Why do Protestants want to receive Catholic Eucharist?

[Cat]

When I saw this thread, my first thought was, “Because they recognize Jesus and long for Him.”

That’s why I wanted Eucharist while I was still Evangelical Protestant. But I contented myself with Eucharistic Adoration until I was received into the Church.

I agree that the issue of authority is what’s happening here in many cases. For many evangelicals, church authority is a foreign concept. Many evangelicals fled the extreme teachings of Gotthard and the “Chain of Command,” and in so doing, went too far in the other direction and rejected the very idea of the church having any authority over the individual Christian.

Authority is “what the Holy Spirit teaches each individual through the Bible.” And since there is no BIble passage that says in plain language, “Protestants cannot receive Communion in a Catholic Church,” many Protestants reject the teaching that the Church has the right to keep people away from the Lord’s Supper.

I keep waiting for a Protestant to produce a “plain language” Bible that says all the stuff that Protestants teach “in plain language” instead of making them jump through Biblical hoops to prove their points. For example, this Plain Language Bible would just come right out and say, “Jesus is not truly present in the bread and wine. They are just symbols.” Or “Jesus took the cup of unfermented grape juice, blessed it, etc.”

Cat has predicted it and you just watch–it’ll be in the book stores soon! The “Plain Language Bible!”

 

[Claire_from_DE]

I imagine the same number of Catholics would love to be part of and receive Protestant communion as much this ridiculous thread claims in the reverse.
Some Protestants have certain requirements for their communion which would restrict Catholics and even other Protestants from receiving communion at their church. Likemindedness might be a good way to sum it up.
Peace.

I think you hit the nail on the head. I was at a Protestant service with friends. They had communion and invited all Christians. I thought, "I know they believe this is only symbolic. I believe that their eucharist is only symbolic. But this is a sign of unity as Christians and I would like to participate. But I felt this would be wrong. Thinking it over, I realize that we had much in common and I was comfortable praying with them but we were not likeminded enough to share communion. And part of that difference in attitude was our feeling about church authority.

Maybe I should have titled this thread why do some Protestants want to receive Catholic Eucharist. From the responses, I realize that only those whose understanding of Eucharist is similar to that of Catholics have a real longing for it. Others may just be somewhat insulted or neutral.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Thinking it over, I realize that we had much in common and I was comfortable praying with them but we were not likeminded enough to share communion. And part of that difference in attitude was our feeling about church authority.

I don’t know if “like-minded enough” with someone else is really a requirement. Having the mind of Christ should be sufficient.

Maybe I should have titled this thread why do some Protestants want to receive Catholic Eucharist. From the responses, I realize that only those whose understanding of Eucharist is similar to that of Catholics have a real longing for it. Others may just be somewhat insulted or neutral.

Thank you for saying that; I partake as often as I can. However, as I said earlier, I respect the Catholic position on non-Catholics communing. And because of that, I do not attend masses, weddings, or funerals. That can be painful, but not as painful as not being allowed to partake of Christ when He is present.

I wonder if it causes Christ pain not to be served to those who love him and earnestly repent of their sin. It is for this reason that I cannot be Catholic; I would fear for my soul to refuse, or be party to a church who refused, to grant the Body and Blood of Christ to one who so presents him or herself.

O+

 

[Harpazo]

I don’t know if “like-minded enough” with someone else is really a requirement. Having the mind of Christ should be sufficient.

You keep saying this, but what do you mean by it? Each Protestant sect believes something different of what “having the mind of Christ” means.

I suppose you disagree with St. Paul’s words when he says “anathema” to those who refuse to love God? Sadly, it’s become such an incredibly broad thing to say “I accept Christ.” It can mean thousands of different things because of so many various theologies that exist in Protestant communities.

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew

 

[mark_a]

There has been a lot of discussion about how unreasonable the Catholic church is about asking those who aren’t Catholic to not receive communion in the Catholic church. Knowing that, to Catholics, receiving communion indicates acceptance of all the teachings of Jesus passed down through the church and Protestants don’t accept them all, why do you even want to receive communion here? If I were Protestant, I would not want to give scandal this way.

Its for the same reason that some Catholic women think we need female priests.

