Anglicans suspend Episcopal Church over same-sex marriage

Something of a surprise move.

CNN: Anglicans suspend Episcopal Church over same-sex marriage http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/14/world/episcopal-church-suspended/

WP: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/01/14/anglican-communi...
CT: http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2016/january/episcopal-church-suspend...

> 1

LOL. This is analogous to the Communist Party USA excommunicating the Communist Workers Party USA, i.e., how many knotheads are we even talking about here?

The Episcopalian "communion" in the U.S. has shrunk by half in the last 50 years. Google it.

And according to a 2005 poll only 10 percent of people in the U.K even bother to go to church anymore. I think that figure may include all christian denominations. (Islam may be doing better, I don't know.) I doubt if attendance is up in the Anglican church these last 10 years. LOL.

My older (and Episcopalian deacon) brother, who died in 1994, would have hated to see this eventuation, i.e., he saw himself as a winner.

These days the Episcopalian/Anglican church seems to be "winning" in the same sense that Charlie Sheen is "winning".

LOL.

Anglican church avoids split over gay rights – but liberals pay price

Equal marriage is the next stage in the church’s continual reformation

Conservative Anglicans claim US liberals will be penalised over gay bishops

All the above from the Grauniad

Anglican communion to restrict US Church over gay marriage (BBC)

Last time this subject came up, people on LT were more interested in the news that the Episcopal Church was going to divest itself from Israel. But what would suspension really do? It doesn't seem like there is any authority to meddle in the Episcopal Church's own doctrine or hierarchy.

When we ordained Gene Robinson, several friends of mine left for the splinter church. Including some clergy I greatly respected.

I was asked to join the new group.

My response was that I did not want my Christianity defined by those I reject from communion. And I stayed with the ECUSA.

With this announcement, I am even more happy with my decision to stay with ECUSA. I prefer to be with the church that is open and welcomes all.

To the world wide Anglican communion and to the Church of England, I say whatever. Call back when you grow up.

Perhaps ECUSA and the Anglican communion have learned that we worship different Gods.

>4 southernbooklady:

My understanding is that suspension excludes them from certain decision-making functions within the global Anglican communion.

http://www.primates2016.org/articles/2016/01/14/statement-primates-2016/

"It is our unanimous desire to walk together. However given the seriousness of these matters we formally acknowledge this distance by requiring that for a period of three years The Episcopal Church no longer represent us on ecumenical and interfaith bodies, should not be appointed or elected to an internal standing committee and that while participating in the internal bodies of the Anglican Communion, they will not take part in decision making on any issues pertaining to doctrine or polity."

And as with all Church communication, lip service is always given to the "love and grace of Christ."

"We have asked the Archbishop of Canterbury to appoint a Task Group to maintain conversation among ourselves with the intention of restoration of relationship, the rebuilding of mutual trust, healing the legacy of hurt, recognizing the extent of our commonality and exploring our deep differences, ensuring they are held between us in the love and grace of Christ."

I think I hear all of the gays and lesbians shouting as their lives are discussed in the third person, behind pious posturing, "Hey. I am here in the room."

Video from the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/posts/publicaffairs/episcopal-church-presiding-bi...

Of course the wider Anglican Church wants ECUSA to repent and get back in the fold. Apparently we have 3 years to get our act together.

Jesu H. Christo on a pogo stick - is it only me - or is anyone else reading this thread feeling rather overwhelmed by the blatant narcissism of organized religion, most eloquently expressed here by this anglican vs. episcopal brouhaha? (heavy emphasis on the "haha" part)

If pushed I can wax as agnostic as the next person (assuming the next person isn't Thomas Huxley or Bertrand Russell). Sure, there could be some unknown supreme intelligence (call it a god) that created the universe, thus all we experience, including ourselves, is ultimately one humongous artifact. This scenario, it seems to me and many others, seems to approach zero in terms of probability not to mention just plain sense but still, not a zero possibility.

All granted. But the odds that the above described supreme intelligence (call it a god) gives one good shit one way or another about a pissing contest between two groups of hairless apes - I put that at zero.

What an ongoing joke these "high church" egomaniacs are. The term "asshats" might as well have been coined specifically to describe the limp-wristed "punch-out" these lesser lights of the human race are engaging in right now.

Yeah, I don't know what it really "does."

The Anglican Communion is an odd thing. And while this may mollify some conservative Anglicans, it's not going to "work." The conservatives are not going to accept the Episcopals back in any time soon. And the Episcopals aren't going to change their mind. Once you start down the road, you can't go back. Too many gays and lesbians are out, too many have been married in the church. What would you do—a massive, ugly purge?

