Infant Communion

[seeking_perfection]

The question of Infant Communion came up today in a sermon and I thought I should really find out more about this. I know that the Orthodox church gives communion to children but they have already been baptised and chrismated. I know the Catholics have 'First Communion' but does this take place before confirmation? The practise mentioned today involves giving baptised children communion prior to chrismation/confirmation.

My main questions were...

Supposing Confirmation is a Sacrament, should children be confirmed prior to taking communion?

If not, why has Confirmation generally been the point at which children take communion?

If not, what else do you see Confirmation as being?

What happens in other traditions (where confirmation is seen as a sacrament)?

Thanks in advance!

 

[PaladinValer]

The question of Infant Communion came up today in a sermon and I thought I should really find out more about this. I know that the Orthodox church gives communion to children but they have already been baptised and chrismated. I know the Catholics have 'First Communion' but does this take place before confirmation? The practise mentioned today involves giving baptised children communion prior to chrismation/confirmation.

Correct on most counts...we are Catholics, just not under the Pope and their jurisdiction.

My main questions were...

Supposing Confirmation is a Sacrament, should children be confirmed prior to taking communion?

It helps to know the history of Christian initiation. Originally, it is as the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox still celebrate it: together. In the West over the years, the second half of it slowly disengaged itself, becoming a rite to be received years later.

Therefore, it would have been common practice in the days of the Early Church for little children, even babies, to receive Holy Communion.

In The Episcopal Church, there is a specific rubric, immediately following Holy Baptism, to do as the EOs and OOs do and Chrismate the person who just received Holy Baptism.

In other words, we in practice and it would seem by canon as well, we here in TEC practice the Sacrament of Holy Chrismation as it always has been done, at least since 1979 at an official (ie: in the BCP) rite. We still have Confirmation and do expect young ones to confirm their baptisms when they are older, but that's slowly becoming more of a rite of maturity and less of as one of the seven major sacraments, with Holy Chrismation, its ancient/Eastern equivalent, taking its place.

This is a trend throughout the Anglican Communion, slowly but surely.

If not, why has Confirmation generally been the point at which children take communion?

Receive by faith with thansgiving is what we say in our liturgy. By faith doesn't necessarily mean a non-physical Presence. Instead, it says that we ought to receive it faithfully. And since faith is not something intellectual but something of the soul, then being able to comprehend exactly isn't necessary. Babies and young children cannot comprehend, but they can have faith.

If not, what else do you see Confirmation as being?

Slowly, I see it finally replaced by Holy Chrismation as Anglican liturgy reclaims that part of its ancient heritage more and more. However, I do see it around as a sort of culmination of catechism as a mature profession of faith (thereby, keeping it a sacramental act, if not numbered among the major seven).

What happens in other traditions (where confirmation is seen as a sacrament)?

Lutherans keep it, and I believe Moravians too. I believe mainstream Methodists are roughly the same as well. Your best bet is to ask this question in other congregational forums.

Thanks in advance!

You are very welcome!

 

[seeking_perfection]

Correct on most counts...we are Catholics, just not under the Pope and their jurisdiction.

Quite right, I've actually said this one several occasions! As I typed that, I wondered if anyone would pick me up on it LOL!

Your reply pretty much confirmed what I thought.

However, I didn't quite get an answer as to whether confirmation/chrismation (the sacrament with laying on of hands and oil) should occur before communion? Should there ever be a case for communion to be given to children before chrismation?

 

[PaladinValer]

Well, the way things are going, it will be a moot issue since Holy Baptism and Holy Chrismation will be literally side-by-side again.

For those places where chrism isn't practiced, it really is up to the bishop of the diocese in question. I see no issue with paedocommunion for baptized babies and young children.

Is Chrismation/Confirmation required? Again, it is an issue of faith, not intellectual comprehension. What about severely mentally handicapped people? I volunteer my time quite often with teens who are, and some of them do not have the intellectual capacity to understand Holy Communion and the complex theologies thereof. Yet, they are able to have faith.

