Question about Eucharist from a Protestant perspective

[CaptFun]

The idea that a person who has not yet received first communion is “unwelcome” :nope: - well - it may be how a person feels - but it’s not entirely accurate. :coolinoff:

People probably do receive the Eucharist who technically shouldn’t (yet) … as presenting oneself in the Communion line and knowing how to acknowledge the Eucharist will likely lead to that person’s receiving it. More likely than a confrontation anyway (even though I - as a Communion Service Leader have*** refrained from*** giving Eucharist to people who obviously don’t know what they’re doing).

The Church is “welcoming” in every other way … and as the OP pointed out, even many Catholics don’t receive Communion at each mass (they’re Catechumens still preparing for their first communion; fast from it due to unconfessed sins; have eaten to close to communion time etc).

A beautiful prayer of unity (and personal reflection) for ALL people who can not then receive Communion … and a nice daily prayer is this one:

catholic.org/prayers/prayer.php?p=35

Act of Spiritual Communion

My Jesus, I believe that You are in the Blessed Sacrament. I love You above all things, and I long for You in my soul. Since I cannot now receive You sacramentally, come at least spiritually into my heart. As though You have already come, I embrace You and unite myself entirely to You; never permit me to be separated from You.

It is not the SAME as receiving communion to be sure … but if one cannot (yet or then) receive … it is better to turn our thoughts to the Lord than to let Satan whisper "you are not welcome here … " in our ears. Which he will in my opinion.

If one wishes to enter into full communion with the Church - they are welcomed. Full priveleges are not immediate. Why, the apostles themselves did not receive their first communions for three years. Most RCIA programs are much quicker than that.

If a person decides to come thisclose but no closer to becoming a Catholic … that person probably will feel some distance and difference from the worshippers nearby who are.

Since the Church teaches that the Eucharist is substantially more than mere symbolism and remembrance - it is important that people know what they are doing in proclaiming their “Amens” to the “Body of Christ” and “Blood of Christ”.

I have a friend who became Catholic … and during the time of his discernment looked carefully at Catholics receiving the Eucharist he was waiting for. He saw (as we all do … and might be guilty of ourselves) some sloppy, distracted communions being made. But also some reverent ones, the genuiness of which drew him powerfully to receive his sacraments and become a full member of the Church.

It might be possible that a person making a devout and heartfelt “Spiritual Communion” via the above approved prayer (or something like it) might be drawing closer to the Lord than one who distractedly receive the Eucharist and pray not at all thereafter.

The word “Protestant” can be an unfortunate one too. Acceptance of Jesus is much better. And I note that many Catholics have within them their own protests which can get in the way of Relationship ONE.

To our Original Poster: Bless you. Welcome. WELCOME! You are seeking, you will find.
The pearl is of great price … but worth it! And the value of the Eucharist is sublime … more than we could ever pay … so worth humbling ourselves via the fasts (of time, food, and from serious sin) that His Church recommends.

 

[rinnie]

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.

I understand. My husband for example was a protestant, he was taught the Eucharist is only a symbol not the actual body and blood of Christ. Tons of Protestant faith teach this.

But not all, I understand. But what I don’t understand how they can do so, change regular bread and wine into the living Christ w/o Holy Orders is beyond me. But another post I am sure.

 

[andrewstx]

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.

I am tired of arguing with indefinitely, I pretty much ignore and don’t respond to his posts.

But he does not believe that Jesus died for all of humanity. As a Calvinist/Reformed he likely believes in a Limited Atonement (limited only to the elect, who God has chosen).

Limited Atonement is the L in T.U.L.I.P.

It will do no good to quote the CCC at him.

 

[Hoosier_giff]

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.)

I see how I missed your question, sorry. I am not sure what scripture you are referring to but I have a feeling it has to do with the authority to excommunicate.

When asked **who **shall decide which divisions among us have God’s approval? The obvious answer is God. Because he is omnipotent and no one/ no thing has authority over Him, no one can tell Him what he can and cannot approve. But this is too obvious of an answer, so I don’t think that is what you are implying.

