Closed communion

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Agreed. I allow only a few exceptions, one of which I noted and I would agree with Ebia's as well.



I understand the women's ordination, although I gotta say that Anglicanism isn't open communion per se. We require people to be actual members of the Holy Church, which means to be baptized. A Non-denominational 35 year old who was never baptized cannot receive but a 7 year old Oriental Orthodox child may.

Personally, I would also suggest that those who do not agree with Real Presence theology to seriously consider whether to come forth to receive also. Either way, I'd say we practice limited communion, not open communion.

I don't have a problem with limiting it to baptized believers, only with limiting it to members of a particular denomination or tradition.

I do agree with Real Presence, though not in the RC way, i.e., not transubstantiation but holy mystery.

 

[PaladinValer]

I don't have a problem with limiting it to baptized believers, only with limiting it to members of a particular denomination or tradition.

I fully agree!

I do agree with Real Presence, though not in the RC way, i.e., not transubstantiation but holy mystery.

I think transubstantiationism is a viable theology, but we shouldn't make a dogma out of it. The dogma should be on Real Presence, and leave it at that, and allow people to enjoy their own pious beliefs in so long as we don't make anything official.

Personally, I'm probably like you: I accept that He is both physically and spiritually Present and I leave it at that. I don't know exactly when but I know that, by the Great Amen, He is literally there, and I partake of Him by faith (for only with the eyes of faith can we see Him and in good faith can we receive Him worthily) with the greatest of thanksgiving. I have no clue whether any wine with water or bread remain and it doesn't matter to me; only that Jesus is there.

 

[Albion]

I don't have a problem with limiting it to baptized believers, only with limiting it to members of a particular denomination or tradition.

.

That, fortunately, is rare. Even churches that are known to require agreement on the whole of the faith before communing--conservative Lutheran churches, for instance--will admit non-members to the Lord's Supper if the pastor is satisfied that the visitor is essentially in unity with the church, denominational affiliations aside.

 

[AndrewRD]

On one hand, it would not weigh on my conscience one bit if I did partake at a closed communion church, say if the priest offered it or something, because I consider the Roman Catholic and Orthodox communion no more or less valid than the Anglican one; same with Conservative Lutherans.

On the other hand, I would never do this on my own volition or by deceit because, as stated above, it would be astoundingly rude and disrespectful.

Given that I hold to a somewhat Calvinistic view of the Lord's Supper (Christ is spiritually present but there are no miraculous physical alterations to the bread and wine), I probably would not be welcome at most closed communions anyway. They tend to be rather literal about such things.

 

[MichaelNZ]

I agree that it would be disrespectful to receive Communion in a RC church, but if you walked into one where nobody knew you and received, no-one would know.

However, if you went to an Orthodox church you'd never been to and where nobody knew you, the priest would at least ask your name, since he needs it for the formula to administer Communion. In a Western, non-Orthodox country like NZ or the USA, he may very well ask you if you're Orthodox as well. So unless you planned to lie, you wouldn't be able to receive.

 

[ThePilgrim]

I agree that it would be disrespectful to receive Communion in a RC church, but if you walked into one where nobody knew you and received, no-one would know.

That's still incredibly disrespectful. Saying that a person could get away with something doesn't mean that it's not morally horrid.

In Christ,
Fr. John

 

[MichaelNZ]

That's still incredibly disrespectful. Saying that a person could get away with something doesn't mean that it's not morally horrid.

In Christ,
Fr. John

I know it is disrepectful, but you wouldn't offend anyone if they didn't know. It's still not a reason to do it, though.

 

[Rhamiel]

PaladinValor

There is absolutely no reason for you to be attending non-Anglican liturgies when you have a local Anglican church to attend. Unless you have a valid reason to attend a Roman Catholic church, their services are no more valid than our own.

since you think that Mass in a Catholic Church is no more (or less?) valid as Anglican services, then would it not be up to the young man on which church service he would like to attend?
if all things are equal then it just goes down to a matter of personal preferance, i notice a lot of modern philosophy and theology boils down to this way of thinking

 

[PaladinValer]

PaladinValor
since you think that Mass in a Catholic Church is no more (or less?) valid as Anglican services, then would it not be up to the young man on which church service he would like to attend?

Being an Anglican means acknowledging that your own church is in error about us, particularly when it comes to the validity of our clergy and Apostolic Sucession and therefore also the validity of our sacraments. Attendance of Roman Catholic services over those of Anglican liturgies, particularly Sunday liturgies, is unacceptable.

