Why no communion for visiting Protestants?

[O.S.Luke]

My friend,

As you and I both know the UM Church does not believe in the Real Presence. Oh, yes, Methodists are allowed to believe what they wish as they pretty much consider it unimportant. One can be a Gnostic or a Docetic and still be a good Methodist, as both of us know. But that is not the Catholic way and hasn’t been since the first century. Luther may have believed that portion of the truth but the Methodist do not adhere to that.

CDL

You’ve been gone too long, my friend. The UMC does embrace the Real Presence, as official statements reflect.

And you also know that “good Catholics” often practice birth control and believe that priests should marry. That is not the Catholic way, either.

Blessings, CDL.

O+

 

[SyCarl]

Yes.

So, being “like” the Apostles is enough, even if you are not a member of the same Church that they started, in your view. As long as it looks the same, as far as you’re concerned, it is the same?

(So, I could start up a company, and call it “Exxon” and I could get shareholders, and they could expect to earn the same money from me as they do from the real Exxon - and the fact that I was giving them “symbolic money” that I print off my computer, would be okay - because it only has to look the same, it doesn’t have to be the same - right?) .

Well that is another difference we have. You equate the Church with the visible institution. We agree that there are multiple visible insitutions which call themselves Churches. However, the true Church is all the believers in whatever institution they are. It is the invisible Church that is the true church against which the gates of Hell shall not prevail. It is this Church which is the pillar of truth. And this Church contains Catholic, Orthodox, Protestants. Of course you will not agree with the invisible Church, but tell me, can you tell who at your Church has true faith and is not just saying they believe?

Are you absolutely certain he was doing a solemn exorcism? Lay people can do certain kinds of exorcisms, but not solemn exorcisms. (The act of sprinkling your house with Holy Water is a kind of exorcism that lay people can do.)

Well he was casting out demons which sounds like a solemn exorcism.

So Church discipline can take away the authority Jesus gave to the priests as his successors and limit it to bishops or is it giving priests authority that was originally given only to bishops. Either ways sounds rather presumputious.

 

[jmcrae]

Well that is another difference we have. You equate the Church with the visible institution.

The one that Christ established, yes.

We agree that there are multiple visible insitutions which call themselves Churches.

Most of which have only come into existence relatively recently.

However, the true Church is all the believers in whatever institution they are.

Even if they are being taught incorrectly?

It is the invisible Church that is the true church against which the gates of Hell shall not prevail.

How does this invisible Church exercise the authority given by Christ to the Apostles?

It is this Church which is the pillar of truth. And this Church contains Catholic, Orthodox, Protestants.

A morass of self-contradiction cannot be “truth” since truth can never contradict itself.

Of course you will not agree with the invisible Church, but tell me, can you tell who at your Church has true faith and is not just saying they believe?

That’s the Bishop’s job; not mine. But yes, he can tell. In our Diocese, he even excommunicates those who don’t follow their Christian calling. (He gets sued a lot, too. So far, he has won every case, though. )

Well he was casting out demons which sounds like a solemn exorcism.

Every kind of exorcism is a casting out of demons. I have no idea what sort of exorcism that particular individual was doing, but if Christ accepted him, then maybe he later became a priest - we are not told what happened to him later on.

So Church discipline can take away the authority Jesus gave to the priests as his successors and limit it to bishops or is it giving priests authority that was originally given only to bishops. Either ways sounds rather presumputious.

Not at all, since Christ gave the Apostles the authority to set it up in the way that works best at the given time and in the given circumstances. It’s not “presumptuous” of them to make use of the authority that God Himself has given to them - it’s “good stewardship.”

 

[beenthere]

I am turning this this around…
Read: 1 Corinthians: 12: 5 & 6

I have attended services at other "catholic " churches, and have taken the Eucharist, in the firm belief that the Bread and Wine were/are the Christ’s Body & Blood, because I wanted to believe it. yes, I had been to confession.

