Posted on 12/27/2008 2:48:02 PM PST by NYer
Q. Why can’t Protestants receive communion at the Catholic Church?
A. To protect them from Judgment.
1 Corinthians 11: 27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be
guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.
Since, Protestants do not believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist as we do, they do not discern or recognize that Jesus’ body is present under the appearance of bread and wine. We would be allowing them to eat and drink judgment upon themselves. The prohibtion is actually very charitable but, unfortunately, it is usually seen as a rejection.
Evidence of this interpretation of this passage is supported by St. Justin the Martyr :
“We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true…”
-Justin Martyr -FIRST APOLOGY, 66,20–(150 A.D.)
Q. Why do we call the bread “The Host”?
A. Our use of this term, to refer to the consecrated bread, comes from the Latin word hostia, which means ‘victim’. We believe that Jesus Christ is really present in the consecrated bread and wine on our altars. The mass is a re-presentation of the sacrificial death of Jesus on the cross. Therefore, Jesus is the victim of sacrifice and we call the bread the host/victim to help us remember that it is no longer bread but the Real Presence of our Lord Jesus Christ given to us to strengthen and keep us on the journey to Heaven.
Gnostics started off as a movement within the early Catholic church; we both have offshoots we're not proud of! :)
Then you have some Protestants who commit mortal sins are unrepentant, so they are not in a state of grace. Take for example O.J. Simpson, a cold blooded killer who will not admit his sins and repent.
Protestants go further - ANY sin for which one is not repentant will remove you from a state of Grace. ALL sin is equally abhorent in the eyes of God, and breaks our relationship with Him. Classifying sins is man's way of justifying actions.
But it's up to Jesus to determine who's heart has shown grace and salvation to be saved. As a mortal I can merely venture a guess.
On that we fully agree!
Some Protestant "communion" ceremonies don't bring you close to Jesus at all, as I said, they're merely chewing on bread and thinking about Jesus' death.
In your opinion, fair enough. And in my opinion, the Catholic mass is devoid of passion and simply is rote recitation for rituals sake. We both have found paths that work for us, and as long as the fundamental beliefs are sound, that should be enough...
Unfortunately, in another thread here just tonight I was told that because I was a Protestant I was a heretic and not eligible to be a member of the Body of Christ. That kind of thinking is a BIG reason there are tensions between Catholics and the rest of Christianity.
You wrote:
“Well, prior to Pope Pius X in 1908 (I think?) you had to be confirmed prior to first communion. He’s the one who changed it. Why? Was it in error the first 1900 years of the Church?”
As usual, you have your facts WRONG. Pope Pius X lowered the age at which children could receive their first communion. That meant that some children - depending on nation and culture - would then receive their First Communion BEFORE Confirmation. In either case, there was no error and still isn’t. Not unexpectedly, you mistake discipline with doctrine, impute a universality where own did not exist and claim an error that isn’t. Typical.
“I know you have to have gone to confession prior to communion - that’s drilled into you as a Catholic from the time you can walk. But the fundamental order of the catechism has changed, such that now you can have first communion when you feel it is appropriate, and 100 years ago it was different.”
Incorrect. 100 years ago, and now, First Communion was given when the bishops believed the person receiving was mature enough in the faith. What changed was not that idea, but at what age that was thought to be proper.
It would really help if you knew what you were talking about.
The scripture doesn't confirm that at all. The bible passage reads "This IS my body". Jesus doesn't say "This ordinary piece of bread can be broken to represent how I was broken, so you can use it as a learning tool to show people how I died"
The baptist ritual of communion is simply unbibical.
So, what are we to make of it? Baptists have been quite clear that there is no particular significance attached to the “elements”, the bread and wine of Communion. This of course is in contrast to the Catholic view which sees the elements changing mysteriously into the very body and blood of Christ.
The formula which Baptists have tended to settle on is that Communion is about remembrance, about looking back to Jesus’ last supper with the disciples, which in turn reminds us to be thankful for the sacrifice of his body and the shedding of his blood. Important as this is, there is no special “sacrament” here. Rather, the talk is of “ordinance”. We take Communion together regularly because Jesus told us to, “in remembrance of me”.
Anticipating
Fair enough, but is this the whole picture? There are plenty of Baptist theologians today wondering whether we have missed something when we understand Communion just as looking back. Nigel Wright, Principal of Spurgeon’s College in London, explained this wider context in his recent book Free Church - Free State: The Positive Baptist Vision (pp. 102-103). As well as the “past dimension” there is a “future dimension”, what “Jesus referred to when he spoke about a fulfillment in the kingdom of God when he would eat and drink once more with his disciples (Luke 22:16-18)”.
