mike@turing.cs.unm.edu (Michael I. Bushnell) (02/05/90)
The comments on the openness of communion might like to hear what the
Presbyterian Church says in its Directory for Worship:
(W-2.4011)
The invitation to the Lord's Supper is extended to all who
have been baptized, remembering that access to the Table is
not a right conferred upon the worthy, but a privilege given
to the undeserving who come in faith, repentance, and love.
In preparing to receive Christ in this Sacrament, the believer
is to confess sin and brokenness, to seek reconciliation with
God and neighbor, and to trust in Jesus Christ for cleansing
and renewal. Even one who doubts or whose trust is wavering
may come to the Table in order to be assured of God's love and
grace in Christ Jesus.
Baptized children who are being nurtured and instructed in the
significance of the invitation to the Table and the meaning of
their response are invited to receive the Lord's Supper,
recognizing that their understanding of participation will
vary according to their maturity.
It is a long standing tradition in Presbyterian churches to welcome
all believers to the table.
Michael I. Bushnell \ This above all; to thine own self be true
LIBERTE, EGALITE, FRATERNITE \ And it must follow, as the night the day,
mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu /\ Thou canst not be false to any man.
Telephone: +1 505 242 2329 / \ Farewell: my blessing season this in thee!
[I'd be interested how "long standing". The Presbyterian churches
used to be known for "fencing the table", where you had to present
communion tokens in order to take communion. To a large extent this
was intended to promote self-examination. I haven't been able to find
any exact information, so I don't know when this stopped or exactly
what it consisted of. But I'm inclined to doubt that it allowed for
open communion. --clh]firth@sei.cmu.edu (02/05/90)
In article <Jan.31.21.34.15.1990.28222@athos.rutgers.edu> christm@thor.acc.stolaf.edu (Mark C. Christianson) writes: > Most, but not all, Lutheran churches and the Catholic church >discourages members of other denominations from receiving Communion in >their church. Just to provide another data point. At my local Anglican church, all baptized Christians may receive the Sacrament. Whenever we have a substantial number of guests, for instance at baptisms or marriages, our priest usually takes the trouble to announce this explicitly at some appropriate point in the service. The question whether children receive is left to their parents' judgement. He does advise that they undergo some instruction in the meaning of both service and sacrament, but this is not a precondition.
ejalbert@phoenix.princeton.edu (Edmund Jason Albert) (02/05/90)
I fail to see why the Catholic Church does not permit members of other denominations who have been baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to receive communion. Since a valid baptism can be performed by any baptized Christian if he uses this form, why is someone who has b een validly baptized barred from communion. As an Episcopalian, I believe my church permits all baptized persons to receive. I however would not receive at a Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc. church, because I believe their ministers not to be in apostolic succession and therefore the consecration of the elements to be invalid. Jason Albert Princeton University [We've had this discussion before, but I guess it's long enough ago that we can have it again. In general there are several reasons for closed communion. One is to make sure that the people participating think they're doing the same thing that the church doing it thinks it is doing. Another is for purposes of church discipline. Many churches -- including Protestants -- take seriously the concept that the church should maintain church discipline. When someone sins publically in a way that causes scandal, various procedures are followed, that can end in excommunication. Doing this presupposes that you have to know the people who are participating in communion. It doesn't require you to restrict it to members of your denomination, of course. 1 Cor 11:27 suggests that we have a responsibility to make sure that people partake of communion in a worthy manner. This can of course be implemented by cautioning people solemnly and leaving it between them and God, but one can certainly understand how the ideas suggested in this passage could lead to a bit of control over access to the sacrament. The Catholics seem to have an additional issue, which is that their church is some sense defined sacramentally. For someone to want to participate in Catholic communion and yet not be part of the Catholic church strikes them as peculiar. This is tied in with serious differences between Catholic and Protestant concepts of the Church. --clh]
hammer@sp29.csrd.uiuc.edu (David Hammerslag) (02/07/90)
In article <Jan.31.21.34.15.1990.28222@athos.rutgers.edu> christm@thor.acc.stolaf.edu (Mark C. Christianson) writes: > Most, but not all, Lutheran churches and the Catholic church >discourages members of other denominations from receiving Communion in >their church. I cannot let this slide by. How are you defining "most Lutheran?" My understanding of the ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) is that: 1) It practices "open" communion. 2) It constitutes a majority of Lutherans. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- David Hammerslag | "Woe to those who are wise in their own hammer@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu | eyes and clever in their own sight." Isaiah 5:21 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Brian T. Coughlin) (02/07/90)
