First Communion

[RamiC]

We had a group of children at church doing this today. It was never Anglican practice when I was a child, we took Communion for the first time at Confirmation, and First Communion was some Catholic thing which most Anglicans around me did not understand, unless they downright did not approve.

It was rather nice, I almost managed to get my head around it.

I know I have mentioned things before on here, only to find everyone else in this group thought what we do at our church is very Catholic style, so I am thinking that might well apply again. What do you all think? Is it okay, or is it odd?

 

[Shane R]

First communion after confirmation is the practice advocated by the Prayer Book rubrics but seldom observed anymore. Generally, adults will be communed whenever they show up. Children, who knows. Paedo-communion is having a revival in some corners of the Anglican world. When I take mine to events with me, I'm generally asked if they communicate or receive a blessing, and I've got them trained to cross their arms across their chests, which I thought was an obvious sign to give the blessing.

The mainline Lutherans are prone to having the first communion a couple of years before they put the children into confirmation class. I've found this odd as in practice the children subsequently seem to receive infrequently and if they do not finish confirmation they may have the sacrament withheld at some point. Several of the older Lutheran pastors around me have suggested that my older daughter (11) is of the age for first communion. One suggested that I let him give her whatever class he has for the subject to which I responded, "I've already instructed her; she doesn't feel that she wants first communion." I ask her from time to time and she's still not amenable.

 

[Paidiske]

In Australian Anglicanism, at least, it's become quite normal to see admission to communion, and confirmation, as separate stages in a person's developing maturity in faith. Baptism is understood as sufficient initiation to allow someone to receive communion, provided they are then able to understand what it is they are doing etc. And it's left to the parents and the parish priest to undertake any necessary preparation, and agree when they see the child as ready to take that step. Adults who are baptised but not confirmed are generally left to decide for themselves.

That said, in my experience making a big deal of a "first communion" is less common.

My own daugther, at 14, is a regular communicant but is not yet wanting to be confirmed (in her case, she's dreading having to be the centre of attention "up the front" in a confirmation service, rather than the faith commitment as such). I am content with that.

 

[PloverWing]

The practice in the (American) Episcopal Church is that anyone who has been baptized, including young children, may receive communion. As a practical matter, the child should probably be old enough to handle solid food; but with that noted, the toddlers in our parish receive communion alongside their adult parents.

I couldn't find a statement in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer specifying the policy for children, but I found this from the national church's website: Communion

I think this policy may be new with the 1979 BCP, because there was a shift at that time towards taking baptism very seriously as the full entrance rite into the church.

My parish occasionally has a brief set of classes for children whose parents want them to receive formal instruction before receiving communion. It's totally optional, but some families choose the classes. My area of the US has a large Catholic population, and many of our parishioners are former Catholics; it makes sense that someone with that background might seek out a first-communion instruction class for their children.

 

[RamiC]

My parish occasionally has a brief set of classes for children whose parents want them to receive formal instruction before receiving communion. It's totally optional, but some families choose the classes. My area of the US has a large Catholic population, and many of our parishioners are former Catholics; it makes sense that someone with that background might seek out a first-communion instruction class for their children.

Our Families Minister was raised Roman Catholic, and we have a local church mission commitment to immigrants and refugees.

The only child yesterday who was dressed in a long white lacy dress, with a big white pearl headband as well, is from a family who are here for refuge from Syria. Maybe our Priest thought that if we are going to be hospitable she could just let them do things the way they always have, and that was the way they always have.

The same Priest has told me that I can come to church in my hiking gear (I am not a big white dress sort of woman).

 

[RamiC]

I'm generally asked if they communicate or receive a blessing, and I've got them trained to cross their arms across their chests, which I thought was an obvious sign to give the blessing.

We have the arms crossed thing, but it is a real mixture in terms of age, we have children taking the Sacraments and clearly mature adults who are in regular attendance, always crossing their arms. I do see signs of our Priest starting to look out for the latter and talking to them about adult Confirmation Classes.

I do think that, considering the state of faith amongst the UK people at this time, this kind of chaotic situation is to be expected.

 

[Paidiske]

Our Families Minister was raised Roman Catholic, and we have a local church mission commitment to immigrants and refugees.

