According to Akinola, Nigerian bishops had not “fully decided” on whether they would attend.
“At present, the Anglican Church is so divided. There is so much distrust and disrespect. Even basic courtesies are lacking among the bishops.
“What kind of communion do you have when you have bishops from all over the world coming together and you cannot even have fellowship or share the Lord’s Supper?” he asked.
“What we are doing now is to tell the authorities in Lambeth Palace (Archbishop of Canterbury) the conditions that must be met if we are to attend.
According to Akinola, Nigerian bishops had not “fully decided†on whether they would attend.
This stands in clear contrast to the actions of +Duncan who actually took a stand (although it took him 4 years). ++Akinola signed the same document that ++Orombi signed, yet he doesn’t feel bound by it. Was it simply a threat to get what he wants?
“What we are doing now is to tell the authorities in Lambeth Palace (Archbishop of Canterbury) the conditions that must be met if we are to attend.
Very gracious of him.
“The first condition is that all bishops in Nigeria must be invited because, as it is now, they have excluded one bishop.
“We have told them that failure to invite any of our bishops is failure to invite all of us because that one bishop did not make himself a bishop,†he said.
And now we have another ‘definitive stand.’ Of course there will be 5 CANA bishops who do not receive invitations to Lambeth after the newest round of consecrations. I somehow doubt he’ll stick to his ‘word’ on this threat either.
++Akinola laments that some bishops do not take communion with others, but he is one of the major refusers. He also tells the host that there are conditions under which he and his bishops will accept the invitation. Well, I recall a parable of Jesus about a man inviting others to a feast, and they refused. Perhaps the Archbishop of Abuja ought to meditate on that one. Jesus held table fellowship with sinners. If he wants to keep on following Jesus, and he thinks some of the other invitees are sinners, well, there’s a lesson there.
If he doesn’t want to accept the invitation, then say so and stop all of this posturing. Does he think he is going to change +++Rowan’s mind? Perhaps he thinks so. I doubt +++Rowan will cave in..
The refusal to take communion with representatives of the American church goes back to Frank Griswold. The African primates were going to refuse to take communion with Griswold but the ABC intervened and they African primates acquiesced. Griswold promised to not support and the ordination of a practicing homosexual. Griswold then went back and reneged on his word. Katherine Jefferts-Schori has kept up with Griswold’s despicable proclivities to mendacity. I simply cannot imagine lying to a primate of any church. Taking communion implies being in communion. Nigeria is not in communion with ECUSA. Akinola, unlike KJS, has integrity and has to act within restrictions implied by that quality. Jesus “took communion” with sinners to lead them to repentance. He instructed his followers to shake the dust off their sandals with those who rejected Him.
Of course, Bob and Brian are probably big proponents of the reprehensible practice of open communion so why do I bother???
[blockquote] Well, I recall a parable of Jesus about a man inviting others to a feast, and they refused. [/blockquote]
Except I forget the part about where Jesus says “you are invited, but leave your brother at home; I don’t like him”.
I always thought the path of least resistance for the ABC would have been to invite everyone, including all the CANA and AMiA bishops, and, though I don’t agree with him, VGR, and let them make a decision in council at Lambeth about what to do in the future. After all, the former ABC has now regretted not recognizing the AMiA bishops.
Of course, I would expect TEC to fight that tooth and nail, since it might impair their litigation strategy for the property in the courts. Lambeth would have to overcome its reluctance to make the bureaucracy at 815 unhappy for that to take place.
I keep reading this unworthy comparison between the Eucharist and “table fellowship with sinners.” But notice what was really said in I Corinthians: the Eucharist is not the same as eating at table with others; it is, for one thing, a supreme occasion for repentance and transformation, for examining our failings before God. This attitude about “sharing the table,” as in eating and drinking, is specifically what is condemned:
11:22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in?. . .
11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
Why doesn’t this give people pause–and fear–to make the profane comparison? Why does it not open before us all the everlasting seriousness of Communion, fully explaining the reservations that many feel about communing with unrepentant apostates?
it seems to me there is a myriad of things ++Akinola could list as legitimate grievances – filing lawsuits, open communion, same sex blessings – as practices that have to cease before he attends Lambeth.
The full text of ++Akinola’s position can be found on Stand Firm… I am in awe of the depth of the faith found in the Anglican Church in Africa. I attend an AMiA church– not a CANA church– but ++Peter Akinola is an immense inspiration to me. He constantly reminds me what is important; he constantly recalls me to self-conscious discipleship; he never downplays the fact that it is VERY, VERY, VERY HARD to follow Jesus, but that God will give us the strength necessary to do so, if only we ask it of Him… These are exciting times for Christians. We are watching the Lord of Hosts gathering his forces– the army of Aslan, if you will– in preparation for a great battle. This battle will NOT be fought to “take back” TEC, or to reclaim the prestige, power, money, and property of TEC. The battle will be fought to liberate all of those masses of dying and miserable people who are currently enslaved by the Forces of Darkness… As this seemingly puny and ineffectual army– the army of the Lord– is deployed into battle formation against the Forces of Darkness, I will be happy to take my marching orders from ++ Akinola and the other Godly bishops of Africa… I’ve already read the last chapter of the Book– I know who is going to win in the end! And for THAT, I rejoice! 🙂
Gee, what part of stop lying and stop opposing the teaching of the Anglican Communion is JUST TOO HARD for imperialists of ECUSA/TEC to comprehend or apprehend or appreciate. The onlu mode of protest is refusal of Communion on the monstrously practical grounds that ECUSA/TEC is untrustworthy and in danger of eternal damnation from its false teaching and actions of duplicity. And it is not jus ++Akinola, there were more than half of the AC in broken or imparied communion with ECUSA/TEC. I don’t think the indications are unknown so much as ignored. Try reading The Road to Lambeth, folks.
RE: “Akinola laments that some bishops do not take communion with others, but he is one of the major refusers.”
No he doesn’t. Why’d you say that he does?
What he laments is that “you cannot even have fellowship or share the Lord’s Supper” because the bishops of the Anglican Communion do not share the same gospel.
You, perhaps, don’t think that particularly matters much, but others think it matters quite a lot and thus they are unable to share fellowship or communion.
Akinola doesn’t lament that some bishops “do not take communion with others” . . . he laments *the necessity* of some bishops not taking communion with others, which is quite a different thing.
One might use a secular example.
In the case of a husband and wife who are estanged, and preparing for a divorce . . . the husband calls up the wife and says “hey — why don’t we have just one more roll in the hay for old time’s sake!”
The wife says “we don’t even share supper together, or our children, or our home — so why would we have sex together?”
And Bob from Boone then state this: “[The wife] laments that [her husband does] not [share supper or a home] with [her], but [she] is one of the major refusers.”
robroy #3: “Taking communion implies being in communion.”
Taking communion implies being in communion with [i]Christ.[/i]
Sarah, I’ll flip your analogy: The husband calls up the wife and says, “Hey, let’s take the kids out to dinner together. Surely we can be polite to one another and show them that we both love them and that we are both civilized, caring adults.” The wife refuses.
Padrewayne, communion is more than koolaid and crackers. The Episcopal church have defiled the sacrament. Read Paula’s note.
Akinola integrity. Katherine Jefferts-Schori mendacity. It is so nice to stand with people like ABp Akinola.
The LORD detests lying lips, but he delights in men who are truthful. Proverbs 12:22
#11: No, no that doesn’t work at all.
robroy, of [i]course[/i] Communion is more than Koolaid and crackers! It is the Supper of the Lamb. The Supper of Our Lord. The Holy Food of the Body and Blood of Christ. The Divine Mystery. The Episcopal Church has not defiled the sacrament — but IMHO those who refuse to take Communion because they disagree with the person at the rail next to them [i]belittle[/i] the sacrament.
[i]The grace I receive[/i] in the sacrament doesn’t really have anything to do with the sinfulness (or not) of the person next to me. Yes, that communion is important, but it is secondary to the communion I have with the Risen Christ.
I would not participate in a eucharist with an open communion. I would not participate in a eucharist where the host is given to a man dressed up as a nun, I would not participate in eucharist with Katherine (I didn’t sign nothin’, A way not The way) Schori. Those defile the sacrament and my participation would signal my condoning of the sacrilege.
By the way, thank you for showing respect for the sacrament. Many of your colleagues do not.
Except, of course, when one side would subsequently say “Well, we share communion together, so what’s all this talk about a separate structure. We’re in communion, after all.”
robroy
Be careful of who you ally yourself with. While ++Akinola may be infinitely better than ++Katharine in your eyes, it is merely a case of moral relativism.
[i] Edited by elf. [/i]
I thing we are forgetting what the Eucharist is and how it came about.
Paula, thanks for your post. I had the same reaction and was about to go to my other computer where I have Bible software loaded. You saved me a heap of time.
The common practice in the TEC to have open communion is blatantly wrong, by making our most sacred service of obedience to Christ our sacred duty into sort of feely good service of friendship for all.
Recently, I went to a memorial service that was led by an RC Priest I grew up with. The Eucharist was celebrated and he explained that it would be given only to RC’s because that was a discipline his church required. He did give a personal blessing with the sign of the cross on the forehead of each of us non RCs.
True, Christ sat with sinners, but reserved the most holy feast for only a very few of His followers. Judas was there, but remember how Jesus rebuked him.
Luke 22
7 Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed.
8 Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover.”
9 “Where do you want us to prepare for it?” they asked.
10 He replied, “As you enter the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him to the house that he enters,
11 and say to the owner of the house, ‘The Teacher asks: Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’
12 He will show you a large upper room, all furnished. Make preparations there.”
Brian from T19… I am new to Titusonenine and new to the bogosphere. Did I understand you correctly– did you really mean that you believe ++Akinola is NOT a good man??? Is that meant as a joke? I may well be a little slow today– I have an awful cold– but if you were making a stab at ironic humor, I don’t get the joke… have you ever MET or TALKED to ++Akinola??? I think he is an awesome man of God… Please– somebody tell me, please– did I miss something in this exchange?
[i] Occasionally commenters go over the line. Then an elf steps in[that’s me] and edits
the outrageous and ad hominem comments. [/i].
RE: “The husband calls up the wife and says, “Hey, let’s take the kids out to dinner together. Surely we can be polite to one another and show them that we both love them and that we are both civilized, caring adults.†The wife refuses.”
But you didn’t “flip the analogy” at all.
You compared the Holy Eucharist to “going out to dinner.”
I think that about explains it all.
Good grief, Sarah, you’re the one who brought up “a roll in the hay”.
I think that about explains it all.
So. Situation thus.
Communion service is celebrated. Host and wine are consecrated. The Body and Blood of our Lord are offered to all (open communion). robroy and Oldman refuse to partake because the others haven’t been vetted (i.e., baptized). Whose loss is this? (BTW, Oldman, “open communion,” if by which you mean communion of non-baptized people, is most definitely [i]not[/i] common practice. Get a grip.)
New situation. Communion service is celebrated. Host and Wine are consecrated. The Body and Blood of our Lord are offered to the baptized (as rubrick’d [is that a word? it should be…] in our BCP. robroy and Oldman proceed to the Altar, receive the most precious Body and Blood. They find out (I don’t know how…) that alongside them had been an unrepentent sinner. Was [i]their[/i] Communion with our Lord invalid? Denigrated? Defiled?
Heavens. This may not be off-thread, but it’s veering that way. But I am interested.
Blessings.
Nobody has answered what part of stopping lying and failure to adhere to AC teaching the ECUSA/TEC finds too hard. THAT is the crux of the issue, is it not?
“Get a grip,” Padre, my goodness how do you know whether or not they are baptised. When a Priest gives communion, does he know? Does he say to all those preparing to come to communion that they are welcome, IF, they are baptised and believe in Christ’s Gospel? Or as my RC Priest friend said that in addition they had to be RC?
I have no worry, since I am Baptised and do believe with all my heart the Gospels of my Lord and I do not worry about the soul of the person next to me if that person is not Baptised and doesn’t believe in Christ’s Gospel.
Padre, I worry enough for my soul, not that I am going against my baptism vows and what I have learned about the Gospels, but what happens in my own everyday life and how I respond to that. I do believe that the Priest should ask the general qustions, but not me.
Instead of saying to you “get a grip,” I say Good Bless You for your work for the Lord.
++Akinola is not a good man and does not sahre in the grace and
love taught by Jesus. –Brian
What an outrageous, uncharitable statement. In truth, all I have read leads me to believe that ++Akinola has been terribly demonized; some of the instances have been downright racist and have threatened the bishop’s safety and wellbeing.
Actually, Oldman, you’ve stated exactly my point.
And I thank you for your blessing.
Hi bluenarrative,
You did not misubderstand me. I made the moral statement that ++Akinola is not a good man. This is not a judgment on all of his ideas or his commitment to Jesus, but rather his forays into the political sphere where he has advocated hatred and intolerance.
[i] Edited by elf. [/i]
bluenarrative,
No, you understood correctly. Brian hates the traditional teaching of the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church”, and sees anyone and everyone who upholds that teaching as ignorant bigots.
Assuming that only the baptized are allowed by church law to receive communion, we are all still approaching the altar in varying states of belief and sanctification. Not all who partake, including even a significant portion of Roman Catholics, believe in the objective presence of Christ in the Eucharist brought about by the priest’s consecration. Not all who approach believe that something that they have done is really a sin (including the class of mortal sins). I think that refusal to take communion with others is justified when formal heresy exists (denial of the Trinity, or other articles of the Creed). Denial to Spong comes to mind. I don’t think that Akinola has enough justification for his proposed action.
Akinola has never advocated hatred. He has advocated intolerance of unrepentant sinners that seek to destroy the church to advance a wordly political cause clearly condemned by scripture. I am intolerant, too! I cannot stand the word tolerant. Where is it in the Bible? The word connotes giving a pass on a sinful state. This is something Jesus never did. He called us to an even more strict standard. [i]”But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”[/i]
PW, your pathetic strawman would have booted out of Oz. “They find out (I don’t know how…) that alongside them had been an unrepentent sinner.” St. Paul states that such a person brings condemnation upon himself. The officiant brings condemnation upon himself in giving the sacrament to the cross dressing “nun” or to a man who has abandoned his family for a young thang, etc. Again, I would not participate in a such communion where the officiant blatantly ignored such parishioners.
But again, thanks for upholding the sacrament!
You know, Jesus didn’t love every one in the way that many here mean. That is, approval of their sin. Jesus loved the Pharasees, but He condemned their sin.
Akinola is a great man and he is right to be concerned about who he is taking communion with.
I think those who see the Eucharist as primarily a communion with Christ and those who are concerned about the spiritual standing of fellow partakers are both right. You all are approaching the Eucharist from different perspectives.
I would say that the Eucharist is primarily a spiritual sacrifice of praise to God the Father for the redemption we have through Jesus Christ. It’s through this act of worship that the celebrant with the participation of the congregation re-presents the one sacrifice of Christ to the Father, in which we ask for the effects of Christ’s redemptive sacrifice to be made present in our lives. In addition to this, when believers come together in one place, it is through the Eucharist that the body of Christ, the church, is realized. St. Paul said: “the cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.â€
So, what is the basis of our unity which allows us to partake of communion together? Jesus Christ! He is the basis of our unity. And we enter into union with Christ and his redemptive work through our baptism. We are baptized because our faith in Christ. St. Paul instructed the Ephesians believers to endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism….. Open communion would be unbiblical because unbelievers do not believe in the lordship of Christ, they do not share the same faith/belief and they have not been baptized. As for partaking of the Eucharist with believers who hold heretical beliefs/teachings, believers holding the right faith should NOT partake in the Eucharist with them. First, there is no room for factionalism at the Eucharist. Paul makes this clear in 1 Cor 11. Paul continually stressed that believers are to be of the same mind on doctrine, however in some practices we have freedom. Secondly, with believers who are holding false/heretical teachings and/or not living appropriately, believers are to disassociate themselves from them. Paul told the Thessalonians: “but we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us. Partaking in the Eucharist with those who hold heretical doctrine is not exhibiting unity in Jesus Christ nor unity of faith and it is definately not unity in the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth.
-Vincent
Hi again bluenarrative
I actually backed up my point with evidence, but Elf Lady erased all of the proof (elfgirl is much more open-minded 😉 ). So if you didn’t see it, I’ll leave you to research for yourself several actions which should be questioned. The point is that we should be more concerned with the teachings than the personality teaching it.
Brian, I believe you’re doing God’s work on this board. In any given debate people see your postings and the postings of the others on this board and realize which side is arguing in good faith and in Faith and which side is not. Converts are won through just such examples!
But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. [b]With such a man do not even eat.[/b] 1 Corinthians 5:11