In article <Feb.5.04.33.20.1990.26436@athos.rutgers.edu>, ejalbert@phoenix.princeton.edu (Edmund Jason Albert) writes: >I fail to see why the Catholic Church does not permit members of other >denominations who have been baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and >Holy Ghost to receive communion. Since a valid baptism can be performed >by any baptized Christian if he uses this form, why is someone who has b >een validly baptized barred from communion. >As an Episcopalian, I believe my church permits all baptized persons to >receive. I however would not receive at a Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc. >church, because I believe their ministers not to be in apostolic >succession and therefore the consecration of the elements to be invalid. Hi, Jason! [Speaking from opinion only,] I believe that the answer to your question lies not in the domain of Faith, but in the more Earthly domain of Human Tradition. It seems (to me) that the Catholic Church wishes to close Communion for the sake of keeping its purpose clear and undiluted. Personally (and I *do* acknowledge that the Vatican might disagree, here!), I believe that the "distinction" [Catholic Communion vs. Protestant Communion] is unnecessary, and somewhat of a throwback to darker, less enlightened (?) times. (Use your own judgement to decide how "enlightened" we are, now! :) ) I [personally] believe that the Celebration of the Eucharist is (perhaps) the highest form of adoration/respect for the commandments and sacrifices of Jesus Christ. Put simply, those who celebrate the Eucharist believe that It, and everything It represents, is true. I certainly believe that celebrating this Feast is good for one's relationship with God (and therefore good for one's soul, IMHO... :) )... but I do NOT believe in the dogmatic view that, should the Eucharist be denied me, that my soul will shrivel and die. Woe to me if I ever get stranded on an island without a lifetime supply of consecrated Hosts! :) I believe that if one DELIBERATELY denies the Eucharist [through some sort of rebellion], that could harm the loving relationship between God and that person. Through all this, my point is this: I believe that the Eucharist is a symbol [and perhaps a confirmation] of a loving, personal relationship with the Almighty God. Being a PERSONAL relationship, I feel that no Earthly boundaries (Catholic vs. Methodist vs. Lutheran vs. unaffiliated(!), et cet.) should be allowed to interfere with that. Speaking practically, no priest or minister would be able to TELL whether a recipient of the Host was Catholic, Protestant, or anything else, unless that distributor actually KNEW the recipient in question. Ultimately, the Celebration of the Eucharist has guidelines that cannot be met by any Church... they must be met by the human soul. Riddle me this, should you disagree [taking the Catholic Church as example, for a moment]: can you not conceive of a "churchgoing" Catholic who is jaded, and takes the Eucharist in his/her mouth just out of habit? Can you also not conceive of a "non-church-goer" who, through some spiritual urging, would take the Eucharist with all the love and dedication that he/she could muster? Tell me, then, which one would be more fulfilled. The Eucharist, as well as all paths that lead to God, certainly wasn't meant to divide the world. It was meant to bring TOGETHER all people who felt themselves called to the Celebration. IMHO, it would greatly behoove the world to stop thinking up new and old ways to exclude others... and try to welcome ALL people with a willing and understanding heart. "If one of you has a son or an ox and he falls into a pit, will he [the parent/owner] not immediately rescue him on the Sabbath day?" (Luke 14:5) Take care! Sincerely, Brian Coughlin oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu
mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) (02/07/90)
Mike Bushnell's comments on the presbyterian views are a bit foreign to me,
too. My parent's church (I have forgotten which of the pre-union groups it
belonged to) withheld communion to children who had not been through
"communicant's class".
The situation in the Episcopal Church is twofold; there are two different
levels of openness. As far as *individuals* are concerned, anyone properly
baptized is welcome to partake. (Believing JWs, Unitarians, and Mormons
are therefore not welcome.) Formerly it was commonly the custom that
unconfirmed parishioners did not partake, but the push has been to eliminate
this. (I have heard a report of a parish in this diocese (Maryland, not
Washington) effectively deny communion to those who do not make private
confessions, ala old RC practice.) There are disciplinary rubrics, but they
do not extend to things such as theological agreement.
When it comes to communion between church bodies, however, the situation is
much more limited. About five years ago, the EC and the three Lutheran
bodies which merged into the present main Lutheran body (the Evangelical
Lutheran Church?) came to an agreement for intercommunion between the (now)
two bodies, marked by a eucharist at the Washington Cathedral at which the
episcopal presiding bishop, the episcopal bishop of Washington, and three
Lutheran bishops concelebrated. This remains the only such agreement.
