Baptism and Communion

[everbecoming2007]

I know I've raised this issue before, but I have wanted to for some time approach this topic with a cooler head.

I expect the ECUSA to eventually make provision for communion without baptism, probably as an exception to the norm. There are various reasons I oppose this. Even if it is somehow justifiable I have my doubts that such a change would occur for the right reasons which can be just as important as coming to the right conclusions.

But I do want to consider some other issues. Is scripture, our highest authority, silent on this matter? Were the apostles baptized at the Last Supper which is said to have occurred prior to the birth of the Church and thus baptism itself as we know it?

I do have some thoughts emerging on these issues particularly the last question, but will leave those for when a discussion progresses.

There is another factor I am considering, but I am not sure how significant it is when weighing this matter because it is confined to a private and personal experience. Before my faith came to fruition a very small Methodist congregation regularly communed me as it is their practice to welcome all to their altars, and I developed a faith through the process in the sacrament. I can remember a moment when that realization occurred at the altar and I was very joyous as I walked home. I could not return there for some difficult years and always remembered kneeling and taking that sacrament and how comforting it was. Therefore I was later baptized into the Episcopal Church. I do believe the holy Eucharist is a true and valid sacrament of communion at Methodist altars.

While I was in the process of private instruction by the priest I very gladly refrained from receiving Communion not only in the Episcopal Church but in the Methodist Church when I visited for a Christmas Eve service with extended family even though I wished to receive and I knew Methodists allow it. I should note that prior to my formation I do not remember ever considering that one should be baptized for communion, which might be significant.

How significant is such a private experience in weighing a theological and disciplinary matter such as this one, especially in regard to the sacraments?

 

[Paidiske]

I think private experience can be significant in forming your own views... but it may not be convincing to others. I, too, for a complicated bunch of reasons had communion before I was baptised. I view that now as having been irregular but pastorally sensitive.

There's a saying that extreme cases make bad law. I think that in general, the new testament pattern is of baptism before joining the community of faith (and therefore receiving communion). That seems to me to be appropriate and healthy as a norm, but I would not want to go so far as to say nobody should ever make an exception.

Why is ECUSA considering formalising a provision for this? What is the argument being put forward?

 

[graceandpeace]

I struggled with this question for a long time, & I think at this point in my journey there are two thoughts that come to mind.

First, I can see both sides of the theological argument. I understand why some favor "closed communion" vs "open communion." I'm willing to guess you know both sides, too, so I feel no need to repeat them here.

Second, I favor tradition, but not more than I favor welcoming others to respond to grace. We look to Scripture/tradition/reason. IMO, the pattern of baptism before communion is not clearly laid out in the Bible, though I accept it as tradition. So then the question for me is, if the Bible is not clear, does reason (or experience) support keeping the tradition?

Note, I do not equate "open communion" with welcoming others. But, I have asked myself what would devastate me more: the possibility of welcoming an unbaptized person to partake, or the possibility of turning someone away from the table? The latter bothers me more than the former. What if we turn away someone who was responding to God's grace?

My first church experience ever was in a UMC. They practice "open communion." I was always invited to the table, though personally I never went forward because I was much younger & wasn't really comfortable with partaking. When a family member from another Christian tradition accompanied me to an Episcopal church, I asked if they wanted to go to the table & they opted not to go.

So, I think even if the table is defined as open to all, that doesn't mean all - baptized or not - will come forward anyway. On the flip side, I know more than one person who remembers being in a RCC & can recall being specifically told they were not welcome to partake.

I guess my feeling is that if tradition impedes someone from responding to (what may be) the Spirit moving them, we ought to think carefully about that. I don't have a problem with baptism before communion as the norm, but if TEC as a whole decided to open the table to all, I would hope the importance of baptism would still be communicated.

 

[Paidiske]

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.

 

[everbecoming2007]

Why is ECUSA considering formalising a provision for this? What is the argument being put forward?

