Baptism and Communion

everbecoming2007 · May 7, 2016

Additional thoughts:

I don't mean this in a theological sense as we are discussing in part unmerited grace by way of the sacraments, but isn't it better to work for the prize rather than get something for nothing? Again I am not speaking theologically here and understand that we do not earn the graces of holy communion. But even on a purely social level having to take time to prepare and wait to actually join a community before partaking in their communal rituals better impresses on the person not only a sense of obligation but of belonging. I think this is at the root of why I initially desired to wait for communion once being instructed in the Episcopal faith even though I had already been introduced to a different custom. It was a very special day to finally be able to commune at the altar with people I had come to know, some as friends. I'm sure it wouldn't have been nearly as uplifting if I had simply been allowed to partake the moment I walked in the door without any preparation, guidance, or obligation. In fact, once I realized the significance of the sacrament and wanted to make it a regular part of my life I knew I didn't want to be Methodist. The irony.

CanadianAnglican · May 8, 2016

I think you raise a good point in that there certainly is something to the experience of being welcomed into God's family through the waters of Baptism, and then immediately to be fed, for the first time, by the Body and Blood. I have heard similar arguments being made about pre-marital sex and cohabitation lessening the significance of marriage and Holy Matrimony, because if you and your fiancée are living (and sleeping) together prior to marriage, in practical terms very little changes after the wedding and it can really cheapen the meaning of it.

In the same way, we have all but done away with the rites of Christian initiation used in the Early Church (though these are still preserved in the Christian East and Roman Catholic Church, to certain degrees). So in a sense, there's little wonder that people don't seem to see a need to wait, and may unwittingly be spoiling their reception of the Sacrament.

As I was reading through your posts, Everbecoming, I was also reminded of an analogy I've heard regarding Baptism and the Eucharist that is pertinent to our broader discussion of Communion before Baptism. If Baptism is our spiritual rebirth, then the Eucharist is the way in which we are nourished spiritually. How can we be nourished spiritually if we haven't yet been born?

graceandpeace · May 10, 2016

I just wanted to chime in & say so far, this has been a good discussion. Very charitable responses without accusing any members or their churches of being wrong, of "straying" from the faith, etc. Good job! :clap:

Padres1969 · May 10, 2016

Paidiske said:
I guess that's the thing; if people are moved to want to come to communion, and they are not baptised, is it not a good thing to encourage them to the font anyway? And if they will not come to the font, are they truly ready for the table?

But I do believe that partaking unworthily - whatever that means - can actually be detrimental, rather than simply a neutral event. So I have that in the back of my mind as well.

Yeah I'm of two minds on this particular issue. On the one hand, particularly having been raised Catholic, I absolutely see the value in baptism first, then Eucharist. And by extension your concerns about receiving unworthily if not baptized and having received some form of confession/absolution. And indeed Eucharist is called communion as an alternative title for a reason, as it's a sign of communion with the church you're receiving in.

At the same time I can see the value on the other side as well. As was pointed out we don't necessarily know all 12 apostles had been baptized before they received the bread and wine at the Last Supper. And as my particular church already practices the completely open communion (they welcome everyone to the table who feels ready to receive with no public reference to baptism (though they do prefer if you've been baptized if you ask the clergy)), I've seen how trans-formative receiving the body and blood can be for people who aren't in full communion with the church at the time (or even baptized). For some it does lead to the font (or confirmation/reception into communion).

CanadianAnglican · May 10, 2016

Padres, that is interesting? When you say your particular church practices open communion what do you mean? Your particular parish of the Episcopal Church? Or what particular tradition/communion are you in?

