Churches grapple with the question of when to deny sacrament

In Minnesota officially it is closed communion but in the larger parishes and the more liberal ones they practice open communion. I invite all who are baptized to join us at the table, and disagree with the increasingly open communion practices.

Communion in the Eucharist is for baptized Christians, those who, either through the exercise of their own unencumbered and matured will or through the committed will of their families or other guardians or trainers, have vowed repentance from sin and the acceptance of Jesus Christ as their Lord, committed themselves to follow Him and His Word, assented to the truths of the Gospel, and assumed the burdens and responsibilities of the Body of Christ.  It has always been thus from the earliest Church on to the present.  Communion of the unbaptized is explicitly forbidden by the canons of the Epsicopal Church, and knowingly sharing the Eucharist with the unbaptized is grounds for discipline (not that I have ever heard it exercized!).  The reasons for all this lie beyond simple, if consistent, precedent.  They have to do with the nature of the “body of Christ”, and its “discernment”, as Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 11 and as is explicated through the network of Scripture, which is bound up with the assumptions listed above.  The Eucharist is not an evangelistic tool—if anything, it will eventually harm those who receive it “unworthily”, and no one has the right to offer it except within the form of the Church’s own common practice and teaching.  Conversely, priests do not have the right to withhold it from baptized individuals, even in the case that they know of some particular sin on the part of that individual:  such a decision, initiated by a priest certainly, can only be made by the authorities of the church on the basis of evidence and the rest—a bishop in council/tribunal.  A strong case has been made to this effect, on the basis of the Prayer Book rubrics and the tradition of the church, by the great moral theologian Kenneth Kirk in his “Conscience and its Problems”.  We seem to have entered a time when Anglicans—priests and others, it seems—have arrogated to themselves individual powers that in fact belong to the whole Church and only that Church to offer or withhold the Eucharist as they see fit.  Every man a pope.

As most people know, from the earliest time the Christian liturgy was divided into two parts:  the Mass of the Catechumens (those being taught) and the Mass of the Faithful (those already baptized).  The “catechumens” (“seekers”) were asked to leave before the Mass of the Faithful commenced.

In fact the word “Mass” (“missa”) comes from the fact that celebration of the Eucharist occured after the “seekers” were dismissed (“Ite, missa est”—“go, you are dismissed”).

So, restriction of Communion to the baptized faithful is as ancient as the Eucharist itself.  However, the tricky part is that in those days virtually all baptism was adult baptism.  Therefore, a baptized person was, by definition, one of the “faithful.” 

What then to do about those baptized in infancy?  The Church’s attitude has been that they should be brought to the table as soon as they have reached the age of reason (traditionally thought to be age 7—although I’d be willing to argue that ) and were instructed in the faith. 

Although I think a (weak) argument could be made for admitting to Communion baptized children under the age of 7 who had not recieved any instruction in the meaning of the Sacraments, I can’t see any argument that would admit a non-baptized person. 

I hate to make the analogy, but it’s almost as if somebody said “I have to have sex with this person before I marry them, because otherwise I can’t keep their interest and they’ll never marry me at all.”  The sacrament of marriage and the sacrament of the Eucharist are not to administered for the purpose of keeping people interested.  Rather they are for people who have already made a permanent committment.

Greg,

you said:

” If we become convinced that communion is what will finally and fully bring the sincere seeker to Christ, and without it we’re convinced they’ll drift away, what do we do? “

Its really not a matter of being convinced one way or the other. What matters is that we have specific commands in this regard. We cannot give the Lord’s Body and the Lord’s blood to those who do not recognize it. To do so is to expose them to spiritual harm:

“29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. [7] 31 But if we judged [8] ourselves truly, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined [9] so that we may not be condemned along with the world.”

It is a dangerous thing to give the sacraments to unbaptized non-believers, even seeking ones. They do not know the Lord so how can they discern the body? They have never recieved him in faith, how can they recieve the gifts of God for the people of God or take them in remembrance of the One they’ve never known?

The Eucharist is not an evangelism tool.

It is a partaking in the real body and the real blood of Jesus Christ. It is intended only for those who are at peace with God and at peace with their neigbors (which is why the confession always precedes the Eucharistic prayer). A non-believer, by definition, is at war with God.

Dr. Radner,

It is certainly within the authority of a parish priest to withhold communion from a baptised person who is also willfully, unrepentantly and notoriously engaging in a scandalous sin. It is necessary afterwards to notify your bishop.

So, for example, if John Spong showed up one day, I would not commune him, nor would I commune bishop Robinson.

We’ve had discussions on this lately in our parish.  This week an example was brought up that during a service elsewhere, that a priest ended a service at the passing of the Peace because he felt the congregation wasn’t in the proper frame of mind.  BCP pg 860, Catechism:

Q.  What is required of us when we come to the Eucharist? 
A.  It is required that we should examine our lives, repent of our sins, and be in love and charity with all people.  (Guess a lot of us should be crossing our arms at the altar rail.)

Unless you question strangers, you wouldn’t know if they were baptized or not.  But what about the unbaptized person sitting in the pew who is moved by the sermon to accept Christ.  I’ve experienced a couple of times feeling that I shouldn’t partake because I remember that question and answer.  And I remember also that taking communion in the wrong manner brings condemnation.  (39 Articles, BCP pp. 872-3)  Our priest’s sermons point you to God.  It is because of God speaking through him to me that I was able to correct my attitude and come to the Table.  It hurt for me not to feel I could partake because of my separation. I do not take communion lightly.

Communion isn’t just grape juice and a cracker being offered as a social party snack - it is Christ being remembered, even more so His sacrifice of His life for me, us.  “Do this in remembrance of me.”  I think the problem is that some see communion as a right instead of a privilege.  Communion isn’t just about receiving the bread and wine of Christ, it is being in communion with the people at that Table and Christ’s Table worldwide - going back again to Christ’s sacrifice for us.

Our priest also said that priests used to meet the congregation going IN to the church, not out.  That was so that if he knew of an issue it would be addressed before worship.  Our priest actually had an instance of this many years ago and counseled the party before service.  This caused the service to start late, something our priest very rarely does.  He may not withhold in every instance, but he is very careful.  Christ is honored as Lord in our church.  He has the heart to please and obey God.  And he isn’t one of “The 20” in Central FL.  We don’t agree with our priest on everything, but we repect him. 

Two personal experiences/examples:  Once I went with a friend to her Lutheran church.  I had to be examined by one of their priests (?) to see if I would be allowed to receive.  It was like going through Catechism!  But when we were done he said that he wished that more of his congregation had the understanding of Christ that I had and that I could receive.  And yet, when I asked a Roman Catholic priest if I could receive on a visit (while my other half was 4 months in the hospital out of our area), he told me, “it’s upon your soul if you do.”  Well, I knew my heart was in the right place so I did. I needed communion.  But it didn’t occur to me until later that it bothered the priest.  (I was exhuasted and clueless.)  Now I would ask “Is it OK with YOU?” and would not proceed otherwise.  I don’t want to offend my brother/sister.  And we all are too good at THAT!

“But what about the unbaptized person sitting in the pew who is moved by the sermon to accept Christ.”

I think the proper sacrament to celebrate or offer at this point would not be Eucharist, but baptism.

At the offering the priest says “This is the Lord’s Table; all Baptized Christians are welcome to receive communion.”  (with a little vocal emphasis on “baptized.”)

We say something like this in our bulletin: if you are baptised in any Christian denomination and are a believer in Jesus Christ you are invited to recieve communion. If you are not baptised, you are invited forward to recieve a blessing. We assume, unless we know for a fact otherwise (as in, say, the case of the rainbow warriors), that if you’ve gone through the confession and the peace, that you have mean it.