Intercommunion requires a much larger alignment in theology and polity.
However, the Episcopal Church does not believe that this division ought to
be visited upon individual christians.
--
C. Wingate + "The peace of God, it is no peace,
+ but strife closed in the sod.
mangoe@cs.umd.edu + Yet let us pray for but one thing--
mimsy!mangoe + the marv'lous peace of God."
[Probably we're showing our age. I also remember growing up in a
Presbyterian church (the Northern one, whatever it was called then) in
which children didn't participate in communion. I'm going to assume
that this was a matter of procedure, because I can't imagine my
parents' refusing it if it was at their option. This was in the late
50's. I don't know when the change occurred, but I'm pretty sure
children have been invited for at least the last 20 years. A 76-77
Book of Order says it is at parents' discretion. The new Directory
for Worship no longer mentions that explicitly. It says children who
are being trained in the significance of the sacrament are invited to
participate, realizing that the level of understanding will be
different at different ages. On the matter of "communicants' class",
it's dangerous to base too much on what Presbyterian churches call
that class. At least half the time it's called "confirmation class",
even though of course we don't actually practice confirmation, and
"communicants' class" is also commonly used, even though children are
communicants well before the class. I'm not sure what the official
name is, if there is one. The rite it is preparing them for is called
"commissioning", but I've never heard of "commissioning class".
--clh]mls@cbnewsm.att.com (02/07/90)
In article <Jan.31.21.34.15.1990.28222@athos.rutgers.edu>, christm@thor.acc.stolaf.edu (Mark C. Christianson) writes: > Most, but not all, Lutheran churches and the Catholic church > discourages members of other denominations from receiving Communion in > their church. They also discourage their members from taking Communion > in the churches of other denominations. While I can more easily see > this in the Catholic Church, I don't understand this among the Protestant > denominations. All Episcopalian parishes I have attented have explicitly encouraged all baptized Christians who wish to communicate to do so. The consistency here suggests to me that this is established national policy, but I don't know that. Catholic theology considers communicants to be affirming certain central dogmas, so that an open communion would be "wrong" from that perspective. Why theology should dictate to liturgy is less clear to me, but the Roman church indeed insists on this. I was not aware that "most Lutheran churches" operate as you say; is this in any degree correlated with the conservative vs. liberal orientation of the different synods? -- Michael L. Siemon We must know the truth, and we must ...!cucard!dasys1!mls love the truth we know, and we must ...!att!sfbat!mls act according to the measure of our love. standard disclaimer -- Thomas Merton
mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) (02/07/90)
In article <Feb.5.04.33.20.1990.26436@athos.rutgers.edu> ejalbert@phoenix.princeton.edu (Edmund Jason Albert) writes: >I fail to see why the Catholic Church does not permit members of other >denominations who have been baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and >Holy Ghost to receive communion. The meaning of communion in the Catholic churches (I believe intercommunion is allowed between Orthodox and RC) is different from the meaning of communion in Protestant churches. Therefore to compare one with the other is not to compare like with like. A somewhat crude analogy, but an effective one: to a Protestant communion is something like shaking hands: the first part of a relationship. To a Catholic it is like making love: the final and deepest part of a relationship. For a Protestant to ask to receive Catholic communion on the grounds that Catholics are free to receive his communion is rather like someone asking to make love with his friend's wife on the grounds that his friend is free to shake hands with his wife. Matthew Huntbach [I think you're underestinating the meaning of communion to many Protestants. I have it on good authority (someone who works for our Presbytery, and previously taught in a Catholic seminary) that Catholic and Presbyterian seminaries in the U.S. are now teaching pretty much the same concepts. (This is of course regarded as a problem by some of our more conservative Catholic readers.) Lutherans have as "high" a view, though there are theoretical differences. There's a spectrum of views among Protestants. You're probably thinking of Zwinglian views, which are held by Baptists and other groups from the "low church" tradition. --clh]
geoff@pmafire.UUCP (Geoff Allen) (02/09/90)
