[Lightknight]

Yeah, since Communion certainly isn't necessary for salvation, there's no need to rush it even if you believe in paedocommunion.

[Reedolo]

1 Corinthians 11
27: Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
28: Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
29: For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.

Some people would use these verses to say that children shouldn't receive Communion, but I don't think that's what St. Paul is trying to say here. I think he's specifically talking about people who are in mortal sin and have not yet received sacramental absolution. A child who has been baptized is in a state of grace, and they have done nothing to lose that grace unless they have committed mortal sin. And children don't commit mortal sin.

It would also refer to someone who receives the Lord's Body and Blood while they actually do not believe that's what it is. They might believe it is only symbolic or that there's nothing to it at all.

[Lightknight]

Originally Posted by Reedolo

1 Corinthians 11
27: Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
28: Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
29: For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.

Some people would use these verses to say that children shouldn't receive Communion, but I don't think that's what St. Paul is trying to say here. I think he's specifically talking about people who are in mortal sin and have not yet received sacramental absolution. A child who has been baptized is in a state of grace, and they have done nothing to lose that grace unless they have committed mortal sin. And children don't commit mortal sin.

It would also refer to someone who receives the Lord's Body and Blood while they actually do not believe that's what it is. They might believe it is only symbolic or that there's nothing to it at all.

Well, I would simply use the purpose of communion. It is to be done in remembrance of Christ. If the child is too young to do that and is just enjoying the food then they really shouldn't be included until an age when they can actually appreciate Christ's sacrifice.

[Elationist]

Insightful, and I might add, everyone here is doing a fine job of being civilized so far...thank you!

But what about the exact topic at hand, which may be that I would like to focus on the board of elders given the responsibility to decide who does and who doesn't partake of communion. That's all. Is it to be one's personal accountablity [examine yourself] --what does the Bible say about this according to Scripture or can the church/es come up with their own practices?

Also: Sure many here will differ that is why we have Scripture to bring unity out of diversity [university]. Is it not vitally important to many Christians that this be done exactly correct according to the Scripture?

[Reedolo]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

Yeah, since Communion certainly isn't necessary for salvation, there's no need to rush it even if you believe in paedocommunion.

Are you being sarcastic?

John 6
51: I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."
52: The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
53: So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
54: he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55: For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56: He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
57: As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
58: This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever."

It doesn't get any clearer than that.

Matthew 26
26: Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is my body."
27: And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you;
28: for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.


The Word of God has power, and Jesus is the Word made flesh. Jesus tells Lazarus to come out, and Lazarus comes out. Jesus tells the sea to be calm, and the sea is calm. Jesus tells that man to carry his bed walk out, and that's what happens. Jesus tells a girl to rise from the dead, and that's what happen.

Jesus takes bread and says "This is my Body", so it is. It doesn't matter if I can see it with my human senses or not, it is what God said it is.

1 Corinthians 10
16: The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
17: Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.


If you feel comfortable believing Communion isn't that important, then I don't see where you're getting it. It's what makes us One, it's what makes us One Body in Christ. He said if we do not eat His flesh and drink His blood we have no life within us.

I'm not saying anyone is automatically going to Hell if they don't receive Communion, but I don't think Jesus' words should be taken lightly either. And certainly not symbolically, becaus over a third of His disciples left Him over this teaching, and He let them go for their unbelief. I refuse to believe that Christ would have let so many of His disciples leave simply because they misunderstood his "symbolic" language. Christ meant what He said, his flesh is true food and his blood is true drink. He's our Paschal Lamb, the Lamb of God, and just like in the Old Testament, we consume our Paschal sacrifice.

[Lightknight]

The scriptures aren't very clear in regards to infants.

[Lightknight]

Originally Posted by Reedolo

Are you being sarcastic?

John 6
51: I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."
52: The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
53: So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
54: he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55: For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56: He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
57: As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
58: This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever."

It doesn't get any clearer than that.

Matthew 26
26: Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is my body."
27: And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you;
28: for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.


The Word of God has power, and Jesus is the Word made flesh. Jesus tells Lazarus to come out, and Lazarus comes out. Jesus tells the sea to be calm, and the sea is calm. Jesus tells that man to carry his bed walk out, and that's what happens. Jesus tells a girl to rise from the dead, and that's what happen.

Jesus takes bread and says "This is my Body", so it is. It doesn't matter if I can see it with my human senses or not, it is what God said it is.

1 Corinthians 10
16: The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
17: Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.


If you feel comfortable believing Communion isn't that important, then I don't see where you're getting it. It's what makes us One, it's what makes us One Body in Christ. He said if we do not eat His flesh and drink His blood we have no life within us.