You couldn’t get me to budge from the Anglo-Catholic position.  Holy Communion must be preceded by Baptism and faith in Christ and, in the case of children, I think the older practice of reserving it until after Confirmation was best.  Reception must also include examination of conscience and confession of any known sins.  No way around that.

However, apparently no less a figure than John Wesley agreed with you, Mr. Griffith:

John Wesley considered the Supper to be a ‘converting ordinance,’ where non-Christians would come to know Christ.

One of the salient features of the Methodist Revival was the fact that the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper came to be regarded not simply as a confirming, but as a converting ordinance … the Lord’s Supper can mark the beginning of the Christian life. It would be possible to give a lengthy list of early Methodists who were, like Susannah Wesley, the mother of John and Charles, converted at the Lord’s Supper. It was the actual experience of the Lord’s Supper as a converting ordinance that led the Wesley’s so insistently to contend for its use by men and women before conversion. They took this stand against the Moravians who would have denied the Sacrament to all except those who had received full assurance of faith.

http://cruciality.wordpress.com/2006/10/27/holy-communion-9/

That’s . . . interesting.

An Orthodox priest once told me a fascinating story about something that occasionally happened in the Russian Church during the Soviet era.  The KGB would send some of its agents to an Orthodox seminary for ordination in order to further infiltrate the Church.  These “priests” (in reality, still atheistic Communists) then went through all the motions of celebrating the services and administering the sacraments.  At least a few of them were eventually converted to Christianity (for real) because of rather direct encounters they had with the Holy Spirit while confecting the sacrament during Divine Liturgy.  Now that’s an interesting way for God to get someone’s attention, and to effect their conversion, when their very presence at the altar is a blasphemy and a sacrilege in the first place, but supposedly it has happened.

My take on the “sincere seeker to Christ,” though, in much less extraordinary circumstances, is that all who are truly called to the gospel eventually find their way to it in any case.  It is impossible for me to think of the well established rules and practices of the Church somehow representing an impediment to that.  But if “nothing (else) clicks,” then I am left to wonder why they are interested in receiving Communion in the first place.  And I hesitate to say it, but I am concerned that the reception of Communion on an experiential basis without a profession of faith, baptism, and repentance may open them up to spiritual deception, like many New Age practices.  This is the Episcopal Church we’re talking about, after all!  Christ is always truly present in the Sacrament of the Altar, but we can encounter Him there to our detriment under the wrong circumstances, and subjective feelings may not have much to do with it.

As for someone who has received Communion prior to Baptism, who nevertheless demonstrates genuine evidence of conversion to Christ after the fact . . . well, if he is truly being moved upon by the Holy Spirit, then I expect that part of that manifestation would include an expression of regret and repentance for having gone about it the wrong way.  Provided that these things have been properly explained to him!  Those with an incipient devotion to Our Lord who have received heretical teachings in the Episcopal Church, and who act out of ignorance, are far less culpable (and perhaps not at all) than those who have delivered the false teaching.  But on balance, no, essentially profaning the Sacrament is not a means through which God reaches out to lost souls.

First, could we stop referring to Communion-for-the-unbaptized as “open Communion”?  Traditionally, the term “open Communion” meant giving Communion to other baptized Christians not in the host church’s denomination.  TEC practiced closed Communion (confirmed persons, only, with some exceptions) until the 1970’s.  The RC Church still does.

There is no term for giving Communion to the unbaptized because such an act is so completely unknown in Christian history that it hasn’t developed its own terminology.  The only possible framework for something so unlike the Bible (“Can you drink the cup that I drink? Can you be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” (Jesus) “They were all baptized into Moses in the sea and in the cloud; all ate the same spiritual drink and all drank the same spiritual drink” (Paul)) is some sort of Zwinglian setting where the Sacraments themselves don’t do much of anything at all, either from our side or from God’s side, and therefore can be dipensed with or else (in this case) rearranged and toyed with according to our understanding of what is “meaningful” or “evangelistic.”  I would think that such a framework is unknown to Anglican theology of either a Catholic or Reformed stripe.

It’s appearance among the liberals not only demonstrates how seriously they take the edicts of The Most Blessed and Holy General Convention and of the canons, but also affirms what we already expected: for them, the Church is not an ark of salvation or a community stretching to the Apostles; it is an idea or, more exactly, an institution in service of an idea which happens to be OUR IDEA and which, whenever the contours of that institution happen to chafe against OUR IDEA, it, the institution, must bend to the OUR IDEA.

This, by the way, is what they mean by “incarnation” and “incarnational.”  Not The Incarnation, but the embodiment of OUR IDEA in an institution.

I recently heard a Lebanese Baptist speak of the importance of converting Muslims not to identify with “Christianity” but with Christ.  There, from time to time, baptism is delayed (or hidden) and Communion is sometimes given to the unbaptized.  One has sympathy for this arrangement and one must also note the Zwinglian theology of the “ordinances” (not Sacraments) among the Baptists.

Given similar missiological difficulties, we would (it seems to me) more likely perform secret baptisms or simply organize a parallel, non-sacramental fellowship for those who want to follow Jesus without (yet) joining his church.  Such groups would not celebrate either Sacrament.

The Sacraments go together and they go together in a certain logic and order.  One must be scramentally incorporated into Christ’s death and resurrection first before sacramentally feeding on his Body and Blood.  The very meaning of the latter is wrapped up in his death (Body given for thee; Blood shed for thee) and is simply ineffective, which is to say meaningless, when I have not died with him sacramentally in baptism.

Not surprisingly, those who support Communion for the unbaptized make it far more about Jesus’ table fellowship with sinners than abour his death and resurrection.  It then becomes a way of discounting the importance of the Atonement.  After all, if we are doing in our services what Jesus did in his ministry (welcoming the outsider, etc.) and if we express in word and deed that this act of worship is the center of our life together, then Jesus’ ministry to us consists primarily in his offering us an example of inclusiveness.  We’re not so much sinners in need of salvation as the unenlightened who need to become nicer.  And, lo and behold, here we are being extra nice just like Jesus, bringing everyone to the table.  That would mean that we, the “incarnation” of OUR IDEA, are Jesus in his resurrection body.  Is any of this sounding familiar?  There is a certain logic to the cluster of “theological” ideas the liberals love to preach.

At baptisms. wedding, and funerals (and whenever I notice several unfamiliar people in attendance) I announce that all persons baptized with water in the name of the Trinity and in good standing with their own church are welcome to receive Communion.  Regardless of what other priests and parishes are doing, I believe those are the bare bones requirement to receive Communion.

When the current Bishop of Newark (Mark Beckwith) came to our parish, he invited “all who seek God and are drawn to Christ” to receive Holy Communion.  From this, I must assume that it has become diocesan policy to distribute Communion to the unbaptized.

I should add that as Jewish convert to Christianity, I sought God and was drawn to Christ for much of my life before my baptism—and that I remain unendingly grateful that I was not permitted to receive Our Lord’s Body and Blood until I had first been made regenerate by Holy Baptism.  I suspect we are doing enormous spiritual damage by inviting people to receive Holy Eucharist before they have formally committed their lives to Christ, and been made new by the waters of Baptism.  There are only two Sacraments instituted by Our Lord Himself, and we denegrate both when we use the Eucharist as another way of demonstrating our “inclusivity.”  Christ did not discriminate when he fed the loaves and fishes to the five thousand, but when He distributed His Body and Blood, it was only to the twelve apostles in the upstairs room.

