Communion, the central ritual of most Christian worship services and long a members-only sacrament, is increasingly being opened to any willing participant, including the nonbaptized, the nonbeliever, and the non-Christian.
The change is most dramatic in the Episcopal Church, particularly in liberal dioceses like Massachusetts. The denomination’s rules are clear: “No unbaptized person shall be eligible to receive Holy Communion in this Church.” Yet, a recent survey by the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts found that nearly three-quarters of local parishes are practicing “open Communion,” inviting anyone to partake….
Strikingly, the transformation is taking place with little public controversy, as parish by parish, Episcopal priests are making their own decisions about whom to invite to the Communion rail. The Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts has taken a hands-off approach.
“Episcopal Church leadership recognizes that Episcopalians have varied interpretations from Scripture and early Church practices,” said the diocesan spokeswoman, Maria Plati. “At this time the decision to invite unbaptized persons to Communion is understood and accepted as a local option.”
I really want to encourage people NOT to describe this practice as “open communion” as some do, because open communion is used elsewhere to describe the posture of churches as to who, among the baptized, is welcome at the altar. The two things are very different and the terminology used above avoids any confusion.
Reading between the lines I would suggest that so many churches are trying to market themselves as hip and cool and avoid anything that smacks of a certain stereotyped piety of yesteryear. To the extent that the Gospel itself breaks through barriers of class and religion-for-show, I would agree with a certain hipness. But having communion for the unbaptised changes the meaning of baptism and is one of the many signs of error regarding the seven sacraments and their eternal meaning as divinely revealed to us. What often is left is what has been called Unitarianism with vestments.
This is just another example of TEC rejecting the authority of Holy Sscripture. I Corinthians 11:25-28 (I think this is correct) describes and admonishes us not to receive communion except in a state of Grace, having confessed our sins. Non baptized have never been cleansed of the stain of original sin and sin in general. According to Holy Scripture they are bringing damnation on themselves. TEC doesn’t seem to care that they are condeming these people to hell by their actions. They just want to be “inclusive”. So does Satan, he will take us all just as we are. That is my comparison, TEC is a minion of Satan by their actions. There are many fine Christian people still in TEC, but don’t tey need to be looking for a better way?
[blockquote]”It’s not that it’s some sort of horrible blasphemy, but it’s highly incoherent that the Eucharist would be given to people who are not Christians,” argues the Rev. Ephraim Radner … [/blockquote]
I regularly invite un-baptized students to the church plant that I attend. The issue is simple. Just lower your arms, or cross them in front of your chest and you will receive a blessing. This is a statement of inclusion as a fellow person created in Gods image, but not full inclusion into the church without an effort on the person’s part to accept what it means to be a Christian. In other words, you need to be both a person and then a confessing Christian through baptism. Where will the threshold of blasphemy be reached? How about dog biscuits for the visually impaired’s companion? Nothing would surprise me that comes out of the Episcopal church. And you want to know why we needed realignment!
Well, as it is written in the Didache about the Agape meal “of this also it was said ‘give not that which is holy to the dogs'” and as the “also” is undoubtedly a reference to the Eucharist, the apostles might well disagree with Dr. Radner that “it’s not that it’s some sort of horrible blasphemy” — as witness also the witness of early martyrs to die rather than to see the Eucharist profaned by pagans.
But if it’s “just a symbol” why not deal it out to all comers as a sort of “trick or treat” to “thank you for allowing us to serve you today?”
This article about “local option” regarding the Sacrament of the Eucharist was quite stunning in the context of a [url=http://www.columbusdispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/10/08/bishop.html?sid=101]very recent statement by Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori[/url] in Columbus.
[i] Jefferts Schori spoke of her grief about the Pittsburgh Diocese’s decision to leave because of disagreements with the church over biblical teachings about homosexuality and salvation.
“That’s just profoundly sad,†she said. “Arguing about fine details of theology isn’t the main reason for our existence.†[/i]
Put that quote and this article together, and you get some pretty strong proof that all that seems to matter to TEC (as an organization) is the property and the power. Doctrine is all fungible. Sacraments, the doctrines of atonement and salvation, etc. are just “fine points of theology,†not something we need to get nitpicky about.
