Reception of Communion

[FromTheCrossroa]

Something (as an apspiring catholic) that has always bothered me about this subject is why Catholics are so quick to deny communion when Christ himself let 12 seemingly imperfect and clueless (at the time) followers including the one who was in the act of betrayal partake in communion. None of them had gone through RCIA or CCD. After 3 years of being taught at his feet and themselves in active ministry, some questioned he was the Christ, some even practiced devination (something identified as pagan)…the list could go on and on. My point being that although imperfect and lacking knowledge, they were hungry and thirsty. Christ did not deny those willing to partake in the body and blood of Christ. Did Christ himself not know any better? Although I do now understand and respect the semantics between non-catholic/catholic communions, I do not believe it is right to deny communion for those who believe they are clean and willing to be in communion with the body of believers and ultimately Christ himself.

 

[jmcrae]

Something (as an apspiring catholic) that has always bothered me about this subject is why Catholics are so quick to deny communion when Christ himself let 12 seemingly imperfect and clueless (at the time) followers including the one who was in the act of betrayal partake in communion. None of them had gone through RCIA or CCD.

They didn’t need it - as you say, they had three years of training at His very feet.

After 3 years of being taught at his feet and themselves in active ministry, some questioned he was the Christ, some even practiced divination (something identified as pagan)…the list could go on and on.

Most people still have questions, even after they have completed RCIA or CCD. Other than a very few extraordinary people (Little Therese of the Child Jesus, or Maria Goretti, for example) most of them are also still sinners. (Although I’m not aware of the Apostles ever practicing divination. Can you provide an example?)

Fortunately, we aren’t required to be “perfect” to be admitted to the Sacraments, but we do have to be members of the Church that Christ established (the Apostles certainly were), and we do need to be willing and open to learn, taking the attitude that Jesus teaches what is true, and if we don’t understand or don’t agree, it’s because of something we ourselves aren’t “getting” - not because of any error in Christ’s teaching.

The Apostles, despite their faults, did take that attitude - if they had not, after all, we would not still be here today.

 

[FromTheCrossroa]

They didn’t need it - as you say, they had three years of training at His very feet.

Most people still have questions, even after they have completed RCIA or CCD. Other than a very few extraordinary people (Little Therese of the Child Jesus, or Maria Goretti, for example) most of them are also still sinners. (Although I’m not aware of the Apostles ever practicing divination. Can you provide an example?)

Fortunately, we aren’t required to be “perfect” to be admitted to the Sacraments, but we do have to be members of the Church that Christ established (the Apostles certainly were), and we do need to be willing and open to learn, taking the attitude that Jesus teaches what is true, and if we don’t understand or don’t agree, it’s because of something we ourselves aren’t “getting” - not because of any error in Christ’s teaching.

The Apostles, despite their faults, did take that attitude - if they had not, after all, we would not still be here today.

The apostles cast lots for Judas’ replacement. It was a very common pegan practice used by other cultures (Cannanites, etc.) and assimilated into Jewish custom. In Acts, rather than voting or other established rites of ascension, they cast dice (modern equivelent) to replace Judas.

Christ had not established a church or kingdom in his earthly ministry when communion was first offered. Out of Christ’s life, death and resurrection (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) was what we know of as “Christianity” and the Church birthed at pentacost. Before Constantine, there were many factions within the Christian church. Some were heretical, others were not. By historical accounts, most were absorbed as the Roman Empire in decline became the Holy Roman Empire. The seven churches mentioned in Revelation were the closest thing to denominations we have today. Each had their own community, strengths, weaknesses, and doctrinal focuses as is the landsacpe we see today. There was a sense of unity within the Christian community even though there were often vigerous disagreements between the Apostles in the direction of the movement. I believe that is something we as Christians have lost and need to vigerously strive to attain once again.