Our friendly neighborhood moderator speculates on reasons for closed communion. Specifically, One: >... to make sure that the people participating >think they're doing the same thing that the church doing it thinks it >is doing. Two: >... for purposes of church discipline. >... 1 Cor 11:27 suggests that we have a responsibility to make >sure that people partake of communion in a worthy manner. This can of >course be implemented by cautioning people solemnly and leaving it >between them and God, This is how it is done at my church. The pastor gives a `mini-sermon' on the purpose and nature of the communion. He explains that your heart must be right with God before taking it, lest you ``eat and drink judgement upon yourself'' (paraphrase of I Cor. 11:29). The prerequisites basically boil down to two: 1) you are trusting in Jesus Christ and His death and resurrection for salvation; and 2) you have no known, unconfessed sin in your heart. Then a few minutes are given for private prayer before the bread and the cup are passed. I imagine that the assumption is that only you know your relationship with God, so you are the only one qualified to judge whether you should take communion. On the subject of discipline, I imagine that if there were someone who was under discipline at the time that person would be denied communion, but I'm not sure on this one. Just providing another data point, Geoff -- Geoff Allen \ Since we live by the Spirit, {uunet|bigtex}!pmafire!geoff \ let us keep in step with the Spirit. ucdavis!egg-id!pmafire!geoff \ -- Gal. 5:25 (NIV)
avo@icad.com (Alex Orlovsky) (02/09/90)
In article <Feb.7.03.43.27.1990.18319@athos.rutgers.edu>, Matthew Huntbach writes: >I believe intercommunion is allowed between Orthodox and RC This is not correct. The Orthodox permit only "Orthodox Christians who have prepared themselves with fasting and recent confession" to approach the Chalice. I do believe, however, that the RC permit Orthodox to commune. The explanation of the Orthodox opposition to open Communion is intimately bound up with the Orthodox view of the Church. The Eucharist is the sacrament, par excellence, of the Church. Debates about the nature of the elements present ignore the element most essential, namely the Church. It at once constitutes the Church and affirms its unity. (The unity is underscored by the fact that an Orthodox priest can't serve at more than one Liturgy a day, and that the same altar can be used for Liturgy only once a day.) The very name "Liturgy" suggests corporate action. This name is used specifically by the Orthodox to refer to the Eucharistic celebration and no other service. The word is derived from two Greek words, meaning roughly "the work (or action) of the people". Thus while not denying the personal element in Communion, the primary understanding of the Eucharist is the common action of the people, that is, the faithful. This begs the question then of who are the faithful ? Or in other words what is the Church? The Orthodox Church believes that the Church is one because God is one. Furthermore, this Church is visible in the world. The only invisible Church consists of those who have already died. While there may be many denominations, there is only one Truth. Thus, from the Orthodox perspective, open communion makes a mockery of the unity of God, Church and the Truth. (I realize this is a somewhat controversial statement in this day and age, but my purpose is not the beat anyone over the head with Orthodoxy, but simply to bear witness to it, to the extent of my abilities.) Incidentally, the Orthodox use both bread and wine, and then consume, quite literally, from a common cup.
harry@atmos.washington.edu (Harry Edmon) (02/09/90)
The policies of the three largest Lutheran bodies do (and do not) vary. For those who don't know them the three bodies (in order of size) are: 1. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). 2. The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (LCMS). 3. The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS). The "offical" policy of all three churches is only to commune those person who belong to denominations who are in Altar Fellowship with the main denomination. The differences between the three Lutheran bodies has do to with what the basis is for Altar Fellowship, and how rigorously the policy is enforced. The ELCA is the most relaxed and liberal of the three. They have been developing Altar Fellowship with the Episcopal and Reformed Churches. In addition, they are not as strict with their congregations when they stray from the "offical" line. The LCMS (my denomination) only has Altar Fellowship with a few other Lutheran bodies in the world. The LCMS had Altar Fellowship with the ALC (a predecessor body to the ELCA), but dissolved it when the ALC got "to liberal". The LCMS also had Altar Fellowship with WELS, but they dissolved it when the LCMS got "too liberal". The actual practice of a LCMS congregation may vary from strict observance to completely open. My own congregation is on the moderate side (there are no liberals in the LCMS :-), we publish our stance on what Communion means (the true body and blood of Jesus Christ, given and shed for the remission of sins) and invite all those who believe likewise to join us. If a person wants to commune regularly with us, they are asked to talk with the Pastor. The WELS has the most conservative stance. They have a very narrow definition of Fellowship that even prohibits the saying of prayers with those who are not in Fellowship with them. For example, at LCMS conventions we always invite the other Lutheran bodies to send representatives and give them time to address the convention. Both the ELCA and WELS send representative, but the WELS representatives will not address the convention since that is "Fellowship". -- Harry Edmon INTERNET: harry@atmos.washington.edu (206) 543-0547 UUCP: uw-beaver!atmos.washington.edu!harry Dept of Atmospheric Sciences, AK-40 University of Washington
