They emphasize only Augsburg X, but neglect Article VII, which comes before and must be assumed as one reads Article X. The Latin of VII (Tappert, page 32, bottom, parag. 2) is the most thorough:
It is also taught among us that one holy and Christian church will be and remain forever. This is the assembly of all believers among whom the Gospel is preached in its purity and holy sacraments are administered according to the Gospel (Word of God). For it is sufficient for the true unity of the Christian church that the Gospel be preached in conformity with a pure understanding of it and the sacraments be administered in accordance with the divine Word. ...The question is: Does"administered in accordance with the divine Word" mean:
The Epitome (Article X, Tappert, parag. 7, page 493) reinforces what kind of unity is meant with these words: ... mutual agreement in doctrine and in all its articles as well as in the right use of the holy sacraments ...in accordance with the divine Word about the Lord's Supper?
or
in accordance with the entire divine Word?
The Lord's Supper does not stand alone in the panoply of Christian teaching. It is not isolated from all other teaching. Christians ought to be assembled under a pure Gospel. Is it too daring to presume that the Christians should actually believe this true Gospel, or should we be satisfied that folks come and hear it and go about their believing a "gospel as they see it" after Bible Class and the sermon. Christians ought to be assembled under a pure Gospel and before a Lord's Supper that is actually the Lord's - consecrated with His Words, distributed by ministers who truly represent Him (in all His teachings) and received by believing (in all that He says) and penitent sinners; that is, "administered in accordance with the divine Word." All of the divine Word.
We have always understood the latter to be the case.
We and other denominations, until recently (the open communion fad), have throughout history understood that the
Our churches teach that the sacraments were instituted, not merely to be marks of profession among men, but especially to be signs and testimonies of the will of God toward us.....
The words "not merely to be marks of profession among men," clearly indicate that the Reformers recognized that the sacraments are intended to be "marks of profession among men," denominational characteristics, but not merely so. Our Catechism reflects this proper emphasis when it answers the Question:
Likewise, "To those of a different faith...." is listed last - but listed - in answer to the Question:"To whom must the Lord's Supper be denied?" The Lord's Supper is not primarily given to us as a "mark of profession among men," but it is given to us as that, too. Denominations, with their distinct names that describe their distictive and different doctrines, are a handy and generally accurate means of discerning who should be joining in the "mark of profession among men" in an honest way."For what purpose then, do we approach the Lord's Table? A. Chiefly to receive the forgiveness of our sins.... B. To obtain strength for a holier life; C. To bear testimony that we are of one faith with those who commune with us.
The Apology says VII and VIII (Tappert Par. 8, page 169):
The following phrase, "the communion of saints," seems to have been added to explain what "church" means, namely, the assembly of saints who share the association of the same Gospel or teaching and of the same Holy Spirit, who renews, consecrates and governs their hearts.
The Reformers were able to recognize that not all Christians "share the association of the same Gospel or teaching" or even the same spirit. The Papists and Zwingli shared an association of a different "Gospel or teaching." Gospel is here obviously used in the wide sense of doctrine.
The Smalkald Articles (Part II, Article II, Tappert, parag 9, page294) says:
Nor is it right (even if everything else is in order) for anyone to use the sacrament, which is the common possession of the church, to meet his own private need and thus trifle with it according to his own pleasure apart from the fellowship of the church.
For Pastors to modify the use of the Sacrament according to their own "private need" and understanding,"apart from"(and in opposition to) "the fellowship of the church" is not according to the Confessions to which the Declarationists have pledged themselves. To "trifle with it according to his own pleasure apart from the fellowship of the church" and the fellowship's obvious position (Res. 3-08 and Luther and Chemnitz and Walther and Pieper and Elert and hosts of others) is non-Lutheran and unChristian. UnChristian because they have been unable to convince "the fellowship of the church" that they are right, but they go ahead and practice open communion anyway. That is sin against the people they have confused and their brothers in the ministry who have now to combat their false teaching.
Article IX, (Part III, Article IX, Tappert, page 314) dealing with Excommunication clearly states that the fellowship of the church is of great importance to the church since excommunication "excludes those who are manifest and impenitent sinners from the sacrament ... until they mend their ways and avoid sin."
In the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope (Tappert, page 327, parag. 41) the Reformers state one of the principles that we have held and which has through history been supportive of Closed Communion:
Since the Pope promotes and defends "doctrines which conflict with the Gospel, ... all Christians ought to beware of becoming participants in the impious doctrines, blashpemies and unjust cruelties of the pope. They ought rather to abandon and execrate the pope and his adherents as the Kingdom of the AntiChrist."