Tim,

What is odd about the Anglican Communion? It struck me that such a statement was itself odd.

>3 John5918: They have now added an editorial:

The Guardian view on the Anglican communion: Archbishop Welby’s holy smoke and mirror

>12 richardbsmith:

Well, it's a "communion," but large numbers of its members have an ecclesiology that doesn't put a high value on communion between churches. So what is it?

That is, for the Catholic or Orthodox (and indeed Oriental Orthodox and Nestorian), being "in communion" is a deadly serious thing, and the prospect of being out of communion personally or organizationally a horror, dangerous even to salvation itself. To be in communion is to be fully part of the Church of Christ and to be out of it is a grave injury to the body of Christ. Historically, when such groups got out of communion with each other, nobody shrugged. On the contrary, both asserted THEY were the true church of Christ and the others were out of communion with them.

Only a minority of Anglicans think that way—and Episcopals least of all. Rather, Episcopals generally conceive of "the Anglican Communion" more like of a loose affiliation of historically linked organizations, useful for coordinating charitable efforts and so forth, but hardly a matter of urgent concern, a matter of slavation or a guard against heretical doctrine. No Episcopalian is readying a statement about the rest of the Anglican communion setting themselves against the church of Christ, themselves.

I'd add that being "in communion" in the other churches means that you literally can't receive communion outside your church. A Catholic cannot receive communion in an Orthodox church and (mostly) visa versa. Nor can an Episcopal receive communion in either. But Episcopals have no such rule—they aren't "in communion" with the Catholic church, but they allow Catholics and indeed all baptized people to receive communion. I make no claims that this is bad, but it obviously demonstrates a very different understanding of what communion, and "a communion," is.

>13 MMcM: Thanks, Mike. A couple more here from the Grauniad - it's no secret which daily newspaper I read first each morning!

Justin Welby says sorry to LGBTI community for hurt and pain caused by Anglican church

Anglican leaders further marginalise gay people – and Church of England

>14 timspalding: Well, it's a "communion," but large numbers of its members have an ecclesiology that doesn't put a high value on communion between churches

You may be right. I find that sad, as the Anglican church which I grew up alongside in England really did value that communion, a broad church with a wide spectrum ranging from low church evangelicals to high church anglo-Catholics, with a majority probably being "middle of the road" Anglicans. It looks as if Justin Welby is one of your "Only a minority of Anglicans think that way".

Bible literalism plays a role, with an increase in the influence of Anglicans who have a similar view of the bible to many of your US evangelical protestants. I think also the African churches' perceptions of the colonial and neo-colonial dynamic of the Anglican church was not recognised, or at least was under-estimated, by the western churches until far too late in this particular debate, and in some ways overtook the actual issue. It could be argued that both sides handled the process very badly, allowing it to escalate into a win-lose situation before Rowan Williams and now Welby really tried to understand the conflict in order to defuse it.

Richardbsmith: if you are not troubled by the fact that gay marriage goes against clear Biblical teaching and 2000 years of Christian tradition, nor by the rejection by the Anglican Communion of the Episcopal Church position on this issue, then you are surely in the right place for you. I left the Episcopal Church for Rome decades ago. It seemed then that like something like the present situation was coming eventually. There seemed to be no reason left to stay. I have never once doubted that getting out of the Episcopal Church was the right thing to do.

From the Catholic stable:

ANGLICAN COMMUNION AVOIDS SCHISM BY BANNING PRO-GAY US CHURCH FOR THREE YEARS (Tablet)

briteness,

Tradition is surely one of the sources of authority in the Anglican Church. Also reason. And I am among those who would add culture.

I will always seek a church that in more inclusive than exclusive, a church than eats with sinners rather than declares abominations.

Yes I am in the right place, as I think are you.

Tim,

Thank you. Odd then for churches means inclusive and welcoming?

Because the thing that is odd for me is to be otherwise. And this oddness of the Anglican Communion, to decide not to be welcoming and inclusive, is a new oddness coming out of Canterbury.

The Episcopal Church of the USA welcomes all who call themselves Christians to receive Holy Communion. And to be more truthful, feel free to come on down regardless.

The body and blood are available to you in The Episcopal Church of America.

I am definitely in the right place.

edited to correct a typo

>13 MMcM:
Definitely a politician.

Is there more to church leadership?

"The combination of sincerity when he speaks with misdirection in his silences is one that many more worldly creatures would envy. He combines these skills with a keen appreciation of the real forces beneath the suffocating high-mindedness of church communiques."

