Christians taking communion in other churches

[psalms 91]

You are welcome to start threads, Bill.

I dont want another thread, if the subject makes you uncomfortable then you could always not post and by the way you did not originate this thread so it should be up to the OP what is allowed and what isnt shouldnt it?

 

[TurtleHare]

Since I was the one mentioned I think it should be about what I have stated, that it made me angry and I will never step into a Catholic church again. It has everything to do with the fact that it is a christian denom saying other christians are not welcome to participate in the Lords supper. Seems like a lot of threads lately are off the rails as you raise this in a lot of threads. Makes me wonder if it is really all these threads getting sidetracked or a tactic to not discuss what is uncomfortable. Either way I acted as a guest should but never ever will I be a guest again in a Catholic church and I am sure I am not alone in this

Bill, I would like to ask you if it made you angry because you felt an entitlement to taking communion?

 

[psalms 91]

Bill, I would like to ask you if it made you angry because you felt an entitlement to taking communion?

No it made me angry because as a chirstian I was refused something thta is every christians right. The churchs I go to would never do that to a guest and to be honest I dont know of another church that does. The only admonition to taking communion is not to take it unworthily and to me that means discerning what jesus bought and paid for and making sure I am in rightstanding to partake. These are all individual and not something any church should dictate and seperate christians by doing so

 

[George]

George will correct me if I'm wrong here, but...

This thread is NOT about whether congregations should or should not be stewards here, what that congregation should or should not do via GUESTS.

It's about BEING a guest - I think of a church to which we do NOT belong, a church we have NOT visited before, a church that does NOT know us.

It's about what WE should and should not do, not what congregations should and should not do.




.

Hi again Josiah.

I think I said before this is primarily about being a guest at other churches, but if you can piece them both together, you can also mention what happens if someone that is not of your denomination takes communion in your church. Primary focus is being a guest though.

 

[Josiah]

Hi again Josiah.

I think I said before this is primarily about being a guest at other churches, but if you can piece them both together, you can also mention what happens if someone that is not of your denomination takes communion in your church. Primary focus is being a guest though.

Okay, since you are expanding your own thread.....


I think the host church has a God-given responsibility to be responsable stewards of the mysteries of God.

The protestors of that have ALREADY stated that there are "warnings" attached to wrongful reception.... Another has stated that all "CHRISTIANS" have a "right" to this...... both stress that the host congregation has a responsibility here. Then they seem for forget that.

IF they truly believed that the host congregation should just welcome ALL ("mi casa es su casa") then they'd welcome atheists, Buddhist, Mormons, guide dogs - after all, they claim it's "rude" and "unchristian" to forbid. But I don't think they believe their own point. I don't think they believe themselves. The host church DOES have a God-given responsibility here. The host church is called to be responsible stewards, not irresponsible so as to just set the bread and wine on the floor and whoever wants it grabs it.

Now, WHERE and HOW to fulfill that stewardship is not easy, and there has been no universal and clear historic rubric here. But I think each church needs to DEAL with this - not shun their God-given responsiblity with the "mi casa es su casa" "must permit ALL to receive" irresponsibility of "open communion." And when a church DOES that, I think it needs to be respected by GUESTS who CHOOSE to visit a church to which they do not belong of a denomination to which they are not a part. I think it's called respect, it's called courtesy.

I travel to foreign lands in my work. When I'm there, I'm a GUEST. I abide by the driving laws of THAT land. I abide by all the laws of THAT land. And I take no offense if they are different than the ones in the USA. I'm not an "Ugly Amerian" who insists that those in other countries must allow Americans do to and say whatever they want - regardless of the fact that they aren't in America.



My one cent.


Pax


- Josiah

 

[psalms 91]

Okay, since you are expanding your own thread.....


I think the host church has a God-given responsibility to be responsable stewards of the mysteries of God.

The protestors of that have ALREADY stated that there are "warnings" attached to wrongful reception.... Another has stated that all "CHRISTIANS" have a "right" to this...... both stress that the host congregation has a responsibility here. Then they seem for forget that.

IF they truly believed that the host congregation should just welcome ALL ("mi casa es su casa") then they'd welcome atheists, Buddhist, Mormons, guide dogs - after all, they claim it's "rude" and "unchristian" to forbid. But I don't think they believe their own point. I don't think they believe themselves. The host church DOES have a God-given responsibility here. The host church is called to be responsible stewards, not irresponsible so as to just set the bread and wine on the floor and whoever wants it grabs it.

Now, WHERE and HOW to fulfill that stewardship is not easy, and there has been no universal and clear historic rubric here. But I think each church needs to DEAL with this - not shun their God-given responsiblity with the "mi casa es su casa" "must permit ALL to receive" irresponsibility of "open communion." And when a church DOES that, I think it needs to be respected by GUESTS who CHOOSE to visit a church to which they do not belong of a denomination to which they are not a part. I think it's called respect, it's called courtesy.

