Why no communion for visiting Protestants?

[Gerry_Hunter]

Two things come to mind.

First, this is a practice that has been in place from Apostolic and Patristic times, which means that the invocation of the contents of Holy Scripture is probably to no avail (unless one thinks like a sola scriptura Protestant), since the practice pre-dates the New Testament canon. In the Apologies of St. Justin Martyr, the reservation of the Eucharist to those who believe what the Church teaches is documented. St.Justin wrote before the New Testament canon was assembled and recognized. Therefore the practice has the sanction of Sacred Tradition, clearly having been practiced from the beginning of the Church, as an Apostolic teaching.

Second, I am always moved to curiosity as to why Protestants, who reject both the teachings, and the teaching authority of the Church, consider that they have a position from which to demand her Sacraments? And more curiously, why, if they reject her, her teachings, and her teaching authority, they would even want them?

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[SyCarl]

The Catholic Church recognizes:

[1] The Sole Highpriest is Jesus Christ

[2] We are all part of the priesthood of believers, sinners that we are.

[3] There is a separate ministerial priesthood. The discription of the early Church in ACTS can only describe the Catholic Church.

I know we agree on the first two. If you have doubts on the third, the ministerial priesthood (or doubt that it exists only in God’s format, not man’s),
I then refer to both NUMBERS account of the wrath of Koran… where those who assumed the duties of the ministerial priesthood, and those who followed them, where all slain.
and
Then the reference in Jude to the early Church laity to beware lest they too incur the wrath of Koran. (Why warn them against something if that something did not exist??)

Jesus did not say “… as often as you…” to all his disciples. Only the eleven. And only they were empowered to “lay on hands” and confere on selected disciples the sacramental powers they held. Even Judas’ replacement had to be qualified - and only two were, so they cast lots)

St Paul also warned the church members (not the outsiders) to receive the Holy Eucharist ONLY if recognizing It as the true Body and Blood of the Saviour.

The laity received the Eucharist… only the ordained, ministerial priesthood confected It, or gave It to us.

The precursor to this gift is shown in the feeding of the 5000. Only the Apostles distributed the meal. And when they ran out, they returned to the Lord for more.

No mention of the hungry doing it on their own.

The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist exists ONLY in the Catholic Mass… and because of Catholic Consecration… no matter how much another says, claims, or hopes to partake.

.

Now by your reasoning, only priests should be able to baptize because only the 11 were present when Jesus said “Go therefore and baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” But the Church recognizes Protestant baptisms and even baptisms by the laity? Why the difference? And why can only the bishop do confirmation? The Epistle to Titus makes clear that the office the office of priest (or elder, prespbyter etc) and bishop (or overseer) are the same office. Is it not then a man made rule that only bishops can do confirmation?

Also, Jesus did not condemn people who acted in His name even if they were not one of the Apostles.

38 John said to Him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to prevent him because he was not following us.”
39 But Jesus said, "Do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me.
40 For he who is not against us is for us. Mark 9:38-40

 

[Mannyfit75]

ronnok20;2333452:

Please provide the Chapter and verse of the Scripture passages you are referencing.

1 Cor 11:26-30.

26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.

Since Protestants are not members of the Catholic Church, unbelievers cannot therefore partake in Holy Communion. To received Holy Communion in the Catholic Church, you must believe in all what she teaches.

Protestants need to understand this. It is for their own protection least they defile the Body and Blood of the Lord.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Now by your reasoning, only priests should be able to baptize because only the 11 were present when Jesus said “Go therefore and baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” But the Church recognizes Protestant baptisms and even baptisms by the laity? Why the difference? And why can only the bishop do confirmation? The Epistle to Titus makes clear that the office the office of priest (or elder, prespbyter etc) and bishop (or overseer) are the same office. Is it not then a man made rule that only bishops can do confirmation?

Also, Jesus did not condemn people who acted in His name even if they were not one of the Apostles.

This thread is about Holy Communion not baptism. If you wish to discuss baptism make a new thread.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Answer: I have no idea what other denominations believe about the eucharist. My denomination believes it to be the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

Catholics aren’t members of a denomination. Therefore, I assume you are not Catholic. Orthodox Christians aren’t members of a denomination so I gather you aren’t Orthodox. Since these two groups are the only ones capable of confecting the Eucharist you must be mistaken.

CDL

 

[mercygate]

Now by your reasoning, only priests should be able to baptize because only the 11 were present when Jesus said “Go therefore and baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” But the Church recognizes Protestant baptisms and even baptisms by the laity? Why the difference?

We accept Protestant and lay baptisms because it is normatively essential to salvation. Baptism according to the Trinitarian formula is required. In Scripture, we see non-priests conferring baptism (Philip the deacon).

And why can only the bishop do confirmation? The Epistle to Titus makes clear that the office the office of priest (or elder, prespbyter etc) and bishop (or overseer) are the same office. Is it not then a man made rule that only bishops can do confirmation?

