Holy Communion For All Christians

[holycommunion]

As a Christian, it pains me to see the different denominations bicker over ideological differences. The biggest one is who can participate in Holy Communion. It is not for us to decide who receives the Body and Blood of Christ.

Before you respond to this thread arguing one point or another, ask yourself this question. If you went forward to receive Holy Communion, would Jesus turn you away?

Jesus taught us that there are only two rules to follow:

1. Love God with all of your heart, soul and mind.
2. Love your neighbor as yourself.

We all, as Christians believe this. All other “human created” ideological differences are silly.

Let us all start the journey of becoming Christians with a single voice by sharing communion, regardless of our differences.

 

[Howard_Roark]

Do not give what is Holy to dogs.

 

[holycommunion]

Do not give what is Holy to dogs.

If that is what you truly believe, then all I can say is that I will pray for you. I pray that one day all of us can put aside our petty differences.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I agree on those two rules. What I don’t agree with is your rather simplistic idea that “love means never having to say you’re sorry–or you’re wrong–or you aren’t ready–or you can’t have/do this until you are prepared to do so”, etc.

St. Paul also tells us that those who eat and drink of the body and blood of the Lord eat and drink a judgment upon themselves. To aid and abet someone who uses his/her ‘free will’ to take unworthily, Scripture also tells us in Ezekiel, is sinful. For we are told that if we see a person about to commit a sin, and do not tell him not to do so, he will certainly die for his sin. . .but we will also bear some of the blame for his sin, for we did not speak up to him. If we do tell him, and he sins anyway, he will die for the sin but we will not bear blame.

You see, the Bible is written ‘as a whole’. It is not right to take words–even the words of Christ–‘out of context’ without looking through the rest of the Bible to see what those words do mean in the context of the totality of Scripture–for Jesus, the Word of God, is the totality of His written word, not just some phrases here and there with the rest ‘filler’ or meaningless.

In Genesis, we are told that we are our brothers’ keeper. Not our brothers’ enabler.

And we are also told that the Church is the pillar and foundation of all Truth. We are told that the Holy Spirit will guide us to all truth. We are told that when we have a question, we are to ‘take it to the Church’, not to make a ‘majority rules’ decision on our own.

If you are Catholic, then you know that Christ gave His Church His own authority to ‘bind and loose’, and that Her judgments are His judgments, righteous and true.

If you are Catholic, and you (praiseworthily) want others to join in Communion, then instead of trying to make the Church give it to those others on THEIR terms, you should be trying to help these people to accept the Catholic Faith so that they may become Catholic and THEN receive. IOW, you should be working for them to receive Holy Communion on GOD’S TERMS. . .as He has given to His Holy Catholic Church.

 

[Walking_Home]

If that is what you truly believe, then all I can say is that I will pray for you. I pray that one day all of us can put aside our petty differences.

---

Our Lord established one Church --one Faith. Conversion is open to all. You want to share in Holy Communion ----become Catholic.

 

[Corki]

If that is what you truly believe, then all I can say is that I will pray for you. I pray that one day all of us can put aside our petty differences.

And by that you have answered your own question. Right now, there *are *differences and to approach the Lord’s table as if we are all in communion with each other would be dishonest.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Part 2. . .

If you are not Catholic (and I assume you personally are not, HC, as you refer to yourself as 'Christian) would you kindly tell me why you want the Church to give the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ to those who do not accept that Holy Communion is the Body and Blood of Christ? To those who do not accept the authority of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?

If you were judging a group of people to make up an 8 person team for the Olympics, would you insist that all 800 people who came to try be given slots? I don’t think so.

Would you insist that you had to have an equal number of men and women? Black, white, Asian? Old and young? Regardless of their ability? I don’t think so.

If a person came stomping into your place of worship, loudly declared that there was no God, but insisted that since he was ‘just as much a human being as you’ he had the right to sit there in your church as you did, to come and to speak to the congregation just as your pastor does, even if his words were to deny your God and mock your faith, would you accept this?
I don’t think so.

So why are you asking the Catholic people–nay, the Catholic priests, bishops, and the Pope himself–to disregard their own Holy-Spirit guided teachings and the word of Scripture itself, because you personally ‘feel’ that 'everybody should have CATHOLIC COMMUNION" regardless of whether the people believe in the Catholic faith, accept the Catholic faith, are capable of receiving the Lord worthily, etc?

