As Orthodox we believe that the church is a place for healing. That in fact the church is the hospital for our souls. I think the church should be an open and inclusive community regardless of race, nationality, gender, or sexual orientation! Love the sinner and hate the sin! Jesus hung around with some of the most despicable people because they needed him. But the church tells people unless they are this, and have done this, then you just stay in your seat because Jesus is not for you.
I guess I am advocating open communion. I don’t mean that anyone should come up they should at a minimum be baptized in some Christian denomination. After all when I come out of the Holy Place with the chalice in my hands I say approach in the fear of God with faith and with love. If we believe that we gain some grace from the reception of the sacraments then why would we tell people who are struggling with some sin that they cannot come and receive that grace. Jesus never told anyone who came to Him for healing to go away! He died on the cross with His holy arms open wide to welcome ALL of His children not just a select few.
Now I know that some of you that read this will have some strong points in the other direction and you are certainly welcome to that opinion. I also know that this puts me outside of the mainstream of the Orthodox Church. But I feel that we need to STOP using communion as a weapon to separate and we should begin to use it a tool for healing, welcoming, and dare I say pastoring!
Please note, for the purposes of clarity I much prefer the term communion of the unbaptized since the phrase open communion in many parts of the church means something else.
In any event, read it all.
As I read the post, it appears to me that the author is indeed advocating “open communion” and not “communion of the unbaptized”–i.e. he is in favor of what is presently standard practice in the Episcopal Church: If you’re baptized, you are welcome to receive. The choice is yours. Such a level of Eucharistic hospitality indeed exceeds the current official discipline of both Orthodoxy and Rome.
Fr. Dan that’s true, but they are limiting Communion to people in communion with them. I like the way we do it, but they also have a good theological point.
I know it’s probably inappropriate to feel this way, but it’s almost comforting to know that the same sort of dissent we see in the Catholic Church happens to our Eastern Orthodox brethren. Perhaps that opposition will serve as an impelling force towards real Catholic-Orthodox unity? I can only pray…
I agree with this man entirely: the church is a hospital for the healing of souls and Communion is one of the means the Church has for healing. So join the Church. For Catholics (and I believe, Orthodox) Communion is a statement of oneness in life and doctrine that goes beyond simply being baptized. Affirm the whole Faith of that Church; situate Communion within the doctrine and discipline of the Church. If you want to receive the healing available in a particular Church, join that Church.
As an Orthodox Christian I am somewhat shocked at such a proposition being put forward by a priest. That said I really need to note that this is most definitely an extreme minority opinion. It is absolutely inconsistent with the historic discipline of The Church and the consensus patrum.
Granting communion to the heterodox has always been a serious no no. Holy Communion is not a feel good sacrament. It is a sign of unity of Faith among other things. How can one give the Body & Blood of Him to those who think it is only bread and wine? How can one knowingly permit someone who has never been to confession to eat and drink condemnation? Such would not be charity but rather a terrible sin on the part of the priest against the unworthy communicant.
To permit heretics to take communion is to in effect say that their heresy does not matter. This is a serious scandal.
ICXC NIKA
A/O
“Christ is risen, and you O death are destroyed!”
It seems that those who advocate for open communion are of the impression that the cause of a closed communion is a lack of charity by the Church. But it is actually the greatest charity of all. It is to keep persons from ” eating and drinking damnation” by receiving communion unworthily.
Church is indeed a hospital for our souls. But no hospital would allow the ill to languish and go without the nurturing or the medicine necessary for the betterment of their health. The hospital would also be remiss if they gave a diet appropriate for general population to a diabetic. In every situation the question must be asked ” what treatment is best for this patient?” I doubt any physician has made a treatment plan based on what makes the patient feel most welcome.
A true shepherd cares for the souls of his charges. Which means keeping them from blaspheming the sacraments even if it occurs through ignorance. We should regain the sense of awe with which we should approach the Eucharist. It is for more than a communal meal symbolizing our unity with one another. It is the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Personally I think probably more people would refrain from Communion if they honestly examined their conscience. But that would require bringing to the center of our relationship of God our sinful nature and His great atoning sacrifice for our sins. It would mean making choices based on how they impact our salvation. Both of these things can only be done from humility. And one thing too many people, clergy and lay have lost is a sense of humility.
So we come to believe we have right to communion. That feeling welcome is more important than risking eternal damnation. We have grand plans on how to tame the Lion. But no idea why the Lion is not tame to begin with.
I was taught that Eucharist is only for those baptized in the (Orthodox) Church. The sign of love and charity and hospitality is the antidoron. If the heterodox know it to be thus, then the integrity of the Eucharist [i]and[/i] the hospitality of the Body of Christ are both preserved.
People who can use an abomination like “pastoring” need a ghost writerwho is familiar with the language. Am I making judgments based on trivia? Maybe, but people who treat language as if it is silly putty are not to be trusted with keeping the integrity of denotation, and without that integrity, meaning becomes a dog’s dinner. Larry
As the author of the original posting I think I need to clarify my position. I am indeed advocating open communion but not so open that those that are not baptized should come forward. If you know me you will know that I have never taken this position. My point is why should it be kept to only a few? How can I judge a persons soul to see if they meet the churches requierments? Someone on my blog suggested I would know their hearts by hearing their confessions. Ask any priest how many of his people come to confession and I believe the answer would be the same as mine, not many. I also belileve that there should be a fundamental belief that what the elements are the real presence. Communion is for healing and why should we be witholding communion from those who need it?
Thanks for using the term Heterodox. I have not heard that term since seminary.
Also thanks for posting this here and keeping this conversation going.
Because hospitals don’t treat you until you’ve been admitted except when the danger of death is imminent.
Following that logic along then only people who are close to death should be able to take communion?
Or those who have been to death and then redeemed, as Christ Himself saves us from death. But He, and those He appointed to lead the Body gave guidelines for receiving communion, and part of that became proper catechuminate prior to receiving.
What about ‘proper belief’, as someone else pointed out above? If I come to your ‘table’ and say later that the sharing of bread and wine is a nice memorial, and not the actual receiving of the Body and Blood of Christ, am I truly in comunion with you? actually, no, I’m coming to your altar and saying that your interpretation of the Eucharist is invalid, that I don’t care what you say it is, to me it’s only a memorial (and by the way, that is NOT MY position, but I have friends who do think this way, and say I’m nuts for thinking otherwise).
This shows you can (at least for a while) teach heresy on the web if you’re a priest in the Orthodox Church. If this is (is it??) what he preaches in church, he is likely to get a call from his bishop for clarification, and likely in a few days. There lies a **huge** difference from Anglicanism. In the Orthodox Church there IS the possibility of being wrong. Also of being corrected. And here we have an example.
The priest says he hasn’t seen the word “heterodox” since seminary! Hmmm, which one? Did you miss Dogmatics? You are teaching heterodoxy, father. It’s closer than you think. As for communion as “medicine”, that makes sense if the person receiving it is ready for it. Being ready includes visible membership in the Orthodox Church. Sigh. It’s embarrassing, as C.S. lewis once remarked, to have to instruct one’s clergy.
My response:
http://vagantepriest.blogspot.com/2008/04/open-communion-orthodox-style.html
Sigh. Fr. Greg is as “Orthodox” as anyone else who can buy a collar and a website. Vagante is his word, and I must admire his being up front about it. He is no more in communion with actual Orthodox Chirstians as Fr. Peter is right in his opinionating. To each man one can certainly say without any doubt “The Episcopal Church Welcomes You”! But then, they welcome anyone. Just try and *not* get communion there. Once more, “Open Communion” makes exactly as much sense as “Open Marriage”. It really is surprising how surprising this fact is to some with a collar on backwards.
NWlayman:
Yes, I am upfront about being “vagante”. It is not a dirty word. In any event, you may wish to actually READ what I wrote. Regarding marriage, a more apt metaphor might be “mixed marriage” where both the man and the woman are members of different Christian traditions.
[i]comment deleted. Heavy sarcasm, does not address the topic or advance the discussion.[/i]
[i]personal attack on another commenter deleted[/i]
Fr. Peter,
We can disagree with you and say what you teach is not truth, and not diminish the Christian truth of Love for one another. In fact, Christ’s love demands that we speak you back to truth. So I hope you will recant your un-Orthodox teaching soon!
In His Love
Jim Elliott <><
arrrgh, elves, I’m sorry! my wink! I forgot my wink at the end of my message! It was supposed to have the 😉 at the end!
JE