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.
It may be a bigger misunderstanding among Catholics...Haven't you noticed how many times Protestants have been mocked on FR by Catholics when claiming they have a personal relationship with Jesus???
Did you come from a Protestant background???
I was married in a Catholic church; you can see the photos. However, it was not a full Catholic ceremony because I am Methodist. Apparently you cannot accept that someone would voluntarily choose to not be Catholic? And you’ve never heard of a Catholic and Protestant marrying?
Go talk to your local deacon or priest about mixed marriages. They can be performed in the Church, at least here in Seattle. Deacon Bob and Father McKay were fine with it, and Brother Pettit from my old high school even came.
Now, to lighten it up - when the deacon got to the part with the Lord’s Prayer, everything was going great. Until he stopped - along with the Catholics - to let the celebrant say the end. My side - the Free Methodists - kept going. Raised a few eyebrows.
Trust me, I am not Catholic, I was never baptized Catholic (mom was a Jehovah’s Witness until I was born and needed a transfusion - that broke her from that cult quickly). I went to Catholic schools, and I went to the Free Methodist church on the weekends and Wednesday nights.
And for me and my wife (who was baptized and raised Catholic) we find spiritual fulfillment and a deeper connection with God at the FM church, not the Catholic church. It’s nothing to do with “knowledge” or “understanding” - I’ve got the resources and the training to know. But I made a decision and the fact that so many Catholics cannot accept that says more about your own shortcomings and ignorance than those who choose to be Protestant.
Then you would assume wrong. When I attended an Independent Fundamental Baptist church in Melbourne, Florida, I, ever the rebel, continued to use a NKJV when the accepted version by IFB churches is the King James Version. However, at this time I have 4 different translations in my home that I refer to and compare.
What a wierd statement...Why would I want to fool a priest???...Fact is, it doesn't tell you anything about either of us...
Shoot, my ex-sil, a non-practicing Catholic, was married in her mother's Catholic church to a non-Catholic! I don't know if he was even a believer ~ they never went to church during the time I knew them. Then when they divorced, she had her marriage annulled by that same church, thereby basically making their two children illegimate.
Well you have a point there. Since something like 85% of America is Christian, when I ask people their "religion" I'm usually wondering their specific denomination. If they answer "Christian", I say "Aren't most people? What branch?" and then I get their religion: "Dutch Reform" and so on. Of course if you ask a Catholic what religion, they almost always reply "Catholic". If you ask what branch they're probably say "Roman"
I think this is a fundamental difference. I am not a Free Methodist, I am a Christian who follows a Free Methodist doctrine. To me, Christianity is my religion. To many Catholics, Catholicism is the religion. Many can keep it straight, but too many start to worship the Church - their religion - and that is simply wrong.
All the other branches of Christianity stray from what Jesus intended (to varying degrees), and Catholicism is the closest to what Jesus wanted.
I would argue any denomination or Church that claimed it was the "closest" to what Jesus wanted was itself close to heretical. Simply put: Jesus wanted us to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul and mind and to love our neighbor as ourself. Anything else is gravy, and should be just a way to express that love. And then we are to take that message of love to all of Jerusalem, Judea, and the Ends of the Earth.
THAT is straight from the mouth of the Lord, and should be without question. How we worship is much less important than who we worship.
are not listening to the guy who is the spokesman for Christianity -- namely, the Pope.
The Pope should not be the Spokesman for Christianity - WE, the believers, are called to be the spokesmen and representatives of Christ! The Pope may be the one who helps clarify doctrinal issues, but scripturally WE are the spokesmen of the Church. And it works REALLY WELL when that model is followed.
And John Calvin, John Wesley, they all had some good ideas too, but ultimately I think they were wrong on alot of things. Such is the failing of mortal men.
And we Protestants would be the first to recognize it! In fact, we hold NO MAN nor ANY POSITION above blame or as infallible. Jesus Christ is the only one who is blameless; all others are fallible. Putting a Pope or others in position who are considered infallible when they speak on some issues is a dangerous precedent. If a teaching or lesson does not align 100% with the Scriptures, it is simply wrong. Regardless of who said it or who did it (much like the selling of indulgences by the Papacy).
