An Orthodox baby is baptized, chrismated, and given Holy Communion while still an infant. A Roman Catholic child waits until about age seven. Has Rome withheld Christ from children?
Short answer: No. Giving Communion to infants is an ancient and holy practice, and the Catholic Church keeps it: many Eastern Catholic Churches in full communion with the pope give the Eucharist to newly baptized infants today, following their own liturgical traditions. The Latin Church's custom of waiting until the age of reason is a discipline, not a doctrine, and the Council of Trent itself refused to condemn the ancient practice. Both customs live side by side in the one Catholic Church, which shows that unity of faith does not require uniformity of rite.
Key verses on children and the Eucharist
- "Let the children come to me; do not prevent them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these." (Mark 10:14)
- "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you." (John 6:53)
- "For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call." (Acts 2:39)
- "A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup." (1 Corinthians 11:28)
- "For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself." (1 Corinthians 11:29)
Scripture quotations are from the New American Bible, Revised Edition (NABRE), © 2010, 1991, 1986, 1970 Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Washington, D.C. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
What the Orthodox Believe
In the Orthodox Church, Christian initiation is one continuous mystery. St. Volodymyr Ukrainian Orthodox Cathedral in Toronto explains: "When a child is baptized, they are washed in the water of Baptism and then sealed with the Holy Spirit in Chrismation." "The final step is then to actually receive Holy Communion, completing their membership in the Church." Infants receive from the chalice by spoon and keep receiving throughout childhood.
Orthodox writers press the case firmly. Fr. Gregory Hogg, an Antiochian Orthodox pastor and former Lutheran, writes that in the East, where priests chrismate, "no such gap ever existed" between baptism and Communion. He calls the Western idea that an uncommuned child loses nothing "a relic of the Latin middle ages," and argues that delaying Communion until a child understands it "changes the Eucharist from mystery to mastery, from gift of grace to attainment." The same cathedral page adds a historical charge: "While infant communion was practiced in the early Christian Church," "the Roman Catholic Church (and many Protestant denominations) made the decision to stop infant communion."
The case at its strongest: Jesus said, "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you" (John 6:53). He said, "Let the children come to me; do not prevent them" (Mark 10:14). The early Church communed infants, as St. Cyprian and St. Augustine attest. If a baby can receive the grace of baptism without understanding it, why not the Eucharist? Withholding Communion seems to make grace depend on reason.
What Catholics Actually Teach
The Catechism states the two practices side by side, without condemning either: "In the Eastern rites the Christian initiation of infants also begins with Baptism followed immediately by Confirmation and the Eucharist, while in the Roman rite it is followed by years of catechesis before being completed later by Confirmation and the Eucharist, the summit of their Christian initiation" (CCC 1233).
It praises the Eastern practice explicitly: "the Eastern Churches maintain a lively awareness of the unity of Christian initiation by giving Holy Communion to all the newly baptized and confirmed, even little children, recalling the Lord's words: 'Let the children come to me, do not hinder them.' The Latin Church, which reserves admission to Holy Communion to those who have attained the age of reason, expresses the orientation of Baptism to the Eucharist by having the newly baptized child brought to the altar for the praying of the Our Father" (CCC 1244).
It explains how the Latin practice developed historically, not doctrinally: "In the first centuries Confirmation generally comprised one single celebration with Baptism, forming with it a 'double sacrament,' according to the expression of St. Cyprian." Then, "In the West the desire to reserve the completion of Baptism to the bishop caused the temporal separation of the two sacraments," while "the East has kept them united, so that Confirmation is conferred by the priest who baptizes" (CCC 1290). And it weighs both fairly: "The practice of the Eastern Churches gives greater emphasis to the unity of Christian initiation. That of the Latin Church more clearly expresses the communion of the new Christian with the bishop as guarantor and servant of the unity, catholicity and apostolicity of his Church" (CCC 1292).
