Christ did not practice closed communion?

[ILoveYeshua]

Ok, personally I'm a fan of closed communion to a point, because if people don't know what they're doing when they take communion, it can be bad for them. My question relates directly to the First last supper.

Christ knew good and well that his betrayer, whom satan himself would possess, would dip the sop with him and his brethren, yet he did allow him to do that. On one hand I think it was so that he could fill up the measure of his wickedness, does that sound reasonable?

Anyway, if Christ allowed that awful man to commune in the very first last supper, should any person who claims to believe in Christ be forbidden from taking part in communion? I mean, the fact that Judas Iscariot took communion with Cephas and John and the rest, did not defile the others who took the communion, only the betrayer himself.

Any thoughts on this, was Christ practicing closed or open communion, and how can we relate what we learn about that to our current practices?

 

[BalaamsAss51]

Hello Iloveyeshua.

Well, in Matthew and Mark Jesus tells Judas that he is the traitor and then begins the communion part of the meal. In Luke Jesus did the communion part first, then there was the thing with Judas. All the gospel narratives have this, don't put much importance on the time order, could have gone either way and doesn't change any teachings.

If Jesus and Judas interacted before the communion part perhaps Judas left and did not participate in the communion. If the interaction came after the communion part then Judas illustrates that those who do commune improperly do it to their own damnation.

Either way we have no cause to go against what God has told us in His Word. Closed communion is the only godly way to do the sacrament of communion.

PAX

 

[alabaster jar]

Yes, I have thought of this also. Interesting: in other words the LCMS church is concerned about damnation for non-members? And ELCA trusts the individual to be a believer and leaves judgement up to God? I have wondered about all this?

 

[LutherNut]

Yes, I have thought of this also. Interesting: in other words the LCMS church is concerned about damnation for non-members? And ELCA trusts the individual to be a believer and leaves judgement up to God? I have wondered about all this?

The LCMS does not want anyone to committ a sin by receiving the Body and Blood of Christ unworthily and without recognizing the body of Christ in the Sacrament.

The ELCA does not care whether or not someone committs a sin so long as everyone is made to feel welcome.

 

[SPALATIN]

The LCMS does not want anyone to committ a sin by receiving the Body and Blood of Christ unworthily and without recognizing the body of Christ in the Sacrament.

The ELCA does not care whether or not someone committs a sin so long as everyone is made to feel welcome.

So the question remains: Which Synod cares more about you? The one who is looking out for your Spiritual well-being or the one who makes you feel welcome?



I would say that it was closed communion. I don't recall anyone outside of the disciples being asked to partake that night. As for Judas, If he partook in the last supper he still had a choice to resist the temptation at that point. It wasn't until after he committed the sin and was remorseful but was not willing to repent and as a result took his life and took it to his judgement.

 

[AngelusSax]

The ELCA does not care whether or not someone committs a sin so long as everyone is made to feel welcome.

Did the disciples really recognize the body and blood in the first communion? I know Jesus said it, but He had to repeat himself many times for them to get other things. Did they get it right then, or was their getting it only post-resurrection?

 

[SPALATIN]

Did the disciples really recognize the body and blood in the first communion? I know Jesus said it, but He had to repeat himself many times for them to get other things. Did they get it right then, or was their getting it only post-resurrection?

Angelus,

I think this may be one of those things that was revealed to them by the Holy Spirit at pentecost which was only a scant 50 days later.

Scott

 

[Protoevangel]

Did the disciples really recognize the body and blood in the first communion? I know Jesus said it, but He had to repeat himself many times for them to get other things. Did they get it right then, or was their getting it only post-resurrection?

They may very well not have fully understood. But they most certianly believed.

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
...
From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. "You do not want to leave too, do you?" Jesus asked the Twelve.
Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God."
(in context: John 6:25...)

Understanding is not necessarily a prerequisite to belief.

 

[LutherNut]

Did the disciples really recognize the body and blood in the first communion? I know Jesus said it, but He had to repeat himself many times for them to get other things. Did they get it right then, or was their getting it only post-resurrection?

They were the ones who stuck around after His discourse in John 6 about the Bread of Life and "the bread I give is My flesh" and "My flesh is real food and My blood is real drink." I think it's safe to say that the got it later when He instituted the Sacrament.

 

[AngelusSax]

Understanding is not necessarily a prerequisite to belief.

Which is good, because otherwise I probably wouldn't have belief.

 

[Protoevangel]

Which is good, because otherwise I probably wouldn't have belief.

You, me, and I would suppose, everyone!

 

[eladoni]

Ok, personally I'm a fan of closed communion to a point, because if people don't know what they're doing when they take communion, it can be bad for them. My question relates directly to the First last supper.

Christ knew good and well that his betrayer, whom satan himself would possess, would dip the sop with him and his brethren, yet he did allow him to do that. On one hand I think it was so that he could fill up the measure of his wickedness, does that sound reasonable?

Anyway, if Christ allowed that awful man to commune in the very first last supper, should any person who claims to believe in Christ be forbidden from taking part in communion? I mean, the fact that Judas Iscariot took communion with Cephas and John and the rest, did not defile the others who took the communion, only the betrayer himself.

Any thoughts on this, was Christ practicing closed or open communion, and how can we relate what we learn about that to our current practices?

I do not believe that the LCMS practices closed communion. I believe the official policy, is "close" communion, meaning if their belief's are close to our, they are admitted. Infact, I believe there are some denominations that are in altar fellowship with us, not sure which ones though.

 

[AngelusSax]

It has come to my attention that "close" communion and "closed" communion are, in practice, the same thing, as it's never close enough for most people unless it's exact.

 

[eladoni]

It has come to my attention that "close" communion and "closed" communion are, in practice, the same thing, as it's never close enough for most people unless it's exact.

Well, here is the synod's position on it.

The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod has never understood or applied the historic practice of close[d] Communion in such a way as to mean that only LCMS members are permitted to commune at LCMS altars. The official position of the Synod is that not only are members of other Lutheran churches with whom we are in altar and pulpit fellowship invited to commune with us, but also that in certain extraordinary cases of pastoral care and in emergencies members of churches not in fellowship with us may be given Communion. The Synod stated, for example, in 1986 "that pastors and congregations of The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod continue to abide by the practice of close communion, which includes the necessity of exercising responsible pastoral care in extraordinary situations and circumstances" (1986 Res. 3-08 "To Maintain Practice of Close Communion"). A number of resources are available and touch on this subject, including the Commission on Theology and Church Relation's (CTCR) 1983 and 1999 reports on Theology and Practice of the Lord's Supper and Admission to the Lord's Supper.

you can get more information from their faqs page: http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2591

 

[SPALATIN]

Well, here is the synod's position on it.

The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod has never understood or applied the historic practice of close[d] Communion in such a way as to mean that only LCMS members are permitted to commune at LCMS altars. The official position of the Synod is that not only are members of other Lutheran churches with whom we are in altar and pulpit fellowship invited to commune with us, but also that in certain extraordinary cases of pastoral care and in emergencies members of churches not in fellowship with us may be given Communion. The Synod stated, for example, in 1986 "that pastors and congregations of The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod continue to abide by the practice of close communion, which includes the necessity of exercising responsible pastoral care in extraordinary situations and circumstances" (1986 Res. 3-08 "To Maintain Practice of Close Communion"). A number of resources are available and touch on this subject, including the Commission on Theology and Church Relation's (CTCR) 1983 and 1999 reports on Theology and Practice of the Lord's Supper and Admission to the Lord's Supper.

you can get more information from their faqs page: http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2591

Then please explain this Question and answer as well

Q. What does the Missouri Synod teach regarding the sacrament of communion and who can partake in this sacrament?
A. The LCMS believes that Scripture teaches that the Lord's Supper is a precious gift of God in which Christ gives us His true body and blood (in a miraculous way), together with the bread and wine, for the forgiveness of our sins and the strengthening of our faith. Because the Bible teaches that this sacrament may also be spiritually harmful if misused, and that participation in the Lord's Supper is an act of confession of faith, the LCMS ordinarily communes only those who have been instructed in the teachings of our church and who have confessed their faith in these teachings.
For more information, see the following links: "Admission to the Lord's Supper," and "Theology and Practice of the Lord's Supper."

