"Closed Communion" - Why?

“Closed Communion”

Why the Catholic Church does not offer the Eucharist unconditionally

 

"Closed Communion" is a general term more commonly used by many Protestant born faiths describing the position of the Catholic Church in regard to the dispensation of the consecrated Eucharist. In recognition of the true presence of Jesus Christ, the safeguarding of the consecrated Eucharist is and has always been of paramount importance not directed against any particular non-Catholic faith. It certainly should not be taken as limited toward Protestant Christians alone by any means.  In the sense that some non-Catholics consider themselves baptized Christians in faith and readily provide their version of communion to anyone openly regardless of faith beliefs, they do not comprehend why they are not considered entitled to receive communion within the Catholic faith. However, It should also be said the vast majority of Protestant denominations do not believe in the real presence of Jesus Christ in any communion as Jesus declared in scripture. Here we offer insight into the relationship between the Eucharist and the Catholic faithful as it has always existed.

 

Neither the Church during any period in history nor scripture supports the dispensation of the consecrated Eucharist openly without regard as to the faith-beliefs of those who may receive Him. In reading the ancient texts of the “apostolic fathers” the Eucharist has always been available only to those confirmed in their faith and in acceptance of the proclamations of Christ as the apostles themselves accepted and taught. Anyone who did not accept the consecrated bread and wine as the Body and Blood of Christ was not confirmed in their faith. In fact for a person to reject acceptance of His presence was considered heretical according to the ancient Christian texts. Such faith must include the unquestioning trust in the word of Christ. To “believe in” or “accept” Jesus Christ means to accept and obey His teachings and to live accordingly (Hebrews CH5: v9). Therefore it is only rational that the Catholic Church would maintain its position for all time and not begin openly offering the Eucharist to those who chose to depart from such serious elements of faith, let alone those who would deny the essence of the Eucharist. These circumstances would be considered more grave than dispensing the Body and Blood of Christ to those who had never been educated in the faith at all.

 

The significance of the protection provided the consecrated Eucharist in Catholicism can only be understood by those who recognize its “Sacramental nature”1 as was discussed in the previous chapter. As the Catholic Church bears the responsibility through the commission of Christ to preach His word and provide the means that all men may attain salvation in obedience [(Matthew CH28: vs18-20), (Hebrews CH13: v17), (James CH3: v1), (Luke CH10: v16)] and providing them His sacramental gifts, it also remains sincerely concerned for those who deny the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. It further seeks to enlighten those who through lack of teaching do not know the severity of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ unworthily (1 Corinthians Chapter 11; v23-29).

 

Seal of the Covenant

The Eucharist is the seal of the New Covenant. It is clear throughout the Old and New Testament, all covenants between man and God have been sealed in blood and without that seal there is no covenant. As Jesus invited us to enter into this New Covenant with Him through the consecrated Eucharist, we do not fully enter into that covenant until we commit to it through our own acceptance and consume it in faith according His word, not our word. The lack of understanding and the denial of the real presence of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist is the great wall that separates those who deny His real presence from those who have been baptized and confirmed in the teachings of Christ through His Church. That is to say, those who accept the proclamations of Christ as the apostles did based on trust in His word without question. It is not a matter of faith that we understand it, no one can. But then no man can understand His rising from the dead yet we accept it in faith. The key is accepting without question in trust reflecting our depth of faith.

 

As long as a person disbelieves and rejects the true essence of the Eucharist, that person rejects the proclamation of Christ Himself (John CH6: vs47-58) and will not experience the depth of intimacy possible in entering into oneness in Christ and Christ within them, nor will they realize the seriousness of receiving it in dissention. This is the fundamental reason for guarding the conveyance of the Eucharist from being offered to those who have not been baptized and confirmed in the Catholic faith. Although many Protestant denominations do not recognize the sacrament of reconciliation (John CH20: vs21-23), it is by this very means the Church, empowered by Our Lord, may offer those sincerely repentant, absolution in His name and through His Divine Mercy so they may return to a state of grace worthy to receive His Body and Blood in the form of the consecrated Eucharist. Isn’t it revealing that some denominations are reconsidering the importance of these once rejected sacraments?

 

Recognition, Reverence, Devotion

By its commission, the Catholic Church is accountable for the dissemination of the consecrated Eucharist but also the safeguarding of the Eucharist from desecration and irreverence. Again, irreverence includes the denial of the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ and consequently renders a person in an unworthy state. As the ordained servant of our High Priest, Jesus Christ, the priest is fully accountable for the protection of the Body and Blood of Christ in its consecrated state. Those who may doubt the depth of such faith and devotion should know that over this last 2000 years there have been many priests and faithful Catholics who have been martyred for protecting the Eucharist from desecration by those in opposition to Christianity and the Catholic Church. There had never been an issue among confirmed faithful Christians regarding the receiving of the Eucharist prior to the “reformation” because up to that time all faithful Christians were of the Catholic faith, those who rejected the essence of the Eucharist were considered heretics and there were no Protestant born faiths in existence claiming to be Christian prior to that period.

