Part I of this article Part II Summary
Personal Reflection on the Eucharist
As an evangelical, I experienced communion as an intensely personal and individual act—a sacred moment that symbolized Christ’s sacrifice for me, uniting me with him and, through him, with the Father. The act of eating bread and drinking wine served as a vivid, tangible reminder that Christ gave his flesh and blood for my redemption. There was also a communal aspect: I shared this moment with others in my faith community, recognizing that Christ had made us all part of one spiritual family.
Yet, despite its depth and beauty, this understanding left certain dimensions of the Eucharist unexplored. My focus remained fixed on the emotional gratitude of Christ’s gift and its personal implications. I missed the broader significance of why this act of consumption is necessary and what it means to consume something so visible and tangible. What deeper statement about unity does the Eucharist make? What conceptual and practical implications flow from this act?
In this article, I hope to retrieve some of that lost fullness and offer it to my evangelical brothers and sisters. By exploring the rich theological significance of the Eucharist, we may uncover how this sacrament embodies and creates unity—not just with God, but also among his people.
I. Ecclesiastical Unity and Its Domain
The church is the primary domain of the unity we are discussing, but the term “church” itself requires further clarification. Its usage varies widely, reflecting multiple referents. The Greek term behind “church” (ἐκκλησία, transliterated as ecclesia), fundamentally means “a gathering” or “assembly.” Consequently, it can apply to various contexts, such as a local congregation, a broader denominational identity, or even the universal body of God’s people across the world.
This multi-faceted use of ecclesia leads to a spectrum of interpretations when discussing “ecclesiastical unity.” Some focus on the visible, concrete unity within specific church identities or denominations. Others, following figures like Calvin, emphasize the invisible unity of all believers—a “unity in the spirit.” For clarity, I will use the term “ecclesiastical unity” to refer specifically to the visible and tangible unity of the church as a concrete body. Calvin’s concept of the invisible unity of all God’s people will be distinguished and referred to as “unity in the spirit.”
The mission of the church, however, is not merely to preserve scattered local unities or theological abstractions. It is to fulfill the vision expressed in the Nicene Creed: “I believe in one . . . church.” This singular, visible church identity must encompass the entire body of believers worldwide. Until that unity is achieved, Christians must contend with multiple ecclesiastical unities—fragmented denominational identities—and the confusion these divisions bring.
II. Breaking Bread in the Early Church
The earliest Christian gatherings, before the establishment of dedicated spaces or formal titles, were marked by four central practices: devotion to apostolic teaching, the enjoyment of fellowship, prayer, and the breaking of bread (Acts 2:42; cf. Heb. 10:24–25). This breaking of bread went beyond the sharing of a common meal. Placed alongside these other devotional acts, it clearly referred to the Eucharist—also known as the Lord’s Supper, the Lord’s Table, or Holy Communion.
This centrality of the Eucharist extended beyond the church in Jerusalem. Paul’s epistles demonstrate that his own communities adopted the practice, despite his absence from the Last Supper (1 Cor. 10:16; 11:17–34). The Eucharist was a defining feature of the Pauline churches, connecting their worship to the sacrificial act of Christ’s death.
For Protestants, the Eucharist has often been understood primarily as a symbol of Christ’s body and blood given for individual redemption. While this symbolism is profound, it frequently overlooks another dimension of the Eucharist emphasized in Scripture: the unity of Christ’s people. Paul states, “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Cor. 10:17, ESV). This statement suggests that the Eucharist does not merely represent unity; it effects it. By partaking of one bread, believers are made one body.
The early church’s devotion to the breaking of bread reflects an understanding of the Eucharist as both an act of worship and a profound means of creating unity within the body of Christ. It was not only a remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice but also a communal act binding believers together in one faith and one Spirit.
III. The Unitive Role of the Eucharist
While many Protestant traditions emphasize the symbolic significance of the Eucharist, Scripture presents it as an act with profound unitive power. Paul states, “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Cor. 10:17, ESV). This verse reveals a critical truth: the act of partaking in the Eucharist not only symbolizes unity but actively creates it. The Eucharist is the means by which believers are made one body.