As a non-Anglican, I am confused by what I am reading above—that there is a general practice of offering Holy Communion to baptized Christians who are not members of churches “in communion” with the Anglican Communion.  I thought that shared reception of the Eucharist was one of the marks of “full communion” between churches.  Maybe someone can enlighten me.  (I realize that even in the Catholic Church, the Eucharist can be offered to non-Catholics, but only under very extraordinary circumstances.  CCC paragraph 1401.)

I wonder if we’ve been at least partially mis-interpreting I Cor 11:29. Paul has just chastised the Corinthians for being completely disrepectful to fellow believers.  And in 1 Cor 12:27 he says, “Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.”  I think it’s at least as plausible that what Paul is doing in 11:29 is telling the Corinthians they aren’t seeing the Body *in each other* when they come together on the Lord’s Day.  If so, then this passage takes on a bit of a different meaning entirely.

RFSJ

I am confident that my former Episcopal Bishop would deny me communion if he had advance notice I was approaching the alter.

I commited the only offense that would justify withholding communion in his eyes—I joined a GS Anglican church.

1401 When, in the Ordinary’s judgment, a grave necessity arises, Catholic ministers may give the sacraments of Eucharist, Penance, and Anointing of the Sick to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church, who ask for them of their own will, provided they give evidence of holding the Catholic faith regarding these sacraments and possess the required dispositions.238

Maybe we could evangelize with the beauty of the worship of the Lord in Choral Morning Prayer services? This provides also a gentle model for General Confession. Perhaps we create problems related to evangelism and instruction of children when our only service is Eucharist?

I think Greg is right to be thinking about how churches can provide nurturing entry points for people at various places on the Christian path. Eucharist used to be for mature Christians. Choral Morning Prayer and Agape Fellowship Dinners are two of the entry points that the Episcopal Church has now mostly discarded in favor of a more single minded focus on the Eucharist. The practicalities of implementing this has led to the opening of the Eucharist and the discarding of a prerequisite examine of conscience.

I don’t want to say overemphasis of the Eucharist, because I am not denying the centrality of Christ’s sacrifice and Atonement theology. It is more a problem of jumping ahead to the Eucharist without proper preparation in a culture with so many “unchurched” and where even the “churched” are often actually “unchurched”.

What about those faithful who receive Holy Eucharist more than once in the same day?

Leave it to Reality Check to bring up the canons of our church, which require baptism…that’s my bottom line….and until it gets officially changed (not that I hope that happens), I’ll be following the canons.  Because that’s what I promised to do when I was ordained.  If I’ve got a problem with that canon (which I don’t) then it’s up to me to get the canon changed, not to have a council with my belly button and decide that it’s ok to change the canons “because I think so.”  To disregard the canons is in my opinion an act of hubris (“I know better than the thousand people who passed this canon in the first place oh so many years ago.”).  I appreciate all the theology debated here, but it matters not to me, except insofar as it may usher in a different canonical rule somewhere down the line.
Somebody tell I’m not the only one who actually believes we should not commune the unbaptized - simply because the canons say we may not. RC

In our parish, as I understand it and have explained to visitors, the standard for receiving Communion is that the communicant should

—be a Christian baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity,
—have been instructed* and believe in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in His Body and Blood, and
—be a member in good standing of his/her own church (whether our parish or another church). 

That said, I’ve personally never seen our priests deny Communion to anyone who came to the altar rail and asked for it.

*I changed to “have been instructed” from “understand”, because we don’t have to, nor can we, understand this Mystery of the Real Presence.

Addendum: that at the time of my son’s recent wedding (2 weeks ago today ) in our parish, I knew of a couple of members of the bridal party not of our parish who were not currently “members in good standing” because of serious sin, and mentioned this to our Rector, the principal celebrant (without naming any names), so he could choose whether to briefly instruct the bridal party on the conditions for receiving Holy Communion.  Thereafter, it was on the conscience and judgment of each member of the bridal party whether or not to receive.

The Eucharist is not an evangelism tool.

Amen.  And it’s downright irresponsible to use it as one.

I wonder what people think about using baptism as that kind of tool.  Take a family who doesn’t attend church and has no intention of starting.  They have a young child or infant.  Is it appropriate to talk them into a one time commitment of baptizing the child, knowing they have no real commitment to raising the child as a christian in that parish?  What do ya’ll think?

as a member of a parish where this happens, I feel really uneasy about vowing to uphold this child’s life in christ when I know full well I’ll probably never see her again.  And somehow using something as fraught as a sacrament as an outreach tool seems ....odd.  But I am really curious what others think.

.... of course with the changes in the 1979 Prayer Book where the Biblical restraints to participating in the Eucharist were removed, it opened it up….. these restraints of course are not explained elsewhere either… so we have a dilution where those who would think twice don’t.

Addendum to 1st Addendum, lest anyone misunderstand:  my motive in notifying the Rector was to protect those in a state of serious sin from receiving unadvisedly; I would not presume to determine who should or should not receive the Sacrament. 

Okay, I’m done.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

episcopalienated: I suggest the concept of conversion in: “early Methodists who were, like Susannah Wesley, the mother of John and Charles, converted at the Lord’s Supper. It was the actual experience of the Lord’s Supper as a converting ordinance that led the Wesley’s so insistently to contend for its use by men and women before conversion. They took this stand against the Moravians who would have denied the Sacrament to all except those who had received full assurance of faith.”

refers to a “second work of grace” that is variously interpreted. Certainly, Susanna was already a baptized, earnest professing Christian well before the event the quote above references.  Likewise “full assurance of faith” had a specific meaning at that time.  The conversion referred to is not from unbelief to a profession that Jesus is Lord but rather that connected with a second work of grace as understood variously by various groups.  To add to the confusion, those groups, then and now, often had rather different theological understandings of sacrament, etc.

The early Wesleyan practice does not, I think, provide any precedent for misusing communion in place of baptism and profession of faith in Christ.  When, for example, one reads from Charles Wesley’s journals of experiences connected with the Eucharist, the analogy is perhaps more properly in relation to experience wrt Eucharistic Adoration in the Catholic Church.

Annie V,

In my church, people who bring infants for baptism are instructed (prior to the baptism) that this is the FIRST step in a long journey, not the last step.

But I am not a person to ask about infant baptism, as the entire concept really confuses me.

“Fundie’s” would say John’s baptism was a call to repentance, Christian baptism is a continuation of that confession of repentance and of salvation… infants can’t confess or repent… Jewish tradition identifies an “age” of accountability (variable) in the early teen years… In Scripture only adults were baptized… Some evangelical commentators say that infant baptism was the introduction of luke warm/cold faith and even apostasy into the church.  Hummmm….......

Annie V
I invite the parents to sit down with me and I lead them through the baptismal service in the Prayer Book.  It becomes clear as we do this as to what the commitment is and what is required.  I am also clear that I expect regular attendance, giving, and participation, as well as several more times of instruction before even scheduling a baptism (on one of the five days specified by the BCP - no shotgun specials here).

95% of the parents decide for themselves this is not what they really intended or wanted.  They either drop it or go find another Episcopal church which will do a “drive-by sacrament.”  And I do not spend one second fretting about this.

tdunbar:

The early Wesleyan practice does not, I think, provide any precedent for misusing communion in place of baptism and profession of faith in Christ.  When, for example, one reads from Charles Wesley’s journals of experiences connected with the Eucharist, the analogy is perhaps more properly in relation to experience wrt Eucharistic Adoration in the Catholic Church.

