Originally posted by Me Died Blue
But have there been any confessional (or creedal) affirmations of the practice in the Church? In light of the key role we all agree creeds and confessions play in the doctrine of the Church as a whole, I think that question is very relevant and telling to the issue at hand.
Originally posted by SemperFideles
I find a very strong parallel to this issue and the other thread in this forum dealing with schisms within Presbyterianism. I would find little comfort in my micro-denomination that affirms something that so many titans have rejected. Are Creeds and Confessions Scripture? No but I shudder to think how some cast them off so easily.
Chris and Rich, I think your posts are well-intentioned. But there are some issues related to the subject of paedocommunion which you may or may not have considered.
First of all, the support of Augustine IS major support. Quoting him is not like quoting Doug Wilson or Rich Lusk. Few people have had a greater theological influence in the history of the church. Thus, since he DID believe in paedocommunion, I think we should think about that seriously. Of course, that does not prove whether or not PC is correct. But it should at least give us pause to think.
Second, you need to consider whether the specific doctrine of paedocommunion is something likely to be addressed in the creeds and confessions. Did the early creeds and confessions say anything about infant baptism, for example? I may be wrong here, but I don't think that they did (at least not most of them). Nevertheless, we know that paedobaptism was ubiquitous. Nothing remotely resembling modern "credobaptism" even existed until the 11th century Petrobrussians, as far as I know.
In fact, consider the Anglican church, which DOES accept paedocommunion. They have "The 39 Articles" of Anglicanism, which hold a similar place in their church as does the WCF in a Presbyterian church. The Anglican church practices paedocommunion, and yet that doctrine shows up nowhere in the 39 Articles. Interesting!
At this point, it is helpful to remember that Augustine lived AFTER the formation of the Nicene Creed and Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. Those two creeds did not mention anything about paedocommunion. But does it therefore follow that they were
opposed to it? Certainly not! (Anyone who disagrees needs to explain to me why the prolific author, Augustine, didn't bother to debate the issue if there were detractors.)
Thirdly, you need to consider the HUGE number of fronts on which the Reformation/Puritan church had to battle the Roman Catholic church. They didn't NEED anything new to argue with Rome about! Rome itself allowed paedocommunion up until the 4th Lateran Council of 1215, which solidified "transubstantiation" and thus required "confirmation". (In fact, pockets of the RC church still continued to practice paedocommunion even up until the 1500s.) But in general, Rome stopped practicing paedocommunion in the 3 most highly corrupt centuries prior to the Reformation. -- So, by the time of the Reformation, virtually no one practiced it. Thus, when the Protestants broke away from the RC church, they too (by default) did not practice paedocommunion. They battled the RC church over the much bigger issues of transubstantiation, the papacy, indulgences, sola fide, sola scriptura, etc., etc., etc. They were going after them on so many fronts, that they simply never had the time nor the reason to focus on paedocommunion like they might have otherwise done. They were breaking away from the Roman Catholic Church, not from the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Fourthly, let me turn the argument around on you: How many creeds and confessions specifically deny paedocommunion? To my knowledge,
there are very few! Of course the framers of the WCF and of the Belgic confession did not hold to PC, but neither did they specifically prohibit PC in their confessions. the only major confessional document I'm aware of that does this is the Westminster Larger Catechism. --- I realize that some may quibble with me on this one point. Very well, suppose that I allow that there are a few anti-PC confessions. So what? What about the Anglican 39 Articles? What about the numerous confessions which certainly do NOT prohibit paedocommunion? --- In short, silence is NOT an argument for prohibition.
To sum up, concerning history and confessions:
1) Augustine's support of paedocommunion is weighty. Had the church at large disagreed with him on this point, he would have no doubt written voluminously to support his point, just as he did with a number of other subjects.
2) Most creeds and confessions simply do not address the question of paedocommunion. And silence is a very weak argument. In fact, the protestant denomination of Anglicans DO support paedocommunion, and yet their confession does NOT mention it. Thus, we shouldn't be surprised to see similar things in earlier church creeds and confessions. Not every doctrine is covered in every creed.
3) Paedocommunion was one of the few issues where the Reformers did NOT disagree with the Roman Catholics, and thus they had much less impetus to seriously consider the issue. They were too focused on more important issues at the time.
4) Even anti-paedocommunion groups have often not banned paedocommunion in their confessions and creeds. This is yet further support to suggest that we should NOT base our paedocommunion decision on its inclusion in creeds, or lack thereof.
[Edited on 11-29-2005 by biblelighthouse]
????? 
