Why don't Catholics have Open Communion?

[rinnie]

First off, “This is the cup of the new covenant SEALED With MY BLOOD.” tells NOTHING about what exact point in the mass the elements become the body and blood: is it when they are taken out of the tabernacle or after the priest says a specific sentence, etc?

And they don’t feel the need to explain at what point it does because it is a holy mystery of God. You believe the trinity is a Holy Mystery right? Why can’t the Real Presence?

What do you mean it doesn’t? The Priest breaks the bread and turns the bread and wine into the body and blood Christ the exact way Jesus did at the last supper.

When the Priest says this is my body which has been given up for you, and this is my blood is indeed the exact point.

And what does any of this take away from the Holy Mystery? And where did I say that it was not a mystery. The mystery is not WHEN the Priest changes bread and wine into the living Christ, the mystery is HOW he does it.

 

[vsedriver]

Well you don’t have to be in “Communion” with them, but why refuse them the Eucharist if they believe in the authority of your church, submit to the Catholic teaching of Eucharist, etc?

To not become a member of the Church is to say that they really do not submit to the authority of the Church. Therefore, they are not in ‘communion’ with the Church and should not participate in the Eucharist.

One is not entitled to the benefits of the Club without first becoming a member of the club. Just as you are not entitled to the benefits of marriage without first getting married.

 

[vsedriver]

I don’t know what you mean with “civil Catholic”, sorry.

Yes, in Austria religious affiliations appear on government forms. (i.e. also on Reports in schools)

Please refer to this post.

Kind of meant it the way we have ‘civil’ marriage. State approved, not necessarily Church approved. So you are Catholic by civil designation only. Right?

 

[Esdra]

Kind of meant it the way we have ‘civil’ marriage. State approved, not necessarily Church approved. So you are Catholic by civil designation only. Right?

Mhm, could we move to the thread I have started? (this Thread).
This is off-topic here.

Well, on the official paper I am a Catholic. But I have not been a practicing Catholic (means going to mass, and participating in parish-life) for 1 1/2 year now; that’s the period since I have been attending “my” (European) Baptist Church…

If you are baptised as a Catholic (I know there is only ONE baptism! ), then you are for the Austrian state officially Catholic, until you “officially resign from the CC”.

Peace,

 

[Carlan]

Jharek, That would only be only the Othodox, would it not?
Peace, Carlan

 

[Reuben_J]

Well you don’t have to be in “Communion” with them, but why refuse them the Eucharist if they believe in the authority of your church, submit to the Catholic teaching of Eucharist, etc?

I have explained the reason but perhaps I am not so good with words, the message may get lost somewhere.

The Holy Communion has two prongs objective - with the Lord and with one another, the vertical and the horizontal relationship. I can see that you have no preoblem with the vertical relationship, that is, with the Lord. But the horizontal, that’s another matter, and there lies our differences - you as a non-Catholics and us as Catholics. There are many differences in belief (notably apostolic succession) there for one post like this to cover and probably those unsaid need further clarification too and perhaps have been clarified by my fellow Catholics.

God bless.

 

[Reuben_J]

Like I said, I knew it wasn’t that simple.I knew someone would give me some profound elaborate answer. Here’s the deal. You say it has nothing to with with claiming the churches who are under the Holy See are the only ones given proper authority by God, yet you speak of submitting to the Magestrium of the Catholic Church/Bishop of Rome. Is this not what they teach? That they are the only ones qualified to serve The Lord’s Supper/Consecrate the Host/celebrate a mass?

As to who are qualified,well, all of these are contained in the teaching fo the Church. How can you not submit to the teaching of the Church and yet receive her Holy Communion?

 

[ajatkinson]

To not become a member of the Church is to say that they really do not submit to the authority of the Church. Therefore, they are not in ‘communion’ with the Church and should not participate in the Eucharist.

One is not entitled to the benefits of the Club without first becoming a member of the club. Just as you are not entitled to the benefits of marriage without first getting married.

Well, please keep in mind I bring up all these points as discussion topics pertaining to any denominations that practice closed communion, I am not picking on Catholics and I have considered becoming Catholic, I merely have some concerns and feel I shouldn’t rush into such a thing without prayerful reflection and thinking.

Methodists such as myself and some other denominations don’t believe that you have to agree %100 doctrinally to celebrate communion with them, but to become a member of the church you must be baptized/profess faith and in some cases undergo Christian instruction and initiations. To celebrate Eucharist/Lord’s Supper/Communion, one should simply acknowledge Jesus as Christ, the Lord of their life, accept his sacrifice of mercy which erases all of our sins in the presence of God the father and not rely on their own merits as a means to salvation. We leave it up to the individual to decide their state in terms of whether they should or shouldn’t partake, however we do say a specific set of creeds as well as a public confessional prayer together as a church before we partake.

