There’s a fight going on among some Presbyterians over the propriety of paedocommunion. Mainstream Presbyterianism rejects paedocommunion.
I have one question: If a pregnant woman takes communion, is that a form of paedocommunion?
Next question: if paedocommunion is prohibited, then should we prohibit pregnant women from taking communion?
For the record, I don’t have a dog in this fight. I’m just curious about the logic of this debate.
I notice that Mark Horne uses this argument. “The fact that Samson is a nazirite even from his mother’s womb entails that his mother must not violate the dietary restrictions for a nazirite while Samson is in utero within her (Jud 13.4, 14). Here we have a principle which not only serves as yet another argument for paedocommunion, but which declares that all churches which don’t bar pregnant women from the Lord’s Supper also practice paedocommunion. This verse reveals not only that the Israelites knew that the fetus fed on the food of the mother, but that God considers the relationship to be sacramentally significant. Thus, unless one is prepared to argue that pregnant women were banned from Passover, it is inescapable that unborn Israelites were ‘communing members’ of God’s people.”
ReplyDeletehttp://www.hornes.org/theologia/mark-horne/why-do-we-baptize
I am not committed one way or the other, but it seems the answer to the first question is no. Analogy: I wheel my unconscious grandmother into church, perhaps hoping for a miracle that she will come out of her comatose state. I know up to the moment of her accident, she was a believer. Being unconscious, she does not know where she is (if you like, assume she is blind and deaf). The reverend at my church is insistent on manually opening her mouth an placing the whine (or grape juice) into her mouth, thus causing it to enter her stomach. Assume I let this happen since, as I said, I'm looking for a miracle.
ReplyDeleteA similar event occurs with the bread, but I will withhold a description of how that would happen.
In what sense did she partake of communion? As far as I can tell, not in any sense that would cause her to bring damnation upon herself (or damnation from the reverend and I), nor receive grace through the act.
I don't see a relevant disanalogy to the fetus since both share the relevant properties for resolving the case, unless as Horne points out, there was something about being a fetus simpliciter that is objectionable. So the answer, again, is no.
Wow. That should 'wine' instead of 'whine'.
ReplyDeleteOr on second thought, assume the reverend complained in her face as her mouth was opened!
Taking communion with a baby in utero doesn't constitute the baby partaking of the Eucharist, does it?
ReplyDeleteAfter all, don't Presbyterians believe that the bread and wine is just... bread and wine? Taking communion involves more than just ingesting the accidentals.
James,
ReplyDeleteIf the issue turns on the cognitive awareness of the communicant, then what's the relevant difference between a fetus and a two-year old vis-a-vis their theological grasp of the Eucharist?
Mesa Mike said...
ReplyDelete"Taking communion with a baby in utero doesn't constitute the baby partaking of the Eucharist, does it?
After all, don't Presbyterians believe that the bread and wine is just... bread and wine? Taking communion involves more than just ingesting the accidentals."
As I recall, the standard Presbyterian view is that a sacrament conveys the grace it signifies (although sacramental grace is resistible.
So while it may just be bread and wine, divine grace is indexed to the communion elements.
But that begs the question of whether the bread and wine are indeed sacramental elements as far as the baby is concerned.
ReplyDeleteSteve,
ReplyDeleteThe answer to that question seems to be that there is no relevant difference (excepting 'genius-kids').
Is that a problem?
JAMES A. GIBSON SAID:
ReplyDelete"The answer to that question seems to be that there is no relevant difference (excepting 'genius-kids'). Is that a problem?"
Mainstream Presbyterians oppose paedocommunion. They oppose administering communion to two-year-olds.
But they don't oppose administering communion to pregnant women, which would, in turn, involve ingestion of the communion elements by the fetus.
If the state of the fetus is relevantly analogous to the state of the two-year old (for purposes of this particular comparison), then, logically, they should either support paedocommunion or prohibit pregnant women from taking communion (since the latter seems to be the functional equivalent of paedocommunion).
