Does the Protestant Episcopal Church in the U.S. permit open or guest communion? There are those of equal repute and scholarship who say “yes” and “no.” A rector of a large city parish answered “no” in a recent sermon:

“At the very end of the service of confirmation on page 299, you will find one of the laws of the church concerning worship. It is called a ‘Rubric. . . .’ This is what it says, ‘And there shall none be admitted to the Holy Communion, until such time as he be confirmed or be ready and desirous to be confirmed.’ In other words, the Episcopal Church does not permit open communion.”

When theologians look at the question of open or guest communion and come up with answers that are diametrically opposed, what are we to do? We can, of course, line up behind the man whose views most nearly suit our temperament. But that is only to become hardened in a prejudice and to cease to seek truth “come whence it may, cost what it will.”

We can pursue another course. We can look at the record. We can consult the sources. We can open our minds to the guidance of God’s Holy Spirit. And we can carry on with that humility of spirit which recognizes that God—not we—is God. No man has seen Him at any time, no man can comprehend the mind of God. We can only thank God for His revelation of Himself in Jesus Christ and seek to open doors—not close them. In the interest of helping all who will to be truly Catholic in their understanding and practice, not only in regard to this one question but to many others, we suggest the following sources: The American Book of Common Prayer and the Bible.

The History of the Rubric

In case any reader does not know to what the terms open or guest communion refer let us explain that these are common terms for the practice, characteristic of many churches, of inviting professing Christians of other churches to receive communion with some such invitation as: We welcome to Communion all who acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.

In the Confirmation Rubric quoted above our Church is speaking for its own household. This rubric, which was brought over into our Prayer Book from that of the Church of England, can be traced back in history to the constitutions of 1281 of Archbishop Peckham. Since at that time the churches of the Reformed Faith were not yet in existence, it obviously had no reference to them.

In the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England of 1549, the rubric reads, “And there shall none be admitted to the Holy Communion, until such time as he be confirmed.” In the Book of 1552, the rubric reads, “And there shall none be admitted to the Holy Communion, until such time as he can say the Catechism and be confirmed.” In the Book of 1662, the final clause reads, “or be ready and desirous to be confirmed.” In the Oxford-American Prayer Book Commentary (page 299), the author, the Rev. Massey H. Shepherd, Jr., Professor of Liturgies in the Church Divinity School of the Pacific, gives the following explanation of the change as well as the interpretation of the rubric:

“This was done to meet the situation created by the period of the Commonwealth, when episcopacy was proscribed and as a consequence Confirmation had not been easily available. Also in the Colonies there was no resident bishop, and a strict enforcement of the old rubric would have deprived almost all colonial churchmen of the benefit of the sacrament of Holy Communion. It is perfectly clear that the framers of the present rubric had in mind only a disciplinary regulation for the Church’s own members and that they did not foresee the divisions of English Christianity that arose after their time. In general the admission of ‘nonconformists’ to the sacrament at the altar in our Church has been left to the discretion of the priest, acting under the advice and counsel of his bishop.” Similarly Parsons and Jones in The American Prayer Book (page 246) and Neil and Willoughby in the Tutorial Book (page 437) agree that the rubric did not contemplate the exclusion of the members of churches not subject to the ecclesiastical ordinances of the Church of England.

Interpretation in the Church of England

In more recent times Dr. H. Hensley Henson, Bishop of Durham from 1920 to 1939, has written, “It was not until the Oxford Movement had become the dominant influence within the national church that the necessity of the Episcopal confirmation as a preliminary to Communion was generally maintained. . . . The Rubric in the Prayer Book ought not to be regarded as asserting a principle of universal application, namely, the necessity of Episcopal Confirmation as preliminary to the reception of the Holy Communion, but as the domestic rule of the Church of England, to which its members must conform as the condition of being admitted to the full privileges of members. ... It is the generous practice of the Church of England to admit to the Sacrament all who present themselves, throwing the entire responsibility of approaching the Lord’s Table on those who do so, asking no questions and interposing no difficulties” (“Cross Bench Views of Church Questions,” pp. 346-67).

Dr. William Temple, Archbishop of Canterbury from 1942 to 1945, stated in a letter to a clergyman in the Church of England: “I am sure you were right to give Communion to the Methodist layman in the circumstances which you describe. I agree with you that the rubric at the end of the Confirmation Service must be interpreted as applying to members of the Church of England. And, after all, one must be permitted to be a Christian sometimes!” (An Estimate and an Appreciation, p. 108). Dr. Geoffrey F. Fisher, the recently retired Archbishop of Canterbury, in a sermon preached at Cambridge University on November 4, 1946, stated clearly his desire that not only open communion, but official intercommunion, should become the accepted policy in the Anglican Communion. He concludes his sermon by saying: “I love the Church of England, as the Presbyterians and the Methodists love their churches. . . . What I desire is that I should be able freely to enter their churches and they mine, in the sacraments of the Lord and in full fellowship of worship, that His life may freely circulate between us. Cannot we grow to full Communion with each other before we start to write a constitution?”

The Lambeth Conference of the Bishops of the Anglican Communion in 1920 in a resolution stated that a priest “has no canonical authority to refuse Communion to any baptized person kneeling before the Lord’s Table (unless he be excommunicated by name, or, in the canonical sense of the term would cause a scandal to the faithful);” and a second resolution stated that “nothing in these resolutions is intended to indicate that the rule of Confirmation as conditioning admission to the Holy Communion must necessarily be applied to the case of baptized persons who seek Communion under conditions which in the Bishop’s judgment justify their admission thereto.” The Lambeth Conference of 1930 reaffirmed these resolutions.

In the Episcopal Church

As neither the Church of England nor the Lambeth Conference has authority over the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, let us consider the interpretation of this rubric in our own church.

Bishop Daniel S. Tuttle, Presiding Bishop 1903-1923, held that the confirmation rubric should be interpreted historically and as a directory only as regards those of our own church. He quoted in this connection a dictum of Dr. Horatio Potter, Bishop of New York, 1861-1887, that “we clergymen who are set officially to open the doors of the Kingdom of Heaven should be exceedingly careful how we allow ourselves to shut the doors against human souls.” In his Rocky Mountain missionary life he often held services in hamlets where he was the only minister the people saw from year’s end to year’s end. In celebrating the Holy Communion under such circumstances he did not hesitate to announce that “All Christians by whatever name they name themselves, who will come in repentance and faith and hope and love will be cordially welcomed in uniting with us in partaking of the Lord’s Supper at the Lord’s Holy Table.”

In Lights and Shadows of a Long Episcopate Henry Benjamin Whipple, first Bishop of Minnesota, 1859-1901, writes: “A prominent member of the Presbyterian Church married a communicant of my parish. They agreed to attend alternately each other’s place of worship. The husband said to me one day: ‘I do not like to turn my back on the Lord’s Table. May I go to the Communion with my wife?’ I replied: ‘It is not our Communion Table, it is the Lord’s; if you have been baptized in the name of the Blessed Trinity, hear the invitation, “Ye who do truly repent and desire to come”; it is your privilege.’ It was my custom to seek counsel of my bishop. When I laid the matter before Bishop de Lancey, he said, ‘You have done right’. . . .” Bishop de Lancey further cited that John Henry Hobart, Bishop of New York from 1819 to 1830 was in support of his view.

Bishop William C. Doane of Albany, 1869-1913, generally regarded as a high churchman, held similar views with reference to the application of the rubric and expressed them in a convention address in which he called attention to the fact that while baptism and the supper of the Lord are regarded as sacraments “generally necessary to salvation,” confirmation, which is not, cannot be regarded as a precondition to the reception of a sacrament which is. This view is borne out by Article XXV of the Articles of Religion.

In his diocesan convention address of 1914 Dr. William Lawrence, Bishop of Massachusetts, 1893-1927, referred to the subject as follows: “I am also asked whether persons other than those who are communicants of this church may receive communion at our altars. My answer is ‘yes, certainly.’ English scholars such as Bishop Creighton, Archbishops Benson and Temple affirm that the rubric at the end of the confirmation service should be interpreted historically and as a directory only as regards those of our own church. The question has been answered in this country by the general practice throughout the whole history of our church of administering Holy Communion to those who are not members of this church who may approach the altar. The general custom in this diocese from the earliest days of its history has been the administration of the Holy Communion to those who respond to the invitation, believing that they respond in good faith.

“Speaking for myself, I am grateful when any disciple of the Master, in penitence and charity, determining to lead a new life, receives comfort and spiritual strength at the altar where I minister. It is the Lord’s table.”

Tucker—Sherrill—Lichtenberger

The last three Presiding Bishops have all held a similar point of view. The following are quotations from letters to the author. The Rt. Rev. Henry St. George Tucker, Presiding Bishop, 1938-1946, wrote: “It is my belief that the rubric at the end of the Confirmation Service should be interpreted in its historical meaning as a disciplinary rule for members of our own Church and not as a means of repelling from our altars professing Christians of other Churches who may wish occasionally to participate with us. In a day when Christian Communions are drawing closer together through cooperative action, intercommunion, and in some instances, organic union, it would be most unfortunate were this rubric now to be given a narrow and exclusive interpretation. Countless members of other Communions have been led not only to a more vital appreciation of our Church, but to a deeper Christian faith because they found themselves welcome to receive Communion in an Episcopal Church.

“In the Diocese of Virginia we have always, from colonial times I believe, admitted members of other Churches to the Holy Communion. It is a fair assumption that this was a custom which the colonists brought over from England. In any case it has been from time immemorial a custom in Virginia, which I, when Bishop there, welcomed and which I hope will continue unchanged.”

The Rt. Rev. Henry Knox Sherrill, Presiding Bishop, 1947-1958, states, “In my first years in the ministry I was an assistant at Trinity Church, Boston, where at least from the days of Phillips Brooks, there had always been a welcome to the Holy Communion, not especially expressed but covered in the words of the Prayer Book, ‘Ye who do truly and earnestly repent,’ etc. As this conformed to my own conviction, this has been my practice ever since. I have not felt that it was my duty to keep people away from the Holy Communion. My conception of the gift of God in Christ causes me to revolt against narrow and legalistic restrictions. The result has brought, I am confident, a blessing to many including myself and a strength to the Church.”

The Rt. Rev. Arthur Lichtenberger, Presiding Bishop, 1958-1964, wrote, “I believe that confirmation should normally precede the reception of Holy Communion, although I realize the confirmation rubric is primarily a rule for members of our Church. Hence, as Bishop of Missouri, I approved printing the following invitation on the service bulletin of the cathedral, ‘Members of the Christian Church worshipping with us as visitors, who can respond to the invitation in the service, are welcome to partake of the Holy Communion.’”

Dr. James A. Muller, who was for many years professor of Church history at the Episcopal Theological School, Cambridge, in an historical sketch entitled “The Confirmation Rubric,”  states, “In the American Colonies a confirmed communicant was an even rarer phenomenon. Except for those who had been confirmed on visits to England, no communicant on these shores was confirmed from the time of the planting of the Church in 1607 until Seabury’s return as a bishop in 1785. Indeed, there is no evidence that our early bishops, such as Seabury and White, were themselves ever confirmed, although they went to England for ordination.”

Conclusion

In the Book of Common Prayer in the First Office of Instruction we are informed that it is in baptism an individual is “made a member of Christ, the child of God, an inheritor of the Kingdom of Heaven.” Baptism makes one a member of the Church. The Office of Instruction states this specifically in answer to the question, “When were you made a member of the Church?” The answer, “I was made a member of the Church when I was baptized.” It goes on to say that “The Church is the Body of which Jesus Christ is the Head and all baptized people are the members.” In dealing with the subject of sacraments the Office of Instruction states, “Christ hath ordained two Sacraments only, generally necessary to salvation, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord.”

Thus, it appears to be evident that the rubric at the end of the Confirmation Service is a domestic disciplinary rule intended solely for use within the Anglican Communion and having no reference whatsoever to the occasional reception of Holy Communion by baptized Christians of other communions who come as guests to what is not, and never can be, “our table,” but is the table of the Lord. The admission of these guests is to be regarded as fully warranted historically, as in accord with the liberality of the Anglican tradition, as approved by the overwhelming majority of our own people, and as avoiding a legalism which would reduce the catholicity of this Church by making “closed Communion” mandatory. The Church insofar as it is true to our Lord is here “to minister, not to be ministered unto.”

It may well be that the oneness of all people for whom Christ prayed and for whom he hung on the cross, will only come about when we cease putting first our Church as an institution, its buildings and its organizations, and its doctrines and its rubrics, but rather make our primary concern that of seeking to serve people in the spirit of the love of God as revealed in Jesus Christ. If we do this, the Church will fulfill the vision of the Anglican Congress of 1963 when it declared in its message, “First, God has called us to be a Serving Church.”