I don't know if the discussions taking place are public, but what I've been reading seems to boil down to an argument from hospitality. I do not find it very convincing since there are many ways to communicate hospitality. In my opinion it would be a less radical change to adapt existing traditions or invent new ones similar to the antidoron than to alter the order of the sacraments of initiation. After the liturgy I see no reason a parish could not invent its own traditions of hospitality for outsiders: doing so outside of the liturgy would not require any changes or new traditions to be invented on a national level at all, I would think. And like you said, we do have a belief in our tradition that the sacrament can be received unworthily: offering it without caution is not hospitable. And if we really believe in and cherish this sacrament we should take care that it is respected to avoid profaning what is holy.

In many places we already offer personal blessings during communion at the altar. The pro-change argument usually goes, "Why invite someone to the table if (s)he is not invited to eat?" A more traditionally minded person may agree and reply that we should not give personal blessings during communion since the purpose of the table is clearly for communicants and a blessing is offered at the end of the Eucharistic liturgy for everyone.

Oftentimes Jesus' ministry and meals with sinners are offered as an example of radical hospitality and thus open communion. These types of arguments are the most common.

Some try to make an argument from prevenient grace, particularly those from Wesleyan traditions or who have been influenced by them. Wesley described God's grace as threefold: prevenient grace, justifying grace, and sanctifying grace. Prevenient grace is not dependent on human actions or responses.

 

[Paidiske]

I didn't know about the antidoron; that is indeed a really interesting practice which could be taken up and adapted usefully for us, I think. Thanks for mentioning that.

Where the argument from hospitality fails, for me, is in the idea that we are somehow barring the unbaptised from the table. Where I would say, no, we're not barring them, but you come to the table via the font... so by all means let's get you baptised and welcome you at the table!

 

[everbecoming2007]

I didn't know about the antidoron; that is indeed a really interesting practice which could be taken up and adapted usefully for us, I think. Thanks for mentioning that.

Where the argument from hospitality fails, for me, is in the idea that we are somehow barring the unbaptised from the table. Where I would say, no, we're not barring them, but you come to the table via the font... so by all means let's get you baptised and welcome you at the table!

You mentioned that extreme exceptions make bad laws. That's part of the problem with any exception clause that may be passed: what is claimed to be an exception often in practice becomes the de facto norm. But you did mention your own case which you considered the "pastorally sensitive" response. What kind of example would fall under that qualification?

 

[Paidiske]

In my case, I was an unbaptised adult for whom, at that point in time, baptism was problematic (I was living in an abusive home situation where baptism would have become another instance of control over me - looong story). Once I had moved away from that I was baptised and regularised the arrangement, as it were. So in that instance the priest exercised his best judgement and decided that it was more important to include me at the table than not. I'm not sure whether I think he was right, but at the time it meant a lot to me that he did.

But yes, I see the point about exceptions becoming the de facto norm. I don't know how you manage that, except maybe as we do with some other exceptional circumstances; that you could only do it with the written permission of the bishop? And perhaps we could also have some clause in there that the situation should be regularised or ended within a certain time frame?

 

[Arcangl86]

One approach I've seen discussed and would like to be taken more seriously is to flip the question. Instead of all this discussion about open table, what about open font? We don't do enough about inviting people to baptism, or we place limits on it.

 

[graceandpeace]

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.

I don't know if the discussions taking place are public, but what I've been reading seems to boil down to an argument from hospitality. I do not find it very convincing since there are many ways to communicate hospitality. In my opinion it would be a less radical change to adapt existing traditions or invent new ones similar to the antidoron than to alter the order of the sacraments of initiation. After the liturgy I see no reason a parish could not invent its own traditions of hospitality for outsiders: doing so outside of the liturgy would not require any changes or new traditions to be invented on a national level at all, I would think. And like you said, we do have a belief in our tradition that the sacrament can be received unworthily: offering it without caution is not hospitable. And if we really believe in and cherish this sacrament we should take care that it is respected to avoid profaning what is holy.