This unity manifests in two dimensions. First, there is vertical unity—a unity between the believer and Christ. The Apostle John records Jesus saying, “Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him” (John 6:56, ESV). By consuming the bread, which represents Christ’s flesh, believers are brought into communion with the divine life of Christ himself. Second, there is horizontal unity—a unity among believers. The same divine life that unites each believer with Christ also unites them with one another. The Eucharist transforms a group of individuals into a community, forming one body in Christ.
This interpretation raises an important question: what does Paul mean by the “one bread”? Scholars have offered multiple explanations. One view equates the “one bread” with the physical loaf used in the Eucharistic celebration. Another interpretation sees the “one bread” as a metaphor for Christ’s body in its essential, unmediated form, which is shared with believers through the Eucharist. A third perspective identifies the “one bread” with the Church itself, understood as the mystical body of Christ.
Although these interpretations differ in focus, they converge on a central point: the Eucharist unites believers by mediating Christ’s body to them. Whether the “one bread” is seen as a physical element, Christ’s unmediated body, or the Church as his mystical body, the act of partaking brings believers into unity. This unity is not merely symbolic but participatory, as Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 10:17 suggest. By sharing in the one bread, believers are made one body—a unity that is both spiritual and visible.
Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 10:20 deepens this understanding of the Eucharist’s participatory nature. He warns the Corinthians: “What pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to become participants with demons” (1 Cor. 10:20, ESV). Here, Paul’s use of κοινωνούς (“participants,” “sharers”) suggests that eating establishes a profound connection with those involved. If eating meat sacrificed to demons can create a commonality with demons, how much more does partaking in the body of Christ create unity with Christ and his Church? This principle of participationism reinforces the progressive aspect of Eucharistic unity: the act of eating draws believers into a deeper relationship with Christ and with one another, forming a common body.
This convergence of interpretive options and participatory theology underscores the Eucharist’s unitive power. Regardless of the precise meaning of the “one bread,” the Eucharist plays a central role in creating and sustaining the unity of the Church. It is both a reflection of unity and the means by which unity is progressively achieved.
IV. Open Table vs. Closed Table
The question of who may partake in the Eucharist lies at the heart of ecclesiastical unity. Protestant traditions that advocate for an Open Table often argue that unity in Christ, established at conversion, is the sole requirement for participation. In this view, the Eucharist is an inclusive celebration of the shared positional unity that all believers possess in Christ. It reflects the Protestant emphasis on grace through faith and the spiritual equality of all Christians.
Catholicism closes its Table for a variety of reasons: fidelity to apostolic teaching, reverence for Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, and to protect participants from partaking unworthily (cf. 1 Cor. 11:27-29). Various Protestant groups and sects do likewise for one or more of these same reasons: some Lutherans (e.g., Missouri-synod and Wisconsin-synod), some Baptists (e.g., American Baptist Association congregations, Strict Baptists, etc.), some Presbyterians (e.g., Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Reformed Presbyterian Church, etc.), Reformed Seventh-day Adventist Church, Mennonites, some Brethren, Amish and others.
This overlap reveals that the question of an Open or Closed Table is ultimately about differing interpretations of Scripture. I happen to think that the ecclesiological pre-commitments of most Protestants naturally lead to an Open Table. If so, to see various Protestant groups ignore that animus in deference to what they believe Scripture teaches is telling. In any case, by recognizing this shared concern across traditions, Protestant readers can see the issue in its broader context, fostering a deeper understanding of the theological stakes involved.
Catholic Reasoning for a Closed Table
For Catholics, closed communion reflects the inseparable connection between the Eucharist and visible, ecclesiastical unity. Participation requires membership in the Catholic Church, adherence to its teachings, and freedom from mortal sin. This approach is grounded in three key principles.
First, the Catholic Church views the Eucharist as the real presence of Christ, demanding the utmost reverence. Participation in the sacrament presumes a shared understanding of its sacred nature, as well as agreement on the doctrines surrounding it. Second, the Church seeks to protect the integrity of the Eucharist and the spiritual well-being of participants. Paul’s warning in 1 Corinthians 11:27–29 about unworthy participation underlines the potential consequences of approaching the Eucharist without proper discernment. Finally, closed communion emphasizes the visible unity of the Church, reflecting a tangible and concrete oneness that transcends spiritual ideals.
