Protestant Communion?

[Kliska]

Your liturgy your rules. But the Church’s liturgy is not her own, it belongs to Christ, so she must conduct it according to his teachings on the topic, not on our feelings about it

The RCC does indeed teach that teaching belongs to Christ, and of course many other Churches don’t believe that. You and I, as siblings, both in Christ, can commune at His table together at my fellowship, but not at yours. That’s ok. One of us is correct and one of us is wrong. I pray God guide us both to do God’s actual will, for His glory.

By receiving the Eucharist at a Catholic Mass you are declaring you believe all the Church holds true.

And that was never the intent of the Eucharist. It was never meant to divide the Body. It was never meant to point to self. It was never meant to lay out a whole tome of beliefs, rules, and regs and not to share food and drink if one doesn’t believe every single last belief laid down by someone else. It was meant to remember the Lord Jesus Christ and to show forth His death til He returns in the attitude of Thanksgiving. It’s all about the Lord, and recognizing His Body, the connection we have in Him as fellow believers as the very Body of Christ.

That’s not the teaching of the RCC or even of many protestant faiths, most of us understand that clearly, and that’s fine it is free to teach and hold opposing beliefs. Again, there is indeed truth and I pray all, me included, hearken to the Spirit’s lead on what that truth actually is.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

The RCC does indeed teach that teaching belongs to Christ, and of course many other Churches don’t believe that. You and I, as siblings, both in Christ, can commune at His table together at my fellowship, but not at yours. That’s ok. One of us is correct and one of us is wrong. I pray God guide us both to do God’s actual will, for His glory.

And that was never the intent of the Eucharist. It was never meant to divide the Body. It was never meant to point to self. It was never meant to lay out a whole tome of beliefs, rules, and regs and not to share food and drink if one doesn’t believe every single last belief laid down by someone else. It was meant to remember the Lord Jesus Christ and to show forth His death til He returns in the attitude of Thanksgiving. It’s all about the Lord, and recognizing His Body, the connection we have in Him as fellow believers as the very Body of Christ.

That’s not the teaching of the RCC or even of many protestant faiths, most of us understand that clearly, and that’s fine it is free to teach and hold opposing beliefs. Again, there is indeed truth and I pray all, me included, hearken to the Spirit’s lead on what that truth actually is.

I keep thinking back to a church I once visited while at a business conference. The bulletin, on the back cover, had a check list. ‘You are welcome here IF you believe: this, this, that, this. We invite you to find another church if you cannot say you believe the above.’

I was stunned.

But maybe that is what many of you wish - the check list approach.

 

[Thorolfr]

I keep thinking back to a church I once visited while at a business conference. The bulletin, on the back cover, had a check list. ‘You are welcome here IF you believe: this, this, that, this. We invite you to find another church if you cannot say you believe the above.’

I was stunned.

But maybe that is what many of you wish - the check list approach.

Well, at least they’re being honest instead of sending the message, “You’re welcome to come and put money in the offering plate, but if you don’t believe these things, you’ll receive second class treatment.”

 

[ComplineSanFran]

Well, at least they’re being honest instead of sending the message, “You’re welcome to come and put money in the offering plate, but if you don’t believe these things, you’ll receive second class treatment.”

I remember posting on another thread that perhaps the conservative RCs may wish to adopt the LDS method of deciding who is allowed in the Temple (or awarded the Temple Recommend). You are interviewed each year by the Bishop and you must account for your moral behavior, sexual behavior, finances, and overall worthiness. If you are worthy, you may go into the Temple and perform rituals. If not, no sacraments.

It would solve a lot of problems. You know everyone there has been vetted.

I say this seriously. It works well for the Mormons.

 

[KjetilK]

And that was never the intent of the Eucharist.

Well, yes and no. The Eucharist denotes union with Christ, and thus union with his Church. That union is not merely a mystical union, it is also a doctrinal one.

It was meant to remember the Lord Jesus Christ.

No, it was not. That is in fact a distortion of his words. He did not say ‘do this to remember me,’ he said ‘do this in memory/remembrance of me.’ That’s two different things.

 

[Della]

The RCC does indeed teach that teaching belongs to Christ, and of course many other Churches don’t believe that. You and I, as siblings, both in Christ, can commune at His table together at my fellowship, but not at yours. That’s ok. One of us is correct and one of us is wrong. I pray God guide us both to do God’s actual will, for His glory.

It seems you missed the part in which I explained that, as a Catholic, I cannot commune at any table but only from an altar in a Catholic Mass. So no, you and I cannot commune together.

