Communion and Catholics
- Thread starter Pard
- Start date
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
I believe it is the Anglican church's position that only baptised believers are permitted to partake.
[/quote]In context:
1Co 11:18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part,
1Co 11:19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.
1Co 11:20 When you come together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat.
1Co 11:21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk.
1Co 11:22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.
1Co 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,
1Co 11:24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
1Co 11:25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."
1Co 11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
1Co 11:27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
1Co 11:29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.
1Co 11:30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
1Co 11:31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged.
1Co 11:32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.
1Co 11:33 So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another--
1Co 11:34 if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home--so that when you come together it will not be for judgment. About the other things I will give directions when I come. (ESV)
As we can see, Paul's reference to taking the Lord's Supper unworthily has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not one considers the elements to be the literal body and blood of Christ, or even whether or not there is agreement in that matter, but rather is about the attitude of the heart.[/QUOTE]
Well, it does, indirectly. The Corinthians were mistaking the Eucharist for the agape feast, and they were missing the point of both.
Unless you go High Anglican, no, it is permitted to all believers, regardless of their baptism status.
Most Low Anglican churches will say that it is generally something that believers do. Not once while in an Anglican church have I heard any mention of baptism at communion time, and I have attended an Anglican church for my whole life. I have even taken part in a High Anglican communion recently, which was almost Catholic in nature, and nothing about baptism was said.
Having said this, the Anglican church globally is not very consistent. In England (oh the irony) they have strayed, but in Sydney where I live the are as solid Biblcally as they come. Depends where you go.
It's a he, and he wasn't even aware other Christian denominations had communion. He thought it was a Catholic only thing...
Sorry, I'm not sure why I thought he was a she.It's a he, and he wasn't even aware other Christian denominations had communion. He thought it was a Catholic only thing...
Interesting...
Well, if nothing else, this thread does indeed show that we are not at all in "union" over communion.
You know, there is also something significant about this thread in regards to communing with churches that are not in agreement...
The offense was that Pard was denied communion at the Catholic church...and, again I'll leave it to Joe or Dadof10 or another Catholic to explain the RCC stance on this...I know in my own church it would not be that we would consider Pard to be less than a Christian, just a Christian who is not in agreement in key areas.
But, (gonna pick on you just a bit here Pard, for the sake of the discussion ;) ) Pard placed this thread in "Christianity and Other Religions"...as if there is a difference between Christianity and Catholism.
Now, I know darn well that there are those at this site, very probably perusing this very thread that certainly do believe that Catholics really are not Christians. And, if that is the case, then one should not commune with them, any more than one should join in communion with a Mormon.
It goes back to being in union with the body one is seeking to commune with. Where do we draw the line as to when we are so out of union with one another, that taking communion is almost a hypocritical act.
And, I think that this is one of the valid reasons why those who choose to close communion do so. Again, we can look at communion as a time to set aside the "non-essential" differences that we have and come together in communion in that which we share, the body and blood of Christ.
But, others do not see it that way. What they see is that we have allowed "non-essential" and yet still quite important things to separate us, but then we want to all come to the table and be intimate with the Lord, just as if everything was hunky-dory, and it's not.
I honestly see value in both views. I see the value in the view that we can't just pretend that the differences that separate us, even to the point of viewing that some who proclaim Christ as our crucified, died and risen Savior aren't even Christian, are so easily set aside.
I also see the value in thinking that communion is the perfect time to set those debates aside and join in what we are in agreement about.
But, with all due respect to Pard, and you know I love you Buddy!, one truly should not complain that the Catholic church would deny one communion, all the while looking at the Catholic church as an "other religion".
You know, there is also something significant about this thread in regards to communing with churches that are not in agreement...
The offense was that Pard was denied communion at the Catholic church...and, again I'll leave it to Joe or Dadof10 or another Catholic to explain the RCC stance on this...I know in my own church it would not be that we would consider Pard to be less than a Christian, just a Christian who is not in agreement in key areas.
But, (gonna pick on you just a bit here Pard, for the sake of the discussion ;) ) Pard placed this thread in "Christianity and Other Religions"...as if there is a difference between Christianity and Catholism.
Now, I know darn well that there are those at this site, very probably perusing this very thread that certainly do believe that Catholics really are not Christians. And, if that is the case, then one should not commune with them, any more than one should join in communion with a Mormon.
It goes back to being in union with the body one is seeking to commune with. Where do we draw the line as to when we are so out of union with one another, that taking communion is almost a hypocritical act.
And, I think that this is one of the valid reasons why those who choose to close communion do so. Again, we can look at communion as a time to set aside the "non-essential" differences that we have and come together in communion in that which we share, the body and blood of Christ.
