The fact that communion is mentioned at all in the caption to the photograph should be plenty cause for concern. Moreover, the age at which confession is considered as appropriate for children is not a "cause for celebration", but a quiet, circumspect and private matter. Turning it into an ersatz version of western confirmation does nobody any favors.
Unless you know something I don't know, we are both working from assumptions based on a parish website. Because of that, I'm not ready to uncritically praise or dismiss anything.
I'm not concerned that Communion was mentioned at all. It appears that this is a WRO parish ministering to a Spanish speaking community in Miami, FL. In such cultures, influenced as they are by Roman Catholicism, such celebrations are common, and the absence of them would be unthinkable. What is the proper response as a Church to this pastoral issue? To kill that aspect of their culture? I suspect, were the Church to try this, that the people would just do it on their own time, and the Church would be left out of that part of her members' lives. Should we send them back to Roman Catholicism? Were we to do that, we could not call ourselves the Church. Or ought we to "baptise" that custom as far as possible and bring it into the local Church? I lean toward this solution...to let the light of Christ illumine all.
Again, if we discovered that they are withholding Communion from children until they reach a certain age, then I would be concerned. But right now, I'm not sure we have reason to suspect this.
Regarding first confession as a "quiet, circumspect, and private matter", I'm not sure I agree. You might feel that way, and I might agree, but that's not the only way it has to be.
Please read my posts carefully. There is far more to my objection than the mere "esthetics" of the church in question. There are also other elements in the photographs which I found objectionable, but on which I did not initially comment, such as the presence of vases of flowers on the altar. Pretty, but they have no place there, just as microphones and other non-liturgical items have no place on the Holy Table, items which, unfortunately, are all too prevalent these days in many a "byzantine" Orthodox church (to use your terminology).
I haven't examined the photos to see if the altar in this church has gradines. Usually flowers, relics, candles, etc. are placed here. But let's assume it's a small space and they don't have gradines: even so, flowers are enough a part of Western liturgical tradition that there are rubrics governing the days and seasons when the altar is not to be adorned with them. If this community is maintaining continuity with such traditions as best they can in their local circumstances, I can't fault them for that.
While it's not ideal to have a cluttered mensa, the Western Christians are usually much better about this than the Eastern Christians.
I hold to no double standard.
I'll also mention that I have attended, and, in some cases, been closely involved, with parishes whose services are conducted in buildings or spaces which were not purpose-built Orthodox churches. Yet, whether in a previously heterodox church, or a simple room or shed, I had no qualms about such circumstances. What was far more important was that things were done properly.
I agree, what is most important is that things are done properly. In the case of this parish, the standard for "doing things properly" is traditional Western liturgical custom as practiced in the Antiochian Archdiocese of North America. That's why I'm not too concerned about "First Confession", but I do wonder why ripidia with bells (about as OO as it gets) are being used in a Roman rite Mass.
It is precisely my love and reverence for icons which prompted me to post as I did. In my time on this forum, I have not ceased to drive home the fact that icons are not mere "religious art", but something far more profound and holy. However, when I see pictures of a WRO parish which pays such great attention to maintaining Hispanic culture, including conducting processions of post-schism Marian statues which are outside Orthodox tradition, both on the origin of the statue, and in the absence of a liturgical tradition within Orthodoxy of venerating statues and their liturgical commemoration, am I not justified in saying what I did?
With more information, you might be justified, but I don't know that we are there yet. We know this is a Western rite parish (in a canonical EO diocese) and we know its members are mostly of Hispanic origin and Spanish speaking. We can reasonably expect it's not going to look like a Ukrainian church, so our standards for judging what is and is not proper have to be different from the start.
Regarding statues in general, I'm not sure I accept the arguments against them. This was discussed in another thread several months ago: I didn't really agree with the arguments made in that thread against statues, and at least some of my questions went unanswered. But not only can we assume that the use of statues in this parish is with the blessing of the local bishop, but Nephi posted a quote from an official archdiocesan publication which claims the original statue, of which the statue in question here is a copy, "originated in fourth century North Africa, in the Oratory of Saint Augustine". Now, if that's erroneous, let's talk about that. But if it's not, the statue predates the third ecumenical council
: most of the icons in the Orthodox world with a particular devotion associated with them are much more recent than that.