So, I say continue to teach and especially teach to discern, but allow anyone who is baptized. Faith, not comprehension, is how we receive sacraments.

 

[seeking_perfection]

That baptism admitted all into the church and that communion should be open to them, whatever their comprehension was the view of the priest today.

However, he then thought confirmation should come later, when people could affirm their faith correctly. I like the logic of this but was a bit unsure how confirmation/chrismation actually fitted in and if this was what it should be for.

In his view, it seemed to be as a logical affirmation of faith but this doesn't really fit with the orthodox sacramental view that you described and which I prefer.

The whole affirmation as an adult thing doesn't strike me as what chrismation was for initially but a reworking of some dedication-type idea, minus the sacramental value. Not sure though, rather confused now.

 

[Albion]

My main questions were...

Supposing Confirmation is a Sacrament, should children be confirmed prior to taking communion?

No.

If not, why has Confirmation generally been the point at which children take communion?

It has not been so.

If not, what else do you see Confirmation as being?

A rite by which a communicant of younger years affirms his commitment to Christ and demonstrates that he is knowledgable about what the church is about and stands for.

What happens in other traditions (where confirmation is seen as a sacrament)?

In churches where it is seen as a sacrament, there is either a first communion at about age 6 followed by confirmation at about age 11. In the East, both occur in infancy. In the former case, the idea is that at 6 the person is old enough to comprehend the meaning of the sacrament in a rudimentary way. In the latter, the idea is that it doesn't matter since the sacrament is of God, not dependent upon our comprehension for its benefits to us. In both cases, though, baptism comes first or else the candidate would not be eligible.

That baptism admitted all into the church and that communion should be open to them, whatever their comprehension was the view of the priest today.

It's pretty much become an Anglican fad.

However, he then thought confirmation should come later, when people could affirm their faith correctly. I like the logic of this but was a bit unsure how confirmation/chrismation actually fitted in and if this was what it should be...

it seemed to be as a logical affirmation of faith but this doesn't really fit with the orthodox sacramental view that you described and which I prefer.

It is always logical havinga personal affirmation of faith at a later time, and following some instruction. That doesn't even raise the issue of whether we want to consider Confirmation a sacrament. But for those who have an ear for whatever the RCC is doing, that church feels that Communion comes first and Confirmation only about four or five years later.

affirmation as an adult thing doesn't strike me as what chrismation was for initially but a reworking of some dedication-type idea, minus the sacramental value. Not sure though, rather confused now.

That's right. It reflects a different perspective. Why the Greek Orthodox idea of Chrismation has to be synchronized with Anglican practice I don't quite follow, however.

 

[mark46]

Yes, in our Church and in the RCC, young teenagers have a rite of passage. This similar to the Baptists and most denominational churches, where baptism is at the same age (many of these non-sacramental churches now have dedication of babies). Of course, all of our churches also have adult conversion and welcoming.
=======================
In the West, education is important. We have put the Church into the secular model, choosing to have confirmation as graduation, presumably not accepting those who do not understand. Personally, withholding holy chrismation. pending a test in our teen years seems very wrong. For Anglicans, children are part of Christ's Church.
===============
I agree that there is a need for re-dedication, for the taking of vows, for the study and understanding of what we believe. However, having confirmation/chismation depend on a catechism test seems very wrong. Having this as a normative test as part of being a teen seems even worse.

.

confirmation is

A rite by which a communicant of younger years affirms his commitment to Christ and demonstrates that he is knowledgable about what the church is about and stands for.

 

[MKJ]

For a variety of reasons in the west the two sacraments were divorced - in part I think this related to a different theological emphasis, but also in thw West the bishop has tended to retain the practice of the laying on of hands for himself, wheras in ze infants, then first Communion, then a few years later the East this has been delegated. In the very early years of the church that would have been one thing but once diocese reach a certian size that practice tends to mean that baptism may happen in the course of regular parish life but laying on of hands by the bishop will have to wait for him to visit.

