Much has been said and written in recent months about “open communion” for all Christians, and even for unbaptized persons. Of course, those who advocate this idea of hospitality do so in all good conscience. However, such actions are really spiritually dangerous, and not permitted in the Episcopal Church.
First, as to unbaptized persons, Canon I. 17. 7 states, “No unbaptized person shall be eligible to receive Holy Communion in this Church.” This simply continues the declared teaching of the Church Catholic at least since the second century, as set forth in the Didache: “Do not let anyone eat or drink of your eucharist except those who have been baptized in the name of the Lord.”
The basis for this principle is found in Chapter 11 of St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians: “Therefore, whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body” (vs. 27-29).
Reference to St. Paul’s admonition is found in the Exhortation in the Book of Common Prayer:
But if we are to share rightly in the celebration of those holy Mysteries, and be nourished by that spiritual Food, we must remember the dignity of that holy Sacrament. I therefore call upon you to consider how Saint Paul exhorts all persons to prepare themselves carefully before eating of that Bread and drinking of that Cup.
For, as the benefit is great, if with penitent hearts and living faith we receive the holy Sacrament, so is the danger great, if we receive it improperly, not recognizing the Lord’s Body.
Finally, the 1979 General Convention adopted specific guidelines for non-Anglicans receiving communion in the Episcopal Church (Resolution No. A43). That resolution gives five conditions for the reception of Communion by non-Anglicans:
”¢ They shall have been baptized ”¦ and shall have previously been admitted to the Holy Communion within the Church to which they belong.
”¢ They shall examine their lives, repent of their sins, and be in love and charity with all people ”¦
”¢ They shall approach the Holy Communion as an expression of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ ”¦
”¢ They shall find in this communion the means to strengthen their life within the Christian family ”¦
”¢ Their own consciences must always be respected as must the right of their own church membership to determine the sacramental discipline of those who ”¦ make that their spiritual home.
Further, the resolution commended the Commentary on Eucharistic Sharing by the Standing Commission on Ecumenical Relations as the pastoral context for the interpretation of these standards.
That commentary warns against any idea of “open communion”: “If local circumstances present a pastoral need for a public invitation, it should not in any way be coercive, nor should it be in terms of an ”˜open communion’ applied indiscriminately to anyone desiring to receive communion.”
In the words of an editorial [TLC, Sept. 19], “To welcome nonbelievers and those who are not baptized to receive communion is not an act of hospitality but of disrespect both for them and for the Blessed Sacrament itself.” It is also a repudiation of scripture, ancient tradition, canons and General Convention action.
”“The Rt. Rev. William C. Wantland is the Bishop of Eau Claire, retired. He lives in Seminole, Okla. The preceding Reader’s Viewpoint originally appeared on page of the December 26, 2004 issue of THE LIVING CHURCH magazine, an independent weekly serving Episcopalians. The Reader’s Viewpoint article does not necessarily represent the editorial opinion of THE LIVING CHURCH or its board of directors.
(This originally appeared in an older version of the blog here).
Communion is by its very nature “open”, but what needs to be understood is that humans are bound by temporal constraints. People need to undergo processes of preparation in order to participate fully in things. In other words, everyone should be entitled to drive, but first must take part in instruction and ultimately demonstrate their ability.
And no exceptions!
If the leadership of the TESC (The Episcopal Social Club) paid as much attention to this canon as they do to the canons they are firing at the orthodox, there would be a revolt in the ranks of the reappraiser priests.
KJS in her taped Q&A;at Cathedral Church of the Advent earlier this year declared that the idea of open communion was a topic the church needed to have discussion about and was encouraged that the topic was beginning to gain traction. Interestingly she has never felt the same way about the canons concerning property or diocesan boundries.
#3, bear in mind: all canons are equal, (but some are more equal than others).
It’s much easier to eaaase people into open marriage after a few years of open communion. That’s what’s behind “same sex” marriage. It’s not to make “marraige” equally available to any two of anything, it’s to eliminate it altogether. The eucharist is a convenient means to that end. Of course it’s hard not to think KJS and her tribe are zealously sawing on the branch they’re sitting on; once you’ve totally made marriage and eucharist meaningless, there’s rather little left for a person in a collar to do to justify the pay, is there? Not a question you’re likely to hear in one of her stand-up routines.
As a eucharistic minister, I have struggled with this since those coming to the communion rail aren’t wearing signs saying “I’ve been baptized”. Most of the priests in our area still invite “all baptized christians” to partake in the eucharist, but I had a lively discussion with one who supported open communion. In the end I came to the conclusion that it was not up to me but God & the communicant’s conscience as to whether or not to partake if not baptized.
johnd,
While it is true that you cannot tell who comes to the rail, the attitude of the celebrant makes the difference: if they announce that communion is open to “all baptized Christians”, he has done his part, and you can serve with clear conscience.
If however, he just says, anyone can come, regardless of faith or religion, then I would have a hard time serving under that priest as a LEM.