Even for this often all-too cynical and jaded elf who thinks she knows all about the worst of TEC, it’s pretty shocking to see that three-quarters of Massachusetts parishes allow CWoB. So much for the [url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/4134/#75637]frequent claims by progressives that there is no widespread canonical violation [/url] in this matter. (We also remind our readers of this [url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/4150/]earlier thread[/url] which gives an idea of CWoB’s prevalence on a national level within TEC several years ago).
So, let’s sum up. TEC encourages:
— Local option re: inviting non-Christians to Communion
— Local option for same-sex blessings or “marriages”
But God help you if you want to disaffiliate from TEC. Then, even if there aren’t any canons that forbid disaffiliation, all the guns are brought out. Then TEC exerts its power. There IS no local option or autonomy in that case. It really DOES, sadly, seem to be all about property. Doctrine & theology apparently doesn’t matter.
There is in surprise here, after all. TEC is a subset of the Suburban/Urban Cultural Accession, and its standard is “No Standards.” Inclusivity is a culture wide curse, because its peddles a spun sugar ideal that all is permitted, that boundaries alone are sin. It is a curse because it falsifies human nature which needs limits and boundaries for meaning to exists. At last, inclusivity and meaningless will become synonymous. So TEC will become meaningless, but this is hardly a measure of the harm which it is capable of. It can do so much harm because inclusivity is established as an ideal, a goal worthy of universal pursuit, and precious few people see that this is a race that runs from light into darkness. The race is easy because it is downhill, so to speak. But the finish line is in darkness; could America only see the terminator, none would join the race. Larry
Having lived in Boston, MA, Providence, RI and Newport, RI, I am not surprised by this being done in eastern New England.
This area has been a hot bed of radical liberal behavior for a very long time. If something passively or directly attacks religion, the American culture and or the general value system, it is the ‘hip thing’ to do.
IMPORTANT:
For those trying to access the original Task Force study on Communion without Baptism by the Diocese of Northern California (as linked in the old T19 post mentioned in my comment above), the original links have gone bad.
All the documents can be found at the Internet Archive site:
[url=http://web.archive.org/web/20060517212454/http://www.dncweb.org/communion/OpenCommunionReport2.pdf]Here’s the Task Force Report[/url]
[url=http://web.archive.org/web/20061019104149/http://www.dncweb.org/communion/communion.htm]Here is the list of the Appendices and other supplemental material[/url]
[url=http://web.archive.org/web/20061028034407/www.dncweb.org/communion/communion_by_province_data.pdf]Here is the table from the original report, which we used to prepare our Excel spreadsheet and table.[/url]
Kendall #1, to add to what I put on SF, my local LCMS church will communicate baptised non-members as long as they can agree to the understanding of communion of the LCMS (ie: sinner in need of salvation, Christ is the Saviour and is present in the elements). So I would say that we are “open in part” or what the Pastor would describe as “close” as opposed to “closed.”
I know I am not very clever, and have no PhD in Marine Studies, but I cannot get my head round a church practising indiscriminate communion and at the same time deposing a bishop for abandonment of communion. If communion has no limits, how can it be abandoned?
Inviting the unbaptised to partake in communion – regardless of the justification used, and no matter how consistant or inconsistant with scripture and early church witness, and no matter how important or trivial the issue is – is an unambiguous violation of the canons of TEC. There’s no way for it to be argued that this does NOT violate the canon quoted in the story. Why aren’t any of these priest or bishops being held accountable?
So if the Bishop is not actively discouraging the practice, does this not become de facto support? When does he get brought up on abandonment charges?
Oh wait, he supports the Katiff.
It has been clear since Pike that TEC is very selective in it’s discipline. Liberals are never disciplined for doctrinal infractions.
Scott K asked:
[i]There’s no way for it to be argued that this does NOT violate the canon quoted in the story. Why aren’t any of these priest or bishops being held accountable?[/i]
One word answer: Orwell.
For those who need a bit of elaboration, think “Animal Farm” and replace the word “animals” in Orwell’s famous quote with the word “canons”:
[b]”Some canons are more equal than others”[/b]
It sounds snarky and clichéd, but I fear it is all too sadly true as events in the past few years have demonstrated. Canons about doctrine don’t matter. Canons about property do. And when those canons aren’t to one’s liking, they can be changed on a whim.
