What does "being in communion" mean to each of you?

[Amittai]

You'll see why this is an ecclesial question even more than "ordinance" related. Am cross-referencing from that section. I particularly need light shed by you, on the ecclesial side of this matter.

The word communion means two different things. These might or might not be interconnected. I also gather that the interpretation will differ widely. To help me figure out, I want to start by asking for a wide range of responses to the question iin the title in the light of the following:

a) taking communion is a sacrament, or an ordinance, or a custom, or a ceremony. In some churches you get told it is compulsory. In some churches you are told to wait until you go through admission hoops but it is thereafter compulsory. I'll tell you what I think as we go.

What I don't want to be given on this thread is much of sacramental theology per se. (In regard to "Real Presence" I think Descartes got it right. But I also want to hear from people who don't "consecrate".)

I only want to hear your views on this angle (here) if they interrelate to your views on point b).

b) one may describe oneself as "being in communion with" place A or individual B, or a certain faith community as being "in communion with" place A or individual B.

I have numerous reasons to believe Christians should in this day & age prioritise core meanings in Scriptures. Unfortunately the predominant sentimentality overrides this.

Not discerning the Body has made some "somehow" dead. To eat Christ's Body and drink His Blood and to worship Him in Spirit and Truth = to protect the fellow adopted widows & orphans because His Will for us as embodiment of Holy Trinity is to make room for the other other.

Communion = bond that binds, yes? Are we allowed to ask ourselves: who are place A or individual B in turn, "in communion with" or indeed, not "in communion with"?

Discerning doesn't mean prying. However if there are obvious criteria for not wishing to bind oneself to some, surely one might wish to express this by "sitting out". Isn't listening to Scriptures and a sermon (if sound) and to sing hymns supposed to be a good thing anyway?

I'll ask "supplementaries" as we go. Thank you.

 

[chevyontheriver]

You'll see why this is an ecclesial question even more than "ordinance" related. Am cross-referencing from that section. I particularly need light shed by you, on the ecclesial side of this matter.

The word communion means two different things. These might or might not be interconnected. I also gather that the interpretation will differ widely. To help me figure out, I want to start by asking for a wide range of responses to the question iin the title in the light of the following:

a) taking communion is a sacrament, or an ordinance, or a custom, or a ceremony. In some churches you get told it is compulsory. In some churches you are told to wait until you go through admission hoops but it is thereafter compulsory. I'll tell you what I think as we go.

What I don't want to be given on this thread is much of sacramental theology per se. (In regard to "Real Presence" I think Descartes got it right. But I also want to hear from people who don't "consecrate".)

I only want to hear your views on this angle (here) if they interrelate to your views on point b).

b) one may describe oneself as "being in communion with" place A or individual B, or a certain faith community as being "in communion with" place A or individual B.

I have numerous reasons to believe Christians should in this day & age prioritise core meanings in Scriptures. Unfortunately the predominant sentimentality overrides this.

Not discerning the Body has made some "somehow" dead. To eat Christ's Body and drink His Blood and to worship Him in Spirit and Truth = to protect the fellow adopted widows & orphans because His Will for us as embodiment of Holy Trinity is to make room for the other other.

Communion = bond that binds, yes? Are we allowed to ask ourselves: who are place A or individual B in turn, "in communion with" or indeed, not "in communion with"?

Discerning doesn't mean prying. However if there are obvious criteria for not wishing to bind oneself to some, surely one might wish to express this by "sitting out". Isn't listening to Scriptures and a sermon (if sound) and to sing hymns supposed to be a good thing anyway?

I'll ask "supplementaries" as we go. Thank you.

Interesting questions. I have one additional angle, from my experience as a Catholic.That is, can one be in communion with one who rejects being in communion with you. Many would not consider me a Christian because I'm Catholic. Same people I can consider Christian. In other words, what about reciprocity or non-reciprocity?

 

[Amittai]

Chevy, a very interesting angle, I lived through that though I considered it unimportant at the time. People of that kind probably insist all christians have got to go to communion every week or month and never think about it.

