Closed communion non-Christian?

[Hopey]

The first Christians were not even called “Catholic” they were followers of the The Way, and the bulk of them were Jewish converts whose gatherings did not, and could not look or sound like the current Mass. I understand that is the belief that the RCC holds; all the first believers were Catholic. But it isn’t an argument that is going to be accepted amongst most Protestants… or Orthodox either.

Again, this begs the question; we don’t believe we have left the gathering at all. As you point out, the RCC believes it is protecting the Eucharist, we protestants tend to believe we are protecting the gospel as originally handed to the Apostles. Again, that is why you are Catholic and I’m a Protestant, if we agreed with each other, we wouldn’t have different labels for ourselves.

The RCC doesn’t keep me from partaking, I could walk into any Parish and partake. What keeps me from partaking is my own beliefs about what the Eucharist is and is not, plus just outright respect for others’ beliefs. What I am attempting to do in this thread is to show why some of us do have issues with closed communion; not just in a RCC, but in any denomination. Paul was furious at dividing the body of Christ at the Lord’s Supper, that was one of the main reasons for his rant, and I agree with him, for to split us true believers up into groups is to divide the Body.

St. Paul was indeed rightly upset and admonished any division. But, we have to look at the history and human freedom which is how God wants it - people to freely stay or leave - accept or reject.
Someone receiving communion in a Catholic Church, or any other, does not do away with that division nor does our having an open communion - all to receive.
I will give you one thing that does. Pope Benedict in '10 created the APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION ANGLICANORUM COETIBUS vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apc_20091104_anglicanorum-coetibus_en.html.

This made it easy and ways for whole Anglican parishes to come into Communion with the Church while respecting some of their own traditions.

It is painful what we experience - division - with Christians. But respecting everyone’s free will which is a gift from God, which is necessary for true love - we wait in joyful hope for the day when we are no longer divided. We see tastes of that here and now (small ways in personal conversions or big ways in whole parishes coming into communion with the Church). Opening communion doesn’t do that. It takes work, much prayer and sacrifice and hope in God.

 

[Gorgias]

Christ said, take this all of you, and Judas was there.

Christ did not say take this all of you, apart from all those of you who are…

Christ did not come to save the righteous, but the sinner,

Thanks, Eric! I think you raise some really important points, and these points are highly relevant in this thread!

“Judas was there” at the Last Supper, and he did partake in it. Yet… at that point, Judas hadn’t sinned, had he? At that point, Judas hadn’t left communion with Jesus, had he? So, if we look at it fairly, we see that – although Judas was a sinner, like all of us – Judas was still in communion with Christ at the time that he participated in Christ’s Eucharist.

“Christ did not say ‘take this all of you, apart from all those of you who are…’” – yes, you’re right! Yet… what was the audience to whom Jesus spoke? What was that congregation to whom Jesus offered Eucharist? All believing Jews? Nope. All those who had heard His message and were inclined to believe in it? Nope. Only those whom he was ordaining – in the role of priest – were able to share in that first Eucharist. After Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit came down upon the believers, were others able to share in the Eucharistic meal. So, if we look at this idea carefully, we see that this, too, fits what Catholics do: only those in full communion with the Church share in the Eucharist.

Thanks for raising these points! They certainly demonstrate that the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist is in line with what Jesus said and did!

 

[Gorgias]

anonymous in fl:

No, Anglicans and Episcopalians do not believe in the True Presence (transubstantion); only Catholics do.

Some do.

cheezey:

QuasiCatholic:

This is only partially true. Anglicans and Episcopalians very much DO believe in the true presence.

Thank you.

This is certainly true: there are Anglicans and Episcopalians who do profess a belief in the True Presence.

Yet, there’s an important question to be asked here: how is it that the True Presence comes to exist in the Eucharistic species? Now… I’m not asking the question that Quasi alluded to (that is, the process by which it happens – is it ‘Transubstantiation’ or ‘Consubstantiation’ or some other process?); rather, I’m asking about how it is possible that it happens. If we were all sitting in a church, and someone got up out of the pews and went up to the altar and poured the wine and grabbed a host and prayed the words of Institution, would the True Presence actually come into existence? I think we all agree that the answer is ‘no’; it would not be Eucharist. What makes the species become the Eucharist, then? By what ‘power’ or ‘authority’? The Church has believed that this authority comes from Christ, handed down throughout the ages through the sacrament of Holy Orders. When one has been ordained a priest, then he has the ability to confect the sacraments.

