The statements that on the one hand three ceremonies became separated yet also one of them is the entire ceremony seems like kind of a disconnect.
In my ignorance, I had thought that the admission of 'all the baptized' to Holy Communion was already a fact around the Anglican Communion. We in ANCANZP have long been open to this. After all the Eucharist is God's gift to all the Baptized. The Sacrament of Confirmation has become an occasion of adult affirmation of one's baptismal promises made on one's behalf by others - a strengthening of Baptismal grace.
The Episcopal Church in the US went through a similar process and had experienced similar incongruities when folks who were communicants in other churches were able to receive communion but older yet-to-be-confirmed members of its own were unable to do so.
Lambeth addressed the issue of inconsistencies in the practice of confirmation-before-communion for "guests" in 1920.12.C.1f
But the Church of Wales and the Church of England ought to reflect on the fact that it is not really for either church to decide who is, and who is not, welcome at the Lord's Supper.
Like Father Ron, I am also surprised at this. I am use to hearing statements before Communion in both Australia and New Zealand that all the baptised are welcome.
I have taught for many years in Catholic schools and was always pleased to point out this difference between Anglicans and Catholics. However even there I had individual priests tell me that, as I was member of the school community, I was welcome to receive the Eucharist.
It is also the case with the American Episcopal Church that all baptized are welcome to receive the Blessed Sacrament. This was not the situation when I was growing up in the 1950s and 1960s. Only individuals who had been confirmed (or who were "ready" to be confirmed) by a bishop in the historic episcopate could receive. That changed due to the influence (in part, anyway) of Blessed John.
TEC's welcoming of all the baptized to receive Communion reflects the increased importance of baptism in the 1979 BCP (298) -- "Holy Baptism is FULL initiation by water and the Holy Spirit into Christ's Body the Church."
It thus rejected the previous implicit view that somehow Confirmation made Baptism complete. Consequently, since Baptism made one a full Christian, anyone that was baptized was welcome to receive communion, including children and unconfirmed adults.
Some 35 years ago when my TEC parish priest baptised his own children (new born babies), he gave them a tinox church piece of the host dipped in the consecrated wine. When I asked him why, he explained that the rite of baptism had brought them into the Christian family and that in the tradition of the Orthodox churches, infants received HC when they were baptised and he wanted to incorporate that tradition. I don't think he did it for other children when he baptised them, but I am not sure. In any case, since I have been a priest, I have always done the same, if the parents agree. That is thanks to Revd Douglas Ousley, who is still a priest in NYC I believe.
Infant communion from baptism in the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic tradition is my own preference as well, though it's worth noting that in their case chrismation (confirmation) is administered at the same time. In other words they both practice communion of the baptized and in effect require confirmation for communion.
Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.
Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to
the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill
the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select
'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No
third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical,
advertising, or other purposes.