Protestant Communion?

[TC3033]

LOL…I love these kinds of discussions here in CAF where I get told all the time that Jesus is not present “in any way whatsoever” during communion in my Lutheran church and that my church is not even a church, it’s only an “ecclesial community”…

I always feel so warm and fuzzy when I come here to CAF and everyone is always so kind and charitable in their comments…

^^Yep.

The “Non-Catholic” board has really helped me understand why I feel singled out or not accepted within the Catholic Church that my family attends.

big hugs.

 

[Della]

If it’s only a matter of definition, I prefer to define it so that my religious faith community is the Church and the Catholic community is only an “ecclesial community”

You can define your faith community however you please, but history doesn’t back you up. I’m talking about reality here, not what I (or anyone else) want to define as the Church.

GKC:

Which the sort of thing any Church should certainly, understandably, be allowed to define for itself, and teach its adherents. No problem.

It can do whatever it wants, but that doesn’t make it true.

 

[Elizium23]

Well, the first statement is wrong, but the second one is correct. It’s not a judgment of anyone in such ecclesial communities, rather it is a simple definition determining which bodies are in full communion with the Church and which are not.

No, there are Churches not in full communion with the Holy See. The Assyrian Church of the East, the Ancient Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox communion, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Polish National Catholic Church. These are all Churches per the definition of the Catholic Church.

 

[Della]

No, there are Churches not in full communion with the Holy See. The Assyrian Church of the East, the Ancient Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox communion, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Polish National Catholic Church. These are all Churches per the definition of the Catholic Church.

Thank you for the info. I tried to include categories such as these, but didn’t know how to express their connection to the Church.

 

[GKC]

You can define your faith community however you please, but history doesn’t back you up. I’m talking about reality here, not what I (or anyone else) want to define as the Church.

It can do whatever it wants, but that doesn’t make it true.

Yes, that might be a reaction, from others outside that Church.

 

[GKC]

We are in agreement.

 

[GKC]

Thank you for the info. I tried to include categories such as these, but didn’t know how to express their connection to the Church.

I think the clue would be possession of valid Apostolic Succession, and all that would imply, whether in communion with the Holy See or not.

 

[Della]

I think the clue would be possession of valid Apostolic Succession, and all that would imply, whether in communion with the Holy See or not.

Yes, which is why I mentioned the Orthodox Churches, although they are not the only ones.

 

[Contarini]

Be careful not to try to read God’s mind and assume what He would, or would not ‘care about’, or what you think people are ‘arguing about’ and why.

You’re totally misunderstanding Christianity, and especially Catholic Christianity, if you think that we care about beliefs because we want to establish a ladder of ’ who’s better than whom’, or that we want to keep some in and others out. Frankly, that idea is extremely offensive.

Well, Protestants find Catholic closed communion and similar doctrines/policies to be offensive.

We really can’t afford to treat “offense” as a reason to talk honestly about what we all believe.

Also, whether it’s offensive or not, it stands to reason that sinful human beings are going to use any claim of distinctive truth, apostolic succession, etc., to feel superior to other humans. That’s just what we humans do. And that’s a good reason to look skeptically at any such claims.

That does not mean “throw them out.” There are good reasons to suspect that some such claims, including those made by the Catholic Church, are true.

But if so, Catholics (and Christians as a whole when making such claims to non-Christians) need to bend over backwards to show love and humility to outsiders. That is not really been evident in this thread.

Edwin

 

[JonNC]

Not too much, I hope, as your presence is highly valued and your thoughts highly regarded, at least by this Lutheran.

Jon

 

[Della]

One must hold to what is true no matter who is not pleased. It’s not being superior to relate the truths of the Church. No one is excluded from attending any liturgy of the Church. The only restriction is they cannot receive the Eucharist without a dispensation if they are not in full union with the Church. Rather, it is an invitation to be reconciled with the Church and be in full union with her.

If one is an American, for example, he could not go to France and declare he has all the rights of the French because he is a fellow human being and of European descent–that doesn’t confer those rights on him and the French would be right to tell him so. Nor could he complain that he wasn’t accepted. One has to be French to exercise the rights and duties of the French. It is similar with the Church, except that non-Catholics may join in every other liturgy, be married to a Catholic without becoming Catholic, do all the religious gestures: kneeling, crossing oneself, dipping fingers into the holy water, etc. No one is being excluded for unjust reasons from the Eucharist. So, I don’t understand the seeming grudge some people burden themselves with over this, I really don’t.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Well, Protestants find Catholic closed communion and similar doctrines/policies to be offensive.

We really can’t afford to treat “offense” as a reason to talk honestly about what we all believe.

Also, whether it’s offensive or not, it stands to reason that sinful human beings are going to use any claim of distinctive truth, apostolic succession, etc., to feel superior to other humans. That’s just what we humans do. And that’s a good reason to look skeptically at any such claims.

That does not mean “throw them out.” There are good reasons to suspect that some such claims, including those made by the Catholic Church, are true.

But if so, Catholics (and Christians as a whole when making such claims to non-Christians) need to bend over backwards to show love and humility to outsiders. That is not really been evident in this thread.

Edwin

Perhaps not. We are after all human.

But–and I am not saying this of you Edwin, or Jon, or GKC, etc., it’s sad that the same kind of love and humility that is demanded Catholics demonstrate to non-Catholics is so seldom demonstrated TO Catholics by nonCatholics.

 

[CuriousMike]

One must hold to what is true no matter who is not pleased. It’s not being superior to relate the truths of the Church. No one is excluded from attending any liturgy of the Church. The only restriction is they cannot receive the Eucharist without a dispensation if they are not in full union with the Church. Rather, it is an invitation to be reconciled with the Church and be in full union with her.

If one is an American, for example, he could not go to France and declare he has all the rights of the French because he is a fellow human being and of European descent–that doesn’t confer those rights on him and the French would be right to tell him so. Nor could he complain that he wasn’t accepted. One has to be French to exercise the rights and duties of the French. It is similar with the Church, except that non-Catholics may join in every other liturgy, be married to a Catholic without becoming Catholic, do all the religious gestures: kneeling, crossing oneself, dipping fingers into the holy water, etc. No one is being excluded for unjust reasons from the Eucharist. So, I don’t understand the seeming grudge some people burden themselves with over this, I really don’t.

While most people are aware of the Catholic attitude on Communion and the Eucharist, if they weren’t, would it really be fair to allow any person to walk in and receive communion?* Its almost like signing the dotted line in a contract without even reading the terms and conditions!

We ask that Non-Catholics do not receive, because of our substantially different attitudes on the Eucharist/Communion. This does include the state of our soles (whether in Mortal sin or not), and whether we are believing, truly, in what the Communion is.
If you would like to receive our Communion, we want you to KNOW about the Church teachings on the Catholic faith, through an RCIA or Children’s Catchechism class!

*Granted, I’ve never had it mentioned that “Only Catholics can receive,” but if the Priest was aware, then I guess he could refuse?

 

[cmodrmac]

the posted statement " Our Lord Jesus is NOT present in Protestant “communion” in any way whatsoever. This is because they reject the Truth of transubstantiation from bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ and do NOT have the valid apostolic succession necessary in order for the consecration to take place."

ends all reasonable discussion at least with that individual -we have heard it before-we just disagree

 

[GKC]

Well, Protestants find Catholic closed communion and similar doctrines/policies to be offensive.

We really can’t afford to treat “offense” as a reason to talk honestly about what we all believe.

Also, whether it’s offensive or not, it stands to reason that sinful human beings are going to use any claim of distinctive truth, apostolic succession, etc., to feel superior to other humans. That’s just what we humans do. And that’s a good reason to look skeptically at any such claims.

That does not mean “throw them out.” There are good reasons to suspect that some such claims, including those made by the Catholic Church, are true.

But if so, Catholics (and Christians as a whole when making such claims to non-Christians) need to bend over backwards to show love and humility to outsiders. That is not really been evident in this thread.

Edwin

I don’t find the RCC policy on closed communion to be offensive. But then, I don’t think of myself in the category you are describing.

Don’t find folks who disagree with me on that offensive either. Too old to be taking offense. Too much a burden.

Happy birthday to me.

 

[CuriousMike]

the posted statement " Our Lord Jesus is NOT present in Protestant “communion” in any way whatsoever. This is because they reject the Truth of transubstantiation from bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ and do NOT have the valid apostolic succession necessary in order for the consecration to take place."

Is this not the truth?

ends all reasonable discussion at least with that individual -we have heard it before-we just disagree

The flip side would be when some Christians claim Catholics “believe that works are their salvation,” and that you can’t believe in something unless its explicitly mentioned in the Bible.

There are certainly other interfaith squabbles that end all reasonable discussion, like OSAS, Number of Books in the Bible and so on.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I don’t find the RCC policy on closed communion to be offensive. But then, I don’t think of myself in the category you are describing.

Don’t find folks who disagree with me on that offensive either. Too old to be taking offense. Too much a burden.

Happy birthday to me.

Is today your birthday GKC? HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!

 

[Contarini]

While most people are aware of the Catholic attitude on Communion and the Eucharist, if they weren’t, would it really be fair to allow any person to walk in and receive communion?* Its almost like signing the dotted line in a contract without even reading the terms and conditions!

The Eucharist is not a contract. It’s a divine fire. A saintly Protestant who fasts and prays and does works of charity in humility and godly fear is far more capable of receiving it without being consumed (I am avoiding the awful word “worthy,” since as the Roman liturgy says none of us is worthy) than a self-righteous Catholic who thinks himself “worthy” because he “belongs to the true Church” and believes all the right things.

We ask that Non-Catholics do not receive, because of our substantially different attitudes on the Eucharist/Communion.

Untrue. While that is no doubt a consideration, it’s not the decisive one. If it were, then Protestants who believe what Catholics believe about the Eucharist would be invited to receive.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I don’t find the RCC policy on closed communion to be offensive. But then, I don’t think of myself in the category you are describing.

I don’t find it offensive either. And of course LCMS Lutherans don’t either–and unlike you (and possibly me) they really are Protestants I was speaking generally and should have said “many Protestants.”

I entirely agree about the burden of taking offense.

Happy birthday to you too!

Edwin

 

[MaryT777]

I don’t find the RCC policy on closed communion to be offensive. But then, I don’t think of myself in the category you are describing.

Don’t find folks who disagree with me on that offensive either. Too old to be taking offense. Too much a burden.

Happy birthday to me.

Happy Birthday!~ to you…

How old are you now?

Mary.