In many places we already offer personal blessings during communion at the altar. The pro-change argument usually goes, "Why invite someone to the table if (s)he is not invited to eat?" A more traditionally minded person may agree and reply that we should not give personal blessings during communion since the purpose of the table is clearly for communicants and a blessing is offered at the end of the Eucharistic liturgy for everyone.

Oftentimes Jesus' ministry and meals with sinners are offered as an example of radical hospitality and thus open communion. These types of arguments are the most common.

Some try to make an argument from prevenient grace, particularly those from Wesleyan traditions or who have been influenced by them. Wesley described God's grace as threefold: prevenient grace, justifying grace, and sanctifying grace. Prevenient grace is not dependent on human actions or responses.

Good thoughts.

I don't believe in policing the table. Unless churches plan to start asking to see one's baptism "papers," there is always the chance that an unbaptized person may come forward. Should the table be open to all who come? Is "protecting the sacrament" more harmful than beneficial? Is there any real way we can prevent someone from partaking in an "unworthy manner," whatever that means?

Again, I can't help but recall people I know who remember being turned away (RCC, not Anglican). Are these negative memories associated with churches they were invited to attend worth it?

I don't think this issue has much to do with baptism readiness. I do think baptism should always be encouraged & emphasized, but unless we ask for baptism proof for each person who comes forward, I don't see any meaningful way to bar an unbaptized person from the table. If that's the case, why not open it to all?

I've thought about prevenient grace. There is a belief that God's grace can work in someone through the sacrament of bread & wine, perhaps even converting that person. I think there is truth to that possibility.

I'm not sure what to do with Paul's call to avoid taking in an "unworthy manner." Reading the text, it doesn't seem to me he was giving an opinion on the question of baptism before communion, & again I don't see it laid out in Scripture anywhere.

If I remember right, the vote to explore the issue at TEC's last GC was only narrowly shot down. The vote was very close. I think that shows that there are different ways to see this issue.

 

[Paidiske]

Oh, look, once someone is at the rail, unless there are extraordinary circumstances, you give them communion. That's no place for either an inquiry into their spiritual state or a pastoral conversation!

But if you become aware that someone who is coming to the table regularly is not baptised, then I think it's time to have a conversation with them about what's going on there, and whether they ought to consider baptism.

And I guess that makes an immediate difference between whether we're talking about a "one off" or a pattern of taking communion, too.

 

[CanadianAnglican]

Good thoughts.

I don't believe in policing the table. Unless churches plan to start asking to see one's baptism "papers," there is always the chance that an unbaptized person may come forward. Should the table be open to all who come? Is "protecting the sacrament" more harmful than beneficial? Is there any real way we can prevent someone from partaking in an "unworthy manner," whatever that means?

I found this thought interesting because in my mind and understanding, closed communion or any type of restriction on receiving, is not about "protecting the sacrament" but rather about protecting the soul of the recipient who receives unworthily. If someone is not baptised, can they discern the body, as St Paul suggests?

That said, I believe there are far more baptised Christians who receive unworthily than non-baptised persons going forward to receive. Baptism as a gateway to the Eucharist makes sense in that through Baptism we receive by adoption all that God offers. To quote from the Canadian BAS, "The gifts of God, for the People of God." If you are not baptised, you are not a part of God's family/people, as Baptism is how we are marked as God's own forever.

Again, I can't help but recall people I know who remember being turned away (RCC, not Anglican). Are these negative memories associated with churches they were invited to attend worth it?

It's certainly not pleasant, but if I may be permitted to paraphrase the St Matthew's Gospel: "For what will it profit a man if he assuages his feelings and forfeits his soul?" The hurt is ultimately an expression of misunderstanding and confusion: you are being restrained from the table out of love and God's instruction to us regarding the Blessed Sacrament. If someone is told not to receive, they should be told why.

I don't think this issue has much to do with baptism readiness. I do think baptism should always be encouraged & emphasized, but unless we ask for baptism proof for each person who comes forward, I don't see any meaningful way to bar an unbaptized person from the table. If that's the case, why not open it to all?

