Why don't Catholics have Open Communion?

[PRmerger]

Gee, that’s funny. 95% of protestants that I have come into contact with over the years have given me a less than positive view of the protestant groups! They are arrogant, belittling, and unabashedly speak of drunken parties they attend, and cheating on their wives/husbands (many having children from those unions), not to mention using birth control, and speaking uncharitably of other Christians.

Indeed. We’re not going to get into a “who’s the bigger sinners, Catholics or Protestants” debate because it’s irrelevant. I just saw something online about a Baptist minister stepping down for committing adultery with the secretary.

Come to the Catholic Church because it’s True, and has the Real Presence, not because it has less sinners in it.

 

[KathleenGee]

Jesus did not come for the healthy, but for the sick and maim, and sinfulness certainly makes us ‘lame’.

 

[ajatkinson]

I’m not sure why you admonished me to read the entire post. I always do? I’m not a cliff notes reader here?

I disagree with this post nevertheless. Peter and Paul didn’t have theological differences. They had polity arguments about table fellowship that were resolved. They met in council, were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and stayed unified so the illustration doesn’t resonate, respectfully.

You’re trying to create a false dichotomy here. You’re saying that the Eucharist cannot be the fullness of Jesus’ body, blood, divinity, compassion, and totality AND a sign of unity and cohesion of theology and morality and polity. I don’t see why not. And Church history doesn’t make such a dichotomy either?

In any case, may Christ’s peace, a Merry Christmas, and very Happy New Year be with you

Until the Council of Jerusalem (~20 years after the death of Christ, there were great divisions on the opinions concerning a believer’s need to be circumcised and also uphold old Jewish covenants and laws as part of becoming a Christian. Refer to Acts 15 speaking of the great disagreements between Paul and Barnabas and I think you will see that the difference in the two opinions was huge, with one implying that you must still be bound by the “law” which Paul objects to in nearly all his major epistles.

Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”

Nonetheless, they surely still celebrated communion together prior to the council, as had they not it would likely have been mentioned in Acts that there were some believers who would not take communion with other believers. None were alienated and this was more of a dogmatic issue than a theological one.

Jesus said “Do this in remembrance of me” and I just don’t see how so many denominations add on to it: “Do this in remembrance of me, but only with those who are members of your specific denomination even if they also are Christians themselves and their differences may be as minor as issues with transubstantiation or tradition”. I agree though the Eucharist IS a sign of unity in Theology, which encompasses the study of God, beliefs about the divinity of Christ, the trinity, remission of sins through Christ’s sacrifice, etc. There are many who’s actual “Theology” is in line with the RCC, however their specific denominational differences separate them and therefore they are not allowed to receive Eucharist. The Eucharist has also become a not just a symbol of Theological unity, but a symbol of dogmatic unity as well which is unfortunate and creates disputes and segregation which is surely not what the Father enjoys seeing.. A possible remedy for the matter: create a statement of profession of faith one must agree with before taking Eucharist, then allow all who agree with and follow the statement to participate. Include the Apostle’s Creed, a statement of repentance, and a statement that declares the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ. The issue of transubstantiation wouldn’t be a big deal, because personally I don’t think it matters much how the bread becomes the body, what is important is that it is in fact the body; the same is true of the cup as well. This would do wonders for restoring unity. God bless

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m in a hurry and have to split here but I will say that you are drawing a false dichotomy saying that theology and dogma are mutually-exclusive and what is an Anglo-Methodist? That’s a new one for yours truly!

Until the Council of Jerusalem (~20 years after the death of Christ, there were great divisions on the opinions concerning a believer’s need to be circumcised and also uphold old Jewish covenants and laws as part of becoming a Christian. Refer to Acts 15 speaking of the great disagreements between Paul and Barnabas and I think you will see that the difference in the two opinions was huge, with one implying that you must still be bound by the “law” which Paul objects to in nearly all his major epistles.
Nonetheless, they surely still celebrated communion together prior to the council, as had they not it would likely have been mentioned in Acts that there were some believers who would not take communion with other believers. None were alienated and this was more of a dogmatic issue than a theological one.