Critique of Open Table Practices
In contrast, advocates for an Open Table argue that positional unity in Christ, established at conversion, is sufficient for participation. This view reflects a desire to affirm the shared identity of all Christians, regardless of denominational boundaries. However, the Open Table approach faces significant challenges. By minimizing the importance of visible unity, it risks reducing the Eucharist to a symbolic act, detached from the practical realities of ecclesiastical division.
Moreover, the Open Table model raises practical questions about who qualifies as a Christian. Should the criteria be baptism, profession of faith, or church attendance? Who determines whether an individual meets these standards? Even Protestant groups that practice open communion often exclude certain individuals, such as Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, or nominal believers. This inconsistency suggests that unity requires discernment and definition, even in traditions that prioritize inclusivity.
Unity and the Eucharist
The distinction between Open and Closed Tables ultimately highlights a deeper theological divide: Is Eucharistic unity merely a positional reality established at conversion, or does it require visible, tangible expression through ecclesiastical communion? The Catholic approach asserts that true Eucharistic unity demands more than shared belief—it requires a shared life within a visibly united church. By restricting participation to those who meet its standards of unity, the Catholic Church seeks to preserve the integrity of the Eucharist and its role in building the body of Christ.
V. The Ratification of Unity by the Church
The question of who is qualified to partake in the Eucharist cannot be left to individual determination alone. While Protestant traditions often emphasize personal conviction and direct communion with God as sufficient for establishing one’s standing as a Christian, this approach encounters significant limitations. Scripture warns against self-deception, false conversion, and the evolution of individual convictions over time (e.g., Matt. 7:21–23; 2 Tim. 4:3–4). For this reason, the authenticity of one’s Christianity requires communal discernment.
The Catholic tradition affirms that the Church, rather than the individual, plays a critical role in determining who is included in the body of Christ. This communal assessment is rooted in the biblical principle that love for others serves as the ultimate proof of genuine faith (John 13:35; 1 John 4:20). Love demands a community in which it can be expressed and tested. Therefore, the faith community recognizes and ratifies the presence of the Spirit in the individual, affirming their membership in the body of Christ.
This communal discernment does not deny the possibility of error—churches can misjudge, and individuals can prove exceptions to the rule. However, the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, provides a more reliable mechanism for assessing authenticity than individual self-assessment. Just as societies rely on courts to administer justice rather than leaving individuals to judge themselves, the Church serves as the arbiter of who may participate in the Eucharist.
This framework explains why Catholics require visible membership in the Church as a prerequisite for communion. Visible membership signifies ecclesiastical unity, which includes adherence to shared beliefs, sacraments, and discipline. The Eucharist thus reflects and reinforces this visible unity, ensuring that those who partake are genuinely united in faith and practice.
In this way, the Church’s role in ratifying unity extends beyond individual salvation to the broader ecclesiastical community. The Eucharist is not merely a private act but a public declaration of belonging to the one body of Christ—a declaration that demands verification by the Church.
VI. The Dual Nature of the Eucharist Embodies the Dual Nature of Unity
The Eucharist uniquely embodies a dual role in the life of the Church: it reflects existing unity while simultaneously creating deeper unity. This reciprocal relationship distinguishes the Eucharist from other sacraments, such as baptism, because the Eucharist expresses both positional and progressive unity. In Part I of this post, I argued that baptism aims to bring about visible and concrete unity. However, divisions within the Church have fractured that unity, introducing dissonance into the meaning of positional unity and distancing different forms of it.
One common way to construe the relationship between baptism and the Eucharist, often supporting an Open Table, is to view baptism as representing positional unity and the Eucharist as representing progressive unity. This view has an admitted elegance. However, the truth is not determined by elegance alone but by its ability to incorporate all biblical and theological concerns.