Will God hate me, or punish me for that?
amh

 

[dessert]

Why does Jesus state that his body and blood is shed for you (the Apostles) and for all so that sins may be forgiven, but yet the RC will not allow Protestants to receive the eucharist? It would greatly seem that Catholics don’t even consider Protestants regardless of denomination to be part of the body of Christ. It seems quite unbiblical and unchristianlike for that matter to deny anyone the body and blood of Christ when it was Christ himself who allowed Judas to partake in the last supper (first communion) **(but he hadn’t done it yet)**knowing full well of what he was about to do. Also, if the eucharist is for the forgiveness of sins, then why the emphasis of the RC for those about to receive it to be free from as much sin as possible? (you don’t think we should try to be free from sin before receiving?) None of these church teachings seem to square with scripture.

Ron I have a sister in law, born and bread a luthern but went to pentecosal for years actually decades, and when she comes to a mass she barrels up to the altar and says no one can say that I can’t have communion.
She is usually at the funerals when she does this, so disrespectful.
We always have mass and communion at funerals.
She doesn’t come to the weddings has missed two of my kids one on purpose because they aren’t right she says.
You are probably wondering if I still speak with her, well yes.
I have to forgive her but I know what she is going to do also as Jesus knew what judas would do.
Did the priest give the eucharist , yes he doesn’t know her because he is somewhat new.
Her pride will be her destruction. The bible says destruction not fall. We tell her our feelings and our rules but she doesn’t like them but she is sure in a fire to tell us her rules and outspoken about the way she thinks it should be.

We recently had a funeral mass and the deceased had been MC but became Catholic for wife and so had a Catholic Church funeral and many received but father gave to all who requested, but some did not receive did not want to offend.
My SIL wasn’t at this one, a priest doesn’t always know who is who at the funerals but uses their dicernment.

I appreciate the understanding of the other faiths and tolerance as it goes both ways, sometimes. God Bless You … Dessert**

" Be Jesus … share Jesus"
Blessed Mother Teresa**

 

[dessert]

Why does Jesus state that his body and blood is shed for you (the Apostles) and for all so that sins may be forgiven, but yet the RC will not allow Protestants to receive the eucharist? It would greatly seem that Catholics don’t even consider Protestants regardless of denomination to be part of the body of Christ. It seems quite unbiblical and unchristianlike for that matter to deny anyone the body and blood of Christ when it was Christ himself who allowed Judas to partake in the last supper (first communion) **(but he hadn’t done it yet)**knowing full well of what he was about to do. Also, if the eucharist is for the forgiveness of sins, then why the emphasis of the RC for those about to receive it to be free from as much sin as possible? (you don’t think we should try to be free from sin before receiving?) None of these church teachings seem to square with scripture.

Ron I have a sister in law, born and bread a luthern but went to pentecosal for years actually decades, and when she comes to a mass she barrels up to the altar and says no one can say that I can’t have communion.
She is usually at the funerals when she does this, so disrespectful.
We always have mass and communion at funerals.
She doesn’t come to the weddings has missed two of my kids one on purpose because they aren’t right she says.
You are probably wondering if I still speak with her, well yes.
I have to forgive her but I know what she is going to do also as Jesus knew what judas would do.
Did the priest give the eucharist , yes he doesn’t know her because he is somewhat new.
Her pride will be her destruction. The bible says destruction not fall. We tell her our feelings and our rules but she doesn’t like them but she is sure in a fire to tell us her rules and outspoken about the way she thinks it should be.

We recently had a funeral mass and the deceased had been MC but became Catholic for wife and so had a Catholic Church funeral and many received but father gave to all who requested, but some did not receive did not want to offend.
My SIL wasn’t at this one, a priest doesn’t always know who is who at the funerals but uses their dicernment.

I appreciate the understanding of the other faiths and tolerance as it goes both ways, sometimes. God Bless You … Dessert**

" Be Jesus … share Jesus"
Blessed Mother Teresa**

 

[jmcrae]

I am turning this this around…
Read: 1 Corinthians: 12: 5 & 6

1 Corinthians 12:5-6 says,

5 And there are diversities of ministries, but the same Lord;

6 And there are diversities of operations, but the same God, who worketh all in all.

This is not saying that it’s okay to have different churches. He is saying that there are different ministries in the same Church - some people are priests, other people are Catechism teachers, etc.

I have attended services at other "catholic " churches, and have taken the Eucharist, in the firm belief that the Bread and Wine were/are the Christ’s Body & Blood, because I wanted to believe it. yes, I had been to confession.

