The sense of the Committee is that our work is not yet complete and that we have not had sufficient time to discuss all of these matters as fully as we would like. We offer this document to the House of Bishops and the larger General Convention as an initial reflection. In this document we try to reflect some of the issues around which our discussions have coalesced, though often without resolution. We also raise several issues and questions regarding the practice of “open communion.” These are issues that have either come up in our face to face discussions or from our examination of essays written on this topic or from conversations at various levels in our own dioceses. There may be need in the future to produce a more substantial document after further discussion and consultation with the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music and after receiving responses to this paper.
An argument can be made that the “communion of the unbaptised’ is ‘no communion at all’ and that the clergy administering such a distortion of the sacrement are at ‘spiritual self-risk.’
Although the traditional understanding is obviously part of their discussion, the paper doesn’t say enough about why the Canon exists in the first place. It is so plain and blunt and to just say, “Well, we have other points of view” is pretty lame.
This new model of theology, in which there is little if any received tradition and all is up for discussion does not mess well with a leadership based on discipline, litigation and other such heavy handedness.
Ah, what the heck. I’m spitting into the wind again.
Oh, no!
“[W]e recognize that there would be serious implications for ecumenical relations as well as relations within the wider Anglican Communion should the Episcopal Church alter its canons. These implications would need to be explicated and explored further.”
Far be it for us to unilaterally do stuff that would harm our most excellent ecumenical relationships with Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, or our “family’s” intramural activities.
2, I’m with you. According to the article: “By the time of Didache (circa. 95-110 c.e.) baptism is expressly required to participate in the eucharist.” Must everything be resettled? By the way the comments to the article are interesting and illuminating.
Game-playing. Those who follow these doings (as I try to do less) know ‘let’s talk’ means ‘scr*w the rule; we’ll keep doing it’ (cf. ‘pastoral reasons’) or ‘shut up and obey me’.
No wonder 100,000 culturally Mid-Western (straight talk; no games) churchgoers just started their own church instead.
[url=http://aconservativesiteforpeace.info]High-church libertarian curmudgeon[/url]
I remember not being allowed to take communion until I was confirmed (1969).
I still do not understand the rational for changing the rules from
must be confirmed,
to must be baptized,
to whoever wants to,
may partake of communion.
If it was right in 1969, it is right today.
Marie Blocher
It must be a real temptation for the HoB to replace the C&Cs; with the single word, “Whatever.” Perhaps the only thing preventing such a development is the impediment it would present in defenestrating orthodox clergy and claiming dominion over property others have paid for.
It is pretty amazing that for 2000 years, violating this particular canon (at least intentionally) would have had you inhibited, if not outright excommunicated if not outright executed, on the spot. But now it is up for discussion, and as we all know in the Anglican Communion, any revisionist move “up for discussion” is a fully accepted practice. In 10 years time, refusing communion to the unbaptized, or for that matter, people who believe in the Babylonian pantheon of gods, will cause your immediate inhibition.
Bro. Phil Snyder is taking a lot of heat over at Episcopal Cafe for holding the orthodox position.
It gets ever easier to say one is not in communion with ECUSA since *everyone* is. And still the numbers go down; how can that be? How could the Orthodox say there’s no “ecumenical” potential there? Perhaps because there is no *there* there. What a waste of paper and electrons.
I love that “missional” argument, btw. Consecrating VGR was going to reach people, too. The long bewildered folks in the pews want the church to survive, and so these arguments about “Do this and people will come” are seductive. But then so is the whore of foolishness in Proverbs.
IN SUM:
We didn’t do our job.
We believe that we can bring disparate outliers who redefine nearly everything in this Church into an agreement about the meaning of Communion. We need more time to not make up our mind, so just keep up the chaos (ignoring the canons, of course, as you see fit).
Richard Hooker, our first great Anglican theologian wrote “The grace that we receive from the Holy Eucharist does not begin life but continues it. No one may receive this Sacrament before he is baptized because no dead thing is capable of nourishment.”