While Scripture differentiates positional unity (e.g., our shared status as members of Christ’s body) and progressive unity (e.g., the mission to become fully one as Christ and the Father are one), it does not explicitly map these distinctions onto baptism and the Eucharist. Nevertheless, this differentiation legitimizes viewing the Eucharist as participating in both poles of unity—positional and progressive. As a sacrament, the Eucharist must be both a sign of visible, concrete unity and an instrument for bringing such unity about. This raises a critical question: What positional unity is necessary for participation in the Eucharist?
To illustrate this distinction, consider a maritime image. Baptism places all believers in ships tethered to the same dock, representing their initiation into the body of Christ and their common starting point as sojourners. From this dock, the ships embark on a voyage through the waters of life, navigating storms of heresy, apostasy, and temptation. Our only safety is to follow the ships sailing in the right direction—but which are they? Enamored with one captain or admiral over another, many ships scatter, forging their own courses across the ocean, fracturing visible unity.
Progress requires starting and moving together. Visible unity announces that believers share not only a starting point but also a mutual direction. The Eucharist represents this shared journey of believers, tethered together by common coordinates, mutual commitments, and a shared destination.
When ships drift apart—when doctrinal or ecclesiastical divisions pull them in different directions—the ropes that hold them together are strained or broken. The Eucharist cannot rightly proclaim unity unless the ships are visibly moving toward the same goal. Thus, the sacrament demands both positional unity (a shared starting point) and progressive unity (a shared journey and destination).
This conception of positional unity explains why the Eucharist requires visible ecclesiastical unity. To partake in the Eucharist together is to proclaim that unity has been achieved—not merely as a spiritual ideal but as a lived, tangible reality. For this reason, divisions within the Church render a common Eucharist impossible. The Eucharist cannot gloss over disunity without betraying its own meaning. Instead, it calls for the visible and concrete unity that makes a shared table both possible and authentic.
By participating in both positional and progressive unity, the Eucharist fulfills its role as the sacrament of communion. It unites believers not only with Christ but also with one another, drawing the Church closer to the eschatological unity it is called to embody.
VII. Modern Divisions and the Question of Validity
Modern ecclesiastical divisions present unique challenges to the Eucharist’s role in fostering unity. Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11 provides a foundation for understanding the relationship between unity and the Eucharist, but applying his principles to today’s widespread divisions raises difficult questions: Do modern divisions invalidate all Eucharists? Are some Eucharists valid while others are not? Or is there only one valid Eucharist, celebrated by a single, unified Church?
Paul’s admonitions to the Corinthians about divisions within their local congregation suggest that unity is a prerequisite for a valid Eucharist. He writes, “When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk” (1 Cor. 11:20–21, ESV). The divisions among the Corinthians invalidated their Eucharistic practice, reducing it to an empty ritual. Paul even warns that improper participation leads to judgment: “Anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:29, ESV).
However, applying Paul’s local logic to the global divisions of the modern church is not straightforward. Unlike the Corinthian situation, today’s divisions are multifaceted, encompassing doctrinal, ethical, liturgical, and apostolic disagreements. They also occur on a global scale, rather than within a single local congregation. These differences complicate the application of Paul’s principles to the modern ecclesial landscape.
One possible interpretation is that local unity is sufficient for a valid Eucharist, even amid broader divisions. This view suggests that individual congregations can celebrate a valid Eucharist as long as they maintain unity within their own community. However, this raises the question of whether such localized unity truly reflects the universal unity of the Church.
Another interpretation is that modern divisions invalidate all Eucharists, as the global Church no longer shares the unity required for a common table. This perspective aligns with the ecumenist Ephraim Radner’s argument that the Spirit has abandoned the Church due to its divisions. Yet such a view conflicts with Christ’s promise in Matthew 16:18 that the gates of Hades will not prevail against his Church.
A third possibility is that only one Church possesses a valid Eucharist. This view presumes that God has preserved the unity of his Church within a single ecclesiastical body, which alone meets the criteria for visible, doctrinal, and apostolic unity.
