Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
An Ancient Controversy
Different Christian churches have different rules about eucharistic hospitality. NB Christians share the same FAITH; they are not 'different faiths' in the same way that, say, Christians and Muslims are. This is, remarkably, often overlooked even by intelligent people.
The rule in the Church of England has been for most of my lifetime that all communicant members of Christian churches, whichever church that may be, is welcome to receive Communion in an Anglican church. We put it like this: this is the Lord's table, not ours, and if you are part of his family, in good standing wherever you are, you are welcome. Of course, in some parts of America (and one or two very limited areas elsewhere) this has now been extended, in ways foreign to the entire Christian tradition, to say that anyone at all is welcome to receive Communion, whether they have Christian faith or not.
Roman Catholics tend to have 'escape clauses' about people in particular or sudden need -- including Anglicans on holiday in Europe, say, and unable to get to an Anglican church. But normally the rule insists that the qualification to receive is sharing the Roman faith about what precisely happens at Communion (i.e. transubstantiation). Many Roman Catholics, including many priests, very much regret this restriction of the eucharistic hospitality they would like to be able to offer. And many Roman Catholics, including many priests, are not only happy but quite eager to receive Communion sometimes from Anglican clergy.
Beyond that I couldn't say (i.e. about Methodists or Baptists, to look no further). But I do note that the one of the earliest recorded controversies in Christian history took place on the subject of whether all believers were welcome at the same table, or only some (on an ethnic basis) (Galatians 2.11ff.).
By
Nicholas T. Wright
|
July 8, 2008; 9:13 AM ET
| Category:
Interfaith Issues
Save & Share:
Previous: Room for Humility in All Believers |
Next: True Atheists are Anti-Belief
Posted by: Dan Gmyrek | July 17, 2008 8:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Hi
Come visit the fabolous collection of [url=http://www.replicapimp.com]Replica Rolex[/url] Watches!
Bye
Posted by: RemeLiedodrar | July 15, 2008 9:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment
PS: I remember Dom Bede Griffiths OSB, who converted to Catholicism, telling me how happy he was that he had been raised an Anglican!
Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | July 12, 2008 2:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Dear Bishop Wright
Before I read your essay, and not having any idea about the rules in the Anglican Church, I posted the following on the main thread:
"Personally I'm of the opinion that all believing Christians should be allowed to receive the Holy Communion in a Catholic Church if they have taken the step to attend the Mass."
July 12, 2008 2:00 AM
Having known nothing about the Anglican Church before, it has been a pleasure for me to learn how similar to the Roman Catholic Church the Anglican Church really is and in some aspects even more generous and open (eg women priests). What you wrote about Communion in the Anglican Church came as a pleasant surprise because it is a view that I share as a Christian.
Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia
Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | July 12, 2008 2:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Tom—thanks for this post. My question is this: do you see the lack of eucharistic hospitality to be the bigger problem or the fact that when the eucharist is open to people who are "in good standing wherever you are" is not properly explained? in other words, is the 'good standing' idea just as far to one side of the spectrum as its opposite (when only specific traditions can rightfully partake)?
Posted by: Asher Collins | July 11, 2008 3:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
For what it is worth, in the US at any rate, Methodists have an open communion....all believers welcome at God's table.