Communion of other faiths

[jmcrae]

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).

If such a miracle were to occur, then some tangible sign would accompany it, such as happened at the Miracle of Lanciano, when a priest doubted the Real Presence of Christ, and the host began to bleed (and is still bleeding today, more than 1000 years later.)

One answer to this question is again faith, your faith that the Catholic church has it completly “right”.

My faith in the Catholic Church is based upon historical facts that anybody can look up in any ordinary encyclopedia. Jesus existed, Jesus established a Church and made certain promises to its first leaders, and that church still exists today, under the lawful successors of the original leadership. The only thing you won’t find in the Encyclopedia is the fact that Jesus is God, but I knew that because my Protestant church taught me that. Separately from the fact that Jesus is God, the Catholic Church has the same status as Buddhism, Islam, Sihkism, or B’hai, all of which were founded by charismatic leaders on the basis of a new spiritual discovery - however, given that Jesus is God, all of a sudden, Catholicism has something that no other religion on earth has, which is that it was personally founded by God. Other religions were founded either on God’s behalf, or on the basis of some new revelation of God given to a human being - Catholicism alone was founded by God Himself.

The next question of course is, Could other churches also be “branch offices” of the true church? Well, history shows us that at the time of their founding, they were rebelling against the Catholic Church; not branching off from it - and it also shows us that Jesus made no promises to Martin Luther or to Zwingli, to King Henry VIII, to Simons Mennos, or to John Calvin - therefore, it is impossible that they brought any of the authority of the Catholic Church with them when they split off from it.

 

[O.S.Luke]

The next question of course is, Could other churches also be “branch offices” of the true church? Well, history shows us that at the time of their founding, they were rebelling against the Catholic Church; not branching off from it - and it also shows us that Jesus made no promises to Martin Luther or to Zwingli, to King Henry VIII, to Simons Mennos, or to John Calvin - therefore, it is impossible that they brought any of the authority of the Catholic Church with them when they split off from it.

It was more than just rebellion; there were serious abuses taking place at that time which the Catholic Church acknowledges. Was splitting off the answer? Probably not… any more than the split of 1054 was the answer to the West/East schism. However, like it or not, we are responsible for our actions and the damage that can result. Where the Reformation was concerned, there was fault on both sides. I wish the split hadn’t happened.

Our problem, jmcrae, is that there are too many holes for the strict historians or scientists to accept all that you and I believe by faith and tradition. The existence of God, the divinity of Christ, and the authority of the Church cannot be proved by the scientific method. Having said that, neither can it be DISPROVED by the scientific method, either.

While you and I know that Christ is the ultimate way, truth, and life - we cannot prove it… anymore than you can prove that the Eucharist in my church is “less valid” than the one in your church… as if any of us has a monopoly on the work of the Holy Spirit.

I certainly respect your beliefs and faith, but don’t try to prove your faith by facts - you can only, at best, prove your faith by your faithfulness and conviction.

O+

 

[jmcrae]

It was more than just rebellion; there were serious abuses taking place at that time which the Catholic Church acknowledges. Was splitting off the answer? Probably not… any more than the split of 1054 was the answer to the West/East schism. However, like it or not, we are responsible for our actions and the damage that can result. Where the Reformation was concerned, there was fault on both sides. I wish the split hadn’t happened.

So do I, which is why I left Protestantism and “returned” to the Catholic faith - I am the first Catholic in my family since the year 1560, but hopefully not the last.

Our problem, jmcrae, is that there are too many holes for the strict historians or scientists to accept all that you and I believe by faith and tradition. The existence of God, the divinity of Christ, and the authority of the Church cannot be proved by the scientific method. Having said that, neither can it be DISPROVED by the scientific method, either.

We accept on faith that Jesus is God, but everything else is historical.

While you and I know that Christ is the ultimate way, truth, and life - we cannot prove it… anymore than you can prove that the Eucharist in my church is “less valid” than the one in your church… as if any of us has a monopoly on the work of the Holy Spirit.

