Paedocommunion and Anglicanism [Archive]

Naomi4Christ

5th April 2006, 10:03 AM

No, Naomi, even amongst Evangelicals. I would say there is no 'generally' about this at all. Some churches do, some churches don't, some churches do it upon approval of the parents. Just because ONE or TWO churches do one thing, does not make it generally. I know of about 20 churches that I've attended in the past 8 years when visiting in the UK, about 8-10 of which have done one or other, and others have asked my parents explain what they wanted to do as they would do either.

Look at the CofE guidelines, Timothy.

The fact that the Bishop's permission is requires says a lot. It's certainly not widespread in my diocese, but no doubt there are some diocese where it is more prevalent.

It's not just the parents who need to approve the practice (and presumably the parents are the ones requesting it). It requires the approval of the vicar, the PCC and the bishop - and it requires a certain amount of understanding by the child, a commitment by the parents to nurture this understanding, and a commitment to come to confirmation before the age of 18. This is very different from the practice in ECUSA.

paleodoxy

5th April 2006, 10:10 AM

Look at the CofE guidelines, Timothy.

The fact that the Bishop's permission is requires says a lot. It's certainly not widespread in my diocese, but no doubt there are some diocese where it is more prevalent.

It's not just the parents who need to approve the practice (and presumably the parents are the ones requesting it). It requires the approval of the vicar, the PCC and the bishop - and it requires a certain amount of understanding by the child, a commitment by the parents to nurture this understanding, and a commitment to come to confirmation before the age of 18. This is very different from the practice in ECUSA.
Boy would I love to turn this into an exegetical debate. ;)

Anyone game?

paleodoxy

Naomi4Christ

5th April 2006, 10:13 AM

I'm game, but only if you stop using funny words :)

karen freeinchristman

5th April 2006, 10:16 AM

Look at the CofE guidelines, Timothy.

The fact that the Bishop's permission is requires says a lot. It's certainly not widespread in my diocese, but no doubt there are some diocese where it is more prevalent.

It's not just the parents who need to approve the practice (and presumably the parents are the ones requesting it). It requires the approval of the vicar, the PCC and the bishop - and it requires a certain amount of understanding by the child, a commitment by the parents to nurture this understanding, and a commitment to come to confirmation before the age of 18. This is very different from the practice in ECUSA.

This is my experience at all of the C of E churches I've attended in my diocese, as well.

PaladinValer

5th April 2006, 11:50 AM

Naomi4Christ

5th April 2006, 11:58 AM

**Hugs SirTimothy**

Folks, the historic practice among Christians is that Baptism is the "gateway" to the Eucharist. If you've been Baptized, you are welcome to partake of Christ's literal Body and Blood.

We welcome babies in Baptism. If we deny them the Body and Blood, we are utterly hypocritical.

Paedeocommunion all the way. Let the babies and little children taste the Lord! To deny them is to deny them Christ, and that would be a very grave offense.

There are arguments for both sides of the debate. I hope you can find it in yourself to see value in the side that does not agree with you. Even if you don't now, hopeful you will as you grow in Christian maturity.

I certainly see value in giving communion to small children, even if, on weighing up all the factors, have decided to opt the other way. We were the only family in our ECUSA church whose children received a blessing instead of dipping their wafer in the wine. I remember that this was the subject of one of our adult education sessions at that ECUSA church, so it is still a topic of a certain amount of debate, even if the actual practice is skewed in one direction.

There is no place for triumphalism here, PV.

PaladinValer

5th April 2006, 12:11 PM

Naomi4Christ

5th April 2006, 12:16 PM

There are no counter-arguments.

If you are going to admit babies to Baptism, you better admit them to Holy Communion. It is a literal denial of Christ to those children, toddlers, and infants if you do not.

Let the children come to Him and let no one stop them...that's a correct paraphrase of the doctrinal importance of a certain bit of excellent Scripture. I find it increasingly interesting that Evangelicals are so Scripture-driven yet many reject Biblical theology. If Evangelicals claim to be Biblically-driven, then paedeocommunion shouldn't even be a debate.

Please accept that this is a debatable topic and that there are many people greater than you who struggle with it. Scripture is not clear - on one hand, it says you have to understand, and on the other hand, it welcomes whole families. You cannot be gung-ho for one position without at least considering the other. I can imagine my 14-year old son doing this in his Pathfinders group, such is the nature of adolescence to be black or white, but I would hope by the time he reaches adulthood to be far more considerate.

ContraMundum

5th April 2006, 12:22 PM

There are no counter-arguments.

Wanna make a bet?

If you are going to admit babies to Baptism, you better admit them to Holy Communion. It is a literal denial of Christ to those children, toddlers, and infants if you do not.

The scriptures are clear- and no amount of human reasoning will alter the plain words of the scriptures, and the traditional Western church is right, as usual, about this.

All Christians are admissible to communion- conditionally. The conditions are few, but one of them is that one must examine one's conscience and heart.

1Co 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. 1Co 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 1Co 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

Let the children come to Him and let no one stop them...that's a correct paraphrase of the doctrinal importance of a certain bit of excellent Scripture. I find it increasingly interesting that Evangelicals are so Scripture-driven yet many reject Biblical theology. If Evangelicals claim to be Biblically-driven, then paedeocommunion shouldn't even be a debate.

Well, because the scriptures are clear, even Catholics agree that infants are not to be admitted to communion unless they have examined their conscience- and until a person has demonstrated that they have understood and confessed their sins, a minister is not being responsible in his administration of the sacrament if he offers it to those who have not made a good confession.

If, however, your view is correct, it renders useless the scriptures regarding self-examination. In other words, if you are right, then you must omit those relevant verses. If we are right, we have diligently applied them and have insured the safety of our communicants.

Here endeth the lesson.

karen freeinchristman

5th April 2006, 12:23 PM

There are no counter-arguments.

If you are going to admit babies to Baptism, you better admit them to Holy Communion. It is a literal denial of Christ to those children, toddlers, and infants if you do not.

Let the children come to Him and let no one stop them...that's a correct paraphrase of the doctrinal importance of a certain bit of excellent Scripture. I find it increasingly interesting that Evangelicals are so Scripture-driven yet many reject Biblical theology. If Evangelicals claim to be Biblically-driven, then paedeocommunion shouldn't even be a debate.

OK, what about the argument often seen here in STR that Holy Communion must only be taken "in a right manner", "faithfully", "worthily"? In the C of E, the church often baptises babies of parents that are NOT committed church members (as we must, in being an established church). I think this is why the C of E differs from ECUSA or any other non-established church in encouraging people to be confirmed first at an age where they can profess their faith before partaking of the Eucharist.

PaladinValer

5th April 2006, 12:27 PM

Please accept that this is a debatable topic and that there are many people greater than you who struggle with it.

There is no counter-argument.

Scripture is not clear - on one hand, it says you have to understand, and on the other hand, it welcomes whole families.

Scripture is crystal clear:

St. Matthew 19:13-15 (cf: St. Mark 10:13-16; St. Luke 18:15-17) "Let the little children come to Me and do not hinder them"

St. John 6 (Jesus is the Bread of Life...Communion)

Do not hinder children to come to Jesus and receive Him under the image of bread and wine (really is Body and Blood).

You cannot be gung-ho for one position without at least considering the other.

I cannot because it isn't Scriptural nor Traditional nor Reasonable.

I can imagine my 14-year old son doing this in his Pathfinders group, such is the nature of adolescence to be black or white, but I would hope by the time he reaches adulthood to be far more considerate.

