Another Reason Why So Many Anglicans Are Crossing the Tiber

After seeing this National Post article I came to the conclusion that the Canadian Anglicans might as well call themselves what they really are, Unitarians.

Anglicans may open Communion to unbaptized

Yes, you read that right. The Canadian branch of the Anglican Church is seriously considering throwing out 1 of the last few bits of semblance to authentic Christianity it has left. The article (which you can read at the link above) includeda link to the original article in the AnglicanJournal.com in which The Rev. Dr. Gary Nicolosi, an Ontario church pastor, argues that removing the requirement of baptism would help stop the decline in the number of Anglicans attending services.

Nicolosi's article starts out by describing the Eucharist as simply "a family meal" & nothing else. Nowhere does he mention that the bread & wine are the Body & Blood of Christ, even symbolically. It is simply a meal that God sets for us & since Jesus ate with sinners etc then who are we to exclude non-believers. It is all about "inclusiveness". "Oh, that word!"*

What he leaves out is that at the 1st Eucharistic meal none of those he said we should include were there, just the Apostles, all believers. & that Judas left Mass early as well.

But he doesn't see it that way, he merely sees it as another meal, like a Church potluck fellowship dinner. "One of the most powerful witnesses of God’s inclusive love is the welcoming table, so prevalent among southern black churches in the United States. At these fellowship dinners, held on church grounds, a large meal is prepared for anyone who might come: rich and poor, black and white, stranger and church member. In the days of the segregationist south, when legal measures were ruthlessly enforced to prevent different races from eating together or even sharing a water fountain, the welcoming table was a powerful witness to God’s inclusive love."

Again, nice sounding idea, but not the same thing as the Eucharistic Banquet. Nor is it simply a "Sunday dinner" held at Church.

Yes, he acknowledges that "St. Paul warns against eating and drinking in an “unworthy manner” (I Cor. 11:27)." But what he fails to mention is why, "whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord." In fact he totally twists it. He says St. Paul left "the decision whether to partake in the meal to each person’s conscience (I Cor. 11:28)." Actually St. Paul goes on to say what we are to "discern": "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. (1 Cor 11:29)."

He talks about the table being welcoming rather than admitting the danger that is clearly their for those who fail to rightly discern, eternal damnation.

Despite the claim he makes that "God’s all-embracing hospitality is a hallmark of the meal we call eucharist," it isn't. It isn't a dinner, it is a sacrificial meal, yes. But that is something totally different from the type of meal he is talking about. A sacrificial meal was only between those who believed.

But even more so, the Eucharist is the Body & Blood of Christ. something many Anglicans do believe, which is why they are coming home to the Catholic Church. I know 1 from DBQ who has more reverence than many a Catholic in this town. She belongs to Anglican Church in America which seperated from the Episcopal/Anglican communion for all the obvious reasons, is 1 that is looking to come back into union with Rome.

What I have presented is only a part of the tripe & heresy he puts out to try & justify what deep down he has to know is wrong.

He talks about how an open communion meant more people at a parish he was at to justify all his claims. It may be true if you are looking to deny the basic Christian truths, that in the short run you will get more. But in the long run it is the kiss of death. & even though he edited that part out of what St. Paul said, in the end he will have to face up to it. As well as the warning in Revelation about adding & subtracting to the book. & the judgment won't be a nicey inclusive party like he thinks. Nor will those who came along for the ride that he mislead be any happier.

____________

*1776 reference.