While you're quite right that there's no way to police this, nor should the table be policed at the rail, the importance is in explaining

I've thought about prevenient grace. There is a belief that God's grace can work in someone through the sacrament of bread & wine, perhaps even converting that person. I think there is truth to that possibility.

I am quite familiar with prevenient grace and I've never heard it attributed to the Blessed Sacrament specifically because of St Paul's warnings. Without simply ignoring Holy Scripture's warnings regarding partaking in the Eucharist, I'm curious if there is an interpretation that speaks to that?

I'm not sure what to do with Paul's call to avoid taking in an "unworthy manner." Reading the text, it doesn't seem to me he was giving an opinion on the question of baptism before communion, & again I don't see it laid out in Scripture anywhere.

I think generally the view has been unworthy manner speaks to two pretty clear notions: "without examining himself" = examine your conscience and repent of your sins, "discerning the body" = accepting the Real Presence. Those are, as I understand it, the way the Church has throughout history understood those two verses, though of course what "Real Presence" has entailed changed in the West after the Roman Catholics adopted the dogma of transubstantiation.

That said, you are quite right to point out that Holy Scripture doesn't explicitly lay out a requirement of Baptism before Holy Communion. What I had mentioned earlier regarding Baptism as entry into God's family is part of it, but beyond that it is the Baptismal covenant that is important, as it is through the fulfilment and living out of that covenant that a Christian would come to understand the requirements for receiving that are laid out in Holy Scripture.

If I remember right, the vote to explore the issue at TEC's last GC was only narrowly shot down. The vote was very close. I think that shows that there are different ways to see this issue.

You are right that it was very close. There wasn't, to my knowledge, significant debate on the doctrines of why the status quo exists, and there were delegates pretty much saying, "it hurts people's feelings, so we shouldn't do this" and essentially side-stepping the point about what Scripture tells us about how to receive. I'm sure there are some more profound and complex arguments that could be made, but I think there were issues with the time set aside for the debate and all of the other activity happening at the last General Convention that limited interest in the debate.

As a caveat to all of this, I'm speaking from the traditions of the Church, and it's quite clear that today in several jurisdictions these practices and traditions are not particularly held to be relevant/authoritative in these types of discussions any longer. Just thought I might shed some light on where some of this is coming from.

It's definitely an issue that requires further consideration, because how many parishes even discuss these issues? I only know of one of the maybe dozen or so I'm familiar with that even mentions anything about the Biblical restrictions on who ought to receive in a way that tries to express that it is out of love that those who are not prepared to receive are told to refrain from coming forward.

Here's a thought to hopefully help continue this discussion: if someone who is not baptised desires to receive the Eucharist, would they not also necessarily desire baptism? Why not, in that case, simply baptise them first?

 

[Destiny2015]

Here's a thought to hopefully help continue this discussion: if someone who is not baptised desires to receive the Eucharist, would they not also necessarily desire baptism? Why not, in that case, simply baptise them first?

For some reason I feel that a lot of people think baptism is a much larger deal than communion. I won't argue if that's true or not, but offer that up as a possible reason. I know for a fact churches can make someone jump through a lot of hoops for baptism, and I suspect people try to circumvent requires classes or the like.

I personally was raised Methodist, and while I completely understand the reasoning behind open communion, it's not something I'm 100% comfortable with. I will say that the invitation (that I haven't heard in years, since the church has been trending non-liturgical) makes it clear that while baptism isn't necessarily required, communion is not for non-believers, either.

 

[graceandpeace]

Oh, look, once someone is at the rail, unless there are extraordinary circumstances, you give them communion. That's no place for either an inquiry into their spiritual state or a pastoral conversation!

But if you become aware that someone who is coming to the table regularly is not baptised, then I think it's time to have a conversation with them about what's going on there, and whether they ought to consider baptism.

And I guess that makes an immediate difference between whether we're talking about a "one off" or a pattern of taking communion, too.

That's a good point.

My concern does revolve more around the "newcomer." If the table is open, it gives space for them to respond to grace.

