Thanks for the cite! (I’m sorry I can’t read the whole PDF - my adobe’s acting wonky right now.)
So, since I was baptized under Lutheran auspices as an infant, was she still in the wrong? Do I still have to be an active Christian, or is a Christian baptized pagan eligible?
The canons only require that you have been baptized in a Christian church. There is no requirement that you be active. When you are baptized you are “marked as Christ’s own forever” according to our Book of Common Prayer - nothing you do after that cancels or nullifies your baptism.
The priest may, but is not required to, withhold communion from individuals if she is aware that they are in a state of persistent sin (I would have to look up the exact wording of the canon). But if the priest felt that it was appropriate to offer you communion, and you felt it was appropriate to partake in it, then everything was perfectly acceptable.
Cradle Episcopalian here, and I agree with Skammer.
The trend in our church has long been towards “radical welcoming,” and permitting anyone to receive communion who wishes to.
When I was growing up in a pretty old-fashioned Episcopal church, communion was limited to those who’d gone through confirmation (kind of like a bar mitzvah), which usually happened in your early teens. Kids would get a blessing from the priest, but no bread or wine. Then the practice changed, and any baptized Episcopalian of any age could receive communion. Then any baptized Christian. Now, in the last decade or so, it’s been available for whoever wants it. Our rector often says something along the lines of, “Wherever you are in your faith journey, you are welcome at Christ’s table.”
Skammer is precisely right, both on what the official standards are and the extent to which they are often ignored. Note that confirmation is no longer a requirement for admission to communion, as it once was.
One may not receive the Eucharist at an Eastern Orthodox church unless he or she is Eastern Orthodox. Likewise the Missouri Synod Lutherans practice the same closed communion, available to members only.
Catholicism is somewhat nuanced on this subject: Orthodox, Old Catholics, Polish National Catholics, and a couple of other groups who hold to similar eucharistic beliefs as the Catholics are welcome to receive, but not most Protestants. For complex reasons involving Abp. Matthew Parker and the Edwardine Ordinal among other arcane trivia, an Anglican presenting him/herself for communion in a Catholic church may be granted or refused communion at the discretion of the parish priest or bishop. While Catholics are entitled by the rules of Catholicism to receive communion in an Orthodox church and Orthodox are welcome at their altars, the Orthodox themselves will not (usually) grant Catholics communion and are honorbound not to receive at a Catholic Mass.
Eucharistic theology generally is one of the most disputed topics across the various branches of Christianity, with infinite twists to individual denominational explanations of what is essentially the same service.
Poly, thanks for your input. I had no idea that Anglicans may possibly be permitted to take communion in a Roman Catholic church.
I’ll be attending an RC wedding later this year - I was assuming that I would not be able take communion, but I guess I should call the church or the diocese ahead of time and find out. This being a pretty religiously conservative area, I expect to be denied; but you never know…
By the way, Polycarp, since I missed you yesterday… Happy Feast Day!
The relationship between the Episcopalian and Roman Catholic churches is peculiar, to say the least. As another example of closeness between the churches, there have been a handful of cases where an Episcopalian priest has converted to Catholicism. In such cases, the convert is still considered to be a priest, though now a Catholic one, without need for any further Sacrament of Holy Orders or other ceremony. Even more remarkably, if the converted priest was married as an Episcopalian, he remains married, and is therefore a legitimately-married Roman Catholic priest.
As an even broader example of sharing of sacraments, Catholics hold that any Christian baptism constitutes the Sacrament of Baptism. If a person raised as, say, a Hindu (who has therefore never been baptised) converts to Catholicism, then the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults includes baptism. But if a person is baptised in the Main Street Church of Jesus is God, Halleluja, and later converts to Catholicism, then the RCIA will not include baptism for that person, since he or she is already baptised, and that baptism has already left its indelible mark on the soul, regardless of what Christian church performed the baptism.
In the spirit of Christian brotherhood, hey, look over here !
I’m surprised at how some people here perceive First Communion. Apparently, a child must somewhat understand transubstantiation to receive communion. I had the traditional catechism at age 8 (about the only thing I lacked was the strap, we had the ruler snapping the wooden desks. What can I say, it was the mid-90s in Canada, corporal punishment was bad), but by the end my most pressing question was ‘they gave us a sample training communion with fruit juice; is the real thing like that?’.
For the first few years after I stopped going to church, I’d take communion anyway, but when I got into high school and made my own decisions, I’ve stopped out of respect. I never understood that taking communion is disrespectful if you’re not actively practicing until my Christian Ethics teacher told me so.
I remember many Episcopalian sermans dealing with the idea that only ONE baptism is necessary. Second or third baptisms are at best unnecessary and at worst blasphemy.
So Baptists or other denominations demanding 2nd or 3rd baptisms to make things “right” ----
----beware of making Episcopalians (and probably Catholics also) redo the Baptismal rite.
Not at all necessary. Also contrary to doctrine.
Can’t edit. But I am not that bad a speller.
Sermans was supposed to read sermons.
I went to a funeral last fall for a young man who was both a Marine reservist and a CDF (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection) employee, killed in Iraq by an IED. I’d known him since he was about ten when he and my daughter bonded as the class geeks.
Before the communion, the presiding Catholic priest said that there was an agreement among the various denominational hierarchy in my county (Sacramento) that communion was not to be taken by those of other religions if those religions forbade or discouraged it.
The Marine’s best friend since grade school, an avowed agnostic/sometime atheist, made it a point to be the last to receive communion. No one denied him nor questioned his motives although they were well known. My own feeling when the priest approached the best friend was that he too (the priest) was particularly moved by the gesture.
Bless you, Brian Dunlap.
This is Brian’s last entry on myspace.
I’m still alive
Thursday, September 15, 2005
"Im still alive
Well folks sorry i havent blogged recently. Been a little busy. Almost got wacked again this morning. that makes 5 times in the last 2 weeks. I lost 1 of my iraqis today from an IED. I tried everything i could but he couldnt hang on. This area is the worst place in iraq. To tell you about a typical day, it starts off by mortar rnds earliy in the mornig then i run about 3 to 4 missions a day. Usually with and IED or mortar and small arms fire of some sort. then we have our nightly mortar barrage followed by more missions. Ive lost about 11 guys in my Company to injuries, the other companies even more. This place is the wild west. But im doing allright. I write more when i have time there’s also alot of things I cant discuss. PLease keep praying for me so that I can make it home in one piece. If you havent seen our team web page please take a look. www.mittiraq.blogspot.com
Love
Brian"
Sorry I engaged in this pitiable melodrama, but this was a significant loss in my life and the clergy’s reaction (or lack thereof) seemed so appropriate.
I’m sorry straykat, but color me a bit confused.
I think the priest’s action in giving the young man communion was appropriate–no one coming the table freely should be refused. And I’m certain that the man’s motives were pure. But I’m not quite sure what they were.
The natural meaning expressed by the Eucharist in that context, is to affirm and act on the belief that both he and Brian share in the Resurrection of Christ. Was he intending to express that belief? Did he hold such a belief?
If not, what was his motivation? Was it just a vague sense that Brian would be honored or would have wanted it this way? A more deliberate attempt to act vicariously on Brian’s belief that despite his friend’s agnosticism, they both shared in Christ’s Resurrection?
Don’t get me wrong–I’m not suggesting that the man did anything inappropriate. Nor do I believe the priest acted inappropriately (though his bishop may disagree!) I’m just curious what you think the gesture meant to him, or what it would have meant to Brian.
At the risk of appearing to trivialize or demean his intentions, I’ll offer an analogy. I would be unlikely to recite the Shahadah (“There is no god but God and Muhammad is his prophet”) at the funeral of a Muslim friend, to slaughter a goat at the funeral of a voodoo- or animism-practicing friend, to eat peyote at the funeral of a friend belonging to the Native American Church, or to be quiet at the funeral of a Quaker friend, unless I accepted (or was at least strongly sympathetic to) the beliefs implied by such an action.
[sub]Ok, the last one was just to see if you were paying attention.[/sub]
Unfortunately, there are things which are simply restricted to members of a particular faith. You may personally accept or be sympathetic to the tenets of Catholicism or Judaism or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, but unless you’re actually a Jew or a Mormon or a Catholic, you’re not going to be able to say aliyah at a synagogue or receive ordinances at a temple or take communion at mass.
Well, yes, and I personally would attempt to be rather scrupulous about obeying not only my own conscience, but the rules of that faith. But I think you know that about me, since we’ve discussed my participation in a Russian Orthodox Eucharist, and my intentions and misgivings related to it.