You seem to be really stuck on this, but there is no educated Protestant on earth who believes his Eucharist to be anything other than a symbol. If you believe that it is, or that it ought to be, the Real Presence of Jesus Christ, then you have to become Catholic. Not only does such a thing not exist in Protestantism, there is no Protestant alive (knowing his faith) who expects it to exist - they got rid of “the superstitions of the Papist doctrine of Transubstantiation” as they call it, in the 1700s, which is also when every vestige of the possibility of Apostolic Succession was also gotten rid of, on the basis that that, too, is “Papist superstition.”

 

[SyCarl]

You seem to be really stuck on this, but there is no educated Protestant on earth who believes his Eucharist to be anything other than a symbol. If you believe that it is, or that it ought to be, the Real Presence of Jesus Christ, then you have to become Catholic. Not only does such a thing not exist in Protestantism, there is no Protestant alive (knowing his faith) who expects it to exist - they got rid of “the superstitions of the Papist doctrine of Transubstantiation” as they call it, in the 1700s, which is also when every vestige of the possibility of Apostolic Succession was also gotten rid of, on the basis that that, too, is “Papist superstition.”

You should really not make such broad sweeping statements about other people’s beliefs. The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, for example teaches it is more than a symbol.

How is Jesus present in His Supper?
We do not try to explain how Jesus is present under the
bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper,rather we believe,teach,
confess and rejoice that He is present.We Lutherans let the words
of Jesus stand without arguing about their possibility,or trying
to explain how they are true.As Luther put it so clearly,“We
maintain that the bread and the wine in the Supper are the true
body and blood of Christ”(SA III.6).Everyone who communes
receives into their mouths the body and blood of Jesus Christ,
whether they believe it or not,be they worthy or unworthy.

lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/LCMS/wa_communion.pdf

 

[Peregrino]

OS Luke brought up a couple things which I often forget or don’t think about (do many Catholics?).

Namely, the importance of the community (where two or three are gathered in my name I am there). Is He any less present in those gathered in his name than in the Eucharist? How are these “phenomena” interconnected (Real Presence in the Eucharist and the Real Presence in the Community gathered to celebrate the Eucharist?) and which is more real? (I bet I know the Catholic answer without looking it up!).

Is it a moot point to argue “my Eucharist is real, yours isn’t” given that Christ is present either way due to the community of believers? Does it makes sense to say, “Jesus is willing to be present in your community gathered in his name but not in your Eucharist?”

As I think about this I keep thinking about the Didache and the Eucharistic meal described there-it is really in the context of a meal (didn’t St. Paul have some issues with behavior at these meals…). OS Luke pointed out the presence of a presider or some sort yet this term is never adequately described in anything I have read-especially for rural communities-the people of that age new the term priest and bishop yet it wasn’t used in the Didache. The emphasis in this document was on the community of believers. Anyway I ramble-something to think about in my spare time.

As OSLuke said, no one has a monopoly on the Holy Spirit. I am not going to put a limit on God and require that any deviation from Catholic doctrine require a specific “sign” such as a miracle.

 

[holy_wood]

You should really not make such broad sweeping statements about other people’s beliefs. The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, for example teaches it is more than a symbol.

lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/LCMS/wa_communion.pdf

I always thought that Luthers communion was the body and blood because the person recieving it believed it to be so.

From your post it would appear to be the exact same thing Catholics believe. But for some reason I do not believe Lutherans believe in the Euchaist in the same way Catholics due.

But if it is more than symbol to them then it must be real right. So I must ask do Lutherans worship and revere there communion host in the same manner as we Catholics

 

[apologist]

Just because Lutherans believe that it is the true body and blood of Christ, does not make it so. According to apostolic succession, only priests can consecrate the hosts and wine into the body and blood of Jesus; therefore, other faiths who receive communion are not receiving truly the body and blood of Jesus. That’s a fact, like it or not. No disrepect intended.

 

[SyCarl]

I think that Peregrino is quite correct. I would not presume to say what God wil do, can do or does with non-Catholic communion.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

As OSLuke said, no one has a monopoly on the Holy Spirit. I am not going to put a limit on God and require that any deviation from Catholic doctrine require a specific “sign” such as a miracle.

Hi, going a bit back to what you said before about atheists, and I was thinking of this history of church and limiting God.

Coming from a similar viewpoint, I am not impressed by the history in that way because it was what kept me from God. When I realised that God was “bigger” than all that man says He is, without limits of church memberships, rules, buildings, I saw that He was above man made ideas. Which is why a atheist doesnt care about God because He seems man made.

I no longer care exactly how long it took for the earth to be made (mans theorys), that it was made by God is more important.

His promises include hearing our crys and when 2 or more are gathered, He said He would hear. OS Luke and you have said this and to me it makes sense, He hears or doesnt, it is or isnt.

Why wouldnt He notice us if we did communion outside of a Catholic church door. Thats why I asked the others earlier if a Father was presented with a picture from 2 sons, and the older was, neatly drawn and the younger was a bit messy.

Would the Father ignore the younger sons drawing?? If our fathers on earth would not, why would our Father in Heaven? (His words of course) He knows whats going on here, when we pray He knows, the praying is for us, not Him really. Our obedience is what matters.

When we would take the bread and wine/juice I understand we are to examine our hearts and get things right, obedience again, submitting to His will. THATS whats important, isnt it??

Bread, wine, juice, cups, glasses, tables, singing, cleaning up, keeping bits, tossing bits. All man made rules again, sorry history etc. The Lords part above and beyond that is to remember Him. And to examine old heart and soul, is it laid down? Did we break the monsters back before coming to Him in obedience? That is the bigger part of God is it not??

OS Luke and Peregrino is this making sense? Have I heard you correct?

 

[goodcatholicman]

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+

Of course faith is the most important element of any Eucharist. Christ himself can choose to be present in any Eucharist at any time. But it is a very slippery slope. First ordained ministers, then lay ministers, then hey why not anyone? Hey, they don’t even have to be Christians to offer a valid Eucharist really, do they? Why can’t anyone say those words and offer Christ in the flesh? I don’t think it is our desire to institutionalize God. Rather, we want to protect the Eucharist as best we can from influences other than Christ. The Catholic formula basically states that we are as sure as we possibly can be that we are doing this thing right and presenting the Eucharist exactly as Christ would have us present it. We have put in place as much safeguarding as humanly possible to ensure this is valid. Leave the Church and choose another way and hey kid, you’re on your own. We can’t be responsible. I think the real sin would be allowing people to be duped by their own vain interests that they are receiving a valid communion.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

Of course faith is the most important element of any Eucharist. Christ himself can choose to be present in any Eucharist at any time. But it is a very slippery slope. First ordained ministers, then lay ministers, then hey why not anyone? Hey, they don’t even have to be Christians to offer a valid Eucharist really, do they? Why can’t anyone say those words and offer Christ in the flesh?

You say Christ can choose, but its a slippery slope, so hopefully He will take that into consideration.

Anyway, a non christian, non believer in Christ as Lord, isnt going to drink blood and eat flesh! They think ALL Christians are nuts for doing that in the first place, stupid mindless blood sucking idiots following a god that doesnt exist. How disgusting they would say. And they could care less if they were catholic or protestant, we are all brainless idiots.

 

[Peregrino]

Coming from a similar viewpoint, I am not impressed by the history in that way because it was what kept me from God. When I realised that God was “bigger” than all that man says He is, without limits of church memberships, rules, buildings, I saw that He was above man made ideas. Which is why a atheist doesnt care about God because He seems man made.

Kitty, I understand what you are saying. IMHO, obedience to God is much more a matter of the heart than of form or ritual. You analogy of the two drawings is a good one. So many of the standards we place on how we practice religion seem to be man made limits and quickly seem to miss the spirit of the “law”. Wasn’t this one of Jesus’ “gripes” with the Pharisees? Observing the form but totally missing the spirit?

Having been a former atheist, raised as an atheist, the gift of faith is unbelievably precious to me. I can’t explain why I have faith but I do. I have a knee jerk reaction when someone says “your faith is wrong.” How the heck would someone know? It is faith for crying out loud. It is fundamentally insubstantial and therefore requires trust in God, a loving father who is perfect and will give “what is good to those who ask”.

“Well the Bible says you are wrong because the scriptures say that Jesus established the Church.” IMHO, the Church “established”, canonized, the Bible, a Church that was keenly interested in unity, conformity, authority and a singular place in a Roman empire which had persecuted Christians for hundreds of years. This does not mean that the Bible isn’t inspired, nor that the Church is a valid path to holiness, it merely indicates that certain scriptural perspectives were selected over others. That has occurred on the part of Protestants since. The Bishops at the council were also operating on faith. How could they be sure they were right and chose the right scriptures? Faith and trust.

Given that we can’t prove we are right, we must have faith and trust in God that God can sort it all out and that God appreciates the weakness and failings of human understanding. We shouldn’t be so quick to condemn and judge others as inferior or incorrect. God has it under control.

 

[Peregrino]

Of course faith is the most important element of any Eucharist. Christ himself can choose to be present in any Eucharist at any time… But it is a very slippery slope. First ordained ministers, then lay ministers, then hey why not anyone? Hey, they don’t even have to be Christians to offer a valid Eucharist really, do they? Why can’t anyone say those words and offer Christ in the flesh? I don’t think it is our desire to institutionalize God. Rather, we want to protect the Eucharist as best we can from influences other than Christ. The Catholic formula basically states that we are as sure as we possibly can be that we are doing this thing right and presenting the Eucharist exactly as Christ would have us present it. We have put in place as much safeguarding as humanly possible to ensure this is valid. Leave the Church and choose another way and hey kid, you’re on your own. We can’t be responsible. I think the real sin would be allowing people to be duped by their own vain interests that they are receiving a valid communion.

I have always thought it interesting that we are protecting God/Jesus from people. Unclean sinners, heretics and pagans. Didn’t Jesus dine/socialize with anyone? Isn’t that one of the most beautiful parts of the incarnation-God experienced “our” world in all its squalor and beauty? Yet, we act as though the God who created the world and authored the entirety of existence must be protected from us. If it were up to me, I would be “handing out” God like candy to everyone. The world could use a little more God…

Of course, “protecting” God means there are appointed “protectors”. I don’t remember the passages about the last supper (“do this in remembrance of me”) being that specific. The requirement of “valid” also seems to be a legalism missing from scripture.

God Bless.

 

[Peregrino]

One of my previous posts contains a typo. I meant to say that the Church IS a valid path to holiness (“it doesn’t mean that the Church is not a valid path to holiness”). It has been for about two thousand years!

 

[O.S.Luke]

You seem to be really stuck on this, but there is no educated Protestant on earth who believes his Eucharist to be anything other than a symbol.

Respectfully, you have no idea what you’re talking about.

I am not interested in trading insults; if you are, you’ll have to find someone else to bite. Are we going to be fellow Christians, or not?

And one correction: it is Christ’s Eucharist. No one person’s.

If you believe that it is, or that it ought to be, the Real Presence of Jesus Christ, then you have to become Catholic. Not only does such a thing not exist in Protestantism, there is no Protestant alive (knowing his faith) who expects it to exist - they got rid of “the superstitions of the Papist doctrine of Transubstantiation” as they call it, in the 1700s, which is also when every vestige of the possibility of Apostolic Succession was also gotten rid of, on the basis that that, too, is “Papist superstition.”

You have just given yourself away. There is a very, very large difference between Real Presence and Transubstantiaion. Real Presence embraces the Mystery of Faith, Transubstantiation is a Thomistic and Aristotelian philosophical explanation that became dogma in the 11th century. I’ve never said I believe in Transubstantiation. Moreover, the Eastern churches (incl. the Orthodox) don’t embrace the concept, either (ask your local Orthodox priest about transubstantiation, metousiosis, metabole, metastoicheiosis, and metarrhythmisis (ah, the problem of all the Early Church Fathers who wrote in Greek, Latin, and 2-3 other languages)). It seems folly to me to use rationalism and Aristotelian philosophy to try to explain a mystery. Anyway, the Church made it for over 1000 years without having to explain it. The West being the West just had to try, tho.

It’s the body and blood of Christ. Period. It’s not a metaphor. Sacraments are the reality and point to the reality of God’s grace and Christ’s presence. They become, by the power of the Holy Spirit, outward and visible signs of an inward and spiritual grace. That, my friend, is a miracle. And you can’t use rationalism or Thomistic/Aristotelian philosophy to “explain” a miracle. Nor can you use science. I’m sorry, but the dogma of transubstantiation explains the mystery too neatly. Mysteries are not explainable.

And you best be careful with symbol, my friend. Sacraments are real AND symbols; it’s a both/and, not an either/or - they point toward the realities of Christ, and they ARE Christ! If you get caught running a stop sign and tell the cop, “Ah, it’s just a symbol of the law, it’s not the law itself”, I suspect you will still get a ticket.

Perhaps two.

O+

 

[goodcatholicman]

have always thought it interesting that we are protecting God/Jesus from people. Unclean sinners, heretics and pagans. Didn’t Jesus dine/socialize with anyone? Isn’t that one of the most beautiful parts of the incarnation-God experienced “our” world in all its squalor and beauty? Yet, we act as though the God who created the world and authored the entirety of existence must be protected from us. If it were up to me, I would be “handing out” God like candy to everyone. The world could use a little more God…

Of course, “protecting” God means there are appointed “protectors”. I don’t remember the passages about the last supper (“do this in remembrance of me”) being that specific. The requirement of “valid” also seems to be a legalism missing from scripture.

God Bless.

My point isn’t that we need to protect God from anything. My point is we are protecting the truth regarding God and the Eucharist as much as we can as feeble humans. God can show up in a grapefruit. He is God! We, on the other hand, need to be careful about offering false hope, false faith and false religion. To offer something contrary to the Real Presence is offering just that.
God doesn’t need our help but we are in desperate need of his.

God bless

---

 

[apologist]

A big AMEN to that!

 

[O.S.Luke]

My point isn’t that we need to protect God from anything. My point is we are protecting the truth regarding God and the Eucharist as much as we can as feeble humans.

What is the difference?

God can show up in a grapefruit.

I believe that would be pantheism… a heresy in Christianity, Protestant or Catholic.

Sky+

 

[ComradeAndrei]

Namely, the importance of the community (where two or three are gathered in my name I am there). Is He any less present in those gathered in his name than in the Eucharist? How are these “phenomena” interconnected (Real Presence in the Eucharist and the Real Presence in the Community gathered to celebrate the Eucharist?) and which is more real? (I bet I know the Catholic answer without looking it up!).

There is a fundamental difference between the Real Presence of Jesus under the species of bread and wine and the general “presence” in the “community”. The Real Presense in the Blessed Sacrament in truly and really the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. This is the reason why the Sacred Species are to be adored with the worship of latria and the people are not to be.

Is it a moot point to argue “my Eucharist is real, yours isn’t” given that Christ is present either way due to the community of believers?

Since the “presense” is fundamentally different, no it is not a “moot point”.

Does it makes sense to say, “Jesus is willing to be present in your community gathered in his name but not in your Eucharist?”

Since He isn’t present in the same way, it does. I’d say that the issue would be to what degree He is present amongst non-Catholics who are also not a church (i.e. not the Eastern Orthodox churches as they are true churches).

As I think about this I keep thinking about the Didache and the Eucharistic meal described there-it is really in the context of a meal (didn’t St. Paul have some issues with behavior at these meals…). OS Luke pointed out the presence of a presider or some sort yet this term is never adequately described in anything I have read-especially for rural communities-the people of that age new the term priest and bishop yet it wasn’t used in the Didache.

Its a general explanation, I don’t see why you put so much weight into it. You cannot say that just because the Didache doesn’t specifically outline the Roman Mass that everything goes. It would be like taking a good, orthodox sermon on the Mass (given by a Catholic to Catholics, much like the Didache) and then say that since it doesn’t go into explicit details about certain matters of doctrine that they were not believed.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

I believe that would be pantheism… a heresy in Christianity, Protestant or Catholic.

No, actually pantheism says that all the flowers, birds, trees, people, stars, planets, comets etc. are God. If one were to say that God can show up in a grapefruit, that would not be the same as saying the grapefruit (along with everything else in the universe) is God.

I think the point is that there must be valid matter and valid form. Without valid matter and valid form, nothing happens. Taking rye bread (invalid) and grape juice (invalid) and having a woman minister (invalid orders) “consecrate” this would result in nothing. No sacrament takes place without proper matter and form.