bfinnert@sal-sun64.usc.edu (Brian Finnerty) (02/09/90)
The question of inter-communion revolves around a different understanding of the nature of the Eucharist and the Church. Catholics believe that we are not simply saved as individuals, but we are saved in and through the Church. The Catholic Church is not simply another denomination, but it is the true Church established by Christ into which all men are obliged to enter. Moreover, Catholics believe that the Eucharist is not a symbol, but is Jesus Christ himself. Given the Catholic belief that the Eucharist is Christ, it would be strange if the Catholic Church gave communion to recipients who denied that Jesus is really present. For Catholics, inter-communion would represent a unity of faith and worship which we must work for, but does not as yet exist. Brian Finnerty [As far as I can tell, it is the first issue that is the real problem, not the second one. There are many Protestant churches that believe in the real presence, although they do not use transsubstantiation to explain it. --clh]
christm@thor.acc.stolaf.edu (Mark C. Christianson) (02/09/90)
> Most, but not all, Lutheran chruches and the Catholic chruch >discourages members of other denominations from receiving Communion in >their church. They also discourage their members from taking Communion >in the churches of other denomination. It appears that I need to clarify what I meant by "Most, but not all, Lutheran Chruches." I intended it to mean "Lutheran chruch bodies," not "Lutheran congregations." The ELCA is the largest of all the Lutheran churches, and its congregaons do, by and large, practice open communion. However, bodies such as the Lutheran Chruch - Missori Synod, the Wisconsin Synod, the Evangelical Lutheran Synod, and the Lutheran Bretheran (or Brotherhood?) discourage people who are not members of their own congregation from taking communion, wether Lutheran or not, at least without first talking to the pastor. It is this that I find unneeded and uncalled for. Even between the other denominations, one should be able to take communion in any church without first talking to the pastor, for the physical divisions mean nothing to God and his saving grace. christm@stolaf.edu Mark C. Christianson
carroll@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Jeff Carroll) (02/12/90)
First of all, it doesn't necessarily follow that because most Lutherans belong to a church that practices open communion (i.e., the ELCA), most *Lutheran groups* do so. In fact, it would seem to work the other way around. To rephrase what has already been stated here, one good reason for closed communion is that one of the greatest bones of contention among denominations is *what the Eucharist actually is*. I'm not a student of RC theology, but I believe the official Vatican party line is that of transsubstantiation. (Regardless of whatever the theologians say now, and whatever the last papal ruling was, there are doubtless many millions of RCs throughout the world who believe this.) The opposite end of the spectrum, occupied by many of the Protestant groups that sprung up in America in the 19th century, is that Holy Communion is an "ordinance" of the Savior, which we perform in memory of him. (I believe that the Church of the Nazarene, into which I was born, is one of several groups taking this position.) The term "sacrament" is never used, much less "Eucharist" or "Mass". Most Protestants (no numbers to back me up here) believe that Holy Communion is a sacrament. Most agree that there are two of them; Baptism and Holy Communion. Most, however, don't ever stop to think about what a sacrament is, other than to memorize the line "outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace." In the Anglican Communion, we believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. (Anyone who is familiar with the diversity among Episcopal parishes today knows that we have plenty of people who hew to the RC line, and some who are pretty Protestant.) In other words, we believe that Christ uses the Eucharist as a supernatural means of grace. We're Catholic, we're just not Roman Catholic. So one good reason for closed communion is to keep people with particular beliefs from being scandalized by the participation of heretics in the Sacraments. Another good reason is that of mechanics. My wife and I wanted to have Eucharist at our wedding; the problem was that most of the guests had no idea of how to properly receive the Eucharist in the Episcopal Church. Most of my family is Methodist; some are Congregational; some are Advent Christian; most of my wife's family is Presbyterian, and many friends of the family are Jewish. Without having an instructional Eucharist every Sunday, how do you really open the Sacrament to "all baptized Christians", as is stated in the latest Episcopal prayer book? Not only are the non-Episcopalians uncomfortable, they also become a distracting spectacle to other communicants. Another reason for closed communion is because it allows the Church to prevent people from partaking of the Sacrament "to their own comdemnation", to paraphrase the words of St. Paul. In my (family) parish, it is quite disturbing to see children too young to understand the significance of what they are doing, and in many cases too young to read, taking part in the Eucharist. It invites sacrilegious behavior. The Episcopal Church has open communion. I wish it didn't. Jeff Carroll carroll@atc.boeing.com