I remember when I was in grad school, there was an undergrad in the Episcopal student group who was being baptized in the Episcopal church at Easter. We talked a little bit about how much that meant to her, and it turns out it didn’t mean much, because she was already receiving communion as an unbaptized person. Seriously, what is the point of even having baptism if any pagan, atheist, etc, is already considered to be de facto initiated? And…who would even want to join a church in which everyone, from atheist to KKK member, is theoretically initiated? This is a boundary issue, and quite frankly, even though TEC set up some boundaries with the Buddhist bishop, I have my doubts they will keep their boundaries here, but they may surprise.
Amen, wvparson.
This is one of those very simple things about which there can be no compromise. Either Communion is only for those who are baptized, or not. The pretense that there can be some sort of middle ground, some compromise “sometimes” position, as some of our so-called “moderate” friends assert is absurd. How can one be “in communion” with someone, when the very meaning of the word “communion” has different meanings to the two? Yes, I know, I am accused of being a schismatic and a donatist on this, but I will maintain that NO communion exists between those who hold to the Sacramental nature of Holy Communion, and those who do not.
As far as the missional argument goes, it seems to me that TEC would be much more attractive to atheists if there was less insistence on that “God” thing. There was actually an Episcopal Church in Boston, MA, that tried this for awhile a decade or so ago. They prided themselves on their great music program, and performed a Bach cantata every Sunday. At one point, a new priest noticed that there was no appreciable Prayer Book liturgy at all. The church had effectively become a place for musical aesthetes to attend a free Bach Cantata every Sunday. When the priest insisted that Prayer Book worship be re-introduced so that the Sunday service actually resembled something like a Christian worship service (apart from the Bach), there was great protest from the congregation. Some of the members (who were self-identified Jews and unbelieving atheists) complained that the specifically Christian content of Prayer Book worship made them feel excluded, and they now felt uncomfortable about attending Sunday services.
I am not making this up. The Boston Globe ran an entire series on this story when I lived in Boston. The Globe showed overt sympathy to the “excluded” parishioners, btw.
As my parishioners travel a bit this summer I am surprised at the number of parish bulletins that come back to me inviting EVERYONE to communion, regardless of baptism or not. St. John’s Lafayette Square (the church of the Presidents) is the latest one on my desk.
I have preached at two funerals as a guest preacher in the past 6 months and both parishes practice open communion.
Why should the committee study it…if they leave it alone in a few years only a few of us will still hold the ancient position – all others will be wallowing in the new thing.
Hey, while the bishops are at it, they might address the very real possibility (I mean, why not?) of people doing the “eucharist” without the benefit of clergy. We’ve established that that marriage (so called) is unnecessary, and can be “done” by any two of anything. Communion (so called) can be had by anyone (including Muslims). They’ll have to scramble (a slow ponderous scramble it’ll be, too. More of a crawl) to explain just why that isn’t to be done.
Or maybe doing ordinations and confirmations without bishops. What exactly is the purpose of having episcopoi if the episcopoi refuse to exercise episcope anyway?
And what is heirarchial about a heirarchy in which everone does what is right in his own eyes?
Every deacon, priest and bishop has promised to conform to the doctrine, discipline and worship of the church. The doctrine of the church contained in the BCP is that one must be baptized in order to receive communion. The discipline of the church contained in the canons of the church require that one be baptized in order to receive communion. The worship of the church set forth in the BCP requires that those receiving communion first be baptized.
Certainly bishops, priests, deacons, theologians and the folks in the pews can discuss why this is so. But it is so. And bishops ought not to be inviting one and all to receive communion. Their brother bishops should be doing their due diligence as guardians of the faith and unity of the church by admonishing their fellow bishops, and bringing presentment if those lawless “bishops” persist in violating the doctrine, discipline and worship of the church. And the bishops must do their due diligence to warn, admonish and if necessary present their clergy who violate their ordination promises by violating the doctrine, discipline and worship of the church.
Then perhaps a faithful discussion of how one continues in the apostles’ teaching and the meaning of baptism, the Lord’s supper, the Communion of Saints and the Church might be fit for study by real bishops, exercising episcope, their apostolic role and as teachers of the faithful.
Not trying to open up a can of worms, but:
Is the canon that prohibits the unbaptized from communion biblical?