Perhaps, “How should we know who has God’s approval?” is the more salient question. And “How should we know who is too far out of God’s approval?” Certainly, we can use God’s divine Word, the Scriptures, to determine who has God’s approval. I still believe Scripture gives us a line in the sand, Baptism/ membership in the Body of Christ. But, you do make a good point of the man who Paul asserts should be excommunicated. The New Testament does provide the Church grounds and guidelines for excommunicating individuals who are toxic to the Body. (I don’t know the verses off hand and I’m in a rush, sorry) And Jesus did initiate that authority to Peter and the apostles.

I do not want to put words in your mouth, but I believe you are implying that that Apostolic succession, ie Pope and Bishops, have the authority identify those who do not have God’s approval. And, using excommunication guidelines, can deny access to the Lord’s Supper to all who are deemed to be committing excommunicable offences. Fair enough. And from most of this thread, it seems that not being Catholic would be an “excommunicable” offence. Obviously, you cannot excommunicate someone who is not already a member. I use the term to make the point that denial of entrance would have to be equal to excommunication if you are going to use excommunication Scripture to deny entrance. Transitive property of theology .

For the purposes of my initial comment and bringing this back to more practical terms, what is that line. I posed these questions earlier in the thread, but it has not been addressed entirely.

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?

Most responses have said that you don’t have to know all of Catholic tradition, no one does. But no one has said what you have to do, to be welcome.

Sorry for no scripture, I’m in a rush.

 

[JRKH]

For the purposes of my initial comment and bringing this back to more practical terms, what is that line. I posed these questions earlier in the thread, but it has not been addressed entirely.

Most responses have said that you don’t have to know all of Catholic tradition, no one does. But no one has said what you have to do, to be welcome.

Sorry for no scripture, I’m in a rush.

No problem about being in a rush…I’ll try to keep things brief and start with your question about what one needs to do to be welcome…to receive the Eucharist.

In it’s most fundamental sense one is required to accept, on Scripture and on faith, that the Catholic Church is founded by Christ; is supported and protected by the Holy Spirit and teaches with Christ’s own authority. This is the first thing needed.

Building on this foundation one needs to accept the Dogmatic teachings of the Church
(Here is a list)
Understand my words above…One needs to accept them as a matter of faith. One need not necessarily understand them but one accepts them on faith because one accepts the Church’s authority to teach - with Christ’s authority.

Then - one goes through RCIA and is baptized (if necessary) and confirmed and receives the Lord, Body, Blood Soul and Divinity, in the Eucharist.

Peace
James

 

[powerofk]

Most responses have said that you don’t have to know all of Catholic tradition, no one does. But no one has said what you have to do, to be welcome.

Sorry for no scripture, I’m in a rush.

Everyone is welcome. Really. Non-baptized persons need only be baptized in the Church. Validly baptized non-Catholic Christians need only voluntarily agree to profess everything that the Church teaches in a simple ceremony (which means that they also submit, in obedience, to teachings that they don’t understand). That’s it.

 

[JRKH]

I see how I missed your question, sorry. I am not sure what scripture you are referring to but I have a feeling it has to do with the authority to excommunicate.

Actually it has to do with the authority to do much more than that.

When asked **who **shall decide which divisions among us have God’s approval? The obvious answer is God. Because he is omnipotent and no one/ no thing has authority over Him, no one can tell Him what he can and cannot approve. But this is too obvious of an answer, so I don’t think that is what you are implying.

You are not entirely off base, but when it comes to what we are discussing here…there does need to be more - - and our dear Lord and King provided for it.

Perhaps, “How should we know who has God’s approval?” is the more salient question. And “How should we know who is too far out of God’s approval?” Certainly, we can use God’s divine Word, the Scriptures, to determine who has God’s approval. I still believe Scripture gives us a line in the sand, Baptism/ membership in the Body of Christ. But, you do make a good point of the man who Paul asserts should be excommunicated. The New Testament does provide the Church grounds and guidelines for excommunicating individuals who are toxic to the Body. (I don’t know the verses off hand and I’m in a rush, sorry) And Jesus did initiate that authority to Peter and the apostles.

