Very true Canon Harmon – I fail to understand where we are going with the communion of the unconfirmed consecrated by the unordained.
When I was confirmed by laying on of hands and received communion for the first time for me it meant a great deal, it symbolised my commitment to and welcome into my church as a full member of the body of Christ.
crossposting from a comment sent to Get Religion –
I believe the answer it quite possibly Richard Fabian and Donald Schell, who in 1975 started St. Gregory’s of Nyssa in San Francisco.
Dr. Phillip Turner, previous dean of Yale’s Berkley Episcopal Divinity School, comments that we should perhaps be more concerned about open communion for the unbaptized than we should be about sexuality & ordinations, since this strikes at the doctrine of Christ and Christ’s body – see [url=http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=206]this first things article[/url]
The logical progression is to proceed to communion of the unbaptized to the communion of the unbaptized by the unordained
to the communion of the unbaptized by the unordained with the unconsecrated
to a group hug in an weirdly ornate building by a person in a clown suit with a Happy Meal and a six-pack.
Could someone please explain to me the difference between CWOB and coffee & doughnuts in the fellowship hall? Yes, my question is snarky – so be it. But I’m serious and I really hope a revisionist will take me up on it.
Growing up, Baptism, Confirmation, Communion used to be the orderly progression of things. Disorder strikes again. Communion of the unbaptized is an open invitation to the acceptance of lack of discipline, and lack of commitment, that characterizes modern secularism. Doctrines, confessions, articles of faith, will continue on their way out of peoples upbringing and lives. The abandonment of the idea of Christian formation would be another problem with this approach.
I have often been somewhat befuddled by the “Communion of the Unbaptized” as Dr. Harmon prefers we refer to it (I think correctly). There was a theologian whose name I can’t remember, from Sewanee I think he was, that gave a lecture to the presbyters retreat in my diocese last year that did make a coherent argument. I thought it was somewhat lacking in logic and I didn’t really agree with it, and in his defense I don’t think he really agreed with it either but was being devil’s advocate for sake of discussion.
Anyway, as he understood the argument, he seemed to think the logic for communion of the unbaptized lied largely in the John Wesley thought on the issue, which was that Communion was an evangelical tool that could be used to draw people into the church. The church has customarily been unidirectional in its progression from baptism to communion, or in this theologian’s terminology, font-to-table.
The question that he posed, which I found interesting but not convincing, was to ask why does Communion only work in one direction? In other words, can’t God’s grace work in the opposite direction as well? Can’t the table lead people to the baptismal font, as well as the baptismal font leading someone to the table for Communion. In other words, God’s grace leads people both from font-to-table and from table-to-font.
The first time I heard this argument, I had a gut reaction against it, but the more I think about it, I think there is a certain logic, although I still do not agree with. I have three major objections that I have yet to have answered from people who are in favor of Communion for the unbaptized.
One is the issue of relevance. If I can just jump right in to the sacraments of the church, like Communion, without having to go through the hard work of Baptism, and maybe even some form of Confirmation or catechism!, then why bother? Does not Communion for the unbaptized pander to the cultural desire for instant gratification? We want instant cable access, we want instant microwaveable food, we want instant Communion, even if it might be pointless to us if we have never been baptized or know anything about Christ. But as good Americans, we want it our way, and we want it now (whether its good for us or not…)
My second objection is more of a subpoint of the first. Communion, at least in the more Catholic understanding, means that you are joining not just with God but with fellow Christians in the Communion of Saints. Communion is not just about me and Jesus. There is a whole other communal element here of joining in common union that seems to be turned on its head with the notion of Communion of the Unbaptized. Can you really be joined into the Communion of Saints if you are not really a baptized saint? That seems to be to be a huge and uncomfortable paradox.
