Non-Catholic Exclusion of the Eucharist

[Padres1969]

Thanks again Padres. So, the “evil life” has to be publicly known (or to the whole congregation)? Or what if only the Pastor knows? Can it be a false belief too? Or a lack of belief in an important Teaching in the faith?
Well, to be fair, I think it’s rare in the Catholic Parishes too. But not practicing an “open communion” might be considered related. But certainly not due to individuals and a personal sin they are unrepentive about.

I think it’s a duty of a pastor, as someone who watches over the souls of his flock, to censure their Communion if they are “eating and drinking” condemnation by Communing while accepting and/or practicing a sinful thing.

I don’t think every Catholic priest is “saintly” in how they approach and guide someone they find doing such. But Communion is the Sacrament of fellowship and brotherhood with one another and the Lord. So who we Community with matters. Not that the laity has the same responsibility, though we have a share.

Public as in the priest denying the Eucharist knows. Obviously the more public the more likely the priest would be so aware of living a “notoriously evil life.” As I understand it what would constitute that “notoriously evil life” is a bit vague. I mean I can see situations where a belief (or lack of) might be so incompatible with Christian thought that it could qualify. But again it seems this is up to the priest and if they’re so aware. And even then they’re obligated as I understand it to report their denial within 14 days to their bishop so as to prevent any abuse.

But again, given the position of open communion, it seems that the rarity with which it is applied would remain even less so than in the RCC. I’d say as a personal observation that the hope that Christ’s transformative power would positively impact someone living an “evil life,” whatever that may be, outweighs the notion of denying someone. Not for the least of reasons that priest so often are not aware of a specific evil or evils a person may be living (since people aren’t usually keen to broadcast such things).

 

[Padres1969]

Padres1969;13768756:

Well considering the ECUSA, and most Anglican churches for that matter, have varying beliefs about the Eucharist and what it is, I doubt anyone would be withheld Eucharist for a member’s particular belief on it. Remember, Anglicans generally speaking, profess the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but what form that presence takes is subject to varied belief. Some believe as Catholics do in Transubstantiation, some in Consubstantiation, some in Lutheran like Sacramental Union, some that it is simply a Mystery of Faith and the particulars aren’t important, some profess a Calvinist view of the Eucharist. And though I’ve yet to meet them, I’m sure there are some Anglicans that reject the Real Presence for a more memorialist view (not unlike how about 60% of Catholics take the memorialist view). So to excommunicate, or even deny Eucharist, for holding a varying belief would seem to be incompatible.

I find this approach very interesting. In speaking with Catholic friends and family, I’ve found few knew, or if they did, follow very strictly confession of mortal sins (missing Mass) before receiving. I rarely see anyone “sitting out” (other than my non Catholic husband). That leads me to think that it really is between them and God. If by receiving it brings them closer to Christ, strengthens them, isn’t that the goal? Isn’t that the act of love? If the church was serious about protecting them from themselves by receiving when they shouldn’t, shouldn’t the priest announce the guidelines at each Mass?

Well I don’t think the RCC isn’t serious about it. In the Catholic view I think individuals are presumed to be catechized enough that the priest doesn’t have to stop every mass and remind them of a basic tenant of the Roman Catholic faith, that they need to have a soul clean of mortal sins to receive. And of course they accomplish that by Catholic teaching by way of having received Reconciliation. Clearly modern day that is no longer the case in the RCC since so many Catholics receive with Mortal sins they’re aware of be it because they don’t know their sin is Mortal, they don’t believe in the Real Presence, they don’t accept that they can’t receive with mortal sin (for example by the reasons you pose above), or any number of other reasons.

But I agree with your basic points being outside the RCC in that it really is between them and God. In part it’s why I accept the Anglican notion of confession of sin as well since the general confession and absolution as part of the liturgy is generally between you and God directly prior to receiving communion. It’s the part of our service that’s always the most reverent other than receiving communion itself. But again, that’s not really an option for the RCC which generally mandates individual one on one confession.

 

[rcwitness]

Public as in the priest denying the Eucharist knows. Obviously the more public the more likely the priest would be so aware of living a “notoriously evil life.” As I understand it what would constitute that “notoriously evil life” is a bit vague. I mean I can see situations where a belief (or lack of) might be so incompatible with Christian thought that it could qualify. But again it seems this is up to the priest and if they’re so aware. And even then they’re obligated as I understand it to report their denial within 14 days to their bishop so as to prevent any abuse.

