* FINAL VERSION – Not Completed
Resolution: D089
Title: Invitation to Receive Holy Communion
Topic: Doctrine
Committee: 13 – Prayer Book, Liturgy and Church Music
House of Initial Action: Bishops
Proposer: The Very Rev. Ernesto R. Medina
Resolved, the House of _______ concurring, That the 76th General Convention direct the Standing Commission on Constitution and Canons to review and provide a recommendation to resolve the conflict between Article X of the Constitution, specifically, the invitation offered in the Book of Common Prayer “The Gifts of God for the People of God” and Canon I.17.7, restricting communion to only the baptized; and be it further
Resolved, That the Standing Commission on Constitution and Canons consult with other appropriate Standing Commissions, as needed; and be it further
Resolved, That the Standing Commission report back to the 77th General Convention.
EXPLANATION
There appears to be a conflict between the Constitution of the Episcopal Church and the Canons of the Episcopal Church with respect to who is able to receive Holy Communion.
Constitution – Article X
The Book of Common Prayer, as now established or hereafter amended by the authority of this Church, shall be in use in all the Dioceses of this Church. BCP clearly states in the invitation to receive Communion “The Gifts of God for the People of God.” The question we ask is “who is the People of God?”
Canon 17 – Section 7
No unbaptized person shall be eligible to receive Holy Communion in this Church.
We are asking the Standing Commission on Constitutions and Canons to help resolve this conflict.
I saw that. I think it is an effort to push communion for the non-baptized.
There is no conflict unless we have adopted a different than biblical definition of the “People of God”.
So was this actually passed? It reads as “FINAL VERSION – Not Completed.”
#1. I agree. A large number of the Episcopal leadership do not have a problem with the communion of the unbaptized. The Episcopal Church may very well become even more inclusive next GC.
Not passed, I am noting its final status exactly.
But doesn’t People of God imply that they are baptized? Otherwise, they are just people – created by God but not “of God”
Before baptism your a child of Adam. After baptism you are a “child of God and heir of the kingdom”. Is that in the 1979 baptism liturgy? (I have used the Anglican Service Book or 1928 all of my ministry which includes it).
I know of no Protestant church that believes only the baptized can be “the people of God”. Of course such unbaptized “people of God” will seek baptism.
Euguene – #8 – I was thinking of Romans 8:6-17:
Of course, you can be led by the Spirit before you’re “officially” baptized, but if you are being led by the Spirit, it seems to me that leads to baptism and then to incorporation into Christ’s Church, to the Eucharist.
To put it into the same grammar as the question was put: The People of God is them who is baptised.
If that isn’t true, then the Episcopal Church doesn’t have much of a baptismal theology and the baptismal covenant is essentially meaningless.
Baptism is the mark or visible and outward sign of membership in the Church, and receiving Holy Communion is offered to members only, per the advice of St. Paul. The Episcopal Church is already being inclusive by allowing for the possibility that there are members of the Church who are not members of the Episcopal Church.
The significance of this proposed resolution is twofold:
(1) there is a continued push by some in TEC for the communion of the unbaptized
(2) this is another resolution which seeks to make a theological change NOT by an appeal to tradition or scripture but by an appeal to canon and Constitution.
Thank you for posting this, I have been wondering if this issue had been addressed (or at least attempted.) IMO, it needs to be addressed and, after sorting through various conflicting thoughts, I am ultimately saddened but not surprised that it will not be dealt with. This merely plays to the CWOB crowd. By the time is does catch anyones attention the practice will be so common and the committee stacked with practicioners that the orthodox position won’t stand a chance. CWOB reduces Communion to a ritualized fellowship meal. At that point, sharing coffee and doughnuts in the fellowship hall is more meaningful.
Of course, once this goes through, then what’s to say the current push to make the pastoral and episcopal offices opened to “all baptized” shouldn’t be further widened to “the people of God” whether or not baptized?
The invitation (“The Gifts of God for the People of God”) appears to have been an attempt to emmulate the Orthodox Liturgy’s invitation, “Holy Things for Holy People”, but was perhaps thought to be too presumptuous by those formulating the new liturgies in the early 70’s. Marion Hatchett’s comment is significant: he translates the invitation (cited in Latin as “Sancta Sanctis”) as “Holy (set apart) things for holy (set apart) people.” (‘Commentary on the the American Prayer Book’ p. 293) The “set apart” People of God are those called out (ek-klesia) from the rest of world to witness to a new and different life. In this issue, as in that of the single phrase of the Baptismal Covenant currently being over-used, a recent liturgical construct poorly understood is being used to prove doctrine. It is worthy of note also that the Orthodox response to the Eucharistic invitation in question is, “One is holy, one is Lord, Jesus Christ, to the glory of God the Father.”