Well, thank you for pointing that out, and you obviously know more about the Wesleyan tradition than I do.  Your point about Wesley’s mother is well taken, to say the least.  When I first read your post, it occurred to me that Mr. Goroncy’s views (the source I quoted from, on another blog) might be mistaken.  However, it was relatively easy to find three parish websites, two Methodist and one Reformed, which indicate an evangelizing or “converting” role for the sacrament of Holy Communion in a way that does not suggest that what is being referred to is actually a “second work of grace” for those who are already Christians.

Redland Park United Reformed Church:

“But Charles Wesley described Communion as an ‘evangelising’ sacrament. On that basis it could, therefore, precede confirmation and play a part in bringing people to faith.”

http://www.redlandparkchurch.co.uk/all-age-communion.htm

West End United Methodist Church:

“Holy Communion is also a converting rite, one that, as Wesley pointed out, turns people to God because through Communion God works in everyone who partakes, whether they admit it or not.”

http://www.westendumc.org/news.php?viewStory=759

East Shore Church United Methodist Church:

“And while Holy Communion is primarily a sacrament to strengthen believers, Wesley also believed it could be an occasion when people were deeply convicted, maybe even converted. He placed no limits on the sacrament’s power because he placed no limits on what Christ can do.  Methodists have always practiced open communion. The communion table is Christ’s table. The invitation to partake is not reserved for believers, but for any who ‘truly and earnestly repent of sin. . . .’”

http://members.aol.com/mrcine/comunion.htm

“An ‘evangelising’ sacrament” . . . “bringing people to faith” . . . “also a converting rite” . . . “not reserved for believers.”

Apart from the question of precedents, if what is intended as a secondary work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of those who have already become professing Christians is being described here, then the language is far from clear.  I think that, in its plain meaning, the current practice is much more suggestive of the kind of scenario that Mr. Griffith outlines above.  And apparently, at least some Methodists, or others who follow the Wesleyan tradition, do attribute the practice to the beliefs of the Wesleys themselves.

But I know very little about the Methodist Church, or the Wesleys for that matter, and this is all new to me.  Thanks again for your input.

Scripture does not record ONLY adult baptisms.  More than once we read that a person was baptized—and his whole household.  Probably the churches with the oldest liturgy, therefore likely closest to early Christian practice, are the Eastern Orthodox and they have infant baptism.  Also, children can take communion from infancy once they are baptized.  However when they are around 7 (again that disputed age when they are supposed to know right from wrong) they have to start to go to confession in order to be able to receive the sacrament.

.... “was baptized, and his whole household” .... One of course could read into this children and infants… but since it’s not specifically noted, one could also assume only adults… assumption about scripture and reading into “it” our wishes got us into this fix in the first place.
How ‘bout we just go wiht what it actually says…. what’s wrong with that? - (by-the-by Israelite practice was to imerse converts when they professed Judiasim… no reason to expect even early batism was out of context with the norms known…)

SPELLING ATROCIOUS in above ..... you know what it is… please forgive….

This brings up something else that concerns me….

I am with the folks above who believe that children who have not yet been confirmed should not be receiving the sacrament of Holy Communion.

I belong to a very orthodox parish, yet the norm seems to be to let the parent decide whether or not the child partakes.

Too often, I see children under the age of 12 receive the body & blood (clearly not understanding or reverencing same—-even to the point of making exaggerated grimaces at the taste of the wine) and it’s more of a spectacle about THEM than the remembrance of Christ.

I wish this would be addressed by more orthodox parishes.

My point about bringing in the Eastern Orthodox was to say that if anyone was close to the original practice (what was done in the earliest church times, closest to when the scriptures were written) it is probably them as their rite is the oldest.  I should have also noted that an infant would not be baptized unless the parents and godparents were all of the Orthodox persuasion.  And they have CLOSED communion: only the Orthodox would be given communion.  I have never seen anyone refused during distribution, but they would know who was able to or not and if there were guests in the congregation, they would be told by their hosts.  Or if an outside group was there, it might be announced.  I do know of an instance where an RC nun asked about receiving and she was told she could not.

As an Eastern Orthodox priest, I am the guardian of the Mysteries. Since St. Paul teaches that receiving unworthily may lead to sickness or even death (I Cor. 11:27-30), it is my responsibility in Christian love to prevent people from, perhaps unknowingly, bringing the harm of unworthy reception upon themselves. If we take seriously what St. Paul, says, how can it be anything except a lack of love and care for others to allow them to receive these fearful Mysteries without proper preparation. And Baptism is the absolute minimum. The recipient should also have been cleansed by Confession, prayer, and fasting, since this is a very serious act, not to be undertaken lightly.

In my own parish, if anyone unknown approaches the chalice for Communion, I question them about their status: what is their church, are they in good standing with their priest, etc. If the answers are not satisfactory, I ask them to step aside and not receive the Mysteries. This may seem harsh, but it is preferable to allowing them to eat and drink unworthily and bringing condemnation, not only on themselves, but on me also for my lack of concern for their spiritual welfare and my carelessness with the Mysteries entrusted to me.

Holy Baptism - from the 1979 BCP Outline of the Faith (Catechism)
Q.    What is Holy Baptism?
A.    Holy Baptism is the sacrament by which God adopts us
  as his children and makes us members of Christ’s Body,
  the Church, and inheritors of the kingdom of God.

Q.    What is the outward and visible sign in Baptism?
A.    The outward and visible sign in Baptism is water, in
  which the person is baptized in the Name of the Father,
  and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Q.    What is the inward and spiritual grace in Baptism?
A.    The inward and spiritual grace in Baptism is union with
  Christ in his death and resurrection, birth into God’s
  family the Church, forgiveness of sins, and new life in
  the Holy Spirit.

Q.    What is required of us at Baptism?
A.    It is required that we renounce Satan, repent of our sins,
  and accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior.

Q.    Why then are infants baptized?
A.    Infants are baptized so that they can share citizenship
  in the Covenant, membership in Christ, and redemption
  by God.

Q.    How are the promises for infants made and carried out?
A.    Promises are made for them by their parents and
  sponsors, who guarantee that the infants will be
  brought up within the Church, to know Christ and be
  able to follow him.

Further, from the Roman Catholic Catechism’s Glossary:

BAPTISM: The first of the seven sacraments, and the “door” which gives access to the other sacraments. Baptism is the first and chief sacrament of forgiveness of sins because it unites us with Christ, who died for our sins and rose for our justification. Baptism, Confirmation, and Eucharist constitute the “sacraments of initiation” by which a believer receives the remission of original and personal sin, begins a new life in Christ and the Holy Spirit, and is incorporated into the Church, the Body of Christ. The rite of Baptism consists in immersing the candidate in water, or pouring water on the head, while pronouncing the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (977, 1213 ff.; 1275, 1278).

Opinion:
As to whether the children were included in “the whole household”, well, children were parts of most households, as were any slaves, who were also baptised as parts of whole households, as I read somewhere.  Parsing the word “whole” is like parsing what “is” is, IMO. 

Finally, when my children were born, they came into a household that had several characteristics: they were Texans, they were Americans, and they were named “Sandlin”, like their parents, among other characteristics. 

They were also born into a household which later became (for my first child) or was (at the time of my second child’s birth) a Christian family.  Why shouldn’t they also receive the Christian heritage and culture of their family and be grafted into the Body of Christ, receiving the Grace of Baptism to strengthen him “to continue Christ’s faithful soldier and servant unto his life’s end?” (1928 BCP)  I want my children to have what God wants; God wants every good thing for us; Baptism is a Good Thing and the Church has allowed this Good Thing for infants and children for thousands of years.