Put another way, if the two-year-old isn't "really" taking communion, then neither is the fetus. So both should either be objectionable or unobjectionable.
One might try to get around this by arguing that the duty of the mother to take communion is a higher duty than the duty to withhold communion where children are concerned.
I realize, of course, that you were undoubtedly a wunderkind, so this doesn't apply to you! :-)
Once again, I don't have a personal stake in this debate. I'm simply interested in the logic.
Mesa Mike said...
ReplyDelete"But that begs the question of whether the bread and wine are indeed sacramental elements as far as the baby is concerned."
And how would that distinction distinguish between a fetal communicant and an infant communicate?
You don't see a difference between the intentional giving of the elements to an infant (or a 2-year old) and the incidental nature of the unborn baby's taking nourishment from the elements when the pregnant mother takes communion?
ReplyDeleteIt just seems different to me...
I would think it's difficult to claim the unborn child is taking bread or wine. Rather, he is taking nutrients from the mother's bloodstream. The nutrients are broken down via the digestive process, so by the time it gets to the fetus it isn't bread or wine at all. It's mostly carbs, sugars, etc.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, it would be difficult to trace where each individual element of the elements (pun intended) went. After all, the mother needs nutrients too. And we're talking about communion, which is a miniscule amount of bread and wine in the first place.
In other words (just to keep math simple), let's say the 1 gram wafer is ingested and later the woman eats 99 grams of bread. That means the content of the wafer is only 1% of the total amount of bread she has eaten. What are the odds that that 1% is the part that gets to the infant instead of being used solely by the mother?
But even if it is, so what? Once bread is broken down, is it still the element of communion? I think if we go that far, we risk establishing validity for transubstantiation.
I have one question: If a pregnant woman takes communion, is that a form of paedocommunion?
ReplyDeleteNext question: if paedocommunion is prohibited, then should we prohibit pregnant women from taking communion?No & no. The elements are broken down into basic nutrients long before they pass in the bloodstream through the placenta to the unborn child. The child isn't ingesting bread & wine at that point. The child isn't even "eating" per se.
I don't see how Horne's example of Samson's mother is relevant. The reasoning has to do with ritual requirements for fulfilling the Nazirite vows, not with worthy partaking of a sacramental meal. The concern is that the child will be ritually polluted if the mother is ritually polluted, so to keep the child clean the other herself must remain clean.
On the other hand, We have it explicitly in I Cor. 11 that one must partake of the Lord's Supper in a worthy manner, & Paul has worthy partaking linked to self-examination, of which infants are incapable.
As for Horne's point about pregnant women & the Passover -- it isn't a safe assumption that women even ate of the Passover meal. For more on that, see here.
John the Baptist leaped in Elisabeth's belly when Mary greeted her, and she was filled with the Holy Ghost, as John was filled from his birth.
ReplyDeleteSo perhaps it depends on who the baby is. The Mother receives the sacrament, and surely the vavy in her womb could as well.
And how about a 5-6 year old, or 4-5 year old? What does our Lord say about children who receive Him with joy and believe in Him with their humble faith?
Mark Horne's argument depends on imparting sacramental significance to ceremonial, dietary purity laws. That is hardly the slam dunk he thinks it is.
ReplyDeleteDonsands,
ReplyDeleteSo perhaps it depends on who the baby is. The Mother receives the sacrament, and surely the [baby] in her womb could as well.Perhaps if you can actually feed bread & then wine to the unborn child. I'd like to know how, though.
And how about a 5-6 year old, or 4-5 year old? What does our Lord say about children who receive Him with joy and believe in Him with their humble faith?And what does our Lord say about partaking worthily of His Supper? We are not making any child's salvation dependent on partaking of the Supper, are we?
Apparently my paragraph breaks aren't going through correctly...
ReplyDeleteMESA MIKE SAID:
ReplyDelete"You don't see a difference between the intentional giving of the elements to an infant (or a 2-year old) and the incidental nature of the unborn baby's taking nourishment from the elements when the pregnant mother takes communion?"
