What is the historical reformed definition for the word "communicants" in question 169 of the Larger Catechism? At first glance I would say that it refers to those who are visible members within the local church. However, it has been presented to me that a case can be made that "communicants" can refer to those receiving the Lord’s Table; not defining those who can take communion as being a member within the local church. But rather just people that are taking communion. Is this correct? If so then communicants would be defined as those receiving the sacraments and it would not refer specifically to members of the local church. The question that I’m getting at is does question 169 of the Larger Catechism support only administering the sacraments to communicant members?

__________________
John
Member
Christ Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Salt Lake City, Utah
www.christpres.net

I'm not familiar with the specific useage in the context you cite.

In the PCA, we would understand a "communicant" as someone who is either:
1) member of the church
2) regular attender of the church
3) visitor to the church who is a Christian and member in good standing of a church where the Gospel is taught

Generally, a child is considered a "non communicant" member until he has made an informed profession of faith to the Elders and then is admitted as a "communicant" member.

__________________
Scott
PCA
North Carolina


"Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised)"
Hebrews 10:23

"Communicants" has to be defined by the same document(s) that contains that Q&A.

You can't pit Q 169 against Q 177Then, there are the duties of worthy receivers enumerated in Q's 171, 174 & 175. Persons who cannot perform these duties must be protected by the officers (who have been charged with this solemn responsibility) from hurting themselves and the church through unexamined participation.

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --

Pastor Buchanan, could you or someone else please give me your opinion of whether I did the right thing by allowing my 11 year old with Down's syndrome to partake? If I ask him if he love God, etc... he says yes, but I could trick him into saying anything I want. He loves his family and friends, and is affectionate to them, but I don't think that he can examine himself at all.

__________________
Tim Vaughan
Member, Redeemer Presbyterian, OPC,
Santa Maria
California

Tim,
I'm unwilling to make such a judgment. I do not know you or your son or your situation, all which are things I think would have to go into a decision.

Furthermore, I would not want to put you in the position of making that call, if you were in my church. In my view, it is the Session's duty to exercise the discipline of the Table. So, it wouldn't be ultimately in your lap. Not your duty before God.

Now, on to my unsubstantiated guesses. I would probably wait longer with a DS child, in most cases, not necessarily in all of them. I would look for evidences of conversion. If I knew the child's permanent limitations, I would take that into account. I would look for some idea that he understood in some limited sense, what eating the meal MEANT.

That, you see, is the vital thing. It is a vital thing, that understanding. It makes the meal into what it is supposed to be, not something I as the pastor do (except in preparation for and conjunction with the participants). If the DS child is just "doing what everyone else is doing" he's not getting any spiritual benefit. He may not be incurring so much wrath, but he's not benefiting.

The view that he somehow benefits just from a common participation is not a truly Reformed view. It sounds sensitive, and everything, that we want our lesser members to have the full benefits of "church participation", but we didn't choose their situations for them--God did. And, he set the terms for his communion meal which includes an apprehension of what is going on.

The wonderful thing (for we Presbyterians) is that God does include such as them inside the bounds of the church--in baptism, a sense of belonging that is reinforced in the love of the fellowship for its least members, in their inclusion in the common elements of worship of the body.

Thanks much.

Pastor Bruce,

I understand this to mean communicant as it is used in the LC must refer to those who are receiving the sacrament who are of old enough to examine themselves. So, it doesn't necessarliy refer to members of the church in sense of communicant members. Rather just referring to those who are receiving the supper and are able to examine themselves.

Sorry, it took a while to understand how I misread your question. I think I get it now: can people from outside my local church take communion here? Is that it?

It's just that 169 isn't directly addressing that question. It says that the minister does certain things so that "the communicants" (whoever is receiving the LS) may partake, and this group will use the elements presented according to the nature of such things "in thankful remembrance" (which could be read as a subtle statement regarding who should be communing).

IOW, the question is assuming that the persons participating (be it minister or communicants) are correctly in order, in order to address the specific question of "how" the elements are to be properly given and received. The issue of the minister's proper order is addressed previously, and that of the communicants' immediately after.

We generally recognize members of Christ, wherever they hold their membership. We ask that they be actual members, and that the church be a Bible-believing kind. Various churches then may fence their own table more or less strictly, according to their judgment, but within our BCO directions.

Yes.

Thank you for the clarification.