It was good to hear the keynote speaker ”” Dr. Louis Weil ”” at this year’s “Epiphany West” conference come out strongly against so-called “open communion” (communion of the un-baptized). That was especially courageous here in California where the practice is becoming widespread….
I am in absolute agreement with Louis Weil here. I am familiar with the “open table” of Jesus argument ”” that he ate with outcasts and sinners and never turned anyone away, etc. However, I am unpersuaded that this is the same thing as the Eucharist and would encourage congregations really to invite the poor into their homes and parish halls for meals rather than believe that they have actually exercized hospitality by inviting the unbaptized to communion.
Certainly, it is an ecumenical nightmare.
It’s a pleasure to agree with Epting.
Congratulations, Bishop. Unfortunately, in a church where Jesus is accorded slightly more honor than Buddha, Mohammed, and maybe Ghandi, the arguments about ecumencial appropriateness and the nature of the Sacrament will fail to move many.
I was not aware that, in TEC, there was any doubt that this issue is lost except in the small handful of relatively orthodox diocese for so long as they remain.
Good for Bishop Epting. Unfortunately, he, along with many others, bears responsibility as a result of supporting an institutional ethos of “who cares what anyone believes.”
[i] I would encourage congregations really to invite the poor into their homes and parish halls for meals rather than believe that they have actually exercized hospitality by inviting the unbaptized to communion [/i]
Words worth quoting whenever we discuss this topic.
Let’s hear it for the voice of reason! Louis Weil is absolutely correct: you can’t spend years basing every aspect of Church life on the Baptismal Covenant and then ignore Baptism itself in the central act of worship every week. There is a reason that we’re ekklesia: “called out” of the world.
I have on occasion in 43 years of parish ministry administered communion to people whom I knew to be Christian believers but who for various reasons had not received water baptism – a few Quakers, people who attended Salvation Army services, those raised in antipedobaptist evangelical churches who on coming to the age of accountability chose not to join their parents’ church, etc. I have also when opportunity presented itself encouraged these people to receive instruction and baptism. Such accomodation – or perhaps a generous understanding of baptism by desire – seemed at the time appropriate to the ministry in the rural South where I have served. But the present practice of inviting all who happen to be present at the service to receive seems to be based on sentimentality and not on any real understanding of the church as the body of Christ.
I have to laugh at this true and utterly obvious statement. It’s astonishing that he has to say it, and that people in the Episcopal Church won’t admit it.
This is but one of many ecumenical nightmares created by General Convention in the last few years.
TomRightmyer, why would baptism by desire be sufficient for a priest to knowingly allow reception of communion?
IIRC, Baptism by desire was only efficacious if a person converted to the Christian faith, but died before being baptized, expressing a desire to follow through on that commitment. Same with Baptism by Blood, a person converts, but is martyred before the sacrament can be administered. Thus the desire produces the effects the same as if they had been baptized in water.
Thus BBD is not relevant for a living person in terms of receiving the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist.
Peace
Jim Elliott <><
[i] But the present practice of inviting all who happen to be present at the service to receive seems to be based on sentimentality and not on any real understanding of the church as the body of Christ [/i] —Fr. Rightmyer
Communion of the unbelieving also reflects a pervasive relativism that regards the gospel as no more true than another faith or no faith at all.
[blockquote]Communion of the unbelieving also reflects a pervasive relativism that regards the gospel as no more true than another faith or no faith at all. [/blockquote]
And, as it happens, we have Buddhist bishops to go with apostate priests. QED.
A rare & welcome ray of sunshine on the all-too-often foggy landscape of contemporary TEC theology.