Can Episcopalians Receive Communion In Other Churches

[sbvd]

Well, some Lutherans also have closed communion, so the principle is the same.

The main issue with other Protestants is whether or not the Anglican visitor is willing to accept their Eucharistic theology.

Anglicans are apostolic and sacramental, whereas many Protestants are not. So should we receive in a church that insists that the Eucharist is merely symbolic? In doing so, are we saying that we are assenting to that interpretation, or giving the impression we are assenting? Or are we giving the impression or saying that the priesthood is not actually required for the sacrament?

Well, I know next to nothing about Lutherans.

However, RC do understand that communion is an implicit assenting of doctrine.

 

[ebia]

It's a judgement we all have to make if and when the situation arises - do we accept the gracious invitation of the local congregation or observe the prohibition from further up their heirarchy. I wouldn't have phrased things quite the way Mark has. It is a judgement call either way and carrying on as though no rational person could come to a different conclusion is not very persuasive. Mark and I have come to one judgement on that tension, Gurney and yourself to the other. Shouting people down either way is not going to help.

 

[ebia]

Well, I know next to nothing about Lutherans.

However, RC do understand that communion is an implicit assenting of doctrine.

Well, the RCC heirarchy sees it that way. Or chooses to try to see it that way.

 

[MKJ]

Jesus welcomes his followers to HIS table of plenty. So, we as Anglicans (usually) are an open church and welcome all Christians to HIS table. Not all Anglican churches are open, but the vast majority are.
==========

THE QUESTION BEFORE US - ATTENDING OTHER PROTESTANT CHURCHES

I have a simple attitude. If I am attending another Anglican church, I would PRESUME that I was welcome to attend and to receive.

If I attend a local church of another denomination, I am a guest of whoever I am attending with. They understand the policy of their local church. I have no need to understand their national or international organization with its rules; I have made no pledge to abide by such rules. For example, if I were to attend a UMC church, I would abide by whatever the custom was at the local church. Either I am welcome to receive or I am not. The only decision I have is whether to accept or reject the hand of fellowhip if it offered.

Gurney can choose to reject the policies of the local church in favor of his personal understanding of the national or international church body. That is his personal choice. I find it presumtuous to reject an invitation bcause I don't think the Councill of Bishops, opr other national body, would think it proper.

Personally, for example, I would not even consider refusing to accept communion if it were offered at a funeral or wedding. I find that approach downright rude. Almost everyone understands such situations and go out of their way to be welcoming at such times.

The question has been asked with regard what it means to accept communion from someone we don't recognize the process as sacramental.
Many here seem to think that it wrong to accept communion with Christians who wish to commemorate the sacrifice of Jesus. If such an acceptance were required, I guess many here wouldn't receive in Naomi's church.

My BOTTOM LINE is that communion is the LORD'S TABLE, not the church's table. I find it strange to be invited over for fellowship and prayer, and then refuse to join them in the Feast of our Lord.

As far as I know, there is no Anglican rule that prohibits anyone from accepting communion in any other Protestant church.

And just BTW, I had the same attitude when I was attending the RCC. I explained that when I attended a Baptist or non-denominational service, I was attending a prayer service, bible study, with praise and worship. No one ever had any issues with this. And yes, at charismatic conferences, we did indeed have Presbyterians, Catholics, Anglicans and others all receiving at the same table. It was a bit awkward, but it was important for all of us to share the meal at the same table.
===================
JUST PERHAPS
we need to understand why we are Protestant in the first place, and not RCC, OO or EO. We recognize no pope with authority over us, and no patriarch with power over us. We recognize the authority of the local church. And, yes, we are one of the Protestant churches that recognize the authority of bishops.

If accepting communion at other churches is central to Anglicanism, we're in trouble, since we haven't always had open communion.

And the fact that there is no rule saying we can't does not mean that we shouldn't discern about something. It could be said it means a lot more discernment is required since we have to actually think about it. Has Communion really been reduced to "I think you're nice and God loves us both?" This is the sacrament that the unbaptised had to leave the Church before it began!

