Closed Communion

[dblake22]

Here is a quote from someone responding to another poster lamenting the doctrine of closed communion.

[Closed Communion] is always a confusing one to my good Protestant friends. If you look at it from the perspective of the Catholic teaching of the Eucharist (Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity of Christ), and you fully don’t believe that teaching or believe the Eucharist is only symbolic or spiritual, then why as a Protestant would you want to receive Communion in a Catholic Church, if you don’t hold the Church’s belief? From the Catholic Side, we believe that you are receiving Christ’s Real Prescence, His Body, Blood Soul and Divinity. You are approaching to receive God, and by doing so you are saying “Amen” (or agreement) to not only that it is Christ’s Body, but also to all that he teaches in the Catholic Church. In fact, if you are in a state of mortal sin, you must first confess your sins and repent before receiving the Eucharist.

My response to the above is that the desire to participate in Communion is grounded in the belief that Communion is (among other things) a great sign of christian unity. I have been in any number of christian churches and been welcomed to the table upon affirming my baptism and christian faith without subscribing to their doctrinal statement.

 

[Aaron_I]

It is precisely because communion is a sign of unity that Catholics have closed communion. Catholics and non-Catholics have completely different beliefs on what the Eucharist IS. To engage in a sign of unity (i.e. communion) when unity does not exist, especially when the sign of unity is itself one of the very sources of disunity, is to engage in a lie.

As a Catholic I would never receive a Protestant communion because it would be a dishonest act that would give the impression to others that there is no difference between Catholic and Protestant communion.

 

[DavidFilmer]

My response to the above is that the desire to participate in Communion is grounded in the belief that Communion is (among other things) a great sign of christian unity.

So, are Baptists (or whatever) actually in union with Catholics? That’s news to me (and probably news to the Baptists (or whatever) as well).

I have been in any number of christian churches and been welcomed to the table upon affirming my baptism and christian faith without subscribing to their doctrinal statement.

That’s because they view their communion differently than Catholics. To them, the bread and wine (or grape juice) is simply bread/wine(juice), before and after the ceremony. It’s theologically not any different than offering you coffee and donuts after the service (and, BTW, Catholics offer everyone coffee & donuts after the service - and, in Portland, the coffee is actually good).

The Catholic Church, however, being a Bible-believing Church, believes that the Eucharist is MUCH MORE than simple bread and wine, and heeds Paul’s warning:

For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do proclaim the Lord’s death till he come.

Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

**But let a man examine himself, **and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many have died.

1Cor 11:26-30​

Wow, serious stuff. Eucharist can kill you and damn you to hell! We want to be VERY careful with it. And Catholics have the “real thing,” so we cannot be as relaxed in our attitudes as the protestants. When in doubt, it is better to deny it (even to ourselves) than give something that could be fatally harmful. Wouldn’t you agree?

​

 

[Church_Militant]

• [Who Can Receive Communion? (http://www.catholic.com/library/Who_Can_Receive_Communion.asp)
• Ecclesia de Eucharistia (Note especially sections 43-46)

There’s 2 good links that will help with this issue. I pulled them from a search of the Ask An Apologist forum.

 

[dblake22]

So, are Baptists (or whatever) actually in union with Catholics? That’s news to me (and probably news to the Baptists (or whatever) as well).

The Catechism describes it as a “sacramental bond of unity.” Would you agree with that description?

1. Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: “For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.” “Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn.”

That’s because they view their communion differently than Catholics. To them, the bread and wine (or grape juice) is simply bread/wine(juice), before and after the ceremony. It’s theologically not any different than offering you coffee and donuts after the service (and, BTW, Catholics offer everyone coffee & donuts after the service - and, in Portland, the coffee is actually good).

You expose your misunderstanding and trivialize the worship of your brothers in Christ. As I said in my initial statement, I was welcomed after I had affirmed my baptism and christian faith. Communion is certainly not open to anyone walking through the door, for the reasons you cited (1Cor 11:26-30).

 

[bobregan]

So, are Baptists (or whatever) actually in union with Catholics? That’s news to me (and probably news to the Baptists (or whatever) as well).
That’s because they view their communion differently than Catholics. To them, the bread and wine (or grape juice) is simply bread/wine(juice), before and after the ceremony. It’s theologically not any different than offering you coffee and donuts after the service (and, BTW, Catholics offer everyone coffee & donuts after the service - and, in Portland, the coffee is actually good).