The Guardian has well described what I called pious posturing in a comment above.

>15 John5918:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/15/justin-welby-says-sorry-to-lgbti-co...
"He repeatedly insisted that the US Episcopal church had not been punished, but was facing “consequences” after it had been subject to punitive measures, 13 years after first antagonising conservatives with the consecration of a gay bishop to the diocese of New Hampshire. “We are very careful not to use the word sanctions,” he said, pointing out that the communion had no power to impose punitive measures on its members. But, he added, “if any province is out of line, there will be consequences”.

My hope that ECUSA's reply to the next invitation to observe, not participate, is a gracious, simple, "No thank you." Three words.

Oh we could add,

"And may the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you. Amen." or some other holy smoke and mirror.

>17 John5918:

John, I do not agree with The Tablet's perception of things.

"The American branch of the communion had caused the threat of a schism because of its pro-homosexual stance and a vote last year at its general convention (pictured) to allow same-sex marriage. A number of conservative churches in the communion - particularly the African members - had threatened to walk out of the meeting of primates in the crypt of Canterbury Cathedral, effectively creating a schism."

ECUSA did not cause the split. The split came from Canterbury.

Our position, I think, is open and full communion to all. As far as I know our position for open and full communion has not changed.

The split is caused by the threat from "a number of conservative churches in the communion" who threatened to walk out.

>18 richardbsmith: a church that in more inclusive than exclusive, a church than eats with sinners rather than declares abominations.

"The priest who seldom goes out of himself … misses out on the best of our people, on what can stir the depths of his priestly heart. … This is precisely the reason why some priests grow dissatisfied, lose heart and become in a sense collectors of antiquities or novelties — instead of being shepherds living with ‘the smell of the sheep.’ This is what I am asking you — be shepherds with the smell of sheep.”

—Pope Francis’ address to the world’s priests at the Chrism Mass on Holy Thursday March 28, 2013.

margd,

I had a typo in my comment at 15. Now corrected seeing the mistake copied in your post.

I meant "more inclusive than exclusive."

My typing is getting to be as bad as my handwriting - nearly illegible. : )

My EYESIGHT is going--I read it as you meant it: "more inclusive than exclusive"!
(I made the change in #23.)

Looking for evolution of churches on 19th c social issue (slavery), I came across this quote from Frederick Douglass:

"In the South I was a member of the Methodist Church. When I came north, I thought one Sunday I would attend communion, at one of the churches of my denomination, in the town I was staying. The white people gathered round the altar, the blacks clustered by the door. After the good minister had served out the bread and wine to one portion of those near him, he said, "These may withdraw, and others come forward"; thus he proceeded till all the white members had been served. Then he drew a long breath, and looking out towards the door, exclaimed, "Come up, colored friends, come up! for you know God is no respecter of persons!" I haven't been there to see the sacraments taken since."

>22 richardbsmith: ECUSA did not cause the split. The split came from Canterbury.

I would say neither and both. Arguably the split came not simply because of disagreement over the issue itself but the way the issue was handled over many years by both parties, making it a win-lose (or zero sum) dynamic, and including a failure to really listen to each other and to understand beyond the sound-bites and headlines. I would suggest there has also been a lack of humility and charity on both sides. Again I stress that I am not referring to the issue of homosexuality itself, but to the way it has been handled.

John,

What gets me is how freely everyone discusses issues which affect the lives of people at such an intimate and personal level, as if those persons were not there.

And then the Archbishop of Canterbury offers his apology, couched of course in the appropriate language of holiness and love.

ECUSA has not issued an ultimatum, a demand for the rest of the Church - Anglican and Catholic, and others - to repent upon punishment of withholding communion.

ECUSA will take the sinners, me among them, and wait for the Church to progress.

Tradition should not be used as a crutch to prevent forward movement.

Scripture should not be the anchor that sinks the ship and drowns all on board as well as those treading, seeking hope.

We have taken the progressive message of Paul and produced a Church mired in mud.

ECUSA has open communion. And it is open for anyone who wants to come, including the Anglican Communion.

I went to a Greek church once. To see the liturgy and to hear it in Greek.

The priest came to me, I thought to welcome a visitor. His purpose though was not to welcome. It was to ensure I knew that I was not allowed to partake of communion.

And here endeth the lesson.
Thanks be to God.

>26 John5918: What gets me is how freely everyone discusses issues

I tried to make it clear that I am not discussing the issue itself but the conflict dynamics which contributed to making it so intractable.