[url=http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2008/10/in-land-of-canon-eaters.html]Anglican Curmudgeon’s latest blog entry[/url] is pretty damning evidence of this very thing!
Over on [url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/17117/]the SF thread[/url] about this article, there is an interesting (and I think important) discussion going on about GC06 Resolution D084, and a subsequent resolution by the Diocese of Massachusetts in October 2006.
See comments 25, 32, 36
See also:
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=13878
http://www.gc2006.org/legislation/view_leg_detail.aspx?id=368&type=ORIGINAL
http://www.gc2006.org/legislation/view_leg_detail.aspx?id=368&type=CURRENT
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=15451#comment-1010264
Thankfully, giving communion to the unbaptized in TEC is not a “horrible blasphemy” because TEC has not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness.
A few more links:
The old T19 “Eucharist” category:
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?cat=50
The current blog’s Eucharist category:
http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/C201/
Lots of helpful links for those who want to use this article to share with others about the nature of the issues the orthodox in TEC are facing.
It is beyond me how anyone could think there may be a variety of interpretations either about the discipline of the Early Church, even among “heretics” who are now supposed to be given equal credence as “Catholics,” let alone about the precise discipline of TEC today.
I am not sure whether those who are communicating non-Christians are sentimentalists who cannot bear to think that an unbaptized person isn’t a Christian – but delight in terming a deposed priest a layperson – or whether once again we are seeing a heady excitement of rule-breaking cloaked in the mantle of prophecy.
In our parish we follow what I understand to be the official, canonical direction of Open Communion: [i]All Baptized persons who receive communion in their own churches are welcome to receive here[/i]. I’ve never personally known any priest to check baptismal credentials at the rail, and it has happened several times that newcomers have “confessed” to me, after receiving communion perhaps for some weeks or months, that they never were baptized, or in any case are unsure. I generally approach that situation pastorally, affectionately, and do what I can to schedule a baptism at the earliest opportunity.
Once a young woman, Jewish, who had been singing with our choir went through a series of personal calamities, including the death of her mother, and I and many of her friends in the choir spent quite a bit of time with her during that time in deep friendship. A few weeks after her mother’s death, at the midnight service on Christmas Eve, she presented herself at the communion rail with outstretched hands and tears in her eyes. I placed the host in her hands, put my hand on her head and said a blessing, and then as I moved on said a prayer myself asking not for forgiveness, exactly, since I was of full awareness and unrepentant, but for the mercy of our Lord. I believe that is the only time in a quarter century of ministry that I’ve knowingly given communion to a person who wasn’t baptized. Apparently these days it’s unlikely that I’ll be presented for that, but I accept that it was uncanonical and in some sense perhaps a sentimental and subjective pastoral decision that reflects poorly on the deeper sacramental understandings of our church. If presented, I’ll plead guilty and serve my time. After that Christmas Eve service I sat down with her and asked, “what was that about?” She said she didn’t know, that she had never in her years of singing in Christian churches felt any desire to receive communion, but that “something inside her” happened in that service, powerfully, and she felt it was something she needed to do. She tried to apologize “if it put me in an awkward position,” but I told her that it was a privilege and a blessing for me, and that she was in my prayers. My prayer of course is that in that imperfect moment there was a seed planted which one day might grow to a conversion and transformation of her life in the knowledge and love of the Lord. But we’ll see. Now, many years later, she has moved to another state, continues to sing in Episcopal Churches, but continues as well to think of herself as Jewish–and I believe she has never again received communion. But we correspond occasionally by e-mail, and she tells me that she sometimes thinks of herself as a “Jewish Episcopalian.” Which is perhaps something.
This experience and the conversation over the past few years about an explicit invitation to include the unbaptized has made me rethink my old friend Gary Nicolosi’s efforts to develop a more open approach not first to communion, but to baptism itself.
I’ve never done this, but have wondered what would happen if the little “rubric,” above, that I have printed in our service leaflet every Sunday, were to be expanded: All baptized persons who receive communion in their own churches are welcome to receive here. If you have not been baptized, but desire today to begin a life in relationship with Jesus Christ, who is Lord and Savior, please come to the side chapel during the choir’s offertory anthem. Our deacon will meet with you there for a brief conversation and prayer, and administer the sacrament of Holy Baptism, and will then direct you to the Holy Table as you receive communion for the first time. Special classes for the newly baptized, and for those who are considering baptism, are offered monthly, and we pray that you would join us for that opportunity to deepen and strengthen your new life in Christ.
