So what do we say? If this is the path of Synodality and the direction of Francis' reform, Rome is in a decidedly worse position than many had thought. But we already knew that there were voices to say, along with some Lutheran voices today, that the job of the Church is to welcome and it is up to the individual to decide what they believe about the Sacrament and whether they choose to communion or not. Sadly, Rome is mirroring all that is wrong with Protestantism on this point and all that is problematic with Lutheranism as well. We appear to stand for nothing more than personal choice, personal preference, and personal truth. When that happens the heart of the Gospel is reduced to something even less than myth and legend -- at least these usually have some fact upon which their larger truth is built. Here there is no truth -- only that which each individual defines and holds as their own.
Sadly, I can see many Lutherans rushing to the defense of such a claim and such a position. After all, the ELCA long ago decided that sharing the Eucharist was hardly more than offering coffee and donuts and therefore it did not matter what the people communing believed or if they believed something in common. The welcome was more than what it was they were welcoming people to eat and drink. That is pretty much where things sit in the evolution of a Sacrament once esteemed not simply as the last testament of our Lord but His very gift of Himself to be received by the baptized who live in repentance and faith. I get it. We have been so reticent to keep the altar rail for those with a common faith who come in baptism and repentance that it makes it hard now to justify excluding anyone. How strange it is that we are more concerned with what those outside the faith might think of us than we are what God thinks about how we steward His mysteries. How odd it is that in one place a bishop restricts a politician from receiving the Sacrament and in another part of the world a Muslim is communed.