Episcopalian parishes allowing unbaptized receive communion. Is this allowed

I know several parishes that allow unbaptized people to receive communion. I personally think its a little obtuse but I wonder how you guys feel.

I found this article on the Sewanee Theological Review websit an thought it informative: http://theology.sewanee.edu/assets/uploads/MacSwain56.1.pdf

Any thoughts?

 

This is a pretty good article, even if it leans a bit too strongly on an Anglo-Catholic understanding of the Eucharist for my taste. In a certain light, I suppose he does not say anything that is erroneous (i.e., the sacrament commemorates Jesus' once-for-all sacrifice, as He Himself says). However, I can get a bit uncomfortable with that language because of its history.

In order to get baptized as an adult, you are supposed to be catechized. In order to confirm your infant baptism, you are supposed to learn the catechism. The two are intimately related, even in Scripture; No adult gets baptized in Acts without first learning some basic doctrine. As the article points out, without this catechism, without understanding what Communion is, taking Communion can be dangerous. As Paul says, "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body" (I Cor. 11:29). I know this passage does not mean anything to many in the Protestant Episcopal Church, but it is true nonetheless, and Christians should fence the table to prevent the ignorant from harming themselves.

Also, as McSwain points out in the article, offering the unbaptized Communion does not do anything to help with what the proponents want to do: offer "radical hospitality." Offering to the unbaptized some bread and wine they might not really understand does nothing to offer hospitality, let alone of a radical variety. On a tangent, I really dislike when someone uses the word "radical" to describe Christian practice. The practice Christianity calls us to should not be considered "radical," and they were not considered radical that long ago. Offering hospitality to poor travelers used to be expected, not "radical" for instance.

Also, the knock on "Constantinianism" on p.79 is rather out-of-context and always annoying. Reading Defending Constantine right now, so had to put that in there.

 

How can the unbaptised receive communion? They are not a people of God and can only eat it unto damnation as scripture testifies. To be gentle and merciful to the unbaptised is to prevent them from eating the body of Christ that would lead them unto spiritual death, until they become ready and able to receive it.

 

Sorry I phrase things so bluntly, lol... I don't have enough of an opportunity to say stuff like that in my parish. Its true too, even the languauage of danger and of eating unto damnation. Sacraments are scary stuff, too bad the church doesn't speak enough about it nowadays.

 

What you said was entirely true, though it may have been "blunt." Often, the only way to put things is bluntly. [rant]Too often theological eggheads beat around the bush, stating the obvious in terms of the complex, in order to seem more intelligent than the average guy in the pew, of whom they are often ashamed. As an aspiring theological egghead, this really annoys and embarrasses me.[/rant] In any case, you are totally right, it is dangerous for non-Christians, and that should scare God-fearing Christians for their sake.

 

@Elizabethan Churchman,
Amen.

We should realize that ours is a sharp, razor-edged faith, and not the soft comfort system it is sometimes taken as. We begin with damnation ab initio, we strive toward salvation, and it's a world owned by Satan... our lives are perched on the edge of damnation, from our sins and the Body of Christ taken unworthily. It's scary stuff...

 

what I especially liked in the article is how the author addressed the experiential argument used by many who support communion open to the unbaptized. The experiential argument, ie "i did x and found it beneficial for me, therefore it must be ok, and if you disagree then your attacking me and my experience" has been a huge stumbling block for many traditionalists in the modern age--not just on this issue but many others--and while McSwain recognized the reality of the experience and emotional power that some unbaptized people have when taking the Sacrament, he makes it clear that experienceis a poor method for establishing normative practice ("hard cases make bad law"). Experiential arguments lead to relativism and laxity in the place of orthodoxy. I stick with Cranmer in asking "what saieth the Scriptures"? And shiuld that be

 

please disregard that last sentence fragment

 

Although the CofE is diverse and, I'm sorry to say, somewhat indisciplined, the general rule is that we will admit people to communion, at least on a regular basis, if they are communicant members of their own churches. But in the church I attend, if you're an Anglican, the expectation is that you will have been confirmed, though I realise that some churches do not enforce this. But I really don't think that any would offer communion to the unbaptised.

But......I'm not sure. On another forum an Anglican priest stated that she "would never turn anyone away from communion". Sounds great, doesn't it? One of those sweeping statements. When I replied, "someone who was drunk, and/or shouting profanities?", guess what.....I didn't get a reply!

 

As a parish priest I would now allow Non Baptised, or Non Anglicans, as a regular practice, to receive Communion, except we had a member, who was mentally challenged through illness and as a regular attender at the rails, as they say, with the permission of our Metripolitan, she was allowed to communicate by passing Confirmation..

 

hi seagull, i see you quoted HC but i dont see your comments. were you just seconding his post?

 

Do you mean "not allow" as opposed to "now allow"?

 

No, my computer was playing up and not letting me post replies. This was not the first time, and explains my absence for some weeks.

 

Join the club!

 

Thank goodness it's not just me!

 

I think that there are a lot of people who belong to that club. I know I do!

 

I apologise for the mistake but the reply option kept moving .
I meant not allow. It is in one way very hard to take that attitude, I feel so, but, we are instructed in scripture to be firm and as far as I can see the modern liberal attitude has done us no good.

 

I have not yet read the article. My thoughts before I do so:

The sacrament of the fountain and the sacrament of the board are distinguishable, but not separable. Accepting our Lord at the fountain is one and the same thing with accepting him at the table. If we are not honest about this, we can end up deceiving people into acting without integrity, which we should not do.