Why no communion for visiting Protestants?

[jmcrae]

I do believe that the groups I mentioned were fairly close to Protestants. I have done quite a bit of reading on my own with respect to precursors. That is why I left out some of their contemporaries like the Albigenses and the Cathars who were clearly not orthodox in their beliefs.

What do you see as being in common with Protestantism, of the Waldenses, or the Hussians?

Much of what was said did have truth to it, at least with respect to abuses.

Sure, but these points were also brought forward by people like St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, and St. Ignatius of Loyola. Instead of separating from the Church, though, they were the ones who took steps to resolve these issues, and to provide education for lay people, to avoid these kinds of problems being able to happen again in the future - for example, someone who has a good understanding of what an Indulgence is would realize that it’s not something that one can buy, and only God needs to know whether you have it, or not. (Your Confessor might suspect it, but he wouldn’t know for sure unless you told him.)

Much was corrected by the Council of Trent.

All of whose members were Catholic - again, they didn’t separate from the Church because of the problems. They set about to solve them, and by working within the structure of the Church, succeeded in solving them.

 

[Mannyfit75]

’

Until protestants stop calling us the Whore of Babylon, follow Luther, accuse the Pope of being the Antichrist, and deny the Real Presence in the Eucharist we will not recognize them…They do no recognize Matthew 16 where Jesus says the church will be built where Peter is, and that Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven… Protestants do not follow this verse in the bible…

Luther’s main goal was for his believers to separate themselves from the True Church and break away… and now there are 30,000 denominations because of this… why should we allow a group whos sole intention was to break away from the church and call our church the whore of Babylon? who deny the sacraments and follow unscriptural theologies like sola scriptura?.. who allow abortion (thus breaking the commandments) and divorce? no such church will be in communion with the Catholic Church until they change their ways…

Protestants deny the Real Presence, that it is the actual blood and body of Christ…They have a different view…The ECF also said we need to stay connected to the bishop, otherwise we will go into division and confusion. Thats exactly whats happened with protestantism…St. Ignatius who was a student of the apostle John said this, and was very clear about us never breaking away from the bishop… No church that was created in the year 1500 can truly claim FULL communion with Christ, they have absolutely no connection historically with the apostles or the apostles disciples(ECF) the way the CC has…

The main reason is that protestants aren’t in FULL communion of Christ… but only partly , and only because of their ignorance of the Catholic Church and their bullheaded attitude towards us…

Amen

 

[Mannyfit75]

The Word Catholic came from St. Ignatius… who was a student of the apostle John and a close friend…Id somehow take Ignatius’s word over Luthers ANYDAY

Ignatius also said we must stay connected to the bishop, otherwise we will go into heresy…

I actually posted his saying in here.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Disobedient and self seeking ruling class is what gave the reformation a foothold and fostered it. It was in the interest in corrupt princes to have the ‘church’ under their control and not Rome’s. Luther was a pawn that allowed the ruling class to gain more power. Read Belloc on the subject.

My :twocents: worth.

M

You’ve nailed it.

CDL

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I never said that. Everyone who accepts and abides in the scriptures for how they are written are the people of God. Jesus’ followers are not all RC.

Did anyone here say they were all Catholic?

 

[JustinApologist]

Did anyone here say they were all Catholic?

They were called Christians first in the Book of Acts,

in the year 107 AD St. Ignatius called the Christian Church, Catholic Church…

 

[ASimpleSinner]

They were called Christian first in the Book of Acts, and in Antioch again, in the year 107 AD St. Ignatius called the Christian Church, Catholic Church…

Why are you quoting me before this comment?

It doesn’t make sense in the context of my response.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

So from the beginning Jesus planned that only the RC was his church no matter what they did. This is ridiculous.

Not at all. It is as ridiculous as the Incarnation - that God became flesh. As ridiculous as God walking among us. As ridiculous as the Old Testament Israel being the special organ, ordained by God to be entrusted with His law and lead by priests in the Temple.

No matter how bad the Israelites were, or some Catholics are, it did not change what they were ordained to do - be His instrument in the world.

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.

It is no such thing.

Where two or three are gathered He is there, but not in the Eucharist. If you are suggesting He is, then we need to re-examine how close in fact your beliefs on the Eucharist are to Catholocism after all.

In the Christian world there are roughly two types of Christian communions: churches and ecclesial communities.

The former (churches) are made up of communities that have mainitained apostolic succession and preach and practice seven sacraments/mysteries. Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East, and Old Catholics like the PNCC as well as “breakaway” groups like Old Calendar Orthodox, the ICABB, and PERHAPS some Anglican bodies that have recieved the spiscopate outside the Anglican communion from Orthodox and Old Catholics, etc.

