closed communion goes all the way back to the the early Church (2nd century) when the unBaptized were sent home-so the rest of the congregation could participate in the Rembrance Supper-thats where catholics get the word Mass it comes from old Latin Missa meaning dismissal from the early days of the Church

Apr 10, 2010 -- 8:49PM, sincerly wrote:

Mar 31, 2010 -- 2:43PM, davelaw40 wrote:

closed communion goes all the way back to the the early Church (2nd century) when the unBaptized were sent home-so the rest of the congregation could participate in the Rembrance Supper-thats where catholics get the word Mass it comes from old Latin Missa meaning dismissal from the early days of the Church

Hi Dave, From what I read in 1Cor. 11:20+ that was an open communion as evidenced by(1:10-11) . I have no doubt that the early church fathers did a lot of "changes". 

You are correct that "Missa" was "dismissal", but from what I see it was NOT a "dismissal" of unbaptized attendants, but the last part of the liturgical rites which dismissed the congregates.(Sent the people home). That in recent times has been changed to "mission" of the church.(Catholic){"In Christian usage, however, it gradually took on a deeper meaning. The word 'dismissal' has come to imply a 'mission'. These few words succinctly express the missionary nature of the Church" (Pope Benedict XVI, Sacramentum caritatis, 51)}

Hopefully I can get this P.S. in before any want to respond to it.  I n "Sabbath, Change of, Action of Council of Ladicea on [about A.D. 364]----Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday[Sabbath, original], but shall work on that day; but the Lord's day they shall especially honor, and, as being Christians, shall, if possible, do no work on that day. If, however, they are found Judaizing, they shall be shut out from Christ".

thats the RCC reading back to explain what existed before them

Apr 11, 2010 -- 10:43PM, davelaw40 wrote:

Apr 10, 2010 -- 8:49PM, sincerly wrote:

Hi Dave, From what I read in 1Cor. 11:20+ that was an open communion as evidenced by(1:10-11) . I have no doubt that the early church fathers did a lot of "changes". 

You are correct that "Missa" was "dismissal", but from what I see it was NOT a "dismissal" of unbaptized attendants, but the last part of the liturgical rites which dismissed the congregates.(Sent the people home). That in recent times has been changed to "mission" of the church.(Catholic){"In Christian usage, however, it gradually took on a deeper meaning. The word 'dismissal' has come to imply a 'mission'. These few words succinctly express the missionary nature of the Church" (Pope Benedict XVI, Sacramentum caritatis, 51)}

Hopefully I can get this P.S. in before any want to respond to it.  I n "Sabbath, Change of, Action of Council of Ladicea on [about A.D. 364]----Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday[Sabbath, original], but shall work on that day; but the Lord's day they shall especially honor, and, as being Christians, shall, if possible, do no work on that day. If, however, they are found Judaizing, they shall be shut out from Christ". 

 thats the RCC reading back to explain what existed before them

However, 1 Cor. 11:20+ precedes that "RCC reading back" and continues to be more in line with """the early church fathers did a lot of "changes". """

Apr 11, 2010 -- 10:43PM, davelaw40 wrote:

  Paul was criticizing the excesses of the AGAPE feast hence the origin of closed communion also see the DIDACHE which limits communion to the Baptized.

Dave, the letter to the Corinthians was written by Paul. The spurious Didache's writer(s) are questionable. I'll take Paul's "open Communion".    The early church fathers  used """" 
 they shall be shut out from Christ"""" as a controlling method to enforce their unscriptural changes. Paul had written: 2 Thess. 2:3-4, before the didache as well. "Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." And that "Power" would exist until Christ Comes.

Apr 12, 2010 -- 9:43PM, davelaw40 wrote:

Paul's version of open communion was to WARN that the unworthy will get Sick or Die-when is the last time you heard that preceding open communion?

 Sorry, Dave, but that exposition of the Communion service  was started in chapter 10 and gave multiple facets concerning it. The significance of it and how it was being desecrated.  Therefore, that you write wasn't a warning, but a fact.  It is still a fact that "Gluttony and drunkenness" can lead to physical problems.  And when added to the solemn "feast of Communion", God can certainly add HIS Punishment for doing so "unworthily".

It was still an open Communion.

Jun 5, 2010 -- 12:58PM, Sisterintruth wrote:

It should be closed to baptized members only. Visitors can look on, but need to be baptized in the church or be a part of that church to partake.My congregation (not baptist) has closed communion & until I become a member I do not partake in it. I use to be baptist,but God called me elsewhere,& I follow my husband a non-baptist. I still visit an IFB during the week time 2 time.

While the Lord's Table is for believers only. Open Communion means it is for ALL believers whether or not they belong to that particular congregation. My church invites all who have recieved Christ as Lord and Savior to paricipate. One does not have to be a Baptist to participate.

Closed Communion, as it is praticed in Roman Catholicism, infers that the Community of Faith is limited to the denomination or even the particular congregation. I find that to be intolerable.