Pedo-Communion

[Shane R]

Suddenly, infant or pedo-communion has popped up on the radar of a number of my Lutheran and Anglican contacts. It is a point of discussion for the upcoming LCMS convention: http://steadfastlutherans.org/2016/01/to-address-the-practice-of-infant-communion/ My seminary president recently wrote a paper on the subject.

Let's have a discussion; I will withhold my own insight for a day or two.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Jesus said to "Let the little children come unto Me ... the Kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

Considering that in our Church, to fail to receive communion is to basically excommunicate oneself, why would we excommunicate our children?

And considering that we hold the Eucharist to be the Body and Blood of Christ, why would we deny His sustenance to our children?

 

[Anhelyna]

Agree totally with Anastasia - as she knows well .

I'll even go a bit further with my explanation as to why our babies and children receive Communion

We give these little ones physical food and drink for their physical nourishment why should we deprive them of spiritual food - the very Body and Blood of our Lord God and Saviour - for their spiritual nourishment ?

 

[MKJ]

In general I approve of the idea.

However, I think within the context of Anglican, and probably Lutheran, congregations, there are some things to consider.

The first is simply that although our Orthodox posters may see this as a return to an older form, in the West this would represent a change to a very very longstanding practice, and in some ways the older practice - of the Bishop confirming by laying on of hands. It's difficult to imagine that it would be easy to move to having bishops do this at every baptism, so the options would seem to be having them confirm the infants of the parish on a yearly basis when they visit, or chrismation. Some, understandably, might not want to move to the latter option which has never been normative in the West.

So - when we look at this, for us, it does in fact represent a break from the earliest tradition.

The second thing is more about perception. My worry would be that for many Anglicans, this would be interpreted as a loosening up of Eucharistic discipline, which is often not as careful as it ought to be. I can easily imagine people seeing and understanding this not as a strengthening of sacramental theology, but more along the lines of communicating the unbaptized, non-Christians, or even non-humans. If it were to be done, it would require significant education around sacramental theology, and also I would want to see it accompanied by some tightening up of practices around the Eucharist in Anglican parishes.

 

[Anhelyna]

That's a valid point .

In Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism all Sacraments of Initiation are given together and not separated as they are in the Latin Church. All priests fully Receive the child - it does not need the Bishop for Chrismation / Confirmation .

In the Latin Church the convert coming in from outside the Church by way of RCIA, receives all the Sacraments of Initiation at the Easter Vigil and again they receive them from the priest, and even now in the Latin Church when a young person is Confirmed it is often administered by a senior priest from another parish because the Bishop is unable to attend every parish to confirm the young people.

 

[football5680]

I agree with it and it was clearly practiced in the early Church.

 

[Shane R]

I find it inconsistent to offer infants and children the baptismal sacrament but not the eucharistic sacrament. This is especially hard to justify when one teaches that baptism infuses the infant with faith and unites them to the church universal.

 

[mark46]

I find it inconsistent to offer infants and children the baptismal sacrament but not the eucharistic sacrament. This is especially hard to justify when one teaches that baptism infuses the infant with faith and unites them to the church universal.

One need not reject a valid practice because we refuse to give communion to infants. The separation is a pastoral, rather than theological issue. The reality is the Latin church uses this separation as a means to assure that children are put in classes and taught the faith.

Christianity is about practicing our faith in community. Often in Scripture, households were converted. The idea of individualism is really not critical in Scripture. In any case, I don't think it is reasonable to withhold the sacrament of baptism from our children. I believe that this IS still the norm within the vast majority within our traditional churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Presbyterian (I don't know about the rest of the Reformed churches), and Methodist. To me, NOT baptizing infants is a step away from tradition. Curious;y, Baptists and non-denominational folks are starting to have welcoming or naming ceremonies for infants. For us, the vehicles to welcome infants into the church is baptism.

I believe Luther that all are given the gift of faith (Mark has posted that). We all have the free will to reject that gift. So, within Lutheranism, I'm not sure I see the issue. Is your community discussing have an adult statement of faith as a requirement for being part of the body of Christ. As I said, I don't understand this within any but a Baptist or non-denominational view of Church and the sacraments.

