Eucharist

[svdbygrace]

I have been wondering something. Can Episcopalians (Anglicans) recieve the Eucharist/Holy Communion in non-Anglican Churches? (that should be confirmed Anglicans) I know that RC's can't do this.

[gitlance]

I, personally, do not take Communion in non-Catholic churches... but that stems from my belief that there is no valid Eucharist outside of the Succession and proper belief in the Real Presence.

[Fish and Bread]

I have been wondering something. Can Episcopalians (Anglicans) recieve the Eucharist/Holy Communion in non-Anglican Churches? (that should be confirmed Anglicans) I know that RC's can't do this.

Members of the Episcopal Church are permitted, but not required, to receive in any church that offers Christ's Body and Blood to them. I personally attend a Lutheran service every once in a while and commune there and have in the past received at Methodist services, as well as every week at my Episcopalian parish. I believe we are all one in Christ and that he invites us to the same table. The only churches I don't receive in are the ones that refuse to invite me to the Lord's Table because of my denominational affiliation, but I try to avoid attending such churches whenever possible -- I figure since they don't recognize me as Christian, why should I recognize them as a church. ;) (I'm half kidding on that last part)

John

[SeenAndUnseen]

Members of the Episcopal Church are permitted, but not required, to receive in any church that offers Christ's Body and Blood to them. I personally attend a Lutheran service every once in a while and commune there and have in the past received at Methodist services, as well as every week at my Episcopalian parish. I believe we are all one in Christ and that he invites us to the same table. The only churches I don't receive in are the ones that refuse to invite me to the Lord's Table because of my denominational affiliation, but I try to avoid attending such churches whenever possible -- I figure since they don't recognize me as Christian, why should I recognize them as a church. ;) (I'm half kidding on that last part)

John

I have a similar attitude. I will participate in the celebration of the Holy Eucharist in other Christian churches that recognize my church as Christian, and in churches that don't hold Christ's Body and Blood hostage from those who have not jumped through the appropriate doctrinal hoops.

[benedictine]

I will recieve in Anglican, ELCA, Catholic(if they would let me), and EO/OO (again, if they would let me).

I will not recieve anywhere that does not believe in th real presence, or have a valid succession.

[Albion]

I have been wondering something. Can Episcopalians (Anglicans) recieve the Eucharist/Holy Communion in non-Anglican Churches? (that should be confirmed Anglicans) I know that RC's can't do this.

The simple answer is "Yes, they can." What limitations each individual Anglican places upon himself in keeping with his own theology is something else.

[Robbie_James_Francis]

I, personally, do not take Communion in non-Catholic churches... but that stems from my belief that there is no valid Eucharist outside of the Succession and proper belief in the Real Presence.

:confused: Catholic as in under the Pope? Or Catholic as in universal;with valid succession?

[gitlance]

:confused: Catholic as in under the Pope? Or Catholic as in universal;with valid succession?

Catholic as in "according to the wholeness," the Greek definition of the word. Those churches which maintain the wholeness of the faith (i.e. the Succession, the Sacraments, the Apostolic Faith, the Scriptures) are Catholic. All baptized Christians, whether a part of the visible Church or not, are catholic (universal).

[Colabomb]

Catholic as in "according to the wholeness," the Greek definition of the word. Those churches which maintain the wholeness of the faith (i.e. the Succession, the Sacraments, the Apostolic Faith, the Scriptures) are Catholic. All baptized Christians, whether a part of the visible Church or not, are catholic (universal).
I will recieve in any Church with Valid Apostolic Church and that will allow me.

[gtsecc]

:confused: Catholic as in under the Pope? Or Catholic as in universal;with valid succession?

Some Anglicans, particularly Anglo-Cathlics, believe there is one Holy Catholic Orthodox Church which is currently broken into 3 branches, Anglican, Orthodox, and Roman Catholic.

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Catholic as in "according to the wholeness," the Greek definition of the word. Those churches which maintain the wholeness of the faith (i.e. the Succession, the Sacraments, the Apostolic Faith, the Scriptures) are Catholic. All baptized Christians, whether a part of the visible Church or not, are catholic (universal).

Oh ok...I understand now. I was just curious since I know that we Catholics under the Pope wouldn't allow Anglicans to receive Communion.

Peace be with you,
Rob

[SirTimothy]

Some Anglicans, particularly Anglo-Cathlics, believe there is one Holy Catholic Orthodox Church which is currently broken into 3 branches, Anglican, Orthodox, and Roman Catholic.

*COUGHCOUGH*OldCatholic*COUGHCOUGH*

Timothy (Who if he lived in the USA would probably become OC...)

[Colabomb]

*COUGHCOUGH*OldCatholic*COUGHCOUGH*

Timothy (Who if he lived in the USA would probably become OC...)
I believe there is one church, and sinfully, we have artificially divided it. We need to repent and Do what God Wills so that we may become one.

[PaladinValer]

I have been wondering something. Can Episcopalians (Anglicans) recieve the Eucharist/Holy Communion in non-Anglican Churches? (that should be confirmed Anglicans) I know that RC's can't do this.

