1st Open communion within Anglicanism & 2nd...

Tigger45

Romans 12:2…be transformed…
Supporter
Aug 24, 2012
20,713
13,149
E. Eden
✟1,264,086.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
#1. I would like to hear the Anglican perspective behind practicing open communion &

#2. By extension how uniformed were doctrines taught and enforced within ‘o’rthodox Christianity both East and west.
 

seeking.IAM

Episcopalian
Supporter
Feb 29, 2004
4,235
4,910
Indiana
✟931,189.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I will speak for one Anglican - me. My perspective is Christ wanted his Church to be one. That pretty much ices it for me. I think that means that all baptized Christians should be welcome at each other's table. Unlike some Christian groups, I don't think that means we have to be one under one ecclesiastical body. I interpret closed communion groups to be saying or implying, "You're not the right kind of Christian...you don't have the right understanding...or you're not Christian enough." That is the true barrier to our being one, in my opinion.

I will let others answer the second question. I will say add this, though. When I decided to change to a more historical, liturgical, and traditional mode of worship, the Anglican open table was my deciding factor. I had a strong flirtation with Orthodoxy, but I could not get past their closed communion, nor could I Roman Catholics', or LCMS'. Becoming Anglican seemed to be the best choice of what was available to me. That's how strongly I feel about open communion.
 
Upvote 0

archer75

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 16, 2016
5,930
4,649
USA
✟253,749.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Obviously I can mostly only watch this thread, but I wanted to ask if the OP could say a little more about the connection between parts 1 and 2 of the post? Is part 2 about addressing a concern that intercommunion should happen only if the faith is "the same" between the two Christian bodies represented?
 
Upvote 0

Tigger45

Romans 12:2…be transformed…
Supporter
Aug 24, 2012
20,713
13,149
E. Eden
✟1,264,086.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
Obviously I can mostly only watch this thread, but I wanted to ask if the OP could say a little more about the connection between parts 1 and 2 of the post? Is part 2 about addressing a concern that intercommunion should happen only if the faith is "the same" between the two Christian bodies represented?
Yes but the focus of my questions is how close do the doctrines have to be to qualify for fellowship? Just as an example there are confessional Lutherans who agree all essential doctrines for salvation yet disagree on a few non-essential doctrines and are out of fellowship with each other.
 
Upvote 0

PloverWing

Episcopalian
May 5, 2012
4,338
5,024
New Jersey
✟332,494.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
#1. I would like to hear the Anglican perspective behind practicing open communion

Do you mean "how open is communion" or "why is communion open"? I'll try to answer both, from the point of view of the Episcopal Church in the US.

If it's "how open is communion": BCP itself does not state a policy, as far as I can tell. The most common official policy that I've seen is that all baptized Christians may receive communion in an Episcopal church. The second most common policy I've seen is that all persons who wish to may receive communion (regardless of whether they've been baptized). The BCP does provide for withholding the sacrament in disciplinary situations, but I think that's rare; I've never seen it exercised.

If it's "why is communion open": seeking.IAM summarizes it pretty well. My previous rector used to include this sentence in his invitation to the altar: "This is the Lord's Table, not the Episcopal Church's, and everyone is welcome at his feast."
 
Upvote 0

Tigger45

Romans 12:2…be transformed…
Supporter
Aug 24, 2012
20,713
13,149
E. Eden
✟1,264,086.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
Do you mean "how open is communion" or "why is communion open"? I'll try to answer both, from the point of view of the Episcopal Church in the US.

If it's "how open is communion": BCP itself does not state a policy, as far as I can tell. The most common official policy that I've seen is that all baptized Christians may receive communion in an Episcopal church. The second most common policy I've seen is that all persons who wish to may receive communion (regardless of whether they've been baptized). The BCP does provide for withholding the sacrament in disciplinary situations, but I think that's rare; I've never seen it exercised.

If it's "why is communion open": seeking.IAM summarizes it pretty well. My previous rector used to include this sentence in his invitation to the altar: "This is the Lord's Table, not the Episcopal Church's, and everyone is welcome at his feast."
Right, at our local Episcopal cathedral the Rector makes the same statement only adding “all baptized Christians” and the Rector at the ACNA parish includes “baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit”. I guess the most important part of my OP is to what degree did the first and second century Christians hold as a criteria for communion fellowship.
 
Upvote 0

PloverWing

Episcopalian
May 5, 2012
4,338
5,024
New Jersey
✟332,494.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Yes but the focus of my questions is how close do the doctrines have to be to qualify for fellowship? Just as an example there are confessional Lutherans who agree all essential doctrines for salvation yet disagree on a few non-essential doctrines and are out of fellowship with each other.