They quote Matt. 7:15: "Beware of false prophets" and II Cor. 6:14: "...What fellowship has light with darkness ." We might add: "Come out from among them" from the same pericope. That people willingly belong to a congregation or a synod that teaches doctrines which conflict with the Gospel means that they identify, protests notwithstanding, with those teachings. People say, "I don't agree with the XYZ Synod, but my folks belonged, I put lots of money and emotion into the new building, so I am going to stay there, but I would like to commune with you." He should come out from them (as his conscience tells him) so that His communion at the table that teaches the truth is not a lie and a deception, but a genuine, sincere expression of union. Until he comes out he is to be included among those who are manifest and impenitent sinners ... until they mend their ways and avoid sin. Obviously, the Declarationists do not believe holding to and supporting false doctrine or ignorance of Christ's doctrine is sin, or not sin enough to require real repentance and amendment of life, else they would "abandon" the erroneous LCMS as the Reformers abandoned the Roman Church.
On the other hand, to refuse to "share the association of the same Gospel or teaching" with those who hold to the truth of the Scriptures, that is to join their fellowship that you know is teaching and preaching the Truth of God, is also sin and needs to be repented of before attempting to commune among those who do "share the association of the same Gospel or teaching".
The Epitome (Tappert, page 486, parag. 38) rejects and condemns the doctrine that the worthiness of the guests at this heavenly meal does not consist only in true faith in Christ, but also depends on people's outward preparation. Notice that it does not say "only in faith in Christ." It says "only in true faith in Christ." How can any faithful Lutheran pastor understand that uninstructed people or people instructed in foreign doctrines will be part of the true unity of the Christian church in which the Gospel is preached in conformity with a pure understanding of it. It just cannot be.
The Solid Declaration (Tappert, page 582, parag 68), in contrast to the mushy Declaration of these latter day Gospel reductionists, says:
It is essential to explain with great diligence who the unworthy guests at the Supper are, namely those who go to this sacrament without true contrition and sorrow for their sins, without true faith, and without a good intention to improve their life and who by their unworthy oral eating of the body of Christ burden themselves with judgement (that is temporal and eternal punishments) and profane the body and blood of Christ.
We would have to agree with our Declarationists if it were not for those little four letter words: TRUE that modify faith and contrition. The word "true" does not occur in the Declaration either to describe the body and blood of Christ or their "understanding," the closest they come to describing their doctrine. Why do they want to weasel out from under the responsibility to assist those who desire to commune toward true confession and faith? Do they not want to bothered with the tedious and sometimes difficult work of instructing? Do they fear that some one will actually and honestly say they don't believe their teachings and choose not to join their church? That does not build self esteem, and rejection challenges one's own faith and principles. Are they liberals who do not believe in anything like "Truth?" (cf. Tappert, p. 486, parags. 17 and 18 for a couple more of the many uses of "true" or "genuine" as adjectives to describe "faith.")
The Apology says XV (Tappert Par. 40, page 220):
Every Lord's Day many in our circles use the Lord's Supper, but only after they have been instructed, examined and absolved.... Among our opponents there is no catechization of the children at all, even though the canons prescribe about it.
Do the Declarationists hold that catechization is necessary before admission to the Lord's Supper, as the Lutherans do? Instruction about what? How to answer three minimal questions correctly? This sounds like teachers teaching the answers to the TAAS test so the kids can make a good grade and the principal can get a bonus. The Declarationists appear to be putting themselves in the category of opponents of the Reformers, or do they think that the Sacrament affects forgiveness ex opere operato, without awareness, acceptance and trust in the Word?
In contrast to the "three little questions", Martin Chemnitz, in his masterful Examination of the Council of Trent (Section VIII, Concerning the Preparation Which Is to Be Exercized in Order That One May Receive the Holy Eucharist Worthily, p 314ff), tells about true preparation and examination for a "worthy" reception. It is plain that he would recoil from the reductionist and minimalist examination expoused by our Declarationists. I suppose the Declarationists also recoil from Chemnitz, if they ever dare to read him.
The Declarationists neglect, even as some others do, Augsburg XXIV:
The custom has been retained among us of not administering the sacrament to those who have not been previously examined and absolved. At the same time people are carefully instructed concerning the consolation of the Word of absolution as a great and precious thing.....
Since the practice of private confession and absolution has been less institutionalized, it means that instructing new members in how to examine themselves (the Biblical way says I Cor. 11: 28) according to the Ten Commandments, the True Faith of the Creed and the Sacraments is even more important today. It is more important that we have plenty of time to instruct those who desire to commune because of the insidious nature of false religion (New Age, Happiness Gospel, Church Growth Gospel, Success Gospel, Self Esteem Gospel, etc.) and the ignorance of the Scriptures on the part of those coming from other churches, even of our own Synod. So we have the encouragement from officials for our pastors and congregations to pay attention to the catechetical aspect of our congregation's ministry. Our prayer is that the Declarationists would heed our Synodical resolutions, our Synodical President and Praesidium and those District Presidents who follow in their train, and return to the historic and confessional practice of a loving closed communion.