Do you mean other parishes in your Diocese (this would be fine), or do you mean schismatic or heretical groups that use the word “Catholic” in their name? The second would be really bad, because they are not in full communion with the Church.

Will God hate me, or punish me for that?

Assuming you went to a schismatic/heretical church - God won’t hate you - He will never stop loving you, of course - but He would be really disappointed and lonely that you got tricked into receiving a fake Holy Communion in the place of Himself. He misses us when we go away from Him and do stuff like that, and it especially makes Him sad and lonely when we know better.

 

[jmcrae]

We tell her our feelings and our rules but she doesn’t like them but she is sure in a fire to tell us her rules and outspoken about the way she thinks it should be.

YES, that’s it exactly - it’s not that they don’t want rules; it’s that they want it to be their rules, everywhere, and all the time. We are considered “narrow minded” because we don’t change our entire Church around to satisfy their every whimsy, even though they aren’t even Catholic.

 

[mercygate]

Why do you say that it was Philip the deacon rather than Philip the Apostle?

Because at the top of the chapter (Acts 8) it says that after the stoning of Stephen “all were scattered throughout the countryside of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles.”

Philip is on his way from Jerusalem to Gaza when he meets the Ethiopian eunuch. Ergo: he is Philip the deacon (just mentioned in Acts 6), not the apostle. This is not a contested reading. It is not a “Catholic” interpretation of the passage.

The passage refers to casting out demons. It does not mention baptism. It would therefore be a solemn exorcism which requires a priest.

Actually, you are correct. When a layman administers Baptism, that exorcism is omitted and only the pouring or immersion in water along with the Trinitarian formula is used. It reflects the “chipping” off of faculties that can be distributed and shared down the Apostolic chain.

 

[mercygate]

Actually He instructed those present (more than the 11) to go forth and teach… baptizing…

This thread however is concerned with the Eucharist Which could join every believer to every other believer with the actually Body and Blood of the Lord… if… we were all one as He and the Father are one.

Outside the Church there is no Real Presence.

.

Sorry: look again, MrS: in Mt. 28:20, only the 11 are on that mountain.

 

[Erich]

Well that is another difference we have. You equate the Church with the visible institution. We agree that there are multiple visible insitutions which call themselves Churches. However, the true Church is all the believers in whatever institution they are. It is the invisible Church that is the true church against which the gates of Hell shall not prevail. It is this Church which is the pillar of truth. And this Church contains Catholic, Orthodox, Protestants.

The true Church can’t be anything other than Visible and One.

Of course you will not agree with the invisible Church, but tell me, can you tell who at your Church has true faith and is not just saying they believe?

As Disunity on Essentials points out,

Good tests of practical unity in Protestant churches are: Whom do they let join? Whom do they let preach? Whom do they let pastor? If a particular congregation, as a matter of policy, will not let an individual with a particular belief join its fellowship, preach from its pulpits, or serve as a pastor in one of its churches, then this belief is considered an essential for unity. When these tests are applied, one can see that there is a great deal of practical disunity among Protestant churches—a disunity that goes far beyond the “essentials” named by Protestant apologists. …

Perhaps the most fundamental problem for users of the “unity in essentials” argument is the fact that they disagree on the meaning of the distinctively Protestant essentials on which they claim to be united: the slogans “faith alone” and “Scripture alone” (sola fide and sola scriptura).

 

[GregoryPalamas]

You’ve been gone too long, my friend. The UMC does embrace the Real Presence, as official statements reflect.

And you also know that “good Catholics” often practice birth control and believe that priests should marry. That is not the Catholic way, either.

Blessings, CDL.

O+

Good and faithful Catholics do indeed have married priests, even the Latin variety. It is not a dogma. Indeed their are some foolish poorly catechized Catholics who do not believe in the Real Presence there may even be soem pp priests who deny the faith. The church has always been plagued by heresies.

Could you direct me to the statement in the Discipine that now mandates the belief in the Real Presence of Christ? Could you also tell me how the Methodists plan to pull this off? It’s easy to say something is true but when it IS NOT IN FACT TRUE what difference does it make? I believed in the Real Presence of Christ most of my ministry but I had no authority to confect it. I knew several pastors who believed as I did. Most of us have left and some have even become part of the Church Catholic.