Great! So, then, as long as I take a on-line course in theology, and get somebody to give me a certificate saying that I’m ordained, then I’m a priest, right? Well, no… not quite. The person doing the ordaining has to be able to validly ordain, and for that, one must be a bishop (who, himself, is validly ordained and consecrated a bishop!).

So… in order that the True Presence might be effected, we need a validly ordained priest, who has been ordained by a validly ordained bishop, who has been consecrated by validly ordained bishops. You can see the problem, can’t you?

It’s one thing to say “I believe in the True Presence,” but it’s quite a different assertion that’s being made when one says “and that bread and wine up there on that altar is the True Presence.” There are some validly ordained priests in the Anglican and Episcopalian communities, to be sure – but they’re the ones who are validly ordained by virtue of having been ordained into the Catholic or Orthodox priesthood, and then later leaving and joining an Anglican or Episcopalian community. Their consecration of the Eucharist is illicit, but valid. Other than that, though… the True Presence only exists within the context of the Churches that have a valid priesthood – the Orthodox and Catholic Churches.

It’s virtuous that our Anglican and Episcopalian brothers and sisters believe in the True Presence, but it’s sad that, believing in it as they do, they nevertheless generally never participate in it.

 

[Kliska]

St. Paul was indeed rightly upset and admonished any division. But, we have to look at the history and human freedom which is how God wants it - people to freely stay or leave - accept or reject.
Someone receiving communion in a Catholic Church, or any other, does not do away with that division nor does our having an open communion - all to receive.
I will give you one thing that does. Pope Benedict in '10 created the APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION ANGLICANORUM COETIBUS vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apc_20091104_anglicanorum-coetibus_en.html.

This made it easy and ways for whole Anglican parishes to come into Communion with the Church while respecting some of their own traditions.

It is painful what we experience - division - with Christians. But respecting everyone’s free will which is a gift from God, which is necessary for true love - we wait in joyful hope for the day when we are no longer divided. We see tastes of that here and now (small ways in personal conversions or big ways in whole parishes coming into communion with the Church). Opening communion doesn’t do that. It takes work, much prayer and sacrifice and hope in God.

This is certainly one possibility, but there is another; that we are already all connected and part of the Body of Christ, and just as He is One God, Three persons, our unity is a unity of love. In short, if someone wants to come commune with me, they may, He told us we all could come and drink freely, and the I believe the tie that binds us is our faith in Jesus Christ Himself.

You may be a hand and I may be a foot, but we are all of the body, and I believe one of our calls is to recognize that fact.

 

[Hopey]

This is certainly one possibility, but there is another; that we are already all connected and part of the Body of Christ, and just as He is One God, Three persons, our unity is a unity of love. In short, if someone wants to come commune with me, they may, He told us we all could come and drink freely, and the I believe the tie that binds us is our faith in Jesus Christ Himself.

You may be a hand and I may be a foot, but we are all of the body, and I believe one of our calls is to recognize that fact.

Yes, we are very much in agreement with that - how we are the body of Christ and build up the kingdom of God on earth.
Most of the divisions today are not through our own making but a result of schisms.

Opening communion doesn’t do away with all the division here on Earth tho.
Your receiving communion in a Catholic Church, when you are not Catholic nor do you believe what is the teaching and authority, doesn’t do away with the division. Nor would the division cease if I were to receive at your Church.

 

[cheezey]

This is certainly true: there are Anglicans and Episcopalians who do profess a belief in the True Presence.

Yet, there’s an important question to be asked here: how is it that the True Presence comes to exist in the Eucharistic species? Now… I’m not asking the question that Quasi alluded to (that is, the process by which it happens – is it ‘Transubstantiation’ or ‘Consubstantiation’ or some other process?); rather, I’m asking about how it is possible that it happens. If we were all sitting in a church, and someone got up out of the pews and went up to the altar and poured the wine and grabbed a host and prayed the words of Institution, would the True Presence actually come into existence? I think we all agree that the answer is ‘no’; it would not be Eucharist. What makes the species become the Eucharist, then? By what ‘power’ or ‘authority’? The Church has believed that this authority comes from Christ, handed down throughout the ages through the sacrament of Holy Orders. When one has been ordained a priest, then he has the ability to confect the sacraments.

Great! So, then, as long as I take a on-line course in theology, and get somebody to give me a certificate saying that I’m ordained, then I’m a priest, right? Well, no… not quite. The person doing the ordaining has to be able to validly ordain, and for that, one must be a bishop (who, himself, is validly ordained and consecrated a bishop!).

So… in order that the True Presence might be effected, we need a validly ordained priest, who has been ordained by a validly ordained bishop, who has been consecrated by validly ordained bishops. You can see the problem, can’t you?

It’s one thing to say “I believe in the True Presence,” but it’s quite a different assertion that’s being made when one says “and that bread and wine up there on that altar is the True Presence.” There are some validly ordained priests in the Anglican and Episcopalian communities, to be sure – but they’re the ones who are validly ordained by virtue of having been ordained into the Catholic or Orthodox priesthood, and then later leaving and joining an Anglican or Episcopalian community. Their consecration of the Eucharist is illicit, but valid. Other than that, though… the True Presence only exists within the context of the Churches that have a valid priesthood – the Orthodox and Catholic Churches.

It’s virtuous that our Anglican and Episcopalian brothers and sisters believe in the True Presence, but it’s sad that, believing in it as they do, they nevertheless generally never participate in it.

I am asking this in earnest.
Doe the Holy Spirit enter into the equation of how the mystery of the presence comes into being?

 

[Gorgias]

I am asking this in earnest.
Doe the Holy Spirit enter into the equation of how the mystery of the presence comes into being?

Certainly!

Let me ask you a question, too, and in earnest: is the Holy Spirit ours to command? Does the Spirit do whatever we say, whenever we say it, in whatever way we choose to do it, just by virtue of the fact that we demand it? (Remember, Jesus said, “not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’”…)

 

[Kliska]

Yes, we are very much in agreement with that - how we are the body of Christ and build up the kingdom of God on earth.
Most of the divisions today are not through our own making but a result of schisms.

Opening communion doesn’t do away with all the division here on Earth tho.
Your receiving communion in a Catholic Church, when you are not Catholic nor do you believe what is the teaching and authority, doesn’t do away with the division. Nor would the division cease if I were to receive at your Church.

There’s a problem that I see with this, though, and that is the certain divisions were decried in scripture and division at the table of the Lord is one of them. That particular division would indeed cease if we partake of communion together, and in fact, that is what I see called for in scripture. If we are each agreed that we are both a part of the body, the body should not be divided in this case in particular because we are warned not to by Paul.

Again, for the sake of the thread, I do understand the RCC’s position (and it is a consistent position within RCC theology/ecclesiology), I just can’t agree with it based on what I see in scripture. I think it is helpful to all involved to understand why I, and the OP, may have issues with it for future discussions and in the spirit of ecumenism.

 

[Hopey]

There’s a problem that I see with this, though, and that is the certain divisions were decried in scripture and division at the table of the Lord is one of them. That particular division would indeed cease if we partake of communion together, and in fact, that is what I see called for in scripture. If we are each agreed that we are both a part of the body, the body should not be divided in this case in particular because we are warned not to by Paul.

Again, for the sake of the thread, I do understand the RCC’s position (and it is a consistent position within RCC theology/ecclesiology), I just can’t agree with it based on what I see in scripture. I think it is helpful to all involved to understand why I, and the OP, may have issues with it for future discussions and in the spirit of ecumenism.

In reading the scripture you need to keep in mind we are in a time where breaks with the Church have already occurred. We call them schisms. That is what Paul was warning against (and also personally). The Church isn’t doing that by not having open communion. She, the Church, is open to people coming into communion with her and that is the ultimate desire and goal! But, coming into communion with her is not the same as just receiving communion, it is fully becoming part of her.

King Henry VIII is the one who started the schism that resulted in the Church of England (Anglican)being born/started, for example.

