Communion for Catholics

[Mommyof02green]

So far I’ve gotten the verse in 1 Corinthians 11 as a response. I think the word ‘worthiness’ is taken out of context by the Catholics who have cited it so far. If you have some proof or evidence that when Paul says worthiness here he is talking about accordance with that Church’s doctrine, feel free to share it. Otherwise I’d rather you don’t bring condescending comments that provide no help for me or the rest of the readers.

Catholicism for Dummies page 149 and 150:

The Church asks that the following people not take communion:
Non-Catholics
Catholics in an invalid marriage
Catholics who’ve have broken the one-hour fast (unless they’re on medication, sick, elderly, or in the hospital)
Catholics that haven’t made their first confession and first communion

If a Catholics is divorced and remarried outside the Church or not in the state of grace, because he (or she) didn’t go to confession to have a mortal sin absolved, then he (or she) shouldn’t take Holy Communion.

Catholicism insists on a prior union of the person with the Church before the person is able to enjoy the fruit of that union—Holy Communion. So Catholics see Communion as the result of unity.

Also I wanted to take the time to point out that some Lutherans (namely LCMS) believe regarding communion:

[quote=lcms.org]Q. What does the Missouri Synod teach regarding the sacrament of communion and who can partake in this sacrament?

A. The LCMS believes that Scripture teaches that the Lord’s Supper is a precious gift of God in which Christ gives us His true body and blood (in a miraculous way), together with the bread and wine, for the forgiveness of our sins and the strengthening of our faith. Because the Bible teaches that this sacrament may also be spiritually harmful if misused, and that participation in the Lord’s Supper is an act of confession of faith, the LCMS ordinarily communes only those who have been instructed in the teachings of our church and who have confessed their faith in these teachings. Source: lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2620
[/quote]

The LCMS document Theology and Practice of the Lord’s Supper said this:
LCMS Theology and Practice of the Lord’s Supper page 21:

Since fellowship at the Lord’s Table is also confession of a common faith, it would not be truthful for those who affirm the Real Presence and those who deny it to join one another. Source: lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/Theol_lord_supper1.pdf

LCMS Theology and Practice of the Lord’s Supper page 22:

Close Communion seeks to prevent a profession of confessional unity in faith were there is, in fact, disunity and disagreement. It would be neither faithful to the Scriptural requirements for admission to Holy Communion (1 Cor. 11:27 ff.; cf 10:16-17) nor helpful to fallen humanity of the Christian church welcomes to its alter those who deny or question clear Scriptural teachings

So it is not that a Lutheran congregation wants to bar fellow-saints from the blessings of the Eucharist when they practice Close Communion. It is not that they want to be separatistic or set themselves up as judges of other men. The practice of Close Communion is prompted by love and is born of the heartfelt conviction, on the basis of Scripture alone, that we must follow Christ’s command. This means refusing the Lord’s Supper to those whose belief is not known to us. It is not showing love to allow a person to do something harmful, even though he may think it is for his own good. It also means if they are members of a Christian body which departs from the full truth of Scripture in some of its doctrines, then we must not minimize the evil of this false teaching by opening our fellowship to any and all Christians who err in the faith. Source: lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/Theol_lord_supper1.pdf

Interesting:
Catholicism requires union with them in order to receive at their altar.

LCMS requires union with them in order to receive at their altar.

Also interesting to note LCMS site 1 cor 11 as the scripture to support their “close” communion.

 

[jmcrae]

Both of these come as kind of a surprise to me… I thought you did have to be baptized into the Catholic church, at least the Eastern Orthodox church… but you’re saying for example a non-denomonational baptism is considered valid in the Catholic Church?

All Trinitarian (Father Son and Holy Ghost) baptisms are considered valid in the Catholic Church.

And my friend told me that Baptist was a Christian religion in which you had to be baptized in their church for it to be valid, is this incorrect?

For Baptists, baptism is a symbolic ordinance that can be repeated any time you want. They rebaptize every time you change congregations, and every time you want to repent of your sins.

For Catholics, Baptism is considered an Initiation Sacrament and can only be done once. That’s why, if in doubt, we give “conditional baptisms” (if you have never been baptized before, then I baptize you … etc.) but we don’t rebaptize people who have been validly baptized in other denominations.

In Edwin’s case, the tests would be, did the pastor sincerely believe he was doing what the Church does, and did he use the words "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost (or Holy Spirit). If either of those were not provable, he would receive a conditional baptism if he were to become a Catholic. A certificate of baptism is all that’s needed to provide proof, since the certificate will have the words used in the ceremony on it, and will indicate either "Edwin was baptized into Christ’s Church on such a date,’ or “Edwin was symbolically washed of his sins on such a date” and from there it would be easy to tell what to do next.

 

[jmcrae]

That is not my understanding of current Catholic practice. My understanding is that sufficient intent is generally defined today simply as intent to baptize–to perform the Christian rite of initiation (rather than, say, to simulate baptism in a play), regardless of the operative theology of baptism. If I’m wrong, I’d like to see documentation. If I were ever to become Catholic, this would be a matter of practical relevance for me (since I was baptized by a Baptist pastor).

Edwin

If he intended to initiate you into Christ’s Church, and used the Trinitarian formula, that would most likely be sufficient. You would want to show the certificate to your parish priest when the time comes, just to make certain.

Worst case scenario, you would receive a conditional Baptism after attending a conditional First Confession.

By “purely symbolic” I’m thinking of entities that rebaptize their members every time they have a traumatic event in their lives and every time they backslide.

I have corresponded with individuals who get baptized almost as frequently as I receive Holy Communion (2-3 times a week) - which indicates to me that they have a totally different understanding of Baptism than we have in the Catholic Church.

 

[Mommyof02green]

There was a point to my last post. However I feel that I may of failed to show it.
So I wanted to also post this; hopefully it will show the point more clearly.
Catholicism for Dummies page 106-107:

When believers receive Holy Communion, they’re intimately united with their Lord and Savoir, Jesus Christ. However, Communion isn’t limited to the communicant (the one receiving Holy Communion) and Jesus Christ. By taking Holy Communion, the Catholic is also expressing her (or his) union with all Catholics around the world and at all times who believe the same doctrines, obey the same laws, and follow the same leaders…In other words, only those who are untied in the same beliefs—the seven sacraments, the authority of the pope and teachings in the Catechism of the Catholic Church—are allowed to receive Holy Communion

In short, Catholicism believes that when one receives communion they are not only receiving Christ, but also they are doing a confession of faith. When receiving communion you also are confessing to believe what the Catholic Church teaches. That is why the Church said that only those that are Catholic in good standing may receive Holy Communion.

Now line that up with what LCMS believes regarding communion:
lcms.org:

The LCMS believes that Scripture teaches that the Lord’s Supper is a precious gift of God in which Christ gives us His true body and blood (in a miraculous way), together with the bread and wine, for the forgiveness of our sins and the strengthening of our faith. Because the Bible teaches that this sacrament may also be spiritually harmful if misused, and that participation in the Lord’s Supper is an act of confession of faith, the LCMS ordinarily communes only those who have been instructed in the teachings of our church and who have confessed their faith in these teachings. Source: lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2620

In short, LCMS believes that when one receives communion they are not only receiving Christ, but they are also doing a confession of faith. The LCMS states “Close Communion seeks to prevent a profession of confessional unity in faith were there is, in fact, disunity and disagreement”. (see last post) Therefore that is why LCMS ordinarily commune ONLY those that have been instructed in the teachings of their church and who have confessed to have faith in the LCMS teachings.

Sounds, a lot like the Catholic Church believes doesn’t…. I wonder why so many want to pick on Catholics for denying communion to those that are Non-Catholic; when LCMS does basically the same thing for nearly the same reasons.

Also Orthodox Christians nearly have the same beliefs also….

So the question maybe, why do some Christian churches see communion as a “confession of common (same) faith” and others don’t?

 

[mlloyd]

There was a point to my last post. However I feel that I may of failed to show it.
So I wanted to also post this; hopefully it will show the point more clearly.

In short, Catholicism believes that when one receives communion they are not only receiving Christ, but also they are doing a confession of faith. When receiving communion you also are confessing to believe what the Catholic Church teaches. That is why the Church said that only those that are Catholic in good standing may receive Holy Communion.

Now line that up with what LCMS believes regarding communion:

In short, LCMS believes that when one receives communion they are not only receiving Christ, but they are also doing a confession of faith. The LCMS states “Close Communion seeks to prevent a profession of confessional unity in faith were there is, in fact, disunity and disagreement”. (see last post) Therefore that is why LCMS ordinarily commune ONLY those that have been instructed in the teachings of their church and who have confessed to have faith in the LCMS teachings.

Sounds, a lot like the Catholic Church believes doesn’t…. I wonder why so many want to pick on Catholics for denying communion to those that are Non-Catholic; when LCMS does basically the same thing for nearly the same reasons.

Also Orthodox Christians nearly have the same beliefs also….

So the question maybe, why do some Christian churches see communion as a “confession of common (same) faith” and others don’t?

Thanks, that was very helpful.

Of course Lutheranism is similar to Catholicism, Luther himself was a Catholic and originally had no intention to leave the Church.

My understanding, now, is this.
The Catholic Church (among others) only allows members to Communion because it holds Communion to be more than a union between Christ and Man, but a union between Catholic believers as well. This makes complete sense to me.

I suppose the next question, then, would be:
Why do these churches believe we should not be able to have communion with Christ without at the same time professing belief in a specified doctrine?

 

[jmcrae]

I suppose the next question, then, would be:
Why do these churches believe we should not be able to have communion with Christ without at the same time professing belief in a specified doctrine?

A person might ask, “How can you be in communion with Christ without believing His teachings?”

We believe that our Church is the body of Christ, and that its teachings come from Christ through the Apostles. From our point of view, to not believe the teachings of the Church is to not believe Christ.

If we don’t believe Christ, then we certainly can’t enter into communion with Him, since if we say we have “faith in Christ” then we have to believe that the things He tells us are, in fact, true.

 

[mercygate]

I suppose the next question, then, would be:
Why do these churches believe we should not be able to have communion with Christ without at the same time professing belief in a specified doctrine?

Take it back one step. If we believe that the Eucharist is a sign of unity among people, should we invite non-Christians to receive it as an act of good will? Or would you say that baptism is the door-opener?

Catholics believe that our unity at the Lord’s table is integral: complete. We believe that assent to the tenets of the faith is assent to Christ in the fullness of his Person.

 

[Sixtus]

f you only believe in one church founded by Christ, then why aren’t all baptisms (like those in Jesus’ time) consided valid in that church as long as they are done in God’s name?

They are, so long as they are done in the name of the Trinity of God

 

[Mommyof02green]

I suppose the next question, then, would be: Why do these churches believe we should not be able to have communion with Christ without at the same time professing belief in a specified doctrine?

I’m not sure how to answer this….

However, lets turn to the Bible. Clearly in biblical times there was “one” church; “one” confession of faith. Show me a passage in the bible where the Christians allowed Non-Christians to receive communion.

You know what, I’ll save you the time… It did not happen.

The only ones to receive communion, in the bible, were Christians. Now, as I noted at the time there was only “one” church, therefore there was only “one” confession of faith. That means in the Bible everyone that received communion had the SAME confession of faith.

Fast forward: 2000 year-later.
Yes, we all are Christians however our confessions of faith are very different.

• Some believe Holy Communion to be just a “symbol”; others believe in a “real presence”.
• Some believe in OSAS; others reject it.
• Some believe in the Trinity; others reject it (yes, I know that many would say those that reject the Trinity are not Christians. I know that many will say they are Pseudo-Christians)
• Some believe in Sola scriptura; others reject it.

The list of the different confessions of faith is endless. Christians as a WHOLE, no longer have the SAME confession of faith. In the Bible ONLY those that had the SAME confession of faith received communion.

Today, several Christian Churches hold to this biblical practice by saying only those that have OUR confession of faith may receive communion. This is so all those that receive communion have the SAME confession of faith just like those in the Bible.

 

[mlloyd]

I’m not sure how to answer this….

However, lets turn to the Bible. Clearly in biblical times there was “one” church; “one” confession of faith. Show me a passage in the bible where the Christians allowed Non-Christians to receive communion.

You know what, I’ll save you the time… It did not happen.

The only ones to receive communion, in the bible, were Christians. Now, as I noted at the time there was only “one” church, therefore there was only “one” confession of faith. That means in the Bible everyone that received communion had the SAME confession of faith.

Fast forward: 2000 year-later.
Yes, we all are Christians however our confessions of faith are very different.

• Some believe Holy Communion to be just a “symbol”; others believe in a “real presence”.
• Some believe in OSAS; others reject it.
• Some believe in the Trinity; others reject it (yes, I know that many would say those that reject the Trinity are not Christians. I know that many will say they are Pseudo-Christians)
• Some believe in Sola scriptura; others reject it.

The list of the different confessions of faith is endless. Christians as a WHOLE, no longer have the SAME confession of faith. In the Bible ONLY those that had the SAME confession of faith received communion.

Today, several Christian Churches hold to this biblical practice by saying only those that have OUR confession of faith may receive communion. This is so all those that receive communion have the SAME confession of faith just like those in the Bible.