The Second Vatican Council went further for Eastern Catholics: "The Sacred Ecumenical Council confirms and approves the ancient discipline of the sacraments existing in the Oriental Churches, as also the ritual practices connected with their celebration and administration and ardently desires that this should be re-established if circumstances warrant it" (Orientalium Ecclesiarum 12). Eastern Catholics "should take steps to return to their ancestral traditions" (OE 6). The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, promulgated by Pope St. John Paul II in 1990, likewise treats sacramental initiation as completed in the reception of the Eucharist (canon 697), and it directs that the participation of infants in the Eucharist after baptism and chrismation follow the liturgical books of each Eastern Catholic Church (canon 710).
The Latin discipline, by contrast, is set by Church law, not by dogma: "The administration of the Most Holy Eucharist to children requires that they have sufficient knowledge and careful preparation so that they understand the mystery of Christ according to their capacity and are able to receive the body of Christ with faith and devotion" (canon 913 §1).
What Catholics do not teach:
- That infant Communion is wrong. The Council of Trent: "Not therefore, however, is antiquity to be condemned, if, in some places, it, at one time, observed that custom" (Session 21, ch. 4).
- That uncommuned children lack grace. Baptized infants are "incorporated with Christ" and "cannot, at that age, lose the grace which they have already acquired of being the sons of God" (Trent, Session 21, ch. 4).
- That one rite is first-class and the other second. The Church "holds all lawfully recognized rites to be of equal right and dignity" (CCC 1203).
It all points to Christ. Whether a child receives at forty days or at seven years, the Eucharist is not a prize for understanding. It is Jesus Christ giving Himself. The sacraments "are efficacious because in them Christ himself is at work" (CCC 1127). East and West both bring children to the same Lord who said, "Let the children come to me."
The Biblical Case
1. Christ wants the children
"When Jesus saw this he became indignant and said to them, 'Let the children come to me; do not prevent them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Amen, I say to you, whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it'" (Mark 10:14–15). The Catechism cites this very verse to praise the Eastern practice (CCC 1244). Catholics agree with the Orthodox that infants are not spectators in the Church. They are baptized members of Christ, heirs of the promise made "to you and to your children" (Acts 2:38–39; see Should Infants Be Baptized?).
2. The Eucharist is life
"Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you" (John 6:53). "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day" (John 6:54). Catholics and Orthodox both read these words as the real Body and Blood of Christ (see Is John 6 Just Symbolic?). That shared faith is why the Orthodox commune infants, and it is why no Catholic should ever mock the practice.
3. St. Paul asks for discernment
Scripture also gives the reason the Latin Church waits. "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 judgment on himself" (1 Corinthians 11:28–29). St. Paul is writing to adults who were abusing the Lord's Supper, so this text does not forbid infant Communion; an infant cannot sin by receiving. But it shows that conscious, reverent reception is a real biblical good, and the Latin Church has chosen to make a child's first Communion a moment of conscious faith. Both practices honor something Scripture honors.
4. The Church has authority over sacramental discipline
Christ gave the apostles power to bind and loose (Matthew 18:18) and entrusted the sacraments to their care: "Thus should one regard us: as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God" (1 Corinthians 4:1). The substance of the sacraments is fixed by Christ; the age of first Communion is not. "In the liturgy, above all that of the sacraments, there is an immutable part, a part that is divinely instituted and of which the Church is the guardian, and parts that can be changed" (CCC 1205). Neither John 6:53 nor Mark 10:14 sets an age. The Church, as steward, may.
Objections Answered
(a) "John 6:53 says without the Eucharist there is no life. Rome leaves its children without life."
At its strongest: St. Augustine himself applied John 6:53 to infants: "even they will not have life if they eat not the flesh of the Son of man." If that is true, a Latin child who dies at five, uncommuned, has been deprived.
Answer: The Catholic Church answers with the Council of Trent: little children who have not reached the use of reason "are not by any necessity obliged to the sacramental communion of the Eucharist," because, regenerated in baptism and "incorporated with Christ, they cannot, at that age, lose the grace which they have already acquired of being the sons of God" (Session 21, ch. 4). The baptized child already has the life of Christ. Read with the rest of Scripture, John 6:53 binds those able to receive who refuse; it does not declare a baptized infant lifeless. Trent's canon makes the same point: no one may say "that the communion of the Eucharist is necessary for little children, before they have arrived at years of discretion" (Session 21, can. 4). That is a definition about necessity, not a condemnation of the Eastern practice, which Trent explicitly would not condemn.
