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

[seeking.IAM]

...In Australia, a canon has been passed to allow baptised children who are not ready to be confirmed, but who are old enough to have some understanding and express desire to receive communion, to do so...I admit to mixed feelings about it, though...

Do you as a priest have some latitude to decide who you will and won't commune, children included?

 

[Paidiske]

Do you as a priest have some latitude to decide who you will and won't commune, children included?

Not an awful lot. I would need a very solid reason to refuse someone communion (assuming they've been baptised), and I think - I'd have to check - I'm supposed to discuss that with the bishop before doing so.

I could discourage a child I didn't think was ready from being admitted to communion, though. It's more difficult when they've already been admitted by someone else, because then you're denying something that has been given, if that makes sense?

 

[Padres1969]

#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.

#1, as others have said above likely better, but if you're Christian and baptized why shouldn't you be welcome at the lord's table? The Church is one, even if humans have mucked it up. That said I'm coming at this from the perspective of my particular cathedral which takes the open in communion to its most open edge. The following passage is said at during the Invitation to the communion table:

This is the table, not of the church but of Jesus Christ. It is made ready for those who love him and who want to love him more. So come, you who have much faith and you who have little; you who have been here often and you who have not been for a long time or ever before; you who have tried to follow and you who have failed; come, not because the Church invites you; it is Christ, and he invites you to meet him here.

#2 Not sure the doctrines were ever totally unified between east and west.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

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.

My parish does have the catechumens leave during the pre-sanctified liturgy. We have a small chapel that seats around 20-25 people that we use for lightly attended services. So during Lent, anyone who is getting ready for a Paschal chrismation, will stand out in the hall right next to the chapel. It's only for 20 minutes or so, but it gives that sense of "illumination" come Pascha.

 

[Tigger45]

#1, as others have said above likely better, but if you're Christian and baptized why shouldn't you be welcome at the lord's table? The Church is one, even if humans have mucked it up. That said I'm coming at this from the perspective of my particular cathedral which takes the open in communion to its most open edge. The following passage is said at during the Invitation to the communion table:

This is the table, not of the church but of Jesus Christ. It is made ready for those who love him and who want to love him more. So come, you who have much faith and you who have little; you who have been here often and you who have not been for a long time or ever before; you who have tried to follow and you who have failed; come, not because the Church invites you; it is Christ, and he invites you to meet him here.

#2 Not sure the doctrines were ever totally unified between east and west.

Yeah, our local Episcopal cathedral makes the announcement that 'this' isn't our table but the Lord's and all baptized Christians currently walking with the Lord are invited to comume. (This is my preferred stance).

The local LCMC church's table is open to all who feel drawn. They especially announce this during the bigger services like Christmas and Easter. (I'm not liking this a bit and am currently looking for another church membership).

 

[mark46]

I guess the rules are

1) Jesus draws people to a church and to communion.

2) People come and are drawn to receive.

3) Men and women make rules with regard to who is acceptable to receive Jesus at THEIR church and at their Table.

 

[Padres1969]

I guess the rules are

1) Jesus draws people to a church and to communion.

2) People come and are drawn to receive.

3) Men and women make rules with regard to who is acceptable to receive Jesus at THEIR church and at their Table.

Pretty much. That's why I'm ok with my cathedral's probably overly open communion. I get the closed protective measures some churches use as that's been a precedent in Christian churches for centuries. Anglicans view Christ as being present in some form (your type of presence may vary thanks to Anglicanism in general) in the Eucharist. But at the same time, I don't believe Christ needs our protecting. He's the son of God and God himself who was crucified at the hands of the Romans and resurrected from the dead... He's stronger than anything we can do.

Obviously the historical view is that someone should be baptized to receive, but at the same time if Christ moves people enough to draw them to his table to receive him, who are any of us mere mortals to keep them from receiving Christ and however that may move them closer to Christ. To me that's really between them and Christ. And it's a symbol of communion with the Universal Church in most's view anyway, someone seeking that communion IMO would be welcome too (same could be said of the narrower communion with the denomination view).

 

[Sean611]

Historically, part of the reason for allowing communion before confirmation was that, in some places, episcopal visits might be few and far between; someone ready to be confirmed might wait years for the opportunity. This is seldom the case now, but the precedent remains.

In Australia, a canon has been passed to allow baptised children who are not ready to be confirmed, but who are old enough to have some understanding and express desire to receive communion, to do so. My own daughter receives communion on that basis (at nine years old). I admit to mixed feelings about it, though, as I have seen the intent of the canon misused to allow even babies and toddlers to commune.

