Closed communion non-Christian?

[Kliska]

I ask myself that same question every time I come on here.

When I go to church, or to RCIA, or talk to my priest, I understand why I’m signing up.

When I talk to people here, I’m amazed by how little I subscribe to your version of theology. It’s like there’s two different Catholic Churches living in alternate universes or something.

For what it’s worth, my cradle Catholic boyfriend has told me not to come here to discuss theology anymore because you are “the crazy Catholics” and not representative of most people’s beliefs. But I haven’t really found any other venues for a good theology debate …

I can only add to this from a protestant perspective, from one who has studied these things as well; I would say, for the most part, the posters here are indeed correctly representing the official teaching of the RCC at this time. When I speak with the Catholics that live around me, they have more of an understanding of your boyfriend, but that doesn’t mean they are in line with the RCC.

As others have said; get that copy of the Catechism and read through it, there are key things that if you don’t agree with, I don’t see how you could join the RCC, but if you have found a priest that will allow you in with those beliefs, then I understand he is held responsible by the RCC for teaching you in error. Now, you can assent to a teaching without understanding it properly, and still join. For example, perhaps you don’t understand why contraception should be avoided and perhaps privately don’t agree with it, but you can assent to the “authority” of the RCC and agree to not use it.

As far as the understanding of the Eucharist, this is one area I don’t seem to be able to find a perspective in the RCC that I agree with. The body of Christ is not to be divided, and one of the main issues Paul had was that believers were separating themselves into groups when partaking; there are two meanings to the phrase Body of Christ, one is the bread at the Eucharist and one is the gathering of believers, and it WAS also a full meal.

 

[PietroPaolo]

I ask myself that same question every time I come on here.

When I go to church, or to RCIA, or talk to my priest, I understand why I’m signing up.

When I talk to people here, I’m amazed by how little I subscribe to your version of theology. It’s like there’s two different Catholic Churches living in alternate universes or something.

For what it’s worth, my cradle Catholic boyfriend has told me not to come here to discuss theology anymore because you are “the crazy Catholics” and not representative of most people’s beliefs. But I haven’t really found any other venues for a good theology debate …

“It’s absurd to love Christ without the Church, to listen to Christ but not the Church” , because the “first fruit of Baptism is to make you belong to the Church” and that “membership " has three pillars : humility , faithfulness and prayer for the Church.”
– words of another “crazy Catholic” Pope Francis, from today.

Ask yourself, why is it absurd? Because (as Pope Pius XII said) “the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing” or as St. Joan of Arc said, "“About Jesus Christ and the Church, I simply know they are just one thing and we shouldn’t complicate the matter.”

I’m not sure why anyone would join the Catholic Church in order to become a dissenter Is your boyfriend pressuring you to join? The Church teaches against that as well.

 

[PietroPaolo]

As far as the understanding of the Eucharist, this is one area I don’t seem to be able to find a perspective in the RCC that I agree with. The body of Christ is not to be divided, and one of the main issues Paul had was that believers were separating themselves into groups when partaking; there are two meanings to the phrase Body of Christ, one is the bread at the Eucharist and one is the gathering of believers, and it WAS also a full meal.

I’m not sure exactly what you are getting at in bold above. It seems you could mean two things by “the body of Christ is not to be divided”

1. You’re objecting to the Eucharist b/c you think it is dividing the Body of Christ into small pieces (each host being a piece of the Body). This is not what happens. The entire Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ is fully present in every particle of the Eucharist. Someone consuming a crumb isn’t getting less Christ, than someone eating a pound. Each piece is really the entire person of Jesus, it just looks (tastes, smells, etc) like bread and wine of various sizes. Everyone who consumes the Eucharist is, therefore, partaking of “one bread” (cf. 1 Cor 10).
2. You’re objecting to the existence of Protestant communities outside the Catholic Church as “dividing the Body of Christ into small pieces”. This also isn’t true, as only the Catholic Church is the Body of Christ as Vatican 2 teaches (see Lumen Gentium paragraph 8). Protestants groups are imperfectly united to the Body of Christ, but are not “pieces” of the Body, which remains forever united (not divided). Further, blaming the Catholic Church for the decision of Catholics 500 yrs ago to form their own communities outside of communion with the Church Christ founded is akin to blaming a woman for her husband’s infidelity, divorce, and remarriage. The imperfect communion that exists between Protestants and the Catholic Church is neither the fault of modern day Protestants (who have been born outside full communion) nor of Catholics (who have labored to return Protestants to full communion since Luther.

It’s also possible you meant neither of those things, in which case you can ignore this response entirely.

I do hope you’ll join me in praying for the immediate return of all Christians to Mother Church - outside of which there is no salvation (no, that doesn’t mean all non-Catholics are damned) - in conformity with the expressed will of Christ in Matt 16:18 and Jn 17:21.

 

[Kliska]

I’m not sure exactly what you are getting at in bold above. It seems you could mean two things by “the body of Christ is not to be divided”

1. You’re objecting to the Eucharist b/c you think it is dividing the Body of Christ into small pieces (each host being a piece of the Body). This is not what happens. The entire Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ is fully present in every particle of the Eucharist. Someone consuming a crumb isn’t getting less Christ, than someone eating a pound. Each piece is really the entire person of Jesus, it just looks (tastes, smells, etc) like bread and wine of various sizes. Everyone who consumes the Eucharist is, therefore, partaking of “one bread” (cf. 1 Cor 10).

This isn’t what I meant, but it is a good point; the bread is indeed to be broken, as His body was broken and bruised for us.

1. You’re objecting to the existence of Protestant communities outside the Catholic Church as “dividing the Body of Christ into small pieces”. This also isn’t true, as only the Catholic Church is the Body of Christ as Vatican 2 teaches (see Lumen Gentium paragraph 8). Protestants groups are imperfectly united to the Body of Christ, but are not “pieces” of the Body, which remains forever united (not divided). Further, blaming the Catholic Church for the decision of Catholics 500 yrs ago to form their own communities outside of communion with the Church Christ founded is akin to blaming a woman for her husband’s infidelity, divorce, and remarriage. The imperfect communion that exists between Protestants and the Catholic Church is neither the fault of modern day Protestants (who have been born outside full communion) nor of Catholics (who have labored to return Protestants to full communion since Luther.

This is closer, but what I meant is that Paul chastised the church at Corinth because they were dividing the Body (congregation) of Christ, esp. at the agape feasts where the Eucharist was celebrated. They split into groups, some bringing their own food and not sharing with everyone, some getting there early and eating all the food, some getting drunk, etc… and they were disrespecting the Body of Christ by dividing it (the congregation of believers). From this I have a hard time with the practice of closed communion to baptized believers. In short, I admire the way the Episcopalians do it; if you are a Christian you can partake (if it is cleared by your own conscience) because to do otherwise is to split the Body of Christ which is a no-no.

I’m either a part of the Body of Christ or I’m not, there’s no half-way. By having baptized Christians under one roof and demanding that some of them abstain is to split the body of Christ. Do I understand it? Sure, but I can’t bring myself to agree with the practice.

 

[cheezey]

1. No, Anglicans and Episcopalians do not believe in the True Presence (transubstantion); only Catholics do.

Some do.

This is only partially true. Anglicans and Episcopalians very much DO believe in the true presence. They don’t believe in transubstantiation per se – the church just prefers to say the method by which the real presence occurs is a divine mystery, which doesn’t rule out the possibility of transubstantiation. Episcopalians are free to believe or not believe in that particular explanation if they wish.

Thank you.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Christ said, take this all of you, and Judas was there.

Christ did not say take this all of you, apart from all those of you who are…

Christ did not come to save the righteous, but the sinner,

 

[drforjc]

Christ said, take this all of you, and Judas was there.

