I wonder if this will be seen as controversial.

Really.  Honestly, why would TEC start any discipline now?  What difference does it make.

What strikes me is that Bp Wolfe uses the same language that the PB uses to justify her depositions - “abandoning communion” - except… the person in question has just plain joined another religion.

So… join another religion? That is “abandoning communion by joining a body not in communion with the Episcopal Church”. Okay. Got that.

And if we charge a bishop with “abandoning communion by joining a body not in communion with the Episcopal Church” when what that person is doing is joining or leading his diocese into another Anglican province…

Does that mean Anglican churches other than the Episcopal Church are equivalent to a completely different religion?

Phew. Thanks for clearing that up.

Shows the proper use of the canon as opposed to Orwellian.

One really does expect a Christian to profess the Christian faith.  Shocking but true.

Bishop Wolf’s actions in this show both strong pastoral ability along with clear and necessary discipline.  My understanding is that she is a reappraiser, yet shows respect to the orthodox in her diocese.  If only other liberals would follow her model of behavior TEC might yet be salvaged.

In the meantime, Redding is a layman in good standing.  For all you Episcopalians in good standing, you = Muslim.  Congratulations. 
Watch for the golden parachute to deploy when Redding is allowed to renounce her orders rather than be defrocked.  She will be paid off to leave.  Guaranteed.  Full disability pension about to be awarded.

I think it will be better for Ann to explore her dual citizenship as a layman.

Query:  Can a baptized Christian who has formally been accepted as a Muslim receive Holy Communion in the Episcopal Church?

Phil,
It depends on the parish. Some priests don’t even limit communion to ‘baptized Chrisitans’ but allow anyone to come to the Table of the Lord regardless of religious affiliation or none at all.

libraryjim,  You got it, and there is NO DISCIPLINE WHATSOEVER for the priest, deacon or bishop who encourages this breaking of canon law!  It’s been going on for years and years in many dioceses, very often bishops will arrive and deliberately ‘invite all present’ at a Sunday eucharist, knowing that the local priest has been teaching the orthodox position on reception of the sacrament.  The purple-shirted wonder knows he/she is kicking dirt in the face of the faithful local rector/vicar!  (Who cares, it’s ONLY Holy Communion, right??)  And that same B demands total obedience when it comes time to sending in the $$$ to diocesan headquarters!

Thanks, LibraryJim.  I meant to say whether our person can canonically receive Holy Communion.  I’m aware that an unbaptized person cannot canonically receive HC, but may a baptized person who has formally been recieved into the Muslim Faith canonically receive HC?

That would be an apostate, phil swain, for $200.  And the answer should be “NO!”

No. 10. Canonically, the answer is no. The canons and also the rubrics in the BCP are actually pretty clear on the issue of who can and cannot receive the Body of our Lord.

How that plays out in actual practice is a completely different matter…

Of course, the canons and BCP rubrics also speak of the dreaded concept of excommunication, the ultimate in “non-inclusivity” which a lot of clerics in the Episcopal Church can no longer countenance apparently. I mean, ask an Episcopal clergyman how often they have had to resort to this, and see if its enforced.

Thanks, Archer, I found the rubric.

To save alot of looking into canons, I think you’ll find the “tradition” in ECUSA is that the formal requirement for receiving communion is a body temperature above room temperature.  You’ll want to start building that minaret on each church building soon.  Every day Redding is a communicant is a loud message to every Muslim on earth that Anglicans are converts, and if you deny that you’re an apostate from Islam.  That can get you in big trouble.  Complicated, isn’t it?

It doesn’t matter what the canons say.  Ms. Redding has pointed out that they do not apply to her.

The quote at the end by Redding is truly stunning.  It seems as if she’s saying it’s more important to be “in Communion” with Muslims than with those in other Christian denominations.  She implies it is correct to depose someone who leaves for another denomination for “abandonment of Communion,” but not someone who leaves for another faith.