Thank you for your reply. I share some of your concerns in that regard. I find that the problem with taking a more lax approach to communion often leads to misuse and all sorts of other justifications like you just described.

When I was Episcopalian (TEC), the rule of thumb for my parish was baptism and belief in the Real Presence. It seems that in many Episcopal parishes today (if they require baptism), it is normal to invite all baptized Christians to receive communion. I guess what is concerning is that someone from another Christian faith tradition might completely and totally reject the Real Presence and still receive the bread and the wine without any warning whatsoever. Now, to be fair, I am sure there are plenty of people who are confirmed Anglicans/Episcopalians who do not believe in the Real Presence and receive the elements regardless, but is it not the duty of the church to at least communicate this warning of receiving the elements in an unworthy manner? Is it not the priest's responsibility to protect the flock from themselves? (with at least a warning)

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

It definitely would be nice if we treated our disagreements like theological schools (eg) Franciscans versus Dominicans, ect. The church has always been composed of doctrinal variety. It was the main reason why I became Catholic in 2011. The Pope represented for me, the unity of the Church in diversity. You could live in Bolivia or Sweden, and still be Catholic. Also at that time, JP2 and Benedict whom I had grown up with were trying their best to incorporate both the EO and Lutherans. If we joined Rome, our theology would come with us. But it was not to be. Now with Francis, I am afraid that the Church at Rome will suffer a conservative backlash in the image of Church Militant.
If we all practiced open communion, then I wouldn't be in the fix I am now, trying to discern between churches.

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.

 

[LizaMarie]

It definitely would be nice if we treated our disagreements like theological schools (eg) Franciscans versus Dominicans, ect. The church has always been composed of doctrinal variety. It was the main reason why I became Catholic in 2011. The Pope represented for me, the unity of the Church in diversity. You could live in Bolivia or Sweden, and still be Catholic. Also at that time, JP2 and Benedict whom I had grown up with were trying their best to incorporate both the EO and Lutherans. If we joined Rome, our theology would come with us. But it was not to be. Now with Francis, I am afraid that the Church at Rome will suffer a conservative backlash in the image of Church Militant.
If we all practiced open communion, then I wouldn't be in the fix I am now, trying to discern between churches.

There is much to like about the Anglican Church. I have grown up and love being Lutheran but I believe in Apostolic Succession and I believe my WELS church does not have it(unless some say our District Presidents serve as Bishops and we do lay on hands to ordain pastors) I used to be ELCA, I will say I favor open communion, at least for all Baptized Christians but I respect and understand closed communion. It has caused tension in our family when they visit our church(My husband comes from a Baptist/Pentecostal background) Also I love JP2 and Pope Benedict. At one time many years ago my husband and I looked at the RCC but never swam the Tiber(my husband has a previous marriage and the annulment issue became intimidating but that's another thread.) I have also felt drawn to the EO as well but still discerning. May I ask why you left the RCC? If you'd rather not discuss it I understand.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

I'll pm you shortly.

There is much to like about the Anglican Church. I have grown up and love being Lutheran but I believe in Apostolic Succession and I believe my WELS church does not have it(unless some say our District Presidents serve as Bishops and we do lay on hands to ordain pastors) I used to be ELCA, I will say I favor open communion, at least for all Baptized Christians but I respect and understand closed communion. It has caused tension in our family when they visit our church(My husband comes from a Baptist/Pentecostal background) Also I love JP2 and Pope Benedict. At one time many years ago my husband and I looked at the RCC but never swam the Tiber(my husband has a previous marriage and the annulment issue became intimidating but that's another thread.) I have also felt drawn to the EO as well but still discerning. May I ask why you left the RCC? If you'd rather not discuss it I understand.

 

[The Liturgist]

Not an awful lot. I would need a very solid reason to refuse someone communion (assuming they've been baptised), and I think - I'd have to check - I'm supposed to discuss that with the bishop before doing so.

I could discourage a child I didn't think was ready from being admitted to communion, though. It's more difficult when they've already been admitted by someone else, because then you're denying something that has been given, if that makes sense?

So I take it giving communion to infants isn’t a thing in Anglicanism?

I think I was probably 4 when I first had communion.

 

[The Liturgist]

Baptism of desire is just what I've been looking for as far as salvation. That's the main reason I've asked each of them every year if they want to be baptized. They used to say they weren't sure or whatever, but this year each of them said yes - Yay!