If you're asking about "communion" in the sense of two denominational groups being in communion with each other (so that, e.g., clergy from one denomination can serve in churches of the other denomination), that's going to be more restricted. The Lambeth Quadrilateral is a good starting point here. As summarized in the Wikipedia article:
  1. The Holy Scriptures, as containing all things necessary to salvation;
  2. The creeds (specifically, the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds), as the sufficient statement of Christian faith;
  3. The dominical sacraments of baptism and Holy Communion;
  4. The historic episcopate, locally adapted.
Most Christian groups value the Scriptures, the two listed creeds, and the two listed sacraments. Points of contention tend to be that some other groups want a lengthier list of creeds or confessions (we don't want to require any other creeds), and that many Christian groups don't try to preserve apostolic succession (which is important to us). If there was a policy in one group that barred recognition of the other group's clergy -- for example, if a group did not recognize our female Episcopal priests as being validly ordained -- then that would be a problem as well, due to the nature of what intercommunion is trying to achieve. An intercommunion agreement was negotiated with the ELCA some decades back, and I think talks are underway with the Methodists.
 
Upvote 0

PloverWing

Episcopalian
May 5, 2012
4,338
5,024
New Jersey
✟332,494.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I guess the most important part of my OP is to what degree did the first and second century Christians hold as a criteria for communion fellowship.

The early church's doctrinal requirements for communion is one area of church history I haven't studied, so I defer to the expertise of other STR members with a better command of early church history.
 
  • Useful
Reactions: Tigger45
Upvote 0

Tigger45

Romans 12:2…be transformed…
Supporter
Aug 24, 2012
20,713
13,149
E. Eden
✟1,264,086.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
If you're asking about "communion" in the sense of two denominational groups being in communion with each other (so that, e.g., clergy from one denomination can serve in churches of the other denomination), that's going to be more restricted. The Lambeth Quadrilateral is a good starting point here. As summarized in the Wikipedia article:
  1. The Holy Scriptures, as containing all things necessary to salvation;
  2. The creeds (specifically, the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds), as the sufficient statement of Christian faith;
  3. The dominical sacraments of baptism and Holy Communion;
  4. The historic episcopate, locally adapted.
Most Christian groups value the Scriptures, the two listed creeds, and the two listed sacraments. Points of contention tend to be that some other groups want a lengthier list of creeds or confessions (we don't want to require any other creeds), and that many Christian groups don't try to preserve apostolic succession (which is important to us). If there was a policy in one group that barred recognition of the other group's clergy -- for example, if a group did not recognize our female Episcopal priests as being validly ordained -- then that would be a problem as well, due to the nature of what intercommunion is trying to achieve. An intercommunion agreement was negotiated with the ELCA some decades back, and I think talks are underway with the Methodists.
Thanks, what you say about corporate or institutional interdenominational fellowship is true but for clarity of this discussion I was referring to individual non-members communing at an Anglican/Episcopal parish due to (I believe) the concept of denominations didn’t exist in the first two centuries of the church. Either you were an orthodox Christian or a heretic. I’m open to correction.
 
Upvote 0

Julian of Norwich

English Catholic
Nov 10, 2018
485
365
Pacific Northwest
✟81,981.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Thanks, what you say about corporate or institutional interdenominational fellowship is true but for clarity of this discussion I was referring to individual non-members communing at an Anglican/Episcopal parish due to (I believe) the concept of denominations didn’t exist in the first two centuries of the church. Either you were an orthodox Christian or a heretic. I’m open to correction.

From what reading I've done on the very early Christian Church practices about open/closed Communion, as long as you were a baptized Christian you were allowed at the Eucharist, but they were very against the non-baptized communing, even to sending them out of the room (or even the little church bldg). I may not have read enough tho'.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tigger45
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Shane R

Priest
Supporter
Jan 18, 2012
2,276
1,097
Southeast Ohio
✟535,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Widowed
Communion is not always so open. The BCP has a rubric exhorting that communion be restricted to those who have been confirmed or are waiting to be confirmed. Some people take that to an extreme (cough cough, ahem, the local ACC priest who will not commune me - a fellow priest).
 
  • Informative
Reactions: anna ~ grace
Upvote 0

Julian of Norwich

English Catholic
Nov 10, 2018
485
365
Pacific Northwest
✟81,981.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Communion is not always so open. The BCP has a rubric exhorting that communion be restricted to those who have been confirmed or are waiting to be confirmed. Some people take that to an extreme (cough cough, ahem, the local ACC priest who will not commune me - a fellow priest).

That is unbelievable!

I have read that rubric and I must admit, it's always bothered me. Thankfully, after my baptism, the priest/rector never enforced it with me and then I was confirmed not long after.
 
Upvote 0

PloverWing

Episcopalian
May 5, 2012
4,338
5,024
New Jersey
✟332,494.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Communion is not always so open. The BCP has a rubric exhorting that communion be restricted to those who have been confirmed or are waiting to be confirmed. Some people take that to an extreme (cough cough, ahem, the local ACC priest who will not commune me - a fellow priest).

