receptionistandfarmer wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
receptionistandfarmer wrote:
The real issues that I have concerns are over open communion
I'm curious what your criticisms of open communion are, if you're willing to explain.
For sure. So The Episcopal Church officially practices a form of closed communion in that only Christians baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, can take the eucharist. Other denominations practice a stricter form that only allows members of that denomination.
There are many proponents of allowing the unbaptized to participate in communion. Which makes no sense to me as theologically speaking, baptism is the entrance to the church and Christianity, and communion is not. Also historically it goes against the ancient church and church fathers.
I guess there's two main considerations, a) if open communion makes the church more welcoming and leads to increased attendance; and also b) if the early church's preference was for pragmatic reasons or if there was a deeper theological argument for doing it that way.
It makes sense that the early church would only allow the initiated to participate in their mysteries, both because that was the norm among mystery cults and also because they were afraid of persecution. Those are both pragmatic reasons, unless they're really invested in the mystery cult aspect and the desire to keep their 'revealed truths' reserved for only those who've been initiated. Then again if that were the reasoning they wouldn't allow non-baptized people even attend.
I don't have a dog in that fight so I don't believe one position is more correct than the other, I think arguments for either position could be made and that ultimately whatever helps drive attendance is probably what's best aligned with their actual goals.
_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
You can't advance to the next level without stomping on a few Koopas.