Paedocommunion and Anglicanism

[higgs2]

You have 3? We wouldn't even notice them

 

[Naomi4Christ]

Do you have children? You can tell they want to be included, trust me.

My kids have never reflected this sentiment. They receive a blessing (which takes a lot longer than administering communion) and I don't think they wrestle with this at all. It's what they are used to. I think the wine serves as a good enough distinction between adults and children.

 

[PaladinValer]

Babies don't understand the significance of Baptism...should we withhold Baptism too?

Ouch! There's a modernist idea...even Calvin rejected that notion!

 

[higgs2]

My kids have never reflected this sentiment. They receive a blessing (which takes a lot longer than administering communion) and I don't think they wrestle with this at all. It's what they are used to. I think the wine serves as a good enough distinction between adults and children.

Well, it wasn't "good enough" for my son. The priest pulled me aside after the service and told me that I could allow him to partake if I wished. The only reason I didn't was because the other parents didn't. I was so glad to be able to have him share in communion. Now all the children in our church receive I am teaching my children that the bread and wine is sacred, and something to be desired. My four year old came in at communion and said "I want the blood, mommy!"

 

[higgs2]

Babies don't understand the significance of Baptism...should we withhold Baptism too?

Ouch! There's a modernist idea...even Calvin rejected that notion!

Hmmmm. It's Baptist type of idea.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

Babies don't understand the significance of Baptism...should we withhold Baptism too?

You think baptism and Lord's Supper are the same?

 

[paleodoxy]

**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.

AMEN!!!

Something we CAN agree on.

 

[ContraMundum]

Do you have children?

Yes, lots of them.

You can tell they want to be included, trust me. As their conscience develops, they learn how to examine it. Do you think a 1.5 year old has a fully developed conscience that needs to be examined?

My kids did not receive until they were confirmed, and they did not complain, nag or even expect communion. They were brought up Anglican. In the Anglican communion we have always withheld communion from those not yet confirmed.

This has been the custom for many, many years. Have a good read in the BCP, which is the standard of Anglican faith and practice and you'll see what I mean.

My 4 year old understands communion as well or probably better than most of the people in the pews, btw. And probably values it more.

That's not a good reflection on those in the pews.

Oh, and you can say the ECUSA gives communion to children because they prefer the "warm gooey feeling" to the apostle's words if that makes you feel better. But like it or not, it is a valid theological position and we don't need you to assist us.

Popular practice (especially in a social and largely nominal church) means nothing. If the ECUSA is abandoning the properly, scriptually established Anglican practice on this as well then it doesn't surprise me or worry me, because there is no such axiom as "ECUSA locuta, res decisa est".

 

[Naomi4Christ]

My kids did not receive until they were confirmed, and they did not complain, nag or even expect communion. They were brought up Anglican. In the Anglican communion we have always withheld communion from those not yet confirmed.

My experience too.

 

[higgs2]

Yes, lots of them.



My kids did not receive until they were confirmed, and they did not complain, nag or even expect communion. They were brought up Anglican. In the Anglican communion we have always withheld communion from those not yet confirmed.

This has been the custom for many, many years. Have a good read in the BCP, which is the standard of Anglican faith and practice and you'll see what I mean.



That's not a good reflection on those in the pews.



Popular practice (especially in a social and largely nominal church) means nothing. If the ECUSA is abandoning the properly, scriptually established Anglican practice on this as well then it doesn't surprise me or worry me, because there is no such axiom as "ECUSA locuta, res decisa est".

I have had a good read in the BCP and it doesn't say my children should not receive communion.

Lots of children? Cool! They're pretty great to have around, aren't they?

 

[PaladinValer]

Hmmmm. It's Baptist type of idea.

Exactly; Baptists withhold Baptism, which is contradictory to the Gospel Message and which, historically, isn't primitive.

You think baptism and Lord's Supper are the same?

Never said that or implied that.

Contra, the historic, primitive practice is that if you've been Baptized, you may Commune. That's how it was done then; that is how it is to be done now.

 

[ContraMundum]

I have had a good read in the BCP and it doesn't say my children should not receive communion.

Are your children confirmed already? Have they examined their conscience? Read the WHOLE Holy Communion service. Just because certain prayers are omitted for brevity in your service does not mean that they are no longer believed.

" ... and there shall none be admitted to the Holy Communion, until such time as he be confirmed, or be ready and desirous to be confirmed."

Lots of children? Cool! They're pretty great to have around, aren't they?

Yes, but mine are kind of old now.

 

[Aymn27]

there is no such axiom as "ECUSA locuta, res decisa est".

rofl!!!!

 

[Aymn27]

Contra, the historic, primitive practice is that if you've been Baptized, you may Commune. That's how it was done then; that is how it is to be done now.

PV, I'd be interested in some evidence to back that up - not arguing with you, just not convinced either way yet - though I'm inclined to adult baptism/communion rather than infant. However I do see the point in "growing in grace" from infancy.

 

[higgs2]

Are your children confirmed already? Have they examined their conscience? Read the WHOLE Holy Communion service. Just because certain prayers are omitted for brevity in your service does not mean that they are no longer believed.

" ... and there shall none be admitted to the Holy Communion, until such time as he be confirmed, or be ready and desirous to be confirmed."



Yes, but mine are kind of old now.

Would you like to tell me where I can find this statement in my BCP?

 

[ContraMundum]

Exactly; Baptists withhold Baptism, which is contradictory to the Gospel Message and which, historically, isn't primitive.

How any honest discussion can focus around such disengenuous comparisons is just beyond belief. You are insinuating that Anglicans are similar to baptists now, just because we don't want to change into Orthodox? Get a grip lad.

Never said that or implied that.

Contra, the historic, primitive practice is that if you've been Baptized, you may Commune. That's how it was done then; that is how it is to be done now.

As usual, you overstate your case and ignore the scriptures. SOME of the early Christians practiced infant communion and SOME didn't. The Western Church in particular was never unanimous in its acceptance of the practice. Likewise, the Western Catholic church has historically held to a discipline in line with scripture that witheld communion from those not confirmed or in unpenitent sin. Anglicanism (last I heard, this was an Anglican forum, but I'm beginning to think this is really an anti-Anglican iconoclast forum) has held to this traditional Western Catholic custom too.

I'm Anglican. I hold to Anglicanism. You can do whatever you like to force your personal pet doctrines on to the church, but I will still continue on the path.

 

[gtsecc]

When the historic practice of allowing Baptised recieved was the norm, there weren't any denominations either - everyone was part of the one true church.

 

[Timothy]

Would you like to tell me where I can find this statement in my BCP?

Ummm... It's in the 1662 which is the only BCP in most jurisdictions of the AC anyhow...

 

[higgs2]

Ummm... It's in the 1662 which is the only BCP in most jurisdictions of the AC anyhow...

Thanks, Timothy. That does not apply, then, to my church.

 

[Timothy]

Thanks, Timothy. That does not apply, then, to my church.

Ummm... I rather think it does! The 1662 BCP is still the standard liturgy for the worldwide Anglican Communion... it's the only single authorized liturgy for the whole communion.