Closed communion

[justaname]

LOL Templar - it sounded like you said a "womenthing, not a man thing"!

Great post, BTW



Really? I went to a Sikh wedding a couple of years ago and they are very inclusive. We were invited to bow to their holy book, as brothers and sisters in worship. I got a lot of flack for refusing to worship their god with them, but I knew that worship is reserved for God alone, despite their hospitality. Frankly, I think it is "just plan wrong" to pressure a person to participate in worship of anything other than the God they believe in.



One man's faith is another man's works. I call responding to an alter call and "accept Jesus into your heat" a work (and extra-Biblical, BTW) - you cannot separate works and faith - all relationships take work. The fact is, Jesus was talking about works of men - specifically works without faith or love. Works preformed without a justified, sanctified relationship with Him.

I think we are speaking of a open or closed communion not a "pressured" or forced communion.

I completely agree, works are the fruit of our faith. They are tied together, but as John 6 : 44 No man can come to me, except the Father which sent me draw him: I will raise him up at the last day.

 

[aspen]

Actually I do hold to the real presence. My point is that Scripture doesn't mandate it. Neither Jesus nor the apostles state this. Jesus could just as easily been using a metaphor as He does so many time. Let me ask you, Is Jesus literally a branch?

I am not sure it is a mandate - I think it is simply a description of reality. The Bible does not mandate many things - it simply tells what happened.

When Paul chastised the Corinthians for their abuse of the communion He had a particular event in mind. He was not randomly telling them make sure you don't abuse it. They were turning the Eucharist into a gluttonous meal and not sharing with the poor in the congration. that is the abuse they were guilty of.

The funny thing about reading Paul's writings is that his writing style makes it very easy to decide who his audience is based on private belief. I am just making an observation, not an accusation. Most disagreements involving Paul's writings fall on either side of this line - if you happen to believe that women should be able to speak in church, Paul was speaking specifically; if you happen to believe that homosexuality is a sin, Paul was speaking generally. I tend to believe Paul was always speaking specifically about important ideas - I do not believe he was attempting to teach the world, although we can learn amazing things about God through his words.

Where does Scripture teach the adoration of the Eucharist??? I thought Scripture commended us to worship God.

You are making my point - the Eucharist has taken the form of Christ's Body. I think you are beginning to realize the ramifications of participating in the sacrament of the Eucharist. It is idolatry to participate in the adoration of the Eucharist if you do not believe it is Christ's Body - same with taking the Eucharist.

Now, I realize that the Catholic church believes in continuing revelation which the Scriptures do not support. I suspect that is where they get the authority for this claim.

Actually, the Catholic Church rejects the idea of continuing revelation - Jesus is the fulfillment of all revelation. In fact, many Catholics believe the Book of Revelation has already happened and we are in the 1000 year reign of Christ - we are simply waiting for His final return and Judgment.

Catholics do, however, believe in the development of doctrine. This means that we recognize the Bible is a living document, applicable to all generations and contains a wide variety of emphasis depending on the time period. Therefore, different parts of scriptures are emphasized at different times in history. We also believe in scholarship - since humans have a 2000 year history of sanctification, we understand the scriptures in a more complex manner now.


You're correct, that is one of the reasons I rejected it, another is the plethora of false teachings, I also don't hold to Sola Scriptura. The ironic thing about those who hold to Sola Scriptura is that they reject every other authority yet the Scriptures that they claim are the final authority tell them to adhere to the oral traditions handed down by the apostles. So, in effect they don't really believe in Sola Scriptura.

Yep - it is thick with irony. So, I am interested, what do you hold to as your authority?

I can agree with you statement because anyone who really understands what it means to believe that Jesus is the Christ knows that that means He is deity.
I don;t know that you could classify Mormons as Christians, I'm not that familiar with their beliefs.

Yeah - when I say "Trinity" I am talking about the full nature of God that He has revealed to us.

 

[justaname]

You see when we go up to recieve, the eucharist, regardless of what we believe about it, we are entering a very special, close communion with God. If we come forward in penitance and faith, with the udnerstanding that what we are doing is obeying Christ's command ten we will recieve God's blessing and be filled with the Holy Spirit.


The above was taken from Templars post.


From this statement you are saying any priest, pastor, or church can decide who is worthy or not worthy to receive God's blessing and Holy Spirit.

 

[Templar81]

No-one is worthy to recieve communion, we are all grievous sinners and what we simply for being humans beings deserve is death, judgement and Hell.

This is why God's Grace is so amzing, becaue we don't deserve i and Jesus died for us who don't deserve it and he gave up his body and blood to feed us and we don't dserve it. None of us we are all wretched sinners.

But if we approach the Lord's tabel knowing that we are called to it and we treat what we are receiving for the gift that it is, while being grievously sorry and contright for our failings and sins thenGod will ahve mercy on us because in this act we will be coming to him through the deatha nd ressurrection of his only son.

A priest or pastor can control things to a point, but it should be in a person's own consience.

In the Chruch of England we all too often giving Communion to people who should not be taking it. I remember during our Parish's inter-regnum a female priest came and invited everyoen to the Lord's table to recieve the communion even though much of the congregation that day was there for a Baptisma nd didn't know the first thing about Holy Communion. I've been up there knelt next to people who havn't a clue what they are doing. There was once a teenage girl who went up and asked how much the bread and wine cost and could she have a little more wine as she was still thirsty? At the end of the service I found out that she hadn't even been Baptised And you get people holding out one hand instead of two and their cell phones go off at the altar rail, soemtimes they laugh at a joke someone has made enxt to them and when they are given the body of Christ or the blood, instead of saying Amen they say "Thanks mate" or "cheers pal." Would any of you call that communing properly?

I don't know if anyone else here has experienced people taking Holy Communion so flippantly you must udnerstand thati in the UK chruch numbers are very low and that the only time a chruch is full is for a Baptism, a wedding, a fuenral, rememberance day, mothers day or at CHristmas. For most of the time these services will be non-Eucharistic but when they are not, many people who don't even believe in God and have probably never even been in a church before will come up and recieve communion. If I were a priest then these people could hold their hands out all they want and they wouldn't get any communion from me.

Corerect me if I'm wrong but I bet this kind of thing doesn't happen so much in the USA

 

[aspen]

No-one is worthy to recieve communion, we are all grievous sinners and what we simply for being humans beings deserve is death, judgement and Hell.

This is a profound statement. I agree so much,yet I hesitate.........

I want all people to experience the healing and reconciliation of the Eucharist - and I known it can happened without a formal indoctrination into Catholicism.........but I worry that people will fall into sin if they take it.....

I am really divided

 

[Templar81]

What about the esperiences I mentioned of peope who recieved communion improperly. I suppsoe it willhappen in the US when guests come to a Catholic wedding or funeraland aren't familiar with what to do. But generally I'd guess your not used to large groups of strangers comign to your church. Who grin and snigger through the srvice, take all the hymnals but don't sing the hymns, bring their screming children who can't behave and then expect to strole upto the altar for Chrsit's body and blood, not even knowing what COmmunion is all about. They'll usually say, "It's that thing with the bread and wine." I once heard of someone taking communion because they were hungry and hungover and thought it might make them feel better.

Now that I've told you this you can understand my concerns.

Here you are all my brothers and sisters in Christ and would be most welcome to recieve the Eucharist at my chruch regardless of your theological standpoint.

 

[justaname]

What about the esperiences I mentioned of peope who recieved communion improperly. I suppsoe it willhappen in the US when guests come to a Catholic wedding or funeraland aren't familiar with what to do. But generally I'd guess your not used to large groups of strangers comign to your church. Who grin and snigger through the srvice, take all the hymnals but don't sing the hymns, bring their screming children who can't behave and then expect to strole upto the altar for Chrsit's body and blood, not even knowing what COmmunion is all about. They'll usually say, "It's that thing with the bread and wine." I once heard of someone taking communion because they were hungry and hungover and thought it might make them feel better.

Now that I've told you this you can understand my concerns.

Here you are all my brothers and sisters in Christ and would be most welcome to recieve the Eucharist at my chruch regardless of your theological standpoint.

I understand your concerns. Thank you for your honesty. I believe Paul's issue was with the way the Eucharist was presented at that church. The way the church presents it now is worlds better. Many do not understand the reverence that should be adopted when receiving.

 

[Templar81]

So, you can see why I don't think we should be so free and easy with it.

On a normal Sunday in my church we will have Holy Communion and only Baptised persons will be recieving it and out of them very few will not have been confirmed. Until 1997 you had to have been confirmed by a Bishop in order to recieve Holy Communion so even regular church goingers couldn't recieve it, neither could young children since you had to be at least 12 years old to be confirmed. Now, there is a program similar to the Roman catholic first communion that allows children of 8 and upwards to learn about the Eucharist as well as about the church's main services what different aprts of the church are called and what they are used for etc.

When I was about 11 I drifted off because the Sunday school was full of 5 year olds and I was just covering the same thing againa nd again, they never even tried to teach us what a Tabernacle was, or why churches face east, or why communion is celebrated.