And you are right that Paul taught against this but we have to read it where we are right now, in the midst of many schisms/breaks. It was God’s design to have ONE Church but we are still a people inclined to sin.

 

[Kliska]

In reading the scripture you need to keep in mind we are in a time where breaks with the Church have already occurred. We call them schisms. That is what Paul was warning against (and also personally). The Church isn’t doing that by not having open communion. She, the Church, is open to people coming into communion with her and that is the ultimate desire and goal! But, coming into communion with her is not the same as just receiving communion, it is fully becoming part of her.

King Henry VIII is the one who started the schism that resulted in the Church of England (Anglican)being born/started, for example.

And you are right that Paul taught against this but we have to read it where we are right now, in the midst of many schisms/breaks. It was God’s design to have ONE Church but we are still a people inclined to sin.

The basic problem here is that we are actually disagreeing over what it takes to be member of the Body of Christ. We would each, I believe, say that there are certain beliefs one must hold in order to be in the faith. Now, obviously we are not going to agree on all, but we could stand side-by-side and recite the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds. We could pray together, and sing together, and eat together, and believe exactly the same about Jesus Christ and both acknowledge His headship.

Paul was saying very specifically that the reason why he was angry at the Corinthians, as far as the Lord’s Supper was concerned, is that they were not recognizing the Body of Christ in all the believers around them. They broke up into groups and separated themselves for various reasons. This was not “schism” but rather a blatant self-focused approach to partaking in the Lord’s Supper. Having closed communion, esp. when pointed at people who are baptized, recite the oldest creeds, and believe the same about Christ, makes zero scriptural sense to me. I understand it within the organizational structure, but I can’t accept the truth of it, as I see it contradicted in scripture.

It’s an incredibly sad thing, and yes we need to pray about it. We also need to think about scripture and what our various churches teach on this, and the effect it has on those shut out of communion.

 

[Gorgias]

The basic problem here is that we are actually disagreeing over what it takes to be member of the Body of Christ.

Actually, no… I don’t think that this is what we’re disagreeing on, at all! We agree that, having been baptized, we are baptized into Christ, and that, to a greater or lesser extent, we are part of the Body of Christ. After all, there are those who are part of the Body of Christ who, due to a variety of reasons, are unable to partake of the Eucharistic feast, and the reasons that they are unable to do so, have nothing to do with whether they are a “member of the Body of Christ” or not. Rather, the issue at hand is what qualifies a member of the Body of Christ to participate in the Eucharistic feast; and, in fact, your discussion of Paul’s Scriptural teaching to the Corinthians demonstrates that fully-initiated members of the Body of Christ were, nevertheless, not worthy of the Lamb’s Supper…!

Paul was saying very specifically that the reason why he was angry at the Corinthians, as far as the Lord’s Supper was concerned, is that they were not recognizing the Body of Christ in all the believers around them. They broke up into groups and separated themselves for various reasons. This was not “schism” but rather a blatant self-focused approach to partaking in the Lord’s Supper.

Absolutely… and thanks for pointing this out! In other words, what made a person unworthy of the Lord’s Supper – what made them subject to “eating and drinking judgment” upon themselves – was that they “broke up into groups and separated themselves for various reasons.” So… tell me: who “separated themselves” “into groups” “for various reasons”? Who failed to “recognize the Body of Christ” in the believers outside of their “self-focused” group? Catholics, perhaps? Or rather, perhaps those who attempted to ‘reform’ the Church by leaving it? If it’s the case that separating one’s self from communion leads to “eating and drinking judgment” upon himself, then to whom does this refer?

Having closed communion, esp. when pointed at people who are baptized, recite the oldest creeds, and believe the same about Christ, makes zero scriptural sense to me.

I agree! From a Scriptural standpoint, ‘closed communion’ is a bad thing! Yet, what’s worse… turning a person away from communion, or allowing them to “eat and drink judgment” upon themselves? In 1 Cor 5, we see that Paul recommends that a man be stricken from fellowship, so that he might turn away from his sins and return to the communion of the Church (and, in fact, in 2 Cor, we see a suggestion that this medicinal remedy is effective, and leads to reconciliation to the Church!). So, ‘closed communion’, clearly, is a lesser evil than allowing someone to be lost to the devil!

