Why don't Catholics have Open Communion?

[Carlan]

Alright, well, Carlan has declared that to be that so this thread is closed!

, However I do offer you Peace, Carlan

 

[PRmerger]

Well, they can in this case , right?

Esdra, you think that if 2 people are married to other people yet fall in love, they can have sex? Really?

Or are you saying that they cannot be with each other–because they are already married–until they get divorced?

Do you really think other denominations dare to say that Jesus was false? If Jesus is God, and I guess nearly ALL denominations can agree on that, he is infallible!

You have said as much here, Esdra, in your quotes:
*
“Well, but I can also see the “secular side” of it? - can’t you also?”*
and here:
“Oh, and I know why in the Baptist or any other Protestant Church when a divorced man/woman remarry is not so a big problem: because there Matrimony is not a Sacrament like in the CC.”

Even though Jesus said you can’t, your church says you can. Thus, you’re saying Jesus is wrong.

they say “Jesus did mean X like this and not like the CC is teaching it”.

This is always an innovation. Because the CC has taught X since the very beginning. No change occurred with X until at least 1500 years.

 

[dzheremi]

I agree with the rest of your post, PRmerger, but the last sentence is debatable, to put it kindly. To say that no change has occurred with X for the first 1500 years ignores the schism of 1054 (with its antecedents reaching back centuries before that; 1054 is just a convenience), and before that the schism following Chalcedon in 451. Just as Pope Leo III once ordered the engraving of the Nicene Creed without the filioque clause (for “amore et cautela orthodoxae fide”), there have been many changes (what the modern RCC terms “developments”) in the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church as it has moved from a place of orthodoxy and historicity into the place it is in now, where it is most certainly still historic but its orthodoxy is highly questionable.

 

[PRmerger]

I agree with the rest of your post, PRmerger, but the last sentence is debatable, to put it kindly. To say that no change has occurred with X for the first 1500 years ignores the schism of 1054 (with its antecedents reaching back centuries before that; 1054 is just a convenience), and before that the schism following Chalcedon in 451. Just as Pope Leo III once ordered the engraving of the Nicene Creed without the filioque clause (for “amore et cautela orthodoxae fide”), there have been many changes (what the modern RCC terms “developments”) in the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church as it has moved from a place of orthodoxy and historicity into the place it is in now, where it is most certainly still historic but its orthodoxy is highly questionable.

Yes, development of doctrine occurs. I do not consider that “a change in X”.

To put it mathematically, the CC has never professed “X” and then later proclaimed, “-X”.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m in the mood to go watch an X-Men movie or X-Files episode now!

Yes, development of doctrine occurs. I do not consider that “a change in X”.

To put it mathematically, the CC has never professed “X” and then later proclaimed, “-X”.

 

[Carlan]

I agree with the rest of your post, PRmerger, but the last sentence is debatable, to put it kindly. To say that no change has occurred with X for the first 1500 years ignores the schism of 1054 (with its antecedents reaching back centuries before that; 1054 is just a convenience), and before that the schism following Chalcedon in 451. Just as Pope Leo III once ordered the engraving of the Nicene Creed without the filioque clause (for “amore et cautela orthodoxae fide”), there have been many changes (what the modern RCC terms “developments”) in the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church as it has moved from a place of orthodoxy and historicity into the place it is in now, where it is most certainly still historic but its orthodoxy is highly questionable.

No changes in the doctrine , Dzheremi, The Sacraments,and namely the one being discussed Marriage, Peace, Carlan

 

[jmcrae]

Ok. So this is what I’m saying, Esdra. If you reject this teaching because it’s unpalatable to you, then you are, indeed, creating a god in your own image.

Do you not see a problem with this paradigm?

And why shouldn’t you re-marry if you are divorced? Because you are already married. What God has joined let no man put asunder. What you profess before God, in front of witnesses, as a solemn vow before God and men, ought not be so readily dismissed, eh?

And in fact, no man (no lawyer, no divorce court judge, no husband saying “away with thee, woman”) has the power to break what God has joined together.

No matter what the lawyer says, no matter what the judge says, and no matter what the husband says, the marriage exists, until death they do part.

It is bigamy to be “married” to two or more people at the same time, so, if you “divorce,” (that is, if you make a legal separation, arrange the custody of the children, and divide your property between yourselves) you must remain single until the death of your partner in marriage. This is Jesus’ commandment.

 

[1beleevr]

Peter the first Pope was their and so was Satan Judas. who do you want to sit by?

Even IF he was the first pope, he wasn’T on that night. And Judas wasn’t the devil, just indwelt with him! Don’t we sup with and sit with Satan at different stages of our Christian walk? And Was Judas there for Communion?

