Would I be welcome at the communion table?

[Jim47]

CaliforniaJosiah[/color][/size][/font]

The ONLY question I've raised is whether this determination of worthiness for His Gift (?) should be based on what is assumed or what is known.

Neither Josiah. It should be determined on belief and confession of beliefs only. There is no other way. Only God can judge a mans heart. So if someone deceptively confesses it is to their own harm. The church is relieved of this.

The Catechism, to which the policy directs us, addresses the issue of worthiness. It talks about the faith in our hearts in those words.

So, perhaps it should be okay to discuss how we know what that person believes. The policy, as it has repeatedly been defined, says we should assume this by their current technical official membership in a congregation and to which denomination that congregation is assoicated with, if any.




This is where the discussion has been made complicated. There's not only an assumption about what the person believes here, but also an assumption as to why they belong to a particular congregation. Could this be an assumption based on an assumption?

Is the only way to say "I believe" by the Rite of Confirmation? A person cannot believe something if they have not been Confirmed in a congregation that is in association with a denomination in fellowship with the LCMS or WELS? But I divert. The ONLY question I'm discussion is what is the best way to determine worthiness? To assume or to know?

Again, only be a clear confession of faith and an agreement with the confessions.


So, the issue is not what's in the person's heart and faith (I'm recalling what Luther said in the Catechism that I quoted verbatim earlier in this thread) but rather the denomination to which the congregation was officially assoicated in which the 14 year old participated in the Rite of Confirmation? Is the issue not what is believed but that they were Confirmed? Or is it just assumed by the pastor of the church in which this person is visiting that what whatever the person was taught back then is what is in that person's heart now? Is it assumed what was taught, that it was understood, that it was agreed to, and all that is still the case? The pastor of the church in which this person is visiting is to assume all that?

It just seems to me it might be worth considering the possibility of basing this awesome responsbility on what is known rather than assumed, on what's in this person's heart and faith rather than our understanding of what he affirmed on his Confirmation day.


- Josiah
[/quote]


In my church nothing is assumed. Our Pastor is very good at examining those who went through instruction. Simply going through instruction is not an open invitation to partake of Holy Communion. Again, it all lies in beliefs and confession. I will say that knowledge is good, but knowledge does not save. Only faith can save and only by faith can we accept The Lord's Supper.

My apologies if I am not clear.

I hope the following link works. If not go to WELS web site, under "faith" go to "beliefs" then "This we belive". That should help. This statement is a very clear statement of belief written by WELS.

Good night all. Me>>


http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?2601&collectionID=783

 

[LutherNut]

Josiah,

Here's the fact, one that you have been told over and over and over... and over...

A visitor comes to an LCMS church. They are requested to speak with the pastor concerning reception of the Lord's supper. The pastor can only "know" what the person tells him. If the person tells him that he or she is a member of an LCMS congregation, that is a confession of faith that that person is in agreement and fellowship with that congregation.

If in their conversation the visitor says "I'm a member of such-n-such United Methodist Church," they are making a statement of faith because they were instructed in the Methodist doctrines and made a public confession of faith to join that denomination congregation. They are stating that they know, understand, and are in agreement with that denomination's false teaching about the Sacrament.
It is not assumed, it is based upon what the person says.


Now, I would suggest that you follow the official moderator post from pmcleanj and drop this issue and excuse yourself from this subforum.


Blessings,
Jay

 

[Protoevangel]

CaliforniaJosiah,

I generally enjoy reading your posts, and respect your point of view. But I have to agree with LutherNut's assessment above. Now, on the other hand, if a person is leaving the erring denomination, and has a clear confession, which is in agreement with the truth, as professed by the LCMS, that would be a different matter, and a time when "pastoral care", as described in the LCMS FAQ I quoted above, may be responsibly exercised.

Because when I raise this issue in an email to my LMCS pastor, quoting some of the posts here - including the "policy of the LCMS" he wrote back to say that closed communion was NOT the policy of the LCMS NOR was Confirmation required.

This statement from your pastor (the part I bolded, anyway) is in error.

LCMS > Belief & Practice > What About? > Fellowship in the Lord's Supper (http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/LCMS/wa_fellowship-lordssupper.pdf)

On the basis of God’s Holy Word,our Lutheran church continues to practice the ancient,Biblical and confessional practice of close communion as an opportunity to give joyful witness to our unity in the true faith.We practice close communion with the belief that this is what the Lord would have us do as we faithfully administer His body and blood in His holy Sacrament.

The fact that pastoral care and emergencies are exceptions, does not make the rule any less valid.

 

[rockytrails]

Hello friends,

My husband and I are currently members of a United Methodist church. We feel strongly that this church is where God would have us right now.

However, many Methodist churches unfortunately stopped having weekly communion 'way back when,' due to a shortage of ordained ministers who could preside. In our church (and most Methodist churches I've attended), the practice is often to only commune once a month. I hear that this may change across the denomination, however, I think it will be awhile.

I was wondering if I would be welcome to commune at an LCMS or WELS church on the Sundays when we do not have communion at our church. My thought was that I could attend the early service at the Lutheran Church, and then go back over to our church for the late service.

Would this be acceptable, or would you find this offensive in any way? I don't want to take advantage of my Lutheran brothers and sisters, but I really strongly desire to have an opportunity to receive communion more frequently than once a month.

Any thoughts?

Thanks for your help.

Your sister in Christ,
Grace

A former methodist who now has taken bible information course and is in agreement with us in our bible beliefs would be welcome.

but untill that time why would a methodist want to commune with people she does not even know what they Believe ?

And have been condemed to hell by official papal decree?

 

[LutheranHawkeye]

Wow, what a long and informative post. Even though it's really old I still have one question for CaliforniaJosiah(if he's still around), If someone believes all of the doctrine of the LCMS and wishes to commune at an LCMS church. Why not become a member of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod?

 

[LutherNut]

Wow, what a long and informative post. Even though it's really old I still have one question for CaliforniaJosiah(if he's still around), If someone believes all of the doctrine of the LCMS and wishes to commune at an LCMS church. Why not become a member of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod?

I believe that he is now a member of an LCMS congregation.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Wow, what a long and informative post. Even though it's really old I still have one question for CaliforniaJosiah(if he's still around), If someone believes all of the doctrine of the LCMS and wishes to commune at an LCMS church. Why not become a member of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod?

The post is nearly two years old. At that time, I was just begining to attend Lutheran churches. I joined an LCMS congregation only last September in connection with my Confirmation.

As I recall, this thread generated a LOT of "less than friendly" PM's to me, that actually caused me to withdraw from this forum for some time.


The key question is whether there are obvious biblical and Confessional requirements that one agree with every denominational convention resolution and every CTCR document in order to not be banned from Christ in the Holy Sacrament. It is my better understanding today that the LCMS has a LONG, confusing, perplexed and highly controversal history on that point. The BOTTOM LINE is that the affirmation of all the above is not required and that ultimately it is up to the presiding pastor and/or hosting congregation in each individual situation. There are some sweeping GENERIC generalities but none of that is binding in specific, individual situatations. Pastors are ENCOURAGED to speak at length and to know each communicant. A policy I agree with - but, of course, is extremely controversal in our beloved Synod, as it has been for most of our history.


Again, in MY case, the situation is now different since I am now Confirmed (for nearly 4 months now) and I am an official member of a congregation legally associated with the LCMS.


Thank you.



Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[RadMan]

A Lutheran is just that. A confessing Lutheran which abides by the standards by which we call ourselves Lutherans. We may not totally agree on what is happening in the synod now but we can adhere to the core statements made by the "Brief Statement of 1932" which embodies most of the confessions in a nut shell.

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/mosynod/web/doct-01.html