Under the older prayer books, persons desiring to receive communion had to present themselves to the church the day before and have their name put on a list, after the minister acknowledged their ‘worthiness’ to receive. We no longer do this (can’t say whether that is good or not), so yes, it is up to the person now in a larger context. However, the minister needs to make the Church’s position clear in a statement before communion.
Peace
Jim Elliott <>< former LEM
This is from the [url=http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/communion/index.html]1662 Book of Common Prayer[/url], preface to the Communion Service:
[blockquote]So many as intend to be partakers of the holy Communion shall signify their names to the Curate at least some time the day before.
If a Minister be persuaded that any person who presents himself to be a partaker of the holy Communion ought not to be admitted thereunto by reason of malicious and open contention with his neighbours, or other grave and open sin without repentance, he shall give an account of the same to the Ordinary of the place, and therein obey his order and direction, but so as not to refuse the Sacrament to any person until in accordance with such order and direction he shall have called him and advertised him that in any wise he presume not to come to the Lord’s Table; Provided that in case of grave and immediate scandal to the Congregation the Minister shall not admit such person, but shall give an account of the same to the Ordinary within seven days after at the latest and therein obey the order and direction given to him by the Ordinary; Provided also that before issuing his order and direction in relation to any such person the Ordinary shall afford him an opportunity for interview.[/blockquote]
#7… You state: “In the end I came to the conclusion that it was not up to me but God & the communicant’s conscience as to whether or not to partake if not baptized.”
The problem is simple this: The Eucharist is not a private act of conscience. It is the Body of Christ at worship. The Church is not an aggregate of individuals exercising their private conscience. It is the Body of Christ gathered and in the Eucharist we receive Christ again in the body and blood. The key question that is raised with this issue seems to be (because I’ve heard it over and over): “Who are we to prevent someone from receiving Christ in the Eucharist?”
The answer is: We are the Church, the Body of Christ. We have the authority, given to us by Christ through his apostles, to define what constitutes Christian worship and Christian community.
Wow, I actually agree with Bp. Wantland on something. At one time, I was all for “open communion” (being a former Methodist and all), but believe it or not, it was my time at CDSP that changed that. I came to a greater understanding of both Baptism and Eucharist and to see them as inextricably linked. The latter presupposes the former which is completed and sustained in the latter.
That said, if I were administering communion, would I give it to someone whom I knew not to be baptized? Basically, if that person came up to the altar to receive and did not indicate that he or she wanted only a blessing, I probably would give communion, esp. if I’m administering the chalice and if the person has already received the bread. However, afterwards, I would take the opportunity to talk to that person gently and pastorally about what communion means but also to ask if he or she had considered being baptized. Essentially, I find the greater imperative to be the recognition of evangelistic moments rather than the strict following of the letter of the law.
(Yes, I recognize the implications in, um, certain other areas; but unfortunately, I’m not in a position to affect that directly.)
In Christ,
Kevin Montgomery
For the record, this site would call me a reappraiser and I do not favor legally sanctioned open communion. However, pastorally, I don’t think it’s a matter of ‘the rules say.’
My bulletins are clear that baptized Christians are welcome to receive the Sacrament and any person may approach the altar for a blessing if they do not wish to receive. I have asked non-baptized adults to refrain from receiving (once I discovered they weren’t baptized) until they could be baptized. They have all readily agreed (they just didn’t know the rules).
However, I was also a school chaplain where nearly every child cam from a non-Episcopal tradition. A fair amount were baptized, but some came from believers baptism traditions, or communion after confirmation (we were PreK – 6). When we moved to having Eucharist in our weekly chapel, I educated teachers, parents, students on our traditions. I also said that any child who comes with hands outstretched gets the Sacrament, so parents had the responsibility of making sure their children understood what they wanted to do.
In my current parish, I have children of multi-faith families (Christian/Muslim). In some cases, the Muslim parent has forbidden baptism until the child is a teenager. For obvious reasons, I won’t baptize a child until both custodial parents consent. Yet, some of these children are heavily involved in Sunday School, understand the faith of the church, and have watched their peers receive communion from infancy. At a young age, they very quickly felt rejected when they received a blessing rather than communion, and started to refuse to come to church. After conversations with the Christian parents, I came to the conclusion that these children would have been baptized if allowed to do so, so I’m operating they they are essentially baptized by desire, which – God willing – at some point will be regularized.
Holy tradition recognizes there are three ways to baptize: the traditional way with water & the Holy Spirit; through martyrdom (unbaptized dies confessing Christ); and through desire (wants to be baptized and cannot be). St. Patrick’s Cathedral NYC has a window illustrating all three ways – so mainstream orthodox tradition recognizes this.
In this very narrow sense, do I understand and support a pastoral practice of open communion. However, I wouldn’t change the rules or the rubrics.
I did, however, love poking my friends at seminary by informing them after I was a LEM at a St Francis day celebration at St. John the Divine in NYC (with tongue in cheek) that elephants prefer to intinct. 🙂 The amusing thing was the number of folks at a liberal seminary who were scandalized and believed me!
I firmly believe that communion should be for the baptized in the Episcopal Church. But, though I am “only” laity, I can appreciate the dilemma posed by the non-baptized Christian. A few years ago, while working on an Alpha team, I spoke with a woman who had been baptized as an infant but who had left the Church to become a Buddhist. She moved to our area to care for her mother who was a baptized Episcopalian. They came to church together and the younger woman joined the Alpha course. She had questions (to be sure) about Christianity but firmly denied Christ, forgiveness, etc, etc. Meanwhile, also in that course was another older woman who JOYFULLY found and accepted Jesus as her Lord. She was not yet baptized, had never been baptized. When time came for the Eucharist at the retreat, our pastor–who had consistently invited baptized Christians to communion and blessings for others–gave communion to the Buddhist and would not give it to the new believer.
A conundrum/dilemma to be sure.
I fussed about the situation to my priest and came away convinced that the new UNBAPTIZED believer should not have had communion–but neither should the Buddhist. For all the talk about the value of communion, there is also the assumption of participation in the Body of Christ–and a Buddhist has severed that associaiton.
Bishop Wantland is exactly correct (and that is not unusual). The excuses of those who waffle on this are sad to read. It isn’t enough that someone is a nice person or that one would be baptized if only some member of the family wouldn’t be hurt or offended (I wonder when the devout Moslem makes such decisions based on what a Christian relative might think). One must be baptized. In the modern world we rarely can investigate the claim of baptism, so some no doubt come forward who should not. But let that sin be on that individual’s head. The Church must proclaim what is necessary, not intentionally open doors to the unbaptized. Do that, and the sin is not only on the one who takes Communion falsely but on those who give it.
For the amusement of Episcopalians I can tell you the usual way I have seen the issue dealt with in parishes of the Eastern Orthodox faith. If there is an obvious number of visitors in the congregation, the celebrant or a deacon may make a brief announcement just prior to communion that only baptized members of the Church in good standing having recently been to Confession and having prepared themselves by prayers and the usual fast are invited to receive. In almost every place it’s assumed a visiting layman would have introduced themselves to the priest the evening before the service at Vespers or at least before the morning liturgy so he knows who they are, their priest and parish. In the Orthodox Church a stranger in the communion line is usually thought of as kind of inconsiderate. This is because they take it seriously. It is a family gathering. To say that “It’s between them and God” is just not true. If you think this *is* what the eucharist says it is, then the celebrant is precisely responsible for who receives and who doesn’t. Christ entrusted these things to the Church. The ministers of the Church answer (in the 2000 year old understanding of the matter) for who they commune and who they don’t. If you *don’t* happen to believe in what the eucharist says (that is if you believe in the “Real absence”) then, hey, anything goes, doesn’t it? It’s one of those things the Book of Common Prayer, from edition one right down to 1979 was *specifically written to do*. You can believe exactly what you want to believe. And never again lose a wink of sleep over this strange issue.
Weel, DrJoan, the canon does say “Baptized [b]Christian[/b]”, so a person who was baptized, but then turned from the Christian faith actually does NOT fit the description, and you are right, should not have been given the eucharist.
Thanks for the contribution #12
RE: #14 – I don’t think these are excuses are wafflings in many instances. Rules always require discretion in their application. (Have you ever been given a verbal warning rather than a ticket when stopped for speeding?) If I were to stick to a very clear “the rules say” in my parish then I can guarantee you there will be 4 less Christians in the world. By using pastoral discretion (even when the canons don’t provide for it), I’m helping 4 children to grow in their commitment to Christ. I can also assure you that they are very aware of the presence of Christ in the Sacrament and respond to it with the type of holiness and respect appropriate to people their age.
Looking at the larger context, I differ dramatically from my liberal peers. I really don’t believe many seekers are offended by receiving a blessing instead of communion when they understand why are discipline is the way it is. I also don’t think most Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, or otherwise are all that interested in receiving Communion unless they are considering conversion in the first place. Good teaching and witness almost always overcomes any problems a particular discipline may present.
The rules are good in that they establish norms and excpecations, and give us a foundation to from which to teach, but I don’t believe they are ends in and of themselves. And I believe they can sometimes be counterproductive. My ethics have always been teleological rather then de-ontological.
I like the Orthodox tradition of presenting yourself to the priest by way of introduction beforehand – but I also know that in the busy Northeastern culture in which I live (where I can’t even get people to church on time!), that simply won’t happen – and in larger urban congregations, it’s just not practical. The Orthodox also have the benefit of being a generally closed or ethnically defined community where strangers stand out more than they do in most Episcopal congregations.
Dirk+
The Orthodox position sounds similar to the one I posted above (#9), from the 1662 BCP.