Communion

[charsan]

Not really here this is a place for Christian whom have forsook the Church aka Non Traditional Christians. For us Traditional Christians we always get compared to the latest boogy man evangelicals think of

 

[Charles Kanyuga]

Why should you think that taking communion is a mistake? If you cannot take communion, being a believer, you would be misrepresenting the scriptures. No where did Jesus or the apostles forbid any believer from taking communion. In fact as often as you meet you should commune with the brethren... the tradition of the early church was broken by persons who did not understand the scriptures... Read Acts 2:42.. the broke bread from house to house... These are traditions that define Christian faith namely:
1. Doctrine,
2. Fellowship,
3. Breaking of Bread (communion), and
4. prayer.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

That "some" must be a very small number indeed, considering that there don't seem to be any Anglican church bodies or associations that teach receptionism in defiance of the Anglican formularies such as the Articles of Religion. To the extent that Anglicans generally favor open communion, it has nothing to do with receptionism.

I agree, but this statement was made by the Bishop of the Anglican Church of Canada. It is official doctrine here it seems. I would add that it likely is not held by most Canadian Anglicans.

 

[Albion]

I agree, but this statement was made by the Bishop of the Anglican Church of Canada. It is official doctrine here it seems. I would add that it likely is not held by most Canadian Anglicans.

I don't remember seeing any statement made by "the" Bishop of the Anglican Church of Canada (is that referring to the Presiding Bishop)?

Anyway, these things are subtle and often mistaken by non-members, just as happens to Lutherans, particularly when it comes to the meaning of Holy Communion.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I don't remember seeing any statement made by "the" Bishop of the Anglican Church of Canada (is that referring to the Presiding Bishop)?

Anyway, these things are subtle and often mistaken by non-members, just as happens to Lutherans, particularly when it comes to the meaning of Holy Communion.

My Pastor showed me an article; virtually word for word "a non believer does not receive the body and blood of our Lord"; it was that clear. May not have been the presiding Bishop, but it was a Bishop.

 

[Albion]

My Pastor showed me an article; virtually word for word "a non believer does not receive the body and blood of our Lord"; it was that clear.

Ah yes, but that isn't receptionism.

May not have been the presiding Bishop, but it was a Bishop.

That would affect the perception that it is "official" doctrine in the Anglican Church of Canada, though.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Ah yes, but that isn't receptionism.


That would affect the perception that it is "official" doctrine in the Anglican Church of Canada, though.

How then do you define receptionism?

Receptionism - Wikipedia
What do Anglicans Believe about Holy Communion? - Anglican Pastor

If it walks like a duck...

 

[Albion]

How then do you define receptionism?

Receptionism - Wikipedia
What do Anglicans Believe about Holy Communion? - Anglican Pastor

If it walks like a duck...

The following, by David Virtue, a very well-known Anglican writer and observer of the worldwide Anglican scene, says it pretty well IMHO--

"In the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, Anglican theology rejects both the errors of Transubstantiation and Zwinglian mere memorialism. Zwingliʼs ideas are rejected in Article XXV, "Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian menʼs profession, but rather they be certain sure witness, and effectual signs of grace (italics added). And Article XXVIII says, "The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign but rather it is a Sacrament...a partaking of the Body of Christ" (italics added). The Articles of Religion also reject the notion of "receptionism." Like "Calvinism" which is often confused with Zwingliism, receptionism is often misunderstood. The doctrine of receptionism comes not from John Calvin, but from Heinrich Bullinger. Bullinger was Zwingliʼs successor in Zurich, and served there for forty-four years, from 1531 to 1575. Bullingerʼs sacramental views matured over time, leaving behind Zwingliʼs teaching, but stopping short of the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of Holy Communion.

"For Bullinger, like his predecessor Ulrich Zwingli, the sacramental signs, the bread and the wine, are not connected to the thing signified, the Body and Blood of Christ. Heinrich Bullinger taught a sort of parallelism. The sacramental signs are not merely signs, but rather are analogies of Godʼs gracious actions. They do not confer grace. The sacramental action and the divine action are separate, but parallel. As the believer receives the bread and wine with his mouth, he receives Christ in his heart by faith. This view is called "receptionism", and it is rejected in the Thirty-nine Articles. Article XXVIII teaches: "The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper," (italics added). Despite the teachings of Scripture and of Article XXVIII, receptionism historically has had influence among Anglicans. This is for three reasons. First, many have mistakenly believed that Richard Hooker, one of Anglicanism's greatest theologians, believed in it. Second, because Anglicanism teaches that the Body and Blood of Christ are received "only after an heavenly and spiritual manner" (Article XXVIII). And finally, because of a misunderstanding of Article XXIX, Of the Wicked, which eat not the Body of Christ in the use of the Lordʼs Supper."