I travel to foreign lands in my work. When I'm there, I'm a GUEST. I abide by the driving laws of THAT land. I abide by all the laws of THAT land. And I take no offense if they are different than the ones in the USA. I'm not an "Ugly Amerian" who insists that those in other countries must allow Americans do to and say whatever they want - regardless of the fact that they aren't in America.



My one cent.


Pax


- Josiah

Once again you miss the point and really dont read as much as you want others to. I did not say all, I said christians, those who are your brothers and sisters in Christ. Not athiests, or muslims or buddists. I also dont think that there should be anyone asking either but a warning from the pulpit should suffice

 

[Josiah]

I did not say all, I said christians, those who are your brothers and sisters in Christ. Not athiests, or muslims or buddists.

So, you accept that the host congregation has a GOD GIVEN RESPONSIBILITY to NOT invite and welcome all who may want to receive. You believe the congregation SHOULD (maybe must!) say "NO" to some guests.


Now, it's absolutely unavoidable that some congregations will determine that some are welcomed and some are not that will be different from what YOUR (rather passionate) opinion is. You want people to honor your view (you even seem mad at those who don't) but are you honoring THEIR stewardship? You don't think YOU should be offended, but do you think you should offend OTHERS by dishonoring THEIR stewardship on this?



Just a thought....




- Josiah



.

 

[psalms 91]

So, you accept that the host congregation has a GOD GIVEN RESPONSIBILITY to NOT invite and welcome all who may want to receive. You believe the congregation SHOULD (maybe must!) say "NO" to some guests.


Now, it's absolutely unavoidable that some congregations will determine that some are welcomed and some are not that will be different from what YOUR (rather passionate) opinion is. You want people to honor your view (you even seem mad at those who don't) but are you honoring THEIR stewardship? You don't think YOU should be offended, but do you think you should offend OTHERS by dishonoring THEIR stewardship on this?



Just a thought....




- Josiah



.

I dont know what to call it but it is not stewadship when you refuse a christian communion

 

[Lamb]

I dont know what to call it but it is not stewadship when you refuse a christian communion

Don't you believe though that Christians who are caught up in known sins should be refused communion? Wouldn't taking it be to his detriment? So at some point, Christians SHOULD be turned away from the table!

1 Cor. 11:27: "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the
Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood
of the Lord."

 

[psalms 91]

Don't you believe though that Christians who are caught up in known sins should be refused communion? Wouldn't taking it be to his detriment? So at some point, Christians SHOULD be turned away from the table!

1 Cor. 11:27: "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the
Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood
of the Lord."

I dont disagree with this but my whole point is that the Catholic shurch is wrong in denying communion to Christians, now we can take this off in other tangents or try to put it back on mme but it seems like everyone is avoiding the elephant in the room, now why is that?

 

[Josiah]

I dont know what to call it but it is not stewadship when you refuse a christian communion

You seem to say we should REFUSE.... say NO to nonchristians who desire to receive this. So, we aren't disagreeing that churches have a God-given responsibility to be good stewards of this..... that churches have a God-given responsibility to say "NO" sometimes - you are just insisting that all churches should abide by YOUR sense of what is and is not good stewardship; that all should respect YOUR polity - while you insist on not respecting theirs. Perhaps you don't want some to feel offended that YOU are employing what YOU think is good stewardship here.... but you choose to feel offended when OTHERS are employing what they believe is good stewardship here.

 

[psalms 91]

You seem to say we should REFUSE.... say NO to nonchristians who desire to receive this. So, we aren't disagreeing that churches have a God-given responsibility to be good stewards of this..... that churches have a God-given responsibility to say "NO" sometimes - you are just insisting that all churches should abide by YOUR sense of what is and is not good stewardship; that all should respect YOUR polity - while you insist on not respecting theirs. Perhaps you don't want some to feel offended that YOU are employing what YOU think is good stewardship here.... but you choose to feel offended when OTHERS are employing what they believe is good stewardship here.

Turn it around as per your usual but anyone who reads this thread and understands that a Christian of another denom cannot partake knows it is wrong and that it is indefensible although you try by turning things around. You could try your own advice and actually answer what is asked, is it right to refuse a chriustian communion? No circumstances no turning it around as each individual is responsible for examing theirselves.

 

[Josiah]

Good general polity: When in someone else house: abide by THEIR rules. For example, I don't like people smoking in my house. It's okay with me that they smoke in their own, but I think it STINKS, I think the smell lingers and gets into everything, and besides, I'm allergic to it. I'm NOT saying that are evil or bad for smoking.... I'm not even saying it's wrong to smoke..... but I ask they not smoke in mine. COURTESY and RESPECT suggests they abide by that or simply choose not to be a guest in my house.

