A compelling non-Catholic argument

[protestantman]

On the matter of receiving Eucharist I beg you not to do this and to pray about this since it it considered a very grave sin (a sacrilege) that can cause you spiritual and physical illness/death if you take it unworthily (in grave sin). Since you are not in communion with The Catholic Church this means you do not believe that The Eucharist is the real presence of Jesus (divinity, soul, body and blood) that was manifest through the priestly authority of The Church. Only a true believer may partake of Eucharist and then only when in a state of grace clear of any grave sin.

God Bless,
James

First off, your wording is interesting. Who is it that we are to be in communion with? The Church or Christ.
The bible makes it quite clear that if my actions are led by the spirit, then I am blameless and without condemnation. Therefore, regardless off my denomination, if I take communion in order to remember that Christ sacrificed his life for mine, how am I not worthy? The Holy Spirit resides in a temple that has been in my heart since the day I accepted Christ as my personal saviour. Communion is a symbol that Christs body was broken for us. The Bible never ever ever ever says that Christ is present in the eucharist. And, is not Gods word complete. But more to the point, it is the sole position of Christ who has any right to judge whether or not I am worthy. So why do you judge me and tell me it is a sin?

 

[protestantman]

origionally by Jmcrae

Absolutely. But how does one teach, without the authority to discipline?

Are you not missing something here? The Holy Spirit dwells in me, for I was baptized in the Spirit. When I am being taught, it is the Holy Spirit that discerns it, so that I can understand it. If I sin, it is the Spirit who disciplines me. Any person can only rebuke me, and the church can expell me, but if I am not disciplined by the spirit, then it will do no good. So I ask this, why would the church need authority to do something that the Holy Spirit is already doing? The Bible also says that Paul was not called to Baptize, but to Teach . This gives the implication that the Apostolic authority did have limitations

Of course. But “by the Spirit” does not imply that you are doing it alone, or that it happens in a mysterious, unseen way.

Nor does it imply the opposite. Paul was not taught or converted by the Apostles when he started his ministry. His conversion was in fact unique.

Nor would anybody ever ask you to. There is no conflict between the Pope and the Holy Spirit - they are not competitors. The Holy Spirit actually makes use of the Pope as a kind of a “microphone” for His message, from time to time.

This is not Wholy true. There is always conflict between any man and the Holy Spirit. When Paul confronted Peter, Peters flesh had conflicted with the Holy Spirit. Paul made reference to this constant conflict within himself.

St. Paul was commanding St. Timothy to do this, directly after ordaining him to the Episcopate. (If Timothy is the Bishop, then he can’t exactly ask the Bishop what it means, can he? )

That whole book was written to Timothy. Do I discard the entire book because I am not a Bishop. He wrote it for a reason and did not specify why he said it. But, he makes a point of telling Timothy that it is important.

The Church is the instrument most often used by the Holy Spirit to teach with. And you’re right, the Church teaches Africans using different methods than for Americans, and teaches children with different methods than for adults, etc.

I like how you worded this. “The Church” is unspecified. I say this because all denominations can be used as instruments. God does not have to choose a catholic, but whomever he decides.

 

[protestantman]

As a side note. In galations 1, Paul says that his teaching was revealed by God. The interesting bit is in verses 16-18.
“…I did not consult any man, 17-nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.
18-Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter”

For 14 years Paul taught the Gospel without being ordained by the Apostles. This means that he was teaching without being a part of the Apostolic succesion. He was not baptized by the Apostles either, but by a Jew named Ananias. Yet for all 14 years, he was no less than any of the Apostles. At the end of 3 years Paul did not say that he went to Peter to be ordained, but to get acquainted.

So I ask, why did Paul wait 14 years? Why did Christ send him to Ananias, and not to Peter, to be baptized? Why wasn’t Paul ordained by Peter when they were first acquainted?