 

The Catholic Church does not limit the distribution of the Eucharist because it wants to "hoard" it or keep salvation away from anyone; although some who do not know Catholicism may suggest such fallacies and promote such misconceptions. The Eucharist is and always has been “the source, center and summit” of the Christian faith around which the entire Mass is structured. Would any non-Catholic minister, pastor or congregant sacrifice their life embracing and withholding the Eucharist from desecration? Prior to the reformation there was never a question as to the devotion to the protection of the Eucharist in regard to separate Christian systems of beliefs because none existed and scripture itself opposes such division [(John CH17: 18-21), (1 Corinthians CH1: vs9-10), (Luke CH22: vs31-32), (John CH10: vs14-16), (1 John CH2: vs18-20), (Ephesians Ch4: vs1-5) (Colossians CH1: vs18-23)].

 

As to who could receive the Body and Blood of Christ, it was for the faithful Christian believers baptized and confirmed in their one faith alone. There was only one teaching institution founded by Christ which is undeniable and one Christian faith to acknowledge in its beliefs; that body of Christians has been and remains the Catholic Church with all of the sacraments provided together to confirm the faithful who could receive the Eucharist worthily and the most powerful of all graces in the fullness of Jesus Christ.

 

For 2000 years this devotion to the Eucharist and unquestioned acceptance in the word of Christ remained unwavering. It was not and I stress this truth, it was not the Catholic Church that changed its position and suddenly stopped non-Catholics from receiving the Eucharist, nor was the Catholic Church or this doctrine formed during or after the “Protestant Reformation”. It has always been as scripture attests; that a person must be baptized and confirmed in faith and through faith and trust in the word of Christ, acceptance given of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ substantially present in the Eucharist.

 

Did Jesus ever offer the consecrated Eucharist to an open forum? No. He offered it to those He chose to be His ministers – initially only those present in the upper room during His last Passover meal. From the beginning, they alone as His presbyters were instructed to continue providing this means of life and salvation to the faithful believers of His Word (Luke CH10; v16). Remember, the Eucharistic as the seal of the new covenant was not consecrated as such until the end of Jesus’ earthly ministry just before His arrest and subsequent Passion. It was the apostles who knew Christ as the Son of God and knew His unlimited Power and Divinity. It was the apostles who acknowledged Jesus for who He was. When Jesus asked if they too would walk away the apostles reassured Him of their devotion and accepted Jesus at His word without question for who He was because they knew there was nothing He could not do.

 

The apostles also realized and taught the necessity for worthiness when receiving the Body and Blood of Christ. It was they who were empowered by Jesus to forgive or retain sins in His name through the sacramental means of “Penance” or “Reconciliation”. Repentance at that time was performed by one person to the elect and often in front of the many, not just a single ordained priest as it is today. And it was Jesus who declared that all unresolved issues pertaining to faith and morality between Christians were to be brought to the Church for resolution (Mat CH18: vs15-18), and the apostles who declared the Church “the pillar and foundation of truth" (1Timothy CH3: v15).

 

Scripture and History

All of these previously mentioned provisions of faith were to be offered through the authority given the apostles by Jesus Christ, provided in His name through His one Church, one faith, so that all may be saved. Each of these sacramental gifts, most notably the Eucharist, had been confirmed within the written word all Christians acknowledge as "the Inspired Word of God", the Holy Bible. How then, it must be asked, could the “reformers” by any rational means justify demeaning the essence of the Eucharist claiming it to be nothing more than symbolic when scripture attests that those who refused to accept Christ’s proclamation walked away with absolutely no attempt on Jesus’ part to clarify what would have been their misunderstanding? At that time those disciples who would not accept could not just “remain” as disciples and change Christ’s words on their own claiming He meant it only symbolically as Protestantism has done. Obviously Jesus would not have tolerated that. Undoubtedly it is easier in the absence of Christ’s physical presence to claim change in His intent then it is to accept in faith what is beyond our human comprehension.

 

The proclamation of Christ in Luke Ch22; v20, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you", shows the interwoven conformity between Himself as the Lamb of God and the living sacrifice required upon the Passover throughout the history of Judaism in the Old Testament. Every Semitic covenant required a real living blood sacrifice to seal the covenant between God and man and the chosen people of God had to consume of the sacrifice [(Genesis CH15: vs7-18) (Exodus CH24: vs5-8)]. Symbolism was inconceivable. As the Messiah offered His Blood during that Passover as the Blood of the New Covenant in the consecrated Eucharist, Jesus became that real victim, the Lamb of God, as well as the Great High Priest who must offer the sacrifice providing the seal of the New Covenant in His Blood.

