Christians who believe a Priest is not necessary for the Lord's Supper

[Wannano]

Hi Wann.

No, not shameful.

Without faith it is impossible to please God. (Hebrews 11:6) doesn’t any anything about understanding being required to please Him.

Are you suggesting I do not have faith?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Are you suggesting I do not have faith?

No, I’m saying that sometimes teachings are difficult to understand or accept as it says in John 6 discourse.

I’m sure you believe in the Trinity…yet none of us really understand it. Yet we accept it by faith.

So if a person is convinced the Church is the truth yet struggles with certain teachings, that’s ok. Faith is what matters.

 

[MartinJordan]

No, I’m saying that sometimes teachings are difficult to understand or accept as it says in John 6 discourse.

I’m sure you believe in the Trinity…yet none of us really understand it. Yet we accept it by faith.

So if a person is convinced the Church is the truth yet struggles with certain teachings, that’s ok. Faith is what matters.

MJ

 

[rcwitness]

On the other hand I think it may be a dangerous thing to split the body by closed communion (as perhaps giving communion to non-Christians). I understand the argument for it, but I also think this might be the very thing Paul warns against. Who is splitting who is all a matter of perspective. Also, from a certain protestant perspective it is splitting the body of Christ by having “ordination” in and of itself, the belief being that particular hierarchical split was done away with by Christ. Again, it’s a matter of perspective and because of that, I have to do what I think is right and back off of what I have done in the past and research further, and pray a lot more.

Hmmm… yes, I hear the argument for open Communion. But the “closed Communion” manifested out of a division that happened by Protestants, no? Before then, it was more the usual practice of those excommunicated. I think it depends how we understand “hierarchy”. I don’t think Jesus “did away with” a class of ordained leaders who had duties, responsibilities, privileges, and authority. Why would He establish His whole ministry on “setting apart” the 12?

I don’t think that the lack is solely amongst protestants, however. And, I think it is incumbent that all Christians examine their beliefs and hold fast to what is true. Meaning, I hope that cultural Catholics are doing the same thing in order to firmly “prove” what they believe. There are aspects of our faith that are “simple” and there are aspects that are not, and that is purposeful I think.

Yes, that’s definitely why I wasn’t criticizing you. I’m assuming you are genuinely seeking to know and grow in the faith. We should always be growing in the faith and be ready to give an account for what we practice and profess.

The fact that I may not take communion in certain denoms has more to do with the whole of the situation in the Church (again as a whole across “denominations”) right now. As Lenten ashes points to, there are some really wayward teachings out there from congregation to congregation, so the whole thing at this point is unsettling. I’m not concerned with reinventing the wheel, but as most Christians, I’m concerned with following the original wheel, which is what we all argue about.

I see. And I guess my point is that it’s a shame that modern Christians have to question the legitimacy of the Lord’s Supper in any given congregation. It is the result of the Devil. He confuses and distorts things so that we think we need to question everything and ultimately be the judge of what is right and wrong. So many Catholics also question everything. There is a righteous questioning, and a wrong questioning. It’s right to want to know why, but wrong to believe we each must determine what is truth. Jesus did not fashion the Gospel and Church law by a system of individual Revelation. He gave the Church authority to Judge and affirm faith and morals. Not that faith comes from the Church, but that the Church possesses the deposit of faith, and we are able to be confirmed through her as children with a mother, and sharing one Father above.

 

[Kliska]

Hmmm… yes, I hear the argument for open Communion. But the “closed Communion” manifested out of a division that happened by Protestants, no?

Well, that would be determined by who was following truth and who was not, and of course wars have been fought over that, unfortunately. Now that division has occurred it is up to each of us to attempt to follow actual truth wherever it (or He) may lead.

Before then, it was more the usual practice of those excommunicated. I think it depends how we understand “hierarchy”. I don’t think Jesus “did away with” a class of ordained leaders who had duties, responsibilities, privileges, and authority. Why would He establish His whole ministry on “setting apart” the 12?

Again it’s a matter of perspective on what exactly were the duties given over to the 12 to perform and what are the reach of those duties. There are different perspectives on that.

I see. And I guess my point is that it’s a shame that modern Christians have to question the legitimacy of the Lord’s Supper in any given congregation. It is the result of the Devil. He confuses and distorts things so that we think we need to question everything and ultimately be the judge of what is right and wrong. So many Catholics also question everything. There is a righteous questioning, and a wrong questioning. It’s right to want to know why, but wrong to believe we each must determine what is truth. Jesus did not fashion the Gospel and Church law by a system of individual Revelation. He gave the Church authority to Judge and affirm faith and morals. Not that faith comes from the Church, but that the Church possesses the deposit of faith, and we are able to be confirmed through her as children with a mother, and sharing one Father above.

The right questioning is always an attempt to follow God, to seek God and His will. If people are doing that, then more power to them. The Devil did indeed sew confusion, as always, but we have a God that promises Wisdom and guidance to those seeking. So, I guess as I’m on a journey to discover, the easiest way for me to describe it is that it is one without the negative kind of fear. The other way to approach it is with both eyes open. So, for example when the reformation happened there was enough blame to go around, which I do think most Christians realize now. The question become; where in all that fall out does that leave modern Christians? Each denomination, or group, or church, sincerely thinks they are offering the right answer. I’m attempting not to follow my own culture, but to follow God. That’s why I’ve put the brakes on.

 

[rcwitness]

Well, that would be determined by who was following truth and who was not, and of course wars have been fought over that, unfortunately. Now that division has occurred it is up to each of us to attempt to follow actual truth wherever it (or He) may lead.

And still, I find the Catholic Eucharist to represent both the pre-denominational Church and a sign of unity that a body means. It makes sense for the Church to withhold the outward sign of unity from those who reject unity of mind, judgment, obedience and Teaching. If a pastor teaches something fundamentally opposed to a group, then communion does not exist.

Again it’s a matter of perspective on what exactly were the duties given over to the 12 to perform and what are the reach of those duties. There are different perspectives on that.

Well if we look at Scripture, we would see quite alot! I think the bigger doubt for Protestants is what do successive leaders of the Church retain from the 12

The right questioning is always an attempt to follow God, to seek God and His will. If people are doing that, then more power to them. The Devil did indeed sew confusion, as always, but we have a God that promises Wisdom and guidance to those seeking. So, I guess as I’m on a journey to discover, the easiest way for me to describe it is that it is one without the negative kind of fear. The other way to approach it is with both eyes open. So, for example when the reformation happened there was enough blame to go around, which I do think most Christians realize now. The question become; where in all that fall out does that leave modern Christians? Each denomination, or group, or church, sincerely thinks they are offering the right answer. I’m attempting not to follow my own culture, but to follow God. That’s why I’ve put the brakes on.

I agree with your intentions. Let me ask you this: Do you believe you can follow God through devotion to the Catholic faith? (Actually that seems like a good thread question!)

 

[Kliska]

And still, I find the Catholic Eucharist to represent both the pre-denominational Church and a sign of unity that a body means.

I understand the need to be united on some fundamental “test” type of issue or action; for example, the Didache says they required a person to be baptized in order to commune. That is a definitive marker that I understand.

It makes sense for the Church to without the outward sign of unity from those who reject unity of mind, judgment, obedience and Teaching. If a pastor teaches something fundamentally opposed to a group, then communion does not exist.

However there are radical differences of opinion and even teaching/action within the Catholic churches themselves, as well as the Orthodox with whom they not only recognize but would allow them to receive the communion elements.

Well if we look at Scripture, we would see quite alot! I think the bigger doubt for Protestants is what do successive leaders of the Church retain from the 12

That’s what I had meant to include by “reach.”

I agree with your intentions. Let me ask you this: Do you believe you can follow God through devotion to the Catholic faith? (Actually that seems like a good thread question!)

I would more say I see where devotion to God could lead one to be Catholic. On the other hand I can also see where a devotion to God could lead one to be protestant… so that doesn’t get us very far.

 

[rcwitness]

I understand the need to be united on some fundamental “test” type of issue or action; for example, the Didache says they required a person to be baptized in order to commune. That is a definitive marker that I understand.

Yes, a valid Baptism was necessary. I’m not sure they were addressing the scenerios of a valid Baptism into a congregation which was not in full Communion with the rest of leadership. I take it you believe the didache is evidence that Confirmation is not a Sacrament?

However there are radical differences of opinion and even teaching/action within the Catholic churches themselves, as well as the Orthodox with whom they not only recognize but would allow them to receive the communion elements.

You would probably have to be specific about “radical differences of… teaching within the Catholic Church” for me to understand your point.

I would more say I see where devotion to God could lead one to be Catholic. On the other hand I can also see where a devotion to God could lead one to be protestant… so that doesn’t get us very far.

Right, it doesn’t get us too far. So while I understand what you are saying, it doesn’t answer my question. But I suppose my question just reflects what you are trying to discern in the first place. I just ask it in that manner because I believe if you were to believe that one can serve and obey Jesus by devoting to the Catholic faith, then it is the most accurate way to do so. We will always have matters in the faith that make us wonder and ask questions and study. But we are called to His table along this journey. I choose the table of the Catholic faith, which feeds with both the Liturgy of His Word and Eucharist. They are both one but in different forms.

 

[Kliska]

Yes, a valid Baptism was necessary. I’m not sure they were addressing the scenerios of a valid Baptism into a congregation which was not in full Communion with the rest of leadership. I take it you believe the didache is evidence that Confirmation is not a Sacrament?

Mainly I am just stating the fact that the authors of the Didache point out that they did have a requirement of anyone visiting a congregation before joining in receiving communion; and that was baptism. People from elsewhere did have to testify they were baptized, so that is the main factor they were concerned with.

You would probably have to be specific about “radical differences of… teaching within the Catholic Church” for me to understand your point.

There have been many teachings by doctors of the church, theologians, founders of orders, etc… all within the umbrella of the church that have had radically different philosophies. Do those philosophies deny certain dogmas of the church? Probably not after they were dogmatically declared (certainly they do contradict prior to that many times), but they do disagree with each other. If you look at Jesuit teaching, for example, and compare it to Franciscan teaching, they are very very different.

Right, it doesn’t get us too far. So while I understand what you are saying, it doesn’t answer my question. But I suppose my question just reflects what you are trying to discern in the first place. I just ask it in that manner because I believe if you were to believe that one can serve and obey Jesus by devoting to the Catholic faith, then it is the most accurate way to do so. We will always have matters in the faith that make us wonder and ask questions and study. But we are called to His table along this journey. I choose the table of the Catholic faith, which feeds with both the Liturgy of His Word and Eucharist. They are both one but in different forms.

We are having a problem with this one because I would never describe myself as being devoted to a particular group within Christianity, but I would always describe myself as being devoted to God and Jesus. Because I’m devoted to God and Jesus I’m willing to follow Him where He leads, and I’m assuming other Christians devoted to God would as well.

 

[rcwitness]

We are having a problem with this one because I would never describe myself as being devoted to a particular group within Christianity, but I would always describe myself as being devoted to God and Jesus. Because I’m devoted to God and Jesus I’m willing to follow Him where He leads, and I’m assuming other Christians devoted to God would as well.

Interesting Kliska. This makes me want to start a thread about this. Do you mind if I quote you?

 

[Kliska]

Interesting Kliska. This makes me want to start a thread about this. Do you mind if I quote you?

Sure