Part of the issue here is that two generations of de-churching leave us with many, many more unbaptized folks in the communities around us than we would have found in earlier eras. And another part is that unlike earlier eras, where Morning Prayer was the normative Sunday Morning at 11 a.m. service in the large majority of our churches, it is now the case that a seeker is most likely to enter the church for the first time on a Sunday morning at a eucharistic celebration. I disagree with the notion of “an open invitation” to communion based simply on a principle of hospitality (though of course there are plenty worse principles to act upon), but I do think we could spend at least as much time worrying about how to welcome these seekers to the community of the baptized as we do wringing our hands over the fact that they might come to the table first . . . .
Anyway, my $.02.
Bruce Robison
…and canons are important why?
On the other hand I think we need to re-institute the three year catachuminate and triple immersion baptism. In many ways we are teaching that being a Christian is little more than joining a club.
As others have observed, this can only arise because the TEC itself has no clear understanding of what communion is, and therefore no ability to render any coherent teaching on the subject.
At a UCC church, I have heard it described as a gesture of fellowship. In which case, communion of the unbaptized is perfectly sensible.
I have also known others to describe communion as a recollection of Christ’s ministry. If it is only “a memorial,” then communion of the unbaptized is probably also justifiable.
But, if communion involves the real Presence (in any one or more of the various ways that have been desribed) logic would dictate that only those baptized would be eligible, or would even want to partake.
I can only think that the fact that a non-Christian would even be interested in recieving communion is the result of the celebrant holding one of the first two views, or else being hopelessly confused.
#22, I appreciate the sentiment, and certainly that vaguely “Christ of Culture” sense that “we should have the children done” hasn’t contributed much to a sense of robust Christian life. This as much a failure of our post-baptismal formation efforts, of course, as of our weak baptismal theology.” But I wonder if any of the 3,000 souls baptized on the first Whitsunday, as per Acts 2:41, or St. Philip’s Ethiopian baptismal candidate in Acts 8, might have been lost should the response to the profession of faith in the streets of Jerusalem or on that Gaza Road have been, “please sign up on the Welcome Table for the parish Three Year Baptismal Preparation Program.”
BruceR
BMR+, what kind of seed do you think you planted in your Jewish choirister that made not only incoherent the economy of sacramental grace, but made ineffective God’s sacramental economy of grace? Do you you really believe that “your” sentimental act was a seed of conversion planted in the chorister? If so, then why bother with the sacraments. Why would you think that a pastoral act would require you to violate a sacrament?
Thanks, #25, that’s the question I wanted to ask. Larry
#25: Ah, Phil, actually, I pretty much agree with you. My story was not a justification, but a confession. I hope that was understood. Not that I did the right thing, but simply to say, I think it was the wrong thing, but it’s what I did, and I think at least meaning well in some general human way, and it’s an incident that has continued to lead me into reflection about how we in our churches today might better think about these things.
I have more than once in my life, in my ministry, said or done things that I have realized either in the moment or in retrospect to have been failures in the privileges of stewardship that have been entrusted to me. That is true in the sacramental life of the church, as evidenced in the story I shared, and I have more stories about ways in which I have fallen short of the high and sacred privileges and responsibilities of the order of ministry into which I was ordained–and it has been true in my life and ministry as a husband, father, and friend as well.
I think I might have handled it differently, the situation with our Jewish mezzo-soprano, in a way that would have been thoroughly grace-filled for the one who was on her knees, hands-outstretched in expectation, as it could have been, but I just plain couldn’t think of how, at the time. Perhaps you know the drill: ready, fire, aim. Though of course the panels of T19 may not be the most auspicious confessional. Perhaps simply a blessing, a hug, an anointing. Let me rewind the tape, I’ll try it again, and we’ll see if I can get it right next time.
