Communion and Catholics

[darrell]

I’d like to share a relevant story. My friend Pat, the leader of several ministries in our parish, always tells the “Baptist Boy†story at the conclusion of a retreat we do. One day, a student from a Baptist College came to see her in her office. After studying John Chapter 6, this young man came to the same conclusion as the Catholic teaching regarding Holy Communion. The young man had gone to his father who was a professor and I believe the president of the Baptist College. He asked his father if Jesus was speaking literally when He said, “This is my body†and “This is my blood.†His father replied no it was just symbolism. Then the young man asked his father if when it says Jesus walked on water and He healed the sick, did He really do those things or was it just symbolism? His father said no He really walked on water and He really healed the sick. What about when the Bible says Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, did He really do that or was it just symbolism? His father replied Jesus really raised Lazarus from the dead. Then why, the young man asked, when Jesus said this IS my body and this IS my blood don’t we believe Him?

When this young Baptist man sat in my friend Pat’s office, he looked at her and said, “You Catholics don’t really believe.†Shocked, Pat looked at him and asked, “What do you mean?†The young man replied, “Ive been sitting in the pews watching you, and if you Catholics really believed you were receiving the body and blood of our Lord, don’t you think I’d know it?†Pat looked him in the eye and said, “Listen Buster, this is one Catholic who really believes!â€

Pat tells everyone that ever since then, whenever she goes forward for Communion, she always kisses the Host before consuming. Some people have told her she looks like she’s acting all holy and putting on a show, but she doesn’t care. She wants anyone who might be watching to see that she really believes.

The young Baptist man came to visit Pat one more time. It turns out that in order to graduate and earn his degree, he had to pass a course in theology. In order to pass this course, he was required to state that he agreed with the Baptist position that Holy Communion was symbolic. The young man refused, and he did not receive his degree.

Ironic, isn’t it…

 

[Sparkey]

When we "examine ourselves" so that we do not partake unworthily -- what is the critical issue that is being examined? Do we merely examine our denominational doctrine and not our actions? If we are free from sin and have tasted of the gift but like dogs have returned to our vomit and willingly commit sin we are unworthy. Hebrews 6 speaks of the impossibility of crucifying the Son of God again and states that any attempt to do so would be an attempt to put Him to an open shame.

[QUOTE="Hbr 9:19-28]"For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation."

[/QUOTE]If the bread that we share during communion is the body of our Lord then is it not broken anew? If the wine is the blood is this not being shed anew? How do we reconcile such things?

 

[Bonairos]

Certainly you are not suggesting that unbelievers be allowed to eat from the Lord's Table, are you?

Certainly (by being familiar with my postings) you are not suggestig that I would entertain the thought of allowing unbelievers to benefit from the Lord's Table, are you?



Be blessed, Stay blessed, and be Bold!

 

[Bonairos]

Baptism is for all sinners, communion is only for believers and even they are exhorted to examine themselves that they might take it in a worthy manner.

So baptism is for sinners and then what? They then believe? Water baptism before belief? Is that the purpose of water baptism?

Re: communion being only for believers:
Matthew 26:28 "for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins." (many, not all)

Many not all what? Believers?

What if one becomes a true believer from the message of communion (prior to partaking). Are we then to still deny communion because it is now only reserved for the matured, seasoned, believer only?

Examine oneself. Examine what? And if one passes that criteria of examination (between themselves and the Lord), is there yet another prerequisite before partaking?


Be blessed, Stay blessed, and be Bold!

 

[Free]

Certainly (by being familiar with my postings) you are not suggestig that I would entertain the thought of allowing unbelievers to benefit from the Lord's Table, are you?!

I'm only familiar with the post I quoted of yours which seems to suggest allowing unbelievers to partake of Communion.

 

[Brother Lawrence]

When we "examine ourselves" so that we do not partake unworthily -- what is the critical issue that is being examined?

Mat 5:23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
​

If the bread that we share during communion is the body of our Lord then is it not broken anew? If the wine is the blood is this not being shed anew? How do we reconcile such things?

Are you being handed actual flesh and blood at the altar? When you can answer that question you will have answered your other question.

 

[Brother Lawrence]

What if one becomes a true believer from the message of communion (prior to partaking).

Then they can be baptized.

In the first century Christians used to lock the doors to keep out everybody but Christians during the communion. They thought it was sinful to even talk about the Holy mysteries with non-believers.

 

[Bonairos]

I'm only familiar with the post I quoted of yours which seems to suggest allowing unbelievers to partake of Communion.

Could your question arise from this quote?

Seriously? Perhaps some may think I compromise the "sacredness" of communion by having opened it up to all. But God forbid I ever forget that Christ came to seek and to save all that are lost and look for opportunities to relay that message!

And just as that chariot was stopped so that the eunuch could express his newfound faith, I see communion as another opportunity for new(?) believers to also immediately express their newfound faith

If so, I suggest you reading once more that entire post in context.


There are 80+ posts in this thread (thus far). I've posted on #'s 11, 56, 76, 83, and 84.

If you still question my position after becoming familiar with all of them, I will gladly reinterate.



Be blessed, Stay blessed, and be Bold.

 

[Bonairos]

Then they can be baptized.

In the first century Christians used to lock the doors to keep out everybody but Christians during the communion. They thought it was sinful to even talk about the Holy mysteries with non-believers.

So belief, then baptism, and then communion? In that order? I'm trying to understand your chain of thought in this post.



Be blessed, Stay blessed, and be Bold!

 

[Brother Lawrence]

So belief, then baptism, and then communion? In that order?

Yes, that's right.

 

[Bonairos]

Yes, that's right.

So one cannot take communion without first being water baptized? Interesting.

And the diffinitive reasoning behind it?



Be blessed, Stay blessed, and be Bold!

 

[Sparkey]

When we "examine ourselves" so that we do not partake unworthily -- what is the critical issue that is being examined?

Mat 5:23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
​

If the bread that we share during communion is the body of our Lord then is it not broken anew? If the wine is the blood is this not being shed anew? How do we reconcile such things?

Are you being handed actual flesh and blood at the altar? When you can answer that question you will have answered your other question.

(1Cr 10:15-17 NKJV) - "I speak as to wise men; judge for yourselves what I say. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread."

You have answered well. We are one body.

"I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."

 

[Brother Lawrence]

So one cannot take communion without first being water baptized? Interesting.

And the diffinitive reasoning behind it?

The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves, one to another, but rather it is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ, and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ.
The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith. The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

The wicked and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as S. Augustine saith) the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ, but rather to their condemnation do eat and drink the sign or sacrament of so great a thing. - Book of Common Prayer

​

I don't want to be responsible for a non-believer eating and drinking to his own condemnation, or do you think eating and drinking unworthily is limited only to Christians?

​

 

[Bonairos]

The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves, one to another, but rather it is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ, and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ.
​

Agreed! "Rightly, worthily, and with faith" No disagreement there.

The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith. The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.​

Okay.

The wicked and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as S. Augustine saith) the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ, but rather to their condemnation do eat and drink the sign or sacrament of so great a thing. - Book of Common Prayer

We're batting 3 for 3!

I don't want to be responsible for a non-believer eating and drinking to his own condemnation, or do you think eating and drinking unworthily is limited only to Christians?

Ah, but we are NOT talking about the non-believer! We are talking about presenting the Gospel at the time of Communion. And converting (for lack of a better word) a lost soul.

Yes presenting communion (the Gospel) with non-believers present.

AFTER we remind ourselves what communion is (and how it came about and before partaking), all would have to "examine" themselves to see if they are indeed in the faith. And then followed by opening communion up to all (present who've heard and know it's purpose).

Is it possible for a non-believer (15 minutes ago), now for the first time hearing the Gospel and truly believing it? They heard the Gospel being presented (and that, at communion itself!) and in one's heart responds.

Do we deny such a one the opportunity to act upon what he/she just heard and responded to?

