S
Sword_Brethren
Guest
No. If my friend/family member want to receive our Lord, all they have to do is become Catholic.
- Status
J
japhy
Guest
The Eucharist is for all men provided they are members of Christ’s Body, the Church. Just because Christ gave His body and blood for all men
When Jesus said “all of you”, He was speaking to those gathered with Him that night.
The words you have quoted are from a poor translation which is being corrected in the next year or so. The words “and for all” (over the Chalice) can lead to the erroneous conclusion that all men will have the sins forgiven and be saved. This is not true. The new translation, instead of saying “for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven” will say “for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins.” That’s what it says in the Latin (pro multis, not pro omnibus) and that’s what Jesus said in Scripture.
I don’t know what translation of the Bible reads “Lord’s Supper” in Acts 2:42; the Greek says explicitly “breaking of bread.” Yes, it was the Lord’s Supper, Communion, the Eucharist, but don’t misrepresent the words of Scripture.
That’s also not an accurate translation of Scripture…
But all men aren’t automatically in the new covenant. They must enter that new covenant through baptism. Why would an unbaptized person partake of the “covenant meal” of Christ? A person without faith should not receive Communion.
The “Lord, I am not worthy…” does not make a person worthy to receive Communion if they have mortal sin on their souls. No one said it does. If a person with mortal sin wants to receive Communion, they must confess their sin.
The Catholic Church accepts any valid baptism (“in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”) done in water. But not every baptized person is in a state where they should receive Communion.
R
rev_kevin
Guest
Ok lets wait until its changed.
Life application study Bible, New Living transtation
I don’t believe I am misrepresenting the Scripture.
Ok when I was Baptized the pastor said I Baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit barried with him and risen to a new life. Done in water. I was also Baptized as a infant in the Catholic church, had my first Holy Communion, had my confirmation,{name of Joseph} my first confession, everything needed to be Catholic I did. So am I able to receive the Euchrist.
When were the disciples baptized. Not before the Last Supper and not with water. Acts 2:1 On the day of Pentecost, 7 weeks after Jesus’ resurrection…Then what looked like flames or toungs of fire appeared and settled on each of them.
What does it mean Lord I am not worthy to receive you but only say the word and I shall be healed. Isn’t that asking for forgiveness.
H
Hisalone
Guest
At one time I would criticize Catholics for not allowing me to recieve communion. No Im glad they dont and would not if I could.
J
japhy
Guest
Okay, I’m not familiar with that translation, but it seems that it is providing commentary and/or glosses in the Scriptures themselves, rather than in commentaries or footnotes. The Greek says “covenant”, not “covenant between God and his people”.
Are you still Catholic? Do you believe what the Church believes (most especially about the Eucharist)?
It appears from your profile that you are no longer Catholic. Out of curiosity, why did you leave the Church?
Water baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit did not exist until Jesus gave that commission to them, as far as I can tell. Pentecost was something different, of course.
It is from Scripture; the current translation is a bit inaccurate… it too is being corrected. See Matthew 8:8 (and the surrounding verses). It is a prayer about unworthiness to receive the Lord and a request for spiritual healing from Him. It does not forgive us of mortal sin. It is a preparatory prayer.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Oh, gee whiz, let me think…why would they want to be called "Christian?’ If they believe that your communion is valid, then why would they NOT want to ‘recieve’ it?So often in Catholic churches, the discussion can get to the idea of how to remind Non-Catholics that they are not to receive the Holy Communion that we share in our Mass
If we have a guest, and they want to go up, are we being ‘offensive’ if we say ‘you can’t go’?Or should we try to invite others who may not be Catholic so that they may become in communion with us by way of the Eucharist.
(Let me clear something up:I am TOTALLY in in favor of Non-Catholics receiving the Holy Communion, no matter their age or religion. If you have not received the SACRAMENT of the FIRST HOLY COMMUNION, imo, you should not receive)
Some non-Catholics attend Catholic Mass on a regular basis - at least during the holidays when visiting Catholic relatives.
But why would a Non-Catholic, esp those who are aware that this is a problem for at least some Catholics, why would you want to receive Communion? Where is the benefit for you?
As for me, I don’t think the Catholic communion IS valid, and therefore I would not want to recieve it, and I would not. However, that’s quite a different situation.
Why do you want to receive the Holy Communion, but yet, you are not open to receiving instruction in RCIA? Why do you go and say, ‘Oh no, I’m no Catholic. I have no desire to be’? What is the reason for “Playing Catholic”?
I’m do hope that this question will at least provoked some honest dialogue on this topic. My thing is I think that so often, Catholics, in the spirit of Charity and ecumenism, are either encouraging, or at least not discouraging, Non-Catholics from receiving, or in effortts to ‘not offend’ are not saying anything, but what is the perspective from the other side.
(If there is a similar discussion to this, plaese add this to the earlier one. I did a search, but was not patient enough to go through very many pages of search results)
R
rev_kevin
Guest
I have different Bibles with different translations.
No no longer Catholic but I do beleive in the Eushrist and what it stands for.
Several reasons. Disagreed with some of the ways and teachings to give the short version.
J
japhy
Guest
Some translations (e.g. The Message) are more paraphrases than actual translations. The New Living Translation includes descriptive glosses in some places. Just thought you might want to be made aware of that.
You disagree with some of the Church’s teachings, but not regarding the Eucharist. So you believe the Eucharist to be the true, actual, real, substantial presence of our Lord Jesus Christ in His fullness, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, under the mere appearance of bread and wine, and that Jesus Christ is present, whole and entire, in each fragment of the Precious Body and in each drop of the Precious Blood. (At least, that’s what I assume you believe.)
R
rev_kevin
Guest
Sorry I couldn’t answer all the questions but my daughter and grandchildren came to pick me up for Thanksgiving while I was in the middle of answering you.
Yes you are correct about the Eucharist. See I may not agree with some of the church’s teachings but that is not one I disagree with.
Thank you for your answers to my questions. I understand what you are saying about the preparatory prayer. I quess the wording of it made me think it was in a way confessing or a way to get your sins forgiven.
R
ronin67
Guest
No, we do not wish this on our non-Catholic friends, but if they accept Christ and accept the fact that the Eucharist (Holy Communion in Protestant denominations) is the body and blood of Christ, then who are we to judge their worthiness as fellow servants of God through Christ Jesus? As long as they recognize that the wine is Christ’s Blood and that the bread is his flesh, they should be allowed to participate. Before Mass, the priest could ask if any non-Catholics wish to partake of the Holy Eucharist. If so, ask them their understanding of what the Eucharist means. If they give the above explaination, allow them to participate. If not, explain to them that due to their non-belief that the bread and wine are the presence of Christ Jesus as his body and blood, they will not be allowed to participate due to St. Paul’s warning in 1 Corinthians 11:26-30. Not a hard process.
Take Care and May God Bless!
Ed
J
Justy90
Guest
Do you really believe that this passage wraps up the Catholic doctrine of receiving without being in the good graces of the Catholic church? You should really study who Paul was speaking to and why in 1 Corinthians. It had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with receiving communion in the Catholic church.
R
ralphinal
Guest
Let me start by saying that some of the non-CAtholic posters in this thread show a more profound love for the Real Presence than many Catholics. That one statement should tell you why they want to receive. Yes, O.S. Luke, you are one of them.
I can understand completely. If I thought that there was a Real Presence in Communion in their church, I would want to be able to receive, too. As it stands now, I do not accept that possiblity, so I have no issue not receiving. To say that they are wrong for seeing Jesus present and wanting to receive is really silly.
But, and this is a big old but, we cannot deny that there are divisions within Christianity. I, for one, hold that Jesus did not desire these divisions and that they are all man-made, not designed by God. There is no way on this earth that God would want conflicting theologies or denominations. That said, if man has divided it, how should we respond? In my opinion, the idea that the Church has had, look at each group and decide on a general case-by-case basis if they should be allowed communion with us is the best way. In the individual case, it may not be the best.
The problem is that there are too many Catholics who have NO BUSINESS AT ALL receiving, and that weakens any argument. After all, if a Catholic who is pro-abortion and denies the Real Presence goes to communion, how can we tell a Methodist who is pro-life and truly has a devotion to the Real Presence?
I can understand completely. If I thought that there was a Real Presence in Communion in their church, I would want to be able to receive, too. As it stands now, I do not accept that possiblity, so I have no issue not receiving. To say that they are wrong for seeing Jesus present and wanting to receive is really silly.
But, and this is a big old but, we cannot deny that there are divisions within Christianity. I, for one, hold that Jesus did not desire these divisions and that they are all man-made, not designed by God. There is no way on this earth that God would want conflicting theologies or denominations. That said, if man has divided it, how should we respond? In my opinion, the idea that the Church has had, look at each group and decide on a general case-by-case basis if they should be allowed communion with us is the best way. In the individual case, it may not be the best.
The problem is that there are too many Catholics who have NO BUSINESS AT ALL receiving, and that weakens any argument. After all, if a Catholic who is pro-abortion and denies the Real Presence goes to communion, how can we tell a Methodist who is pro-life and truly has a devotion to the Real Presence?
M
MariaG
Guest
It seems the question is more diverse.
Sacramental Protestants and Non-Sacramental with a subdivision of non-sacramental but bible believing Real Presence Christians.
The difference of why a sacramental Protestant or a bible believing Real presence Christian is different from the non-sacramental.
I can sympathize with the sacramental Protestant who understands what/who they wish to recieve, but not with the non-sacramental who doesn’t understand, agree, or believe yet still wishes to recieve because they are a Christian.
Sacramental Protestants and Non-Sacramental with a subdivision of non-sacramental but bible believing Real Presence Christians.
The difference of why a sacramental Protestant or a bible believing Real presence Christian is different from the non-sacramental.
I can sympathize with the sacramental Protestant who understands what/who they wish to recieve, but not with the non-sacramental who doesn’t understand, agree, or believe yet still wishes to recieve because they are a Christian.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Absolutely. As Ralph said, when one considers the CINO “Easter Bunny/ Christmas Elf” type of Catholic who often is only in the Church on those 2 days in any given year, hasn’t received the Sacrament of Reconciliation since grade school, and who goes up for communion as a matter of course. . .one feels a deep sadness especially for those like Luke who really, truly know and understand what the Eucharist is and who hunger and thirst for it yet cannot receive.
Naturally I’d like to see the Bunny Catholic not only made aware of what he/she is abusing, but also to go to confession and to start receiving appropriately. . .IOW, I’d like to see all Catholics aware of the miracle of being able to receive the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus and to thoroughly prepare themselves to do so. . .because I think that when we would have this as the ‘norm’ in Catholic churches, we would be in a much stronger position in the eyes of the Christian world. How often have our Protestant brothers considered the Catholic Church and its teachings, and then regretfully put them aside because what they saw in actual churches and among those calling themselves “Catholic” was so different from those teachings.
We often say that there are many, many ‘different’ Protestant groups… . But while the teachings of the Catholic Church do not differ, we can certainly see that a regretably large number of Catholics dissent here, there, and everywhere. If they aren’t actively calling themselves "protestants’ they are certainly behaving as such --and naturally that makes it even harder for the rational and intelligent Protestant looking at the Catholic Church to take us seriously, when so many of our ‘own’ are flouting the Church they claim to uphold . . .
Naturally I’d like to see the Bunny Catholic not only made aware of what he/she is abusing, but also to go to confession and to start receiving appropriately. . .IOW, I’d like to see all Catholics aware of the miracle of being able to receive the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus and to thoroughly prepare themselves to do so. . .because I think that when we would have this as the ‘norm’ in Catholic churches, we would be in a much stronger position in the eyes of the Christian world. How often have our Protestant brothers considered the Catholic Church and its teachings, and then regretfully put them aside because what they saw in actual churches and among those calling themselves “Catholic” was so different from those teachings.
We often say that there are many, many ‘different’ Protestant groups… . But while the teachings of the Catholic Church do not differ, we can certainly see that a regretably large number of Catholics dissent here, there, and everywhere. If they aren’t actively calling themselves "protestants’ they are certainly behaving as such --and naturally that makes it even harder for the rational and intelligent Protestant looking at the Catholic Church to take us seriously, when so many of our ‘own’ are flouting the Church they claim to uphold . . .
B
Bluegoat
Guest
I looked for one of those “Yes This” icons, but they don’t seem to have them. I think from this perspective closed communion makes sense. I would make a wider allowance for participation than the Catholic Church has, but the principle is the same.
J
JimG
Guest
No, the single verse doesn’t wrap up Catholic theology of the Eucharist. But Paul does say that if we receive without recognizing that it is the body and blood of Christ, we eat and drink judgment on ourselves.
Now, as far as I know, most protestant denominations except for the Eastern Orthodox churches and high church Anglicans, do not believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist in the same way as Catholics.
The tenor of many of the replies seems to be that no matter what the Catholic Church has said about the guidelines for the reception of communion in its own parishes, we will all just make up our own minds about whether or not to receive. That’s seems rather disrespectful; “I don’t believe in most things your Church teaches, but I think you got this one thing right, so I’ll disregard the rules entirely.”
But, as Ralphinal and Tantum Ergo pointed out, Catholics often show the same disrespect, receiving communion when they are not properly disposed for it, either because they do not really believe in the real presence or are in a state of mortal sin.
And it is sort of a moot point in practice, since parishes do not check ID’s in the communion line to see if one is Catholic or belongs to the parish, or ask questions about one’s beliefs.
I heard a Scott Hahn talk once in which he said something like, sacraments can be dangerous–because they are encounters with the living Christ, the eternal Word–and we can’t take Christ for granted or our worthiness for granted. And we can’t lie to Christ.
So when it comes to the Eucharist, we should examine ourselves before receiving. Communing without believing is sort of like committing adultery: you do the act without professing the commitment. Why receive communion if we are not in communion?
U
Usbek_de_Perse
Guest
Someone inform me: Don’t the LDS re-baptize? I guess they do adult or believer baptism, so if, say, a Baptist became LDS, would the Baptist believer baptism be acceptable by them?
So my question is, why would they claim to be Christian if they don’t accept a valid Christian baptism?
R
ralphinal
Guest
Lots of Christian groups don’t accept other baptisms. Some baptist churches don’t even accept other baptist ones!
As to your specific question, I do not know. For some reason, I think that they do rebaptize. They would say that the other baptism was not a valid Christian one, which is what we say about theirs
B
Bluegoat
Guest
It rather depends on how strict you want to be. For example, no other denominations, besides some splinter Catholic groups, teach transubstantiation as a matter of necessary belief.
Usually it is considered the doctrine of the Real Presence that is considered the telling point here. Catholics accept that the Orthodox explanation, which does not include transubstantiation, to be good enough. The Protestants who have a doctrine of the Real Presence often have theological explanations of how that happens, but few insist on it as doctrine. Anglicans for example will argue about the nature of it, but what is necessary to believe in is the Real Presence.
As far as groups that believe in it - they include at the least the Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, and I believe Methodists. I am not sure but Presbyterians may as well.
- Status