web analytics
service and gratitude

liturgy RSS feed liturgy on twitter liturgy facebook

Baptism – communion – in which order?

The Episcopal Church’s House of Bishop’s Theology Committee has just produced a first report on the question of whether the unbaptised might be welcomed to receive communion.

In the past, it was those with a low view of the Eucharist who might have argued that anyone can receive communion. For them it was merely bread and wine. In that end of the spectrum, the issue would have arisen less in any case, with once-a-month or three-or-four-times-a-year communion. In fact, as I have argued on this site more than once, simplistic constructs of “evangelical”, “catholic”, and so forth, are little use any more in serious dialogue. It is often those with a high sacramental view of the Eucharist who are now the strongest exponents of allowing the unbaptised to receive communion – what is regularly termed “open communion.”

In discussion with those who are firmly only for communicating members of the church by baptism there is often an embarrassed confusion in response to the question would they refuse communion to members of the Salvation Army or Society of Friends (Quakers) [neither of which practice baptism] and do they not recognise them as being Christians, members of the body of Christ, the church?

Two models

1) Baptism before communion. This sees communion as the repeatable part of the sacrament of initiation/incorporation into the church, the Body of Christ. It is expressed architecturally by having the baptismal font at the entrance of the community’s worship space – so that one passes from the baptistery, the font to the table. Baptism is the full initiation into the Christian community life that is nourished at the community’s meal. The NZ Anglican province is one of many that allows and encourages participation in the Eucharist from the moment of baptism, and for all the baptised whatever their denomination. Unlike the Episcopal Church, it does not have a systematic set of canons. TEC has an actual canon that states “No unbaptized person shall be eligible to receive Holy Communion in this Church.” So I am not sure if anywhere there is any forbidding of communicating the unbaptised in the NZ Anglican province – but perhaps someone could point to such in the comments.

This model follows the tradition of (a) baptism for all – communion for the committed or (b) baptism for the committed – communion for the committed. This model, of course in practice, can result in baptism and no communion.

2) Communion before baptism. This model, of course, includes communion continuing after baptism. It would not normally be understood as an ongoing life of regularly receiving communion regularly without exploring baptism. This model sees a strong message in Jesus’ radically inclusive table-fellowship that expressed, modelled, and lived out his good news and was highly significant in the animosity that he experienced. It is best architecturally expressed in the purpose-built church of St Gregory of Nyssa, San Francisco, where one encounters the altar first as one enters the building and has to pass that in order to get to the community’s font. From the table to the font. Communion for all – baptism for the committed.

There will be several excellent reflections out of the highly intentional positive approach of St Gregory of Nyssa.  St Gregory’s grew a congregation from nothing to about 250 in a diocese losing a third of its membership. This, of course, does not justify the practice (please let us not predicate our theology and liturgical practice on marketing strategies as is so often experienced!), but neither can such a story be quickly discounted.

First the Table, then the Font by Richard Fabian (one of the founding rectors of St Gregory’s), for the Association of Anglican Musicians, 2002
Giving What Is Sacred to Dogs? Welcoming All to the Eucharistic Feast (Article to purchase)

The House of Bishop’s Theology Committee report concludes

Whatever our views on open communion, it appears that there is a great deal of catechetical work to be done in parishes. It is essential to understand the doctrinal and liturgical connections between baptism and eucharist, especially in a church that has been affirming the centrality of baptism. These rich and complex connections are deeply manifest in the historic faith and practice of the Church.

We invite the church into this work. For in the absence of a revived catechesis and a commitment to lifelong learning and formation among the faithful, it is likely that our views on open communion will be formed either by an unreflective repetition of tradition, or strongly formed habits of individualism and freedom of choice, rather than by careful habits of theological reflection.