Back to sacraments. When the disciples took communion with Christ, their state of knowledge, understanding and faith was incomplete. On this, I believe there is no disagreement. If we put aside the semantics of transubstantiation (sp), the argument for non-catholics not being offered communion is their faith and/or understanding is incomplete. Yet we see by the Gospel accounts that men in the very same state were offered communion by Christ himself up to and including his betrayer. Christ’s attitude was always one of open-armed inclusion when their heart was right (putting Judas aside). I truly believe that if the principles in which Christ lived and taught were applied, that it would be only fitting to offer communion to anyone who has the ability to reason, and professes their solidarity in Christ accordingly. Christ himself also often broke with established religious traditions and practices while following a higher call. I believe the school mentioned at the start of this thread got it right.

As New Testament examples attest, God only had a problem with people taking communion when their hearts (a critical and encompassing theme in Christs ministry) was wrong. 1 Cor 11 is quite ambiguous in its verbage. “Unworthy” to me speaks to the condition of the heart that would seperate us from fellowship with the body of Christ. In the passage, Paul did clearly state that an internal examination should take place. I believe this is also something that we can all agree is necessary and important.

I’m not trying to step on any toes in questioning. I’ve never heard an answer that doesn’t side-step the issue with tradition and/or scripture parsing. IMHO sometimes traditions although good intentioned can violate a higher universal truth. In those cases, I also believe we should be open to reforming those traditions based upon the spirit of Christs teachings and life.

 

[jmcrae]

The apostles cast lots for Judas’ replacement. It was a very common pegan practice used by other cultures (Cannanites, etc.) and assimilated into Jewish custom. In Acts, rather than voting or other established rites of ascension, they cast dice (modern equivelent) to replace Judas.

They were praying to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, aka Jesus Christ, to show them a sign of which of two equally qualified men should take Judas’ role - they were not praying to a false god, and I don’t believe that their action qualifies as “divination.” What they did isn’t normally done in our modern customs - in modern times they would have held an election, I suppose - but I don’t think they were doing anything evil.

Christ had not established a church or kingdom in his earthly ministry when communion was first offered. Out of Christ’s life, death and resurrection (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) was what we know of as “Christianity” and the Church birthed at pentacost.

The Church received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, but Christ began to establish it long before then - see Matthew 16:18.

Before Constantine, there were many factions within the Christian church. Some were heretical, others were not. By historical accounts, most were absorbed as the Roman Empire in decline became the Holy Roman Empire.

In 110 AD, when he was being taken away to be martyred for the faith, St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote to the Smyrnians, “Where the Bishop is, there is the Catholic Church.” St. Ignatius of Antioch had been a disciple of the Apostle John, author of five books of the New Testament.

The seven churches mentioned in Revelation were the closest thing to denominations we have today.

I’m sorry, but that’s a ludicrous claim. All seven of those churches were, at the very least, under the authority of the Apostle John - if they had been separate denominations, they would not have all been under the authority of any of the Apostles (since “denominations” are churches that lack Apostolic authority), let alone the same Apostle. No - those seven churches were unified under one human authority - the Apostle John. If they had not been, then Jesus would have appeared to each of them separately, rather than giving all seven messages to John, to pass on to them. After all, if John had had no authority over them, they would not have been required to listen to him when he came to them with these messages, and nor would it have been any of his business, what problems they were encountering.

(con’t)

 

[jmcrae]

Each had their own community, strengths, weaknesses, and doctrinal focuses as is the landsacpe we see today.

We see that within the Catholic Church, though, too - different parishes and different dioceses of the Catholic Church have different strengths and weaknesses, too. We don’t have to seek outside the Catholic Church to find modern-day Laodiceans, or Ephesians, or Smyrnians, etc.

There was a sense of unity within the Christian community even though there were often vigerous disagreements between the Apostles in the direction of the movement.

