Closed communion

[Albion]

Albion, I don't think anyone argued that no one ever communes unworthily in the Orthodox Church.

Well then, I don't understand why a passing observation of mine that said nothing more than you just did became something that had to be rebutted.

Rather, the point was made that the Orthodox Church at least takes reasonable precautions to ensure that at least if people do commune unworthily, it is not out of ignorance or by accident. They are informed. They know the risks. And under normal circumstances, they cannot commune unworthily EXCEPT by willfully deceiving a priest, which is another sin and of itself.

I think you are softening what was actually written, but OK; I readily agree to all of that. My point would be that the difference between closed and open--regardless of which denominations are on either side--is not as black and white as is supposed. In my church, for example, every attempt os made to have the would-be communicants know the rules and the beliefs that are expected, etc., but we do not suppose to know what's in the heart of each communicant--not much different from the siutation facing the typical EO priest.

Your argument is kind of like saying the Orthodox don't enforce their rule about getting a priest's blessing before entering the altar because you could technically break into a church and pee on the altar while no one was looking.

I'm sorry, but you should have ended your post when you were ahead.

 

[MKJ]

And you are maintaining that to have a parish policy of the kind that is usually described as "open communion" means, necessarily, that household pets are communed??

....and BTW, why would you describe this as a "low blow?" It's your church that you've described there, isn't it, not mine.

Good grief!

No. But the usual bar in open communion is that individuals be baptised, or sometimes that they be baptised and in good standing in their own parish. That is all. Not only are people having to police themselves wholly, they may not even realize that more is required, and there is actually no way at all for the priest to know if the person is in fact even a Christian.

We don't really believe things are sacred if we don't treat them as sacred, if there is no element of setting them apart in some way. And so it is in that kind of environment that a foolish priest sees no issue with offering communion to a dog.

When you treat something as if it really isn't that big a deal if it is used improperly, than people come to think it really isn't that big a deal after all. Open communion as found in most Anglican bodies tends in that direction. Even the Catholic Church is not much better off.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

IIRC, Paul does not instruct the church elders to make sure no one communes unworthily, but rather instructs the believers to examine themselves and make sure of it for themselves. So, he treated it as a matter of individual conscience and risk, not of church authority.

 

[Albion]

No. But the usual bar in open communion is that individuals be baptised, or sometimes that they be baptised and in good standing in their own parish.

Well, this can vary widely, but I agree to the way you've described it here, except that every Episcopal or Anglican church I've visited has included some statement, either in the bulletin or--more often--from the altar or pulpit that those who are invited to commume are to believe that Christ is truly present in the sacrament or in the bread and wine specifically.

That is all. Not only are people having to police themselves wholly, they may not even realize that more is required, and there is actually no way at all for the priest to know if the person is in fact even a Christian.

There is no way for the priest to know, that's true. Just as there's no way for a Roman Catholic priest to "know" when there's a funeral mass and many relatives and visitors are in the congregation for the occasion.

The EO utilize that "speak to the priest in advance" procedure (which Lutherans also do), and I'll give it to them that doing so tightens the policy somewhat. However, I continue to believe that, in practice, the difference between open and closed communions is not as much as has been alleged.

We don't really believe things are sacred if we don't treat them as sacred

Personally, I don't feel that it's accurate to say that practicing open communion means that something sacred isn't treated as if it's sacred. I just consider that an unfair judgment. Much better to look at how the sacrament is treated itself, how the liturgy is conducted, etc. than to stake one's estimate on whether visiting Christians can commune or not.

if there is no element of setting them apart in some way

Well, there certainly IS a setting apart. What you are mainly dealing with is the policing, not the setting apart. And if we are to exclude Methodists and Lutherans, for example, is that to keep the sacrament more sacred?? I woudn't agree there at all.

And so it is in that kind of environment that a foolish priest sees no issue with offering communion to a dog.

That's an untenable leap, IMO. What's led to such a behavior in that particular church is its 'anything goes' retreat from the historic faith, not something as specific as how we administer the Sacrament of the Altar. And even in that denomination, this man's action was viewed as nuts.

Completely When you treat something as if it really isn't that big a deal if it is used improperly, than people come to think it really isn't that big a deal after all.

Again, how do you make the jump from communing visitors to it "isn't a big deal?" That comparison can't be taken seriously.

Open communion as found in most Anglican bodies tends in that direction. Even the Catholic Church is not much better off.

If you feel this way--and you obviously do--why not get out of those bodies, then? I did, and for similar reasons if not this particular one about which we are in some disagreement.

 

[ebia]

Well, this can vary widely, but I agree to the way you've described it here, except that every Episcopal or Anglican church I've visited has included some statement, either in the bulletin or--more often--from the altar or pulpit that those who are invited to commume are to believe that Christ is truly present in the sacrament or in the bread and wine specifically.