But again, given the position of open communion, it seems that the rarity with which it is applied would remain even less so than in the RCC. I’d say as a personal observation that the hope that Christ’s transformative power would positively impact someone living an “evil life,” whatever that may be, outweighs the notion of denying someone. Not for the least of reasons that priest so often are not aware of a specific evil or evils a person may be living (since people aren’t usually keen to broadcast such things).

I think the Catholic procedure is to take it before the Bishop as well.

I think we have cases of support of excommunication in Scripture. Jesus seems to instruct the Church to do so to the “brother” who does not accept the testimony of “the Church”.

“let him be to you as a Gentile and tax collector”

And Paul expresses the necessity to judge those who, within the Church, embrace sin. He uses some examples. But urges not to eat and drink with them. And to “deliver them over to Satan” so that they would hopefully be convicted, rather than shamelessly Communing with the faithful and corrupting others.

A similar concept can be applied to those who are Baptized, yet do not grow in the grace of their Baptism through the corporal Rite of Confirmation and Reconciliation.

“Some sins are evident, while others appear later”

Refraining from Confirmation is evident. But I also am not opposed to what you see as having hope someone flirting in impurity will be guided through Eucharistic devotion to overcome.

We would see this as venal sins, and if we have a devotion to Communion, and we have serious sin on our conscience, we would first reconcile and then approach the altar.

 

[Padres1969]

I think the Catholic procedure is to take it before the Bishop as well.

I think we have cases of support of excommunication in Scripture. Jesus seems to instruct the Church to do so to the “brother” who does not accept the testimony of “the Church”.

“let him be to you as a Gentile and tax collector”

And Paul expresses the necessity to judge those who, within the Church, embrace sin. He uses some examples. But urges not to eat and drink with them. And to “deliver them over to Satan” so that they would hopefully be convicted, rather than shamelessly Communing with the faithful and corrupting others.

A similar concept can be applied to those who are Baptized, yet do not grow in the grace of their Baptism through the corporal Rite of Confirmation and Reconciliation.

“Some sins are evident, while others appear later”

Refraining from Confirmation is evident. But I also am not opposed to what you see as having hope someone flirting in impurity will be guided through Eucharistic devotion to overcome.
**
We would see this as venal sins, and if we have a devotion to Communion, and we have serious sin on our conscience, we would first reconcile and then approach the altar.**

I think that’s the one place where the difference in Reconciliation theology has a big impact on the Eucharistic theology. The hope in the Anglican churches generally being that one with what the RCC would call a mortal sin, would either confess privately as part of the liturgy’s general confession and absolution, or if so inclined could also seek out private confession, but of course the latter not required as all may, none must, some should.

 

[rcwitness]

I think that’s the one place where the difference in Reconciliation theology has a big impact on the Eucharistic theology. The hope in the Anglican churches generally being that one with what the RCC would call a mortal sin, would either confess privately as part of the liturgy’s general confession and absolution, or if so inclined could also seek out private confession, but of course the latter not required as all may, none must, some should.

I see. We rely on the Tradition that the Apostles were given a Sacrament when He breathed on them and said:

“Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.”*And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.*If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

And examples of post Baptized believers falling into sin were addressed by the Church and elders. And Paul says, who’s sin you forgive, I also forgive in the person of Christ.

But, again. I’m not asserting that the Church withold Communion to non Catholic Christians because she has judged them to be in sin. This would take a personal relationship to be able to do. It’s a lack of devoting to Her Communion in Jesus exclusively that one is approaching Him unworthily.

Those who keep His commandments are Her offspring.

It’s about being opposed to a communion in various beliefs (which even contradict one another!). This is similar to having more than one lover. Or dividing Christ. And that’s why I don’t agree that the early Church condoned various versions of Jesus. Though some, which were not contradictory to each other, may well have been embraced. There is a truth to the way each of us, as members, understands Him. But they can’t be opposed to each other.

It’s the Leadership who is able to discern with binding authority, which views and doctrines are acceptable and which arent.

At the same time, we are individually guided by His Spirit to know Him. So we can know Him, and by knowing Him are made one with all who know Him.

 

[rcwitness]

Here is a concluding thought:

The phrase “open communion” is interesting. Depending on how one defines it, it can seem like an oxymoron. Here is the definition of Communion from Webster’s:

**Communion : a Christian ceremony in which bread is eaten and wine is drunk as a way of showing devotion to Jesus Christ

: a close relationship with someone or something

: a group of Christians who have the same beliefs

: a body of Christians having a common faith and discipline**

… so “open Communion” is doing what? Wouldn’t it be Communion with others who may NOT have a common faith/belief/discipline/relationship?

Is the Catholic Communion “open”? Not in this sense. It is NOT open to contradicting (or oppositional) doctrine/discipline/belief. But it is open as an invitation to all who do desire to have one mind/judgment/faith/Baptism/leadership/ etc.

 

[TC3033]

Here is a concluding thought:

The phrase “open communion” is interesting. Depending on how one defines it, it can seem like an oxymoron. Here is the definition of Communion from Webster’s:

**Communion : a Christian ceremony in which bread is eaten and wine is drunk as a way of showing devotion to Jesus Christ

: a close relationship with someone or something

: a group of Christians who have the same beliefs

: a body of Christians having acommon faith and discipline**

… so “open Communion” is doing what? Wouldn’t it be Communion with others who may NOT have a common faith/belief/discipline/relationship?
Is the Catholic Communion “open”? Not in this sense. It is NOT open to contradicting doctrine/discipline/discipline/belief. But it is open as an invitation to all who do desire to have one mind/judgment/faith/Baptism/leadership/ etc.

It could be, but to us whom practice open communion we are communing at the Lord’s table as God’s children. That is basically our belief. If someone doesn’t believe we’re all God’s children but communes anyway, that’s up to them.

I guess we’ll have to disagree that the Catholic Communion is an open invitation. You’re openly invited to convert to Catholicism, once that’s done, you’re welcome to communion. For the rest of the non-Catholics in the crowd, close to being full Christians but not quite </touch of sarcasm font>

 

[rcwitness]

It could be, but to us whom practice open communion we are communing at the Lord’s table as God’s children. That is basically our belief. If someone doesn’t believe we’re all God’s children but communes anyway, that’s up to them.

I guess we’ll have to disagree that the Catholic Communion is an open invitation. You’re openly invited to convert to Catholicism, once that’s done, you’re welcome to communion. For the rest of the non-Catholics in the crowd, make room so the full Christians can come up for communion. </touch of sarcasm font because that’s how some of us see/experienced how Catholics can see us>.

Ok. I think you would have to conclude that your definition of Communion accepts various, and opposing, beliefs about Holy Orders, Laying on of Hands, Baptism, divorce/remarriage, abortion, contraception, ordination of women, Canon of Scripture, etc.

 

[TC3033]

Ok. I think you would have to conclude that your definition of Communion accepts various, and opposing, beliefs about Holy Orders, Laying on of Hands, Baptism, divorce/remarriage, abortion, contraception, ordination of women, Canon of Scripture, etc.

When it comes down to brass tax, yep “my” definition (and if anyone remembers the OP, probably her boyfriend too) of “Open” communion is that it is indeed open to all of His children. We have a “should” in our belief. You “should” be baptized, but that’s not going to stop us.

 

[rcwitness]

When it comes down to brass tax, yep “my” definition (and if anyone remembers the OP, probably her boyfriend too) of “Open” communion is that it is indeed open to all of His children. We have a “should” in our belief. You “should” be baptized, but that’s not going to stop us.

And if a married couple has abortion without repenting it as a sin but says, “Jesus died for me” the Church has no right to refuse them at the Table?

Or what about a group who says, “St. Paul is a false Apostle, but Jesus is Lord. We reject all of his books in the Bible.” They have a right to Commune and be called a Christian brother?

I could go on with many examples. The point is, that communion begins to mean less and less. It upholds nothing. When the Church decides a matter in the faith, it can be taken or thrown out.

 

[Wannano]

And if a married couple has abortion without repenting it as a sin but says, “Jesus died for me” the Church has no right to refuse them at the Table?

Or what about a group who says, “St. Paul is a false Apostle, but Jesus is Lord. We reject all of his books in the Bible.” They have a right to Commune and be called a Christian brother?

I could go on with many examples. The point is, that communion begins to mean less and less. It upholds nothing. When the Church decides a matter in the faith, it can be taken or thrown out.

I don’t want to interrupt, however I want to point out that in my church we have open communion but the invitation to commune is prefaced by the qualification that by partaking you are giving witness to the fact that you have a vibrant personal relationship with Jesus and that you are in good standing with your church and at peace with all mankind. The whole congregation is asked to silently contemplate their condition regarding above.

 

[rcwitness]

I don’t want to interrupt, however I want to point out that in my church we have open communion but the invitation to commune is prefaced by the qualification that by partaking you are giving witness to the fact that you have a vibrant personal relationship with Jesus and that you are in good standing with your church and at peace with all mankind. The whole congregation is asked to silently contemplate their condition regarding above.

No prob. What if someone is NOT in “good standing” with your church? What if they continue to Commune, while doing what the congregation does not accept? Would your church “close Communion” to them?

 

[Memaw]

To me it looks like some authority convened and consulted councils; decided whose (name removed by moderator)ut should be sought (and whose (name removed by moderator)ut excluded); decided which councils and canons would not be accepted; and took the step of authorizing, or “canonizing” all or much of the (name removed by moderator)ut of the councils they happened to endorse. Hence our (tiny!) almost universal 27 book canon today, with slight variations you noted.

I believe there were other councils, by the gnostics and other Christians, which produced canons that the authority in the above paragraph did not accept. I wonder if the gnostics, and other Christians, actually may have been the majority view in terms of scholars, councils, communities, and choice of NT books.

The Catholic Christian Church that Jesus Christ founded was guided by the Holy Spirit then as she is today. Jesus promised that. She is still ONE, HOLY CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC. Has Apostolic Succession, Valid Priesthood and all Seven Sacraments. And She always will. Those who do not understand the teachings of the Catholic Church from the “outside” shouldn’t ridicule Her for doing exactly as Jesus taught. God Bless, Memaw

 

[TC3033]

And if a married couple has abortion without repenting it as a sin but says, “Jesus died for me” the Church has no right to refuse them at the Table?

Or what about a group who says, “St. Paul is a false Apostle, but Jesus is Lord. We reject all of his books in the Bible.” They have a right to Commune and be called a Christian brother?

I could go on with many examples. The point is, that communion begins to mean less and less. It upholds nothing. When the Church decides a matter in the faith, it can be taken or thrown out.

You can keep going with your examples if you want, that’s fine.

I’m sorry you carry that feeling of “my” communion. Your examples don’t change any of “my” feelings about “my” communion.

I’m not here to demean, belittle, invalidate, argue other’s faith and practices. If that’s what you’re in here for, I’d suggest finding someone else.

 

[rcwitness]

You can keep going with your examples if you want, that’s fine.

I’m sorry you carry that feeling of “my” communion. Your examples don’t change any of “my” feelings about “my” communion.

I’m not here to demean, belittle, invalidate, argue other’s faith and practices. If that’s what you’re in here for, I’d suggest finding someone else.

Ok. I am just digging deeper to understand what you mean by open.

You definitely seem to have an “open Communion” belief. But if there are reasons why a church would deny Communion to individuals, well they can’t really say they are purely “open”, right?

 

[Padres1969]

Here is a concluding thought:

The phrase “open communion” is interesting. Depending on how one defines it, it can seem like an oxymoron. Here is the definition of Communion from Webster’s:

**Communion : a Christian ceremony in which bread is eaten and wine is drunk as a way of showing devotion to Jesus Christ

: a close relationship with someone or something

: a group of Christians who have the same beliefs

: a body of Christians having a common faith and discipline**
**
… so “open Communion” is doing what? Wouldn’t it be Communion with others who may NOT have a common faith/belief/discipline/relationship?**

Is the Catholic Communion “open”? Not in this sense. It is NOT open to contradicting (or oppositional) doctrine/discipline/belief. But it is open as an invitation to all who do desire to have one mind/judgment/faith/Baptism/leadership/ etc.

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.

And yes “open communion” may not be open to EVERYONE in all churches. But that’s not the definition of open communion. Open communion by definition is communion open to individuals who are not member of that Church. Even with restrictions to say, all baptized Christians, it is still by definition an open communion. In opposition to a closed communion such as the RCC has which is only open to members of the RCC.

 

[Padres1969]

The Catholic Christian Church that Jesus Christ founded was guided by the Holy Spirit then as she is today. Jesus promised that. She is still ONE, HOLY CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC. Has Apostolic Succession, Valid Priesthood and all Seven Sacraments. And She always will.** Those who do not understand the teachings of the Catholic Church from the “outside” shouldn’t ridicule Her for doing exactly as Jesus taught. **God Bless, Memaw

Don’t think anyone is doing that.

 

[TC3033]

Ok. I am just digging deeper to understand what you mean by open.

You definitely seem to have an “open Communion” belief. But if there are reasons why a church would deny Communion to individuals, well they can’t really say they are purely “open”, right?

Agreed…but I think that we’re getting into an area much like “what does “is” mean”. I feel as though you’re trying to back me into a corner that because even open communion communities are usually open to all *baptized *Christians that they’re really closed.

 

[TC3033]

Don’t think anyone is doing that.

Agreed, I didn’t see anyone do that either.

 

[Wannano]

No prob. What if someone is NOT in “good standing” with your church? What if they continue to Commune, while doing what the congregation does not accept? Would your church “close Communion” to them?

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?