Again, though, that’s not much different than the state of affairs in the Catholic Church today - different Bishops have different ideas about what’s important, and how to solve our current problems - that’s why we have Councils, and that’s why they wrangle on for years and years until they finally reach an agreement - just like the First Council at Jerusalem, which is recorded in Acts 15.

Back to sacraments. When the disciples took communion with Christ, their state of knowledge, understanding and faith was incomplete. On this, I believe there is no disagreement. If we put aside the semantics of transubstantiation (sp), the argument for non-catholics not being offered communion is their faith and/or understanding is incomplete.

No, that’s not the reason that non-Catholics are denied Holy Communion. The reason they are denied Holy Communion is that they are not in full communion with the Church - it has nothing to do with how much they understand, or what they believe.

Even if a Protestant or other non-Catholic had a perfect understanding of the Eucharist (and having been there, I know this from personal experience) they would still be denied Holy Communion, until such time as they completed the process of Initiation into the Church. It’s not one’s level of knowledge or what one believes that determines worthiness to receive; rather, it is, first of all, being in full communion (membership) with the Church, second, being in the state of grace, and third, being properly disposed to receive at the time that it is offered.

A certain measure of belief and understanding is, of course, assumed, and people can’t come into full communion with the Church if they don’t at least understand that they are to believe what the Church teaches - and hopefully, they have examined Church teachings and understand it, but that part is actually less important than assent to the authority of the Church, even if they don’t have a perfect understanding of it.

 

[FromTheCrossroa]

They were praying to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, aka Jesus Christ, to show them a sign of which of two equally qualified men should take Judas’ role - they were not praying to a false god, and I don’t believe that their action qualifies as “divination.” What they did isn’t normally done in our modern customs - in modern times they would have held an election, I suppose - but I don’t think they were doing anything evil.

I am trying to put this in perspective and I’m afriad you missed it. These were quite ordinary men (fishermen, tax collectors, tradesman etc) who for lack of formal religious or secular education, played a game of cards (dice, sticks, etc) and mathias was the winner. They used the same method that the crowd used to get Christs clothes after crucifixion.

The Church received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, but Christ began to establish it long before then - see Matthew 16:18.

Hold on there partner…First of all, the verbage is that peter will be a pillar that christ would build (future tense) his church upon. Peter was not the only pillar as demonstrated by Biblical and secular accounts, and certainly had not become a saint at the time of Christ’s words. It could be further argued since Christ was fond of speaking in parable that he meant that the new church would be built with humanity as the stones rather than a traditional temple with granite and marble. At the time of Christs ministry, death and resurrection, Peter was still very much an unfinished stone not yet ready for use. Catholic tradition even states the birth of the church was on the day of pentacost and not before.

In 110 AD, when he was being taken away to be martyred for the faith, St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote to the Smyrnians, “Where the Bishop is, there is the Catholic Church.” St. Ignatius of Antioch had been a disciple of the Apostle John, author of five books of the New Testament.

John the Revelator was not martyred in 110, he died presumably of old age in 101AD in Ephesus. Honestly, we don’t have much information on his life other than he was sent in exile to patmos after the romans attempted burning him in oil and failed. He was mentioned specifically by Paul in Galatians as being one of the FOUR pillars of the church (James, Peter, John and Himself). John may or may not have actually authored the complete texts we today attribute to him. His successor Polycarp who later became the Bishop of Smyrna is credited with saving John’s gospels from antiquity.

I’m sorry, but that’s a ludicrous claim. All seven of those churches were, at the very least, under the authority of the Apostle John - if they had been separate denominations, they would not have all been under the authority of any of the Apostles (since “denominations” are churches that lack Apostolic authority), let alone the same Apostle. No - those seven churches were unified under one human authority - the Apostle John. If they had not been, then Jesus would have appeared to each of them separately, rather than giving all seven messages to John, to pass on to them. After all, if John had had no authority over them, they would not have been required to listen to him when he came to them with these messages, and nor would it have been any of his business, what problems they were encountering.