And now I'm being accused of being a Manichean because I reject antipaedeocommunion? Oy...

higgs2

5th April 2006, 12:29 PM

OK, what about the argument often seen here in STR that Holy Communion must only be taken "in a right manner", "faithfully", "worthily"? In the C of E, the church often baptises babies of parents that are NOT committed church members (as we must, in being an established church). I think this is why the C of E differs from ECUSA or any other non-established church in encouraging people to be confirmed first at an age where they can profess their faith before partaking of the Eucharist.
Sins of the fathers, eh? ;)

PaladinValer

5th April 2006, 12:29 PM

Infants are unable to sin on grounds that they cannot tell the difference between good and evil yet.

As such, I know of many VC priests, one I know VERY, VERY well, who allow infants and toddlers to accept Holy Communion. And they are not out of bounds in any way, shape, or form.

higgs2

5th April 2006, 12:32 PM

Our branch of the Anglican/Episcopal church practices paedocommunion. (We have a six-month old daughter who will be partaking soon.)

What are the various perspectives within Anglicanism on this issue, and what are your respective opinions on this doctrine?

Thanks!

paleodoxy
My children all take communion. My 1.5 year old had her first taste of the wine from the tip of our priests finger right after she was baptised. I wouldn't attend a church where my children were not welcome at the table.

karen freeinchristman

5th April 2006, 12:40 PM

All Christians are admissible to communion- conditionally. The conditions are few, but one of them is that one must examine one's conscience and heart.

1Co 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. 1Co 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 1Co 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

Yes, but what about this scripture? Those who are pro-baby-communion haven't addressed this yet.

higgs2

5th April 2006, 12:43 PM

Yes, but what about this scripture? Those who are pro-baby-communion haven't addressed this yet.
I don't see anything that says the babies and children can't take communion in that passage.

InnerPhyre

5th April 2006, 12:45 PM

How is it that children will be excluded but non-Christians are not? I read in another thread that you let the unbaptized partake.

Naomi4Christ

5th April 2006, 12:45 PM

My children all take communion. My 1.5 year old had her first taste of the wine from the tip of our priests finger right after she was baptised. I wouldn't attend a church where my children were not welcome at the table.

In the CofE, there is an assurance that if your children receive in one church, they can receive anywhere. Your children would be welcome to receive in a CofE church.

When we moved to the UK and presented ourselves at the communion rail, the vicar asked us if the children received.

higgs2

5th April 2006, 12:47 PM

In the CofE, there is an assurance that if your children receive in one church, they can receive anywhere. Your children would be welcome to receive in a CofE church.

When we moved to the UK and presented ourselves at the communion rail, the vicar asked us if the children received.
I am so glad to know that. :thumbsup: Thanks, Naomi.

Naomi4Christ

5th April 2006, 12:47 PM

How is it that children will be excluded but non-Christians are not? I read in another thread that you let the unbaptized partake.

The 'rules' of CofE say that baptism always preceeds HC.

Naomi4Christ

5th April 2006, 12:48 PM

I am so glad to know that. :thumbsup: Thanks, Naomi.

It's safe to plan your vacation now :D

higgs2

5th April 2006, 12:50 PM

It's safe to plan your vacation now :D

Yes, what works for you? (You're watching our kids for us, right? ^_^ )

Naomi4Christ

5th April 2006, 12:50 PM

Yes, but what about this scripture? Those who are pro-baby-communion haven't addressed this yet.

I think there are three levels of knowledge/faith here:

those who have been confirmed
children who are not confirmed but have some understanding
children (babies) who have no understanding.I think you need to have positions on each category - as the CofE does.

ContraMundum

5th April 2006, 12:50 PM

Yes, but what about this scripture? Those who are pro-baby-communion haven't addressed this yet.

They can't, and they know it, but they will try because that's just what they do. For Western Christians to relax and yeild on this topic means that they are embracing a nominal Christianity, based on social values, rather than on spiritual, scriptural values. They are in effect saying that if you're baptised you're entitled to communion, regardless of your spiritual state. This kind of thinking is indicative of a backslidden, social Christianity and is not in harmony with the scriptures which devotes these verses to the dangers of communion without good confession for our benefit.

Naomi4Christ

5th April 2006, 12:51 PM

Yes, what works for you? (You're watching our kids for us, right? ^_^ )

You have 3? We wouldn't even notice them :D

higgs2

5th April 2006, 12:55 PM

They can't, and they know it, but they will try because that's just what they do. For Western Christians to relax and yeild on this topic means that they are embracing a nominal Christianity, based on social values, rather than on spiritual, scriptural values. They are in effect saying that if you're baptised you're entitled to communion, regardless of your spiritual state. This kind of thinking is indicative of a backslidden, social Christianity and is not in harmony with the scriptures which devotes these verses to the dangers of communion without good confession for our benefit.
Oh fiddle dee dee, Contra. I would think you'd get in much more metaphysical trouble by refusing the body and blood to a baptised Christian who desires to partake, no matter what their age.

karen freeinchristman

5th April 2006, 12:57 PM

ContraMundum

5th April 2006, 01:04 PM

Oh fiddle dee dee, Contra. I would think you'd get in much more metaphysical trouble by refusing the body and blood to a baptised Christian who desires to partake, no matter what their age.

How would you know whether or not they wanted to partake and how would you know they had examined their conscience? What are the consequences if you get it wrong? If they wanted it and could not communicate that desire to the priest, after having somehow proven their self examination, then it's no great loss, they are, after all still baptised and they will have another opportunity. If however, we just give communion to children to appease their parent's emotions, and thereby conveniently bypass the scriptures, there are grave dangers. Taking Holy Communion is not a right, it is conditional upon important spiritual steps.

If someone else wants to have warm gooey feelings, and casually ignore the Apostle's words. Fine, enjoy. Don't expect me to assist though, I have a duty.

Jdg 21:25 In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

ContraMundum

5th April 2006, 01:07 PM

Yes, but honestly, how can you tell that a 1 1/2 year old desires to partake? They will put anything in their mouths!

....yes...because they don't know any better.

higgs2

5th April 2006, 01:18 PM

Yes, but honestly, how can you tell that a 1 1/2 year old desires to partake? They will put anything in their mouths!
I remember my son at 1.5 not getting the bread, and as I carried him out of the church he was sobbing, "I want some! I want some"!

Also, it's a sacrament, we believe in the real precense, I don't believe that "understanding" is important.

Here's a question. What about an adult who is mentally hanicapped, say the IQ of a young child or even a toddler. They are baptised. Should they receive communion?

higgs2

5th April 2006, 01:21 PM

How would you know whether or not they wanted to partake and how would you know they had examined their conscience? What are the consequences if you get it wrong? If they wanted it and could not communicate that desire to the priest, after having somehow proven their self examination, then it's no great loss, they are, after all still baptised and they will have another opportunity. If however, we just give communion to children to appease their parent's emotions, and thereby conveniently bypass the scriptures, there are grave dangers. Taking Holy Communion is not a right, it is conditional upon important spiritual steps.

If someone else wants to have warm gooey feelings, and casually ignore the Apostle's words. Fine, enjoy. Don't expect me to assist though, I have a duty.

Jdg 21:25 In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
Do you have children? You can tell they want to be included, trust me. As their conscience develops, they learn how to examine it. Do you think a 1.5 year old has a fully developed conscience that needs to be examined?

My 4 year old understands communion as well or probably better than most of the people in the pews, btw. And probably values it more.

higgs2

5th April 2006, 01:24 PM

How would you know whether or not they wanted to partake and how would you know they had examined their conscience? What are the consequences if you get it wrong? If they wanted it and could not communicate that desire to the priest, after having somehow proven their self examination, then it's no great loss, they are, after all still baptised and they will have another opportunity. If however, we just give communion to children to appease their parent's emotions, and thereby conveniently bypass the scriptures, there are grave dangers. Taking Holy Communion is not a right, it is conditional upon important spiritual steps.

If someone else wants to have warm gooey feelings, and casually ignore the Apostle's words. Fine, enjoy. Don't expect me to assist though, I have a duty.