Is there a theology behind it or is it a traditional belief?
What biblical evidence is there for its validity?
I think I could argue for it from a circumcision/passover analogy, but I do not know of a NT “proof” of the canon.
Liturically it may make sense to have open communion since the priest implies that the body and blood was given/shed for all. If the sacrifice of Christ is “for the whole world” then the body and blood are for the “whole world” to partake. Unless of course we feel like we can add a condition to partaking!
Eugene – see 1 Cor 11:17-34. Faith must proceed participation in Lord’s Supper. And if you have faith, you should desire to be Baptized. Thus the Church has always required Baptism first, since Baptism works to creates the faith that makes it possible to discern the Lord’s Body and Blood in the Sacrament. The Church has also always practiced Close Communion except for a few denominations in recent times. But the vast majority of Christians (R.C., Orthodox, LCMS, etc) continue to practice close communion.
Eugene the report itself addressed these issues. Maybe superficially but it did.
Communion for Christians only is biblical, and it dates from the earliest history of the Church. To quote from the report: “By the time of Didache (circa. 95-110 c.e.) baptism is expressly required to participate in the eucharist.†To share in communion means that you are in communion with Jesus and that you have accepted Him as your savior. The sacrament of this acceptance is baptism. See the BCP page 858.
#20…
I’ll add to your can of worms, and I quote, “Drink this, all of you: This is my Blood of the new Covenant, which is shed for you and for many for the forgivenes of sins.” Not all, but many, so liturgically your argument may be invalid.
On communion of the unbaptized (i’m agin it) I’ll hang my hat on 1 Cor 11:27ff regarding receiving in an unworthy manner, and since Anglicanism has always held that Tradition is one of the three legs, I’ll take the tradition of the Fathers as being theologically appropriate.
I find it fascinating that the authors choose not to deal with the exhortation (BCP 316) and that they do not address the concept of unworthy reception of the Sacrament. Am I right that they completely skip over these things and ignore that anyone ever read the exhortation or that the Church ever taught that there was such a thing as unworthy reception?
This document upholds baptism to me. I believe that it is right: we should be better catechists. There is some resistance, however – when I first arrived at my current church I instituted a two year confirmation program to replace the 8 week program and met quite a bit of resistance. The truth is that High commitment churches will be stronger than low commitment churches.
My own experience is that Jews and Atheists in truly welcoming churches still won’t take communion. They are comfortable being in the presence of Christians who let the liturgy speak for themselves. Open communion, to some extent, doesn’t honor the atheist who really doesn’t believe, but is willing to be open to a conversation with the Word of God. My atheist mother will go to church, but it would offend her if I insisted she take communion.
I hope that there are churches where Jews and Atheists feel comfortable with the possibility of being understanding Christ, without feeling that they will be damned. Shouldn’t we be preaching sermons that would gently nudge people who aren’t Christians into a life of faith? Or must we always be preaching to the converted?
[blockquote]I believe that it is right: we should be better catechists.[/blockquote]
absolutely!
at the same time, communion without baptism represents a substantial divergence from catholic practice and theology of the vincentian variety. seriously considering condoning such a practice causes great distress to folks of the Anglo-Catholic perspective like myself. why do we keep pouring salt in each other’s wounds? Can’t we take a break from controversial actions for a few years?
I think a lot of it depends on whether one views Communion as a Sacrament with Christ being truly present (whether in the Catholic sense or not) or as a only a symbol of Christ’s presence amongst us in the form of our community. If it is the latter understanding then placing restrictions on its reception do not make sense and only serve as a reminder of divisions which are supposed to be overcome by the very act people are being held back from. Sort of like making Uncle Harry eat off a tray in the den while everyone else is having Thanksgiving dinner at the dining room table. I mean it is all about being family and togetherness and sharing with one another.
However if you take the Sacramental view then the Eucharist is linked with Baptism and Confirmation as one of the Sacraments of Initiation. This is best shown in the practice of the Orthodox and Eastern Rite Catholics who Baptise, Confirm & give first Eucharist to infants. This actually follows the ancient practice of the Church.
