Communion standpoint from non-catholic view

[phil19034]

Paul was an Apostle of Christ going out to the Gentiles to teach them the gospel, and there was no Roman Catholic Church at the time, though there was the catholic church, made up of all believers. Yes, I understand that is not what is taught in the RCC, but obviously not all Christians are a part of the RCC, and hence we don’t believe the same on all doctrinal points. From reading the OP, they aren’t a part of the formal Catholic Church at this time, which is why I’m speaking with them as a fellow non-Catholic.

I do not wish to hijack this thread, but I do wish to comment on the first part of your response. Technically, there was a “Roman Catholic Church” or more properly the Roman Church refers to the Diocese of Rome. We are collectively properly called the Catholic Church, not the Roman Catholic Church. Yes, Saint Paul was not an Roman Rite Catholic because the Roman Rite wasn’t yet created; but he did help found the Church of Rome with St. Peter.

St. Paul WAS a Catholic Bishop, just like all of the Apostles. Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church. NOTE: I said “Catholic Church” not “Roman Catholic Church.” “Roman Catholic” was an adjective which was added later by non-Catholics to distinguish the Church in communion with Rome from other groups which call themselves Catholic. It was also meant to be an insult, but many Latin Catholics took it as a badge of honor.

For example: The Eastern Orthodox officially call themselves the “Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church.” The Anglicans used to call themselves (and some still do) as the “Anglican Catholic Church.”

The Catholic Church has several Rites and not everyone who is part of the Catholic Church (in communion with Rome) are Roman Catholics. There are Byzantine Catholics, Coptic Catholics, Maronite Catholics, Chaldaean Catholics (who are being killed in Iraq - please pray for them), Syriac Catholics, Melkite Catholics, Armenian Catholics, Syro-Malabar Catholics, Syro-Malankara Catholics, etc.

Besides the Latin Church (unofficially often referred to the Roman Catholic Church, the following additional particular churches make up the Catholic Church:

Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church
Armenian Catholic Church
Belarusian Greek Catholic Church
Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church
Chaldean Catholic Church
Coptic Catholic Church
Ethiopian Catholic Church
Byzantine Church of Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro
Greek Byzantine Catholic Church
Hungarian Greek Catholic Church
Italo-Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church
Latin Church
Macedonian Greek Catholic Church
Maronite Church
Melkite Greek Catholic Church
Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic
Russian Greek Catholic Church
Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church
Slovak Byzantine Catholic Church
Syriac Catholic Church
Syro-Malabar Catholic Church (which includes the Knanaya Catholics)
Syro-Malankara Catholic Church
Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church

This is a pet peeve of mine, because we are not all Roman Rite Catholics and we proudly celebrate other Rites as well.

God Bless.

 

[batman6489]

Thanks for all the replies. I’m heading to Mass in a bit. Hopefully after a rough night, it will be enjoyable.

 

[Kliska]

I do not wish to hijack this thread, but I do wish to comment on the first part of your response. Technically, there was a “Roman Catholic Church” or more properly the Roman Church refers to the Diocese of Rome. We are collectively properly called the Catholic Church, not the Roman Catholic Church. Yes, Saint Paul was not an Roman Rite Catholic because the Roman Rite wasn’t yet created; but he did help found the Church of Rome with St. Peter.

St. Paul WAS a Catholic Bishop, just like all of the Apostles. Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church. NOTE: I said “Catholic Church” not “Roman Catholic Church.” “Roman Catholic” was an adjective which was added later by non-Catholics to distinguish the Church in communion with Rome from other groups which call themselves Catholic. It was also meant to be an insult, but many Latin Catholics took it as a badge of honor.

For example: The Eastern Orthodox officially call themselves the “Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church.” The Anglicans used to call themselves (and some still do) as the “Anglican Catholic Church.”

The Catholic Church has several Rites and not everyone who is part of the Catholic Church (in communion with Rome) are Roman Catholics. There are Byzantine Catholics, Coptic Catholics, Maronite Catholics, Chaldaean Catholics (who are being killed in Iraq - please pray for them), Syriac Catholics, Melkite Catholics, Armenian Catholics, Syro-Malabar Catholics, Syro-Malankara Catholics, etc.

Besides the Latin Church (unofficially often referred to the Roman Catholic Church, the following additional particular churches make up the Catholic Church:

Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church
Armenian Catholic Church
Belarusian Greek Catholic Church
Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church
Chaldean Catholic Church
Coptic Catholic Church
Ethiopian Catholic Church
Byzantine Church of Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro
Greek Byzantine Catholic Church
Hungarian Greek Catholic Church
Italo-Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church
Latin Church
Macedonian Greek Catholic Church
Maronite Church
Melkite Greek Catholic Church
Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic
Russian Greek Catholic Church
Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church
Slovak Byzantine Catholic Church
Syriac Catholic Church
Syro-Malabar Catholic Church (which includes the Knanaya Catholics)
Syro-Malankara Catholic Church
Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church

This is a pet peeve of mine, because we are not all Roman Rite Catholics and we proudly celebrate other Rites as well.

God Bless.

Most of us “protestants” are aware of all of this, but shorthand is often necessary for brevity’s sake. Just as I don’t take being called a “protestant” as an insult, many Christian churches and denominations realize sometimes labels aren’t as specific as could be, but no offense meant, esp. since all tend to profess being a member of the catholic church. We do indeed disagree about the early church, and those followers of what was called “The Way,” and then “Christians,” but hopefully we each realize labels aren’t meant to be insulting… or at least most modern believers aren’t attempting to insult by pointing out the different churches’ beliefs by using shorthand, I know I’m not.

Grace and Peace,
K

 

[Tommy999]

**QUOTE=batman6489;12470338]
Why can you not receive the bread and wine if your heart is in the right place? Are we less than good enough to receive something that is intended for all because we don’t have “membership” status?

-Ashley W**

Hi Ashley,
I also used to think that Catholics were a little uppity for their stance on non-Catholic Christians not being able to participate in Holy Communion. When I obtained more info from Catholics on this forum, I came to realize that I had been comparing apples to oranges.

Holy Communion to most protestants is viewed as a holy memorial of Jesus Christ’s sacrifice on the cross for us and therefore all Christians are welcome to participate in it at most protestant churches. It is viewed as an inclusive and unifying act among Christians of all traditions and is viewed as something we are supposed to do “in remembrance of Him”. However, in the end it is merely a symbolic event. The bread and the wine remain the bread and the wine.

However, for Catholics, it is much, much, more. It is actually taking in the body of blood of Christ into your body and soul and is a really important sacrament with conditions attached to it and repercussions if the person takes it unworthily.

Therefore, in a way, they are looking out for our spiritual welfare by not allowing us to take the Eucharist in the same way someone might yank on the arm of another person who starts to cross a busy street to prevent them from being run over by a car they didn’t see coming. I hope that helps and I hope I didn’t mischaracterize anything.

 

[Dorothy]

**QUOTE=batman6489;12470338]
Why can you not receive the bread and wine if your heart is in the right place? Are we less than good enough to receive something that is intended for all because we don’t have “membership” status?

-Ashley W**

Hi Ashley,
I also used to think that Catholics were a little uppity for their stance on non-Catholic Christians not being able to participate in Holy Communion. When I obtained more info from Catholics on this forum, I came to realize that I had been comparing apples to oranges.

Holy Communion to most protestants is viewed as a holy memorial of Jesus Christ’s sacrifice on the cross for us and therefore all Christians are welcome to participate in it at most protestant churches. It is viewed as an inclusive and unifying act among Christians of all traditions and is viewed as something we are supposed to do “in remembrance of Him”. However, in the end it is merely a symbolic event. The bread and the wine remain the bread and the wine.

However, for Catholics, it is much, much, more. It is actually taking in the body of blood of Christ into your body and soul and is a really important sacrament with conditions attached to it and repercussions if the person takes it unworthily.

Therefore, in a way, they are looking out for our spiritual welfare by not allowing us to take the Eucharist in the same way someone might yank on the arm of another person who starts to cross a busy street to prevent them from being run over by a car they didn’t see coming. I hope that helps and I hope I didn’t mischaracterize anything.

---

I very much appreciate your post Tommy999, God bless you!

Dorothy

 

[Took2Long]

**QUOTE=batman6489;12470338]
Why can you not receive the bread and wine if your heart is in the right place? Are we less than good enough to receive something that is intended for all because we don’t have “membership” status?

-Ashley W**

Hi Ashley,
I also used to think that Catholics were a little uppity for their stance on non-Catholic Christians not being able to participate in Holy Communion. When I obtained more info from Catholics on this forum, I came to realize that I had been comparing apples to oranges.

Holy Communion to most protestants is viewed as a holy memorial of Jesus Christ’s sacrifice on the cross for us and therefore all Christians are welcome to participate in it at most protestant churches. It is viewed as an inclusive and unifying act among Christians of all traditions and is viewed as something we are supposed to do “in remembrance of Him”. However, in the end it is merely a symbolic event. The bread and the wine remain the bread and the wine.

However, for Catholics, it is much, much, more. It is actually taking in the body of blood of Christ into your body and soul and is a really important sacrament with conditions attached to it and repercussions if the person takes it unworthily.

Therefore, in a way, they are looking out for our spiritual welfare by not allowing us to take the Eucharist in the same way someone might yank on the arm of another person who starts to cross a busy street to prevent them from being run over by a car they didn’t see coming. I hope that helps and I hope I didn’t mischaracterize anything.

Let me try and put your mind at ease. I don’t believe you mischaracterized anything. Your explanation was both timely and eloquent. I thank you for having the curiosity to investigate and understand the different aspects of people’s faith. It is nice to see a non-Catholic able to defend the faith, even though they might not fully embrace the teaching. So I thank you again, both for your intellectual curiosity and for your defense of the Catholic view of the Eucharist. May God Bless.

 

[TxGodfollower]

If it isn’t about membership… um… yes it is. You have to be a part of the church in order to receive it. So I disagree with that statement.

And yes… it is bread and wine, you aren’t drink blood and eating a human like a cannibal.

Hope this is fair and balanced to both sides. Please correct me if I misspoke.

Catholic doctrine teaches that the bread and wine turn literally into the flesh and blood of Christ. Protestants (in general) hold that it is symbolically Christ’s flesh and blood, not literally. Both sides use Matthew 26 to support their position (Emphesis added by me):
“(26) And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said,** Take, eat; this is my body**. (27) And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; (28) ** For this is my blood **of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (29)But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” (Matthew 26:26-29). Catholics use the bolded portions and take Christ’s words literally.

Protestants read the passage as (again, my emphasis): (Emphesis added by me):
“(26) And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. (27) And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; (28) For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (29)But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” (Matthew 26:26-29). They take Christ calling the wine both his blood and yet wine as it being a symbol.

 

[adf417]

Hope this is fair and balanced to both sides. Please correct me if I misspoke.

Catholic doctrine teaches that the bread and wine turn literally into the flesh and blood of Christ. Protestants (in general) hold that it is symbolically Christ’s flesh and blood, not literally. Both sides use Matthew 26 to support their position (Emphesis added by me):
“(26) And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said,** Take, eat; this is my body**. (27) And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; (28) ** For this is my blood **of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (29)But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” (Matthew 26:26-29). Catholics use the bolded portions and take Christ’s words literally.

Protestants read the passage as (again, my emphasis): (Emphesis added by me):
“(26) And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. (27) And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; (28) For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (29)But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” (Matthew 26:26-29). They take Christ calling the wine both his blood and yet wine as it being a symbol.

Greetings TX,
Not all protestants interpret it that way, so now you have to explain how it is you know your interpretation is correct and other protestant’s interpretation is incorrect.

Peace!!!

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Hope this is fair and balanced to both sides. Please correct me if I misspoke.

Catholic doctrine teaches that the bread and wine turn literally into the flesh and blood of Christ. Protestants (in general) hold that it is symbolically Christ’s flesh and blood, not literally. Both sides use Matthew 26 to support their position (Emphesis added by me):
“(26) And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said,** Take, eat; this is my body**. (27) And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; (28) ** For this is my blood **of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (29)But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” (Matthew 26:26-29). Catholics use the bolded portions and take Christ’s words literally.

Protestants read the passage as (again, my emphasis): (Emphesis added by me):
“(26) And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. (27) And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; (28) For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (29)But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” (Matthew 26:26-29). They take Christ calling the wine both his blood and yet wine as it being a symbol.

You think Christ was saying that what he called his blood was wine? We know for a fact that Christ did drink “fruit of the vine” before he drank it anew in the Kingdom of God. St. John records (19:28), Now there was a vessel set there full of vinegar. And they, putting a sponge full of vinegar and hyssop, put it to his mouth. Therefore, when he says, “this fruit of the vine,” he meant the fruit of the true Vine, his precious blood.

 

[aicirt]

Greetings TX,
Not all protestants interpret it that way, so now you have to explain how it is you know your interpretation is correct and other protestant’s interpretation is incorrect.

Peace!!!

John 6:45 What is your interpertaion of that? I asked this once before and received no responses. For Catholics, this means Christ is saying this is HIs Body and His Blood. What do you think?

 

[smead2942]

Most of us “protestants” are aware of all of this, but shorthand is often necessary for brevity’s sake. Just as I don’t take being called a “protestant” as an insult, many Christian churches and denominations realize sometimes labels aren’t as specific as could be, but no offense meant, esp. since all tend to profess being a member of the catholic church. We do indeed disagree about the early church, and those followers of what was called “The Way,” and then “Christians,” but hopefully we each realize labels aren’t meant to be insulting… or at least most modern believers aren’t attempting to insult by pointing out the different churches’ beliefs by using shorthand, I know I’m not.

Grace and Peace,
K

I’m responding to the OP about the ‘just bread and wine’ comment and your remark about the early church.

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again.”

OP, the Catholic Church believed in the LITERAL, PHYSICAL, WHOLE presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist since the very beginning. This quote is by St. Ignatius of Antioch, a bishop and disciple of the Apostle John. Here’s another:

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

The Church (early christians/the way) is Catholic in name and doctrine from the very beginning. This is from St. Ignatius’ epistle to the Smyrnaeans in 100 AD, the first time the Church was labeled as the “Catholic Church”. Notice the striking resemblance of the “early” Church hierarchy (bishop, presbytery (priest), deacon, etc) to that of today (bishop, priest, deacon). I encourage you to read the epistles of the Church Fathers

 

[adf417]

John 6:45 What is your interpertaion of that? I asked this once before and received no responses. For Catholics, this means Christ is saying this is HIs Body and His Blood. What do you think?

Are you asking me or TxGodfollower? If me, I’m not sure what John 6:45 has to do with what I stated.

Peace!!!