Communion for Catholics

[mlloyd]

Here are a few:

1 Cor 11:27, “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.” i.e., they will be guilty of a sin against the Lord himself (cf. 1 Cor 8:12)

2 Cor 6:14-15, “Do not be yoked with those who are different, with unbelievers. For what partnership do righteousness and lawlessness have? Or what fellowship does light have with darkness? What accord has Christ with Beliar? Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?”

CA’s “Who Can Receive Communion” has a few more:

Hope these help!

Incidentally, most of the above scriptural citations are the same ones that members of other denominations such as the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, and others which do not practice open communion, will cite.

These are interesting, but isn’t it kind of a well-known fact that when Paul says ‘unbelievers’ he specifically means non-christians? He also compares unbelievers and believers to ‘light’ and ‘darkness’, and I know that the Catholic Church does not condemn non-catholics. In fact, it is my understanding that it allows Eastern Orthodox (those who don’t fully agree with the Catholic Church) to communion. So surely it can’t take those passages to mean those who don’t believe all the church’s teachings…

 

[mlloyd]

Which one has the pope?

Interesting question, but kind of ridiculous. Considering that is the greatest point of contention between the two. A better question (and one every bit as difficult to answer) would be: Which is right?

 

[mlloyd]

I’m grateful for all these responses, but with the exception of a few, many have not answered what I really want to know.

If one believes the Eucharist to be the true body of Jesus, why can he or she not recieve it in a Catholic Church, when did Jesus ever deny someone a sacrament when they asked to recieve it?

 

[fix]

Interesting question, but kind of ridiculous. Considering that is the greatest point of contention between the two. A better question (and one every bit as difficult to answer) would be: Which is right?

Obviously, the Catholic Church is the authority. She can be traced back to Christ.

“If, of those things taught by the Church (as divinely revealed), one holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as an infallible guide, but to his own will.” Such a one may accept other teachings of the Church, but he does so not out of divine faith, but “only by a kind of opinion in accordance with his own will.” (II II,5,3)

Pope Leo XIII, who relied much on St. Thomas, expressed the same idea in his Encyclical on the Unity of the Church:

“If it be certain that something be revealed by God, and this is not believed, then nothing whatever is believed by divine faith…He who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truths absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honor God as the supreme truth.”
*
*
rosary-center.org/ll46n4.htm

My point is if we only accept certain teachings then we are by definition the authority and not the Church. We accept what we accept not because we submit to the Church, but accept only based on our judgement. That reasoning contradicts constant Church teaching, the bible, and logic.

 

[mlloyd]

Obviously, the Catholic Church is the authority. She can be traced back to Christ.

My point is if we only accept certain teachings then we are by definition the authority and not the Church. We accept what we accept not because we submit to the Church, but accept only based on our judgement. That reasoning contradicts constant Church teaching, the bible, and logic.

Once again, Eastern Orthodox is also the Catholic Church, and traces back to the same roots that the Roman Catholic church does. What makes it’s adherents wrong and the Roman Catholics right?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Which is right? Well, the one with the Pope.

Seriously. Jesus doesn’t just make ‘idle chit-chat’ and either he was giving Peter a very specific role (and even the Orthodox will acknowledge that for centuries, the bishop of Rome was ‘primus inter pares’ or ‘first among equals’, meaning that “causa finita est, Roma locutus est”–or “the cause is decided, Rome has spoken”), or else he was just allowing for first, 1000 years or so of complete misinterpretation, another 500 year break, and the last 500 years-with who knows how many more–of fragmentation and heresy with nobody being ‘in charge’ and everybody being their own judge (something which scripture and sacred tradition frown upon).

So either Jesus is contradicting Himself in Scripture and Tradition and there is no need for ANY sort of clergy. . .or He isn’t.

Since you yourself acknowledge that you don’t know much about the Reformation, may I suggest that before you continue on your course, you give yourself the proper education and tools so that instead of arguing in circles or making false assumptions, having them disproven, going on to the next false assumption etc. you find out what the Church actually TEACHES and what the history really IS?

Here is a suggestion for two books:

“How the Reformation Happened” by Hillaire Belloc.

“English Catholic Historians and the English Reformation” by John Vidnar.

 

[mlloyd]

Which is right? Well, the one with the Pope.

