Followup to St Gregorory's- confirmation

[TomUK]

A day or so ago a link was posted to St Gregory's Episcopalian church. An Orthodox Christian was concerned that these Anglican's were painting what they named 'icons' on the walls, and the Orthodox Christians' were disturbed by these 'icons'. After reading all the links regarding this matter, and researching the church in question, i became i bit concerned. There were a number of doctrines i was concerned with. However, in this message, i wish to discuss the receiving of the eucharist.

In their website, St Gregory's mentioned that communion could be received by all those who wished to recieve. However, i always assumed that communion was received in a similar way to the catholic church ie. receiving the sacrement of baptism and them confirmation. Is confirmation a requirement in the Anglican church. I personally believe that not only should it be a requirement, but it is a must. However, from what i've read this doesn't seem to be the case.

Do other Anglicans have any thoughts?

[Polycarp1]

The Canons of the church provide that one need be only a Baptized Christian to receive the Sacrament. Many parishes commune children at the age their parents feel it appropriate for them to receive the Sacrament, and delay confirmation until youths are well into their teens, and able to make an adult commitment.

It is, however, the norm that persons should be confirmed or preparing for Confirmation if of an age to receive it to regularly, and a rector or vicar will speak to people who are becoming active members about entering into preparation for Confirmation.

(BA or a Catholic passing through -- I think this is the standard in the Catholic Church also; is that true?)

[Plan 9]

Hi! :wave: UMC lurker present! http://sevenofnine.cherrytaco.com/Miscellanea/Emoticons/icon_crazy.gif

[Philip]

The Canons of the church provide that one need be only a Baptized Christian to receive the Sacrament. Many parishes commune children at the age their parents feel it appropriate for them to receive the Sacrament,

Can an infant receive the Eucharist?

[Polycarp1]

Can an infant receive the Eucharist?
That would be at the discretion of parents and priest, and presumably the Bishop if he desires to intervene.

I have seen pre-school children receive communion -- some on whom it didn't make an impact, some who were wide-eyed and (relatively) solemn, clearly recognizing that it was Something Important even if they might not grasp exactly how. (And in a nutshell, doesn't that describe all of us? -- even the Catholic with a scholarly knowledge of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, or the Anglican or Orthodox equipped with the wisdom of the Church Fathers, doesn't understand the Holy Mystery fully, as God does.)

[Rilian]

In their website, St Gregory's mentioned that communion could be received by all those who wished to recieve. However, i always assumed that communion was received in a similar way to the catholic church ie. receiving the sacrement of baptism and them confirmation. Is confirmation a requirement in the Anglican church. I personally believe that not only should it be a requirement, but it is a must. However, from what i've read this doesn't seem to be the case.

Maybe it's the way I'm reading it, but what the site appears to be saying to me is that not only is confirmation not required but that baptism itself is not.

[Polycarp1]

Maybe it's the way I'm reading it, but what the site appears to be saying to me is that not only is confirmation not required but that baptism itself is not.
You may well be right. But what I said is the standard of American canon law. To judge the Episcopal Church by what St. Gregory's does is about equivalent to thinking that Orthodoxy as a whole affirms the practice of "St. Philip's Pentecostal Apostolic Orthodox Church"!!! ;)

[Rilian]

Polycarp, we prefer "St. Philip's Pentecostal Apostolic Orthodox Fire Baptized Ministries International" which is the full name. ;)

[PaladinValer]

Yo Seven of Nine! :wave: Beam on down will ya? Voyager's gotta get boring every once in a while! ;)

Anyone, IMO, can receive the Eucharist so long as he or she has been baptized and is of an age to at least begin to understand the Mysteries and doctrines behind the Body and Blood, (10-13 min?). My parish currently is running a "Communion Class" for youths of this age range to instruct them and younger. I think understanding the Eucharist is important for every member of the Church.