But, others do not see it that way. What they see is that we have allowed "non-essential" and yet still quite important things to separate us, but then we want to all come to the table and be intimate with the Lord, just as if everything was hunky-dory, and it's not.
I honestly see value in both views. I see the value in the view that we can't just pretend that the differences that separate us, even to the point of viewing that some who proclaim Christ as our crucified, died and risen Savior aren't even Christian, are so easily set aside.
I also see the value in thinking that communion is the perfect time to set those debates aside and join in what we are in agreement about.
But, with all due respect to Pard, and you know I love you Buddy!, one truly should not complain that the Catholic church would deny one communion, all the while looking at the Catholic church as an "other religion".
I can't speak for anyone else, but when I read it, I immediately was offended because it seemed (and I am not saying this about all) the Catholics set themselves apart and above from the rest of His Body. That in doing this, they disunite the Body.
So is the rest of the Body to blame for something that is of a Catholic/Lutheran belief?
This is not how the Bible says we should carry out communion at all and it seems some people, even though not Bibical, don't have a problem with their church's doctrine, when is apparently wrong.
My friend,
Communion is a very difficult subject to discuss with other Christians who are not Catholic. Sometimes, words are taken out of context - as if to mean that non-catholics aren't good enough, etc.. That is certainly not the case and I hope I have made that abundantly clear in the past with my non-Catholic Christian brothers and sisters...
It is too bad that those who went with you and the "elder" forgot to have you consult the Missal. Inside the front cover, sometimes on the back, this very issue is addressed regarding closed communion. I don't recall the words there, but I'll try to expound on how I see things...
Basically, there are several issues here...
1. What is the Eucharist?
2. Does this belief matter? How does this define our unity?
3. Does closed communion equate with "not equal" or "less Christian"?
1. Most Christians - even many Catholics - are not aware of the true nature of the Blessed Sacrament, Holy Communion. It is Christ giving us His entire SELF to us, not just spiritually, not just metaphorically, but in the Person, His entire Being and self - which INCLUDES His Incarnated self (I presume non-catholics believe that the Son of God also came in the flesh - so we must not exclude that). There are a number of "advantages" to this PARTICULAR presence over other presences of Jesus - but what is most important of these is that Christ gave us, the Church, this supreme presence to us. The meaning of this PARTICULAR presence is clear in John 6. Now, some will deny the meaning of the words of Christ - but we take them literally - that we have life through this PARTICULAR presence. While not mutually exclusive, it is the primary means of experiencing Christ, for Catholics. This is why we call it the source of our Christian walk - it is Jesus Himself!
2. To many non-Catholics (or cafeteria Catholics enamoured with Western society), individualism and personal beliefs are very important. The Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, to them, is seen as an invisible "federation" of "believers". However, to actually attempt to DEFINE those "beliefs" of this "invisible church" is difficult, if not practically impossible. Since the Church is seen as "invisible", one's personal beliefs are not very important - what is important, to them, is to think that they follow what they believe is the ways of Christ. Whether they actually are or not. Thus, dogma is not very important.
Thus, the non-catholic approaches the idea of belief with two distinctions not present in the Catholic mind - the person defines what has been revealed by God and what God teaches, according to his own intepretations of Scriptures AND the idea of personal individualism where HE is the highest source of authority. These ideas are at odds with official Catholic teaching. With that said, belief is a doctrine NOT up for vote, not decided by the personal opinion of John 6. To be Catholic means to profess ALL that the Church teaches and proclaims - a visible Church has been given authority to define what Christ and the Apostles taught and meant to teach to future generations. Thus, there is no picking and choosing, especially on such an important and vital part of our belief.
To pick and choose = Jesus did not establish the Church to teach and proclaim the Word of God!!!
People may disagree with what we believe, but isn't it false unity to allow people who do not believe what we proclaim to make it seem like they are in communion with us, just to make them feel warm and fuzzy inside? Part of loving is to the teach truth - and if we believe that the Eucharist is truly God, it is our DUTY to not allow someone to only come away with just warm fuzzies, but to teach them the truth. The physical presence of Jesus Christ IS the source of our communion, our unity. And if one does not believe it is Jesus truly present, what sort of unity does that imply if we open communion to all - whether they believe or not?
Such a stance by the Catholic Church, IN EFFECT, gives up her responsibility to teach and proclaim the truths taught by Christ through the Apostles.
The Scriptures, as read by the Church, state the True Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, when "they recognized Him in the breaking of the bread". You can imagine that the Church is not about to give up such a divine mandate for the sake of being "liked" by other people. Whether you agree or not, the Church believes that Christ left it a command to spread His Word - and with the direction of the Spirit of God, cannot err. This is the mentality behind closed communion.