Again, that is understandable. At least in the sense that all Christians at that time were in communion. And no doubt this is what all Christians would consider the true church.

I guess then I just have trouble understanding why I would be welcome into full communion during Christ’s time (who knows, I could be a Timothy even), and today I am not. It is difficult to believe the Catholic Church is right in it’s assumption that Peter or Paul would accept all the doctrine taught today.

 

[Sixtus]

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

So far as I am aware, this is NOT Catholic Teaching.

The Church provides the moral law, it also defines it and deals with issues that arise in time. We DO after all ‘live in time and space’.

If you ever undertake a line of study at Master’s level, it will be instilled in you never to just ‘accept’ what you are told but to question everything.

There are millions of Catholics with PhD’s more so Master’s.
They are ALL questioning what they have been told!

It is the duty I believe of every believer to 'go and find the truth for themselves, while having the Church to fall back on who is of herself ‘the pillar of truth’ as St James tells us

 

[jmcrae]

Again, that is understandable. At least in the sense that all Christians at that time were in communion. And no doubt this is what all Christians would consider the true church.

I guess then I just have trouble understanding why I would be welcome into full communion during Christ’s time (who knows, I could be a Timothy even), and today I am not.

If you didn’t believe what they taught (the Catholic Church teachings) then they would not have allowed you to become baptized, nor to share Holy Communion with them. RCIA was seven years in their times, and the tests were pretty rigorous - they took it extremely seriously; there was no “easy believe it” Christianity back then.

It is difficult to believe the Catholic Church is right in it’s assumption that Peter or Paul would accept all the doctrine taught today.

Of course they would; they were teaching the same stuff back then as we teach now today. The Doctrine of the Church has never changed. If they were to get into a time machine and come to the future, they would look at the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church, and they would say, “Yes, this is what we believe and teach - so that’s how you explain about the Trinity; we’re glad somebody finally figured out a way. And yes, that part is exactly what Mother Mary was like; that’s her to a T.”

They would look at the various Protestant beliefs and either say (Lutherans, Calvinists, Baptists), “Wow, where did those ideas come from? They’re just bizarre!” or else (Unitarians, Oneness Pentecostals, Jews for Jesus), “Oh, yeah, we had to deal with that stuff too; those ideas are still hanging around? Wow!”

 

[Mommyof02green]

I guess then I just have trouble understanding why I would be welcome into full communion during Christ’s time (who knows, I could be a Timothy even), and today I am not. It is difficult to believe the Catholic Church is right in it’s assumption that Peter or Paul would accept all the doctrine taught today.

Well let us see if you would be welcome into full communion. Lets turn to Acts 2:41-42

Act 2:41-42 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand persons were added that day. They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers.

Note that those that received communion were devoted to the teachings of the Apostles and they were baptized. So in order to receive you would have to be baptized and you would have to adhere to the teachings of the Apostles. It would not have been enough to say I believe in Christ; you would have to accept what the Apostles teachings and you would have to be baptized.

It’s clear from the bible that those that had communion together also shared the same believes and adhered to the same teachings.

That’s what Catholics do today, when they say only members of the Catholic Church can have communion with them. They are making sure that the people that have communion accpeting their teaching. (i.e. everyone has the SAME beliefs)

That’s what Orthodox do today, when they say only members of the Orthodox Church can have communion with them. They are making sure that the people that have communion with them are accepting their teachings. (i.e. everyone has the SAME beliefs)

That’s what LCMS do today, when they say only members of the LCMS can have communion with them.They are making sure that the people that have communion with them are accepting their teachings. (i.e. everyone has the SAME beliefs)

As far as the Catholic Church assumption that Peter and/or Paul would accept all the doctrine that is taught, you will have to come to terms on that on your own. You will have to honestly compare today’s teachings of Catholic Church to the biblical teachings in the Bible and to the writings of the ECF (Early Church Fathers).

 

[rr1213]

That’s what LCMS do today, when they say only members of the LCMS can have communion with them.

FWIW, not all LCMS Churches take that stance.

 

[Mommyof02green]

FWIW, not all LCMS Churches take that stance.

If they don’t take that stance it’s because they most likely have a list of beliefs for people to review and ask only those that SHARE those beliefs come up-
lcms.org:

Q. Being raised in the LCMS, I was surprised today when I was visiting a LCMS church that had a pamphlet explaining their beliefs about communion. It went on to say that if the visitor believed these things also then they could commune at that church. I thought that only LCMS members could commune at LCMS churches. Has this changed?

A. The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod has never understood or applied the historic practice of close[d] Communion in such a way as to mean that only LCMS members are permitted to commune at LCMS altars. The official position of the Synod is that not only are members of other Lutheran churches with whom we are in altar and pulpit fellowship invited to commune with us, but also that in certain extraordinary cases of pastoral care and in emergencies members of churches not in fellowship with us may be given Communion. The Synod stated, for example, in 1986 “that pastors and congregations of The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod continue to abide by the practice of close communion, which includes the necessity of exercising responsible pastoral care in extraordinary situations and circumstances” (1986 Res. 3-08 “To Maintain Practice of Close Communion”).

Now, if an individual LCMS congregation allows “anyone” to come up then they are not adhering to the “Synod” official position.

LCMS only allow those that SHARE in their believes to join them at the altar. (i.e. receiving Holy Communion) UNLESS it is an extraordinary cases of pastoral care and in emergencies.

Your avg. Sunday Service would not be a case of emergencies. Therefore if I went to an LCMS service on Sunday, I would not be allowed to have communion.

 

[Mommyof02green]

If they don’t take that stance it’s because they most likely have a list of beliefs for people to review and ask only those that SHARE those beliefs come up-

Now, if an individual LCMS congregation allows “anyone” to come up then they are not adhering to the “Synod” official position.

LCMS only allow those that SHARE in their believes to join them at the altar. (i.e. receiving Holy Communion) UNLESS it is an extraordinary cases of pastoral care and in emergencies.

Your avg. Sunday Service would not be a case of emergencies. Therefore if I went to an LCMS service on Sunday, I would not be allowed to have communion.

Also by clicking on this link you will see a list of churches that the LCMS are in altar or fellowship with. It is my understand that LCMS Lutherans may only receive communion from those bodies that they are in fellowship with; and only those that share fellowship with the LCMS may recieve at the LCMS altar.

The only exception to the rule would be “extraordinary cases of pastoral care” and “emergencies”.

 

[Mommyof02green]

The only exception to the rule would be “extraordinary cases of pastoral care” and “emergencies”.

The Catholic Church has a similar exception to the rule for Non-Catholics that wish to receive Holy Communion.
CCC paragraph 1401:

When, in the Ordinary’s judgment, a grave necessity arises, Catholic ministers may give the sacraments of Eucharist, Penance, and Anointing of the Sick to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church, who ask for them of their own will, provided they give evidence of holding the Catholic faith regarding these sacraments and possess the required dispositions.

 

[Contarini]

Also by clicking on this link you will see a list of churches that the LCMS are in altar or fellowship with. It is my understand that LCMS Lutherans may only receive communion from those bodies that they are in fellowship with; and only those that share fellowship with the LCMS may recieve at the LCMS altar.

The only exception to the rule would be “extraordinary cases of pastoral care” and “emergencies”.

Well, clearly that’s stretched pretty far by some churches. The only time I’ve actually been to an LCMS service was at a church in NC, and they had a statement in the pew saying that anyone who believed in the bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist could receive communion.

Edwin

 

[rr1213]

Well, clearly that’s stretched pretty far by some churches. The only time I’ve actually been to an LCMS service was at a church in NC, and they had a statement in the pew saying that anyone who believed in the bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist could receive communion.

Edwin

My experience as well, hence my comments above that not all LCMS Churches require concurrence with all LCMS doctrine in order to accept communion.

 

[Mommyof02green]

Well, clearly that’s stretched pretty far by some churches. The only time I’ve actually been to an LCMS service was at a church in NC, and they had a statement in the pew saying that anyone who believed in the bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist could receive communion.

I can’t answer for what an individual LCMS congregation does. I can only tell you what the Synod official position is according to lcms.org.

There very well could be individual LCMS pastors/congregations that don’t adhere to the Synod teachings. I don’t know.

I’ve seen plenty of threads that will say that the Catholic priest was wrong to say this or do that because that is not what the Church “officially” teaches. See here in the CCC paragraph -----.

So, in short, you may have been to a LCMS service and that may have been what they did. However, the LCMS Synod “official” position is “that not only are members of other Lutheran churches with whom we are in altar and pulpit fellowship invited to commune with us, but also that in certain extraordinary cases of pastoral care and in emergencies members of churches not in fellowship with us may be given Communion”.

Which I understand to mean: LCMS Lutherans may only receive communion from those bodies that they are in fellowship with; and only those that share fellowship with the LCMS may receive at the LCMS altar.

The only exception to the rule would be “certain extraordinary cases of pastoral care” and “emergencies”.