Each of these interpretations highlights the tension between the local and global dimensions of unity. Paul’s theology of the Eucharist assumes a visible, tangible unity, but it is unclear how his principles apply to the fractured reality of the modern Church. While his logic suggests that divisions undermine the validity of the Eucharist, the scope of those divisions—and the appropriate response—remains a matter for theological discernment.
This uncertainty underscores the need for a careful and deliberate approach to Eucharistic practice. If unity is a prerequisite for a valid Eucharist, then the divisions of the modern Church demand urgent attention. The Eucharist cannot be a neutral act; it must either affirm the unity of the body or expose its disunity. In this way, the Eucharist serves as both a mirror and a catalyst, reflecting the current state of the Church while calling it to greater unity.
VIII. Clarifications and Implications for Closed Communion
The necessity of unity for a valid Eucharist naturally leads to the practice of closed communion. By restricting participation to those who meet specific criteria, the Church seeks to preserve the integrity of the sacrament and honor its dual role: to reflect and build ecclesiastical unity. But what precisely constitutes the unity required for a valid Eucharist, and how do modern divisions complicate this practice?
Clarifying the Prerequisites for Unity
Paul’s warnings in 1 Corinthians 11 about discerning the body suggest that unity encompasses more than a shared positional reality. It requires a visible, tangible alignment among believers in key areas. These areas likely include:
- Doctrinal Unity: Agreement on essential truths of the faith, such as the nature of Christ, the Trinity, and the sacraments.
- Ethical Unity: Shared moral commitments and practices, reflecting the transformation wrought by the Spirit.
- Apostolic Unity: Continuity with the teachings and authority of the apostles, expressed through the Church’s leadership and sacraments.
While Paul does not exhaustively define these categories, his emphasis on discerning the body implies that divisions in these areas can undermine the validity of the Eucharist. The Church must therefore establish clear standards for participation, ensuring that the Eucharist truly reflects the unity it signifies.
The Function of Closed Communion
Closed communion reinforces the reciprocal relationship between the Eucharist and ecclesiastical unity. By limiting participation to those who meet the Church’s standards of unity, the practice:
- Preserves the Integrity of the Eucharist: Ensuring that the sacrament is not taken in an unworthy manner, as Paul warns, protects participants and the Church as a whole.
- Affirms Visible Unity: Participation in the Eucharist becomes a public declaration of belonging to a visibly united body of believers.
- Fosters Greater Unity: The exclusion of those outside the Church’s visible unity highlights the divisions that must be overcome, creating an impetus for reconciliation.
Visible Unity and Its Definability
The necessity of visible unity implies that this unity must also be definable. A unity that cannot be identified or delineated risks becoming an abstraction, detached from the tangible life of the Church. For unity to be visible, it must have boundaries—criteria that distinguish those who are within the unity from those who are not. This is precisely where the logic of a Closed Table becomes evident. By restricting participation in the Eucharist to those who meet specific standards, the Church defines the scope of its visible unity.
This definability does not imply exclusion for exclusion’s sake, nor does it suggest that those outside the visible unity are beyond the grace of God. Rather, it reflects the Church’s responsibility to guard the integrity of the Eucharist and to ensure that its practice aligns with the unity it proclaims. A unity that is shared at the table must be lived out in faith and practice. Without clear boundaries, the Eucharist risks becoming a symbol of an undefined and ultimately incoherent unity, undermining its role as the sacrament of communion.
Addressing False Unity
Paul’s admonition in 1 Corinthians 11:19 offers critical insight: “For there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized” (ESV). This suggests that divisions, while lamentable, serve a redemptive purpose. They expose what is false or incompatible, protecting the Church from the dangers of superficial or misleading unity. In this sense, disunity is better than false unity, as it allows the Church to clarify and defend what is genuine. A Closed Table reinforces this principle by bringing disunity into focus. It challenges Christians to confront the divisions that separate them, creating an impetus to address and resolve these differences.