I thought separate sacramental theologies were the reason for non-participation being considered undesirable across the divide. It is surely a way of respecting others' consciences.

Since the RCC made communion compulsory, we have politicians and others insisting on not being excluded.

The main motive I had for the thread was that I prefer to "sit out" if I am with people Z who claim communion with institution Y which doesn't respect people X who adhered to it, even though it claims to do so. This is because of the bond or bind in the sacrament or ordinance. In any parish I am assumed to be adhering to an institution if I "go up" and I don't want anyone to think I am misleading them.

While I didn't want pure sacramental doctrine explained on its own, I want the two usages of the word brought into relation insofar as forum members see that. Sitting out is felt offensive. It makes people feel insecure if you want to be yourself.

When half the congregation doesn't "go up" it probably ceases to be an issue (unless a rumour mill, which I have been oblivious to, is doing overtime ).

What makes people think the communion ceremony - Catholic or Protestant - is compulsory when attention isn't given by leaders to institutional relationships with far flung members of the denomination?

 

[chevyontheriver]

Chevy, a very interesting angle, I lived through that though I considered it unimportant at the time. People of that kind probably insist all christians have got to go to communion every week or month and never think about it.

I thought separate sacramental theologies were the reason for non-participation being considered undesirable across the divide. It is surely a way of respecting others' consciences.

Since the RCC made communion compulsory, we have politicians and others insisting on not being excluded.

The main motive I had for the thread was that I prefer to "sit out" if I am with people Z who claim communion with institution Y which doesn't respect people X who adhered to it, even though it claims to do so. This is because of the bond or bind in the sacrament or ordinance. In any parish I am assumed to be adhering to an institution if I "go up" and I don't want anyone to think I am misleading them.

While I didn't want pure sacramental doctrine explained on its own, I want the two usages of the word brought into relation insofar as forum members see that. Sitting out is felt offensive. It makes people feel insecure if you want to be yourself.

When half the congregation doesn't "go up" it probably ceases to be an issue (unless a rumour mill, which I have been oblivious to, is doing overtime ).

What makes people think the communion ceremony - Catholic or Protestant - is compulsory when attention isn't given by leaders to institutional relationships with far flung members of the denomination?

Problem with all of this is that receiving the Eucharist for Catholics is not compulsory, at least not more than once a year. A Catholic MAY receive the Eucharist even daily. Catholics often do receive communion weekly. But one can be a perfectly good Catholic and receive the Eucharist just once a year. Every Mass has the Eucharist available, but it is not compulsory to receive.

It feels like every guest stands out when everyone else goes to receive the Eucharist. That's awkward. Is that what you are getting at?

 

[Amittai]

Yes, though in England it has become highly unusual for Catholics, after their First Communion, to "sit out" since the new teachings in the 1980s. This has made the RCC like most of the "evangelical" churches in actual atmosphere. I want to know, what oath or vow are we lightly inducing people - especially our own membership - to take? Does your personal quality of communion extend to your bigger institution or only to your local congregation?

In a thread under "ordinances" -

Eucharist In different denominations

- somebody mentioned forgiveness and someone else mentioned the benefits received in faith. If the senior level of an institution isn't acting reliably towards your fellow members in another location, surely that institution isn't in communion with those members nor with you because when one suffers all suffer except seemingly a certain echelon. Since the latter define church affairs, we cannot receive that kind of benefit. But we might discern we can still get something out of Scriptures and hymns.

In otherwords it's an institutional-relational, or relational-institutional question. I don't think God likes mystique, mysteriousness or mysticism for their own sake. I feel a need to explain this to acquaintances.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Yes, though in England it has become highly unusual for Catholics, after their First Communion, to "sit out" since the new teachings in the 1980s. This has made the RCC like most of the "evangelical" churches in actual atmosphere.

Yes, most Catholics receive the Eucharist every week. But that differs from evangelicals who receive their communion much less frequently, even if most will partake.

I want to know, what oath or vow are we lightly inducing people - especially our own membership - to take?

