Why should communion be "closed"?

Upvote:1

The idea of a closed communion is very old. We can find Justin Martyr writing c150ad saying this:

And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία1910 [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.

The footnote to this paragraph says this:

1911 This passage is claimed alike by Calvinists, Lutherans, and Romanists; and, indeed, the language is so inexact, that each party may plausibly maintain that their own opinion is advocated by it. [But the same might be said of the words of our Lord himself; and, if such widely separated Christians can all adopt this passage, who can be sorry?] The expression, “the prayer of His word,” or of the word we have from Him, seems to signify the prayer pronounced over the elements, in imitation of our Lord’s thanksgiving before breaking the bread. [I must dissent from the opinion that the language is “inexact:” he expresses himself naturally as one who believes it is bread, but yet not “common bread.” So Gelasius, Bishop of Rome (a.d. 490), “By the sacraments we are made partakers of the divine nature, and yet the substance and nature of bread and wine do not cease to be in them,” etc. (See original in Bingham’s Antiquities, book xv. cap. 5. See Chryost., Epist. ad. Cæsarium, tom. iii. p. 753. Ed. Migne.) Those desirous to pursue this inquiry will find the Patristic authorities in Historia Transubstantionis Papalis, etc., Edidit F. Meyrick, Oxford, 1858. The famous tractate of Ratranin (a.d. 840) was published at Oxford, 1838, with the homily of Ælfric (a.d. 960) in a cheap edition.] https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01/anf01.viii.ii.lxvi.html

This of course begs the question about exactly what was believed, but still, the idea of closed communion was exhibited.

Upvote:4

Is it not a sin to withhold communion from those who might think a little differently about the specific nature of the Eucharist?

I would argue that there is a misconception here (and this seems to be the root of your question).

As one source (see below) says: "The celebration of Holy Communion is also a public act of confession. When you receive the Sacrament at a church's altar, you are giving public testimony that you agree with that church's doctrinal position." (Emphasis added.) Another: "Communion creates and defines our community, our being one with one another in Christ". Another: "Those Christians who remain outside of [our] Church are, by definition, not in full union (communion) with [our] Church" and "[if those people commune with us, they] are saying with their body, 'I am in full union with the Church,' when in fact they are not. Reception of the greatest gift Christ intends to give to us therefore becomes an act of dishonesty and occasion of sin." Still another: "It would be shameful hypocrisy on our part if we would have those who actually profess a different faith than we do join us at the Lord's Altar" and "Close communion seeks to prevent a profession of confessional unity in faith where there is, in fact, disunity and disagreement".

Practicing closed communion is not the same as forbidding someone from taking communion. It isn't saying "you may not have communion", but "it is not appropriate that you should take communion with us". The very word suggests why this should be: communion is an expression of unity in faith. If one does not have unity in faith with another, one should not partake of communion what that other person, but with other Christians with which one does share faith. For the same reason, most Christians who practice closed communion would not merely exclude Christians of another faith from their own churches, but would exclude themselves from communing outside their church. (Note that "church" here is roughly synonymous with "denomination", not a specific congregation.)

Further reading (mostly taken from Google):

Note that, from what I know / can tell, the stance on closed communion of all of these bodies is fairly consistent, despite their doctrines having other (sometimes quite extreme) differences. (All also note that "open" communion is a modern invention of non-Lutheran protestant churches that was never practiced in the historical church prior to the reformation.)

More post

Search Posts

Related post