Paedocommunion and Anglicanism

I understand that repenting of our sins is a requirement for communion. But is having the capacity for repenting of our sins also a requirment. I believe that as children grow in faith and grow in age and intellectual ability they also grow in this capacity. But not having the ability to understand sin does not seem to me to be a reason to refuse communion. But for me, communion is not a memorial, it is a sacrament. And that is where it is like baptism, which is a sacrament, not something believers do to profess their faith. 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.

paleodoxy said:

They are required to partake because they are baptized Christians.

Click to expand...

All baptised Christians are not to take Holy Communion- it is conditional. Just because one is baptised does notmean they can come to the table. They must be repentant and be in agreement and charity with their brethren.

St. Paul's injunction to "examine" oneself and to "discern" the Lord's Body exists amidst prior rebukings of the Corinthians regarding gluttonous behavior and failure to include the poor.

In this way, the Corinthians were not "discerning" the Lord's Body, and Paul adjures them to "examine" themselves on this issue. "Are you discerning Christ's Body (i.e. you fellow brother and sister)? "

Click to expand...

That is an incorrect understanding of the Greek and even the plain English.

Verse by verse:

1Co 11:27 So that whoever should eat this bread, or drink the cup of the Lord, unworthily, that one will be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.

The topic is now, after St Paul's short recap of the words of institution, the sacramental presence of Christ. The word "body" here refers to the sacramental body.

The very next verse, which in the Greek is a continuation of the same topic. (The sentence beginning witht he Greek word hoste- meaning thus, therefore, so that etc)

1Co 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

Literally, this means in the Greek "therefore let a man examine himself"

Why? The next verse:

1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

Again, the Greek clearly tells us that this is a further continution of the discussion regarding the sacramental presence. (The word "for" being the Gk "gar" meaning in this case "for this reason")

So, the discerning of the Lord's Body, according to the Greek and even the English is discerning the sacramental presence, not the visible church.

Interesting- your interpretation is the same as Zwingli's.

In this way, anti-paedocommunionists are also failing to "discern" Christ's Body, and should learn to seriously "examine" their behavior in this area.

Click to expand...

Sadly, your whole argument collapsed, so this is incorrect.

Please heed Christ's warning in Matt.25:42, 45. This is serious stuff!

Click to expand...

We bring our children to Christ in baptism, in which they are clothed with Him, buried with Him and given grace etc. No one denies them this true means of grace which has been ordained for them, and is thus sufficient sacramentally for them. The verse you cite has nothing to do with the Sacrament of the Altar, which requires certain conditions in order to be received.

For my daughter, this has never been an issue. She was used to receiving when we were part of the Greek Orthodox Church....so when we first went to ECUSA and all Baptized Christians were invited to partake, it never even occurred to me that she wouldn't receive. Receive she did, just like she'd been doing each week since she had been Chrismated.

FWIW, EO Baptize & Chrismate infants, who are then able to receive along with anyone else. There may be much I don't agree with within the EOC, but I think that their attitude of welcoming infants into full Communion within the Body of Christ is right on.

higgs2 said:

I understand that repenting of our sins is a requirement for communion. But is having the capacity for repenting of our sins also a requirment. I believe that as children grow in faith and grow in age and intellectual ability they also grow in this capacity. But not having the ability to understand sin does not seem to me to be a reason to refuse communion. But for me, communion is not a memorial, it is a sacrament. And that is where it is like baptism, which is a sacrament, not something believers do to profess their faith. 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.

Click to expand...

Sacraments are not works that we do, so you needn't worry about that. They are works God does in us and for us. We make no spiritual contribution to them.

Speaking from the traditional, long-standing Anglican point of view, children do grow in grace, and when they have come to a clearly discernable age, we confirm them in the faith by the laying on of the Bishop's hands. Then, as fully confirmed, spirit-filled Christians, we allow them to come to communion. I do not see how this hinders their growth in grace, as these sacraments actually confirm their grace and even strengthen them.