Now I think I’ve seen it all in the bizarre ways TEC twists the canons:

“Despite my respect for and genuine like of Bishop Wolf, I do not believe the canons were written with this situation in mind,” said Redding. “I think the people who wrote them were thinking of other Christian denominations. So my situation gives the church an opportunity to re-examine what it means to be in communion. If we want to survive as a Church, and be faithful witnesses of Christ, I believe all the people of the world must be in communion.”

Incredible

I think this is sad, because I know and respect Dr. Redding—I took Synoptic Gospels from her last year—and I know that she did not arrive at this place lightly.

Still, at the end of the day, becoming a priest requires voluntarily placing yourself under the authority of (among others) your bishop; and I respect that Bp. Wolf had to do what she believed was necessary.  I appreciate the fact that she took time to allow discernment on all sides before taking this action.

Ross, has anyone told you you took a class from a flake?  What if anything would make you think she was; I mean is there a thing she could say she believed that could shake your faith in her?  It does sound like Redding Infalability, a doctrine unique to a small, small corner of Christendom.  Or is it the Islamic world?  At the end of the day becoming (please note) a *layman* requires voluntarily placing yourself under the authority of the Church and that means a bishop.  Since no Anglican bishop is worthy of that trust, I can see why she balks at it.  But for all the wrong reasons.  Question is, why are most Anglicans unable to see the utter flakiness of this?

#19 nwlayman opines:

Ross, has anyone told you you took a class from a flake?

Why, yes, in fact; T19 commenters in general were quite insistently helpful in pointing that out.  Tragically, I am cursed with the ability to form my own opinions, and it so happens that I think that the majority of T19ers are wrong on this matter.  And, on occasion (not always, but often enough) rather pettily nasty about it.

But Jesus said to him, “No one, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.” Luke 9:62

Therefore do not cast away your confidence, which has great reward.  For you have need of endurance, so that after you have done the will of God, you may receive the promise:

      “For yet a little while,
    And He who is coming will come and will not tarry.
    Now the just shall live by faith;
    But if anyone draws back,
    My soul has no pleasure in him.”

But we are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul. ~ Hebrews 10:35-37

Although I think Redding is a fine scholar, and I don’t think she is a flake, I myself wonder who she thinks Jesus is.  If he is not the Son of God in some way, some representation, some sign, some lens into the power of God then she isn’t a Christian.  And if he is, She’s not a Muslim. 

And I’m sympathetic to the sentiment of finding commonalities between faiths.  But there are differences.  It would also be fine if she became a Muslim:  perhaps she might become a good bridge builder between the two communities.

And I admit, if she took her critical skills in interpreting the gospels to interpreting the Koran, I wonder where she would end up.

To return to an earlier question, if Redding is *not* a flake, *not* a useless scholar, what might it take to convince anyone she is?  Do words or ideas about God have any meaning whatever among Anglicans?  If not, maybe the organizers should drop any and all efforts to stop, well, anyone, from trying to leave with the real estate.  Words, laws, canons have long since lost any meaning for these people.  How do the ECUSA lawyers make any headway?  Oh, looks like they aren’t.

#23…Why do you feel that there is still a need to convince anyone that some feel that Redding is a flake and a useless scholar?  She was inhibited by Bishop Wolf and is no longer serving in the capacity of a priest.  Is this not satisfactory?

I write because it is an incomplete story.  It’s a coverup.  Redding may (or may not!) be defrocked.  I repeat the more important problem is this: It says loud and clear that one may not be a Muslim and be an Episcopal cleric.  It also says, and THIS is louder and clearer, that one *may* be a layman in a supposedly Christian church and be a Muslim.  If this were not permitted, the other would never have been a problem.  It’s rotten from the bottom up.  That’s why it’s rotten at the top.  The rot has been going on for a very long time.  Redding was, recall, the catechist for St. Mark’s in Seattle.  “Faith Formation” was her job.  If you got none, you can only form none.  She was only removed from that position because of budget shortfalls, not theological reasons.  Money spoke, not faith or lack thereof.  If the cash flow had been fine she would still be there, quietly teaching this crap to the willing hearers in Seattle.  Check around, there are plenty (including the local bishop and his predecessor) who have no problem at all with her.  She still receives communion.  That is what speaks volumes, and will continue to.