Does that mean we cannot ever attend services at your churches? No. If there is no Anglican liturgy or service but there is a Roman Catholic one, then there is no issue. I used to attend Newman back in college on Thursdays since my college parish didn't have a liturgy in the evening. I attended Morning Prayer on Thursday morning before classes and joined the Roman Catholics for their liturgy in the evening.

Although I was invited to receive by the priest who knew my church affiliation, I never received Holy Communion. I thought, and still do think, that, despite the fact that both our churches have valid clergy and sacraments, the official rules still stood and until they do, I wouldn't personally feel it appropriate. The only exception, as I said, is for the Requiems and Nuptials that I have attended; I know I am in Communion with my family and I know that they think me in Communion with me.

Furthermore, the fact of the matter is (and I say this with respect), the OP has not demonstrated any real concrete knowledge of his own Anglicanism and, in the past, I know he's gone back and forth between your church and mine at an official level. I do not believe it appropriate for someone who claims to be Anglican to be going back and forth as he has given that and other circumstances (which I will not elaborate on). I'm fairly certain you would say the same for someone who is claiming to be a member of your Vatican Catholic Church and switching back and forth to his "former" Episcopal Church after a little bit of official seesawing.

if all things are equal then it just goes down to a matter of personal preferance, i notice a lot of modern philosophy and theology boils down to this way of thinking

Again, let me ask you this: put yourself in the Anglican position and ask yourself "despite the fact that we agree on all the universal necessities, have valid orders and sacraments, etc, why should I attend a liturgy of another church that outright rejects our clergy and sacraments over one of my own which is just as valid?"

I personally do not believe in false ecumenicalism. I'm sure you can agree with that. I hope you can see the truth in where I am coming from. I also hope you will understand that I will not be explaining further into those "other circumstances" because it would be absolutely inappropriate for me to do so. I respect the OP enough to not do so. I think he might have an idea of what I am referring to but if not, then even more a reason not to say anything else. If he does, then I leave it to him to voluntarily, if he so chooses (not really necessary here) to make it visible for all to know.

 

[MKJ]

PaladinValor
since you think that Mass in a Catholic Church is no more (or less?) valid as Anglican services, then would it not be up to the young man on which church service he would like to attend?
if all things are equal then it just goes down to a matter of personal preferance, i notice a lot of modern philosophy and theology boils down to this way of thinking

Would you give this advice to a Catholic who wanted to attend Orthodox services regularly?

 

[VolRaider]

PaladinValor
since you think that Mass in a Catholic Church is no more (or less?) valid as Anglican services, then would it not be up to the young man on which church service he would like to attend?
if all things are equal then it just goes down to a matter of personal preferance, i notice a lot of modern philosophy and theology boils down to this way of thinking

Sure, you're free to choose. I just don't understand why he wants to attend a Roman Mass over an Anglican one since the RCC will not let us participate in the whole service. I would think one would rather regularly attend a church where he is welcome in every aspect.

Having said that, I have attended RCC services, just not many. I have absolutely nothing against them, but why regularly go there if I am going to be barred from Communion?

 

[VolRaider]

That's still incredibly disrespectful. Saying that a person could get away with something doesn't mean that it's not morally horrid.

In Christ,
Fr. John

Yes, it is very disrespectful. We are told to follow rules, and we should do so in all aspects of life. Don't know if I would consider it "morally horrid," like I would if a Muslim, Buddhist, atheist, etc. took it because I consider all of us brothers and sisters in Christ. But even though I disagree with the Orthodox version of closed Communion, I would never think of taking Communion in a church that forbids me to do so.

 

[Rhamiel]

Would you give this advice to a Catholic who wanted to attend Orthodox services regularly?

I would not describe Orthodox services as equally valid

 

[Borromeo]

I know it violates the rules of the RCC church, but is there any difference between their Eucharist and ours? What makes it their right to decide who can receive at their altars.

Because its not just a snack anyone can have. It is precious, it is dangerous, and they are entrusted with making sure it is handled in the way their faith says it must be. For the good of the recipient, and for the honor it deserves.