How does intent distinguish between the two acts? You're intentionally feeding the fetus by feeding the pregnant mother.
Peter Pike said...
ReplyDelete"I would think it's difficult to claim the unborn child is taking bread or wine. Rather, he is taking nutrients from the mother's bloodstream. The nutrients are broken down via the digestive process, so by the time it gets to the fetus it isn't bread or wine at all. It's mostly carbs, sugars, etc."
Suppose a Christian adult couldn't swallow. The only way to administer communion wine would be through an intravenous drip. Would he be taking communion?
Steve,
ReplyDeleteSuppose a Christian adult couldn't swallow. The only way to administer communion wine would be through an intravenous drip. Would he be taking communion?
And what about the bread? I'd say that there'd be no physical way of administering communion to such a person.
Kyle said...
ReplyDelete"And what about the bread? I'd say that there'd be no physical way of administering communion to such a person."
That goes to another issue. Must you partake of both communion elements to take communion? What if a Christian is allergic to wheat? He can drink (communion) wine, but he can't eat wheat products?
If the bread and wine are just bread and wine, then what distinguishes whether one is "taking communion" when the elements are ingested?
ReplyDeleteIsn't intent the distinctive?
A pregnant mother taking communion is not intending for the unborn baby to receive communion also, I wouldn't think. That the baby does get some nourishment from the elements -- even if somehow the baby received every last bit of them and in exactly the same form as the mother took them -- it's only incidental.
I would think that this shouldn't be a problem at all except for transubstantiationists.
MESA MIKE SAID:
ReplyDelete"If the bread and wine are just bread and wine, then what distinguishes whether one is "taking communion" when the elements are ingested? Isn't intent the distinctive?"
Is it the intent of the parent, rather than the underage communicant, what distinguishes valid communion from invalid communion?
Isn't the objection to paedocommunion that a child below a certain age lacks the requisite intent?
If validity depends on parental intent, then paedocommunion would be valid for the children of parents who intend them to take communion.
Conversely, absence of (Eucharistic) intent fails to distinguish a fetus from a 2-year-old. So why is one acceptable, but not the other (or vice versa)?
"We are not making any child's salvation dependent on partaking of the Supper, are we?"
ReplyDeleteNope.
I was simply looking at the Spirit in the sacrament.
I pray with my 4 year old grandson, and he sometimes pray a genuine prayer of faith. Jesus loves the little children, and in fact we had better have faith like their's if we want eternal life.
I guess I'm looking at this from a different angle. Sorry.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteThat goes to another issue. Must you partake of both communion elements to take communion?
Yes. There is no other option I see in Scripture. Granted in some places "the breaking of bread" is used as shorthand to indicate Communion, but the words of institution have BOTH bread & wine. Both elements are required for the sacrament to be valid. Recall that the Reformers objected to the withholding of the wine from the laity.
What if a Christian is allergic to wheat? He can drink (communion) wine, but he can't eat wheat products?
Our church actually serves gluten-free bread because one of our members is allergic to gluten. Unless you want to argue that Scripture requires bread made from wheat flour, I don't see the issue.
KYLE SAID:
ReplyDelete“Unless you want to argue that Scripture requires bread made from wheat flour, I don't see the issue.”
Actually, you yourself raised a chemical objection to valid infant communion: “The elements are broken down into basic nutrients long before they pass in the bloodstream through the placenta to the unborn child. The child isn't ingesting bread & wine at that point.”
So arguments for or against the validity of the sacraments based on chemistry cut both ways.
Kyle said...
ReplyDelete“There is no other option I see in Scripture. Granted in some places ‘the breaking of bread’ is used as shorthand to indicate Communion, but the words of institution have BOTH bread & wine. Both elements are required for the sacrament to be valid. Recall that the Reformers objected to the withholding of the wine from the laity.”
All things being equal, yes, but what about the Christian patient who can’t swallow due to a medical condition?
