- Dec 4, 2012
- 1,417
- 283
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
I have a few guidelines I go by when considering receiving the Eucharist in non-Anglican contexts. For one, I want to know that I'm generally welcomed to receive such that I won't cause scandal by partaking. In some contexts the welcome is ambiguous, but I don't want to cause scandal, and I want to have a clear conscience.
I also tend to only receive sacraments and sacramental rites from clergy or bishops within the apostolic succession. Unlike some, and I am welcome to correction on this point in case I may be wrong, I do tend to think that presbyteral succession as received by the Presbyterians and Methodists is a primitive and valid mode of the ancient succession. This is not a hard and fast rule for me. But I tend to think of the succession as a safeguard, and receiving the sacrament in these contexts means that I am receiving in the context of a community that professes the real presence. Again, this is not a hard and fast rule for me, so I cannot say what I would do in every situation, but I avoid receiving the sacrament in contexts that deny the real presence such as memorialism, and I prefer to receive from clergy ordained by bishops within the succession or at least a presbyteral succession.
I have never received communion in a Presbyterian context, and I am not a fan of Calvinism (though I understand Presbyterians have come a long way in 500 years and these doctrines are not always binding on me in order to receive the sacrament), but I have felt welcomed in Methodist contexts and received there. In fact, it was a Methodist eucharist received in a very Anglican style that was the pivotal turning point for me in my conversion to Christianity. I have to admit that I was not baptized when I was receiving. I was welcomed, I received the welcome as a gesture of hospitality toward my hosts, and I was converted kneeling at the communion rail after receiving the sacrament, and I went home very joyful. I must also admit that at this time I did not have an understanding of sacraments or the relationship between baptism and the eucharist. I just knew as I received that bread in that moment, in my own theologically naive way at the time, that I was somehow receiving God into myself. It occurred to me in a flash like lightning. This is part of why I consider Methodist eucharists to be valid, though as an Anglican I don't speculate much on valid verses non-valid sacraments.
The only reservation I have about receiving in Methodists contexts is that I am not sure that most Methodists believe in the real presence anymore, and I am horrified by how the remains of the sacrament may be treated after the service. Again, it's not a hard and fast rule. I obviously received the benefit of conversion in the context of a Methodist communion service and decided thereafter to receive baptism in an Episcopal Church. And I know the scriptures do not pronounce on how to dispose of the sacrament. Furthermore how the ministers and others dispose of the sacrament is on their conscience, not mine. I don't have any control over that. But my gut just wrenches at throwing the remainder of the elements into the trash or out into the grass. This strikes me as unseemly even in a memorialist context. If the sacrament is not reserved I feel that it should be consumed in its entirety, and if it is reserved, it should be with the intent of eventually consuming it in a dignified manner.
I am not sure how universal the practices are in regard to disposing of the elements in the Anglican world. I would like to hear about this practice from the more Protestant inclined Continuing Anglicans as well. I know that in my parish and indeed every Episcopal parish I've visited there are special sinks for washing the communion cups in which the water flows into the earth instead of the sewer.
I'd also like to hear about your own guidelines in receiving the Eucharist in non-Anglican contexts. Do you have any?
I also tend to only receive sacraments and sacramental rites from clergy or bishops within the apostolic succession. Unlike some, and I am welcome to correction on this point in case I may be wrong, I do tend to think that presbyteral succession as received by the Presbyterians and Methodists is a primitive and valid mode of the ancient succession. This is not a hard and fast rule for me. But I tend to think of the succession as a safeguard, and receiving the sacrament in these contexts means that I am receiving in the context of a community that professes the real presence. Again, this is not a hard and fast rule for me, so I cannot say what I would do in every situation, but I avoid receiving the sacrament in contexts that deny the real presence such as memorialism, and I prefer to receive from clergy ordained by bishops within the succession or at least a presbyteral succession.
I have never received communion in a Presbyterian context, and I am not a fan of Calvinism (though I understand Presbyterians have come a long way in 500 years and these doctrines are not always binding on me in order to receive the sacrament), but I have felt welcomed in Methodist contexts and received there. In fact, it was a Methodist eucharist received in a very Anglican style that was the pivotal turning point for me in my conversion to Christianity. I have to admit that I was not baptized when I was receiving. I was welcomed, I received the welcome as a gesture of hospitality toward my hosts, and I was converted kneeling at the communion rail after receiving the sacrament, and I went home very joyful. I must also admit that at this time I did not have an understanding of sacraments or the relationship between baptism and the eucharist. I just knew as I received that bread in that moment, in my own theologically naive way at the time, that I was somehow receiving God into myself. It occurred to me in a flash like lightning. This is part of why I consider Methodist eucharists to be valid, though as an Anglican I don't speculate much on valid verses non-valid sacraments.
The only reservation I have about receiving in Methodists contexts is that I am not sure that most Methodists believe in the real presence anymore, and I am horrified by how the remains of the sacrament may be treated after the service. Again, it's not a hard and fast rule. I obviously received the benefit of conversion in the context of a Methodist communion service and decided thereafter to receive baptism in an Episcopal Church. And I know the scriptures do not pronounce on how to dispose of the sacrament. Furthermore how the ministers and others dispose of the sacrament is on their conscience, not mine. I don't have any control over that. But my gut just wrenches at throwing the remainder of the elements into the trash or out into the grass. This strikes me as unseemly even in a memorialist context. If the sacrament is not reserved I feel that it should be consumed in its entirety, and if it is reserved, it should be with the intent of eventually consuming it in a dignified manner.
I am not sure how universal the practices are in regard to disposing of the elements in the Anglican world. I would like to hear about this practice from the more Protestant inclined Continuing Anglicans as well. I know that in my parish and indeed every Episcopal parish I've visited there are special sinks for washing the communion cups in which the water flows into the earth instead of the sewer.
I'd also like to hear about your own guidelines in receiving the Eucharist in non-Anglican contexts. Do you have any?