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

The following, by David Virtue, a very well-known Anglican writer and observer of the worldwide Anglican scene, says it pretty well IMHO--

"In the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, Anglican theology rejects both the errors of Transubstantiation and Zwinglian mere memorialism. Zwingliʼs ideas are rejected in Article XXV, "Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian menʼs profession, but rather they be certain sure witness, and effectual signs of grace (italics added). And Article XXVIII says, "The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign but rather it is a Sacrament...a partaking of the Body of Christ" (italics added). The Articles of Religion also reject the notion of "receptionism." Like "Calvinism" which is often confused with Zwingliism, receptionism is often misunderstood. The doctrine of receptionism comes not from John Calvin, but from Heinrich Bullinger. Bullinger was Zwingliʼs successor in Zurich, and served there for forty-four years, from 1531 to 1575. Bullingerʼs sacramental views matured over time, leaving behind Zwingliʼs teaching, but stopping short of the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of Holy Communion.

"For Bullinger, like his predecessor Ulrich Zwingli, the sacramental signs, the bread and the wine, are not connected to the thing signified, the Body and Blood of Christ. Heinrich Bullinger taught a sort of parallelism. The sacramental signs are not merely signs, but rather are analogies of Godʼs gracious actions. They do not confer grace. The sacramental action and the divine action are separate, but parallel. As the believer receives the bread and wine with his mouth, he receives Christ in his heart by faith. This view is called "receptionism", and it is rejected in the Thirty-nine Articles. Article XXVIII teaches: "The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper," (italics added). Despite the teachings of Scripture and of Article XXVIII, receptionism historically has had influence among Anglicans. This is for three reasons. First, many have mistakenly believed that Richard Hooker, one of Anglicanism's greatest theologians, believed in it. Second, because Anglicanism teaches that the Body and Blood of Christ are received "only after an heavenly and spiritual manner" (Article XXVIII). And finally, because of a misunderstanding of Article XXIX, Of the Wicked, which eat not the Body of Christ in the use of the Lordʼs Supper."

Unfortunately, much of the Anglican Communion here in Canada has no idea of what is contained in the 39 articles; much the same as the most of the ELCA/ELCIC Lutherans know nothing of the Book of Concord outside of the Creed and the Small Catechism.

About the only remnants of Anglicanism here that have retained any semblance of understanding of the 39 articles are the Anglo-Catholics/Oxford Movement; even the ACNA lean towards receptionism theology. One of the stumbling blocks (yes, there is more than one) that we both recognize as detremental to fellowship between the ACNA and LCC.

Art XXVIII also states that: “The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.”
​

The second sentence; is receptionism; dependent on faith; implying that we cooperate in God's grace.

I know of no other way to read it.

When I see the Host being venerated in the Lady Chapel of the the Cathedrals in Kingston Ontario and in Charlottetown Prince Edward Island; it is clear that that the Oxford movement Anglicans hold a more traditional view of the Eucharist than that expressed in Article XXVIII.

 

[Albion]

Unfortunately, much of the Anglican Communion here in Canada has no idea of what is contained in the 39 articles; much the same as the most of the ELCA/ELCIC Lutherans know nothing of the Book of Concord outside of the Creed and the Small Catechism.

About the only remnants of Anglicanism here that have retained any semblance of understanding of the 39 articles are the Anglo-Catholics/Oxford Movement; even the ACNA lean towards receptionism theology. One of the stumbling blocks (yes, there is more than one) that we both recognize as detremental to fellowship between the ACNA and LCC.

Art XXVIII also states that: “The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.”
​

The second sentence; is receptionism; dependent on faith; implying that we cooperate in God's grace.

I know of no other way to read it.

When I see the Host being venerated in the Lady Chapel of the the Cathedrals in Kingston Ontario and in Charlottetown Prince Edward Island; it is clear that that the Oxford movement Anglicans hold a more traditional view of the Eucharist than that expressed in Article XXVIII.

