Why don't Catholics have Open Communion?

[benedictus2]

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.

As I said in my previous post, if I misunderstood Dzheremi (i.e. in thinking that he is advocating for heterodoxy) then I apologize. If this is the case, then my reply and all the points I raised after are irrelevant.

If however, I understood him correctly and he does advocate for heterodoxy then my comments stand.

 

[Jehoshua]

Thats perfectly understandable.

But i consider in the context of Dzheremi’s quote that you quoted originally which stated to someone saying open communion should be permitted that that person did not understand the difference between orthodox and heterodox christianity that he was arguing for closed communion the same view as the Catholic church and not intending to denigrate or advocate any view that was contrary to the Churches teaching.

Now of course he may have been clearer on the intention perhaps by using the term apostolic perhaps in place of orthodox to avoid confusion but either way he was probably simply arguing in support of the view held in common by east and west that the eucharist is not to be given out to just anyone.

 

[ajatkinson]

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.

Well the bulletin from my friend’s LCMS church says that if you are not a Lutheran AND you are unsure of your beliefs in relation to the LCMS eucharist doctrines you should talk to an usher before taking communion. I don’t think they would be offended by it so much if they knew my beliefs on it. It’s not quite as exclusive as most communions. Basically they request you believe what they believe however you don’t necessarily have to be a LCMS Lutheran. It’s more about personal belief than label of denomination

 

[ajatkinson]

I sympathize with your sympathy with the Catholic position but merely sympathy will not entitle to make you right according the teaching of the Church. Yes, you are a valid Christian and we have much in common but that commonness does not include what can really make us in communion in faith. We have to accept it, our faith belief is not entirely the same for us to be in communion with each other.

God bless.

I don’t agree however. How can you say we are all Christians yet not in communion with our Faiths? Does that not unite us through the Body of Christ, as different “members of one body” as Paul says? The core tenants of our Christianity are what unites all of us, even if we appear so different on the outside in our doctrinal beliefs and worship styles, and like I said it seems the best way to show that we are all united in our beliefs in Christ would be to take Eucharist. If people want to show their divisions that’s fine, I just don’t see using something as sacred and pure as the Lord’s Supper to do so. I believe we DO in fact have communion in faith, and this is the reason so many of us use the Nicene or Apostle’s creed to profess our beliefs! Think about that for a moment.

 

[catharina]

I don’t agree however. How can you say we are all Christians yet not in communion with our Faiths? Does that not unite us through the Body of Christ, as different “members of one body” as Paul says? The core tenants of our Christianity are what unites all of us, even if we appear so different on the outside in our doctrinal beliefs and worship styles, and like I said it seems the best way to show that we are all united in our beliefs in Christ would be to take Eucharist. If people want to show their divisions that’s fine, I just don’t see using something as sacred and pure as the Lord’s Supper to do so. I believe we DO in fact have communion in faith, and this is the reason so many of us use the Nicene or Apostle’s creed to profess our beliefs! Think about that for a moment.

The Church as the Bride of Christ is protecting all from receiving the body and Blood of the Lord unworthily. That might be the best explanation of the teaching that allows reception of Holy Communion to Catholics only. We (Catholics), believe and know that the Holy Eucharist is the Real Presence, the real Body and Blood of Christ. There is no way of discerning what members of denominations believe about Holy Communion.

from Paul to the Corinthians, 1COR 11:27
“Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.”

 

[Reuben_J]

The Church as the Bride of Christ is protecting all from receiving the body and Blood of the Lord unworthily. That might be the best explanation of the teaching that allows reception of Holy Communion to Catholics only. We (Catholics), believe and know that the Holy Eucharist is the Real Presence, the real Body and Blood of Christ. There is no way of discerning what members of denominations believe about Holy Communion.

from Paul to the Corinthians, 1COR 11:27
“Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.”

ajatkinson: Others have explained but this answers your post perefectly. It may need further clarification if you think it’s necessary but that’s it, ajatkinson. You as a non-Catholic cannot recieve Holy Communion because you may receive it unworthily as there would be Catholics who refrain from receving it.

 

[rainman10]

I don’t agree however. How can you say we are all Christians yet not in communion with our Faiths? Does that not unite us through the Body of Christ, as different “members of one body” as Paul says? The core tenants of our Christianity are what unites all of us, even if we appear so different on the outside in our doctrinal beliefs and worship styles, and like I said it seems the best way to show that we are all united in our beliefs in Christ would be to take Eucharist. If people want to show their divisions that’s fine, I just don’t see using something as sacred and pure as the Lord’s Supper to do so. I believe we DO in fact have communion in faith, and this is the reason so many of us use the Nicene or Apostle’s creed to profess our beliefs! Think about that for a moment.

But this is why the Catholic Church has to make sure that the Eucharist is not abused, because it is very sacred and very pure. The Catholic Church has to keep it that way and not let just anybody that on a given day decides “gee, I think I will go over to the Catholic Church today and take communion. I just feel like it today. But you know, I just can’t agree with some of their doctrines, they are really strange.”

 

[Mikeoffaith]

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

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

Yep, yep and yep.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Well the bulletin from my friend’s LCMS church says that if you are not a Lutheran AND you are unsure of your beliefs in relation to the LCMS eucharist doctrines you should talk to an usher before taking communion. I don’t think they would be offended by it so much if they knew my beliefs on it. It’s not quite as exclusive as most communions. Basically they request you believe what they believe however you don’t necessarily have to be a LCMS Lutheran. It’s more about personal belief than label of denomination

Hmm don’t you think that you personal belief and your denominational affiliation should share the same belief especially on doctrinal matters concerning the Eucharist? I mean if you and your denomination are discordant on that point I can’t see the point of staying with that denomination. So I would still contend that it isn’t just personal belief. And the fact that the official position of the LCMS regarding communing members of the ELCA or any non-LCMS Lutherans is as follows,

The LCMS practices “close communion,” which is summarized as follows by the Synod’s Commission on Theology and Church Relations: In keeping with the principle that the celebration and reception of the Lord’s Supper is a confession of the unity of faith, while at the same time recognizing that there will be instances when sensitive pastoral care needs to be exercised, the Synod has established an official practice requiring “that pastors and congregations of The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod, except in situations of emergency and in special cases of pastoral care, commune individuals of only those synods which are now in fellowship with us.” By following this practice whereby only those individuals who are members of the Synod or of a church body with which the Synod is in altar and pulpit fellowship are ordinarily communed, pastors and congregations preserve the integrity of their witness to the gospel of Christ as it is revealed in the Scriptures and confessed in the Lutheran confessional writings.

The Synod has not attempted to define precisely what constitutes “special cases of pastoral care,” but has entrusted to its pastors and congregations the responsibility to make judgments in individual cases about the propriety of communing non-LCMS Christians.

With regard to LCMS members communing at non-LCMS altars, the CTCR says the following in its report on the “Theology and Practice of the Lord’s Supper”:

“In accordance with the confessional nature of participation in the Lord’s supper, and in agreement with Lutheranism’s historic position, it is inappropriate to attend the Lord’s Supper at non-Lutheran altars. Since participation in Holy Communion, Scripturally and confessionally understood, entails agreement in the Gospel and all its articles, it would not be appropriate to attend the Lord’s supper in a church with which such agreement is not shared.”

This is directly quoted from their website lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2148

So from my understanding of LCMS practices it is not based on individual belief and is an exact replication of what my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters have pointed out here is the practice in the Latin church. And based on what both churches teach and practice that if what you believe that you have the unity of faith required to receive in their churches, then the question would be why are you not a member in their church?

 

[Esdra]

Hmm don’t you think that you personal belief and your denominational affiliation should share the same belief especially on doctrinal matters concerning the Eucharist? I mean if you and your denomination are discordant on that point I can’t see the point of staying with that denomination. So I would still contend that it isn’t just personal belief. And the fact that the official position of the LCMS regarding communing members of the ELCA or any non-LCMS Lutherans is as follows,

This is directly quoted from their website lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2148

So from my understanding of LCMS practices it is not based on individual belief and is an exact replication of what my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters have pointed out here is the practice in the Latin church. And based on what both churches teach and practice that if what you believe that you have the unity of faith required to receive in their churches, then the question would be why are you not a member in their church?

First, thanks for your post to me (above yours)!

Secondly, that’s pretty interesting. I mean, in Austria there are no LCMS Churches (meaning in this case Lutheran-Evangelical Churches), but in Germany are (SELK).
Here in Austria Calvinism has extremely crept into Lutheranism. (They even have pulpit and Eucharist union here with the Reformed Evangelical Church!) - So the Evangelical Church in Austria is VERY different than the LCMS or the German SELK (and probably even different than the ELCA).

But what I asked myself: What actually seperates then the LCMS and the (R)CC, for me this sounds extremely the same what I got to know here about those two.
They (the LCMS) are even more “Anglican or Episcopolean or Old Catholic”!
Or do I err here?

 

[Mikeoffaith]

First, thanks for your post to me (above yours)!

Secondly, that’s pretty interesting. I mean, in Austria there are no LCMS Churches (meaning in this case Lutheran-Evangelical Churches), but in Germany are (SELK).
Here in Austria Calvinism has extremely crept into Lutheranism. (They even have pulpit and Eucharist union here with the Reformed Evangelical Church!) - So the Evangelical Church in Austria is VERY different than the LCMS or the German SELK (and probably even different than the ELCA).

But what I asked myself: What actually seperates then the LCMS and the (R)CC, for me this sounds extremely the same what I got to know here about those two.
They (the LCMS) are even more “Anglican or Episcopolean or Old Catholic”!
Or do I err here?

Grüss Gott!

No you wouldn’t find the LCMS in Austria, but yes the LCMS are partnered with SELK in Germany. They share pulpit and altar fellowship with them. But here in the US the ELCA share pulpit and altar fellowship with the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Moravians and a few others. I would imagine the that Evangelical Church of Austria is much similar to the ELCA in a lot of respects.

The thing that separates the LCMS and the RCC is the same thing that separated the churches in the 1500’s. Just because some of the beliefs are the similar does not mean they are the same. Just as a side note, the most important document to come about between Lutherans and Roman Catholics, the JDDJ, was not ascribe to by the LCMS.

I don’t know that I would term the LCMS more Anglican or Old Catholic. I my opinion they are just more conservative.

My neighbor next to me was telling me that she noticed that there were so many Lutheran churches in our neighborhood and she asked why do I go to the particular one that I go to. I explained to her that all the Lutheran Churches aren’t part of the same organization. I figured I would try to simplify the differences in terms that she might understand. She’s Jewish by the way. So I explained to her that the Lutheran Churches in our area belong to one of three Synods. They are either Wisconsin, Missouri, or ELCA. I told her that the ELCA are like the Reformed branch of Judaism, the Missouri are like the Conservative and the Wisconsin are like the Orthodox. A bit simplistic but in my opinion pretty realistic to our relation to one another.