I have to think about that. Do you all require Baptism for reception of the Lord's Supper?
Of course it would be something like "openness" to the graces etc. blah blah that would be mandated. If I get that chance I'll tackle one of my guys on this. The usual line is full ecclesiastical communion is a "ordinarily" (blessed waffle word) required for full sacramental communion (but near death or in other amazing circumstances we're willing to take a chance.)
I think part of the rationale is the "discerning the body" part of the Corinthians thing - NOT JUST discerning the transubstantiated body (which would be discernible only by faith in any event) but the corporate unity of the Church. Something like that. As I said, I need to think and ask about it.
As for the misunderstanding: It's all that there Latin's whut it is. I'm sorry too for communication failure too. "In extremis" was a term used in my Protestant growing up household so I just figgered ... The desire for economy of words leads to jargon leads to confusion.
Surprisingly, "NO". I'm not positive, but I think that all Reformed churches, and most churches who tolerate Reformed views (like mine) do not require a water baptism here. We (SBC churches) require a believer's baptism to become a member, but not to partake of the Supper. Anyone who professes to God [honor system] that he is a true believer is welcome to take the Supper. We know there will be false believers who "get through", but there is no practical way we see of weeding them out. :)
"In extremis" was a term used in my Protestant growing up household so I just figgered ... The desire for economy of words leads to jargon leads to confusion.
That's cool. I think it is one of those things I "should have known", so it was my fault. I must have been thinking about skirts that day. It's happened. (I mean, a long time ago). LOL!