As for Confirmation or Holy Communion for children (or adults), it should not happen until the priest, parents, and godparents determine the child is spiritually mature enough and well-enough catechized to understand the significance of the Sacrament(s), to the extent they are capable. This has been the practice in much of the Western Church of which we are, most of us, a part.

My son was born with an “old soul” and was presented for Confirmation at age 8, after requesting admission to Holy Communion and being examined by our priest. Some adults I know wouldn’t meet the stipulations of sufficient maturity and catechized-ed-ness in their 80s. 

I’m not sure if Matt recalls or not, but the year we took our GOEs the liturgics question had us write something for the bulletin regarding who may receive communion.

Several parishes in the Dio. of Texas offer open communion - or at least they did under Bp. Payne with his knowledge,  some here still do without the bishop’s knowledge.  I’ve been of the opinon that we need to read the Exhoration at least once a month.  Sadly, Jesus is being lost out of the sacrament of His Body and Blood, just as he is lost within the national church.

T+

My church has the policy, which the minister states before the offertory, that if a person not a member of the church is welcome to receive Communion in their own church, they may receive it in ours.

The best way I have ever seen the question of Communion for someone who doesn’t know Jesus was from Tim Keller at Redeemer Presbyterian in NYC.  He said in a very pastoral way that if you’re someone who doesn’t yet know Jesus but wants to, when the elements were passed, instead of receiving Communion, receive Christ.  (This is a paraphrase—he did it FAR better than I am recounting here!)

The baptismal practice of the Early Church from the Apostles’ time till about 400 AD was argued out in three brief (but well-focused) books nearly 50 years ago: *Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries* by Joachim Jeremias (1960); *Did the Early Church Baptize Infants?* by Kurt Aland (1962); and *The Origins of Infant Baptism: A further study in reply to Kurt Aland* by Joachim Jeremias (1963).  Jeremias’ studies demonstrate that in the whole period under consideration the only Early Christian figure who expressed reservation about baptising the infant children of convert parents was Tertullian, and that epigraphical evidence from the Second Century demonstrate that the baptism small children and infants was not unknown—and he gives good and probable reasons for believing that children and infants were included among those baptized in cases of “household conversion.  There have been other studies since that time, but I know of none that have marshalled and presented the evidence so succinctly as Jeremias did in these two books of his.

episcopalienated: yes, it is true that some in the Wesleyan tradition may consider using the Lord’s Supper for initial conversion and there is just enough ambiguity in the historical record for the claim of this being true Wesleyan/Methodist practice to be at least arguable.  However, “tradition” can change a great deal; especially when there is not a magisterium to enforce discipline.

I think the primary sources are more in line with my assertion than the views of those Methodist sources you cite. And I think it is certainly true that one must take seriously a theology of a “second work of grace,” in some sort of terminology, when arguing the point which is why I don’t give too much weight to some contemporary Methodist sources.
By the way, a convenient source book is “Charles Wesley: A Reader” by John R. Tyson.

Of course, one might well suspect my own viewpoint since my reading of Charles Wesley brought me not just “back” to Anglican but, along with other influences,  all the way to Catholic.

But getting back to Charles Wesley, one should also read his 150 Eucharistic Hymns (The Eucharistic Hymns of John and Charles Wesley. edited by J. Ernest Rattenbury).

Have I missed the answer to this?

What about those faithful who receive Holy Eucharist more than once in the same day?

Posted by snowbird on 10-27-2007 at 04:35 PM

I was told that it is too much for someone to do on a regualr basis, but allowed in some cases. Such as say, a funeral on a Sunday. Or a wedding.

Thanks. (I realize it is a secondary question so perhaps totally off topic. I assume communion restricted to at least baptised Christians.)

Regarding children’s communion, I think that a child as young as 3 or 4 can understand that he is a sinner and that he is in some way covered by Jesus. I think it is appropriate for such a child to receive communion if he is baptized.

There are things in the Christian life that become more clear through time. One of those things should be communion. We learn to meaning of rituals through repetition in the context of consistent instruction and faithful community.

To require more than the most basic instruction on the meaning of communion before first receiving it at times suggests that salvation is a matter of having the right knowledge. In fact, our salvation depends not on us having the right knowledge of God, but rather on God having a saving love for us.

I think arbitrarily delaying communion until 12 or so is extreme. An additional difficulty arises when one considers the matter of the demented, the mentally ill or those who are of such diminished capacity that they are unable to make a credible statement of faith.

I think basic good order, though, would indicate that there needs to be objective standards for receiving. One of those would reasonably be baptism.

I also think it is perfectly appropriate for a priest or minister to admonish a person away from the table for certain grevious and public, unrepented of sins. A cautious approach would involve the judgement of more than just the minister in all but the most egregious or urgent of cases.

Matt’s intention to deny those who publicly advocate abortion or attempt to lead others into sin, such as Robinson, would probably be appropriate.

tdunbar:

I think the primary sources are more in line with my assertion than the views of those Methodist sources you cite. And I think it is certainly true that one must take seriously a theology of a “second work of grace,” in some sort of terminology, when arguing the point which is why I don’t give too much weight to some contemporary Methodist sources.

Sounds eminently reasonable and quite likely.

Of course, one might well suspect my own viewpoint since my reading of Charles Wesley brought me not just “back” to Anglican but, along with other influences, all the way to Catholic.

My suspicions aren’t aroused in the least.  In fact, my reaction is: Way Cool!

God bless, and thanks again.

Christ gave His body & blood for all sinners who believe in Him and those who are baptized in a spiritual death to sin and are born again in Him are IMHO worthy to receive His sacrifice of His body and blood to be renewed in Him when they come in repentance and with a right heart & mind to receive. I think it is important for all priests, bishops, and deacons, to know their congregants enough to know when communion should be denied to unrepentant sinners such as those who are living in sin, i.e. out of wedlock, in same-sex relationships, have comitted a crime and has not taken the correct steps to right their wrong by paying their debt back to society and shown a contrite heart, those who have ire against another brother or sister, etc… As for those who come that are not a a regular congregant within a church that a priest does not know and comes to the alter for communion, well the responsibility lies with that individual. If the priest gives with the right heart and faith that that person is coming to receive faithfully and rightly, in his ignorance of not truly knowing that individual then how can God hold him accountantable for someone else’s “lie”they committ when they knowingly approach the rail and partaking of something they themselves know they should not and have not been properly prepared for. That is on them and God will IMHO see to it that they will reep that which they sow upon themselves.

This to me is an area that many priests in TEC have fallen way back on. An in depth teaching of Holy Commuion for all new beleivers, congregants, etc.. on the receiving and that which would keep them from receiving and the consequencs and most importantly of all knowing all their congregants well enough to know when to say sorry, but not until you put yourself right with God and your brothers an sisters of the Church!

Ok, guys & gals,
We have heard from the collared-ones who should receive but my question is this.  My orthodox priest insisted I receive communion from a bishop I do not consider able to consecrate a true Eucharist due to his own miserable ( and not Christian) theology.  I would never do it again.  Comments?

Snowbird- I know several people who attend two services on Sunday because they function as acolytes or some such.  I instruct them to receive at both masses as they are a part of each group of the Body of Christ that was present during the service.  I’m sure others would disagree with me on this point, but it seems that if you have two different groups - that person is a part of two different worship communities. However, the efficaciousness of the sacrament would not be hindered if the person only received it once.

