Question about Eucharist from a Protestant perspective

[Hoosier_giff]

Let’s focus again on the initial topic. I’m glad others have already brought 1 Corinthians 11 into the discussion. That is the teaching that complete unity is necessary for Eucharist because it is communion in the truest sense of the word. However, in my time in RCIA and spending time with Catholic people, I have found that none of them are in 100% agreement with even each other on 100% of their theology. This makes very good sense to me because Catholic are humans and, thus, sinners. So they are incapable of having a 100% complete understanding of God, and also because they are individuals they are incapable of having 100% complete uniformity in their understanding of church doctrine. If these are true, then everyone must be obligated to commune alone! Certainly, this is a violation of the One Body of Christ which is truly half of the sacrament!

So, and please correct me if my assumptions are incorrect, there must be a degree of agreement or degree of communion that is necessary to partake in Eucharist. Because 100% agreement/communion seems logistically impossible. The real question is how much agreement/communion is necessary? Is it holding the various creeds of the Church to be true? Is it simply believing the brief number of RCIA class topics? Is it poring over every article of church Tradition and finding them all to be divinely true? Is it believing that the Catholic Catechism and the Bible are wholly true? I will discuss my reasoning below but I believe scripture dictates that that all who are Baptized into the One Body of Christ should commune together at the Lord’s Table.

While we’re on the topic and because a few people appropriately mentioned 1st Corinthians 11, I would like to clarify how it plays into my faith. As with all Biblical text, I like to first understand the context of the verses, then read the verse, then compare that to my current understanding of the scripture, and then try to apply that to life. Using this method, it seems that the church in Corinth is struggling with its identity and this struggle is harming the church particularly the Lord’s Supper, 1 Cor 11:18-33, and 1 Cor 12: 12-31. In these verses, Paul identifies that there are 1 Cor 18 “divisions among you” and 1 Cor 19 “no doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval.” Then he writes about how the church of Corinth has taken these divisions to the Lord’s Supper, which he shows disapproval for. Then he writes what is most commonly quoted 1 Cor 27 “whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.” It seems the prevailing understanding of this scripture in this thread is that if you take the Lord’s Supper without having perfect faith, or at least a belief set that is completely unified with the Catholic Church then you are “sinning against the body and blood.” Therefore, you should only commune with people who have an identical belief system as you.

I don’t think this interpretation is so clear for a few reasons. First, Paul’s solution for the church of Corinth is not to deny each other communion, or to only commune with those who are within your division. His solution is 1 Cor 33-34 “…when you come together to eat, wait for each other. If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.” He continues to endorse the entire community to partake in the Lord’s Supper, ie. Communion. Second, the next chapter clearly demonstrates that while the Body of Christ is one Body it is made of many parts. This is why context is important! In chapter 12, Paul delineates how there are a myriad of spiritual gifts and all people are blessed with different gifts. He uses many metaphors to make his point that the Body of Christ is “one body made from many parts.” Specifically, he says 1 Cor 12:12-13 “The body is a unit, though it is made of many parts; and though its parts are many; they form one body. So it is with Christ. For we are all Baptized by one spirit into one body…” Continuing, God has combined the members of the body 1 Cor 12:25 “so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other.” Taking both of these points into consideration, this says that all members of the Body of Christ are to commune together at the Lord’s Supper.

While there are “divisions among us” and some of these divisions have “God’s approval,” it is essential for us to set aside our differences and commune as one family, as One Body. The greater sin is not to have divisions but it is to take these divisions to the Lord’s Supper and let these differences divide the One Body during a meal that contains the One Body! I also think it is important to remind ourselves again of 1 Cor 12:13. “For we are all Baptized by one Spirit into one Body…” Certainly, I do not believe that everyone should partake in the Lord’s Supper. I believe that every member of the One Body should commune, that is all people who are Baptized into the One Body and continue to earnestly dwell in the One Body. (phew, that was longer than I thought it would be, sorry)

 

[Hoosier_giff]

Another issue. The Eucharist doesn’t actually remit sins. If it did, 1 Cor would be pointless, as you could never not be in a state of grace receiving it.

