Question about Eucharist from a Protestant perspective

[FrDavid96]

Just to be clear, you’re saying that the Sacrament of the Eucharist presupposes an acceptance of the Church’s teachings (even if one does not entirely agree with all of them, I suppose) and also a union with the Church as well as Jesus? Is this because the Church is believed to be the mediator of Jesus’ teachings beginning with the Apostles?

Yes. But that requires some further thoughts.

The Church is the mediator, that’s true by itself, yet incomplete. The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. We cannot have true, full, complete union with one but not the other. A better way to put that is to say that union with one likewise means union with the other.

[pause…]

It also means that rejection of one necessarily means rejection of the other.

[another pause…]

Together, Christ and His Body, the Church, are inviting you and everyone else to partake of Holy Communion.

 

[SteveVH]

And yes - the Church is the mediator, the holder and disseminator of Jesus’ teachings.

Peace
James

Yes, and it is also the Body of Christ. If we are in communion with Christ we must be in communion with his body, unified in doctrine and belief.

Steve

 

[EvangelCatholic]

The question of who partakes of the eucharistic elements of Christ’s Presence is ultimately not determined by intellect or any authority, in my opinion. This Mystery is beyond any human understanding or preparation for such an encounter with God. I love the image of Moses and the burning bush; in the Eucharist we enter Heaven and behold Jesus, our Saviour.

Among some Lutherans and Orthodox Christians, babies, once baptized, are communed.

 

[Razanir]

Among some Lutherans and Orthodox Christians, babies, once baptized, are communed.

Yes, and that was the ancient practice in Catholicism. But even in these cases, communion is restricted from those not in your branch of Christianity. (Or at least it is in Orthodoxy. I can’t speak for Lutherans)

 

[benhur]

Yes. But that requires some further thoughts.

The Church is the mediator, that’s true by itself, yet incomplete. The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. We cannot have true, full, complete union with one but not the other. A better way to put that is to say that union with one likewise means union with the other.

[pause…]

It also means that rejection of one necessarily means rejection of the other.

[another pause…]

Together, Christ and His Body, the Church, are inviting you and everyone else to partake of Holy Communion.

So when Paul warns to discern the “body”, is it to discern the transubstantiation of the elements (which is what I have C’s tell me) or is it discern the Mystical body, as you nicely put forth above, even brethren who may be poorer or with less food, or not sitting in the best "pew’’, as Paul goes on to discuss ? Is it really a RP issue with Paul or to be un-Christ like toward the brethren/body/bride and then partake, to “eucharist”, to give thanks for Calvary is to partake unworthily ? Did not the early church develop a custom of not checking your RP beliefs( which had variations) at the altar but your heart toward God and your brethren, confessing, even restituting if necessary ?

 

[benhur]

I am not catholic, though my theology is very similar. When I go to mass with my family member who is catholic I am reminded that I am not welcome to commune. After much prayer and meditation I have arrived at a conclusion that scares me. I am seeking help in understanding where my conclusions are false. This is my logic.

Sacraments are symbols that convey what they symbolize. In the case of catholic sacraments, they all result in God giving grace to the participant.

Eucharist is the sacrament of Jesus’ death on the cross, which is how/when Jesus/God forgave our sins.

Because this is a sacrament, and it conveys what it symbolizes, it conveys forgiveness of all the participant’s sins. This is grace.

Further, Jesus’ death on the cross was the culmination of his love for humanity. It is the ultimate form of his love for us.

So, those who participate in Eucharist are given complete forgiveness for their sins, receive the ultimate form of grace, and are truly loved by Jesus. (How wildly powerful!)

This leaves those who are unwelcome to participate thinking where they stand. There are a myriad of reasons to not be welcome at Eucharist, being in a state of mortal sin, not being Catholic, not having forgiven someone who asked, and others that don’t come to mind at the moment.

Back to my logic.

Those who are unwelcome to participate in Eucharist do not receive what Eucharist conveys. These things are, forgiveness of their sins, God’s grace, Jesus’ love.

This conclusion screams one truth to me, Jesus didn’t die for you. Jesus doesn’t love you.

For obvious reasons, every mass I attend leaves me in despair, wondering why Jesus doesn’t love me. Surely, if he didn’t die for me then he doesn’t love me.

Needless to say, as I have been increasingly been attending mass I have been becoming more and more distant from God. I have tried reaching out to family and catholic clergy. No one has convinced me I’m wrong. I know that I must be wrong and I desperately need to know why.

Thank you for your time.

I would say your pain or despair are God ordained in this respect . It is telling you something is wrong . Is it with the Catholic Church ? Maybe, but no church is perfect, though some more apostolic and catholic and holy than others. I would suggest the Lord is prodding you to make a decision as to just whom Jesus is to you and just what compromises a right church and just what is right dogma on this matter. As posts here testify, those who have "decided’’ are “comfortable” or at least understand each others differences and rules of engagement and are at peace with their convictions. Basically, I don’t understand why you go to a Catholic Mass if you don’t want to be Catholic, or why you don’t attend a church closer to your convictions, provided those convictions are indeed from the Lord, and you have sought Him out on them. Notice I said seek Him out on the matter(s) and not necessarily seek out a church for convictions. He does lead and guide and discerns all things before you, including what church is best for you and just what is true “communion” and remembrance.

 

[meltzerboy]

Yes. But that requires some further thoughts.

The Church is the mediator, that’s true by itself, yet incomplete. The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. We cannot have true, full, complete union with one but not the other. A better way to put that is to say that union with one likewise means union with the other.

[pause…]

It also means that rejection of one necessarily means rejection of the other.

[another pause…]

Together, Christ and His Body, the Church, are inviting you and everyone else to partake of Holy Communion.

Your second statement is the most troublesome to me, namely that “rejection of one necessarily means rejection of the other.” Do Catholics sincerely believe that if Protestants reject the Church, they necessarily reject Christ, and thus G-d? Could it instead be that the union with Christ is incomplete, partial, or faulty rather than rejected or nonexistent?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Your second statement is the most troublesome to me, namely that “rejection of one necessarily means rejection of the other.” Do Catholics sincerely believe that if Protestants reject the Church, they necessarily reject Christ, and thus G-d? Could it instead be that the union with Christ is incomplete, partial, or faulty rather than rejected or nonexistent?

Very good and valid question. I guess it depends on how each individual/group acts.

If the individual/group is one who acts in a spirit of dissent and hate, then they are indeed acting against Christ when they act against the Church in this manner.

However, I don’t think this is the case of those who are acting from fruits of the Holy Spirit.

In fact, in Dominus Iesus, the Catholic Church recognizes the salvific mystery of Christ in these ecclessial communities.

 

[FrDavid96]

Your second statement is the most troublesome to me, namely that “rejection of one necessarily means rejection of the other.”

I would prefer to concentrate on the union part, rather than the dis-union part of the discussion.
In my earlier post, I was trying to make that point. I used the “pause” part because what I was imagining was that you would stop and think about the first part—that of fully accepting Christ; because that’s what is important. The comment about rejecting was meant to be secondary. I suppose it did not come across that way on the screen.

Do Catholics sincerely believe that if Protestants reject the Church, they necessarily reject Christ, and thus G-d?

Yes. We cannot make a distinction between Christ and His Mystical Body (ie the Church).
To accept Christ (fully) necessarily means to accept His Body.
However, having said that, I want to say that I answered you because you asked. A further explanation is needed. That will come next because you’ve already started to answer it yourself…

Could it instead be that the union with Christ is incomplete, partial, or faulty rather than rejected or nonexistent?

Yes, it could be. The two are not mutually exclusive. What I would like you to keep in mind is that
“rejecting” Christ is not the same thing as not-being-introduced to Him. To reject something is an action, a choice. It is not the absence of an opportunity. Every person is different, and thus everyone’s introduction to the Church is likewise going to be different.

In other words, the phrase that you wrote in your question was “if Protestants reject the Church…?” is not the same thing as saying that “all Protestants do reject the Church.”
One could ask me “if a Protestant jumps into the ocean, does he get wet?” the answer would be clearly yes. But that does not mean that I am saying that all Protestants do jump into the ocean. I hope you see the difference, because I answered the question the way you asked it.

On the one extreme, some will reject the Church–to their own condemnation.
On the other extreme, some will never even hear about the Church; they cannot reject what they were never given the opportunity to accept, and for them, the infinite mercy of God still has a place for them.

Most (of those you’re asking about) will fall somewhere in between those 2 extremes.

 

[Miriam1947]

The Catholic Eucharist never gave me any comfort or joy, for the same reasons you cited above. I felt more judged than loved by God when I would go up. Presuming that I somehow had to be free of mortal sin to be worthy to partake. Being unsure if I was even free of them, or contrite at all, or if my contrition was perfect or imperfect or something else. It caused more pain than anything. I totally get what you are saying.

It sounds as if you suffer from scrupulosity. I can see why you became Lutheran, since Martin Luther suffered from that as well.

 

[Hoosier_giff]

I apologize for my delayed response to many of your comments. I find myself being busier than I anticipated. Please trust that I am working on a response to many of your comments and, as always, more questions! I will have to apologize in advance, I am new to using forums and I may not be able to quote your text in an organized fashion.

Thank you for your patience.

 

[MacQ]

I am not catholic, though my theology is very similar. When I go to mass with my family member who is catholic I am reminded that I am not welcome to commune. After much prayer and meditation I have arrived at a conclusion that scares me. I am seeking help in understanding where my conclusions are false. This is my logic.

Sacraments are symbols that convey what they symbolize. In the case of catholic sacraments, they all result in God giving grace to the participant.

Eucharist is the sacrament of Jesus’ death on the cross, which is how/when Jesus/God forgave our sins.

Because this is a sacrament, and it conveys what it symbolizes, it conveys forgiveness of all the participant’s sins. This is grace.

Further, Jesus’ death on the cross was the culmination of his love for humanity. It is the ultimate form of his love for us.

So, those who participate in Eucharist are given complete forgiveness for their sins, receive the ultimate form of grace, and are truly loved by Jesus. (How wildly powerful!)

This leaves those who are unwelcome to participate thinking where they stand. There are a myriad of reasons to not be welcome at Eucharist, being in a state of mortal sin, not being Catholic, not having forgiven someone who asked, and others that don’t come to mind at the moment.

Back to my logic.

Those who are unwelcome to participate in Eucharist do not receive what Eucharist conveys. These things are, forgiveness of their sins, God’s grace, Jesus’ love.

This conclusion screams one truth to me, Jesus didn’t die for you. Jesus doesn’t love you.

For obvious reasons, every mass I attend leaves me in despair, wondering why Jesus doesn’t love me. Surely, if he didn’t die for me then he doesn’t love me.

Needless to say, as I have been increasingly been attending mass I have been becoming more and more distant from God. I have tried reaching out to family and catholic clergy. No one has convinced me I’m wrong. I know that I must be wrong and I desperately need to know why.

Thank you for your time.

First of all, it has nothing to do with “being unwelcome”.
I had a Presbyterian neighbor who rankled at this too, whenever he found himself at a Catholic Mass (funerals, weddings and such). He felt he was being denied the bread at the table. Like a guest who wasn’t allowed to partake of the dinner.
For him, the bread at the table was a symbolic thing. He certainly didn’t believe that bread was anything more than that. Bread. The Catholic belief is far different.

Had we urged him to partake, wouldn’t it say both of these things:
a) That we don’t really believe it’s anything more than bread at the table,
b) That we were duping him into receiving something he didn’t believe in.

In no way did any of his Catholic friends think that Jesus didn’t love him, or that Jesus didn’t die for him too.
From the Catechism: “There is not, never has been, and never will be a single human being for whom Christ did not suffer”. (CCC605)

As for my friend, had he truly understood what the Catholic Eucharist was, he would have been sorely vexed. Maybe even disgusted. Or he would have had to say to himself (Well, THEY think they’re offering me X, but I (big me) am going to take it and consider it Y."