But I still think they should wait until water baptism to receive Eucharist. Otherwise it's devaluing the Eucharist and I want them to be thoroughly aware of what the Eucharist is.

Out of curiosity, is parental consent required for baptism of minors in the Anglican communion? And what defines the age of majority? Since historically in Britain at the time of the founding of the Church of England, children who were not very small, unfortunately, tended to be treated like adults (consider the tragedy of child soldiers such as drummer boys in the British Army, and in the Royal Navy, “powder monkeys” as young as seven, and midshipmen typically starting their careers between the age of 11 and 12. So I would assume any canon requiring parental consent for young people below 18 or 16 years of age, would be recent. I myself am morally perplexed by the possibility of a child presenting themselves for baptism. It is not something that had occurred to me, although I have seen grandparents take charge of the religious upbringing of their children when the parents are disinterested in it, such as arranging baptism, confirmation and so on.

 

[Shane R]

So I take it giving communion to infants isn’t a thing in Anglicanism?

I think I was probably 4 when I first had communion.

Paedocommunion is indicative of churchmanship, mostly. I have seen some folks who are growing their broad church parishes primarily by births find theological reasons to practice paedocommunion.

It's permitted but not a norm in my Church.

 

[The Liturgist]

Paedocommunion is indicative of churchmanship, mostly. I have seen some folks who are growing their broad church parishes primarily by births find theological reasons to practice paedocommunion.

I myself like it, but I suppose this is to be expected given that I was a toddler in preschool when I first received communion (my guess that I was 4 is just a guess; I can’t recall the first time I specifically partook), and my experience as an Anglican was in a broad church parish, and also the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox do it, and whatever they do I tend to like. However, I completely respect the Roman Rite concept of First Communion and understand how this was a very special spiritual experience for many people, which they might wish to liturgically pass on to the youth.

 

[Paidiske]

So I take it giving communion to infants isn’t a thing in Anglicanism?

I have seen it done, but it is not in keeping with the canons in Australia, at least. I am not sure about law and practice elsewhere.

Out of curiosity, is parental consent required for baptism of minors in the Anglican communion? And what defines the age of majority?...I myself am morally perplexed by the possibility of a child presenting themselves for baptism.

This is a great big grey area with lots of red flags in it. Technically, there is no canon law requirement (that I am aware of) for parental consent. However, in our social context, to do anything with a child, without a parent's consent, in church, would be a huge problem given the whole legacy of clergy abuse etc etc. I have been advised never to baptise a minor without a parent or guardian's consent. If a child had reached the age where they were able to make their own medical decisions, live out of home, etc, one might make an exception, but even then I would think very carefully about it.

I have known a child as young as eleven, who attended church with her grandmother (and was being fostered by her grandmother due to issues in the family), to ask for baptism on her own initiative. We had to decline, not least because the conditions of foster care did not allow her grandmother to give permission for such a thing, and her parents would/could not.

 

[Tigger45]

The local ACNA rector communes their babies which is the first time I’d seen that outside of the E.O.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

The local ACNA rector communes their babies which is the first time I’d seen that outside of the E.O.

What is the ACNA?

 

[Tigger45]

What is the ACNA?

Anglican Church of North America

 

[The Liturgist]

I have seen it done, but it is not in keeping with the canons in Australia, at least. I am not sure about law and practice elsewhere.



This is a great big grey area with lots of red flags in it. Technically, there is no canon law requirement (that I am aware of) for parental consent. However, in our social context, to do anything with a child, without a parent's consent, in church, would be a huge problem given the whole legacy of clergy abuse etc etc. I have been advised never to baptise a minor without a parent or guardian's consent. If a child had reached the age where they were able to make their own medical decisions, live out of home, etc, one might make an exception, but even then I would think very carefully about it.

I have known a child as young as eleven, who attended church with her grandmother (and was being fostered by her grandmother due to issues in the family), to ask for baptism on her own initiative. We had to decline, not least because the conditions of foster care did not allow her grandmother to give permission for such a thing, and her parents would/could not.

I am pretty sure on reflection that I would baptize. Of course, the US has the first amendment, and does not have the highly negative perception of clergy that exists in Australia due to the abuse scandals in the Roman Catholic Church...the abuse that occurred is regarded as a Roman Catholic problem. There is no possible way I could get prosecuted for baptizing a eleven year old child who requested it, but I would make sure to have other people with me in the church. On the other hand, I don’t think I could baptize an eleven year old who objected to baptism that the parents desired, but I would attempt to persuade them (probably using Pascal’s Wager).