Paedocommunion and Anglicanism

[higgs2]

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...

Huh? No one has quoted the BCP as saying children should not be given communion, Timothy. Or is that not what you are implying?

 

[karen freeinchristman]

American Book of Common Prayer, 1979:

Q. What is required of us when we come to the Eucharist?

A. It is required that we should examine our lives, repent of our
sins, and be in love and charity with all people.

I do believe this may be what SirTimothy is referring to.

 

[higgs2]

I do believe this may be what SirTimothy is referring to.

Oh. Well in my opinion, that would be a stretch. It seems to me that there would have to be an assumption made that anyone who is unable to examine their lives and repent of their sins is not eligible to receive communion.

That would include infants, I guess, because of an inability to understand that concept? But what about unconfirmed children, can't they examine their lives? What about unconfirmed adults? Is the requirement confirmation, or age?

*I* thought it was baptism, and baptism only. Or is that only for adults? If so, then what exactly is the point of baptising infants, anyhow? If they are grafted on to the vine of christ at baptism, and become our brothers and sisters in Christ, but cannot partake of the body and blood, they what exactly is the point?

What about people who do not have the mental capacity to do the above? The mentally handicapped adult with a mental age of 2? The woman with Alzheimer's who receives communion from our priest at her nursing home every week? The dying man in the hospital, almost unconcious and unable to speak, who recieves the bread and wine before receiving annointing or last rites?

 

[Timothy]

Huh? No one has quoted the BCP as saying children should not be given communion, Timothy. Or is that not what you are implying?

Contra has quoted 400 years of Book of Common Prayer, Higgs. The 1611 is the definitive historic BCP.

 

[ContraMundum]

Oh. Well in my opinion, that would be a stretch. It seems to me that there would have to be an assumption made that anyone who is unable to examine their lives and repent of their sins is not eligible to receive communion.

Exactly!

That would include infants, I guess, because of an inability to understand that concept? But what about unconfirmed children, can't they examine their lives? What about unconfirmed adults? Is the requirement confirmation, or age?

a) If the kids can examine their lives and wish to remain Christians, get them confirmed! Then the issue of eligibility for communion dissovles.

b) The BCP states regarding adults that being confirmed or desirous of confirmation is enough.

c) Of course, all Christians, bapitsed, confirmed or not must examine their conscience etc etc. for Holy Communion.

*I* thought it was baptism, and baptism only. Or is that only for adults? If so, then what exactly is the point of baptising infants, anyhow?

Salvation. We baptise babies to bring them to Christ.

If they are grafted on to the vine of christ at baptism, and become our brothers and sisters in Christ, but cannot partake of the body and blood, they what exactly is the point?

The point is to bring them to confirmation and communion, but not immediately. Those things require commitment and self-examination. Could you see this as a good thing? It's one way of helping to weed out nominalism.

What about people who do not have the mental capacity to do the above? The mentally handicapped adult with a mental age of 2? The woman with Alzheimer's who receives communion from our priest at her nursing home every week? The dying man in the hospital, almost unconcious and unable to speak, who recieves the bread and wine before receiving annointing or last rites?

Exceptions cannot prove the rule here.

Are they confirmed? This is an important question. If so, then why not allow them communion (but this is a matter of the pastor's discretion). If not, or not desirous of confirmation then why allow them at all?

 

[higgs2]

Contra has quoted 400 years of Book of Common Prayer, Higgs. The 1611 is the definitive historic BCP.

ECUSA uses the 1979 BCP.

 

[gtsecc]

The definitive BCP is the 1549 Book.

 

[AngCath]

The definitive BCP is the 1549 Book.

good old gtsecc

 

[higgs2]

Well, we could go back to the original intention of baptism and confirmation being one rite done for infants like the EO. Theologically, the 1979 BCP is a step in that direction. And we could emphasize that confirmation is not a sacrament but a sacramental rite, not necessary for salvation.

We could redefine "ready for confirmation" (Elizabeth Tudor was baptised and confirmed in a single ceremony before she was one year old and she seems pretty "Anglican").

 

[higgs2]

good old gtsecc

How do you weigh in on this, Angcath?

 

[higgs2]

Contra has quoted 400 years of Book of Common Prayer, Higgs. The 1611 is the definitive historic BCP.

And also, what 1611 book? Do you mean 1662? And 400 years? I think that is not correct. One or two phrases does not equal 400 years.

 

[Timothy]

1662 I mean. Bah, I get the 1611 and 1662 muddled. 1662 to 2005... okay, it's 350 years, near enough. Still enough to say that it's authoritatively anglican.

 

[AngCath]

1662 I mean. Bah, I get the 1611 and 1662 muddled. 1662 to 2005... okay, it's 350 years, near enough. Still enough to say that it's authoritatively anglican.

we'll forgive you... this time

 

[gtsecc]

the BCPs are moving closer to the 1549 each step
For example, the 1979 is better than the 1662 book

 

[Dewi Sant]

My book of common prayer is somewhat over due.


It talks about Queen Victoria and it ends at 1899. Very nicely leather bound.

 

[ContraMundum]

The definitive BCP is the 1549 Book.

That's the one we use and I hate it.

 

[ContraMundum]

Well, we could go back to the original intention of baptism and confirmation being one rite done for infants like the EO. Theologically, the 1979 BCP is a step in that direction. And we could emphasize that confirmation is not a sacrament but a sacramental rite, not necessary for salvation.

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.

We could redefine "ready for confirmation" (Elizabeth Tudor was baptised and confirmed in a single ceremony before she was one year old and she seems pretty "Anglican").

I think there are mainly political reasons behind that incident, don't you?

 

[ContraMundum]

And also, what 1611 book? Do you mean 1662? And 400 years? I think that is not correct. One or two phrases does not equal 400 years.

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.

 

[paleodoxy]

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

I already did that.

 

[ContraMundum]

I already did that.

No, you didn't. You tried though, I'll give you that.

Check your work with other authorities my friend.