Jdg 21:25 In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
Oh, and you can say the ECUSA gives communion to children because they prefer the "warm gooey feeling" to the apostle's words if that makes you feel better. But like it or not, it is a valid theological position and we don't need you to assist us. :) :) :)

higgs2

5th April 2006, 01:25 PM

....yes...because they don't know any better.
Actually, she holds her hands out properly to receive.

higgs2

5th April 2006, 01:25 PM

You have 3? We wouldn't even notice them :D

^_^ :P

Naomi4Christ

5th April 2006, 01:32 PM

Do you have children? You can tell they want to be included, trust me.

My kids have never reflected this sentiment. They receive a blessing (which takes a lot longer than administering communion) and I don't think they wrestle with this at all. It's what they are used to. I think the wine serves as a good enough distinction between adults and children.

PaladinValer

5th April 2006, 01:36 PM

Babies don't understand the significance of Baptism...should we withhold Baptism too?

Ouch! There's a modernist idea...even Calvin rejected that notion!

higgs2

5th April 2006, 01:36 PM

My kids have never reflected this sentiment. They receive a blessing (which takes a lot longer than administering communion) and I don't think they wrestle with this at all. It's what they are used to. I think the wine serves as a good enough distinction between adults and children.
Well, it wasn't "good enough" for my son. The priest pulled me aside after the service and told me that I could allow him to partake if I wished. The only reason I didn't was because the other parents didn't. I was so glad to be able to have him share in communion. Now all the children in our church receive :) I am teaching my children that the bread and wine is sacred, and something to be desired. My four year old came in at communion and said "I want the blood, mommy!"

higgs2

5th April 2006, 01:37 PM

Babies don't understand the significance of Baptism...should we withhold Baptism too?

Ouch! There's a modernist idea...even Calvin rejected that notion!
Hmmmm. It's Baptist type of idea.

Naomi4Christ

5th April 2006, 01:39 PM

Babies don't understand the significance of Baptism...should we withhold Baptism too?

You think baptism and Lord's Supper are the same?

paleodoxy

5th April 2006, 01:41 PM

ContraMundum

5th April 2006, 01:42 PM

Do you have children?

Yes, lots of them. :thumbsup:

You can tell they want to be included, trust me. As their conscience develops, they learn how to examine it. Do you think a 1.5 year old has a fully developed conscience that needs to be examined?

My kids did not receive until they were confirmed, and they did not complain, nag or even expect communion. They were brought up Anglican. In the Anglican communion we have always withheld communion from those not yet confirmed.

This has been the custom for many, many years. Have a good read in the BCP, which is the standard of Anglican faith and practice and you'll see what I mean.

My 4 year old understands communion as well or probably better than most of the people in the pews, btw. And probably values it more.

That's not a good reflection on those in the pews.

Oh, and you can say the ECUSA gives communion to children because they prefer the "warm gooey feeling" to the apostle's words if that makes you feel better. But like it or not, it is a valid theological position and we don't need you to assist us. :) :) :)

Popular practice (especially in a social and largely nominal church) means nothing. If the ECUSA is abandoning the properly, scriptually established Anglican practice on this as well then it doesn't surprise me or worry me, because there is no such axiom as "ECUSA locuta, res decisa est".

Naomi4Christ

5th April 2006, 01:44 PM

My kids did not receive until they were confirmed, and they did not complain, nag or even expect communion. They were brought up Anglican. In the Anglican communion we have always withheld communion from those not yet confirmed.

My experience too.

higgs2

5th April 2006, 01:44 PM

Yes, lots of them. :thumbsup:

My kids did not receive until they were confirmed, and they did not complain, nag or even expect communion. They were brought up Anglican. In the Anglican communion we have always withheld communion from those not yet confirmed.

This has been the custom for many, many years. Have a good read in the BCP, which is the standard of Anglican faith and practice and you'll see what I mean.

That's not a good reflection on those in the pews.

Popular practice (especially in a social and largely nominal church) means nothing. If the ECUSA is abandoning the properly, scriptually established Anglican practice on this as well then it doesn't surprise me or worry me, because there is no such axiom as "ECUSA locuta, res decisa est".
I have had a good read in the BCP and it doesn't say my children should not receive communion.

Lots of children? Cool! They're pretty great to have around, aren't they?

PaladinValer

5th April 2006, 01:55 PM

Hmmmm. It's Baptist type of idea.

Exactly; Baptists withhold Baptism, which is contradictory to the Gospel Message and which, historically, isn't primitive.

You think baptism and Lord's Supper are the same?

Never said that or implied that.

Contra, the historic, primitive practice is that if you've been Baptized, you may Commune. That's how it was done then; that is how it is to be done now.

ContraMundum

5th April 2006, 02:02 PM

I have had a good read in the BCP and it doesn't say my children should not receive communion.

Are your children confirmed already? Have they examined their conscience? Read the WHOLE Holy Communion service. Just because certain prayers are omitted for brevity in your service does not mean that they are no longer believed.

" ... and there shall none be admitted to the Holy Communion, until such time as he be confirmed, or be ready and desirous to be confirmed."

Lots of children? Cool! They're pretty great to have around, aren't they?

Yes, but mine are kind of old now.

Aymn27

5th April 2006, 02:03 PM

there is no such axiom as "ECUSA locuta, res decisa est".
rofl!!!!

Aymn27

5th April 2006, 02:08 PM

Contra, the historic, primitive practice is that if you've been Baptized, you may Commune. That's how it was done then; that is how it is to be done now.PV, I'd be interested in some evidence to back that up - not arguing with you, just not convinced either way yet - though I'm inclined to adult baptism/communion rather than infant. However I do see the point in "growing in grace" from infancy.

higgs2

5th April 2006, 02:10 PM

Are your children confirmed already? Have they examined their conscience? Read the WHOLE Holy Communion service. Just because certain prayers are omitted for brevity in your service does not mean that they are no longer believed.

" ... and there shall none be admitted to the Holy Communion, until such time as he be confirmed, or be ready and desirous to be confirmed."

Yes, but mine are kind of old now.
Would you like to tell me where I can find this statement in my BCP?

ContraMundum

5th April 2006, 02:10 PM

Exactly; Baptists withhold Baptism, which is contradictory to the Gospel Message and which, historically, isn't primitive.

How any honest discussion can focus around such disengenuous comparisons is just beyond belief. You are insinuating that Anglicans are similar to baptists now, just because we don't want to change into Orthodox? Get a grip lad.

Never said that or implied that.

Contra, the historic, primitive practice is that if you've been Baptized, you may Commune. That's how it was done then; that is how it is to be done now.

As usual, you overstate your case and ignore the scriptures. SOME of the early Christians practiced infant communion and SOME didn't. The Western Church in particular was never unanimous in its acceptance of the practice. Likewise, the Western Catholic church has historically held to a discipline in line with scripture that witheld communion from those not confirmed or in unpenitent sin. Anglicanism (last I heard, this was an Anglican forum, but I'm beginning to think this is really an anti-Anglican iconoclast forum) has held to this traditional Western Catholic custom too.

I'm Anglican. I hold to Anglicanism. You can do whatever you like to force your personal pet doctrines on to the church, but I will still continue on the path.

gtsecc

5th April 2006, 02:11 PM

When the historic practice of allowing Baptised recieved was the norm, there weren't any denominations either - everyone was part of the one true church.

SirTimothy

5th April 2006, 02:12 PM

Would you like to tell me where I can find this statement in my BCP?

Ummm... It's in the 1662 which is the only BCP in most jurisdictions of the AC anyhow...

higgs2

5th April 2006, 02:15 PM

Ummm... It's in the 1662 which is the only BCP in most jurisdictions of the AC anyhow...
:) Thanks, Timothy. That does not apply, then, to my church.

