Why don't Catholics have Open Communion?

[Tantum_ergo]

Hi again Tantum, nice to see you again. Well on this, Christ was clear in the Scripture I referenced. We shouldn’t need an earthly authority to interpret that one. I “get off” on that one because the Church does attempt to keep other Chrisitans from approaching Christ. Otherwise your Lutheran, Methodist, what have you, Christian neighbor wouldn’t be told not to come to Him. God bless and peace.

Christ was clear? Really? We shouldn’t ‘need’ an earthly authority? So what ‘else’ don’t we ‘need’ the Church for?

Matt, you cherry picked Scripture out of context ignoring the fact that Christ gave us a Church as an authority (so HE obviously thought we needed one). Since obviously you and I (both Christians) disagree on what is ‘clear’ in that Scripture, then your claim that Christ was clear (and that your ‘personal interpretation’ was correct) and my claim that the Church’s teachings (also clear and Scriptural, but diametrically opposed to yours) demonstrate that oh yeah, we DO need an authority as I most certainly do not believe that your dissention is somehow ‘clearly the real Christ speaking.’

Again, “The Church” did not make up some stupid ‘rule’ to deny Christ to ‘other Christians.’ Other Christians CHOSE to remove themselves from the ONE Church (please check your Scripture, Christ established ONE Church) and chose not to return. The fact that these other Christians are ‘nice people’ (as in the main they are), the fact that they may believe a close approximation of what we believe, the fact that they consider themselves ‘worthy’. . .doesn’t mean that we defy God’s authority. Because it is GOD’S authority we are concerned with. YOU claim that God 'wants us to give the Eucharist to all" and you based that on your personal ‘interpretation’ of various Scripture. I claim that God gave us (and Scripture supports me) an authority which gives HIS (not ITS, but HIS) authentic teachings, and that authority, through the Holy Spirit, is still giving HIS authentic teachings, and among those teachings is that those who receive communion must do so as HE COMMANDS, lest they 'eat and drink the Body and Blood unworthily. HE commands, the Church simply repeats what HE says.

So once again I deny your claim that the Church ‘denies Christ to Christians’. This is not a man-made meanness; if you claim that the Church ‘denies Christ’ you must also say, Christ denies Christ to Christians. You can’t say one without the other; you can’t say that the Church teaches that one must be obedient to Church Law regarding communion and then say that **GOD teaches that one NEED NOT be obedient, that one should disregard the Church Law. **God and the Church are ONE, they cannot be opposed to one another.

So in claiming that The Church denies Christ to Christians, you are telling me that Christ denies Christ to Christians. I don’t think He does. . .therefore, the Church does not either.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Catholics should NOT have to practice open communion any more so than the Lutherans, etc. Missouri Synod and WELS, I believe, both do not practice open communion either. Communion is not only a divine encounter with God for the believer/communicant, but it is also the ultimate sign of unity in theology, belief, and hope. It is an active sign of unity, of oneness with Christ and each other. To walk up to a Catholic priest (or Eucharistic Minister I should point out as these people are annoyingly taking over Mass these days) with the idea that one can disagree and even be hostile to Catholic teaching while pretending to be in union with the people and Church around him/her is dihonest and insulting.

 

[CMatt25]

and how do you become a Christian?
is it not through the Sacraments? first of which is Baptism. and the source and summit of all Sacraments is the Eucharist

that is why Baptism and the Eucharist, along with Confirmation, are called Sacraments of Initiation, they initiate you into the Christian life. and of those three, only the Eucharist is what you can receive more than once

Surely you are not proposing that only Catholics are Christians

 

[CMatt25]

Catholics should NOT have to practice open communion any more so than the Lutherans, etc. Missouri Synod and WELS, I believe, both do not practice open communion either. Communion is not only a divine encounter with God for the believer/communicant, but it is also the ultimate sign of unity in theology, belief, and hope. It is an active sign of unity, of oneness with Christ and each other. To walk up to a Catholic priest (or Eucharistic Minister I should point out as these people are annoyingly taking over Mass these days) with the idea that one can disagree and even be hostile to Catholic teaching while pretending to be in union with the people and Church around him/her is dihonest and insulting.

Nope Gurney no one is saying the CC has to practice anything. It is indeed free to interpret Christ in whatever manner it wants. Tantum for instance believes only the CC’s interpretations speak for Christ. And that’s perfectly fine. But when I am called and walk up to my Eucharistic minister, indeed it’s usually a EMHC where I sit. And often a female which I am perfectly fine with even though the CC makes a big deal about Christ only having male Apostles. I am not pretending to be a Christian who is called to Him. I am a Christian who is called to HIm. And frankly my heart and mind is so focused on what He did for me on the cross. What He did for you and me and for each of us. Not only for those of us who were baptized and confirmed in the CC.

And I am present to worship Him and to commune with Him as the Apostles did at the First Eucharist. That I frankly have no place in my being right then to worry about what another sinner around me might possibly be thinking about me or if whether they are insulted by my presence in the Communion line. I know in my heart He would never turn away anyone His Father brings to Him and I am totally immersed in my thoughts of Him as I receive. At that moment it is not about me or who is watching me from behind the line or from the pews. It is about Him. Peace to you and God bless you always.

 

[Bbigam]

Again, “The Church” did not make up some stupid ‘rule’ to deny Christ to ‘other Christians.’ Other Christians CHOSE to remove themselves from the ONE Church (please check your Scripture, Christ established ONE Church) and chose not to return. The fact that these other Christians are ‘nice people’ (as in the main they are), the fact that they may believe a close approximation of what we believe, the fact that they consider themselves ‘worthy’. . .doesn’t mean that we defy God’s authority. Because it is GOD’S authority we are concerned with. YOU claim that God 'wants us to give the Eucharist to all" and you based that on your personal ‘interpretation’ of various Scripture. I claim that God gave us (and Scripture supports me) an authority which gives HIS (not ITS, but HIS) authentic teachings, and that authority, through the Holy Spirit, is still giving HIS authentic teachings, and among those teachings is that those who receive communion must do so as HE COMMANDS, lest they 'eat and drink the Body and Blood unworthily. HE commands, the Church simply repeats what HE says.

So once again I deny your claim that the Church ‘denies Christ to Christians’. This is not a man-made meanness; if you claim that the Church ‘denies Christ’ you must also say, Christ denies Christ to Christians. You can’t say one without the other; you can’t say that the Church teaches that one must be obedient to Church Law regarding communion and then say that **GOD teaches that one NEED NOT be obedient, that one should disregard the Church Law. **God and the Church are ONE, they cannot be opposed to one another.

Tantum, I strongly agree with nearly all of your post, as usual; you seem to be a very faithful Catholic. I do want to nit-pick a couple of things that I’m guessing you didn’t mean exactly the way they sound.

First, God does want to give the Eucharist to all, since He wants everyone to be saved. But unfortunately most people in the world are not properly disposed to receive Him and many never will be - in full communion with the Church, in a state of grace, etc.

Second, a clarification of “God and the Church are one” - of course, they are not identical, God does not equal the Church. But God certainly works in a unique way through the Church and the Church faithfully teaches His Truth.

 

[Esdra]

also to the OP!

I think another reason is that although your friend might believe in the real presence, and taking the Eucharist in a proper way, there are others out there that would not. What about Baptists, Born Again Christians, Non-Denominationals that come to visit the Church? Open communion would have to also include them.

Being as the Eucharist is truly the Real presence, the priest would knowingly be allowing these people to be guilty of the body and blood of Christ. That would be a mortal sin not only on the Priest’s part, but on the receiver’s part.
Satanists could come in and partake of the Eucharist, and rather than eat, keep it for one of their own reasons. We just can’t allow Jesus to be desecrated.

When people receive the Eucharist, they are saying that they agree with all the beliefs of that religion, that’s the reason Catholics don’t receive from other churches as well.

It can be that this Lutheran Church believes in the Real Prescence, BUT they CAN have open community, just because the Evangelical Pastor is not a Catholic priest and so can’t do the transsubstitation!! This means the host is not “consecrated” (i do hope this is the correct term. I can’t find it in the Dictionary (GER-EN)) and therefore it is the same as if they would eat normal bread.

Believe me, I know - I have been a Catholic for a long time and am living in an Catholic Country (Austria - Europe)!

Hope I could help,

Esdra

 

[Loboto-Me]

Esdra, you’re right. The consecration of the bread turns it into the real presence if it’s done by an apostolic priest.

Catholics however, even if they’re just having crackers and juice at another church are not allowed to partake. The communion is a two part sacrament… first receiving Christ physically, and next a sign of communion between the parishioners.

Even if at another church, it is only a rememberance, a Catholic is not in communion with the others and to receive in that situation would be a diservice to his own faith and that of those around him.

I had a little revelation of this communion one day last month I think, when after receiving, I finally realized that each and everyone who had gone up to communion all had a piece of Christ within them. Here we all were, separate beings, yet we were only one being as well because Christ was within us. We were literally united in Christ. That was an ah-ha moment for me. (I’m a slow learner… whadaya want?)

 

[jmcrae]

Hi again Tantum, nice to see you again. Well on this, Christ was clear in the Scripture I referenced. We shouldn’t need an earthly authority to interpret that one. I “get off” on that one because the Church does attempt to keep other Chrisitans from approaching Christ. Otherwise your Lutheran, Methodist, what have you, Christian neighbor wouldn’t be told not to come to Him. God bless and peace.

They don’t actually believe that the elements of the Eucharist are Him - they consider the elements to be symbolic, only. I think that’s the part you’re not getting - they don’t share our beliefs at all.

They see it as a “fellowship meal” and they don’t see being banned from Communion as being “kept from Christ” - they see themselves as the keepers of Christ and that they are bringing Him to us (because they see us as misguided pagans), so no - they don’t see us as keeping them from Christ, but rather, they see us as excluding them from a friendship meal, and saying that they can’t be our friends.

What we have to do is, rather than let them partake of the Eucharist, thinking it’s a friendship meal, simply explain to them that that’s not how we do friendship meals, invite them to our actual friendship meals (which they are certainly most welcome to attend), and explain to them that we believe the Eucharist to be the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, uniting us as Catholics in Him to full holy communion with His Vicar on earth, the Pope.

Once you explain it to them like that, they are no longer tempted to partake of it, and are glad to come instead to our friendship meals, and to refrain from coming forward at Mass for Holy Communion.

 

[catharina]

In full disclosure of strongly dissenting from Church teaching on this… my belief is a Christian can not be guilty of the body and blood when he or she discerns what He did on the cross for all of us. And since Christ is always present in at least spirit wherever we may be. And in Jn 6:37 He clearly taught He would never turn away anyone who the Father brings to Him. And to then recite, Lord I am not worthy to receive You but only say the word and I shall be healed. But after all of that we still want to stop folks from coming to Him even if they are not worthy but have been called… I can’t help but wonder how sad Christ might be to see us keeping a Christian from Him.

How terribly sad that you would align yourself with those who unworthily approach Christ.

When we receive the Holy Eucharist, it is not only that we “believe” but that we are free from grave sin. Ideally we should be free from all sin. To pretend that all who might arrive to receive, who might wish to receive, are “called by the Father” is only that, a pretense. When one and all come, without due preparation, one and all sin. Would you really allow that, adding sin unto sin? What might Our Lord say to us regarding “proper disposition” prior to the reception of the Holy Eucharist? I imagine He would/will say: “Well done!”

 

[josie_L]

This is inaccurate, Ismael. We believe that the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Jesus Christ. We do not claim the presence is merely spiritual, but real and sacramental. We do not believe in transubstantiation, but we do not believe in consubstantiation, either.

Transubstantiation means that the entire substance of the bread and/or wine (when consecrated) transforms itself into the substance of our lord Jesus (bread=body, wine=blood), i.e., the body, blood, soul and divinity of our saviour is actually present (while the species/accidents - the bread and wine - appear the same via the senses). Therefore, on what basis do you deny transubstantiation being that you believe in the real presence? Here is the council of Trent’s definition (and anathema for those who deny it) concerning the eucharist:

. . . the Council of Trent declared subject to the ecclesiastical penalty of anathema anyone who:

“denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue” and anyone who “saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood - the species only of the bread and wine remaining - which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation.”[7]

Edit: Do all Lutheran sects adhere to the doctrine of the real presence, i.e. do you have to believe in the real presence to be Lutheran? And didn’t Martin Luther describe the real presence in the eucharist in terms similar to consubstantiation?

 

[CMatt25]

They don’t actually believe that the elements of the Eucharist are Him - they consider the elements to be symbolic, only. I think that’s the part you’re not getting - they don’t share our beliefs at all.

No I’m not stupid. I get that. It’s simply a non factor to me. Christ said He would turn away no one who the Father sends to Him. Paul speaks of discerning the body. If a Christian discerns Christ sacrifice of His body on the cross for us and we as Christians share this belief, that’s good enough for me and I believe for Christ. You can believe differently if you wish. Peace.

 

[CMatt25]

How terribly sad that you would align yourself with those who unworthily approach Christ.

When we receive the Holy Eucharist, it is not only that we “believe” but that we are free from grave sin. Ideally we should be free from all sin. To pretend that all who might arrive to receive, who might wish to receive, are “called by the Father” is only that, a pretense. When one and all come, without due preparation, one and all sin. Would you really allow that, adding sin unto sin? What might Our Lord say to us regarding “proper disposition” prior to the reception of the Holy Eucharist? I imagine He would/will say: “Well done!”

I’m not sad at all about aligning with Christ and our fellow Christian brothers and sisters who also believe in Him. But you must have greater insight than I then into one’s heart and in determining who is not worthy to receive but who only heard Him say the word and who shall be healed and then who is called and brought to Him. God bless and peace to you.

 

[eucharisteo]

No I’m not stupid. I get that. It’s simply a non factor to me. Christ said He would turn away no one who the Father sends to Him. Paul speaks of discerning the body. If a Christian discerns Christ sacrifice of His body on the cross for us and we as Christians share this belief, that’s good enough for me and I believe for Christ. You can believe differently if you wish. Peace.

And thank God you do not have the authority to decide. You’ve missed the entire point.

 

[choy]

Surely you are not proposing that only Catholics are Christians

anyone who receives valid baptism are Christians
however, to receive worthily, we must be in a state of Grace
other Christians who are not Catholics (or Orthodox since they have all the valid Sacraments as well) do not have the Sacrament of Penance, either outright not having it or having a valid minister of the Sacrament. therefore, they still are not worthy to receive, as is a Catholic who is not in a state of grace

 

[eucharisteo]

Please note that a Catholic who is not in the “state of grace” is also prohibited from receiving the Eucharist without committing mortal sin, thus welcoming condemnation of his eternal soul should he dies without a contrite confession, meaning he/she is truly sorry for having committed the sins.

Interesting Theory though:
Can a newly baptized Christian that is in one of the Protestant churches receive Holy Communion?

Answer: No. They are not in communion with the Church of Christ, known as the Catholic Church. By receiving Holy Communion you are stating all that the Creed says. One must state the Creed before becoming Catholic and it must be with the permission by the local ordinary, the bishop. Many people assume so much with so little knowledge about the early Church. I’d elaborate but that would lead to another topic for another thread involving Jewish tradition/knowledge, disciples following Christ already, etc.

No one is “worthy” to receive Jesus in the Eucharist. But some of us are allowed by law. But all Catholics are required to go to confession at least once per year during Easter and also receive the Lord through the Eucharist. I have a huge Christian family, some of which exhibit far more dedicated than many Catholics I know. However, I would never condone them to receive the Eucharist and would make sure they did not do so. However, I also know that they would not come to Mass and ignore their own weekly communion because they understand like Catholics that they are obligated to worship God in what they believe to be the only valid worship service and “Lord’s Supper”. I used to “wait on the table” in that community and say the closing prayers using the same method I learned as a Catholic, or maybe because I was raised protestant…don’t really know. But my love for scripture has taught me that anyone that thinks “open communion” is an option doesn’t really know Christ that well and especially what the scriptures tell us. That’s not meant to offend, but rather to state my honest opinion of how some of us view this issue. We believe many people are simply ignorant of truth and it may not be their own fault.

 

[Bbigam]

No I’m not stupid. I get that. It’s simply a non factor to me. Christ said He would turn away no one who the Father sends to Him. Paul speaks of discerning the body. If a Christian discerns Christ sacrifice of His body on the cross for us and we as Christians share this belief, that’s good enough for me and I believe for Christ. You can believe differently if you wish. Peace.

No, no, no, it’s not about turning people away from Christ who present themselves for Communion, that hardly ever even happens. It’s about inviting all to receive Him eventually, but asking people to refrain from presenting themselves for Communion unless and until they are properly disposed. For an active Catholic that may simply involve making a good confession. For a a non-Catholic it will involve lots of catechesis, as well as baptism and/or reception into the Church and confession.

All are invited. Many aren’t ready yet but the Church is happy to help them be made ready.

 

[eucharisteo]

No, no, no, it’s not about turning people away from Christ who present themselves for Communion, that hardly ever even happens. It’s about inviting all to receive Him eventually, but asking people to refrain from presenting themselves for Communion unless and until they are properly disposed. For an active Catholic that may simply involve making a good confession. For a a non-Catholic it will involve lots of catechesis, as well as baptism and/or reception into the Church and confession.

All are invited. Many aren’t ready yet but the Church is happy to help them be made ready.

Good way to put it and Welcome Home!

 

[O.S.Luke]

They don’t actually believe that the elements of the Eucharist are Him - they consider the elements to be symbolic, only…

They see it as a “fellowship meal” and they don’t see being banned from Communion as being “kept from Christ” - they see themselves as the keepers of Christ and that they are bringing Him to us (because they see us as misguided pagans), so no - they don’t see us as keeping them from Christ, but rather, they see us as excluding them from a friendship meal, and saying that they can’t be our friends.

As has been pointed out many times before, this is not accurate nor true. The Catholic Church certainly has the purview to say who can and cannot come to Communion. But it is disingenuous to state beliefs that are not true for many Protestants.

 

[eucharisteo]

As has been pointed out many times before, this is not accurate nor true. The Catholic Church certainly has the purview to say who can and cannot come to Communion. But it is disingenuous to state beliefs that are not true for many Protestants.

Whenever dealing with human beings blanketed statements are never completely accurate, but contain some truth - based on the individual human experience. As I’ve said before, my MIL believes we are pagan, even though her preacher son says we have much in common with them. But then they probably believe that many of our practices resemble pagan practices, not realizing Jewish traditions and practices.

 

[CMatt25]

And thank God you do not have the authority to decide. You’ve missed the entire point.

No I did not miss the entire point. I know and understand what the CC says. I simply do not share the CC belief on this. I thank God in good conscience I am able to not have to follow the CC in everything. Peace.