If such a person became a "regular," then, if it turns out they're not baptized, they can be gently steered in that direction.

Again, I can see both sides of these discussions.

 

[graceandpeace]

I found this thought interesting because in my mind and understanding, closed communion or any type of restriction on receiving, is not about "protecting the sacrament" but rather about protecting the soul of the recipient who receives unworthily. If someone is not baptised, can they discern the body, as St Paul suggests?

I understand. I do think one may have faith in Jesus & respond to the table invitation before they've had a chance to be baptized. I would be concerned about a regular communicant who outright refuses baptism.

That said, I believe there are far more baptised Christians who receive unworthily than non-baptised persons going forward to receive. Baptism as a gateway to the Eucharist makes sense in that through Baptism we receive by adoption all that God offers. To quote from the Canadian BAS, "The gifts of God, for the People of God." If you are not baptised, you are not a part of God's family/people, as Baptism is how we are marked as God's own forever.

I do agree that baptism is the traditional means of joining the Christian religion.

It's certainly not pleasant, but if I may be permitted to paraphrase the St Matthew's Gospel: "For what will it profit a man if he assuages his feelings and forfeits his soul?" The hurt is ultimately an expression of misunderstanding and confusion: you are being restrained from the table out of love and God's instruction to us regarding the Blessed Sacrament. If someone is told not to receive, they should be told why.

While you're quite right that there's no way to police this, nor should the table be policed at the rail, the importance is in explaining

This is what I have thought in the past as well. I'm just not convinced that I still agree. Maybe my concern is more along the lines of how: how is the invitation to the table offered, & how are those who come forward treated? I know in the RCC cases I have in mind, the invitation was very specific in shunning non-RC persons from their table. Unfortunately, sitting here thinking about this, I can recall hearing of negative Episcopal cases as well.

I am quite familiar with prevenient grace and I've never heard it attributed to the Blessed Sacrament specifically because of St Paul's warnings. Without simply ignoring Holy Scripture's warnings regarding partaking in the Eucharist, I'm curious if there is an interpretation that speaks to that?

I think generally the view has been unworthy manner speaks to two pretty clear notions: "without examining himself" = examine your conscience and repent of your sins, "discerning the body" = accepting the Real Presence. Those are, as I understand it, the way the Church has throughout history understood those two verses, though of course what "Real Presence" has entailed changed in the West after the Roman Catholics adopted the dogma of transubstantiation.

That said, you are quite right to point out that Holy Scripture doesn't explicitly lay out a requirement of Baptism before Holy Communion. What I had mentioned earlier regarding Baptism as entry into God's family is part of it, but beyond that it is the Baptismal covenant that is important, as it is through the fulfilment and living out of that covenant that a Christian would come to understand the requirements for receiving that are laid out in Holy Scripture.

From what I remember hearing in the past, there is an argument that one could be drawn to the sacrament by God's grace & even be converted. I wish I had such an argument in front of me I could share, but this is what I've heard.

It seems also I've made an error or perhaps we've missed something, because according to the UMC website their invitation is also meant for baptized Christians but that non-baptized persons are not barred & should be counseled toward baptism. See here: http://www.umc.org/what-we-believe/an-open-table-how-united-methodists-understand-communion

If this is what they mean by open communion, it seems TEC at least already agrees. I just never understood in my UMC attendance that they considered the table "only" for the baptized.

You are right that it was very close. There wasn't, to my knowledge, significant debate on the doctrines of why the status quo exists, and there were delegates pretty much saying, "it hurts people's feelings, so we shouldn't do this" and essentially side-stepping the point about what Scripture tells us about how to receive. I'm sure there are some more profound and complex arguments that could be made, but I think there were issues with the time set aside for the debate and all of the other activity happening at the last General Convention that limited interest in the debate.

As a caveat to all of this, I'm speaking from the traditions of the Church, and it's quite clear that today in several jurisdictions these practices and traditions are not particularly held to be relevant/authoritative in these types of discussions any longer. Just thought I might shed some light on where some of this is coming from.

It's definitely an issue that requires further consideration, because how many parishes even discuss these issues? I only know of one of the maybe dozen or so I'm familiar with that even mentions anything about the Biblical restrictions on who ought to receive in a way that tries to express that it is out of love that those who are not prepared to receive are told to refrain from coming forward.

Here's a thought to hopefully help continue this discussion: if someone who is not baptised desires to receive the Eucharist, would they not also necessarily desire baptism? Why not, in that case, simply baptise them first?

I understand. Again, maybe these issues are surfacing because of how some parishes have either offered the invitation or treated people at the table. I'm guessing of course, but it makes sense. My church states in the bulletin that all baptized Christians are welcome, but I've never heard an explicit comment once the table is open. On the other hand, I do recall testimony from other Episcopalians of some negative practices at the table. I can see how these practices could prompt questioning the status quo.

 

[everbecoming2007]

Sometimes negative experiences are due to being unaware of the theology behind not communing the unbaptized. Such feelings are not always justified. In one case I personally know of a person was verbally slamming my parish for the restriction and vilifying the clergy, even expressing aggression and outrage that baptized children in our parish were communing whereas (s)he was not. And yet (s)he was unwilling to be baptized, at least at that time. That last outburst of anger toward those children was particularly painful for me to bear and eventually (s)he did not return to the parish, thanks be to God. Of course most people even if their feelings are hurt do not react in such brutish ways, but it goes to show persons' feelings aren't always justified. It was largely this experience that convinced me of the reasonableness behind the restriction at a time when I did not give it much thought and still accepted the practice of open communion at least in theory as I had experienced it in the United Methodist parish.

The unbaptized of course may still respond to grace even outside of the sacraments just as the baptized can. Acts indicates that the Holy Spirit can be received prior to baptism (Acts 10). I am sure God can still work in persons' lives through the sacraments even if received in an irregular order as I perceive him to have worked in my own case. But I did point out that at the time I had no knowledge of a traditional restriction in Protestantism on the unbaptized receiving communion. Even if I had I wouldn't have had the theological background to understand it. I merely went along with the parish's practices as a visitor, and I knew it meant a lot to them for me to receive with them, and that's about as complex as the situation seemed to me at that time -- I was not a Christian and had little knowledge of all this. It certainly never occurred to me that I was doing anything wrong or disrespectful. I think if I had been knowingly violating a parish's polices on communion I would have felt differently regardless of my level of theological knowledge and it would have pressed on my mind to much to have a realization of faith in the real presence and develop a love for Jesus as I did. I say all of this to point out why I have reservations about changing our policies on communion due to individual experiences, especially ones that may be uncommon. Then again, this is a big part of how I came to sacramental Christianity, and it is significant for me at least on a personal level.

I do want to ask what others' opinions are on what the scriptures do (or do not) prohibit on this issue. And what do you think about Jesus giving the Last Supper to the Apostles? Do you believe they were baptized? There are traditions that give unlikely explanations in the affirmative -- such as that the foot washing was a baptism -- but to my knowledge there was no baptism in the Christian sense before the Day of Pentecost after the Ascension.

 

[Paidiske]

I do want to ask what others' opinions are on what the scriptures do (or do not) prohibit on this issue. And what do you think about Jesus giving the Last Supper to the Apostles? Do you believe they were baptized? There are traditions that give unlikely explanations in the affirmative -- such as that the foot washing was a baptism -- but to my knowledge there was no baptism in the Christian sense before the Day of Pentecost after the Ascension.

It's interesting. There's no reason to think any of the apostles had received a baptism other than the baptism of John at that point. And we see later in Acts that the apostles re-baptised those who had only received John's baptism. But nor do I see a clear indication in Acts that the apostles received a post-Pentecost baptism...?

I guess the question is whether we can see that as setting a precedent for Christian initiation in general. After all, the apostles had a unique experience of Jesus' life and ministry which we can't replicate for new Christians today either.