That seems to be N American. I've never encountered that in England or Australia, where the canons invite all baptised Christians who would normally receive in their own church to the table.

 

[Albion]

That seems to be N American. I've never encountered that in England or Australia, where the canons invite all baptised Christians who would normally receive in their own church to the table.

Could be. What I wrote is typical of Anglican churches here, and I think it's a good and respectful policy. But on second thought, and because I rarely am in an Episcopal church these days, most ECUSA parishes now could very well be more along the lines you have in mind. In fact, many of them might be inviting everyone, whether Christian or not, to commune.

 

[ebia]

Could be. What I wrote is typical of Anglican churches here, and I think it's a good and respectful policy.

It would be regarded as canonically out of order in England and here I think.

 

[MKJ]

I haven't seen any requirement or direction that visitors approaching the sacrament here in Canada should believe in the real presence, though it may happen in some diocese. Not in mine. I don't think most Canadian Anglicans believe in it, and I've met a good number of priests who don't either.

I have heard of a few places allowing non-Christians to commune without being disciplined by the bishop, but AFAIK it is not officially ok.

Albion - I am not suggesting that closed communion or open communion, alone, is the only thing that affects how we perceive the Eucharist. There are quite a few elements and it is just one. But they are not independent either - the tendency is for them all to degrade together and for people's attitude to feed off of it and make it worse. So we maybe allow people to commune without making sure they understand the implications, and we maybe aren't all that careful with the elements, and we maybe are casual about people wandering about the sanctuary... and all of these things inform the attitude of the people in the congregation.

I do think we would be better off as Anglicans to have closed communion, on the Lutheran or Orthodox model ideally. The best argument I see for open communion is that it represents the hope we have for unity in Christ, or willingness to be unified in Christ. I've come to the conclusion that it may not, in fact, work that way - I actually do not see the bodies that practice open communion coming closer to uniting with other Christians - often it seems the opposite- they are coming apart themselves or they see no need for substantial unity in any case.

 

[ebia]

I haven't seen any requirement or direction that visitors approaching the sacrament here in Canada should believe in the real presence, though it may happen in some diocese. Not in mine. I don't think most Canadian Anglicans believe in it, and I've met a good number of priests who don't either.

I have heard of a few places allowing non-Christians to commune without being disciplined by the bishop, but AFAIK it is not officially ok.

Albion - I am not suggesting that closed communion or open communion, alone, is the only thing that affects how we perceive the Eucharist. There are quite a few elements and it is just one. But they are not independent either - the tendency is for them all to degrade together and for people's attitude to feed off of it and make it worse. So we maybe allow people to commune without making sure they understand the implications, and we maybe aren't all that careful with the elements, and we maybe are casual about people wandering about the sanctuary... and all of these things inform the attitude of the people in the congregation.

I do think we would be better off as Anglicans to have closed communion, on the Lutheran or Orthodox model ideally. The best argument I see for open communion is that it represents the hope we have for unity in Christ, or willingness to be unified in Christ. I've come to the conclusion that it may not, in fact, work that way - I actually do not see the bodies that practice open communion coming closer to uniting with other Christians - often it seems the opposite- they are coming apart themselves or they see no need for substantial unity in any case.

Whether it "works" or not, I'm with Tom Wright - its demanded by the logic of Galatians.

 

[PaladinValer]

My old parish in my old diocese was on the liberal side of things, but it was explicitly stated that all baptized Christians were allowed access to the altar.

 

[MKJ]

Whether it "works" or not, I'm with Tom Wright - its demanded by the logic of Galatians.

If that is how it is supposed to be, then we need to take it really seriously and stop trying to separate the spiritual and material. If we are communing together we need to be unified substantially as well - the things which separate us are evidently not so serious as to separate us and we should let go of them.

 

[Albion]

It would be regarded as canonically out of order in England and here I think.

Canonically out of order to add a statement about the Real Presence? BTW, I have been in some churches (but I cannot remember now which ones they were) that included a statement about the Real Presence being the faith of the parish but not making it a requirement for visitors wanting to commune. I suppose most people would consider that odd, but maybe it just goes to show that there are a number of variations on this theme.

 

[ThePilgrim]

This particular side issue came from my having responded to the usual EO claims about no one being communed who is unworthy, etc, etc.

?? That isn't our teaching at all. We don't say that only worthy people approach the chalice. We very specifically and very frequently say that no one is worthy of approaching the chalice. In our spiritual lives, we don't strive to be worthy, but rather to confess our unworthiness and to prepare ourselves to receive God's grace.