I'm not saying anyone is automatically going to Hell if they don't receive Communion, but I don't think Jesus' words should be taken lightly either. And certainly not symbolically, becaus over a third of His disciples left Him over this teaching, and He let them go for their unbelief. I refuse to believe that Christ would have let so many of His disciples leave simply because they misunderstood his "symbolic" language. Christ meant what He said, his flesh is true food and his blood is true drink. He's our Paschal Lamb, the Lamb of God, and just like in the Old Testament, we consume our Paschal sacrifice.

*sigh* I said that it isn't a salvific issue. Don't highjack the thread, no one said anything about Transubstantiation. Feel free to make your own thread on that.

No where does it say that communion saves people. I see it say repent and be baptized, but no, no communion. We are told, however, as believers, to partake in communion in remembrance of Christ and what he did for us. I can see it as a command, but not a salvific command.

[Elationist]

Let's say for argument's sake that we all agree that it is holy and therefore, we must not only treat it as such, but when we discuss it, we analyze the Scripture surrounding the actual practice and not the literal or symbolic arguments. This way, maybe we can avoid another Catholic vs. Protestant tug o war.

If at all possible, let's try together to focus on the practice and question at hand concerning the RCA's doctrine concerning it.

[Reedolo]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

Well, I would simply use the purpose of communion. It is to be done in remembrance of Christ. If the child is too young to do that and is just enjoying the food then they really shouldn't be included until an age when they can actually appreciate Christ's sacrifice.

I tend to agree with you on this, i'm all for putting it off until, say, age 7 or 8. And that's what we do in the Latin rite.

[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by Reedolo

He said if we do not eat His flesh and drink His blood we have no life within us.

Metaphor... but that's off-topic anyway.

This thread is about who may participate in communion, not what effect it has or if it is necessary for salvation. It's fine to talk about those issues as they relate to the topic of the thread, but let's not just run off on every communion issue we can think of.

[Reedolo]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

*sigh* I said that it isn't a salvific issue. Don't highjack the thread, no one said anything about Transubstantiation. Feel free to make your own thread on that.

No where does it say that communion saves people. I see it say repent and be baptized, but no, no communion. We are told, however, as believers, to partake in communion in remembrance of Christ and what he did for us. I can see it as a command, but not a salvific command.

It goes without saying that we must do what Christ tells us to do. If we don't do what He tells us to do, then we aren't believing in Him. We aren't practicing faith in Him, we aren't obeying Him. If Christ says "do this in remembrance of me" then we do it. If we fail to do it, then we are directly disobeying Christ and we will not be saved. That is, if we intentionally disobey Christ.

[Lightknight]

Well, if it was a salvific issue, wouldn't our response be different? Or at least the people who adhere to Paedocommunion? I, not being one of them, wouldn't dare speak on their behalf.

Thus I do find a degree of necessity in establishing that communion is not a salvific thing and therefore can wait under any orthodox belief system until the person is old enough to care.

[Lightknight]

Originally Posted by Reedolo

It goes without saying that we must do what Christ tells us to do. If we don't do what He tells us to do, then we aren't believing in Him. We aren't practicing faith in Him, we aren't obeying Him. If Christ says "do this in remembrance of me" then we do it. If we fail to do it, then we are directly disobeying Christ and we will not be saved. That is, if we intentionally disobey Christ.

No, it isn't "not believing him" it's sinning, just like lying or any other way that we disobey Christ in our daily lives. And that's only when we have the option to take communion but refuse to. A child wouldn't be doing that.

[Reedolo]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

Well, if it was a salvific issue, wouldn't our response be different? Or at least the people who adhere to Paedocommunion? I, not being one of them, wouldn't dare speak on their behalf.

Thus I do find a degree of necessity in establishing that communion is not a salvific thing and therefore can wait under any orthodox belief system until the person is old enough to care.

Sure, I don't think there's anything wrong with waiting. I think it just becomes a problem if Christians start thinking that Communion is unimportant and they don't have to do it at all.

I used to go to a Methodist Church, and we had communion the first Sunday of every month, and there would actually be people who would skip church on those sundays simply because "it's just communion sunday". It's one of the last things Jesus commanded us to do before He died, and some people just shrug it off like it's nothing.

But if someone wants to wait until a certain age before the child receives communion, I think that's fine. That's what we do in the Latin rite. But I don't think it simply has to be done that way, I just think it's a nice practice. This is one issue where I don't think there's any "right way", it just depends on the tradition you belong to and how you do it. I don't think either way is right or wrong, but I prefer putting it off to a certain age.

[Reedolo]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

No, it isn't "not believing him" it's sinning, just like lying or any other way that we disobey Christ in our daily lives. And that's only when we have the option to take communion but refuse to. A child wouldn't be doing that.

Right, of course. I agree with you here. A child does not have to take it, and in most traditions the child does not partake of it until they celebrate their First Communion.