Ship of Fools: Open and Closed Communion

Thread: Open and Closed Communion Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028559

Posted by Michael Reilly (# 16025) on :

Greetings, friends. I am a Catholic writing from the Boston area in the United States. My question is about open vs. closed communion, and the theological underpinnings of both positions. My church--the Roman Catholic Church--practices closed communion. There are many different ways to disqualify one's self from receiving the Eucharist: being a state of mortal sin, for example. Not being a Catholic. Not believeing in transubstantiation. You get the idea.

Other Christian traditions are more lenient. You need only be baptized to step up to the altar, for instance..

Other churches (like the United Church of Christ here in the US, aka the Congregational Church) practices open communion. If you show up, and you want it, you can have it.

I wonder if anyone knows about the theological reasoning behind these two posistions. When I read the Gospels, it doesn't seem to me that Jesus says who can, or who can't, participate (although during the Last Supper he is speaking directly to his disciples). Is there Biblical support for setting up barriers between people and the Lord's Table, or is it all a matter of tradition and, in the case of the RCC, the magesterium of the Catholic Church?

This is my first post. Be gentle with me.

[ 23. November 2010, 17:10: Message edited by: Michael Reilly ]

Posted by WhyNotSmile (# 14126) on :

Welcome to the ship!

I go to a Methodist church, and we open the table to 'all who know and love the Lord, or who earnestly desire to love Him' (I think that's the wording). We also stress that the table is not the table of the Methodist church, but the table of Christ, and we do not believe it is our place to say who can or cannot come to the table.

I'm not entirely clear on the theology; no doubt someone else will chip in on that. My understanding is that John Wesley believed taking communion was a command; there is no division between the worthy and unworthy, as we are all unworthy and can only be cleansed by coming to Christ. Furthermore, he pointed out that if you have sinned, that will not be atoned for by refusing to obey Christ's command to take communion.

In practice, I'm not sure what the process is for ensuring that those who come do 'know and love the Lord, or who earnestly desire to love Him', but as far as I know, it's a matter for individual conscience. I would suspect that if someone was very openly acting in a way which made a mockery of this claim, someone would get alongside them and have some quiet words, but I've never heard of it happening, so I'm not sure.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

At the time of writing, I am the first to reply, but by the time you read this, it may have crossed with other posts. So welcome to the ship!

My answer is that there are in fact three positions of communion - open, free and closed. Methodists and others practise open communion which states that "all who love the Lord Jesus are welcome to his holy table", meaning that no Christian innitiation or commitment is needed and one does not even have to be baptised to receive.

Open communion states that those baptised Christians in good standing in other confessions, who subscribe to the doctrine of the Trinity, are welcome to come forward. That is practised by Anglican Episcopal Churches.

Closed communion is a 'members only' policy, which is what you are used to in the RC Church and also some extreme protestant denominations.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Michael Reilly:
When I read the Gospels, it doesn't seem to me that Jesus says who can, or who can't, participate

The gospels have people complaining that Jesus ate with tax collectors and sinners - that suggests that an open table is scriptural.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
My answer is that there are in fact three positions of communion - open, free and closed. Methodists and others practise open communion which states that "all who love the Lord Jesus are welcome to his holy table", meaning that no Christian initiation or commitment is needed and one does not even have to be baptised to receive.

The formulation that I have always liked is, "All ye who truly and earnestly repent of your sins and are in love and charity with your neighbor, draw near in faith."

--Tom Clune

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

No, you'll just have people complaining about the "devoutly kneeling" part.

Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :

Putting aside my own opinions on the subject for this paragraph, the Catholic Church actually will allow non-Catholics to receive communion in cases of grave necessity--most typically in cases of impending death. In fact, I'd say that the Catholic church is more open to non-Catholics receiving communion than to Catholics receiving communion elsewhere (except in Orthodox churches, where they most likely will not be able to receive anyway).

As you've seen here, Michael (welcome, by the way), this crosses into issues of scripture vs. tradition. Most Protestant churches teach that Holy Communion is a gift to the baptized faithful who desire to receive. It is a gift not given by the church, but through the church. As we recognize the baptisms--and therefore the Christian brotherhood--of those from other denominations, so we welcome them to the altar.

One of my favorite Gospel passages is that of Peter being given the keys--the authority to bind and loose sins. I try to imagine what might have been going through the mind of Jesus at that moment. (Yes, I'm certainly out of my depth here...!) My instinct leads me to think it might be something like "Free them all! Go for it!"

Posted by Mr Tambourine Man (# 15361) on :

Just to use this thread for a personal question:
I'm going to a Chaldean Catholic wedding at a Roman Catholic Church this weekend in the UK. As a Protestant (genus Anglican) can I expect to receive Mass there or will I only get a blessing?

Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mr Tambourine Man:
Just to use this thread for a personal question:
I'm going to a Chaldean Catholic wedding at a Roman Catholic Church this weekend in the UK. As a Protestant (genus Anglican) can I expect to receive Mass there or will I only get a blessing?

Probably standard procedure will apply: if you present yourself to receive and hold out your hands (or open your mouth--I'm not sure what the Chaldeans do), it will be assumed you're Catholic and will receive. That is what would happen in the US, anyway, especially with a guest celebrant in another priest's church. I've never seen a priest ask for your Catholic i.d. card.

If the priest knows you're Anglican, expect a blessing. In the US, crossing one's arms over one's chest instead of holding out one's hands is a signal that a blessing is desired instead.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
One of my favorite Gospel passages is that of Peter being given the keys--the authority to bind and loose sins.

I trust you kept reading Matthew until you came to the part two chapters later where Christ gave the same authority to all the disciples. It has the same force, and is much less subject to abuse by the churchly heirarchy...

--Tom Clune

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Welcome, Michael Reilly. I'm one of the Hosts in Purgatory.

Here is a link to the guidelines for our discussion forum known as Dead Horses. You'll see from the guidelines (para 1) that closed communion, as an oft-recurring topic is classified as one of those which gets discussed in Dead Horses, rather than Purgatory.

It will take you a little while to get used to our demarcation guidelines, but you'll get there. Meanwhile, this discussion thread is being moved to Dead Horses, in accordance with those guidelines.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Posted by Michael Reilly (# 16025) on :

Sorry about that, Barnabas62. As you noted, I am new.

And thanks to all. I am curious, in which Gospel passages does Jesus give the keys to all disciples? The Peter verse I am aware of. ?

I have recently learned a bit about the Chaldean Catholics, having met a very nice man at a wedding, and watching with absolute horror and revulsion the recent attack in Iraq on the Chaldean Church. I believe that the Chaldeans are in full communion with the RCC, so commune away.

Posted by Ondergard (# 9324) on :

John Wesley practised open communion - invting anyone at all to the table - because he believed that Communion was a "converting ordinacne": ie, could be and often was the instrument of grace in bringing someone from unbelief to belief.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Then again, nearly everyone was baptised in Wesley's day.

Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Michael Reilly:
I am curious, in which Gospel passages does Jesus give the keys to all disciples? The Peter verse I am aware of. ?

See Matthew 18: 15-20

Michael, it's also significant to note that Catholics are pretty much the only ones trained to interpret Peter=the Roman Catholic Church.

As a Protestant, the view is that the Office of the Keys is entrusted to the Church. No adjectives (well, other than the article "the").

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

I recently attended a Roman Catholic requiem mass for a relative. I was surprised when the priest said that on the occasion of a funeral they would offer communion to any Christian who wished to receive. (I note that the service included a general form of confession prior to this.)

As someone baptized at birth, and latterly a Quaker, this will probably be the one occasion in my life time that I will receive communion in a Roman Catholic church. I had planned to go up for a blessing (assuming communion would be offered only to Roman Catholics), but felt that is would be wrong to refuse such generosity.

