Nov 25, 2011 -- 9:04AM, Nino0814 wrote:

Nov 25, 2011 -- 8:39AM, journeying wrote:

I know my knowledge of the Bible lacks much but I don't remember Jesus saying anything about baptism as a requirement for anything. And I certainly don't recall any passage where he chased children away. But I don't have much of a memory either.

In Matthew's gospel, the resurrected Christ instructs his followers to  make disciples and to to baptise them: Matthew 28 

IMO it is not appropriate to draw conclusions on who should be admitted to Eucharist, or be ordain, from the patterns of Jesus and the disciples depicted in the scriptures.  The Church affirmed that authority for these decisions was given to the Church by Christ, as we are guided by God's Spirit (John 16), the scriptures, and tradition.  Based on these, it is clear that Christians should be baptised.  The issue is whether we should exclude persons whose interpretation of the scriptures and tradition is different from ours.  

Nino, we don't. Before I was confirmed, I was allowed to receive communion because I was baptized. I was immersed, but I was baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity. JW's and Mormons need to seek out Trinitarian baptism but other than that we have communion open for a wide range of baptized Christians, but it's nothing to do with being hospitable  but everything to do with what it means to be baptized. As far as what the RC's do, let them do what they want as far as their interpretation is concerned. I don't lose sleep over not being able to receive in their Church. I don't believe in their interpretation so why should I concern myself with it. But you should be baptized at the least as far as our church is concerned. Let's not make EVERYTHING about hospitality. With all the opportunities for hospitality there is no reason to screw with the sacraments.

Nov 25, 2011 -- 2:04PM, Nino0814 wrote:

I am not being hospitable if I invite people to someone else's home for a meal. 

The point of view of some is that the communion table is the Lord's.  There are some who belong to Christ who do not practice baptism; therefore we are not in a position to exclude them from receiving communion (assuming that they are worshipping Christ with us and request the sacrament).  Including them has nothing to do with hospitality, but a discernment on who is the host of the table and our role as the servants.

Christians after spiritual reflection have come to different conclusions on this matter. 

That's funny, here in my diocese, "hospitality" is the only reason they've manage to come up with as a reason to break from everything the Church is. Believe what you will, but I think that those who practice this is in grave error, including my parish. "Radical hospitality,radical inclusion" SSDD...It cheapens His sacrifice. You said yourself with scripture to back it up that Christ called for baptism in the name of the Father,Son, and Holy Spirit. He had a formula in place. He was clear on this and many other things. People need to re-evaluate their "conclusions" next to scripture. If it doesn't match...well, you get the picture. Everyone is so worried about excluding and offending people..screw that, as you can tell I'm not. It's about integrity not about being "moved"... any priest that does this  and pushes for this needs to be defrocked. I know it won't happen but still.....the ranks need to be cleared. I swear sometimes I have half a mind to discern ordination myself....but the thought of having to possibly be ordained by that bishop in an illegitimate relationship disturbs me greatly. I wonder can one make a request to be ordained by another bishop.

And the Mormons and JW's consider their baptism valid as well but it isn't because it isn't trinitarian. Jesus was clear. The Quakers,Mormons and JW's thought otherwise but it is what it is. By definition of what our Church considers the sacrament of baptism to be, Quakers aren't baptized. What another tradition considers themselves to be is NOT our concern.

Our priest simply doesn't ask if someone has been baptized. He leaves it up to the individual and Jesus and simply says The Gifts of God for the People of God. 

Nov 25, 2011 -- 8:50PM, Nino0814 wrote:

Nov 25, 2011 -- 8:32PM, journeying wrote:

Our priest simply doesn't ask if someone has been baptized. He leaves it up to the individual and Jesus and simply says The Gifts of God for the People of God. 

Simple theological statements like your priest's are ususally best.  The sacraments are meant for the people of God.  

I've never seen a priest even ask if someone has been baptized. It's an honor system. You know, respecting the respective denomination's traditions and doctrine (that even clergy of our own Church fail to do on the daily bases..God save us). The sacraments are meant for the people of God,yes, but not all people are the people of God, and NO one is entitled to them either.