The Apostle Paul makes this link when he talks of communion “proclaiming the Lord’s death until he comes” (1 Corinthians 11:26). Communion anticipates the great eschatological feast. This adds a richness of hope and expectation to an event which doesn’t need to be only a somber recollection of sacrifice.
Celebrating
Then there is the “present dimension”. Jesus, Wright points out, “makes himself present in the feast of life of which he continues to be the host”. The presence of Christ takes on a special nature when “two or three” gather around this meal. Now, here we are indeed approaching an understanding of communion which touches on a big Baptist idea.
We need to make a further connection, however, if we are to understand this fully. The “present dimension” extends in a horizontal, as well as a vertical direction. During Communion the congregation too is joined together in a special way. When we link this to our stress on covenanted community, we are getting to a truly Baptist sense of sacrament.
Both Baptism and Communion make sense as events in the life of God’s people, gathered together. If there is something mysterious, something sacramental going on, it is in the knitting together of this motley crew of individuals into one body. Communion, after all, is eating together – in itself a community-forming event in all cultures. But this is a special meal, it is Christ’s meal, the “Lord’s Supper”, and partaking in it is a crucial way in which we gather “in Christ’s name”.
Communion, then, is about remembering, anticipating and celebrating what God has done, will do and is doing. The ritual itself isn’t the sacrament. The bread and the wine have no unique quality. They are significant because they are part of a bigger mystery in which God reconciles us to himself, to each other and to the whole of creation. The “sacrament” is in the gathering. This is an event about which we should have no uncertainty or ambivalence. It is the essence of being Church.
Source: http://www.hastingsbaptist.org.nz/component/content/article/59-baptist-ideas/124-the-mystery-of-communion
Explains it much better than I ever could. :~)
For instance, my little Catholic Pocket Prayer Book has the following, presented here in its entirety:
So the term "spiritual communion" has a specific meaning, which is why I asked what you meant by your use of the term. What I was saying was that I am confident that while many protestants do not have "valid" sacraments, still they make an inention or have a desire similar to what is expressed (in Francis's inimitable way) in that "act" and consequently they receive many blessings through that act and desire, which are blessings themselves.Spiritual Communion
When unable to receive Holy Communion, one may use this prayer of St. Francis:I believe that you, O Jesus, are in the most holy Sacrament. I love you and desire you. Come into my heart. I embrace you. Oh, never leave me. May the burning and most sweet power of your love, O Lord Jesus Christ, I beseech you, absob my mind that I may die through love of your love, Who were graciously pleased to die through love of my love.
I was also agreeing that many who have had their "ticket punched" by going to confessions and making a half-hearted confession and act of contrition still have no clue of the Gospel of the Love of Christ or of what we believe to be true about the most holy Sacrament and the incredible miracle which it is.
Of course God isn't done with most of us, so this is kindof a silly statement, but I think a Protestant who has truly (and repeatedly and persistently) invited Christ into his heart is manifesting and receiving wonderful graces, while a Catholic who treats confession and the Mass carelessly is in grave peril.
If that's not better, is it at least clearer?
Amen,(((((Hugs))))))
On that we can fully agree. There are alot of Christians out there that don't follow the examples of Jesus at all to love their neighbors. Any Catholic who insists all protestants are heretics doomed to damnation are equally at fault as those Protestants who claim Catholics are non-Christian cult led by the anti-Christ. Christians who tear down fellow Christians are indeed the "sowers of discord" and sinners we were warned about.
That being said, I have argued on FR that Mormons and Unitarians are NOT Christians, but I believe I do so from a simple examination of their basic theology and not because I have any hatred or bigotry in my heart against them. Their views about "Jesus" are simply so far removed from the historic, risen Jesus of the bible that the "Jesus" they know is not the actual Jesus who lived and died and that Christians follow as our savior. This is not to say that I believe Mormons and Unitarians are evil, Godless, terrible people, simply that their views of Jesus are wrong and I hope they will discover the true Jesus someday. I certainly believe they can be saved and find salvation, perhaps through their own sense of right and wrong they will see the light.
Orthodox Christians are specifically forbidden to receive communion outside the canonical Orthodox Church for that reason.
My understanding is that the Catholic Church may grant communion to an Orthodox Christian in a dire situation, as I am sure most Orthodox Christians would have enough sense to receive a Catholic communion on a deathbed, if no orthodox priest were available, but not on a regular (ordinary) basis.
If that is true, why does Jesus in scripture refer to the contents of the cup as “fruit of the vine” and not “my blood”? Jesus can’t lie. He and his disciples knew they were drinking wine, not Jesus’ actual blood.
sadly, Pelosi, Kennedys, Biden, ORielly among many others claim the catholic faith but do not adhere at all to its teachings on much of anything. On this I totally agree. I do disagree on the sin issue. Check 1 John Chapt 5 Vs 16 and 17.