Seriously. Jesus doesn’t just make ‘idle chit-chat’ and either he was giving Peter a very specific role (and even the Orthodox will acknowledge that for centuries, the bishop of Rome was ‘primus inter pares’ or ‘first among equals’, meaning that “causa finita est, Roma locutus est”–or “the cause is decided, Rome has spoken”), or else he was just allowing for first, 1000 years or so of complete misinterpretation, another 500 year break, and the last 500 years-with who knows how many more–of fragmentation and heresy with nobody being ‘in charge’ and everybody being their own judge (something which scripture and sacred tradition frown upon).

So either Jesus is contradicting Himself in Scripture and Tradition and there is no need for ANY sort of clergy. . .or He isn’t.

Since you yourself acknowledge that you don’t know much about the Reformation, may I suggest that before you continue on your course, you give yourself the proper education and tools so that instead of arguing in circles or making false assumptions, having them disproven, going on to the next false assumption etc. you find out what the Church actually TEACHES and what the history really IS?

Here is a suggestion for two books:

“How the Reformation Happened” by Hillaire Belloc.

“English Catholic Historians and the English Reformation” by John Vidnar.

Feel free to tell me where I’m wrong, telling me THAT I’m wrong and not where isn’t awfully constructive. Regardless, the Reformation has nothing to do with what I am asking: Why does the Catholic Church deny the sacraments to those who ask for them, when Jesus never did?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Ok, I see we’re getting to the heart of your real question:

You believe in the real presence. You don’t believe in some ‘things’ but because you want the real presence, you want the church to give it to you.

C.S. Lewis (himself an Anglican) describes this as tyranny.

Why? Well, he gives an excellent example in “The Great Divorce” where a woman is happy in heaven and meets her spouse, who himself incapable of finding happiness in life or death, wants to deprive her of it as well.

A man watching their confrontation and its aftermath (where the spouse has turned himself into virtually a nothing and the woman continues on to live in the joy of Christ) comments that it seems “hard” that she should be happy knowing that her spouse is not in heaven.

And a learned guide responds, “That is the thinking of tyranny, which itself will not be happy and seeks to deprive all others in order that all may be miserable. Do you not see that this is unjust? God will not allow love to be made the slave of unlove, or do an injustice to those who follow Him in order to placate those who do not.” (paraphrased).

Asking the equivalent of what would Jesus do? As though JESUS would pretty much just want to make people HAPPY, no matter what. . .ignores the gospel, which tells us that it is not ‘happiness’ or ‘gratification’ which matters, but doing the will of God. . .and that the way itself is very narrow.

If you really wish to receive Jesus, you don’t wish to receive to gratify yourself, but to do the will of God.

Otherwise, it’s more a “I believe He’s in there and I’ll take Him because I believe, whether it is right to do so, whether it is true to do so, or whether it’s God’s will for me to do so.”

Disobedience is the real fruit of the reformation even though there were (and are) many good and loving Protestant who did good and loving things. Catholics can be (as we are seeing!) just as disobedient, and far less honest about it at times.

We are all called to obedience, humility, and to serve God instead of ourselves.

 

[fix]

Feel free to tell me where I’m wrong, telling me THAT I’m wrong and not where isn’t awfully constructive. Regardless, the Reformation has nothing to do with what I am asking: Why does the Catholic Church deny the sacraments to those who ask for them, when Jesus never did?

May we can look at another way? Why should we accept your understanding of these matters over the Church?

 

[mlloyd]

May we can look at another way? Why should we accept your understanding of these matters over the Church?

You are approaching this far too defensively. I am respecting the Church’s teaching. I do not currently recieve the Eucharist, I simply do not understand why the Church denys the sacraments to those who believe in Christ and want to recieve them.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You say that Jesus “never denied the sacraments.”

Well now, that is a mighty interesting statement. From whence do you derive this claim? In fact, the Bible itself states that Jesus in many instances told people that they would not ‘receive a sign except that of Jonah’. (and that sign was himself which they would reject) That sure sounds like He is denying them to me!!

You are trying to tell me that God–who is all good–is going to be totally unjust by allowing people to (in Paul’s words) ‘eat and drink of the blood of the Lord unworthily’–something that will lead them to ‘damnation’ according to Paul–because He won’t ‘deny the sacraments?’

And of course, the real bottom line is that the CHURCH isn’t denying ANYBODY. Anyone who believes in the Real Presence is perfectly welcome at any time to become a Catholic, to live according to Christ’s teaching so that he or she is worthy of communion (this is all right there in Paul you know), and to receive.

As a Catholic, if I am not in a state of grace, I don’t receive communion until I am in a state of grace–so the fact that I believe in the Real Presence has nothing to do with whether I can receive the Real Presence!!