Sara Miles

Sara Miles is well known for her story of her unexpected and, for her, terribly inconvenient conversion from secular atheism. One morning, aged 46, for no particular reason, she wandered into St Gregory’s and received communion. She found herself radically transformed. Again Sara’s account is not validation, and she does not want it to be taken as such – but Sara does challenge us:

“I believe the presence of unbaptized people at communion is a call to conversion for the baptized. That the presence of the unwashed, the queer, the Gentile, the Syro-Phoenician, all outsiders, is always a gift from Jesus to us. We welcome strangers because our own salvation depends on them: because through them God interrupts us, breaks down our idolatry, offers us new ways to experience God’s presence than if were we locked away in a small room with the like-minded and doctrinally pure. It ain’t our Table: and the ongoing converting power of the Eucharist can’t be contained by our attempts to control the ritual.” (Sara Miles)

A note from New Zealand

The New Zealand Anglican baptismal and confirmation rite is eccentric in many ways. One of these is that the unbaptised present are explicitly excluded from verbal participation while those members of the congregation who are baptised respond with words exclusive to them. This exclusivity, in my experience is always experienced as hurtful by several present. People accept an invitation to support a friend or family member and attend their baptism and/or confirmation. They, themselves may not be baptised but are supportive of their friend’s/family member’s decision. Suddenly, in the middle of the service, the rubric has

The bishop or priest says to all those present who are baptised Christians
Let us, the baptised, affirm that we renounce evil and commit our lives to Christ. Blessed be God, JESUS IS LORD!

Even should they have experienced through hearing scripture, singing, and preaching, and participating to this point in the baptismal rite, some stirring towards Christian commitment – suddenly they may not affirm their renunciation and commitment. That, in New Zealand, is clearly only for the baptised. Soon, too, the Apostles’ Creed is recited – again to be said only by those who have been baptised. There is much else that is peculiar in New Zealand’s baptism and confirmation rite, but in the context of this current discussion, the surprising explicit verbal exclusion in a service is worth holding alongside the sacramental exclusion.

The Inter Anglican Standing Commission on Ecumenical Relations Resolution

Admission of the Non-baptised to Holy Communion

IASCER (2007)

1. affirms that Christian initiation leads us from incorporation into the Body of Christ through Baptism to full participation in the life of grace within the Church through Holy Communion

2. notes again with grave concern instances in some parts of the Anglican Communion of inviting non-baptised persons, including members of non-Christian religious traditions, to receive Holy Communion

3. reminds all Anglicans that this practice is contrary to Catholic order as reflected in principles of canon law common to all the Churches of the Anglican Communion

4. believes that the invitation to Holy Communion of non-baptised persons undermines ecumenical agreements on Baptism and the Eucharist, current policies of offering eucharistic hospitality to “Christians duly baptised in the name of the Holy Trinity and qualified to receive Holy Communion in their own Churches”[3], and eucharistic sharing agreements between churches

5. believes that the communion of the non-baptised undermines the very goal and direction of the ecumenical movement, namely the reconciliation of all things in Christ of which the Eucharistic Communion of the baptised is sign, instrument and foretaste.

Update: please take care to abide by the comments policy of this site

Similar Posts:

Share

19 Responses to Baptism – communion – in which order?

  1. I regard my work as a priest to be a conduit of the sacraments, not their custodian. The work of the Spirit in a person that is drawn to the altar rail is not really mine to judge, and so anyone who presents themselves before me will receive the life-giving sacraments.

    This is not because I have a ‘low’ understanding of the sacraments, in fact, far from it! It is precisely because I place the sacramental life at the heart of everything, that I am convinced of its power and its efficacy, that I strive to use that as Wesley once described “a converting ordinance”.

    I have known people at the very edge be transformed by the sacramental encounter, and then – much like Sara Mile’s story – progress onto full and profound commitment in baptism and confirmation. I respond to those who present themselves and let God deal with the consequences of that: usually to his greater glory.

    It strikes me that Christ did not demand electoral roll forms of the 5000, and we have no scriptural confirmation that the Twelve were actually baptised. Our approach (which has borne much fruit in this community) speaks boldly of our mission and of the importance of these sacraments – so important that we want to share it with one and all.

    I recognise that in some quarters, this approach may land us in trouble; and Bishops might not look kindly on such subversion of tradition, but recognising that the Mass is not just a party for the faithful but a missionary tool and an evangelistic opportunity, it is something we must remain committed to.

  2. Hi, just came to your blog from your Twitter profile. I am agree with 1st model and will tell you why. There are two reasons:
    1) This practice has been ongoing since apostolic times. Apostles did not give a Communion to non-Christians. In fact, non-Christians had to leave the church at the end of the Liturgy in order not to see even the process of Communion. So that means it is a right thing to do.
    2) – “But this is just formalism” – could say someone. I would answer that is is Mystery. Unfortunately the feeling and understanding of Mysteries was lost in Western Christianity. Church is a Mother and you can’t be fed by her without being born.

  3. I will respond here to Father Fabian’s essay, which you cite – the link here got broken – it is at http://www.saintgregorys.org/Resources_pdfs/FirsttheTable.pdf

    I have been deeply impressed with Father Fabian’s reforms in music at St. Gregory of Nyssa. Under his leadership, the congregation has learned singing in parts, to the degree that now, the congregation itself is considered to be the church’s main choir. The church uses its own musical arrangements which are beautiful, yet very easy to sing. I know of no other congregation which has such a beautiful, and I believe, theologically responsible way in engaging in music. It is the congregation, singing in parts to reflect our beautiful diversity, in harmony and unity, which should be our main instrument of praise.

    However, I am about to become snarky, since I am in vehement disagreement with Father Fabian’s view on the eucharist, and I believe his writing betrays a great deal about the narrowness of his theological concerns.

    Fabian’s essay is filled with a great yearning for togetherness – for including everyone. I share his concern deeply.

    However, I am taken aback that his notion of grace seems to be informed by nothing more than this. My own set of values encompasses and includes more than bringing people together, or bringing people together for the purpose of eating.

    Christ does call us to come together. But this gift of grace is much more than a mere convocation. If it were, it perhaps would be best to try to bring all of humanity together on a single continent, so we all would be closer to one another.

    But coming together is not such a preoccupation with Jesus that he did nothing besides calling people to come together. Jesus did not bring people together, and then call more and more and more persons together into this physically proximate group. Rather, he frequently excluded Himself, and often went aside with only two or three others. There is a prominent pattern of “calling” and specificity throughout the gospels. At one moment, Christ comes together with a small group; at another, with a larger group; the groups are also very different in the manner in which they identify with Christ. Christ is always engaged in the same mission with them; but His specific words, and specific acts, differ.

    So even in what we see of Christ’s calling people together – sometimes to eat, sometimes not to eat – it makes very little sense to generalize these acts as Fr. Fabian seems to do.

    I myself am a great appreciator of food, and I love to come together with others and share a meal. But the feeding of the 5,000 is far from an adequate depiction of my notion of grace, or what I expect from Christ. Nor is the thought that someone might be prepared to eat with me, myself being a sinner. Finding people to eat with me has not yet been one of my major problems and I would not join a religion simply in order to facilitate this end. No one in my circle of acquaintances refuses to eat with persons of different ethnicities or sexual orientations. Some are more specific in what they are willing to eat – my Muslim friends are not excluded from my table, though their own views on alimentary matters are less inclusive than my own – and for them I am very happy to cook without pork. I agree with Fr. Fabian’s concerns, and think that persons who do not wish to eat with people of other ethnicities, or other sexual orientations, should be encouraged to do so. But frankly, I also would not exclude them from my own table, either, and would go so far as to eat with them alone and away from others, if I felt called to do so. Probably out of pity for them.

    So I am concerned that the audience that would be prepared to take up this as a religious calling might be limited.

    It is perhaps this lack of concern for a broader notion of grace that is behind Fr. Fabian’s apparent confusion of ritual washings with baptism, and vision these sacraments as mere rituals whose main goal seems to be a rather utilitarian function of bringing people together to eat.

    It is also noteworthy how quickly his article takes up derogatory language for the view to which it is opposed, insinuating that those who refuse the doctrine of eucharist for the unbaptized are somehow involved in “quarantining,” or even “banishing.” These strong metaphors do not reflect in any sense the reality of sound pastoral advice for those considering approaching the eucharistic altar or table, in order to avoid “peril,” as Paul describes it. Consider a group on an airplane, where a few equipped with parachutes are enthusiastic about going skydiving. Is one involved in “quarantining” or “banishing” if one advises a person not wearing a parachute, to refrain from taking part?

    I wonder though, how likely Fr. Fabian is to succeed at inviting persons to dine with him, if he is accusing them of “quarantining” some persons, and “banning” others, when they are only offering pastoral advice, and in doing so, are also following Christ’s own example.

    I would think his entire enterprise would be more successful and inclusive should he start a Fellowship of Inclusive Diners, without castigating those who do not accept his own rather narrow vision of Christ’s grace.

    There is a great danger in casting too much of our theology in terms of the inclusion / exclusion paradigm. We are in danger of coming up with solutions which implicitly exclude those who disagree with us. We must cast our nets much, much further. When we do, we see that Christ did indeed eat with sinners; but that this was a consequence, and not an antecedent, of His teachings on grace. It is not at the center of grace; rather, it is something which flows naturally, when we take to heart all of what Christ taught us.

