Paedocommunion and Anglicanism

[paleodoxy]

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

 

[Naomi4Christ]

We don't generally admit children to Holy Communion in the Church of England. There are mechanisms for allowing exceptions, though.

 

[Timothy]

We don't generally admit children to Holy Communion in the Church of England. There are mechanisms for allowing exceptions, though.

That's generalising, Naomi. I know at least as many Anglican churches which DO allow children to partakes as I know ones which require confirmation. It depends on the priest, and if he can get permission from the bishop.

Timothy

 

[Naomi4Christ]

That's generalising, Naomi. I know at least as many Anglican churches which DO allow children to partakes as I know ones which require confirmation. It depends on the priest, and if he can get permission from the bishop.

Timothy

That's why I said 'generally'.

 

[ContraMundum]

Infants, although capable of faith (Matt 18:6 etc), cannot examine their conscience in the light of the Law and therefore should not be admitted to communion, which requires self-examination before partaking of it. (1 Cor 11:27-29)

 

[Naomi4Christ]

Infants, although capable of faith (Matt 18:6 etc), cannot examine their conscience in the light of the Law and therefore should not be admitted to communion, which requires self-examination before partaking of it. (1 Cor 11:27-29)

The Church of England position is not to usually admit children before confirmation, which tends to take place around the age of 15, give or take.

The exceptions are dependent on a certain amount of understanding by the child, but the church is reluctant to put an actual age on it. Certainly, an infant would not qualify.

I think fairly young children are able to understand the 'remembrance' part of HC. My four-year old had some kind of agapé meal last week, and she was saying that bread and grape juice help her remember. She didn't say what it helped her remember - maybe she though it just honed her memory in general. When I mentioned that I had forgotten something, she told me I needed more wine (I duly obliged).

 

[Timothy]

That's why I said 'generally'.

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.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

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]

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]

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

 

[karen freeinchristman]

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]

**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.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

**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]

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.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.