The only child yesterday who was dressed in a long white lacy dress, with a big white pearl headband as well, is from a family who are here for refuge from Syria. Maybe our Priest thought that if we are going to be hospitable she could just let them do things the way they always have, and that was the way they always have.

The same Priest has told me that I can come to church in my hiking gear (I am not a big white dress sort of woman).

Honestly, (as a parish priest) I would so not fuss about what kids wear for something like that. I probably wouldn't even raise if unless I were asked.

Want to wear a white frock etc? Fine. Want to wear whatever you normally hang around in? Fine. The point isn't the clothes.

I also wouldn't fuss about what people wear. I mean, I might have my own private thoughts (!), but they don't belong anywhere outside my own head, generally.

 

[RamiC]

I thought this article covers some interesting points on the subject.

"The trend towards fancier, more costly dresses concerns observers who wonder if too much emphasis is being put on the clothes girls wear for their First Holy Communion rather than on the reception of the sacrament.

"Some girls dress up like little brides," O'Connor says. "Some people like a lot of glitz. It's just a matter of personal taste."

"It's absolute nonsense. They (parents) lose the point of what this is about. It shouldn't be showoff time," says Msgr. Ronald Tosti, pastor of Christ the King Parish in Mashpee."

https://eu.capecodtimes.com/story/news/2000/05/01/dressing-for-first-communion/51014517007/

Although I am also reading about appropriate reverence, and remembering the occaision, which seem to me to be positive reasons for wearing something special.

 

[RamiC]

First communion after confirmation is the practice advocated by the Prayer Book rubrics but seldom observed anymore.

The question here, is how important is the Prayer Book supposed to be?

Is there a good reason to just not observe it?

 

[Paidiske]

The question here, is how important is the Prayer Book supposed to be?

Is there a good reason to just not observe it?

Historically (I remember from a dim and distant church history lecture), the main reason was that there was often a very long wait for a bishop to be available. So rather than make people wait years, they could be admitted to holy communion.

More recently, there's been a lot more emphasis on baptism as a full and complete rite of Christian initiation, so that there is nothing "lacking" that is still required before receiving communion.

 

[RamiC]

Historically (I remember from a dim and distant church history lecture), the main reason was that there was often a very long wait for a bishop to be available. So rather than make people wait years, they could be admitted to holy communion.

In the days when no one had any idea how long a person might live, because fatal contageous diseases were everywhere, this makes very good sense. The church would have been just not letting people in before they died.

 

[Deegie]

Historically (I remember from a dim and distant church history lecture), the main reason was that there was often a very long wait for a bishop to be available. So rather than make people wait years, they could be admitted to holy communion.

More recently, there's been a lot more emphasis on baptism as a full and complete rite of Christian initiation, so that there is nothing "lacking" that is still required before receiving communion.

The early Church had a single initiation rite that later split into baptism and confirmation as there weren't enough bishops around to baptize. One of the goals of the liturgical movement (ca. 1960s, although its roots were much earlier in continental Europe) was to restore the unitary rite and make baptism full initiation into the church. TEC very nearly got rid of confirmation altogether, except the House of Bishops wouldn't go for it. Instead, the prayer for the gifts of the Holy Spirit that the bishop had used at confirmation in the 1928 BCP got made part of baptism in the 1979 BCP, even when administered by a priest. So in a real theological sense, we are now confirming people at their baptisms and what they do later with the bishop is just a mature reaffirmation of the promises made by the candidate or their parents/godparents on their behalf. For Anglicans using post-liturgical movement prayer books, there is no reason to withhold communion until confirmation.

 

[The Liturgist]

i myself first received Holy Communion around age 3 or 4, and I’m extremely grateful for it; it made a huge impression on me.

Interestingly, some Eastern Christians have “First Communion” ceremonies even though their children have been receiving the Eucharist since they were first baptized. I believe this is done for more social reasons.

