Protestants and Holy Communion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Augustine3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Do you include the Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, and the Assyrian Church of the East in your category of Catholics? I ask because it is not strictly forbidden for them to receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church. As a matter of fact, the Catholic Church permits them to receive.
Julianne, please correct me if I’m wrong…

I believe she is talking about the Greek (Eastern) Orthodox Church…the one in schism with Rome since 1054 AD. This is not the same as the Eastern Rite Catholics, or the Catholic Church in the Orient, which are fully Catholic**.

(**And if anyone sees an error in my understanding, please correct me…I am only somewhat familiar with the Catholics of the Eastern Rites.)
 
I’m out of this conversation, I gave my opinion as a RC, which differs from most on here. The thing is we are all different. There is not one mold. I am not trying to change anyones mind, but it has gotten carried away. I responded to the topic and I understand people disagree with me and thats fine. But I won’t continue to discuss s our differences, as I feel attacked for having a different opinion . Thank you.

I will trust a Priest, they know what they are doing, if we can’t trust our Priest then who are we suppose to trust.
Yes, we are all different but Jesus’ prayer was that we be one. Your opinion as an “RC” or otherwise means nothing. Opinions are like belly buttons, everyone has at least one. But this is not a cafeteria where one can pick and choose what one wants. If one is to seek Jesus then one must seek the Truth for Jesus is the Truth. There is only one Truth. What good is there in being different if you do not have the Truth? I will remind you that Adam knew the Truth yet he wanted to be different.
 
Yes, Christ did, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, of which we are both members by virtue of our Baptisms. I don’t deny Church authority to forgive sins.

Jon
As a member of the LCMS [Lutheran Church Missouri Synod] you are not Catholic. So your response to the ‘Religion’ field is erroneous. You cannot be a follower of Martin Luther which, as a member of the LCMS, you are and be Catholic. Luther was a heretic who preached error. I see your description of “evangelical catholic LCMS” as an attempt to wrap yourself in the mantle of the true church of Jesus Christ while maintaining your heretical beliefs. The LCMS, if they follow Martin Luther as they claim they do, denies church authority because they know they have no authority and that includes the authority to bind and loose as well as the authority to forgive or retain sin.
 
Yes, we are all different but Jesus’ prayer was that we be one. Your opinion as an “RC” or otherwise means nothing. Opinions are like belly buttons, everyone has at least one. But this is not a cafeteria where one can pick and choose what one wants. If one is to seek Jesus then one must seek the Truth for Jesus is the Truth. There is only one Truth. What good is there in being different if you do not have the Truth? I will remind you that Adam knew the Truth yet he wanted to be different.
The Body of Christ is the Church which consists of Christians. What makes you think you have the truth? What is the truth? Who is the Truth? The is nly one truth and that is Jesus is our Lord and Saviour and any Christ filled Christian believes that.
 
I have made something of a contentious statement that I think bears looking at by Catholics a little closer.

It is true that when a non-believer or Catholic (even if baptized) receives the Eucharist – that Jesus is present; But I have said that all they can take away from him is bread and wine;
. . . I’d like to hear what people think of St. Pauls words “Guilty of the body and blood” of the Lord in light of what I am proffering; I am of course, as usual, not offended if you contradict me. But what of SyCarl who claims to receive it?

Shalom.
I see St. Paul’s words as meaning a profanation for which one is punished with damnation. I see a similar situation in the Old Testament with the Ark of the Covenant. Only the Levites were allowed to carry it but when Uzzah reached out to steady the ark he was struck dead. Uzzah suffered physical death for his actions of profaning the ark. One who profanes the Eucharist by eating it unworthily suffers spiritual death. Again what is foreshadowed in the OT is perfected in the NT.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Yes, we are all different but Jesus’ prayer was that we be one. Your opinion as an “RC” or otherwise means nothing. Opinions are like belly buttons, everyone has at least one. But this is not a cafeteria where one can pick and choose what one wants. If one is to seek Jesus then one must seek the Truth for Jesus is the Truth. There is only one Truth. What good is there in being different if you do not have the Truth? I will remind you that Adam knew the Truth yet he wanted to be different.
The Body of Christ is the Church which consists of Christians. What makes you think you have the truth? What is the truth? Who is the Truth? The is nly one truth and that is Jesus is our Lord and Saviour and any Christ filled Christian believes that.
There are Christians and then there are Christians. Jesus established a church based upon the apostles. To these men He entrusted the teachings for them to proclaim to the world. These men passed down that teaching to others who did like wise. In the early church the teaching was not written, it was oral. So how did the church know who was teaching the truth ands who wasn’t? The looked for Apostolic Succession. Did this teacher possess it or not. And what was Apostolic succession? It was the unbroken lineage of bishops emanating from the Apostles as the story of Matthias in Acts 1. Matthias is elected to the office of bishop that Judas vacated by his death. The early Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes,

“[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it” (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).

In 187 Irenaeus would write:

“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).

Cyprian of Carthage would later write:

“[T]he Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with [the heretic] Novatian, she was not with [Pope] Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop [of Rome], Fabian, by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the priesthood the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way” (Letters 69[75]:3 [A.D. 253]).

And the Great Augustine would follow:

“[T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 4:5 [A.D. 397]).

This is supported by scripture in which Jesus says He would establish a church that would be guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit and He would remain with that church until the end of the age. There is only one church that claims to be established by Jesus and has been here since the time of Jesus. That church not only claims Apostolic Succession but can prove it. Go to any Catholic, Orthodox or Oriental diocese in the world. They can show you a list of validly ordained and consecrated bishops back through history to one of the apostles. No other christian denomination can do this. Oh they can claim it alright. But claiming it and proving it are not the same. We can prove it. No protestant denomination can pove it.

That is why we say that in the Catholic Church there exists the totality of the deposit of truth entructed by Jesus to the Apostles. Others may have a share or a portion of that Truth but none have the total Truth as does the Catholic Church. The extent to which those others share in the Truth depends on the extent of their teaching that conforms to the teaching of the Catholic Church.
 
Julianne, please correct me if I’m wrong…

I believe she is talking about the Greek (Eastern) Orthodox Church…the one in schism with Rome since 1054 AD. This is not the same as the Eastern Rite Catholics, or the Catholic Church in the Orient, which are fully Catholic**.

(**And if anyone sees an error in my understanding, please correct me…I am only somewhat familiar with the Catholics of the Eastern Rites.)
My question to her was basically this: does she include in her definition of Catholics the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, and the Assyrian Church of the East? I asked this question because she stated that it is strictly forbidden for the Catholic Church to administer Holy Communion to non-catholics. Well, in fact, that’s not true, unless you include these groups I mentioned in your definition of Catholics, since the Catholic Church does in fact permit them to receive Holy Communion.
 
My question to her was basically this: does she include in her definition of Catholics the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, and the Assyrian Church of the East? I asked this question because she stated that it is strictly forbidden for the Catholic Church to administer Holy Communion to non-catholics. Well, in fact, that’s not true, unless you include these groups I mentioned in your definition of Catholics, since the Catholic Church does in fact permit them to receive Holy Communion.
No, what I said was that CATHOLICS cannot RECEIVE in any other church. There is a difference between whether WE can receive somewhere else, and whether others can receive communion in OUR churches. The answer is mostly “NOWHERE” and “NO,” with a few extraordinary exemptions.
 
No, what I said was that CATHOLICS cannot RECEIVE in any other church. There is a difference between whether WE can receive somewhere else, and whether others can receive communion in OUR churches. The answer is mostly “NOWHERE” and “NO,” with a few extraordinary exemptions.
You also wrote, in post #57 of this thread, “Giving the Lord’s Body and Blood to non-Catholics is strictly forbidden.”
 
You also wrote, in post #57 of this thread, “Giving the Lord’s Body and Blood to non-Catholics is strictly forbidden.”
It IS, except in very grave circumstances. Why are we arguing about this?

🤷
 
As a member of the LCMS [Lutheran Church Missouri Synod] you are not Catholic. So your response to the ‘Religion’ field is erroneous. You cannot be a follower of Martin Luther which, as a member of the LCMS, you are and be Catholic. Luther was a heretic who preached error. I see your description of “evangelical catholic LCMS” as an attempt to wrap yourself in the mantle of the true church of Jesus Christ while maintaining your heretical beliefs. The LCMS, if they follow Martin Luther as they claim they do, denies church authority because they know they have no authority and that includes the authority to bind and loose as well as the authority to forgive or retain sin.
Sure I am, and sure they do.

Jon
 
It IS, except in very grave circumstances. Why are we arguing about this?

🤷
I’m not arguing with you. I asked you a question about your statement that it is “strictly forbidden” to give Holy Communion to non-Catholics. So, I ask it again, do you include the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, and the Assyrian Church of the East as Catholics, because giving Holy Communion to them is permitted under Canon Law, under conditions that are not really all that extraordinary or grave?
 
43 “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. 44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’[d] Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

Catholics believe that Jesus said what he meant and meant what he said. He was indeed speaking of the Last Supper where he would initiate the Eucharist that we still practice to this day.

I am not sure what exactly you are practicing, but I don’t think it’s Catholicism.
…RC may stand for Reformed Christian?! 🤷

Maran atha!

Angel
 
If Christ were not being literal, one could hardly be guilty of His Body and Blood…eating judgment upon oneself. It makes no sense to be guilty of the Body and Blood for unjustly partaking in a symbolic meal.

Well I think it does, when one is participating in the Last Supper if one is not worshipping Christ in their spirit and heart and living a sinful life then one should not engage in the Last Supper no matter what Church he is in.

Also Paul said that to people who were feasting (filling themselves with food while other didn’t get
enough) and they were getting drunk. He also said not to engage in the in the temple worship and then come and engage also in Christ’s worship. A man can not serve two Gods.

So indeed it makes all the sense in the world not to engage in anyones last supper if they are not truely worshipping Jesus as their Lord and Saviour.
But a symbol does not merit anything but a correction (respect); if I step on the US flag or burn it I am not being symbolic I am disrespecting the US Flag and all of the people that died (including both sides of the issue)… ditto if I were to fly any other flag above the US flag… if I would wear a t-shirt that depicted some symbol or flag that were not the US flag I would be simply exercising the right for which so many fought and died–but there would be no offense intended/given.

What you are suggesting is that St. Paul and all of the early Church symbolicly celebrated a meal that meant simply to recall ‘member when Jesus sat at… that must’ve been quite a shingding!’

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Kinda like going to confession and not telling all your sins, or in your heart confessing a sin knowing your going to go out and do it again in two days. God knows the heart.

When you take the Last Supper you are saying I believe Jesus is my Lord and Saviour and you have put your faith in him as your life line, giving to him yourself and receiving him as your Lord and Saviour. Now if you don’t believe that or if you living in sin, then its a lie to receive as that is what you are proclaiming.

Paul was talking to people who were acting disgraceful , they were suppose to be there to worship the Lord, but they were there to eat and get drunk not for worship. Kinda like the OT Jews not worshipping from their heart.
Yet, St. Paul is not saying you bunch of so and so why don’t you believe in Christ Jesus?

…part of the problem the most non-Catholics have with Scriptures is that they refuse to accept what the Word Reveals even when it comes right out of Jesus’ Mouth: eat and drink ME!

…the washing of the feet was symbolic; the Teaching behind it NOT!

I, as the Catholic Church, do not Believe what I think Jesus means to say; I Believe what Jesus say: this is MY BODY and this is MY BLOOD!

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Right, yes! And if I go to Church to eat a lot of bread and drink alot of wine, I am guilty of gluttony. But Paul does not say we shall be guilty of gluttony. He says we will be guilty of someting far more serious. Why would we not only be guilty of gluttony if all it ever was is bread and wine? What’s the big deal with wanting to fill my belly and catch a little buzz if we’re just having a memorial service?

The fact that the guilt goes beyond gluttony tells us that there is something so very much more serious going on than just bread and wine to remeber the Lord.
…and don’t forget that he admonishes them to eat at home before they come to partake of the Lord! 😃

Maran atha!

Angel
 
“Since Christ Himself has said, “This is My Body” who shall dare to doubt that It is His Body?”
-St. Cyril of Jerusalem
 
They were quilty of not worshipping Jesus with their heart and spirit, they came for the food and wine, not to worship the Lord. Nothing about gluttony there, although they were acting like heavens. They were showing comtempt for the Church and the Lord by the way they were acting.

We are to examine ourselves before receiving the host, if your living a sinfull life , living in sin, then why even go to Church, you have turned you back to Jesus, we are to feel remorse for our sin and repent. As you know we are all sinners.

Church is for worship and the communion is for us to remember what Jesus did for us, part of the Church worship.
You are consufing abuse and excess with rightful Worship; the worship part is not the “in the heart and mind;” part it is the consumption of the Lord!

…when you, I or them partake of the Lord unworthily (in a state of sin) we are piling wrath upon ourselves… how ignorant is St. Paul that he places such value on a symbol! Is he not emulating the Jewish religious elite that forbade swearing on the money but not on the Altar?

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Well its fortuante for you that the Cross is always in your mind, I know it is for me too, but some people its not, and well look at the Passover in the OT, God institued the yearly Passover so the people would remember what he did for them , freeing them out of slavery, and he wanted them to come together to eat and celebrate together, just like what Jesus did giving us the Last Supper.
I think that you are confused… the OT Passover was not a simple symbolic gesture… it was the preparation for the Coming of Isaiah’s Suffering Servant… the Lamb could not be broken and it had to be consume totally (nothing saved or thrown out)… and it was the blood of the lamb that dissuaded the Angel of Death from killing the Firstborn as he would pass over the house where the blood sign had been posted.

This Passover type gained in Jesus its fulfillment!

…while the Old Covenant depended upon animal sacrifice (which was to be maintained in perpetuity), Jesus’ Body and Blood is that Seal of the New Covenant as Christ Himself became our Eternal Sacrifice:
53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” (St. John 6:53-58)
Why would one even eat the bread or drink the wine if one didn’t bellieve in Jesus. He would not be a Christian.
…why would anyone be Baptized? …I’ve come to understand that many believe that Baptism is also only symbolic–another conscious ignorance of Christ’s Word!
anyway, if I went to another Church and they had open communion and they were Christians of course, and served communion in an respectable manner and I was with family or a close friend I would take communion. that is me. My niece said the Priest let her non Catholic Mom receive the host at her wedding. I haven’t ever been to a Protestant church service so it hasn’t happened yet, but like I said why not if done respectfully.
…again… if they understanding is simply “symbolic” then you are accomplishing only good manners (when in Rome).

…as for that “Priest,” are you aware that Clerics and Religious cannot put aside the Teaching of the Church simply because they want a “wedding” or some other social event to go off without a hitch? …it could well have been that the Priest was bamboozled–that’s not the first time I’ve heard of non-Catholics receiving the Body of Christ!

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top