hammer@sp29.csrd.uiuc.edu (David Hammerslag) (02/12/90)
[In article <Feb.9.02.25.35.1990.18616@athos.rutgers.edu>, harry@atmos.washington.edu (Harry Edmon) told us that the three largest Lutheran bodies (ELCA, LCMS, and WELS) commune only those who belong to denominations that are in Altar Fellowship with them. > The differences between the three Lutheran > bodies has do to with what the basis is for Altar Fellowship, and how > rigorously the policy is enforced. --clh] This is not correct. The ELCA will commune baptized Christians who understand their need for confession and reconcilliation and who believe that in receiving the elements they receive reconcilliation and forgiveness. For example, RCs are certainly welcome to commune at an ELCA church. > The ELCA is the most relaxed and liberal of the three. They have been > developing Altar Fellowship with the Episcopal and Reformed Churches. I believe you are confusing the question of who can receive communion with who can celebrate the Eucharist. [I confirmed in separate correspondence that the distinction intended here is between participating in communion as a member of the congregation and as a pastor who conducts the rite. He is not making any distinction between communion and eucharist. --clh] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- David Hammerslag | "Woe to those who are wise in their own hammer@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu | eyes and clever in their own sight." Isaiah 5:21 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) (02/12/90)
In article <Feb.7.03.43.27.1990.18319@athos.rutgers.edu> mmh@cs.qmc.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes: >The meaning of communion in the Catholic churches (I believe >intercommunion is allowed between Orthodox and RC) is different >from the meaning of communion in Protestant churches. >[I think you're underestinating the meaning of communion to many >Protestants. I have it on good authority (someone who works for our >Presbytery, and previously taught in a Catholic seminary) that >Catholic and Presbyterian seminaries in the U.S. are now teaching >pretty much the same concepts. I agree, actually. But the real problem is there is such a range of views about communion on the Protestant side that it's best to play safe. I would have no problem about intercommunion with High Church Anglicans here, but I would with some of the Low Church ones. It would be far more offensive to start distinguishing between members of the same church than to stick to the simple rule of no intercommunion. Matthew Huntbach
ejalbert@phoenix.princeton.edu (Edmund Jason Albert) (02/12/90)
The way I see this issue from an Episcopal point of view is that essentials govern. What is essential to approach the altar to receive. Proper baptism (i.e. Baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by one so properly baptized and so on back). Most Christians of major denominations fulfill this requirement. What is essential for the consecration to be valid. Proper form performed by a priest in apostolic succession. Hence, a Presbyterian is eligible to receive at an Episcopal service, since he meets the requirements to receive, but most Episcopalians would not recieve at a Presbyterian service since the minister does not have proper succession, making the consecration invalid. With regard to Catholics: the official Church position, right or wrong, is that all Anglicans have lost succession. Hence I can understand why Catholics would choose not to receive at an Episcopal service (although I know some that do). But Catholics recognize Episcopal baptism. So having met the requirements to approach the altar, recognizing the validity of the consecration, my question is why can I not receive at a Catholic (or Orthodox, for that manner, especially since they recognize Anglican succession) service. Jason Albert Princeton University [Hmmm.... baptism certainly has met the Episcopalean requirements to approach the altar. Perhaps Catholics have different requirements? --clh]
mdg@ronin.us.cc.umich.edu (Mike Gallatin) (02/12/90)
In article <Feb.9.02.22.33.1990.17959@athos.rutgers.edu> avo@icad.com (Alex Orlovsky) writes: > >Incidentally, the Orthodox use both bread and wine, and then consume, >quite literally, from a common cup. Seriously, do think this is a sanitary thing to do in an enlightened day and age? ________ Mike Gallatin- mdg@us.cc.umich.edu Opinions expressed herein are solely my own and have no relation to the organization from which this originates. [I didn't check myself, but at a previous church a pastor cited a Ph.D. thesis from the Cornell Dental School, which claimed that in fact use of a common cup is not a health hazard as long as (1) a silver cup is used (2) the wine is at least N% alcohol (I think 6%, but I'm not sure), and (3) a purificator (a cloth used to wipe the cup) is used between people. --clh]
bjstaff@uunet.uu.net (02/12/90)
