“Let none eat or drink of your Eucharist except those who have been baptised in the Lord’s Name. For concerning this also did the Lord say, ‘Give not that which is holy to the dogs.'”
–Didache ix.5, trans. Kirsopp Lake.
“This food we call Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake, except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Saviour being incarnate by God’s word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus. For the apostles in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, thus handed down what was commanded them: that Jesus, taking bread and having given thanks, said, ‘Do this for my memorial, this is my body’; and likewise taking the cup and giving thanks he said, ‘This is my blood’; and gave it to them alone.'”
–Justin Martyr, First apology 66, trans. Edward Rochie Hardy.
What possible difference could these comments make to today’s discussion? They only represent the unbroken tradition of 2,000 years . . .
This problem is inevitable where communion is regularly given to very small children. Recently a visiting family came to the rail with a three year old. They looked rather surprised when I simply gave him a blessing. I learned later, upon inquiry, that he had never been baptized. The response: “Does that make a difference?” This family
came from an “orthodox” Episcopal church. I suspect this problem is about equal among “reappraisers” and “reasserters.”
“Let none eat or drink of your Eucharist except those who have been baptised in the Lord’s Name. For concerning this also did the Lord say, ‘Give not that which is holy to the dogs.'”
=================================================
This speaks to the unorthodoxy, even heresy, of those promoting “open communion.”
2, well at least here is an opportunity for teaching. Just because someone calls him or herself “orthodox” does not mean that they have been properly schooled in the fundamentals of the faith, particularly if they are Episcopalian.
‘Give not that which is holy to the dogs.’
“Dogs” is not referring here to all humanity that are unbaptised, but to those who clearly demonstrate a contempt of God. To refer to someone as a “dog” was to label them the meanest and most base among men. To consider this today to apply to all unbaptized persons, even those who enter our churches in search of God, is most uncharitable, to say the least.
2. I don’t think children taking is a problem. The Orthodox have been doing it forever. Insofar as the discussion is about children, it’s a question of church membership and when one becomes a full member of the Body of Christ, not how old they are. Does Eucharist require mental consent as well as sacramental grace or does it require sacramental grace alone? Those that argue for Eucharist among children would argue the latter. I think placing the weight of the open table discussion of children partaking is mistaken given the example of the Orthodox.
I do find the whole movement to an “open table” to be troublesome. I certainly want to be inclusive and welcoming, but those that argue that such an inclusivity includes the Eucharistic feast must have a low understanding of what actually happens at the Lord’s Table.
ArkyEpi, I realise that first quote was very long and I can understand how someone could get lost in the middle, but let’s take it really slowly. “Let none eat or drink of your Eucharist except those who have been baptised in the Lord’s Name. For concerning this also did the Lord say, ‘Give not that which is holy to the dogs.’â€
While your attention is naturally captivated by the term “dogs†at the end, it’s important not to lose sight of the part of the quote way back at the beginning: “Let none eat or drink of your Eucharist except those who have been baptised in the Lord’s Nameâ€. When you put the two sentences of this two sentence quote together, you see that the speaker is referring to that class of persons including all persons “except those who have been baptised in the Lord’s Name.†That is to say, no communion for the unbaptized. The reference to dogs may indeed be “uncharitableâ€, whatever that means, but it’s clearly meant to encompass the unbaptized in the context (“for concerning this [’this’ being describing people not qualified to take communion] also…”) of describing those to whom communion should not be offered.
So contra your assertion, dogs as used here IS referring to all humanity that are unbaptised.
I agree with Fr. Wells above, but would add this comment in reponse to #6:
This problem also stems from the elimination of confirmation as a requirement for communion without coming up with any acceptable substitute either liturgically or theologically. The Orthodox example is useful, but potentially misleading, since the Orthodox chrismate (=confirm) immediately after baptism. When they eliminated confirmation as a requirement for communion, they tried to sneak chrismation in the ’79 BCP as a substitute; but once the bishops got wind of what was up, they nixed that without fixing the liturgical/theological hole that was thus created.
