Communion for non-Catholics in the Catholic church

[Tantum_ergo]

Perhaps a future Holy Father will hear Jesus in Jn 6:37? "Everyone whom my Father gives me will come to me. I will never turn away anyone who comes to me. (GNT)

if you’re implying that a future Pope will ‘change’ Catholic teaching on reception of the Eucharist and ‘open up communion’. . .then all I have to say is that you not only don’t understand the nature of the Papacy itself, but you also don’t understand the nature of the Eucharist.

Then again --and this is simply a ‘comparison’ and is not meant to insult or to go off topic–then again, if Catholics think that a similar ‘Catholic teaching’ such as the ‘ordination of women’ is something that a Pope can ‘change’ based on cherry picking of Scripture verses like “I will never turn away anyone who comes to me”, then it’s not surprising that those Catholics would think that some “future-Pope” will ‘change’ on reception of the Eucharist by non-Catholics. To them, any Church teaching can ‘change’ completely. They see it done by nonCatholic Christians and can’t understand why the Catholic Church won’t (when it 'comes out of the Middle Ages and sees ‘reason’) do the same. . . .

 

[Carlan]

Originally Posted by CMatt25

In closing I will just leave you with these thoughts. I simply pray those in the Church today will realize their compassion and love and understanding and tolerance will go further in building the Church up than intolerance will. But all of this is simply my opinion based on my perspective and what I have seen. But YMMV as they say. May God bless and peace be with you.

Matt, Don’t you see, it is not about compassion and love and understanding and tolerance as you reference it. It is about the Truth as Jesus gave it to the Apostles to hand on down to us at that day of Pentecost. Of course our separated brothers are welcome to embrace the Church in the way it is offered to them RCIA. However, Why would they if they cannot accept The Eucharist other than a symbol. It would be hypocritical, and very offensive. Again the Eucharist is at the very center of our Catholic worship,Carlan

 

[seekRFtruth]

I still do not understand, because the Apostles participated in the Last Supper when they were not in full Communion with Jesus (consider Judas), nor did they have a full understanding of Christ’s body (Peter denied Jesus three times, in fact, and nobody prayed with him in the garden or stood by him at the cross…)

In the Road to Emmaus story (Luke 24:13-35), Luke tells us that Jesus is made known to us in the breaking of the bread (24:35). How can Jesus be made known to non-Catholics then, if they are not welcome to break bread?

I still do not understand.

Peace
SeekRFTruth

 

[Carlan]

I still do not understand, because the Apostles participated in the Last Supper when they were not in full Communion with Jesus (consider Judas), nor did they have a full understanding of Christ’s body (Peter denied Jesus three times, in fact, and nobody prayed with him in the garden or stood by him at the cross…)

*In the Road to Emmaus story (Luke 24:13-35), Luke tells us that Jesus is made known to us in the breaking of the bread (24:35). How can Jesus be made known to non-Catholics then, if they are not welcome to break bread?*I still do not understand.

Peace
SeekRFTruth

We must be open and willing to explore the whole Truth, In our daily walk on the road of life Jesus is with us to teach us, does everyone recognize him? It was only after the disciples invited Him in that they recognized him. He had been teaching them the Truth.
Non catholics are very welcome to join us in learning the Truth we believe.
And I welcome you, RFT.:thumbsup:Carlan

 

[CMatt25]

if you’re implying that a future Pope will ‘change’ Catholic teaching on reception of the Eucharist and ‘open up communion’. . .then all I have to say is that you not only don’t understand the nature of the Papacy itself, but you also don’t understand the nature of the Eucharist.

Then again --and this is simply a ‘comparison’ and is not meant to insult or to go off topic–then again, if Catholics think that a similar ‘Catholic teaching’ such as the ‘ordination of women’ is something that a Pope can ‘change’ based on cherry picking of Scripture verses like “I will never turn away anyone who comes to me”, then it’s not surprising that those Catholics would think that some “future-Pope” will ‘change’ on reception of the Eucharist by non-Catholics. To them, any Church teaching can ‘change’ completely. They see it done by nonCatholic Christians and can’t understand why the Catholic Church won’t (when it 'comes out of the Middle Ages and sees ‘reason’) do the same. . . .

I’m not implying anything will or will not be changed because I truly do not know what Christ may or may not tell a future Pope to do or not to do. How do I know if Christ will tell a Pope to open Communion or decide to open the priesthood to women a thousand yrs from now? He decided to open roles for the female gender in other areas. I don’t see how you can know. But no insult taken.

 

[CMatt25]

Matt, Don’t you see, it is not about compassion and love and understanding and tolerance as you reference it. It is about the Truth as Jesus gave it to the Apostles to hand on down to us at that day of Pentecost. Of course our separated brothers are welcome to embrace the Church in the way it is offered to them RCIA. However, Why would they if they cannot accept The Eucharist other than a symbol. It would be hypocritical, and very offensive. Again the Eucharist is at the very center of our Catholic worship,Carlan

Carlan, sorry but no when it comes to Communion I can’t get passed Christ’s love and acceptng all called to His table. Sorry but I just can’t.

 

[CMatt25]

I still do not understand, because the Apostles participated in the Last Supper when they were not in full Communion with Jesus (consider Judas), nor did they have a full understanding of Christ’s body (Peter denied Jesus three times, in fact, and nobody prayed with him in the garden or stood by him at the cross…)

In the Road to Emmaus story (Luke 24:13-35), Luke tells us that Jesus is made known to us in the breaking of the bread (24:35). How can Jesus be made known to non-Catholics then, if they are not welcome to break bread?

I still do not understand.

Peace
SeekRFTruth

I of course agree as might be surmised by now and I don’t understand either. To me it’s one thing in Scripture so clear that I don’t need someone else to interpret it for me. But that’s me. And trust me I have plenty of trouble understanding other things in the Bible on my own. Peace.

 

[CMatt25]

We must be open and willing to explore the whole Truth, In our daily walk on the road of life Jesus is with us to teach us, does everyone recognize him? It was only after the disciples invited Him in that they recognized him. He had been teaching them the Truth.
Non catholics are very welcome to join us in learning the Truth we believe.
And I welcome you, RFT.:thumbsup:Carlan

Carlan, I don’t understand how this addresses the question of Luke telling us Jesus becomes known to us when breaking the bread as well?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

It might help to know that Judas did not participate in the Lord’s Supper (if you read Scripture carefully you will see that he was sent out before the consecration). But even if he had participated (and we all know plenty of Catholics who have received the Eucharist while in a state of mortal sin, sadly), the ‘ability’ to receive does not mean that one ‘should’ receive, else why would St. Paul speak of eating and drinking the body and blood ‘worthily’? What is so ‘special’ about it if it’s only a ‘symbol?’ And if those partaking only think it ‘symbolic’, is it not a failure on their part that will be a judgment against them? St. Paul would certainly think so.

Many if not most Protestants in most of their communities do not think the Eucharist is anything BUT a symbol. To open up communion on the false cherry picking of a Scripture passage and to ‘reinvent it’ to imply that Jesus asked ‘everybody to come to the table’ not only is a complete reinvention of the teaching that would not be recognized by the apostles themselves, it would be a grave sin on our part, to ‘allow’ reception of the Eucharist by those who do not recognize or accept it. How is that 'tolerance?" Just because a group screams, If you say it’s so great, it should be for US TOO even though we don’t believe it. . .you’d say that Jesus would ‘let them?’ That doesn’t seem in character with the Jesus I know. . .Jesus is not simply some cosmic 60s ‘you’re all good no matter what’ dude. He required people not just to ‘come to the table dude’ but to come ‘prepared’, to come ‘in humility’, to come having given ALL to God (especially in obedience) and to come with knowledge.

 

[CMatt25]

It might help to know that Judas did not participate in the Lord’s Supper.

Which Last Supper are you so certain about? In my Bible Luke quotes Jesus as saying 22:19 And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me.

20 In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.

21But yet behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table.

Jn 13:26 Jesus answered: He it is to whom I shall reach bread dipped. And when he had dipped the bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot

 

[CMatt25]

why would St. Paul speak of eating and drinking the body and blood ‘worthily’?

What is so ‘special’ about it if it’s only a ‘symbol?’

To open up communion on the false cherry picking of a Scripture passage and to ‘reinvent it’ e.

Perhaps if they discern Christ’s sacrifice for us they are not eating and drinking unworthily?

Perhaps Christ is what is so special?

I still fail to understand how it is reinventing Jn 6:37 or the Lk 24:35 verse presented. But we can agree to disagree. God bless and peace.

 

[Carlan]

Carlan, I don’t understand how this addresses the question of Luke telling us Jesus becomes known to us when breaking the bread as well?

Well, my heart tells me, that if the disciples had let him pass by and not continued the discourse with him and not invited him into their home, showing their desire and faith in wanting to listen and learn and believe,he would not have revealed himself to them at the breaking of the bread. God bless us, Carlan

 

[tweetymom]

I’m not implying anything will or will not be changed because I truly do not know what Christ may or may not tell a future Pope to do or not to do. How do I know if Christ will tell a Pope to open Communion or decide to open the priesthood to women a thousand yrs from now? He decided to open roles for the female gender in other areas. I don’t see how you can know. But no insult taken.

You know something I have never read in the Bible that said Communion to be perfect was only for Catholics. When Jesus had the last supper he did not say now this is only for Catholics.

 

[tweetymom]

It might help to know that Judas did not participate in the Lord’s Supper (if you read Scripture carefully you will see that he was sent out before the consecration). But even if he had participated (and we all know plenty of Catholics who have received the Eucharist while in a state of mortal sin, sadly), the ‘ability’ to receive does not mean that one ‘should’ receive, else why would St. Paul speak of eating and drinking the body and blood ‘worthily’? What is so ‘special’ about it if it’s only a ‘symbol?’ And if those partaking only think it ‘symbolic’, is it not a failure on their part that will be a judgment against them? St. Paul would certainly think so.

Many if not most Protestants in most of their communities do not think the Eucharist is anything BUT a symbol. To open up communion on the false cherry picking of a Scripture passage and to ‘reinvent it’ to imply that Jesus asked ‘everybody to come to the table’ not only is a complete reinvention of the teaching that would not be recognized by the apostles themselves, it would be a grave sin on our part, to ‘allow’ reception of the Eucharist by those who do not recognize or accept it. How is that 'tolerance?" Just because a group screams, If you say it’s so great, it should be for US TOO even though we don’t believe it. . .you’d say that Jesus would ‘let them?’ That doesn’t seem in character with the Jesus I know. . .Jesus is not simply some cosmic 60s ‘you’re all good no matter what’ dude. He required people not just to ‘come to the table dude’ but to come ‘prepared’, to come ‘in humility’, to come having given ALL to God (especially in obedience) and to come with knowledge.

Sorry you are wrong about Judas, perhaps you need to read the scripture: John 13:26

 

[jmcrae]

You know something I have never read in the Bible that said Communion to be perfect was only for Catholics. When Jesus had the last supper he did not say now this is only for Catholics.

He didn’t have to. Protestantism didn’t start up until about 1500 years later, so the problem didn’t even exist, yet. The Apostles didn’t hand out Holy Communion to everyone in the whole street - they only gave it to those who were sincerely convinced of their teachings about Christ, which are the same teachings as the Catholic Church today.

 

[seekRFtruth]

We must be open and willing to explore the whole Truth, In our daily walk on the road of life Jesus is with us to teach us, does everyone recognize him? It was only after the disciples invited Him in that they recognized him. He had been teaching them the Truth.
Non catholics are very welcome to join us in learning the Truth we believe.
And I welcome you, RFT.:thumbsup:Carlan

I am sorry. I still do not understand. How did Jesus make himself known to the Apostles on the Road to Emmaus? It was through the breaking of the bread!

“Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he had been make known to them in the breaking of the bread” (Luke 24:35).

How can one know if they are not welcome to break bread? What would Jesus do? Would Jesus turn people away? Did he ever turn people away? Of course not; He ate with sinners, tax collectors and all! I still do not get it!

 

[jmcrae]

I am sorry. I still do not understand. How did Jesus make himself known to the Apostles on the Road to Emmaus? It was through the breaking of the bread!

The first part of the story is where Jesus is opening the Scriptures to them, while they are still on the road. (Liturgy of the Word.) Protestants are always welcome to join us in the Liturgy of the Word.

When they had accepted His teachings in the Liturgy of the Word, He then gave them the Liturgy of the Eucharist, which was where they recognized Him in the breaking of the bread. But without the Word (teachings) coming first, they would never have recognized Him in the breaking of the bread.

How can one know if they are not welcome to break bread? What would Jesus do? Would Jesus turn people away? Did he ever turn people away? Of course not; He ate with sinners, tax collectors and all! I still do not get it!

 

[tweetymom]

I am sorry. I still do not understand. How did Jesus make himself known to the Apostles on the Road to Emmaus? It was through the breaking of the bread!

“Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he had been make known to them in the breaking of the bread” (Luke 24:35).

How can one know if they are not welcome to break bread? What would Jesus do? Would Jesus turn people away? Did he ever turn people away? Of course not; He ate with sinners, tax collectors and all! I still do not get it!

I don’t get it either. He never turned people away He wanted all to come to Him.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I think I misspoke earlier, and I didn’t get a chance to make the correction.

Judas may have participated in the Eucharist (May have, it is not 100% certain). Of course, as I said, people CAN participate in the Eucharist unworthily or not in a state of grace. What Judas did not participate in (as he had ‘gone out’) was in the commission, so to speak, of the Eleven, which Jesus gave to them afterward.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I don’t get it either. He never turned people away He wanted all to come to Him.

Wait, then how do you explain the Biblical passages where He said, "Jerusalem, Jerusalem. How often I have wanted to gather you together as a mother hen her babies, but you would not.’

IOW, Jesus ‘wants us’ to come to Him but He doesn’t force us to come.

For the other part, how do you explain Jesus telling his disciples that they would be given understanding, but not ‘the other people’. . .lest 'hearing they understand, and understanding they find salvation?" Surely it doesn’t sound HERE as though Jesus is ‘accepting everybody.’

And how do you explain Jesus’ own words about the man who was invited to a wedding but was ‘cast into the darkness’ because he refused a wedding garment?

Or "Many are called but few are chosen?"