All I can say is that I see the Acts, Paul's epistles and 1 Peter presenting baptism as the normal beginning of the Christian life. I don't think that prohibits something outside the norm, but I think we'd want pretty strong reasons to set it aside in particular cases.

 

[everbecoming2007]

It's interesting. There's no reason to think any of the apostles had received a baptism other than the baptism of John at that point. And we see later in Acts that the apostles re-baptised those who had only received John's baptism. But nor do I see a clear indication in Acts that the apostles received a post-Pentecost baptism...?

I guess the question is whether we can see that as setting a precedent for Christian initiation in general. After all, the apostles had a unique experience of Jesus' life and ministry which we can't replicate for new Christians today either.

All I can say is that I see the Acts, Paul's epistles and 1 Peter presenting baptism as the normal beginning of the Christian life. I don't think that prohibits something outside the norm, but I think we'd want pretty strong reasons to set it aside in particular cases.

Yes, I think this is all good reasoning. Some of the extra-biblical explanations passed down through time concerning the Apostles' baptismal state at the Last Supper resemble your own explanation of their unique experience with Jesus being akin to baptism. And I agree that seeing a pattern of practice in scripture is not the same as a prescription, although putting aside those precedents as a norm may not be wise without very good reason or anything else to go on.

I've also considered that evidence of primitive liturgies indicate that the Eucharist was restricted to the baptized. In fact the uninitiated were not even to witness the event. Likewise many Christians have traditionally believed that only the Apostles were present at the Last Supper. Eucharistic liturgies would have predated the New Testament. The Gospel narratives certainly come after, and John's account is very different from that of the synoptics. (There are differences among the synoptic accounts as well.) Since these accounts came later than the liturgies themselves and from their inception would have been interpreted within the context of a given community's liturgy it was probably always a non-issue whether the Apostles were baptized: the liturgies already restricted access to the sacrament. Indeed it may be that the differences among the accounts of the Last Supper between the synoptics (with John recounting a very different story altogether) could be indicative of varying Eucharistic customs early on, another reason to believe these accounts were read and interpreted through familiar liturgical customs.

 

[CanadianAnglican]

The sacraments are normative and assurances of God's grace, but nowhere in Christian doctrine does it suggest they are the only means of grace. Everbecoming, the only point I would suggest is that the Church's explanation of the state of the Apostles is not extra-Biblical. Holy Scripture explains, through Christ's words, that the Apostles were part of God's family. In St John's Gospel, 1. 12: "But to all who did receive [Christ], who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God," and 15. 15, 16: "No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you."

So there is some pretty clear argument from Scripture for the position the Church has taken that the charisms granted through Baptism were given to the Apostles (other than St Paul who was baptised after his conversion).

That said, I would again point out that it's not as if the position of the Church on Baptism was that Baptism was the Scriptural requirement for receiving, it's essentially that through the catechetical process prior to Baptism you would be prepared so as not to receive to your condemnation. When we look at the requirements to receive, they are pretty explicit and though I suppose you could debate their meaning, they have had a pretty clearly accepted meaning throughout the centuries.

In my mind, there are quite possibly people who can confess and repent of their sins and who do truly believe in Christ's presence in the Eucharist, and on that basis could receive. On the other hand, as I had said before, I believe there are plenty of Baptised Christians who receive who ought not to, because they are receiving unwarily. Baptism is no guarantee, particularly when catechesis these days tends to be extremely limited these days, that a baptised Christian is prepared to receive.

The point I struggle with is that none of the debates being held on the topic of baptism before communion revolve around this. Instead they simply ignore I Corinthians and focus on the question of whether or not it is sufficiently welcoming to place any restrictions on communion, rather than considering whether or not the more welcoming thing would be to more clearly articulate why those restrictions are in place (because we love you and do not want you to receive to your condemnation if you have not been prepared).

That said, I want to consider a particular scenario that has been running through my mind: is it possible to conceive of a situation in which someone is not baptised, has no desire for Baptism yet in fact does meet St Paul's requirements to receive to their benefit? I presented a hypothetical situation in which a person did, but in this question I'm asking more particularly could a person desire to receive the Eucharist but not receive Baptism? I can't quite wrap my head around how that situation might arise.