We are welcome to receive wherever we are welcomed. Anglo-Catholics like myself, however, tend to like to receive only in churches that also agree with the dogma of the True Presence: Lutherans, Old Catholics, etc.

Personally, I'd widen this a bit to include the Methodists because we are currently in discussion of being in Full Communion with them, but if this goes through the hole, I'll drop the policy. Not that I wouldn't attend a Methodist service, I'd simply be unable to receive there with good conscience.

[SirTimothy]

Well, I actually recieve at any church. In some, I am remembering Christ, and in others I am recieving Christ. If they want to hand out juice and bread and say we are remembering Christ, I'll happily recieve anything to remember Christ. However I won't believe that it's a valid sacrament. ;)

Timothy

[Albion]

Well, I actually recieve at any church. In some, I am remembering Christ, and in others I am recieving Christ. If they want to hand out juice and bread and say we are remembering Christ, I'll happily recieve anything to remember Christ. However I won't believe that it's a valid sacrament. ;)

Timothy

There's hardly a Christian church that doesn't consider the Lord's Supper to be a sacrament, so with that in mind I agree with what you said about communing. As for it being "valid," well, I take the Evangelical Anglican POV that the Church of Christ is not to be considered to be one branch only or identified with any particular denomination.

Still, I often wonder (and I take this from your post) what is lost for the Anglo-Catholic who partakes of the Supper in say, a Methodist or Baptist church. Nothing. He can say that it is more "real" or "valid" in his own church if he wishes, but there still is no setback in fellowshipping and commemorating the Last Supper with Christians who hold somewhat different views on the meaning of the elements or of the ministry, is there? The same people will say that they don't accept Transubstantiation but would be more than happy to commune with Roman Catholics, if allowed.

[gitlance]

There's hardly a Christian church that doesn't consider the Lord's Supper to be a sacrament, so with that in mind I agree with what you said about communing. As for it being "valid," well, I take the Evangelical Anglican POV that the Church of Christ is not to be considered to be one branch only or identified with any particular denomination.

Still, I often wonder (and I take this from your post) what is lost for the Anglo-Catholic who partakes of the Supper in say, a Methodist or Baptist church. Nothing. He can say that it is more "real" or "valid" in his own church if he wishes, but there still is no setback in fellowshipping and commemorating the Last Supper with Christians who hold somewhat different views on the meaning of the elements or of the ministry, is there? The same people will say that they don't accept Transubstantiation but would be more than happy to commune with Roman Catholics, if allowed.

I think a response to that would be that transubstantiation is still belief in the Real Presence. I may not agree with that explanation of how the Real Presence is made manifest, but I do agree with the fact that the RCs still believe in the Real Presence. Baptists, for example, do not even believe in the Real Presence. I cannot commune in a church that denies the Real Presence.

[Wigglesworth]

Well, I actually recieve at any church. In some, I am remembering Christ, and in others I am recieving Christ. If they want to hand out juice and bread and say we are remembering Christ, I'll happily recieve anything to remember Christ. However I won't believe that it's a valid sacrament. ;)

Timothy

A healthy position well stated. :thumbsup:

[UberLutheran]

There's hardly a Christian church that doesn't consider the Lord's Supper to be a sacrament, so with that in mind I agree with what you said about communing. As for it being "valid," well, I take the Evangelical Anglican POV that the Church of Christ is not to be considered to be one branch only or identified with any particular denomination.

Presbyterians, most Baptists, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the Church of Christ, the Assembly of God, and most Pentecostals do not recognize the Lord's Supper (or baptism) as Sacraments.

They recognize these as "ordinances", and most of them (the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., the American Baptist Convention, the National Baptist Association, and the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) being notable exceptions) practice closed communion.

As a Lutheran, I many not commune at my sister's church (PCA), the Southern Baptist church in which I was raised, or the Church of Christ which a good deal of my family attend. (Of course, I'm not likely to attend their churches either!)

[SirTimothy]

There's hardly a Christian church that doesn't consider the Lord's Supper to be a sacrament, so with that in mind I agree with what you said about communing. As for it being "valid," well, I take the Evangelical Anglican POV that the Church of Christ is not to be considered to be one branch only or identified with any particular denomination.

No. Well, neither Baptism nor Communion would be considered sacraments in my parents church nor the baptist church. Ordinances, yes. Visible acts, yes. A means of grace... no.

Timothy

[Albion]

No. Well, neither Baptism nor Communion would be considered sacraments in my parents church nor the baptist church. Ordinances, yes. Visible acts, yes. A means of grace... no.

Timothy

I can't speak for your parents, of couse, but Baptists do consider there to be two sacraments of the Gospel (Baptism and the Lord's Supper) just like every other reformed church except the Salvation Army, the Quakers, and if you want to count them, the Unitarians.

As to whether or not they are a "means of grace," that is something else. They're still sacraments, just not seen in the way of the unreformed churches.

[Albion]

Presbyterians, most Baptists, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the Church of Christ, the Assembly of God, and most Pentecostals do not recognize the Lord's Supper (or baptism) as Sacraments.