christm@thor.acc.stolaf.edu (Mark C. Christianson) writes: >The ELCA is the largest of all the Lutheran churches, and its congregaons do, >by and large, practice open communion. I can vouch for this. I have been a member of one ELCA Lutheran church, and have visited (at least) two others, and they all practiced open communion. > However, bodies such as the >Lutheran Chruch - Missori Synod, the Wisconsin Synod, the Evangelical Lutheran >Synod, and the Lutheran Bretheran (or Brotherhood?) discourage people who are >not members of their own congregation from taking communion, wether Lutheran or >not, at least without first talking to the pastor. The only other Lutheran church I have had experience with was a local LCMS congregation. We had recently moved from Florida to Michigan and were looking for a new church home. My wife and I attended a LCMS congregation for a good while. We were seriously thinking of joining, and went to talk to one of the pastors about it. Just as the meeting was about to conclude, I asked whether there would be any problem with our communing until we were "official" members. To my amazement, he said he really wouldn't like that at all. To make a long story short, we didn't join the LCMS congregation after all. > It is this that I find >unneeded and uncalled for. Even between the other denominations, one should be >able to take communion in any church without first talking to the pastor, for >the physical divisions mean nothing to God and his saving grace. Agreed. I am now a happy member of a United Methodist church. >christm@stolaf.edu >Mark C. Christianson uunet!zds-ux!bjstaff Brad Staff
dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate) (02/12/90)
In article <Feb.9.02.25.35.1990.18616@athos.rutgers.edu> harry@atmos.washington.edu (Harry Edmon) writes: > >The WELS has the most conservative stance. They have a very narrow >definition of Fellowship that even prohibits the saying of prayers >with those who are not in Fellowship with them. For example, at LCMS >conventions we always invite the other Lutheran bodies to send >representatives and give them time to address the convention. Both >the ELCA and WELS send representative, but the WELS representatives >will not address the convention since that is "Fellowship". I suppose Jesus couldn't have belonged to WELS. That dude would talk to or pray with anyone, completely indiscriminately! I mean, didn't he have any proper sense of spiritual repugnance? ( 1/2 :-) ) Seriously, I find this sort of position (if accurately reported) to be wholly indefensible and thoroughly unChristian. Without flaming any individuals, who I will assume to be well-intentioned and sincere, I must ask what justification could possibly be offered for this position. Clearly, one who held such a belief could not also think that the excluded denominations' members are also Christians... -- David M. Tate | "The logarithms of 1,2,...,10 to base 10^(1/40) dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu | are conveniently close to whole numbers, which | when you think about it, is why there are 12 "A Man for all Seasonings" | semitones in an octave." -- I. J. Good.
bfinnert@castor.usc.edu (Brian Finnerty) (02/22/90)
>I suppose that, technically, when the Pope speaks from the Chair, he is >prophesying. Not quite. Roman Catholics believe that the Pope has the charism of infallibility. This means the Pope is protected from teaching heresy when he makes a definitive judgement in the area of faith and morals. But it doesn't mean that the Pope has the gift of prophesy. When the Pope is asked a theological question, he relies upon the same sources as anyone else to find out the answer: scripture and tradition. The Pope has to do his homework like any other Christian. Infallibility doesn't mean he will always come up with an answer. Infallibility means that if he does manage to come up with an answer, and teaches the answer definitively, then the answer will be correct. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. The Church sees itself as the guardian of the faith that has been passed down to it from Christ. The Church grows in its understanding of that faith, but the Church can not add to that faith, and the Church cannot take anything away. Brian Finnerty
oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Brian T. Coughlin) (03/01/90)
Re: Brian Finnerty In article <Feb.22.04.20.34.1990.6376@athos.rutgers.edu>, bfinnert@castor.usc.edu (Brian Finnerty) writes: >The Roman Catholic Church teaches that revelation ended with the >death of the last apostle. The Church sees itself as the guardian >of the faith that has been passed down to it from Christ. The Church >grows in its understanding of that faith, but the Church can not add >to that faith, and the Church cannot take anything away. > >Brian Finnerty Hi, Brian! (Nice name! :) ) I enjoyed your posting very much, but I have just one quick comment about the above. When you say that "the Roman Catholic Church teaches that revelation ended with the death of the last apostle", I think (?) you were referring to the fact that there haven't been any scriptural references to revelation since the death of the apostles, and thus a special KIND of revelation was lost. (Scriptural documentation was sort of difficult after the Bible was judged to be "complete", as such. There aren't many provisions for amending Scripture. :) ) However, I see no indication that the Church believes ALL revelation to be "deceased." It may be