SirTimothy

5th April 2006, 02:19 PM

:) Thanks, Timothy. That does not apply, then, to my church.

Ummm... I rather think it does! The 1662 BCP is still the standard liturgy for the worldwide Anglican Communion... it's the only single authorized liturgy for the whole communion.

higgs2

5th April 2006, 02:21 PM

Ummm... I rather think it does! The 1662 BCP is still the standard liturgy for the worldwide Anglican Communion... it's the only single authorized liturgy for the whole communion.
I don't think so. I don't think that we have to put down our 1979 BCP and check the 1662 to see if there's anything that applies to us that we're ignoring.

ContraMundum

5th April 2006, 02:23 PM

:) Thanks, Timothy. That does not apply, then, to my church.

Nor does this, apparently:

1Co 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

SirTimothy

5th April 2006, 02:25 PM

I don't think so. I don't think that we have to put down our 1979 BCP and check the 1662 to see if there's anything that applies to us that we're ignoring.

Then that is why America differs from every other province of the Anglican communion. Every other province (I believe, I may be wrong) has the 1662 as the aurthorized definitive liturgy for 'we believe as we pray'.

Timothy

Naomi4Christ

5th April 2006, 02:26 PM

Then that is why America differs from every other province of the Anglican communion. Every other province (I believe, I may be wrong) has the 1662 as the aurthorized definitive liturgy for 'we believe as we pray'.

Timothy

We can't expect ECUSA to pray for the Queen, can we?

higgs2

5th April 2006, 02:27 PM

Then that is why America differs from every other province of the Anglican communion. Every other province (I believe, I may be wrong) has the 1662 as the aurthorized definitive liturgy for 'we believe as we pray'.

Timothy
You could be right. Even New Zealand, do you think?

higgs2

5th April 2006, 02:28 PM

We can't expect ECUSA to pray for the Queen, can we?

I was going to mention that, but I didn't want to offend. :sorry:

gtsecc

5th April 2006, 02:29 PM

How is it that children will be excluded but non-Christians are not? I read in another thread that you let the unbaptized partake.
Being inclusive and affirming is the most important Christian doctrine for Anglicans.
We have folks who want Malcolm X in the BCP, but we recently rejects the Charles the Royal martyr, executed for holding on to the Bishops and the Liturgy. If you read the notes of the General Convention, which rejected his inclusuion, they say because we don't need another white English monarch in the BCP.

SirTimothy

5th April 2006, 02:30 PM

You could be right. Even New Zealand, do you think?

New Zealand has the 'Book of Common Prayer' and the 'New Zealand Prayer Book'.
Much like we have the 'Book of Common Prayer' and the 'Provincial liturgy of Jerusalem and the Middle East'.

SirTimothy

5th April 2006, 02:36 PM

American Book of Common Prayer, 1979:

Q. What is required of us when we come to the Eucharist?

A. It is required that we should examine our lives, repent of our
sins, and be in love and charity with all people.

Naomi4Christ

5th April 2006, 02:40 PM

Well, I'm sorry if you think I'm being nasty to you , but I really do know when I am wasting my time, and I don't think I'm obligated to teach someone who obviously has no intention in engaging me in any meaningful way. Had you addressed the scriptures cited, the Anglican tradition as it has been since God-knows when and so forth with an open mind, then perhaps I would take the time to show you in the 1979 BCP where it says we have to examine our consciences in order to be eligible for Holy Communion (but I'm not sure about the statement you asked about), which alone should suffice to any sincere enquirer as to the intention of the practice of the Anglican church. The matter entirely rests in that principle, which you have not addressed but have been pointed toward.

How usual is it for churches to teach in a service that HC is only for those who have examined their conciences? I can't recall any teaching on this in a service (although I know it from midweek teaching). If someone only shows up on a Sunday, and never comes to extra teaching or confirmation classes, how are they going to know what the correct rituals are?

As for children, in our church, they'd automatically receive a blessing, even if they don't cross their chests. For adults, if they put out their hands, they get communion.

higgs2

5th April 2006, 02:42 PM

higgs2

5th April 2006, 02:44 PM

New Zealand has the 'Book of Common Prayer' and the 'New Zealand Prayer Book'.
Much like we have the 'Book of Common Prayer' and the 'Provincial liturgy of Jerusalem and the Middle East'.
Oh. Well, maybe ECUSA is different than everyone else, I don't know. I do know that you won't find a 1662 prayer book in place of the 1979 BCP, although some churches have permission to use the 1928.

Naomi4Christ

5th April 2006, 02:47 PM

Oh. Well, maybe ECUSA is different than everyone else, I don't know. I do know that you won't find a 1662 prayer book in place of the 1979 BCP, although some churches have permission to use the 1928.

In my experience, in the 1979 prayerbook, Rite 1 (or was it Rite A?) was similar to the 1662, and Rite 2 (B?) was similar to ASB (which was the CofE prayerbook when I left there - I came back to CW).

ContraMundum

5th April 2006, 02:47 PM

How usual is it for churches to teach in a service that HC is only for those who have examined their conciences? I can't recall any teaching on this in a service (although I know it from midweek teaching).

I've taught on it, and I preach it too. In fact, I think every time we say "ye who do earnestly repent you of your sins.." etc, that is a declaration of that principle.

If someone only shows up on a Sunday, and never comes to extra teaching or confirmation classes, how are they going to know what the correct rituals are?

As for children, in our church, they'd automatically receive a blessing, even if they don't cross their chests. For adults, if they put out their hands, they get communion.

Well, I'm all for a tightening up of common practices for the sake of loyalty to the scriptures. Still, I gues every situation is different and it's up to your parish how things get done. It would be hard for me to judge anything but I'm sure your priest knows what he's doing.

SirTimothy

5th April 2006, 02:48 PM

Yes, but doctrinally there have been a lot of changes, Naomi. We believe as we pray, when we change what we pray (or discard it as out of date) we change what we believe.

higgs2

5th April 2006, 02:48 PM

In my experience, in the 1979 prayerbook, Rite 1 (or was it Rite A?) was similar to the 1662, and Rite 2 (B?) was similar to ASB (which was the CofE prayerbook when I left there - I came back to CW).
Yes, that's true. Actually, Rite 1 is similary to the 1928 prayerbook, which is more like the 1662.

Naomi4Christ

5th April 2006, 02:50 PM

I've taught on it, and I preach it too. In fact, I think every time we say "ye who do earnestly repent you of your sins.." etc, that is a declaration of that principle.

So you don't spell it out, crystal clear, in standard English?

paleodoxy

5th April 2006, 02:54 PM

Infants are unable to sin on grounds that they cannot tell the difference between good and evil yet.

As I stated earlier, I am in agreement with Paladin on paedocommunion. However, I do not agree with his reasoning here.

Infants are not permitted to celebrate Eucharist because they cannot tell the difference between good and evil.

They are required to partake because they are baptized Christians.

St. Paul's injunction to "examine" oneself and to "discern" the Lord's Body exists amidst prior rebukings of the Corinthians regarding gluttonous behavior and failure to include the poor.

In this way, the Corinthians were not "discerning" the Lord's Body, and Paul adjures them to "examine" themselves on this issue. "Are you discerning Christ's Body (i.e. you fellow brother and sister)? "

In this way, anti-paedocommunionists are also failing to "discern" Christ's Body, and should learn to seriously "examine" their behavior in this area.

Please heed Christ's warning in Matt.25:42, 45. This is serious stuff!

Naomi4Christ

5th April 2006, 02:55 PM

Yes, but doctrinally there have been a lot of changes, Naomi. We believe as we pray, when we change what we pray (or discard it as out of date) we change what we believe.

Is 1979 Rite 1 doctrinally different to Rite 2?

They may both be different to the 1662, which remains the gold standard. But where did these prayer books come from - were they both evolutions of the 1662 (or a standard version from the start of PECUSA), or did the 1979 evolve from the 1928 (which would be worrying)?