Steve,
ReplyDeleteYour objection is based on the chemical difference between wheat-flour bread & non-wheat-flour bread. My earlier objection is bread vs. broken-down nutrients. Apples & oranges. You have to argue that non-wheat-flour bread is not bread for the objections to be analogous. Alternately, you can argue that non-wheat-flour bread is not valid for the sacrament (a la Rome), but this argument would be different in kind.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteAll things being equal, yes, but what about the Christian patient who can’t swallow due to a medical condition?
As I said earlier, I don't see that there's any physical way to administer the Supper to such a person. A loss, to be sure. But a comatose Christian is not going to be able to partake of the Supper, either.
Should we base our sacramentology on extraordinary circumstances which may occur?
STEVE:
ReplyDelete"If validity depends on parental intent, then paedocommunion would be valid for the children of parents who intend them to take communion."
I'm not arguing whether the intent of the parents validates paedocommunion.
I'm arguing that the intent is different between an unborn baby incidentally getting nutrition from the sacramental elements when the pregnant mother takes communion, and when parents allow their children to take communion.
In the first case, the mother does not intend for the baby to "take communion." In the second case, the parents do intend for the children to "take communion."
Since the bread and wine are just bread and wine on the reformed view, then the intent with which they are given and taken must be what distinguishes whether doing so constitutes "taking communion."
KYLE SAID:
ReplyDelete“Steve,__Your objection is based on the chemical difference between wheat-flour bread & non-wheat-flour bread. My earlier objection is bread vs. broken-down nutrients. Apples & oranges. You have to argue that non-wheat-flour bread is not bread for the objections to be analogous. Alternately, you can argue that non-wheat-flour bread is not valid for the sacrament (a la Rome), but this argument would be different in kind.”
In both cases you’re discussing the chemical composition of what the individual consumes, and depending on its chemical composition, whether those are still communion elements.
And, in the history of the church, we often get into debates like this, viz. is grape juice a valid substitute for wine? Is leavened bread valid, or only unleavened bread?
Sacramentalism quickly devolves into hairsplitting debates.
“As I said earlier, I don't see that there's any physical way to administer the Supper to such a person. A loss, to be sure. But a comatose Christian is not going to be able to partake of the Supper, either.”
A lucid patient with a physical impediment is hardly analogous to a comatose patient.
And by “loss,” do you mean that a person who, due to a medical condition, can consume wine (intravenously), but can’t consume bread, can’t take communion?
“Should we base our sacramentology on extraordinary circumstances which may occur?”
Limiting cases can be used to isolate and identify the bare minimum required for something to be the case.
Mesa Mike said...
ReplyDelete“I'm arguing that the intent is different between an unborn baby incidentally getting nutrition from the sacramental elements when the pregnant mother takes communion, and when parents allow their children to take communion.__In the first case, the mother does not intend for the baby to "take communion." In the second case, the parents do intend for the children to "take communion."__Since the bread and wine are just bread and wine on the reformed view, then the intent with which they are given and taken must be what distinguishes whether doing so constitutes "taking communion."
***************************
You’re overlooking another party to this transaction: what about divine intent? That would be a factor in Reformed sacramentology.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteIn both cases you’re discussing the chemical composition of what the individual consumes, and depending on its chemical composition, whether those are still communion elements.In the case of the what the unborn child ingests, the bread has already been broken down into its constituent parts. It is the combination of these parts that constitutes bread. Broken down, they no longer constitute bread. That's a very different case from wheat-flour bread compared to rice-flour bread, for example. They may have different constituents (wheat vs. rice), but they are still constituted.
A lucid patient with a physical impediment is hardly analogous to a comatose patient.In both cases the patient is incapacitated from partaking of the Supper.
And by “loss,” do you mean that a person who, due to a medical condition, can consume wine (intravenously), but can’t consume bread, can’t take communion?Yes. I've already said twice that I don't see any physical means by which the Supper could be administered to someone who cannot swallow. The wine alone doesn't constitute the Supper.
