Inter-denominational Eucharist - Official Position?

[seeking_perfection]

Hi All,

Quick question for you. What is the official position in the Anglican Church on receiving communion from other denominations?

From what I gather, we would be happy to receive from RCC and EO churches in theory but wouldn't as they would not willingly distribute to us. Is this correct?

I am aware of the Porvoo Agreement, linking us with European Lutherans of various churches. This holds to Communion as well I believe?

What about the Methodists? I'm aware that we would have no problem with them sharing communion when consecrated by an Anglican priest. However, if a Methodist priest 'consecrated', is there an official problem with this due to the lack of Apostolic succession? I've heard that there might be a problem with the Epiclesis in the Eucharistic Prayer but having just checked up on this, it appears to be similar to ours and in no way deficient. What's the official line?

Similar question for those denominations further from us?

 

[higgs2]

No rules against any of it that I know of. I'd take communion anywhere unless they forbade me.

 

[MKJ]

I'm not sure that lack of Apostolic succession is a problem for most Anglicans. We in Canada are in communion with the Lutherans, who don't have it. Lutheran ministers have presided at the Eucharist in Anglican churches without having apostolic succession. To me that says the Anglican Church of Canada doesn't think it is necessary. We just try not to let the Catholics know.

I think most Anglicans would probably recieve even in churches who think that the eucharist is only symbolic. I also know some who recieve at Catholic churches, though I think that is very disrespectful and I don't know any good priest that would approve of it.

 

[AngCath]

It will depend, somewhat, on the Province for the questions relating to ministers celebrating at eachother's churches. When it comes to receiving communion, Anglican individuals are free to commune at any Christian church that will welcome them.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

I have never come across an Anglican church that did not have an Open Table policy.

 

[ebia]

I don't know of rules in any Anglican Communion jurisdiction that says where an Anglican may receive. We don't do things that way around. There are rules about who may receive in our churches, who may preside in an Anglican or joint context, and so forth. But where you can receive is up to you to work out for yourself.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think most Anglicans wouldn't forbid it. More Anglo-Catholic clergy and parishoners would probably not approve of taking communion elsewhere, especially in non-apostolic-succession ecclesiastical bodies.

MKJ is correct about Catholics; for Catholics the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul, divinity of Christ Jesus and the ultimate sign of theological and moral unity. To take communion in illicit settings which they view as invalidly ordained on one side and then lacking the unity of Mother Church on the other would be sinful.

I think many Anglo-Catholics might feel the same way...at least more traditionalist ones.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

I think most Anglicans wouldn't forbid it. More Anglo-Catholic clergy and parishoners would probably not approve of taking communion elsewhere, especially in non-apostolic-succession ecclesiastical bodies.

MKJ is correct about Catholics; for Catholics the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul, divinity of Christ Jesus and the ultimate sign of theological and moral unity. To take communion in illicit settings which they view as invalidly ordained on one side and then lacking the unity of Mother Church on the other would be sinful.

I think many Anglo-Catholics might feel the same way...at least more traditionalist ones.

Anglicanism is not a faith that requires its members to be obedient to rules. We let God guide us through revelation and the holy spirit.

 

[Iron Man]

I guess I've never heard an official stance on this one. I know that I wouldn't be comfortable receiving Communion in a church setting where that church's theology and mine were miles apart. Succession still matters to me. Not that I would pass judgment on another's Communion, but the theological differences are pronounced. But it is strange, now that I think about it, that nothing official has ever been said about this (when we consider the fact Catholics, Orthodox, and confessional Lutherans cannot ordinarily receive outside their own boundaries).

 

[ebia]

I guess I've never heard an official stance on this one. I know that I wouldn't be comfortable receiving Communion in a church setting where that church's theology and mine were miles apart. Succession still matters to me. Not that I would pass judgment on another's Communion, but the theological differences are pronounced. But it is strange, now that I think about it, that nothing official has ever been said about this (when we consider the fact Catholics, Orthodox, and confessional Lutherans cannot ordinarily receive outside their own boundaries).

Catholics, Orthodox, etc attempt to direct their laity through rules, through requiring them to believe certain things, etc. Anglicans have virtually no rules for their laity beyond the rubrics of the prayer service itself. Life outside the worship service is to be shaped by that, not set by rules. We don't even ask the laity to affirm anything beyond the Creeds.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Sounds more like Pentecostalism to me. So you all can act as your own prophets interacting with the Holy Spirit? Ten different people can have ten different truths. Sounds more like moral relativism. Truth is relative, fluid, can be morphed and shaped into whatever the individual wants it to be rather than the static, permanent, timelessness that truth should be. What you describe is a blank check with some liturgy and creeds thrown in for good measure.