By getting in line to receive the Eucharist we say we are not in serious sin, and we believe as the Church teaches, and we are in communion with each other, our bishop, and our pope. Problem is when everybody gets in line, it becomes socially awkward for those in serious sin, or those who do not adhere to the whole faith, so they get in line anyway. It shouldn't be that way. But it is.

Does your personal quality of communion extend to your bigger institution or only to your local congregation?

Not sure what you mean, but for me it is the whole Communion of the Saints, so world-wide AND over the centuries.

In a thread under "ordinances" -

Eucharist In different denominations

- somebody mentioned forgiveness and someone else mentioned the benefits received in faith. If the senior level of an institution isn't acting reliably towards your fellow members in another location, surely that institution isn't in communion with those members nor with you because when one suffers all suffer except seemingly a certain echelon. Since the latter define church affairs, we cannot receive that kind of benefit. But we might discern we can still get something out of Scriptures and hymns.

In otherwords it's an institutional-relational, or relational-institutional question. I don't think God likes mystique, mysteriousness or mysticism for their own sake. I feel a need to explain this to acquaintances.

Not sure what you mean by all of this. When I receive the Eucharist it is Jesus, his body and blood, soul and divinity. I'm not thinking institutional-relational or relational-institutional at all.

 

[Amittai]

QUOTES

I want to know, what oath or vow are we lightly inducing people - especially our own membership - to take?​

By getting in line to receive the Eucharist we say we are not in serious sin, and we believe as the Church teaches, and we are in communion with each other, our bishop, and our pope. ...

Does your personal quality of communion extend to your bigger institution or only to your local congregation?​

Not sure what you mean, but for me it is the whole Communion of the Saints, so world-wide AND over the centuries.
UNQUOTES

If we find that a senior part of the current world wide "communion" is not loyal to a more junior and imperilled branch, surely we do not owe it to the former to be bound to it?

A sacrament is an oath is it not? Or are we in participating, implicitly disowning the disloyal, however senior? How will our fellows see that? Is it not better for the consciences of our fellows, to be seen to no longer be taking this oath?

 

[Amittai]

A thread under "traditional" also slightly gets near (but not very) -

"Being in Communion"

We have mention of conscience in it. We had the claim of Rome to dominate over the Eastern church. (This gets nearer to the issue.)

We have:

" ... tangible means of grace by which we are being constituted as the Body of Christ, partakers of Christ, members of Christ on account of this Table. Since this is the very body of Christ "broken for [us]" and the very blood of Christ "shed for [us]" then it is, indeed, forgiveness of our sin because the death of Christ is the mercy and forgiveness from God of all our sin and the Eucharist is the means which God has provided by which we participate in that reality every time ... "​

When our institution has fallen apart, we surely shouldn't maintain a fiction at a literal, materialistic level? When some are suffering, is this an insult to God? Does God value mysteriousness, mystique and mysticism above His people's welfare? Is there unseen deceptiveness? What is the position of junior clergy trapped in this custom, for what would normally be good reasons?

“But don’t just listen to God’s word.
You must do what it says.
Otherwise, you are only fooling yourselves.”
James 1:22
​

James is to do with how we regard our brothers in danger.

 

[Amittai]

Criticising the denomination's central administration has been officially described as blasphemy. Are they of sufficient responsibility to fix the extent of our ceremonial obligation? Or is our personal and joint obligation to our brothers in danger greater nowadays?

For evangelicals is it any easier deep down? In view of ambiguities, why push the bread and wine / juice per se, at all?

 

[chevyontheriver]

If we find that a senior part of the current world wide "communion" is not loyal to a more junior and imperilled branch, surely we do not owe it to the former to be bound to it?

Is this referring to an actual event? Some real people? It sounds like you are making veiled reference to real people and a real event.

A sacrament is an oath is it not?

The Latin word 'sacramentum' does mean 'oath', but the Greek word for sacrament is 'mysterion', which is a 'hidden thing'. A sacrament is a complex thing not reducing down to merely an oath.
The Roman use of “sacramentum” will bring you deeper into the sacraments
Sacramentum (oath) - Wikipedia
Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum

Or are we in participating, implicitly disowning the disloyal, however senior? How will our fellows see that? Is it not better for the consciences of our fellows, to be seen to no longer be taking this oath?