Here again I don’t think you clearly understand. John the revelator (per biblical accounts) dictated Christs words to these churches. He was not in authority over them. The early church did not function in the way you assume before the Constantine’s conversion and subsequent establishing the Roman Church the state sponsored religion.

Ephesus, for example, was started by Paul and was left to its own devices in its infancy. Paul later came out, found them baptized in the John’s (the revelator’s) baptism (in jesus name only) and not filled with the holy spirit. That is the only reason historians believe John ended up there after patmos and before his death. Paul corrected their errors and placed Timothy in charge of the church. Ephesus was never under the apostolic authority of Peter, or John for that matter. If anything, it was Paul’s church. Paul was not under Peter’s authority. The early Christian disciples were not that organized and authortarian. Each had their own influence and communities of faith, with no Apostle being the final say outside churches they were responsible for. The gospel and extra-biblical accounts of the era show a lot of disagreement between the pillars of the Christian faith. History is what it is. The first two centuries of the church is quite interesting in many ways. Its worth a study if you have the time.

 

[jmcrae]

I am trying to put this in perspective and I’m afriad you missed it. These were quite ordinary men (fishermen, tax collectors, tradesman etc) who for lack of formal religious or secular education, played a game of cards (dice, sticks, etc) and mathias was the winner. They used the same method that the crowd used to get Christs clothes after crucifixion.

You are assuming that. The text says nothing of the sort, and indeed, from the text alone, it is impossible to reproduce what they did - not enough detail is given.

However, we do know that, had they been breaking Jewish tradition (divination would certainly have gone contrary to Jewish tradition) the resulting uproar would have been recorded. No uproar = no sin; therefore, whatever they were doing, it was not divination.

Hold on there partner…First of all, the verbage is that peter will be a pillar that christ would build (future tense) his church upon. Peter was not the only pillar as demonstrated by Biblical and secular accounts, and certainly had not become a saint at the time of Christ’s words. It could be further argued since Christ was fond of speaking in parable that he meant that the new church would be built with humanity as the stones rather than a traditional temple with granite and marble. At the time of Christs ministry, death and resurrection, Peter was still very much an unfinished stone not yet ready for use. Catholic tradition even states the birth of the church was on the day of pentacost and not before.

And yet, Simon was the only one whose name was changed to “Rock”.

John the Revelator was not martyred in 110, he died presumably of old age in 101AD in Ephesus.

Yes, John was the adult - the teacher, and Ignatius was the child - one of his students. John died of old age; Ignatius died a martyr’s death.

Here again I don’t think you clearly understand. John the revelator (per biblical accounts) dictated Christs words to these churches. He was not in authority over them.

If he had no authority over them, then by what right did he deliver these messages to them? If they were of different denominations, then why should they have listened to John, any more than Protestants today listen to the Pope, or a better analogy would be, to their local Bishop?

 

[FromTheCrossroa]

You are assuming that. The text says nothing of the sort, and indeed, from the text alone, it is impossible to reproduce what they did - not enough detail is given.

Casting lots is casting lots. By definition and common understanding of the day, it was a game of chance/luck of the draw. If it were prayerful lot casting, don’t you think Luke would have recorded it that way?

However, we do know that, had they been breaking Jewish tradition (divination would certainly have gone contrary to Jewish tradition) the resulting uproar would have been recorded. No uproar = no sin; therefore, whatever they were doing, it was not divination.

By definition, devination = casting lots with the assumption of divinity.

And yet, Simon was the only one whose name was changed to “Rock”.

Jesus had quite a sense of humor. Peters name was changed to petra. Petra is the feminine form of the word and commonly meant pebble when used in that context. In english the term “jr.” is the closest thing we have as there is no feminine/masculine word structure as there is in aramic. In Matthew 16, he said Petra, you are my petros (masculine noun), and upon this petra, I will build my church. Jesus no doubt loved Peter and his nickname (as insulting as it would be to us) was given in love and affection. Christ’s words recorded in Matthew show a clear play on words. That is not to denegrate Peter and his place in church history. The scripture doesn’t provide enough context or clear intent to say Christ meant only Peter’s church would live on.