Thank you for your contributions Razanir, but I do believe that Eucharist is salvific and I also believe the Catholic Church does too! This is why:

The Gospel is abundantly clear that Jesus death on the cross was to cleanse the sins of the world. And because sacraments are more than just symbols, the sacrament of his death on the cross would also have to cleanse the sins of the world. This is a particularly Catholic theology, from my understanding. Because Eucharist is not just a symbol, Jesus death on the cross happens every time it is celebrated!

Catholic Catechism 1365 “…As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which ‘Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed’ is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out.”

Catholic Catechism 1409 “The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ’s Passover, that is, of the work of salvation accomplished by the life, death and resurrection of Christ, a work made present by the liturgical action.”

With this in mind, perhaps it is easier to understand why I feel so rejected when I am denied participation at God’s Holy Table because I am being denied “redemption” and “the work of salvation.”

 

[powerofk]

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.

As for your first problem, very few people have knowledge of the entire Catholic Tradition. Look at us all here! Seriously, if every Catholic had knowledge of every piece of Catholic Tradition (and teaching), there would be no Catholic Answers. Even the “professional apologists” have to look up teaching now and then. The trust has to be that the Church teaches the Truth, and that if you come upon a teaching that you don’t understand, you accept it due to obedience, and then investigate it. Seriously - that’s why the pope has the Office of the Doctrine of the Faith, because the faith is so deep and vast and has so many writings, that we need a group of people whose job is simply to scour all of the teachings.

For your second problem, many people use the names of Mary or other saints to avoid using God’s name in vain. But by doing so, they elevate Mary or another saint to the same level of God, which in and of itself is blasphemous. This is why using the name of Mary or another saint in vain in order to avoid using God’s name in vain is blasphemous. It is not the Church who elevates Mary and the saints to the level of God by including the use of Mary and other saints in vain in Her interpretation of the 2nd commandment - it is the person who uses their names in vain who raises them to the level of God. The Church is saying: Don’t use God’s name in vain, and don’t elevate Mary and the saints to the level of God by using their names in vain, either.

 

[JRKH]

Let’s focus again on the initial topic. I’m glad others have already brought 1 Corinthians 11 into the discussion. That is the teaching that complete unity is necessary for Eucharist because it is communion in the truest sense of the word. However, in my time in RCIA and spending time with Catholic people, I have found that none of them are in 100% agreement with even each other on 100% of their theology. This makes very good sense to me because Catholic are humans and, thus, sinners. So they are incapable of having a 100% complete understanding of God, and also because they are individuals they are incapable of having 100% complete uniformity in their understanding of church doctrine. If these are true, then everyone must be obligated to commune alone! Certainly, this is a violation of the One Body of Christ which is truly half of the sacrament!

So, and please correct me if my assumptions are incorrect, there must be a degree of agreement or degree of communion that is necessary to partake in Eucharist. Because 100% agreement/communion seems logistically impossible. The real question is how much agreement/communion is necessary? Is it holding the various creeds of the Church to be true? Is it simply believing the brief number of RCIA class topics? Is it poring over every article of church Tradition and finding them all to be divinely true? Is it believing that the Catholic Catechism and the Bible are wholly true? I will discuss my reasoning below but I believe scripture dictates that that all who are Baptized into the One Body of Christ should commune together at the Lord’s Table.

You makes some good points here. I don’t have time to give them each their proper attention…I hope others will.