Baptism does more than just make us members of the Body of Christ. It also opens us to Grace. Marking us as one of Christ’s own. And (I may be explaining this poorly) allows the gift of Theosis to take hold. Because through the sacraments we become partakers of the Divine Nature through Christ.
If then we take a Sacramental view of Communion to give the Eucharist to the unbaptized or to the unrepentent sinner is to pollute the Sacred with the profane. To bind the incorruptible with the corrupt. And as St. Paul reminds us this is to bring condemnation to ourselves. It says there is no difference in the life illuminated and sustained by Christ’s grace and that which is not. It mocks the idea that it is only through Christ we are united to God. It claims the divinization of man lies in the nature of man himself and not in the Grace of Christ. This is a dangerous lie and defies the very definition and mission of the Church. Which is to proclaim the Gospel and as such be a messenger of salvation. But if we are divine already where is the need for a Savior?
Oddly enough, I wrote a paper for a class just a couple of weeks ago arguing for communion of the baptized only.
I used to be firmly in the “invite everyone to the table” camp, but since then and upon further reflection my position has shifted. I’m now somewhat conflicted: I can see compelling arguments for both sides of the question. But on the whole I now come down on the side of inviting only the baptized.
In my paper I suggested that there are (at least) two fundamental symbolisms being expressed in the Eucharist: one is that of a shared meal, which creates a bond of community between all those who partake, and the other is that of sacrificial self-offering (God’s to us through Jesus, and also ourselves to God) within the context of the New Covenant… into which Covenant, of course, we are initiated by baptism.
The “meal” symbolism argues for casting the invitation as wide as possible, by the ethic of hospitality: the stranger must be invited in and offered the best of what you have. (“For thereby some have entertained angels unawares.”) But the covenant symbolism argues for restricting the invitation only to those who are part of the covenant.
In balance, I’m now convinced that the requirements of the covenant symbolism should be the controlling ones, so I now argue for inviting only the baptized to the table. But I do think (and this report also urges) that we should give significant thought to how we ought to express the hospitality requirements of the Eucharist-as-meal.
This is the final frontier. The point of no return that breaks the Episcopal Church’s notion of being a “catholic” church. If anyone believes that the majority of TEC parishes won’t be practicing this “open communion” by the time GC 2012 rolls around is fooling themselves. I don’t mean to sound all doom and gloom, but really, this is it. Anyone who has any notion of remaining true to the sacraments as received from Christ should start booking your tickets to either Rome or Bedford, ’cause those are the only places you’re going to get them.
(Heh…”Rome or Bedford.” Who would’ve ever thought that connection would be made in ecclesiastical history!)
I would say we are fed together as community by hearing the Word with each other. That is the means by which we invite others to partake in Christian fellowship.
It may be difficult to think of the Word as substance but it is. It nourishes us. It provides us with the means to grow. And it brings flavor to our lives. Sharing the Word with friends and strangers is a true mark of Christian hospitality, uniting us with the baptized and unbaptized. That act of community I believe serves the purpose which some seek through COWB.
I would recommend the book “God Is Near Us: The Eucharist, the Heart of Life” by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) for those interested in a full treatment of this topic. Benedict goes into a number of less-than-full understandings of Communion that do not quite realize the full meaning of the sacrament, such as it being representative of Jesus dining with sinners (the radically inclusive scenario). He also goes into the real presence theology in a gentle and enlightening way.
[i]In balance, I’m now convinced that the requirements of the covenant symbolism should be the controlling ones, so I now argue for inviting only the baptized to the table. But I do think (and this report also urges) that we should give significant thought to how we ought to express the hospitality requirements of the Eucharist-as-meal.[/i]
The answer is not to make the eucharistic sacrifice bear the entire burden of this.
Why not reinstitute the [i]agape[/i] meal of the early Church, extending the hospitality to both the baptized and the unbaptized, but without the eucharistic sacrificial and covenantal meal aspect? Hold this meal – an actual meal, not only a ritual one – outside the context of the eucharistic liturgy, sometime during the week when it is convenient for most of the parish, as well an invited guests, to attend. Hold it weekly, after the main Sunday liturgy, or on Sunday evening, Wednesday evening, or some other time. Make it a potluck or a prepared meal, depending on particular circumstances. Surround it with prayers – our own [i]Book of Occasional Services[/i] has examples, and the (mostly dreadful) 1972 Presbyterian [i]Worshipbook[/i] even has a liturgy for such a meal – to make it clear that, though not the Lord’s Supper or the Holy Eucharist, this is nevertheless an extension of the Lord’s table and of the Lord’s hospitality.
And, Fr Clavier (#13): very well put indeed.
Paula, in #27, hits the nail on the head for me: “It mocks the idea that it is only through Christ we are united to God. It claims the divinization of man lies in the nature of man himself and not in the Grace of Christ. ”
Isn’t that the whole nut of the matter and is the nut of revisionist theology and philosophy: Man is divine, just like God (just as Satan tells Eve that if she eats of the tree of knowledge, she’ll be like God, which is why God has forbid her to eat that particular fruit). In essence that is what open communion and revisionist theology of relativity and inclusion without any standards is all about – the deification of humans.
Revisionists have made a god out of hospitality and inclusion and have forgotten to make a god out of God and his commandments, beginning with the very first one of the ten and the first of the Great two. Rhetorically, if you want to receive our Lord through the Eucharist, then why won’t you worship Him and commit to Him by being baptised? And why won’t our church commit to Him by seeking the baptism of those who have not been baptised?
It really is very simple. How can you receive our Lord in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper when you have not given yourself to Him through the sacrament of Baptism? It’s that 2 way street that the revisionist merchants of cheap grace ignore: yes, the grace is always there, but we have to commit to it and accept it in order to receive it.
John Wilkins #25 asks a really excellent question – “Should we always be preaching to the converted?”
I would say “No.” But we lost quite a bit when Sunday Morning Prayer was demoted. That was a service which, used wisely, could reach the aesthetes, could, via the OT-based Canticles, address God in a more general or “natural” way that would be less of a stumbling block for the unconverted (even the Alpha course recommends singing hymns that say “God” rather than more developed Trinitarian hymns in the early sessions, for the benefit of the unconverted guests), and there was amply sermon time to really develop ideas and not speak in the short hand of the initiated.
We turn up our noses at the megachurches (maybe rightly on some points), but their big Sunday “shows” are specifically developed to reach the unconverted. Most megachurches have more traditional “Believers’ Services”, but these are at other times of the week.
I believe that in the early Church, at least in some places, the liturgy of the word included the Catechumens and even “hearers”, but that these folks did not stay for the liturgy of the sacrament, which was for the converted.
So I don’t think that Eucharistic liturgy is a good venue for evangelism in the first place. No surprise that the “State of the Church” report shows pretty much zero evangelism around our “eucharistically centered” denomination.
27. Paula Loughlin wrote:
28. Ross wrote:
30. Paula Loughlin wrote:
Let me consider the “community” argument a bit. Certainly “communion” is about “community” — even for those of us who hold to a sacramental view of Baptism and Eucharist. But what “community” are we talking about? Is the Eucharistic “community” contiguous with the “world community” — one and all, y’all come? Or is the Eucharistic “community” the “communion of saints”, the Body of Christ, members of him?
The institutional meal in the upper room was not an open meal like that of the feeding of the multitudes; it was a closed meal with Jesus’ closest associates. It was a much smaller and limited “community.” And it was to this smaller, limited community that he address the words “all of you.”
The way one enters into the Eucharistic “community” — the Body of Christ, the Communion of Saints — is through death and burial with Jesus Christ in Baptism by water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We have no evidence whatsoever in the New Testament that the Lord’s Supper was open to one and all, regardless of whether they were baptized or not. Indeed, the Acts of the Apostles would indicate that the very first thing done with regard to those entering into The Way was Baptism. On Pentecost, the apostles did not celebrate the Eucharist and invite those thousands to partake — they preached and invited those thousands to believe and to be baptized.
Paul on his missionary journeys did not go around celebrating the Eucharist and inviting one and all to partake of the Body and Blood of Christ. The Eucharist is not the instrument of evangelism; it is the food of the evangelized and baptized community of faith.