So, I’m afraid your ‘logic’ took you far beyond a true conclusion.
A truly logical conclusion would be: Knowing that I do not profess and believe what the Catholic Church does about this sacrament, and knowing that I do not wish to signify that I am in full communion with the Catholic Church of Rome, they advise me to refrain from partaking…because that would make me either fooled into something I was unaware of, or it would make me a hiipocrit for partaking in something I don’t think is true.

 

[RScottH]

As a Protestant I would not take RCC communion. The doctrine of communion in the RCC does not bother me personally; I rather respect the high view of the sacraments.

Accepting the sacraments of a church is to in essence be of full agreeance with all that church’s doctrine.

 

[MacQ]

As a Protestant I would not take RCC communion. The doctrine of communion in the RCC does not bother me personally; I rather respect the high view of the sacraments.

Accepting the sacraments of a church is to in essence be of full agreeance with all that church’s doctrine.

Exactly. Well said.

 

[tm21]

Just to be clear, you’re saying that the Sacrament of the Eucharist presupposes an acceptance of the Church’s teachings (even if one does not entirely agree with all of them, I suppose) and also a union with the Church as well as Jesus? Is this because the Church is believed to be the mediator of Jesus’ teachings beginning with the Apostles?

Good question. The Church is the Body of Christ and Christ is the head of the Church. This language which is used by St. Paul is not metaphorical. We (the Catholic Church) are mystically the Body of Christ. That is why when we deny definitive or doctrinal teachings of the Church, we are in fact denying Christ. For that reason, our action would be duplicitous if on the one hand we received Christ’s body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist and on the other hand denied His teachings as provided to us through His Church. If you are having issue with some “difficult” Church teachings, I challenge you to research WHY and WHAT the Church really teaches on that topic. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a good place to start (available online). God bless you!

 

[almosttrue]

the communion ceremony – is the proclaiming that Jesus is the pass over lamb–

“now the last supper” was the day before the pass over–

it is interesting that the catholic ceremony claims that their ceremony – is superior to a non catholic ceremony–

as if God the Holy Spirit is particular to a denomination- as my catholic family training goes back to 1869, and having been to thousands of mass ceremony’s - it is rare that – there is a spiritual impartation- by performing this ceremony-- but becasue catholic’s are “taught that this is true”

it defies any spiritual decernment-- being allowed-- obey or be excommunicated-- annathomithed- as the counsal of trent decrees-

proclaiming something as spiritual should be producing fruit-- and not the fruit of fear – of excommunication

now the Luthern’s believe in consubstantiation – almost the same thing–

BUT – not accepted – as the real presence–

1 Corinthians 2 New International Version (NIV) (the REAL PRESENCE)

2 And so it was with me, brothers and sisters. When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God.[a] 2 For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 I came to you in weakness with great fear and trembling.

4 My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power,

5 so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power.

God’s Wisdom Revealed by the Spirit

6 We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7 No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

9 However, as it is written:

“What no eye has seen,
what no ear has heard,
and what no human mind has conceived”**—

the things God has prepared for those who love him—
10 these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit.

The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.

12 What we have received is not the spirit of the world,

**but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. **

13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom

** but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.
**

[c] 14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. 15 The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, 16 for,

“Who has known the mind of the Lord
so as to instruct him?”[d]

But we have the mind of Christ.**

 

[manualman]

My question is being asked with all due respect, Father, as well as ignorance. Why should ANY Christian (or even non-Christian) be denied Holy Communion: was not this Sacrament established by Jesus Himself, or was it done so by the Church? If the latter, what is the justification for this particular rule of the Church?

It is perhaps helpful to zoom out from the current historical context and see the issue in the timeless manner that we expect that God sees it. We’re conditioned these days to perceive religious truth as difficult to discern and the imperative to respect those who disagree with us. But the long term view is that we understand Jesus to have instituted the Eucharist to be the pinnacle of worship, to be a miraculous exception to the laws of time, space and matter such that it IS a partaking of the ultimate Passover Lamb that is Christ offered on the Cross. We understand that Jesus explicitly selected 12 apostles to establish a visible church on earth after his Ascension and for that apostolic office to be a visible headship providing unity and clarity of teaching. 1500 years later, along comes some random guys that declare that they know better and manage to establish quite a following (in no small measure due to sins and failures of catholics). All of the sudden, we’re supposed to just tell Jesus that his explicit command for his followers to be unified is obsolete and that people who deny key aspects of revelation are in just as perfect communion with Christ as those who remain faithful to what he taught? We can’t. We have to do what we were instructed to do, part of which is to be vigilant against false teaching.

We can and have formally acknowledged that intellectual knowledge is not what saves a soul, but repentance and submission to Grace. We also acknowledge that the Sacraments are gifts from God to man, not shackles on God that restrain him! The fact that non-catholics are barred from receiving communion is not an expression of snobbishness, it’s a necessity of fidelity to the gospel as we know it.

 

[JRKH]

As a Protestant I would not take RCC communion. The doctrine of communion in the RCC does not bother me personally; I rather respect the high view of the sacraments.

Accepting the sacraments of a church is to in essence be of full agreeance with all that church’s doctrine.

Thank you. Very well said.

Peace
James

 

[meltzerboy]

Good question. The Church is the Body of Christ and Christ is the head of the Church. This language which is used by St. Paul is not metaphorical. We (the Catholic Church) are mystically the Body of Christ. That is why when we deny definitive or doctrinal teachings of the Church, we are in fact denying Christ. For that reason, our action would be duplicitous if on the one hand we received Christ’s body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist and on the other hand denied His teachings as provided to us through His Church. If you are having issue with some “difficult” Church teachings, I challenge you to research WHY and WHAT the Church really teaches on that topic. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a good place to start (available online). God bless you!

I think I have a handle on the issue now, as FrDavid and a number of other posters, as well as yourself, have explained the Church’s position quite well. As a Jew, I have no problems with any Church teachings so long as the Church abides by its own moral principles and allows other faiths to abide by theirs.

 

[Hoosier_giff]

For those of you who have replied, thank you. I would also like to say it is refreshing he hear people saying that I AM invited… to become Catholic. Because many people are posing the question ‘why don’t you become Catholic?’ Also, its seems some people are making assumptions about my beliefs on communion, so I will briefly clarify what I believe and I will give you a little more history.

I believe the Apostle’s and Nicene creed. I believe that the Body and Blood are truly present in Eucharist, though it may look, smell, and taste like bread and wine (what a mystery!). I believe that all who are Baptized with water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are members of the Body of Christ on which Jesus is the Head.

I have attended RCIA classes and have studied Catholicism, this is why I know that my theology is quite similar to Catholicism. However, I did not follow through with RCIA because of another key point that has been mentioned in this thread. I am not comfortable saying that I 100% believe everything the Catholic Church holds to be true. Honestly, I don’t know how anyone can. I will mention a couple theological points I disagree with; please let’s not make these theological points the main topic of the rest of this thread. I just want to demonstrate my theological issues with embracing 100% of Catholic theology.

1. Because if Tradition has equal authority over the church, I find it necessary to read and understand all of Catholic Tradition. I have found this arduous and nearly impossible. English translations are not easily available for all of the texts and texts are not easy to find, or read. And to be honest, I have a hard time reading the Bible every year.
2. I have found things in the Catholic Catechism that I do not believe are true. For example, article 2162: “The second commandment forbids the ever improper use of God’s name, Blasphemy is the use of the name of God, of Jesus Christ, of the Virgin Mary, and of the saints in an offensive way.” I see this as putting the Virgin Mary and the Saints in the same place as God which is a violation of the first and second commandments, ie blasphemy.

I think this is more than enough for a single post, again thank you for your thoughts and prayers.