[pmcleanj]

I personally believe that not only should it be a requirement, but it is a must.
We believe in one baptism for the remission of our sins. Our understanding of that clear declaration is that baptism is Sacrament: an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace. The grace is given by God. God's action is not contingent on any understanding or competence on the recipients part. There for we baptize infants, knowing that the baptismal sacrament is effective and sufficient.

We believe in one baptism, because baptism is the means by which the believer is grafted onto the Church, which is the body of Christ. In the 1662 catechism we say "...at my baptism, wherein I was made a child of God, a member of Christ, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven." Note that we don't say that baptism and confirmation are the means whereby we become members of the church. Baptism in our Tradition is sufficient.

We also say that the Lord's Supper is generally necessary for salvation, and that it too is a Sacrament. The grace of the Eucharist is no more contingent upon the communicant's understanding than is the grace of baptism.

If we truly believe that baptism is sufficient, and that the Eucharistic sacrament is effective, then witholding communion from unconfirmed persons is inconsistent, and changes our basic understanding of catholic theology.

The identification of confirmation with understanding and maturation is actually a recent phenomenon. Traditionally, confirmation merely completes the baptism, by adding the Bishop's seal on the sacrament that the Priest or minister performed. Traditionally, it was done the next time the Bishop made a pastoral visit to the home-church or home of the newly baptized. Queen Elizabeth I, for example, was confirmed at one month of age. The association of communion with "understanding" is also recent. What is required of communicants is not "understanding", but rather that they approach the table "with a full faith in God's mercy, and with a quiet conscience." An infant's faith and conscience are more easily satisfied than an adult's, so an adult must spend more mature diligence in examining his conscience. That doesn't constitute a reason to bar the infant from the table!

Orthodox babies are chrismated and communed on the day of their baptism. The chrismation is considered equivalent to the western rite of confirmation. Many anglican churches are recovering this practice (in addition to retaining confirmation by episcopal laying-on of hands). A silver spoon teaspoon may be left on the alter so that infants can be communed with a drop of wine and a crumb of bread delivered by the spoon.

My babies' first food apart from breastmilk was the Body and Blood of their Lord!

[pmcleanj]

It is, however, the norm that persons should be confirmed or preparing for Confirmation if of an age to receive it to regularly
This was certainly the norm, and also the common praxis, until fifty years ago. The 1662 rubrics do not restrict communion to confirmed persons. Confirmation is not listed in the 1662 Catechism under the answer to "What is required of those who come to the Lord's Supper". The rubrics do emphasise the *duty* of confirmed persons to receive communion "regularly". The same rubric expresses the duty of priests and deacons to receive at least weekly. Thus we see an increasing emphasis on diligence in attendance at the Lord's Supper with increasing commitment to ministry. Over the Victorian and Edwardian periods that sense of duty became confused with privilege.

Like much of the liturgical reform in the 1970's, the understanding of communion as a privilege restricted to the confirmed was re-examined and the norm of communion of the baptized was largely restored. I travel widely and attend church whenever and whereever possible. Practice varies from church to church and diocese to diocese. In most congregations I have visited all baptized persons are invited to the table, and confirmation is not even mentioned as a requirement. Nor is it mentioned as a requirement or even a consideration in the Book of Alternative services (and I would be very surprised if the rubrics of your 1979 prayer book suggest that confirmation is a desirable prerequisite to communion).

The norm in the Roman Catholic church is First Communion following instruction, at about age 7, with confirmation between age 11 (apparently most common) and 15 (preferred by many scholars).

[PaladinValer]

IMO, Confirmation should wait until around 16 or 17 years old. The level of abstracts necessary to understand is quite demanding, and most kids younger than 16 haven't matured enough yet. Heck, the human brain doesn't become fully cognitive until around 17, sometimes later with some folks. As such, youths should wait until their mid-late teens before Confirmation so that they will be able to comprehend everything. Christianity isn't, after all, an easy walk.

[pmcleanj]

And in a nutshell, doesn't that describe all of us? -- even the Catholic with a scholarly knowledge of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, or the Anglican or Orthodox equipped with the wisdom of the Church Fathers, doesn't understand the Holy Mystery fully, as God does.