I know that elements want to have us believe how “inclusive” Jesus was. Matthew reports a parable of Jesus about a king who gave a marriage feast for his son. (Matthew 22:1-14) It is hardly “inclusive” because, after dragging guests in off the street, the king throws on of them out because he wasn’t wearing a wedding garment. For centuries the Church understood this to be about the “community meal” — Eucharist — and the “wedding garment” to be the post baptismal white tunic of the newly baptized.
For centuries Christianity was a “mystery religion” and the “mysteries” (Greek for “secrets”) were (1) the baptismal creed, (2) Baptism, (3) the Lord’s Prayer and (4) the Eucharist. If you read the 4th century catechetical lectures of Cyril of Jerusalem, you will discover that the catechumens were not taught any of these things — they first experienced them when they were baptized and taken into the Eucharist for the very first time and they were not explained to them until after that Baptism/Eucharist (our Great Vigil).
The Orthodox liturgies contained — and still contain — a moment after the homily and before the Creed, Prayers of the People, Lord’s Prayer and Communion, when the deacon sings out “The doors! The doors! Let all catechumens depart!” This was the signal when the unbaptized (and excommunate) were to be ushered out of the room and the doors closed and barred — although that extreme isn’t currently observed by the Orthodox. In the West, the distinction existed until about 50 years ago between the “Mass of the Catechumens” consisting of the readings from Holy Scripture and Homily and the “Mass of the Faithful” consisting of the Creed, Prayers of the People, Lord’s Prayer and Communion.
Yes, the Eucharist is about “community.” But it is the Church community, the community of the faithful, the Body of Christ — a community of the baptized.
It’s not “Open Communion” which we should be practicing. It is, rather “Open Baptism.” We should be inviting those outside the Eucharistic community to believe and be baptized. That was the apostolic preaching. And, by believing and receiving the grace of Baptism one becomes members of the Eucharistic community, fed by the Body and Blood of Christ.
Not to flog a dead pony, since Ross (#28) is on the right track (i.e., the track I agree with!) But it might be helpful to distinguish (as #32 suggests) between hospitality and communion. Even accepting a mandate of hospitality, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the Eucharist is the only or even one proper way to show that. And even if we were to condone it (which I don’t), communion of the unbaptised would NOT effect or indicate true “communion”.
If a stranger knocks on my door and I invite him in to share dinner*, I have exercised hospitality. We have not experienced communion unless my family subsequently accepts him as a very close friend whom we treat as family, with shared values and experiences, etc. We can be very nice to somebody without being “joined together” in a sense of community.
* My analogy ignores a critical aspect, which is that the Eucharist is not simply a “family dinner.”
I’m opposed to “open communion” — and dismayed that this could even become a viable option in TEC, for all the obvious reasons offered here. I’m also a close reader of the great theologians of the Church in the 16th and 17th centuries … but I’m not an uncritical reader.
I take exception to the quote from Richard Hooker given in #13 above. A Jewish, Muslim, or unbelieving friend is not properly described as a “dead thing.” Insofar as he is living, my friend shares in that Life which is the Holy Spirit’s very Being; insofar as he is a reasoning person, my friend stands in the bright illumining Light which is the gift of the Logos/Word; insofar as he is sustained in being, he is a child of that good Father whom St John describes as Love.
Because my Jewish, Muslim or unbelieving friends are not baptized, they do not yet share in the new life of Christ, as members of his body: so the fellowship of the Holy Table is not yet open to them. But they are very far from being “dead things,” as Hooker alleged.
The comparison between “communion” and “hospitality” is just wrong. It was never considered “hospitality” in the last 2000 years. Ever. The fact the HOB even has to discuss it is an indication of how far gone they are. Has anyone noticed the recitation of the Creed (Oh, which is frequently *optional* in ECUSA parishes or dropped altogether, but let’s pretend) occurs first in the liturgy, *then* communion happens? Not an accident. I expect this is too much to expect bishops to notice. The common faith (again, a theory) is proclaimed, then and only then do the people who actually believe that declaration receive communion together. This is like going over a repair manual for a Model T; all interesting but abandoned in favor of newer technology.