 

During the last 400+ years, faith and trust in the sacraments including the Eucharist have fallen victim to the reformer’s broadmindedness but the Church did not weaken its stand for the sake of popularity any more than Jesus did when the disciples walked away. If one were to step back and look at such liberal positions, it would be clear that these “reformed” opinions are merely a self-justifiable way to adopt a more comfortable system of beliefs disregarding the “faith requirements” considered too cumbersome to abide by. But we know that in truth, scripture is clear; that to refuse to accept any of Christ’s Word is to refuse acceptance of His Word.

 

"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction and those who enter through it are many. How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few. Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves.” (Matthew CH7; 13-15)

 

"God is faithful: by whom you are called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment." (1 Corinthians CH1; v9-10) See also; (John CH10; v14-16) (Acts CH20; v28-30) (1 John CH2; v18-20) (John CH17; v18-21).

 

John Ch6; v53-66 clearly tells us that those who would not accept Him by His Word walked away. Jesus made absolutely no attempt to correct their way of thinking if He did mean symbolically and they misunderstood. Does this sound at all like Jesus? No! At no time did He ever allow anyone to walk away due to their misunderstanding His Word. He always cleared their misunderstandings if misunderstandings existed as a result of His word. But this time clearly it was their lack of faith and trust in His word, not misconceptions that led them to walk away. When referring to His Body and Blood in every Scripture verse related to this proclamation, He consistently remained firm at His word and said exactly what He meant never attempting to change His meaning or intent. And because they walked away, they were not receivers of His Body and Blood.

  

Let us look at just one of many quotes from the ancient writings of the Apostolic Fathers, those immediate successors to the Apostles. The following was written by Saint Ignatius of Antioch dated 105 AD in response to some who did not accept the real presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist. St. Ignatius was a disciple of the Apostle John and certainly knew the faith of the apostles on a personal level. According to historic texts, he later became an apostolic successor to the Bishopric of Antioch appointed by St. Peter.

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.” (Ignatious Of Antioch The Epistle to the Smyrnaeans Ch. #7. 105 AD)
Distance of Time

Sadly, many today have no understanding of what they were led away from. Jesus never consecrated as His Body and Blood, any of the miraculous loaves and fishes when he multiplied and divided them among the thousands of followers on various occasions, nor did He consecrate the water changed to wine at Cana. However, had He intended the dispensation of His consecrated Body and Blood to be received unconditionally, what better occasions were there to provide it and disseminate His graces? When He instituted the Eucharist, it was upon the Passover, the day He kept as the Jews did. They never offered their Passover meal to anyone other than those who accepted it faithfully for what it represented.

 

As Scripture attests (Luke CH22: vs14-15), not only was the Passover “upon them”, but Jesus proclaimed this meal as the Passover meal. He presented the consecrated Eucharist only among His chosen apostles with His instructions as their High Priest to His first "Priests", His Presbyters. They were not permitted to do anything in going out and preaching the Word or offering the sacraments until they themselves received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. From that time forward the apostles transferred the Spirit of authority through the laying of Hands (sacrament of Holy Orders), even to Paul when He was recognized as worthy.

Through 2000 years of Christian history the consecrated Eucharist has consistently been venerated by the one Christian (Catholic) Faith known to span that time – to be the real presence of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. This acceptance is and always has been based in faith and trust without question as it was by the apostles since the birth of Christianity. It must be repeated that by the testimony of scripture the Eucharist is only to be received by those in a worthy state, baptized and confirmed in the Faith and its teachings, free of serious sin with reverent recognition as the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. The Eucharist has and always will be offered with the same safeguards never open to change under any circumstances. Such has been the Christian Faith up to the time of the “reformation” 1500 years after the establishment of the Church. History confirms it was the departure of Protestantism and their rejection of Jesus' real presence in the Eucharist that created this separation, not a change in faith or teachings of the Catholic Church.

 

With rational thought we should find it highly questionable why any person would establish another faith or system of beliefs opposing any of the sacraments claiming what had for centuries been believed to offer grace as a sacrament is not a sacrament and therefore unnecessary to participate in. Is it more a reflection of devotion to God to live by the worthiness a sacrament calls us to or to reject the sacrament as nothing worth while and so reject the devotion it calls us to? We may ask who would stand to benefit from disbelief and rejection, and the elimination of such devout practices of faith that would otherwise be offered to Christ. This is not difficult to answer.

---

1 A Sacrament defined is a sensible sign instituted by Jesus Christ, by which invisible grace and inward sanctification are communicated to the soul. The essential elements of a sacrament of the New Law are first its institution by Christ the God-man during his visible stay on earth, and a sensibly perceptible rite that actually confers the supernatural grace it symbolizes. See the chapter on “Sacraments” later in this book. (“Modern Catholic Dictionary” by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.)