And that was never the intent of the Eucharist. It was never meant to divide the Body. It was never meant to point to self. It was never meant to lay out a whole tome of beliefs, rules, and regs and not to share food and drink if one doesn’t believe every single last belief laid down by someone else. It was meant to remember the Lord Jesus Christ and to show forth His death til He returns in the attitude of Thanksgiving. It’s all about the Lord, and recognizing His Body, the connection we have in Him as fellow believers as the very Body of Christ.

I never said what the Eucharist was meant to do. I only wrote who may and who may not partake of the Eucharist. The dividing is not on the part of the Church but on the part of those who will not be fully joined to her.

That’s not the teaching of the RCC or even of many protestant faiths, most of us understand that clearly, and that’s fine it is free to teach and hold opposing beliefs. Again, there is indeed truth and I pray all, me included, hearken to the Spirit’s lead on what that truth actually is.

And since I never declared it was the teaching of the Church, we are in agreement there. Yes, there is a truth here. It is found in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church established by Christ on his Apostles and their successors, not on any group of people who to get together because they find they believe the same things. Baptism is the intiation into the body of Christ, not merely believing this or that. The Church is visible with visible leaders given the duty to decide matters of faith and morals by Christ himself. That is where the truth subsists.

 

[Della]

I remember posting on another thread that perhaps the conservative RCs may wish to adopt the LDS method of deciding who is allowed in the Temple (or awarded the Temple Recommend). You are interviewed each year by the Bishop and you must account for your moral behavior, sexual behavior, finances, and overall worthiness. If you are worthy, you may go into the Temple and perform rituals. If not, no sacraments.

It would solve a lot of problems. You know everyone there has been vetted.

I say this seriously. It works well for the Mormons.

You can’t be serious. Tell me you’re not serious. You know perfectly well that the Church doesn’t ask anyone questions who present themselves for communion. It is assumed they are Catholics with no mortal sin on their souls–it is left entirely up to each ones conscience.
Thorofr:

Well, at least they’re being honest instead of sending the message, “You’re welcome to come and put money in the offering plate, but if you don’t believe these things, you’ll receive second class treatment.”

You know that non-Catholics may participate in any liturgy of the Church. The only restriction is that they not receive the Eucharist. That is hardly “second class treatment.” How ungracious of you to make this about money, as well. No one, not even Catholics, need put anything into the offering plate. If you don’t want to donate or can’t donate you are equally welcome. It’s one thing to object to a church’s teachings, it’s another to denigrate that church merely for upholding its own teachings. :tsktsk:

 

[Thorolfr]

No one, not even Catholics, need put anything into the offering plate. If you don’t want to donate or can’t donate you are equally welcome.

I wasn’t talking specifically about the Catholic Church in my comment above. And some churches do pay attention to who puts money in the offering plate and demand that their members tithe (i.e. pay 10% of their income). One church I was in actually had people go up to the front of the church to put money into the plate so that it was obvious who was paying and who wasn’t.

 

[Kliska]

Well, yes and no. The Eucharist denotes union with Christ, and thus union with his Church. That union is not merely a mystical union, it is also a doctrinal one.

That begs the question. You obviously embrace that idea, I do not. Many embrace the idea you put forth, many do not. And there we are. Union with Christ is union with His Church, it is a logical entailment, but not in the manner many liturgically centered churches believe.

No, it was not. That is in fact a distortion of his words. He did not say ‘do this to remember me,’ he said ‘do this in memory/remembrance of me.’ That’s two different things.

Well, no it was not. If we want to go into semantics, which I don’t, we go into the Greek as it was recorded and the Aramaic and/or the Hebrew. I do take communion in memory/remembrance of Him. I believe you take communion in memory/remembrance of Him. I believe Catholics take communion in memory/remembrance of Him. That’s not a problem.

It seems you missed the part in which I explained that, as a Catholic, I cannot commune at any table but only from an altar in a Catholic Mass. So no, you and I cannot commune together.

That’s your choice based on the teaching of your church. At our gatherings, it is the individual that is accountable and there is no restriction on you as a Catholic, so indeed you can commune with us if you so choose. Not so the other way around.

I never said what the Eucharist was meant to do. I only wrote who may and who may not partake of the Eucharist. The dividing is not on the part of the Church but on the part of those who will not be fully joined to her.