Ted Granger (#32.) said,
“…Hold this meal – an actual meal, not only a ritual one – outside the context of the eucharistic liturgy,….”
===================================================================
We do this each Sunday after the main service by having a light brunch in our undercroft. Most of those attending the service participate and we usually have an enjoyable chat-fest. It is definitely a fellowship experience.
The food is provided by an individual who volunteers his/her services to prepare and present the food in a buffet style presentation.
Father Fontaine, keep spitting! Yes, the loss of Matins was far more devasting that most people recognize. It is the old way to prepare oneself for the Eucharist. Now people rush into church, listem to the sermon, receive communion, go to coffee hour and rush home to prepare for Monday. God always gets the ‘short shrift’ (meaning make your confession just to get it over with).
All this could be avoided in the most part, if the churches would practice closed communion. Our church in the LC-MS practices closed communion which is supposed to be LC-MS practice. Our church bulletin has this in it: Because we believe that communing together presupposes agreement in the doctrines of the faith, guest who are communicants of the congregations affiliated with the LC-MS may be invited to commune with us. Please introduce yourself to the pastor before the service. Guest who are not members of such congregations are asked to remain in the pew during communion. Thanks for honoring our convictions and practice. To inquire about becoming a communicant, please speak to the pastor.
How can anyone to communion with people who don’t hold to the same view as to what happens in Holy Communion?
1. It is absurd to be continually reopening questions that were settled centuries ago and have been observed ever since by the Catholic church; even allowing it gave the revisionists the wedge with which they have destroyed TEC.
2. It is absurd to write earnest and lengthy official reports when each parish does precisely what it wants and there are no consequences.
It seems to me that hospitality and meal sharing is not the point here. Our church did not allow its baptized members to take communion in the past until they had been confirmed. In confirmation, we “confirmed” that we were taking over the commitment to Christ that was made for us by our godparents at our infant baptisms. That is the point of the Lord’s Supper, our Eucharist. It is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace of communing with our Lord, which can only occur after we have committed to Him, after we have turned (repented) to Him. Thus, Baptism and Confirmation (for those baptized in infancy) are the necessities of participation in the Eucharist. Without those and the concomitant commitment to Christ, the Eucharist is only unleavened wafers and watered down wine. Hospitality and our own definitions of “inclusion” have nothing to do with it.
43, and that’s why I think we need to restore confirmation to its rightful place. Communion should wait until age 12 or so and you are confirmed and can deliberately reaffirm your baptismal vows.
I wanted to put a comment on the Episcopal Cafe site, but couldn’t get myself registered. Someone there said it was a lie that anybody thought that Episcopalians could believe anything they wanted to. It’s not a lie. I know some people who think that. The very fact that the Church can seriously countenance a “dialogue over Communion w/o Baptism is embarrassing, but , more seriously, demonstrates that we have not understanding of authority and its place in the Church. People laugh at us behind our backs.. I think Paula is on too something when she discusses the high/low sacramentals view of the Eucharist in the Church. The low view certainly reinforces an instrumental view of Dommunion.
I was raised in the Anglican Tradition in a family with strong British roots. My grandmother and father were very traditional Christians, held to orthodox positions and apostolic customs. However, my mother and I got into a horrid row one Christmas many years ago over just this issue. She was bringing our Hindu friends to Christmas Service and told them to take Communion. I and my grandmother were aghast. Mother’s attitude was: It’s just symbolic anyway, nothing is really going on!
OK, I tell this story for a couple of reasons. One, to show that Episcopalians have had folks advocating open communion for many years, and two, that MANY Episcopalians think about Communion just as my mother did: It’s a beautiful ceremony, but nothing REALLY is going on…if something were really happening in Communion, why, we’d be Catholics! Exactly, Mother, that is why I now AM a Catholic.
The Episcopal Church really has been a mess for years. People have held to all kinds of weird beliefs…this isn’t a new phenomenon, folks. People, it really is time for you to “come out from among her”…there is really only two options: Rome or Constantinople. Why are you hesitating. The Episcopal Church is apostate…end of story. Leave her…for God’s sake and your own souls’.