Posted by Via Media (# 16087) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
I recently attended a Roman Catholic requiem mass for a relative. I was surprised when the priest said that on the occasion of a funeral they would offer communion to any Christian who wished to receive. (I note that the service included a general form of confession prior to this.)

As someone baptized at birth, and latterly a Quaker, this will probably be the one occasion in my life time that I will receive communion in a Roman Catholic church. I had planned to go up for a blessing (assuming communion would be offered only to Roman Catholics), but felt that is would be wrong to refuse such generosity.

Please.

You do realize that this priest will be doing wrong -- very wrong -- according to his Church by offering you Communion? Just because this priest apparently has no respect for this Roman Catholic regulation doesn't make it OK for you.

Show some respect.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

I assumed he had the authority to make the decision, indeed he appeared to imply it was diocesan policy. I know there are limited circumstances in which the RCs will offer communion to other denominations, I was just surprised that he was saying this was one of them. I would not have attempted to receive without the explicit invitation of the priest, (nor without the form of confession prior to communion).

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

Found a reference:

quote:
"If the danger of death is present or other grave necessity, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or the conference of bishops, Catholic ministers may licitly administer these sacraments to other Christians who do not have full Communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and on their own ask for it, provided they manifest Catholic faith in these sacraments and are properly disposed" (CIC 844 § 4).

Presumably, the interpretation of the cannon was of the funeral as being a "grave necessity". As I said, I was surprised that the offer was made. But I also don't think I can be expected to second guess an ordained member of a church I don't usually worship in, on matters of doctrine and cannon law pertaining to that church.

Posted by Via Media (# 16087) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
Found a reference:

quote:
"If the danger of death is present or other grave necessity, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or the conference of bishops, Catholic ministers may licitly administer these sacraments to other Christians who do not have full Communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and on their own ask for it, provided they manifest Catholic faith in these sacraments and are properly disposed" (CIC 844 § 4).
Presumably, the interpretation of the cannon was of the funeral as being a "grave necessity". As I said, I was surprised that the offer was made. But I also don't think I can be expected to second guess an ordained member of a church I don't usually worship in, on matters of doctrine and cannon law pertaining to that church.

Yeah, well, welcome to the contemporary Roman Catholic Church, where half the clergy operate as if Canon Law was only meant to apply to pre-Vatican II generations.

Bottom line: If you are not a confirmed Roman Catholic (or Eastern Catholic in communion with the Bishop of Rome) you are not to receive Communion in a Roman Catholic (or Eastern Catholic) church. Regardless of what the individual priest says or does, for you to do this -- knowing what you now know -- would just be really bad form. The respectful thing to do is receive a blessing (with your arms crossed over your chest), or stay seated.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

ViaMedia:

quote:
Regardless of what the individual priest says or does, for you to do this -- knowing what you now know -- would just be really bad form.

Yeah, "knowing what you now know" from some random guy on the internet. [Roll Eyes]

The thing is that you are probably right. But that smug, judgmental way of saying it keeps people like me from ever considering crossing the Tiber or even becoming a hardcore Anglo-Catholic. Pontificating to the so-called ignorant can become irresistible.

[ 25. December 2010, 16:01: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]

Posted by Via Media (# 16087) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
ViaMedia:
quote:
Regardless of what the individual priest says or does, for you to do this -- knowing what you now know -- would just be really bad form.
Yeah, "knowing what you now know" from some random guy on the internet.

The thing is that you are probably right. But that smug, judgmental way of saying it keeps people like me from ever considering crossing the Tiber or even becoming a hardcore Anglo-Catholic. Pontificating to the so-called ignorant can become irresistible.

I'm not even a Roman Catholic. I'm an Evangelical, and Roman Catholics would consider me to be anti-Catholic. IMO, you shouldn't consider crossing the Tiber, or becoming an Anglo-Catholic, unless you dig really wack theology. Not that contemporary Evangelicalism, generally speaking, is much better...

