Conflict in Lutheran and Episcopal parishes

  • Thread starter Thread starter EvangelCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JonNC said:
communing of unbaptized, perhaps not formally, for a while now, AFAIK.
Click to expand...
This is until they are formally considered one of the faithful or baptized? I’m assuming the further thinking must be catechism and becoming better rooted within the faith?
 
JonNC said:
Curiously, the ELCA’s partner, TEC, has been practicing the communing of unbaptized, perhaps not formally, for a while now, AFAIK.

I think Pope Francis has reminded us that, while scripture and the teaching of the Church has not changed regarding sexual activity outside of marriage, we are obligated to treat all sinners with love, and an eye toward grace.

Jon
Click to expand...
Jon

Can you elaborate on your comment about “communing of unbaptized” in the Episcopal Church? I can’t find much info on this practice. Of-course, we know that anyone who comes forward to receive holy Communion may be non-baptized, even in the LCMS and Roman Church.

I am grateful to Francis for many things and am not a bit surprised that he is the “Person of the Year” via Time magazine.
 
=EvangelCatholic;11490467]Jon
Click to expand...
Can you elaborate on your comment about “communing of unbaptized” in the Episcopal Church? I can’t find much info on this practice. Of-course, we know that anyone who comes forward to receive holy Communion may be non-baptized, even in the LCMS and Roman Church.
Click to expand...
I really can’t, other than to say that I have heard that, in some parishes within TEC, baptism is not a prerequisite for receiving. As I said, this may not be the general practice, but it is what I’ve heard. If I am wrong, I will stand corrected.
Well, of course there are those who receive without being baptized. I was talking about the practice being approved of, and least by a local rector.

Jon
 
It is not the doing of the Church but rather certain parishes. Not happy about it and I voiced my opinion.
 
JonNC said:
I really can’t, other than to say that I have heard that, in some parishes within TEC, baptism is not a prerequisite for receiving. As I said, this may not be the general practice, but it is what I’ve heard. If I am wrong, I will stand corrected.
Well, of course there are those who receive without being baptized. I was talking about the practice being approved of, and least by a local rector.

Jon
Click to expand...
Thanks Jon

It is even harder to find info about this practice among Lutherans but it appears Episcopalians have been deliberating on allowing holy Communion to non-baptized for a while.

I did find this article in The Lutheran thelutheran.org/article/article.cfm?article_id=5025
Christ invites unbaptized
Click to expand...
… to ‘take and eat’
Click to expand...
Christ invites the unbaptized to receive the gift of grace in communion.
Click to expand...
In 1997 the ELCA Churchwide Assembly adopted a statement on the practice of word and sacrament. In The Use of the Means of Grace, principle No. 37 states: “Admission to the Sacrament is by invitation of the Lord, presented through the church to those who are baptized.”
Click to expand...
When they brought the paralytic to the feet of Jesus, “he saw their faith” and the man’s sins were forgiven and he was healed. In all of the biblical accounts, I see no reference to Jesus asking for something in advance of when he heals, feeds the 5,000 or performs other miracles. To the lepers, Jesus didn’t say, “I’ll heal you if you come back to thank me.”
Click to expand...
When we read the biblical stories of his ministry, we see Jesus touching the lives of people through grace and compassion. Jesus touched them. Although not one of them was baptized, Jesus wanted them to touch him.
Click to expand...
If the word from the pulpit is “God’s unconditional love,” then how can the pastor move from the pulpit to the communion rail and put a condition on that love? Is it for the sake of order? Does the pastor need to protect God in some way?
Click to expand...
If God’s love is truly inclusive, why would we exclude someone who wants to come and taste and smell God’s love in the bread and wine? Would Jesus give his body and blood to anyone who reaches out to touch him?
Click to expand...
An 83-year-old woman was baptized one Sunday. She came to the font with her walker and sat on a chair for her baptism. When asked, “Why now, after 83 years?” she responded, “Because I’ve never been invited like this.” She had been receiving communion. This was the first of six adult baptisms, with the same kind of story.
Click to expand...
Children as young as 3 years old are prepared for receiving communion and do receive. After her first communion, a little girl said to her mother, “I don’t ever want to miss church again.”
Click to expand...
The invitation should be open, unconditional and inclusive. Jesus would want it that way.
Click to expand...
 
EvangelCatholic said:
Thanks Jon

It is even harder to find info about this practice among Lutherans but it appears Episcopalians have been deliberating on allowing holy Communion to non-baptized for a while.

I did find this article in The Lutheran thelutheran.org/article/article.cfm?article_id=5025
Click to expand...
The ELCA is beginning the debate too, from alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=5166.15

“Staff in the churchwide worship team receive a number of inquiries on whether Holy Communion should be presented to only the baptized. Some are in favor of this, some are not in favor, and a good number simply ask, “What should we do?””
 
benjohnson said:
The ELCA is beginning the debate too, from alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=5166.15

“Staff in the churchwide worship team receive a number of inquiries on whether Holy Communion should be presented to only the baptized. Some are in favor of this, some are not in favor, and a good number simply ask, “What should we do?””
Click to expand...
What started it with TEC is a parish in Oregon. A lady came up to the priest and was really needing the Eucharist. She told the priest she was not baptized. I’m not sure if the lady was given the Eucharist or not but it sparked a debate by a few.
 
benjohnson said:
The ELCA is beginning the debate too, from alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=5166.15

“Staff in the churchwide worship team receive a number of inquiries on whether Holy Communion should be presented to only the baptized. Some are in favor of this, some are not in favor, and a good number simply ask, “What should we do?””
Click to expand...
Yes and here’s more from your quote:
In the fall of 2012, the worship team gathered the professors of worship from the ELCA seminaries for a conversation about this issue. A similar conversation took place at a meeting of the Lutheran Caucus at the North American Academy of Liturgy in January 2013. In both of these conversations it was clear that more needs to be said than what exists in current ELCA documents. Regardless of the decision, it remains evident that this church would do well to have more resources on the relationship between Holy Baptism and Holy Communion.
Click to expand...
alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=5166.15

Now I am beginning to wonder if receiving Christ’s Body and Blood should be delayed until First Communion. What’s to say a 7 year old is any more aware and ready to receive holy Communion than an infant? And if children can’t understand the sacrament any more than when they were baptized why would we prevent them from entering the holy Body of Christ?

