Communion of other faiths

[apologist]

We, as Catholics, are not trying to cause division. It is a fact that the Roman Catholic church was instituted by Jesus Christ himself who gave the “keys of the kingdom” to Peter. Peter was the rock and on the rock the Church was built. We respect other religions and rejoice in their faiths as well. We do not, however, share the same Eucharist which is central to our faith. As Fr. Corapi says: the Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith.

 

[Peregrino]

You are finally standing on firm footing here! It is precisely that the Eucharist is to be a unifying force that it is so important. When we take communion in your service there is simply nothing more profound that we can do to prove that “we believe what you believe” and our faith and your faith are intertwined. But the fact remains we don’t believe what you believe. So we can’t accept communion in your service. Try for a second to understand this basic fact. The Catholic Church IS THE CHURCH ORDAINED BY CHRIST. I know you disagree. But for a moment try to understant that this is what we believe. If that is true on any level then what we want is to SHARE that Eucharist with YOU! Now THAT is unifying!

I am not sure if by your use of the pronoun “you” and “your” you mean “me”, Peregrino. I am not a member of a Protestant church and I agree that Christ intended to create a truly Catholic Church in the greek sense of the term Καθολικος. I am not afraid to say however that we aren’t there yet.

Personally, I think it is a great idea to include all baptized Christians into the Eucharist, Catholic or otherwise. Church history has seen an accumulation of doctrines and dogmas and the subsequent alienation of other Christians who cannot assent to these extensions of theology and “authority”.

We are all one in Christ Jesus. One people, One Jesus, all should be admitted to the one Eucharist. Our fellow Christian brothers and sisters are Christian. Confusing unity with conformity does not acknowledge the statement of our Lord who said “he who is not against us is for us” when questioned about others (non-apostles) casting out demons in Jesus’ name.

Using the Eucharist as leverage in this way (doctrinal conformity) is IMHO truly sad and really becomes is a tool of exclusion and division.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

Peregrino

:clapping:

I feel so less alone . . .

 

[apologist]

I don’t get what you’re implying??

 

[Kitty_Chan]

I don’t get what you’re implying??

hi hit “quote” when you speak to someone OR simply put it in a question with their name or say “anyone”

Apologist

to whom are you speaking ?

 

[O.S.Luke]

Good post, Peregrino. One of the most reasonable posts here. Thank you.

It matters whether it’s only symbolic or if it’s real, because if it’s real, then it’s a sin to throw the leftovers in the garbage or let kids eat them, which is what Protestants do.

Another sweeping (and wrong) generalization. Ablutions are just as important in my tradition as they are in yours.

The consecrated elements of bread and wine are used for distribution to the sick and others who wish to commune but are unable to attend congregational worship. If any bread and wine remain, they should always be disposed of by (1) the pastor and/or others at the pastor’s direction consuming them in a reverent manner following the service; (2) returning them to the earth by pouring (2 Samuel 23:16), burying, scattering, or burning. - from This Holy Mystery, Part II.

If you’re going to engage in an apologetic mode, at least have the facts. Anglicans, Methodists, and Lutherans have a high Christology and sacramental theology

I am offended that you would imply that I “throw the leftovers” in the garbage can. These posts only inflame, jmcrae, and you know what you have written isn’t true.

O+

 

[Harpazo]

Good post, Peregrino. One of the most reasonable posts here. Thank you.

Another sweeping (and wrong) generalization. Ablutions are just as important in my tradition as they are in yours.

If you’re going to engage in an apologetic mode, at least have the facts. Anglicans, Methodists, and Lutherans have a high Christology and sacramental theology

I am offended that you would imply that I “throw the leftovers” in the garbage can. These posts only inflame, jmcrae, and you know what you have written isn’t true.

O+

I don’t know what Methodist tradition you come from, but where I live, the Methodists churches teach no view of the Lord’s Supper being anything close to a sacrament, nor did they when I lived in New Jersey. In fact where my parents still go to church as United Methodists, the kids take the left over grape juice and do what they call “communion shots.”

Could you possibly show me where Methodists hold the Lord’s Supper on the plane of a sacrament? The website for the United Methodist church doesn’t do justice for me. Again, I can’t speak for all Methodists of even the South-Eastern Jurisdiction, but when I went to Lake Junaluska for Youth in Missions (3 years straight)
they always did the Lord’s supper and never once mentioned it as being a sacrament, but rather proclaimed it to only be a symbol. Note also, that they had a different clergyman there each year.

In Pax Christi
Andrew

 

[O.S.Luke]

Could you possibly show me where Methodists hold the Lord’s Supper on the plane of a sacrament? The website for the United Methodist church doesn’t do justice for me. Again, I can’t speak for all Methodists of even the South-Eastern Jurisdiction, but when I went to Lake Junaluska for Youth in Missions (3 years straight)
they always did the Lord’s supper and never once mentioned it as being a sacrament, but rather proclaimed it to only be a symbol. Note also, that they had a different clergyman there each year.

Read here.

I went to Junaluska for many, many years, summer, fall, and winter. Confirmation retreats are held each winter. One summer week, communion was the focus of the study, and we partook of it every day. We heard Augustine’s definition of a sacrament a least 100 times that week.

Sacramental theology is at the heart of Methodism. I was taught that before I could read and write, and it was central to my confirmation studies. I’ve pastored for 20 years in Tennessee, Georgia, and Kentucky. Every time I’ve been appointed to a church, sacramental and liturgical leadership have been demanded.

I regret you did not have such an experience. Of course, I know some Catholics who are not very knowledgable of their own church, and some parishes that aren’t really very Catholic.

Pax,

O+

 

[apologist]

Kitty,
I was speaking to you. I didn’t know what you meant by your last statement from yesterday. Just wondering. Thanks for the advice, too. apologist

 

[goodcatholicman]

I went to Junaluska for many, many years, summer, fall, and winter. Confirmation retreats are held each winter. One summer week, communion was the focus of the study, and we partook of it every day. We heard Augustine’s definition of a sacrament a least 100 times that week.

Sacramental theology is at the heart of Methodism. I was taught that before I could read and write, and it was central to my confirmation studies. I’ve pastored for 20 years in Tennessee, Georgia, and Kentucky. Every time I’ve been appointed to a church, sacramental and liturgical leadership have been demanded.

I regret you did not have such an experience. Of course, I know some Catholics who are not very knowledgable of their own church, and some parishes that aren’t really very Catholic.

Pax,

Sacramental theology may be at the heart of methodism, but that doesn’t mean it is accurately taught or that the Methodist communion is in fact the real body and blood of Christ. As a former Anglican I understand the desperate need to define your beliefs in terms that matter. You are in effect saying, “see how Catholic we really are? We are just like you, we believe the same things.” If that were true, you would be Catholic! I would say though it does sound like you personally may believe in the Catholic Eucharist. If that is true there are many sources you may seek to help you come into full communion with the Catholic Church. I have recently been confirmed into the Catholic Church and will say it was one of the most rewarding experiences I have had. You should prayerfully consider it.

To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant

 

[O.S.Luke]

Sacramental theology may be at the heart of methodism, but that doesn’t mean it is accurately taught or that the Methodist communion is in fact the real body and blood of Christ. As a former Anglican I understand the desperate need to define your beliefs in terms that matter.

I have “no desperate need” to define anything, just to correct false perceptions.

You are in effect saying, “see how Catholic we really are? We are just like you, we believe the same things.”

“We” don’t have any need to be like anyone; it’s a matter of being faithful. Faithfulness is not dependent on the approval or disapproval of anyone.

If that is true there are many sources you may seek to help you come into full communion with the Catholic Church. I have recently been confirmed into the Catholic Church and will say it was one of the most rewarding experiences I have had. You should prayerfully consider it.

Been there, done that. And with apologies to Cardinal Newman, to be deep in history is to be suspicious of being Roman Catholic.

 

[jmcrae]

Good post, Peregrino. One of the most reasonable posts here. Thank you.

Another sweeping (and wrong) generalization. Ablutions are just as important in my tradition as they are in yours.

If you’re going to engage in an apologetic mode, at least have the facts. Anglicans, Methodists, and Lutherans have a high Christology and sacramental theology

I am offended that you would imply that I “throw the leftovers” in the garbage can. These posts only inflame, jmcrae, and you know what you have written isn’t true.

O+

I was the Coordinator of Services of Holy Communion when I served as an Elder in a United Church, and our custom at that time was to give the leftover grape juice to the children to drink, and to distribute the leftover bread to the ladies for turkey stuffing.

This was in deference to a member of the committee who was a Japanese concentration camp survivor - without his influence, there is no doubt that the grape juice would have been poured down the sink and the bread thrown into the garbage.

 

[Peregrino]

“We” don’t have any need to be like anyone; it’s a matter of being faithful. Faithfulness is not dependent on the approval or disapproval of anyone.

Been there, done that. And with apologies to Cardinal Newman, to be deep in history is to be suspicious of being Roman Catholic.

I am increasingly coming to the realization that faithfulness to God is less a destination denoted by a specific faith tradition than it is a journey, process or “way”. I have personally come from extreme atheism to an awareness of God to Catholicism. I don’t feel that I have “arrived” at an ultimate “destination” by joining the Church. Each of these “stages” are convenient ways to describe where I am or where I have been. Is there another “stage”?, I have no idea and I am not searching for another “stage”.

Communion is an incredibly important part of this faithfulness. We are called to experience our Lord and emulate him in this life. As it stands now, the RC church sees itself with a near monopoly on the “real” body and blood of Christ as experienced in communion. Is this the way it should be? I personally don’t think so.

Reading the Didache and other early Christian documents, one gets a sense that the Eucharist wasn’t always the preogative of priests and bishops, but was more in line with a traditional Jewish meal celebrated by lay people. These lay people were only charged with sharing their Eucharist with baptized Christians so as not to share “what is holy with dogs”. It should be noted that some church fathers considered the Didache next to holy scripture (before some people start screaming apocrypha)-New Advent Catholic encyclopedia.

Ultimately, IMHO it is a matter of faith, a faith independent of approval or authority. Like I said before, very few people would be able to discern the difference between a host consecrated by a priest, woman or child. It is a simply a matter of faith. Arguing that “only we have a valid Eucharist” is fundamentally divisive.

 

[jmcrae]

Like I said before, very few people would be able to discern the difference between a host consecrated by a priest, woman or child.

Most people can’t discern between a genuine da Vinci and a forgery, either - it doesn’t mean that there is no difference, though, or that the difference doesn’t matter.

It is a simply a matter of faith.

What does this mean? Are you saying that Jesus comes in or out of the Eucharist depending on the state of mind of the person receiving it?

Arguing that “only we have a valid Eucharist” is fundamentally divisive.

Only if it’s not really true, and there’s really no such thing as a valid Eucharist. If there is such a thing as a valid Eucharist, however, then it is essential that we find out where it is, and where it isn’t, so that we can partake faithfully.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Reading the Didache and other early Christian documents, one gets a sense that the Eucharist wasn’t always the preogative of priests and bishops, but was more in line with a traditional Jewish meal celebrated by lay people. These lay people were only charged with sharing their Eucharist with baptized Christians so as not to share “what is holy with dogs”. It should be noted that some church fathers considered the Didache next to holy scripture (before some people start screaming apocrypha)-New Advent Catholic encyclopedia.

Yes. Among liturgical and sacramental circles, the matters of chaburah and berakah get a lot of attention. While both meals were “presided” over, the prayers of blessing were prayed by the people. The Eucharistic prayers were never intended to be prayed only by the priest/presider, but were also prayed by the community of faith. These issues had to be readdressed at several ecumencial councils.

We may sometimes forget that a “valid” Eucharist must include the community of faith.

Ultimately, IMHO it is a matter of faith, a faith independent of approval or authority. Like I said before, very few people would be able to discern the difference between a host consecrated by a priest, woman or child. It is a simply a matter of faith. Arguing that “only we have a valid Eucharist” is fundamentally divisive.

As if anyone can claim a monopoly on the Holy Spirit. Well said, Peregrino. A post worthy of thought.

O+

 

[goodcatholicman]

Only if it’s not really true, and there’s really no such thing as a valid Eucharist. If there is such a thing as a valid Eucharist, however, then it is essential that we find out where it is, and where it isn’t, so that we can partake faithfully.

This is the bottom line of this argument. Enough said. No other faith tradition can make an honest claim that they have a valid Eucharist. Mmost of what is being said here seems to point to people’s desire for moral relativism. Hey man, why can’t we all just get along? Not so with the Eucharist, it either is or it ain’t. My mission is to help people find where it IS:thumbsup:

Who’s with me?

 

[Peregrino]

What does this mean? Are you saying that Jesus comes in or out of the Eucharist depending on the state of mind of the person receiving it?

Absolutely not. Only that the Real Presence in the Eucharist is a matter of faith as there is no objective way of proving otherwise, This is true for Catholics receiving in Catholic churches and Protestants receiving in Protestant churches.

 

[jmcrae]

Absolutely not. Only that the Real Presence in the Eucharist is a matter of faith as there is no objective way of proving otherwise, This is true for Catholics receiving in Catholic churches and Protestants receiving in Protestant churches.

Actually, there is an objective way of finding out, by asking two questions:

Is the minister of the Eucharist validly ordained? Or to phrase it another way - Were he and all of his direct predecessors ordained by valid Bishops, going back to the time of the Apostles (ie: his direct lineage consists of no one except a line of valid Bishops going all the way back to the Apostles)?

Did the minister of the Eucharist validly consecrate the Eucharist, using the formula provided by Christ’s Church via unbroken Holy Tradition?

If “no” to either of these, then there is no Eucharist. If yes to both, then it is a valid Eucharist.

 

[Peregrino]

Actually, there is an objective way of finding out, by asking two questions:

Is the minister of the Eucharist validly ordained? Or to phrase it another way - Were he and all of his direct predecessors ordained by valid Bishops, going back to the time of the Apostles (ie: his direct lineage consists of no one except a line of valid Bishops going all the way back to the Apostles)?

Did the minister of the Eucharist validly consecrate the Eucharist, using the formula provided by Christ’s Church via unbroken Holy Tradition?

If “no” to either of these, then there is no Eucharist. If yes to both, then it is a valid Eucharist.

Of course, this is what you and I believe, yet even for Catholics it is a matter of faith that behind the appearances of bread and win, Jesus is physically present.

Lets put it another way, how can you prove that Jesus is not present in a Lutheran/Methodist/Baptist Eucharist? Of course you will apply your two questions yet I ask, is it not possible that God/Jesus has deemed it appropriate to appear in the Eucharist of Protestants as he does with Catholics and Orthodox (which you excluded earlier)? How would you know? I hesistate to use the term miracle because I don’t want to offend our non-Catholic brothers and sisters, yet are you denying God the opportunity to deviate from the Church’s view of the “truth” and perform a miracle (please, no offense intended towards non-Catholic celebration of the Eucharist).

One answer to this question is again faith, your faith that the Catholic church has it completly “right”. Yet, you really don’t know in any objective sense. To state otherwise requires you to presume upon God (or deny the existence of miracles or their like). Faith is necessary in all spiritual matters and alienating our brothers and sisters over matters we can’t prove yet passionately believe seems juvenile.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Did the minister of the Eucharist validly consecrate the Eucharist, using the formula provided by Christ’s Church via unbroken Holy Tradition?

Need to rethink that one. LIturgy of Justin Martyr? Hippolytus? Some of the early liturgies had no epiclesis as the present “formula” does now. Hmmm.

And, since Vatican II, the church has been very clear about the principal agent of the liturgy - Christ:

“To accomplish so great a work, Christ is always present in his Church, especially in her liturgical celebrations. He is present in the sacrifice of the Mass, not only in the person of his minister, ‘the same now offering through the ministry of the priest, who formally offered himself on the Cross’, but especially in the Eucharistic species. By his power, he is present in the sacraments so that when anybody baptizes it is really Christ himself who baptizes. He is present in his word, where it is he himself who speaks, when the holy scriptures are read in the Church. Lastly, he is present when the Church prays and sings for he has promised ‘where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them’.” (S.C. 7)

The Catholic Church already recognizes that anyone can baptize, and recognizes the baptisms from other Christian communions.

It is interesting that the Catholic Church thinks Christ himself can baptize, even in Protestant Churches, as well as be present in all the other ways mentioned above, yet for some strange reason Christ cannot preside over or be present in His own Eucharist in those same churches. Hmmm again.

I don’t think the charge is relativism; I think it’s our proclivity to limit and institutionalize God and the Church, which we must always be on guard against. Sounds like original sin.

O+