Christ did not say take this all of you, apart from all those of you who are…

Christ did not come to save the righteous, but the sinner,

What does this have to do with the topic? We don’t get to look for Bible quotes that support our views, we listen to the teaching Church. The Church is the infallible interpreter of the Bible.

 

[Hopey]

I’m either a part of the Body of Christ or I’m not, there’s no half-way. By having baptized Christians under one roof and demanding that some of them abstain is to split the body of Christ. Do I understand it? Sure, but I can’t bring myself to agree with the practice.

If you are validly baptized then you are a part of the Body of Christ. You are not in communion with the Catholic church yet.

The divisions that are evident today started long ago (Speaking of those who split with the Catholic Church over one thing or another-Anglicans, etc). The Church holds the truths as Christ wanted us to carry them out. He allows people to split and splits to occur because of freedom and perfect love (His perfect love). It is painful that we are not all able to be in communion together in this life. We work on it by bringing people to the fullness of truth which is found in His Church. We have some Catholics who are not able to receive communion but still go. They are encouraged to make a spiritual communion as can anyone. This doesn’t divide our Church anymore than it does what is necessary - for the person to refrain till they have corrected whatever needs to be corrected.

You are definitely a part of the Body of Christ but awaiting full communion.
God speed you.

 

[PietroPaolo]

I’m either a part of the Body of Christ or I’m not, there’s no half-way. By having baptized Christians under one roof and demanding that some of them abstain is to split the body of Christ. Do I understand it? Sure, but I can’t bring myself to agree with the practice.

This is where your private understanding of being a member of the Body of Christ and the Church’s are very different. That difference is why you can’t understand not opening communion. The Mystical Body of Christ is the Catholic Church. All those who are in full communion with the Catholic Church are fully members of the Mystical Body of Christ. Those who are baptized but freely choose to place themselves outside of communion with the Church (which is the Body of Christ) are freely choosing to put themselves outside the Body of Christ. Baptized non-Catholics are exactly in the “half-way” position you claim is impossible. They are imperfectly united to the Body. Remember, Christ prayed that His followers may all be one as He and the Father are one. This sadly isn’t the case with Protestants.

I’d again reiterate that it’s odd to blame the Catholic Church for not opening communion with people who have separated themselves from the Church. Luther, Calvin, et al decided to leave communion with the Church. Why should their respective communities receive communion when they are choosing to continue to stay out of union? It makes no sense.

Finally, remember what Christ Himself said

"Moreover, if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that ‘in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’

And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church; but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican"

Hardly an endorsement of open communion with those “neglecting to hear the Church.”

 

[Kliska]

Hopey’s response makes the most sense to me and recognizes an important fact; again either one is part of the body or not. At the same time it is up to the RCC who they allow to receive communion at their Eucharistic celebration. Grace and Peace to you Hopey, and I agree that it is sad we are not all joined visibly.

Pietro’ your reply is missing my point; I fully understand the argument for closed communion, I just don’t accept it.

Even if I’m a member of the Body of Christ by baptism and through extraordinary vs. ordinary means, to deny me communion in that sense is splitting the Body, and that is what I see Paul having a problem with. In short, to deny someone communion it needs to be clear they are not part of the body, if you allow that I am part of it, then communion should be allowed for if not, we are not recognizing the body of Christ (the congregation).

Now, of course the other aspect of this is the differences in teaching in what precisely the bread and wine are; symbolic? literal? both? neither? And when we receive the bread and wine what exactly are we receiving. I do think it is tied to faith, and whatsoever not of faith is sin. It is up to me, then, to refrain from partaking in the RCC Eucharist because at this point, I don’t believe in the somatic presence of Jesus in the bread and wine, and hence if I were to say “amen” and consume it, it wouldn’t be of faith. But, that is on me and is my responsibility to refrain from communing with those that hold to that.