The unbaptized have not covenented to respect the dignity of every human being and have not assented to the gospel of inclusiveness. They appear under the new understanding of baptism to be apart from the people of God. But they should be included out of love. Anyone want to elect me as their bishop?
Greetings.
Speaking as one of the unbaptized, let me say that I agree with [b]Nikolaus[/b] (12) above. What little I’ve read about the eucharist seems to indicate that not only is it only for Christians, but that even Christians are not to approach it lightly. It also seems clear that, at least in the majority view, one must be baptized to be a Christian. As [b]Nikolaus[/b] says, if it’s just coffee and doughnuts, why bother? If anyone can just walk up off the street and communicate, of what significance can it be?
The analogy is not exact, but when I was in grad school I was getting the (old style) GI Bill, which moderately serious money to a grad student. I would occasionally get (mostly) good-natured ribbing about it, and my standard reply was “You want the GI Bill? No problem. Come downtown with me sometime and I’ll introduce you to a nice recruiting sergeant who can tell you all about it.” I got no takers.
Should I decide I want to take communion, I will receive instruction and be baptized. Unless communion is coffee and doughnuts, I don’t understand why others don’t see it that way.
regards,
JPB
Nice response, JPB (#16). Glad you dropped by. It’s always good to hear from outsiders how they see things.
And Kendall, I particularly appreciated your second point in #11. TEC has gotten into this really bad habit of trying to make major changes in doctrine and discipline by merely altering a canon or two, i.e., indirectly and rather covertly, instead of openly confronting the issue head-on. Good catch. I’m glad you highlighted this resolution, even if it didn’t pass—this time.
David Handy+
Eugene, All protestant churches were founded with the same belief concerning the people of God. The “People of God” can either be the old Israel or the New Israel, depending on which testament you look at. This by inference excludes the non Israel. The “People of God” is not humanity, but are those called out. In the late 19th century this notion gets confused with the fatherhood of God, and Paul directs himself to this sloppy theme in Acts 17:22-31 where he makes the distinction between a tenuous relationship with father God and right worship.
As Anastasios has noted in #14, I believe that this is a “watering down” of the Orthodox Eucharistic liturgy, or was so reported to me by one of my profs who worked on this section of BCP 1979.
To place that liturgical comment in its broader setting, this invitation comes after the Catachumens (and any other un baptized) had been dismissed from the Eucharistic Assembly
Islandbear+
Is there any liklihood of adding (just in theory, no such thing could EVER happen) some language concerning a baptized person who, say, having apostasized to Islam yet still thought they were a layman and able to receive communion? I know, not in a million years.
John 1.11-12: “He came to his own home, and his own people received him not. But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God . . . .”
The People of God, in the Christian sense, are his children because they have “received him” (Christ Jesus) and “believed in his name.”
The culture claims, of course, that all people are his children and, therefore, his people–i.e., the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man–but the New Testament is clear as John’s Gospel shows that all people are God’s beloved creatures, but only those who have “received” Christ Jesus and “believed” in him are his children, members of his family and, therefore, his people. They are the ones who have been baptized into Christ and, thus, called to his Supper.
I agree with those above who have pointed out that this resolution represents an effort to “side step” an important and needed theological discussion and debate (on the connection between baptism and reception of the eucharistic elements) and establish “open communion” by claiming a non-existent contradiction in the constitution and canons.
This is a deceitful and cynical attempt to bring about change in an age old practice of established theological importance by manipulating the processes of the General Convention. If the Deputies and Bishop affirm this resolution, it will be one more time that significant theological change contrary to apostolic tradition has been brought about in the Episcopal Church without open, offical, theological debate and discussion but by political machinations. Rather than Church leaders, these people act like sophmores running an Interfraternity Council election.
Father Kendall,
Given the above, I cannot understand how can you and the Diocese of South Carolina remain in the faux Christian church that is TEC? Please do not misunderstand me – I say this in all confusion, not at all sarcastically. You are an honorable and Godly man, and so is Bishop Lawrence. Please enlighten me.
