to commune or not to commune

UPDATE: well, the good Lord, in his infinite wisdom, decided to take the choice out of my hands. it rained and stormed all yesterday and about the time we started to leave we got a tornado warning and ended up hunkering down for the night.

 

good point. it only reinforces the fact that such denominations are in error and must be avoided if they do not repent.

 

I don't know about the doctrine being, 'American,' it has always been a practice in the Anglican Churches I've attended not to attend non Anglican services or partake of non Anglican Sacramenta. Mowbray, the 20th Century printers of all things Anglican, published regularly injunctions against using non Anglican Services. Why? Because it gave none Anglicans, Dissenters, Romans and other nonconformists , the idea that all Churches were alike and that was considered misleading in the least!
There is only one Church and that is the Body of Christ, entry is by triune baptism, i.e. by water and by word. We accept the Apostolic succession of Water & Word, the Word being the Revelation of Christ , entered in to scripture and interpreted by the Greek Fathers of the first three centuries and the Seven Ecumenical Coumcils.
There's no claim to be the only Church, the Orthodox and Rome do that, we simply say, with them, that we are a Communion of Catholic believers, Members of Christ and Children of God.
Sinners, yes. but also believers.

 

Strange as all the Anglican congregations I've encountered and the one I'm an actual member of have been the opposite, welcoming to other denominations and willing participants at each others congregations. I'm a staunch evangelical in theological outlook so it may be different in more liberal Anglican churches. I don't think it would give anyone the idea that by taking communion at another church would in some way make them all alike, it would however show the diversity of worship that the "Church" has rather than let us all sit in our little bubble world of self appointed superiority where we think we are right and by default all the rest are wrong.

 

Intercommunion surely must be viewed as a liberal stance! Historically communion has always been safeguarded, with a great tenacity..

 

Not within evangelical circles, there seems to be great unity within branches of the evangelical wing of the "Church".

 

In the Southern Baptist church I was raised in, it was taught that we didn't partake in the Lord's Supper outside our denomination. To be on the safe side, we were encouraged not to partake outside our local congregation. Outsiders were discouraged from receiving the Lord's Supper when visiting us, as we didn't know if they had been baptized by immersion. Sprinkling, pouring, infant baptism, ect. was not acceptable and didn't entitle the individual to receive the ordinance of the Lord's Supper.

 

Very true. I've found the same stance practiced by the Church of Christ. Some more conservative branches of Lutheran and Reformed bodies practice closed communion. Not to mention eastern Orthodox churches

 

what is the origin of wanting to open communion in such a wide and debased manner as can be found today?

I ask myself this

 

In what way is sharing the Lords table with other believers debased?

 

Another interesting question, but who said it was debased ?

 

My friend it was not the sharing the Lord's table that would be debased, but the sacrament which is the Lord's Body, offered to everyone and anybody calling themselves christians.

is that not the textbook definition of debased?

 

Your thoughts do you credit in truth, how&ever, as a traditionalist Anglican, i look for support and guidance to the scripture and the early fathers. From them and from Anglican History and practice, I get differing advice, who would you follow? If you follow scripture, close communion was perhaps the biblical practice, S.Paul tells us clearly in Ep, ! Cor., 5.vs 9/11, in Romans 16/17 and in the latter he was clearly speaking to God's chosen! Act s 2, and 2. John , 10 / 11..
In the early church there were several types of breakaway, who we hear of,there was no permitting of close communion then, and at the Council of Nice much time was spent discussing this question, in England during the War of Religion, the question was uppermost, when Charles the Martyr was on his way to the scaffold he refused the offer of Calvinist ministers and Anglican Clergy in France refused Communion from French protestants. It is not a question of Anglicans being better than Non Conformists, but certainly being different, we are Members of Christ and Children of God.( P/Bk.)

 

No.

 

And by implication your saying that those not of the Anglican faith are not members of Christ and children of God?

 

my friend when you debase a coin, do you not allow any metal no matter how worthless to be melted into the coin?

when we debase a principle do we not apply a principle with low rigor... or standards...

By any use of her majesty's English, the Lords Supper becomes debased when it is offered without rigor or standard ... when any person no matter how worthless (and some people are) is admitted to the holy throne of god

 

The Lord's supper is open to all who are members of his flock, no matter how worthless they seem to you they are all a precious gift to God. The church isn't some holy club that is only open to those you deem to be worthy, its open to all who have take on the name of Christ as Saviour, if someone was to take the Lord's supper inappropriately, then it is they who are judged for their actions not the person administering for only God can judge the faithfulness within our hearts.

 

The flock is that company of people who have offered themselves for Triune Baptism, by Water and by Word. Where has anyone on this board referred to non believers, that is people who do not accept the teaching, belief and standards of the Catholic Church, of which the Anglican Community is a part . I have at no time said that none Anglicans were without Christ and were not Children of God!
Howandever? We learn in scripture that when the disciples, James & John, I believe, pointed out to Christ that in another village a man who was not of their company was driving out Devils. They wanted to reprove him, Christ however said leave him alone, stay where you are I have others who believe in me! (Rough Trans.)
He didn't tell the faithful twelve to go and join them, but to stay where they were! No suggestion of a merger or even comradely meetings between two factions?
Jesus went on to teach the twelve the New Gospel! He commissioned them to build a Church and to provide the leadership for the New Jerusalem . We know from scripture , the canon of which was the product of that Church founded by the Holy Ghost and the Apostles that these self same apostles chose other men as bishops, and followed Christ's lead by sending them out in to the world.i.e. Timothy, Barnabus, S.James the Great and a whole host of others.
This same group of men, according to much of N.T. scripture advocated what came to be known as close communion> British Bishops were at Nice, where the issue and practice were debated and the dogma went out, no communion for outsiders! Gospel, Scripture Tradition and 2000 years of infallible belief.

 

You agree with my debase comment then!
The only difference I see is, according to you we must debase the Lord's Supper as a some kind of Christian moral imperative (or something)...

"The Lord's supper is open to all who are members of his flock"
where or who in anglican history has ever put forth such a view?
...neither our Lord nor the Fathers had treated Communion in this way.

faithlessness can be expressed in visible ways, such as being excommunicated, preaching heresy, and being unrepentant!

it was Saint Paul who taught us that after two warnings an unrepentant heretic must be avoided and ejected from all Christian society