The latter (ecclesial communities) includes the vast majority of the Protestant world. Posessing two valid sacraments, (name them!) these groups would include the Lutheran communion, Methodists, Baptsts, etc.

Members of ecclesial communions are not with valid priesthood, and there is a big part of the problem. For a Catholic to make a good communion, frequently he or she must make a good confession. For that a priest is needed.

It would be more than a little problematic for the Catholic Church to tell her faithful how they must prepare for communion - and if you disagree with that, I invite you to open a new thread - and at the same time declare an indifference to those without recouse to the sacraments (belonging to communities that reject them) to approach unprepared.

 

[JustinApologist]

Why are you quoting me before this comment?

It doesn’t make sense in the context of my response.

It was a response to the other poster who doesn’t seem to know what he is talking about.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

It was a response to the other poster who doesn’t seem to know what he is talking about.

gotcha

 

[Zooey]

As you and I both know the UM Church does not believe in the Real Presence. CDL

Nonsense. The Methodist Church does, in fact, believe in the Real Presence.
I know that Catholics refuse to believe that we have it, but that doesn’t change what we believe. (It also doesn’t change the fact that, in fact, the UMC & most if not all other Wesleyan bodies] do, in fact, have the Real Body & Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ in our Holy Communion. I know you don’t agree. We must agree to disagree on this part).

As I said previously, it does not matter what you believe. It matters what actually happens at the consecration.
You can believe what you want; He is not present.

Sorry, but He is indeed present. Actually, this is bordering on that heresy (the name of which escapes me just now) which claims that the nature & efficacy of the sacraments depends on the spiritual state of the officiant. You can, if you like, say that Luke, & my pastor, & the other UMC pastors don’t hold to Catholic doctrines, & are therefore in some sense heretical in your understanding. But that doesn’t change the facts in the case.

Sure. Luther did. A few Protestant groups still do. Heck, my dad, the Methodist, believes in the Real Presence - until I ask him to explain transubstantiation…then he wants nothing to do with that.
OS - it doesn’t matter a whit what you believe you are doing with your little cubes of white bread and your little glass thimbles of grape juice.
It only matters what happens when the bread and wine are consecrate. In your case, nothing.
When a Catholic priest says mass, Jesus is made present by the power of Holy Spirit.

And when a Methodist pastor says the service of Holy Communion, Jesus is made present by the power of the Holy Spirit, Who “goeth where He listeth”, regardless of the lamentable breaks between various portions of Christendom.

It just proves that your charity is lacking and your information is wrong.
a) I’ve never used little cubes of white bread (nor have I used wafers of styrofoam-tasting bread)
b) I’ve never used “thimbles” of grape juice

In our case, Jesus is present.
Pax,

O+

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

Always has, too.
As I have said many times here: I don’t judge the Catholics I meet here by the antice of Andrew Greeley. Don’t any Catholics presume to judge the Methodists that you meet here, by a far-out lunatic fringe who don’t believe in much of anything. All that comes of that is: “Pot, meet Kettle; Kettle, meet Pot”.

God bless all here.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Nonsense. The Methodist Church does, in fact, believe in the Real Presence.
I know that Catholics refuse to believe that we have it, but that doesn’t change what we believe. (It also doesn’t change the fact that, in fact, the UMC & most if not all other Wesleyan bodies] do, in fact, have the Real Body & Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ in our Holy Communion. I know you don’t agree. We must agree to disagree on this part).

Sorry, but He is indeed present. Actually, this is bordering on that heresy (the name of which escapes me just now) which claims that the nature & efficacy of the sacraments depends on the spiritual state of the officiant. You can, if you like, say that Luke, & my pastor, & the other UMC pastors don’t hold to Catholic doctrines, & are therefore in some sense heretical in your understanding. But that doesn’t change the facts in the case.

And when a Methodist pastor says the service of Holy Communion, Jesus is made present by the power of the Holy Spirit, Who “goeth where He listeth”, regardless of the lamentable breaks between various portions of Christendom.



Always has, too.
As I have said many times here: I don’t judge the Catholics I meet here by the antice of Andrew Greeley. Don’t any Catholics presume to judge the Methodists that you meet here, by a far-out lunatic fringe who don’t believe in much of anything. All that comes of that is: “Pot, meet Kettle; Kettle, meet Pot”.

God bless all here.

Well Zooey,

How many years have you been a pastor? Where were you trained? Even if you are not a pastor all you have to do to demonstrate your position is to point out this belief from the General Rules or from some “OFFICIAL” statement mandating such a belief in your particular branch of Methodism and have that document demonstrate how Methodism, any branch of it, is actually apostolic. That’s all. Do it, or stop claiming it.

