When debates rise about the fellowship policy of the LCMS with respect to participation in Holy Communion, inevitably we are subjected to the supposed semantic distinction of "close" vs. "closed." Often in synodical literature the word is merged into one with the "d" encased in parentheses, indicating that understood properly the words are synonymous.
Try convincing anyone of this who is committed to a "functionally open" policy and you encounter a losing battle. Unfortunately language has changed and along with that the older word "close." Dr. Kurt Marquart in his article "Gold, Silver, and Bronze - and Close Communion," notes:
Actually "close" is simply an older form of "closed"-as in "close carriage." So, despite the touching stories that have been made up about "close" communion-and why that is so much better than the "exclusive," and therefore politically incorrect "closed" communion-the fact is that "close communion" and "closed communion" mean exactly the same thing. The opposite of both is "open communion," not something like "distant communion"!
Unfortunately many pastors in the Synod long ago began making the unfortunate distinction between these words, forever contaminating their use. Personally I am done with the words. They only end up in a losing debate, for the person proposing an open practice will always appeal to the more modern understanding that "close" has nothing to do with "closed."
I commend the article referenced above for your complete review. Marquart was my professor at seminary, a man for whom I have the greatest respect.