In CW, there are slight doctrinal differences between the various communion prayers, such as the emphasis on the epiclesis (which evangelicals don't really go for at all).

ContraMundum

5th April 2006, 02:56 PM

So you don't spell it out, crystal clear, in standard English?

:scratch:

Umm..of course I do.

paleodoxy

5th April 2006, 03:00 PM

Yes, but what about this scripture? Those who are pro-baby-communion haven't addressed this yet.
I addressed this on pg. 8 or 9. The thread is jumping so fast, most of you probably missed it.

Go back and check it out. Let me know what you think!

paleodoxy

5th April 2006, 03:01 PM

I addressed this on pg. 8 or 9. The thread is jumping so fast, most of you probably missed it.

Go back and check it out. Let me know what you think!
The I Cor.11 passage on what constitutes "examining" oneself and "discerning" the Lord's Body, that is.

higgs2

5th April 2006, 03:13 PM

ContraMundum

5th April 2006, 03:14 PM

They are required to partake because they are baptized Christians.

All baptised Christians are not to take Holy Communion- it is conditional. Just because one is baptised does notmean they can come to the table. They must be repentant and be in agreement and charity with their brethren.

St. Paul's injunction to "examine" oneself and to "discern" the Lord's Body exists amidst prior rebukings of the Corinthians regarding gluttonous behavior and failure to include the poor.

In this way, the Corinthians were not "discerning" the Lord's Body, and Paul adjures them to "examine" themselves on this issue. "Are you discerning Christ's Body (i.e. you fellow brother and sister)? "

That is an incorrect understanding of the Greek and even the plain English.

Verse by verse:

1Co 11:27 So that whoever should eat this bread, or drink the cup of the Lord, unworthily, that one will be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.

The topic is now, after St Paul's short recap of the words of institution, the sacramental presence of Christ. The word "body" here refers to the sacramental body.

The very next verse, which in the Greek is a continuation of the same topic. (The sentence beginning witht he Greek word hoste- meaning thus, therefore, so that etc)

1Co 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

Literally, this means in the Greek "therefore let a man examine himself"

Why? The next verse:

1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

Again, the Greek clearly tells us that this is a further continution of the discussion regarding the sacramental presence. (The word "for" being the Gk "gar" meaning in this case "for this reason")

So, the discerning of the Lord's Body, according to the Greek and even the English is discerning the sacramental presence, not the visible church.

Interesting- your interpretation is the same as Zwingli's.

In this way, anti-paedocommunionists are also failing to "discern" Christ's Body, and should learn to seriously "examine" their behavior in this area.

Sadly, your whole argument collapsed, so this is incorrect.

Please heed Christ's warning in Matt.25:42, 45. This is serious stuff!

We bring our children to Christ in baptism, in which they are clothed with Him, buried with Him and given grace etc. No one denies them this true means of grace which has been ordained for them, and is thus sufficient sacramentally for them. The verse you cite has nothing to do with the Sacrament of the Altar, which requires certain conditions in order to be received.

Wiffey

5th April 2006, 03:20 PM

For my daughter, this has never been an issue. She was used to receiving when we were part of the Greek Orthodox Church....so when we first went to ECUSA and all Baptized Christians were invited to partake, it never even occurred to me that she wouldn't receive. Receive she did, just like she'd been doing each week since she had been Chrismated.

FWIW, EO Baptize & Chrismate infants, who are then able to receive along with anyone else. There may be much I don't agree with within the EOC, but I think that their attitude of welcoming infants into full Communion within the Body of Christ is right on.:thumbsup:

ContraMundum

5th April 2006, 03:20 PM

I understand that repenting of our sins is a requirement for communion. But is having the capacity for repenting of our sins also a requirment. I believe that as children grow in faith and grow in age and intellectual ability they also grow in this capacity. But not having the ability to understand sin does not seem to me to be a reason to refuse communion. But for me, communion is not a memorial, it is a sacrament. And that is where it is like baptism, which is a sacrament, not something believers do to profess their faith. If we put a bunch of requirements of belief on either one of those sacraments, it seems to me to contradict Grace and emphasize works.

Sacraments are not works that we do, so you needn't worry about that. They are works God does in us and for us. We make no spiritual contribution to them.

Speaking from the traditional, long-standing Anglican point of view, children do grow in grace, and when they have come to a clearly discernable age, we confirm them in the faith by the laying on of the Bishop's hands. Then, as fully confirmed, spirit-filled Christians, we allow them to come to communion. I do not see how this hinders their growth in grace, as these sacraments actually confirm their grace and even strengthen them.

The biggest problem with infant communion within the Anglican system is that many people given communion do not become confirmed. This is why we must put the same restrictions on the sacrament that the Bible bids us. It is not us who puts requirements on our people, but God.

Naomi4Christ

5th April 2006, 03:25 PM

I understand that repenting of our sins is a requirement for communion. But is having the capacity for repenting of our sins also a requirment. I believe that as children grow in faith and grow in age and intellectual ability they also grow in this capacity. But not having the ability to understand sin does not seem to me to be a reason to refuse communion. But for me, communion is not a memorial, it is a sacrament. And that is where it is like baptism, which is a sacrament, not something believers do to profess their faith. If we put a bunch of requirements of belief on either one of those sacraments, it seems to me to contradict Grace and emphasize works.

In infant baptism, it is the parents and godparents who make the promises on behalf of the child. I think HC is different, as no promises are made - just a confession and repentence.

At the end of the day, you can look at arguments on both sides of the debate, but the nature of it is that you cannot sit on the fence - you have to tip on one side or the other, even if you are fairly close to 50:50 on it - this is very uncomfortable for English Anglicans, I can tell you, as we like to hedge as much as possible.

From my personal experience in the evangelical tradition, children (up to age 14) are rarely in HC (maybe 2 or 3 times a year) and they don't expect to receive. Many children have not been baptised, because it is very common for us (probably 50%) to have a Thanksgiving for the birth of a baby, followed by baptism when they are ready to bring themselves. It would not be appropriate for these children to receive communion.

Certainly my personal views on this has changed over the years in that my elder 3 have been baptised, but my younger 2 will have to take themselves to baptism.

higgs2

5th April 2006, 03:30 PM

Sacraments are not works that we do, so you needn't worry about that. They are works God does in us and for us. We make no spiritual contribution to them.

.

That's exactly my point. They depend on God, not us. That is why "believer's baptism" and not allowing children communion are not proper, in my view. God can baptise babies and be present in their eucharist too.

paleodoxy

5th April 2006, 03:30 PM

All baptised Christians are not to take Holy Communion- it is conditional.

That's right. It is conditional in this passage. Paul teaches that in order for the adult Corinthians to partake worthily, they would need to start discerning the Body (those whom they were depriving). A conditional statement. It is not a doctrine of universal introspection that Paul is propounding here.

Just because one is baptised does notmean they can come to the table. They must be repentant and be in agreement and charity with their brethren.

You just linked repentance with communion. I would assume, then, that you believe all infants belonging to those in the worldwide Anglican communion should be excommunicated and treated as tax collectors, publicans and sinners?

If that's the case, why do you get them baptized in the first place?

1Co 11:27 So that whoever should eat this bread, or drink the cup of the Lord, unworthily, that one will be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.

Right. The Corinthians who were partaking unworthily (not discerning the members of Christ's Body - like you) were guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

The topic is now, after St Paul's short recap of the words of institution, the sacramental presence of Christ. The word "body" here refers to the sacramental body.

Failing to discern Christ's Body (His members / Bride) in the Eucharist is one and the same as failing to discern Him sacramentally. (Cf. I Cor.10:16.)

