Perhaps in some cases, but I think the more common reasons would be (i) ignorance of the 'Catholic position on the Eucharist or (2) belief that all baptised Christians (which would include Protestants) should be able to participate in the Lord’s Supper.Possibly just desecration, or because, they wanted to “taste” what it was like. Did it taste like “body and blood.” possibly, so show disreprect and/or because no one is going to tell them what to. Many reasons, but none because they are catholic. If they were even considering catholicism they would have begun with respecting the beliefs of the faith they are interested in.
Grace Angel.
I don’t know of any non-catholic christians who are unaware that Communion is intended only for Catholics, but nearly all of them do believe that Communion should be offered to all, or at least those who believe the same as the Catholics who recieve it. I don’t think any of them took the Eucharist knowing this.Perhaps in some cases, but I think the more common reasons would be (i) ignorance of the 'Catholic position on the Eucharist or (2) belief that all baptised Christians (which would include Protestants) should be able to participate in the Lord’s Supper.
So these people have selective belief. They should all participate at the Lord’s table, but not listen to the Vicar of Christ and his teachings or the teachings of the Church and the Magisterium, and the Dogmas of the catholic faith.Perhaps in some cases, but I think the more common reasons would be (i) ignorance of the 'Catholic position on the Eucharist or (2) belief that all baptised Christians (which would include Protestants) should be able to participate in the Lord’s Supper.
Well show where in the Bible Jesus instituted the sacraments without qualification. Why does the Church? Well why do you need to receive the communion from the Catholic Church, with its specific beliefs, why not go and receive the bread at an Assemblies of God service, if its all the same, why the Catholic Church. Or is this “Because you can”I don’t know of any non-catholic christians who are unaware that Communion is intended only for Catholics, but nearly all of them do believe that Communion should be offered to all, or at least those who believe the same as the Catholics who recieve it. I don’t think any of them took the Eucharist knowing this.
I guess to me it seems analogous to pork barrel legislation. Like Catholics are saying
'If you believe the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Christ, and if you want to recieve all these sacraments, then you can recieve them here… provided you profess to believe this additional doctrine"
And again, in the bible, Jesus instituted all the sacraments without qualification, why does the Church?
I hate to sound like a broken record but the Eastern Orthodox Catholics are some who you may consider ‘listen to those who tickle their ears’ as they do not believe the Pope to be the infallible ‘Vicar of Christ’ yet they are still allowed to recieve communion.So these people have selective belief. They should all participate at the Lord’s table, but not listen to the Vicar of Christ and his teachings or the teachings of the Church and the Magisterium, and the Dogmas of the catholic faith.
Who was it said that in last days, people will listen to those who tickle their ears.
Well these would listen to those who tickle their ears and receive communion of the Catholic church. I guess we live in those times.
Grace Angel.
I claim that Jesus never did, therefore to meet your challenge I would quote the Bible… that’s kind of ridiculous. In every instance in which Jesus ‘anoints the sick’ he never asks if they accept his teachings, he only states that their faith saves them. It is their belief in the power of Jesus (God) alone that allows this rite to be performed…Well show where in the Bible Jesus instituted the sacraments without qualification. Why does the Church? Well why do you need to receive the communion from the Catholic Church, with its specific beliefs, why not go and receive the bread at an Assemblies of God service, if its all the same, why the Catholic Church. Or is this “Because you can”
Grace Angel.
The receiving of Jesus in your heart without partaking of the species, relates to spiritual communion. For a Ctholic we believe that if we cannot be present to receive communion we can desire to receive it spiritually.I hate to sound like a broken record but the Eastern Orthodox Catholics are some who you may consider ‘listen to those who tickle their ears’ as they do not believe the Pope to be the infallible ‘Vicar of Christ’ yet they are still allowed to recieve communion.
Bill Clinton, who was neither a Roman nor an Eastern Orthodox Catholic recieved communion, the only quibble was whether or not he was actually in a state of serious sin due to the whole Monica Lewinski deal.
