www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Why not "Open Communion"?

Goodness. All the doctrine of Transubstantiation teaches is that the stuff (which we happen to call substance) is changed into the body and blood of Christ, while the appreance and physical behavior (which we happen to call accidents) remain that of bread. Two questions:
1. How is this any different than Eastern Theology which teaches that the Eucharist is changed into the body and blood of Christ, while retaining the appearance of bread and wine?
2. How is this delving deeply into a mystery that we should not delve into? We are not explaining the how. only the what.

Gordo,

Your post has been deleted. I strongly suggest you calm down. While the post you referenced did not make a direct insult but rather an opinion, your post was a direct insult, uncharitable and demeaning. Consider this a warning.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator

My apologies to all, Father. I yield to your judgement on the quality of my post, but I did find Secret Squirrel's post insulting. I do not see things "as a Latin" nor am I failing to "listen" here. I just simply disagree with Todd's points.

God bless,

Gordo

Dear brethren,

Words are simply signs. Words are signs that mean what we intend them to mean in the context in which we utter them. If the term, "transubstantiation," is simply a sign by which Latin Christians express the fact that the bread and wine truly and really become the body and blood of Christ, even though the change is indiscernable to sense, then let us say that such a term is appropriate and right. I see no reason to dispute these things. I would only see a need to dispute if a particular way of conceptualizing how the change happens were to be made dogma.

In Gordo's defense, and with all due respect to Secret Squirrel, I did find that the "if you would only listen," comment to be imprudent and a way of speaking that could easily lead one to feel insulted. I have no idea, of course, what Gordo posted, but that we should all calm down is good advice from Father Anthony.

Joe

To all,

I agree as not only the starter of this thread, but also as an administrator that all should calm down, read the posts, carefully contemplate your responses before posting. If not this thread will be short lived. This should be applied on all posts and threads throughout the forum.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator

OLS:

Having worked in a situation where I've been exposed to so many Communion practices in Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Churches, let me offer an explanation from many observations. This is not the last word, but an explanation based on my experience.

Protestant Churches practice, for the most part, "open communion." What they mean by this is that anyone baptised in the name of the Trinity may participate--and even among some Protestant Churches this isn't even a requirement. They will offer that invitation to the congregation just before the minister(s) begin the distribution of communion.

That having been said, "intercommunion" is the practice whereby different Churches allow their members to receive in other Churches and may even include shared communion with members of the clergy sharing a service. This isn't usually a practice of the Apostolic Churches.

And both situations may overlap.

On the other hand, the Apostolic Churches, by and large, do not allow either practice and are usually very clear about who may approach the Sacraments/Mysteries, how they are to be disposed, what they are to do to prepare, etc.

Whre much confusion comes in is the practice in the Latin Church in Europe and the other places where ecumenical activity has given people the idea that current practice is identical to that of the Protestant Churches that may share the same cities and neighborhoods. To compound the confusion, many Protestant Churches have adopted similar practices to those now in place in the Latin Church. This is especially true of the Anglican and Lutheran Churches, but also may include some United Methodists and some others: people who have become used to a measure of liturgical practice that looks like the Latin Church have often developed the syncretistic attitude that "if it looks the same, it must be the same" and they admit themselves to communion wherever they happen to find themselves. I see a lot of that at funerals and weddings.

Given this, it isn't any wonder when people are scandalized and we have these long discussions like this thread. But the problem has been long in its development and shows little chance of being stopped. In a parish like my own where there may be as many as 900+ people presenting themselves for communion on a Sunday, it's almost impossible to determine who is Catholic and who is not. It becomes even more difficult when there is a wedding or funeral and people are gathered from far and near but often not from the particular parish. And when a lay minister spots someone who should not be communed and quietly goes to the person and admonishes that he/she should not approach in the future, it can often be the beginning of a very hostile response if not outright threat to mind one's own business. (Speaks to me of disposition, but then who am I?)

In Christ,

BOB

Bob,

I've also experienced where a person who should not be communed did not wish to do so, but was pressured to do so by his parents. My brother-in-law has utterly rejected the Catholic faith, but last time we were at Christmas Mass with my in laws, my father in law became deeply concerned when my brother in law (who does not hide his agnosticism or his not having darkened the door of a church in years) did not want to go up and he kept egging him on to get in the communion line. My brother in law, who has great integrity, refused and simply told his father, "I am not Catholic, I do not believe in God, I cannot commune."

I have seen this kind of thing in churches where someone doesn't go up to communion and then gets strange looks from everyone. I've had this experience myself. Unfortunately, there is, in individual parishes, almost an expectation that you should be going up to communion (if you don't, then you must have committed murder or something, right?). I've seen this too many times.

Joe

Joe:

I've posted before my own experience in my relatives' Lutheran church. My mother and I were the only two people in the entire church who did not commune at a funeral. Talk about being the pariahs for the rest of the day.

BOB

I have to admit - there are times when I do not receive Communion for one valid reason [ well to me it is ] or another.

I really do not understand where this idea has crept in, that if you go to a Service where there is the opportunity for reception of Communion then you have to receive.

It's returning to the idea that the only valid Service is one where you receive Communion - and as we know this is just not so.

This of course is also affecting our perception of Open Communion and intercommunion - and I appreciate BOB's post - this was my view also but to many folk there is a great confusion over the meaning of those terms.

Dear Bob,

In contemplation of your post, I would like to offer a suggestion for any Catholic priests or lay people close to priests...something which my priest does, atleast once a month.

Right before Holy Communion, he reminds the congregation who SHOULD approach the chalice--those who are chrismated Orthodox, those who are prepared by confession and fasting, etc. Even if one is present on a given Sunday when an announcement is not made, I am pretty sure that a friend or family member will point it out to them--and so that the friend or family member is not put into a difficult situation, all they need to do is point to the Sunday bulletin that ALWAYS has it printed on the first page.

In Christ,
Alice

JS,

Your post has great merit. Thus, if the Latins simply use the term "transubstantiation" in order to assert a real change in the elements -- as a theologoumenon of their own tradition -- that is fine.

Nevertheless, Eastern Christians should not be required to accept the term into their own theological tradition; and moreover, if the term is used in order to describe the change in the elements (i.e., through the use of an Aristotelian conceptual framework), then Eastern Christians have every right to speak openly against that type of speculative theory.

East and West agree that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, but how the change occurs, and the ontological nature of the change, are beyond the scope of created reason to comprehend.

God bless,
Todd

When eastern clergy use this rather "open" description of real presence, that Todd describes, to continue to practice and teach their old protestant beliefs then it is time for the east to become a little more specific.

It is actually happening in this country and if it is not recognized as a problem soon, then it will only get to be a bigger problem.

I think I have every reason to speak openly about this problem in Orthodoxy, especially since the Catholic Church teaches that we are to believe that there is grace in Orthodox sacraments and that were we permitted by the Orthodox, we could receive their sacraments.

Mary

Dear Bob,

When I was young, I always received communion in Protestant churches. Since it was not considered the body and blood, but merely a dedication, I felt there was no reason not to do so.

God Bless,

Zenovia

I am sure that Eastern Orthodox priests can teach the Orthodox faith to Protestant converts without reference to Latin speculative theories.

There is some evidence that that is not happening...for some...or it is not "sticking" as a lesson, should a say.

And as I mentioned earlier, there have been times in the history of Orthodoxy where she has needed to be a bit more specific in her systematic theology.

I happen to think we are in such a time yet again.

Mary