You will find below references from the Early Church regrading both infant baptism and providing Holy Communion to infants. With just a little research you will learn that the practice  / theology of denying Holy Communion to infants did not really become prevalent in the west until the 12th century and in particular after the Council of Trent and the Roman Doctrine of Transubstantiation which is a teaching of the Council of Trent. This entire council for the most part is rejected by Old Catholics. I ask you to consider:

Baptism

Baptism is the Christian equivalent of circumcision or "the circumcision of Christ," as Paul states: "In him you were also circumcised . . . with the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead" (Col. 2:11-12). Thus, like circumcision, baptism can be given to children as well as adults. The difference is that circumcision was powerless to save (Gal. 5:6, 6:15), but "Baptism . . . now saves you" (1 Pet. 3:21).

The Church Fathers taught the practice of infant baptism and declared it to be of apostolic origin. In fact, a council held in the 250s discussed the question of whether an infant should be baptized on the eighth day after birth (see quotation from Cyprian, below). The only reason one would even discuss this is because one recognized baptism as the Christian equivalent of circumcision, which was given on the eighth day after birth (Lev. 12:2-3).

Cyprian of Carthage

"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215).

"Where there is no scarcity of water the stream shall flow through the baptismal font or pour into it from above; but if water is scarce, whether on a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available. Let them remove their clothing. Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them"

Paedocommunion – Infants Receiving Holy Communion

Now let’s look at how the Early Church determined who was worthy to receive the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. With only minimal research we will learn the practice of Infants Receiving Holy Communion was customary practice in both the churches of the East and West until well into the 12th century. I have provided several references below for your review.

If as evidence suggests, paedocommunion (providing Holy Communion to infants) was the customary practice of the church in ancient days, then why do we not practice it today in the Churhc of the West / Roman Catholic?

The doctrine of transubstantiation and the fear that infants and children might spill the wine and thereby profane the actual body and blood of the Lord appears to have been the primary reason for this discontinuance, AND Holy Communion had become associated with reconciliation rather than baptism which is contrary to the faith of the undivided Church.

It is clear in the Early Church and still in the Eastern Orthodox that Baptism is tied to Holy Communion not reconciliation or “understanding” as taught by the current Roman theologians. So, in the end the questions become not who is justified by some means as measured by a denomination. But who is validly baptized into the Body of Christ – The Church?

In the Eastern Church only those immersed into the water according to the Eastern Rite are validly baptized and therefore “circumcised’ into the Body of Christ. So only those who are validly baptized (Orthodox) may partake of Holy Communion. And the Sacrament is given to all children, even infants who are baptized.

The Western Church accepts as valid all those baptized by proper intent and form, However the Roman Church will not allow those who they deem to be validly baptized to partake of Holy Communion until they are properly educated to “understand” the Sacrament and reconciled.

Given we are “western” in both practice and theology we accept all those baptized in the proper intent. However, since we base our theology in the teachings of the undivided church we allow all baptized to receive Holy Communion physical age of the baptized is no indication of spiritual age.

Is our communion open or closed? It is both. Open to all validly baptized into Christ and closed to those not yet baptized.

Didache Chapter 9. The Thanksgiving (Eucharist)

But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist), but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs. Matthew 7:6

Clement of Alexandria

“As soon as we are regenerated (baptized – my words) we are honoured by receiving the good news of the hope of rest. . . receiving through what is material the pledge of the sacred food.” The Instructor, Ch. VI”

Apostolic Constitutions

“Let none of the catechumens, let none of the hearers, let none of the unbelievers, let none of the heterodox, stay here. You who have prayed for the foregoing prayer, depart. Let the mothers receive [or, take] their children; let no one have anything against anyone; let no one come in hypocrisy; let us stand upright before the Lord with fear and trembling, to offer.”

Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, 8.2.12

. . . . let the bishop partake, then the presbyters, and deacons, and sub-deacons, and the readers, and the singers, and the ascetics; and then of the women, the deaconesses, and the virgins, and the widows; then the children; and then all the people in order, with reverence and godly fear, without tumult. Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, 8.2.13

Augustine

They are infants, but they receive His sacraments. They are infants, but they share in His table, in order to have life in themselves. Works, Vol. 5, Sermon 174:7

Dionysius. The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy,

"The fact that children not yet able to understand divine things become recipients of the holy rebirth in God [baptism] and the most sacred symbols of the supremely divine Communion seems, as you say, to merit the legitimate ridicule of the profane, for it is as though the bishops teach divine things to those who cannot hear, and in vain hand down the sacred traditions to those who do not understand.... not all divine things can be comprehended by our intelligence, but many things unknown by us have reasons worthy of their divine character that escape us, but are understood by the superior orders. Many things are beyond even the most sublime beings and are known distinctly only by the all-wise God, the Source of wisdom. Nevertheless, we affirm on this matter what our godlike instructors, initiated in ancient tradition, have transmitted to us.

"They assert, and it is the truth, that infants brought up according to sacred law will contract a habit of holiness, be guarded from all error, and be inexperienced in an evil life. When our godly leaders arrived at this conclusion, they decided to receive infants in this holy manner: on condition that the physical parents of the child presented confide the child to someone of the initiated in divine things who is a good teacher...

Council of Macon - 585

Ordered that on Wednesdays and Fridays the infants and children of the church should be brought back to the church where they "should receive the remains of the sacrifices."

Council of Toledo - 675

"The sick who found themselves unable to swallow the Eucharist, and others who had failed to swallow it 'in times of infancy,' did not fall under the censure of the first council of Toledo (can. 14), against those who having received did not consume it (can. 11)."41

Over my years I have heard and seen the phrase, “valid apostolic succession” countless times. Many people have asked if our church and bishops have “valid succession.” When attempting to enter into some form of communion agreement with another church the leaders of those churches will focus a great deal of time being concerned if the other church has, “valid lines of succession.”  But what is Apostolic Succession and why is it important? Let us first consider how different churches view Apostolic Succession.

The Eastern Orthodox do not accept a church, or bishop as having, “valid apostolic succession” if the church does not both accept and profess the teachings of the Apostles and is in full communion with them. And as such, for the most part the Eastern Orthodox do not accept other churches sacraments as being valid, not even baptism.

The Roman Catholic Church accepts as having “valid apostolic succession” those churches and bishops who can trace their consecration/ordination of its bishops through an ordination including laying on of hands to the original Apostles. The Roman Catholic Church accepts the Orthodox Churches and some Old Catholics as having, “valid apostolic succession” and, therefore, valid Sacraments even though they consider these churches as “illicit” since they are not in communion with the Roman SEE.

The Anglican Churches profess having, “valid apostolic succession,” and yet neither the Roman Catholic Church, nor the Eastern Orthodox Church accepts Anglican Orders and sacraments as valid. This is due to both changes the Anglican Church made to the ordination rite years ago, and due to the many changes, which have taken place in the Anglican Communion such as ordination of females and more.

Note: Due to a different view on baptism between the East and the West, the Roman Catholic Church does accept baptisms performed in the Trinitarian formula (in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) regardless of the denomination.

In the world of Independent Catholic, Old Catholic, and Anglicans, the emphasis on having, “valid lines” are for many seen to be the holy grail, the mantra of presenting oneself and church as real, and sacraments as valid, regardless of what the teachings are. A person can have a bishop with supposedly valid lines ordain them, buy some vestments, and start a church. Some may have laity, some only have multiple clergy and bishops with no laity, and some have only an internet presence. One will find a plethora of liturgies and beliefs ranging from very traditional to very modern. I personally know of one man who was consecrated by three bishops with lines of Apostolic Succession tracing back to the Apostles. This man left the church he was ordained in and traveled around the county, and for a fee, he ordained anyone to be a bishop. He ordained people in truck stops, rest areas, and even at the gate of an airport. So, the question becomes, just because individuals have what could be argued an unbroken line of “laying on of hands,” is their “order valid”? The answer lies in understanding, “What is Apostolic Succession?”

The Old Catholic Church, like the Eastern Orthodox, believes that having true and valid Apostolic Succession is more than just tracing of a direct line of apostolic ordination. It is through Apostolic Succession that a church is the spiritual successor to the original body of believers in Christ that was composed of the Apostles. This succession manifests itself through the unbroken succession of its bishops back to the Apostles. This means both laying on of hands in an unbroken line and professing the doctrine of the Apostles are required to have valid Apostolic Succession. The doctrine of the Apostles is the immutable and unchanging foundation on which the church is built with Christ the chief cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20).

The unbrokenness of Apostolic Succession of both laying on of hands and professing the Apostles Doctrine is significant because of Jesus Christ's promise that the “gates of hell” (Matthew 16:18) would not prevail against the Church, and His promise that He Himself would be with the Apostles to “the end of the age” (Matthew 28:20). According to this interpretation, a complete disruption or end of such Apostolic Succession would mean that these promises were not kept should an Apostolic Succession, which, while formally intact by the laying on of hands, completely abandoned the teachings of the Apostles and their immediate successors.

This means one could have a line of succession in their ordination, but if they begin teaching contrary to the doctrine of the Apostles, they have broken their lines of succession. I ask you, consider if a bishop or bishops started teaching that there was no incarnation and Jesus was just a man. Or if there were no resurrection and ascension? Would they still have, “valid apostolic succession”? I think you might just say they had broken their lines of succession by embracing a belief contrary to the doctrine of the Apostles and defended by the Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church.

The Old Catholic Church does have lines of succession in our ordinations. And we work diligently to profess and teach the doctrine of the Apostles; the right teachings (orthodoxy) that both East and West once held in common. Therefore, we believe we indeed have valid Apostolic Succession regardless of what others may say or think. Using the same criteria, we do not accept a bishop or church as having valid lines of succession if they fail to have both lines of ordination and professing the doctrine of the Apostles and their successors, as expressed in the Ecumenical Councils of the undivided church.

This is why we do not ordain females; consider marriage to be between a man and woman, sexual relations outside of marriage is sinful, abortion is the taking of an innocent life, we believe that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, and we reject many more teachings and beliefs that have crept into the Church. To us, accepting and professing new doctrines, breaks the Line of Apostolic Succession because teachings such as these are contrary to the doctrine handed down by the Apostles.

We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. Acts 15:24

As they traveled from town to town, they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey. Acts 16:4

For we are not like many, peddling the word of God, but as from sincerity, but as from God, we speak in Christ in the sight of God. 2 Corinthians 2:17

Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. Acts 20:28

Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust. Acts 14:23

Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit." Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul's eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, and after taking some food, he regained his strength. Acts 9:17-19

"Therefore, brethren, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this task. "But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word." The statement found approval with the whole congregation; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch. And these they brought before the apostles; and after praying, they laid their hands on them. Acts 6:3-6

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come. 2 Tim. 4:1-6

For this reason I remind you to kindle afresh the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands. 2 Tim. 1:6

Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery. 1 Tim. 4:14

The Testimony of The Early Church

"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . .. Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" First Epistle of Clement Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 A.D. 80

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about" Irenaeus Against Heresies 3:3:1 A.D. 189