Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian
From: bcsaic!carroll@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Jeff Carroll)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: open communion
Message-ID: <Feb.12.04.15.00.1990.11816@athos.rutgers.edu>
Date: 12 Feb 90 09:15:06 GMT
Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle
Lines: 53
Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu


	First of all, it doesn't necessarily follow that because most
Lutherans belong to a church that practices open communion (i.e., the
ELCA), most *Lutheran groups* do so. In fact, it would seem to work the
other way around.
	To rephrase what has already been stated here, one good reason
for closed communion is that one of the greatest bones of contention
among denominations is *what the Eucharist actually is*.
	I'm not a student of RC theology, but I believe the official
Vatican party line is that of transsubstantiation. (Regardless of
whatever the theologians say now, and whatever the last papal ruling
was, there are doubtless many millions of RCs throughout the world who
believe this.)
	The opposite end of the spectrum, occupied by many of the
Protestant groups that sprung up in America in the 19th century, is that
Holy Communion is an "ordinance" of the Savior, which we perform in
memory of him. (I believe that the Church of the Nazarene, into which I
was born, is one of several groups taking this position.) The term
"sacrament" is never used, much less "Eucharist" or "Mass".
	Most Protestants (no numbers to back me up here) believe that
Holy Communion is a sacrament. Most agree that there are two of them;
Baptism and Holy Communion. Most, however, don't ever stop to think
about what a sacrament is, other than to memorize the line "outward and
visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace."
	In the Anglican Communion, we believe in the Real Presence of
Christ in the Eucharist. (Anyone who is familiar with the diversity
among Episcopal parishes today knows that we have plenty of people who
hew to the RC line, and some who are pretty Protestant.) In other words,
we believe that Christ uses the Eucharist as a supernatural means of
grace. We're Catholic, we're just not Roman Catholic.
	So one good reason for closed communion is to keep people with
particular beliefs from being scandalized by the participation of
heretics in the Sacraments.
	Another good reason is that of mechanics. My wife and I wanted
to have Eucharist at our wedding; the problem was that most of the
guests had no idea of how to properly receive the Eucharist in the
Episcopal Church. Most of my family is Methodist; some are
Congregational; some are Advent Christian; most of my wife's family is
Presbyterian, and many friends of the family are Jewish. Without having
an instructional Eucharist every Sunday, how do you really open the
Sacrament to "all baptized Christians", as is stated in the latest
Episcopal prayer book? Not only are the non-Episcopalians uncomfortable,
they also become a distracting spectacle to other communicants.
	Another reason for closed communion is because it allows the
Church to prevent people from partaking of the Sacrament "to their own
comdemnation", to paraphrase the words of St. Paul. In my (family)
parish, it is quite disturbing to see children too young to understand
the significance of what they are doing, and in many cases too young to
read, taking part in the Eucharist. It invites sacrilegious behavior.
	The Episcopal Church has open communion. I wish it didn't.

	Jeff Carroll
	carroll@atc.boeing.com