3. Vatican 2 documents such as Lumen Gentium discuss the nature of the Church and the affiliation that non-Roman Catholics have with the Church of Jesus Christ. This and other documents discuss what I personally call a "heirarchy of potential" (my words, not Vatican 2). They discuss the fullness of the Church and the advantage available to those who avail themselves to the gifts that God has always given to mankind in unequal portions. Clearly, the Scriptures note that people who have been given such gifts (e.g. Jews) do not always take advantage of their gifts, in some case, liturgical, while also noting that those without such fullness (e.g. pagans in Romans 2 who gain eternal life) can and DO have the Spirit of God working in them.
Vatican 2 sees Chrisitans as united by their baptism. THAT is the sign of our unity - at a fundamental level. But that is not the only sacrament of initiation into the mystery of Jesus Christ. The Eucharist is the other key sacrament (we'll place Confirmation into the same sphere as Baptism for now) of unity. Does it imply that an individual is "less saved", "less holy", etc? Not at all - since God presents MANY gifts to His people, and certainly, Christ's presence is ALSO known in Sacred Scriptures, not just in the breaking of the Bread, albeit at a different level. The Church does not judge the level of holiness of other people, even other Catholics. God makes gifts available to us - some have more potential to sanctify us then others. But what is also important is one's openness to God's gifts.
Many Catholics who have been given the gift of the Eucharist will be "grilled" (perhaps literally...) as to why they didn't use this gift of Christ's total self. Thus, I personally see this as a "heirarchy of potential", in that there is a potential to use or misuse this gift. The Eucharist is the highest potential gift - when received by the willing and devout recipient. God has given other potential gifts, e.g. Scriptures, as another means of coming to know Him. Some use this gift quite effectively to lead loving lives as followers of Jesus Christ. We do not judge. Nor do we judge the level of non-Catholic Christian's personal attachment to the Body of Christ, the Church. All baptized persons are indeed part of the Church, part of the Body of Christ - and thus, have already accepted at least the first of God's gifts of salvation.
As to your last comment, Catholics are not supposed to receive communion in a non-Catholic Church. I am not sure if they are canonically forbidden anymore, but clearly, it is a mistake. The reasons behind receiving are to please humans, not God. Why would someone prefer to make other people feel good while knowing full well that God is NOT present in that cracker and grape juice? It is an implicit denial of our faith and a desire to gain respect from humans.
I think I'm starting to go too long on my dime, so I'll wait for some questions to further clarify.
Regards
Please don't take this the wrong way, but historically speaking, the Christian Church universally believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the sacrament and only later, did people leave in their unbelief. Who is 'disuniting' the Body?
Is it your opinion that the "Church" is so undefinable and vague in that we can hardly even speak of what "it" believes without contradiction of vital elements? On these very forums, I have read of self-proclaimed "Christians" who thought that baptism is merely a ritual, that Jesus was not God, or that they HAD to go to heaven (God didn't have a choice...) once they made a one sentence statement. Did Jesus leave us in that situation - of not even knowing what a Christian even believes?
Regards
:o
that's alot of man-made doctrine!
So I go through all that trouble to touch on a difficult subject and you just brush it aside as "man made tradition" without any further comment? Could you be a bit more specific?
Regards
Yes, and people want to know why we do what we do - and that is not always so simple to explain, even if it comes naturally and simply.
Ever try explaining the Blessed Trinity to someone? ;)
Regards
this is all you had to say - simple:
Luke 22: 19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20 And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you.
my point is most of the man made doctrines of the Catholic church did not begin with Christ, they were created and implemented by men many years later. they added many things the NT church did not do.
This cup contains my blood. This bread is my body. Yes, it is simple, but the Jews of 30 AD and many Christians of the 21st century do not accept those simple words. And it is difficult to explain this lack of belief WHILE struggling to find the extent of how we are brothers in Christ.
Because of this lack of belief, there cannot be complete union. We are united by our common baptism - all of us are Christians - but as Vatican 2 would say, our unity is incomplete. It doesn't mean that we are better, spiritually speaking, because that level depends upon the individual's use of God's gifts (as the parable of the sower is an example...) But the Eucharist is a wonderful gift that some Christians choose not to benefit from. Rather than pretend there is unity, the Church sees an opportunity to teach the truths of the Bible, since God desires that we come to know the truth.
