LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Intercommunion
Sift,—Your correspondent, Mr. John A. Patten, seems to be unaware that a resolution was passed in the Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury in January, 1933, expressing the opinion that "where a baptised communicant member of a Church not in communion with our own is cut off by distance from the ministrations of his own Church, he may-be welcomed to Communion by the incumbent ; but if such a person becomes a habitual communicant over a long period, the claim of the Church to full conformity with its requirements should be pressed upon his conscience." The Upper House of the Convocation of York, which includes Northumberland, passed a similar resolution at the same time but without the qualifying clause. In both cases the opinion was expressed with a view to giving a Diocesan Bishop guidance in giving or withholding permission to an incumbent to act in the way suggested. Mr. Patten says not unreasonably, "I am not entitled to receive Holy Communion" (i.e., in the parish church); but has he applied through the incumbent to the Bishop of Newcastle ?—Yours
Previous page
