2nd objection

[Tanais]

I just want to thank those of you who helped answer my first objection, your answers were very helpful. I now have another one if you do not mind. here it is:
The Church is far too exclusive; it is far too caught up in the traditions of men and excludes non-Catholics from communing with them. I feel this is far too against the Christian spirit of unity and love and is something that should be taken away.
Syllogism: 1. Christians are supposed to be in spirit of love and unity.
2. Closed communion takes away from that unity.
3. Therefore closed communion is bad.
Any thoughts? I find this to be a common objection that i receive, mainly from Protestants. I of course say that the reason we do not commune is because it would be proclaiming a unity which is non existent. I sort of compare it to sex in a way. In sex we proclaim a certain special oneness, much like eucharist. To engage in this act without the oneness present is a dishonest and horrible act, because it denies an essential aspect of this act. well that about sums it up. anyways, please share your thoughts.

 

[IoA]

The Church is far too exclusive; it is far too caught up in the traditions of men and excludes non-Catholics from communing with them. I feel this is far too against the Christian spirit of unity and love and is something that should be taken away.
Syllogism: 1. Christians are supposed to be in spirit of love and unity.
2. Closed communion takes away from that unity.
3. Therefore closed communion is bad.

About the best explanation I’ve heard on this subject came from a priest who told me of another cleric who had to explain to a parent of a Baptist child in a Catholic school why she couldn’t take communion.

When we say “Amen” as we receive the Eucharist, we’re making a general profession of faith. Namely, that we believe in the dogmatic principles behind the Eucharist, and also that we accept the teachings of the Church. Most Protestants do not believe in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and if they observed the regulations of the Church/believed in the True Presence, they’d already be Catholic.

Paul also makes it clear that we are obliged to observe the Eucharist for what it is when we receive it. Your overwhelming majority of Protestants do not do this.

It also follows suit that since we’re receiving the actual Body & Blood of our Lord that we should be in a state of grace. Your typical Protestant has not been absolved of his/her sins through the Sacrament of Reconcilliation, so it follows suit that, according to Catholic teaching, they should not receive.

 

[Newvert]

Tanais:

• Syllogism: 1. Christians are supposed to be in spirit of love and unity.*

•    2. Closed communion takes away from that unity.*

•    3. Therefore closed communion is bad.*

I think your analogy to marriage was perfectly apt. As to the above syllogism, I think others could probably answer it more politely than I, but here goes:

1. Christians are supposed to be in spirit of love and unity …* and truth.*
2. A lack of belief in the truth of the Real Presence takes away from that unity.
3. Therefore, a lack of belief in the Real Presence is bad.

 

[Malachi4U]

When I reconciled to the Church my wife said a closed communion was bad too. She used some other verbs as well! I found out why it is closed and now I fully support it! It has to be closed – period!

Protestants do not believe in Real Presence!

1 Cor 10:14-22 “Therefore, my beloved, avoid idolatry. 15 I am speaking as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I am saying. 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf. 18 Look at Israel according to the flesh; are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? 19 So what am I saying? That meat sacrificed to idols is anything? Or that an idol is anything? 20 No, I mean that what they sacrifice, (they sacrifice) to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to become participants with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and also the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and of the table of demons. 22 Or are we provoking the Lord to jealous anger? Are we stronger than he?”

How could St. Paul use the word idolatry unless the Body and Blood of Jesus was actually present at mass in our remembrance of the Lords supper?

1 Cor 11:20-34 “…23 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, 24 and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also 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.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. 27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying. 31 If we discerned ourselves, we would not be under judgment; 32 but since we are judged by (the) Lord, we are being disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world. 33 Therefore, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34 If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that your meetings may not result in judgment. The other matters I shall set in order when I come.”

Verse 27-29 proves Real Presence. We cannot take it unworthily in sin! To take the Body of Christ while not believing in the Real Presence is taking Him in sin.

See protestant translation too.

 

[Bud_Stewart]

When Catholics celebrate the Eucharist we are expressing our belief in the Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. We are also openly professing our beliefs in all Catholic teachings. When someone takes the Eucharist in a Catholic Church he is making a statement that he is in full ‘communion’ with the Church of Rome. Catholics are not being “unChristian” when we deny the Host to non-Catholics. We are defending our beliefs. We wish we could share Jesus’ Sacrament with all Christians, but if each has a different perspective on what is happening then the Eucharist no longer represents a “communion of the faithful”.