Saint Cyril, circa 350:
[blockquote]After [the Lord’s Prayer] the Priest says, “Holy things to the holy.†Holy are the gifts presented, having received the visitation of the Holy Ghost; holy are you also, having been deemed worthy of the Holy Spirit; the holy things therefore correspond to the holy persons. Then you say, “One is Holy, One is the Lord, Jesus Christ.†For One is truly holy, by nature holy; we too are holy, but not by nature, only by participation, and [ascetical] discipline, and prayer. [/blockquote]
In case there was any doubt, Saint Cyril begins the lecture quoted above (“On the Sacred Liturgy and Communion”), with the following introduction:
[blockquote]By the loving-kindness of God ye have heard sufficiently at our former meetings concerning Baptism, and Chrism, and partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ; and now it is necessary to pass on to what is next in order, meaning to-day to set the crown on the spiritual building of your edification.[/blockquote]
Sorry, please disregard the previous post. I should have simply noted that the quote was from “Five Catechetical Lectures … to the Newly Baptized”.
I read it as a two-edged sword. And not the right kind.
It is poorly conceived; the ramifications dangerously ignored.
No. 18 -n The people of God are those who are baptized, not those who are “called out”, though you could say, I suppose, that those who are baptized are those who have been “called out”. I hope you don’t mean that the Anglican Church is a Protestant church founded on some sort of Calvinistic foundation of the
elect”.
Did Paul require baptism by water as a prerequisite for communion? This is not a rhetorical question. I do not know the answer. I know that he professed not to be a particularly prolific baptizer (he acknowledges baptizing Crispus and Gaius and the household of Stephanas, but disclaims detailed knowledge of having conducted other baptisms, at least among the Corinthians, and describes baptism as a secondary or lesser element of his personal mission). Did it happen in Paul’s time that communion was shared with unbaptized faithful? Forgive my ignorance on this point, but this forum seems like a good place to seek answers (I can weed out those who have answers without knowledge from those who have answers supported by knowledge – both are present in abundance here).
It is Christ’s table, and we must approach it on His terms, not our own. This resolution is yet more of the same degraded and decadent reasoning of those who have conned our church into sanctifying sin. God’s judgment will continue to eat away the fabric of such an unholy assembly.
I had assumed that I would be flooded with welcome information about the relation of baptism and communion in the Pauline era. Instead, I’m hearing nothing. Is this because there isn’t a clear answer or has the army of commenters marched on? I guess I won’t get an easy way out of curling up with my Bible and reference works. The question of “open communion” seems far more doctrinally central to me than the complete meltdown of unity over same sex blessings, marriage, activity that has torn us apart.
30, I don’t think the NT directly answers your question. We do know that one of the first things that believers do is to get baptized. See Acts 8:27-38 and Acts:10.
In 1 Corinthians 11: 20-30 Paul is writing to the Church in Corinth which we may assume was comprised of Baptized believers. It seems to be an assumption that your were not felt to be a Christian until you had been both baptized with water and the Holy Spirit. Although there are appear to be some instances in which only water was used.
Note that the first thing that Paul does after his conversion is to be baptized.
[blockquote] Acts 9:17-19 17 Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord– Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here– has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19 and after taking some food, he regained his strength. Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus.[/blockquote]
Holy Communion is mentioned:
[blockquote]Acts 2:42 42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.[/blockquote]
and
[blockquote]Acts 20:7 7 On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight.[/blockquote]
When ever the Eucharist is mentioned in the NT it is within the context of baptized believers.
thank you, Brother Michael. That’s helpful. Baptism and communion are frequently mentioned (in my various translations it is not always clear from context whether “breaking bread” indicates communion or simply having some grub). However, it is not clear to me that baptism was considered a prerequisite for communion in the early days of the Church. I take the point that it would have been unusual for early Christians not to be baptised, so the issue probably did not arise frequently.
32, it is clear from 1 Corinthians that Eucharist could be an actual meal. But over time it came to be a symbolic meal within a formal service. Note Paul’s correction. Also eating together was done within community. You simply didn’t eat with other outside the community. Note the criticism of Jesus for eating with sinners. We don’t think of eating with others in this way.
I think a lot of your questions may be answered by looking at early christian writings in the 2nd and third centuries. It does become the practice very early, in formal services (once we get to that point) to remove all non-Christians as well as catechumens (non-baptized) from the service. It is not unlike the prohibition on non-Jews entering the Temple, an infraction punishable by death.