If you’re a Catholic you really do know this but boy, as Jesus told Paul, it is sure 'Hard for you to kick against the goad."

Again, please read the books. I’m neither your confessor nor your teacher; I do not have to spoon feed you. You have a responsibility as a Catholic to KNOW YOUR FAITH and that means YOU have to do some WORK at it. I’ve already helped by giving you some very good tools. Now you go use them.

 

[mlloyd]

Ok, I see we’re getting to the heart of your real question:

You believe in the real presence. You don’t believe in some ‘things’ but because you want the real presence, you want the church to give it to you.

C.S. Lewis (himself an Anglican) describes this as tyranny.

Why? Well, he gives an excellent example in “The Great Divorce” where a woman is happy in heaven and meets her spouse, who himself incapable of finding happiness in life or death, wants to deprive her of it as well.

A man watching their confrontation and its aftermath (where the spouse has turned himself into virtually a nothing and the woman continues on to live in the joy of Christ) comments that it seems “hard” that she should be happy knowing that her spouse is not in heaven.

And a learned guide responds, “That is the thinking of tyranny, which itself will not be happy and seeks to deprive all others in order that all may be miserable. Do you not see that this is unjust? God will not allow love to be made the slave of unlove, or do an injustice to those who follow Him in order to placate those who do not.” (paraphrased).

Asking the equivalent of what would Jesus do? As though JESUS would pretty much just want to make people HAPPY, no matter what. . .ignores the gospel, which tells us that it is not ‘happiness’ or ‘gratification’ which matters, but doing the will of God. . .and that the way itself is very narrow.

If you really wish to receive Jesus, you don’t wish to receive to gratify yourself, but to do the will of God.

Otherwise, it’s more a “I believe He’s in there and I’ll take Him because I believe, whether it is right to do so, whether it is true to do so, or whether it’s God’s will for me to do so.”

Disobedience is the real fruit of the reformation even though there were (and are) many good and loving Protestant who did good and loving things. Catholics can be (as we are seeing!) just as disobedient, and far less honest about it at times.

We are all called to obedience, humility, and to serve God instead of ourselves.

I have to say, I don’t really understand what you’re getting at.
As a long-time Catholic, I can say for certain that it is easier to keep your head down and do what others tell you. Obediance to men is easy, it’s called slavery. I know God wants me to question my own faith, not just to accept what I’m told as truth. I agree that humility, faith and obediance are all important. But if it’s only to established spiritual authorities, then I would have to think I would be one of those who stood with the Pharisees and shouted to crucify Jesus.

 

[jmcrae]

Why does the Catholic Church deny the sacraments to those who ask for them, when Jesus never did?

The Catholic Church brings everyone who wants them to the Sacraments in the same way that Jesus did - through repentance, confession, baptism, and incorporation into the visible Church.

Jesus never gave the Sacraments to anybody except the Apostles, and they never gave them to anybody that had not received Christian baptism from themselves or from their appointed-by-them Bishops and priests - that is, people who were members of their Church.

You seem to be assuming that the early Church was some kind of a free-for-all, but it wasn’t. They were very careful about who they let in, and who received the Sacraments. St. Paul went on at great length in his second letter to the Corinthians about the right use of the Sacraments - why do that, if he was promulgating an “anything goes” style of religion, or if anybody who so pleased could simply help themselves?

By the way, it seems as though you are not aware that the Pope comes to us directly from the Apostle Peter, (click the link to see for yourself) in a straight line of succession, with absolutely no breaks in time, or changes of denomination along that lineage.

 

[Contarini]

My question is pretty simple…

What is there in the Bible that suggests:

1. That you must be baptized into A SPECIFIC church such as the Roman Catholic church or Eastern Orthodox church

You’re begging the question here. The Roman and Eastern Communions do not consider themselves to be “specific” churches. Rather, each claims to be (or at least to embody uniquely) the one universal Church. You can disagree with these claims (though in that case you need to be able to defend your rival conception of the Universal Church), but those are the grounds on which you have to engage the issue. The question is first, whether you have to be a member of the Universal Church to receive Communion (which I would not deny–would you?), and second, whether either of these Communions is the Universal Church.

and
2) That you cannot partake in communion in a Catholic Church without believing all Catholic doctrine?

It all depends on what it means to be incorporated into Christ’s Body, and what it means to discern the Body of Christ worthily, as St. Paul admonishes us to do. Catholicism teaches that this involves accepting everything that God has revealed. To refuse to accept some truth which God has revealed to the Church is to reject full incorporation into Christ’s Body.

I’m not saying that this is in fact what we Protestants are doing–indeed, Catholics would generally say that most of us are not wilfully doing this. But objectively that’s what they think non-Catholics are doing, whether we realize it or not.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

why would a noncatholic want to take communion in a Catholic church if they did not believe what it was /stood for etc.?

Because to us there are certain central things that the Universal Church (which we believe is bigger than just Catholics or Orthodox or Protestants) stands for, and then there are the various teachings of particular Christian groups. To us, communion is about faith in Jesus rather than acceptance of every item on a laundry list of doctrines (I’m not saying that’s a fair way of characterizing the Catholic position–I’m trying to help you understand how many Protesetants see it).

Edwin

 

[Mickey]

I simply do not understand why the Church denys the sacraments to those who believe in Christ and want to recieve them.

Well, most non-Catholics who accept the teachings of the Catholic Church regarding the sacraments have one foot in the door so to speak. Those who accept the Real Presence but reject other doctrines and/or teachings of the Church (for example some Methodists, Anglicans, Lutherans) are usually content within their own respective Churches. However, if they find themselves in a Catholic Church and wish to receive, you will not see many Catholic priests turning them away because there is not time enough to question every communicant–it is between the individual and God.
Receiving communion in the Catholic Church also means that the people are of one body and mind as members of the one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Non-Catholic Churches which profess belief in the Real Presence, do not accept the sacrament of Holy Orders and this poses a dilemma–but that is for another thread.
But if you try to receive at an Orthodox Church as a non-Orthodox, you will most likely be turned away. They are very strict about this.

Hope this helps!

May the peace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ be with you always.

Mickey

 

[mlloyd]

You’re begging the question here. The Roman and Eastern Communions do not consider themselves to be “specific” churches. Rather, each claims to be (or at least to embody uniquely) the one universal Church. You can disagree with these claims (though in that case you need to be able to defend your rival conception of the Universal Church), but those are the grounds on which you have to engage the issue. The question is first, whether you have to be a member of the Universal Church to receive Communion (which I would not deny–would you?), and second, whether either of these Communions is the Universal Church.

It all depends on what it means to be incorporated into Christ’s Body, and what it means to discern the Body of Christ worthily, as St. Paul admonishes us to do. Catholicism teaches that this involves accepting everything that God has revealed. To refuse to accept some truth which God has revealed to the Church is to reject full incorporation into Christ’s Body.

I’m not saying that this is in fact what we Protestants are doing–indeed, Catholics would generally say that most of us are not wilfully doing this. But objectively that’s what they think non-Catholics are doing, whether we realize it or not.

Edwin

Once again, I believe in one church. I think it’s fair to call that church Catholic. But why aren’t all Christians members of this universal (Catholic) church. Obviously without a schism or reformation, Paul talked about them synonymously, but there are very few Christian Churches who would not say they trace themselves back to the time of Christ, what gives them any less of a claim to this one true church?

 

[fix]

You are approaching this far too defensively. I am respecting the Church’s teaching. I do not currently recieve the Eucharist, I simply do not understand why the Church denys the sacraments to those who believe in Christ and want to recieve them.

It is not defensive. I am trying to grasp your reasoning.

 

[Mickey]

but there are very few Christian Churches who would not say they trace themselves back to the time of Christ, what gives them any less of a claim to this one true church?

I suggest you begin a thread on Apostolic Succession.

 

[mlloyd]

It is not defensive. I am trying to grasp your reasoning.

Here’s my reasoning: In the page “Why is Communion for Catholics Only” on Catholic.com, there is this:

"OBJECTOR: Well, I believe that it is the body and blood of Christ. After all, didn’t Jesus say, “This is my body”? So why can only Catholics receive Communion? Does the Church think that I am not a Christian?

CATHOLIC: Oh, no. The Church makes no judgments about whether any person is a true Christian, not even about its own members. It knows that it cannot see into people’s hearts, so it has to have some outward way of distinguishing those who should take Communion from those who shouldn’t. The only way to do that is by whether a particular person is a member."

This appears to be kind of a cop-out answer. Almost as if the “catholic” is saying, well it only matters what you believe, but we place being a member first because we can’t tell if you believe what’s important or not. But the church doesn’t ask each person if they’re a member anyway, so regardless, everyone is on their honor as to whether or not they believe in the real presence. So what does being a member matter?