Surely we're not deceived into thinking there are no professing believers we willing open communion up to who may not be worthy of same?! Yet, with our limited knowledge, they have not only our invitation, but our approval as well?!

Or has the Church assumed the authority to not only look at the outward appearance, but now the heart as well!!

Or is it that we fail to proclaim the Gospel during communion, and therefore think to ourselves, "Impossible for any non-believer, here and now, to believe and receive?!"

God have mercy on us all.


Be blessed, Stay blessed, and be Bold!

 

[Brother Lawrence]

Do we deny such a one the opportunity to act upon what he/she just heard and responded to?

No. Again, they can be baptized and confirmed afterward.

Look, I am not a Sola Scriptura guy. If the Bible is silent we can look to history and see what the church fathers said. If they are silent we use common sense. Sometimes we use scripture, tradition, and reason all at once.

Historically, the church has never taught that non-believers are allowed to partake of the Eucharist, for reasons I have already mentioned. Let them make their confession of faith in front of the church and be baptized first.

 

[Pard]

No. Again, they can be baptized and confirmed afterward.

Look, I am not a Sola Scriptura guy. If the Bible is silent we can look to history and see what the church fathers said. If they are silent we use common sense. Sometimes we use scripture, tradition, and reason all at once.

Historically, the church has never taught that non-believers are allowed to partake of the Eucharist, for reasons I have already mentioned. Let them make their confession of faith in front of the church and be baptized first.

Ignoring the first two bits...

I don't think anyone is talking about giving communion to the unbelievers (heathen) among us.

 

[Sparkey]

In post #12 of this thread ( http://www.christianforums.net/f23/communion-catholics-36232/index6.html#post546461 ) I wondered outloud what Peter might say about sharing communion with the house of Cornelius after having witnessed them being baptized in the Holy Ghost.

He commanded they be batpized in water.

"Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: ... Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. (Act 10:34, 47-48 KJV)

We were not told if later they shared communion or not but clearly those who had been accepted by God and redeemed by Christ, they who had been baptized in the Holy Ghost as recorded in the Word of Life are saints. Had I been in that company at the time it would be me and not them who would be in the position of striking my breast and not lifting mine eyes unto heaven declaring, "I am not worthy."

 

[Brother Lawrence]

Ignoring the first two bits...

I don't think anyone is talking about giving communion to the unbelievers (heathen) among us.

That's not the impression I was getting.

 

[AKJVReader]

The Roman Catholic church teaches that in the celebration of the Eucharist, the consecrated wafer and wine are miraculously changed into the actual body and blood of Jesus in a process they call transubstantiation.

1413. By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity [cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651.].--" Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC); (C) 1994/1997 United States Catholic Conference, Inc.
​

The Roman church would have the world believe she is not an innovator but, rather, continues to observe the religious practices of the primitive church, modified only as a more clear understanding of God's sacred Scriptures and holy Tradition are attained. Or something like that. Is that really the way things are?
The centerpiece of the Catholic Mass is the Eucharistic sacrifice, a bloodless re-presentation of Christ's atonement on the cross. Or something like that. The Catholic priest, or "alter Christus," commands the Son of God to come down from Heaven and assume the physical characteristics of a cracker and a cup of wine, that He might be consumed by the priest and the faithful. Other studies offered by Christian scholars and myself have fully addressed the Jewish rejection of human sacrifice, cannibalism and the consumption of blood, all of which practices fly in the face of God's clear proscriptions. It is not my intention here to resurrect those arguments. Instead, I hope to examine how the early Christian commemoration of the Lord's Supper was corrupted into today's present Catholic practice.


From:
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/rcc14-transubstantiation.htm

 

[Mike]

Please review the sticky at the top of this forum.

http://www.christianforums.net/f23/rules-catholic-discussion-19928/

Whether or not it was in the intention of the OP to discuss the validity of the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist, it is not in keeping with the rules to make this thread about debating this belief. It is not likely to result in changed views, and it will only end up creating animosity. A discussion about the practice of some churches to restrict non-members from receiving communion is interesting in and of itself.

Thank you.