They recognize these as "ordinances", and most of them (the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., the American Baptist Convention, the National Baptist Association, and the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) being notable exceptions) practice closed communion.

As a Lutheran, I many not commune at my sister's church (PCA), the Southern Baptist church in which I was raised, or the Church of Christ which a good deal of my family attend. (Of course, I'm not likely to attend their churches either!)


They certainly are seen as sacraments, just not defined as you do.

[Albion]

I think a response to that would be that transubstantiation is still belief in the Real Presence. I may not agree with that explanation of how the Real Presence is made manifest, but I do agree with the fact that the RCs still believe in the Real Presence. Baptists, for example, do not even believe in the Real Presence. I cannot commune in a church that denies the Real Presence.

That's a reasonable point to make...and I did think of it before I said what I did. Clearly understandable. However, I used to believe as you do, and on occasion, I did commune in various churches which hold a different view. Did I damn myself or commit a great wrong? Did I lose something? I don't think so. What I thought then was that it was not a valid Eucharist and the minister was not a valid officiant...but for the sake of fellowship and in the common remembrance of Christ's sacrifice I communed for those reasons only. Why not?

[Fish and Bread]

Presbyterians, most Baptists, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the Church of Christ, the Assembly of God, and most Pentecostals do not recognize the Lord's Supper (or baptism) as Sacraments.

John Calvin affirmed the real presence of Christ in the heart of the believer while following Christ's command to take and eat. Don't Presbyterians hold to that doctrine anymore?

John

[Albion]

John Calvin affirmed the real presence of Christ in the heart of the believer while following Christ's command to take and eat. Don't Presbyterians hold to that doctrine anymore?

John

Yes, they do.

[romaneagle13]

AFAIK, they believe that Christ is present in a spiritual but not corporal fashion. So taking communion wiht Presbyterians is still valid for us.

[gitlance]

I can't speak for your parents, of couse, but Baptists do consider there to be two sacraments of the Gospel (Baptism and the Lord's Supper) just like every other reformed church except the Salvation Army, the Quakers, and if you want to count them, the Unitarians.

As to whether or not they are a "means of grace," that is something else. They're still sacraments, just not seen in the way of the unreformed churches.

I was raised in the Southern Baptist Church... they do not have Sacraments... they have two ordinances of the Gospel: Baptism (by immersion) and the Lord's Supper.

[svdbygrace]

There is a wide belief system with the Baptists. Most do have open communion. I'll leave it at that. I'll explain my personal experiences with Baptists and the "Ordinances" some other time (i'll just tell, you... some will openly refer to them as "Baptist Sacraments!" ;) ) Also some Baptists (such as the Free Will Baptists) have more than two ordinances. Baptism, Holy Communion, and the Washing of the Saints Feet. Some (not the SBC, for one) churches would actually even consider some of the other 7 Sacraments to be ordinances. The Eucharist was the first thing that got me "thinking Anglican". Just to see how it was celebrated in liturgical churches. Then came my love for the liturgy. :D




There's hardly a Christian church that doesn't consider the Lord's Supper to be a sacrament, so with that in mind I agree with what you said about communing. As for it being "valid," well, I take the Evangelical Anglican POV that the Church of Christ is not to be considered to be one branch only or identified with any particular denomination.

Still, I often wonder (and I take this from your post) what is lost for the Anglo-Catholic who partakes of the Supper in say, a Methodist or Baptist church. Nothing. He can say that it is more "real" or "valid" in his own church if he wishes, but there still is no setback in fellowshipping and commemorating the Last Supper with Christians who hold somewhat different views on the meaning of the elements or of the ministry, is there? The same people will say that they don't accept Transubstantiation but would be more than happy to commune with Roman Catholics, if allowed.

[Albion]

I was raised in the Southern Baptist Church... they do not have Sacraments... they have two ordinances of the Gospel: Baptism (by immersion) and the Lord's Supper.

Lance and svdbygrace--

The main point of contention seems to be calling a sacrament (which means a sign) an ordinance. I was only pointing out that they do practice them--by whatever name they prefer--at least the two.

And especially is this so concerning some of the other churches that didn't belong on this list. The Baptists, I recognize, present some special problems in such a discussion.

[Robbie_James_Francis]

How would you define a "Sacrament" then? I would define a Sacrament as a tangible encounter with God and something in which we know both
--that Grace is available independent of belief in that Grace
--and also we know exactly how that Grace is obtained

Is this different from the Anglican view of Sacraments?

Pax tecum. :) :liturgy:

Rob:wave:

[SeenAndUnseen]

I would define a Sacrament as a tangible encounter with God and something in which we know both
--that Grace is available independent of belief in that Grace
--and also we know exactly how that Grace is obtained

Is this different from the Anglican view of Sacraments?


"Sacraments are signs of inward, spiritual grace, given by Christ as sure and certain means of receiving God's grace." (http://www.episcopalchurch.org/19625_15272_ENG_HTM.htm)

That is the Episcopal definition. We do view the sacraments as sure and certain means of receiving God's grace.

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Thanks! :thumbsup: :)

Dominus Vobiscum! :hug: :liturgy:

Rob