Some people just can’t tolerate the idea that they are being excluded from anything, even when its for their own good.

 

[O.S.Luke]

It’s probably the fundamental difference - whose table is it? The Catholic Church’s table, or Jesus’? Who is the keeper of the Table?

 

[O.S.Luke]

You keep saying this, but what do you mean by it? Each Protestant sect believes something different of what “having the mind of Christ” means.

I mean exactly that - having the mind of Christ.

I suppose you disagree with St. Paul’s words when he says “anathema” to those who refuse to love God? Sadly, it’s become such an incredibly broad thing to say “I accept Christ.” It can mean thousands of different things because of so many various theologies that exist in Protestant communities.

You would suppose wrong. I don’t disagree with Paul at all. Sorry you see it that way. I don’t.

When you consider that now, over 50% of Americans do not claim to be Christian, there is a much larger urgency than one-upmanship in the Christian tradition. There may come a day when Christians, regardless of communion or doctrine, will not be able to afford the luxury of avoiding each other because of doctrinal issues. We will be in the minority - and will need to cling to each other for strength.

Those who are for Christ - they are not against us.

O+

 

[garytb]

I think you hit the nail on the head. I was at a Protestant service with friends. They had communion and invited all Christians. I thought, "I know they believe this is only symbolic. I believe that their eucharist is only symbolic. But this is a sign of unity as Christians and I would like to participate. But I felt this would be wrong. Thinking it over, I realize that we had much in common and I was comfortable praying with them but we were not likeminded enough to share communion. And part of that difference in attitude was our feeling about church authority.

Maybe I should have titled this thread why do some Protestants want to receive Catholic Eucharist. From the responses, I realize that only those whose understanding of Eucharist is similar to that of Catholics have a real longing for it. Others may just be somewhat insulted or neutral.

Well thank you for your considerate reply, gtb
By his grace
peace

 

[garytb]

I don’t know if “like-minded enough” with someone else is really a requirement. Having the mind of Christ should be sufficient.

Thank you for saying that; I partake as often as I can. However, as I said earlier, I respect the Catholic position on non-Catholics communing. And because of that, I do not attend masses, weddings, or funerals. That can be painful, but not as painful as not being allowed to partake of Christ when He is present.

I wonder if it causes Christ pain not to be served to those who love him and earnestly repent of their sin. It is for this reason that I cannot be Catholic; I would fear for my soul to refuse, or be party to a church who refused, to grant the Body and Blood of Christ to one who so presents him or herself.

O+

It’s more than likemindedness, it extends to the respect and reverance for the communion table at that particular fellowship or church community.
If you have different views of grace, then you believe different gospels and these two are not compatible and not likeminded and are not in true communion with the community to participate in ‘commonion’.
by his mercy and grace
gtb
peace

 

[garytb]

You keep saying this, but what do you mean by it? Each Protestant sect believes something different of what “having the mind of Christ” means.

I suppose you disagree with St. Paul’s words when he says “anathema” to those who refuse to love God? Sadly, it’s become such an incredibly broad thing to say “I accept Christ.” It can mean thousands of different things because of so many various theologies that exist in Protestant communities.

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew

wrong place

 

[garytb]

I mean exactly that - having the mind of Christ.

You would suppose wrong. I don’t disagree with Paul at all. Sorry you see it that way. I don’t.

When you consider that now, over 50% of Americans do not claim to be Christian, there is a much larger urgency than one-upmanship in the Christian tradition. There may come a day when Christians, regardless of communion or doctrine, will not be able to afford the luxury of avoiding each other because of doctrinal issues. We will be in the minority - and will need to cling to each other for strength.

Those who are for Christ - they are not against us.

O+

All those truly born from above have the mind of Christ and are in Christ; period.
gtb
peace

 

[garytb]

You keep saying this, but what do you mean by it? Each Protestant sect believes something different of what “having the mind of Christ” means.

I suppose you disagree with St. Paul’s words when he says “anathema” to those who refuse to love God? Sadly, it’s become such an incredibly broad thing to say “I accept Christ.” It can mean thousands of different things because of so many various theologies that exist in Protestant communities.