After the Peace and prior to the Offertory, I announce that all who have been baptized with water in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are invited to receive Communion at the Lord’s Table.
Re children and the Eucharist: Baptism is full initiation into the Church. In my view, once a child is baptized, they are entitled to the sacrament of Holy Communion. At an early age children do not understand nutrition, but they’re fed at the table with the family anyway. Whether or not they “understand” the sacrament is to me unimportant, in relation to the fact that they have been baptized into God’s family and should receive with the family. I do respect the parent’s decision if they choose to have the child wait until an older age. If we’re not going to communicate them, we should stop baptizing them.

I first took Communion at the age of 11 after being confirmed.

Nowadays, in my far from liberal but perhaps more open church we do practice a more open communion.  At a recent Baptism and Confirmation service where I was a sidesman one young man with his family who had come to see a friend baptised held back and asked me if they were welcome to take Communion.  I asked him if [1] if he was a communicant member of his own church? and [2] did he acknowledge that the risen Christ as his saviour? to which he replied yes.  So I told him he was most welcome to join us.  I tend to think the latter is the most important point.  Turned out that they were Roman Catholic; they did join us and we had a long talk about Vatican II afterwards, the current state of things and our hopes for the future.

I think our old BCP 1662 puts it well - the emphasis is on us to examine ourselves and having put things right it instructs us:
“Ye that do truly and earnestly repent your sins, and are in love and charity with your neighbors, and intend to live a new life, following the commandments of God, and walking from henceforth in his holyways; Draw near with faith, and take this holy sacrament to your comfort; and make your humble confession to Almighty God, meekly kneeling upon your knees.”

What could be better?

The practice at my Episcopal parish.  The priest always announces that you don’t have to be an Episcopalian to receive communion, baptized members of all churches are welcome.  No screening of visitors is done, it’s all up to the individual from that point.  Unbaptized persons are certainly not invited to partake, but in theory they could since no one is questioned. 

Are Roman Catholics allowed to receive communion in non-Roman Catholic churches? 

A few years ago I was studying the issue of infant baptism in the early church and I do agree with William Tighe, the Jeremias books he referenced are by far the best resource still available, even after 50 years.

Nevin asks:  “Are Roman Catholics allowed to receive communion in non-Roman Catholic churches?”

Canon 844 of the Code of Canon law contains the following: 

  §2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

Whether rules of those non-Catholic Churches in which the Eucharist is valid would permit a Catholic to receive Holy Communion is another matter.

Is there a similar provision for Episcopalians? I was in Birmingham some years ago, where my father was seriously ill. I had been living in the hospital for about three weeks and though I had asked to see a chaplain, we were moved about so much that, apparently, the chaplains couldn’t find us. Coming out of an elevator, I met a priest about to go in. I told him my situation and asked for help. He explained to me that he was a Catholic priest, but he gave me the wafer. At that place, at that time, it meant so much to me. I don’t know what the rules are, but I hope that God is merciful to both of us if either of us did something wrong. Mercy is what it felt like.

>blockquote>I think our old BCP 1662 puts it well - the emphasis is on us to examine ourselves and having put things right it instructs us: “Ye that do truly and earnestly repent your sins, and are in love and charity with your neighbors, and intend to live a new life, following the commandments of God, and walking from henceforth in his holyways; Draw near with faith, and take this holy sacrament to your comfort; and make your humble confession to Almighty God, meekly kneeling upon your knees.”

What could be better?</blockquote>

PM, Perfect but in answer to you question above….Baptism first!

ODC - I personally would agree with that - it is a presumption for being confirmed [here having been christened [baptised] usually as an infant and of being a communicant member of a church.  For those who have not been a blessing is available.

As for authority, apart from Paul, the gospels make Communion a duty and a joy as something Christ calls us all to the table to share.

At that place, at that time, it meant so much to me. I don’t know what the rules are, but I hope that God is merciful to both of us if either of us did something wrong. Mercy is what it felt like.

oscewicee,
God was moving in and through you and the priest at that very moment and mercy and grace were given in that host of the Holy, IMHO. I don’t see how our Loving and Merciful God would ever be uspest with those who are receiving in humility and repentance as long as they were a baptized Christian. This is precisely the reason why Christ gave His body and blood for His children. We talk of scriptures saying this and that, but nowhere in there can I find does it say that unless you are of the One True Holy Catholic Church can you partake of the Lord’s Sacrament. It gives us instructions on how we should receive and when we should receive (whenever we gather) but no where can I find for whom it is only allowed by seperation of Christian demonination. I have seen many a baptized Christian who came from another demonination such as Assembly of God, First Congregational, etc… and come to the alter rail and have a life changing experience right there that they began to seek further this glorious thing of Eucharist. Now that is the transforming power of the body and the blood and who are we as sinful failable humans to tell another, “No, sorry you must be a Roman Catholic in good standing to receive.”
I personally think our Lord weeps over this.

“my question is this. My orthodox priest insisted I receive communion from a bishop I do not consider able to consecrate a true Eucharist due to his own miserable (and not Christian) theology. I would never do it again. Comments?”

It sounds like Donatism to me—and if you are “in communion” with your priest and if he is in communion with the bishop about whom you write, then willy-nilly there is no reason not to be in communion with that bishop, so it is pointless not to receive the Sacrament from him.  If, on the other hand, you wish not to be in communion with the bishop, then you would have to forsake the communion of all who are in communion with him to achieve that end.

“Whether rules of those non-Catholic Churches in which the Eucharist is valid would permit a Catholic to receive Holy Communion is another matter.”

Let’s be clear here—the Catholic Church does not consider any Anglican church to be one of those “non-Catholic Churches in which the Eucharist is valid” but only Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian and Polish National Catholic churches.  The Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox would strictly forbid their faithful to receive communion in any churches except their own (or, in some exceptional circumstances, one anothers’ churches), while the Assyrian and PNCCs would allow their faithful to receive communion in the Catholic Church.  None of these churches would allow their faithful under any circumstances to receive communion from Anglicans—even though the Polish National Catholic Church was in communion with PECUSA from 1946 to 1976 (an agreement which they terminated unilaterally immediately after the 1976 General Convention allowed WO). As it is now PNCC practice to reordain any and all Episcopalian or Anglican (including Continuing Anglican) who join them, it may fairly be said that the PNCC no longer recognizes Anglican churches as “churches in which the Eucharist is valid.”  That is at least one positive good that has come from WO.

“...the PNCC no longer recognizes Anglican churches as “churches in which the Eucharist is valid.” That is at least one positive good that has come from WO”

What I wonder do you think of all the years that you received holy communion as an Anglican, Prof. Tighe.

You are of course most welcome as a communicant member of your own church to join us.  I hope that in good time that this may be reciprocated.

“What I wonder do you think of all the years that you received holy communion as an Anglican, Prof. Tighe.”

I hope that I rec’d the blessing of God thereby; I do not, however, think that I was receiving the Flesh and Blood of Christ present under the forms of bread and wine, as I do in the Catholic Church.

“I hope that in good time that this may be reciprocated.”

I do too, and it can easily be done, once Anglican churches accept the doctrines that the Catholic Church propounds as revealed by God, have their Orders validated by Rome (which will, of course, involve laicizing all purportedly “ordained” women).  Alas, I have little hope that this will happen any time soon—but that it is possible to hope for it is evident by the decision of the Traditional Anglican Communion, at its recent synod, to petition Rome for “corporate reunion.”  If you have not hitherto heard of this, you may find accounts of it at the Continuing Anglican website, “The Continuum,” here:

http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2007/10/full-corporate-sacramental-union.html

http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2007/10/continuum-tac-and-rome.html

http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2007/10/and-where-might-this-lead.html

Now, you will readily preceive from the comment threads (especially after the first link above) how fraught the matter of reunion with Rome is in the case of a militantly “Anglican Catholic” body like the TAC (which, among other positions, repudiates the purported “ordination” of women as bishops, priests AND DEACONS, as erroneous and invalid, and whose bishops reject the 1930 Lambeth Conference’s acceptance of the legitimacy of the use of contraceptives); and, this being the case, I leave it to the judicious reader of our exchange how likely it will be for those whom God has placed in authority over His Church will ever allow Catholics to “join you” at your Communion Tables.