 

[The Liturgist]

The early Church had a single initiation rite that later split into baptism and confirmation as there weren't enough bishops around to baptize. One of the goals of the liturgical movement (ca. 1960s, although its roots were much earlier in continental Europe) was to restore the unitary rite and make baptism full initiation into the church. TEC very nearly got rid of confirmation altogether, except the House of Bishops wouldn't go for it. Instead, the prayer for the gifts of the Holy Spirit that the bishop had used at confirmation in the 1928 BCP got made part of baptism in the 1979 BCP, even when administered by a priest. So in a real theological sense, we are now confirming people at their baptisms and what they do later with the bishop is just a mature reaffirmation of the promises made by the candidate or their parents/godparents on their behalf. For Anglicans using post-liturgical movement prayer books, there is no reason to withhold communion until confirmation.

In the East for whatever reason the two events were never separated and Presbyters were allowed to do both the Baptism and Chrismation. Additionally infants were always given the Eucharist on the basis of the belief that it functions noetically, so that a rational understanding of it was not required. This became a major point of contention in the build up to the tragic schism between East and West, which first happened in 451 with the Oriental churches and then in 1054 with the East-West schism (the main driver of the latter was the refusal of the Patriarch of Constantinople to accept certain demands of the Pope of Rome which were made on the basis of Papal supremacy, since like Anglicans, the Orthodox took the view of all bishops being essentially equal, with those occupying metropolitical or patriarchal sees being the Primus Inter Pares of their particular region. Thus the Patriarch of Constantinople was excommunicated, and this started a domino effect of communion breaking between Rome and other Eastern churches (for example, the rupture between Rome and Antioch happened in 1078 AD).

Now this being said, one could make an argument that Confirmation and Chrismation are not actually the same thing at all - since Roman and high church Anglican and some Lutheran clergy will anoint the infant with Chrism during the baptismal liturgy.

+

By the way @Deegie I’ve met a number of Catholics and former Catholics and some former Anglicans who did not enjoy the experience of confirmation, specifically, they resented having to memorize the creeds and the Catechism and having to essentially experience a pop quiz on these subjects from the Bishop. From a Western liturgical standpoint, what are your thoughts on doing confirmation in such a way so that the youths enjoy it? Or do you think it should not be done in the traditional Western episcopal visitation format?

 

[Deegie]

By the way @Deegie I’ve met a number of Catholics and former Catholics and some former Anglicans who did not enjoy the experience of confirmation, specifically, they resented having to memorize the creeds and the Catechism and having to essentially experience a pop quiz on these subjects from the Bishop. From a Western liturgical standpoint, what are your thoughts on doing confirmation in such a way so that the youths enjoy it? Or do you think it should not be done in the traditional Western episcopal visitation format?

There's an old joke in these parts that goes:

How do you get rid of the geese all over the church lawn [or the mice in the basement or bats in the belfry or some other animal problem]? Confirm them. You'll never see them again.

The way we do confirmation is problematic in a lot of ways, beyond just the theological. The sort of didactic approach you mentioned gives the impression that it's a reward for knowledge gained, sort of like a school diploma. It very often leaves out the other (and some would say more important) elements of Christianity, such as the affective, the communal, the spiritual, and the missional aspects. If we are talking about teenagers, then honestly the most important part in my mind is impressing upon them that they are now making this decision for themselves. They are taking on the promises made by their parents and godparents. In that way, it becomes a rite of passage from childish to adult membership in the community. They decide if they want to be part of the church rather than having their parents drag them to church. On the first day of confirmation class, I tell them that it's a process of learning, exploration, and relationship-building, and that if they decide at the end not to be confirmed, that's totally fine. They seem to appreciate that. Along the way, we definitely make it fun for them. I don't use lecture-based confirmation curricula with youth.

However, there is definitely value in memorizing (or at least becoming very familiar with) things like the creeds, Lord's Prayer, etc. There is also long historic precedent for it in the traditio and redditio. I've never experienced the bishop quizzing them, however. Throughout my ministry, the the bishop has always taken my word for the fact that the candidates have been properly prepared and that was it.

Ultimately, I would actually retain episcopal confirmation but would prefer more clear communication in the service about what that sacrament actually does. It doesn't impart the Holy Spirit (so bishops, please stop chrismating at confirmation) and it doesn't make you a member of the church (baptism did that). It is, however, a mature affirmation made in front of the bishop who represents the Church universal. For those baptized as adults, however, I think the Roman Catholics have it right. A longer catechumenate and then presbyteral confirmation at their baptism in their own community. Confirmation loses what little theological coherence it has left with those baptized as adults.