However, advocates of an Open Table often argue that Eucharistic participation should transcend denominational boundaries, emphasizing the shared unity of all Christians in Christ. This approach, while appealing, overlooks the need for clearly defined visible unity and risks fostering false unity instead—a superficial togetherness that ignores the doctrinal, ethical, and ecclesiastical divisions that exist within the body of Christ. When individuals bring disparate and conflicting conceptions of the Eucharist to a common table, the act no longer proclaims a unified faith but becomes a contradictory statement. What one participant venerates as the real presence of Christ, another may regard as a mere symbol. Such disparities undermine the Eucharist’s role as the sacrament of unity.
Paul’s warnings in 1 Corinthians 11:29-30 deepen this argument, demonstrating that division not only invalidates the Eucharist but also poisons it: “For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died” (ESV). Here, Paul does not merely suggest that divisions within the body render the Eucharist ineffective; he reveals that they actively harm participants. The Eucharist, meant to be a source of life and unity, becomes a source of judgment when approached in disunity.
The claim that what invalidated the Eucharist for the Corinthians was their actions or behavior toward one another still recognizes that there must be some type of unity—whether relational, socio-economic, or otherwise—beyond common baptism that is required for a valid Eucharist. If this is so, then the Eucharist cannot merely express an inviolable and positional unity in the Son, for such unity is violable and dependent upon more. This moves the discussion to the question of what type of unity must exist. But once we are here, it becomes clear that the Eucharist has specific requirements, whatever they may be. And if there are requirements, who but the churches gets to define and discern those requirements? If churches choose different requirements, then only a Closed Table makes sense—that is, a table closed to all but those who, in a denomination, agree on those requirements.
So it is that Paul’s logic assumes that the positional unity required for a valid Eucharist is more than baptism. It has requirements that must be identified and enforced by the churches.
By refusing to gloss over disunity and safeguarding against the dangers Paul identifies, the practice of closed communion protects the Eucharist’s meaning and compels the Church to pursue the visible, doctrinal, and apostolic unity required for a shared table. Far from being a rejection of unity, this practice affirms the seriousness of the unity that the Eucharist demands.
Implications for Modern Divisions
The practice of closed communion raises significant questions in light of modern ecclesial divisions. If Paul’s warnings about the invalidation of the Eucharist are taken seriously, three possible conclusions emerge: (1) all communities partake of a valid Eucharist because local unity suffices, (2) no communities have a valid Eucharist because global divisions invalidate them, or (3) only one community offers a valid Eucharist because it is preserved by Christ as his Church.
Paul’s silence about global Eucharistic division cautions against extending his principles too broadly without nuance. His admonitions to the Corinthians addressed local issues—divisions that were socio-economic, relational, or liturgical in nature. Modern divisions, by contrast, are multifaceted, encompassing doctrinal, ethical, liturgical, and apostolic disagreements on a global scale. What can be expected and resolved locally cannot always be achieved worldwide.
Yet when Paul admonished the Corinthians to set aside their factionalism, most Christians would agree that he did not mean to unite with groups whose teachings fell outside the bounds of orthodoxy. Indeed, Christians who accept the first four ecumenical councils recognize that the doctrinal divergence of such groups falls outside the minimum standards for Eucharistic unity. This suggests that Paul operated with an unarticulated balance between acceptable and unacceptable theological diversity—a balance he did not fully define.
This highlights the inescapable problem: even if some doctrinal and ethical standards must exist as prerequisites for the Eucharist, Paul did not specify the range of acceptable diversity. Without these boundaries, it is difficult to assume that our divisions today mirror the Corinthian situation. Modern divisions are more numerous and varied, including disagreements about apostolicity, doctrinal orthodoxy, ethical practices, and liturgical expressions. The sheer complexity of these issues demonstrates that our situation differs significantly from Corinth’s, both in scope and substance.
Two realizations arise from this comparison. First, the permutations of modern division far exceed those likely present in Corinth, highlighting the vast differences in our circumstances. Second, the full nature of the Corinthian division may have revolved around issues that overlap minimally with our own. This categorical fullness of modern division underscores that we cannot simply apply Paul’s local logic to global Eucharistic unity without due theological consideration.