All I'm saying is, you should respect the rules of churches which you are visiting as an outsider. And since the parishes which make up the dioceses which make up the national bodies which make up the Roman Catholic Church are in no way autonomous, that means respecting the rules of the Roman Catholic Church (regardless of what an individual parish priest says or does). This is very simple; it is not requiring you to do something, only to refrain from doing something.

I probably disagree with the RCC's reasons for this rule for than you do; and yet, I respectfully do so. When I am welcomed into another's house, I honour the house rules.
This strikes me as being the mature, adult thing to do.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

Indeed, but if a diocese has chosen to define funerals as being amongst the occasions on which they open their table - I would assume they do that with the knowledge of the institutional hierarchy.

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

Our Orthodox understanding is that Communion - unity in the Body of Christ, in baptism, in faith, in common prayer, in the Holy Eucharist - are all facets of the same thing and are, therefore, inseparable. To speak of sharing in the eucharist when we are not in communion does not compute for us.

In Acts 2, we read of the baptised continuing in the the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in prayer, in the breaking of bread, and in the prayers. These things go hand in hand. Where there has been a departure from the apostles' teaching, fellowship is, de facto, severed, and the breaking of the bread and common prayer cannot take place. This is what we find in the fathers, in the canons, in the ecumenical councils in the manner in which the Church from earliest times has dealt with such matters of schism, heresy, and the return of people from such.

We pray for unity but it must be real. Any less is meaningless at best and harmful at worst.

Here's my parish's attempt at explaining. Particularly of note is:

quote:
Communion in the Orthodox Church is not closed, and it never can be, because the love of Christ is not closed to anybody. At our parish, we hope that our visitors and friends, who are always welcome, understand that we do not seek to exclude anybody - indeed, we invite all people to explore the Orthodox Faith in greater depth and to be fully united with us in Christ, and thereby to share in Communion with us. We welcome every human being, loved by God without exception or distinction, to make that decision. If, because of attachment to their own beliefs, people choose not to become one with us, we respect their choice and we continue to love them as before. However, Communion is not just a piece of bread. That piece of bread, which becomes the risen and glorified Body of Christ in Communion, is one and the same with the communion of faith, love, and life in the mystical Body of Christ, the Church. We cannot separate the two because the two are inseparable: without the one, the other is meaningless at best, and spiritually harmful at worst. That is why we must always continue to fervently pray for an end to these divisions and to welcome all to join us in that desire, but to practise what some call "open communion" would simply be to pretend that the divisions do not exist, and would be a spiritually dangerous misuse of the Holy Body and Blood of the Lord to express communion where there is no communion - not discerning the body. (1 Corinthians 11:27-32).

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Via Media:
Bottom line: If you are not a confirmed Roman Catholic (or Eastern Catholic in communion with the Bishop of Rome) you are not to receive Communion in a Roman Catholic (or Eastern Catholic) church. Regardless of what the individual priest says or does, for you to do this -- knowing what you now know -- would just be really bad form. The respectful thing to do is receive a blessing (with your arms crossed over your chest), or stay seated.

It really isn't that straightforward. I do not belong to any of the Catholic churches in communion with Rome: I am Orthodox. Yet, by the Catholic church's rules, I could present myself for communion in a Catholic church and it would be quite legitimate for a priest to give me the sacrament. Of course, I have no desire to do so as I do not believe that they are within the Church or have sacraments but from their perspective, I can be given the eucharist in their churches. Incidentally, according to the Church of England's rules, CofE clergy should not give me communion if I were to present myself but I'm guessing the number of clergy who would observe this is minuscule, if such clergy could be found at all.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

If I have been baptized in the name of the trinity, and believe Jesus is the son of God - am I a Christian ? I presume that an Orthodox priest would offer communion in extremis to a believer who had made confession.