Jesus said “Do this in remembrance of me” and I just don’t see how so many denominations add on to it: “Do this in remembrance of me, but only with those who are members of your specific denomination even if they also are Christians themselves and their differences may be as minor as issues with transubstantiation or tradition”. I agree though the Eucharist IS a sign of unity in Theology, which encompasses the study of God, beliefs about the divinity of Christ, the trinity, remission of sins through Christ’s sacrifice, etc. There are many who’s actual “Theology” is in line with the RCC, however their specific denominational differences separate them and therefore they are not allowed to receive Eucharist. The Eucharist has also become a not just a symbol of Theological unity, but a symbol of dogmatic unity as well which is unfortunate and creates disputes and segregation which is surely not what the Father enjoys seeing… A possible remedy for the matter: create a statement of profession of faith one must agree with before taking Eucharist, then allow all who agree with and follow the statement to participate. Include the Apostle’s Creed, a statement of repentance, and a statement that declares the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ. The issue of transubstantiation wouldn’t be a big deal, because personally I don’t think it matters much how the bread becomes the body, what is important is that it is in fact the body; the same is true of the cup as well. This would do wonders for restoring unity. God bless

 

[dzheremi]

Gurney is right. Dogma is essentially codified theology. Those things outside of it on which theologoumena (speculation) is possible are still subject to discussion within the bounds of what is dogmatically possible. In the non-Uniate East, no one is bound to endorse any particular method or process by which the bread and wine become the Blood and Body (“transubstantiation” is not a dogma, but a private theological opinion/speculation), but all are bound to believe (dogma) that the bread and wine do in fact undergo such a change. Disbelieve it and you are anathematized (as well you should be!).

There is a perception in the Protestant world, developed in reaction to what is seen as Roman Catholic legalism, that things like dogma and tradition are somehow opposed to the “true” Christian religion, rather than the illumination of it. I can’t say I necessarily blame the average Protestant on the street, given their background, but still…what a travesty!

I’ll

just

leave

these

here

 

[Carlan]

Jesus said “Do this in remembrance of me” and I just don’t see how so many denominations add on to it: “Do this in remembrance of me, but only with those who are members of your specific denomination even if they also are Christians themselves and their differences may be as minor as issues with transubstantiation or tradition”. I agree though the Eucharist IS a sign of unity in Theology, which encompasses the study of God, beliefs about the divinity of Christ, the trinity, remission of sins through Christ’s sacrifice, etc. There are many who’s actual “Theology” is in line with the RCC, however their specific denominational differences separate them and therefore they are not allowed to receive Eucharist. The Eucharist has also become a not just a symbol of Theological unity, but a symbol of dogmatic unity as well which is unfortunate and creates disputes and segregation which is surely not what the Father enjoys seeing… A possible remedy for the matter: create a statement of profession of faith one must agree with before taking Eucharist, then allow all who agree with and follow the statement to participate. Include the Apostle’s Creed, a statement of repentance, and a statement that declares the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ. The issue of transubstantiation wouldn’t be a big deal, because personally I don’t think it matters much how the bread becomes the body, what is important is that it is in fact the body; the same is true of the cup as well. This would do wonders for restoring unity. God bless

The following is why Catholics do not have open communion and it has been said many time before and in other threads.

The communion that comes with receiving the Eucharist requires commitment. The priest presents the host to us and says “Body of Christ.” Anyone receiving must say “Amen.”

This brief exchange holds great significance. For if we consent to the statement that the host is the real Body of Christ, we also consent to the belief that the priest has the power to confect the sacrament. And if the priest has the power to confect the sacrament, then the Church had the authority to consecrate that man as a priest of Christ.
And if the Church had that power to do such a thing, then it also has the authority given by God to teach what is true.
The Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith and is not undertaken lightly.
For that reason, I would not want to counsel my separated brethern to partake of the sacrament under false pretenses. If he says “Amen” when presented with the host while not truly believing all that this consent implies, then he or she is committing a sacrilege - or at the very least a gross irreverence.

What the Church is doing by not having an open communion is acknowledging the truth of the protestant reformation. It is the early reformists who walked away from the table in protest when they denied the Church.
What the Catholic Church is doing honors that protest and preserves the faithful Protestant from harming themselves spiritually, and creating a grave scandal for others.
If a reformer wants to come to a Catholic mass and receive the Eucharist, one has to ask why? If he truly thinks it a meaningful thing, then he should be be Catholic.
Peace to all, Carlan

 

[Reuben_J]

The question of the thread has been answered very clearly and the above post has efficiently reiterated that position. As it is, with the Catholic Church’s position on the Eucharist, there is no reason whatsoever why she should agree to open communion. This is not in her book. Catholics would not want to receive communion from other churches that she does not recognize that had valid Eucharist and Protestants would not want to receive communion in the Catholic Church as that means they have to agree to the Catholic position on this (which they don’t).

So who really are clamoring for open communion because in the reality of the situation it does not make any sense? To do that would be to change the entire Catholic dogma of Real Presence to that the Eucharist is merely symbolic. This is impossible and never will be. That would be to water down the significance of the Eucharist which is the summit of Catholic worship.

The issue of alienating other Christians or that Catholicism is superior, though may be true, do not arise at all because this has to do basically with belief.

God bless.

 

[1beleevr]

Indeed. We’re not going to get into a “who’s the bigger sinners, Catholics or Protestants” debate because it’s irrelevant. I just saw something online about a Baptist minister stepping down for committing adultery with the secretary.

Come to the Catholic Church because it’s True, and has the Real Presence, not because it has less sinners in it.

So it would seem that catholic prists are not the only ones who had to leave in disgrace!! Never a good idea to debate about wh has the most or worst sinners! But that figure I quoted id correct! It just looks worse when it involves the clergy!

 

[1beleevr]

1beleever…it takes one to know one…

E-X-A-C-T-L-Y, so are you one?

 

[1beleevr]

Gee, that’s funny. 95% of protestants that I have come into contact with over the years have given me a less than positive view of the protestant groups! They are arrogant, belittling, and unabashedly speak of drunken parties they attend, and cheating on their wives/husbands (many having children from those unions), not to mention using birth control, and speaking uncharitably of other Christians.

So, let’s see; if I have met 30 catholics, and come to know them as friends and co-workers, that would mean approximately 28 act the ways I have outlined! Goes to show you, there are bad apples in every religion, huh? What I wonder(reading your last sentence) is this: let’s say one or more of those catholics do cheat on their spouse(s) and get pregnant. What would they do, because I know you don’t believe in divorce or abortion. Raise the child, just help with the cost of raising it? What would your spouse do?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Both of you guys are saying nonsense here. 95% of Protestants or Catholics is goofy and un-scientific as you’re going to get. Secondly what he says about Catholics is sweeping in generalities and stereotypes with a broad brush. You’re countering with a tit-for-tat sweeping paint brush view of Protestants as “arrogant, belittling, drunken,” etc. and that’s just plain nonsense, pure and simple. Most of the Anglicans I went to church with were very, very upstanding folks who were by no means drunks or mocking, chiding idiots. The Lutherans I know are often more faithful and prayerful than I am and just wonderful people. I went to school with a few Baptists who impressed me with their love for the Lord, clean mouths, integrity, kindness, and love for Scripture. My Anglican rector is a godly man who NEVER trashes Catholics. In fact, most Protestants who have counselled me have been very kind and positive toward Catholicism. The anti-Catholic CARM crowd is not the majority of Protestants. The drunken thing is out of bounds. It’s as vile to hear as the stupid “all Catholic priests are pedophiles” tripe I hear. Come on GraceSofia, you’re better than that!

Gee, that’s funny. 95% of protestants that I have come into contact with over the years have given me a less than positive view of the protestant groups! They are arrogant, belittling, and unabashedly speak of drunken parties they attend, and cheating on their wives/husbands (many having children from those unions), not to mention using birth control, and speaking uncharitably of other Christians.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I heartily agree, Jeremy.

Gurney is right. Dogma is essentially codified theology. Those things outside of it on which theologoumena (speculation) is possible are still subject to discussion within the bounds of what is dogmatically possible. In the non-Uniate East, no one is bound to endorse any particular method or process by which the bread and wine become the Blood and Body (“transubstantiation” is not a dogma, but a private theological opinion/speculation), but all are bound to believe (dogma) that the bread and wine do in fact undergo such a change. Disbelieve it and you are anathematized (as well you should be!).

There is a perception in the Protestant world, developed in reaction to what is seen as Roman Catholic legalism, that things like dogma and tradition are somehow opposed to the “true” Christian religion, rather than the illumination of it. I can’t say I necessarily blame the average Protestant on the street, given their background, but still…what a travesty!

I’ll

just

leave

these

here

 

[GraceSofia]

Unfortunately for me, 95% of catholics that I have come into contact with over the years, have given me a less than positive view of the catholic church! They are arrogant, belittling, and unabashedly speak of drunken parties they attend, and cheating on their wives/husbands(many having children from those unions!

**
gurneyhalleck1,**

The point of **my ** post was to highlight how absolutely outrageous, ridiculous, and mean-spiritied **this **post was.

I am not sure what good is accomplished by allowing 1beleevr to slander and disrespect Catholics right, left , and center on a Catholic board, whose purpose I would have thought is to be an apostolate. Protestants, atheists, and fallen-away Catholics come here searching for the truth, and it is obscured when Catholics allow **1beleevr **to spout lies and sow doubt. Just because he throws in a smiley face now and then, doesn’t mean that what he’s doing isn’t insidious.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

See my IM…

**
gurneyhalleck1,**

The point of **my ** post was to highlight how absolutely outrageous, ridiculous, and mean-spiritied **this **post was.

I am not sure what good is accomplished by allowing 1beleevr to slander and disrespect Catholics right, left , and center on a Catholic board, whose purpose I would have thought is to be an apostolate. Protestants, atheists, and fallen-away Catholics come here searching for the truth, and it is obscured when Catholics allow **1beleevr **to spout lies and sow doubt. Just because he throws in a smiley face now and then, doesn’t mean that what he’s doing isn’t insidious.

 

[KathleenGee]

1beleevr…

You came across to me that you had already prejudged as well as place my faith in Christ beneath yours…

Baptism incorporates us into the Body of Christ…but the Eucharist is a sacrament, and the physical presence of God among us…one is not to receive unworthily — without faith and proper disposition.

How I personally relate to Christ is for Christ, not for you.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Sadly, they too practice closed communion, albeit not as strictly as do others.

I have to disagree with you. I think LCMS is just as strict if not stricter regarding it’s communion practices. I, as an ELCA Lutheran, can not go to an LCMS church and commune. I could go ahead of time and have a chat with the pastor at the church I planned on attending and he could certainly admit me or not. Even my own ability of proving myself a Lutheran by reciting the Small Catechism verbatum in it’s original German, would not guarantee me a spot at the communion rail.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

And in fact, no man (no lawyer, no divorce court judge, no husband saying “away with thee, woman”) has the power to break what God has joined together.

No matter what the lawyer says, no matter what the judge says, and no matter what the husband says, the marriage exists, until death they do part.

It is bigamy to be “married” to two or more people at the same time, so, if you “divorce,” (that is, if you make a legal separation, arrange the custody of the children, and divide your property between yourselves) you must remain single until the death of your partner in marriage. This is Jesus’ commandment.

Then what of annulments?

 

[Esdra]

And in fact, no man (no lawyer, no divorce court judge, no husband saying “away with thee, woman”) has the power to break what God has joined together.

No matter what the lawyer says, no matter what the judge says, and no matter what the husband says, the marriage exists, until death they do part.

It is bigamy to be “married” to two or more people at the same time, so, if you “divorce,” (that is, if you make a legal separation, arrange the custody of the children, and divide your property between yourselves) you must remain single until the death of your partner in marriage. This is Jesus’ commandment.

Tell me one thing: Who does that in our modern times?
Nearly none, I tell you.

 

[Carlan]

Tell me one thing: Who does that in our modern times?
Nearly none, I tell you.

I am sure there are many.However, not all who end up in divorce end up in sin. And the many, for sure, are a living violation of God’s law.
A very sad situation for all involved. Peace, Carlan

 

[jmcrae]

Then what of annulments?

A Declaration of Nullity can be granted by the Marriage Tribunal when (if) they discern that the joining-together did not come from God. (For example, in the case of incest, child marriage, second marriage while the first spouse is still alive, and the like).