Was that the case in the Episcopal Church before the 1979 BCP was introduced? If so, that's a huge policy shift in 1979; I can see why feelings would have been strong on one side or the other.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Right, at our local Episcopal cathedral the Rector makes the same statement only adding “all baptized Christians” and the Rector at the ACNA parish includes “baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit”. I guess the most important part of my OP is to what degree did the first and second century Christians hold as a criteria for communion fellowship.
The first and second century Christians were strict. As Eastern Orthodox Christians know (because vestiges of it remain in their Divine Liturgy), even people who had accepted the Lord, were attending church services, and were studying to be baptized were barred from receiving Communion AND even remaining in the nave for that part of the service.

As for the basic question concerning visitors, the policy is very nearly the same whether we're talking about TEC, ACNA, or most of the Continuing Anglican churches--all baptized Christians invited to commune. Some priests announce the policy during the service, sometimes it's only printed out in the bulletin, and, sometimes it's the policy but there is no announcement.
 
Upvote 0

Tigger45

Romans 12:2…be transformed…
Supporter
Aug 24, 2012
20,713
13,149
E. Eden
✟1,264,086.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
The first and second century Christians were strict. As Eastern Orthodox Christians know (because vestiges of it remain in their Divine Liturgy), even people who had accepted the Lord, were attending church services, and were studying to be baptized were barred from receiving Communion AND even remaining in the nave for that part of the service.

As for the basic question concerning visitors, the policy is very nearly the same whether we're talking about TEC, ACNA, or most of the Continuing Anglican churches--all baptized Christians invited to commune. Some priests announce the policy during the service, sometimes it's only printed out in the bulletin, and, sometimes it's the policy but there is no announcement.
Ah yes thanks. At our local Antiochian parish there is a point in the liturgy for the catechumens to depart and the deacon will call out "The doors, the doors". But this parish doesn't enforce this.

So I know Anglicans honor tradition when appropriate so I'm guessing they use scriptural references to support a more open communion practice?
 
  • Useful
Reactions: anna ~ grace
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Ah yes thanks. At our local Antiochian parish there is a point in the liturgy for the catechumens to depart and the deacon will call out "The doors, the doors". But this parish doesn't enforce this.

So I know Anglicans honor tradition when appropriate so I'm guessing they use scriptural references to support a more open communion practice?
We're tradition-minded, yes, but kicking people out of the church building when the Offertory starts isn't exactly an historic standard of the Christian faith. It's one of those practices (among many) that the Christian churches once observed but which never are observed anymore and which might be called reverent or something else like that but really serve no obvious purpose.

But the real answer to your question lies with understanding what Baptism means. It is the sacrament by which one becomes a member of Christ's church (among other things). That being so, it is easily seen to be the requirement for reception of the sacrament which we understand to be an experience of and emblem of Christian unity and love.

That said, for the past decade, efforts have been made to change the policy in TEC to one in which anybody who wants to commune is eligible to do so. Some parishes already do this. But for those Anglicans opposed to this change (which will come up again at the next General Convention), it upends the logic which has recommended open communion AMONG Christians, i.e. people who have received the initiation sacrament of the Church universal, irrespective of denomination.
 
Upvote 0

Mary of Bethany

Only one thing is needful.
Supporter
Jul 8, 2004
7,541
1,081
✟341,456.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Ah yes thanks. At our local Antiochian parish there is a point in the liturgy for the catechumens to depart and the deacon will call out "The doors, the doors". But this parish doesn't enforce this.

So I know Anglicans honor tradition when appropriate so I'm guessing they use scriptural references to support a more open communion practice?

No parish enforces this, as it is kept in the Liturgy as a reminder of the days of spies and persecutions, which is the context in which it began.
 
Upvote 0

Tom8907

Active Member
Feb 3, 2020
59
56
London
✟12,057.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Engaged
#1. I would like to hear the Anglican perspective behind practicing open communion &

#2. By extension how uniformed were doctrines taught and enforced within ‘o’rthodox Christianity both East and west.
Sorry but I can only answer #1, I am very pro open communion as all brothers and sisters in Christ should partake. Now by open I assume they believe in the trinity, that Jesus is god in the flesh, Jesus died for our sins and rose on the third dat and all the other core tenants of faith.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tigger45

Romans 12:2…be transformed…
Supporter
Aug 24, 2012
20,713
13,149
E. Eden
✟1,264,086.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
Sorry but I can only answer #1, I am very pro open communion as all brothers and sisters in Christ should partake. Now by open I assume they believe in the trinity, that Jesus is god in the flesh, Jesus died for our sins and rose on the third dat and all the other core tenants of faith.
Right, either they acknowledge the Apostel's and/or Nicene creeds and are baptized as Albion added.
 
Upvote 0