Why no communion for visiting Protestants?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ronnok20
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
.
Your Mass is a ***re-presentation ***of Christ’s sacrifice at Calvary as well. If it is not, then it is a ***re-sacrifice ***and we know that such is not possible.
 
“…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
What is this in response to? It’s about validity, right?

I use a personal example to put validity in perspective:

Someone who works at the Jack Daniels distillery gets the recipe and gives it to me. I get hold of all the ingredients and mix up a batch in my cellar. Is it whiskey (valid)? Yup. Is it legal (licit)? Nope.

To my mind, the intent to do something illicitly rather taints the brew.
 
Your Mass is a ***re-presentation ***of Christ’s sacrifice at Calvary as well. If it is not, then it is a ***re-sacrifice ***and we know that such is not possible.
First of all, it is Christ’s Mass, and our highest form of worship.

Second, it is a re-presentation. Thank you for not saying that we are killing Christ again. Our Scriptures, Hebrews to be exact, declare the Catholic position of one sacrifice. and… Since Christ “exists” outside of time, there is no limitation to the sacrifice (note: the Lamb in Revelation whose blood flows continually).

Additionally, the re-presentation, the in-remembrance, is gifted with Christ’s empowerment of His chosen ministerial priesthood to confect the Eucharist… where we not only remember, but we partake in His Body and Blood.

That sacrament, that grace, that gift is not available to the non-ordained through Apostolic succession.

.
 
Personally, I have no problem with your (name removed by moderator)ut:
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.
You need to read the whole document. It says much more than that.
 
What is this in response to? It’s about validity, right?

I use a personal example to put validity in perspective:

Someone who works at the Jack Daniels distillery gets the recipe and gives it to me. I get hold of all the ingredients and mix up a batch in my cellar. Is it whiskey (valid)? Yup. Is it legal (licit)? Nope.

To my mind, the intent to do something illicitly rather taints the brew.
I don’t think anyone owns Christ. We are His. He is not ours.
 
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.
You conveniently forgot the “but” in the sentence. And did you conveniently also forget this (which you DID quote): “Christ is risen and is alive here and now, not just remembered for what was done in the past.” and “so powerfully as to make them truly present now..”

You may need to try again.
 
I don’t think anyone owns Christ. We are His. He is not ours.
If we are fully Christ’s, then we fully embrace him in all of his teachings and on *his *terms, according to the authority with which he endowed his Church to “teach all nations.”

Other true particular Churches and separated ecclesial bodies may share in Christ’s fellowship, but to the extent they depart from the teaching of Christ’s One, Holy Catholic, and Apostolic Church, they share imperfectly.

We’re keeping the door open and the light on for ya, Luke.
 
You conveniently forgot the “but” in the sentence. And did you conveniently also forget this (which you DID quote): “Christ is risen and is alive here and now, not just remembered for what was done in the past.” and “so powerfully as to make them truly present now…”

You may need to try again.
But these words leave to the reader any interpretation of how the here and now presence of Christ is unique to the Eucharist. All Christians believe that in some way and to various degrees “Christ is risen and is alive here and now.”
 
You conveniently forgot the “but” in the sentence. And did you conveniently also forget this (which you DID quote): “Christ is risen and is alive here and now, not just remembered for what was done in the past.” and “so powerfully as to make them truly present now…”

You may need to try again.
I agree, Christ is everywhere, including here and now, not just remembered.

but your statement reads “…as to make them truly present now…” This referes to the “acts” previously mentioned does it not… confusing at best.

Even if you don’t believe in the Catholic exclusivity of the Eucharist,…

wouldn’t it be really cool if Jesus had planned for just one, holy, universal, and apostolic church to avoid all the separation and confusion?

.
 
The schism between Protestantism and the CC has been very painful and divisive for Western Christendom. It has also been an immense tragedy on a vast scale for Christianity as a religion as a whole, and I am sure it has played a major role in the secularisation of the West into a Post-Christian and Post-Modern culture.

Also there have been many schisms within Protestantism itself, with many different Protestant sects and denominations, many of whom are bitterly divided in terms of theology, sacraments, ecclesiology, and on other matters. Calvinists and Lutherans differ from Anabaptists and Quakers and they in turn differ from Evangelicals, Fundamentalists and Pentecostals. In the CC the eucharist is a symbol of the unity of the church itself, which the church prides as it has built itself a lot on traditions it has inherited from the time of the church fathers. It is not so much a matter of excluding everyone ‘unworthy’ from the table of Christ, but of trying to maintain continuity within a great diversity. The CC after all has 1.2 billion members in dozens of countries across dozens of different cultures, and the eucharist is central to the unity of the Church in its various incarnations worldwide as well as to the unity of the faithful with Christ.

There are vast differences which need to be worked out before Christ’s church in its totality is made one again, though we may hope the inter-communion issue can be resolved as quickly and peacefully as possible and with compassion and charity rather than more hostility and conflict.
 
What is this in response to? It’s about validity, right?

I use a personal example to put validity in perspective:

Someone who works at the Jack Daniels distillery gets the recipe and gives it to me. I get hold of all the ingredients and mix up a batch in my cellar. Is it whiskey (valid)? Yup. Is it legal (licit)? Nope.

To my mind, the intent to do something illicitly rather taints the brew.
It’s a quote from a post from ASimpleSinner.

Sure, I know the difference between valid and licit. In this case, it’s one that is not of interest to Anglicans. It is, of course, to RCs.

What we do, we do validly and licitly, in full possession of apostolic succession, and valid orders. Resulting in the Real Presence in the eucharist, as in any case where that’s true (all other necessary factors being present).

If you said you agreed, I’d correct you.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus
 
It’s a quote from a post from ASimpleSinner.
Then ASimpleSinner stole it from me!
Sure, I know the difference between valid and licit. In this case, it’s one that is not of interest to Anglicans. It is, of course, to RCs.
Well, when I was Anglican, a lot of us were obsessed with this matter.
What we do, we do validly and licitly, in full possession of apostolic succession, and valid orders. Resulting in the Real Presence in the eucharist, as in any case where that’s true (all other necessary factors being present).

If you said you agreed, I’d correct you.
Not a chance I would agree with you (you’re not surprised), although for decades I used to do all the Anglican contortions. Apostolic Succession question is the backbreaker. If Peter is NOT in your house of bishops, then . . . ???
 
Then ASimpleSinner stole it from me!

Well, when I was Anglican, a lot of us were obsessed with this matter.
A lot of us are not. Though some of us are knowledgeable on the subject.
Not a chance I would agree with you (you’re not surprised),
Nope.
although for decades I used to do all the Anglican contortions. Apostolic Succession question is the backbreaker. If Peter is NOT in your house of bishops, then . . . ???
But Peter is. Our apostolic succession runs right back to the same place yours does.

GKC
 
A lot of us are not. Though some of us are knowledgeable on the subject.

Nope.

But Peter is. Our apostolic succession runs right back to the same place yours does.

GKC
At best you are in Schism: worse than heresy (notwithstanding the plenitude of that in the Anglican Communion these days). So you’re comfortable accepting the authority of the Church of Rome? So come on home. I don’t know how you can stand it.
 
At best you are in Schism: worse than heresy (notwithstanding the plenitude of that in the Anglican Communion these days). So you’re comfortable accepting the authority of the Church of Rome? So come on home. I don’t know how you can stand it.
If I was in the Anglican Communion, I couldn’t stand it either.

GKC
 
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.

.
From the UMC Official Web site.
The Lord’s Supper (Communion, Eucharist)
  • The Lord’s Supper is a holy meal of bread and wine that symbolizes the body and blood of Christ.
  • The Lord’s Supper recalls the life, death and resurrection of Jesus and celebrates the unity of all the members of God’s family.
  • By sharing this meal, we give thanks for Christ’s sacrifice and are nourished and empowered to go into the world in mission and ministry.
  • We practice “open Communion,” welcoming all who love Christ, repent of their sin, and seek to live in peace with one another.
United Methodists share basic affirmations in common with all Christian communities
**
Our tradition asserts the real, personal, living presence of Jesus Christ. For United Methodists, the Lord’s Supper is anchored in the life of the historical Jesus of Nazareth, but is not primarily a remembrance or memorial. We do not embrace the medieval doctrine of transubstantiation, although we do believe that the elements are essential tangible means through which God works.
**

The problem comes in the question of apostolic seccession, was it broken when Wesleyans broke away from the Anglican Church? and the ordination of women (which the Catholic Church doesn’t accept as a possibilty). These are questions of the validity of the consecration of bread and wine which are put into doubt.