 

[Cappadocious]

Whether or not the Latin practice emerged out of some notion of catechetical process, or the age of reason, or the fact that bishops were few and could only hit parishes infrequently and this was the Latin response:

Nam antiquitas sine veritate vetustas erroris est. Antiquity without truth is just old error.

Whether right or wrong it doesn't get a pass just because it was part of the Grand Old Venerable traditions. I can get as much tradition as I want from the SCA.

 

[Anhelyna]

SCA ???????

 

[prodromos]

The reality is the Latin church uses this separation as a means to assure that children are put in classes and taught the faith.

Can you provide anything to back this statement up?

 

[MKJ]

Can you provide anything to back this statement up?

I don't think its a historic reason, but it is in many modern parishes used as a way to "encourage" parents to bring their children to catechism classes. For whatever reason, many have strong feelings about their children participating with the others for First Communion and Confirmation, and will send their children to classes if it is a requirement to participate. I've spoken to quite a few Catholic religious education teachers who say that when there is no requirement, parents just don't make it a priority.

That being said, I think there are other ways to handle that issue.

 

[MKJ]

SCA ???????

Society for Creative Anachronism.

 

[MKJ]

That's a valid point .

In Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism all Sacraments of Initiation are given together and not separated as they are in the Latin Church. All priests fully Receive the child - it does not need the Bishop for Chrismation / Confirmation .

In the Latin Church the convert coming in from outside the Church by way of RCIA, receives all the Sacraments of Initiation at the Easter Vigil and again they receive them from the priest, and even now in the Latin Church when a young person is Confirmed it is often administered by a senior priest from another parish because the Bishop is unable to attend every parish to confirm the young people.

I wouldn't want to lose the tradition of laying on of hands, not for normal situations anyway. I think it's really nice that there is that contact with the bishop. When a bishop can't see his parishes even once a year, it seems to me his connection to them have become pretty tenuous.

 

[MKJ]

I'd point out too, that separating baptism and the confirmation by laying on of hands isn't some sort of post-schism innovation. It was well established practice by that time. It gets rather dodgy to call out now sacramental practices that were considered fine in the undivided early Church and have continued fairly uninterrupted. It's one thing to say that the timing has become too stretched out and efforts should be made to contract it, and another to reject it, essentially because it is the western practice.
There is a reason that among Anglicans, the people most likely to want to usher in communing of infants are often the ones who are most comfortable with liturgical innovation in general.

 

[mark46]

Can you provide anything to back this statement up?

This is NOT a negative.

As you well know such things cannot proven.

 

[prodromos]

This is NOT a negative.

As you well know such things cannot proven.

All I'm asking for is any statement put out by the Catholic Church, whether it be from individual parishes or from the Local Bishop or from Rome that supports what you claimed is the reality. If I want to form an opinion on something, I like to know what the facts are. Something got quite a lot of opinion published in the national newpapers in Australia a few months ago which turned out to be a joke. A lot of people believed it at the time.

 

[Albion]

The reality is the Latin church uses this separation as a means to assure that children are put in classes and taught the faith.

I don't think that's it. The fact is that Catholic children receive their first communions at around the age of six or seven because that has long been thought to be about the age when they can discern a difference between right and wrong--the "Age of Accountability" IOW. The more determined instruction in the faith comes before Confirmation at a later age.

 

[prodromos]

I don't think that's it. The fact is that Catholic children receive their first communions at around the age of six or seven because that has long been thought to be about the age when they can discern a difference between right and wrong--the "Age of Accountability" IOW. The more determined instruction in the faith comes before Confirmation at a later age.

It was my understanding that they did not receive first communion until after confirmation. Is this not the case?

 

[Albion]

It was my understanding that they did not receive first communion until after confirmation. Is this not the case?

No. Confirmation is a sacrament associated with a reassertion of one's Baptismal vows and with a fuller understanding (and commitment to) the faith. Ideally, it is administered to those who have undergone a certain course of study.