1Co 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

Literally, this means in the Greek "therefore let a man examine himself"

Babies are incapable of failing to discern the Body of Christ's elect the way these adult Corinthians were. Your argument constitutes a simple red herring, and is completely ancillary to the issue.

1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

Bingo!

So, the discerning of the Lord's Body, according to the Greek and even the English is discerning the sacramental presence, not the visible church.

Paul ties these together. What God has joined together, let not man separate.

Besides, your argument flies in the face of Paul just one chapter earlier (I Cor.10:1-4). All those who passed through the Red Sea (being baptized into Moses) partook of the same spiritual food and drink!

Doesn't get much simpler than that.

pmcleanj

5th April 2006, 03:40 PM

pmcleanj

6th April 2006, 08:11 AM

This is an official moderator post.

Please review the rules (http://www.christianforums.com/rules) of Christian Forums, with particular attention to rules 1 and 2; prior to resuming posting in this thread.

In particular, please note that your replies must be directed to the topic, and not at the person of those with whom you disagree.

Please refrain from overstating your position, provide the necessary objective support to validate any negative opinions you choose to express, and recognize the diversity within Anglicanism that is reflected within this community.

Regards,
Pamela

artrx

6th April 2006, 09:32 AM

FWIW, EO Baptize & Chrismate infants, who are then able to receive along with anyone else. There may be much I don't agree with within the EOC, but I think that their attitude of welcoming infants into full Communion within the Body of Christ is right on.:thumbsup:

They are works God does in us and for us. We make no spiritual contribution to them.

That's exactly my point. They depend on God, not us. That is why "believer's baptism" and not allowing children communion are not proper, in my view. God can baptise babies and be present in their eucharist too.

I fully agree!
Forgive me for rambling on a bit but this has been an issue close to my heart since I was a young child in the Baptist church. I clearly remember not understanding why I could not be baptised (not until 3rd grade in that church) nor partake of communion when I loved God with my whole heart and I thought He loved me too. I remember passing that plate in the pew and feeling so left out. I already sensed the grace of God in those acts and felt as if I somehow was "bad" or not good enough yet, at least, for God's complete love. Yes, I was only a young child but that "not being good enough" stayed with me for years.(in that was the seed of a long journey to the Episcopal Church and a radically different understanding of my Creator)

It was such a joy to baptise my infants and to let them begin to share in the Eucharist with the whole church when they desired to do so, which was very early on.
In the Episcopal churches we have been a part of it has been a fully accepted practice.

ContraMundum

6th April 2006, 10:33 AM

That's right. It is conditional in this passage. Paul teaches that in order for the adult Corinthians to partake worthily, they would need to start discerning the Body (those whom they were depriving). A conditional statement. It is not a doctrine of universal introspection that Paul is propounding here.

Even if you're point of view was correct, and it is pretty far off the mark, this alone would wreck your argument for infant communion because they have no way of discerning.

You just linked repentance with communion. I would assume, then, that you believe all infants belonging to those in the worldwide Anglican communion should be excommunicated and treated as tax collectors, publicans and sinners?

If there's one thing I hate it's hyperbole, which is insulting to my intelligence.

a) I didn't link repentance to communion- St Paul did.

b) I didn't invent the practice of offering communion only to penitent sinners in unity with the Church- St. Paul did.

c) The Anglican liturgy and practice has always agreed with St Paul.

d) The Anglican church does not excommunicate children, as they have not communicated yet. That's a silly comparison.

Right. The Corinthians who were partaking unworthily (not discerning the members of Christ's Body - like you) were guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

Pop quiz: Is the Body of the Lord in the bread of the eucharist or not? Does not the Greek grammar allow only that understanding or not? If you think I'm wrong, show me the Greek, and admonish the entire Western Church.

Failing to discern Christ's Body (His members / Bride) is one and the same as failing to discern Him sacramentally. (Cf. I Cor.10:16.)

Just because St. Paul draws a likeness of the communion with the koinonia of the Church does not mean that this is the only aspect of the doctrine he is focussing on. This is a grave mistake where "one text is the sum of all", an exegetical error. This error empties the other relevant texts of their substance and truth. A classic mistake done by JW's and the like.

We have already proven that St Paul is speaking of the sacrament itself in Chapter 11, and that the grammar demands no other understanding. This is a non-negotiable text. In any language, the rules of grammar determine the meaning, and in scripture of course there is no exception. Therefore chapter 11 tells us to discern the sacrament itself, whereas chapter 10 tells us to keep the fellowship pure.

The problem you have is that you accept Chapter 10 but have not accepted Ch 11. Both are true. Both are absolutely complimentary. Both speak of discerning, a point which alone nullifies your whole argument.
You mention this below:
Babies are incapable of failing to discern the Body of Christ's elect the way these adult Corinthians were. Your argument constitutes a simple red herring, and is completely ancillary the issue.

There is a classic argument from silence cogitated by darkened human reason and thus in fact a false syllogism.

You have no way of knowing how or when or if a baby can discern anything so deep as this. Yet, in no place anywhere in the texts cited does there allow anyone to partake without discerning. Not one place. The solution is not to allow those who cannot discern to partake because they cannot discern, but to be obedient to Christ's Apostle and practice communion the way he clearly sets out before us. St. Paul allows no loopholes here. To communicate, you must discern the body, examine oneself and recognise the sacarmental presence. If one lacks the ability to do so one is not given a loophole and thus allowed.

Simply put, your argument is unscriptural and follows your own wishes.

Doesn't get much simpler than that.

The practice of the Anglican communion is very simple indeed. We baptise our children, and when they come of age we confirm them and allow them communion. What you propose is a spiritual minefield. Here's the kicker- if we are wrong, no one gets hurt. If you are wrong.....

ContraMundum

6th April 2006, 10:47 AM

A lot of the what the pro-infant communion side seems ot be pushing is based an awful lot on emotions. As yet, we have not seen any clear text that counters St Paul's directive to examine oneself and discern the Body of Christ and the sacramental presence before partaking in communion.

For all the emotion which is part of who we are, and it's good to be in touch with your emotions, but I hate to say it, it doesn't equal true religion. I'm sure we all agree on that (we are, after all, Anglicans).

The other side of the coin is this appeal to wanting to be "primitive". We hear this a lot here- "let's be like the early church".

Well, if you were in the early church, you would have been dismissed (sent out) from the liturgy altogether before the Eucharist and this would have gone on for possibly years, even if you were an adult. Then, before you would be admitted to communion you would have to confess your sins- to the congregation- all of them. Then and only then would you have been admitted to communion. (I realise that some of the early Fathers taught infant communion, but again, only to Christian families and this practice was never universally accepted, and the Western Church stuck to St Paul's directives in a more plain sense).

Folks, I'm sorry if you felt left out as a child, sorry if you think your kids are missing out, sorry if you think they are entitled to communion or whatever. I sympathise, I do. But, according to the Church's understanding of scripture it was for your/their own good and we all have to undergo rites of passage in our lives. It seems like we all want everything NOW, which is our culture in a nutshell, but really, we should be more patient and careful when it comes to the Word of God.

TomUK

6th April 2006, 11:34 AM

:doh: How could i have missed this thread for so long? I'm going to have to go back and read 94 posts now...

higgs2

6th April 2006, 11:44 AM

The bottom line is, baptism is the only requirement for Communion. My children are baptised. They take communion. That is the reality that my family and I live weekly. Thanks be to God!

SirTimothy

6th April 2006, 12:06 PM

. As yet, we have not seen any clear text that counters St Paul's directive to examine oneself and discern the Body of Christ and the sacramental presence before partaking in communion.

I know I'm still eagerly waiting to hear the text...

SirTimothy

6th April 2006, 12:08 PM

The bottom line is, baptism is the only requirement for Communion. My children are baptised. They take communion. That is the reality that my family and I live weekly. Thanks be to God!