Myself I have a lot of friends that are UMC members, my son is member of a Boy Scout Troop sponsored by the UMC. I really like the writings on John Wesley on holiness and his other commentaries. But I have to follow the Catholic Church teachings on the Eucharist - It makes me feel good that many UMC members think communion as being important to thier spiritual life, and I believe they are folllowing Christ to the best of thier understanding and knowledge.
 
That assumes that it is important to trace a line of succesion all the way back to the Apostles. To us Apostolic means adherring to the teachings of the Apostles as recorded in Scripture. Even if ther is an Apostolic Succession, it does not show that only priests can consecrate communion. As I quoted earlier Jesus sent the 11 Apostles to baptize.
I understand that you minimize the importance of Apostolic Succession - you no longer have it so you really have no choice but to downplay it. If you acknowledge that Apostolic Succession is important, then you have big issues to face.

The Apostles were the first Bishops; they appointed or ordained others, as well. As the Church grew, so too did the number of Bishops who served the needs of the Church. The leadership of the church can be seen to expand in several passages:

“This saying is trustworthy: whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task.” (1 Timothy 3:1)

The Bishops also appointed presbyters (or priests) and deacons as helpers in the service of the Church.

In several passages in Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus, we can see that Paul acted as a “spiritual father” passing on his Apostolic Authority to his “sons” as an “inheritance”. There are numerous examples of this language in these letters, but one should suffice:

“Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by command of God our savior and of Christ Jesus our hope, to Timothy, my true child in faith” (1 Timothy 1:1-2)

Other examples can be found in 2 Timothy 1:2 and 2:1, 1 Timothy 1:18 and Titus 1:4. Similarly, in his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul highlighted the authority with which they should receive Timothy when he wrote:

“For this reason I am sending you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord; he will remind you of my ways in Christ (Jesus), just as I teach them everywhere in every church.” (1 Corinthians 4:17)

Timothy was sent to Corinth with the Authority of Paul to teach and remind them of the things Paul had taught them personally. Again, Paul instructed Timothy concerning the handing on of his teachings:

“And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.” (2 Timothy 2:2)

In this one passage, we see four generations in the line of Apostolic Succession: 1) Paul, 2) Timothy, 3) those to whom Timothy would pass on Paul’s teachings, and 4) those whom they in turn would teach. Remember, the mission of the Church is to teach, and one office in the Church is that of teacher. Thus, Paul is instructing Timothy about the handing on of teachings of Christ which is the function of a Bishop. This is Apostolic Succession at work. Paul also told Titus:

“The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer [or bishop] is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless” (Titus 1:5-7)

Paul, tells Titus to appoint Bishops in every town; the consecration of Bishops is something that only another bishop can do, so here we see another example of Apostolic Authority and Apostolic Succession at work: Paul has ordained Titus and given him the authority to ordain others. The expanding church needed an expanding leadership.

In keeping with the mission of the Church which is to teach, Paul told Timothy:

“As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies.” (1 Timothy 1:3)

“Command and teach these things. Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity. Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching.” (1 Timothy 4:11-13)

(cont.)
 
Preaching, teaching, commanding others, appointing Bishops: these are the things that Paul has given Timothy and Titus the authority to do. But how was this Apostolic Authority handed on? By a formal ceremony known as “laying on of hands” as we see in the following passages:

“For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands.” (2 Tim 1:6)

“Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders [or bishops] laid their hands on you.” (1 Timothy 4:14)

Paul also cautions Timothy:

“Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands” (1 Timothy 5:22)

So we see that the ordaining of Bishops is not something to be taken lightly or done spuriously. The mission of the teaching Church must be entrusted to reliable men.

Do these passages give us any impression that the early Church taught that anyone and everyone could pick up a Bible, interpret it for themselves, and then begin to exercise true, Apostolic Authority in the course of fulfilling the teaching mission of the Church of God infallibly? No! The Apostles, who were chosen and sent by Jesus and led by the promised Holy Spirit, have passed on not only the teaching that they received from Jesus, but also their God-given authority through the formal “laying on of hands” upon other men from one generation to the next from their day all the way down to our own time. This is Apostolic Succession. This is how we can be sure that the Church today teaches infallibly from the word of God concerning the truths that we must know to be saved.

For more information about the relationship between the Apostles and the Bishops and the transition period in Church history, you might enjoy the following article:

**Successors of the Apostles **
By Jimmy Akin
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0107bt.asp

Hope this helps. :tiphat:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top