Yes indeed. Scripture does give us much to go on in setting the boundaries, the “line in the sand”, so to speak.
Paul spoke of the incestuous man and you agree that such "toxic"individuals should be cut off. Jesus also spoke of such things and was just as plain as Paul was. Consider Jesus’ words here:
Mt 18:15-18
15"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.16But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and **if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. **18Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
(Bolding mine)
So - if one refuses to “listen to the Church” they are to be cut off…no communion.
But wait you might say - this is about “sin”.
Yes it is - and I think you will agree that teaching doctrinal error is a sin and therefore this passage can be applied to 1) those who teach error or 2) Those who deny truth.

Further - in this passage we see one of only two places where Jesus uses the term “church” (Ekklesia) - both times in Matthew and both times connected with the authority to bind and loose “whatever”.
And so we are to listen to the Church because it speaks with the authority granted to her by Christ Himself.

A beautiful thing about the above passage is we see it almost perfectly played out in Acts 15 and the council of Jerusalem. First there are debates at Antioch and eventually universal Church authority is utilized to resolve the dispute and maintain unity.

I do not want to put words in your mouth, but I believe you are implying that that Apostolic succession, ie Pope and Bishops, have the authority identify those who do not have God’s approval. And, using excommunication guidelines, can deny access to the Lord’s Supper to all who are deemed to be committing excommunicable offences. Fair enough.

Quite so. As I demonstrated above, Scripture clearly points out that we are to “listen to the Church”. Now does this mean we are voiceless? Certainly not. No Church teaching comes about in an isolated manner. People talk, they debate, they bring up “what-if’s” and all sorts of things. Some are wrong and some are right…but the discussion helps the church leaders to flesh out things so that ultimately - as things are filtered - the greater truth is arrived at.

And from most of this thread, it seems that not being Catholic would be an “excommunicable” offence. Obviously, you cannot excommunicate someone who is not already a member. I use the term to make the point that denial of entrance would have to be equal to excommunication if you are going to use excommunication Scripture to deny entrance. Transitive property of theology .

A reasonable proposal…except that we are not keeping anyone out. As Fr David pointed out, we are inviting you in.

Peace
James

 

[meltzerboy]

Everyone is welcome. Really. Non-baptized persons need only be baptized in the Church. Validly baptized non-Catholic Christians need only voluntarily agree to profess everything that the Church teaches in a simple ceremony (which means that they also submit, in obedience, to teachings that they don’t understand). That’s it.

Although I understand and respect what you’re saying, please believe me, I also have to chuckle a little at your last statement, which in effect says that as long as you "agree to profess EVERYTHING (my emphasis) that the Church teaches…as well as “submit, in obedience, to teachings (you) do NOT (my emphasis) understand,” you are welcome to join us. “That’s it,” you say. Wouldn’t you also admit that’s asking quite a lot? What I mean is the ceremony might be simple, but look at what you are asking people who come from a different way of thinking to believe.

 

[powerofk]

Although I understand and respect what you’re saying, please believe me, I also have to chuckle a little at your last statement, which in effect says that as long as you "agree to profess EVERYTHING (my emphasis) that the Church teaches…as well as “submit, in obedience, to teachings (you) do NOT (my emphasis) understand,” you are welcome to join us. “That’s it,” you say. Wouldn’t you also admit that’s asking quite a lot? What I mean is the ceremony might be simple, but look at what you are asking people who come from a different way of thinking to believe.

Okay, I get where you’re coming from. But anyone who belongs to any religion is asked to believe the general tenets of that religion. This is why people wishing to become Catholic usually go through RCIA classes. The classes are at least expected to teach the basics of the faith. All Catholics are expected to submit, in obedience, to teachings that we do not understand, because God gave His authority to the Church.