At the moment in Latin Rite Catholic parishes the normal practice is to baptism as an infant, first reconciliation and communion around seven or so, and confirmation a few years after that. Most of the sacramental Protestants have tended to have first communion follow confirmation, sometimes at a rather later age then is typical for Catholics.

The main issue among Anglicans is that we don't have our Sacramental theology in order enough to make any kind of logical decision, so the practice is widely varied and often contradictory, even within individual parishes.

 

[Albion]

For Anglicans, children are part of Christ's Church.

That's why we have baptism.

However, having confirmation/chismation depend on a catechism test seems very wrong.

Have you ever seen anyone REFUSED Confirmation because he only got a 70% on his "Confirmation test?" Me neither.

It's the process that's what the church cares about.

 

[Albion]

The main issue among Anglicans is that we don't have our Sacramental theology in order enough to make any kind of logical decision, so the practice is widely varied and often contradictory, even within individual parishes.

Well said. And we're darn proud of it, too.

 

[mark46]

There is no argument with this. Legalism is the Western Way.
======================
BTW, would you question a "process" by which a baptism, confirmation and first communion were done in the same service? For babies as well as for adults?

We welcome all baptized Christians to the Table. My preference is that members of our own Church also have received chismation. Of course, my preference doesn't matter. I abide by the decisions of the Church. Obviously, in the US, that just means that if I disagree, I can go find another Church.

.

It's the process that's what the church cares about.

 

[Albion]

BTW, would you question a "process" by which a baptism, confirmation and first communion were done in the same service? For babies as well as for adults?

I can't see why you'd want to do that. To me, either Paedocommunion OR the usual waiting until you're a teen and Confirmed makes more sense. The "first communion" idea that splits the middle is pointless.

My preference is that members of our own Church also have received chismation.

I'm surprised to be reading on this thread all the talk about Christmation. Why all this fascination with a purely Eastern Orthodox policy?

 

[mark46]

Why are you surprised that we use the word chrismation instead of the word confirmation? Both are perfectly fine words. I also prefer to call sacraments "mysteries". As noted in the wiki article below, this difference is a function of language. Italians use the word for chrismation.

===========================
Chrismation is the name given in Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches, as well as in the Assyrian Church of the East, Anglican, and in Lutheran initiation rites, to the Sacrament or Sacred
Mystery more commonly known in the West as confirmation, although Italian normally uses cresima (chrismation), rather than confermazione (confirmation).

The term chrismation is used because of the chrism (perfumed holy oil, usually containing myrrh (μύρο&#957, and consecrated by a bishop) with which the recipient of the sacrament is anointed, while the priest speaks the words sealing the initiate with the Gift of the Holy Spirit.
Contents [hide]
1 Liturgical form
2 Sacramental theology
2.1 Eastern Churches
3 Theology and practice
4 Works cited
[edit]Liturgical form

In the Eastern Orthodox Church and Byzantine Rite Catholic Churches, the priest seals the newly-baptized with chrism, making the sign of the cross on the forehead, eyes, ears, nostrils, breast, back, hands and feet using the following words each time:
"The seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit" (in Greek: Σφραγὶς δωρεᾶς Πνεύματος Ἁγίο&#965.

.

I'm surprised to be reading on this thread all the talk about Christmation. Why all this fascination with a purely Eastern Orthodox policy?

 

[Albion]

Why are you surprised that we use the word chrismation instead of the word confirmation? Both are perfectly fine words.

OK, but as an Anglican I don't normally make it a point to use the jargon of other churches when there's no need to. It looks like something deliberate. In addition, it appeared that you didn't just use a synonym for Confirmation, but meant the practice as it is done in the EO (i.e. immediately after infant baptism). If I'm not mistaken, you were not referring to the confirmation of teens when speaking of Chrismation.

I also prefer to call sacraments "mysteries".

Fine. I was just asking "why?"

 

[mark46]

There is no hidden agenda. I use both sets of terms interchangably.