This hits the nail on the head. A Mystery is just that: it isn't something that one "understands". We also need to be careful of associating solemnity with seriousness or faithfulness. Remember, the Son of Man came eating and drinking! An anecdote:

My part-time son was baptized at age 5 at a church that does not practice child communion. After, on the way home from church, my daughters were chattering about how now we are all children of God. Part-time son said "No! Anne is, and Rachel is, and Auntie Pamela is, but I'm not." I reassured him that indeed through baptism he was a child of God, and he replied "Oh yeah? Then how come I didn't get the holy bread, hunh?" Now there was nothing solemn (ever) about his manner or words, but he clearly understood that membership in the family, and welcome at the family table, are tightly, vitally linked concepts.

[pmcleanj]

IMO, Confirmation should wait until around 16 or 17 years old. The level of abstracts necessary to understand is quite demanding, and most kids younger than 16 haven't matured enough yet. Heck, the human brain doesn't become fully cognitive until around 17, sometimes later with some folks. As such, youths should wait until their mid-late teens before Confirmation so that they will be able to comprehend everything. Christianity isn't, after all, an easy walk.
And that is consistent with the modern understanding of confirmation as a rite of passage into mature Christianity, even as a kind of "lay ordination" whereby the mature Christian is set aside for his personal ministry, whatever that may be. The physical analog between clerical ordination (by episcopal laying-on of hands) and confirmation (also by episcopal laying-on of hands) makes this a powerful analogy. It's an understanding of confirmation that has great appeal to me, and that I support as a modern innovation.

It just doesn't happen to be the Traditional understanding of confirmation. Confirmation is Traditionally understood as an initiatory rite; the "completion" of the rite of baptism but without any suggestion that the act of baptism is somehow insufficient without it. Confirmation, as a result, occupies a rather uncomfortable niche. It's been described by many theologians as a sacrament in search of meaning.

I don't see why being set aside to pick up your adult ministry can't be seen as a completion of baptism -- surely that's how our baptism *should* be completed. But there is by no means a consensus on this interpretation.

[BAChristian]

The Canons of the church provide that one need be only a Baptized Christian to receive the Sacrament. Many parishes commune children at the age their parents feel it appropriate for them to receive the Sacrament, and delay confirmation until youths are well into their teens, and able to make an adult commitment.

It is, however, the norm that persons should be confirmed or preparing for Confirmation if of an age to receive it to regularly, and a rector or vicar will speak to people who are becoming active members about entering into preparation for Confirmation.

(BA or a Catholic passing through -- I think this is the standard in the Catholic Church also; is that true?)
Basically, yeah. There are some caveats to being able to receive our Lord, such as being excommunicated. If one is in a state of grave sin, one should not receive the Lord as receiving Him would be doing so, "unworthy"...if one is not in communion with the Catholic Church, then one should not receive the Lord, as doing so would be "unworthy"...

The age of reason, if I recall correctly, is 7 or 8 years of age. At that point, the child enrolls in RCIC (Rite of Christian Initiation of Children) and goes through Faith Formation for two years. The parents are in classes with them too. After two years of study, they receive the Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Eucharist during the Easter Vigil...

Confirmation for children who were baptized as infants occurs later on as well. However, First Holy Communion happens at a younger age.

[ufonium2]

To judge the Episcopal Church by what St. Gregory's does is about equivalent to thinking that Orthodoxy as a whole affirms the practice of "St. Philip's Pentecostal Apostolic Orthodox Church"!!! ;)
Except St. Philip's PAOC isn't part of the Orthodox communion. There are churches almost like St. Gregory's with "Orthodox" in their name ("St." John Coltrane "Orthodox" Church comes to mind, why are all of these things in California?) but they aren't canonical, don't have valid bishops, and aren't in communion with the rest of Orthodoxy. I was hoping St. Gregory's was like that, until I saw the letter from an actual bishop telling people how great it was.