As I said, I don’t believe that any wholesome part of our Biblical and theological teaching related to the sacraments would give me a “pass” on what I did that Christmas Eve. But, to answer your question, I am encouraged when Jesus smiles on the woman who talks about how the puppies may nibble on the scraps dropped from the master’s table, and pray that Christ will move in the heart of my friend and bring her to faith. If she translates what happened in some theologically insufficient way, “I was sad, looking for spiritual consolation, and Bruce placed a piece of communion bread in my hand as a sign of the care of the church,” then at least I hope my own inappropriate action will not be an impediment to the work that our Lord might at some other time do in her life.
Bruce Robison
#17
Yes. A painful but entirely correct truth.
BMR+, I am deep into middle-age, so I understand how life comes at us, ready, aim ,fire. When you communicated the body and blood of our Lord to the chorister do you think the only harm done to her was that she might have an insufficiently theological understanding of the sacrament? Don’t you now understand that you may have put her soul in immortal danger?
BMR+ in #20:
[blockquote] Apparently these days it’s unlikely that I’ll be presented for that, … [/blockquote]
Also from St Andrew’s webpage:
[blockquote] … [i]However, if they are approved, the Vestry then affirms that St. Andrew’s Church will not become a member of the “realigned†diocese, but will continue to be a parish of the Episcopal Church.[/i] [/blockquote]
Well I guess you now have nothing to worry about anymore.
Though I think you have created an interesting discussion, what is most important is how public the act may have been or seemed justified.
Bruce —
FWIW, John Wesley called Holy Communion “a converting ordinance,” and was at ease with communing the unbaptized. As a Methodist, i’m not pushing that, but am unruffled by it happening and don’t spend time worrying about how to prevent it. Your self-awareness about being motivated by emotion in that moment is a valuable pastoral tool, but i’d say your act had conversional intent behind it, and is appropriate . . . if you’re a Methodist!
😉
24, I would say that the apostolic age is over. The church early on decided that formal instruction in the faith was required. In part this was because Christians needed to know what they were getting into and the profound lifestyle changes they would be making in turning from a Pagan to a Christian lifestyle. And to follow your example you should have baptized the lady.
I do understand the pastoral problem in your situation and that really is not what is envolved here. We are not talking a one time thing but deliberate violations of the Canons and deliberatly and repeatedly bring the non-baptized to the Lord’s table.
The central point which is missing is this. There is no need for any sacrament let alone Holy Eucharist if there is no need for grace. There is no need for grace because we have become so enlightened that we no longer believe in sin let alone that we are slaves to it in need of a Savior.
Communion is no longer evidence that we have been cleansed of sin in baptism and that we have confessed and been absolved for the sins we committed after that. An absolution which restores us to the Trinity and to one another. We no longer become living Tabernacles bringing Christ forth into the world.
Instead we have a act which is no more or no less than a heads up of who belongs to the club. Some clubs have a secret handshake, some a fancy badge, others wear funny hats. Those in the Episcopal Club have a special snack.
The Elves_ #6, thank you. You’ve said all that needs to be said, really. TEC is a pathetic proclaimation of the Faith even with all good intentions. Isn’t that the path to hell anyway?
Phil #29
[blockquote] Don’t you now understand that you may have put her soul in immortal danger?[/blockquote]
I’m not sure, friend, the import of your “now.” I understand that the soul of every person who has not come into a saving relationship with Jesus Christ and entered the life of his risen Body through the sacrament of Holy Baptism to be “[i]in immortal danger.[/i].” My point in entering this discussion is not to question the general consensus here, that the Holy Communion is the Real Presence in the Body and Blood of Christ himself, and that Holy Baptism is the sacramental entry into the state of new life in which that Real Presence may be discerned and received with grace. I believe that the arguments in favor of the communication of the unbaptized reveal a deficient theological appreciation of the sacraments, both Holy Baptism and Holy Communion, and suggest an even deeper and more tragically deficient theological appreciation of the Work of Christ, Atonement, and the character of the Church.
I don’t know if you saw George Will’s column this week (“A Cautionary Tale”). I don’t agree with some of his take on our situation here in Pittsburgh, which I believe he oversimplifies to find his historic analogy, I do agree that there is much sad truth to his characterization of the Episcopal Church as “progressive politics cloaked–very thinly–in piety.” We may disagree about the appropriate response (or faithful range of possible responses) to that situation, but not about the diagnostic insight, which lies deep underneath the principle of “inclusivity” as applied to the Church’s stewardship of the Means of Grace.