That statement isn’t a logical one. The dividing is indeed on the part of those in the RCC that declared that certain believers are allowed to sup, and certain believers are not. That is their right, but it doesn’t mean they are right; it splits the body even on their own definitions. What the RCC teaches joins us to the Body is baptism, but not all baptized brothers and sisters are welcome to partake at the Lord’s Table; only those who confess every single dogma and are inline 100% with RCC teaching are supposed to sup.

I don’t think that was what the stated purpose of the Eucharist was, nor where the focus was meant to be. I understand the opinion of the RCC is different, I know the teachings, I know the ideas behind them, they are clear, it’s just that I and many other Christians disagree and think Jesus was teaching something quite different. Hence, open communion for the Body of Christ.

Grace and peace to you all,
K

 

[Della]

I wasn’t talking specifically about the Catholic Church in my comment above. And some churches do pay attention to who puts money in the offering plate and demand that their members tithe (i.e. pay 10% of their income). One church I was in actually had people go up to the front of the church to put money into the plate so that it was obvious who was paying and who wasn’t.

I apologize for the misunderstanding on my part.

That is a bad practice. It throws the door wide open to all kinds of sin and abuse.

 

[Della]

That begs the question. You obviously embrace that idea, I do not. Many embrace the idea you put forth, many do not. And there we are. Union with Christ is union with His Church, it is a logical entailment, but not in the manner many liturgically centered churches believe.

In your opinion. But your opinion nor anyone elses matters here, only what is true and what isn’t.

That’s your choice based on the teaching of your church. At our gatherings, it is the individual that is accountable and there is no restriction on you as a Catholic, so indeed you can commune with us if you so choose. Not so the other way around.

I can do a good number of things, good and bad, but that doesn’t make it right and proper.

That statement isn’t a logical one. The dividing is indeed on the part of those in the RCC that declared that certain believers are allowed to sup, and certain believers are not. That is their right, but it doesn’t mean they are right; it splits the body even on their own definitions. What the RCC teaches joins us to the Body is baptism, but not all baptized brothers and sisters are welcome to partake at the Lord’s Table; only those who confess every single dogma and are inline 100% with RCC teaching are supposed to sup.

No, it is logical because Christ founded one Church, not many. Your faith community, like all Protestant faith communities are splinters from the one Church. Baptism alone is not full communion with the Church. You are not one with the Church in the manner you state since you do not hold to her teachings nor can your receive the Eucharist. And many Catholics receive unworthily, to their own loss. It in no way invites non-Catholics to do the same.

I don’t think that was what the stated purpose of the Eucharist was, nor where the focus was meant to be. I understand the opinion of the RCC is different, I know the teachings, I know the ideas behind them, they are clear, it’s just that I and many other Christians disagree and think Jesus was teaching something quite different. Hence, open communion for the Body of Christ.

Grace and peace to you all,
K

Again, I never said anything about the “stated purpose” nor “where the focus was meant to be.” You may disagree all you like–it’s what makes you Protestants, but the Church cannot grant you what she may not grant you merely because of what you want to believe.

 

[CuriousMike]

That’s a cop-out. I accept, with regret, that you are unwilling to engage in further conversation, but your assumption that I am ignorant either of official Catholic teaching or of the standard apologetics “line” on these matters (not the same thing) is a mistaken one, and thus singularly unhelpful.

I am not criticizing the Catholic position. I am criticizing the flawed rationale you are giving for it.

Edwin

No, it isn’t a cop-out. Those threads and pages can explain far better than I the belief on Communion. So, rather than dig myself into a hole, I am allowing other discussions to offer an opinion that could arguably be “better” than mine.

Having read those myself, I disagree with the fact that my rationale on Communion is “flawed.”

As others have pointed out, while dispensation for communion is possbility, the Church’s aim is not to turn Communion into some exclusive rite. But it also begs the question of why engage in a spiritual question you don’t fully understand?

I saw another post suggesting that if we have a valid baptism (as many Christians do), and believe, then there should be no boundaries. My counter argument would be there is nothing stopping one from converting to the faith, enrolling in RCIA and coming to learn the entire faith.
The point is, the Church would only allow communion to those in Unity because it comes with an obligation to behave and work morally and carry what is in the Bible and God’s will.

 

[chesterlab]

As a former Anglican, I can tell you that the Anglican church does believe in transubstantiation. You can read their views in the 39 articles in their Book of Common Prayer. As far as I know, none of the other protestant denominations believe in the real presence, particularly the evangelical contingent.

 

[Thorolfr]

As a former Anglican, I can tell you that the Anglican church does believe in transubstantiation. You can read their views in the 39 articles in their Book of Common Prayer. As far as I know, none of the other protestant denominations believe in the real presence, particularly the evangelical contingent.

Lutherans also believe in the Real Presence.

 

[chesterlab]

I’m not sure Luther believed in the real presence in the same way that the Anglicans and Catholics do however. Lutherans don’t believe in the adoration of the Eucharist as does catholic church. But Luther did keep many Catholic traditions, including his own veneration of Mary, which I find fascinating.

Someone on this thread also mentioned the eastern orthodox church. It should be noted that the Eastern Orthodox and/or the Eastern Rite church is NOT protestant. It is "the other lung of the Holy Mother Church, per the Vatican, and should never be viewed in the same light as “protestant.”

 

[GKC]

As a former Anglican, I can tell you that the Anglican church does believe in transubstantiation. You can read their views in the 39 articles in their Book of Common Prayer. As far as I know, none of the other protestant denominations believe in the real presence, particularly the evangelical contingent.

The Articles, which are not normative for all Anglicans, generally, specifically disavow transubstantiation.

Some Anglicans affirm it, as an explanation of the real presence.

Anglicans are variable, in varying ways.

 

[7_Sorrows]

The Articles, which are not normative for all Anglicans, generally, specifically disavow transubstantiation.

Some Anglicans affirm it, as an explanation of the real presence.

Anglicans are variable, in varying ways.

yes I believe motley is the term you like to use.

 

[Thorolfr]

I’m not sure Luther believed in the real presence in the same way that the Anglicans and Catholics do however. Lutherans don’t believe in the adoration of the Eucharist as does catholic church.

Some Lutherans practice adoration and Luther was not opposed. In fact, he wrote a treatise in 1523 called “The Adoration of the Sacrament” (Luther’s Works, Vol. 36). According to Wikipedia:

Lutheran Eucharistic adoration is not commonly practiced, but when it occurs it is done only from the moment of consecration to reception. Many people kneel when they practice this adoration.[24] The consecrated elements are treated with much respect and in many areas are reserved as in Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Anglican practice.[25] The Feast of the Corpus Christi was retained in the main calendar of the Lutheran Church up until about 1600,[26] but continues to be celebrated by many Lutheran congregations.[27] On this feast day the consecrated host is displayed on an altar in a monstrance and, in some churches, the rites of the Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament and other forms of adoration are celebrated.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist_in_Lutheranism

Here’s a picture of a monstrance in a Lutheran church in Kansas City:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/91/Eucharistic_adoration_(lutheran).jpg

 

[GKC]

yes I believe motley is the term you like to use.

Yes! That’s it. I had forgotten.

 

[Kliska]

In your opinion. But your opinion nor anyone elses matters here, only what is true and what isn’t.

As I’ve stated many many times, along with the prayer that we will all be guided into the truth as God has revealed it, and the Holy Spirit works to bring us toward.

I can do a good number of things, good and bad, but that doesn’t make it right and proper.

Absolutely. The only thing that matters is the Lord and His truth.

No, it is logical because Christ founded one Church, not many.

Agreed, and those that are a part of His Body are a part of His Church.

Your faith community, like all Protestant faith communities are splinters from the one Church.

So decrees the Roman Catholic Church. If I believed that, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

Baptism alone is not full communion with the Church. You are not one with the Church in the manner you state since you do not hold to her teachings nor can your receive the Eucharist. And many Catholics receive unworthily, to their own loss. It in no way invites non-Catholics to do the same.

I receive the Eucharist often. I don’t receive alongside Catholics however because they are not allowed, and I’m not allowed to receive in a Catholic church. If any would like to fellowship with me and mine and receive they are welcomed by us, but warned by the RCC. The Eucharist isn’t dictated by the RCC, but they, and you believe it is… again, that makes me sad. I’m one with the Lord and a part of His Body, and so are all believers, hence we are all brothers and sisters. I don’t state I’m “one with the RCC” of course I’m not, or, again, we wouldn’t be having this convo.

Again, I never said anything about the “stated purpose” nor “where the focus was meant to be.”

No, but I did. Isn’t that the point? The focus on the Lord Jesus Christ?

You may disagree all you like–it’s what makes you Protestants, but the Church cannot grant you what she may not grant you merely because of what you want to believe.

I don’t “want to believe” anything in this conversation. I know the RCC’s teaching on the matter. I know the biblical model. The two don’t line up. Of course you don’t agree, but that’s neither here nor there as this is a back and forth conversation between a protestant and a Roman Catholic… it’s obvious we, and entire congregations and churches, don’t agree. It is indeed a sad thing.

Prayers,
K