|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Closed communion article.|
|WikiProject Christianity / Catholicism / Eastern / Lutheranism / Calvinism / Baptist / Latter Day Saints / Witnesses||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
- 1 Orthodox / Catholic
- 2 "Closed" vs "close"?
- 3 Catholic coverage is wrong
- 4 Anglican Orders
- 5 Mormons/Latter-day Saints
- 6 Merge
- 7 The Patriarchate of Antioch.
- 8 Proposed merger from Fenced table
- 9 Fenced table and closed communion
- 10 Citation needed
- 11 Crossed arms (queries)
- 12 Regarding Lutherans
- 13 Jehovah's Witnesses and other denominations
- 14 Apparently incomprehensible edit
Orthodox / Catholic
What's up with the strange qualification if one construes that term to include all churches that are in communion with the pope and acknowledging that all Christians owe obedience to the pope, regardless of whether they are of the Latin Rite or one of the Eastern Rites? I'm not saying it's wrong, just strange. Benwbrum 22:36, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I removed the exception for a Roman Catholic marrying an Orthodox Christian in an Orthodox Church for two reasons: 1) the Orthodox wedding service includes the sharing of a symbolic common cup, NOT the Eucharist, and 2) knowingly permitting any non-Orthodox to receive the Eucharist is extremely rare, and would probably get the priest called up before the bishop before you could say "Receive the Body of Christ." Such an interfaith marriage would require episcopal approval anyway, which would, in most circumstances, be contingent on the non-Orthodox party not receiving any sacraments other than Matrimony. JHCC 17:53, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Plausible, although it was in place for a good while... . Perhaps the original author can cite some evidence. Trc | [msg] 17:59, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Added the qualification "Syriac". The Syriac church is a non-Chalcedonian body, not in communion with the autocephalous Orthodox churches, and as such cannot be taken as representative of "Orthodox" as a whole. JHCC 13:09, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Being a relative novice to Wiki and with my knowledge of the subject rather limited I didn't dare to tamper with an article but may I post a suggestion? I would suggest to balance the phrase:
"Thus, a member of the Russian Orthodox Church attending the Divine Liturgy...; as will a non-Christian, of course." by changing it for example like this:
"Thus, a member of the Russian Orthodox Church attending the Divine Liturgy in a Greek Orthodox Church, will be allowed to receive communion, but a Roman Catholic attending a Greek Orthodox liturgy will be excluded from communion and vice versa. In either case, non-Christians are also excluded."
I humbly ask not to be flamed upon. I know, this is a delicate subject --Irpen 17:58, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I agree with Irpen as to style. Irpen, switch it out!!DaveTroy 20:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
"Closed" vs "close"?
I don't see this previously discussed here, but see footnote #24 here. Is "closed" still a commonly used phrase in other denominations? LCMS clearly writes "close communinion" in all their official theological statements. -Jcbarr 02:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Catholic coverage is wrong
The [Roman] Catholic church permits members of all the ancient sacramental churches -- Orthodox, Assyrian, Coptic, etc -- to receive communion. This fact is printed in the inside front cover of the missalette in every single pew of every single Catholic church. I am surprised that this article is incorrect on this point. Lawrence King 02:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I fixed it. Lawrence King 07:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Lawrence, what you say is true, but qualified. They are asked to respect the discpline of their own churches. Currently the Orthodox church typically do not allow their members to receive in the Roman Catholic Church.DaveTroy 20:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
The validity of the Anglican Orders isn't a personal opinion, its the position of the Anglican Church. You can't leave in the Roman POV and then dismiss the Anglican one as "personal opinion". The fact is the the alleged invalidity is an RC peculiarity, which tends not to be followed in other apostolic-succession bodies like the Orthodox and Old Catholic churches. Carolynparrishfan 19:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I have noticed the statement in several articles that Latter-day Saints have closed communion. While the Church teaches that the Sacrament (Eucharist) is efficacious only for baptized members in good standing, the never-baptized are not refused participation in communion. In fact it is traditional for children who are not yet baptized (this only occurs at age 8) to participate. It is often said that this is done in anticipation of baptism (whereas baptized members participate in re-affirmation of baptism). The only people who may be refused communion are baptized members not in good standing or excommunicated members. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 08:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC).
- Whenever I ask about this, that is the response I get. When I was a missionary for that church, I asked about people that weren't members if they could participate. The answer I got was "They can if they want".TAU Croesus (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Since it has been proposed on the Eucharistic discipline article that there is a need for sections on open and closed communion and because the this page doesn't contain much information anyway (and because it falls under the broader heading of Eucharistic discipline), I am proposing we merge it into a section of Eucharistic discipline article. Thoughts? -- jackturner3 02:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The Patriarchate of Antioch.
The Patriarchate of Antioch is, I think, in communion with at least the Armenians, if not some other obscure churches, like the Assyrians? I used to attend the Antiochian church in Colchester, Essex, where father Alexander Haig is the priest, under metropolitan Gabriel of Paris. Thus it is fully apostolic and canonical. He administered communion knowingly to an Armenian monophysite from Syria. Also in The Orthodox Church by Kallistos, it says something about Antioch entering communion with an obscure assyrian/iraqi/turkish church at some point in the early 20th c. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Proposed merger from Fenced table
The following text is a copy of the discussion that was begun at Talk:Fenced table, not here, when the original proposal was that the "fenced table" be merged with Eucharist. Lima (talk) 11:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- It should be merged instead with Closed communion, which seems to me to be the same thing. Lima (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Fenced table and closed communion
I don't believe fencing the table is synonymous with closed communion. Closed communion restricts the sacrament to members of a particular church or denomination, while fencing the table does not have to be that narrow. For example, it could be said that requiring baptism before receiving communion and barring ex-communicants are forms of fencing the table, which is compatible with allowing members of other churches to partake. In short, a church could practice open communion and still fence the table. For example, see PCA Report of the Ad Interim Committee on Fencing the Lord's Table, which defines open communion as "allowing members in good standing of any evangelical church to partake." So how should this section fit with the articles on open and closed communion? --Kyledi 23:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thiz article indicates, I think, that `"closed communion", and so also "open communion", are understood in different ways. The interpretation to which Kyledi refers is just one of those ways. Lima (talk) 05:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Can someone cite this part of the article? "Spiritual benefit is considered to accrue, for instance, when a couple receive communion together at their wedding. Some hold that a Catholic priest could give communion to a Protestant marrying a Catholic, even outside the conditions mentioned above, provided the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist is not in any way contradicted." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Crossed arms (queries)
- Is this (new) custom of coming forward with crossed arms limited to English-speaking countries or has it now become universal? May Wikipedia make it a universal rule, saying: "However, a non-Catholic Christian may come forward"; "In addition, non-Orthodox Christians may come forward in the communion line"?
- Is a source of the Antiochian Orthodox Church (which moreover speaks of a communion rail, not a line) a valid one for Eastern Orthodox in general, even in English-speaking countries?
- On what grounds is the authorization, even in English-speaking countries, to come forward with crossed arms said to be limited to non-Catholic Christians?
- Since it makes no difference regarding admission to Communion whether those concerned come forward, or stay in their seats, or walk out the door, does mention of this practice really belong under "closed communion"?
- On what grounds is the action of one Bosnian Franciscan minister of Holy Communion, who knew nothing of the religion of the person to whom he gave Communion in the pew, taken to be a source for the statement that "many Catholic priests, on their own accord, have welcomed non-Catholic Christians to receive Holy Communion"? And why is the same statement about "many (!) Catholic priests" claimed to be supported by a website that blamed one priest for having said "Anyone who believes that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus Christ is invited to receive Communion at the wedding" and that said the Eucharist is not offered to non-Catholic Christians in such circumstances?
- A contributor at Eucharist has presented reasons for answering at least some of these queries unfavourably. Esoglou (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello User:Esoglou, if you wish to remove the statement concerning bullet number 5, I can accept this, even though I would prefer to leave the statement in as this is a popular phenomenon. I have personally visited many Catholic parishes where this is the case. You state "has it now become universal?" I do not think so. As a compromise, I am willing to remove the statements you discuss in bullet number 5 and preface the other sentence in question with "In some English-speaking areas,". I hope this is acceptable and look forward to hearing your comments. With regards, AnupamTalk 18:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- It is too late in the day for me to answer here. It is best, in any case, to await developments in the discussion at Talk:Eucharist and any comments that other editors may make here. Esoglou (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Since the not widespread practice in question concerns primarily not admitting to Communion people belonging to a different church or denomination, but rather reception of Communion by people of the same church or denomination who are considered unworthy, mention of it is out of place in this article. Esoglou (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I find the statement about most Lutherans practicing closed Communion wrong and contrary to my actual experience. I have been member of a Deutsche Evangelische Gemeinde (as they are known in Luther's fatheland) Evangelische Kirk in Deutschland and indeed they are very very open with Eucharistic Hospitality (other name for open comunion), the same for other national Lutheran churches unlike another denomination which is currently led by another national who comes from Luther's fatherland who indeed told off his followers in a rather unecumenical not to get communion from others churches usually Luthers followers in Deutschland!
- The statement objected to is not backed up by a citation of some reliable source. I have therefore tagged it as needing such a citation. Esoglou (talk) 09:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Jehovah's Witnesses and other denominations
Even Jehovah's Witnesses practice closed communion as well as Baptists and Anabaptists. I really don't know if you can take communion with Latter Day Saints if you want to. I know that in the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, you can't and even Roman Catholics are strictly forbidden to take communion with the Eastern Orthodox Christians. Ashbeckjonathan 00:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- The Catholic Church does not object to her faithful receiving Communion from the Orthodox Churches, but many Orthodox priests and bishops feel differently, so it's really only a one-way street of permission. Elizium23 (talk) 06:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Apparently incomprehensible edit
I have removed from the section "Supporting belief" the statement, "In the book Close Communion Or, Baptism as a Prerequisite to the Lord's Supper written by John Tyler Christian, Alexander Campbell rejected the idea of allowing any unimmersed believers to receive the church ordinances in the church in a debate with Nathan Lewis Rice."
Does this mean that in his book John T. Christian reported Alexander Campbell as excluding from church ordinances those who had not received baptism by immersion? Whether this is the meaning or not, something clearer is needed. Furthermore, since it gives no indication of the grounds on which Christian or Campbell or whoever excluded the non-immersed, it is out of place in a section on the reasons given in support of closed communion. Esoglou (talk) 07:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)