tim@uunet.uu.net (Tim McLarnan) (12/14/90)
Our recent discussion of infant baptism has set me to thinking about a related issue. In the Orthodox Church, infants are baptized, chrismated, and first receive communion all during the same Liturgy. Subsequently, they continue to receive communion regularly, even in periods of our history when adult communion has been rather infrequent. My understanding is that in the Western Churches, this is not the pattern. (Are there exceptions?) Instead, children are excluded from receiving the Lord's Body and Blood until they reach a certain age. I'm interested in the rationale for what seems to me like baptism followed by instantaneous excommunication. To have two classes of baptized members of the Body of Christ seems odd to me. I'm also interested in exactly what one says to one's children. I can't quite picture how you politely say to a small child, "We're all having something to eat to show that Jesus loves us, but you can't have any." Naturally, this query is directed mostly at people from traditions which baptize but do not commune infants; but I would also be interested in comments from people in denominations that baptize only adults. How do you explain to your kids that fundamentally the church is an adult affair? What do you do with Christ's injunction about allowing the little children to come to him? How do you feel about all this? I hope I've been inoffensive in my phrasing of these questions. Do forgive me if in my misunderstanding I have misspoken. I am not a theologian; I am just an Orthodox dad trying to make sense of a theological question with implications within people's families. Finally, I highly commend our moderator for making possible a forum both astonishingly diverse and remarkably civilized. In Christ, Tim McLarnan ecmath!tim@uunet.uu.net Dept. of Mathematics, Earlham College, Richmond, IN 47374 [Generally the concern is that the communicant must be able to "discern the body", as Paul said. This is normally taken to mean that if they are not able to understand the significance of the act at least at some level, they ought not to participate. (How much understanding is needed is a matter of judgement, but at a bare minimum it seems that they should understand it as bringing them into contact with Jesus, and have a basic idea of who Jesus was.) Different groups have different criteria. The Presbyterian Church (USA) seems in practice to allow parents to decide when the children are ready, but encourages fairly young children to participate. Not infants though. --clh]
cms@gatech.edu (12/17/90)
In article <Dec.14.04.20.54.1990.28163@athos.rutgers.edu>, ecmath!tim@uunet.uu.net (Tim McLarnan) writes: > Our recent discussion of infant baptism has set me to > thinking about a related issue. In the Orthodox Church, > infants are baptized, chrismated, and first receive > communion all during the same Liturgy. Subsequently, > they continue to receive communion regularly, even in > periods of our history when adult communion has been > rather infrequent. > > Naturally, this query is directed mostly at people from > traditions which baptize but do not commune infants; > but I would also be interested in comments from people > in denominations that baptize only adults. How do you > explain to your kids that fundamentally the church is > an adult affair? What do you do with Christ's > injunction about allowing the little children to come > to him? How do you feel about all this? In the Roman Catholic Church, we were allowed to receive communion after our first confession. I went to my first confession a bit late at the tender age of 8 (most begin at 7). After I talked to the Father, and he asked me a series of questions, and we discussed the Roman Catholic/Orthodox split because of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son issue (I was bright), he asked me "three important questions," worded something like this. 1. Do you believe in God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Yes. 2. Do you believe that Jesus died on the Cross for your sins in fulfillment of the Scriptures? Yes. 3. Do you believe Jesus rose again from the dead according to the Scriptures and will you take up your cross and follow him all the days of your life? Yes. "Okay," he said, hitching up his pant leg and perching himself on the corner of his desk, "I'm ready to hear your first confession." That morning I received communion for the first time. My parents were rather nonchalant about the whole thing, which isn't unusual for the second child, but it was the most important event in my life. It's when I accepted Jesus as my God and Saviour and decided to "take my place as a soldier