This kind of attitude "What makes it their right?" sounds like something a non-believer would say really, as if all religions are arbitrary, made up rules (which wouldn't make it wrong anyway, even if it were, people have every right to exclude others from their private activities). Its not like they just decided one day "Oh, well, those people can't have it." It is divinely ordained from Jesus straight to the Apostles. If you don't believe that, fine, but they do... and if you don't believe it then you have nothing to be getting upset about at all since it is absurd to be upset about being excluded from something you don't believe in.

 

[ebia]

Because its not just a snack anyone can have. It is precious, it is dangerous, and they are entrusted with making sure it is handled in the way their faith says it must be. For the good of the recipient, and for the honor it deserves.

This kind of attitude "What makes it their right?" sounds like something a non-believer would say really, as if all religions are arbitrary, made up rules (which wouldn't make it wrong anyway, even if it were, people have every right to exclude others from their private activities). Its not like they just decided one day "Oh, well, those people can't have it." It is divinely ordained from Jesus straight to the Apostles. If you don't believe that, fine, but they do... and if you don't believe it then you have nothing to be getting upset about at all since it is absurd to be upset about being excluded from something you don't believe in.

If one believes that the Eucharist is God's gift to all his people to be shared at one table, which in large part is what Galatians is about, then it makes perfect sense to be offended when one part of God's people wants to exclude another part from the table.

If you understand the Eucharist to be a mark of wholeness and unity that must pre-exist then open communion is a scandal.

If you understand it to be a gift that can bring healing and unity then closed communion is a scandal.

 

[ThePilgrim]

I would not describe Orthodox services as equally valid

Then you have a different opinion from most of Catholicism. Catholicism as a whole regards Orthodox Liturgies as perfectly valide.

 

[mark46]

You might check over at TAW, but my understanding is that an Orthodox eucharist is a family affair. Greek Orthodox would usually call the priest (or bishop) if he were visiting another Orthodox Church. Clearly arrangements are made, especially for weddings and funerals (and in some churches this arrangement might include RCC. When my son died, his funeral mass was in a Greek Orthodox Church. As an RCC, I received. My priest also was one of the readers. He was not a co-celebrant.

I would never consider just walking into an Orthodox service and to receive (even when I was in the RCC). If I were a visitor, and my firend indicated that the priest approved, then I would receive. I would NOT refuse such hospitality from fellow believers.

In the end, there are two issues: hospitality on the part of the church and acceptance (or not) of that hospitality. I do not criticize either chuches or
individuals in their choices. HOWEVER, violating the rules of hospitality is a serious issue among Christians. BTW, when my sister visited recently (she is Baptist), she was invited to the Lord's Table. She chose not to receive.

Would you give this advice to a Catholic who wanted to attend Orthodox services regularly?

 

[MichaelNZ]

BTW, when my sister visited recently (she is Baptist), she was invited to the Lord's Table. She chose not to receive.

If it was an Anglican church (as I assume it was), then there would be no problem with her receiving provided she has been baptised in the name of the Holy Trinity.

 

[MKJ]

You might check over at TAW, but my understanding is that an Orthodox eucharist is a family affair. Greek Orthodox would usually call the priest (or bishop) if he were visiting another Orthodox Church. Clearly arrangements are made, especially for weddings and funerals (and in some churches this arrangement might include RCC. When my son died, his funeral mass was in a Greek Orthodox Church. As an RCC, I received. My priest also was one of the readers. He was not a co-celebrant.

I would never consider just walking into an Orthodox service and to receive (even when I was in the RCC). If I were a visitor, and my firend indicated that the priest approved, then I would receive. I would NOT refuse such hospitality from fellow believers.

In the end, there are two issues: hospitality on the part of the church and acceptance (or not) of that hospitality. I do not criticize either chuches or
individuals in their choices. HOWEVER, violating the rules of hospitality is a serious issue among Christians. BTW, when my sister visited recently (she is Baptist), she was invited to the Lord's Table. She chose not to receive.

This has nothing to do with what I said. Rahmiel suggested that if we considered Roman masses to be valid there was no reason to discourage an Anglican from attending. Catholicism says that the Orthodox Eucharist is valid, yet I doubt he would suggest that Catholics regularly attend there.

I didn't say anything about non-members receiving the Eucharist there.

 

[Albion]

Because its not just a snack anyone can have. It is precious, it is dangerous, and they are entrusted with making sure it is handled in the way their faith says it must be. For the good of the recipient, and for the honor it deserves.

If that principle were actually applied, half the members of the parish would not be permitted to commune. Obviously, that isn't happening.