Communion

[AngelusSax]

OK, I'm not making this a poll, so you can type in your answers adequately here.

Now, the ELCA is in open communion with a few other Christian denominations. Should this list be expanded? Or should we leave who we already are with?

A brief explanation as to why you feel how you do would be nice. I would answer, but surely in the "battles" with the LCMS and WELS people I've had on these forusm, you all already know where I stand.

 

[Music4Hym777]

Honestly, I think that we should not be in fellowship with anyone else but other Lutherans. I think it is insane that we are communion with groups that we dont believe the same doctrine of.

 

[Protoevangel]

For the most part, I agree with Music. How far do we sacrifice truth for the sake of a false sense of unity? How about Muslims? Why not pursue union with them? They believe Jesus existed. How much truth can be sacrificed?

 

[KagomeShuko]

I'm all for open communion. . .but not the way that it's stated in many of the ELCA bulletins just that "visitors are welcome to commune" rather than "all believers in Christ's death and resurrection are welcome to commune"

I have no problem with being in fellowship with the other denominations and am actually excited about the agreements with the United Methodists.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

 

[Melethiel]

I like what's stated in my church's bulletin, that all _baptized_ Christians are allowed to commune.

I'm against actually having "ecumenical agreements" with other denominations though, as I think it leads to a compromise of doctrine.

 

[Protoevangel]

These really are two completely different things we are all discussing. Open Communion and the full communion agreements with the other denominations.

Angelus, I am assuming you were asking about the full communion agreements with the other denominations, and not necessarily about "open Communion". Is that correct?

 

[AngelusSax]

Yes, I am talking about the full communion agreements with other denominations within the Christian faith.

 

[SemStudent08]

*stretch* Wow...this oughta be nice...our own room! Well, here's my two cents anyway. I think ecumenical agreements are wonderful things. We cannot grow in our own faith without being exposed to other ideas and perspectives. I never learned so much about my own faith than when reading how other people look at it. However, I do not like the trend I see within the ELCA's ecumenical agreements, I do think that we have, at times, sacrificed too much. There should be a way in which we can have such agreements and yet preserve Lutheran doctrine. What is that way? I'm not sure, but hopefully its something we can grow to, with God's help.

 

[RedneckAnglican]

I believe that all Christians should be allowed to partake of the true body and blood...Because they are Christian...not because they belong to a different type of club (Church)...I don't care if they are Episcopalian, Presbytarian, Methodist, or if they belong to the "Greater Little Zion Rose of Sharon Missonary Baptist Church of GOD, JESUS and the HOLY SPIRIT, et al. Church name continued on next bus..." Only GOD and GOD alone knows what is in thier hearts, minds, and spirits...not us...not the Pastor...

 

[KagomeShuko]

I believe that all Christians should be allowed to partake of the true body and blood...Because they are Christian...not because they belong to a different type of club (Church)...I don't care if they are Episcopalian, Presbytarian, Methodist, or if they belong to the "Greater Little Zion Rose of Sharon Missonary Baptist Church of GOD, JESUS and the HOLY SPIRIT, et al. Church name continued on next bus..." Only GOD and GOD alone knows what is in thier hearts, minds, and spirits...not us...not the Pastor...

That's exactly where I stand on this. I don't know all that much about some of the ecumenical agreements. . .pretty much I only know of the Episcopalean and Methodist, which haven't, at least from what they've gold me, seemed too far off from the Lutheran doctrine. I think we learn a lot from them, too. So many people are very closed-minded when it comes to looking at others' doctrine. That really saddens me, because they tend to make up what these people believe rather than looking at the doctrine themselves.

I still love Lutheran sermons the best, usually, followed by, I think, Episcopal. SDA focuses way too much on law. Methodist seems to jump all over the place.

Only God knows and he knows what is in the person's heart. . and He's offering His Grace and Himself, so who are we to deny that to believers?

Stein Auf!
Bridget

 

[AngelusSax]

That really saddens me, because they tend to make up what these people believe rather than looking at the doctrine themselves.

Absolutely and AMEN!

Only God knows and he knows what is in the person's heart. . and He's offering His Grace and Himself, so who are we to deny that to believers?

Amen!

 

[ctobola]

I tend to think the practice of close communion -- at least as practiced by the LCMS and WELS is a clear violation of our (Christian) heritage.

The early Church sent a very clear message about what Christians believe -- the Creeds.

To draw lines other than these when it comes to who is welcome at the Lord's table is arrogant, in my humble opinion.

In Christ, -Cloy

 

[Melethiel]

I tend to think the practice of close communion -- at least as practiced by the LCMS and WELS is a clear violation of our (Christian) heritage.

The early Church sent a very clear message about what Christians believe -- the Creeds.

To draw lines other than these when it comes to who is welcome at the Lord's table is arrogant, in my humble opinion.

In Christ, -Cloy

I agree. I've been told before that even though I agree with the LCMS on most issues, I can't commune there because I'm not an official member. That's just ridiculous, in my opinion, when I'm more Lutheran than many LCMS Lutherans are.

I'm more open to the way others, say Orthodox, practice closed communion, because they have completely different motives and practice behind it.

 

[ByzantineDixie]

I'm more open to the way others, say Orthodox, practice closed communion, because they have completely different motives and practice behind it.

What are those motives and practices that differentiate the Orthodox from the Lutherans who continue to practice closed communion?

 

[Melethiel]

What are those motives and practices that differentiate the Orthodox from the Lutherans who continue to practice closed communion?

From my understanding of the Orthodox view (which may be flawed), they believe that Confession and fasting is required before receiving Communion. Thus, Communion is closed to those of the parish that haven't confessed to the priest, and for visitors, it helps if the priest of their home parish is known to the one at the parish they are visiting. It's not enough to simply cognitively agree with Orthodox doctrine, one has to be a practicing Orthodox. (If I've got that wrong, John or someone feel free to correct me. )

Compare that to what I've seen and been told by those of the LCMS (and I talk regularly by IM to several vicars and even pastors), the table is closed for the sake of some arbitrary outward confession, which is usually witnessed by official church membership (the concept of which wasn't even thought of for a long time). (Note that I'm paraphrasing.)

I'm not against closed communion per se, but I think that the boundaries used by the LCMS/WELS are far too strict. I can understand not wanting to commune those who don't believe in the Real Presence, but at least allow those who confess the BoC a place at the table.

End of today's fairly long rant.

 

[UberLutheran]

1. I support open Communion during the Communion service, as long as it is stated (or understood) that Communion is open to all baptized Christians who believe in the Real Presence in the elements of the bread and wine.

2. While I support ecumenical efforts between the various denominations, there are very good reasons for the existence of denominations and denominations are not bad things in and of themselves. I support sharing resources between the ELCA and other denominations as long as there is basic agreement on important doctrines, e.g., the Real Presence in the Sacrament of Communion, the existence of (and need for) Sacraments, etc. It would be a good idea for the ELCA to prioritize what we believe is absolutely essential in doctrine, what is important but not essential, and what is a matter of denomination opinion and interpretation.

 

[JADVirginia]

My church invites all who recognize the Real Presence, and they use that language in the bulletin. Last week, I noted that the Pastor added an explanation that we really don't know how it happens, but that with the Word, the bread and the wine, Christ is there. It happened to be the VBS kick-off service, so maybe he was speaking to some Catholics in the audience.

So that leads to another question: We are not in any formal communion with the Roman Catholic Church, but they most definitely believe in the Real Presence. They even made up transubstantiation make their faith match medieval understandings of physics. So ... would anybody object to a Catholic taking communion with us? I would not!! (They don't like us at their alter, but ... hey ... Whose Supper is it, anyway?)

JADVirgina

 

[AngelusSax]

I personally think the rift between Lutherans and Catholics has lasted way too long, and I would like to see us in a full communion partnership with our Roman Catholic bretheren.

 

[KagomeShuko]

My church invites all who recognize the Real Presence, and they use that language in the bulletin. Last week, I noted that the Pastor added an explanation that we really don't know how it happens, but that with the Word, the bread and the wine, Christ is there. It happened to be the VBS kick-off service, so maybe he was speaking to some Catholics in the audience.

So that leads to another question: We are not in any formal communion with the Roman Catholic Church, but they most definitely believe in the Real Presence. They even made up transubstantiation make their faith match medieval understandings of physics. So ... would anybody object to a Catholic taking communion with us? I would not!! (They don't like us at their alter, but ... hey ... Whose Supper is it, anyway?)

JADVirgina

I don't have a problem with any Christians at the altar. I understand the "real presence" thing and I believe that, too. However, even those who SAY it is purely symbolic, well, we don't know their hearts. They do believe in Christ, so they are still worthy and like you said WHOSE supper is it?

Stein Auf!
Bridget

 

[romaneagle13]

I personally think the rift between Lutherans and Catholics has lasted way too long, and I would like to see us in a full communion partnership with our Roman Catholic bretheren.

I agree with you and JADVirginia. I'd like to see the RC's in communion with the Anglicans and the Lutherans. But this will not happen unless the Catholics change their beliefs in Apolostic Succession and the ligitimacy of non-Catholic sacraments. You can offer communion to Catholics as my church (ECUSA) does, but most of them will not receive because their church does not allow them to. I remember when the rest of my family came to my church when they were visiting me. They are Roman Catholic, and even though the priest mentioned that communion is open to all baptized Christians, my parents did not go up (I knew they wouldn't). My brother, who is a very orthodox Catholic, even left the service and walked to the Catholic church down the street to receive communion there, and then came back to my church for the end of the service! So we Lutherans and Episcopalians can bend towards them, but unless we change drastically in order to meet their standards of Apostolic Succession and Recognition of the Papacy, they will not come to our tables. Having been a Catholic, I understand both sides and despite my wishes to the contrary, I think that full communion with Catholics is not possible.