The point of my engagement here on this, then, is not to argue with your position, but to agree with it, and to offer my own difficult example as a jumping-off point. What instead I would raise is the missiological and evangelistic question about Holy Baptism, and about whether in our current environment a renewed seriousness about post-baptismal formation (both for those baptized in infancy and those baptized as adults) might not be a more effective strategy than this thought about something like a “three year pre-baptismal catachesis.”
Bruce Robison
I do believe in offering communion to the unbaptized — as my parish explicitly does, as many Episcopal parishes in fact do.
However, that being said, it cannot be denied that this is a clear violation of the canons on the subject… and that if we are going to adopt a Pirates of the Caribbean-style “Well, they’re more like guidelines than what you’d call actual rules” approach to this canon, then it’s hard to justify holding fast to the letter of other canons.
I’m in favor of changing the canon, but until it is changed I think that we (and by “we” in this case I mean “the reappraising faction of TEC”) should either abide by the rule as it is, or apply the same looseness in favor of pastoral judgment to other canons as we are de facto allowing with this one.
BMR+, I think the problem is Dogma. The last thing many seekers want to do is give up their seeking. I don’t think it matters whether you have pre or post baptismal catechesis. The key is coming to point where you can understand that dogma is not a restriction on your true freedom. Having a church which says that it’s not within her power to change or do certain things even if she wanted to is the first step in helping people accept dogma. That’s one of the reasons why it’s so critical for a priest to properly administer the sacraments.
It annoys me that the article doesn’t go into the orthodox position on this, especially since it takes about three sentences. And I have to say that I have to go with the orthodox view. It’s one thing to say “OK, you’re baptized; I can accept you as a member of The Church and commune with you.” The opposing viewpoint, promoting unbaptized communion, just seems completely incoherent to me. Being “inclusive” just doesn’t amount to a justification, especially when Paul makes an explicit (and to my mind, ironclad) declaration against it.
Thanks, Phil. I agree that the true teaching of the Church is never a “restriction” on true freedom, and that it is “critical” for a priest to administer the sacraments properly. I don’t believe I ever have felt otherwise–though, as I’ve confessed, I have failed in that critical duty–for which failure, I would pray that our Lord will have mercy.
But with all that, I do believe that finally it will be more effective to communicate the substance of that teaching in a rich and winsome manner than simply to enforce it–though of course enforce it we must. I do not simply believe that it is wrong to communicate the unbaptized “because” to do so is a breaking of the rules, the canons, or even of the ancient practice and tradition (though I hold all, and especially the latter, in very high regard, and with a sense of responsibility), but [b]more[/b] because the full grace of the eucharistic sacrifice can be appropriated only within the lives of those who are regenerate in Christ through baptism, and because to administer the outward sign intentionally without regard to the inward and invisible grace is to show a cavalier disregard of, to diminish, to make light of, our Lord’s presence. What I truly worry about most is that the general practice of communicating the unbaptized reflects not a “low” sacramental theology, as one might find in any number of Protestant and Free Church traditions, but a severely diminished Christology, a sense that it’s all in the end about us, and not about Him.
Bruce Robison
All who come to God’s Altar are welcome to receive
God’s grace.
#39 A ‘low’ sacramental theology does NOT necessarily equate to low Christology, nor does it necessarily lead to communion of non-Christians. Many, many Protestant bodies would NEVER allow the ‘c’mon, y’all’ attitude shown by too many in TEC.
#40, All who come to God’s Altar are welcome to receive God’s grace (uh, surely you meant ‘His grace’, right? 😉 The means through which God’s grace is shared with those who are not members of the Body of Christ is through the prayer and blessing pronounced by the celebrant.
One becomes a part of the Body of Christ through the sacrament of Baptism. Therefore, the Church is not to distribute the Communion elements (knowingly) to those who are not a part of the Body of Christ. The grace of the Holy Communion is a gift to be imparted to members of the Body of Christ. It’s simple logic, and until TEC’s membership and theology began its recent, steep decline, was never questioned. In fact, it’s still canon law, though the purple-shirted wonders refuse to enforce it (after all, it’s ONLY the SACRAMENTS, right?!!? Not something IMPORTANT, like PROPERTY!!!
