we may not be able to FULLY comprehend and understand, we can and do have an understanding of it — revelation illuminated by reason — and there is a vast difference between a lack of full understanding on the one hand, and total and complete ignorance on the other.
It is a complete cop-out whenever someone pulls out this “the faith is a mystery” card. Yes, it is, but just because it is a mystery does not mean that we cannot obtain some level of understanding, especially since one of Jesus’ main reasons for walking amongst us was to undo some of that mystery about God. Ours is not a blind faith, it is a faith that seeks understanding.
Don’t forget — Jesus did not walk up out of the Jordan after His baptism and immediately give the Apostles the Eucharist — He engaged in about three years of instruction, more or less, before the Last Supper. Except in emergency circumstances, the practice of the Church has always been to catechize significantly before admitting one to the sacraments.
Dear Bruce,
I would worry about giving the Eucharist to infants, and to be quite honest, I do not support it. Whereas infant baptism is hinted at in scripture, and does not contain anything prohibiting it, Reception of the Lord’s supper is antoher story entirely.
In 1 Corinthians 11:28 Paul writes:
“A person should examine himself and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks Judgement on himself.”
As infants are not able to either examine themselves or discern the body of the Lord, I would believe that anyone giving the Eucharist to an infant would be committing scandal.
Sorry, Eric. For some reason I put the wrong name at the heading
Daniel and Bender,
Nowhere do I suggest that our faith is an “unreasonable” one. In fact, I make quite clear that we can know something about the mysteries of the Faith like the Eucharist. As someone currently finishing his M.A. in Theology, I obviously don’t believe that reason and our Faith are incompatible.
However, the Eucharist, like the Trinity, is a mystery which is far beyond our ability to fully comprehend. With reason, we can know certain aspects of this mystery, but that only goes so far. The Eucharist isn’t anti-reason, but it is supra-reason. Restricting the Eucharist to only those who have reason thus seems to me to be an unnecessary boundary.
Also, requiring “reason” to receive the Eucharist has other problems. For example, my father-in-law, shortly before his death, suffered from Alzheimer’s. He had totally lost his reason. So should the Church have denied him the Eucharist? The same could be said for severely mentally disabled adults, who might not have the reason of a seven-year-old, but are allowed to receive the Eucharist.
Our Faith is a reasonable one, but it is far more than that as well. The grace given in the Eucharist is not limited to only those with “reason.”
Philip,
How can it be scandal if the Catholic Church allows it? The Eastern Catholic churches – who are as “Catholic” as those of us in the Latin church – distribute the Eucharist to infants, and Rome has never condemned this practice.
I understand if someone argues for restricting communion to older children for practical reasons, but one cannot condemn outright the practice of infant communion without placing themselves outside the teaching and practice of the Catholic Church.
Excellent post Eric. I too have some sense that younger children should receive Holy COmmunion. I think Children are more naturally spiritual than adults and in some ways might appreciate the Eucharist more deeply than we think. My only concern is the tendency that some children have to spit out what they don’t like. I wonder how the Eastern rites handle this. At any rate that aside, I also appreciate your concern for how we have muddled the order of the sacraments insofar as children are concerned. Thanks for an excellent and thought provoking post.
Eric,
Point taken. Scandal was admittedly too harsh a word. Yet one cannot deny the infallibility of Scripture on this issue, hence my belief that the age should be raised, rather than lowered. Recieving the sacrament will not is of little or no benefit to those who cannot discern the body of the Lord (except in extreme circumstances). The Eucharist is the summit of our faith; one should recieve vigorous training and catechesis before climbing it.
I agree with Bruce. To me, it seems disrespectful to give infants the Eucharist. How can they possibly revere it and prepare to receive it? And would be physically OK for an infant to take the wine? I don’t mean to sound crude, but infants also have a tendency to spit up, and they lack the reason and physical self-control to try to stop themselves from doing so.
As for Confirmation, I think 17 or 18 would be a good age. Instead where I live it went from 14 to 11 in the past decade or so. Since all the nearby parishes only offer religious classes up until confirmation, this means that many Catholics receive NO catechesis during their teenage years. As an adult convert, I am sure the author of this article, God bless him, received much better instruction than the average Catholic who was born into the Church.
During a time in which a large number of adult Catholics receive Communion unworthily by either receiving in mortal sin (no Confession) or do not discern the Real Presence, it would seem absurd to introduce Communion to infants. We’re having a difficult enough time in dealing with those of the “age of reason.” If anything, we should target our efforts at bringing back a devotion to the sacrament of penance, and re-catechesis.
If we’re going to follow the example of the Orthodox, then why not go the whole way and go into schism?
Why not get it over with and do the whole thing before the child is one year old? That’s right, baptize, communion and confirmation all in one sweet package. That way we have hope that the innocents of the child may remain. It may help to protect him/her from the teachings of the secular world via the government schools. What ever happened to the age of reasoning? It would most certainly depend on the training received from the parents which seems to be a thing of the past….
I agree with you Thomas. I am a convert, but even most of my cradle Catholic friends have partaken in the sacrament while in a state of mortal sin at some point in their lives. The age of communion should be raised in order to make sure the species are consumed properly. I think it would be best to return to the old formula of baptism, confirmation and communion progression. I even remember as a child in a Lutheran church sitting next to my parents taking communion, realizing that since I was NOT taking part, obviously communion had some sort of great religious significance. It made it very easy then, to accept transubstatiation later in life.
I think this is silly.
First, I am sure the Lord knows kids need ‘more’ grace no w than ever. (if one were to grant such a dubious point) Thus to take in our own hands the grace he wishes to give is a bit faithless.
Let us ask Him for grace, but surely not demand he give it to us.
Second, it seems as though we think the sacramental order is the only means of grace.
Third, what happens to the graces of baptism- has MTV rendered this sacrament as inefficacious, so that it must be joined to others?
Lastly, on the topic of joining sacraments due to need of grace….it would seem that unchastity is a grave sin especially now….therefore why don’t we change things so 10 year olds ( or even younger)can be ordained, or married? I think those sacraments provide grace, too!
All this is to say that we should respect other liturgical traditions, respect them to the degree that we take our own seriously.
“Could the servant of God, who had already renounced the devil and the world, stand there and speak and renounce Christ?… But for many their own destruction was not enough… And that nothing might be lacking to cap the crime, infants also, placed in the arms of parents or led by them, lost as little ones what they had gained at the very first beginning of their nativity. When the day of judgment comes, will they not say: ‘We have done nothing; we have not abandoned the Lord’s bread and cup and of our own accord hastened to profane the contaminations. The perfidy of others has ruined us…’
St. Cyprian (from The Lapsed)
Weighing in very late…
How does the reception of the Blessed Sacrament by adults in a state of mortal sin justify raising the age of reception?
Seems to me that innocent (children below the age of reason, who have been baptized, are sin-free) reception of the Blessed Sacrament would be increased by allowing children to receive!