Protestants at the altar rail

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

joeybaggz

Guest
I have several good, practicing Catholic friends (men) whose wives are observant members of other Christian denominations. (including two minister’s daughters). One of the constant complaints I hear from them is that, while they don’t have too much of a problem with the differences in tenets of the faith, they really get their dander up at the inability to receive communion in the Catholic Church with their husbands. Surely their husbands are welcome in their denomination at their communion service. It seems arrogant to them that the CC would take such a position.

Offering the standard lines of reasoning - the denominations not being in communion with the CC, and that the meaning of the Eucharist is much different in our (CC) faith - I am generally met with that look women get on their faith when they think a man’s logic is still at a three year old’s level. And out of nowhere, I offered this reason that I have not read anywhere (although it’s not to say it isn’t written somewhere - possibly the catechism). My reasoning went like this.

"The Catholic Church believes it is responsible to spread the truth, and in doing so, it must look out for the spiritual welfare of all. Therefore, when a person approaches communion in the CC, the bread and wine has, become the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. The words, “the Body of Christ” or “The Blood of Christ” are spoken by the minister of communion, and the recepient, answers “Amen”. Thus the recepient is affirming their belief in the nature and the truth of the Catholic understanding the Eucharist. And therefore, a protestant or non-believer of any denomination, by their adherence to that denomination, does, before those assembled at Mass, bear false witness to a truth Catholics hold. In saying “Amen” they are saying that they believe in something that they obviously do not. False witness, one of the Ten big no-no’s.

That reasoning seems to “satisfy” the objections at the time. It seemed too easy. So, I wonder if my reasoning is, in some way, faulty? And if you have read that particular logic somewhere, I’d appreciate citing the source.

Thoughts?
 
Haven’t heard or read it anywhere else, but it makes sense and seems to work so why not. Course they may switch to silence and wiggle around it. I don’t think the Catholic Church is the only one that has an exclusive communion service. Missouri Synod Lutherans used to some years ago. I don’t know if they have changed. I expect Wisconsin Synod Lutherans would be even more strict about the matter.
 
I have several good, practicing Catholic friends (men) whose wives are observant members of other Christian denominations. (including two minister’s daughters). One of the constant complaints I hear from them is that, while they don’t have too much of a problem with the differences in tenets of the faith, they really get their dander up at the inability to receive communion in the Catholic Church with their husbands. Surely their husbands are welcome in their denomination at their communion service. It seems arrogant to them that the CC would take such a position.

Offering the standard lines of reasoning - the denominations not being in communion with the CC, and that the meaning of the Eucharist is much different in our (CC) faith - I am generally met with that look women get on their faith when they think a man’s logic is still at a three year old’s level. And out of nowhere, I offered this reason that I have not read anywhere (although it’s not to say it isn’t written somewhere - possibly the catechism). My reasoning went like this.

"The Catholic Church believes it is responsible to spread the truth, and in doing so, it must look out for the spiritual welfare of all. Therefore, when a person approaches communion in the CC, the bread and wine has, become the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. The words, “the Body of Christ” or “The Blood of Christ” are spoken by the minister of communion, and the recepient, answers “Amen”. Thus the recepient is affirming their belief in the nature and the truth of the Catholic understanding the Eucharist. And therefore, a protestant or non-believer of any denomination, by their adherence to that denomination, does, before those assembled at Mass, bear false witness to a truth Catholics hold. In saying “Amen” they are saying that they believe in something that they obviously do not. False witness, one of the Ten big no-no’s.

That reasoning seems to “satisfy” the objections at the time. It seemed too easy. So, I wonder if my reasoning is, in some way, faulty? And if you have read that particular logic somewhere, I’d appreciate citing the source.

Thoughts?
This is a reasoning I hear quite often, along with the “not being in communion with each other” reason. I’ve used it myself, because, frankly it is true and rather easy to understand, although I give both reasons. The “you can’t say Amen to something you don’t believe in” usually works. I did read this logic somewhere, but I don’t remember where, sorry.
 
The problem is that some denominations DO believe in the True Presence in the Eucharist. Anglicans do, and have tabernacles and reservation. As I understand it it’s one of the obstacles that keeps them from getting closer to the Lutherans.

While the Lutherans believe in the Presence of Jesus in Communion they feel free to dispose of the ‘consecrated’ bread by throwing it to the birds after ‘Mass’, believing that Jesus is gone once Mass is over. The Anglicans pretty much believe what we do.

Sure we don’t accept that what they have is Jesus because they lack apostolic succession and valid ordination but I think you’d find that many Anglicans could come to Communion in a Catholic Church and loudly say “AMEN” without bearing false witness. You’re bound to run into someone with those beliefs who won’t take kindly to that explanation.
 
I have known several Protestants, most of them Lutheran, all women who have made a point of approaching communion in Catholic Churches, but only after they have loudly made their intent clear, and stated their reason is to challenge the Catholic discipline and force a confrontation. In these cases, almost always in ecumenical Christian conferences or seminars, the reason for the Catholic doctrine and discipline has been clearly explained before the Mass, where by necessity all participants are welcome, since the conference is in a Catholic facility.

In the times when I have engaged in private discussion and asked the reason for my support of the Church’s patriarchal chauvinistic stance on this issue, I tell them that if I were Protestant, in a sect where hundreds of people suffered and died for their beliefs, namely denial of the sacrifical priesthood and the doctrine of transubstantiation, I would rather have my tongue cut out than approach Catholic communion. I challenge them to read a good history of their own denomination, and answer for themselves why they are quick to abandon their founding beliefs.

I have also been asked in these contexts whether I would ever leave the Church because of some disagreement, and if so, would I still receive her communion. I say no, for me to leave the Church it would have to be for a reason so grave as to cast into doubt the entire Christian message, and I would not sooner approach communion after such a breach than I would have sex with my divorced ex-husband.

and to clarify “belief in the Real Presence” is not the test for approaching the Eucharist. Being in full communion with the Church founded by Jesus, his mystical Body on earth, the Catholic Church, is the test. There is no Eucharist without his authority to confect, and his authority passes only through those he appointed, the apostles. For anyone else who has divorced themselves from the apostles and their successors to claim this authority is blasphemy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top