If you truly discern the Body of Christ and all that means, that Christ has given himself up for you, why would you not want to be Baptised into Christ's family? What grace would you think you were receiving through the Eucharist?

I'm not sure if I'm all that clear on what I'm asking, but to me the situation I describe seems somewhat incomprehensible!

 

[everbecoming2007]

The sacraments are normative and assurances of God's grace, but nowhere in Christian doctrine does it suggest they are the only means of grace. Everbecoming, the only point I would suggest is that the Church's explanation of the state of the Apostles is not extra-Biblical. Holy Scripture explains, through Christ's words, that the Apostles were part of God's family. In St John's Gospel, 1. 12: "But to all who did receive [Christ], who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God," and 15. 15, 16: "No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you."

So there is some pretty clear argument from Scripture for the position the Church has taken that the charisms granted through Baptism were given to the Apostles (other than St Paul who was baptised after his conversion).

That said, I would again point out that it's not as if the position of the Church on Baptism was that Baptism was the Scriptural requirement for receiving, it's essentially that through the catechetical process prior to Baptism you would be prepared so as not to receive to your condemnation. When we look at the requirements to receive, they are pretty explicit and though I suppose you could debate their meaning, they have had a pretty clearly accepted meaning throughout the centuries.

In my mind, there are quite possibly people who can confess and repent of their sins and who do truly believe in Christ's presence in the Eucharist, and on that basis could receive. On the other hand, as I had said before, I believe there are plenty of Baptised Christians who receive who ought not to, because they are receiving unwarily. Baptism is no guarantee, particularly when catechesis these days tends to be extremely limited these days, that a baptised Christian is prepared to receive.

The point I struggle with is that none of the debates being held on the topic of baptism before communion revolve around this. Instead they simply ignore I Corinthians and focus on the question of whether or not it is sufficiently welcoming to place any restrictions on communion, rather than considering whether or not the more welcoming thing would be to more clearly articulate why those restrictions are in place (because we love you and do not want you to receive to your condemnation if you have not been prepared).

That said, I want to consider a particular scenario that has been running through my mind: is it possible to conceive of a situation in which someone is not baptised, has no desire for Baptism yet in fact does meet St Paul's requirements to receive to their benefit? I presented a hypothetical situation in which a person did, but in this question I'm asking more particularly could a person desire to receive the Eucharist but not receive Baptism? I can't quite wrap my head around how that situation might arise.

If you truly discern the Body of Christ and all that means, that Christ has given himself up for you, why would you not want to be Baptised into Christ's family? What grace would you think you were receiving through the Eucharist?

I'm not sure if I'm all that clear on what I'm asking, but to me the situation I describe seems somewhat incomprehensible!

Well yes, the scriptures do say the Apostles are Christ's friends and show that they were close to him, but some of the traditions I'm thinking about articulate specific extraordinary means by which the Apostles obtained baptism or something similar to it, or interpret the washing of the feet in John as baptism, etc. For me it is a moot point when/how/if the Apostles were baptized for reasons detailed by myself and others in the course of this discussion.

As to why an unbaptized person would want to receive communion, I don't know. In my uninformed state early on I was merely following the custom of the parish I was visiting. Then I began to enjoy the custom, but I did not know why at first and only later was this a touchstone to my actual conversion.

Why an informed person who believes in the real presence and loves Jesus and wishes to receive grace would not want to be baptized, I don't know. Is such a situation logically possible of existence? I could understand the person may long to receive communion while she is waiting for baptism. I know that I did after I began receiving instruction in the Anglican faith, but I also wished to be baptized to become officially and publicly a Christian. I desired communion, but I also desired to receive it via baptism, at least once I was more informed about the sacraments. I never found this offensive and did not have a difficult time acquiring this norm even though it had not been the custom to fence the altars in the original Methodist parish I visited.