My third objection has to do with ecclesiology to the point of Catholic versus Protestant understandings of Communion. I think this is part of the misunderstanding between the people avidly for it and those avidly against it. It seems to be that the Communion for the Unbaptized is being promulgated almost completely from the more Protestant wing of the church. For example, the table-to-font argument I heard above. Notice that argument, and other readings I have read on the subject, are always stressing the more Protestant notion of “table” not “altar.”
We do have altars and priests in the Episcopal church, despite what some want to believe. So, to change the terminology back to altar and not table, are we comfortable with continuing to make the argument of font-to-altar or altar-to-table. The altar being the holy place of God where the sacrament is consecrated is a whole different theological concept that a mere table where we have simply a recreation of the last supper. Do we dare send people in a sinful and unbaptized state up to approach the holy altar of God and receive the holy sacrament? Granted, I am an Anglo-catholic, but I for one am not comfortable doing that, especially what Paul says about receiving in an unworthy manner, not to mention the Old Testament texts where God goes on and on about what to do and not to do in and around the Temple and Altar of God.
From a Catholic perspective, I just can’t justify this because the issue is not simply letting people do something that we once never allowed. In actuality, its really an unspoken redefining of Eucharistic understanding and theology. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I, for one, remained unconvinced.
Without advocating for either position in this issue, where is the evidence that any of those who communed at the first eucharist (the last supper on the night before Jesus was betrayed) was baptized?
Those who take Scripture at its word should be able to clarify this.
Phillip
Sorry for the quote above, too hasty. I meant this:
John 1:32-33 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. 33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
I think the gospels make clear the importance of both kinds of baptizing, and I’m not sure why we would want to ignore that? Considering, as I said, that Jesus Himself was baptized.
Baptism by John the Baptist is not Christian Baptism. Of course the Holy Spirit is active in Judaism, but this is not Christian Baptism, which is the issue in the discussion above. And, with regard to the disciples, arguments from silence cannot be persuasive.
Phillip
Maybe we should be asking the question whether “fencing the altar” as we do is biblical? It is nice and well and good to have practices and traditions and canons, but we should probably evaluate them from time to time in the light of Scripture.
Still sinking in, isn’t it? When you commune the unbaptized (oh, by the way, into *what* “trinity” this week?) it means as much as when you commune unbelieving baptized (DC comes to mind). That is, precisely nothing. THat is why, I repeat, being out of communion with Anglicans means so very much more than being in communion with them. What COULD it mean? By the way, whether she is a cleric or not, Ann Redding will always be able to commune at an Anglican altar. Whatever that might mean.
I wonder if anyone really thinks about the effect of doing away with all those “barriers”? The message I fear we are sending is that none of this matters very much – not Christ, not the resurrection, not salvation.
Can you expand on your post? Specifically, what are you seeing as the theme from 2003? Is it an attempt to dismantle the tenets of traditional Christianity? If so, unbaptized communion, +Gene (Biblical Authority I assume?) and what is the third thing that you allude to?
If you cannot commit to Christ then taking Communion is merely unforgivable. We are forbidden to take communion when we are at odds with another in our church. How much more grievous it must be to take the Body and the Blood when one is at odds with Christ and therefore not confirmed. As for Ms. Redding the question really is aside from politics…would you take communion from her? Your salvation may very well rest upon your answer.
Intercessor
MannaITW, there is a strong argument to be made against communing the unbaptized (presuming this to be the essential rite of initiation–confirmation figures in this only as a completion of baptism) to found among the writings on communion and on the Body in the letters of Paul. The most important bits are from 1 Corinthians; doing a search on “body” will pop most of them up. I have a big problem with the “radical hospitality” notion because it pits the church against itself; it’s not a legitimate theological argument to reject a position simply because it isn’t (by some arbitrary standard) nice.
Archer of the Forest, did Wesley engage in CWOB or did he advocate it? The question “can the table lead one to the font” is like asking whether premarital sex can lead to marriage. Marriages do sometimes occur after premarital sex and baptisms sometimes occur after receiving communion, but to suggest that they “lead” or more properly cause marriage or baptism is to neither understand the end of marriage nor the end of baptism. The end of baptism is the uniting(marriage) with Christ while the end of communion(sex) is the consummation of that union.
Many of the arguments above are modestly interesting. But it has nothing at all to do with the current practice of ignoring baptism in various contexts. The entire point here is the destruction of practices that have been defined by the past and the identities that grow from it. It is liberal by definition to see the past as a set of shackles which need to be broken if the Cause is to be advanced, and it is central to the liberal identity that one advertise oneself as a shackle-breaker to earn one’s union card. This posture adds up to what we are seeing culture wide: The destruction of standards. They need to be destroyed precisely because they are tied to the past. It is from this posture that we have seen grow the faddish notion of inclusivity, diversity, and unversal tolerance.
The end of this development is, among other things, a Mass without standards of any sort. Is such a thing possible? One must suppose so. The facilitator affirms everything and denies nothing and no one. This is a parody of a Mass, but it is surely coming in TEC. One can cite the Great Commandment and, at the same time, avoid the Ten Commandments because they are restrictive. Emphasize Christ dying for Everyone and ignore what one must do to partake in this sacrifice. Skip all parts having to do with sin, penitence, guilt, but emphasize mercy and acceptance, and at all times emphasize “Judge not….” All blue America will eat this up as the only true Gospel.
With friends like this…. Larry
No. 19, I totally agree with you. In my previous post, I was simply trying to do justice to the argument that I heard. I don’t agree with the argument; I was just throwing it out there for discussion.
I don’t know that the evidence for baptism before communion is that overwhelming in the Bible. While I cannot conceive of a situation where one drawn to the sacrament of the Eucharist would not also seek the sacrament of Baptism, Paul does not in 1 Cor 11 say that baptism is a requirement before eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ. Indeed, were the argument that clear, one can easily imagine Paul condemning such for blaspheming the sacrament as he does the attitudes present in those that are in need of pastoral admonishment in Corinth. Mind you, I think we should fence the altar (and I get furious with priests who serve Hindus and pagans who come forward as a “just in case”), but I do not know that the reason to fence the altar is as biblical as we might like to think.
What ever happened to closed communion? A very good book by Arthur A. Just, Jr.: Heaven on Earth, The Gifts of Christ in the Divine Service. This book explains the the practice of the early church regarding Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. They certainly didn’t commune the unbaptized or the ones that were not catechized.
I think ‘fencing the altar’ goes back to the Judaic ‘veil’ separating the holy of holies from the rest of the temple. Of course, we know that the veil tore when Jesus died on the cross.
We also know from reading the Church fathers that communion from the earliest days was reserved for those baptised, that the catechumins (sp?) were dismissed after the liturgy of the Word for instruction while the baptised remained for the liturgy of the table (e.g., Justin Martyr, apologia).
Granted it’s not in scripture, but then again, Anglicans are not [i]sola scriptura[/i], are we?
That was my point, libraryjim. I agree that our leadership makes a number of statements that seem to contradict the Bible; this, however, is one of those areas that I simply do not think is as clear in the Bible as some would like to believe. I am constantly amazed, as well, at the priests who refuse to inquire of those non-Christians who come forward to receive why they are coming forward. If someone has been drawn through the Liturgy of the Word to the Sacrament, a priest might want to inquire and help them discern what it is that the person is seeking . . .
#22 St Paul further down the road had some other words for those who claimed their baptism was unique; (I am baptized of Appollo, stc. etc. ) St Paul went on to say that he had only baptized two or three person and that baptism was the answer of a good conscience tward God. What was important to him is the acceptance of Jesus Christ as Saviour. We have many mainline churches that expect confession of Jesus as Lord and Saviour and then they are baptized. This point was made very clear in the baptism of the Ethiopian by Philip. The order was and still is Repentance, Acceptance, and then Baptism.