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew

I have a real problem with hyperbole when it is used in something as simple as accepting Christ. Why don’t you list a mere dozen of the so-called 1,000’s of ways Protestants accept Christ, please get real.
To put it another way, step up and silence your detractors.
If that’s harsh, I apologize, but I can’t let you make ridiculous blanket statements without you substantiating them.
gtb
peace

 

[garytb]

there is, you don’t have the sacraments. it’s why we strive for unity with all of our Christian brothers! btw, no one is EVER ‘entitled’ to communion. none of us are ‘entitled’ to the sacrifice that Christ made on the Cross, but if we accept it He will give Himself to us in the Eucharist.

Ok fine, we will be sure to address Catholic defects in another thread.
gtb
peace

 

[Harpazo]

I have a real problem with hyperbole when it is used in something as simple as accepting Christ. Why don’t you list a mere dozen of the so-called 1,000’s of ways Protestants accept Christ, please get real.
To put it another way, step up and silence your detractors.
If that’s harsh, I apologize, but I can’t let you make ridiculous blanket statements without you substantiating them.
gtb
peace

Shlomo

You must be in denial my friend. You need not go any farther than your phone book to see how each group has a different view of Christ and what he’s taught.

Seventh-Day Adventist believe He and St. Michael the Archangel are one in the same, Baptists (most of them) believe that Christ commanded an eternal security for those who simply believed in Him. Methodists believe that Christ gave only 2 sacraments, and that Communion should be made to everyone, as to be uninclusive.

I could go on and on with this. It’s a sad thing to have a divided Christianity, but an even sadder to be in denial about it.

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew

 

[O.S.Luke]

Methodists believe that Christ gave only 2 sacraments, and that Communion should be made to everyone, as to be uninclusive.

No - Methodists believe that Christ should be served to “all who love Him, who earnestly repent of their sin, and seek to live in peace with one another, who confess their sin before God and one another.” That’s not everyone, Andrew. And I believe you meant “inclusive”, not “uninclusive.”

I could go on and on with this. It’s a sad thing to have a divided Christianity, but an even sadder to be in denial about it.

I don’t know that anyone here denied that we have a divided Christianity. But you and I may be missing much larger points.

In the real world, the differences that our hierarchies and talking heads have between each other are much more profound that the differences the average folks in the pew have with each other. I notice that Catholics and Protestants alike attend basketball games together, their kids go to school with each other, they work together. When their loved ones die, they support each other and pray for each other. I held a service of anointing and healing for a school teacher the other day with a serious illness, and Protestants and Catholics alike were there.

I suspect they could care less about the differences. While I think theological and doctrinal differences are important, again - the average person in the pew could care less.

More damning: if research is correct, we don’t want to know the opinions of those who aren’t in the pews - whose numbers are growing and whose disdain for the Church is growing. This is a poor reflection on all of us who are Christian - Protestant and Catholic alike. I don’t think that means we dumb-down the faith. But we may need to re-examine how we’re transmitting the faith to a world who desperately needs it. Are we making disciples, or wounding God’s children. It’s been said that the Church is one of the few armies that shoots its wounded. I hope one day to prove that wrong.

This is for sure - the one thing Protestants and Catholics alike may indeed have in common is a failure to communicate the Gospel and make disciples. Our doctrine, dogma, charism, and catechism means little if we don’t take the Great Commission to heart.

:twocents: Maybe 3¢.

O+

 

[Contarini]

There has been a lot of discussion about how unreasonable the Catholic church is about asking those who aren’t Catholic to not receive communion in the Catholic church. Knowing that, to Catholics, receiving communion indicates acceptance of all the teachings of Jesus passed down through the church and Protestants don’t accept them all, why do you even want to receive communion here?

Because the priest does not say (speaking in Jesus’ name) in the Eucharist: “Take, Eat, this is a Concentrated Symbol of All the Dogmas My Church Will Ever Teach.” He says “Take, Eat, This is my Body, which is broken for you.” All Christians want to receive that Body. Arguably the defense of closed communion you are offering is more appropriate to confessional Protestants (such as Missouri Synod Lutherans). Your argument does not seem to be to touch on the central reason why Catholics have closed communion, and at any rate I think it betrays a radically inadequate doctrine of the Eucharist.