(Snip)

While there are “divisions among us” and some of these divisions have “God’s approval,” it is essential for us to set aside our differences and commune as one family, as One Body. The greater sin is not to have divisions but it is to take these divisions to the Lord’s Supper and let these differences divide the One Body during a meal that contains the One Body! I also think it is important to remind ourselves again of 1 Cor 12:13. “For we are all Baptized by one Spirit into one Body…” Certainly, I do not believe that everyone should partake in the Lord’s Supper. I believe that every member of the One Body should commune, that is all people who are Baptized into the One Body and continue to earnestly dwell in the One Body. (phew, that was longer than I thought it would be, sorry)

My only comment here is this question:
Who shall decide which “divisions among us” should be set aside and which should cause us to deny communion with each other?
I’m sure you agree that there is a point at which divisions in theology go beyond what can be thought of as having “God’s approval” - - but where is that point? Who determines what that point is? What things are OK to disagree on and what things are not OK? Who and how are these things to be determined?

I am sure you will also agree that, no matter where the boundary is set - there will be those who are just on the outside and could/would feel resentful.

I see you have given the matter much thought and express yourself well on the subject…So I will be interested in what you think about the above.

Peace
James

 

[schaeffer]

As for your first problem, very few people have knowledge of the entire Catholic Tradition. Look at us all here! Seriously, if every Catholic had knowledge of every piece of Catholic Tradition (and teaching), there would be no Catholic Answers. Even the “professional apologists” have to look up teaching now and then. The trust has to be that the Church teaches the Truth, and that if you come upon a teaching that you don’t understand, you accept it due to obedience, and then investigate it. Seriously - that’s why the pope has the Office of the Doctrine of the Faith, because the faith is so deep and vast and has so many writings, that we need a group of people whose job is simply to scour all of the teachings.

The faith and tradition are so complex and detailed that even those who study it for years, as a full time career don’t know the full of it.

I admit it is hard to reconcile that fact alone with the message of Christ.

 

[schaeffer]

For your second problem, many people use the names of Mary or other saints to avoid using God’s name in vain. But by doing so, they elevate Mary or another saint to the same level of God, which in and of itself is blasphemous. This is why using the name of Mary or another saint in vain in order to avoid using God’s name in vain is blasphemous. It is not the Church who elevates Mary and the saints to the level of God by including the use of Mary and other saints in vain in Her interpretation of the 2nd commandment - it is the person who uses their names in vain who raises them to the level of God. The Church is saying: Don’t use God’s name in vain, and don’t elevate Mary and the saints to the level of God by using their names in vain, either.

Maybe the Church just teaches that because it is disrespectful to use the names of those people in a disrespectful way.

Disrespecting something in in no way placing it on the level of God, unless respecting something, in a manner in which one also respects God is also putting something on the level of God.

That would be mighty slippery territory for a faith that teaches veneration of Saints.

Venerating saints is not putting them on the level of God, nor is disrespecting them.

Disrespecting them is simply wrong, whether they are on the level of God or not, as is disrespecting one’s parents, etc.

 

[getysbg]

The faith and tradition are so complex and detailed that even those who study it for years, as a full time career don’t know the full of it.

I admit it is hard to reconcile that fact alone with the message of Christ.

For me, there was so much that was explained to me that made “sense” that I felt on the other issues if I waited until I understood all things I would have a very long wait. A devotion to Mary and any of the other saints is still very difficult. BUT I accept the teaching of the Church and yield. Please do not let subbornness stand in your way of peace. Come on! Swim the Tiber!

 

[WingsOfEagles]

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?

Catholics believe that the the bread and wine actually becomes the body and blood of Christ. When we receive, it is said to us “The body/blood of Christ.” We respond with “Amen (which means I believe).” To receive believe that body/blood are just bread/wine symbols, as many non-Catholics do, would be to lie, which is in itself a sin. The Church is trying to avoid someone eating/drinking judgement upon himself. All are invited to join the Faith and receive.

 

[truetofaith]

As Catholics we believe that at the Consecration, the Eucharist becomes the "actual’ Body & Blood of Christ, although it still looks like bread & wine. You must be in the state of grace to receive communion.
A non-Catholic must become a Catholic & learn what is required before they can receive the sacrament.
If you don’t believe it becomes Jesus, you cannot give the proper respect.