The biggest problem with infant communion within the Anglican system is that many people given communion do not become confirmed. This is why we must put the same restrictions on the sacrament that the Bible bids us. It is not us who puts requirements on our people, but God.

higgs2 said:

I understand that repenting of our sins is a requirement for communion. But is having the capacity for repenting of our sins also a requirment. I believe that as children grow in faith and grow in age and intellectual ability they also grow in this capacity. But not having the ability to understand sin does not seem to me to be a reason to refuse communion. But for me, communion is not a memorial, it is a sacrament. And that is where it is like baptism, which is a sacrament, not something believers do to profess their faith. 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.

Click to expand...

In infant baptism, it is the parents and godparents who make the promises on behalf of the child. I think HC is different, as no promises are made - just a confession and repentence.

At the end of the day, you can look at arguments on both sides of the debate, but the nature of it is that you cannot sit on the fence - you have to tip on one side or the other, even if you are fairly close to 50:50 on it - this is very uncomfortable for English Anglicans, I can tell you, as we like to hedge as much as possible.

From my personal experience in the evangelical tradition, children (up to age 14) are rarely in HC (maybe 2 or 3 times a year) and they don't expect to receive. Many children have not been baptised, because it is very common for us (probably 50%) to have a Thanksgiving for the birth of a baby, followed by baptism when they are ready to bring themselves. It would not be appropriate for these children to receive communion.

Certainly my personal views on this has changed over the years in that my elder 3 have been baptised, but my younger 2 will have to take themselves to baptism.

ContraMundum said:

Sacraments are not works that we do, so you needn't worry about that. They are works God does in us and for us. We make no spiritual contribution to them.

.

Click to expand...

That's exactly my point. They depend on God, not us. That is why "believer's baptism" and not allowing children communion are not proper, in my view. God can baptise babies and be present in their eucharist too.

.

Wiffey said:

FWIW, EO Baptize & Chrismate infants, who are then able to receive along with anyone else. There may be much I don't agree with within the EOC, but I think that their attitude of welcoming infants into full Communion within the Body of Christ is right on.

Click to expand...

ContraMundum said:

They are works God does in us and for us. We make no spiritual contribution to them.

Click to expand...

higgs said:

That's exactly my point. They depend on God, not us. That is why "believer's baptism" and not allowing children communion are not proper, in my view. God can baptise babies and be present in their eucharist too.

Click to expand...

I fully agree!
Forgive me for rambling on a bit but this has been an issue close to my heart since I was a young child in the Baptist church. I clearly remember not understanding why I could not be baptised (not until 3rd grade in that church) nor partake of communion when I loved God with my whole heart and I thought He loved me too. I remember passing that plate in the pew and feeling so left out. I already sensed the grace of God in those acts and felt as if I somehow was "bad" or not good enough yet, at least, for God's complete love. Yes, I was only a young child but that "not being good enough" stayed with me for years.(in that was the seed of a long journey to the Episcopal Church and a radically different understanding of my Creator)

It was such a joy to baptise my infants and to let them begin to share in the Eucharist with the whole church when they desired to do so, which was very early on.
In the Episcopal churches we have been a part of it has been a fully accepted practice.

paleodoxy said:

That's right. It is conditional in this passage. Paul teaches that in order for the adult Corinthians to partake worthily, they would need to start discerning the Body (those whom they were depriving). A conditional statement. It is not a doctrine of universal introspection that Paul is propounding here.

Click to expand...

Even if you're point of view was correct, and it is pretty far off the mark, this alone would wreck your argument for infant communion because they have no way of discerning.

You just linked repentance with communion. I would assume, then, that you believe all infants belonging to those in the worldwide Anglican communion should be excommunicated and treated as tax collectors, publicans and sinners?

Click to expand...

If there's one thing I hate it's hyperbole, which is insulting to my intelligence.

a) I didn't link repentance to communion- St Paul did.

b) I didn't invent the practice of offering communion only to penitent sinners in unity with the Church- St. Paul did.

c) The Anglican liturgy and practice has always agreed with St Paul.

d) The Anglican church does not excommunicate children, as they have not communicated yet. That's a silly comparison.

Right. The Corinthians who were partaking unworthily (not discerning the members of Christ's Body - like you) were guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

Click to expand...

Pop quiz: Is the Body of the Lord in the bread of the eucharist or not? Does not the Greek grammar allow only that understanding or not? If you think I'm wrong, show me the Greek, and admonish the entire Western Church.

Failing to discern Christ's Body (His members / Bride) is one and the same as failing to discern Him sacramentally. (Cf. I Cor.10:16.)

Click to expand...

Just because St. Paul draws a likeness of the communion with the koinonia of the Church does not mean that this is the only aspect of the doctrine he is focussing on. This is a grave mistake where "one text is the sum of all", an exegetical error. This error empties the other relevant texts of their substance and truth. A classic mistake done by JW's and the like.

We have already proven that St Paul is speaking of the sacrament itself in Chapter 11, and that the grammar demands no other understanding. This is a non-negotiable text. In any language, the rules of grammar determine the meaning, and in scripture of course there is no exception. Therefore chapter 11 tells us to discern the sacrament itself, whereas chapter 10 tells us to keep the fellowship pure.

The problem you have is that you accept Chapter 10 but have not accepted Ch 11. Both are true. Both are absolutely complimentary. Both speak of discerning, a point which alone nullifies your whole argument.
You mention this below:

Babies are incapable of failing to discern the Body of Christ's elect the way these adult Corinthians were. Your argument constitutes a simple red herring, and is completely ancillary the issue.

Click to expand...

There is a classic argument from silence cogitated by darkened human reason and thus in fact a false syllogism.

You have no way of knowing how or when or if a baby can discern anything so deep as this. Yet, in no place anywhere in the texts cited does there allow anyone to partake without discerning. Not one place. The solution is not to allow those who cannot discern to partake because they cannot discern, but to be obedient to Christ's Apostle and practice communion the way he clearly sets out before us. St. Paul allows no loopholes here. To communicate, you must discern the body, examine oneself and recognise the sacarmental presence. If one lacks the ability to do so one is not given a loophole and thus allowed.

Simply put, your argument is unscriptural and follows your own wishes.

Doesn't get much simpler than that.

Click to expand...

The practice of the Anglican communion is very simple indeed. We baptise our children, and when they come of age we confirm them and allow them communion. What you propose is a spiritual minefield. Here's the kicker- if we are wrong, no one gets hurt. If you are wrong.....

A lot of the what the pro-infant communion side seems ot be pushing is based an awful lot on emotions. As yet, we have not seen any clear text that counters St Paul's directive to examine oneself and discern the Body of Christ and the sacramental presence before partaking in communion.

For all the emotion which is part of who we are, and it's good to be in touch with your emotions, but I hate to say it, it doesn't equal true religion. I'm sure we all agree on that (we are, after all, Anglicans).

The other side of the coin is this appeal to wanting to be "primitive". We hear this a lot here- "let's be like the early church".

Well, if you were in the early church, you would have been dismissed (sent out) from the liturgy altogether before the Eucharist and this would have gone on for possibly years, even if you were an adult. Then, before you would be admitted to communion you would have to confess your sins- to the congregation- all of them. Then and only then would you have been admitted to communion. (I realise that some of the early Fathers taught infant communion, but again, only to Christian families and this practice was never universally accepted, and the Western Church stuck to St Paul's directives in a more plain sense).

Folks, I'm sorry if you felt left out as a child, sorry if you think your kids are missing out, sorry if you think they are entitled to communion or whatever. I sympathise, I do. But, according to the Church's understanding of scripture it was for your/their own good and we all have to undergo rites of passage in our lives. It seems like we all want everything NOW, which is our culture in a nutshell, but really, we should be more patient and careful when it comes to the Word of God.

How could i have missed this thread for so long? I'm going to have to go back and read 94 posts now...

The bottom line is, baptism is the only requirement for Communion. My children are baptised. They take communion. That is the reality that my family and I live weekly. Thanks be to God!

. As yet, we have not seen any clear text that counters St Paul's directive to examine oneself and discern the Body of Christ and the sacramental presence before partaking in communion.

Click to expand...

I know I'm still eagerly waiting to hear the text...

higgs2 said:

The bottom line is, baptism is the only requirement for Communion. My children are baptised. They take communion. That is the reality that my family and I live weekly. Thanks be to God!

Click to expand...

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...

Well, all I have to say is...

TomUK said:

How could i have missed this thread for so long? I'm going to have to go back and read 94 posts now...

Click to expand...

That'd be 100 posts now...