OK, but as an Anglican I don't normally make it a point to use the jargon of other churches when there's no need to. It looks like something deliberate.



Fine. I was just asking why?

 

[MKJ]

There is no hidden agenda. I use both sets of terms interchangably.

They aren't entirely interchangeable though, because in chrismation there is no need for the bishop to be physically present. That changes how the Sacrament can be dealt with, practically speaking.

Albion, there has been some movement within Western sacramental Christianity in general to reconsider the Eastern practice where the two initiatory sacraments are combined and infants are administered Communion. This is the more ancient practice and I think it also relates to a rethinking of whether it is really appropriate to hold off administering them - especially the Eucharist. What does it mean that infants are not communicated? That they are not members of the Church? That the sacramental benefit is dependent on human understanding? Why would we deny them the benefit of the Sacrament?

These ideas have led to some interesting places - I think the denial of paedobaptism comes from a very similar logic, and in the RC Church while they will chrismate an infant in danger of death, in the case of older children and adults with sever mental handicaps they have actually denied them confirmation and communion.

All of which is to say, there has been a general rethinking if the typical Western practice is really in line with a robust sacramental theology and whether it is denying the sacraments to those they were meant for.

 

[MKJ]

I agree that there is a need for re-dedication, for the taking of vows, for the study and understanding of what we believe. However, having confirmation/chismation depend on a catechism test seems very wrong. Having this as a normative test as part of being a teen seems even worse.

It seems to me this would be easily accomplished by increased use of the sacrament of Confession - that is, after all, a re-dedication of the individual to Christ each time the individual avails himself of it.

 

[PaladinValer]

It seems to me this would be easily accomplished by increased use of the sacrament of Confession - that is, after all, a re-dedication of the individual to Christ each time the individual avails himself of it.

Personally, I'd see this as part of a catechism, be it of youths or adult converts.

Not a bad idea.

 

[mark46]

Re-dedication is more than that, I think.

We use it for anyone, especially church members coming from another church family. It is an opportunity to re-dedicate one's life to Christ. In our local church, this is done at the same time as the youth and others are being confirmed. Consequently, the bishop is present. Bishop Lawrence lays hands on these folks and prays over them.

I believe that the initiation rights of the first 15 years of life are sometimes a bit insufficient, although they need not be. As MKJ indicates an increased use of confession would help (if the priest used in this way). Also, we re-dedicate ourselves whenever there is a baptism. Red-dedication is not necessary.

However, my personal experience is that this blessing by the bishop is especially powerful.

Personally, I'd see this as part of a catechism, be it of youths or adult converts.

Not a bad idea.

 

[PaladinValer]

Well, as I said here and elsewhere, I think that, with the eventual universal within Anglicanism's return of Holy Chrismation to its rightful place, Confirmation's roll is going to be augmented a bit.

It will still be basically the same rite, but I think it will have to be renamed: Reaffirmation sounds about right, since Holy Baptism is in itself a confirmatory rite; it is our "yes" to God; it is our acceptance of Jesus the Christ as our Lord and Savior (among other things, of course). Furthermore, I think reaffirming our faith in the presence of a bishop is, as you quite rightly say, "especially powerful," and that the bishop's laying on of hands and his or her blessing is always a sacramental rite in a very great and important sense that cannot be ignored.

For those who are being received into the Church, they would have already received Chrismation or a recognized equivalent (in case the Roman Catholic Church doesn't, for some reason, also work to reunite the Initiation Rite, though I doubt they wouldn't). For converts from a Protestant or potentially Lutheran (potentially not too, as some are Catholic) background, then the bishop can administer the Holy Chrismation, which is truly best for the bishop to do.

Holy Chrismation can be celebrated by priests, but I do want to be clear that, in saying this, I am in no way suggesting that priests have the authority to consecrate oil. That is, and should always remain, the singular right of the bishop. In this way, the bishop is in a way present at Holy Chrismation even if he or she isn't bodily there, for the bishop's blessing is on the chrism, and where the bishop is, so is the Church.