 

[MacQ]

As for your first problem, very few people have knowledge of the entire Catholic Tradition. Look at us all here! Seriously, if every Catholic had knowledge of every piece of Catholic Tradition (and teaching), there would be no Catholic Answers. Even the “professional apologists” have to look up teaching now and then. The trust has to be that the Church teaches the Truth, and that if you come upon a teaching that you don’t understand, you accept it due to obedience, and then investigate it. Seriously - that’s why the pope has the Office of the Doctrine of the Faith, because the faith is so deep and vast and has so many writings, that we need a group of people whose job is simply to scour all of the teachings. .

Good answer. I would also add, with regard to “tradition” that the Church has been as careful as humanly possible to ensure that nothing from tradition contradicts anything in scripture. IN that sense, tradition does NOT have “equal authority”, as the OP asserts.

For your second problem, many people use the names of Mary or other saints to avoid using God’s name in vain. But by doing so, they elevate Mary or another saint to the same level of God, which in and of itself is blasphemous. This is why using the name of Mary or another saint in vain in order to avoid using God’s name in vain is blasphemous. It is not the Church who elevates Mary and the saints to the level of God by including the use of Mary and other saints in vain in Her interpretation of the 2nd commandment - it is the person who uses their names in vain who raises them to the level of God. The Church is saying: Don’t use God’s name in vain, and don’t elevate Mary and the saints to the level of God by using their names in vain, either.

:clapping:
Excellent answer.

 

[MacQ]

For me, there was so much that was explained to me that made “sense” that I felt on the other issues if I waited until I understood all things I would have a very long wait. A devotion to Mary and any of the other saints is still very difficult. BUT I accept the teaching of the Church and yield. Please do not let subbornness stand in your way of peace. Come on! Swim the Tiber!

I second that!
I actually find comfort in the FACT that some things are beyond my understanding (they’re a mystery!!!)
And I also found that an dogged determination to sort everything out to my satisfaction was a mark of arrogance and pride (not to mention control issues).
Yielding is all it takes.
Let it go.

 

[rinnie]

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 got this! I get this all the time.

Here is why, If you go to communion without going to confession to a Priest you have condemned yourself before Christ.

All Catholics must go to confession if they are in a state of mortal sin. Now what is mortal sin? Could be thousands of things. Better to go in venial sin, (any kind of sin to be sure, at least once a year).

But anyway it is the Job of the Priest to make sure you know what you are doing, and what your are accepting before you receive it.

That is why you must accept the Catholic teaching, understand the Catholic teaching and obey it to receive it.

Example if a person is divorced in the RCC cannot get an annulment and marry outside of the RCC they cannot receive communion. But they are welcome to participate in Mass, continue to pray with us, and receive Grace from God outside of the Eucharist.

 

[rinnie]

If you want to participate in the Roman Catholic mass then the priest will direct you as to how you come into “full communion” with the Roman Church and then you will be able to partake of whatever it is they offer at their table.

As to whether Jesus died for you or not, I don’t know.

I do. Jesus died for all men and for all Salvation. All Salvation is through the CC or aka Jesus Christ.

Jesus calls everyone to join him in the supper of the Lord.

 

[rinnie]

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?

A little question for you! Why would a non-Christian WANT to partake in the body and blood of Christ if they deny him?

 

[MacQ]

If you want to participate in the Roman Catholic mass then the priest will direct you as to how you come into “full communion” with the Roman Church and then you will be able to partake of whatever it is they offer at their table.

As to whether Jesus died for you or not, I don’t know.

From the Catechism: “There is not, never has been, and never will be a single human being for whom Christ did not suffer”. (CCC605)

 

[Telstar]

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.

Many Catholics also struggle with certain beliefs that the Church teaches. But, we are still expected to accept them as true, because the Church could never teach anything that is contrary to what Jesus taught. This is where we have to exercise our faith and believe that the Church that Jesus established can never teach error, because it is guided by the Holy Spirit of Truth. Jesus promised that He would never abandon His Church, and the Holy Spirit would always lead Her “into all truth” through the Apostles, and all that followed them.