 

[PietroPaolo]

Pietro’ your reply is missing my point; I fully understand the argument for closed communion, I just don’t accept it…

But isn’t this exactly what Christ is talking about in Matthew 18? Isn’t this the exact situation He foresaw and gave us the way to resolve these issues? This time from the NIV instead of KJV (both Protestant translations)
Jesus Christ:

If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

1. We disagree with one another. A matter needs settled.
2. We have discussed it between the two of us.
3. You won’t listen to me. Nor I you.
4. Others on this thread have made the same point. (the testimony of 2 or 3 witnesses)
5. You won’t listen to them. (Nor I to the one’s on your side)
6. What do we do next?

We can either:

1. Agree to Disagree and found our own communities of like minded people (the Protestant solution)
2. Listen to Jesus and “tell it to the Church.”

But, this requires a single Church which can authoritatively decide the issue. The Church can’t be made up of both Anglicans (who say open communion is fine) and Catholics (who say it isn’t) for then taking it to the Church gets us nowhere. We both can find “parts” of the Church (defined invisibly as the communion of all baptized believers) that agree with us. In that case, Christ’s words are in vain.

But Christ’s words are never in vain (cf. Is 55:11). So taking it to “the Church” must be able to provide resolution to our argument. Therefore the Church must be able to speak authoritatively with one voice. This is true in Catholicism (with the Magisterium) it is not true with a “church of all baptized believers”. Thus, the idea that the Church is made up of all baptized believers is wrong.

In the end, it doesn’t matter whether you agree with the Church. Where in the Bible does it ever say private interpretation of Scripture judges the Church? It doesn’t. It rather says that the Church is the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (cf. 1 Tim 3:15) and that no Scripture is a matter of private interpretation (cf. 2 Peter 1:20).

I’d suggest you are looking at everything backwards. You are sitting in judgement on the Church’s teaching rather than allowing that teaching to judge you (as Christ wanted).

 

[Kliska]

But isn’t this exactly what Christ is talking about in Matthew 18? Isn’t this the exact situation He foresaw and gave us the way to resolve these issues? This time from the NIV instead of KJV (both Protestant translations)

No, I don’t believe this is the situation presented in Matthew 18.

1. We disagree with one another. A matter needs settled.
2. We have discussed it between the two of us.
3. You won’t listen to me. Nor I you.
4. Others on this thread have made the same point. (the testimony of 2 or 3 witnesses)
5. You won’t listen to them. (Nor I to the one’s on your side)
6. What do we do next?

We can either:

1. Agree to Disagree and found our own communities of like minded people (the Protestant solution)

1. Listen to Jesus and “tell it to the Church.”

To split these two up is to not understand the protestant position. Protestants don’t deny a visible church structure nor the Body of Christ as a community of believers.

But, this requires a single Church which can authoritatively decide the issue. The Church can’t be made up of both Anglicans (who say open communion is fine) and Catholics (who say it isn’t) for then taking it to the Church gets us nowhere. We both can find “parts” of the Church (defined invisibly as the communion of all baptized believers) that agree with us. In that case, Christ’s words are in vain.

They aren’t vain, they are being interpreted and applied differently.

In the end, it doesn’t matter whether you agree with the Church. Where in the Bible does it ever say private interpretation of Scripture judges the Church? It doesn’t. It rather says that the Church is the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (cf. 1 Tim 3:15) and that no Scripture is a matter of private interpretation (cf. 2 Peter 1:20).

I’d suggest you are looking at everything backwards. You are sitting in judgement on the Church’s teaching rather than allowing that teaching to judge you (as Christ wanted).

You seem to be interpreting my words as an attack, they aren’t. This thread is discussing what those of us from the outside of the RCC see when we read certain scripture and compare it with the practice of closed communion. Again, there is only one body and I’m either a part of it, or I’m not. If I am, then to split me off is to divide the body, it’s that straightforward. In essence, it seems your position (to hold water) is that I’m not part of the body in any way, shape, or form. We are not talking of organizational hierarchy, but rather the fact of the mystical body of Christ (I cannot be a part of that body and not at the same time) that can indeed be reflected in organizational hierarchy, but can also mean something deeper.

You and I aren’t going to agree, and I have no wish to argue!