If he had no authority over them, then by what right did he deliver these messages to them? If they were of different denominations, then why should they have listened to John, any more than Protestants today listen to the Pope, or a better analogy would be, to their local Bishop?

Today’s denominations resemble communities in the early church with one major difference. Modern denominations had respect for all apostles. There was a different heriarchy in place in the days of Peter and Paul. Modern denominations do not accept other’s opinions in matters of faith and doctrine. For this, all denominations are in error. Again Peter, Paul, James and John had Apostolic authority over churches written about in the New Testament. It can be assumed the other 8 also had churches that were started by them. It can also be assumed that there was an overlap. Since John brought his Jesus name only baptism to Ephesus, which Paul later corrected. Who was in submission to whom? Was John better than Paul? The catholic church rejects a baptism in jesus’ name only. So historically, the catholic church agreed with Paul and discounted Johns Apostolic authority on this matter.

 

[jmcrae]

Casting lots is casting lots. By definition and common understanding of the day, it was a game of chance/luck of the draw. If it were prayerful lot casting, don’t you think Luke would have recorded it that way?

Again, not enough detail is given. Yes, they were casting lots, but we can’t assume that therefore they were using dice, or that therefore they were engaged in divination.

By definition, devination = casting lots with the assumption of divinity.

I didn’t find an entry for “devination” but I’ve been assuming you meant divination -

Main Entry: div·i·na·tion
Pronunciation: "di-v&-'nA-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English divinacioun, from Latin divination-, divinatio, from divinare
1 : the art or practice that seeks to foresee or foretell future events or discover hidden knowledge usually by the interpretation of omens or by the aid of supernatural powers
2 : unusual insight : intuitive perception

• di·vi·na·to·ry /d&-'vi-n&-"tor-E, d&-'vI-n&-, 'di-v&-n&-/ adjective

That’s from the online Merriam Webster Dictionary.

Nothing there about casting lots.

Jesus had quite a sense of humor. Peters name was changed to petra.

Actually it was changed to Cephas (also spelled Kepha or Kephas). Matthew translated this as Petros in the Greek (which is where we get our English name “Peter”) - a word that didn’t actually exist in the dialect of Greek that he was using.

Petra is the feminine form of the word and commonly meant pebble when used in that context.

No - “petra” means “a large rock.” To say “pebble” in Greek, you would use the word “lithos,” which would be “evna” in Aramaic.

Jesus was speaking to Simon Peter in Aramaic, and we know that the word He used was “Cephas,” because later, especially in the Book of Acts and in St. Paul’s letters, we see the 12 and the others referring to him as Cephas - a huge rock, in Aramaic.

 

[puzzleannie]

Something (as an apspiring catholic) that has always bothered me about this subject is why Catholics are so quick to deny communion when Christ himself let 12 seemingly imperfect and clueless (at the time) followers including the one who was in the act of betrayal partake in communion.
. . .
I do not believe it is right to deny communion for those who believe they are clean and willing to be in communion with the body of believers and ultimately Christ himself.

Christ himself prepared the disciples for communion with Him. The Church is not wrong in insisting that other Catholics undergo similar preparation. Christ himself judged their disposition for communion as evidenced by the dialogue and reference to Judas. It is not unreasonable for the Church to insist that we judge one’s disposition for worthy reception of the sacrament. The Last Supper discourse esp. in John’s Gospel is a call for unity and states the purpose of Eucharist is to participate in that unity, which is why it is called “communion”. It is not unreasonable for the Church to insist that those who approach communion intend to participate in that unity, represented on earth only by the Church Christ founded.

the apostles were not admitted to communion based on their own feelings and preferences, but upon Christ’s invitation, on his terms.