Why don't Catholics have Open Communion?

[choy]

The Apostles were all Catholic, though. There weren’t any Protestants, back then.

Judas was

 

[jmcrae]

Judas was

Nah - just schismatic.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

The Apostles were all Catholic, though. There weren’t any Protestants, back then.

I think they were Orthodox. After all at that point, there was no Bishop of Rome. Speaking of the Bishop of Rome, I just wanted to put out there that John XXIII is commemorated today on the ELCA Liturgical Calendar.

 

[jmcrae]

I think they were Orthodox. After all at that point, there was no Bishop of Rome.

There was the office of Peter, however - and no one had gone into schism against him, yet.

Speaking of the Bishop of Rome, I just wanted to put out there that John XXIII is commemorated today on the ELCA Liturgical Calendar.

That’s nice. Very confusing - but nice.

 

[1beleevr]

Judas was

I don’t think any of them were anything until after Pentecost, then they were Christians, or “believers!” Kind of sad to hear someone call judas a Protestant, instead of a catholic!

 

[ajatkinson]

Communing someone who does not agree with us is saying that there is a visible unity that simply doesn’t exist.

Why does the unity not exist, and why is it so pronounced? I believe it exists due to differing convictions on doctrine, but that it is pronounced so due to rigorous ultimatums and restrictions to those from other denominations. To say that sharing communion with non-Catholics would show a unity which doesn’t exist is both true AND false. For one, churches should warn those who aren’t of the same denomination the dangers of taking communion without the right motives and considerations BUT, they should also invite those who after prayerful consideration are of the same mindset to join them in the Eucharist. After all, the point of closed communion is simply to prevent people of other mindsets on the Eucharist from participating in Our Lord’s table correct? So I feel the perspicacious move would be to warn people about the sacred nature of Holy Communion, and the dangers of taking it without prayerful consideration. However, if the issue is really a facade and is not actually about not believing the same as the RCC, but is actually designed to prevent non-members of the RCC from participating, I doubt it will ever change. Who knows what the real motive is? This is not just a Roman Catholic issue, I think it should apply to all denominations. The false part of the statement of “a unity that doesn’t exist” is that we are all united through Christ as members of his body (the Christian church). The true part of the statement is that there is a lack of unity among various groups of believers, but I ask you to ponder if such regulations such as closed communion do not continue to propagate and increase such dissonance. There in lies the issue. We should strive to invite people (who believe in the True Presence), through prayerful consideration, to participate in all forms of worship of the Lord. On transubstantiation, is it so important an issue to restrict believers who don’t recognize transubstantiation from receiving the Body and Blood of Christ? I would not want to be the one who stands before God admitting I withheld the Lord’s Supper from true Christians.

This issue leads into the whole RCIA issue. If you feel a closed communion is necessary, then at least create a more efficient method of coming into fellowship with the RCC on a one-on-one basis for people who believe the Church’s teachings and want to come into fellowship with the RC Church? I know RCIA was not an attribute of the early church, and has only been fostered within the last few decades. I myself have grown up in church, my dad is a protestant minister, and I know more about the Catholic Church and their beliefs than some of my RC friends. I feel that if you want to have closed communion, then there should be an easier way to come into fellowship with the church (i.e. shorter class terms for seasoned believers, private meetings with the priest to profess your faith, or another method.) I don’t feel coming into the body of Christ was ever intended to be like a college course on anthropology. I myself could see myself as joining the RCC, but after studying numerous denominations, I have come to the realization that such requests of people such as RCIA for months on end and closed communion comes across as pretentious.

I am praying for direction in choosing the right church, and while there are many things I love about Catholicism (order of worship, reverence of the Eucharist, etc) I have a few woes (RCIA, closed communion, hyper-mariology, etc). By hyer-mariology, I refer to this issue: I believe in intercessory prayer and even asking the Saints to pray on our behalf, but I’ve watched EWTN and seen people attribute changes in their lives specifically to Mary which I believe is false. Even the previous Pope claimed “It was a motherly hand that guided the bullet’s path” after his assassination attempt. Things like this concern me. Many 3rd world Catholic churches are even more drawn into these beliefs with their statues of Mary that cry tears of blood, altars with Marian statues instead of Christ, etc.

 

[dzheremi]

Ajatkinson: You will find that all the apostolic churches have closed communion, some version of Marian dogma, etc. If you have problems with these things that you cannot surmount, you have problems with apostolic Christianity and likely will not find a home in it.

 

[1beleevr]

Judas was

And how do you know this with any certainty? Prior to Pentecost, was anyone, anything? Remember that before the betrayal, Judas was a disciple, as were the other 11! He may not have been predestined to do what he did, but someone was going to walk into that role; it just happened to be him. God’s plan worked to perfection, thank You, Lord! I think you’re just calling him Protestant, because in your narrow scope, he wasn’t “catholic.” Nobody was!

 

[Carlan]

For Catholics the Sacraments are Gods activity in our midst.
So the sanctifying grace we receive, through all the Sacraments, prepares us for what is needed for us to receive worthily the Body, Blood ,Soul and Divinity of Christ Jesus in the Holy Eucharist .The very center of our Christian worship.
Our separated Brethern are not in that same union of activity and therefore do not accept the full truth of revelation and would be unable to receive worthily.
We pray in the Church daily for Christ’s desire, complete unity, Peace , Carlan

 

[jmcrae]

Why does the unity not exist, and why is it so pronounced? I believe it exists due to differing convictions on doctrine, but that it is pronounced so due to rigorous ultimatums and restrictions to those from other denominations. To say that sharing communion with non-Catholics would show a unity which doesn’t exist is both true AND false. For one, churches should warn those who aren’t of the same denomination the dangers of taking communion without the right motives and considerations BUT, *they should also invite those who after prayerful consideration are of the same mindset to join them in the Eucharist. After all, the point of closed communion is simply to prevent people of other mindsets on the Eucharist from participating in Our Lord’s table correct? *

Incorrect.

When the Protestants rejected the authority of the Catholic Church in order that they need not obey the Pope or their Bishops any longer, they also rejected the authority that allows the priests of the Catholic Church to give them the Sacraments.

This means that no Catholic priest or Bishop or Pope, nor anyone delegated by them, has the authority to give Holy Communion to anyone who is not a Catholic. Because they do not have the authority to do this, they may not do it. It’s not a matter of “letting” someone do anything - because the early Protestants rejected the authority of the Church, the Church simply no longer has any authority over these people, including the authority to give them any of the seven Sacraments, including Holy Communion.

The only way to give a Catholic priest the authority to give you Holy Communion is to return to full and visible membership in the Catholic Church, such that it has complete authority over you, once again - not only to give you Holy Communion, but also to require you to follow its laws and precepts, and to believe its teachings - because the authority of the Church is a seamless garment - you can’t pick and choose which parts you will submit to, and which parts you will continue to reject. It is an “all or nothing” situation.

So I feel the perspicacious move would be to warn people about the sacred nature of Holy Communion, and the dangers of taking it without prayerful consideration. However, if the issue is really a facade and is not actually about not believing the same as the RCC, but is actually designed to prevent non-members of the RCC from participating, I doubt it will ever change.

 

[Esdra]

Ajatkinson: You will find that all the apostolic churches have closed communion, some version of Marian dogma, etc. If you have problems with these things that you cannot surmount, you have problems with apostolic Christianity and likely will not find a home in it.

Uhm, I’ve always thought that all churches except the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches have open communion. (By the way: I’ve been in a Serbian Orthodox mass lately, and they refused me to give the chalice, because I am Catholic, but not Orthodox! )

What do you understand under apostolic Churches? Which Churches would you classify as such?

Esdra

 

[dzheremi]

The apostolic communions fall into a few different categories:

- The Catholic (Rome-affiliated) Churches: The Roman Catholic Church, the Maronite Church, the Chaldean Church (descendant from the ACoE; see below), and the various other Eastern Catholic churches with corresponding Orthodox equivalents (the Syriac Catholic Church. the Armenian Catholic Church, the various Byzantine Catholic churches, etc).
**

• The Eastern Orthodox Churches:** The Russian, Greek, and other Orthodox Churches that adhere to the Christological formula of the Council of Chalcedon, and their foreign dependencies (the OCA, for instance).

**- The Oriental Orthodox Churches: **The Coptic, Ethiopian, Armenian, Syriac, and other Orthodox Churches who dissented from the proclamations of the Council of Chalcedon, and their foreign dependencies (the British Orthodox [Coptic] Church, for instance).

- The Assyrian Church of the East: Not in communion with any of the above, because they dissented from the decrees of the Council of Ephesus (431), which the above accept.

None of these groups are in communion with those outside of their own communion, and inter-communion is not allowed. There are some very limited circumstances in which the ban may be relaxed, but the vast majority of people in the world will never encounter them. Impending death where clergy of your own church are absolutely unavailable and/or extended stay in a land without a church of your own communion are pretty much the only valid reasons, but are very hard to find in the modern world and anyway are not an absolute guarantee that the rule will actually be relaxed.

 

[Esdra]

The apostolic communions fall into a few different categories:

- The Catholic (Rome-affiliated) Churches: The Roman Catholic Church, the Maronite Church, the Chaldean Church (descendant from the ACoE; see below), and the various other Eastern Catholic churches with corresponding Orthodox equivalents (the Syriac Catholic Church. the Armenian Catholic Church, the various Byzantine Catholic churches, etc).
**

• The Eastern Orthodox Churches:** The Russian, Greek, and other Orthodox Churches that adhere to the Christological formula of the Council of Chalcedon, and their foreign dependencies (the OCA, for instance).

**- The Oriental Orthodox Churches: **The Coptic, Ethiopian, Armenian, Syriac, and other Orthodox Churches who dissented from the proclamations of the Council of Chalcedon, and their foreign dependencies (the British Orthodox [Coptic] Church, for instance).

- The Assyrian Church of the East: Not in communion with any of the above, because they dissented from the decrees of the Council of Ephesus (431), earlier than the later schism that was to occur in the aftermath of Chalcedon.

None of these groups are in communion with those outside of their own communion, and inter-communion is not allowed. There are some very limited circumstances in which the ban may be relaxed, but the vast majority of people in the world will never encounter them. Impending death where clergy of your own church are absolutely unavailable and/or extended stay in a land without a church of your own communion are pretty much the only valid reasons, but are very hard to find in the modern world and anyway are not an absolute guarantee that the rule will actually be relaxed.

Hi

yes, this is about what I thought. That you mention the “old Churches”.
But actually you forgot mentioning some: i.e. the so called “Saint Thomas Christians”

I didn’t know that alle of the above have closed communion.

But what you also forgot to mention is that the “new Catholic religions” DO have open communion, like the Anglican Church, the Episcopolean Church, the Old Catholic Church as well as the PNCC. And if I forgot to mention a “new Catholic Church” , feel free to correct me! Because I think there are even more…

So our dear friend Ajatkinson is very likely to find “a home”. As all of the above are (in various degrees) quite “Catholic” (although not all of them have Apostolic Succesion; but for me that wouldn’t be a problem at all).

Even the thing with the Marian dogma is not in that extant “a problem” if you don’t believe it in the “New Catholic Churches” (I have imagined that name, isn’t it nice? )

dzheremi:

Ajatkinson: You will find that all the apostolic churches have closed communion, some version of Marian dogma, etc. If you have problems with these things that you cannot surmount, you have problems with apostolic Christianity and likely will not find a home in it.

Esdra

 

[dzheremi]

Hi

yes, this is about what I thought. That you mention the “old Churches”.
But actually you forgot mentioning some: i.e. the so called “Saint Thomas Christians”

I did not forget about the Syro-Malabar Christians. They are included in the above communions, with the exception of the “Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church”, which is Protestant (in communion with the Anglican Church) and hence outside of the bounds of this discussion. From the link you provided:

At present they are divided into four major groups Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, Syro-Malankara Catholic Church, Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church.

The Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankara Catholic churches are part of the Catholic communion, so they are in communion with Rome. The Malankara Orthodox Church is Oriental, so they are part of the Oriental Orthodox communion.

But what you also forgot to mention is that the “new Catholic religions” DO have open communion, like the Anglican Church, the Episcopolean Church, the Old Catholic Church as well as the PNCC. And if I forgot to mention a “new Catholic Church” , feel free to correct me! Because I think there are even more…

These groups are not relevant to the discussion.

So our dear friend Ajatkinson is very likely to find “a home”. As all of the above are (in various degrees) quite “Catholic” (although not all of them have Apostolic Succesion; but for me that wouldn’t be a problem at all).

Regardless of whether or not it is a problem for you personally, it is indeed a major problem from a ecclesiastical/historical point of view that they do not have apostolic succession, as that is one of the meanings of “apostolic church”: The Egyptian Church at Alexandria was founded by St. Mark, the Russian Church by St. Andrew (brother of St. Peter), the Church in India by St. Thomas, etc. None of these apostolic churches were founded by some guy or group of people wishing to break off from an already established apostolic communion, as is the case with the groups you have mentioned.

Even the thing with the Marian dogma is not in that extant “a problem” if you don’t believe it in the “New Catholic Churches” (I have imagined that name, isn’t it nice? )

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. All apostolic churches have some form of Marian dogma. Even the Assyrian Church of the East, which rejects the use of the term “Theotokos” (God-bearer) for St. Mary has, by that rejection, established a dogma which you must affirm if you want to be a member of that church and hence receive communion in it (the ACoE may have Marian beliefs, too; I really don’t know). There really is no way to get around having some set of defined, stable, and exclusive beliefs if you are at all interested in actually joining an established communion.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Catholics do have an open Communion

We’re open to everyone coming into communion with us (ie, becoming Catholic)

 

[1beleevr]

Catholics do have an open Communion

We’re open to everyone coming into communion with us (ie, becoming Catholic)

So, it IS a closed Communion! Therin lies the problem! Too many do not want to take the plunge into the pool of catholicism, gambling that their Communion is the only right one!

 

[Esdra]

Catholics do have an open Communion

We’re open to everyone coming into communion with us (ie, becoming Catholic)

Yes, I know.

But all other, let’s call them protestant, Churches do have open communion.
[Although the Anglican Church and the others mentioned above, are not “typical” protestants for me. They are more “Catholic without a pope” )

At the moment I am studying the Heidelberg Catechism and the Helvetic Confession (by Heinrich Bullinger), as I really like their theology - it is very similar to the belief of Baptists. And I am at the moment attending a Baptist Church on a regular Basis.

Here a quote concerning Communion:
"Question 81. For whom is the Lord’s supper instituted?

Answer: For those who are truly sorrowful for their sins, and yet trust that these are forgiven them for the sake of Christ; and that their remaining infirmities are covered by his passion and death; and who also earnestly desire to have their faith more and more strengthened, and their lives more holy; but hypocrites, and such as turn not to God with sincere hearts, eat and drink judgment to themselves. " (301 redirect”]Heidelberg Catechism, Question 81)

Actually, I was looking for something else, but I can’t find it at the moment.

If I do so, I’ll post it here.

Esdra

 

[Esdra]

I did not forget about the Syro-Malabar Christians. They are included in the above communions, with the exception of the “Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church”, which is Protestant (in communion with the Anglican Church) and hence outside of the bounds of this discussion. From the link you provided:

The Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankara Catholic churches are part of the Catholic communion, so they are in communion with Rome. The Malankara Orthodox Church is Oriental, so they are part of the Oriental Orthodox communion.

Right, sorry. I am less informed here. Thank you for your list btw. That was really interesting!

These groups are not relevant to the discussion.

Of course they are in regard to your post to Ajatkinson!

Ajatkinson: You will find that all the apostolic churches have closed communion, some version of Marian dogma, etc. If you have problems with these things that you cannot surmount, you have problems with apostolic Christianity and likely will not find a home in it.

So he will! If the closed communions is his only problem! Namely, in the Churches I called so nicely “New Catholic Churches”.

Regardless of whether or not it is a problem for you personally, it is indeed a major problem from a ecclesiastical/historical point of view that they do not have apostolic succession, as that is one of the meanings of “apostolic church”: The Egyptian Church at Alexandria was founded by St. Mark, the Russian Church by St. Andrew (brother of St. Peter), the Church in India by St. Thomas, etc. None of these apostolic churches were founded by some guy or group of people wishing to break off from an already established apostolic communion, as is the case with the groups you have mentioned.

Well, for me the Churches I mentioned ARE apostolic. The PNCC is most definetely, and the others too. For me this’d be enought, of apostolic succession’d be important for me. (But as I am in a Baptist Church at the moment, I don’t care anyway! )

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. All apostolic churches have some form of Marian dogma. Even the Assyrian Church of the East, which rejects the use of the term “Theotokos” (God-bearer) for St. Mary has, by that rejection, established a dogma which you must affirm if you want to be a member of that church and hence receive communion in it (the ACoE may have Marian beliefs, too; I really don’t know). There really is no way to get around having some set of defined, stable, and exclusive beliefs if you are at all interested in actually joining an established communion.

Oh, now I see your point. Yes, even the non-Catholics and non-Orthodox have a “Mary dogma” or other “dogmas”. But actually I was a little confused by the term dogma you used, as for me dogma is something Catholic.
Maybe set of belief instead?

Esdra

 

[jmcrae]

So, it IS a closed Communion! Therin lies the problem! Too many do not want to take the plunge into the pool of catholicism, gambling that their Communion is the only right one!

Either it is the Church established by Jesus Christ, in which case everyone on earth should become a member of it, or it is not - in which case, we are all still looking, and our present churches, both Catholic and Protestant, are just temporary holding places, until we find that which Jesus Christ established, which will be our permanent home.

If you do not believe that the Catholic Church is that which Christ established and the Apostles shepherded, then you should not join it - even if it were to engage in the practice of open communion, or anything else that you happen to like.

 

[ConstantineTG]

So, it IS a closed Communion! Therin lies the problem! Too many do not want to take the plunge into the pool of catholicism, gambling that their Communion is the only right one!

Isn’t “open communion” any oxymoron?