The Catholic Church, however, being a Bible-believing Church, believes that the Eucharist is MUCH MORE than simple bread and wine, and heeds Paul’s warning:

Wow, serious stuff. Eucharist can kill you and damn you to hell! We want to be VERY careful with it. And Catholics have the “real thing,” so we cannot be as relaxed in our attitudes as the protestants. When in doubt, it is better to deny it (even to ourselves) than give something that could be fatally harmful. Wouldn’t you agree?

​

I agree. When Catholics receive Communion, they receive Christ both bodily and spiritually. At a Catholic Mass, Protestants can still receive Christ spiritually however, by being in the presence of the Eucharist. There is still a grace they are receiving by being at Mass. A Protestant going up for Communion at Mass that does not believe in the Real Presence…once again, what benefit are they receiving if they do not believe in the Catholic teaching?? The priest looks you in the eye saying “The BODY of Christ.” and a Protestant looks back at the priest saying possibly “Amen…but I’m only receiving Christ’s body in a symbolic or spiritual sense, and in a sense of fellowship, not in the Catholic Church’s understanding of the Eucharist.” Wouldn’t that be receiving the Eucharist unworthily? 1Corinthians 11 has always been clear.

 

[Church_Militant]

• [Who Can Receive Communion? (http://www.catholic.com/library/Who_Can_Receive_Communion.asp)
• Ecclesia de Eucharistia (Note especially sections 43-46)

There’s 2 good links that will help with this issue. I pulled them from a search of the Ask An Apologist forum.

1. Precisely because the Church’s unity, which the Eucharist brings about through the Lord’s sacrifice and by communion in his body and blood, absolutely requires full communion in the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments and ecclesiastical governance, it is not possible to celebrate together the same Eucharistic liturgy until those bonds are fully re-established. Any such concelebration would not be a valid means, and might well prove instead to be an obstacle, to the attainment of full communion, by weakening the sense of how far we remain from this goal and by introducing or exacerbating ambiguities with regard to one or another truth of the faith. The path towards full unity can only be undertaken in truth. In this area, the prohibitions of Church law leave no room for uncertainty,92 in fidelity to the moral norm laid down by the Second Vatican Council.93

I would like nonetheless to reaffirm what I said in my Encyclical Letter *Ut Unum Sint *after having acknowledged the impossibility of Eucharistic sharing: “And yet we do have a burning desire to join in celebrating the one Eucharist of the Lord, and this desire itself is already a common prayer of praise, a single supplication. Together we speak to the Father and increasingly we do so ‘with one heart’”.94

1. While it is never legitimate to concelebrate in the absence of full communion, the same is not true with respect to the administration of the Eucharist* under special circumstances, to individual persons *belonging to Churches or Ecclesial Communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church. In this case, in fact, the intention is to meet a grave spiritual need for the eternal salvation of an individual believer, not to bring about an *intercommunion *which remains impossible until the visible bonds of ecclesial communion are fully re-established.

This was the approach taken by the Second Vatican Council when it gave guidelines for responding to Eastern Christians separated in good faith from the Catholic Church, who spontaneously ask to receive the Eucharist from a Catholic minister and are properly disposed.95 This approach was then ratified by both Codes, which also consider – with necessary modifications – the case of other non-Eastern Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church.96

1. In my Encyclical* Ut Unum Sint* I expressed my own appreciation of these norms, which make it possible to provide for the salvation of souls with proper discernment: “It is a source of joy to note that Catholic ministers are able, in certain particular cases, to administer the sacraments of the Eucharist, Penance and Anointing of the Sick to Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church but who greatly desire to receive these sacraments, freely request them and manifest the faith which the Catholic Church professes with regard to these sacraments. Conversely, in specific cases and in particular circumstances, Catholics too can request these same sacraments from ministers of Churches in which these sacraments are valid”.97

These conditions, from which no dispensation can be given, must be carefully respected, even though they deal with specific individual cases, because the denial of one or more truths of the faith regarding these sacraments and, among these, the truth regarding the need of the ministerial priesthood for their validity, renders the person asking improperly disposed to legitimately receiving them. And the opposite is also true: Catholics may not receive communion in those communities which lack a valid sacrament of Orders.98

 

[crazzeto]

Here is a quote from someone responding to another poster lamenting the doctrine of closed communion.My response to the above is that the desire to participate in Communion is grounded in the belief that Communion is (among other things) a great sign of christian unity. I have been in any number of christian churches and been welcomed to the table upon affirming my baptism and christian faith without subscribing to their doctrinal statement.

Its’ not limited to being a sign of christian unity. Christ is quite explicit as to what the Eucharist is:

vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PX5.HTM

17

Then he took a cup, 6 gave thanks, and said, "Take this and share it among yourselves;

18

for I tell you (that) from this time on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes."