My Father was Rector of a parish in New Jersey when I was a teenager. I lived with my mother’s family and was raised in the Methodist Church whose Communion was meaningful for me. When I was in my mid-teens I was allowed to visit my father for 10 days in the summer. On Sunday, during my visit, I went to church there. His wife (not my mother) told me that I couldn’t receive communion because I wasn’t confirmed. What I challenge to me! Up to the rail I went, kneeling beside her. My father approached with the Paten. He placed a host into his wife’s hand and handed the Paten to the acolyte. He then placed his hands on my head and blesssed me. I felt hurt that I “wasn’t good enough” to receive communion: after all, I had been received into membership in the Methodist Church. I was just as much a Christian as he was. A few years later, while I was a college stuident, I was confirmed in the Episcopal church and could now receive communion at my Father’s hand. I wish this discipline still existed. It made communion something that you had to qualify for. Promiscuous communtion negates the sacrament, at least for those who receive unqualifiedly.
Dumb Sheep.
My anectodal understanding is for the preservation of the nascent community of believers, the catacumens were prohibited from receiving full communion until they were confirmed. I do not know exactly how long this particular stage or rather how long this formation took(I have heard as long as three years, but who really knows), and even less when it exactly began, as I said this is anecdotal information, so the scholars amoung us may be better qualified to answer such details. Primarily the reason was to prevent those untested access to the “Holy of Holies” for the reception of Communion. This seems to me far more political than “spiritual”, but without this safeguard the church may have been eradicated. Why? Because the betrayal of confirmed believers, we might even call them core believers, who were willing to lay down their lives for our faith, was problematic for the survival of local congregations due to persecution. For what its worth.
Very true Canon Harmon – I fail to understand where we are going with the communion of the unconfirmed consecrated by the unordained.
When I was confirmed by laying on of hands and received communion for the first time for me it meant a great deal, it symbolised my commitment to and welcome into my church as a full member of the body of Christ.
crossposting from a comment sent to Get Religion –
I believe the answer it quite possibly Richard Fabian and Donald Schell, who in 1975 started St. Gregory’s of Nyssa in San Francisco.
Dr. Phillip Turner, previous dean of Yale’s Berkley Episcopal Divinity School, comments that we should perhaps be more concerned about open communion for the unbaptized than we should be about sexuality & ordinations, since this strikes at the doctrine of Christ and Christ’s body – see [url=http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=206]this first things article[/url]
The logical progression is to proceed to communion of the unbaptized to the communion of the unbaptized by the unordained
to the communion of the unbaptized by the unordained with the unconsecrated
to a group hug in an weirdly ornate building by a person in a clown suit with a Happy Meal and a six-pack.
It could happen.
Communion of the unbaptized is an act of PC “affirmation.” In the name of welcome, it affirms the unimportance of baptism.
Communion of unbaptized nonbelievers goes beyond that to affirm the unimportance of Christian faith.
Welcome to the zen of relativism.
Could someone please explain to me the difference between CWOB and coffee & doughnuts in the fellowship hall? Yes, my question is snarky – so be it. But I’m serious and I really hope a revisionist will take me up on it.
CWOB is to baptism as premarital sex is to marriage.
Growing up, Baptism, Confirmation, Communion used to be the orderly progression of things. Disorder strikes again. Communion of the unbaptized is an open invitation to the acceptance of lack of discipline, and lack of commitment, that characterizes modern secularism. Doctrines, confessions, articles of faith, will continue on their way out of peoples upbringing and lives. The abandonment of the idea of Christian formation would be another problem with this approach.
I have often been somewhat befuddled by the “Communion of the Unbaptized” as Dr. Harmon prefers we refer to it (I think correctly). There was a theologian whose name I can’t remember, from Sewanee I think he was, that gave a lecture to the presbyters retreat in my diocese last year that did make a coherent argument. I thought it was somewhat lacking in logic and I didn’t really agree with it, and in his defense I don’t think he really agreed with it either but was being devil’s advocate for sake of discussion.
Anyway, as he understood the argument, he seemed to think the logic for communion of the unbaptized lied largely in the John Wesley thought on the issue, which was that Communion was an evangelical tool that could be used to draw people into the church. The church has customarily been unidirectional in its progression from baptism to communion, or in this theologian’s terminology, font-to-table.
The question that he posed, which I found interesting but not convincing, was to ask why does Communion only work in one direction? In other words, can’t God’s grace work in the opposite direction as well? Can’t the table lead people to the baptismal font, as well as the baptismal font leading someone to the table for Communion. In other words, God’s grace leads people both from font-to-table and from table-to-font.
The first time I heard this argument, I had a gut reaction against it, but the more I think about it, I think there is a certain logic, although I still do not agree with. I have three major objections that I have yet to have answered from people who are in favor of Communion for the unbaptized.
One is the issue of relevance. If I can just jump right in to the sacraments of the church, like Communion, without having to go through the hard work of Baptism, and maybe even some form of Confirmation or catechism!, then why bother? Does not Communion for the unbaptized pander to the cultural desire for instant gratification? We want instant cable access, we want instant microwaveable food, we want instant Communion, even if it might be pointless to us if we have never been baptized or know anything about Christ. But as good Americans, we want it our way, and we want it now (whether its good for us or not…)
My second objection is more of a subpoint of the first. Communion, at least in the more Catholic understanding, means that you are joining not just with God but with fellow Christians in the Communion of Saints. Communion is not just about me and Jesus. There is a whole other communal element here of joining in common union that seems to be turned on its head with the notion of Communion of the Unbaptized. Can you really be joined into the Communion of Saints if you are not really a baptized saint? That seems to be to be a huge and uncomfortable paradox.
My third objection has to do with ecclesiology to the point of Catholic versus Protestant understandings of Communion. I think this is part of the misunderstanding between the people avidly for it and those avidly against it. It seems to be that the Communion for the Unbaptized is being promulgated almost completely from the more Protestant wing of the church. For example, the table-to-font argument I heard above. Notice that argument, and other readings I have read on the subject, are always stressing the more Protestant notion of “table” not “altar.”
We do have altars and priests in the Episcopal church, despite what some want to believe. So, to change the terminology back to altar and not table, are we comfortable with continuing to make the argument of font-to-altar or altar-to-table. The altar being the holy place of God where the sacrament is consecrated is a whole different theological concept that a mere table where we have simply a recreation of the last supper. Do we dare send people in a sinful and unbaptized state up to approach the holy altar of God and receive the holy sacrament? Granted, I am an Anglo-catholic, but I for one am not comfortable doing that, especially what Paul says about receiving in an unworthy manner, not to mention the Old Testament texts where God goes on and on about what to do and not to do in and around the Temple and Altar of God.
From a Catholic perspective, I just can’t justify this because the issue is not simply letting people do something that we once never allowed. In actuality, its really an unspoken redefining of Eucharistic understanding and theology. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I, for one, remained unconvinced.
Without advocating for either position in this issue, where is the evidence that any of those who communed at the first eucharist (the last supper on the night before Jesus was betrayed) was baptized?
Those who take Scripture at its word should be able to clarify this.
Phillip
Since Jesus himself was baptized, it is not a huge assumption that his followers would be also. And we have this, for instance:
Matthew 3:11-12 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance:
Sorry for the quote above, too hasty. I meant this:
John 1:32-33 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. 33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
I think the gospels make clear the importance of both kinds of baptizing, and I’m not sure why we would want to ignore that? Considering, as I said, that Jesus Himself was baptized.
Baptism by John the Baptist is not Christian Baptism. Of course the Holy Spirit is active in Judaism, but this is not Christian Baptism, which is the issue in the discussion above. And, with regard to the disciples, arguments from silence cannot be persuasive.
Phillip
Maybe we should be asking the question whether “fencing the altar” as we do is biblical? It is nice and well and good to have practices and traditions and canons, but we should probably evaluate them from time to time in the light of Scripture.
Still sinking in, isn’t it? When you commune the unbaptized (oh, by the way, into *what* “trinity” this week?) it means as much as when you commune unbelieving baptized (DC comes to mind). That is, precisely nothing. THat is why, I repeat, being out of communion with Anglicans means so very much more than being in communion with them. What COULD it mean? By the way, whether she is a cleric or not, Ann Redding will always be able to commune at an Anglican altar. Whatever that might mean.
I wonder if anyone really thinks about the effect of doing away with all those “barriers”? The message I fear we are sending is that none of this matters very much – not Christ, not the resurrection, not salvation.
Kendall+
Can you expand on your post? Specifically, what are you seeing as the theme from 2003? Is it an attempt to dismantle the tenets of traditional Christianity? If so, unbaptized communion, +Gene (Biblical Authority I assume?) and what is the third thing that you allude to?
If you cannot commit to Christ then taking Communion is merely unforgivable. We are forbidden to take communion when we are at odds with another in our church. How much more grievous it must be to take the Body and the Blood when one is at odds with Christ and therefore not confirmed. As for Ms. Redding the question really is aside from politics…would you take communion from her? Your salvation may very well rest upon your answer.
Intercessor
MannaITW, there is a strong argument to be made against communing the unbaptized (presuming this to be the essential rite of initiation–confirmation figures in this only as a completion of baptism) to found among the writings on communion and on the Body in the letters of Paul. The most important bits are from 1 Corinthians; doing a search on “body” will pop most of them up. I have a big problem with the “radical hospitality” notion because it pits the church against itself; it’s not a legitimate theological argument to reject a position simply because it isn’t (by some arbitrary standard) nice.
Archer of the Forest, did Wesley engage in CWOB or did he advocate it? The question “can the table lead one to the font” is like asking whether premarital sex can lead to marriage. Marriages do sometimes occur after premarital sex and baptisms sometimes occur after receiving communion, but to suggest that they “lead” or more properly cause marriage or baptism is to neither understand the end of marriage nor the end of baptism. The end of baptism is the uniting(marriage) with Christ while the end of communion(sex) is the consummation of that union.
Many of the arguments above are modestly interesting. But it has nothing at all to do with the current practice of ignoring baptism in various contexts. The entire point here is the destruction of practices that have been defined by the past and the identities that grow from it. It is liberal by definition to see the past as a set of shackles which need to be broken if the Cause is to be advanced, and it is central to the liberal identity that one advertise oneself as a shackle-breaker to earn one’s union card. This posture adds up to what we are seeing culture wide: The destruction of standards. They need to be destroyed precisely because they are tied to the past. It is from this posture that we have seen grow the faddish notion of inclusivity, diversity, and unversal tolerance.
The end of this development is, among other things, a Mass without standards of any sort. Is such a thing possible? One must suppose so. The facilitator affirms everything and denies nothing and no one. This is a parody of a Mass, but it is surely coming in TEC. One can cite the Great Commandment and, at the same time, avoid the Ten Commandments because they are restrictive. Emphasize Christ dying for Everyone and ignore what one must do to partake in this sacrifice. Skip all parts having to do with sin, penitence, guilt, but emphasize mercy and acceptance, and at all times emphasize “Judge not….” All blue America will eat this up as the only true Gospel.
With friends like this…. Larry
No. 19, I totally agree with you. In my previous post, I was simply trying to do justice to the argument that I heard. I don’t agree with the argument; I was just throwing it out there for discussion.