I wouldn't receive at a Catholic Church if invited. in the same way I wouldn't accept their invitation to take home the silver - it isn't there's to make. That's the way their organization works. And just because a silly priest invites you doesn't mean that it isn't going to upset or scandalize any of the Catholic parishioners.

 

[ebia]

I'm not so sure it's anyone wanting to back anything up but rather just basic respect. I went in Buddhist temples in Thailand, many in fact. In each one I was asked to take off my shoes. I don't believe in Buddhism, but out of respect, I took them off.

That's not quite the same as when there is a tension between the local invitation and the heirarchical canon law, though. Is it? Both are things that should be respected and the judgment call comes in because the two are in tension.

 

[sbvd]

It's a judgement we all have to make if and when the situation arises - do we accept the gracious invitation of the local congregation or observe the prohibition from further up their heirarchy. I wouldn't have phrased things quite the way Mark has. It is a judgement call either way and carrying on as though no rational person could come to a different conclusion is not very persuasive. Mark and I have come to one judgement on that tension, Gurney and yourself to the other. Shouting people down either way is not going to help.

I am not shouting anybody down.

 

[ebia]

I am not shouting anybody down.

For some reason your font does look a bit like shouting. But the phrase was general and hyperbolic.

 

[MKJ]

For some reason your font does look a bit like shouting. But the phrase was general and hyperbolic.

Those tall fonts always look loud.

 

[mark46]

You are correct. There is not reason to necessarily refer to gurney each time. However, it is seems reasonable to use labels and shortcuts in defining a position. I was indeed posting in response to gurney's opinion. I had no intention to suggest that it was unreasonable or even unacceptable. I often indicated "for me" in the post, indicating what my opinion was.

God does not put a special label on me because I attend an Anglican church and have not received communion in a Catholic church for over a year. But then, that is just MY personal opinion.

And once more we see that it always comes back to Gurney. No matter what anyone else says, believes, or does, it's all about Gurney and his personal choice.

LOL.

A local Catholic parish IS UNDER AUTHORITY, whether you recognize it or not. If they offer to do something that 1) you know they're not supposed to offer, and 2) you know you're not supposed to do, it doesn't take a genius to realize that "no" is the correct response. When I say this or others say it, we are ignored. When Gurney says it, he is singled out. Again.



Rome doesn't see the local church as quite so high an authority as "we" do, so it is appropriate to follow Rome's wishes when we are GUESTS in their church. But hey - what do I know. And besides, since it's Gurney's "personal choice" to believe it, it must be wrong on STR. Sigh.

 

[PaladinValer]

I'm not so sure it's anyone wanting to back anything up but rather just basic respect. I went in Buddhist temples in Thailand, many in fact. In each one I was asked to take off my shoes. I don't believe in Buddhism, but out of respect, I took them off. I have been visiting Orthodox divine liturgies now for a couple of months. I never tried to sneak up for communion or feel entitled to it. My wife and I are looking into chrismation. It's a real possibility. But never would I take up the priest on it if he offered (which, thankfully, he would not! ). It's not so much that one endorses the other religion, just respects the rules as a guest and not a full member.

What part of my post did you actually read? Here it is again; note the bold:

"We can receive...the question is rather, will they let us if they know we are Anglicans?

Oddly enough, it depends. Back in college, I was a part of Newman as well as Canterbury. Out of respect, I never received Holy Communion, although the priest and the director of Newman were very generous. One time the priest actually recalled my bishop at the time since the homily was on our bishops. I was very humbled. The priest vaguely told me I would be allowed to receive, but I respectfully declined. All three of us got along great.

I generally follow this rule but there is one exception: if there is a death in the family and the Requiem is at a Roman Catholic parish, I have no qualms in receiving. My family considers me in communion with them and are completely supportive of my spiritual journey and choice of church. It, to me, would be an affront to them and to God if I didn't receive."

Retract your indirect accusation; it was absolutely unfounded.