It's interesting, really. Lots of people quote tradition, but when 400 years of thoroughly Anglican tradition (i.e. the Book of Common Prayer) is quoted, it's discarded...

karen freeinchristman

6th April 2006, 12:11 PM

Well, all I have to say is...

:doh: How could i have missed this thread for so long? I'm going to have to go back and read 94 posts now...

:D

SirTimothy

6th April 2006, 12:15 PM

That'd be 100 posts now...

higgs2

6th April 2006, 12:29 PM

It's interesting, really. Lots of people quote tradition, but when 400 years of thoroughly Anglican tradition (i.e. the Book of Common Prayer) is quoted, it's discarded...
Huh? No one has quoted the BCP as saying children should not be given communion, Timothy. Or is that not what you are implying?

karen freeinchristman

6th April 2006, 12:31 PM

higgs2

6th April 2006, 12:42 PM

I do believe this may be what SirTimothy is referring to.

Oh. Well in my opinion, that would be a stretch. It seems to me that there would have to be an assumption made that anyone who is unable to examine their lives and repent of their sins is not eligible to receive communion.

That would include infants, I guess, because of an inability to understand that concept? But what about unconfirmed children, can't they examine their lives? What about unconfirmed adults? Is the requirement confirmation, or age?

*I* thought it was baptism, and baptism only. Or is that only for adults? If so, then what exactly is the point of baptising infants, anyhow? If they are grafted on to the vine of christ at baptism, and become our brothers and sisters in Christ, but cannot partake of the body and blood, they what exactly is the point?

What about people who do not have the mental capacity to do the above? The mentally handicapped adult with a mental age of 2? The woman with Alzheimer's who receives communion from our priest at her nursing home every week? The dying man in the hospital, almost unconcious and unable to speak, who recieves the bread and wine before receiving annointing or last rites?

SirTimothy

6th April 2006, 12:47 PM

Huh? No one has quoted the BCP as saying children should not be given communion, Timothy. Or is that not what you are implying?

Contra has quoted 400 years of Book of Common Prayer, Higgs. The 1611 is the definitive historic BCP.

ContraMundum

6th April 2006, 12:57 PM

Oh. Well in my opinion, that would be a stretch. It seems to me that there would have to be an assumption made that anyone who is unable to examine their lives and repent of their sins is not eligible to receive communion.

Exactly!

That would include infants, I guess, because of an inability to understand that concept? But what about unconfirmed children, can't they examine their lives? What about unconfirmed adults? Is the requirement confirmation, or age?

a) If the kids can examine their lives and wish to remain Christians, get them confirmed! Then the issue of eligibility for communion dissovles.

b) The BCP states regarding adults that being confirmed or desirous of confirmation is enough.

c) Of course, all Christians, bapitsed, confirmed or not must examine their conscience etc etc. for Holy Communion.

*I* thought it was baptism, and baptism only. Or is that only for adults? If so, then what exactly is the point of baptising infants, anyhow?

Salvation. We baptise babies to bring them to Christ.

If they are grafted on to the vine of christ at baptism, and become our brothers and sisters in Christ, but cannot partake of the body and blood, they what exactly is the point?

The point is to bring them to confirmation and communion, but not immediately. Those things require commitment and self-examination. Could you see this as a good thing? It's one way of helping to weed out nominalism.

What about people who do not have the mental capacity to do the above? The mentally handicapped adult with a mental age of 2? The woman with Alzheimer's who receives communion from our priest at her nursing home every week? The dying man in the hospital, almost unconcious and unable to speak, who recieves the bread and wine before receiving annointing or last rites?

Exceptions cannot prove the rule here.

Are they confirmed? This is an important question. If so, then why not allow them communion (but this is a matter of the pastor's discretion). If not, or not desirous of confirmation then why allow them at all?

higgs2

6th April 2006, 01:07 PM

Contra has quoted 400 years of Book of Common Prayer, Higgs. The 1611 is the definitive historic BCP.
ECUSA uses the 1979 BCP.

gtsecc

6th April 2006, 01:55 PM

The definitive BCP is the 1549 Book. ;)

AngCath

6th April 2006, 03:12 PM

The definitive BCP is the 1549 Book. ;)

good old gtsecc

higgs2

6th April 2006, 03:23 PM

higgs2

6th April 2006, 03:24 PM

good old gtsecc

How do you weigh in on this, Angcath?

higgs2

6th April 2006, 03:41 PM

Contra has quoted 400 years of Book of Common Prayer, Higgs. The 1611 is the definitive historic BCP.

And also, what 1611 book? Do you mean 1662? And 400 years? I think that is not correct. One or two phrases does not equal 400 years.

SirTimothy

6th April 2006, 04:15 PM

1662 I mean. Bah, I get the 1611 and 1662 muddled. 1662 to 2005... okay, it's 350 years, near enough. Still enough to say that it's authoritatively anglican.

AngCath

6th April 2006, 04:38 PM

1662 I mean. Bah, I get the 1611 and 1662 muddled. 1662 to 2005... okay, it's 350 years, near enough. Still enough to say that it's authoritatively anglican.

we'll forgive you... this time;)

gtsecc

6th April 2006, 05:26 PM

the BCPs are moving closer to the 1549 each step
For example, the 1979 is better than the 1662 book

Dewi Sant

6th April 2006, 05:30 PM

My book of common prayer is somewhat over due.

It talks about Queen Victoria and it ends at 1899. Very nicely leather bound.

ContraMundum

6th April 2006, 10:10 PM

The definitive BCP is the 1549 Book. ;)

That's the one we use and I hate it. :)

ContraMundum

6th April 2006, 10:17 PM

Well, we could go back to the original intention of baptism and confirmation being one rite done for infants like the EO. Theologically, the 1979 BCP is a step in that direction. And we could emphasize that confirmation is not a sacrament but a sacramental rite, not necessary for salvation.

OK, first of all, the "original intention of baptism and confirmation being one rite" is not exactly true. That was the case in some areas, but we trace our practice back to the Book of Acts, chapter 8 in particular. Although the Apostolic Church was experiencing the beginning of the new dispensation we do see that the laying on of hands of an Apostle completed the Samaritan converts and gave them the special gifts of the Holy Spirit. We do this in confirmation, when our bishops (which we consider to be the valid ministers in the succession of the Apostles) lay hands on our adult baptised for exactly the same reason.

This is not to say that the other practice is wrong- it's not. But, we are not talking about the formal reception of the Holy Spirit, but about people taking responsibility for their own call to follow Christ.

We could redefine "ready for confirmation" (Elizabeth Tudor was baptised and confirmed in a single ceremony before she was one year old and she seems pretty "Anglican").

I think there are mainly political reasons behind that incident, don't you?

ContraMundum

6th April 2006, 10:20 PM

And also, what 1611 book? Do you mean 1662? And 400 years? I think that is not correct. One or two phrases does not equal 400 years.

It must be pointed out that none of the Anglican Prayer Books made any innovation as to the practice of baptism and confirmation, so the BCP is in step and continuity with the prevailing practice of the Western Church that preceeded the Reformation and was well established, and thus, the practice is considered very ancient.

paleodoxy

6th April 2006, 10:34 PM

I know I'm still eagerly waiting to hear the text...

I already did that.

ContraMundum

6th April 2006, 10:38 PM

I already did that.

No, you didn't. You tried though, I'll give you that.

Check your work with other authorities my friend.

artrx

6th April 2006, 10:39 PM

If we put a bunch of requirements of belief on either one of those sacraments, it seems to me to contradict Grace and emphasize works.