(b) "Waiting for reason turns grace into an achievement."
At its strongest: Fr. Hogg argues that delaying Communion "changes the Eucharist from mystery to mastery, from gift of grace to attainment." If an infant can be baptized without understanding, demanding understanding for Communion is inconsistent.
Answer: The Latin Church does not ask a child to earn Communion. She asks that he "understand the mystery of Christ according to their capacity" (canon 913 §1), that is, as a seven-year-old can, not as a theologian. Grace remains pure gift; the Church is choosing a fitting moment for it. Also, the Latin Church baptizes infants precisely because grace does not depend on understanding. The difference between East and West here is a judgment about pastoral fittingness, not about the nature of grace. And the Catholic Church shows she holds no theory against infant Communion: she approves the ancient sacramental discipline of the Eastern Churches, urges Eastern Catholics to return to their ancestral traditions (OE 6, 12), and her Eastern Code provides for infants' Communion according to each Church's liturgical books (CCEO canon 710).
(c) "Rome changed an apostolic practice, so Rome is unfaithful to Tradition."
At its strongest: The cathedral in Toronto says "infant communion was practiced in the early Christian Church," and the West stopped. Changing an ancient practice shows a Church cut loose from Tradition.
Answer: Concede what is true: infant Communion was widespread in the early Church in both East and West, and the Latin Church, as most historians describe it, gradually let it lapse in the Middle Ages. But a change of discipline is not a change of doctrine. Both Churches have adjusted disciplines over the centuries, for example in how often lay people receive Communion. The Latin Church never denied the faith behind infant Communion; Trent explicitly said the Fathers "had a probable cause for what they did" and refused to condemn them. And within the Catholic Church the ancient practice is not lost at all: Eastern Catholics keep it, with the Church's explicit approval. What the Catholic Church has never done is make a disputed discipline a reason to break communion.
(d) "If the Catholic Church allows both, why should I leave a Church that gets it right?"
At its strongest: If infant Communion is good and the Orthodox already do it, Catholic approval proves nothing against Orthodoxy.
Answer: Exactly. That is the point of this article. Infant Communion is not a reason for an Orthodox Christian to stay apart, because in the Catholic Church he would keep it. An Orthodox family entering full communion would ordinarily belong to the Eastern Catholic Church of its own tradition and keep baptism, chrismation and Communion together for its babies. The question is not whether your practice is good. It is whether the Church Christ built on St. Peter (Matthew 16:18) is the communion in which you celebrate it.
The Early Church Agrees
The early Church gave Communion to infants. Catholics freely admit it, and the Catholic Church's own documents say so. The Fathers also show that the Church judged such matters as steward, not as an innovator.
- St. Cyprian of Carthage (On the Lapsed 25, AD 251) tells of a little girl, too young to speak, who had been fed bread and wine from a pagan sacrifice during persecution. Brought later to the Eucharist, "when the deacon began to offer the cup to those present, and when, as the rest received it, its turn approached, the little child, by the instinct of the divine majesty, turned away its face, compressed its mouth with resisting lips, and refused the cup" (newadvent.org). The story assumes infants received the cup in the liturgy. In the same work he imagines lapsed children saying, "nor have we forsaken the Lord's bread and cup" (ch. 9).
- St. Cyprian also called baptism and confirmation together a "double sacrament," as the Catechism notes (CCC 1290), witnessing to the unity of initiation the East preserves.
- St. Augustine of Hippo (On the Merits and Remission of Sins 1.27, AD 412), arguing against the Pelagians from the Church's practice: "From all this it follows, that even for the life of infants was His flesh given, which He gave for the life of the world; and that even they will not have life if they eat not the flesh of the Son of man" (newadvent.org).