Don’t the Eastern Orthodox give communion to small children and baptized infants? If so, then I can’t see how that’s a root cause in the clamor for open communion. It’s not like the EOs are lax on Eucharistic discipline or theology.
Can someone give us a really knowledgeable description of EO practice?
I have been told, but really do not know, that in the EO churches Holy Communion is given to infants at their baptism/chrismation, but they do not become regular communicants until much later. If that is accurate information, then their practice hardly justifies what is going on with ECUSA.
The EO example is, unfortunately, irrelevant. They have a much stronger sense of sacraments than do Protestant Episcopalians. Just as we have made it easier for small children to communicate, simultaneously we have not only de-emphasized Confirmation but Baptism itself. It almost seems like there is a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy as families move from one parish to another. I once received a family which had been quite active in its former ECUSA parish but had never been confirmed.
The movement to CWOB (Communion WithOut Baptism) derives from the lack of a sacramental focus. Those who support CWOB do not fully understand the Real Presence (mechansim open to debate) of Christ’s Body and Blood in the Bread and Wine, nor do they understand that the Eucharist is a recapitulation of the death of Jesus for the sins of the world (and thus those in the congregation). Eucharist is where the Body of Christ is fed with the Body and Blood of Christ. It is where we become what we are or where what we are is strenghtened by what we receive.
If Holy Communion is not the Body and Blood of Jesus and is, in reality, only a nice visual aid that reminds us to be at table with Jesus and the Apostles, then CWOB is not a problem. However, the Bread and Wine are the Body and Blood of God Incarnate. In the consecrated Bread and Wine, the Second Person of the Trinity rests and only those who have been reborn in Him can or should receive Him in the Sacrament.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Chris, yes they do as do non Latin Rite churches in communion with the See of Rome such as Byzantine and Maronite Catholics.
Phil, I think you are right. If Jesus is not who He said He was and the Eucharest is nothing more than a memorial meal to wise man who said some really neat things and then got Himself crucified then open Communion is ok. We can add some cheese and really have a good time. But if there is something more involved and Jesus is phisically present, through some supernatural way that we can’t fully understand, then that changes everything.
Cabbages, there is that which the Didache says, and then that which the Didache is quoting. I do not believe the quote means what the Didache claims it does. However I thank you for your well-intentioned efforts to correct my understanding.
Nobody so far in the thread has given anything like a sound argument from either of these texts for denying CWOB.
These early texts are not very good support, BTW. The Scripture quoted in the Didache can be turned against the Didache rather easily; Jesus “agrees” (I don’t think he ever really thought otherwise) that even dogs should be able to gather up crumbs from under the table. And there are several aspects of how the Eucharist is portrayed in the Didache that contradict its normative practice.
As for Justin Martyr, hardly anyone in the Episocopal Church or anywhere in the Anglican Communion takes the premises or conlusions of his Logos theology seriously anymore–any serious appeal to him for substantive theology is risible (Plato learned from Moses?). For many–both on the Right among “Reasserters” and on the Left among “Reappraisers”–God is no longer Immutable, Impassible, Simple, Eternal, et al.
Re: #10
Fr. Wells & All,
The practice in the Orthodox Church is generally that Communion is available to all full members of The Church who have been received through Holy Baptism and Chrismation (which is generally given immediately after Baptism). This includes children and even infants. Once a child attains the age of reason (usually around 7 or so) they cease taking communion until they start making regular confession. The discipline of Holy Communion with regards to adults will see some variation depending on jurisdiction and in some cases even between parishes. But here are some of the basics.
1. Non Orthodox may not commune period. Those who have been excommunicated or who are known by the priest to be living immoral lives are also generally not admitted to the chalice.
2. Those taking communion must fast strictly usually from midnight until they have taken communion (exceptions exist for common sense reasons). Ideally they should also keep the fasts strictly during the week preceding Communion
3. Anyone conscious of serious sin in their life should not commune without first taking Holy Confession. In the Russian Church they are extremely strict about this, and generally will not commune someone unless the priest knows for a fact they have been to confession recently (usually within the last 24 hrs).