[ 25. December 2010, 17:25: Message edited by: Think² ]

Posted by Via Media (# 16087) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:

quote:
Originally posted by Via Media:
Bottom line: If you are not a confirmed Roman Catholic (or Eastern Catholic in communion with the Bishop of Rome) you are not to receive Communion in a Roman Catholic (or Eastern Catholic) church. Regardless of what the individual priest says or does, for you to do this -- knowing what you now know -- would just be really bad form. The respectful thing to do is receive a blessing (with your arms crossed over your chest), or stay seated.
It really isn't that straightforward. I do not belong to any of the Catholic churches in communion with Rome: I am Orthodox. Yet, by the Catholic church's rules, I could present myself for communion in a Catholic church and it would be quite legitimate for a priest to give me the sacrament. Of course, I have no desire to do so as I do not believe that they are within the Church or have sacraments but from their perspective, I can be given the eucharist in their churches. Incidentally, according to the Church of England's rules, CofE clergy should not give me communion if I were to present myself but I'm guessing the number of clergy who would observe this is minuscule, if such clergy could be found at all.

The provision made for Eastern Orthodox Christians in the Roman Catholic Church is a special case, an exception to the rule, if you will, borne out of the unique Roman Catholic-Orthodox ecumenical relations of recent decades. It doesn't apply to any other group of Christians. Yet, despite Orthodox Christians being allowed (strictly speaking) by the Roman Catholic Church to receive Communion in Roman Catholic churches, the Roman Catholic Church does nonetheless urge them to respect their own Church's sacramental discipline -- which happens to be that that Orthodox Christians aren't permitted to receive Communion in non-Orthodox churches, including the Roman Catholic.

[ 25. December 2010, 17:28: Message edited by: Via Media ]

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
If I have been baptized in the name of the trinity, and believe Jesus is the son of God - am I a Christian ?

It depends on how you use the word Christian. Defined as somebody who seeks to work out salvation through faith and life in Jesus Christ, I have absolutely nodoubt that you are a Christian. I also would not wish, nor would it be my place as one who falls time and time again, to question anybody's Christianity, so defined.

However, defined technically as one who is grafted into the Body of Christ through the sacrament of Baptism, I could not say that you are. Neither was I. I mean no personal slight by this or to call anybody's faith into doubt. A ceremony performed with water in the name of the Trinity, but performed outside of the context of communion with the Church is not the sacrament of Baptism from an Orthodox perspective. Reading scripture, the fathers, the councils, and such like, and praying about this for some time, it is also the conclusion I reached personally while still Anglican, and is the ultimate reason I had to leave. I was unbaptised and outside the Church, which is why I gladly received baptism in order to enter the Orthodox Church.

quote:
I presume that an Orthodox priest would offer communion in extremis to a believer who had made confession.

I would not make that presumption. If the person wished to be united to the Church and receive at least Chrismation (economy being extended so that the non-Orthodox baptism could be seen as being completed/made whole by bring brought into the context of the communion of the Church), then that's one thing, but otherwise, I would expect the priest to pray for the person, to offer counsel and comfort, and simply to listen or be present, according to circumstances and need.

That said, I do not doubt that some Orthodox clergy would quietly do as you suggest and take that upon their own consiences.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

Well I am surprised, I had thought all the major churches accepted trinitarian baptism. I assume it would be accepted by the Roman Catholic church ?

Posted by Via Media (# 16087) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
I assume it would be accepted by the Roman Catholic church ?

Yes.

[ 25. December 2010, 18:02: Message edited by: Via Media ]

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

Well, I was baptized in hospital when critically ill as a baby - I don't know what happened about the paperwork. I just asked my mother, who said helpfully, "I don't know".

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

[crossposted with edit]

Posted by Via Media (# 16087) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
Well, I was baptized in hospital when critically ill as a baby - I don't know what happened about the paperwork. I just asked my mother, who said helpfully, "I don't know".