I also understand that proselytes to Judaism are extremely few. However, if a person were to convert to Judaism, would not that person be expected to observe each and every one of the 200+ laws in the Torah?

 

[meltzerboy]

Okay, I get where you’re coming from. But anyone who belongs to any religion is asked to believe the general tenets of that religion. This is why people wishing to become Catholic usually go through RCIA classes. The classes are at least expected to teach the basics of the faith. All Catholics are expected to submit, in obedience, to teachings that we do not understand, because God gave His authority to the Church.

I also understand that proselytes to Judaism are extremely few. However, if a person were to convert to Judaism, would not that person be expected to observe each and every one of the 200+ laws in the Torah?

In response to your question, certainly that would be the case if one were converting to Orthodox Judaism (a.k.a.Torah Judaism). Converts to Torah Judaism are few precisely because they are turned away (three times) to determine their sincerity in meeting the challenges involved in living one’s life in accordance with the Torah commandments. It’s not as rigorous for converts to Conservative Judaism and much less so in the case of Reform Judaism and other movements. In general, though, you’re right: there are certain tenets that all Jews must abide by. One of the key differences compared to Catholicism, however, is that Jews, like Protestants, do not have a central authority to obey.

 

[SteveVH]

Although I understand and respect what you’re saying, please believe me, I also have to chuckle a little at your last statement, which in effect says that as long as you "agree to profess EVERYTHING (my emphasis) that the Church teaches…as well as “submit, in obedience, to teachings (you) do NOT (my emphasis) understand,” you are welcome to join us. “That’s it,” you say. Wouldn’t you also admit that’s asking quite a lot? What I mean is the ceremony might be simple, but look at what you are asking people who come from a different way of thinking to believe.

If they don’t believe why would they want to be in communion in the first place?

You are correct that we are asking quite a lot. We are asking that you study and learn what you are about to get into before you actually do. That is why RCIA lasts a year or two. If at the end of this process one does not believe that the Church speaks with the voice of Christ, is guided by the Holy Spirit, is the authentic interpreter of Tradition and Scripture, and is inerrant in its teachings they are free to walk away. But they are not free to commune with those of us that do believe. Their choice.

 

[MacQ]

In response to your question, certainly that would be the case if one were converting to Orthodox Judaism (a.k.a.Torah Judaism). Converts to Torah Judaism are few precisely because they are turned away (three times) to determine their sincerity in meeting the challenges involved in living one’s life in accordance with the Torah commandments. It’s not as rigorous for converts to Conservative Judaism and much less so in the case of Reform Judaism and other movements. In general, though, you’re right: there are certain tenets that all Jews must abide by. One of the key differences compared to Catholicism, however, is that Jews, like Protestants, do not have a central authority to obey.

Why should the catholic church be any less rigorous than orthodox Judaism?
Why should it be cheap and easy with no effort required?

 

[meltzerboy]

Why should the catholic church be any less rigorous than orthodox Judaism?
Why should it be cheap and easy with no effort required?

I’m not saying it should be. What I’m responding to is the poster’s statement that it is simple to become Catholic and follow the Church.

 

[powerofk]

I’m not saying it should be. What I’m responding to is the poster’s statement that it is simple to become Catholic and follow the Church.

I never said that it was necessarily simple - I said the ceremony for baptized non-Catholic Christians to become Catholic was a simple ceremony. By simple, I mean, there is not much “pomp and circumstance” around it - like how a wedding ceremony can be either elaborate or simple. But even in a “simple” wedding ceremony, the vows are considered binding for life, just as the profession of faith in the ceremony mentioned above is considered binding for eternity (as are Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders). As such, anyone planning such a conversion should remember that such a decision is considered an eternal one, and know what such a decision entails.

What I meant earlier was that the Church puts very few roadblocks in a person’s way should that person wish to convert to the Catholic faith. The main roadblocks that people encounter is divorce with remarriage along with other living situations that are blatantly against Catholic teaching (like cohabitation or homosexual union). People are asked to rectify these situations first before joining the Church. But people must definitely understand what they are signing up for should they wish to convert.