Edited

Thank you. Odd then for churches means inclusive and welcoming?

The Church should indeed be inclusive and welcoming. The Church must always make clear how everyone is welcome to join the Church, and reach out to all to offer that invitation.

That concept, however, contains a distinction--the distinction between those who are in the church and those who are out.(1)

That distinction is foundational. Leaving aside the New Testament, we can start with the first councils, which, as an Episcopal, I think you accept. The Apostles and Nicene Creeds are foundational to your faith and, I gather, one or the other is generally recited in common during your liturgies, right?

Well, take the Nicene Creed. It's entire purpose is to express the common faith of the Church, and, in doing so, mark out the bounds of that belief. The chief concern when it was written was Arianism, so the creed hits again and again at Arian theology. To be part of the church is to believe it, and if you can't say "begotten not made," "of one being with the father" or "eternally begotten of the Father" then you aren't fully part of it. Of course, the creed's words were backed up with "anathemas" from the Council itself--that is, explicit statements of exclusion from communion. Arians must repent and believe in the shared, catholic faith, before they take communion. And non-Arians must never take communion in an Arian church.

Now, I understand that's not your theology. But you need to understand your view here is both very modern one--post Reformation--and a minority practice--no more than 1/3 of Christians belong to churches that practice it.

I went to a Greek church once. To see the liturgy and to hear it in Greek.

The priest came to me, I thought to welcome a visitor. His purpose though was not to welcome. It was to ensure I knew that I was not allowed to partake of communion.

I regret that the priest did not lead with a welcome. But I understand why he felt he had to inform you. Most Protestants don't understand Orthodox (or Catholic) theology and practice here, and regularly queue up to get what they see as merely a symbolic cracker.

It puts priests in a bind. Refusing communion at the altar rail is practically and theologically fraught--perhaps that new member who doesn't seem to know what to do in church is in fact just an ignorant Orthodox person on vacation? But giving communion to someone outside the church is a sacrilege. So some solution must be found.

I would add that the Orthodox have a special bread available every mass--the antidoron, a piece of the communion loaf that has been blessed but not consecrated. It is available to all, and, in theology, corresponds exactly to what most Protestants understand as the communion. In making that available to all, the Orthodox church underlines their openness to all seekers, even as it guards the sacraments themselves, as it has guarded them for 2,000 years.

---

1. I should say "fully in," since the Church understands communion as more of a scalar than a binary, and "as far as the world knows, out," since we also have the notion of people who are part of the church, even though they have not explicitly joined it.

"But giving communion to someone outside the church is a sacrilege. So some solution must be found."

Have they considered finding for a solution by opening communion?

You are right. I don't understand.

Anyway, I felt more welcome as the Russian Orthodox service. The priest fed me. I enjoyed the liturgy even if it was in English.

Even for us Protestants the body and blood are more than a symbolic cracker. And because of its importance, I think Anglicans open access.

At least until now.

Now we are left with the ECUSA having open communion.

And to all, should you be in Chattanooga. Come please to my Sunday School class and then to church and communion.

Although, I am of the opinion that we should have Morning Prayer weekly, and Communion monthly. That is an debate which my team lost some years ago.

In my Sunday School class, we are discussing Genesis. Just finished Handel's Messiah for Advent and Christmas. Looking forward to some Bach cantatas for Lent and Easter.

> Even for us Protestants the body and blood are more than a symbolic cracker.

Well, for Episcopalian Protestants they are more. For many other Protestants (including the Evangelical Megachurch rabble) they are exactly that. For some, like the Salvation Army, they aren't even that.

The Eucharist is the focus of the greatest diversity of Christian doctrine and practice since the middle ages.

>32 paradoxosalpha: You are correct. Anglicans place much more emphasis to the sacrament of the Eucharist than do many other Protestant denominations. I have a brother in law who is an Assemblies of God pastor. I am not sure if they do communion at all.

That point granted, the sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ is more to me than a symbolic cracker.

And for me, the greater emphasis given to the meaning of that sacrament, even to the point of Transubstantiation, the greater the access which should be allowed.

Paul removed the requirement of circumcision. We added the requirement of church membership, and specific church membership.

Anyway, I will leave the theological discussions here to better minds than mine.

Tomorrow I will go to my church and thank God for female priests and communion with all the gays, and divorced people, and unmarried mothers, and fornicators, and the other sinners. As was pointed out earlier, I am definitely in the right place.

From a Google+ group, regarding this same topic.

An Atheist buddy of mine commented:

"From the conversations that I have had, which admittedly are not all that many, members of more conservative faiths view inflexibility & intransigence as great strengths & something to be boasted about."

Of course, he is an Atheist who thinks homosexuals are people too. What the hell does he know?

>34 richardbsmith: members of more conservative faiths view inflexibility & intransigence as great strengths

There's probably a difference somewhere in here between "flexibility" and "adaptability." Holding true to a principle is indeed a great strength that sees many a person through difficult times and situations. But we do have to be willing to adapt when those principles we hold dear are discovered to be founded on untrue things, which is what is at the heart of the debate about the fate of homosexuals in many Christian denominations. What was once deemed "unnatural" is now considered natural, even integral. So is sexual morality centered around the various acts that are deemed (erroneously) unnatural? Or should it be centered around other priorities, like healthy relationships based on mutual respect, consent, love, and honesty?

If Jesus had said "take this wood and build shelter for those who are out in the cold" would you then insist that houses could only be built of wood? Or would be point be that no one should be left without access to shelter? It wouldn't really matter how sacred carpenters were in such a scenario, a person creating houses for the poor from cement blocks would be following the same directive.

But ultimately, any religion that is founded on a directive of "love thy neighbor as thyself" pretty much at its base invalidates any directive about who can and can't be in the flock. Hence the somewhat pallid attempt to preserve such distinctions by "loving the sinner, hating the sin."

Anyway, I felt more welcome as the Russian Orthodox service. The priest fed me. I enjoyed the liturgy even if it was in English.

If a Russian Orthodox priest gave you communion, knowing you were Episcopalian, and without some special reason (like immanent death), he violated his church's doctrine and discipline quite severely! These are not optional issues in either the Catholic or Orthodox churches.

And to all, should you be in Chattanooga. Come please to my Sunday School class and then to church and communion.

Thanks for the invitation. I was there once, years ago. I have a good friend there now, but he's an atheist :)

Have they considered finding for a solution by opening communion?
... That point granted, the sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ is more to me than a symbolic cracker.

Right. And what would you say if a non-Episcopal, or a non-Christian, came into the church and, rather than receiving communion consecrated by an Episcopal priest, decided that communin should be REALLY open--and he or she ought to be up at the altar consecrating it? What if Baptists and neo-Pagan demanded to consecrate your bread and wine however they please and then pass it out to episcopals? The Baptist consecrates the bread with an anti-Gay prayer. The Pagan consecrates it to Thor or Artemis. No more "controlling" the altar. Openness reigns.

I think you'd object. You say it wasn't appropriate for non-episcopals to attempt sacraments on an episcopal altar. I hope you might even consider it a sacrilege. Communion isn't supposed to be open like that.

Well, that's how Catholics and Orthodox feel when their understanding of communion is disparaged and ignored. Communion isn't something the priest does, and then we are "fed" or not "fed." We're all doing it together--the people as well as the priest. It's the deepest expression of our unity within the church and with Christ. And absent that fullest unity, it's meaningless or a sacrilege.

What was once deemed "unnatural" is now considered natural, even integral. So is sexual morality centered around the various acts that are deemed (erroneously) unnatural? Or should it be centered around other priorities, like healthy relationships based on mutual respect, consent, love, and honesty?

Well, I think authentic sexual morality, even "traditional" sexual morality, was always founded in the latter. Or, more simply, it was founded, like all morality, on love. But indeed, the "details" here--the critical details--are being worked through denomination by denomination. May we all get it right.

But ultimately, any religion that is founded on a directive of "love thy neighbor as thyself" pretty much at its base invalidates any directive about who can and can't be in the flock.

Yes, of course.

Hence the somewhat pallid attempt to preserve such distinctions by "loving the sinner, hating the sin."

I'm hardly out there applying this in ways you'd object to, but the distinction is not a rhetorical trick, but absolutely fundamental. To push it to the extreme--for demonstration-sake, not because I think they are analogous--if a racist, a pedophile or a mafia boss wants to join the church, we love the sinner, but hate the sin. We always love the sinner. And we never love a sin.

>36 timspalding: We always love the sinner. And we never love a sin.

Ah, but are you called to "hate" sin? Isn't that just a distraction from the call to love? I realize my understanding of all this is imperfect and largely academic, but if we live in an existence that is fallen by default -- then we all live in a state of sin, yes? Is seeking to eradicate sin really a viable option? Wouldn't it make more sense to nurture love than to go to war against whatever particular sin is the cultural obsession of the moment?

ETA:

Or, more simply, it was founded, like all morality, on love.

I think you could make a pretty strong case that morality is founded in self-preservation as much as it is founded on love.

>30 timspalding:

I suggest, Tim, a moderation in rhetoric. Your saying "symbolic cracker" opens a door for me to say "the abracadabra of transubstantiation".

I hope you would agree that neither belongs in an adult conversation.

>38 librorumamans:

Fair enough. But the difference in understanding is major. If you disagree about the meaning of a ritual so fundamentally, it should come as no surprise that you are not asked to participate in it.

I have a Koran and I'd let you read it. I practice "open Koran reading." But I don't believe the Koran to be what Muslims believe it to be, so I'm not demanding to recite the Koran at Friday Prayers.

That I am not invited to join in Communion has as much significance to me as the ritual itself. That I am specifically refused participation in Communion even more so.

The ritual means to an individual what it means to the individual.

In the Episcopal Church we open the ritual of Communion, to access the Body and Blood, to everyone. You are invited to partake and to invest the ritual with the significance it has for you.

And that seems to be what we are discussing here in general.

The Church's role in denying access to Christ.

In whatever form that denial of access is.

>39 timspalding:

And my disagreement about the meaning of the ritual includes strong and considered objections to fencing the table and to receiving in one kind, regardless of their historic origins.

Among my cohort in grad school was a Jesuit seminarian. During our time he was ordained. After that, on Sunday afternoons or evenings, he celebrated mass in one of the dorm rooms for the few other Catholic grad students.

Although, and because, he knew I was (at the time) an active Presbyterian, he always made it clear that I was most welcome to attend and participate. And I did, even assisting him from time to time in small ways that I can't now remember. He served me equally with the others, and all of us in both kinds.

Those are among my warm memories of the place.

>41 librorumamans:

I can't recall the number of Catholic liturgies I have attended over the years in which non-Catholics participated fully, including partaking of the eucharist; it is not at all uncommon in practice. Some have had bishops fully and knowingly involved. Some have had non-Catholic priests (including female ones) concelebrating insofar as their own theological position permitted. I have also attended many eucharistic celebrations which were intentionally ecumenical. And I have also received communion at many non-Catholic services.

The theology which Tim expounds admirably reflects some of the multiple and mystical meanings of eucharist. The praxis theology of Catholic and non-Catholic Christians all over the world reflects some of the other meanings.

When we think of exclusion from the eucharist on the African continent we need to reflect on how many of our Catholics only get the chance to participate in the eucharist two or three times a year because there are not enough priests to go round, yet our Church fails to think creatively about reforming the ordained and/or sacramental ministry.

My church (admittedly not a Christian one, albeit one with a longstanding claim to manifest the "true pre-Christian Christianity") has a rule about Eucharistic availability that seems to be different from any other I've encountered. No church membership, status, standing, or sacramental history is required of communicants. However, in order to attend a Mass at which communion is offered to the people, individuals must intend to communicate. Since our Mass is devoid of preaching and evangelizing, there is no reason for non-communicants to be present during the ceremony, and to decline the Eucharist when it is offered is considered an infraction against congregational solidarity and hospitality.

Even this rule is difficult of enforcement. In many congregations, there are those who think that the merely curious should be allowed routinely to attend, instead of being asked to make up their minds whether they really want what we offer in our central sacrament, and to participate (or not) accordingly.

(Note also: We do not claim a monopoly on salvation.)

>42 John5918:

Thanks for that, John.

A more recent experience from this past Advent season:

It was our laid-back, much more informal, evening service. The celebrant that night had chosen to bake her own communion loaves, one of which had been torn into portions before the service while the other rested on the patten for her to use during the consecration. There was also an adorably cute two-and-a-half-year-old in the congregation, with her mothers, who wandered around amiably throughout the service.

During the consecration, this young child went up to the front to get a closer look. Sam had blessed and torn the loaf and was holding the cup. The child, seeing a half loaf of bread, reached up and helped herself. She ate a couple of mouthfuls, standing there, and then, spontaneously, started walking up the aisle from pew to pew tearing off small pieces of the bread and offering them to the people sitting there.

I had an privileged view of this scene from my vantage point as Worship Coordinator at the rear of the sanctuary. It is one of the most perfect Eucharists I have witnessed.

Perfect.

And excellent that she was not stopped and corrected.

My favorite communions of recent years were those that had been moved to the fellowship hall because of some extended AC problems in the sanctuary.

If I were the priest, I think the sanctuary would be the second choice for worship services.