See I think to be “in communion” and to “celebrate communion” should be separated. If not, the danger is using a sacrament to alienate others. As I have already said, for non-Christians this is fine and necessary. A non-believer taking Eucharist would make mockery of Christ. But refusing Eucharist from someone who your own authority figures acknowledge as Christian “faithful” can likely never be explained to me in a way where I would agree with it.** Are all Christians not worthy of receiving the gift of the Eucharist?** It is a means of grace, and refusing that grace to someone is not something I would want to answer for. I know many of the answers I get on the issue refer to the commands of the pope or others in the Holy See, and I would never expect a devout Catholic to question the Pope or their beliefs, so I suppose the real question is this: IF the Pope and Holy See were to issue a decree stating that no Christian should be refused the Eucharist at Mass, would you relate to it or continue to support the division at the Eucharist?

 

[rinnie]

Well, please keep in mind I bring up all these points as discussion topics pertaining to any denominations that practice closed communion, I am not picking on Catholics and I have considered becoming Catholic, I merely have some concerns and feel I shouldn’t rush into such a thing without prayerful reflection and thinking.

Methodists such as myself and some other denominations don’t believe that you have to agree %100 doctrinally to celebrate communion with them, but to become a member of the church you must be baptized/profess faith and in some cases undergo Christian instruction and initiations. To celebrate Eucharist/Lord’s Supper/Communion, one should simply acknowledge Jesus as Christ, the Lord of their life, accept his sacrifice of mercy which erases all of our sins in the presence of God the father and not rely on their own merits as a means to salvation. We leave it up to the individual to decide their state in terms of whether they should or shouldn’t partake, however we do say a specific set of creeds as well as a public confessional prayer together as a church before we partake.

See I think to be “in communion” and to “celebrate communion” should be separated. If not, the danger is using a sacrament to alienate others. As I have already said, for non-Christians this is fine and necessary. A non-believer taking Eucharist would make mockery of Christ. But refusing Eucharist from someone who your own authority figures acknowledge as Christian “faithful” can likely never be explained to me in a way where I would agree with it.** Are all Christians not worthy of receiving the gift of the Eucharist?** It is a means of grace, and refusing that grace to someone is not something I would want to answer for. I know many of the answers I get on the issue refer to the commands of the pope or others in the Holy See, and I would never expect a devout Catholic to question the Pope or their beliefs, so I suppose the real question is this: IF the Pope and Holy See were to issue a decree stating that no Christian should be refused the Eucharist at Mass, would you relate to it or continue to support the division at the Eucharist?

In the RCC you must be in a state of grace to receive Holy Communion. If you are not Catholic you cannot receive the Sacrament because you have no idea what exactly the Sacrament is, and when to know when and if you are in a state of Grace.

That is the job of the Priest to make sure that a person is educated in the faith before they receive this very important Sacrament.

If the Pope would say that any Christian could receive the sacrament then we must obey his order. But he would never do that. He would never let anyone condemn themself before our Lord.

But as far as the Pope goes for the RCC you must obey what the Pope says. But you must understand the Pope does not have any power, or authority on his own. All authority comes straight from God.

 

[jmcrae]

Well, please keep in mind I bring up all these points as discussion topics pertaining to any denominations that practice closed communion, I am not picking on Catholics and I have considered becoming Catholic, I merely have some concerns and feel I shouldn’t rush into such a thing without prayerful reflection and thinking.

This is also the thinking of the Church, in making the RCIA process to be quite long in comparison to most other groups, both Christian and non-Christian.

Methodists such as myself and some other denominations don’t believe that you have to agree %100 doctrinally to celebrate communion with them, but to become a member of the church you must be baptized/profess faith and in some cases undergo Christian instruction and initiations.

As a Catholic, this looks like a contradiction, since for Catholics, Holy Communion (when celebrated in the restored order) is the third Sacrament of Initiation, after Baptism and Confirmation. But this seems to be saying that a person could receive Holy Communion first, even before being baptized or confirmed.

See I think to be “in communion” and to “celebrate communion” should be separated.

Why?

My take on this is that if you are not in communion, then there is no communion to celebrate - what, exactly, are you celebrating, if you are not actually in communion?

** Are all Christians not worthy of receiving the gift of the Eucharist?**

Well, in reality, no one is “worthy” - it’s not about being worthy, as such - but at the same time, one must be initiated into the community, and in a state of grace, in order to partake of it.

IF the Pope and Holy See were to issue a decree stating that no Christian should be refused the Eucharist at Mass, would you relate to it or continue to support the division at the Eucharist?

In practice, no one is ever refused the Eucharist at Mass, unless it’s completely obvious that they are not disposed to receive it (for example, if they are obviously drunk, or if they have absolutely no clue how to behave or how to respond, when the Eucharist is presented to them).

Most of the time, we rely on people to be honest with themselves, and not partake if they are not in a state of grace, or not Catholic. If you knew the correct responses, you could go to Mass and receive Holy Communion, and probably nobody would even realize that you were not a Catholic - but we hope that you would respect our peculiarities, just as you respect the peculiarities of other cultures and other religions - and just as you expect others to respect your own peculiarities.

 

[dzheremi]

To celebrate Eucharist/Lord’s Supper/Communion, one should simply acknowledge Jesus as Christ, the Lord of their life,

To “simply acknowledge Jesus as Christ” does not mean anything outside of a particular context. It may surprise you, but completely non-Christian religions such as Islam and the Baha’i faith believe that Jesus is the Christ, and call Him such, without at all accepting what Christians mean when they affirm the same. This means you must fill in the CONTENT of what you mean when you say “Jesus is the Christ” or “I accept Jesus’ sacrifice”. If you do not mean what I mean, how can we be sure what anyone is talking about? And if we can’t be sure what we all mean, how do we know that anyone who communes accepts that Jesus IS Christ, that He IS the Only-Begotten, etc.?

We leave it up to the individual to decide their state in terms of whether they should or shouldn’t partake, however we do say a specific set of creeds as well as a public confessional prayer together as a church before we partake.

You don’t require them to affirm your creeds so they know exactly what they’re receiving? Why?

See I think to be “in communion” and to “celebrate communion” should be separated.

How?

If not, the danger is using a sacrament to alienate others.

This is an invention of your own making. No apostolic church (all of which maintain closed communions) uses the sacrament to alienate others. All are welcome to partake once they affirm the faith that substantiates that communion, not before.

A non-believer taking Eucharist would make mockery of Christ. But refusing Eucharist from someone who your own authority figures acknowledge as Christian “faithful” can likely never be explained to me in a way where I would agree with it.

This shows that you either do not respect or do not understand apostolic Christianity, and the difference between orthodoxy and heterodoxy.

Are all Christians not worthy of receiving the gift of the Eucharist?

No, we are not! Listen to me here, please, so that you don’t misunderstand where I am coming from: I myself am currently out of communion with EVERY CHURCH, and it cannot be otherwise. Why is that? Have I suddenly become “unworthy” to receive the Eucharist? No, or at least not suddenly – I have always been unworthy to receive! And so have you. And so has everyone. So why maintain a closed communion? I can tell you from personal experience because I am maintaining an extremely closed communion myself right now: I remain out of communion due to my inability to proclaim my absolute allegiance to the doctrines of a given church community. I could, theoretically, present myself for communion at the local Catholic church, having been baptized a Catholic and knowing all the particulars of the faith that I would need to know in order to receive communion there. I will never do that. Why? Because I do not believe in the particulars of that faith! Am I saying that Catholics are not Christians or that I am better than them or any of those things that would alienate them? No! Never! But I am saying: I’m sorry, but I cannot do this. When presented with the Host, the Eucharistic minister says “The Body of Christ” and the communicant affirms this with an “Amen” (this is in the Latin rite; in the Byzantine rite, which I have also attended, this is not the case). How can I say “Amen” when the faith behind that is a hollow lie? The Eucharist is indeed the Body of Christ – all apostolic churches believe that – but this is not the end of the story! True faith, true belief is not merely affirming a series of principles, like a math problem. When we receive the Eucharist we do not say “QED”, but “Amen” (‘truly’)! So if we are not truly convinced of the faith, we cannot receive. To do so anyway is the biggest mockery of Christ. I want to be a Paul, not a Judas.

It is a means of grace, and refusing that grace to someone is not something I would want to answer for.

So you would rather answer for communing anyone under the sun?

I know many of the answers I get on the issue refer to the commands of the pope or others in the Holy See, and I would never expect a devout Catholic to question the Pope or their beliefs, so I suppose the real question is this: IF the Pope and Holy See were to issue a decree stating that no Christian should be refused the Eucharist at Mass, would you relate to it or continue to support the division at the Eucharist?

Every answer you’ve gotten from me, and I suspect most dissenting answers you would get from any Christian if you asked this on a board other than CAF, comes from a person who does not recognize the claims and decrees of the Roman Pope and those in his communion to be true or binding upon the church. Do not be lulled into the dominant Catholic/Protestant dichotomy as though these are the only positions you can hold. In reality, your views are out of sync with ALL apostolic communions, not just the Roman one. You would do well to find out why. This video and others of the same series of sermons, given by Fr. Anthony Messeh of the Coptic Orthodox Church (not in communion with Rome or Byzantium since 451 AD), may help you. May God guide you to knowledge.

p.s.-- As I have been, up until relatively recently, a communicant in the Catholic Church, I can still say that if the RCC leadership had issued any such decree while I was still a member of it, I would high-tail it out of there as quickly as possible! I suspect that more Catholics than would answer you would do the same – Catholics are strong on sacramentals and take such things very seriously, to their credit!

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Yeah but that’s because your denomination ordains homosexual clergy lol. I as a Methodist believing in True Presence can take communion with Lutherans. Thankfully this is the case as I find it an honor to worship with other groups.

Wah wah, too funny. Not. At any rate, you as a Methodist professing in the true presence would be most welcome at the table in my congregation, whether a woman or a homosexual, celibate or not, was presiding. It would also remain true that if you went to a LCMS congregation, you would be more than accepted to join in worship, but you would be barred from the Eucharist. In my experience, I don’t know that any LCMS pastor would offer it to you if he didn’t know you, and once you told him you were Methodist, it wouldn’t matter what you believed, you would still be barred from receiving for exactly the same reasons as my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters have pointed out in earlier posts.

 

[Esdra]

Wah wah, too funny. Not. At any rate, you as a Methodist professing in the true presence would be most welcome at the table in my congregation, whether a woman or a homosexual, celibate or not, was presiding. It would also remain true that if you went to a LCMS congregation, you would be more than accepted to join in worship, but you would be barred from the Eucharist. In my experience, I don’t know that any LCMS pastor would offer it to you if he didn’t know you, and once you told him you were Methodist, it wouldn’t matter what you believed, you would still be barred from receiving for exactly the same reasons as my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters have pointed out in earlier posts.

So I guess you are ELCA then? Do you have open communion?

The LCMS, according to you post, apparently doesn’t, then, right?

 

[Jehoshua]

There is more than one reason why the eucharist is given only to those in communion with the Church.

Firstly:

to recieve communion when you are not in a state of grace is sacrilege, that goes for catholics as well, when one is non-catholic the risk is enormous that the person even if christian is in a state of mortal sin, therefore it is denied to non-catholics because they are likely to be unfit to recieve.

Secondly

It is a sign of communion, to recieve communion is to acknowledge you believe in EVERYTHING the church teaches, thats why its sometime called holy communion how can than we give communion to those not in the Church when they believe in error or do not fully accept the teachings of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Thirdly

We believe in the real presence, to give to those who don;t would be sacrilegious and possibly dangerous becaue they would not recieve it in the proper attitude even if they were otherwise in a state of grace.

Fourthly

Risk of desecration, if we just gave the eucharist to anyone there is the risk that they could desecrate the host, which we believe has become the body, blood, soul and divinity of christ, yet another reason to withhold the eucharist to those who are not catholic. You just have to see the consequences when a non-catholic has acquired a host to see why we may be just a tad concerned considering our beliefs. (look at the case of muslim reporters in malaysia, or even host desecration in general on wikipedia)

---

Considering all these things it appears to me perfectly reasonable to refrain from giving away the eucharist to just anyone.

 

[benedictus2]

The question was posed to me by a friend of mine. I know the answer from a Catholic perspective–it is a sign of unity of Faith and if you don’t believe what all the Catholic Church teaches then you should not partake, because “anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.” --1 Cor. 11:29

This friend in a Lutheran, and he believes in the True Presence, yet they have open communion at his church. He believes that if someone were to go to Communion and believe, Jesus would be present, but if they didn’t believe, He would not be.

My response to this was to say Jesus is present no matter what because it is a real presence, just as a tree in a forest is real whether or not a person goes to see it or even knows its there.

But his frustration remains. The argument is that the Catholic Church claims that we are trying to unify all churches into one, yet we are being divisive by excluding others at our communion. My friends stance is he would never be a part of a church that was so exclusive.

I would say to this friend that if he is really determined to receive communion, then why not just convert.

The fact that he wants to remain a Lutheran means that there is a separation, a division. So any so called unity will be illusory until he becomes a Catholic.

We are working towards unity, but an open communion is not the answer. Unity is only achieved when everyone becomes a Catholic.

So long as different churches remain, then there is disunity.

Also, the Lutherans do not believe in the Real Presence like we do. The Orthodox however do and that is why they are allowed to receive communion.

 

[benedictus2]

This shows that you either do not respect or do not understand apostolic Christianity, and the difference between orthodoxy and heterodoxy.

So I take it you prefer heterodoxy?

But that just boils down to me-ism, with all the different me-doxies forming the heterodoxy.

So of all these herero doxies, which one is ortho?

 

[dzheremi]

So I take it you prefer heterodoxy?

But that just boils down to me-ism, with all the different me-doxies forming the heterodoxy.

So of all these herero doxies, which one is ortho?

Yes, that’s right, it’s all a matter of opinion, and this has SOOOO much to do with why Catholics don’t have open communion…

It is strange in the extreme that you argue this way, given the fact that the Roman Catholic Church welcomes Orthodox Christians to commune with them (it is the Orthodox side that says “no thank you”). And you’ve answered your own question: The Orthodox side is orthodox. Be careful not to fall into History Channel-style arguments, where the Christianity we observe now is only one of many strains, that we basically ended up with through political movements and not through the Holy Spirit guiding the councils that decided doctrine, established the canon, etc. That type of relativism is very much against what the RCC teaches. It’s a nasty way to argue, and incredibly ahistorical.

p.s.- I am on the side of the Catholics on this one (pro-RCC and others’ closed communions), so I’m a little bit confused as to why you’ve addressed your post to me. Are you having a bad day?

 

[benedictus2]

Yes, that’s right, it’s all a matter of opinion, and this has SOOOO much to do with why Catholics don’t have open communion…

Obviously you did not understand what I wrote.

I said of all the differeing (hetero) teachings (doxies) which one is the straight/correct (ortho) one? It is not enough to know a teaching, we need to follow the right/correct/true teaching.

So again, I ask, which of these heterodoxies is orthodoxy?

It is strange in the extreme that you argue this way, given the fact that the Roman Catholic Church welcomes Orthodox Christians to commune with them (it is the Orthodox side that says “no thank you”).

Precisely because they are ORTHO dox

And you’ve answered your own question: The Orthodox side is orthodox.

Comprehension at last which is strange since you wrote the sentence before this and which necessitated me having to reply thus.

Be careful not to fall into History Channel-style arguments, where the Christianity we observe now is only one of many strains,

You are the one falling into that style argument by espousing heterodoxy.

that we basically ended up with through political movements and not through the Holy Spirit

And there in lies our problem. Every Christian denomination claiming to be guided by the Holy Spirit and yet each one teaching something different. That sounds more like the diabolos, the scatterer rather than the Holy Spirit.

guiding the councils that decided doctrine, established the canon, etc. That type of relativism is very much against what the RCC teaches.

A yes, the Catholic Church does teach that because we have Jesus’s promise to rely upon on that one.

p.s.- I am on the side of the Catholics on this one (pro-RCC and others’ closed communions), so I’m a little bit confused as to why you’ve addressed your post to me. Are you having a bad day?

How about you read your post and read my reply and then you can work out why I addressed it to you.

If you take a look, I was limiting my comment to your seeming preference for heterodoxy. If I misunderstood that then my apologies. My comments then are irrelevant.

 

[Jehoshua]

Benedictus:

you have confused me considering that Dzheremi was advocating the same view in regards to the particular doctrine. But of course from an eastern view someone is going to argue that the Eastern Orthodox Church (or oriental) is the orthodox faith.

Simply stating that “no you are heterodox why are you choosing heterodoxy” is not going to do anything because your not making an argument behind the claim. Might I suggest if you want to continue your discussion with Dzheremi that instead of saying, “why are you in heterodoxy, your heterodox” you hold a discussion on a different thread or privately about the topic advocating “why” you believe the east is heterodox with arguments to support it. Likewise Dzheremi can do the inverse argument if he wants to take you up on it. But merely yelling across a chasm at eachover that the other is heterodox is not going to do anything, its just going ot build into a virtual yelling match with no actual substance to justify the debate.

 

[dzheremi]

But merely yelling across a chasm at eachover that the other is heterodox is not going to do anything, its just going ot build into a virtual yelling match with no actual substance to justify the debate.

Perfectly stated, Jehoshua, and I thank you for the support and decline any yelling match, virtual or otherwise, with any of you.