In terms of allowing the practice, what considerations are made for the negative consequences of unworthy reception? Does the priest, before inviting people forward, say "any Christian who desires may receive here" or do they say something like, "If you have examined your conscience and believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, you may receive here," as I'm quite curious how that would work out.

everbecoming2007 · May 10, 2016

CanadianAnglican said:
I think you raise a good point in that there certainly is something to the experience of being welcomed into God's family through the waters of Baptism, and then immediately to be fed, for the first time, by the Body and Blood. I have heard similar arguments being made about pre-marital sex and cohabitation lessening the significance of marriage and Holy Matrimony, because if you and your fiancée are living (and sleeping) together prior to marriage, in practical terms very little changes after the wedding and it can really cheapen the meaning of it.

In the same way, we have all but done away with the rites of Christian initiation used in the Early Church (though these are still preserved in the Christian East and Roman Catholic Church, to certain degrees). So in a sense, there's little wonder that people don't seem to see a need to wait, and may unwittingly be spoiling their reception of the Sacrament.

As I was reading through your posts, Everbecoming, I was also reminded of an analogy I've heard regarding Baptism and the Eucharist that is pertinent to our broader discussion of Communion before Baptism. If Baptism is our spiritual rebirth, then the Eucharist is the way in which we are nourished spiritually. How can we be nourished spiritually if we haven't yet been born?

I tend to think (as do some more redormed Anglicans I think) that sometimes spiritual birth precedes baptism. But even in that case baptism is necessary to profess the faith publically and communally. Faith and salvation are not merely private so there would be no change in this view regarding the sacraments.

CanadianAnglican · May 10, 2016

"You must be born of water and the spirit" is 100% unequivocally understood by the early Church to mean Baptism. That is not to say that God's grace cannot indwell a person prior to baptism but that second birth referred to in Holy Scripture is the Baptism instituted by Christ himself.

The view you suggest there is relatively common among protestants who reject the sacraments (birth by water = natural birth from the mother; birth by the Spirit is the moment of profession of the Lordship of Christ), but I don't know how you could reconcile that with Anglicanism's statements on Holy Baptism.

Padres1969 · May 10, 2016

CanadianAnglican said:
Padres, that is interesting? When you say your particular church practices open communion what do you mean? Your particular parish of the Episcopal Church? Or what particular tradition/communion are you in?

In terms of allowing the practice, what considerations are made for the negative consequences of unworthy reception? Does the priest, before inviting people forward, say "any Christian who desires may receive here" or do they say something like, "If you have examined your conscience and believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, you may receive here," as I'm quite curious how that would work out.

When I say church I'm referring to my particular Episcopal parish (ECUSA). Our bishop in San Diego has apparently authorized this particular prayer to be said in invitation to the congregation (as I've seen him say it with no objection when he visits our parish).

This is the table, not of the church but of Jesus Christ
It is made ready for those who love him and who want to love him more.
So come, you have have much faith and you who have little;
You who have been here often
and you who have not been for a long time or ever before;
You who have tried to follow and you who have failed;
Come, not because the Church invites you;
It is Christ, and he invites you to meet him here.

As for any other particular considerations of worthiness, as the confession and absolution is generally said at some point in the service prior to this point it's not generally given further consideration during the service.

Fish and Bread · May 10, 2016

The best argument for opening communion to the unbaptized is, in my view, this:

We are all God's children. God welcomes all of his children to his table without precondition.

To me, that's a beautiful sentiment, and perhaps the sort of thing that is worthy of serious consideration when setting church policy.

Also, just on a side note, when St. Paul (in scripture) talked about people who receive unworthily doing so to their detriment, it was in a context of earlier in the chapter "calling out" those Corithians who were said to be bringing their own bread and wine to be consecration and not sharing with the poor, or crowding them out from the table, and then eating until they were full and drinking until they were quite drunk. So, what his message may have been overall is that it is harmful to your soul to treat communion like any other meal, or a drunken feast, and so in that context worthy reception could simply mean to receive respectfully in a manner that recognizes that something sacred is occurring, and with respect, consideration, and inclusion to and of other members of the community regardless of their financial standing.