I'm with higgs and others on this one.(I wanted to rep you numerous times but "they" wouldn't let me :P )

No human being can litmus test the hearts and minds of children or adults. Even the act of being confirmed can be a purfunctory social rite. Human requirements just highlight the "exceptions" and the inadequacy of our perceptions of others' purposes/hearts/minds. It was Jesus the biblical writters recorded as saying;
"Let the little children come to me and do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs" Luke 18:16
"whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me. If any of you put a stumbling block before on of these little ones who believe, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depth of the sea." Matt. 18:5,6
Yes, we are called to examine our hearts, but "examine" differs if you are a child, a MR adult, an average adult or a theological scholar. And as for unworthily, ultimately that is between the communicant and God, but I know I can never perfect myself for the Eucharist. I will recieve God's love and grace. I will be forgiven for sins known and unknown, and strengthened to go out and begin again. So will my children, even if they do not fully understand it - I don't fully understand it. Sometimes it's in the act of recieving that I am convicted about a change that needs to happen in my life.

For Western Christians to relax and yeild on this topic means that they are embracing a nominal Christianity, based on social values, rather than on spiritual, scriptural values. They are in effect saying that if you're baptised you're entitled to communion, regardless of your spiritual state.

This is a bit of a cynical sweeping generalization. Personally, I think there is alot more going on if you stop and listen to those you stereotype.

In the end, I think this is one issue where the differences in interpretation, spiritual experience and personal understanding lead me to agree to disagree. But that's nothing new in my world;) .

higgs2

6th April 2006, 10:41 PM

OK, first of all, the "original intention of baptism and confirmation being one rite" is not exactly true. That was the case in some areas, but we trace our practice back to the Book of Acts, chapter 8 in particular. Although the Apostolic Church was experiencing the beginning of the new dispensation we do see that the laying on of hands of an Apostle completed the Samaritan converts and gave them the special gifts of the Holy Spirit. We do this in confirmation, when our bishops (which we consider to be the valid ministers in the succession of the Apostles) lay hands on our adult baptised for exactly the same reason.

This is not to say that the other practice is wrong- it's not. But, we are not talking about the formal reception of the Holy Spirit, but about people taking responsibility for their own call to follow Christ.

I think there are mainly political reasons behind that incident, don't you?
Well, if the 'other practice' is not wrong, then I would think that communion for infants is not wrong either. :) :) :) lots of smilies so you'll know I'm trying not to be a jerk, but am really interested in the discussion :)

paleodoxy

6th April 2006, 10:42 PM

It's interesting, really. Lots of people quote tradition, but when 400 years of thoroughly Anglican tradition (i.e. the Book of Common Prayer) is quoted, it's discarded...

Every branch of Christianity has something good to offer. The fact that you and I are within the Anglican tradition does not mean that we get to automatically discard 2,000 years of Eastern paedo tradition; nor does it mean we get to discard roughly 1,000-1,200 years of Western paedo tradition.

This trumps 400 years of Anglican tradition.

The whole Church (prior to the split between East and West in 1054 A.D.) allowed / practiced paedocommunion.

The heretical doctrine of Transubstantion was a contributing impetus towards the abandonment of paedocommunion in the West. There is a great paper on this by Tommy Lee called, The History of Paedocommunion from the Early Church Until 1500, and an appendix to it entitled, The Theology of Paedocommunion.

I highly recommend anyone who is interested in this dialogue read them. Tommy Lee is a Presbyterian, BTW. There is a strong movement towards the practice even in Presbyterianism now.

You can google these, and they'll both come right up.

paleodoxy

PaladinValer

6th April 2006, 10:53 PM

I agree with paleorthodoxy's first section.

History shows paedocommunion was the norm back then. Why discontinue it?

The entire idea of "First Communion" is actually not Apostolic.

higgs2

6th April 2006, 11:03 PM

It must be pointed out that none of the Anglican Prayer Books made any innovation as to the practice of baptism and confirmation, so the BCP is in step and continuity with the prevailing practice of the Western Church that preceeded the Reformation and was well established, and thus, the practice is considered very ancient.
Huh? I've read this several time and am not getting it.

paleodoxy

7th April 2006, 12:12 AM

Check your work with other authorities my friend.

Ditto, my friend.

paleodoxy

7th April 2006, 12:29 AM

EARLY CHURCH SOURCES REGARDING INFANT COMMUNION:

I. Gennadius of Marseilles (495 A.D.)

"But if they are infants (parvuli)6 , or so dull as not to take in teaching, let those who offer them answer for them, after the manner of one about to be baptized; and so, fortified by the laying on of hands and chrism, let them be admitted to the mysteries of the Eucharist."7

II. St. Augustine (354-430 A.D.):

"Those who say that infancy has nothing in it for Jesus to save, are denying that Christ is Jesus for all believing infants. Those, I repeat, who say that infancy has nothing in it for Jesus to save, are saying nothing else than that for believing infants, infants that is who have been baptized in Christ, Christ the Lord is not Jesus. After all, what is Jesus? Jesus means Savior. Jesus is the Savior. Those whom he doesn't save, having nothing to save in them, well for them he isn't Jesus. Well now, if you can tolerate the idea that Christ is not Jesus for some persons who have been baptized, then I'm not sure your faith can be recognized as according with the sound rule. Yes, they're infants, but they are his members. They're infants, but they receive his sacraments. They are infants, but they share in his table, in order to have life in themselves."36

III. Cyprian (c. 250 A.D.):

"Could the servant of God, who had already renounced the devil and the world, stand there and speak and renounce Christ?... But for many their own destruction was not enough... And that nothing might be lacking to cap the crime, infants also, placed in the arms of parents or led by them, lost as little ones what they had gained at the very first beginning of their nativity. When the day of judgment comes, will they not say: 'We have done nothing; we have not abandoned the Lord's bread and cup and of our own accord hastened to profane the contaminations. The perfidy of others has ruined us...'".

IV. Clement of Rome (c.90 A.D.):

Regarding Clement, Tommy Lee comments and quotes, at length:

We find further primary evidence in favor of the early practice of paedocommunion in the Apostolic Constitutions. This work is attributed to Clement of Rome (c.90), but was actually compiled by "an Eastern Arian in the late fourth century."27 The twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth chapters of the eighth book of the Constitutions describe an early church communion service. According to this account, no non-communicating persons may remain in attendance for the observance of the Lord's Supper. Before the eucharist may be observed, the deacon must say, "Let none of the catechumens, let none of the hearers, let none of the unbelievers, let none of the heterodox, stay here."28 We notice immediately that there is no direction given that would preclude infants and young children from the upcoming ceremony.

On the contrary, after the catechumens, hearers, unbelievers, and heterodox depart, the deacon begins the service by inviting the remaining believers with the following words (all italics are mine): "Let the mothers receive their children; let no one have anything against any one; let no one come in hypocrisy; let us stand upright before the Lord with fear and trembling, to offer."29 What follows next is a very careful, comprehensive, four-and-a-half page long prayer. Near the end of the prayer, the people in attendance are prayed for ("this people"30) according to their differing circumstances. The minister prays, "for those that are in virginity and purity; for the widows of the Church; for those in honourable marriage and childbearing; for the infants of Thy people...".31 It is striking to note how the infants and children of the church were included in every aspect of this service. And lest we suspect that the infants and children were present but did not commune, the author of the Constitutions then describes the order in which those present were to come to the Lord's Supper. "And after that, 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."32 Far from being excluded, the children were communicated before the adults without a special "office" of some type.

After everyone had participated in the communion service, the bishop gave thanks again to God and prayed once more for the people. Included in this prayer are the following words: "sanctify Thy people, keep those that are in virginity, preserve those in the faith that are in marriage, strengthen those that are in purity, bring the infants to complete age, confirm the newly admitted; instruct the catechumens, and render them worthy of admission...".33 Again we see the infants included in the communion prayers, but what is especially remarkable about this prayer is that the infants are set apart from the catechumens whom God must prepare for admission into the Lord's Supper. We see no prayer that God would make the infants and young children "worthy of admission" one day. They are born into the church and naturally included in the church's communion service.