for Christ," in my words to Father. While I have very fond memories of the Roman Catholic Church, as an Episcopalian, I also agree strongly that all baptized persons should be allowed to receive communion. I understand the reasons why many people feel strongly that one should attain the "age of reason," first, however, I feel that communion is a passionate experience rather than a reasoning one, a gift from God to the baptized regardless of reasoning ability. Thus, although many Episcopalian parents choose to have their children wait until Confirmation (about 11 in the Episcopal Church), many parents allow their children to receive from infancy (or toddlerhood). One of my fellow layreaders, who's been at Saint Bede's for ages and ages, told me that he saw a woman intinct, drop the blood on her infant daughter's tongue, then consume the body herself. As for me, my two older kids are 7 and 5 and they both receive, but my 2 year old doesn't. This is for practical reasons as much as anything else. When my second son was younger, I allowed him to receive, but when we got back to our place in the pew, I discovered that he'd taken it out of his mouth. He said, "Yucky," and I couldn't get him to eat it. With *great* reluctance, I consumed it myself. Yucky was right :-). So, it's a good idea to wait at least until they're old enough to know obedience :-). > In Christ, > Tim McLarnan ecmath!tim@uunet.uu.net > Dept. of Mathematics, Earlham College, Richmond, IN 47374 > > [Generally the concern is that the communicant must be able to > "discern the body", as Paul said. This is normally taken to mean that > if they are not able to understand the significance of the act at > least at some level, they ought not to participate. (How much > understanding is needed is a matter of judgement, but at a bare > minimum it seems that they should understand it as bringing them into > contact with Jesus, and have a basic idea of who Jesus was.) > Different groups have different criteria. The Presbyterian Church > (USA) seems in practice to allow parents to decide when the children > are ready, but encourages fairly young children to participate. Not > infants though. --clh] Generally, I interpret "discern the body" to be a reference to the Real Presence. The dispute seems to be similar to the infant baptism question: Is it a free gift or must you be of an age to accept it? The gift of baptism is freely bestowed although adults make vows to raise the infant/child in the Christian way and life. I tend to look at communion in a similar light. Christ gave his body and blood for the disciples and for many for the forgiveness of sins. Can we deny the body and blood, the forgiveness of sins, to those too young to comprehend it? I might ask the same question of the retarded. Can we deny the body and blood, the forgiveness of sins, to those too retarded or mentally deficient to comprehend it? Can we deny Confirmation to such persons? Can we deny absolution to such persons, without confession or contrition but based on what we perceive to be the goodness of their hearts? Does Reconciliation truly mean reasoning or passion especially when none of us can truly comprehend God's love but only accept it? Thomas Aquinas, bless his heart, would probably say that allowing such persons to receive would be "unlawful but valid." Jesus might say, "Children have faith greater than adults, become like children before you receive, and let the children receive," but be aware Jesus didn't say that, that's my supposition. Kierkegaard would say, "Our laws have drained the mystery out of religion by changing wine into water. No one's as great as Abraham, except children, who can understand them?" -- Sincerely, Cindy Smith _///_ // SPAWN OF A JEWISH _///_ // _///_ // <`)= _<< CARPENTER _///_ //<`)= _<< <`)= _<< _///_ // \\\ \\ \\ _\\\_ <`)= _<< \\\ \\ \\\ \\ <`)= _<< >IXOYE=('> \\\ \\ \\\ \\_///_ // // /// _///_ // _///_ // emory!dragon!cms <`)= _<< _///_ // <`)= _<< <`)= _<< \\\ \\<`)= _<< \\\ \\ \\\ \\ GO AGAINST THE FLOW! \\\ \\ A Real Live Catholic in Georgia Although not a Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's court, I am: A Real Live Southern Catholic in the Anglican Communion.
math1h3@jetson.uh.edu (12/19/90)
In article <Dec.14.04.20.54.1990.28163@athos.rutgers.edu>, ecmath!tim@uunet.uu.net (Tim McLarnan) writes:
Our recent discussion of infant baptism has set me to
thinking about a related issue. In the Orthodox Church,
infants are baptized, chrismated, and first receive
communion all during the same Liturgy. Subsequently,
they continue to receive communion regularly, even in
periods of our history when adult communion has been
rather infrequent.