CDL

 

[GKC]

Not even close.

According to Apostolicae Curae, a Bull of Leo XIII issued 15 September, 1896, and containing the latest papal decision with regard to the validity of Anglican orders. Decisions had already been given that such orders are invalid.

You can read a full explanation here:

newadvent.org/cathen/01644a.htm

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

I often don’t, but sometimes do, jump in on discussions that mention Apostolicae Curae, a sort of hobby of mine. Certainly, RCs should affirm the accuracy and authority of Apostolicae Curae. And certainly, they should not be surprised when Anglicans don’t.

The subject is a complicated and sad one, with components of theology, history, personalities and politics. For the best single exposition of the RC understanding, read Francis Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENT. For the opposite side, the Anglican case, two books by Fr. John J. Hughes: ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID and STEWARDS OF THE LORD. Fr. Hughes is RC, though he once was Anglican and was the first Anglican priest to be ordained sub conditione, when he crossed to Rome.

This is one of the times when I decided to comment. One thing we can all agree on. *Apostolicae Curae *says that Anglican orders are invalid.

GKC

*Anglicanus Catholicus *

 

[MrS]

Sorry: look again, MrS: in Mt. 28:20, only the 11 are on that mountain.

I was hoping that would be caught by our non-Catholic brethren, so I could ask why “teach” comes first, and then what it is that they have authority to teach.

wrecked my plan… but that’s okay

 

[SyCarl]

The true Church can’t be anything other than Visible and One.

As Disunity on Essentials points out,

Well, I can’t talk for all Protestant, but my own Church is Presbyterian in Canada. The Book of Forms, which is essentially the Church constitution sets out the requirements for membership as follows.

110.2 The session is responsible for the examination of candidates for
membership. It should enquire as to their acceptance of God as Father, of Jesus
Christ as Saviour and Lord, and of the Holy Spirit as Sanctifier. It should also
enquire as to the desire of candidates to walk in God’s ways and their
willingness to seek the peace and welfare of the church. The session may not
require assent to any doctrine or special qualifications beyond this profession of
faith so described and further expressed in the Apostles’ Creed.

We basically accept anyone who professes the essentials as set out in the Apostles’ Creed.
We have had Lutheran, Anglican, Baptist, Mennonite, United Church of Canada, and even Catholics and other speak from our pulpit.
We share a television ministry with a local Lutheran congregation, jhelp fund a soup kitchen in a local Anglican Church, help fund a Catholic shelter for abused women, and run an Out of the Cold program with various other denominations. We have an open communion as it is Christ’s table not ours.

Unfortunately other denominations may not share the openess we have, I think that in this respect we practice our beliefs.

 

[ronnok20]

Please go back to verse 15 and re-read. The whole context of that passage reveals another Catholic Truth… that the Church (and obviously it is the only one founded by Jesus since scripture is His wWord) is the finally authority… not the one witness, not the two witnesses, not a group of witnesses… but the Church.

Once again, you take it out of context. Jesus doesn’t say that where two or more are gathered in the RC, there will I be. This is another obvious attempt of the RC trying to be bigger than God.

 

[Bennie_P]

Mannyfit75;2333422:

I don’t care what the church teaches, this is totally unbiblical and therefore wrong in the eyes of the most holy one who sacrificed for ALL of us. Amen

That is one of the reasons why, protestants don’t accept the Church’s teachings.

 

[ronnok20]

I believe that the RC possess the real body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. I also believe that churches who profess this same belief have it as well. Jesus talked of all Christians as his church.

 

[jmcrae]

Once again, you take it out of context. Jesus doesn’t say that where two or more are gathered in the RC, there will I be. This is another obvious attempt of the RC trying to be bigger than God.

Jesus said, whenever there are two or more of you (meaning members of His Church) there am I in the midst of them.

If any two Atheists get together, is Jesus in their midst? (I didn’t think so.)

 

[LilyM]

I believe that the RC possess the real body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. I also believe that churches who profess this same belief have it as well. Jesus talked of all Christians as his church.

‘Not everyone who calls me Lord, Lord will be saved’