Wingate:
I don’t know that the evidence for baptism before communion is that overwhelming in the Bible. While I cannot conceive of a situation where one drawn to the sacrament of the Eucharist would not also seek the sacrament of Baptism, Paul does not in 1 Cor 11 say that baptism is a requirement before eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ. Indeed, were the argument that clear, one can easily imagine Paul condemning such for blaspheming the sacrament as he does the attitudes present in those that are in need of pastoral admonishment in Corinth. Mind you, I think we should fence the altar (and I get furious with priests who serve Hindus and pagans who come forward as a “just in case”), but I do not know that the reason to fence the altar is as biblical as we might like to think.
What ever happened to closed communion? A very good book by Arthur A. Just, Jr.: Heaven on Earth, The Gifts of Christ in the Divine Service. This book explains the the practice of the early church regarding Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. They certainly didn’t commune the unbaptized or the ones that were not catechized.
I think ‘fencing the altar’ goes back to the Judaic ‘veil’ separating the holy of holies from the rest of the temple. Of course, we know that the veil tore when Jesus died on the cross.
We also know from reading the Church fathers that communion from the earliest days was reserved for those baptised, that the catechumins (sp?) were dismissed after the liturgy of the Word for instruction while the baptised remained for the liturgy of the table (e.g., Justin Martyr, apologia).
Granted it’s not in scripture, but then again, Anglicans are not [i]sola scriptura[/i], are we?
That was my point, libraryjim. I agree that our leadership makes a number of statements that seem to contradict the Bible; this, however, is one of those areas that I simply do not think is as clear in the Bible as some would like to believe. I am constantly amazed, as well, at the priests who refuse to inquire of those non-Christians who come forward to receive why they are coming forward. If someone has been drawn through the Liturgy of the Word to the Sacrament, a priest might want to inquire and help them discern what it is that the person is seeking . . .
#22 St Paul further down the road had some other words for those who claimed their baptism was unique; (I am baptized of Appollo, stc. etc. ) St Paul went on to say that he had only baptized two or three person and that baptism was the answer of a good conscience tward God. What was important to him is the acceptance of Jesus Christ as Saviour. We have many mainline churches that expect confession of Jesus as Lord and Saviour and then they are baptized. This point was made very clear in the baptism of the Ethiopian by Philip. The order was and still is Repentance, Acceptance, and then Baptism.
My Father was Rector of a parish in New Jersey when I was a teenager. I lived with my mother’s family and was raised in the Methodist Church whose Communion was meaningful for me. When I was in my mid-teens I was allowed to visit my father for 10 days in the summer. On Sunday, during my visit, I went to church there. His wife (not my mother) told me that I couldn’t receive communion because I wasn’t confirmed. What I challenge to me! Up to the rail I went, kneeling beside her. My father approached with the Paten. He placed a host into his wife’s hand and handed the Paten to the acolyte. He then placed his hands on my head and blesssed me. I felt hurt that I “wasn’t good enough” to receive communion: after all, I had been received into membership in the Methodist Church. I was just as much a Christian as he was. A few years later, while I was a college stuident, I was confirmed in the Episcopal church and could now receive communion at my Father’s hand. I wish this discipline still existed. It made communion something that you had to qualify for. Promiscuous communtion negates the sacrament, at least for those who receive unqualifiedly.
Dumb Sheep.
My anectodal understanding is for the preservation of the nascent community of believers, the catacumens were prohibited from receiving full communion until they were confirmed. I do not know exactly how long this particular stage or rather how long this formation took(I have heard as long as three years, but who really knows), and even less when it exactly began, as I said this is anecdotal information, so the scholars amoung us may be better qualified to answer such details. Primarily the reason was to prevent those untested access to the “Holy of Holies” for the reception of Communion. This seems to me far more political than “spiritual”, but without this safeguard the church may have been eradicated. Why? Because the betrayal of confirmed believers, we might even call them core believers, who were willing to lay down their lives for our faith, was problematic for the survival of local congregations due to persecution. For what its worth.
Timothy.