I claim that Jesus never did, therefore to meet your challenge I would quote the Bible… that’s kind of ridiculous. In every instance in which Jesus ‘anoints the sick’ he never asks if they accept his teachings, he only states that their faith saves them. It is their belief in the power of Jesus (God) alone that allows this rite to be performed…
I do believe that I do not HAVE to go to Catholic Church to recieve the true body and blood of Christ. I believe this because
My concern stems from the fact that on the Catholic.com website it says non-catholic christians cannot recieve communion because regrettably a ‘union does not exist’ when I think a union exists that is ignored.
- It is not the Priest that has the power to consecrate, it belongs solely to God
- It is my understanding that the Church teaches you can “recieve” Jesus without actually eating the bread or drinking the wine. This was a Priest’s response to a Catholic who got sick everytime he took the bread at mass… (Feel free to correct me on that one. I know Priests can err like any human) Therefore, I do not have to eat any actual bread to recieve Christ, I only need to accept Him into my heart.
This verse seemed convincing, but in context I think that it can just as easily (if not moreso) be used to prove the opposite, that the Catholic Church is wrong in now allowing some to Communion.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.”
This first suggests that the word ‘worthy’ is taken out of context. This does not apply to teachings, but rather the abuse of communion. Among these abuses were over indulging in bread and wine (i.e. treating it like a meal), which really wouldn’t be relevant in our discussion since I am saying that I do believe the Eucharist to be sacred. Second, Paul essentially condemns there being division among them and explains in verse 19 that these differences arise from some seeking to show that THEY are the ones with God’s approval.17In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. 20When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, 21for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk.
No no no. Bill Clinton certainly should not have been allowed to receive communion, and NOT just on account of Monica Lewinsky. He isn’t Catholic or Orthodox to my knowledge, and that fact has always been a problem. Just like John Kerry (who openly supports abortion legislation but is Catholic) also causes problems for those Catholics who are serious about their beliefs when he receives.I hate to sound like a broken record but the Eastern Orthodox Catholics are some who you may consider ‘listen to those who tickle their ears’ as they do not believe the Pope to be the infallible ‘Vicar of Christ’ yet they are still allowed to recieve communion.
Bill Clinton, who was neither a Roman nor an Eastern Orthodox Catholic recieved communion, the only quibble was whether or not he was actually in a state of serious sin due to the whole Monica Lewinski deal.
Think: The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches who share the teaching on the Eucharist were around long before the Protestant Reformation. Neither the Orthodox nor the Latin Church accept the idea of “open” Communion. When the Protestants created their own doctrine, they left the Church. They created their own authority. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches have their authority in the authentic succession they received from Christ himself through the apostles and their successors.This verse seemed convincing, but in context I think that it can just as easily (if not moreso) be used to prove the opposite, that the Catholic Church is wrong in now allowing some to Communion. . . .
Does the Catholic Church not promote such division, seeking to show itself as having God’s approval and no one else?
I think this is almost exactly what Paul talks about when he says “one remains hungry”, as the Church indeed thinks that these people are left hungry by denying them the sacrament.
From mlloyd: I don’t know of any non-catholic christians who are unaware that Communion is intended only for Catholics, but nearly all of them do believe that Communion should be offered to all, or at least those who believe the same as the Catholics who recieve it. I don’t think any of them took the Eucharist knowing this.
I guess to me it seems analogous to pork barrel legislation. Like Catholics are saying
'If you believe the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Christ, and if you want to recieve all these sacraments, then you can recieve them here… provided you profess to believe this additional doctrine"
ML, I am a cradle Catholic. Except for a period during college, I’ve gone to Mass virtually without fail my entire life. And except for certain periods when I was having “dry periods”, I’ve had a good prayer and spiritual life. However, for five years, I was denied the ability to recieve the Eucharist because I had fallen in love with a previously married woman and married her without the blessing of the Church.And again, in the bible, Jesus instituted all the sacraments without qualification, why does the Church?
I am trying to follow your logic. If I understand your position it seems you think that because a priest does not quiz every formal member of the CC at reception of communion it follows any non Catholic Christian should be allowed, under ordinary circumstances, to recieve as well as both instances are equivalent?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?