And all of that isn't the reason why we practice closed communion. We don't only commune Orthodox Christians because we think that Orthodox people are somehow better or more worthy of Christ's body and blood. Following the unanimous practice of the early Church, we practice closed communion because the Eucharist is an intimate spiritual act, only to be shared between Christ and His visible body, the Church.

If you'll pardon the analogy, the reason a man is faithful to his wife isn't that she's better than any other wife and more worthy of sharing his bed, but because the proper relational context for that intimacy exists only between them.

In Christ,
Fr. John

 

[Albion]

I have heard of a few places allowing non-Christians to commune without being disciplined by the bishop, but AFAIK it is not officially ok.

Albion - I am not suggesting that closed communion or open communion, alone, is the only thing that affects how we perceive the Eucharist. There are quite a few elements and it is just one. But they are not independent either - the tendency is for them all to degrade together and for people's attitude to feed off of it and make it worse. So we maybe allow people to commune without making sure they understand the implications, and we maybe aren't all that careful with the elements, and we maybe are casual about people wandering about the sanctuary... and all of these things inform the attitude of the people in the congregation.

I do think we would be better off as Anglicans to have closed communion, on the Lutheran or Orthodox model ideally. The best argument I see for open communion is that it represents the hope we have for unity in Christ, or willingness to be unified in Christ. I've come to the conclusion that it may not, in fact, work that way - I actually do not see the bodies that practice open communion coming closer to uniting with other Christians - often it seems the opposite- they are coming apart themselves or they see no need for substantial unity in any case.

And for my part, I think I'm somewhat conflicted about it all. Our diocese is about as conservative as any you'll find, but we commune all Christians, so long as they are adult and baptised. This seems to me not to be a matter of respect but how we view the sacrament in relation to the idea of the Church. I accept all Christians as believers, even if I find some of their individual doctrinal views to be dead wrong. But on the other side are those Anglicans who tend towards the Orthodox idea of the mystical unity of, I guess, the church militant, church triumphant, and God himself, that is supposed to be inherent in what the sacrament is and does.

 

[ebia]

Canonically out of order to add a statement about the Real Presence?

If the canons say that all baptised Christians who would normally receive are welcome... Then to add further restriction yes.

Particularly here where whole archdioceses pretty much reject the idea of real presence.

 

[ebia]

If that is how it is supposed to be, then we need to take it really seriously and stop trying to separate the spiritual and material. If we are communing together we need to be unified substantially as well - the things which separate us are evidently not so serious as to separate us and we should let go of them.

I don't think one follows necessarily from the other; i suspect some other assumption that we don't share is involved there


But if it came to that either/or I would say better to "let go" than to refuse to eat together. We already have more difference within the Anglican Communion than exists between the Communion and many other churches.

 

[MichaelNZ]

If the canons say that all baptised Christians who would normally receive are welcome... Then to add further restriction yes.

Particularly here where whole archdioceses pretty much reject the idea of real presence.

Canon VII of the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia states that " All the baptised may receive the Holy Communion".

However, any mention of non-baptized people not being able to receive Communion is not mentioned in the Mass Book at my church or in any of the three liturgies in the New Zealand Prayer Book (one of which the Mass book is based upon). I do remember seeing it in an order of service at the cathedral in my hometown, however.

 

[AndrewRD]

There's a real balance to be had with the holy Eucharist. On the one hand, I honestly see no problem with serving communion to any baptized Christian. But on the other hand, that is not an attack or criticism on the closed communion of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox church. They have every right to do as their understanding of the Faith demands, and I will respect it.

As for communing unworthily, I believe that is one of the strengths of the 1928 U.S. Book of Common Prayer as opposed to the newer 1979 edition. It has more focus on exhorting one to "come clean" spiritually with God before taking communion, and there is always the general confession/absolution of the congregation (although the 1979 liturgy still has that, if a watered down version in my opinion.)

As a side note, I think this is all intimately tied up with one's views on the Eucharist--transubstantiational, consubstantiational, Calvinist, etc.

 

[Rurik]

That seems to be N American. I've never encountered that in England or Australia, where the canons invite all baptised Christians who would normally receive in their own church to the table.

I have heard it said in Newcastle, Sydney and Canberra.

 

[elahmine]

No, I would never take communion that I was forbidden to take. It is disrespectful. Yes, I know it can be a little upsetting to go to RC or an EO church and not being allowed to receive. After all, I was validly baptized. I'm in good standing with my Church. I believe in the Real Presence. So it is a little disheartening to go to a fellow Christians Church and not be allowed to receive the Blood and Body. I mean I'm familiar with their theology, but when I was trying to find out which Church was the one God wanted me to attend. The closed communion really bothered me. Especially sense to join the RC I was told you had to wait a year just to start catechism and then even longer to partake. (No this isn't the only reason I became Episcopal, just a very small part.)