It’s an incredibly sad thing, and yes we need to pray about it. We also need to think about scripture and what our various churches teach on this, and the effect it has on those shut out of communion.

Amen! Absolutely!

 

[Kliska]

Actually, no… I don’t think that this is what we’re disagreeing on, at all! We agree that, having been baptized, we are baptized into Christ, and that, to a greater or lesser extent, we are part of the Body of Christ. After all, there are those who are part of the Body of Christ who, due to a variety of reasons, are unable to partake of the Eucharistic feast, and the reasons that they are unable to do so, have nothing to do with whether they are a “member of the Body of Christ” or not. Rather, the issue at hand is what qualifies a member of the Body of Christ to participate in the Eucharistic feast; and, in fact, your discussion of Paul’s Scriptural teaching to the Corinthians demonstrates that fully-initiated members of the Body of Christ were, nevertheless, not worthy of the Lamb’s Supper…!

Let me just clarify that when I say that, in effect, that is what we are disagreeing over, I mean that there is a deeper issue(s) present, and from my perspective, and in my family “if one eats, we all eat,” and it is hard for me to find Biblical justification to divide our family via closed communion. I think you can tell I’m not arguing just be be argumentative or dense but that it is something that a lot of us (all believers) have sadness over and is a very important issue.

As for the rest, that’s not what I personally see in scripture. The manner in which they partook was unworthy. We are warned not to partake “unworthily” not “unworthy.” Unworthily is an adverb, even in the Greek, and refers to the manner they were partaking. Paul was on them for partaking in a certain manner. The key to his anger was that they were dividing the body of Christ at the agape feast.

Absolutely… and thanks for pointing this out! In other words, what made a person unworthy of the Lord’s Supper – what made them subject to “eating and drinking judgment” upon themselves – was that they “broke up into groups and separated themselves for various reasons.” So… tell me: who “separated themselves” “into groups” “for various reasons”? Who failed to “recognize the Body of Christ” in the believers outside of their “self-focused” group? Catholics, perhaps? Or rather, perhaps those who attempted to ‘reform’ the Church by leaving it? If it’s the case that separating one’s self from communion leads to “eating and drinking judgment” upon himself, then to whom does this refer?

We have to make sure we don’t apply the passage to a situation not discussed. What is under discussion when Paul jumps the Corinthians is the agape feast, of which the Eucharist, or Lord’s Supper was but a part. They “separated themselves” into groups at the feast because they failed to love one another, and they failed to recognize the body of Christ in the congregation. If you read the passages closely some were eating all the food before others got there, some didn’t share with the rest, and some were getting drunk. My point is that when believers gathered, when the body of Christ gathered, we are to recognize our brothers and sisters and to love them and share with them.

I agree! From a Scriptural standpoint, ‘closed communion’ is a bad thing! Yet, what’s worse… turning a person away from communion, or allowing them to “eat and drink judgment” upon themselves? In 1 Cor 5, we see that Paul recommends that a man be stricken from fellowship, so that he might turn away from his sins and return to the communion of the Church (and, in fact, in 2 Cor, we see a suggestion that this medicinal remedy is effective, and leads to reconciliation to the Church!). So, ‘closed communion’, clearly, is a lesser evil than allowing someone to be lost to the devil!

The word for “judgment” there is temporary in nature, it was not the eternal damnation that those outside Christ would suffer (most Greek concordances will show that pretty well). It is the job of every professing believer to make sure they recognize the body of Christ and recognize what they are doing in partaking of the Lord’s Supper. Regardless of denomination we can agree on what we are doing, even if the detail is different. Again, sadly, this is one area where believers DO separate themselves, IMO, by straining out gnats to swallow camels. I also believe that once informed, it is up to us as individuals to examine our own selves to make sure we are in the faith. If I eat and drink in an unworthy manner, it is indeed on my head.

Amen! Absolutely!

Grace and Peace to you!

 

[vh_22]

I was told that Anglicans/Episcopalians believe that communion is just a symbol?

 

[Kliska]

I was told that Anglicans/Episcopalians believe that communion is just a symbol?

Depends on the Anglican/Episcopalian. In short, there are different beliefs under the umbrella of Anglicanism, as I understand it.