Trey, thank you. I was told by someone at church that priests and deacons and acolytes, if they served at two services, could only receive once, and if people in the pews attended two services in one day, it was proper to receive only once. I have attended, as a pewsitter, more than once on a Sunday and always received both times, but I was worried when I heard this that it was an offense against God to do this, amounting to not taking the Sacrament seriously (and I do take it seriously). Thank you for clarifying this for me. I don’t know where the idea came from that it could be wrong, as this never occurred to me, but I’ve now heard this from several sources. You’re sure about it?

Two comments:

1. If I attend one of our daily Masses and then later in the day attend a requiem or wedding, it is my understanding that it is permissible to receive Holy Communion under the two different cirmcumtstances.  The limitations, such as they are, on how many times one may receive were put in place, as I understand it, to deter the practice of going from church to church to church to receive Mass several times a day. 

2.  As a travel agent, I have been going on cruises quite a bit over the last 3 years to broaden my experience base.  Two cruise lines have Roman Catholic priests aboard their ships specifically to offer daily Masses, etc., for crew and passengers.  (Priests also serve on other types of ships, such as freighters, etc.(  There is even a specific RC ministry for this, the Apostleship of the Sea, or Apostolatus Maris, established by Pope John Paul II in 1997. There are 600+ priests trained for this ministry based in the USA alone. The two cruise lines since 2004 have used only priests who are members of this ministry, which came about in response to some priest-imposters going along as a “rent-a-priest”.

On different cruise line, an RC priest traveling with some of his parishioners offered Mass on Sundays and Wednesday (it was a 17 day cruise).  In all of these cases, my husband and I have first attended a Mass without receiving, then approached the priest asking permission to receive and explaining how we have been catechized about the Real Presence, etc.  Each time, we have been allowed to participate and receive Holy Communion. 

It was also explained to us by these RC priests that the Pope said that under circumstances of travel if the traveler has been so catechized, but does not have access to the Sacrament otherwise (no Anglican priest on board also saying Masses, for instance), the traveler may be permitted to receive the Sacrament.  If there were an Anglican priest on board offering the sacrifice of the Mass, we would be directed to him for our worship.  I don’t know where this has been promulgated in writing, but 3 Catholic priests said this to us.

It is wonderful to have this available when traveling, even if we couldn’t receive!

Connie Sandlin is correct in her understanding of how what is sometimes termed “Eucharistic hospitality” operates from the perspective of the Catholic Church.

No doubt, however, there would be *some* Anglicans who would be appalled at other Anglicans receiving communion at a RC Mass under any circumstances, and others who would be appalled that, as your elliptical phrase “we have been catechized about the real Presence etc.” seems to indicate, you as Anglicans believe what the Catholic Church teaches about the Mass, the Real Presence etc.

I believe that the late Eric Mascall once told me how surprized and pleased he was to be offered such “Eucharistic hospitality” when he was teaching for a semester at the Pontifical College Josephinum in Ohio—and the more so (as he told me) that he felt unable to receive communion in ECUSA after it began to “ordain” women, and so otherwise would only be able to communicate when he himself celebrated Mass.

snowbird,
We asked this of our priest when we began attending as we frequently go to two services (they are different enough to enjoy each and learn more), and have other priests over the years and have been given the same answer:  It’s fine to take it more than once if you desire to.  And it’s fine to forgo if you don’t feel you should.  Priests have it several times a day.  And people who take communion to the ill usually share in that communion.  What our priest said was 1 Cor. 11:33 “So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other .”  The admonition was that you had to meet the rest of the requirements:  1 Cor. 11:27 -32

“Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world. “

When we have that opportunity, we offer the second communion for someone who can’t be there or for a special prayer need for another. 

Matt, I disagree with you and others that someone would have to wait until baptism to receive the Lord’s supper - especially for those churches who limit 4 times a year (if I read that right).  I don’t believe that Jesus would want it to be so restricted.  But I understand where you and others are coming from and respect that.  I would ask the priest what his (her in the one instance) preference is and abide by that.

snowbird,

i vaguely recall something on this from frances de sales. i’ll have to look it up, later this evening. the business of communion more thatn once in a day seemed to have to do with the serious nature of eucharist. and that was why the caution but allowance for other services such as funerals, or weddigns that might tak eplace alter inteh day on a sunday.

RE: “You are of course most welcome as a communicant member of your own church to join us. I hope that in good time that this may be reciprocated.”

Pageantmaster, do you really hope for this?

I mean, to do that, the Roman Catholic and [insert Tighe list here] churches would essentially have to abnegate everything it believes about the sacraments and salvation and the magisterium, etc, etc. 

That reminds me of people who cavalierly want the RCs to eliminate priestly celibacy because of various “practical” reasons.  Or wonder angrily why they practice closed-communion.

I am happy when Roman Catholics strengthen the practice of what they believe, and certainly do not want it weakened so as to appease those who essentially believe that nothing “religious” should actually be dogmatically held.

Also, strengthened Roman Catholic practice aids in ecumenical dialogue—it means that there is further clarity about the distinctions between them and other churches so that there is less confusion and muddle.  I really value it when churches are clear about their beliefs even when some people may be “insulted” over those beliefs.

Absolutely Sarah - I look forward indeed to the day when Christians worship God and acknowledge Christ alongside one another.  That does not mean that I have to believe in transubstantiation or drop infant baptism.  Most of us do manage to do so and there are particular problems with the RC but my practical experience on the ground is that most of the laity do not see the issues that occupy Prof. Tighe and others.

Is it so very difficult for Christians?

In Christ all things are possible, don’t you think?

Our preist also extends the invitation that any baptized, believer in Christ is welcome to come to the table.
I have the honor of serving the chalice, and often see kids make faces at the taste of the wine. And I usually always stop and say
“The wine is bitter, but it is Christ’s blood that you drink and so it is important to never make faces. You need to always be respectful. This is a very serious thing.”  And the kids will stop in their tracks and straighten their faces.
Often it’s just a matter their parents have never said to them. We have lots of kids that don’t sit with their parents, and so they come to the altar with their friends.
At the end of communion I am sent to the nursery with bread and wine for the worker there and any children who want it. Most of the kids are 3 to 5 and have some understanding. But we have a one year old baby there who stretches out his hands towards the bread of life and his face lights up with a glow that is different from the one he gets if you hand him a cookie.
I couldn’t imagine denying this baby the body and blood of the Risen Christ, as he reaches for it with such eager hands.
(His parents take him for communion when he is in church with them). I tell him “This is Jesus!” And he grins and crams the wafer into his mouth.
I have never seen one of the little babies (one and two year olds) take it out of their mouths or play with it either. (as I am ever ready to consume any crumbs that go astray or eat a soggy wafer that is returned to me in a drooled on fist.)
I agree that none of us will ever fully understand the pressence of Jesus in the bread and wine. But I have seen the evidence of that power again and again. If we waited until everyone of us was ‘ready’ to receive, many of us never would.
I work with the mentally ill. I do not doubt the power of God to heal through the sacraments. And if nothing else, I wouldn’t want to deny these people the strength and comfort that the Body and Blood of Christ can bring.
And of receiveing twice in one day, one day in particular will always stick in my mind.
I was traveling to another state where my Mom was in the hospital. I went to the early service at the local Episcopal church where my Mom was a member. I had communion and went on to the hospiatal where my mom was. She was doing better and was expected to be discharged back to her nursing home in a day or two. Her preist said he would be over to the hospital to give her communion later. When he came to give her communion, I was sitting next to her and since I had received earlier in the day, I did not expect the priest to give me communion again. And I said so to him. The priest offered me my second host of the day, and said something to the effect of ‘you will need it’.
When I swallow the host I felt it travel all the way down to my stomach. I was acutely aware of where it was in my body every inch of the way. When it hit my stomach it felt like it expanded and grew. I got the distinct impression of a ‘tower’ within me. A strong tower.
Later that night my mom took a turn for the worst (she had congestive heart failure, she was 84) Within a period of 45 minutes she went from ok, to dying, to dead. During that 45 minutes God was with me every step of the way. The ‘Strong Tower’ that the host had become in me, enfolded me and guided me as I had to make many fast and difficult decisions without any other family members there to help.
The Lord is my family. Eucharist that day was different than any other that I have ever expierenced.
Some days, God knows just what we need. I leave it up to Him to decide. The Lord gives and withholds as He sees fit.