Do you know that minister's name?

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

Despite Via Media's hard line, I have several times received Communion from a Roman Catholic priest who knew full well that I was Anglican. I have nearly always asked in advance (and the one occasion when I did not it was because the priest knew I was CofE and I was not sure whether I would receive communion or a blessing - it was up to him). Like Think, having been told that I can receive, I assume it is not for me to second guess the priest.

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
Well I am surprised, I had thought all the major churches accepted trinitarian baptism.

We do accept trinitarian baptism. The difference doesn't lie there but rather in different churches' ecclesiologies and their understandings of the relationship of the sacraments to the Church. For us, the sacraments are the means by which we are imbued with the grace of God within the life of the communion of the Body of Christ, the Church, the New Covenant in Christ. Outside of that context, we know of no sacraments. To speak of sacraments existing outside the Church would be like speaking of colour existing independently of light. It just doesn't make sense to us. That is not to say that God is in any way incapable of bestowing his grace by other means but we cannot claim to know how, by what means, and under what conditions He chooses to do so. All the Orthodox Church does is commends everybody to God's mercy.

You will find a broad spectrum of approaches to this. On the one extreme, some Orthodox bishops/jurisdictions will always extend economy where possible, and will make whole a non-Orthodox baptism, receiving converts by chrismation alone so as to reduce as much as possible the obviousness of how the non-Orthodox baptismal ceremony is understood. Others have reservations about this, and it is not unheard of for priests who have been received by economy rather than baptism not to be invited to concelebrate when visiting certain more traditional monasteries. At the other extreme are voices reflecting the views of such Saints as Cyprian of Carthage, who referred to baptismal rites outside of the communion of the Church in very harsh terms indeed.

Of course, other people will define "church" differently, based on later interpretations, and their understanding of the sacraments in relation to the Church will be different, but I would be wary of taking the understanding of one church and assuming it applies to all.

Even in the case of the Catholic church, it is only a few decades ago that its practice changed. Remember Max's conversion journey, which met with opposition from some close to him who used to move in traditionaliost Catholic circles and assumed that his conversion to Catholcism would entail a rejection of his Anglican baptism for precisely this reason.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Via Media:

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
Well, I was baptized in hospital when critically ill as a baby - I don't know what happened about the paperwork. I just asked my mother, who said helpfully, "I don't know".
Do you know that minister's name?

I would have to trace him through the hospital records if I felt strongly about it. One of my parents was present at the baptism, they had requested a baptism in accordance with the traditions of the Church of England. I seriously doubt that they will have been conned about what sacrament was being given to a child they thought was dying.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
Well I am surprised, I had thought all the major churches accepted trinitarian baptism.
We do accept trinitarian baptism. The difference doesn't lie there but rather in different churches' ecclesiologies and their understandings of the relationship of the sacraments to the Church. *etc*

This reminds me of an explanation I heard about the orthodox understanding of priests. A priest is a priest is a priest, by they are like a mobile phone - they don't function out of the range of their network. In this case, their licensing bishop.

Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:

quote:
Originally posted by Via Media:

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
Well, I was baptized in hospital when critically ill as a baby - I don't know what happened about the paperwork. I just asked my mother, who said helpfully, "I don't know".
Do you know that minister's name?
I would have to trace him through the hospital records if I felt strongly about it. One of my parents was present at the baptism, they had requested a baptism in accordance with the traditions of the Church of England. I seriously doubt that they will have been conned about what sacrament was being given to a child they thought was dying.

In an emergency situation like this, a baptism can be given by ANYONE - a midwife, a parent, a passer-by, anyone. And as long as it is Trinitarian, it is perfectly valid and recognised by mainstream Protestant churches and the Roman Catholic church alike. This is one of the reasons why it has been far easier to come to ecumenical agreement on baptism than on the Eucharist.

Posted by Ger (# 3113) on :

My observation is that Rome's attitude toward non-RC receiving communion really relies on the attitude of the local clergy and the ordinary.

Some decades back I sang in the choir of a Metropolitan cathedral; in fact about 50% of the choir were CofE. The Dean (yes he was Dean and not Administrator) wished to make sure that the pastoral needs of his CoE singers were adequately met.

The Dean was a canon lawyer so everything had to be right and proper and yet he had concern that scandal was not created within the less knowledgeable members of his congregation. The solution: (1) You had to be a stable member of the choir, that is, at least six months service; (2) If you wished you could receive communion (in both forms) in the Blessed Sacrament Chapel at the conclusion of mass (a form of general confession and absolution and Pater Noster (long version) were part of the ceremony.) All this fitted rather well since the awkward pause in music while the choir received communion during the mass was avoided - the non RC choristers formed a 4 part choir in their own right while the RCs received communion;(3) in an agreement with the Dean of the CofE Cathedral down the road, the RC Dean would provide pastoral support for his CofE singers though either party optionally could call upon the services of the CofE Dean;(4)I understand the RC Metropolitan and the CofE ordinary consulted and agreed the above; (5) the Metropolitan issued an appropriate canon law document to the Dean allowing communion at the discretion of the Dean.

I must say it was all organized in a very civil fashion and it worked well; lasted for three Metropolitan Cathedral deans and only collapsed when a non-cradle Catholic was appointed Administator (not Dean). It also seemed to provide a spur for cooperation between the two Cathedrals not only in music but in other activities.

The whole situation did have its amusing moments including one Palm Sunday when a combined service was held in the CofE Cathedral. Stacks of music, palms and processions. There was a penitential rite and liturgy of the word. At the offertory the RC contingent departed in procession for the Metropolitan Cathedral led by the Metroplitan Cathedral choir moving from the quire and down a very long nave! No problem except those in the know in the CofE Cathedral Choir and both congregations had the edifying spectacle of the RC contingent being led out by the CofE contingent of the Metropolitan choir. Decorum was maintained but it was the big joke in the local church music fraternity for weeks.

I would like to make the following points; (1) Roman canon law can in fact be quite flexible and makes provision for all sorts of circumstances; (2) the lawful application of the canon law does really depend upon the attitudes of the clergy and bishop; (3) it probably helps if at least one the clergy is a canon lawyer who can get the documents in the case in the proper format.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Via Media posts:

quote:
The provision made for Eastern Orthodox Christians in the Roman Catholic Church is a special case, an exception to the rule, if you will, borne out of the unique Roman Catholic-Orthodox ecumenical relations of recent decades. It doesn't apply to any other group of Christians.

I believe that an exception applies as well to members of the Polish National Catholic Church as well as to the Syrian Catholics (IIRC). To boot, there is an arrangement between the Melkite Catholics and the Antiochian Orthodox.

As an Anglican, I have twice received at RC altars, once in 1978 and again in 2007 (covered in this MW report. Both instances were exceptional and the priest knew my affiliation.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

If via Media is not a Catholic I don't think he should pontificate about what Catholic practice should be.If the priest on this occasion invited non Catholic christians to come to communion,I would simply leave it at that.
The roman Catholic church has its canon law which tries to regulate practice in the Church.Inevitably there are many individual 'exceptions' to whatever canon law is in force.
For 'think'.Yes,for several decades the roman catholic church has recognised baptism carried out in the name of the Trinity by any person.However,when the chips are down,say for example,if you wished to contract marriage in a Catholic church, then the church authorities would probably want to see documentary evidence of a regular baptism (just as indeed they would wish to have from anyone who claims to be Catholic.
Obviously in normal circumstances no distributor of Communion,clerical or lay, would ask for proof of baptism or religious affiliation.These things are done 'on trust' and if any 'mistakes' are made ,well so be it Amen.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

Thanks Forthview.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

quote:
However,when the chips are down,say for example,if you wished to contract marriage in a Catholic church, then the church authorities would probably want to see documentary evidence of a regular baptism (just as indeed they would wish to have from anyone who claims to be Catholic.