Plus, it might be worth thinking about whether God is still speaking and whether the bible is the last word on the limits of grace, or the beginning of a movement that is still progressing forward to spread ever more grace.

Just some things that I didn't see mentioned that I thought merited inclusion. I am not trying to dismiss the very good arguments that others have made on the other side of the coin earlier in the thread.

FireDragon76 · May 28, 2016

That's a good point, F&B. I tend to agree with that sentiment. It's ultimately Jesus' table. I can understand why the early church practiced a closed communion but I don't think that is universally applicable in all situations. I do agree that its preferable to be baptized first, but there are many people that are so marginalized that it's not realistic to expect them to be able to complete a lengthy process of religious conversion. And they need to receive the grace of the sacrament, they are the one lost sheep that the 99 need to wait on.

Albion · May 28, 2016

FireDragon76 said:
That's a good point, F&B. I tend to agree with that sentiment. It's ultimately Jesus' table. I can understand why the early church practiced a closed communion but I don't think that is universally applicable in all situations. I do agree that its preferable to be baptized first, but there are many people that are so marginalized that it's not realistic to expect them to be able to complete a lengthy process of religious conversion. And they need to receive the grace of the sacrament, they are the one lost sheep that the 99 need to wait on.

I want to be sympathetic to that view, but why wouldn't we also take note of the fact that Christ instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper which was attended only by a small body of select devotees, the same men whom Christ was to commission to bring the faith to the world?

Had he instead used the 'loaves and fishes' event or another occasion similar to it...or at least done it in public view as was the case when the other sacrament was ordained at the River Jordan, I could probably see this differently. As it is, though, it looks very much as though it was Christ's intention to keep this most mystical of observances special.

CanadianAnglican · May 28, 2016

Couldn't it equally said that while we are all God's creation, we only become his children when we are washed by the waters of Baptism?

FireDragon76 · May 28, 2016

Albion said:
I want to be sympathetic to that view, but why wouldn't we also take note of the fact that Christ instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper which was attended only by a small body of select devotees, the same men whom Christ was to commission to bring the faith to the world?

Firstly, there's a lot of disputes among those who accept the historical-critical method just how the Eucharist came about. The consensus on the liberal side of the spectrum is that it grew out of Jesus practices of eating with a wide variety of people, particularly social outcasts.

But even if we take the accounts at face value, I still don't see how it follows that Christ necessarily intended communion to be only a closed fellowship. Using that sort of logic, we might only commune twelve bishops who were descendants of the 12 apostles.

To answer these questions, I believe, requires a lot of theological inquiry and analysis of our presuppositions, and can't simply be deduced from the Scriptures themselves.

everbecoming2007 · May 28, 2016

FireDragon76 said:
Firstly, there's a lot of disputes among those who accept the historical-critical method just how the Eucharist came about. The consensus on the liberal side of the spectrum is that it grew out of Jesus practices of eating with a wide variety of people, particularly social outcasts.

But even if we take the accounts at face value, I still don't see how it follows that Christ necessarily intended communion to be only a closed fellowship. Using that sort of logic, we might only commune twelve bishops who were descendants of the 12 apostles.

To answer these questions, I believe, requires a lot of theological inquiry and analysis of our presuppositions, and can't simply be deduced from the Scriptures themselves.

We deduce from scripture that the Apostles and other ministers in turn shared communion with congregations of converts. We see no example of them giving communion to outsiders, and we know in the early church consecration wasn't even witnessed by outsiders.

As to the historical-critical theories you mention one is that there were many very different Eucharistic traditions with varying interpretations. In some ways of thinking the Didache would be an early eucharistic meal without reference to the Body and Blood, an example of a variant tradition.

If we accept this model of historical development of the Eucharist as accurate and accept the open meals of Jesus as Eucharists I would say that probably represented a different tradition than the Last Supper accounts where the meal is held in secret. Again, early Eucharists were also secret, not witnessed by the uninitiated.