4. Attendance at vespers on the night before is obligatory unless excused for an honorable reason (In my experience this is not strictly enforced outside of the Russian Church.)
5. Those planning on communing are strongly discouraged from engaging in any activity on Saturday (or the eve of the day they plan to commune) that is not sober and pious. i.e. no bar hopping or night clubs. Weddings are also generally not performed on Saturdays. And in some of the stricter Orthodox homes television is turned off after vespers and married couples abstain from intimate relations.
It is not at all unusual in Orthodox parishes for a priest to ask someone approaching the chalice they don’t personally know “Are you Orthodox and have you been to confession recently?†Many parishes have the rules for communion printed in their bulletins and often the priest will make an announcement before communing the faithful reminding everyone what the rules are.
Frequency of communion among Orthodox varies greatly. Some commune almost weekly, others only on the major feast days and some only once a year (usually on Holy Pascha). Once a year is generally regarded as the canonical minimum for remaining a member of The Church
Truly a bizarre comment. The texts themselves make the argument. What part of this is unclear? “Let none eat or drink of your Eucharist except those who have been baptised” and “This food we call Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake, except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth”. These texts are describing actual Christian practice- do we have to agree with every word Justin Martyr wrote in order to believe he knew who was allowed to receive the Eucharist? What exactly are these texts describing if not a clear rejection of CWOB?
#15 Anglican Scotist, that would make sense if Justin were being cited for the specifics of his theology; however, here he is being cited as a witness to the tradition.
As for arguments, well, . . .
http://rathernot.classicalanglican.net/?p=283
Nos. 11 & 18 et al – I was going to comment but you said it better than I can. I might add that Receptionism as well as Memorialism which has also held a respectable place in Anglican eucharistic thought, has also contributed to this practice, at least as long as it is understood that the only substantive change effected in the eucharist is in the mind/soul of the worshipper and not in the elements themselves.
What precisely is the claim to authority of (1) the authors of the Didache, and (2) Justin Martyr?
Putting it another way: Why should their opinions be binding on us nearly 2,000 years later?
Well, DC, since you are not Christian in any orthodox or creedal sense of the term, you would not find them binding or persuasive.
Individually, DC, they are not binding. However, they witness to a Tradition that is, to a self-understanding of the church founded by God, forming the body of Christ and led by the Spirit, whose consistent witness over 2000 years is indeed binding.
In response to #10 and addition to #16.
I have been an Orthodox priest for over 26 years, so I can shed some light on communion of infants. After Baptism and Chrismation, which are performed together often within the first two months after birth, the child is brought to Holy Communion regularly. Many infants receive the Mysteries every Sunday and feast day. At some point around 7-9 years of age, they should start going to Confession regularly. At this point, many (most) children will stop receiving weekly and begin more and more to follow the adult practice in their parish. In my own case, I let them work into Confession, maybe confessing once a month or so, but still receiving the Mysteries every week for a year or two, then gradually increasing the frequency of confession.
This practice works in the EO Church because priests are permitted to confirm infants, using chrism blessed by the bishop (in this way maintaining the bishop’s power of confirmation). Thus, the infant is a full member of the Church from Baptism/Chrismation on. Infant Communion in the Western Church is more problematic, since confirmation is reserved to the bishop (with some exceptions in the RC Church). Since Confirmation and Baptism are separated by years, the child should not receive Holy Communion until Confirmation.
Back in the day when I was an Episcopalian (pre-1970), “open Communion” meant allowing non-confirmed members of Protestant churches to receive Communion in the Episcopal Church. The Anglo-Catholics (at least) restricted Communion to those confirmed. No one thought of allowing the unbaptized to receive Communion. There was enough controversy about allowing those not confirmed to receive, since the Prayer Book specifically stated that only those confirmed or desirous of being confirmed (which reflected colonial conditions when there were no or few bishops in North America) should receive Communion in Episcopal churches.