 

[Orionthehunter]

So your saying that because Im not Catholic, that I am unworthy? Carefull when you make these kinds of claims. What yu are implying is neither biblical, nor does it hold any weight. When does the bible say that only catholics are worthy? If Christ lives in me, my worth is well spoken for.

Protestantman, this is an example of you applying your vernacular when we are applying Catholic vernacular. We have an unintentional misunderstanding.

In the Catholic Church, to present oneself for Communion, we teach that one must not only be “worthy” in the Spiritual sense but also “worthy” in the “profession of faith” sense. What the POF sense means is that the person must attest and confess that they believe that the Catholic Church contains the Fullness of Truth from Christ and they assent to these teachings. Anyone who in self-examination is unable to attest to both “worthiness” tests is to deem themself unworthy and abstain from the Eucharist.

Because you yourself admit you are unable to attest to the Profession of Faith, we are legitimate in deeming you unworthy. This is not personal. We hold that same test of Catholics. I myself was unable to recieve the Eucharist for five years because my marriage was not blessed. Don’t take it personal.

First off, your wording is interesting. Who is it that we are to be in communion with? The Church or Christ.
The bible makes it quite clear that if my actions are led by the spirit, then I am blameless and without condemnation. Therefore, regardless off my denomination, if I take communion in order to remember that Christ sacrificed his life for mine, how am I not worthy? The Holy Spirit resides in a temple that has been in my heart since the day I accepted Christ as my personal saviour. Communion is a symbol that Christs body was broken for us. The Bible never ever ever ever says that Christ is present in the eucharist. And, is not Gods word complete. But more to the point, it is the sole position of Christ who has any right to judge whether or not I am worthy. So why do you judge me and tell me it is a sin?

Again, this is an example of a misunderstanding of theology. Catholics believe and the Church teaches that there is no distinction between unity/communion with the Church and Christ. See my comments above.

While you might be willing to bring your theology to recieve in the Catholic Church, I ask you to keep three things in mind.

First, Catholics present will assume that you have accepted both tenets of “worthy” reception of the Eucharist. Do you want to give that impression when you do not?

Second, when I come to your Church, I refuse to receive your Communion out of respect of the theology of the denomination. Since I don’t confess to that theology, I think it is hypocritical for me to pretend that I do.

Third, imagine if there was an altar call at your Church in which one is to come forward to make a commitment to Christ and your faith. How would you feel if I came forward because I wanted to make a public statement to my commitment in Christ but I rejected your religion. Afterwards when “congratulated”, I said “Oh, I don’t ascribe to anything you teach. I just wanted to come forward to make a statement about what I believe. I reject your teachings.” Well, this is what you are doing when you recieve in our Church. I don’t think it appropriate for either of us to mock the faith and traditions of the other.

I think there is an element of adherence to your own faith that you might want to consider. I hope this sheds some light on how this issue is perceived by Catholics. Don’t take it so personal.

 

[jmcrae]

So your saying that because Im not Catholic, that I am unworthy? Carefull when you make these kinds of claims. What yu are implying is neither biblical, nor does it hold any weight. When does the bible say that only catholics are worthy? If Christ lives in me, my worth is well spoken for.

All we are saying is that, because you are not Catholic, you are not Catholic. Only Catholics (and not all Catholics, either) are allowed to receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church.

In the Catholic Church, the Sacrament of Holy Communion is a Sacrament of Initiation - to put that into plain language, it’s a membership ritual.

Nobody is required to be a Catholic. I don’t understand why someone who doesn’t want to be a Catholic would feel the need to participate in its membership rituals.

 

[jmcrae]

As a side note. In galations 1, Paul says that his teaching was revealed by God. The interesting bit is in verses 16-18.
“…I did not consult any man, 17-nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.
18-Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter”

For 14 years Paul taught the Gospel without being ordained by the Apostles. This means that he was teaching without being a part of the Apostolic succesion.

He was a member of the Catholic Church, though, and he was operating as a lay evangelist, just like most of the people who participate in this Forum.

He was not baptized by the Apostles either, but by a Jew named Ananias.

Ananias was a Catholic priest/bishop. (In those early days, they didn’t distinguish between priests and bishops very distinctly, yet.)

Yet for all 14 years, he was no less than any of the Apostles. At the end of 3 years Paul did not say that he went to Peter to be ordained, but to get acquainted.

So I ask, why did Paul wait 14 years? Why did Christ send him to Ananias, and not to Peter, to be baptized? Why wasn’t Paul ordained by Peter when they were first acquainted?

I don’t really know. But there weren’t different denominations around, back then. All of the Churches were Catholic churches, and all of the Christians were Catholics. There were no “lone rangers” - not even St. Paul - who remained alone for their whole lives. And even though he was doing a lot of stuff on his own, St. Paul was also always working with the Church, and on behalf of the Church - he was not inventing a new religion.

 

[CentralFLJames]

First off, your wording is interesting. Who is it that we are to be in communion with? The Church or Christ.
The bible makes it quite clear that if my actions are led by the spirit, then I am blameless and without condemnation. Therefore, regardless off my denomination, if I take communion in order to remember that Christ sacrificed his life for mine, how am I not worthy? The Holy Spirit resides in a temple that has been in my heart since the day I accepted Christ as my personal saviour. Communion is a symbol that Christs body was broken for us. The Bible never ever ever ever says that Christ is present in the Eucharist. And, is not Gods word complete. But more to the point, it is the sole position of Christ who has any right to judge whether or not I am worthy. So why do you judge me and tell me it is a sin?

First of all I said the word “if” when speaking of grave sin. But by admitting here that my suspicions about you not believing in the real presence of the Eucharist and saying it is only a symbolic presence you just removed the condition and make it a fact. Please, I am not saying this to condemn you. I am genuinely concerned for you! Scripture has explicit references about those who become “sick” for taking the Eucharist unworthily. If you do not believe in real presence our Catholic Teaching and what all us Catholic adults see in scripture tells us that is is a denial of Christ and in His teaching. That becomes a grave matter since it denies God’s power to grant The Church the authority to have the Holy Spirit convert ordinary bread and wine into Jesus’ Divinity, flesh, blood and soul. This is why I personally feel that Eucharist is the pinnacle of belief for a Christian. Receiving Eucharist is like taking a salvific divine fruit from The Tree of Life (Christ on the Cross) into one’s soul as a spiritual remedy to counter the fallen from grace state that humanity found itself in when it partook of the fruit of the tree of good and evil. Since one can not partake of Eucharist while in a state of grave sin without being sacrilegious receiving Eucharist becomes a public and physical sign that a person is living in Christ (communing with Him and His life and teaching through the sacraments of His Church) while being obedient to His commandments. Not to mention the spiritual signs and impressions it leaves on the soul that only God and His Holy Angels and Saints can see clearly (even while we Catholics can often discern it in each other too).

I want to compel you to reconsider what you are doing here. We need to get you to come to believe in real presence and then to convert to Catholicism before you receive in order to take all that life giving grace into you.
I Corinthians 11:23-30:

For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

James

 

[protestantman]

Protestantman, this is an example of you applying your vernacular when we are applying Catholic vernacular. We have an unintentional misunderstanding.

In the Catholic Church, to present oneself for Communion, we teach that one must not only be “worthy” in the Spiritual sense but also “worthy” in the “profession of faith” sense. What the POF sense means is that the person must attest and confess that they believe that the Catholic Church contains the Fullness of Truth from Christ and they assent to these teachings. Anyone who in self-examination is unable to attest to both “worthiness” tests is to deem themself unworthy and abstain from the Eucharist.

Because you yourself admit you are unable to attest to the Profession of Faith, we are legitimate in deeming you unworthy. This is not personal. We hold that same test of Catholics. I myself was unable to recieve the Eucharist for five years because my marriage was not blessed. Don’t take it personal.

Again, this is an example of a misunderstanding of theology. Catholics believe and the Church teaches that there is no distinction between unity/communion with the Church and Christ. See my comments above.

While you might be willing to bring your theology to recieve in the Catholic Church, I ask you to keep three things in mind.

First, Catholics present will assume that you have accepted both tenets of “worthy” reception of the Eucharist. Do you want to give that impression when you do not?

Second, when I come to your Church, I refuse to receive your Communion out of respect of the theology of the denomination. Since I don’t confess to that theology, I think it is hypocritical for me to pretend that I do.

Third, imagine if there was an altar call at your Church in which one is to come forward to make a commitment to Christ and your faith. How would you feel if I came forward because I wanted to make a public statement to my commitment in Christ but I rejected your religion. Afterwards when “congratulated”, I said “Oh, I don’t ascribe to anything you teach. I just wanted to come forward to make a statement about what I believe. I reject your teachings.” Well, this is what you are doing when you recieve in our Church. I don’t think it appropriate for either of us to mock the faith and traditions of the other.

I think there is an element of adherence to your own faith that you might want to consider. I hope this sheds some light on how this issue is perceived by Catholics. Don’t take it so personal.

I do not take it personal, nor am I offended. The Church may teach it, but scripture does not. This makes it a worldy matter. How can protestants be unified with catholics, when you say that we cannot even partake in communion? Your basically saying that we must all become catholics in order to be worthy. This seems to conflict with scripture, more than support it. Christ did not give the authority of judgement to the Church. He gave that authority to Christ and only Christ. Therefore, the church does not have the right to judge my worthiness.

 

[Orionthehunter]

I do not take it personal, nor am I offended. The Church may teach it, but scripture does not. This makes it a worldy matter. How can protestants be unified with catholics, when you say that we cannot even partake in communion? Your basically saying that we must all become catholics in order to be worthy. This seems to conflict with scripture, more than support it. Christ did not give the authority of judgement to the Church. He gave that authority to Christ and only Christ. Therefore, the church does not have the right to judge my worthiness.

Protestantman, note your name. You are in protest to the Catholic Church. Communion at a Catholic Church is a statement that we are in union on matters of faith. Why would you want to make a statement of unity when we are not in union? Let’s be honest. WE have a unity problem.

Secondly, each tradition has its own requirements for initiation. Communion is one such initiation rite for Catholics. Why do you insist participating in a rite in which you are not sincere?

Thirdly, how would you like it if I made a mockery of an altar call at your service by coming forward?

Fourthly, it is disengenous to say it is a “worldy matter”. Each and every Christian Church has requirements for membership. They all believe that they are consistent with Scripture. I wouldn’t dream of mocking your requirements. Why do you insist on mocking Catholics? Do you really think that mockery will result in greater unity?

Finally, it appears that you think you have a RIGHT to receive communion. Where in Scripture do you have such a right?

 

[ni8_shadow]

Well ProtestanMan I’ll try and lend in my 2cents.
If you are a Catholic, then you can only receive Communion if you are in a state of grace ie no unrepented MORTAL SINS. If you are not in that state, then you are NOT permitted to receive. So even Catholics are sometimes NOT permitted to receive.

Catholics believe that Communion is also a symbol of the oneness of the faith. All who partake MUST believe what the Catholic Church teaches. If you are a Catholic and don’t profess it is truly Christ present in the Sacrament, then you too are not premitted to participate.

Now if you are a Protestant then OBVIOUSLY you do not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist as Catholics understand it. Sooooooo…if you don’t believe what the Church teaches on that subject, then you are not permitted to receive it, just like the unrepented Catholic and the unbelieving Catholic.

It is a respect thing man. I can’t just walk into a Protestant service and expect to be granted the right to jump up in front and preach alongside the Pastor right? It’s against the rules.

Now on the subject of the Real Presence, I know you can find MANY MANY threads disscussing that. Search and you shall find. John 6 and the other Gospel accounts are very clear. The ECF’s are VERY clear as well.

It is not choosing Christ OR the Church, rather, you choose both if you truly follow Him. For it is Christ’s Church, not man’s. It is His body, not ours. It is His teachings and rules, not ours. “He who hears you hears Me, and he who REJECTS YOU REJECTS ME.”

 

[protestantman]

All we are saying is that, because you are not Catholic, you are not Catholic. Only Catholics (and not all Catholics, either) are allowed to receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church.

In the Catholic Church, the Sacrament of Holy Communion is a Sacrament of Initiation - to put that into plain language, it’s a membership ritual.

Nobody is required to be a Catholic. I don’t understand why someone who doesn’t want to be a Catholic would feel the need to participate in its membership rituals.

I wish to partake as it is still a symbol of Gods love for me. I take it as a reminder of Christs sacrifice. Therefore I do it to give glory to God. To say it is a membership ritual is scripturally untrue. On this I will stand my ground. It was established by Christ, for the whole body of Christ. To say it is a membership ritual, you are taking away from its meaning and purpouse. Christ did not die so that you could have a ritual.

 

[protestantman]

Protestantman, note your name. You are in protest to the Catholic Church. Communion at a Catholic Church is a statement that we are in union on matters of faith. Why would you want to make a statement of unity when we are not in union? Let’s be honest. WE have a unity problem.

Secondly, each tradition has its own requirements for initiation. Communion is one such initiation rite for Catholics. Why do you insist participating in a rite in which you are not sincere?

Thirdly, how would you like it if I made a mockery of an altar call at your service by coming forward?

Fourthly, it is disengenous to say it is a “worldy matter”. Each and every Christian Church has requirements for membership. They all believe that they are consistent with Scripture. I wouldn’t dream of mocking your requirements. Why do you insist on mocking Catholics? Do you really think that mockery will result in greater unity?

Finally, it appears that you think you have a RIGHT to receive communion. Where in Scripture do you have such a right?

Christ death is not some mere ritual initiation. How can I not have that right? Christ died that ALL might be saved. Did Christ not die for me?
1 Corinthians 10:16-17
16Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.
If I do not participate in the Blood of Christ, than how can I be one with Christ?
11When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here,** he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. 12He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. 13The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death,[c] so that we may serve the living God!
15For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

Please read the following exerpt from Hebrews nine and pay special attention to the highlighted portions.
16In the case of a will,[d] it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, 17because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. 18This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. 19When Moses had proclaimed every commandment of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. 20He said, "This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep."e] 21In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. 22In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

23It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. 25Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

Accepting the blood of Christ is neccesary for salvation.**

 

[protestantman]

I agree with this too.

I have always felt bad for the Protestants who were pruned away from The Church just because of Luther. It does not seem fair that so many could be led astray by one man. But of course I suppose your perspective is much different and you don’t see that the Protestants as the a pruned away branch at all but rather the thinned out tree. Right?

James

No, I liken it more to the Ingrafted branches. Both share the same root. If the roots have the same source, then both with show the fruits of the Spirit. If this were not true, then why do both denominations bear these fruits.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Christ death is not some mere ritual initiation. How can I not have that right? Christ died that ALL might be saved. Did Christ not die for me?
1 Corinthians 10:16-17
16Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.
If I do not participate in the Blood of Christ, than how can I be one with Christ?
11When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here,** he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. 12He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. 13The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death,[c] so that we may serve the living God!
15For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

Please read the following exerpt from Hebrews nine and pay special attention to the highlighted portions.
16In the case of a will,[d] it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it,** 17because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. 18This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. 19When Moses had proclaimed every commandment of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. 20He said, "This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep."e] 21In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. 22In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

23It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. 25Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

Accepting the blood of Christ is neccesary for salvation.
This is all true. I don’t disagree with it. But I don’t deem it complete and in context. I don’t want to get into an entire debate about the Real Presence and Catholic Teaching on the Eucharist. We disagree. We know it. We both believe that we have the proper interpretation of Scriptures.

Even in disagreement with your interpretation of Scripture and its application, I respect your views. This is why I would never mock your beliefs by receiving communion in your church. I’m at a loss why you are so desirous to mock mine.

Protestantman, if you are at a Catholic Mass, this is essentially what the Priest is saying:

By the power given to me by Jesus Christ, I have consecrated this bread and wine and turned it into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

All who hold the teachings of the Catholic Church as true, are of a clean heart and soul, **and **who desire union with Jesus Christ and His Church should come forward and recieve.

If you go up and receive without believing ALL (note the and) of these things, you are lying to all those assembled and mocking the Catholic faith. Our public acts are statements of beliefs. Keep in mind that Paul admonishes us not to receive unworthily. Do you think that mocking your Christian brothers or making a false testimony might impact your worthiness?

If you think such behavior and mockery contributes to unity, you are mistaken. While that may be your intent, it will not be the result.

If I may suppose, Protestantman, I think that your opposition to this is that you resent the closed communion of Catholics because Catholics do not accept your interpretation of the purpose of Holy Communion and what occurred at the Last Supper. But, my friend, we do not reconcile our differences by overt mockery of what separates us. We may never reconcile this but we may. But in the meantime, I don’t think we serve any ecumenical goal by overt insult.

Finally, there are Christians who think it sacrilegous to write in a Bible. While I disagree, I never insult them by marking mine in their presence.

Please remember that Catholics consider the Eucharist the central component of our faith.

The Eucharist is “the source and summit of the Christian life.” “The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch.”

“The Eucharist is the efficacious sign and sublime cause of that communion in the divine life and that unity of the People of God by which the Church is kept in being. It is the culmination both of God’s action sanctifying the world in Christ and of the worship men offer to Christ and through him to the Father in the Holy Spirit.”

Finally, by the Eucharistic celebration we already unite ourselves with the heavenly liturgy and anticipate eternal life, when God will be all in all.

Holy Communion, because by this sacrament we unite ourselves to Christ, who makes us sharers in his Body and Blood to form a single body. We also call it: the holy things (ta hagia; sancta)—the first meaning of the phrase “communion of saints” in the Apostles’ Creed—the bread of angels, bread from heaven, medicine of immortality, viaticum. . . .

The command of Jesus to repeat his actions and words “until he comes” does not only ask us to remember Jesus and what he did. It is directed at the liturgical celebration, by the apostles and their successors, of the memorial of Christ, of his life, of his death, of his Resurrection, and of his intercession in the presence of the Father.

The Eucharist is a sacrifice of thanksgiving to the Father, a blessing by which the Church expresses her gratitude to God for all his benefits, for all that he has accomplished through creation, redemption, and sanctification. Eucharist means first of all “thanksgiving.”

The Eucharist is also the sacrifice of praise by which the Church sings the glory of God in the name of all creation. This sacrifice of praise is possible only through Christ: he unites the faithful to his person, to his praise, and to his intercession, so that the sacrifice of praise to the Father is offered through Christ and with him, to be accepted in him.

The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.”

Holy Communion augments our union with Christ. The principal fruit of receiving the Eucharist in Holy Communion is an intimate union with Christ Jesus. Indeed, the Lord said: “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.” Life in Christ has its foundation in the Eucharistic banquet: “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.”

 

[protestantman]

It is entirely Biblical, since the Apostles did not distribute Holy Communion to anyone except those who had been baptized and confirmed in Christian churches that were doctrinally and organizationally united with themselves.

The baptism of which you speak is the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, right? The apostles participated in communion before they had been baptized by the Spirit. This seems to contradict your statement.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Christ did not give the authority of judgement to the Church. He gave that authority to Christ and only Christ. Therefore, the church does not have the right to judge my worthiness.

You are absolutely and utterly so wrong here Protestantman.
Authority to loose and bound was given in Matthew 16:18-19. Judgement is implied in the choice to loose or bound. Pragmatically speaking though the Church always forgives and loose’s the sins of a sincerely repentant sinner. It only holds bound those that remain defiant against Her authority and those individuals judge themselves through acts of pride in refusing to ask for forgiveness or by mocking The Church and willfully blaspheming the teachings or defiling the sacraments.