19

7 Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.”

20

And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.

Not “is symbolic of”, this “is”…

Earlier on in his ministory, John records Jesus explaining what was to come in the very first Catholic Mass (the last supper)
vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PXE.HTM

48

I am the bread of life.

49

Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;

50

this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.

51

I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."

52

The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”

53

Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

54

Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

55

For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

56

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

57

Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.

58

This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.

Lastly, St. Paul tells us what happens to you if you share (catholic) communion WITH OUT being fully prepared. And what is meant by this, is knowing what it means to be in a state of grace, and actually being in a state of grace (requires confession)
vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PZG.HTM

26

For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.

27

**Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. **12

I know many protistants say they “believe the bible”, which is why it’s beyond me why they wouldn’t “believe it” when it comes to the celebration of the Eucharist. But these theological differences aside, the Eucharist is not simply a peace offering. It’s not just a symbole, and certianly not one of “christian unity”. It is the body, blood, soul and divity of our lord Christ Jesus.

Unless you beleive this, and unless you are in full comunion with us you should not be celebrating the Eucharist.

All this and I haven’t even gotten to the marriage between Christ and Church typology yet. If you’re not yet convinced, I’ll bring it up in a follow up.

 

[DavidFilmer]

The Catechism describes it as a “sacramental bond of unity.” Would you agree with that description?

By “it” you refer to Baptism (not Eucharist) per CCC 1271.

Of course, I agree with the Catechism. But this very same article uses the terms “not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church” and “some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.” Only practicing Catholics are actually “in communion” with the Catholic Church (and protestants typically refer to their ceremony as “communion” to emphasize this essential aspect of it). Protestants, by virtue of their Baptism, have an imperfect unity, but are not united and are not in communion with the Catholic Church.

There’s more involved in Christian unity than simply professing a belief in Jesus. After all, Jews and Muslims both worship the God of Abraham, and both revere the Old Testament, but they hardly could be said to be “united.” They have vastly different beliefs about both God and Scripture.

You expose your misunderstanding and trivialize the worship of your brothers in Christ.

I think I understand it well enough (I was protestant for half my life, and a protestant apologist for several years).

As I said in my initial statement, I was welcomed after I had affirmed my baptism and christian faith. Communion is certainly not open to anyone walking through the door, for the reasons you cited (1Cor 11:26-30).

I don’t remember Paul saying anything about affirming any Baptism or Christian faith in that passage (or anywhere else). In fact, those are both teachings of the Catholic Church (they are true, but not clearly Biblical). If you were required to affirm these things in order to receive communion then it was without any sort of Biblical precedent or authority. But the Catholic Church is a Bible-believing Church.

What Paul *did *say is that we should “examine ourselves.” Catholics (should) know that they cannot receive Eucharist if they are likely to be in a state of mortal sin, and that we must seek Sacramental Confession if we think we are.

In addition to the non-Biblical things that you were asked to affirm, were you also required to affirm this self-examination (as Paul instructs)? Was Sacramental Confession offered to you on, say Saturday (as is usually the case in a Catholic parish) so that you could receive Communion on Sunday?

Paul also warns about those who do not “recognize the Body of the Lord.” Were you required to affirm that you recognize this bread as the true Body of the Lord (probably not, because, um, they don’t believe it themselves, and actually deny it, despite what Scripture teaches).

I suspect that you were only required to affirm things that are NOT in the Bible, and were not required to affirm anything that actually IS in the Bible.

Protestants will TELL YOU that what you are receiving in their communion service is simply nothing more than crackers and grape juice (but in a social context - one does not eat and drink with an enemy). This is not some Catholic smear - this is what they doctrinally insist upon. By offering it to you, they are showing hospitality, not unity.

Catholics will TELL YOU that they have the (ACTUAL) Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. By NOT offering it to you, they are doing you a favor (or, at least, erring with your best interest at heart). I would never offer guests something that would likely be harmful to them. Protestants do not need to worry about this, because (as they insist) they are offering only crackers and grape juice - and nobody ever got sick, or died, or was condemned to hell for improperly consuming crackers and grape juice.

 

[bobregan]

By “it” you refer to Baptism (not Eucharist) per CCC 1271.

Of course, I agree with the Catechism. But this very same article uses the terms “not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church” and “some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.” Only practicing Catholics are actually “in communion” with the Catholic Church (and protestants typically refer to their ceremony as “communion” to emphasize this essential aspect of it). Protestants, by virtue of their Baptism, have an imperfect unity, but are not united and are not in communion with the Catholic Church.

There’s more involved in Christian unity than simply professing a belief in Jesus. After all, Jews and Muslims both worship the God of Abraham, and both revere the Old Testament, but they hardly could be said to be “united.” They have vastly different beliefs about both God and Scripture.

I think I understand it well enough (I was protestant for half my life, and a protestant apologist for several years).

I don’t remember Paul saying anything about affirming any Baptism or Christian faith in that passage (or anywhere else). In fact, those are both teachings of the Catholic Church (they are true, but not clearly Biblical). If you were required to affirm these things in order to receive communion then it was without any sort of Biblical precedent or authority. But the Catholic Church is a Bible-believing Church.

What Paul *did *say is that we should “examine ourselves.” Catholics (should) know that they cannot receive Eucharist if they are likely to be in a state of mortal sin, and that we must seek Sacramental Confession if we think we are.

In addition to the non-Biblical things that you were asked to affirm, were you also required to affirm this self-examination (as Paul instructs)? Was Sacramental Confession offered to you on, say Saturday (as is usually the case in a Catholic parish) so that you could receive Communion on Sunday?

Paul also warns about those who do not “recognize the Body of the Lord.” Were you required to affirm that you recognize this bread as the true Body of the Lord (probably not, because, um, they don’t believe it themselves, and actually deny it, despite what Scripture teaches).

I suspect that you were only required to affirm things that are NOT in the Bible, and were not required to affirm anything that actually IS in the Bible.

Protestants will TELL YOU that what you are receiving in their communion service is simply nothing more than crackers and grape juice (but in a social context - one does not eat and drink with an enemy). This is not some Catholic smear - this is what they doctrinally insist upon. By offering it to you, they are showing hospitality, not unity.

Catholics will TELL YOU that they have the (ACTUAL) Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. By NOT offering it to you, they are doing you a favor (or, at least, erring with your best interest at heart). I would never offer guests something that would likely be harmful to them. Protestants do not need to worry about this, because (as they insist) they are offering only crackers and grape juice - and nobody ever got sick, or died, or was condemned to hell for improperly consuming crackers and grape juice.

Excellent, David. It’s almost as if by offering crackers and grape juice, and therefore making the statement that Christ’s Body and Blood are not present, is a way of getting around the sobering words of Paul in Corinthians.

 

[bobregan]

Its’ not limited to being a sign of christian unity. Christ is quite explicit as to what the Eucharist is:

vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PX5.HTM

Not “is symbolic of”, this “is”…

Earlier on in his ministory, John records Jesus explaining what was to come in the very first Catholic Mass (the last supper)
vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PXE.HTM

Lastly, St. Paul tells us what happens to you if you share (catholic) communion WITH OUT being fully prepared. And what is meant by this, is knowing what it means to be in a state of grace, and actually being in a state of grace (requires confession)
vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PZG.HTM

I know many protistants say they “believe the bible”, which is why it’s beyond me why they wouldn’t “believe it” when it comes to the celebration of the Eucharist. But these theological differences aside, the Eucharist is not simply a peace offering. It’s not just a symbole, and certianly not one of “christian unity”. It is the body, blood, soul and divity of our lord Christ Jesus.

Unless you beleive this, and unless you are in full comunion with us you should not be celebrating the Eucharist.

All this and I haven’t even gotten to the marriage between Christ and Church typology yet. If you’re not yet convinced, I’ll bring it up in a follow up.

Agreed. Amen. If a Protestant walks up to receive the Eucharist and doesn’t believe in the Real Presence (“recognizing the Body”), then they are subject to Paul’s warnings and admonitions.

 

[Namesake]

Why do I have to jump through hoops to prove to other people that I fully understand and accept the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Why isn’t it enough that I confirm my understanding and acceptance by receiving the Eucharist at Mass? Why isn’t my understanding and acceptance in the presence of God enough? Is it because people are protecting God from unbelievers, or protecting people from God?

Don’t you all think that God knows what is really in my heart?

 

[crazzeto]

Why do I have to jump through hoops to prove to other people that I fully understand and accept the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Why isn’t it enough that I confirm my understanding and acceptance by receiving the Eucharist at Mass? Why isn’t my understanding and acceptance in the presence of God enough? Is it because people are protecting God from unbelievers, or protecting people from God?

Don’t you all think that God knows what is really in my heart?

Well there are several special conditions under which a non-catholic might be able to participate in communion in a catholic service. You would have to talk to the local bishop, and believing in real presense is the first step. But there are more, even if you beleive in real presense you could still be eating and drinking (not drinking for now, thanks h1n1) judgment upon your self.

Do you know whether your soul is in a state of grace? do you know how it gets that way? what this gets at, have you been to confession and been absolved of mortal sin? Do you beleive in the catholic sacrament of reconciliation?

Now I don’t ask these having not noticed your “religion” on your profile. So the real question becomes, why are you wishing you could be catholic? Why aren’t you Catholic? If you truely beleive all that we believe, and truely want to be in communion with us (not just celebrate it with us) then why not make the commitment?

 

[Namesake]

Now I don’t ask these having not noticed your “religion” on your profile. So the real question becomes, why are you wishing you could be catholic? Why aren’t you Catholic? If you truely beleive all that we believe, and truely want to be in communion with us (not just celebrate it with us) then why not make the commitment?

Mostly because people on this web site, some people, seem to believe in a sort of magic. Because as a child I had mostly Catholic friends who didn’t live up to the real teachings of Catholicism. Because of so many relatives and people I work with who claim to be Catholic and they abuse the teachings. Like my sister-in-law and her husband who don’t believe in the real presence but they receive the Eucharist even though they do not accept the sacrament of reconciliation. My brother-in-law even invites me to Mass and he say’s I should just go ahead and receive the Eucharist. Actually, I think he is correct, but that is directly against the teaching of the Church. I think I should be allowed to receive the Eucharist if I am right with God in all that the Eucharist means. I shouldn’t have to prove up to any person.

Why isn’t it good enough that God and I know that I am fully in agreement with the meaning of the Eucharist? Why does some human need to know that before I can receive?

 

[crazzeto]

Mostly because people on this web site, some people, seem to believe in a sort of magic. Because as a child I had mostly Catholic friends who didn’t live up to the real teachings of Catholicism. Because of so many relatives and people I work with who claim to be Catholic and they abuse the teachings. Like my sister-in-law and her husband who don’t believe in the real presence but they receive the Eucharist even though they do not accept the sacrament of reconciliation. My brother-in-law even invites me to Mass and he say’s I should just go ahead and receive the Eucharist. Actually, I think he is correct, but that is directly against the teaching of the Church. I think I should be allowed to receive the Eucharist if I am right with God in all that the Eucharist means. I shouldn’t have to prove up to any person.

Why isn’t it good enough that God and I know that I am fully in agreement with the meaning of the Eucharist? Why does some human need to know that before I can receive?

Why isn’t it enough for God to know you love your girlfriend very much, and make it ok for you to just live together with out getting married and raise a family. That’s basically exactly what you asked with your last question whether or not you realize it.

Now regarding your reasons for not being catholic, I agree with you there are bad Catholics all over the place. But we’re talking about your personal beliefs in God, and it sounds like your beliefs have pointed you to the Catholic Church. Make the conversion, find a good parish, get involved in ministry and bible study but most of all; serve as a good example of what it means to be a good catholic to all those people you just discussed!!! Help bring them back! Teach them about real presence, exort them to accept faith as something more than a “fun tradition”.

You can do so much good by converting, if indeed it is what you truely beleive. Don’t miss a chance to be one of the best things any one can hope to be, a faithful witness to Christ in a world that desperatly needs it.

 

[bobregan]

Mostly because people on this web site, some people, seem to believe in a sort of magic. Because as a child I had mostly Catholic friends who didn’t live up to the real teachings of Catholicism. Because of so many relatives and people I work with who claim to be Catholic and they abuse the teachings. Like my sister-in-law and her husband who don’t believe in the real presence but they receive the Eucharist even though they do not accept the sacrament of reconciliation. My brother-in-law even invites me to Mass and he say’s I should just go ahead and receive the Eucharist. Actually, I think he is correct, but that is directly against the teaching of the Church. I think I should be allowed to receive the Eucharist if I am right with God in all that the Eucharist means. I shouldn’t have to prove up to any person.

Why isn’t it good enough that God and I know that I am fully in agreement with the meaning of the Eucharist? Why does some human need to know that before I can receive?

Christ also purposely created a “visible” Church, not an “invisible” Chrch. Also, whe you say “Amen” when the priest says “The Body of Christ” gives you the Eucharist, two things are happening: You are receiving the Real Presence of Christ but also saying you are in full agreement (full “communion”) with the fullness of the Teachings and the Truth found in the visible Church (The Body of Christ) founded by Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church. Are you following the teachings of the Church (for example) on birth control, abortion, the Immaculate Conception, etc.?