If this be true, there is deadly, or mortal sin. If that be the case, then there is sin that can seperate you from God, and our brother can commit it.
I don't think you can. The literal words your own celebrant recites are (from memory):
"He broke the bread, and gave it to his disciples saying, Take this, all of you and eat from it. This is my body which has been given up for you. Do this in remembrance of me"
The very words are to copy the actions of Christ in symbolic remembrance of what he was sacrificing. That his sacrifice of his body and blood would be shed and save and nourish us.
It comes down to you believing that the words meant a literal transformation (which is not supported, as it is not reported nor described as a miracle consistent with the other miracles of Jesus when he transformed water, or healed or raised) not a metaphorical symbol (as he used throughout the Last Supper and his Passion in the garden of Gethsemane).
But those churches who accept Jesus is LITERALLY present inside us at communion are following the BIBICAL version of events.
As you interpret them. This is the problem many have with Catholicism. It is your way or no way. There is not Body of Christ but for the Catholic Church. There is no interpretation of the Scripture except the Catholic version. And even when doctrine changes it is held as "always correct".
The Church - Protestant and Catholic - is fallible as it is an institution of men. It is meant to honor God, but since it is headed by men, it can - and does - go astray. Blind obedience to suc an institution is IMHO dangerous as you run the risk of putting the Church or doctrine above God.
The Catholic church is unbiblical...
1Co 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
Luk 24:30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and broke, and gave to them.
Luk 24:31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.
Luk 24:35 And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread.
Know to them by eating bread??? Nope...Known to them by eating broken bread??? Nope...Known to them by breaking bread??? You got it...
I thinnk it's Protestants fighting back. You noticed, I hope, who started it. At least we don't tell Catholics they are going to Hell because they aren't Protestants.
Ironically, "Catholic bashers" I've known are former Catholics.
For an attempt at a beginning of an answer, see my: #285.
Way to write in love and encouragement, brother! Now if only you wayward Catholics would also keep your mouths shut about what you don’t know about communion within the Protestant church.
But we’re just heretics to you...
Go in peace, and God forgive you for judging others!
Transubstantiation is a false doctrine because Jesus instituted Lord’s Supper before his blood was shed and body broken! He spoke of His blood being shed, which was still yet future. This proves it was a symbol.
The very record of historically, (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian and Hippolytus) which the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches love to quote as authority, proves that before 200 AD, the church viewed the bread and juice as symbols. Conversely, the earliest historical hint of transubstantiation was in the 4th century.
No offense. If you knew what the doctrine of Transubstantation teaches, you'd know that that question has no bearing on the subject.
The wine doesn't become blood until the ritual of communion itself, performed by a priest (or in the bible, by Jesus himself). Before he consecrates the elements, they're simply plain old bread and wine. When Jesus first picked up the cup, it simply was "fruit on the vine". When they drank it later on, it was blood.
And if Jesus' disciples knew they were simply drinking wine, they wouldn't have been so shocked and repulsed by Jesus' words in the bible.
The thing is I'm never going to convince you here since as a protestant you're told that your church "accepts" the exact wording of the bible and the Catholics don't, so you try to find ways to twist the meeting of the passage to claim it's symbolic. However, if you just read it by yourself and comtemplated EXACTLY what Jesus said and EXACTLY how the apostles reacted to his comments, the intent is clear.
Now you can say "ah ha, the doctrine of the assumption of the virgin Mary is unbibical!" and I won't argue the point, since my church does not claim to get all its rules from the text of the bible itself. Yours does, but in the case of the last supper, you have to ignore the exact wording because it doesn't suit your purpose.
Thank you. I WAS blessed, by being with that lady and by the whole thing. It was my poor family that made the sacrifice. Midnight Mass, and then I went to 10:00 AM Mass and got the pyx and got home around 2:00 PM. I was not exactly Mr. Bouncy at that point. But it was a real privilege to be there.
Correct. It comes down to the fundamental belief that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Light. No one comes to the Father but through Him. There is no need for another prophet or Messiah, there is no need for another way!
This is not to say that I believe Mormons and Unitarians are evil, Godless, terrible people, simply that their views of Jesus are wrong and I hope they will discover the true Jesus someday.
Absolutely correct. ANYONE can be saved, and I consider all - Unitarian, Muslim, Buddhist, athiest alike - as pre-Christians, just needing the right introduction to Christ. We do a dis-service to them, and we dishonor the words of our Savior when we condemn in anger or refuse to simply be compassionate.
Any Catholic who insists all protestants are heretics doomed to damnation are equally at fault as those Protestants who claim Catholics are non-Christian cult led by the anti-Christ. Christians who tear down fellow Christians are indeed the "sowers of discord" and sinners we were warned about.
Thank you for your encouragement, and enjoy your mass tomorrow! I'll remember this as I am worshiping in my service!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.