[Generally the concern is that the communicant must be able to
"discern the body", as Paul said. This is normally taken to mean that
if they are not able to understand the significance of the act at
least at some level, they ought not to participate. {deletions} --clh]
This is what I see as the relevant passage:
"Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an
unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the boy and blood of
the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread
and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without
recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgement on himself."
-- 1 Cor. 11:27-29.
For the issue at hand, "A man ought to examine himself" seems particularly
relevant. One should spend some time, reflecting on one's sins, and one's
need for forgiveness, and on the source of that forgiveness, before
receiving the body and blood of the Lord. This requires mental and
spiritual maturity. On the other hand, while the Lord's supper, properly
received, is certainly beneficial for our salvation, it is not stated
as a requirement for salvation, as is Baptism --"Unless a man is born
of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." John 3:5.
The church, in administering the Sacrament, has a responsibility to
prevent people from abusing the Sacrament or taking it unto judgement.
Therefore we do not commune infants, who cannot 'examine themselves.'
Just at what point a person is sufficient mature in mind and spirit
to receive the sacrament, is not clear. Typically in Lutheran churches
(at least in the WELS) we confirm students in our Christian Day Schools
in the eighth grade. I think we are within our Chrisian freedom in doing
this. There is, however, no doubt that some are ready before this age,
and some we confirm are going through the motions, and eventually leave
the church.
David H. Wagner
a confessional Lutheran.
My opinions and beliefs on this matter are disclaimed by
The University of Houston.llo@nuchat.sccsi.com (Larry Overacker) (12/19/90)
In article <Dec.14.04.20.54.1990.28163@athos.rutgers.edu> ecmath!tim@uunet.uu.net (Tim McLarnan) writes: >My understanding is that in the Western Churches, this >is not the pattern. (Are there exceptions?) >Instead, children are excluded from receiving the >Lord's Body and Blood until they reach a certain age. > I grew up in the Lutheran church, and their practice at the time was to baptise infants, and allow communion only after confirmation. Today, communion occurs earlier and prior to confirmation. This was in the Lutheran Church in America, now part of the ELCA. >I'm interested in the rationale for what seems to me >like baptism followed by instantaneous excommunication. > >Naturally, this query is directed mostly at people from >traditions which baptize but do not commune infants; >but I would also be interested in comments from people >in denominations that baptize only adults. How do you >explain to your kids that fundamentally the church is >an adult affair? What do you do with Christ's >injunction about allowing the little children to come >to him? How do you feel about all this? > Our Moderator Adds: >[Generally the concern is that the communicant must be able to >"discern the body", as Paul said. ... stuff deleted ... -clh] Our moderator's explanation agrees with my understanding of the reasoning used by the Lutheran church. Frankly I disagree with this, and that disagreement was one of my reasons for leaving the Lutheran church for the Orthodox church. I believe that faith is a gift from God that in no way depends on our ability to think or reason. It is not a cognitive process. Infants can and do have faith. There is ample evidence for this from the Old Testament (esp. Psalms). To have cognitive skills as a prerequisite for faith leaves me wondering about people who, even as adults, are unable to think or reason at a normal level. Faith is simply contigent upon being human and then having a trusting relationship with God. Infants are able to trust. In Erikson's model of human development, the first developmental task of children is to resolve the issue of trust versus mistrust. This task is complete before the child is a year old. This full trust of a child on a parent is precisely the kind of faith that I believe we should have in God. I also believe that the sacrament of the Eucharist is the single most potent sign we have of Christ's presence. It gives real strength and power to those that partake of it. To deny it to anyone who is a member of the Body of Christ seems to me to say, "Live the Christian life, and follow Jesus. But don't use that really good tool you have, that helps you in your walk." In Orthodox terms, we are on a journey [theosis] for which the Eucharist is the appropriate food to help us grow. Larry Overacker Art is not a mirror held up to reality, but a hammer with which to shape it. bertolt brecht