Is it wrong in scripture to deny communion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter GodHeals
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

GodHeals

Guest
Is it wrong in scripture to deny communion? I am not talking just in a Catholic church, but in general.

My sola scripture protestant friend said it should be left up to the communicant to bring judgement to themselves, and not a Priest or Pastor (Non-Catholic) to judge them by denying them communion. Is there anywhere in scripture that says it is or isn’t the place of a Priest or Pastor (Non-Catholic) to deny communion, thus judging the communicant?

I know the verse: 1 Corinthians 11:29

The only point I could make was to protect a person’s soul, but that isn’t in scripture, unless I am considered my brothers keeper, if that is a scripture that can be applied… don’t think so. Or just plain love? Any thoughts?

Thanks!
Brian
 
There’s the do not give that which is holy to dogs verse and it’s related verse about don’t case pearls before swine. I think those can be understood as commands to withhold something holy from someone who does not hold the faith or who would make mockery of the faith.
 
GodHeals said:
Is it wrong in scripture to deny communion? I am not talking just in a Catholic church, but in general.

My sola scripture protestant friend said it should be left up to the communicant to bring judgement to themselves, and not a Priest or Pastor (Non-Catholic) to judge them by denying them communion. Is there anywhere in scripture that says it is or isn’t the place of a Priest or Pastor (Non-Catholic) to deny communion, thus judging the communicant?

I know the verse: 1 Corinthians 11:29

The only point I could make was to protect a person’s soul, but that isn’t in scripture, unless I am considered my brothers keeper, if that is a scripture that can be applied… don’t think so. Or just plain love? Any thoughts?

Thanks!
Brian
Click to expand...
D-R Bible, Haydock Commentary:

Matt 7:6

Ver. 6. Give not that which is holy, or holy things, (as in the Greek) to dogs; i.e. to scandalous libertines, or infidels, who are not worthy to partake of divine mysteries and sacraments, who sacrilegiously abuse them, and trample them under their feet, as hogs do pearls. (Witham) — The sacred mysteries should not be given to those that are not properly instructed in the sublime nature of them; nor should we hold any communication of religion with those that are enemies to the truths of Christ, which they tread under their feet and treat contemptuously, and will be so far from having any more friendship for you on account of such a criminal complaisance, that it is more probable they will betray you and turn against you. (Haydock)
 
GodHeals said:
Is it wrong in scripture to deny communion? I am not talking just in a Catholic church, but in general.

My sola scripture protestant friend said it should be left up to the communicant to bring judgement to themselves, and not a Priest or Pastor (Non-Catholic) to judge them by denying them communion. Is there anywhere in scripture that says it is or isn’t the place of a Priest or Pastor (Non-Catholic) to deny communion, thus judging the communicant?

I know the verse: 1 Corinthians 11:29

The only point I could make was to protect a person’s soul, but that isn’t in scripture, unless I am considered my brothers keeper, if that is a scripture that can be applied… don’t think so. Or just plain love? Any thoughts?

Thanks!
Brian
Click to expand...
Your friend is of the radical reformed position. Which is not surprising as the vast majority of American Protestantism is. Essentially his position was first espoused by Zwingli, condemned by Luther and then systematized by Calvin. So…

St Augustine said that if we give the Body and Blood of Christ to anyone who merely desires it then we are treating the elements as though they were common bread and wine. That is, by definition, profaning the Sacrament because we are treating the Holy and common.

Also, and I hate this Calvinist argument, the notion that a person is responsible for their own eating and drinking presupposes that everyone who eats and drinks is receiving the Body and Blood. The problem is Calvin taught that only the elect can receive the Table because they are lifted up into Heaven rather than Christ coming down to us, and the non-elect receive nothing at all so it is not possible to profane the Table and Paul is speaking gibberish.

So here’s the logic…

Only the faithful can receive the Table

Each man is responsible for his own eating and drinking whether he is faithful or not

Since each man is responsible all men must therefore receive the Body and Blood

Only the faithful receive the Body and Blood

Therefore it is impossible to profane the Table

Only the faithless profane the Table

How do we work out this contradiction? Well only elect the really receive the Table. And who are the elect? Well that is based on your own credulity and how you feel about it today since Christ gave no promises to the Church that can actually be believed but only signs that may or may not be the thing signified.

So how do I know if I am getting the Table?

Good luck!

As you can see Calvin’s logic on this is complete garbage and yet his followers defend this position as though it is spoken with the tongues of angels. Even Luther called this heresy. For his part Calvin called Luther a heretic. If we accept that a man is responsible for his own eating and drinking then the best thing to do is to NEVER give communion because there is a chance the Church may be turning the means of grace into the means of damnation. Unless of course it is just a sign in which case there is no such thing as the holy and it can be given willy nilly to any and all.