CDL

 

[mercygate]

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

Next time ya gotta warn me – I wondered what was up. You’re always so meticulous about quoting Scripture.

 

[MrS]

Next time ya gotta warn me – I wondered what was up. You’re always so meticulous about quoting Scripture.

thanks for the kind words… perhaps I should NOT have tried to “pave” the road first.

The other thought I had concerned a Jeff Cavins talk “I’m not Being Fed”. Great talk that leads to the Scripture where Jesus asked Peter 3 times “Do you love Me” and each time, 3 times, empowered ONLY Peter to “… feed…tend…feed…”

We, as Catholics, need to know that the authority of Christ rests ONLY is those whom Christ decided should have the authority. Then we need to know what those doctrines are that Catholics alone adhere to.

By the way… that authority was given long long before any NT Scripture was written…

.

 

[MrS]

This could be one of the better threads at CA

Thanks to our non-Catholic friends for their admirable degreee of persistance.

Zooey… we need to talk

.

 

[mercygate]

So from the beginning Jesus planned that only the RC was his church no matter what they did. This is ridiculous.

In an earlier post you make the statement that Catholics “equate the Church with the visible institution.” You are only partly correct. But the Church is not essentially an “institution.” It is the family of the Kingdom of God. We do say that the “institution” is the visible part of the Church and that it is centered in the Catholic Church.

You would profit considerably from learning what the Church *actually *believes and teaches about herself. I recommend reading paragraphs 131-133 on sacred Scripture in the life of the Church and paragraphs 748-776 on the Holy Catholic Church in The Catechism of the Catholic Church.

This discussion should return to the original topic on open versus closed Communion. But when you have read those paragraphs in the Catechism, we can start a new discussion on what we really believe rather than on the caricature you seem to have been presenting to us.

 

[mercygate]

Please show me in scripture where Jesus called his followers Catholic Christians.

Right there in the same place where Jesus calls his followers “Christians.” I’m blanking on the book, chapter, and verse. Maybe you can help me?

 

[O.S.Luke]

Well Zooey,

How many years have you been a pastor? Where were you trained? Even if you are not a pastor all you have to do to demonstrate your position is to point out this belief from the General Rules or from some “OFFICIAL” statement mandating such a belief in your particular branch of Methodism and have that document demonstrate how Methodism, any branch of it, is actually apostolic. That’s all. Do it, or stop claiming it.

CDL

Be civil, Gregory. The official statement on the Eucharist is This Holy Mystery. A quote:

Holy Communion is remembrance, commemoration, and memorial, but this remembrance is much more than intellectual recalling. ‘Do this in remembrance of me’ (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24-25) is ‘anamnesis’ (the biblical Greek word). This dynamic action becomes re-presentation of past gracious acts of God in the present, so powerfully as to make them truly present now. Christ is risen and is alive here and now, not just remembered for what was done in the past." (This Holy Mystery, p. 8)

You can disagree, say “our” Eucharist is invalid (it is Christ’s eucharist, not ours). You have that right. And I celebrate your “coming home.” Just don’t be a homewrecker in the midst of your own homecoming to those who are already home.

Pax,

O+

 

[MrS]

Personally, I have no problem with your (name removed by moderator)ut:

Holy Communion is remembrance, commemoration, and memorial*,** but this remembrance is much more than intellectual recalling. ‘Do this in remembrance of me’ (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24-25) is ‘anamnesis’ (the biblical Greek word). This dynamic action becomes re-presentation of past gracious acts of God in the present, so powerfully as to make them truly present now. Christ is risen and is alive here and now, not just remembered for what was done in the past." (This Holy Mystery, p. 8)*

because I notice the detail, highlighted, that says not only what your Holy Communion is… but also does NOT say that the Holy Communion equates to the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

Your communion is a re-presentation of past gracious acts. Yes, Christ is risen and alive and here and everywhere. But in His Precious Body and Blood, Christ is ONLY present in the Eucharist confected by those to whom HE empowered to do so.

A similar example is the word Church. There is only one group that qualifies and that is the “group” formed by Jesus to believe in everything He taught (including John 6 ). While others, over the years, have “adopted” the word church (and communion, and Lord’s supper etc), they remain faith communities… no more.

Pray that we be one, as He and the Father are one.

.

 

[GKC]

“…and PERHAPS some Anglican bodies that have recieved the spiscopate outside the Anglican communion from Orthodox and Old Catholics, etc.”

Appreciate the nuance.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus