Lord's Supper

[Duane1966]

If you believe that admission to the Lord’s Supper should be based on perfect agreement with doctrinal formulas then I suppose it would be. Not all Christians think this is the case.

Concerning the Lord’s Supper, Paul was far more concerned with how members of the body treated one another than their understanding of doctrine. That (the mistreatment and humiliation of the poor by the rich in the congregation) was the context in which “discerning the body of Christ” was mean’t. What they failed to discern was that brothers and sisters in Christ are members of His body, so that when we mistreat and wrong one another without making amends in effect we are advertising our disbelief that we are one in Christ.

But you already admitted that if Christians rejected his teachings, St. Paul would not commune with them. So in the scenario I presented, you already conceded on that doctrinal point, St. Paul would practice closed communion.

 

[ltwin]

But you already admitted that if Christians rejected his teachings, St. Paul would not commune with them. So in the scenario I presented, you already conceded on that doctrinal point, St. Paul would practice closed communion.

I said Paul would probably not commune with Judaizers because they were teaching salvation through the law, a covenant of works. They were replacing Christ with the Mosaic Law. That is not a secondary issue or even quibbling over theological language.

So, yes, there are groups that masquerade as Christian that are not. But Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians and other Pentecostals certainly are not in those categories.

 

[Duane1966]

I said Paul would probably not commune with Judaizers because they were teaching salvation through the law, a covenant of works. They were replacing Christ with the Mosaic Law. That is not a secondary issue or even quibbling over theological language.

I have highlighted the key part of your answer. Who decides what is a secondary issue? Who did Christ give that authority to?

So, yes, there are groups that masquerade as Christian that are not. But Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians and other Pentecostals certainly are not in those categories.

They were not masquerading as Christians. They were validly baptized, and they had faith in Jesus. The fact that there was much debate on the issue, should tell you how divided the Church was on this issue. Since they came down from Jerusalem, there is a very good chance they came from James.

We know a group that rejected the Council of Jerusalem, came into being shortly after that council. They considered themselves true Christians. They certainly didn’t feel they were masquerading.

 

[ajcstr]

But communion is also a sign we are one with the community. Surely it is a lie for anyone to receive communion when they reject an aspect, or aspects of what that community teaches.

Well, I think it depends. If the Gospel is that Jesus in our redeemer and that we were baptized into a relationship with him, I think we are all on the same page and I would guess that is the rational for Anglican open communion. If you then dig a little deeper to the other doctrines then you have a problem.

My overall dilemma, and the reason for the post is simply if Christ IS really present then I think all who receive have to be able to acknowledge that. If Christ is not really present, and its just a symbol, then I guess it doesn’t matter. But this is why the Catholics and now I’ve learned some Lutherans treat it with such respect. I think people who don’t get this treat it as disrespect to them personally when it really is not.

 

[Church_Militant]

I think one of the most informative things that needs to be brought into this discussion is Pope St. John Paul the Great’s wonderful encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia and I’ll post sections that are specifically relevant.

1. In considering the Eucharist as the sacrament of ecclesial communion, there is one subject which, due to its importance, must not be overlooked: I am referring to the relationship of the Eucharist to ecumenical activity

. We should all give thanks to the Blessed Trinity for the many members of the faithful throughout the world who in recent decades have felt an ardent desire for unity among all Christians. The Second Vatican Council, at the beginning of its Decree on Ecumenism, sees this as a special gift of God.89 It was an efficacious grace which inspired us, the sons and daughters of the Catholic Church and our brothers and sisters from other Churches and Ecclesial Communities, to set forth on the path of ecumenism.

Our longing for the goal of unity prompts us to turn to the Eucharist, which is the supreme sacrament of the unity of the People of God, in as much as it is the apt expression and the unsurpassable source of that unity.90 In the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice the Church prays that God, the Father of mercies, will grant his children the fullness of the Holy Spirit so that they may become one body and one spirit in Christ.91 In raising this prayer to the Father of lights, from whom comes every good endowment and every perfect gift (cf. *Jas *1:17), the Church believes that she will be heard, for she prays in union with Christ her Head and Spouse, who takes up this plea of his Bride and joins it to that of his own redemptive sacrifice.

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

 

[Church_Militant]

1. In considering the Eucharist as the sacrament of ecclesial communion, there is one subject which, due to its importance, must not be overlooked: I am referring to the relationship of the Eucharist to ecumenical activity. We should all give thanks to the Blessed Trinity for the many members of the faithful throughout the world who in recent decades have felt an ardent desire for unity among all Christians. The Second Vatican Council, at the beginning of its Decree on Ecumenism, sees this as a special gift of God.89 It was an efficacious grace which inspired us, the sons and daughters of the Catholic Church and our brothers and sisters from other Churches and Ecclesial Communities, to set forth on the path of ecumenism.