If there were early on multiple varying interpretations of the Eucharist then what might be appropriate for one tradition may not be for another. A Eucharist based on Jesus' public meals might make a case for an open communion in the way Quakers think of it, that every meal is a communion, but that wouldn't work for a Eucharist modeled on early secretive communion services believed to be instituted by Jesus at the Last Supper, and that is exactly the type of Eucharist under discussion here.

Again, if the public meals of Jesus really were early variant Eucharistic traditions as hypothesized by some then that is simply a different tradition not all of the customs of which may be interchangeable with our own eucharistic tradition. There is nothing to stop us offering an open potluck lunch or tea after a closed Communion.

Albion · May 28, 2016

everbecoming2007 said:
We deduce from scripture that the Apostles and other ministers in turn shared communion with congregations of converts. We see no example of them giving communion to outsiders, and we know in the early church consecration wasn't even witnessed by outsiders.

This is true, so there's a powerful presumption that the very early church did know the mind of Christ and did not consider whom to commune to be an open or unsettled matter. Further, the idea that the ORIGIN of the sacrament might not have been thought to be the Last Supper is simply not credible, whatever else might be said about it.

Paidiske · May 29, 2016

FireDragon76 said:
I do agree that its preferable to be baptized first, but there are many people that are so marginalized that it's not realistic to expect them to be able to complete a lengthy process of religious conversion.

Something about this bothers me... I don't pretend to have all the answers here, so I'm really just outlining some questions. But if people are so marginalised, what does that mean? Why are we not able to bring them in from the margins? Is this where we might find a place for a healthy catechumenal process, where people find a place in the community even as they prepare to be more deeply identified with that community? Why do we say that we can't expect them to go through a lengthy process - do we think that a short cut will somehow work better?

I think, for example, of the process of conversion to Judaism (which makes just about any Christian practice look tame) and yet those who are sincerely motivated do convert. If we make our own processes and expectations smaller and smaller so that no one could possibly claim it to be too hard, do we in fact make them less meaningful or cheapen them?

Not simple things. But I'm bothered by the idea that we can't expect anything/much of people who might come. In the end, our faith expects a great deal of us; at what point should that be made real in the believer's experience?

everbecoming2007 · May 29, 2016

Albion said:
Further, the idea that the ORIGIN of the sacrament might not have been thought to be the Last Supper is simply not credible, whatever else might be said about it.

The origin must have been thought to be the Last Supper as you have said: early liturgies and the synoptics indicate as much.

Of course early on in the Church there were sects and theological controversies. We see this reflected even in our scriptures. As to conflicting Eucharistic traditions (different rituals or interpretations) so far the only source I vaguely recall reading that I am fairly sure is accurate is a reference by an early father criticizing a group that used water instead of wine. Still, they had the same belief about the Eucharist and they were thought to be misguided or ignorant, but not heretical.

Other than that I am certain that some groups we call gnostics had different eucharistic traditions altogether, but this is a relatively late development: these groups are usually thought to have existed in the second century C.E. and later.

As to discrepant Eucharistic traditions very early on, I do not know. I would wish to know how we can tell early said traditions were thought to actually be the Eucharist or whether they represented perhaps another custom altogether. It is not something I have deeply studied, only something I am aware of and will learn more about soon.

But even conceding those theories for the sake of argument it makes little sense to cite a variant tradition and its customs as the reason for changing the customs of a separate and parallel tradition that has likewise developed from ancient times and that we actually *know* as well as we can know anything historically is actually an early established tradition *and* a living one.

Baptism and Communion

Well-Known Member

Evangelical charismatic Anglican Catholic

Episcopalian

Episcopalian

Evangelical charismatic Anglican Catholic

Well-Known Member

Evangelical charismatic Anglican Catholic

Episcopalian

Dona nobis pacem

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Evangelical charismatic Anglican Catholic

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Clara bonam audax

Well-Known Member

Similar threads