- The Council of Trent (Session 21, 1562), while confirming the Latin discipline, honored these Fathers: "for as those most holy Fathers had a probable cause for what they did in respect of their times, so, assuredly, is it to be believed without controversy, that they did this without any necessity thereof unto salvation" (papalencyclicals.net).
So the Fathers support the Orthodox practice, and the Catholic Church agrees, which is why she keeps it in her Eastern Churches. They do not support the claim that a different discipline in the Latin Church is heresy.
Conclusion
The Orthodox practice of infant Communion is ancient, beautiful, and Catholic. The Latin practice of waiting is a legitimate discipline, explained by history and pastoral judgment, and never defined as doctrine. As the Catechism puts it, "the mystery celebrated in the liturgy is one, but the forms of its celebration are diverse" (CCC 1200). "The mystery of Christ is so unfathomably rich that it cannot be exhausted by its expression in any single liturgical tradition" (CCC 1201). The criterion of unity is "communion in the faith and the sacraments received from the apostles, a communion that is both signified and guaranteed by apostolic succession" (CCC 1209).
Diversity has limits, of course: "diversity must not damage unity" and must express "fidelity to the common faith, to the sacramental signs that the Church has received from Christ, and to hierarchical communion" (CCC 1206). Infant Communion passes that test. On this question, what separates the Orthodox from the Catholic Church is not the practice itself but the last condition: hierarchical communion with St. Peter's successor.
Come home. In the Catholic Church your children would still be baptized, chrismated and communed as infants, as Eastern Catholic children are. You already possess true sacraments and much of the apostolic faith, in "a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church" (CCC 838). Those gifts draw their power "from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church" and "are in themselves calls to 'Catholic unity'" (CCC 819). The Eucharist is the sacrament of the Church's unity, yet your true Eucharist is celebrated apart from the successor of St. Peter, on whom Christ built His Church (Matthew 16:18). We invite you into full communion with St. Peter's successor, the bishop of Rome, in the Catholic Church.
Your next step: Come to Mass or Divine Liturgy at your local Catholic church. You can find one near you at MassTimes.org. When you're ready, call the parish office and ask to speak with the priest about entering full communion with the Catholic Church. Read our guide: How Do I Become Catholic? Not ready yet? Get our free pocket guide below and keep learning.
FAQ
Do Eastern Catholic babies really receive Communion? Yes, in Eastern Catholic Churches whose liturgical books prescribe it, which the Eastern Code directs them to follow (CCEO canon 710). The Catechism describes the Eastern practice of giving Communion to "even little children" (CCC 1244). See Are Eastern Catholic Churches Really Catholic?
Could the Latin Church restore infant Communion? In principle, yes: it is a matter of discipline, and Trent refused to condemn the ancient custom. The current Latin law requires preparation suited to the child's capacity (canon 913), and a child in danger of death may receive if he "can distinguish the body of Christ from ordinary food" (canon 913 §2).
Can a Latin Catholic baby receive Communion at a Byzantine Catholic liturgy? Practice can depend on the child's own Church sui iuris and on local norms, so families of mixed rites should ask their pastor.
Sources
Scripture (NABRE, bible.usccb.org): Matthew 16:18; Matthew 18:18; Mark 10:14–15; John 6:53–54; Acts 2:38–39; 1 Corinthians 4:1; 1 Corinthians 11:28–29.
Catechism of the Catholic Church (vatican.va): 819, 838; 1127; 1200, 1201, 1203, 1205, 1206; 1209; 1233, 1244; 1290, 1292.
Church documents: Council of Trent, Session 21 (1562), ch. 4 and can. 4; Second Vatican Council, Orientalium Ecclesiarum 6, 12; Code of Canon Law, can. 913; Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (1990), cann. 697, 710 (paraphrased).
Church Fathers (newadvent.org): Cyprian, On the Lapsed 9, 25; Augustine, On the Merits and Remission of Sins 1.27.
Orthodox sources: St. Volodymyr Ukrainian Orthodox Cathedral (Toronto), "First Confession or First Communion?"; Fr. Gregory Hogg, "Infant Communion Revisited" (Orthodox Outlet for Dogmatic Enquiries).