So please show me in scripture where Christ gave Himself authority to Judge. I am not saying He does not have that authority but you are absolutely fabricating scripture here. In so doing you are demonstrating fallibility and lack of even a fundamental understanding in a very important scriptural area.

John 12:47-48
If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; **the word **I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.

Here is a profound truth that many don’t get yet. Guess what the living word is - it’s Eucharist. If you do not eat the Eucharist you have judged yourself through disobedience to the most fundamental commandment we have - ‘to live by every single word of God’. That is scripture in the full living and embodiment of the incarnate God through Jesus. Jesus gave us His WORD and is with us today - everyday (Emmanuel) in the Eucharist. Also, if you come to the table of the Lord and partake of Eucharist unworthily YOU also judge yourself by that insincere act by the same word you received into you while not believing or being indifferent to your grave sins!

Wake up to what is going on spiritually. Jesus is separating the goats from His sheep by leading His flock to the protection of The Church by drawing them to Him through life giving food and drink present in The Eucharist. Only those that hear His voice come and eat (e.g. ‘If you love me Peter feed my sheep’). Those that try to enter by another way, try as they might are impostors and as thieves - woe to them. God’s kingdom can not be stolen or entered with an impure heart. Woe to the impostors and the willfully disobedient when The Good Shepherd returns on the terrible Day Of The Lord to rule with an iron rod.

This is a period of Mercy. Use it while there is still time.

James

 

[jmcrae]

The baptism of which you speak is the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, right? The apostles participated in communion before they had been baptized by the Spirit. This seems to contradict your statement.

The Apostles were not yet under the New Covenant; the New Covenant came into effect at Pentecost.

There was also a transition period - those who converted before Christ’s death and resurrection were joined to the Church through the baptism of John the Baptist (see John 1:19-42) and by being in Christ’s presence throughout His 3-year ministry, and those who joined afterwards were brought into the Church through Christian baptism - immersion in water, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, as Christ commanded in Matthew 28:16–20.

 

[ni8_shadow]

It is scriptural for those who believe to NOT partake of the Eucharist. Paul’s warns us about receiving communion in an unworthy state. 1 Cor.11:27, 29. It is scriptural to not partake of the Eucharist given certain circumstances. Unrepented sin, unbelief that the Eucharist IS Jesus.

 

[protestantman]

OriontheHunter

Maybe you are right. But if you are, it poses a serious moral dilema. The scripture specifically says that there is only one loaf. (1 corinthians 10:17) This means that the purpouse and meaning is the same for you as it is for me. You are likening it as it were two loaves, with two different meanings. If this is true, then one of us is following a false teaching. If it is I, then the Spirit does not live in me, for if it does, then it would discern this Truth. And if it is you, then the Spirit does not live in you. So you cannot say that we are both right, unless you can say that the meaning is the same.

I find it foolish that many catholics use the phrase “the teachings of the Catholic Church.” Should you not say “the teachings of Christ”? You imply that the teachings of the Church are equal to the Teachings of Christ. Carefull to you who may boast, that your secure position might fall. The bible makes many references that indicate that anyone can fall from a secure position. Security is defined by being protected against danger or loss. Christ secures the position of the church, ONLY AS LONG AS THE CHURCH DOES NOT PLACE ITSELF ABOVE ITS CREATOR. This is an act of discipline that even the church is succeptable to. Unless you say that the Church need no discipline. But then why did Paul warn the church about Isreals past. It would be unneccesary if the Church cannot fall.

 

[ni8_shadow]

True, the Church should not place itself above Christ. And thank Christ it won’t because the Church is headed by Christ Himself. He protects it from error via the Holy Spirit. If the Church ceases to teach what Christ’s wants it to…then Christ broke His promise that the “Gates of Hell shall not prevail…” But I am inclined to believe that Christ can keep his Word.