Regards
The Eucharist is not a "man-made tradition". If you explore the Bible and the Church Fathers, you will find a simple connection and continuation of the teachings of the Apostles, from the first century to the second and so forth. The "tradition of men" is the elimination of this belief from Christian thought and practice. It would certainly have been very easy to "sweep this teaching under the rug". The Apostles could have very easily toned down the words of Jesus. John didn't have to write those verses in John 6, nor did Paul have to write those words in 1 Cor 10 in the manner that they did. The Synoptic Gospels didn't have to say "THIS IS MY BODY" - if they were intent on the concerns of men and traditions. Men of the second century could have easily explained away this difficult teaching. But the Apostles and the Church are concerned with spreading the Word of God, even if it means it becomes "a scandal to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles". This Eucharistic understanding would be a clear example of that.
And I think we might have to discuss what exactly "traditions of men" means, according to Scriptures. Adding things is not a problem, as Jesus also did "traditions". The problem is when those traditions INTERFERE with the Word of God - and Jesus gave an example in Mark 7 with Korban. The Eucharist CERTAINLY does not interfere with the Word of God. It does not nullify God's Word, it makes Him PRESENT in visible form! What a wonderful gift of God - His entire self given to us!
Regards
Joe,
I think I've talked to you about this before, but when I used to go to Detroit on a semi-regular basis, I used to go to Old Saint Mary's for services on my lunch. ( Old St Marys Church Detroit )
For me, it was a very nice way to spend my lunch and of course, they offered communion.
Anyway, you know some of my views on communion and you know my differences between what you believe in regard to communion and what I believe. However, I won't let that be a wedge between us based on the idea that what you do, you do unto the Lord, and that's ok by me. That being said, I spoke with the priest about communion one day about this very subject and asked if he would continue to allow me communion. He said that he would never deny communion to me and I continued to spend many of my lunch hours there. http://www.oldstmarysdetroit.com/%3Cb%3EHoly-Communion.php
It wasn't by chance that Christ was crucified on Passover, and it's not by chance that the meal before his crucifixion took place on Passover week, and it wasn't by chance that Judas was present. Yet Judas was not denied the meal.
By way of example, Jesus had many meals with many people and many of them were lost and as Jesus said, his mission was to seek and save that which was lost. He didn't come for the pious who had all the right answers.
And it's from this perspective in part that I can't view communion as something that is closed and reserved only for the pious so in that regard, I understand how Pard felt as an outcast when he was denied that which was supposed to unite the Brotherhood.
As a final note, my cousin was brought up in the RCC from Elementary school to college (Gonzaga). It was RCC all the way. Yes, we talk about God a lot and she does not view me as anything less than a brother in Christ. However, it was awkward when she came to Michigan and went to our church and wouldn't take communion. Honestly, that hurt because she calls me brother, but won't partake in something that deeply unites us based on her pious identity with the Roman Catholic Church, and not that of the Church of Christ.
I think I've talked to you about this before, but when I used to go to Detroit on a semi-regular basis, I used to go to Old Saint Mary's for services on my lunch. ( Old St Marys Church Detroit )
For me, it was a very nice way to spend my lunch and of course, they offered communion.
Anyway, you know some of my views on communion and you know my differences between what you believe in regard to communion and what I believe. However, I won't let that be a wedge between us based on the idea that what you do, you do unto the Lord, and that's ok by me. That being said, I spoke with the priest about communion one day about this very subject and asked if he would continue to allow me communion. He said that he would never deny communion to me and I continued to spend many of my lunch hours there. http://www.oldstmarysdetroit.com/%3Cb%3EHoly-Communion.php
When I look at the early church, they had two major identifiers that brought them together. One was Baptism, and the other was Communion, and we see early on at the Church of Corinth where both of these items became a wedge separating the church into almost secular, or even pious sects, and as Paul attests, that isn't what Christ had in mind.
It wasn't by chance that Christ was crucified on Passover, and it's not by chance that the meal before his crucifixion took place on Passover week, and it wasn't by chance that Judas was present. Yet Judas was not denied the meal.
By way of example, Jesus had many meals with many people and many of them were lost and as Jesus said, his mission was to seek and save that which was lost. He didn't come for the pious who had all the right answers.
And it's from this perspective in part that I can't view communion as something that is closed and reserved only for the pious so in that regard, I understand how Pard felt as an outcast when he was denied that which was supposed to unite the Brotherhood.
As a final note, my cousin was brought up in the RCC from Elementary school to college (Gonzaga). It was RCC all the way. Yes, we talk about God a lot and she does not view me as anything less than a brother in Christ. However, it was awkward when she came to Michigan and went to our church and wouldn't take communion. Honestly, that hurt because she calls me brother, but won't partake in something that deeply unites us based on her pious identity with the Roman Catholic Church, and not that of the Church of Christ.
Last edited by a moderator: