Concerning Paedocommunion:
I've seen people argue that it is not "Reformed," that is, it is not in line with the historic, Reformed confessions. This point I will grant, though there certainly were some Reformers who held it. This also assumes a mythological idea of a monolithic "Reformed Church" or "Reformed view" on any given matter, but we won't go down that road.
I've seen people argue against it exegetically, arguments being mainly drawn from 1 Corinthians 11. I ardently disagree with their interpretations of that passage. In fact, I think 1 Corinthians is one of the strongest defenses of Paedocommunion. Regardless, I can understand their line of argumentation.
What I have not seen is an explanation of how Paedocommunion is anything but a valid practice of the historic catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church has literally practiced it forever. We have multiple explicit statements from the early Church that support Paedocommunion. Augustine goes so far to argue from Paedocommunion to his view of the efficacy of the Sacraments, which implies that it was the accepted practice being used to prove an idea that was less universal.
When I have mentioned this historicity in past conversations with those who oppose Paedocommunion, the only response I have received is basically a general disregard of the Fathers.
We can have different positions on the Sacraments. Church history is full of Christians holding differing views within the realm of creedal orthodoxy, especially regarding the Sacraments. We should be able to discuss these things respectfully, agreeing to disagree.
Some opponents of Paedocommunion, however, act as if it is a historic aberration. They paint it as a fringe view associated with the Federal Vision or other less-than-reformed groups. The reality is that Paedocommunion was an accepted, if not universal, view in the Early Church. They may not like it, but that is the historic reality.
Comments
Post a Comment