 

[martino]

You may want to remind them that even Catholics are held to the very same standard that non-Catholics are held to in regards to the Eucharist. If a Catholic is not properly disposed then he/she cannot approach the altar either. Catholics must believe all that the Church teaches to be in a state of grace or full communion. A baptized Catholic in mortal sin cannot receive the Eucharist. A baptized Catholic (not in a state of mortal sin) that hasn’t observed all of the 5 precepts of the Church may not receive the Eucharist.

The Church as the minister of the sacraments has the job of preserving the sanctity and reverence due to each one of the sacraments, especially the Eucharist. Protestants want us to disregard the truth of Jesus’ presence so that they can come in and receive from the hand of the priest that which they deny even exists. Some of them are so filled with pride in themselves they believe they are entitled to commit blasphemy against our Lord.

Let them do as Catholics do before we can ever received the Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. Let them take catechism classes for several years, let them ask for sacramental confession, let them first accept all that the Church teaches, especially belief in Chirst’s presence in the Eucharist and then they can receive like the rest of us. Why would we not require of them what we require of ourselves? What makes them so special that none of this is necessary for them? How much audacity could they possibly have? From the very beginning of Protestantism they threw the Eucharist out the window in puffed up pride and now cry out when they are not permitted to celebrate the Eucharist, the absurdity is laughable.

Ask them how they can turn their backs on Jesus and deny His teaching on the Eucharist (John 6) and at the same time demand participation in the Eucharistic celebration.

They can’t be upset that they are not receiving Jesus because they dont want that, and you couldnt force that upon them with all your might. They cant be desirous of that which they refuse to acknowledge, or can they, I dont know anymore? So if it is not the Eucharist they want, what is it then? Why do they expect full communion with a Church they do not wish to belong? That is what I want to know, are there any Protestants out there that can help me to understand this?

 

[hawkeye]

IoA:

About the best explanation I’ve heard on this subject came from a priest who told me of another cleric who had to explain to a parent of a Baptist child in a Catholic school why she couldn’t take communion.

When we say “Amen” as we receive the Eucharist, we’re making a general profession of faith. Namely, that we believe in the dogmatic principles behind the Eucharist, and also that we accept the teachings of the Church. Most Protestants do not believe in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and if they observed the regulations of the Church/believed in the True Presence, they’d already be Catholic.

Paul also makes it clear that we are obliged to observe the Eucharist for what it is when we receive it. Your overwhelming majority of Protestants do not do this.

It also follows suit that since we’re receiving the actual Body & Blood of our Lord that we should be in a state of grace. Your typical Protestant has not been absolved of his/her sins through the Sacrament of Reconcilliation, so it follows suit that, according to Catholic teaching, they should not receive.

 

[hawkeye]

IoA:

About the best explanation I’ve heard on this subject came from a priest who told me of another cleric who had to explain to a parent of a Baptist child in a Catholic school why she couldn’t take communion.

When we say “Amen” as we receive the Eucharist, we’re making a general profession of faith. Namely, that we believe in the dogmatic principles behind the Eucharist, and also that we accept the teachings of the Church. Most Protestants do not believe in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and if they observed the regulations of the Church/believed in the True Presence, they’d already be Catholic.

Paul also makes it clear that we are obliged to observe the Eucharist for what it is when we receive it. Your overwhelming majority of Protestants do not do this.

It also follows suit that since we’re receiving the actual Body & Blood of our Lord that we should be in a state of grace. Your typical Protestant has not been absolved of his/her sins through the Sacrament of Reconcilliation, so it follows suit that, according to Catholic teaching, they should not receive.

to that IoA.

 

[steve_b]

Tanais:

I just want to thank those of you who helped answer my first objection, your answers were very helpful. I now have another one if you do not mind. here it is:
The Church is far too exclusive; it is far too caught up in the traditions of men and excludes non-Catholics from communing with them. I feel this is far too against the Christian spirit of unity and love and is something that should be taken away.

• Syllogism: 1. Christians are supposed to be in spirit of love and unity.*

•     2. Closed communion takes away from that unity.*

•     3. Therefore closed communion is bad.*

Any thoughts? I find this to be a common objection that i receive, mainly from Protestants. I of course say that the reason we do not commune is because it would be proclaiming a unity which is non existent…

Your last point is the key. There is no union in communion for those outside the Catholic Church. Therefore, it is doing them a favor not to permit them to take the Eucharist. “He who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks condemnation on themselves” All this seperation is a grave sin against charity. And It’s direct disobedience to Jesus who prayed for us to be one. To the rest of the world, all this squabbling and division, reflects on Jesus as well. In the eyes of the world it looks as if He couldn’t finish what He started.

hawkeye:

When we say “Amen” as we receive the Eucharist, we’re making a general profession of faith.

Therefore, a Protestant would be lieing as they received, because they really don’t believe in ALL the points mentioned from the profession of faith voiced earlier in the mass to the Amen.

Martino:

You may want to remind them that even Catholics are held to the very same standard that non-Catholics are held to in regards to the Eucharist. If a Catholic is not properly disposed then he/she cannot approach the altar either.

A very key point.
Bud Stewart:

When Catholics celebrate the Eucharist we are expressing our belief in the Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. We are also openly professing our beliefs in all Catholic teachings

Absolutely. And one who is divided, is acting out on their sinful nature. Gal 5:19… And the consequence of this is serious as Paul states

Malachi4U:

1 Cor 11: Verse 27-29 proves Real Presence. We cannot take it unworthily in sin! To take the Body of Christ while not believing in the Real Presence is taking Him in sin.

Yes. It denies the faith
Newvent:

1. Christians are supposed to be in spirit of love and unity …* and truth*.
2. A lack of belief in the truth of the Real Presence takes away from that unity.

Along with all the other beliefs that are not believed in.

 

[JimG]

I like your analogy with marriage. Not many would argue for open marriage because it promotes love whereas closed marriage is restrictive of love. Rather, those involved have made a firm lifelong commitment to each other.

As IoA pointed out, when we respond “Amen” when receiving the Eucharist, we are making a general profession of Faith in all that the Church teaches, and especially in the real presence.

JimG

 

[hawkeye]

steve b:

Your last point is the key. There is no union in communion for those outside the Catholic Church. Therefore, it is doing them a favor not to permit them to take the Eucharist. “He who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks condemnation on themselves” All this seperation is a grave sin against charity. And It’s direct disobedience to Jesus who prayed for us to be one. To the rest of the world, all this squabbling and division, reflects on Jesus as well. In the eyes of the world it looks as if He couldn’t finish what He started.

Therefore, a Protestant would be lieing as they received, because they really don’t believe in ALL the points mentioned from the profession of faith voiced earlier in the mass to the Amen.

A very key point.

Absolutely. And one who is divided, is acting out on their sinful nature. Gal 5:19… And the consequence of this is serious as Paul states

Yes. It denies the faith

Along with all the other beliefs that are not believed in.

Why have you got me in quotation marks ? I didn’t post it,I only said Amen, and amen means I agree ?

 

[hawkeye]

steve b:

Your last point is the key. There is no union in communion for those outside the Catholic Church. Therefore, it is doing them a favor not to permit them to take the Eucharist. “He who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks condemnation on themselves” All this seperation is a grave sin against charity. And It’s direct disobedience to Jesus who prayed for us to be one. To the rest of the world, all this squabbling and division, reflects on Jesus as well. In the eyes of the world it looks as if He couldn’t finish what He started.

Why have you got me in quotation marks ?

Therefore, a Protestant would be lieing as they received, because they really don’t believe in ALL the points mentioned from the profession of faith voiced earlier in the mass to the Amen.

A very key point.

Absolutely. And one who is divided, is acting out on their sinful nature. Gal 5:19… And the consequence of this is serious as Paul states

Yes. It denies the faith

Along with all the other beliefs that are not believed in.

 

[martino]

I guess there are not Protestants that can help me out with the question that I asked earlier?

 

[karisue]

Tanais:

• Syllogism: 1. Christians are supposed to be in spirit of love and unity.*

•     2. Closed communion takes away from that unity.*

•     3. Therefore closed communion is bad.*

Any thoughts?

I have not read this whole thread so I apologize if this point has already been made.

With supposition #1 – I take issue – We are supposed to be unified, but we are NOT. The splintering and exponentially increasing factions in the Christian church testify to this sad, ungodly reality.

Communion is about unity indeed. Those who are in unity are welcome to receive (within limits, of course). Open communion is a contradiction that says that we can act unified without being unified in essence and fact. Open communion would perpetuate a terrible lie. Why make something look like something other than what it is?

Bottom line: We musn’t act unified until we are unified.

 

[martino]

The Church is far too exclusive; it is far too caught up in the traditions of men and excludes non-Catholics from communing with them. I feel this is far too against the Christian spirit of unity and love and is something that should be taken away.

• Syllogism: 1. Christians are supposed to be in spirit of love and unity.*

•     2. Closed communion takes away from that unity.*

•     3. Therefore closed communion is bad.*

.

This is fun, let me try:

1. Christians are supposed to be united in spirit and love.
2. Schism takes away from that unity.
3. Therefore, the Protestant Reformation is bad.