In this case, however, the question for me is not whether the young man should have participated or whether he should have been allowed to. I know the answers to those questions. It’s moot now anyway, since he did and he was (if not entirely licitly). I’m curious only about why he wanted to participate, whether or not he knew the Church’s position on it.
Alan Smithee, it’s not quite that deep. Brian’s friend’s motivation was to honor his friend’s beliefs although they were not his own. No, they did not share their beliefs but respected one another’s. There were many good natured, sometimes heated, late night discussions over this subject that continued through the years.
The priest, BTW, is the bishop. This was kind of a ‘big deal’ combination of memorial services. Brian was honored by the Marine Corps, fire fighters and California Highway Patrol. Mourners overflowed the churches, mortuary and cemetery here in Sac and in two SoCal locations. Brian was unique and was well loved.
I think Brian would have felt honored. The resurrection of Jesus Christ in this instance was not the issue.
Alan Smithee, it’s not quite that deep. Brian’s friend’s motivation was to honor his friend’s beliefs although they were not his own. No, they did not share their beliefs but respected one another’s. There were many good natured, sometimes heated, late night discussions over this subject that continued through the years.
The priest, BTW, is the bishop. This was kind of a ‘big deal’ combination of memorial services. Brian was honored by the Marine Corps, fire fighters and California Highway Patrol. Mourners overflowed the churches, mortuary and cemetery here in Sac and in two SoCal locations. Brian was unique and was well loved.
I think Brian would have felt honored. The resurrection of Jesus Christ in this instance was not the issue.
The logic here is sensible but arcane.
First, in baptism, as Chronos noted, the belief is that “an indelible mark” is left on the soul of the baptized. The sole requirement is that those involved be seeking to “do what the Church does,” i.e., baptism for the remission of sins in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (Two kids playing church do not have the requisite intent.) Any baptized Christian can be the minister of baptism, so any church that sees baptism in the nature of a sacrament considers that anyone duly baptized by any other baptized person is validly and licitly baptized. If there is any doubt whether what happened in the Full Gospel Fundamentalist Bible Tabernacle, Inc., was in fact a valid Trinitarian baptism as recognized by the church, a “conditional baptism” is done, with the formula, “If you are not already baptized, N., I baptize you…”
Second, the Eucharist (and other such sacramental functions such as confirmation, ordination, and such). The gimmick here is Apostolic Succession. In many walks of life, one may only validly commit an act if one is both acting in accordance with proper form and has authority to act. I might sell Bricker the Brooklyn Bridge, but unless I make him out a proper bill of sale and am authorized by the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority or whoever actually owns it, I am committing a fraud.
Likewise, to validly “confect” the Eucharist, and have it actually function as what Jesus commanded, one must not only have the right intent and use a formulary that validly expresses that intent, but also have the authority to do so. That authority was transmitted to the Apostles by Jesus after the Resurrection, and conveyed by them to the bishops and presbyters whom they left in charge of the churches they founded in their itinerant ministries. The bishops had the authority to consecrate other bishops and presbyters to continue the process, and it is that unbroken lineal transmission of authority which equips Eggershaus to validly preside at the celebration of the Eucharist.
There is absolutely no question that Oriental and Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic clergy have been properly given that authority by ordination in the unbroken Apostolic Succession. Anglicans are very clear that they too have preserved that succession, as have Old Catholics, Polish National Catholics, Philippine Indepentent Aglipayans, and Swedish and Finnish Lutherans and therefore ELCA. However, the Rev. Joe Bob of the Bible Baptist Church cannot show himself to have been ordained in that unbroken line and hence does not have the authority.
Presbyterians, Methodists, members of the Church of the Nazarene, and others adhere to a related belief, which suggests that all presbyters (elders, priests, pastors) have that authority innately included in their ordination, and that the episcopacy is merely a governing mechanism and not a separate order with “faculties” distinct from those of the presbyteriate. This concept is rejected by Orthodox and Catholics and by most Anglicans.
In such a case - why not skip communion for that service and instead have a toast to honor Brian or blessing or recitation or moment of silence?
Why have communion if it isn’t going to be about Christ?
Right. Regardless of the specific reason for the service, it’s the same miracle and prayer it is any time, and God in the midst of His community is the point. Even a wedding Mass is not about the bride. 