You were right to go to the Latin, I wish I had done that. Here is the language, for those here who can parse it: per quod, tanquam per instrumentum, recte baptismum suscipientes Ecclesiae inseruntur http://gavvie.tripod.com/39articles/art3.html Your translation of “recte” is the correct one, so my preceding analysis can be discarded. But now if we look further in the Latin another word opens a new page in our discussion: “recte ... suscipentes”. What in English is translated as “they that receive baptism rightly”. That English word, receive, now appears to be unexpectedly ambiguous, because in the Latin, the word isn’t any of these words such as “recipio”, “excipio” or “accepto” (recipients / excipientes / acceptentes): It’s “suscipientes”, which comes from the root word “suscipio”: So the word here indicates not people who correctly accept baptism (recte accipientes), but people who correctly undergo baptism (recte suscipientes). In other words, the meaning does not strongly hang upon the recipient and his abilities. It shifts the emphasis to the process itself, and may even refer to the rite being performed correctly by the minister. I can’t be sure from here on out. In any case, we are wrangling over a single word, which isn’t self-explanatory. An entire theology doesn’t (and can’t) hang on a single word. Just see Jewel on Baptism, or Nowell’s Catechism on Baptism. Plentiful and lengthy expositions. A work (such as the Articles) always lives within the thick cloud of the intellectual tradition surrounding it. If the entire consensus doesn’t speak of Baptism being fraught with danger, then we can safely use that. I genuinely have never read, or even heard, of any Christian work (let alone an Anglican one) which cautioned about accepting baptism correctly. So we can safely, for the purposes of this discussion, rule that out. But we know of countless Christian works (and many Anglican ones) which caution about accepting the Eucharist correctly. Thus, the conclusion seems to be: don’t worry about the first one; and do worry about the second one. The Baptism should be offered as widely as possible, and the Eucharist only to those who can manage it.
There is indeed a solid Biblical Warrant for that position. This really recludes us as Anglicans from taking a token view of the Real Presence - which in some places is expounded as a memorial meal, or as mere tokens.
Ah, but isn't it interesting that the memorialists read the same passage and do not in any way feel precluded from taking their view! Let's have a look at it in the KJV, shall we? 1Co 11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. 1Co 11:21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. 1Co 11:22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. 1Co 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 1Co 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 1Co 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 1Co 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. 1Co 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 1Co 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 1Co 11:30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. What was the error being addressed? Verses 20-22 tell us that some people were eating and drinking the communion elements as mere food for filling the belly. Knowing that the error was in seeing the eucharist as plain food, eating the bread and drinking the cup unworthily was taking communion as mere food. This passage does not say that taking communion unworthily was taking it as a symbolic memorial. This passage does not make that case. That is why memorialists have no problem treating this portion of scripture as consistent support of their viewpoint. They would say that those who eat and drink the communion elements as plain food fail to discern the true significance of communion, namely, recognizing that the Lord's body is truly represented and symbolized in the bread and wine. They might also point out verse 26, which does not actually say that taking communion is the actual receiving of Christ, but instead it says that taking communion is "showing the Lord's death" on our behalf "in remembrance" (v. 24) of Him. I'm just pointing out that the passage is not a 'slam-dunk' indictment of memorialism. Either viewpoint can find support in it.
This is probably ALL Paul actually wrote on the matter: Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you but in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognised. When you come together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not. For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world. So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another— if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home—so that when you come together it will not be for judgment. About the other things I will give directions when I come. This was actually ALL that Paul was concerned about. (forget about women not wearing hats in church and angels getting upset about it for some incomprehensible reason etc.). That Holy Communion, (it was not called that yet), was being treated as a Bring your own American Supper, but with the well fed not sharing with the slaves. Some rich, fat nobles pigging out and others going hungry or even perhaps being frowned upon for bringing nothing to the feast. [ g1173. δεῖπνον deipnon; from the same as 1160; dinner, i.e. the chief meal (usually in the evening): — feast, supper. AV (16) - supper 13, feast 3; ] Matt. 23:6, (feast), Mark 6:21, (banquet) 1 Cor.11:21. (meal). All the same Greek word : δεῖπνον. The chief purpose behind meeting and eating was to proclaim the Lord's death until he comes, not a celebration bean feast full of mirth, jollity, and bon appetit. That would be eating the bread or drinking the cup of the Lord in an unworthy and disrespectful manner. The solemnity characterising The actual Last Supper was Christ's looming death. If that is not uppermost in the minds of those who partake in the memorial feast, then they are likely to be also consistently living lifestyles and eating habits that seriously endanger their physical health. i.e. have become terminally obese. (That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.). If we act in our daily conduct as we should at the communion, examining our actions in the light of Christ's teaching, we will not be coming together for judgment by Christ but in gratitude for His Grace. Paul's intention is not to imply that receiving communion unworthily is spiritually dangerous, (as if it will have become spiritually, magically poisonous, to the unworthy recipient), it is to address the over eating, selfish and greedy table etiquette and pure bad manners of the 'guests' at what had become a smorgasbord free for all, where the devil took the hindmost.
I take exception to this. I think it was more of a Bring your own English Breakfast! (Minus the tea, of course.)
Is Open Communion Historically Anglican? https://northamanglican.com/is-open-communion-historically-anglican/ This was written by a man who has decided to join the LCMS.
That is a good article, and makes a solid case for how today’s Anglican practice deviated from our historic commitment to closed communion. Very well researched.
I don't agree with that author's conclusions. Didn't the church in England have its beginning in the 1st or 2nd Century? If so, medieval practices are not probative. The greater question in his article should be, "what can we glean from scripture and early church practice?" Imagine for a moment that a (rare) traveler who professed Christ as his Savior entered a house church of the 2nd Century. Would they have greeted him warmly and welcome him in love to partake of Eucharist? Or would they more likely have said, "You are not one of us; we can't be sure you are a true believer; you may not share in 'our' Eucharistic feast"? It would be like the foot saying to the hand, "You are not of the foot, so you don't belong in the body with us." (1 Cor. 12) I think they would have been tickled to have the traveler partake alongside them.
More than likely such a traveler would need some proof of his membership, viz., a letter from his bishop (at the very least), to be admitted to communion.
The early church was even more prohibitive than the middle ages on this. First you had the mass of catechumens, which correlated with our reading of the two scriptures and various responses along with singing of hymns and anthems. Then began the second half, the mass of the Eucharist, corresponding to a very different 2nd half of our service: the long prayers of the Offertory, Invocation, Oblation, Consecration etc; but the early church rules allowed only full members of the church to stay for that, so that everyone else including the catechumens had to get up and leave in the middle of the Service. That way only the confirmed members were even around when the sacrament was administered. In the middle ages this practice sadly went away, so that everyone stayed all throughout until the end of the Service, irrespective of membership.
About what time (what years A.D.) are we talking about here, for this pattern of service? Any quick web references available, by chance? (My stack of books to read has gotten too big!)
So I'm browsing today for web pages with details on communion in the early church, and I came across this page: https://earlychurchhistory.org/beliefs-2/communion-in-the-early-church/ It made me ask myself: why don't we have any fish on our communion tables? (See the fresco)
From my reading of church history what Stalwart is talking about is attested to I believe in the writings of Justin Martyr
Yeah it is attested to in the 2nd century. Sorry I don’t have any modern books about it to recommend, but you may find plenty of websites describing early Christian worship.
Echoes of it still survive in the modern Eastern Orthodox liturgy as well. It's explicit in the liturgy when the catechumens were meant to exit and the doors were to be closed; it simply isn't done anymore.
You've inserted a lot of evangelical presuppositions into your hypothetical situation. The new perspective on Paul school argues that an early Christian would have been more likely to identify Christ as Lord. The NT uses the word 'Lord' about 25X more frequently than 'savior.' But to answer the question that followed, we see letters of introduction being sent with Christians. The epistle to Philemon serves this purpose, among others. I am aware of this becoming a little bit trendy in some of the ultra-low/contemporary flavoured parishes of the Anglican Network in Canada.
As far as the original question of the thread is concerned, I don't see why that can't or shouldn't be left to individual conscience. Any arguments against?
It has become the practice in the Anglican communion. I don't like it unless we have an intercommunion agreement with that person's particular church or if they come from a church that has a high view of the sacraments and believes that Christ is really present in the bread and wine such as Catholics, EO's, OO's and others like them.
You've hit upon something with this. When it comes to the reap presence, there probably are a range of beliefs within a given Anglican parish, let alone broader segments of Anglicanism, concerning the Eucharist. Should the parish priest be 'checking up' on everyone's beliefs prior to communion and excluding those whose views aren't orthodox enough? Plus, practically speaking, would it be feasible for him do this? If we go by these early church reports, isn't that how it should be done?