What revelations has God given to the Anglican Church lately? I'm just curious....

Anglicanism is not a faith that requires its members to be obedient to rules. We let God guide us through revelation and the holy spirit.

 

[MKJ]

I guess I've never heard an official stance on this one. I know that I wouldn't be comfortable receiving Communion in a church setting where that church's theology and mine were miles apart. Succession still matters to me. Not that I would pass judgment on another's Communion, but the theological differences are pronounced. But it is strange, now that I think about it, that nothing official has ever been said about this (when we consider the fact Catholics, Orthodox, and confessional Lutherans cannot ordinarily receive outside their own boundaries).

Open Communion in the Anglican Church is a 20th century phenomena, at least in most places.

The basic idea seems to be that as long as individuals are validly baptised, they are part of the Body of Christ, and so it is up to them to make sure they are properly prepared, just like for other Anglicans.

In the Catholic Church although the baptised are prt of the Body of Christ, union with Rome is also an integral component of being "in" the Church. To take communion without being in communion is seen as foolish. A similar view is found in Orthodoxy.

Both Catholics and the Orthodox take much more seriously the need for the individual to be properly prepared, and the dangers of not being properly prepared. (That latter we very rarely hear about in Anglicanism.) They both also require confession to a priest, and it would not be possible for members of other groups to do that. In fact, as far as the Orthodox go, when they visit another Orthodox parish, they usually call ahead or meet the priest first to introduce themselves and give him a chance to see that they are in good standing in their own parish.

Personally, I am not sure that the open communion policy has been entirely successful. It seems to go along with an attitude that as long as we are together in some way, we are ok. That seems to be manifestly untrue.

 

[HisHomeMaker]

I have never come across an Anglican church that did not have an Open Table policy.

Our priests used to say "all baptised Christians are welcome". This Christmas I noticed a significant change to, "all believers are welcome," with no specification for baptism. I don't know if this is a change in our church or was just a way to make visitors welcome at Christmastime. I will be listening more closely on Sunday and may ask leaders when I get the chance. I welcome this change. I have not heard an official stance.

I was at a funeral in a RC church about three years ago and was surprised when the priest invited everyone to receive communion. That was the most welcome I have ever felt in an RC church. I don't know if it was "appropriate" or not, but many of us left with an improved view of the RC church because of the actions of this one priest.

...HHM

 

[TomUK]

And let's not forget that we're welcome to receive communion from a Roman Church if there is not an Anglican Church nearby.

 

[MKJ]

And let's not forget that we're welcome to receive communion from a Roman Church if there is not an Anglican Church nearby.

How so? THis is not the policy of the Catholic Church.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

Sounds more like Pentecostalism to me. So you all can act as your own prophets interacting with the Holy Spirit? Ten different people can have ten different truths. Sounds more like moral relativism. Truth is relative, fluid, can be morphed and shaped into whatever the individual wants it to be rather than the static, permanent, timelessness that truth should be. What you describe is a blank check with some liturgy and creeds thrown in for good measure.

What revelations has God given to the Anglican Church lately? I'm just curious....

I am not going to try to defend your views. I am sorry that you appear to lack intrinsic motivation to do the right thing, and prefer to be told what to do.

 

[Cjwinnit]

How so? THis is not the policy of the Catholic Church.

It's the position in France but I didn't think it was in the UK...

 

[MKJ]

It's the position in France but I didn't think it was in the UK...

The position according to something official? There is no way I can see that it should happen according to the direction coming out of Rome. There are some ways, in a case of immanent death maybe, but even then the individual has to accept the Catholic doctrines regarding the Eucharist, which would be impossible for some.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

Our priests used to say "all baptised Christians are welcome". This Christmas I noticed a significant change to, "all believers are welcome," with no specification for baptism.

I guess the words used depend on the individual clergy.

At minimum, they say anyone who loves the lord.

Next up, it will be anyone who loves the lord and would normally receive in their home church.

Then it would be anyone who loves the lord, is baptised and would normally receive in their home church.

I think I have heard mention of confirmation but this would exclude a lot of our guests.

I was visiting another church this weekend and they stressed that anyone from any Christian denomination was welcome to the table. I don't think they mentioned baptism.

The catch-all is that absolutely everyone is welcome to come up for a blessing. They just need to keep their hands by their sides.

 

[ebia]

Our priests used to say "all baptised Christians are welcome". This Christmas I noticed a significant change to, "all believers are welcome," with no specification for baptism. I don't know if this is a change in our church or was just a way to make visitors welcome at Christmastime. I will be listening more closely on Sunday and may ask leaders when I get the chance. I welcome this change. I have not heard an official stance.

The canons in the UK and Australia require the visitors to be baptised, and to normally be communicant members of their home churches.