a matter of perspective. If you define "revelation" to be a literal "vision" from God that invades one's normal daily thoughts, then yes, I'd grant that those are not widely documented after about 100 AD. But I like to think that revelation hasn't died, but has instead CHANGED to adapt to a more mature people. I believe humanity to be a bit more socially mature than in times of Biblical Yore :), and I believe that actions taken by God are subtle, keeping with that change. The old saying goes, "Miracles will not appear to those that wish not to see them," seems (to me) to hint at the idea that miracles/revelations/et cet. are as flambuoyant or subtle as the time's people require. Thus, I don't think the Catholic Church has said Last Rites for Divine Revelation... I think the Church has given Revelation the Rite of Confirmation, welcoming Revelation into its adulthood, as such. I hope this helps! Take care! Sincerely, Brian Coughlin oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu
mlawless@amo.wichita.ncr.com (Mike Lawless) (03/04/90)
In article <Mar.1.02.51.27.1990.28274@athos.rutgers.edu> oracle@eleazar.dartmo > > When you say that "the Roman Catholic Church teaches that revelation > ended with the death of the last apostle", I think (?) you were referring > to the fact that there haven't been any scriptural references to revelation > since the death of the apostles, and thus a special KIND of revelation was > lost. (Scriptural documentation was sort of difficult after the Bible was > judged to be "complete", as such. There aren't many provisions for amending > Scripture. :) ) > However, I see no indication that the Church believes ALL revelation to > be "deceased." It may be a matter of perspective. > Briefly, the Catholic Church teaches that the "deposit of faith" was complete at the time of the death of the last Apostle. However, the Church makes a distinction between this type of revelation (I forget the exact term for it) and "private revelation" (visions, miracles, etc. which have occurred since). The former are articles of faith which all the faithful are bound to accept, while nobody is every required to accept any kind of private revelation. The church, in certain cases, declares after much investigation whether a particular private revelation is "worthy of belief," and also occasionally declares certain alleged private revelations to be fradulent. One criterion used in making such determinations is whether the private revelation supports or contradicts established doctrine (which for the purposes of this discus- sion includes both the Bible and oral Tradition, which are considered equally valid sources of revelation). The church does not introduce "new" doctrine, whether based on private revelation or otherwise; the church can and does "develop" doctrine, which is defined as working to develop a fuller, more accurate understanding of various elements of the existing deposit of faith; this is done with the assistance of the charism of infallibility of the Pope, and the world's bishops teaching in union with him. However, this charism is not the same thing as inspiration or visions; it is simply preservation from teaching error by the power of the Holy Spirit. They still must rely on the use of their own intellects in order to develop doctrine. One important reason for the development of doctrine is the adaptation of existing articles of faith to changing cultural conditions; for instance, in vitro fertilization was unheard of until recently, so scripture or Tradition do not address it directly. The church must decide how existing doctrine is to be applied to such situations. This is not "new doctrine"; it is new application of existing doctrine. -- Mike Lawless, NCR E&M Wichita, Box 20 (316) 636-8666 (NCR: 654-8666) 3718 N. Rock Road, Wichita, KS 67226 Mike.Lawless@Wichita.NCR.COM {ece-csc,hubcap,gould,rtech}!ncrcae!ncrwic!Mike.Lawless {sdcsvax,cbatt,dcdwest,nosc.ARPA}!ncr-sd!ncrwic!Mike.Lawless
daemon@garage.att.com (Joseph H. Buehler) (03/04/90)
Brian Coughlin wrote: > When you say that "the Roman Catholic Church teaches that revelation >ended with the death of the last apostle", I think (?) you were referring >to the fact that there haven't been any scriptural references to revelation >since the death of the apostles, and thus a special KIND of revelation was >lost. (Scriptural documentation was sort of difficult after the Bible was >judged to be "complete", as such. There aren't many provisions for amending >Scripture. :) ) > However, I see no indication that the Church believes ALL revelation to >be "deceased." It may be a matter of perspective. It is a belief of the Roman Catholic Church that the public deposit of Faith was complete at the death of the last Apostle. My theology reference says that this has not yet been definitively decided by the Church, but that it is a certain theological conclusion. A reference given by the book is from a decree of the Holy Office in 1907, dealing with the errors of a heresy called Modernism. The following idea was condemned: Revelation, constituting the object of Catholic faith, was not terminated with the Apostles. Since the Apostles, nothing new has been revealed by God that every Catholic has to believe has been revealed by God. Joe Buehler (jhpb@granjon.att.com -- header address is bogus for a while yet.)