Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: ejalbert@phoenix.princeton.edu (Edmund Jason Albert) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: open communion Message-ID: Date: 12 Feb 90 09:44:31 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 26 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu The way I see this issue from an Episcopal point of view is that essentials govern. What is essential to approach the altar to receive. Proper baptism (i.e. Baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by one so properly baptized and so on back). Most Christians of major denominations fulfill this requirement. What is essential for the consecration to be valid. Proper form performed by a priest in apostolic succession. Hence, a Presbyterian is eligible to receive at an Episcopal service, since he meets the requirements to receive, but most Episcopalians would not recieve at a Presbyterian service since the minister does not have proper succession, making the consecration invalid. With regard to Catholics: the official Church position, right or wrong, is that all Anglicans have lost succession. Hence I can understand why Catholics would choose not to receive at an Episcopal service (although I know some that do). But Catholics recognize Episcopal baptism. So having met the requirements to approach the altar, recognizing the validity of the consecration, my question is why can I not receive at a Catholic (or Orthodox, for that manner, especially since they recognize Anglican succession) service. Jason Albert Princeton University [Hmmm.... baptism certainly has met the Episcopalean requirements to approach the altar. Perhaps Catholics have different requirements? --clh]