Our longing for the goal of unity prompts us to turn to the Eucharist, which is the supreme sacrament of the unity of the People of God, in as much as it is the apt expression and the unsurpassable source of that unity.90 In the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice the Church prays that God, the Father of mercies, will grant his children the fullness of the Holy Spirit so that they may become one body and one spirit in Christ.91 In raising this prayer to the Father of lights, from whom comes every good endowment and every perfect gift (cf. *Jas *1:17), the Church believes that she will be heard, for she prays in union with Christ her Head and Spouse, who takes up this plea of his Bride and joins it to that of his own redemptive sacrifice.

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

The entire encyclical is an amazing teaching document and has greatly informed my own understanding and devotion to the Eucharist and the Mass.

 

[GKC]

Well, I think it depends. If the Gospel is that Jesus in our redeemer and that we were baptized into a relationship with him, I think we are all on the same page and I would guess that is the rational for Anglican open communion. If you then dig a little deeper to the other doctrines then you have a problem.

My overall dilemma, and the reason for the post is simply if Christ IS really present then I think all who receive have to be able to acknowledge that. If Christ is not really present, and its just a symbol, then I guess it doesn’t matter. But this is why the Catholics and now I’ve learned some Lutherans treat it with such respect. I think people who don’t get this treat it as disrespect to them personally when it really is not.

Recognizing, of course, that not all Anglicans practice open communion.

And almost all Anglicans treat the consecrated elements with the same respect as others who recognize the Real Presence.

 

[ajcstr]

Recognizing, of course, that not all Anglicans practice open communion.

Did not know that either (it was an Anglican giving me a hard time saying I would be welcome to receive in his church but he would not be able to in mine.)

Do they limit to just Anglicans or do they approach it similar to the Lutherans in the earlier post?

 

[GKC]

Did not know that either (it was an Anglican giving me a hard time saying I would be welcome to receive in his church but he would not be able to in mine.)

Do they limit to just Anglicans or do they approach it similar to the Lutherans in the earlier post?

Depends on which Anglican you are speaking to. You can find differences from parish to parish,diocese to diocese, jurisdiction to jurisdiction. If you are thinking of the Episcopal Church, I suspect that you can find those parishes which have no limitations on who receives, at all. And it can vary from there, to baptized Christians only, to the more traditional places, which limit it to Christians baptized in the Trinitarian formula, and confirmed by a bishop in apostolic succession, and who affirms the Real Presence in the sacrament. I suspect those last are increasingly rare in TEC. In the more traditional jurisdictions, usually not in the Anglican Communion officially, that last would be more common. And obviously, you a RC baptized and so confirmed and so affirming the Presence, could receive in any Anglican church (though I hate to make sweeping generalizations about Anglicans. They are much of a motleydom)

 

[Smokey3]

Did not know that either (it was an Anglican giving me a hard time saying I would be welcome to receive in his church but he would not be able to in mine.)

Do they limit to just Anglicans or do they approach it similar to the Lutherans in the earlier post?

It depends on the priest. Some practice open communion and some do not, it depends on their theology. I have a relative who is an Anglican priest and he would never give the Eucharist to a Lutheran or any other protestant (he will give a blessing instead). Others are happy to give the Eucharist to Lutherans and others. A person would need to check with the individual church.

 

[MichaelP3]

Let me backup and restate just in case. I think we would both agree that it either is or it isn’t regardless of what either of us believes. No third possibility. So in the Catholic environment the belief is that it is and only Catholic’s can receive.

But in a Protestant church, beliefs could be different so I am asking as an Anglican would you feel uncomfortable participating in the Lord’s Supper in a Presbyterian Church or as a Presbyterian would you feel uncomfortable in an Anglican Church or does this issue just never come up?

Yes I would and the issue would only come up if it is brought up.

 

[LutheranScholar]

I suppose it’s all about emphasis. I see partaking of the Sacrament of the Altar ( Communion, the Lord’s Supper, or whatever other name people might have for it) as the pinnacle of the Christian’s experience… where God is most immediately Present in, with and under the bread and the wine. Partaking of the Sacrament indicates my approval and endorsement of the teachings of the Church wherein this sacrament is celebrated.

I could never comfortably partake of Communion in an Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, Reformed, or Pietistic setting because I am not a member of those communions and I necessarily believe that there’s a flaw in their teaching about the Lord’s Supper that isn’t present in Confessional Lutheranism. To quote Dr. Luther, " is means is." The whys and wherefores are irrelevant. God said it, it happens and that’s it.

That’s just me, though. There are churches who emphasize living a holy life apart from the sacraments ( how, I don’t know) and so the emphasis on them will be much less and they would think very little on having an open altar ( an altar where many, regardless of affiliation, may partake). My :twocents:.

 

[ltwin]

I have highlighted the key part of your answer. Who decides what is a secondary issue? Who did Christ give that authority to?

Secondary issues are those that Christians can reasonably disagree on and still be Christians,; it does not touch on the essence of gospel of Christ. So for example things not found or implied in Scripture would be secondary issues. Church polity (congregational, episcopal, presbyterian) would not be an issue for excluding someone from Communion.

They were not masquerading as Christians. They were validly baptized, and they had faith in Jesus. The fact that there was much debate on the issue, should tell you how divided the Church was on this issue. Since they came down from Jerusalem, there is a very good chance they came from James.

They wanted to supplant Christ’s role in salvation with Jewish law. I think that would be dangerous to the integrity of the gospel.

We know a group that rejected the Council of Jerusalem, came into being shortly after that council. They considered themselves true Christians. They certainly didn’t feel they were masquerading.

OK. Their feelings are noted.

 

[Duane1966]

Secondary issues are those that Christians can reasonably disagree on and still be Christians,; it does not touch on the essence of gospel of Christ.

Who decides what is reasonable? Who decides what is secondary, and who decides who is a Christian, and who is not?

So for example things not found or implied in Scripture would be secondary issues.

Does Scripture teach this anywhere?

Church polity (congregational, episcopal, presbyterian) would not be an issue for excluding someone from Communion.

Now you’ve made yourself the decider. But nowhere do I see in Scripture where Jesus gave you the authority to decide what is, or is not, a secondary issue.

They wanted to supplant Christ’s role in salvation with Jewish law. I think that would be dangerous to the integrity of the gospel.

They didn’t think it was dangerous to the integrity. They felt what the council decided was dangerous. I cannot see any objective reasoning behind whom you decide to exclude, and whom you decide to accept at the Lord’s Supper.

OK. Their feelings are noted.

As are yours. Know this, there is no principled difference between what they did, and what the Reformers did. Both rejected the authority that they were under. The Church made a juridical decision in the case of the Judaizers, which they did not accept. The Church also made a juridical decision in the case of the Reformers, which they did not accept.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Does Jesus stand outside the church doors of Baptist, Lutheran, Anglican Churches? Does Jesus really avoid all these churches?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Does Jesus stand outside the church doors of Baptist, Lutheran, Anglican Churches? Does Jesus really avoid all these churches?

The only ONE who can answer such a sensitive question is Jesus himself.

Matthew 10:33
“But **whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.”
**

 

[Duane1966]

Does Jesus stand outside the church doors of Baptist, Lutheran, Anglican Churches? Does Jesus really avoid all these churches?

No.

Is it a lie to receive communion in a church where you openly reject some aspect of what that church teaches? Communion is not, nor has ever been, just about the recipient and Jesus. It is also about the relationship of the recipient to His (Christ’s) Church. That’s why it’s called communion.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

No.

Is it a lie to receive communion in a church where you openly reject some aspect of what that church teaches? Communion is not, nor has ever been, just about the recipient and Jesus. It is also about the relationship of the recipient to His (Christ’s) Church. That’s why it’s called communion.

Is it the same when a communion of believers believe the same and when one who is not in communion possesses a faith in the real presence at the Lord’s Supper?

I have heard some non-Catholic Christians who profess a faith in the real presence at the Lord’s Supper though not in communion with the Catholic Church.

Do you think Jesus would deny these before our Father in heaven?

 

[GKC]

Is it the same when a communion of believers believe the same and when one who is not in communion possesses a faith in the real presence at the Lord’s Supper?

I have heard some non-Catholic Christians who profess a faith in the real presence at the Lord’s Supper though not in communion with the Catholic Church.

Do you think Jesus would deny these before our Father in heaven?

How would you answer that question?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

How would you answer that question?

I would begin with, Jesus found the greatest faith in all of Israel from a Roman Centurion. He did not find it with Peter who professed Jesus to be the Son of God only second after Nathaniel who professed Jesus to be the Son of God and Thomas who proclaimed Jesus to be his God and Lord after the resurrection.

My short answer is “Faith”. My trust is in God, who promises not one of these little ones will be snatched out His hands who believe.

For me to believe is to sell all my possessions for the pearl of faith in God. I will not trust my soul to men. But only in God’s divine revelation unchanged since the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Peace be with you