Non-Catholic Exclusion of the Eucharist

[Padres1969]

To my knowledge this has not presented itself. The onus would be on the honor of the person to not commune. But you are right, what are we going to do if we are presented with an obvious dilemma.

What would happen in the Catholic church if a new person that no one recognizes partook of the Eucharist and then later in the week admitted to someone in the church that they were a practicing homosexual? If that person was seen in line for the Eucharist again two weeks later what procedure would take place to close communion to him?

Exactly. That’s the case in an open or closed communion church. Most sins in either school of thought that would exclude someone based on their particular Church’s beliefs or teaching, is generally only going to be known by that person. So the onus is always on the individual to refrain from receiving if they know there’s a reason they should not.

Now most people in practice in both open and closed systems don’t refrain when they ought to… but again, that’s on the individual. The Church is very rarely involved in denying a congregant Eucharist/Communion in either system.

 

[rcwitness]

Not really. I mean even in open communion you typically have a group of Christians who share a belief in Jesus Christ. And who have that Christian faith in common even if the particulars aren’t always the same. I think you’re looking too narrowly at what those who practice open communion see as the commonality that we’re communing over. Plus as I said even for those that may not share that basic faith there’s the hope that by experiencing Christ so closely in the Eucharist that they’ll be moved by it. And I’ve seen it happen.

But I’m looking more broadly at the beliefs which are very important to the faith and have been officially addressed by the Church. And you think I’m being “narrow”?

But I’m glad you are speaking your mind. Thank you. I am happy to discuss.

We believe that rejection of certain moral principles can be a rejection of the faith. And I’m not talking about individuals or even large groups who determine this, but the Church Herself, and in Her capacity to confirm matters of faith and morals.

Paul sees a person in the community who is having relations with his mother in law. This warranted excommunication. Paul tells Timothy to command that if someone does not provide for his own family, that person is worse than an unbeliever. Are we suppose to eat with such? Or do we stand up for Christ?

Is it really “narrow mindedness” to separate ourselves from sinfully behavior among us?

 

[rcwitness]

To my knowledge this has not presented itself. The onus would be on the honor of the person to not commune. But you are right, what are we going to do if we are presented with an obvious dilemma.

What would happen in the Catholic church if a new person that no one recognizes partook of the Eucharist and then later in the week admitted to someone in the church that they were a practicing homosexual? If that person was seen in line for the Eucharist again two weeks later what procedure would take place to close communion to him?

Well, what would happen and what the Church Teaches may not be the same.

The Church Teaches that the Priest has the duty to refuse Communion to that hypothetical person. Hopefully that Priest would speak with them privately and council them lovingly, right?

 

[Padres1969]

But I’m looking more broadly at the beliefs which are very important to the faith and have been officially addressed by the Church. And you think I’m being “narrow”?

But I’m glad you are speaking your mind. Thank you. I am happy to discuss.

We believe that rejection of certain moral principles can be a rejection of the faith. And I’m not talking about individuals or even large groups who determine this, but the Church Herself, and in Her capacity to confirm matters of faith and morals.

Paul sees a person in the community who is having relations with his mother in law. This warranted excommunication. Paul tells Timothy to command that if someone does not provide for his own family, that person is worse than an unbeliever. Are we suppose to eat with such? Or do we stand up for Christ?

Is it really “narrow mindedness” to separate ourselves from sinfully behavior among us?

Not to be blunt, but I’d say so, yes. We’re all sinful. To try and cut out certain sinners among us and not others is both hypocritical IMO and ultimately self defeating. Love the sinner, hate the sin takes on a different dimension admittedly in this regard for some of us than it would for say a Catholic. Many denominations don’t see value in cutting off a sinner from direct access to Christ when they’re likely to need Christ more than ever.

 

[Kurisu35712]

Not to be blunt, but I’d say so, yes. We’re all sinful. To try and cut out certain sinners among us and not others is both hypocritical IMO and ultimately self defeating. Love the sinner, hate the sin takes on a different dimension admittedly in this regard for some of us than it would for say a Catholic. Many denominations don’t see value in cutting off a sinner from direct access to Christ when they’re likely to need Christ more than ever.

That said though, Catholics also don’t consider exclusion of the Eucharist to be cutting a sinner off from Christ. They had already done so, necessitating exclusion in the first place.

 

[Padres1969]

That said though, Catholics also don’t consider exclusion of the Eucharist to be cutting a sinner off from Christ. They had already done so, necessitating exclusion in the first place.

True that is the Catholic view of it. Can’t speak for all open communion denominations, but for my own, as mentioned earlier a priest can do the same if publicly aware of an evil. However again in practice this is rarely done just as it is rarely done in the Catholic Church by and large for practical reasons. And likely even a more rare occurance in my own faith because what would qualify as an evil bad enough which would lead to a withholding of communion is comparatively a smaller list than it would be for the RCC.

 

[rcwitness]

Not to be blunt, but I’d say so, yes. We’re all sinful. To try and cut out certain sinners among us and not others is both hypocritical IMO and ultimately self defeating. Love the sinner, hate the sin takes on a different dimension admittedly in this regard for some of us than it would for say a Catholic. Many denominations don’t see value in cutting off a sinner from direct access to Christ when they’re likely to need Christ more than ever.

1 Cor. 5
It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans; for a man is living with his father’s wife. 2*And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.

3For though absent in body I am present in spirit, and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment4*in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing. When you are assembled, and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus,5you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

6*Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?7Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed.8Let us, therefore, celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

Sexual Immorality Must Be Judged

9I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with immoral men10not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world.11But rather I wrotef]" to you not to associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immoralityor greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber—not even to eat with such a one.12For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?13*God judges those outside. “Drive out the wicked person from among you.”

 

[Wannano]

Well, what would happen and what the Church Teaches may not be the same.

The Church Teaches that the Priest has the duty to refuse Communion to that hypothetical person. Hopefully that Priest would speak with them privately and council them lovingly, right?

Yes, I agree. The Priest is in a very awkward position to close communion to someone standing right in front of him. So too any minister! YIKES, what if after counseling the person whether in my church or yours, they refuse to refrain and come forward again?

 

[Padres1969]

1 Cor. 5
It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans; for a man is living with his father’s wife. 2*And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.

3For though absent in body I am present in spirit, and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment4*in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing. When you are assembled, and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus,5you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

6*Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?7Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed.8Let us, therefore, celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

Sexual Immorality Must Be Judged

9I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with immoral men10not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world.11But rather I wrotef]" to you not to associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immoralityor greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber—not even to eat with such a one.12For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?13*God judges those outside. “Drive out the wicked person from among you.”

Matthew 9:10-12 (and of course Mark and Luke have similar passages). Not to get into the likely tangential issues of what constitutes the above sins from Paul’s letter…

10 And as he sat at dinner[a] in the house, many tax collectors and sinners came and were sitting** with him and his disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” 12 But when he heard this, he said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick."**

 

[rcwitness]

Matthew 9:10-12 (and of course Mark and Luke have similar passages).

10 And as he sat at dinner[a] in the house, many tax collectors and sinners came and were sitting** with him and his disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” 12 But when he heard this, he said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.**they were not in the Church and doing their deeds against the faith. This was NOT communion

 

[Padres1969]

they were not in the Church and doing their deeds against the faith. This was NOT communion

Neither was what we call communion today what Paul was necessarily referring to either when speaking to the early Corinthian Christians. On this we’ll have to simply agree to disagree. I mean yes this was not what we call communion today, and it clearly didn’t have the sacrificial aspect that Catholics emphasize, but it was a meal shared with the son of God very much like the Eucharist.

 

[rcwitness]

Neither was what we call communion today what Paul was necessarily referring to either when speaking to the early Corinthian Christians. On this we’ll have to simply agree to disagree.

Are you saying that the man was still invited to Commune?

 

[Padres1969]

Are you saying that the man was still invited to Commune?

The man in 1 Corinthians who is wicked?

 

[rcwitness]

The man in 1 Corinthians who is wicked?

Yes, him.

 

[rcwitness]

And Priests and Bishops who abused kids and tried to cover it up should be excommunicated too!

 

[SyroMalankara]

Let’s take this a step further. Would non Catholics that feel Catholics go overboard allow non Catholics to offer the sermon? Could a non Catholic decide he or she does the Anglican BCP better and therefore volunteer himself to vest and just do it? Say I think I play guitar better than the worship leader at the local nondenominational, am I welcomed to pick it up and strum on? If not why?