It raises an interesting point. Assuming a mainline RC or Protestant view on this, if a baby was critically ill and somebody who wasn't a priest baptised it does this preclude a church baptism later. The creed states "We believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins..." to me this sounds like you shouldn't be baptised more than once.

In partial answer to my own question, a friend of mine was getting married in the Roman Catholic church. Her future husband had been baptised at home as a Lutheran in his infancy. They couldn't find any documentary evidence so the guy's mother had to sign a stat dec that he had been baptised.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

It doesn't prclude a conditional baptism later,if there is any doubt about the original one.
On some occasions the ceremonies surrounding baptism,e.g. the presentaion of white garment may be carried out in church.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

The other alternative is a conditional baptism - we've done that for someone who was adopted and no-one was sure if they'd been baptised or not.

Practically all the copy baptism certificate requests come from people wanting to be married to a Roman Catholic or married in a Roman Catholic country.

Posted by Michael Reilly (# 16025) on :

Man, this thread really won't die, will it?

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Michael ,
threads lke this often go on for a long time meandering around matters which are brought up by the OP
To return to the OP and your first question,it is true that Jesus said to his disciples 'Take,eat,take drink,do this in memory of me'.
We may assume that this was not meant as a panacea for the woes of anyone at all,who just happens to be passing by,but for those who have some sort of knowledge of the Lord Jesus -- or can we ??Certainly Jesus tells us that not all those who say 'Lord,Lord,' will be given entrance to the Kingdom of Heaven.
St Paul (who,of course,was NOT Jesus) tells us that we show forth the death of Jesus,by our eating and drinking this bread and wine,until He come.But he also reminds us that those who eat and drink unworthily are guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord.We should therefore prepare ourselves for this commmunion.From this I take it that we should not just wander into a church and receive Communion if we do not know what is happening and above all if we do not agree with what is happening.
On the other hand a person who in all innocence and all ignorance received Communion in a Catholic church would not have committed any sin,as there has to be knowledge before a sin can be committed.

You mention 'barriers' to Communion which the Catholic church sets.If you see things negatively then you will see these as 'barriers'.If you are of a positive mind,you will see these 'barriers' as helps in preparation.As another Michael on a different thread said the Church does want as many as possible to come to Communion,but that 'Communion' must be part of the communion of all the faithful.Catholics are not individuals,although they have an individual soul to save,they are most importantly part of that community of faith which is the mystical Body of Jesus Christ and each Communion with the Lord contains the affirmation of full communion with the other members of the Church.

Posted by Michael Reilly (# 16025) on :

Thank you for your thoughtful response, Forthwith. I do understand the idea of 'faith formation' as a precursor for communion in the Catholic Church (I've been through it myself). If you are going to be a Catholic, it only makes sense for you to understand what the Church is, what she teaches, and what it is--according to the Church--that you are receiving. I get it.

With all of that said, I do believe that if you and I sat around a table, passed around some bread and wine in the name of Jesus, read the Gospels, prayed, and tried as best we could to make the world--and our selves-- a better place...that's a valid communion as well. I am not a theologian (obviously) but I do believe that Jesus is available to us in communion whether we go through an official faith process (like formation in the Church) or not.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Michael - with your 'Catholic formation'you will surely have come across the terms 'spiritual communion' and 'sacramental'
Every encounter with the Lord,whether we meet him in the consecrated bread and wine or if we meet him in our brothers and sisters of every race and creed,can be seen as a 'sacramental'.
Jesus is present both in the Sacred Host as well as in His Word as well as to be found in our brothers and sisters.
If the occasion ever arises I should be glad to 'break bread and share the word ' with you.

Posted by Michael Reilly (# 16025) on :

Likewise, my friend.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0