Inter-denomination restrictions on communion??!

[gsmart]

Ok, so I wanted to throw this out there to see if anyone has ever heard of this, and what they think.

My girlfriend recently has a converstation with a Catholic priest who commented that there was some unwritten rule/understanding that communion is only to be taken if you agree with a church's doctrine. E.g. if your Baptist you only take part in a Baptist communion...

Now, I understand that the Catholic church has "guidelines" dictating that non-Catholics cannot take part in communion (something that baffles me) but as a non-denom/charismatic christian how does this apply? I can only take communion at a non-denom/charismatic church? What if I was to attend a different church (e.g. Alliance), using this rationale I couldn't take part in communion.

Has anyone ever heard of this supposed unwritten rule?
How does this sort of idea jive with non-denoms?

Personally I have a lot of reservations on this. Mainly because of Galatians 3:28:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (NIV)

and for our KJV fans:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

What do you all think of this?

***DISCLAIMER: I'm not bashing Catholics! I just have never heard of this unwritten rule between non-Catholic churches.***

 

[CrazyforYeshua]

I'm not sure of the Catholic church, but I know what scripture says. It says not to take it unworthily, which means 1) that you are born again by the blood of Christ, and do as He says, in rememberance of what He did for you and 2) that if you have unforgivness against someone, or if they toward you, you are to make it right before you partake.
I myself, if I am not in a born again church, and they offered communion, would not partake in that situation (but that's prolly just me).

 

[talitha]

I was brought up in a Methodist church, and they practiced open communion. My non-denominational church that I attend now also practices open communion. Some Baptist churches do, some do not. The rules vary widely. I usually inquire about the rules before presuming to take communion in a church I visit. The priest was way over-generalizing, or he was simply assuming.

blessings
tal

 

[Telrunya]

Well anything that is "unwritten" is a rule of man and Not God. Our God isn't a God of confusion and He doesn't want to keep you from understanding. In fact He calls us to know Him better all the time. We are all called saints and preists. If you go to a church that is having communion and you pray over the offering and partake then it is communion.

 

[TruthTellsAll]

Yea..... "unwritten rule" = not biblical = not right.

Communion isn't taken to show loyalty to your churche's doctrine..... its to remember Christ and aaallll the awesome stuff that he's done. I would say don't worry about it. As long as your heart is right with God, then there should be no problem wherever you take communion

 

[KATHXOYMENOC]

I am technically no longer non-denominational, so my comments here will be limited, but the groups that do not allow open communion fully explain their positions and reasons for this in their catechism books and/or on their Websites - i.e., if you want the "official" explanations for why some Christian groups do not give communion to just any person who calls himself or herself a "Christian," the information is out there. Wikipedia may have an article and a listing for this, perhaps under "communion" (just guessing).

 

[ModernDaySpyridon]

Well, this is my first post ever so bear with me if anything is screwy.

I have been on both sides of the debate, growing up non-denom, switching to Emergent during my bible college years, and now as a budding Eastern Orthodox, so I may be able to clarify.

Growing up, what I was taught was that communion was remembrance of what Christ had done for us on the cross, and that anyone who had accepted Jesus into their heart could take it.

In college I was exposed to the belief that Communion wasn't merely a symbol or a way of remembering Jesus' death and resurrection, but an actual way of participating mysteriously in the death of Christ (a kind of psuedo-consubstantiation.)

I came to a much fuller understanding of Holy Communion, however, when I began inquiring in the Eastern Orthodox Church. I discovered that their understanding of communion, and the reason it is "closed," is that communion requires, surprisingly enough, "communion," unity, the understanding that we have a common understanding of what we are partaking in, and a common practice. It assumes that we have submitted ourselves to the same authority, and that we have prepared ourselves through prayer, fasting, and confession.

A good analogy I heard is that communion is like sex...bear with me ... in that sex outside the context of marriage and the commitment and responsibility that brings is inappropriate. In the same way, for someone who is not a member of the Orthodox faith to take communion at an Orthodox church without being prepared in the same way or being of like mind and heart, is a mistake.

Hope that clarifies some things, if not let me know.

 

[mont974x4]

I agree with the unwritten rule = bad comments above.


We are to examine ourselves, as opposed to others be examined by us or others examining us. If we look at that passage in 1 Cor 11 we see in verse 19 a reference to the approved. I would assert that this would mean the believer. Only we know our heart and we know if we are His or not. Also, in verse 28 we are to examine ourselves. I suppose many could, and would, say that relates to sin. I can handle that, but I personally think it has more to do with whether or not we are taking Communion for the right reason....based on the passage at the time I get the idea it was whether they saw it as another meal or as properly remembering Christ. It also talks about judgment..in fact it talks about judging ourselves.


It is between us and God and no one else. If someone chooses to not partake at one time that is between them and God, if they choose to partake then that is also between them and God.

I see nothing that would lead me to believe it entails anything else. However, I am willing to look at any Scripture relating to the subject and explore with brothers and sisters.

 

[gsmart]

Thank you all for responding. This topic is something that I have never really been exposed to...or at least the complexities of it. Something that I was reading today was this:

The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

Notice that this was also mentioned (in part) in the first passage I quoted (Galatians 3:28).

For me I've always seen myself and a Christian first and a (enter denomination) second. The doctrine of the church may influence how I worship God, but isn't the reason why I worship God. And I believe that my only true authority is God (That's not to say that I run rampant across the country disregarding the authories). I mean, on judgement day, I won't be standing infront of a panel of church leaders, but in front of the Almighty himself. Perhaps this is why I feel this topic so unsettling, church doctrine regulating how we interact. It just seems that if we are all one body, why do we isolate the parts?

I do agree with ModernDaySpyridon that Communion is more than just remembering Christ (although in all fairness Jesus did say that the breaking of bread was to be done in "rememberance of me" see Luke 22:19), but segregating who can take part based solely on their chosen method of worship? I just seem unsettled about this.

I look forward to hearing others persectives on this topic.

GS

 

[gsmart]

I am technically no longer non-denominational, so my comments here will be limited, but the groups that do not allow open communion fully explain their positions and reasons for this in their catechism books and/or on their Websites - i.e., if you want the "official" explanations for why some Christian groups do not give communion to just any person who calls himself or herself a "Christian," the information is out there. Wikipedia may have an article and a listing for this, perhaps under "communion" (just guessing).

To be honest, if there was an "all-denomination" discussion board I would have posted this there. I'm quite interested in hearing a variety of viewpoints, not just non-denom. So thank you for posting and feel free to do so again!

 

[whateveristrue]

Simply said, Denominations who believe their doctrine is the only true doctrine, and everybody else is wrong... they are the ones who restrict communion to members only. Basically, they're saying... unless you are part of their denomination, you're not really a Christian at all. So you have no right to take part in the Lord's supper.

 

[threeinone]

To be honest, if there was an "all-denomination" discussion board I would have posted this there. I'm quite interested in hearing a variety of viewpoints, not just non-denom. So thank you for posting and feel free to do so again!

I know that the Roman Catholic Church gives communion only to its members and no others, because it is a sacrament. However, I feel that anyone who wishes to receive Jesus should be given Jesus for what better healer than to receive Jesus. I take communion wherever I go. I would not refuse Jesus. And I hope I am never asked to not receive Jesus.

 

[Telrunya]

Well, this is my first post ever so bear with me if anything is screwy.

I have been on both sides of the debate, growing up non-denom, switching to Emergent during my bible college years, and now as a budding Eastern Orthodox, so I may be able to clarify.

Growing up, what I was taught was that communion was remembrance of what Christ had done for us on the cross, and that anyone who had accepted Jesus into their heart could take it.

In college I was exposed to the belief that Communion wasn't merely a symbol or a way of remembering Jesus' death and resurrection, but an actual way of participating mysteriously in the death of Christ (a kind of psuedo-consubstantiation.)

I came to a much fuller understanding of Holy Communion, however, when I began inquiring in the Eastern Orthodox Church. I discovered that their understanding of communion, and the reason it is "closed," is that communion requires, surprisingly enough, "communion," unity, the understanding that we have a common understanding of what we are partaking in, and a common practice. It assumes that we have submitted ourselves to the same authority, and that we have prepared ourselves through prayer, fasting, and confession.

A good analogy I heard is that communion is like sex...bear with me ... in that sex outside the context of marriage and the commitment and responsibility that brings is inappropriate. In the same way, for someone who is not a member of the Orthodox faith to take communion at an Orthodox church without being prepared in the same way or being of like mind and heart, is a mistake.

Hope that clarifies some things, if not let me know.

There is alot to this but I would like to ask who are you communing with when you take communion? Whether you believe it is an act of rememberance as Jesus said "do this in rememberance of me" or actually a way of participating mysteriously in the death of Christ, you are communing with Christ. Not the people around you. This is an act of worship. As others have pointed out it doesn't matter what denomination you belong to, we all belong to Christ. We all have the same Holy Spirit. To say that the elbow isn't prepared to be a part of the body but the hand is because the hand can grab things is rediculous. The same holds true with taking communion. To say one believer isn't prepared to take part because they dont follow some ritual that is practiced by a particular denomination before hand just doesn't hold water.

 

[ModernDaySpyridon]

There is alot to this but I would like to ask who are you communing with when you take communion? Whether you believe it is an act of rememberance as Jesus said "do this in rememberance of me" or actually a way of participating mysteriously in the death of Christ, you are communing with Christ. Not the people around you. This is an act of worship. As others have pointed out it doesn't matter what denomination you belong to, we all belong to Christ. We all have the same Holy Spirit. To say that the elbow isn't prepared to be a part of the body but the hand is because the hand can grab things is rediculous. The same holds true with taking communion. To say one believer isn't prepared to take part because they dont follow some ritual that is practiced by a particular denomination before hand just doesn't hold water.

I would point out that viewing any act of worship as "solitary" owes more to Western philosophy than to the Bible or to church tradition. The thing is, we are all communal, relational beings; when we sin, we do not sin merely to ourselves, but as Bishop Kallistos Ware has said, “There are no entirely private sins. All sins are sins against my neighbor, as well as against God and against myself. Even my most secret thoughts are, in fact, making it more difficult for those around me to follow Christ.”

I'm not attempting to convince you to believe something different than you already do. However, this thread was to clarify why some faith traditions have closed communion, and this is why the Orthodox do; because Communion is not merely "personal," it is deeply communal and relational. And don't think that it is approached lightly, or as a give-in. Even Orthodox believers are expected to have been in regular confession, fasting, and prayer to recieve "The Medicine of Immortality" as it was called in the early church.

Like I said, I'm not attempting to tell you what to do in your own community, but it is always good to show respect and deference to a community that you are visiting, especially if you are coming (in terms of mindsets) from different sides of the world.

 

[christianmomof3]

Our church has open communion meaning that any believer can participate.
However, I have also heard, as you mentioned, that when we partake of communion, in a sense we are agreeing with the doctines of the particular church or group that we take communion with.
So, we should think about who we would take communion with. So if there was a group who you did not agree with their teachings - like perhaps Mormons (I have no idea if they do communion or not), you should pray and see if the Lord leads you to partake of their communion because it may be something you should avoid.

 

[irishseventysix]

Yea..... "unwritten rule" = not biblical = not right.

Communion isn't taken to show loyalty to your churche's doctrine..... its to remember Christ and aaallll the awesome stuff that he's done. I would say don't worry about it. As long as your heart is right with God, then there should be no problem wherever you take communion

So I guess circumcision, having been an unwritten rule, was a "tradition of men" between the time of Abraham and Moses, then. Good to know.

This isn't an argument about Holy Tradition, though. If you and I believe differently about what we're receiving...if to some it is the actual body and blood of Christ, while to others, it's just a symbol, then we're not in communion with one another. We are not of the same mind. We are not united. Therefore, we do not exemplify the Body of Christ in this case.

Since St. Paul said that anyone who takes communion in an unworthy manner eats and drinks condemnation upon themselves, the Orthodox Church refuses non-Orthodox the sacrament for their protection, as well. And as Orthodox, if we fail to prepare ourselves (and under the pastoral direction of our priests), we as individuals don't receive it until the issues are resolved, either.

Christ also said that, "as often as you gather, do this in remembrance of me". That means that communion is relational. Not just a "me and Jesus" thing.

It's not because we don't think that no one else is saved. It's not because we think we're better than you. We don't judge like that. We close communion to protect the unity of its recipients, and to protect the souls of those with whom we aren't functionally unified.

In truth, the Early Church practiced closed communion very strictly, excusing from the service (literally the building) all who hadn't yet been baptized from even taking part in the prayers leading up to the sacrament. Part of this was also functional because the Roman Empire was persecuting the Church at the time, and the Church didn't want those who hadn't been baptized to get killed by remaining inside in case the parish was raided.

The Church has practiced this ever since. Even high church Protestant Lutherans, Anglicans (the more conservative ones), Presbyterians, etc. practiced closed communion. It's only been within the last, oh 100 years or so and within the ever schisming Protestant groups that we have seen people practicing something called "open communion".

 

[threeinone]

I am truly shocked. Communion is Jesus and Jesus is Jesus, whether it be the true body of Jesus or a symbol of Jesus, Jesus is Jesus and everybody needs Jesus, even those who do not believe. What better way to bring non believers to the faith than to feed them Jesus. Anyone who keeps Jesus to themselves for whatever reason is doing an injustice. This makes me feel like refusing communion for what you have made it. Well it was that way, you just said it.

Just imagine, refusing Jesus to people. That is more sin than anything else I have seen.

 

[irishseventysix]

I am truly shocked. Communion is Jesus and Jesus is Jesus, whether it be the true body of Jesus or a symbol of Jesus, Jesus is Jesus and everybody needs Jesus, even those who do not believe. What better way to bring non believers to the faith than to feed them Jesus. Anyone who keeps Jesus to themselves for whatever reason is doing an injustice. This makes me feel like refusing communion for what you have made it. Well it was that way, you just said it.

Just imagine, refusing Jesus to people. That is more sin than anything else I have seen.

We CAN'T refuse Jesus to people. But if the communion you're receiving a just symbol of Jesus and not the actual Body and Blood of Christ, you're not receiving Jesus, but the symbol instead. There is a critical difference there.

And refusing communion to non-believers isn't about refusing them Jesus. Our God is with us always, no matter where we go, no matter who we are. But non-believers have to choose to believe in Him and follow Him before they can receive his Body and Blood. It's the consummation of the commitment.

If people have sex with each other before marriage, we don't just call them married right there. We have people refrain from sexual intercourse before marriage, and then they get married and their marriage is consummated by the sexual act.

Communion is the same way in this regard.

You wouldn't let a king, the President, or respected company into your house without first preparing it, would you? For those who have not prepared themselves to receive the Body and Blood of Christ, they should abstain, as St. Paul says.

Read my post above, please.

 

[threeinone]

We CAN'T refuse Jesus to people. But if the communion you're receiving a just symbol of Jesus and not the actual Body and Blood of Christ, you're not receiving Jesus, but the symbol instead. There is a critical difference there.

And refusing communion to non-believers isn't about refusing them Jesus. Our God is with us always, no matter where we go, no matter who we are. But non-believers have to choose to believe in Him and follow Him before they can receive his Body and Blood. It's the consummation of the commitment.

If people have sex with each other before marriage, we don't just call them married right there. We have people refrain from sexual intercourse before marriage, and then they get married and their marriage is consummated by the sexual act.

Communion is the same way in this regard.

You wouldn't let a king, the President, or respected company into your house without first preparing it, would you? For those who have not prepared themselves to receive the Body and Blood of Christ, they should abstain, as St. Paul says.

Read my post above, please.

I am going to have to stay out of this because it is a host, a wafer, a piece of bread in every case in every church. That is what we put in our mouth. And in every case, the spirit of Jesus is there. I have said it before and I will say it once more and then never again. I don't eat the flesh of anybody. I am not a cannibal. It is a host, a wafer and wine.

 

[irishseventysix]

We Orthodox Christians also believe that it is a piece of bread and wine that is consumed. But just as Christ came in the flesh as fully God and fully man, the Eucharist is both fully bread & wine and the actual Body and Blood of Christ.

John 6:53-56-
"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. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.' "

It doesn't sound like he's kidding about his flesh being real food and his blood being real drink. Not at all. And keep in mind that this was said probably months before Christ applied his flesh to bread and his blood to wine at the Last Supper. In John 6, Christ says nothing about bread and wine.

This isn't supposed to be easy. In the same passage, his disciples admitted it was a hard saying (v. 60), and some of them turned away and never came back (v. 66).

This is our belief as Orthodox Christians. However, if people are going to approach the chalice unprepared and not believing that it really is his flesh and blood, then we want to protect them from eating and drinking condemnation unto themselves at the very least. Makes sense to me.

The idea that it really is just a symbol is also a new concept, compared to Church History. Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli all believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The Orthodox belief of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist has never been invented over our 2,000 year history. It was there from the beginning, with the early Church and it hasn't been changed. It's a particularly Modernist idea that the Eucharist is just a symbol.