What Luther, Calvin, and Wesley did was re-emphasize that it is NOT works that save you; you simply cannot go to penance and communion once a week and be saved. There has to be a spiritual connection within. Look at the service of a Catholic mass some time through the eyes of an outsider - there is PRECIOUS little emphasis on a personal connection with Christ, it is all ritual.
Now go to an evangelical church service. You will hear about the sacrifice of Christ, you will hear about a personal connection with Jesus, you will hear that it is not works that saves you.
Different emphasis, different take on the same message. And that should be celebrated and encouraged. I know my church actually encourages people to attend a church that connects them best with Christ. Whether that is our church, another Protestant church, a Catholic church, or the "purists" in Greek or Eastern Orthodox.
The really tough thing to talk about is ecclesiology, I think. For us, it's part and parcel of our Eucharistic practice. I think the fuzzy area is the eschatological aspect of the Sacrament (as we call it). I mean, ONE Day, God willing and me not messing up too much, I will be good. In the meantime, I dare to take to myself the status of goodness because I trust in God's love despite my actual lack of goodness.
One day, all the saved will be in one congregation, "casting down [our] golden crowns around the glassy sea." So there's a part of me that says, since I am, as it were, kiting the check of my future goodness, why not kite the check of our eschatological unity?
I guess from one point of view, the outrage of one Christian saying to another, "I'm sorry, you cannot share in this with us," ought to spur us to greater efforts to work through our differences.
PLEASE check that out. Every priest I've asked says that annulment has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the kiddies.
My understanding, FWIW, is that where the Catholic Church was the legal authority for marriages, there the children were legally illegitimate, which would affect things like titles, inheritances, etc.
But more and more there is a distinction between marriage as the state understands it, where annulment would be quite rare (Hey! They're brother and sister! They can't be married!) but where other legal requirements might arise concerning care and inheritance and all that and, on the other hand, marriage as the Church understands it, where a defective intention would be a good reason to say the marriage never happened. (That sentence long enough for you?)
As an example of a defective intention, I would suggest -- just suggest -- a pre-nup that contemplates who gets what if the couple divorces. My thinking is that if the couple is not ready to go for broke, to risk everything to keep their vows, then they don't intend matrimony. So a pre-nup that contemplated divorce would be a good reason (to me) to say a sacramental marriage never happened,because the couple did not intend what we mean by marriage.
DOes that make any sense at all?
Seems like a case of being able to have your cake and eat it too to me! ;~)
I’m sorry, I don’t understand.
I suppose one could argue what is receiving "unbefittingly" (άναξίος, verse 27) or by "not discerning" (μή διακρίνων, verse 29), but Paul seems to provide the answer a few verses prior (my emphasis):
Apparently, he is alluding to the manner in which the agape meal, not the communion, was devoured by some—selfishly and without consideration for others. In fact, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the body and blood of Christ (although it is often quoted as if it did!).
How does one get full on the communion bread (a morsel) and drunk on the communion wine (a sip) unless we are talking agape meal? Obviously St. Paul does not distinguish between the agape meal and the Eucharistic communion, which means that it wasn't instituted yet.
Apostle Paul obviously does not teach that this is Christ's real presence because he says
In other words it is a statement of faithfulness and not some soul-cleansing and life-bestowing sacrament of the Orthodox/Catholic Church.
In that sense, the verse following (v. 27) makes sense as regards anaxíos or unbefitting (more than "unworthily"); it is said vis-a-vis the faithfulness.
Verese 29 in oldest Greek manuals reads
but the redacted 5th century Byzantine text (and throught it, Textus Receptus, the KJV, and, of course, the NIV)
the difference is in τοῦ κυρίου (of the lord), which was apparently added at some point by someone to change the character of the verse!.
It is noteworthy to mention that beside the oldest Greek manuscriputs, Latin Vugate does not say "of the Lord"
nor does the the Catholic NAB.
The whole meaning of the sentence is changed by this addition! Eating and drinking (remember, Paul is talking about the members of the church binging) not discerning (their!) body, they bring damnation on themselves (from overeating and overdrinking).
Of course, in this context, verse 30 makes it clear that he is tlaking to them and not some diivne anger and Goid's wrath, when he says
Apostle Paul also makes it very clear that the observance of the agape meal is a statement of faithfulness in Christ's return and not a salvific sacrament. This example also shows a vert common phenomenon found in biblical manuscriptis—scribal changes that were penned in order to radically change the menaing of the verse, in other words—corruption.
Comparable to when Catholics used to be able to purchase indulgences. My friend who used to be Catholic says the Catholic church doesn’t use those anymore. :~)
The whole sale of indulgences thing is widely misunderstood, and I'm one of the guys who can't get it quite nailed down, or when I do I immediately forget it.
The idea that a personal sacrifice would be a willing accepting of some kind of pain, if only financial pain, and therefore be a kind of suffering now instead of later is not on its face repugnant to me. And indulgences didn't buy salvation, they bought a reduction of time in Purgatory.
But I guess I think that pastors are stuck, and easily abused. As a former pastor I can say my inclination w ass to deliver cautions, but also to believe what people told me. If it turned out later that they lied to me, and that lie meant that they didn't intend matrimony as the Curch understands it, then what should I do?
It's bad to monkey with important stuff. If a person gets an annulment, that doesn't mean he's free of having done something very wrong. It means that there was no marriage. But there may well have been a kind of very culpable fraud or, at the least, a kind of contempt not only for the other person but for an very important thing.
Fading fast. Gotta go to bed. Maybe we can talk more tomorrow? God bless you and give you good rest. Sleep is so nice. What a gift!
BB, the term metousiosis basically, means trans+substantiation. The Orthodox simply say they believe the Holy Spirit changes the blessed bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ without going into the "mechanics" of the mystery.
One thing with the Orthodox church is they all tend to be very "ethnic"
Try Orthodox Church of America (OCA) churches. They are all in English.
Every time I see papal Mass in Rome, he sings it in Latin, and lay readers read in their native languages. The Catholic Church is also very ethnic. Pre-Vatican II Church was universal in that the Mass was sung the same way in the same language in the Philippines and in Buenos Aires and in New York and in Rome, and Berlin.
I don't buy that Catholics can't learn Latin when each Missal used to have the words of the Mass in Latin on one side and in the local language in the other. After years, a Catholic cold attend Mass in Tokyo and hear the same familiar language which he or she understood.
We all learn how to read and write, how to be computer literate, how to add and subtract, yet for the love of God people cannot or won't learn the language that unites them! Amazing. I must conclude that some Catholics must love God less than their computers because no one was born speaking Latin and no one was born computer-literate.
Take it from a Protestant who has been married to a Catholic for nearly 25 years. They lost me when our Priest at the time called the Reformation a “Treasonous Scandal of Blasphemy”
You mention being bothered by the fact Protestants will usually refer to themselves as simply "Christian" but Catholics will refer to themselves as "Catholic".
Here's another one to chew on. Have you noticed in threads like these, those who oppose Catholic doctrine lump EVERYONE in with themselves? They talk about how "Catholics" venerate the Virgin Mary but "non-Catholics" do not. They talk about how "Catholics" believe Jesus is literally being consumed during communion but "non-Catholics" don't accept that. They not only assume ALL protestants share their opposition to the traditional Catholic viewpoint, but that the REST of Christianity does as well.
In fact, it's the other way around. We have a small faction WITHIN protestantism, CLAIMING they represent the majority of Christians. (You can see examples of it on this very thread) They do not. Here's what wikipedia says about the matter:
"Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Roman Catholics, who together constitute about two thirds of Christians,[18] hold that the consecrated elements in the Eucharist are indeed the body and blood of Christ. Some Anglicans hold the same belief.[19]"
Clearly, the POV of the Catholic church is the prevailing view in overwhemingly most of the Christian world. Now, this is not to way we're right, but why does a certain faction of Protestantism want to pretend the entire Christian community opposes Catholic doctrine? You see the same thing on the Virgin Mary threads. Over and over again they claim that veneration of Mary is simply a "Catholic" thing that the rest of the Christianity rejects. If I was an Orthodox Christian I would be highly offended by some evangelical protestants trying to lump me in with them and ignore the fact that millions of non-Catholics hold the same beliefs about Mary as the Roman church does.
>> I would argue any denomination or Church that claimed it was the "closest" to what Jesus wanted was itself close to heretical. <<
Well unfortunately for you, I think most of them claim that. Your church might say "pick whatever church you personally feel brings you closest to Christ, even if it's those Catholics", but alot of churches are looking to recruit new members and all throughout Christianity you will find churches claiming they are maintaining the closest thing to what Jesus originally wanted. Indeed, that's why the whole "restorationist" movement in Christianity is such a growing denomination now.
>> The Pope should not be the Spokesman for Christianity - WE, the believers, are called to be the spokesmen and representatives of Christ! The Pope may be the one who helps clarify doctrinal issues, but scripturally WE are the spokesmen of the Church. And it works REALLY WELL when that model is followed. <<
This is one of the big sticking points why I'm not a protestant. The Orthodox reject the idea of a superpower leader with authority over the rest of the church and an infallible all-knowing boss, but they DO accept the idea of a "spokesman" for their church. They simply believe the archbishop who speaks for their church is "first among equals", but when their denomination wants a make a definitive statement about where they stand, they have a guy who does that. The LDS church, which I consider quasi-Christian and somewhat of a cult, is also one of the most unified and growing churches for the exact same reason.
Protestants, who avoid such an idea, vary widely within their own denominations about what they actually "believe", which explains why they are constantly shattering into a zillion different factions, merging different churches, and inventing new denominations on whim. This is the precise reason the Anglican church is falling apart now -- they are passing the buck on ordaining gay bishops and it's tearing their denomination apart. They rule by committee, like all Protestants. Jesus, when he started the church, was THE central authority figure -- he didn't have the apostles deliberate and decide what to do. Jesus is no longer physically present in human form with us. Obviously no mortal man can equal Jesus, but Catholic and Orthodox have a "vicar" who stands in his place and issues doctrine, so they have a core set of principles. Are they perfect? No, they are human and make mistakes. But it's far perferable to Protestant churches with no core values that constantly fall apart.
>> we hold NO MAN nor ANY POSITION above blame or as infallible. Jesus Christ is the only one who is blameless; all others are fallible. Putting a Pope or others in position who are considered infallible when they speak on some issues is a dangerous precedent. <<
There are some protestants that allege that Catholics worship the Pope and think he can do no wrong. This is not true, though perhaps there are a small minority of Catholics who think that way, and that is a problem if they put the Pope above Jesus, they are not following Christian teachings. Now, that said, the infallibility doctrine is often misunderstood. It doesn't guarantee that a Pope will not make errors, or that he will always lead by example, or even that he will speak clearly and definitely when he IS giving the "correct" biblical interpretation. It doesn't claim the Pope will speak the truth on matters of history, science, or church hierarchy. (for example the Pope who condemned Galileo for saying the earth revolved around the sun was CLEARLY wrong) All it proposes is that Pope, when he is speaking OFFICIALLY on ONLY the matter of faith or morals, and speaking on behalf of the WHOLE Christian world and FOLLOWING Jesus' intent, cannot be in error. I would estimate that most people, Catholic and Protestant, don't understand what the "infallible doctrine" actually says, probably less than 10%. If the Pope is being divinely inspired to follow the EXACT teachings of Jesus, it will not be in error. The church doctrine on the holy trinity IS infallible. If the Pope gives an interview tomorrow and he says "I think George Bush is a scumbag and is going to hell for starting the Iraq war", it's NOT an infallible statement.
I agree the idea that one would believe an ordinary mortal man is incapiable of making mistakes or sinning, is a very dangerous precedent to set. There have been some terrible, sinful Popes in history who CLEARLY made statements contrary to Christ's teachings.
The Catholic Church does suffer from too many levels of bureaucracy (probably the worst in an organized religion), but sometimes I think they are not strict enough in their "chain of command". For example I'm in Illinois and we have a priest in good standing who I would consider a schematic hieratic. He's that white guy you may have seen on TV who worships Obama and teaches his congregation to hate Whitey and gave that sermon attacking Hillary for "white privilege". Now, 99% of Catholics priests are nothing like this nut, but as long as he is allowed to remain at his post and preach racial hatred from the pulpit, there is a seriously problem over here with the Catholic community in Chicagoland. This man has started his own heretic church on Catholic church property, and is certainly not teaching Christian doctrine to love your neighbor as your brother. It's problems like that which deeply concern me as a Catholic.
>> Now go to an evangelical church service. You will hear about the sacrifice of Christ, you will hear about a personal connection with Jesus, you will hear that it is not works that saves you. <<
That's another thing, as a Catholic I don't differentiate between "mainline" and "Evangelical" protestants, I just lump them all in together as Protestants. The differences are quite vague to me. Some have claimed the Evangelicals are more conservative and strict, but then in the same breath they say that Reagan was a mainline protestant and Jimmy Carter is Evangelical protestant, which confuses and muddles the issue even more. >>
>> Whether that is our church, another Protestant church, a Catholic church, or the "purists" in Greek or Eastern Orthodox. <<
Many Protestants have alleged that Catholics never read the bible and don't focus on Jesus. I don't see it that way. Sure, many Catholic kids don't bother to read the bible they get, but what these protestants hate to admit is that most protestant kids won't be caught dead reading the bible from cover to cover either (one of my favorite Simpsons episodes, being that they're supposed to an average disfunctional WASP American family, is that Bart quickly picks up a book when his parents come home to make it look like he was behaving himself, and says "I was just reading... the bible?! Eww" and puts it down) Certainly Mel Gibson is one of those schmatic Catholics who thinks the Pope isn't Catholic ENOUGH for him, and look at HIS movie about Jesus. Does it seem like he doesn't care about the sacrifice Jesus made for us sinners?
You know it's unfortunate that so many Christians denounce each other as heretics over minor issues, but the same thing happens in other faiths. Some orthodox Jews will tell you that Reform and Conservative Jews are "not real Jews", a Sunni Muslim told me that she thinks Shiite Muslims are hectics and she went to their mosque once and thought they were all wacky and their services were an insult to Muhammad.
Now then when we get to verse 27 Paul say that when we take the cup and bread in an unworthy way by not examining what we are doing and in that taking the cup and the bread with sin in our hearts then for that reason in verse 30. 1 Cor 11:30 30 For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep.
It was believe that confessed sin or bing at odds with a brother or here when they came together they were aruging and over eating and drink that sin made a person weak sick and in Ananias and Sapphira's case lying to the Holy Spirit cost them their lives. I do believe that the term asleep here means they have died due to sin sickness and weakness.
Roman documents of the early 2nd century indicate that the Church by that time, some 50 years after Paul, separated the agape meal from the Eucharistic communion (sacrament), precisely because they turned out to be "ungodly" in some churches.
The Eucharist in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches is a "life-giving" and "immortality-bestowing" mystery, not something offered "in memory of him". Paul certainly doesn't see it as a divine mystery, but as a statement of faithfulness in his return.
He is not talking about a "sacrament," but simply mentions inconsiderate, selfish (i.e. sinful) gluttons and bringing "judgment" on themselves through their gluttony.
I don't see anything allegorical in Paul's verses, but rather literal description of people binging, getting sick and passing out.
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.