The few Protestants who do have a Catholic belief in the Eucharist are permitted to received in the Catholic Church if they are unable to get to their own church, feel a great need for the Eucharist, and go to the Catholic pastor for permission to do so.

Some Catholic priests do say this. As far as I can tell, the exception you mention is officially intended only for Christians in churches with apostolic succession (such as the Orthodox), not for Protestants unless we are in danger of death. But obviously I’d love it if I were wrong.

I have enough respect for the Orthodox churches, that, even though we have a unity of belief in the Eucharist, I know they don’t want me to receive. If I was somewhere there wasn’t a Catholic church, I might ask an Orthodox priest for permission to receive and, if he said no, I would attend divine liturgy but not receive. Do Catholics and Orthodox have more respect for church authority than Protestants?

Well yes–that should be obvious

Edwin

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Because the priest does not say (speaking in Jesus’ name) in the Eucharist: “Take, Eat, this is a Concentrated Symbol of All the Dogmas My Church Will Ever Teach.” He says “Take, Eat, This is my Body, which is broken for you.” All Christians want to receive that Body. Arguably the defense of closed communion you are offering is more appropriate to confessional Protestants (such as Missouri Synod Lutherans). Your argument does not seem to be to touch on the central reason why Catholics have closed communion, and at any rate I think it betrays a radically inadequate doctrine of the Eucharist.
Edwin

Early in the history of the church, those who held to a heresy were excommunicated (not allowed to receive the Eucharist). This indicates that accepting church teaching and receiving the Eucharist were both viewed as central to belonging to the body of Christ, the church. And that union in Eucharist indicated this unity of belief. Presumably these Christians who were separated from the church still did believe in the Eucharist so that wasn’t the criteria. They received communion in their separated group (because they were ‘in communion’ with those beliefs).

This IS the central reason Catholics have closed communion. Protestants find this difficult to get their minds around. The modern day Protestant’s concept of ‘Church’ is often that of an invisible unity of all individuals who accept Christ, regardless of denomination. That Jesus left behind a group of apostles (and their successors to that office) with authority to teach and admit to communion isn’t something they think about.

Protestants had to develop a doctrine of the Eucharist that doesn’t take any of this into consideration. That isn’t a reason to call the Catholic doctrine inadequate. Actually, I haven’t even touched on the Catholic doctrine, but on who the church admits to communion.

What do you think is the central reason Catholics have closed communion?? It isn’t that they think Protestants are not as good or holy as they are. They’re just separated.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Protestants had to develop a doctrine of the Eucharist that doesn’t take any of this into consideration.

Huh?!?!

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Huh?!?!

I wrote, "That Jesus left behind a group of apostles (and their successors to that office) with authority to teach and admit to communion isn’t something they(Protestants) think about.

Protestants had to develop a doctrine of the Eucharist that doesn’t take any of this into consideration. "

By that, I meant that those who protested against the Catholic church didn’t accept its authority to teach or its discipline in regards to the sacraments. Basic to the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist is the sacrament of ordination which configures the priest to Christ, the high priest, and thus empowers him to administer the sacraments. And, even though so empowered, he must also have the permission of the bishop to do so in his diocese. In separating themselves from the Catholic church and its bishops, Protestant churches separated themselves from the sacrament of holy orders. So they had to develop a doctrine of the Eucharist which didn’t require a priest who had been validly ordained by a bishop whose line went back to the apostles.

There is some discussion that, in the history of the Anglican church, some Catholic bishops who served in the church of Henry VIII could and did validly ordain priests. Without getting into a long discussion, that is the only Protestant church whose understanding of the priesthood and Eucharist is similar to the Catholic understanding. And not all Anglicans are in agreement about this.

I think many Protestants today would say that the Eucharist is not dependent on there being a validly ordained priest but that their doctrine of the Eucharist is the same as the Catholics. It isn’t because to Catholics the two sacraments are inextricably linked.

 

[GKC]

“There is some discussion that, in the history of the Anglican church, some Catholic bishops who served in the church of Henry VIII could and did validly ordain priests. Without getting into a long discussion, that is the only Protestant church whose understanding of the priesthood and Eucharist is similar to the Catholic understanding. And not all Anglicans are in agreement about this.”

Wihout getting into a long discussion, this is mostly correct.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus