The celebration of a funeral mass at my parish attended by several people from the Bible study.
I did not attend. I move in different circles than my Bible study peers and, so frankly, I was utterly unaware of the event. In order for me to understand the discussion, background was given by those who attended.
My recall may be confused but I think the death was a suicide. A young person, even a teenager. There was a bit of that going around at the time, sad to say.
The pastor, my Fr. V., was strictly "by the book". The only problem: there was no telling which book! I remember being astounded that Fr. V. held a funeral mass for a suicide.
The concern of those who attended such a sad celebration was over the reception of communion. Fr. V. may have made an announcement to the effect that only Catholics free from an awareness of mortal sin could receive.
Whether he did or he didn't utter such an instruction, one of the ladies got the impression that she was not welcome to the table.
To us, after the fact, she begged that Fr. V. open things up to give mourners the spiritual comfort of holy communion. The accusation was posed:
Why can't the Catholic Church be inviting around the Lord's Table like the Protestant churches are?
My thoughts on that question follow below. These are my own generalizations, developed from experience and reading.
The two Wiki articles at the end, I think, give credence to my impressions.
There are exceptions ... the UCC comes to mind ... I hope to heaven there are many more exceptions.
And church discipline on the Supper works both ways. I understand that: a church may welcome me but my own church prevents me. I'm not talking about this side of things, as important as it is.
The trendy conservative movement in American Protestantism only affirms my statements, more and more and more ...
I want to challenge the myth that “closed communion” is a practice peculiar to the Catholic Church.
By “closed communion”, I do not mean that nonbelievers, unbaptized Christians, unrepentant Christians and infants and young children (paedocommunion) are routinely excluded from the Lord’s Table. It is true that most Christian churches observe some restrictions, even against members of their own congregations: infants, children – the Orthodox Churches are the exception here - unrepentant Christians. Even a church which practices “open communion” would be unlikely to admit to the Table those individuals belonging to the above categories.
Nor do I mean “closed” in the sense that only members of the local, specific congregation are welcome at the Table. Very few Christian churches practice such an extreme, not even the Catholic Church.
Rather, I mean “closed” in the sense that only like-minded, baptized Christians are invited to partake. And let me add that it is Pollyannaish to think that an implicit unity exists among Protestant Christians and that all Protestant Christians are essentially “like-minded” in their diverse creeds. Any lip service paid to Protestant Christian unity rapidly evaporates once one “gets under the hood”, as it were, and investigates the doctrinal disputes among Protestants.
The differences in communion discipline are only in degree, then. While many Protestant churches extend a welcome to the occasional stranger, guest or “friend of a friend”, few pastors would allow habitual strangers to come to the Table without some scrutiny of their faith and their beliefs about Christ and about His Church, a scrutiny performed privately.
Protestant churches soften the blow of their “closed communion” practices by reducing the occasions for the question to crop up: monthly or quarterly communion services and the use of children’s church or the nursery obscures the potentially offensive impact of restricted communion. And, by welcoming the stranger and guest, they give the air of being an inviting community but, in practice, the gracious welcome wears thin over time, and “seekers” are expected to become “joiners” and “loyally committed”.
There are exceptions. I can name one: my unbaptized Baptist friend attends an LCMS church with his ex-Catholic wife. He persuaded the pastor to allow him to receive communion even though the pastor initially tried to convince him to accept baptism. At this stage in his life, my friend thinks baptism somewhat superfluous (he accepted Christ at the age of 3). Any rite but full immersion would be unacceptable. The prospect of bending over a font for a head dousing would be an embarrassment.
Another, more famous exception: in his autobiography, Living Faith, Jimmy Carter admits to the occasional reception of the eucharist at Catholic masses (page 23) while serving in the navy. He attended whichever service fit his schedule.
Therefore, save for the United Methodist Church, all conservative, bible-believing and hierarchical churches and many congregational churches (Baptists, especially) expect communicants to be committed members of their local church or members in good standing in another church with like beliefs. This is “closed communion” and it is not unique to the Catholic Church.
It is good that we are offended by “closed communion” - we must all work towards the unity that would make genuine communion a reality. But, let’s not single out the Catholic Church as the sole proponent of “closed communion” because she is not alone in this discipline.
For definitions and denominational details of who practices what:
Open Communion -- Wiki
Closed Communion -- Wiki
No comments:
Post a Comment