Again, I apologize for the paragraph breaks. Apparently the paragraph break isn't made after an italics tag unless I insert the line-break tag as well. That's not been a problem before, but I'm not sure whether you all would be able to fix it!
ReplyDeleteSteve said:
ReplyDelete---
Suppose a Christian adult couldn't swallow. The only way to administer communion wine would be through an intravenous drip. Would he be taking communion?
---
I would say so. But this is disanologous because the nutrients that come to the fetus would be post-digested, not just via an intravenous drip. More importantly (and where I disagree with Kyle) is that I don't think you actually need to necessarily take the physical bread and wine to be in communion. The bread and wine are typologies for a spiritual truth, and the spiritual truth can be there with or without the typology of it. That's not to say the typology is irrelevant, that we should just blow it off or whatever. However, we ought never to elevate the typology, which is a shadow, above that which the typology represents.
Ultimately, man looks at outward appearances, but God judges the heart. That's why an abuse of the table brings judgement--because the heart of the sinner isn't right. But by the same token, if one's heart is in a right position with God, he need not do an outward motion if he is physically unable to do so. (I do think that there's no reason for someone not to take communion if he is physically able to do so.)
In some ways, it's similar to the question of baptism. We are commanded to be baptized, but what happens to someone who comes to faith in Christ and thirty seconds later is run over by a bus? Or more pointedly, the thief on the cross who believed Jesus yet was obviously unbaptized before death? Well, we know the answer in the second case, for Jesus said, "Today you will be with me in paradise."
So the outward symbol is important in most instances, but when it's not possible I don't think it matters. Not to get off on too much of a tangent there...but hey, Steve started it :-D
Peter,
ReplyDeleteI would say there's a difference between being in communion with Christ and partaking of the Lord's Supper. The latter is an outward, physical sign of the former. One may be in communion with Christ & with His invisible church in spite of being prevented, for whatever reason, from partaking of the sign of that communion. I think we agree thus far.
Nevertheless, the physical sign is important & should be administered as Scripture requires. It would be contra-scriptural to administer the Supper with potato chips & Coca-Cola. These are not the proper elements. Likewise, the Supper is invalid if it is administered only in one kind. If someone is capable of eating (or ingesting intravenously) only one kind, he is not capable of eating the Supper. (And really, I think one must take the elements orally.)
Such a person would be in an unfortunate situation, no doubt. The Lord's Supper is an ordinary means of grace. Yet, there are extraordinary means for extraordinary circumstances. So while one may be incapacitated from partaking of the Supper for whatever reason, this is no cause for handwringing over whether we've got our sacramentology right. The Lord's Supper wasn't instituted for extraordinary circumstances.
Babies only take in the mother's nutrients in order to eat. Paul says if that's all you use communion for, stay home.
ReplyDeleteNo, I don't think fetuses "partake" of communion, just as I don't think breast fed 1 yr. olds do. Indeed, I once accidentally drank some pumped breast milk on the monday after communion, I don't think I got a twofer that week.
BTW, we would also need to ask whether mothers should now be ordained if they are dispensing communion.
PAUL MANATA SAID:
ReplyDelete"Indeed, I once accidentally drank some pumped breast milk on the monday after communion, I don't think I got a twofer that week."
Actually, Paul, that method of dispensing the communion elements has the makings of a very lucrative new religious cult. Why, it's enough to make Hugh Hefner get religion! It puts a whole new twist on the ordination women. You had better patent your idea before the ECUSA steals it.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteThe only way I could do it is if you backed me financially. Will you deposite the funds into my offshore Cayman account from your Swiss account? You have my routing number.
Paul,
ReplyDeleteI'll contact my consigliere to make the necessary arrangements.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteSounds good. I know Gene, and am comfortable working with him. Have him meet me and my Capo at the Czech Restaurant.
(Not sure how we got this far in a post on paedocommunion! :-)
I blame Bush.
ReplyDelete