It doesn’t make much sense.

As I said before, if you want ‘everybody’ to be able to receive Holy Communion, then start by becoming Catholic yourself and encouraging others to do likewise.

If you want Holy Communion, you must prepare yourself and accept God’s terms. Not make Him bow to ‘your’ terms’.

 

[nate12387]

As Catholics, we believe that the Bread and Wine get transformed into the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ with the ascents remaining the same. It is because of this reason that we worship the Eucharist. These are just two reasons why non - catholics can’t receive communion from a Catholic Church and why Catholics can’t receive from a non - catholic church.

 

[benedictgal]

As a Christian, it pains me to see the different denominations bicker over ideological differences. The biggest one is who can participate in Holy Communion. It is not for us to decide who receives the Body and Blood of Christ.

Before you respond to this thread arguing one point or another, ask yourself this question. If you went forward to receive Holy Communion, would Jesus turn you away?

Jesus taught us that there are only two rules to follow:

1. Love God with all of your heart, soul and mind.
2. Love your neighbor as yourself.

We all, as Christians believe this. All other “human created” ideological differences are silly.

Let us all start the journey of becoming Christians with a single voice by sharing communion, regardless of our differences.

First of all, the Church is not a man-made institution. She was founded by Jesus Christ on the foundation of St. Peter, the first pope. After all, it was Jesus who entrusted the Church and her administration to St. Peter and his successors, the popes:

From the Holy Gospel, according to St. Matthew:

15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?

16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Jesus gave St. Peter his own authority to bind and loose. The actions made by St. Peter and his successors would then be ratified by heaven, as indicated in verse 19. Establishing the norms for Holy Communion falls under such a charge that Jesus gave to St. Peter and his successors.

This authority was also handed on to the rest of the Apostolic band and their successors, though not as universally as St. Peter and his, for Jesus also notes later on in the same Gospel:

18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven

This is a share in the authority given to St. Peter and his successors, but, in a limited scope. To the bishops belongs the authority to regulate the liturgical life in their individual dioceses, but, always in communion with the Holy Father in Rome.

Therefore, to call the institution of the Church “human created” ideology is mistaken because this line of thinking does not take into account the authority that Jesus Christ directly conferred on St. Peter, the apostles and their successors.

Furthermore, Jesus notes in the Gospsels, especially in the parable of the king who gave a wedding feast for his son that:

14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

The Church does not practice open Communion because she regards the Body and Blood of her Divine Spouse as her most precious and sacred Treasure. That is why, although all Catholics are required to assist at Mass only those who are properly disposed can receive the Body and Blood of the living God, so as to not risk the pains of the condemnation that St. Paul spoke of in his first Letter to the Corinthians:

27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

As St. Paul indicates in this epistle, he hands down to the Corinthians what has been handed to him directly from Christ. Therefore, his words concerning reverence and respect for the Holy Eucharist are not human ideology, but are deeply rooted in the divine.

 

[Howard_Roark]

If that is what you truly believe, then all I can say is that I will pray for you. I pray that one day all of us can put aside our petty differences.

Of course it’s what I believe…it’s Matthew Ch.7 v.6

Even the earliest Christians believed this specifically referred to closed communion - only for the visible members of the visible Church in a state of grace.

 

[Scottgun]

There has to real unity, not phony platitudes. When we take the Body and Blood and Christ, we are implicitly proclaiming union with His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and if that union isn’t really there then we are lying.

 

[bpbasilphx]

All other “human created” ideological differences are silly.

**But Catholics (and for that matter, Orthodox) firmly believe that what they believe are NOT "human created ideological differences, but are Divine revelations.

It’s the OTHER CHURCHES that have embraced human created differences, and by so doing have put themselves outside of the original Church.**

 

[FrDavid96]

As a Christian, it pains me to see the different denominations bicker over ideological differences. The biggest one is who can participate in Holy Communion. It is not for us to decide who receives the Body and Blood of Christ.

Before you respond to this thread arguing one point or another, ask yourself this question. If you went forward to receive Holy Communion, would Jesus turn you away?

Jesus taught us that there are only two rules to follow:

1. Love God with all of your heart, soul and mind.
2. Love your neighbor as yourself.

We all, as Christians believe this. All other “human created” ideological differences are silly.

Let us all start the journey of becoming Christians with a single voice by sharing communion, regardless of our differences.

Christ never turns anyone away from receiving Him in the Eucharist. And neither does the Church turn anyone away from receiving the Eucharist. Everyone is welcome to receive. Everyone.

Neither God nor the Church turn anyone away, but individual persons turn themselves away. When we sin and are unworthy to receive, that is not God denying us, but is us denying ourselves of His presence. When we deny the communion that is the One Church founded by Christ, we thereby deprive ourselves of participation in Sacramental Communion.

Everyone is welcome to embrace the Faith, and indeed called by God to do so. When that happens, such a one is able to receive the Body of Christ.

"All other “human created” ideological differences are silly. "

Precisely correct. But remember that those “ideological differences” are a result of Protestant error. The Church, on the other hand believes, professes, and practices the Divinely revealed Truth.

 

[1ke]

Before you respond to this thread arguing one point or another, ask yourself this question. If you went forward to receive Holy Communion, would Jesus turn you away?

If I was unworthy-- of course he would.

Jesus taught us that there are only two rules to follow:

1. Love God with all of your heart, soul and mind.
2. Love your neighbor as yourself.

Except for all those other rules he taught us.

We all, as Christians believe this. All other “human created” ideological differences are silly.

I agree with you. Human-created ideological differences are not only “silly” they are scandalous and sacriligious. Christ called for unity and founded one Church-- the Catholic Church.

Let us all start the journey of becoming Christians with a single voice by sharing communion, regardless of our differences.

No can do.

I follow Christ’s commands.

 

[jheii]

I agree with everything said here, but would like to add one little point. Communion and Community have the same root. You seem to want to take communion from our Church, but not to be a part of the community that is our Church. Sounds a bit selfish, doesn’t it?

 

[stbruderklaus]

As a Lutheran, just a thought or two…

There are differences, and the there are differences. The standard of what was necessary for confessing the faith have shifted over time… expanded, if you will. There was a time when all that was necessary for communion in the Body of Christ was confession of the Nicene Creed-- differences of liturgy, and even polity, were secondary at best. Understanding the real presence in the Eucharist, and the role of Baptism, and the moral obligations of Christians… these were central, and common, across the Church.

Today, we argue and divide over a whole lot more than those basics. I, too, find it sad that Christians who confess the Nicene Creed, understand the simple truth of Baptism and the Eucharist, and fuction within a structure that was recognized as legitimate within the Catholic Church of antiquity… but there have been a lot of contentions and controversies since then.

Luther was fond of saying, with many of the other Reformers of his era, that all that was necessary for Christian unity was the faithful proclamation of the Gospel and the Scriptures, and the faithful administration of the Sacraments according the Christ’s command. Our Roman friends asserted that complete submission to the bishop of Rome was also necessary… a sad decision that first drove off the Eastern half of the Church, and eventually created the schisms of the Reformation.

I’ve seen sectarian application of restrictions to the Eucharist in Lutheran circles that exceed even Roman restrictions… and that’s sad to me. However, I think we need a better continuing dialogue through our ecumenical offices so that we can properly define what is necessary to unity, and what is not… in essence, what the big issues are, and what the “petty” issues are that we should be able to ignore in each other. Unfortunately, our communions have not reached that point yet.

However, isn’t it interesting, that if we look at each other’s canons, applying the Sacraments at the time of death is much more liberal than we’re willing to extend in regular times of life? perhaps there is an acknowledgment in this, that our canons are a bit over developed, and beyond the commands of Christ.

Grace and peace.

 

[Myhouse]

I have struggled with this also. We want those we love to be able to take communion. That is not wrong intentions. The problem arises that those who are not Catholic do not believe nor understand what our faith believes. I used to think when I was younger that this was hurting the church. I understand now that there is no ill intent. We always hope and pray that those around us will find Christ in the Catholic Church. It is just a wrong as someone who takes communion and has no thought as to what they are partaking of. For lack of better words a priest told me that some just pass through like it a chuck wagon. Catholics also sin in this way. I feel there is alot of defensiveness as this question has always been a sore spot. If you are not Catholic please do not be hurt by those who take offense. The Gospels do not teach us to criticize and judge. Rather, be someone that people see Christ in and have a desire to know more about the Faith.

 

[FrDavid96]

As a Lutheran, just a thought or two…

There are differences, and the there are differences. The standard of what was necessary for confessing the faith have shifted over time… expanded, if you will. There was a time when all that was necessary for communion in the Body of Christ was confession of the Nicene Creed-- differences of liturgy, and even polity, were secondary at best. Understanding the real presence in the Eucharist, and the role of Baptism, and the moral obligations of Christians… these were central, and common, across the Church.

Today, we argue and divide over a whole lot more than those basics. I, too, find it sad that Christians who confess the Nicene Creed, understand the simple truth of Baptism and the Eucharist, and fuction within a structure that was recognized as legitimate within the Catholic Church of antiquity… but there have been a lot of contentions and controversies since then.

Luther was fond of saying, with many of the other Reformers of his era, that all that was necessary for Christian unity was the faithful proclamation of the Gospel and the Scriptures, and the faithful administration of the Sacraments according the Christ’s command. Our Roman friends asserted that complete submission to the bishop of Rome was also necessary… a sad decision that first drove off the Eastern half of the Church, and eventually created the schisms of the Reformation.

I’ve seen sectarian application of restrictions to the Eucharist in Lutheran circles that exceed even Roman restrictions… and that’s sad to me. However, I think we need a better continuing dialogue through our ecumenical offices so that we can properly define what is necessary to unity, and what is not… in essence, what the big issues are, and what the “petty” issues are that we should be able to ignore in each other. Unfortunately, our communions have not reached that point yet.

However, isn’t it interesting, that if we look at each other’s canons, applying the Sacraments at the time of death is much more liberal than we’re willing to extend in regular times of life? perhaps there is an acknowledgment in this, that our canons are a bit over developed, and beyond the commands of Christ.

Grace and peace.

Yes, there are “differences” and “differences” But the differences of the time were Luther’s own inventions–not only were they not based on sound doctrine and the development of those doctrines, most of all revealed Truth, they stood in absolute opposition to them. All Luther did was to invent a convoluted and deceitful way of saying “I’m right, God’s wrong. Follow me.” Were it not for the avaricious and power hungry Gernam princes who supported him, he would be nothing more than another of the many obscure heretics of history.

When the Eccumenical Council of Trent met, everything that was good (and there was much good) in Luther’s teachings was adopted by the Church. He would have emerged victorious. Luther might even have become a saint, but he let his own pride get the best of him.

By their fruits will you know them. The fruits of Luther’s heresies are to be seen today in the fragmented and evermore fragmenting “communion” of his followers, who, as a whole, have hardly any belief at all left in common.

 

[stbruderklaus]

Fr. David,

If indeed you are a priest, you are woefully under educated in the history of the Reformation. Perhaps, if you took some time to read the Augsburg Confession, you would have a more developed sense of what the Evangelical Catholics of Germany (whom Rome branded as Lutherans, against their will) both confessed and intended in their time. You might also develop a better understanding of what 70 million or so Lutheran Christians around the world believe, teach, and confess-- and that there is nowhere near the novelty in Lutheran theology that emerged from the medieval scholastics and the post-Trent theologians.

I would also recommend against your proposition about defending the validity of either Lutheran or Roman traditions based on the fruits of their followers. Keep in mind, Lutherans didn’t burn anyone… but Romans were all atwitter with cooking and torturing folks for daring to do little more than voice the possibility that the tyranny of Rome might be in error. If you really want to discuss the fruits of our respective communions, you better be ready to pull the table cloth off your own rotting assortment.

For my part, I would rather keep this conversation more civil and less polemical. If you would keep yourself from slanderous and unsupported allegations against Luther, I shall keep myself from noting the historic horrors of Roman leadership… and perhaps we can discuss issues as fellow Christians of different communions, with different confessions of the faith. In that light, we might better learn from each other, than simply lob theological grenades at each other. Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI contended that the Reformation happened with errors and sins on both sides, for which both parties need to repent. I’m ready to repent of our errors… and the Popes have repented of theirs. Perhaps now our members of our respective communions can follow suit.

In His service, and yours,