 

[Padres1969]

Let’s take this a step further. Would non Catholics that feel Catholics go overboard allow non Catholics to offer the sermon? Could a non Catholic decide he or she does the Anglican BCP better and therefore volunteer himself to vest and just do it?** Say I think I play guitar better than the worship leader at the local nondenominational, am I welcomed to pick it up and strum on? **If not why?

Might not be able to just do so out of the blue, but if you ask they might consider having you strum on as part of a service at a non-denominational.

 

[JonNC]

Let’s take this a step further. Would non Catholics that feel Catholics go overboard allow non Catholics to offer the sermon? Could a non Catholic decide he or she does the Anglican BCP better and therefore volunteer himself to vest and just do it? Say I think I play guitar better than the worship leader at the local nondenominational, am I welcomed to pick it up and strum on? If not why?

If Lutherans follow Augsburg Confession article XIV, the answer is no.

Article XIV: Of Ecclesiastical Order.

Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called.

Regularly called includes ordained

Jon

 

[Padres1969]

Yes, him.

It depends. Is he truly wicked, or is he redeemable?

I mean I look at it this way. Paul is imploring the Corinthians to drive out the wicked from their midst. And yet even the RCC doesn’t actually follow that to the letter. Yes you could be excommunicated, which of course is denial of the Eucharist. But even the excommunicated are not driven from the church. I think it’s clear Paul was trying to make an extreme point, but fact is it’s a point that’s been ameliorated over time even in the Catholic tradition when you consider how rarely excommunication is even applied, nevermind the idea of driving out the wicked in any official way.

 

[rcwitness]

It depends. Is he truly wicked, or is he redeemable?

I mean I look at it this way. Paul is imploring the Corinthians to drive out the wicked from their midst. And yet even the RCC doesn’t actually follow that to the letter. Yes you could be excommunicated, which of course is denial of the Eucharist. But even the excommunicated are not driven from the church. I think it’s clear Paul was trying to make an extreme point, but fact is it’s a point that’s been ameliorated over time even in the Catholic tradition when you consider how rarely excommunication is even applied, nevermind the idea of driving out the wicked in any official way.

I agree it was probably not only excommunication. It’s very extreme, and posibly even capital punishment, idk.

But it is definitely encouraging refusal to commune with those who are in the brotherhood (church) who have been confronted about sin, yet persist.

Now, I want to get back to the main point of “open communion”. The reason I brought up legitimate excommunication is because there are sins that Christians embrace and think they are ok, but we know they are not. It is logical to say that most all communions are NOT absolutely open (Communion) to anyone just because they are Baptized. If they are opposed to the firm foundational beliefs about what is gravely wrong doctrine and lifestyles, then they will excommunicated the person.
And I say this as a commendment, from my perspective. Otherwise you would not stand against wickedness for the souls of your brethren, and selves.

Now, communion witheld until full initiation into the Church is on different grounds but is similar in essence. It’s similar because it is the proper initiation into the faith which you are accepting and desiring Communion in. It’s the “Body of Teaching” you assent with faith, that it is Holy and guided by His Holy Spirit which brought you into Baptism.

What is sad, is that there are members who do fall into wickedness, and the Catholic Church is far from immune to that. I don’t think Catholic leadership (in general) has been very strong about intolerance to evil. And it can be a fine line (standing against sin among us and being patiently merciful). We cant use mercy as a pretense to avoid standing against evil! We are blessed when a Parish receives a strong pastor in this regard. And we are also responsible for praying for our leaders. Imagine if all Christians prayed holy prayer for our leaders!

But it is not from faith that one does not desire one unified Communion. And you see that end accomplished by “open Communion”. Yet there are things (if investigated fully) in other churches which you are most likely very opposed to. Some reject Paul as an Apostle! Some condemn celebrating Christmas! Some condemn drinking alcohol, some have strange books they consider Scripture, etc.

The Catholic Church can’t spend the time investigating and maintaining all the beliefs and practices accepted or condoned within all the denominations. She must look to Her Lord and Her own devotions and doctrines. But She acknowledges some denominations as having very close bonds to us! Like the Lutheran Faith and the Orthodox Faith. There is little in the way of division with us and these (and some others). The Lutheran is the only other Communion I ever received. It was once and at the service I became Godfather to my neice. And that is not permissible either! But I didn’t know. And though I wouldn’t have done if I knew, I have no regrets. I would rather commit to trying to work out our differences than just accept them as ok. On our part (Catholic), I believe we need to be humble and loving to express and show that we have a genuine faith behind our doctrines.