 

[KathleenGee]

Peter was appointed by Christ at the Last Supper to be His visible head, or Vicar as the name was formally developed, of Christ’s Church.

Christ’s Church began at Pentecost through the power of the Holy Spirit…so let the Pope reference to the Last Supper go…

 

[1beleevr]

The current conversation is really drifting far away from the OP, people. Can we get it back on track so that this thread isn’t closed?

I have a question for those who favor open communion:

If closed communion is not necessary on the basis of doctrinal differences, then what in your view(s) proves the necessity of open communion? What does it subsist in, if a shared faith is not necessary?

Happy New Year to ALL of my brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus, regardless of your spiritual affiliation(personally, I am joied with Christ!). I do not believe in transsubstantiation, and the disciples had the real thing; but we Christians today, don’t have Jesus in the flesh, but we have His admonition…“This is my body…” as He broke the bread, and…“This is my blood…” asHe poured the wine! And we must celebrate the Lord’s Supper in remembrance of Him, as often as we do it! It is easy to say that Jesus favored closed communion, since it was only He, and His disciples at the first communion! But I believe that Jesus was inviting ALL who believed in Him to partake, no rules, no denomination!

 

[1beleevr]

Peter was appointed by Christ at the Last Supper to be His visible head, or Vicar as the name was formally developed, of Christ’s Church.

Christ’s Church began at Pentecost through the power of the Holy Spirit…so let the Pope reference to the Last Supper go…

W-R-O-N-G! Cite scriptural proof, please! How could a pope deny knowing his Master?

 

[dzheremi]

Happy New Year to ALL of my brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus, regardless of your spiritual affiliation(personally, I am joied with Christ!). I do not believe in transsubstantiation, and the disciples had the real thing; but we Christians today, don’t have Jesus in the flesh, but we have His admonition.

The bolded portion is heresy and I refuse to commune with anyone who believes this.

Hence, no open communion.

 

[1beleevr]

No, it is only certain churches who prefer closed, exclusive Communion! This way they can CONTROL who celebrates or who doesn’t! There was no transsubstantiation in Jesus’s day; this is made up term, practiced by a few denominations!

 

[1beleevr]

The bolded portion is heresy and I refuse to commune with anyone who believes this.

Hence, no open communion.

Read it again; we don’t have Him as the disciples had Him, we have Him in the Spirit, and He L-I-V-E-S!

 

[jmcrae]

No, it is only certain churches who prefer closed, exclusive Communion! This way they can CONTROL who celebrates or who doesn’t! There was no transsubstantiation in Jesus’s day; this is made up term, practiced by a few denominations!

Who happen to be the oldest ones - the Apostles didn’t have the word “Transubstantiation” but they described it perfectly.

It’s only the latter day human inventions who have done away with the Real Presence of Jesus Christ, and made Him into a spiritual feeling instead of a present Reality.

 

[dzheremi]

Read it again: The belief that Christ is not present in the flesh in the Holy Eucharist is heresy. I refuse to commune with people who believe that Christ is only present “spiritually” in the eucharistic sacrifice.

 

[KathleenGee]

The Great Heresy of ancient times was that of not believing in the Eucharist and it followed the behavior of many followers of Christ who left Him when he spoke of eating and drinking of His body and blood.

Protestants believe in Christ but they are rejecting the precursors of the Old Testament and the words of our Savior at the Last Supper regarding the Eucharist, the Manna of Heaven.

 

[PRmerger]

W-R-O-N-G! Cite scriptural proof, please! How could a pope deny knowing his Master?

Let’s just ask a different question: how could an apostle deny knowing his Master?

Are you saying that Peter wasn’t an apostle because he did this?

 

[jmcrae]

W-R-O-N-G! Cite scriptural proof, please! How could a pope deny knowing his Master?

Popes have been committing sin right from the first day - the promise is not that the Pope will be without sin, but rather, that he will teach without error. You receive two letters of Peter and consider the teaching within them to be infallible, do you not?

 

[PRmerger]

Happy New Year to ALL of my brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus,

Right back at cha, Friend and Brother!

regardless of your spiritual affiliation(personally, I am joied with Christ!).

Though, sadly, you are joined with Christ in a spiritual, metaphysical way, but not in the sublime ONE FLESH UNION. :sad_yes:

You and Jesus are like a couple that are as close as you can be, speaking via telephone. But there is no marital embrace in this relationship.

Come to the Church that offers you this Intimacy of being One Flesh with your Beloved. Who wouldn’t want that??