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.

I don’t think there is a Catholic alive that knows and understands every Catholic Tradition. This is another place where we need to have faith that the Church cannot teach error, so it’s not necessary to try to learn everything She teaches. I doubt that’s even possible, since 2000 years of Tradition is a lot to read about.

1. 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.

What you seem to have missed in that section of the Catechism, is the reference to everyone that is Baptized in the name of the Trinity. Their names, formally given in Baptism, are also considered to be holy.

This is the most important point for us to understand about blasphemy:
"2148 Blasphemy is directly opposed to the second commandment. It consists in uttering against God - inwardly or outwardly - words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one’s speech; in misusing God’s name. St. James condemns those "who blaspheme that honorable name [of Jesus] by which you are called.“78 The prohibition of blasphemy extends to language against Christ’s Church, the saints, and sacred things. It is also blasphemous to make use of God’s name to cover up criminal practices, to reduce peoples to servitude, to torture persons or put them to death. The misuse of God’s name to commit a crime can provoke others to repudiate religion.”
When we speak disrespectfully against the Saints of God (especially the Mother of Jesus Christ), or use their names in a derogatory manner, we are also blaspheming against Him, because He has called them to hold a special place in His Kingdom. They are a true reflection of Him, so showing disrespect toward them, is also disrespecting Him Who called them.

 

[Hoosier_giff]

My only comment here is this question:
Who shall decide which “divisions among us” should be set aside and which should cause us to deny communion with each other?
I’m sure you agree that there is a point at which divisions in theology go beyond what can be thought of as having “God’s approval” - - but where is that point? Who determines what that point is? What things are OK to disagree on and what things are not OK? Who and how are these things to be determined?

I see you have given the matter much thought and express yourself well on the subject…So I will be interested in what you think about the above.

Thanks for the response! I think you’ve identified one of the cruxes of the discussion. And certainly, a line must be drawn somewhere. As I alluded to, the Gospel and Paul in 1 Corinthians 11-12 always mentions the Body of Christ communing together at the Lord’s Supper. I don’t think this is coincidental. This is why I think that it is essential that the entire Body of Christ commune as one family. Paul’s disgust with the Church of Corinth was that they were not communing as One Body. For this reason and reasons I already spoke about above, I think it is more important to ask not ‘Who has God’s approval?’ but ‘Who is a part of the Body of Christ?’

If all the members of the Body of Christ should commune together at the Lord’s Table, we have to ask what/who is the Body of Christ. Good thing that is what 1 Corinthians 12 is all about! 1 Cor 12:13 “For we are all Baptized by one Spirit into one Body…”

To answer your question more directly, with this in mind, I believe all who are Baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and enjoy membership in the Body of Christ should commune together at the Lord’s Supper.

Who does this leave out? Those who are unbaptized. Those who may have been baptized but no longer consider themselves to be a member of the Body of Christ, ie, people who have rejected Jesus.

I am sure you will also agree that, no matter where the boundary is set - there will be those who are just on the outside and could/would feel resentful.

I agree, no doubt there will be people who are resentful where ever the line is drawn. Though, I have not encountered many people who are unbaptized or have denied Jesus that really want to commune at the Lord’s Supper. Additionally, I believe it is more important to have a healthy, life giving Lord’s Supper than to try and avoid resentment.

That being said, we should closely consider those who are resentful/distressed ( someone in this thread ) and wonder why they are distressed. Perhaps we are justly maintaining the sanctity of the Lord’s Supper, or perhaps we are alienating and harming a member of the Body of Christ.

 

[MacQ]

To answer your question more directly, with this in mind, I believe all who are Baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and enjoy membership in the Body of Christ should commune together at the Lord’s Supper.

Who does this leave out? Those who are unbaptized. Those who may have been baptized but no longer consider themselves to be a member of the Body of Christ, ie, people who have rejected Jesus.

I agree, no doubt there will be people who are resentful where ever the line is drawn…

So you say anyone baptized. Why leave out the unbaptized?
Why leave out any of the others you mentioned?
The “line” as it is currently drawn is between those who avow that they are in full communion with the RCC, and those who are not. What’s wrong with that line?
If you’re not willing to be in full communion, why would you want to publicly demonstrate that you are?

Here’s the thing: it’s not a matter of “leaving out” anyone. The Church truly wishes that everyone wanted to be in communion. But being in communion either means something or it doesn’t.

For you and other protestants, it’s a symbolic communing at the table…which is why you feel you are being “left out”. For catholics, it’s not the dinner table. If it were, there would be no line drawn (I assume your church doesn’t).

We think it would be wrong to give something of huge import to someone who doesn’t understand or embrace what it truly is.

So let’s say for one guy it’s just a piece of bread…he doesn’t like how it tastes, so he spits it out in a Kleenex and throws it in the toilet later. Or gives it to his toddler to break apart on the floor for amusement along with his saltines. (I’ve seen that happen). For us…that’s a precious piece of Jesus being defiled. Not the guy’s fault…he thinks it’s a wafer.

Or someone else, who finds out later that catholics think this is really Jesus’ body, and they are disgusted that they’ve been duped into cannibalism, and to publicly avowing that they believe something they don’t…

We just think it would be wrong to do that. We could only be cavalier about dispensing it if we didn’t really believe what we think it is.

 

[JRKH]

Thanks for the response! I think you’ve identified one of the cruxes of the discussion. And certainly, a line must be drawn somewhere.

Thank you.

As I alluded to, the Gospel and Paul in 1 Corinthians 11-12 always mentions the Body of Christ communing together at the Lord’s Supper. I don’t think this is coincidental. This is why I think that it is essential that the entire Body of Christ commune as one family.

Catholics too think that this is essential. So - let us become one family again. Let us not just heal divisions but overcome them.

Paul’s disgust with the Church of Corinth was that they were not communing as One Body. For this reason and reasons I already spoke about above, I think it is more important to ask not ‘Who has God’s approval?’ but ‘Who is a part of the Body of Christ?’

hhmmmm…I wonder how one separates the two things. Ideas?

If all the members of the Body of Christ should commune together at the Lord’s Table, we have to ask what/who is the Body of Christ. Good thing that is what 1 Corinthians 12 is all about! 1 Cor 12:13 “For we are all Baptized by one Spirit into one Body…”

Fair enough - but let us consider - - - -staying with Corinthians for a bit…consider…
It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife. You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst.
(Yes - this is an abrupt and stark case but it serves the point I wish to make.)
Is Paul speaking about the unbaptized here? “Immorality among you” he says. Surely he is speaking of the baptized and he is telling the community to NOT commune with these people.
So it appears that simply saying “the baptized” is not sufficient even for Paul. There must be more that makes someone part of the “one body”.

To answer your question more directly, with this in mind, I believe all who are Baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and enjoy membership in the Body of Christ should commune together at the Lord’s Supper.

Who does this leave out? Those who are unbaptized. Those who may have been baptized but no longer consider themselves to be a member of the Body of Christ, ie, people who have rejected Jesus.

Actually this does not answer my question at all. What you have done is to give me your opinion on the matter - which you have the perfect right to do. But what I asked was quite different. I asked:
Who shall decide which “divisions among us” should be set aside and which should cause us to deny communion with each other?
I’m sure you agree that there is a point at which divisions in theology go beyond what can be thought of as having “God’s approval” - - but where is that point?** Who** determines what that point is? What things are OK to disagree on and what things are not OK? **Who and how are these things to be determined?
**

(Note: there is a very clear biblical answer to this.)

Peace
James

 

[meltzerboy]

A little question for you! Why would a non-Christian WANT to partake in the body and blood of Christ if they deny him?

My point was that if Christ died for all, then all should be allowed to partake of the holiest sacrament. I thought this followed logically from the Christian perspective. But I now understand the reasons why all are invited to do so by first becoming Catholic.