We all know that different churches have different understandings of the Eucharist AND different embraces of what they regard as good and appropriate stewardship of the mystery.... Maybe we SHOULD all have the EXACT same views and polity (I wouldn't argue with that) BUT we don't. And everyone on the planet knows that. Just as some people smoke in their house, some don't. Some allow guests to smoke in their home, some don't. I think basic, fundamental COURTESY is that if you are a guest in the home of another, you respectfully abide by their polities - and not choose to feel offended.

 

[psalms 91]

I didnt walk in choosing to beoffended, I also did not walk in to be made to feel like less of a christian by being refused a basic tenet that was commanded by Christ either. The church is wrong and I am sure others have been turned off by this as well. You can talk about respecting the rules of the house till your blue but it doesnt make it right. How about the house respecting cghristians, after all they are supposed to be christian

 

[Josiah]

is it right to refuse a chriustian communion? .

Bill, I think you are avoiding the issue: YOU are insisting it is RIGHT to refuse Communion to some. You indicate it is the church's God-given responsibility sometimes to say "NO." Okay. You are simply insisting that ALL churches abide by YOUR sense of who should and should not be told "NO." You want ALL to respect and conform to YOUR polity (and not feel offended) - but you won't do the same to others. That's the problem I see.

The Church of Bill may decide that proper Stewardship is to say "YES" to anyone who claims to be a Christian: Mormons, JW's, Salvation Army, whatever. Okay. I get it. THAT'S the polity of the Chruch of Bill. And I see your point that nonchristians should RESPECT that, show COURTESY to that, and choose to not feel offended by that. Got it. Well..... most churches are not the Church of Bill. Some have different views.... a different sense of stewardship. Why not afford them the SAME THING you think all should afford YOU? And not choose to be offended?




.

 

[psalms 91]

Bill, I think you are avoiding the issue: YOU are insisting it is RIGHT to refuse Communion to some. You indicate it is the church's God-given responsibility sometimes to say "NO." Okay. You are simply insisting that ALL churches abide by YOUR sense of who should and should not be told "NO." You want ALL to respect and conform to YOUR polity (and not feel offended) - but you won't do the same to others. That's the problem I see.

The Church of Bill may decide that proper Stewardship is to say "YES" to anyone who claims to be a Christian: Mormons, JW's, Salvation Army, whatever. Okay. I get it. THAT'S the polity of the Chruch of Bill. And I see your point that nonchristians should RESPECT that, show COURTESY to that, and choose to not feel offended by that. Got it. Well..... most churches are not the Church of Bill. Some have different views.... a different sense of stewardship. Why not afford them the SAME THING you think all should afford YOU? And not choose to be offended?




.

And you are doing your usual in trying to turn this around, I said non christians ought not take communion, nothing about Christians, I will not allow you to turn this one around, answer the question, should a christian be refused communion? That is simple enough and please dont talk about sin or anything but the question as it is each belieers responsibility to examine themselves, just for once answer the question

 

[TurtleHare]

I didnt walk in choosing to beoffended, I also did not walk in to be made to feel like less of a christian by being refused a basic tenet that was commanded by Christ either. The church is wrong and I am sure others have been turned off by this as well. You can talk about respecting the rules of the house till your blue but it doesnt make it right. How about the house respecting cghristians, after all they are supposed to be christian

Have you looked into their beliefs to learn why they have closed communion or is it because you felt it was your God-given right to receive that it is too much effort to even find out the real reason? There are more churches than the Roman Catholics who practice closed communion so would you like to learn why they do it? If people post it here are you going to listen to it or read it should I say because maybe if you heard why, even if you don't believe as they do, you wouldn't feel so insulted?

 

[Josiah]

I said non christians ought not take communion

Right. So you REFUSE some. You insist churches SHOULD say "no" to some. AND you think all must abide by the polity of the Church of Bill - and not feel offended if they are told "no." Thing is, you won't do the same toward others who don't have the same polity as the Church of Bill.

 

[psalms 91]

Have you looked into their beliefs to learn why they have closed communion or is it because you felt it was your God-given right to receive that it is too much effort to even find out the real reason? There are more churches than the Roman Catholics who practice closed communion so would you like to learn why they do it? If people post it here are you going to listen to it or read it should I say because maybe if you heard why, even if you don't believe as they do, you wouldn't feel so insulted?

Perhaps but it still wouldnt make it right and I have no experience with any church other than the RCC that does this. I do know it is wrong and it should be apparent to anyone who is a christian that this is not right

 

[TurtleHare]

It seems to me that you're comparing their refusal of you participating at the table as on par with you not being considered a Christian and I assure you that is not the case.