The priests that communed them figured that, since they believed in the Real Presence, they may as well commune them.
But is this the meaning of Holy Communion?
YES IT IS THE LORD'S SUPPER, BUT IT IS ALSO THE LORD'S GOSPEL
A survey was taken recently of LCMS pastors with regards to who they commune. Half of our parish pastors follow LCMS policy, that is, closed Communion and only communing those from the LCMS or sister churches we are in altar and pulpit fellowship with. Most of the other half stated in the survey that they commune "all those who affirm the Real Presence," even though knowingly this is against LCMS policy and the adopted policy of the Synod from the CTCR (Commission On Theology and Church Relations).
Those who decide to deviate from the LCMS' policy generally will use the argument from pastoral discretion, stating that they are allowed to make exceptions and that this discretion is inscrutable. Although this is true, the doctrine of pastoral discretion was made for exceptional cases, such as emergencies, imminent death or danger, or no Lutheran church in the area.
Likewise, many of these pastors will commune non-Lutherans who believe in the Real Presence, although almost all of those who commune are going against their own church's Eucharistic discipline.
For example, I know of no case where Rome would allow its faithful to commune at a Lutheran altar, since Rome does not believe we Lutherans have the Real Presence, given we differ with them over their understanding of apostolic succession.
Likewise, the Orthodox faithful are not permitted to commune anywhere but at an Orthodox parish.
So why is it that the LCMS and its CTCR have consistently put forth and adopted the policy of closed Communion, and the Galesburg Rule of "Lutheran altars for Lutherans only"?
COMMUNION MEANS SOMETHING
Holy Communion is not only Communion with Christ's Body and Blood, but it is also sharing unity of faith with those with whom one communes. Granted that one cannot read everyone's heart, but nonetheless it is a statement of profession of belief. If one partakes at a Lutheran altar, they are saying that they affirm the Lutheran understanding of the Gospel.
The Gospel matters entirely! For a Lutheran to commune at a non-Lutheran altar would be either publicly stating that they confess the faith of that church's altar, or it would be stating that the differences do not matter.
Consider, the "Lutherans" that recently communed at the Vatican:
*Are these "Lutherans" now rejecting the Confessional view that the Papacy is the seat of Antichrist? If so, do they now reject the Smalcald and the Treatise? If not, why would they commune with the church of the Antichrist?
*Are these "Lutherans" now stating that justification by faith alone is not that big of a deal? That they agree with Rome on justification? That Rome has changed its mind?
*Are these "Lutherans" now stating that they believe justification is by faith and works?
*Are these "Lutherans" now stating that they see the Pope as the vicar of Christ on earth?
The word "Communion" in the Greek is "koinonia", the same word for "fellowship." It literally means "having all things in common."
It is a statement of vertical union with Christ, feeding on His Body and Blood, but it is also a horizontal statement of the union we have in the Gospel.
To partake of the Eucharist with those with whom we do not have agreement in the Gospel is akin to playing "pretend." We loved to play pretend as kids. Even with our parents. "Let's play pretend, mommy!" we would say.
But now we are adults.
Do Lutherans have unity in the Gospel with Rome?
No.
Do Lutherans have unity in the Gospel with the Eastern Orthodox?
No.
Do Lutherans have unity in the Gospel with the Reformed?
No.
Do Lutherans have unity in the Gospel with non-denominationalists and evangelicals?
No.
***The real question is, then, why would any Lutheran *want* to partake with those whom they do not have unity in the Gospel?***
Perhaps these Lutherans have lost sight of what their own Book of Concord teaches?
Perhaps these Lutherans have stepped away from the doctrines of the Gospel?
NOT POPULAR, BUT VITAL TO THE FAITH
Closed Communion is the historic understanding of the Church in all her branches up until the 1800s. Everyone understood that one would commune only with the *community* one has fellowship with. It was not considered "divisive" or "offensive", but simply a statement of that faith.
Today, closed Communion is not popular, but it is vital to the faith.
The Lutheran Church Missouri-Synod, as well as the Wisconsin Synod, have spoken on this issue.
The Missouri Synod clearly states:
1. Is it proper for a Lutheran to attend the Lord's Supper at the altars of churches not in doctrinal agreement with the church body of which he/she is a member?
- In accordance with the confessional nature of participation in the
Lord's Supper (cf. pp. 19-23), and in agreement with
Lutheranism's historic position, it is inappropriate to attend the
Lord's Supper at non-Lutheran altars. Since participation in Holy
Communion, Scripturally and confessionally understood, entails
agreement in the Gospel and all its articles, it would not be
appropriate to attend the Lord's Supper in a church with which
such agreement is not shared.
- No. The Confessions rightly teach that Eucharistic fellowship is a
thankful celebration of that unity which God has bestowed in the
Gospel rather than a device to advance Christian fraternity (Ap
XXIV, 68-69; cf. discussion above on pages 10-11 and 19-23).
***So, for the sake of the Gospel, let us not play pretend anymore, but let us pray for the day where the Church will share one common Eucharist. Until then, let us witness to the Gospel and stand for the beauty of this Gospel by giving our witness to this Gospel in the world, and at the Communion Altar.***
This is vital to the faith.
May the Lord have mercy.
No comments:
Post a Comment