Close. I’m saying that if the Catholic Church’s reason for not allowing Non-Christians to Communion is because it can’t “quiz” each individual person about what they believe, it’s a poor one. Because just as easily as the Church can’t tell whether someone has the correct beliefs or not, it cannot tell who is a member.I am trying to follow your logic. If I understand your position it seems you think that because a priest does not quiz every formal member of the CC at reception of communion it follows any non Catholic Christian should be allowed, under ordinary circumstances, to recieve as well as both instances are equivalent?
You are saying being a formal member is no different than being a member in some imperfect way? Therefore, there ought to be no restrictions on reception?
Your self-importance is further evidenced by your belief that the restriction on not participating in Catholic Communion applies only to non-Catholics. It applies to all who have made choices to willingly separate themselves from the Catholic Church, even cradle practicing Catholics who find themselves living in conflict with Catholic Teaching.
I have no idea why you assume I dis-respect the Church’s teachings and recieve the Eucharist. I do not. And once again, because any true Catholic believes that men have no power of their own, I know that I can recieve the true body and blood of Christ even if it wasn’t consecrated by a Priest. It is God’s power and His power alone that does this, and I have faith in Him.Your claim that I bolded above is not only blatantly unscriptural but directly contrary to the Bible. While YOU have a novel personal interpretation of 1 Corinthians, Chapter 11, you also fail to consider that you are not to be the judge of worthiness but the Lord (and His designated temporal emmissaries in the Church).
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Protestantism was the result of an ex-communication was it not? I was taught (in Catholic school) that Luther himself did not leave the Catholic church, nor did he desire to. Saying protestants “left” the church is a little unfair.Think: The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches who share the teaching on the Eucharist were around long before the Protestant Reformation. Neither the Orthodox nor the Latin Church accept the idea of “open” Communion. When the Protestants created their own doctrine, they left the Church. They created their own authority. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches have their authority in the authentic succession they received from Christ himself through the apostles and their successors.
It is not the Catholic Church that “promotes” division. Anybody is welcome to come into the fold. The door is open. The line for RCIA forms on the left.
As for open communion, this is a novelty even among Protestants. A hundred years ago, no Lutheran, Methodist, Episcopalian, Congregationalist, Presbyterian, etc. could partake of the Lord’s supper in a church of any other denomination.
This semblance of “unity” is “nice” but it where unity does not truly exist, pretending that it does is a form of lying. Of course, when you believe that the Lord’s supper is just a symbol of unity, and not the cause of it, then inter-communion can be justified.
The Church expects people to respect its rules when in its house. And it expects Catholics to be respectful when in other’s house. Nothing can stop you from receiving unworthily except your conscience.From mlloyd:Close. I’m saying that if the Catholic Church’s reason for not allowing Non-Christians to Communion is because it can’t “quiz” each individual person about what they believe, it’s a poor one. Because just as easily as the Church can’t tell whether someone has the correct beliefs or not, it cannot tell who is a member.
I suppose if you are magisterium of one as you seem to profess, you can consecrate it in your church of one. Its validity will be just as valid as your church of one.From mlloyd: I have no idea why you assume I dis-respect the Church’s teachings and recieve the Eucharist. I do not. And once again, because any true Catholic believes that men have no power of their own, I know that I can recieve the true body and blood of Christ even if it wasn’t consecrated by a Priest. It is God’s power and His power alone that does this, and I have faith in Him.
He is talking about the worthiness of a person. In its Christ-commissioned role as Shepherd and steward of the Deposit of Faith and Teaching, illuminates to us, through the Holy Spirit, some conditions of worthiness. But of course, if you subscribe to a magisterium of one, you take that discernment upon your self despite the fact that Paul tells us we are not to be the judges of ourselves.From mlloyd: I am not saying what ‘worthiness is’. I’m saying that in the context of Paul’s writing it is pretty clear what he is referring to, and it shows no hint of a reference to doctrine.