I am rethinking my position on holy Communion for non-baptized. Lutherans believe that the benefits of of holy Communion have nothing to do with the worthiness of the communicant, right?
 
EvangelCatholic said:
I am rethinking my position on holy Communion for non-baptized. Lutherans believe that the benefits of of holy Communion have nothing to do with the worthiness of the communicant, right?
Click to expand...
Right, insofar as no one is ever worthy, apart from Him. And that is a separate issue. What matters here is that the Sacrament is administered properly. We cannot neglect the promises attached to the Sacraments. Remember Paul’s words to the Corinthians:
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.
Click to expand...
I don’t much care about the age of a communicant. If they can understand why they need it and that they need it - and most of all - Who is truly present in every way, then, after examination by the pastor, they should approach the rail. At least, that’s what I’ve always been taught. And most, in my Synod at least, seem to agree: thebarebulb.com/?s=infant&x=-901&y=-125
 
steido01 said:
You forgot the sarcasm quotes. No dog can ever receive communion. Fixed. 😉

To your point, nothing angers me more than that disgusting display of disrespect for the Sacrament. Although this come pretty close: youtube.com/watch?v=W7rIbNCJGpI
Click to expand...
Isn’t there a saying about “people who live in glass houses throwing stones”? :rolleyes: I’m sure there are examples of LCMS parishes worshipping in a manner that would dismay all of us. ‘Church Growth’ congregations, anyone?
 
I believe the conflict comes about when one takes ONE parish as an example of the whole. I hope Don was not doing that but many do. I am sure I have been guilty of such in the past. :o
 
EvangelCatholic said:
Isn’t there a saying about “people who live in glass houses throwing stones”? :rolleyes: I’m sure there are examples of LCMS parishes worshipping in a manner that would dismay all of us. ‘Church Growth’ congregations, anyone?
Click to expand...
I certainly don’t gloss over the internal issues the LCMS currently battles. I’ve been around here long enough for people to know that. Trust me, I come down much harder on my own - particularly when doctrine, and not just form, are compromised. :nunchuk:
aidanbradypop said:
I believe the conflict comes about when one takes ONE parish as an example of the whole. I hope Don was not doing that but many do. I am sure I have been guilty of such in the past. :o
Click to expand...
I certainly do not cite exceptions and pass them off as the rule. That’s a disservice to our brothers and sisters in other ecclesiastical bodies. What’s more, it’d be pretty easy for someone to point the finger right back at my church body. But where there is an abuse -or a pattern of abuses- it is our duty as Christians to point it out. Attempting to “commune” a dog or holding a “Cat in the Hat Mass” is, quite simply, wrong. I would hope no one here would disagree with that.
 
steido01 said:
I certainly don’t gloss over the internal issues the LCMS currently battles. I’ve been around here long enough for people to know that. Trust me, I come down much harder on my own - particularly when doctrine, and not just form, are compromised. :nunchuk:

I certainly do not cite exceptions and pass them off as the rule. That’s a disservice to our brothers and sisters in other ecclesiastical bodies. What’s more, it’d be pretty easier for someone to point the finger right back at my church body. But where there is an abuse -or a pattern of abuses- it is our duty as Christians to point it out. Attempting to “commune” a dog or holding a “Cat in the Hat Mass” is, quite simply, wrong. I would hope no one here would disagree with that.
Click to expand...
The dog episode was a “one-off”. Harsh as I am on the Episcopalians, that’s not something that would be characteristic.

Cat in the Hat, OTOH…reminds of clown masses.

GKC
 
steido01 said:
Right, insofar as no one is ever worthy, apart from Him. And that is a separate issue. What matters here is that the Sacrament is administered properly. We cannot neglect the promises attached to the Sacraments. Remember Paul’s words to the Corinthians:

I don’t much care about the age of a communicant. If they can understand why they need it and that they need it - and most of all - Who is truly present in every way, then, after examination by the pastor, they should approach the rail. At least, that’s what I’ve always been taught. And most, in my Synod at least, seem to agree: thebarebulb.com/?s=infant&x=-901&y=-125
Click to expand...
The link indicates that the discussion of infant holy Communion has received some attention in the LCMS also. I agree that the age of First Communion is optional. I am old enough to remember when 1st Communion occurred at Confirmation but Lutherans seem to have moved away from that practice, at least in the U.S. Was the change to a much younger age for 1st Communion because of the urgency for sacramental forgiveness? At my parish little children come to the altar rail for a blessing but I have also seen infants communed.

I am curious what the practice is among Episcopalian/ Anglicans?
 
steido01 said:
I certainly do not cite exceptions and pass them off as the rule. That’s a disservice to our brothers and sisters in other ecclesiastical bodies. What’s more, it’d be pretty easy for someone to point the finger right back at my church body. But where there is an abuse -or a pattern of abuses- it is our duty as Christians to point it out. Attempting to “commune” a dog or holding a “Cat in the Hat Mass” is, quite simply, wrong. I would hope no one here would disagree with that.
Click to expand...
I completely agree. Where there is error…it should be pointed out and corrected. Sadly by pointing out such errors, some tend to believe the entire Church believes such. 😦
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top