And you can follow that illogic you must be a Calvinist because no one else can.

God Bless
 
Bogey, I don’t disagree with anything you said, but the OP was asking about scriptural references. He is arguing with a sola scriptura Christian who isn’t going to accept Tradition as inspired or protected. Again, your argument is well formulated and accurate.

In answer, I really can’t think of any, but I do have a question for the OP. Is your friend admitting that the bread and wine are the Body and Blood of Christ?
 
Immoral Christians are supposed to excommunicate themselves. 1 Corinthians 11:31. The Church has the authority to excommunicate any who will not voluntarily excommunicate themselves. See 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 Corinthians 2:5-11.
 
Todd_Easton said:
Immoral Christians are supposed to excommunicate themselves. 1 Corinthians 11:31. The Church has the authority to excommunicate any who will not voluntarily excommunicate themselves. See 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 Corinthians 2:5-11.
Click to expand...
True but for a Church to make no effort to try and even discern if the communicant is a Christian, because yes I have seen this very practice, is to profane the Sacrament in the most vulgar of ways.

God Bless
 
I would say no, that the Church has authority to admit to communion or deny it. Matt. 16:19 gives Peter the power to loose and to bind, and a similar authority is extended to the disciples (the Church as a whole?) in Mt. 18:18.

As noted by others, 1 Cor 5:1-13 shows Paul using this principle: the man’s immorality is public and causing (or should cause) scandal, so excommunicate him. Literally, “ex-communicate” = put him out of communion = refuse him communion, until he reforms his life. True, in 1 Cor 11 the person should examine himself, but this would refer to more hidden sins–and who of us does not have sins to worry about?

But where the sin is public, the response can and often should be equally public. These days, it would include non-Catholics, who belong to a church that by mutual agreement is out of communion with us.

Yes, this may hurt–but unless we feel that pain, we will not be moved to change things to the way they should be.
 
Thank you for all of the replies!!!

My friend brought this up. Jesus gave Judas the Eucharist. Any thoughts?!?

Leaning back against Jesus, he asked him, “Lord, who is it?”

Jesus answered, “It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish.” Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him.

So Jesus told him, “What you are about to do, do quickly.” John 13:25-27
 
GodHeals said:
Thank you for all of the replies!!!

My friend brought this up. Jesus gave Judas the Eucharist. Any thoughts?!?

Leaning back against Jesus, he asked him, “Lord, who is it?”

Jesus answered, “It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish.” Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him.

So Jesus told him, “What you are about to do, do quickly.” John 1Bb3:25-27
Click to expand...
We don’t know that that bread was the very same Eucharistic bread made by Jesus into His body. Could’ve just been ordinary bread.

And we also know that the Devil was not ‘entered into’ Judas before he received, but after. So it could easily be that Judas was not in a state of sin when he received, and in fact received while sinless. This is even more likely when one notes Jesus’ language - ‘one of you WILL (in the future) betray me’ rather than ‘one of you HAS (past tense) betrayed me’.
 
GodHeals said:
Thank you for all of the replies!!!

My friend brought this up. Jesus gave Judas the Eucharist. Any thoughts?!?

Leaning back against Jesus, he asked him, “Lord, who is it?”

Jesus answered, “It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish.” Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him.

So Jesus told him, “What you are about to do, do quickly.” John 13:25-27
Click to expand...
There is nothing in the Bible that would lead me to think that Jesus did not genuinely seek the repentance of Judas. Just because He knew it would not happen does not mean that He did not desire the repentance of the sinner. You will find this sort of thing in Isaiah 2 in Ezekiel where God asks the people “Why will you die?” and “I take no pleasure when the wicked perish.”

Just because God knows ultimately the end of all things does not mean that as He condescends to us in time and space that He is not earnestly desiring the repentance of every man.

So I think Jesus gave the Eucharist to Judas in the very real human expectation that Judas would repent, but in the very real understanding that he would not. However this does not muddle the issue of communion because Jesus gave communion in good faith to a man who had been His disciple for three years, but the offering of the means of grace to a man does not mean that the hardness of his heart will be overthrown.

The Venerable Bead said much the same about prayer and so it is. Our best efforts of prayer and meditation on behalf of someone else does not secure their repentance, and so the Church (and through it Christ Himself) offering the Eucharist to all who will repent does not guarantee that all who partake do so with an honest and repentant heart. What matters is that a man not be offered communion when he is open rebellion, which at the time Judas was not.

God Bless
 
bogeydogg said:
There is nothing in the Bible that would lead me to think that Jesus did not genuinely seek the repentance of Judas. Just because He knew it would not happen does not mean that He did not desire the repentance of the sinner. You will find this sort of thing in Isaiah 2 in Ezekiel where God asks the people “Why will you die?” and “I take no pleasure when the wicked perish.”

Just because God knows ultimately the end of all things does not mean that as He condescends to us in time and space that He is not earnestly desiring the repentance of every man.

So I think Jesus gave the Eucharist to Judas in the very real human expectation that Judas would repent, but in the very real understanding that he would not. However this does not muddle the issue of communion because Jesus gave communion in good faith to a man who had been His disciple for three years, but the offering of the means of grace to a man does not mean that the hardness of his heart will be overthrown.

The Venerable Bead said much the same about prayer and so it is. Our best efforts of prayer and meditation on behalf of someone else does not secure their repentance, and so the Church (and through it Christ Himself) offering the Eucharist to all who will repent does not guarantee that all who partake do so with an honest and repentant heart. What matters is that a man not be offered communion when he is open rebellion, which at the time Judas was not.

God Bless
Click to expand...
Thanks for ALL OF THE POSTINGS.

Unless this was understood by Jesus or the other disciples after Judas received the Eucharist, shouldn’t he be denied communion? Satan entered Him during the receiving of the Eucharist seems to not be right since the Eucharist should drive away Satan. That is interesting… I have heard since the Eucharist is in the body undissolved for about 15-20 minutes, Satan cannot touch a person.

“He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.”(John 12:6)
 
There are no guards blocking people from partaking in Communion at a Cathlolic Church. If the priest knows for sure that the person is not worthy, then that person can be asked to talk to the priest later. People who are unknown to the priest are not challenged.

When a person wants to join a parish, that is when the Diocese requires verification from the person’s previous parish.
 
I would look at Matthew 18:6.

***“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. ***

It would seem that the priest would deny communion for his own soulful preservation. I’m using this in corollary with Paul’s teaching in 1 Cor. 11: 29 - ***For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

***Allowing someone to eat and drink judgement on themselves would be akin to causing them to sin. Hence, these two verses are justification in my opinion.
 
NotWorthy said:
I would look at Matthew 18:6.

***“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. ***

It would seem that the priest would deny communion for his own soulful preservation. I’m using this in corollary with Paul’s teaching in 1 Cor. 11: 29 - ***For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

***Allowing someone to eat and drink judgement on themselves would be akin to causing them to sin. Hence, these two verses are justification in my opinion.
Click to expand...
I understand about protecting the individual’s soul, but my question most relates is it the right of a Priest or a Extraordinary Minister to deny communion to those in sin and thus rightly judge them based on knowing their sins or is it up to the individual receiving communion to not receive communion and be judge by God? Ultimately we will stand before God and He will judge the eternal state of our souls.

My protestant friend says it is up to the individual, not anyone else. So, i was seeking scriptures that say it is for us to deny other communion if a person is in sin. Jesus would have known Judas was in sin. And John and the other disciples may also have known, unless that last verse I posted was based on knowing after Judas received communion that he was stealing money.

Thanks for your thoughts!
 
MarcoPolo said:
There’s the do not give that which is holy to dogs verse and it’s related verse about don’t case pearls before swine. I think those can be understood as commands to withhold something holy from someone who does not hold the faith or who would make mockery of the faith.
Click to expand...
Yea, that somewhat makes sense, but please see my last couple posts and see if you can help me make more sense. God Bless!
 
I would argue where scripture PERMITS this.

He’ll interpret the scripture. I’ll say “That interpretation is disallowed, I asked for scripture, not tradition.”

Then I Cite 1 Cor 11 and say “Scripture says that taking communion like this is a sin. Please tell me where scripture permits someone to help someone sin.”

There is no scripture that permits someone to sin, or to help someone to sin.

So therefore, you have an obligation to deny someone communion otherwise you are helping someone sin (and that is a sin!)
 
The Council of Trent
13th Session - Page 75

Says: *“Conscious to himself” in regards of receiving the Eucharist. *That session ended with something like, “it shall stand forever until Jesus comes.” **

That is pretty much in line with (1 Corinthians 11:28) “Let a man examine himself, and so eat of this bread and drink of the cup”
 
OP, your Protestant friend hasn’t been illumined by the Sacrament of Confirmation and therefore will neither understand nor see in the Holy Scriptures that it is up to the shepherds to protect the sheep :confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top