The public excommunication of Luther was the public declaration of what Luther did to himself. A sinner doesn’t sin with the express intention of going to Hell, even if that is the logical consequence. So it is with teaching heresy.From mlloyd: Correct me if I’m wrong, but Protestantism was the result of an ex-communication was it not? I was taught (in Catholic school) that Luther himself did not leave the Catholic church, nor did he desire to. Saying protestants “left” the church is a little unfair.
If one wants to distort the truth by playing word games to justify their “worthiness”, I suppose in a magisterium of one this is logical. But the Church teaches that this unity is not sufficient for recieving the other sacraments. It is the rules of the house. Accept them in obedience and submission or remain in your magisterium of one church where you have to submit only to what you deem proper.From mlloyd: Even the Catholic Church teaches that unity exists, in a trinitarian baptism. It says it is not a ‘perfect’ unity, but to say there is unity is certainly not lying.
I think your assumption is incorrect if I am understanding your position. The guidelines are based in Her understanding of theology, which is different than your understanding. What I cannot figure out is why you would expect Her to teach as you do when your position starts from an entirely different premise than Hers?Close. I’m saying that if the Catholic Church’s reason for not allowing Non-Christians to Communion is because it can’t “quiz” each individual person about what they believe, it’s a poor one. Because just as easily as the Church can’t tell whether someone has the correct beliefs or not, it cannot tell who is a member.
I think you misunderstand my purposes here. I am not demanding that the Catholic Church change, if I wanted to do that I certainly would not be doing it in a forum. I am not saying I am right and the Catholic Church is wrong. I am simply asking for justification for the Catholic Church not allowing non-Catholics to participate in Communion.The Church expects people to respect its rules when in its house. And it expects Catholics to be respectful when in other’s house. Nothing can stop you from receiving unworthily except your conscience.
I suppose if you are magisterium of one as you seem to profess, you can consecrate it in your church of one. Its validity will be just as valid as your church of one.
He is talking about the worthiness of a person. In its Christ-commissioned role as Shepherd and steward of the Deposit of Faith and Teaching, illuminates to us, through the Holy Spirit, some conditions of worthiness. But of course, if you subscribe to a magisterium of one, you take that discernment upon your self despite the fact that Paul tells us we are not to be the judges of ourselves.
The public excommunication of Luther was the public declaration of what Luther did to himself. A sinner doesn’t sin with the express intention of going to Hell, even if that is the logical consequence. So it is with teaching heresy.
If one wants to distort the truth by playing word games to justify their “worthiness”, I suppose in a magisterium of one this is logical. But the Church teaches that this unity is not sufficient for recieving the other sacraments. It is the rules of the house. Accept them in obedience and submission or remain in your magisterium of one church where you have to submit only to what you deem proper.
The Nicene Creed (which is said during Mass) states:In that case, I’ll take my own thread blatantly off topic…
Was I wrong in thinking that non-catholic Christians who want to become catholic must be baptized again? If this is correct… why?
ONE baptism for the forgiveness of the sins.We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Source: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P13.HTM
catholic.com:In the eyes of the Catholic Church, any Baptism that uses water and the invocation of the Holy Trinity as well as the intention to do what the Church does, that is “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” is a valid sacrament. So Catholicism regards Episcopalian, Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, United Church of Christ, Assembly of God, Church of the Nazarene, Church of the Brethren, Amish, Church of God, Disciples of Christ, Adventist, and Evangelical Baptisms to be valid. And if a follower of one of these Christian churches want to become Catholic, he (or she) doesn’t have to be re-baptized.
So if they have a valid baptism, a baptism with water and the words “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” then NO they do not need to be re-baptized.For a sacrament to be valid, three things have to be present: the correct form, the correct matter, and the correct intention. With baptism, the correct intention is to do what the Church does, the correct matter is water, and the correct form is the baptizing “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19). source: catholic.com/library/Trinitarian_Baptism.asp
Any ‘true Catholic’ will note that the Catechism of the Catholic Church says this:And once again, because any true Catholic believes that men have no power of their own, I know that I can recieve the true body and blood of Christ even if it wasn’t consecrated by a Priest