Now you tell me how is one going to truly understand these teachings unless they are properly catechized over a period of time. therefore I see this as contradicting the answer given about "Close Communion"

 

[LutherNut]

I do not believe that the LCMS practices closed communion. I believe the official policy, is "close" communion, meaning if their belief's are close to our, they are admitted. Infact, I believe there are some denominations that are in altar fellowship with us, not sure which ones though.

Here is the list of church bodies in which the LCMS is in full altar/pulpit fellowship.
http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=6268

 

[LutherNut]

Then please explain this Question and answer as well

Q. What does the Missouri Synod teach regarding the sacrament of communion and who can partake in this sacrament?
A. The LCMS believes that Scripture teaches that the Lord's Supper is a precious gift of God in which Christ gives us His true body and blood (in a miraculous way), together with the bread and wine, for the forgiveness of our sins and the strengthening of our faith. Because the Bible teaches that this sacrament may also be spiritually harmful if misused, and that participation in the Lord's Supper is an act of confession of faith, the LCMS ordinarily communes only those who have been instructed in the teachings of our church and who have confessed their faith in these teachings.
For more information, see the following links: "Admission to the Lord's Supper," and "Theology and Practice of the Lord's Supper."

Now you tell me how is one going to truly understand these teachings unless they are properly catechized over a period of time. therefore I see this as contradicting the answer given about "Close Communion"

I don't see any real difference between the two.
Please expand on your confusion.

 

[eladoni]

Then please explain this Question and answer as well

Q. What does the Missouri Synod teach regarding the sacrament of communion and who can partake in this sacrament?
A. The LCMS believes that Scripture teaches that the Lord's Supper is a precious gift of God in which Christ gives us His true body and blood (in a miraculous way), together with the bread and wine, for the forgiveness of our sins and the strengthening of our faith. Because the Bible teaches that this sacrament may also be spiritually harmful if misused, and that participation in the Lord's Supper is an act of confession of faith, the LCMS ordinarily communes only those who have been instructed in the teachings of our church and who have confessed their faith in these teachings.
For more information, see the following links: "Admission to the Lord's Supper," and "Theology and Practice of the Lord's Supper."

Now you tell me how is one going to truly understand these teachings unless they are properly catechized over a period of time. therefore I see this as contradicting the answer given about "Close Communion"

the point being: If they have the same views, but are not a member, they are allowed to commune. an example would be the ELCA, they would most likely be addmited.

 

[SPALATIN]

the point being: If they have the same views, but are not a member, they are allowed to commune. an example would be the ELCA, they would most likely be addmited.

Actually,

I know quite a few churches where the ELCA would NOT be allowed to commune among us because they are considered heterodox by that LC-MS congregation. I could not myself go to an ELCA church and partake there anymore. Though my stance would be In statu confessionis when I go to the ELCA. Their positions on ordaining women and their weak stand on homosexuality are just two issues that would prevent me from communion at their churches.

There is no agreement at this time between ELCA and LCMS on Altar and Pulpit fellowship. And as long as the ELCA continues in their agreements with the ECUSA and PCUSA there will not be an agreement.

 

[LutherNut]

the point being: If they have the same views, but are not a member, they are allowed to commune. an example would be the ELCA, they would most likely be addmited.

Actually, they would not be. The ELCA holds a completely different view on Scripture, the Confessions, homosexuality, abortion, women's ordination, ecumenism, the Real Presence in the Sacrament, etc. They do not have the same views at all.