God bless, grace and peace to you,
K

 

[PietroPaolo]

You and I aren’t going to agree, and I have no wish to argue!

God bless, grace and peace to you,
K

I have no wish to argue with you either, but you are avoiding my point. How do two devoted, Christ loving, Bible reading, Christians (you and I) settle this point? Has Christ left any way for us to be able to have our argument settled? Or are we left to argue with each other and part ways with a “grace and peace to you”?

Matthew 18 suggests that Christ left a way for these types of conversations to be settled without us parting ways and agreeing to disagree (the Protestant option). Whether it is an amicable parting or not is irrelevant. Christ doesn’t want us to part at all.

If Matthew 18 (and 1 Tim 3:15 and 2 Peter 1:20) in addition to verses like Lk 10:16 (He who hears you hears me) don’t point to a way for Christians to resolve these debates then I don’t know what does.

You say we have different interpretations. Fine. Which is the authentic interpretation? Yours or mine? Can we know? How?

By “telling it to the Church.”

 

[Kliska]

I have no wish to argue with you either, but you are avoiding my point. How do two devoted, Christ loving, Bible reading, Christians (you and I) settle this point? Has Christ left any way for us to be able to have our argument settled? Or are we left to argue with each other and part ways with a “grace and peace to you”?

Matthew 18 suggests that Christ left a way for these types of conversations to be settled without us parting ways and agreeing to disagree (the Protestant option). Whether it is an amicable parting or not is irrelevant. Christ doesn’t want us to part at all.

If Matthew 18 (and 1 Tim 3:15 and 2 Peter 1:20) in addition to verses like Lk 10:16 (He who hears you hears me) don’t point to a way for Christians to resolve these debates then I don’t know what does.

You say we have different interpretations. Fine. Which is the authentic interpretation? Yours or mine? Can we know? How?

By “telling it to the Church.”

This is a RCC forum, and is “your” turf and am rightfully limited in how I can reply, esp. since this thread was started by a non-RCC seeking info about RCC teaching, not how I see it. I respect that, and understand your POV, I just disagree with it. Again, grace and peace to you,
K

 

[PietroPaolo]

This is a RCC forum, and is “your” turf and am rightfully limited in how I can reply, esp. since this thread was started by a non-RCC seeking info about RCC teaching, not how I see it. I respect that, and understand your POV, I just disagree with it. Again, grace and peace to you,
K

PM me if the forum in handicapping you. Or get in touch with me via my blog - www.adoroergosum.blogspot.com. I don’t mean to play on my turf.

If not, peace to you to.

 

[CatholicRaven]

It should be pointed out that Catholics who are not in a state of grace also should not be receiving the Eucharist. It’s not just non-Catholics, but anyone who is not in full communion with the Church.

The Church is charged with shepherding the people. This isn’t about trying to keep people away from Jesus; it’s about trying to keep people from bringing harm upon themselves and especially about not treating Jesus’ Body and Blood as common, ordinary food. It’s about respect for both Jesus and for people’s souls–Catholic or not.

The Church wants people to fully understand the choice they would be making–what they are doing when they receive, what they are agreeing to when they receive, what (or actually Whom) this “bread” really is–before they are offered such a choice. It is out of respect for Jesus’ Body and Blood that the Church does not offer the Eucharist to everyone. And honestly, if your feelings are hurt because we don’t want to offend God… well, I am truly sorry, but I’m still not going to offend God just to make you feel better.

But this is very difficult to understand for those who don’t believe Communion is all that it is. Some think the bread is just bread and/or the wine is just a symbol. Some think that “communion” just means we all believe in Jesus as the Son of God, or that it’s a shared meal to celebrate the things we have in common. Others think sin doesn’t need to be washed away, that it’s somehow not disrespectful to put Jesus in a filthy home with no attempt to clean it first. Still others think they somehow have a “right” to receive, that they “deserve” it as a sign that they are good and holy, or acceptable, or just as valued or important or loved by God as the next person–and that denying them the Eucharist is a way of somehow saying they aren’t “good enough.” But none of those are right. And if Communion really is what the Church says it is, then the only respectful, reverent, and proper thing to do… is what the Church is already doing. We don’t always get it right in practice, but the teaching is true.

Here’s the thing: Mass is not about YOU or ME. It’s not about “getting something” that you “deserve” because the person next to you got it. It’s not a competition about who is “holy enough” and who isn’t. And it’s not about fellowship, at least not in the way it’s understood by many.

It’s about God. It’s about a relationship with Him through His Church. It’s about worshipping Him and humbly offering yourself to Him as you receive Him–which also means trying to keep that self clean and free of sin (i.e., through Reconciliation, aka Confession), because sin is that which offends Him. It’s also about fully trusting and accepting the authority He has given to the Catholic Church.

Do you really understand that? Do you really accept that?

If not, then the Church is only insisting that you be honest, because to receive would be a very serious lie and very damaging to you and to others.

If yes, and if you truly want to receive the Eucharist, think about this: perhaps God is calling you to consider entering the Catholic Church.

Kind of scary, huh?

 

[SMHW]

Hello!

So I’m in RCIA and I have a question (actually, 2) about communion. First, I’m curious how you would respond to the idea that having a closed communion is – in essence – an un-Christian policy.

In my RCIA packet handout on the Eucharist, it goes on at length about how Jesus was willing to eat with anyone – Jews, Gentiles, sinners, tax collectors, whoever – and that this “table fellowship” was essential to his ministry and the basis of the Eucharist.

Presumably, not everyone Jesus ate with already believed his ministry – instead, eating with them was a chance to share it and win them over. Is it not somewhat hypocritical then if the church denies communion to someone based on religious differences, etc.? Aren’t they basically saying that person doesn’t deserve to receive Jesus at that moment, even though Jesus himself would have welcomed them?

Secondly (and sorry this is long) I don’t understand why Anglicans/Episcopalians can’t take communion at a Catholic church.

You’ve already got some good answers.

As others have mentioned, the Eucharist can not be put in the same category as mere table ministry.

As far as unity of belief between Christians-- yes, some Anglicans, Episcopalians, and Lutherans believe in the Real Presence. But however important, that is just one belief. There is a belief by some that sharing the Eucharist creates unity between Christians. Well yes. But this is only true if we are willing to submit fully to the authority of Christ and his Church. Those who are imperfectly joined to the Catholic Church cannot fully submit to Christ. Likewise for those who are are guilty of grave sin.

I would argue that the Church is protecting us when she tells us that those in a state of sin and those who are not fully joined with with the Catholic Church must refrain from the Eucharist.

 

[ccmcmg]

Yes, but there is only one universal church, and Catholics and Protestants are both part of it. So I could see limiting it to Christians. But we’re all Christians regardless of denomination.

I’m a Catholic, which are the first Christians. Protestants are also Christians, but left the body of the Church Christ founded. That was their choice, and still is.

I’d also like to note, QuasiCatholic, that perhaps your view of Catholicism may be clouded, and am wondering if you are hearing what you want to hear, here or from the priest, or maybe misunderstanding. As others have said, the quotes here are directly from the 100% teachings of the Catholic Church. What you are being given here is black and white.

As far as the understanding of the Eucharist, this is one area I don’t seem to be able to find a perspective in the RCC that I agree with. The body of Christ is not to be divided, and one of the main issues Paul had was that believers were separating themselves into groups when partaking; there are two meanings to the phrase Body of Christ, one is the bread at the Eucharist and one is the gathering of believers, and it WAS also a full meal.

But Catholics did not divide the Church; those that broke off from the Church (Protestants) did. If you do not wish to be divided, please return to the ‘Mother Church’.

I’m either a part of the Body of Christ or I’m not, there’s no half-way. By having baptized Christians under one roof and demanding that some of them abstain is to split the body of Christ. Do I understand it? Sure, but I can’t bring myself to agree with the practice.

Apparently, there is some ‘half-way’, as we are all not yet in the Catholic Church.

Now, of course the other aspect of this is the differences in teaching in what precisely the bread and wine are; symbolic? literal? both? neither? And when we receive the bread and wine what exactly are we receiving. I do think it is tied to faith, and whatsoever not of faith is sin. It is up to me, then, to refrain from partaking in the RCC Eucharist because at this point, I don’t believe in the somatic presence of Jesus in the bread and wine, and hence if I were to say “amen” and consume it, it wouldn’t be of faith. But, that is on me and is my responsibility to refrain from communing with those that hold to that.

It is also our responsibility, as Catholics, to protect our Sacraments, especially the Eucharist. Because we do believe it is the Body and Blood of Christ. Not a representation; not a symbol. THE!

I think it is human nature to want what we cannot have. But why? I personally have no desire to have the Protestant version of their communion; but it sure seems to be a problem not being able to receive in the Catholic Church. Again, why? You would be lying to yourself, as well as others, if you receive the Body of Christ and not agree with the Sacrament. If I don’t believe in something, why would I want to be a part of it, and claim to believe it?

By not allowing those not in communion through the Church (whether by mortal sin or through not belonging to the Church) to receive the Eucharist, we are actually showing even MORE reverence and worship to the Body of Christ. Now, people aren’t going to give you a quiz, or search your soul for sins, before getting in line for the Eucharist. But we must let people know the rules of the Faith.

I remain,
Crazy about Catholicism

 

[BernadetteM]

Okay, so who says that closed communion is un-Christian?

Let me offer you an article of mine about What Was Authentic Early Christian Worship Really Like?

And I would also suggest that both you and your boyfriend take the time to study the following papal encyclical. Ecclesia de Eucharistia (Note especially sections 43-46)

These should clear up some of your problems.

Great post on St. Justin Martyr’s explanation of the Early Churches celebration and meaning of the Eucharist.

He used the word “transmutation” which is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches. I do wonder how Anglicans (except Anglo Catholics) and Lutherans reject that Christ in truly present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, not just taken by faith or a spiritual taking of the elements. It is very clear. From reading what many Anglicans and Lutherans teach, it is to them the Real Presence, however, not truly His flesh or Blood, more just by faith or in a spiritual manner. Of course there are exceptions I believe within these denominations by individuals as to what the Real Presence means.

Also as a former Anglican, years ago no one was allowed to receive Holy Communion unless they had been Confirmed and were a member of the Anglican Communion.

Also my friend is Lutheran and no one is allowed to receive unless they belong to the same Synod and the Pastor in some churches ask that a newcomer identify themselves before receiving.

God Bless

Bernadette

 

[Kliska]

I’m a Catholic, which are the first Christians.

The first Christians were not even called “Catholic” they were followers of the The Way, and the bulk of them were Jewish converts whose gatherings did not, and could not look or sound like the current Mass. I understand that is the belief that the RCC holds; all the first believers were Catholic. But it isn’t an argument that is going to be accepted amongst most Protestants… or Orthodox either.

Protestants are also Christians, but left the body of the Church Christ founded. That was their choice, and still is.

Again, this begs the question; we don’t believe we have left the gathering at all. As you point out, the RCC believes it is protecting the Eucharist, we protestants tend to believe we are protecting the gospel as originally handed to the Apostles. Again, that is why you are Catholic and I’m a Protestant, if we agreed with each other, we wouldn’t have different labels for ourselves.

The RCC doesn’t keep me from partaking, I could walk into any Parish and partake. What keeps me from partaking is my own beliefs about what the Eucharist is and is not, plus just outright respect for others’ beliefs. What I am attempting to do in this thread is to show why some of us do have issues with closed communion; not just in a RCC, but in any denomination. Paul was furious at dividing the body of Christ at the Lord’s Supper, that was one of the main reasons for his rant, and I agree with him, for to split us true believers up into groups is to divide the Body.