  4. Fr. Simon,

    It is interesting you use the conduit metaphor here regarding the sacraments. But a conduit always has specificity – for bringing one thing from one place, to another. A wire – a pipe – they direct what they carry, and can only carry out their purpose because they do not spread what they carry in all directions.

    We can also look at the “light” metaphor, which Christ used for us as His servants – where that light is irradiated all around, in every direction. I do believe you chose wisely in selecting the conduit metaphor rather than the light metaphor, when describing your role in the sacraments.

    Many have been alienated by churches by what they describe as a “dumbing down” of things. This happens in churches of evangelical, catholic, and liberal slant. You bring up this concern:

    “recognising that the Mass is not just a party for the faithful but a missionary tool and an evangelistic opportunity, it is something we must remain committed to.”

    I believe so too, but I think that it is at its best as a missionary and evangelistic tool when it is done “authentically.” I believe it still can be such, when people are informed of what it is “about,” and do not see our evangelistic and missionary fervor as so great, that we are willing even to oppose Christ’s, and the church fathers’, clear teachings on this matter.

    Some will indeed feel “excluded” that our teachings regarding the eucharist invite those interested in participating, to do other things first. May they then feel invited to take part in these things the Church deems as so very important for them.

    You needn’t do “policing,” or “prohibiting” – simply engage in informing. Those who decide nonetheless to take part – unless they explicitly make known their objections – do so with their own consciences. Indeed, this is something of “don’t ask, don’t tell” for people of “different theologies” who, for example, believe that they should take part while having a major unconfessed sin. Still, if they come to the rail, you can offer them a blessing instead. I am very much in agreement with you though – I prefer a church where no one is held away from the communion rail, and that priests offer a blessing upon those of whom they have been explicitly informed that there is a major outstanding issue, instead of offering the host and the cup.

    When we come to the point that we are even shy of informing our parishoners of the church’s theology of the eucharist … they very rightly find that we are “dumbing things down” and not properly exercising our duties, no matter how good our intentions might be.

  5. Hi, Bosco! I have linked to a post of mine from a couple of weeks ago on this topic after reading Tobias Haller’s very erudite post:

    http://kirkepiscatoid.blogspot.com/2009/06/once-again-tobias-gets-me-to-thinking.html

    I think the main thing I have decided about this, is validation of the old saw, “Man plans; God laughs.”

    As you so well point out in relating Sara Miles’ conversion experience regarding communion, the Eucharist itself has powers that trump any “rules” or “discussion” we can conjure up. The God I worship has the power to transform humans through any of the sacraments, no matter what order we choose to think is “logical” or “holy” or “proper.” There is nothing–NOTHING–that we as human beings can do that can ever harm a consecrated element in the “God sense” of it. We are not even close to being that powerful!

    Now, with that said, I think there is a kenosis and a conversion that has to happen within ourselves to better understand this mystery. Perhaps the goal of each individual, and where the Church can help in terms of teaching the understanding of this mystery, is to aid in an individual’s understanding of the sacrament of baptism.

    I would argue that the sacrament of baptism has a dual function in the lives of us as a church community, depending on when we were baptized.

    When parents choose to have their baby baptized, it is a statement of committing their lives to the care of their baby with God’s help. We have moved away from baptism being seen as a “magic protector of baby souls” as infant mortality drops in the industrialized world. It is also a statement by the church that we will support this family in the rearing of their child.

    When adults come to baptism, it is because of a conscious desire to be in the family of God, and a conscious or semi-conscious desire to live within the unbounded energy of God’s mysteries. Again, the church community affirms their support of this journey.

    I can live with either viewpoint–CWOB or communion for the baptized–coexisting. However, I think we are mostly arguing “our” rules, not God’s.

    Finally, Fr. Simon expresses an opinion very similar to that of my vicar–he has told me many times he is the “conduit” or the “catalyst” for something bigger than him, and it is not his place to judge those who come to the rail at the moment they come forward. In fact, it’s more like it’s his job to “get out of the way and let God do His job!”

  6. Great exploration of the arguments — I am still in a quandary over it – I find myself “thinking” no communion without baptism – but in the moment at church – I “feel” that all should come if they feel called to receive. I am the table server not the Host — if the Host invites who am I to say no?

  7. As a Roman Catholic, i have followed the good Rev.’s tweets with interest and must confess an ignorance of Anglican / Episcopal “doctrine”. This was most enlightening and at the same time confusing. Why leave these decisions to relativism? Only those who believe can come to the table, otherwise it is not a Sacrament. But then i come from a place of Doctrine and obedience to the rules that are clear cut and Communion always follows Baptism and full education on the sanctity of the Sacraments, and the True Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist 24/7/365. Makes life simpler for all and obviates the need for this sort of discussion.

  8. Having just read a wonderful book, The Celtic Way of Evangelism (by George Hunter), I wonder if we can leave the norm as Baptism then Eucharist but understand that there will be a few who will get to baptism after their own Eucharistic experience and that it is OK.

  9. At our service, these words are spoken after the blessing of the elements.

    This is the table, not merely of the church, but of Christ
    It is made ready for those who love him; and for those
    who want to love him more.
    So come, whether you have much faith or little;
    have tried to follow, or are afraid you have failed.
    Come, because it is Christ’s will that those who want to meet
    him might meet him here.
    These are the gifts of God for the people of God

    This is an adaptation of a C of E invitation. We are experiencing a growing number of Mennonite, Anabaptist Christians in our church who are not baptised, yet are very faithful believers and followers of Christ. Our actions speak volumes, we belong, and in doing so, participate. We believe, often as a result of our belonging, and through mystery we become. I think it is in that order, belong, believe, become.

  10. I like Anthony’s response very much – there is mystery not only in that which is undefined, but also in that which has a particular form; mystery abides in delineation, and also in freedom within that field of “play” (e.g. Gadamer, Derrida) which is opened up by the social practices in which we engage.

    Christ calls us to be creative, but also to be respectful. In this discussion, I think it’s important to remember that one of the Church’s most powerful graces is in its people. And we should be attentive to the particular grace that a person needs, rather than what they feel they want. The grace needed might be a more personal fellowship of conversation, and not a eucharistic communication.

    So “what would Jesus do,” as a commenter asks on Bosco’s Facebook page, when someone wishes to take part in eucharist, but is not yet baptized and this is clearly known?

    I think Jesus would recognize the particular grace which this person needs is a feeling of inclusion, meaningful human contact, and understanding of what the community is about – baptism and eucharist being a part of that. So, short of baptizing the person on the spot, the church could have a few people who are always ready to go to a nearby café and discuss things personally over a coffee or a sandwich, instead of attending the service.

    Why must we assume that the grace needed, on every Sunday, is to be had sitting in pews, standing up, sitting down, hearing / responding to the service, having eucharist?

    In this case, a person’s needs might be better served by intentional, targeted discussion about that person’s needs, in a “secular” café, and about what the church community is about. This also offers an opportunity to explain other aspects of the liturgy, for better theological appreciation. The visitor’s future visits will be richer, because he understands better “what” it is we are doing, and is that way a good deal more “part” of us than he is if he’s simply sitting there, and imitating what we do. The visitor would also come to understand better how God’s grace is not only limited to the “sacred” places of church and communion rail – and that some of God’s most powerful graces can be communicated by simple words in “worldly” cafés.

    So I believe appreciating the principle of “the right grace at the right moment” also maximizes the depth of inclusion for those who come amongst us. Respecting our sacraments, we are also then respecting our visitor, and not letting the visitor take upon himself consequences of not engaging in the sacraments properly. Inclusion isn’t simply sitting next to us, and doing like we do. There is a much more powerful “grace” in this “inclusion” which transcends the mere category of “in” and “out”, “included” or “excluded.”

    Consider a new person who comes to our fishing club. He’s desperate to be with us, something about what we do fascinates him. He’s a bit confused, though. Someone gives him a rod, and he doesn’t know what to do. It appears he’s considering casting the empty hook, without baiting it first. At that moment, do we let him simply cast without baiting, with the possibility that some of our weaker members might laugh and expose him to derision? (we always have weaker members in congregations who are likely to criticize or deride when not necessary). We first tell him what he needs to do – he needs that information, at that moment, more than he needs to be imitating us and trying to cast.

    Let’s return to our church visitor. Hopefully, the visitor would come to better understand our beliefs in Christ, and also why we are baptized, before we take part in the eucharist. Hopefully that person would come to appreciate also those moments of patience and expectancy which most of us have experienced, waiting for the moment that we also will partake.

    A “nota bene” sort of remark – this main example comes from the Episcopal Church in the US, which has a great emphasis upon “baptismal theology” which the rest of the communion does not share – Bonnie Anderson (heads TEC exec council) once noted that no other province in the Communion has a baptismal covenant in the manner that TEC does. This might be one of the reasons why so many must wait a long time, before being baptized. Christologically, I think it’s significant that TEC has chosen this route of emphasizing baptism over the eucharist, and I see many problems with this approach. It also has consequences – perhaps TEC would do better to follow the example of other churches on this matter.

    An Episcopal friend of mine told me the story of her husband. He came to Christ, and wanted to join an Episcopal parish. The parish, however, only baptized people at some moment around Easter. So he would have had to wait six months before being baptized. He went to a Baptist church, and told them about the situation. They were very happy to baptize him. Then he went back to the Episcopal church and took part in the eucharist, telling the priest that he had already been baptized elsewhere. Of course the priest was not amused, but fortunately the initial tension subsided.

    This makes me think that we shouldn’t be too reluctant to baptize regularly, and should never make someone wait for months and months.

  11. You have raised some good points here and have covered the before communion/baptism discussion well. People should be confident and not shy about asking if they are not sure.

  12. Interesting post. My question to you is what type of baptism allows someone to take communion? I’ll explain. I was brought up in the non-conformist United Reformed Church, where I was baptised as a baby, and they “confirmed” my faith through membership as an adult. I took communion what I was old enough to understand, not once I’d “confirmed” my faith. My husband grew up in the Baptist church and was baptised as an adult. We now go to a LOW Anglican church, which isn’t strict about being baptised or confirmed first. I’ve had many conversations about the infant vs adult baptism, and whether I should be baptised as an adult, but our church won’t baptise me as I’ve been “baptised”. Just wondered what your thoughts were on this!?

  13. Anne, the majority of Christians (Roman Catholic, Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, Presbyterian, etc…) accept that there is one baptism using water in the name of the Trinity. The amount of water and the age of the person being baptised is not the primary point – the primary point is that God acts through baptism incorporating the person being baptised into the church. That is why your Anglican church (as any of the above) would not “baptise” you again. It would be seen as a denial of God’s action in your baptism “as a baby”. There are other ways of declaring your commitment again as an adult.

  14. This is a question that I think is based more on practicality than theology. I think that Jesus Himself actually answers this question in His parable of the prince’s wedding banquet.

    The king throws a banquet for the wedding of his son. When the invited guests would not come, and actually abused and killed the invitation bearers, the king sent his servants out to invite everyone from the street to come. But one who comes arrives without a wedding robe. The king sees him and casts him out because he has shown up without a wedding robe.

    This is a parable about the Kingdom of Heaven, and I think, by extension, also about Communion. All are certainly called to the Banquet, but they must be prepared. The mercy of God is such that it recognizes that we cannot provide a worthy robe or our own, so He provides the robe of Baptism. I think this serves as a clear indication of the ordinary mode of Baptism before Communion. It is certainly clear that the apostolic practice reflects this opinion since the unbaptized could not even attend the liturgy of the Eucharist or “the mass of the faithful” as they called it.

    At the same time, I think that we should not put limits on the movement of God. The Sacraments are defined by God, not God by the Sacraments. Who are we to say that God might not call a specific, even unbaptized person, to the banquet and provide a worthy robe outside of baptism.

    So, I think the wisest approach is to continue with a closed Communion. But I think that we should avoid being “Communion Nazis.” We can be clear about the standard, we can emphasize it in conversation, we correct people at other times, but I do not think that we should police it at the table unless there is a danger of public sacrilege, blasphemy, or scandal.

  15. While researching the issue of BWOC I ran across a reference which tied theosis to BWOC which has now escaped me. Has anyone else run across an essay or blog which ties BWOC and theosis together?

  16. Hi, I think your blog might be having browser compatibility issues. When I look at your blog site in Firefox, it looks fine but when opening in Internet Explorer, it has some overlapping. I just wanted to give you a quick heads up! Other then that, very good blog!

Leave a reply

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.




About This Site Welcome to this ecumenical website of resources and reflections on liturgy, spirituality, and worship for individuals and communities. It is run by Rev. Bosco Peters.

You are visitor number shopify analytics tool since the launch of this site on Maundy Thursday, 13 April 2006