Not sure who you are speaking of here. Who is disowning whom? Who is being disloyal?

 

[Amittai]

Yes, what is "hidden" is that:

Eat My Body & Drink My Blood = Worship Me in Spirit & Truth = Do the Will of Him who sent Me = protect and nurture the fellow adopted widows and orphans.

Is our act of participating, as junior-level Christians, in a hidden mystery of unreliable seniors, a betrayal of other junior-level Christians? Can we not sit out in good conscience, for more than 1 year? (A sermon, locally, might be good.)

And do those evangelicals belonging to "church associations" have similar insights?

Jesus didn't tell us we've got to do the ceremony. He just said remember that if you do.

 

[rturner76]

Communion-Common Union, God, Jesus, blood, flesh, wine, bread, human heart all in a common union

Very Powerful stuff. Personally, communion is the confirmation of your baptism over and over. An Apostle would spread the Gospel and baptize. All those who were baptized met, read a letter about Christ or an Epistle, prayer of atonement and communion which basically became The Mass once it was agreed what everyone was going to do when they congregated.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I happen to be affiliated with a loose theological union (Plymouth Brethren) who have a well-earned reputation for strictly limiting their concept of communion to only within their particular network of Brethren congregations. In fact, some have concluded, including their founder John Darby, that the "church" is in ruin and cannot be restored at all, thus obviating any concept of communion. Nevertheless, those branches which follow him maintain exclusive ideas regarding their uniqueness.

My particular branch is at quite the opposite end of the spectrum, primarily in reaction to the other end. As a result, anyone who attends is permitted to partake of communion, even complete strangers to us. If a person happens to attend three weeks in a row he or she is signed up on our calling list and is given a listing on our calendar for their birthday and/or anniversary. We have at least two "members" who actually self-identify as being members of one or more other churches. We also have "members" who left the church decades ago.

I am completely flabbergasted at such antics. My personal position is much more moderate than either extreme.

 

[ViaCrucis]

There is likely going to be some overlap between Lutheran, Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican thinking on the question.

In the most basic sense to be in communion really does mean that we share the Table together. If we cannot sit at the same Table, then we aren't in communion. That does not mean that one cannot recognize the validity of another Christian's faith, even if there is severe disagreement and a lack of communion.

But the Eucharist forms, as it were, the backbone of Christian unity. It is Christ's Supper, Christ's Table--when we come together and receive these sacred gifts at the common Table of Jesus Christ we are affirming the unity we share together in Christ and with one another.

The word koinonia--participation, communion, etc--points toward a deep and fundamental mystery that intersects Christ, the Church, and the Sacraments. In a sense it is God's Word and Sacrament that is the glue that binds Christ and Church together, with Him as the Head and us as the Body.

So, for example, since I cannot receive the Eucharist at a Catholic Church, I cannot be said to be in communion with Rome, and since a Catholic is forbidden from receiving the Eucharist at my church, it's the same thing. Now at my church we practice Open Communion, as such no one is getting ID'd, as it were, at the Altar--so if a Catholic did come and receive the Supper at my church it wouldn't be seen as an offense from my church's perspective (other Lutheran churches however practice Closed Communion)--but they would have violated their own church's position. It is this very real fact that we cannot share the same Table together that manifestly demonstrates our lack of communion.

I would love nothing more than a restoration of unity--to have a restored communion--but that isn't happening anytime soon, if ever if we're honest. At least not on this side of heaven.

For both Lutherans and Catholics, this ecclesiastical issue is also a sacramental issue, as in both churches it is basically impossible to make a separation between ecclesiology and sacramentology; as it cannot even make sense to speak of the Church as the Church without talking about the Eucharist. As the Eucharist is at the heart of the Church's life as the Church, in her mystical union with Christ, her Head; and herself as His mystical Body.

-CryptoLutheran