Well hello, little mouse.  Great to hear from you again and thankyou for sharing that.  He is indeed a strong tower.

RE: “Absolutely Sarah - I look forward indeed to the day when Christians worship God and acknowledge Christ alongside one another.”

I do too, but I am confident that that will not take place in a unified way until heaven.

Maybe we just have different levels of optimism or hopes.  ; > )

Perhaps it is because it is Sunday, but I am aware that such a hope is beyond us to achieve.  We can do nothing on our own but perhaps we may join in prayer for His Church, that we may be one.  His will, not ours be done.

Fr Tighe,
You are, of course, absolutley correct and I did what I believed I had to do-leave.  Dr Radner may disagree, but in the end I think we all need to make this decision based on individual conscience, not institutional dictates which seem to me to ask we leave the responsibilty for the health of our spiritual life with others we do not even respect.  And it shows clearly why one would leave an orthodox parish in diocese led by a bishop who carries a different faith.

My understanding is that my diocese, Olympia (Western Washington State), specifies that communion is open to “all baptized Christians.” Although I know of no parishes in the diocese whose rectors go beyond this, it would not leave me totally surprised were I to discover that a small number of rectors make the table open to anyone.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

“I think we all need to make this decision based on individual conscience, not institutional dictates which seem to me to ask we leave the responsibilty for the health of our spiritual life with others…”

Elizabeth,
This is precisely the best statement I have read in a while!
Individually we will be the ones standing before our Lord and answering for our own actions and deeds. No one else will be standing there beside us so we cannot say, “Well, it was the church fathers that said it was right and okay to do, so I went along because I listened to them thus it can’t be my fault.” That isn’t going to fly come judgement day!

Sarah Hey,

Also, strengthened Roman Catholic practice aids in ecumenical dialogue—it means that there is further clarity about the distinctions between them and other churches so that there is less confusion and muddle.  I really value it when churches are clear about their beliefs even when some people may be “insulted” over those beliefs.

Hear, hear! Well and beautifully stated.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

http://www.calvin.edu/worship/idis/theology/audio/ntwright_sacraments_part2.mp3

many comments here definitely on topic.
It’s Bp. Wright speaking at Calvin Institute of Chrstian Worship, the Space, Time and Sacraments talk.

“Fr Tighe,
You are, of course, absolutley correct and I did what I believed I had to do-leave.  Dr Radner may disagree, but in the end I think we all need to make this decision based on individual conscience, not institutional dictates which seem to me to ask we leave the responsibilty for the health of our spiritual life with others we do not even respect.  And it shows clearly why one would leave an orthodox parish in diocese led by a bishop who carries a different faith.”

Elizabeth,
I’m not ordained, and only a historian dabbling in Theology, but I am in complete accord with what you wrote above, as well as with the conclusion that you drew from your experience and reflection upon it.  Your original remark did seem a bit Donatist to me, but I now preceive better what you intended to convey—and I think that there is a wealth of sound ecclesiology in your final sentence.

Dr. Tighe, at one point here on StandFirm you posted a link to an article/paper you wrote several years ago regarding the, for lack of a better term, “religious settlement” of New England dating from Puritan times.  I wonder if it’s possible you could post that link again?  I’d like to print that article and save it for my “interesting” pile.  Thank you…

While it may not have been your intent, you well explained why the “theology” in New England can be pretty far-out.  So many things like theology are defined through history with, over time, lots of apples not falling too far from the trees. 

Cheers—

Geek

Here is the announcement in our service booklet:
When the bell rings, the People come forward to receive the precious Body and Blood of Christ. 
All visitors who are baptized persons, admitted to Holy Communion by their own pastors, sharing our faith in the Real Presence of Christ in the holy sacrament,  are welcome to communicate. 
To become a regular communicant here, Confirmation by a Bishop is required. 
It is not our custom to give Holy Communion to small children, but small children may be brought to the rail for a blessing. 
Unbaptized persons are not permitted to receive, but may come forward for a blessing at the rail.
Non-communicants desiring a blessing should cross their arms before
their breast.

Geek,

I wonder what it could have been (if you are not thinking of somebody else entirely), as I have not written anything about “New England Religion” since writing a research paper at Yale in the 70s for Sidney Ahlstrom on Octavius Brooks Frothingham and 19th-Century Massachusetts Unitarian “orthodoxy.”  Could it have been this:

http://www.newoxfordreview.org/reviews.jsp?did=0599-tighe

in which I do, at least mention, Unitarianism, comparing it favorably to ECUSA today?

My parish has open communion for those ‘baptized in the name of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit and endeavoring to walk with with Jesus, if this does not describe you or you are unsure where you stand with Jesus ...’ and we just beginning to formulate when to deny the Eucharist, in context is a stair-step form of discipline inside the body while still reaching out. However I think it’s wise for parishes to ponder all this stuff ahead of time with much of the discussion that has happened here.

I have pity in my heart for Archbishop Niederauer, because I believe he was caught off guard, he should not have been since that area was know to have these issues, but I believe he was placed on the spot and made a poor decision on the fly (as often how bad decisions are made). I think he should have considered these thing ahead of time, especially going into the area where SPI was known to operate.

Our parishes considerations are more geared towards issues we’re more likely to face, such as the adulterous parishioner, the dishonest vestry member and the like. Thinking some of these issues though before you are actually faced with them.

That my main commentary about this thread as a whole (good for folks to ponder). I’m a tad fearfully agnostic about where the lines need to be drawn, in part because I’ve been the one who could have used the discipline in my life, so it’s hard for me to draw a line where one was not drawn with me. I’ll comment that there much discussion on 1 Cor 11, but I find 1 Cor 5 more helpful, it contains a firm stance but verse 5 gives the reason for the stance is one of hope, we need to be broken hearted when turning one over to Satan but in hope for their spirit in the Day of the Lord.

Hi Hosea, I hope you rec’d my message.  The offer still stands, but if you’re not interested I’ll dispose of it to someone else.

I just now check my “public email account,” I’ve been lazy keeping up with it recently, I’ll reply directly.

Yes, that was it, thank you, Dr. Tighe.  This book review had a lot of relevant history in it that I really wanted to read.  I had printed it before, then moved, and I have not yet unearthed it from the boxes.  This way, I can just print it again. 

Muchas gracias—

Geek