• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Paedocommunion and Anglicanism

Status
Not open for further replies.

artrx

listening
Oct 22, 2005
6,469
249
63
northern VA
✟7,846.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
higgs2 said:
If we put a bunch of requirements of belief on either one of those sacraments, it seems to me to contradict Grace and emphasize works.

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

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

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

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

In the end, I think this is one issue where the differences in interpretation, spiritual experience and personal understanding lead me to agree to disagree. But that's nothing new in my world;) .
 
  • Like
Reactions: higgs2
Upvote 0

higgs2

not a nutter
Sep 10, 2004
8,627
517
63
✟33,747.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Private
ContraMundum said:
OK, first of all, the "original intention of baptism and confirmation being one rite" is not exactly true. That was the case in some areas, but we trace our practice back to the Book of Acts, chapter 8 in particular. Although the Apostolic Church was experiencing the beginning of the new dispensation we do see that the laying on of hands of an Apostle completed the Samaritan converts and gave them the special gifts of the Holy Spirit. We do this in confirmation, when our bishops (which we consider to be the valid ministers in the succession of the Apostles) lay hands on our adult baptised for exactly the same reason.

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



I think there are mainly political reasons behind that incident, don't you?
Well, if the 'other practice' is not wrong, then I would think that communion for infants is not wrong either. :) :) :) lots of smilies so you'll know I'm trying not to be a jerk, but am really interested in the discussion :)
 
Upvote 0

paleodoxy

Catechumen
Sep 27, 2005
1,704
100
45
Depends on the time of day...
✟24,861.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
SirTimothy said:
It's interesting, really. Lots of people quote tradition, but when 400 years of thoroughly Anglican tradition (i.e. the Book of Common Prayer) is quoted, it's discarded...

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

This trumps 400 years of Anglican tradition.

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

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

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

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

paleodoxy
 
Upvote 0

higgs2

not a nutter
Sep 10, 2004
8,627
517
63
✟33,747.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Private
ContraMundum said:
It must be pointed out that none of the Anglican Prayer Books made any innovation as to the practice of baptism and confirmation, so the BCP is in step and continuity with the prevailing practice of the Western Church that preceeded the Reformation and was well established, and thus, the practice is considered very ancient.
Huh? I've read this several time and am not getting it.
 
Upvote 0

paleodoxy

Catechumen
Sep 27, 2005
1,704
100
45
Depends on the time of day...
✟24,861.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
EARLY CHURCH SOURCES REGARDING INFANT COMMUNION:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After everyone had participated in the communion service, the bishop gave thanks again to God and prayed once more for the people. Included in this prayer are the following words: "sanctify Thy people, keep those that are in virginity, preserve those in the faith that are in marriage, strengthen those that are in purity, bring the infants to complete age, confirm the newly admitted; instruct the catechumens, and render them worthy of admission...".33 Again we see the infants included in the communion prayers, but what is especially remarkable about this prayer is that the infants are set apart from the catechumens whom God must prepare for admission into the Lord's Supper. We see no prayer that God would make the infants and young children "worthy of admission" one day. They are born into the church and naturally included in the church's communion service.
 
Upvote 0

Mary of Bethany

Only one thing is needful.
Site Supporter
Jul 8, 2004
7,541
1,081
✟387,056.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
I believe I'm correct in saying that the whole Church used to practice baptism and confirmation (chrismation) as one rite - which the Orthodox still do.

When did this change in the West, and what was the reasoning behind it?

Thanks.

Mary
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.