To avoid the worst-case scenario—that divisions have invalidated all Eucharists everywhere—the Church must address these complexities with a contextualized approach. While Paul’s principles provide a foundation, they require clarification and adaptation to address the global nature of modern divisions. Such work demands humility, discernment, and a commitment to the visible, doctrinal, and apostolic unity necessary for a valid Eucharist.
Clarifying Unity for Global Church
Paul’s theology of the Eucharist requires closed communion, but how does this apply in a globally divided Church? Modern divisions are not only more numerous but also more complex than those in Corinth, encompassing doctrinal, ethical, liturgical, and practical disagreements. While Paul’s principles provide a foundation, they cannot be applied wholesale to global divisions without nuance. Yet to disregard them entirely would sever the Eucharist from its biblical and historical moorings.
If Paul’s logic at the local level were applied without qualification globally, it would lead to the conclusion that no churches validly celebrate the Eucharist because global divisions have invalidated them. However, this view is overly pessimistic and contradicts Christ’s promise in Matthew 16:18 that the Church will not be overcome. Conversely, to argue that none of Paul’s logic applies would imply that all churches, regardless of their beliefs or practices, validly celebrate the Eucharist. Such a position, though embraced by some ecumenists, is untethered from Scripture, history, and the practical realities of discerning unity without common leadership.
The truth lies somewhere in between. If the principles of Paul’s logic are at least partly applicable to the global scene, and if our divisions actually have consequences for the validity of local Eucharistic celebrations, then we must clarify which aspects apply. And we must do so in light of the principal points we’ve discussed, and in light of the fact that there must be (an articulatable and justifiable) balance between acceptable and unacceptable diversity. Paul’s writings suggest that doctrinal, apostolic, and ethical consensus are prerequisites for a valid Eucharist. Churches that meet these criteria potentially maintain valid celebrations, while those that fall outside fail to meet the necessary unity for a shared table from the outset.
And if there is a difference between a valid and invalid Eucharist, and that validity depends upon some combination of the identity, beliefs, ethics, and practices among Christians seeking to take Eucharist together, then a clear definition of that identity and of those beliefs, ethics, and practices becomes critical. This brings us full circle: a valid Eucharist not only creates and sustains unity but also requires a certain visible, doctrinal, and ethical unity as its foundation. Without such clarity, the sacrament risks losing its meaning as the sign and source of ecclesiastical communion.
Conclusion: Unity through the Eucharist
The Eucharist is both the expression and the instrument of ecclesiastical unity. It embodies the Church’s visible and tangible oneness while also calling believers to deeper communion with Christ and with one another. This dual role demands that the Church approach the Eucharist with reverence and discernment, ensuring that it reflects the unity it signifies.
The practice of closed communion highlights the seriousness of this responsibility. While it may appear exclusionary, it serves a redemptive purpose: to preserve the integrity of the Eucharist and to challenge the Church to overcome its divisions. The scandal of a closed table is not a sign of failure but a call to action. It demands that Christians confront the realities of their disunity and work toward the visible, doctrinal, and apostolic unity required for a shared Eucharist.
Paul’s admonitions to the Corinthians remind us that the Eucharist cannot be taken lightly. To partake in disunity is to betray the very nature of the sacrament, reducing it to an empty ritual and exposing the Church to judgment. Yet the Eucharist is not only a mirror of the Church’s current state but also a means of transformation. It has the power to draw believers into greater unity, provided they approach it in the spirit of discernment and humility that Paul commands.
For Protestants, this raises a difficult but necessary question: If the differences that divide us are truly significant, how can we justify a common table? And if they are not, what prevents a return to full communion with the Catholic Church? The Eucharist leaves no room for ambiguity. It demands either reconciliation or integrity—either the resolution of division or the honest acknowledgment of its consequences.
Ultimately, the Eucharist is a sacrament of hope. It points to the eschatological unity that all Christians long for, when the Church will be fully one in Christ. Until that day, it calls believers to live out that unity as much as possible, striving for reconciliation and mutual understanding. Closed communion, far from being a rejection of unity, is an invitation to pursue it more deeply. It challenges all Christians to ask what kind of unity the Eucharist truly demands—and to act accordingly.
Share Article by Email: