A
AntalKalnoky
Guest
He is speaking Very Wiselly, figurativelly On Church Teaching, And Common Sense.
If I'm Baptized, Shouldn't I Have The Right To Communion Too?
- Status
F
FabiusMaximus
Guest
Umm, can I ask you then, since the Catholics want “absolute control,” why do Evangelicals force Catholics to be rebaptized when they join an Evangelical church?
Since you want Catholics to offer non-Catholics Communion, why don’t Evangelicals start off by recognizing Catholic baptisms (which many do not)? It’s kind of interesting how the “exclusionary” Catholics seem more willing to accept non-Catholic baptisms than vice-versa.
1
1voice
Guest
… So you demand that I meet a standard that you yourself reject.I will, right after you provide the Scriptures that state I must support all theological beliefs with Scripture.
If you can’t (and, you can’t) then you are providing a false criterion which even you can’t support with Scripture.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Yes, and attempting to make the Catholic Church’s stance on reception of the Eucharist a ‘religious issue’ (thus arguing it is a teaching of men, an ‘addition’ to divine teaching and therefore false, etc. etc. is yet another strawman.
The Catholic Church’s teaching on reception of the Eucharist being limited to Catholics in a state of grace is apostolic and addressed by St. Paul among others.
In fact, many Protestants (as is shown by the response of posters) practice closed communion themselves (showing an understanding of the necessity of being ‘in union’ in order to receive), and also show good manners in choosing to abide by the teachings of another church or denomination and not trying to ‘take’ without being ‘in union’ with the other group.
The issue is not that the big bad Catholic Church is trying to deny ‘Christians’ something to which they have a RIGHT to take, no matter what their ‘personal Christian belief is’ and even if some, many, or ALL those beliefs deny Catholic teachings!
The issue is that in order to receive communion, one must be in FULL union, otherwise, as Scripture tells us, one ‘eats and drinks condemnation on himself/herself’.
Again, ANY person, nonCatholic Christian, Jew, Muslim, Pagan, atheist, Klingon. . .you name it, ANY person has the opportunity to become a Catholic Christian in full union with the Church and receive that Eucharist ‘in communion’ with same. We don’t deny anybody the opportunity to become Catholic.
The Catholic Church’s teaching on reception of the Eucharist being limited to Catholics in a state of grace is apostolic and addressed by St. Paul among others.
In fact, many Protestants (as is shown by the response of posters) practice closed communion themselves (showing an understanding of the necessity of being ‘in union’ in order to receive), and also show good manners in choosing to abide by the teachings of another church or denomination and not trying to ‘take’ without being ‘in union’ with the other group.
The issue is not that the big bad Catholic Church is trying to deny ‘Christians’ something to which they have a RIGHT to take, no matter what their ‘personal Christian belief is’ and even if some, many, or ALL those beliefs deny Catholic teachings!
The issue is that in order to receive communion, one must be in FULL union, otherwise, as Scripture tells us, one ‘eats and drinks condemnation on himself/herself’.
Again, ANY person, nonCatholic Christian, Jew, Muslim, Pagan, atheist, Klingon. . .you name it, ANY person has the opportunity to become a Catholic Christian in full union with the Church and receive that Eucharist ‘in communion’ with same. We don’t deny anybody the opportunity to become Catholic.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Well, er, yes. That’s YOUR standard, not mine, right?
If you can’t provide me a verse that says that everything we believe must be stated in Scripture, then you’re not living by your own standard.
Again, (and you should know this) Catholics REJECT your standard.
For this very reason that your post so very clearly limns: it’s not found in Scripture.
C
Crdl2Grv
Guest
That’s great that there was a temporary dip in the crime rate in the mid '90’s. Unfortunately, it didn’t last. Nor did it have anything to do with the number of Christians praying on soccer stadiums. It had to do with the joint forces of the Colombian and US military hunting down and killing members of the Medellin cartel, including Pablo Escobar in 1993. After the Medellin cartel fell, the Colombian military systematically rolled up the less powerful cartels, including the Cali cartel
However, removing the more powerful heads of the large, multi-national cartels that were based in Colombia had little to no effect on the murder rate, nor the rate of cocaine production. As I said before, Colombia still produces over 400 tons of cocaine per year. And today there are 71 homicides per 100,000 people in Cali, Colombia. For some perspective, Flint, MI , which was declared the “Most Dangerous City in America” last year by US News and World Report, has 53 murders per 100,000 residents in 2011. Colombia in general and Cali in particular do not provide the best testimony to the power of Christian prayer over the drug trade.
C
Crdl2Grv
Guest
Just so we’re clear, you’re simultaneously claiming that the events described in post #54 (Christians praying in stadiums led to the elimination of the drug trade and high crime rate in Cali) were “International news,” but at the same time the “war on drugs” has been a “complete failure,” and that’s “often in the news.”
So which is it? Did Christians praying in stadiums and eradicating drugs make it to the “international news” while simultaneously avoiding any reference to religion? Or did the “complete failure” of the War on Drugs make it to the news? Personally, I’d love to see that report:
“In Cali, Colombia, 45,000 gathered in a stadium to… do nothing. Within months every member of the Cali Cartel was either arrested or turned themselves in. Also, the War on drugs is a complete failure. Except for what happened in Cali, which happened for no discernible reason. So the War on Drugs is not a really a complete failure. It’s only a failure outside of Cali, Colombia, where, again, 45,000 once gathered in a stadium to do nothing.”
1
1voice
Guest
It strikes me as the pinnacle of irony that “Communion” … given by Jesus to share in his life and death and resurrection … is such a point of division.
You’d think we’d all at least be able to get along on that point.
The bumper sticker that reads "Jesus, save me
… from your followers" … hits the nail too often… IMHO.
You’d think we’d all at least be able to get along on that point.
The bumper sticker that reads "Jesus, save me
… from your followers" … hits the nail too often… IMHO.
H
hn160
Guest
You are absolutely right, in taking Holy Communion, it implies that all at the are in full union of belief and doctrine. Anyone at a Lutheran, Catholic, or Orthodox altar that does not believe that they are receiving Christ’s very Body and Blood in the bread and wine is receiving it to their harm. Holy Communion is not a symbolic or a memorial act.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yes, 'tis a sad testament indeed that Christians so often do not reflect Christ.
However, the bumper sticker presents a great irony in that the complainer would not know that “Jesus saves” were it not for these followers who proclaimed this Gospel to the ends of the earth.
T
TimothyH
Guest
It’s not just a matter of points of division, open or closed communion, or seperation.
The Cathlolic Church, according to her belief based on very clear statements in the Bible, believes that great harm can be done to one who is not properly disposed, AKA not in a state of mortal sin, to recieve the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ Christ. The bible clearly states that if one recieves communion without recognizing that it is the body and blood of Jesus Christ, they “eat and drink condemnation” for themselves.
According to Catholic doctrine, to allow one who does not believe that it is the actual body and blood of Jesus to recieve, or to allow one who is not in a state of sanctifying grace to recieve, would be doing that person a tremendous disservice. Knowingly allowing such a person to recieve would be intentionally placing that person in great danger.
Save me from your followers indeed! Sometimes the Church even saves us from ourselves.
-Tim-
K
KathleenGee
Guest
The Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity given us through consecrated hands.
To willfullly receive the Eucharist without faith and in defiance of the sacred priesthood who is God’s chosen means to be His ministers is putting one’s self in a questionable place to say the least.
Protestants encounter Christ through spiritual communion, but not sacramental union. The Eucharist is Christ’s remaining presence among us…
Christ is present in our tabernacles, indicated by the lighted sanctuary lamp. In ancient times, God was present among the Jewish people at the Mercy Seat with two statues of the cherubim on each side.
Now the veil is torn, God is revealed in Christ. It is Christ now in the sanctuary Who is with us. God’s presence is with us, not only in His Word, but in His sacred being, the Word Made Flesh.
Spiritual communion based on the Sacred Word of God bears the fruit of Christ and His Holy Spirit we all can recognize. But Catholicism goes further…or rather it is correct to say, that the universal Catholic Church was chosen by Christ as His Church through which He would bear witness and presence. The Catholic faith goes farther in being the instrument in which Christ fully reveals Himself. Words are always open to interpretation and have their own veil of clouded reasoning.
To willfullly receive the Eucharist without faith and in defiance of the sacred priesthood who is God’s chosen means to be His ministers is putting one’s self in a questionable place to say the least.
Protestants encounter Christ through spiritual communion, but not sacramental union. The Eucharist is Christ’s remaining presence among us…
Christ is present in our tabernacles, indicated by the lighted sanctuary lamp. In ancient times, God was present among the Jewish people at the Mercy Seat with two statues of the cherubim on each side.
Now the veil is torn, God is revealed in Christ. It is Christ now in the sanctuary Who is with us. God’s presence is with us, not only in His Word, but in His sacred being, the Word Made Flesh.
Spiritual communion based on the Sacred Word of God bears the fruit of Christ and His Holy Spirit we all can recognize. But Catholicism goes further…or rather it is correct to say, that the universal Catholic Church was chosen by Christ as His Church through which He would bear witness and presence. The Catholic faith goes farther in being the instrument in which Christ fully reveals Himself. Words are always open to interpretation and have their own veil of clouded reasoning.
F
FabiusMaximus
Guest
Should then, according to your logic, Evangelical churches continue to reject the validity of Catholic baptisms?
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Jesus gave himself to us and some reject him. The crisis of division is based on the human decision to join in communion or not. Christ does not change. Humans do.
Z
Zooey
Guest
Just as I, as a Methodist, do not commune when visiting my fundamental Baptist family. We hold different doctrines, & it would be telling a lie to pretend that we don’t disagree.
I greatly enjoyed, just recently, reading Pope Benedict’s comments on John Wesley, of whom he had only
good things to say.But because he is both an honest man, & an intelligent one, he didn’t try to gloss over differences between Wesleyan & Catholic theology. That is as it should be.
A
AmateurPianist
Guest
Well if it were up to me, everyone who is a believer would be able to take communion.
But it is not my organization, and they have different rules for communion.
I don’t really have issues with different organizations having different rules for stuff pertaining to their organization (like women pastors, how we do worship, who takes communion, etc). So we are good.
C
cheese_puff
Guest
For the life of me I cannot understand these threads.
If you don’t have any desire, let alone belief in participation with Catholic beliefs, WHY on earth would you want to sit through a Mass, just to participate in communion you don’t believe in anyway??
I know I have no desire to sit though a protestant service, nor do I want to partake in their communion either!
All that aside, it is an expression of respect to refrain if you are not in communion with that belief. … but then again the culture today is far more concerned about “me” then they are worried about respect.
:edited to remove gifs
If you don’t have any desire, let alone belief in participation with Catholic beliefs, WHY on earth would you want to sit through a Mass, just to participate in communion you don’t believe in anyway??
I know I have no desire to sit though a protestant service, nor do I want to partake in their communion either!
All that aside, it is an expression of respect to refrain if you are not in communion with that belief. … but then again the culture today is far more concerned about “me” then they are worried about respect.
:edited to remove gifs
Z
Zooey
Guest
That’s an excellent question.
And you are right to point to the “Me” culture. Everything has to be
“me, me, me” or people are upset. Yet they have no respect for others…
1
1voice
Guest
“You will know they are Christians by their love”
The Christians in Cali and in the Amazon jungle that I describe above are no less Christian than any other. Their lives show their deep dedication to Christ … They are already one with Christ as shown by their actions … They proclaim Christ openly in the face of death…
They love Jesus and his fellowship so much that they died for it… and their surviving family members picked up the torch without hesitation.
These folks are Christians.
1
1voice
Guest
Kind of like this op ed…
- Status