#41, if you read my last sentence in #39 again, you’ll see that I’m saying the same thing you’re saying.
BruceR
Bruce+,
I think that for most of us, your story is poignant. And, indeed, the welcome we give to seekers is arguably the very heart of our mission here on earth. While I think you made the wrong decision in the case you cite, I can hardly fault you for it, given my own faults. But that does not mean that the Church should not be held to account when, as an institution, it denies the very purpose of its existence. The Sacrament of Baptism is the initiation to the faith, it must, by definition, precede the other Sacraments.
[blockquote]If you have not been baptized, but desire today to begin a life in relationship with Jesus Christ, who is Lord and Savior, please come to the side chapel during the choir’s offertory anthem. Our deacon will meet with you there for a brief conversation and prayer, and administer the sacrament of Holy Baptism, and will then direct you to the Holy Table as you receive communion for the first time. Special classes for the newly baptized, and for those who are considering baptism, are offered monthly, and we pray that you would join us for that opportunity to deepen and strengthen your new life in Christ.[/blockquote]Stodgy old Anglo Catholic that I am, you could talk me into this. I suppose I might suggest it would be more appropriate to do this before Mass or between Masses on a Sunday. Baptism is the greatest gift our Lord offers to us, we should see that it is shared with all. It does seem to me that the current “tradition” (although I don’t recall it from my own childhood) of trying to baptize everyone just prior to the Easter Vigil is not productive- people should be Baptized at whatever point in time they are prepared to accept Christ. My own upbringing was that things had a definite order- Baptism, first Confession, Confirmation, first Communion. But if we are to accept a (Holy) Communion of all who are Baptized, then let’s get about the business of promoting the Baptismal Sacrament, rather than doling out Communion as a snack that is a reward for sitting through a revisionist sermon.
While looking for a different article re: Communion of the unbaptized, I came across an excellent article by James Farwell posted on the Anglican Centrist blog back in Feb. 2008. Here’s an excerpt:
[blockquote]Encouraging participation in Christian eucharist without this respect for spiritual differences may actually be disingenuous. Before we even begin to contemplate the canonical acceptance of open communion, far more reflection is required on the relationship between the claim to Christ’s universal soteriological significance and the formal differences in experience and motivation for communion in those who have not yet undertaken the baptismal life. A functional and effective sense of mission in a pluralistic context may depend upon it, and the implicit Constantinian missiology of open communion has yet to offer an adequate account oi the relationship between world and church.
…One wonders whether the practice of open communion is not an easy substitute for genuine evangelism. Does our announcement that “all are welcome at the table” substitute for compelling witness and the seriousness of formation demanded by the catechumenate? Congratulating ourselves for our eucharistic hospitality to those who manage to find their way through our doors is much easier than being a visible church engaged in public discourse, cogently challenging the prevailing modem assumptions that the world’s salvation is found in technical mastery, the worship of “progress,” or the palliatives of generic spirituality. Open communion may offer some “welcome” to those who enter the nave; humble but vigorous public engagement with the world may persuade the unconvinced that God s work in the world is actually worth the commitment that eucharist enacts.[/blockquote]
see here:
http://anglicancentrist.blogspot.com/2008/05/james-farwell-on-communing-unbaptized.html
Communion for everyone, anyone, not just the unbaptized, is simply another case of institutionalizing the standard of no standards. If God’s grace is open to everyone at the alter, then communion becomes essentially meaningless, the inevitable result of having no standards. Remember the king who invited people off the street to the wedding, but cast out the poor man who came without wedding clothes? Even Christ Himself said that not everyone will be sitting at the wedding feast. If He is asserting standards for the feast, who are we to say there are no standards, and all are invited and all will feast? Since when has communion been a Get Out of Jail Free card?
Taking communion carries with it a price, a responsibility,a spiritual burden, a demand t hat at least we will wear proper wedding attire.
Inclusivity has become such a curse, a demand that the lowest of all low common denominators be the absolute guide. When nothing is required, nothing will be performed, and the reward is nothing. All meaning depends absolutely on limits and boundaries.
Larry