So...having been given the answer, you prefer to keep believing your error. There's nothing more to say in that case.

 

[mindlight]

I am traditionally Eastern Orthodox and married to a traditionally non-Orthodox (Uniting). Recently we attended a Lutheran church, and without thinking, I undertook their communion service. I've since realised my mistake. What are my options, what should I do?

I travel a lot visiting different churches. In the end Christ is the Judge of why where and when you take communion. This is not an empty ritual it is communion with the Living God. This morning I took Catholic communion but actually I am an Anglican. It is about Jesus, not popes and Ecclesiastical rules. No one, not even the church can separate us from the love of God in Christ.

 

[Albion]

I travel a lot visiting different churches. In the end Christ is the Judge of why where and when you take communion. This is not an empty ritual it is communion with the Living God. This morning I took Catholic communion but actually I am an Anglican. It is about Jesus, not popes and Ecclesiastical rules. No one, not even the church can separate us from the love of God in Christ.

Yes, but that is to defy the rules of the church being visited, so if you feel you have some transcendent right to receive the Eucharist anywhere at any time, it still remains a question whether it is moral or Christian to 1) deceive the host church and 2) cause them to engage, however unknowingly, in something that violates their doctrines.

 

[mindlight]

Yes, but that is to defy the rules of the church being visited, so if you feel you have some transcendent right to receive the Eucharist anywhere at any time, it still remains a question whether it is moral or Christian to 1) deceive the host church and 2) cause them to engage, however unknowingly, in something that violates their doctrines.

God defines the church and it is not deception if it is honest to God. No-one else is harmed by my taking the bread and wine and those who administer cannot be held account for wrongs I might be judged by men to have committed.

 

[Albion]

Recently we attended a Lutheran church, and without thinking, I undertook their communion service. I've since realised my mistake.

God defines the church and it is not deception if it is honest to God.

That is sophistry, mindlight.

Righthander, other people and denominations and their rights are to be respected, just as we would say that it is not moral to take it upon ourselves to make off with or damage their property on the basis of some theory like "there won't be physical objects in the afterlife, so what's the diff?" or "all things come from God and belong to God so that makes it all right."

In the case of communing in another church, to willfully disregard their rules and doctrines as a visitor, is a wrongful act, and I hope it doesn't play any part in your thinking. Fortunately, you communed by mistake which makes a critical difference in the incident you reported to us.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

So...having been given the answer, you prefer to keep believing your error. There's nothing more to say in that case.

I am more convicted that the error lies not with us or my understanding, but in the synergistic Phillipist theology that is pervasive in the 39 Articles.

 

[hedrick]

Yes, but that is to defy the rules of the church being visited, so if you feel you have some transcendent right to receive the Eucharist anywhere at any time, it still remains a question whether it is moral or Christian to 1) deceive the host church and 2) cause them to engage, however unknowingly, in something that violates their doctrines.

Yeah, whether they're right or not, it's hard to see participating when you're not welcome. I'm inclined to take the view that such a communion is violating 1 Cor 11:29, and participating in it would be inappropriate.

 

[mindlight]

That is sophistry, mindlight.

Righthander, other people and denominations and their rights are to be respected, just as we would say that it is not moral to take it upon ourselves to make off with or damage their property on the basis of some theory like "there won't be physical objects in the afterlife, so what's the diff?" or "all things come from God and belong to God so that makes it all right."

In the case of communing in another church, to willfully disregard their rules and doctrines as a visitor, is a wrongful act, and I hope it doesn't play any part in your thinking. Fortunately, you communed by mistake which makes a critical difference in the incident you reported to us.

Think I’ll take my chances thanks.

One man follows the pope, another Calvin, Luther or Albion. As for me and my family we shall follow Christ. When we eat the bread and wine we commune with Christ not man. People cannot get offended about what they do not know and there is no offence in reaching out to feed on Christ. The offence lies with those who put up dividing walls of hostility between Jesus and others. They feed themselves and close the door on those who are hungry.

 

[Albion]

I am more convicted that the error lies not with us or my understanding, but in the synergistic Phillipist theology that is pervasive in the 39 Articles.

It still isn't receptionism. I think that was supposed to be your issue.