The fullness of Priesthood lies only with the bishop. The “presbyter” or “elder” (same word) from which we get our word “priest” is a bishop in the sense of holding the fullness of the apostolic office. The guys we call priests (and priests they are) share in the faculties of the presbyterate but not fully. Priests are given the faculty to hear confessions at the discretion of the bishop. Priests can also be given the faculty to confer confirmation at the bishop’s discretion.

Is that a man made rule? Not really. The “man made” part is a protection for the God-given part. It is not a “tradition of men that renders void the word of God.”

Also, Jesus did not condemn people who acted in His name even if they were not one of the Apostles.

Indeed. Those people were casting out demons (which is part of the rite of Baptism), so the Catholic Church agrees with this wide application.

 

[SyCarl]

kage_ar;2335753:

1 Cor 11:26-30.

Since Protestants are not members of the Catholic Church, unbelievers cannot therefore partake in Holy Communion. To received Holy Communion in the Catholic Church, you must believe in all what she teaches.

Protestants need to understand this. It is for their own protection least they defile the Body and Blood of the Lord.

The New American Bible has a somewhat different wording.

27
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.
28
A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
29
For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.
30
That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.
31
If we discerned ourselves, we would not be under judgment;

It says that we are to examine ourselves, not that the Church examine us.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

That was not the reason for the Reformation. Read the Marburg Colloquy - in which Luther defended the Real Presence of Christ.

Try again.

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

 

[mercygate]

Mannyfit75;2336164:

The New American Bible has a somewhat different wording.

It says that we are to examine ourselves, not that the Church examine us.

The key point of that section is “without discerning the body.” If we examine ourselves, we examine ourselves according to the eternal law and the Commandments. The teachings of the Church are nothing more than clarifications of these fundamental truths.

 

[SyCarl]

We accept Protestant and lay baptisms because it is normatively essential to salvation. Baptism according to the Trinitarian formula is required. In Scripture, we see non-priests conferring baptism (Philip the deacon).

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

Indeed. Those people were casting out demons (which is part of the rite of Baptism), so the Catholic Church agrees with this wide application

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

1673 When the Church asks publicly and authoritatively in the name of Jesus Christ that a person or object be protected against the power of the Evil One and withdrawn from his dominion, it is called exorcism. Jesus performed exorcisms and from him the Church has received the power and office of exorcizing.176 In a simple form, exorcism is performed at the celebration of Baptism. the solemn exorcism, called “a major exorcism,” can be performed only by a priest and with the permission of the bishop. the priest must proceed with prudence, strictly observing the rules established by the Church. Exorcism is directed at the expulsion of demons or to the liberation from demonic possession through the spiritual authority which Jesus entrusted to his Church. Illness, especially psychological illness, is a very different matter; treating this is the concern of medical science. Therefore, before an exorcism is performed, it is important to ascertain that one is dealing with the presence of the Evil One, and not an illness.177 (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

 

[MrS]

Now by your reasoning, only priests should be able to baptize because only the 11 were present when Jesus said “Go therefore and baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.”

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.

.

 

[Cat]

ronnok20, if you’re worshipping in your own church, then why should it bother you what the Catholics do in their church? You’re not even physically here. Isn’t there enough to concern yourself with without trying to tell other churches how they should do it?

Believe what you choose and allow others to do the same. Peace.

So you’re visiting. Welcome. When you visit someone’s house, do you just “make yourself at home?” Help yourself to whatever is in the frig? Re-arrange the books to fit your sense of order? Clean up the bathroom? Lay down on the bed in the master bedroom and take a little nap? Un-button the top button on your skirt or pants? Go kiss and cuddle with “mom and dad?”

Of course not. You may be asked to make yourself at home, but you and your host know that there are some limits. Even as a very welcome and esteemed visitor, you are NOT a member of the family.

 

[MrS]

So you’re visiting. Welcome. When you visit someone’s house, do you just “make yourself at home?” Help yourself to whatever is in the frig? Re-arrange the books to fit your sense of order? Clean up the bathroom? Lay down on the bed in the master bedroom and take a little nap? Un-button the top button on your skirt or pants? Go kiss and cuddle with “mom and dad?”

.

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/23_34_2.gif I’m not supposed to do that???
Oh man, now I know why they look at me so strangly.

sorry…

back to the topic of the thread…

.

%between%

 

[GregoryPalamas]

The United Methodist Church has open communion as do many non-traditional church groups. It looks like the real thing but it is not. Since converting I would not go into a non-tradtional service and demand or even sneak forward to take of their communion. It would be very rude on my part. Moreover, since it is not the real deal why should I want to make such a pretense.

I tell my students as they prepare to visit my Church that unless they are Catholics in good standing they are not to go forward to receive. This protects them from receiving something to their condemnation and it avoids any rudeness toward us that the students might unwittingly inflict.

Some day, I hope before death, we will all be at the table of our Lord together. If we get to heaven we will all be at the same table because all who go to heaven will be Catholic.

Until then let us treat each other with respect and not to pretend we are what we are not.

CDL

 

[rr1213]

I am always moved to curiosity as to why Protestants, who reject both the teachings, and the teaching authority of the Church, consider that they have a position from which to demand her Sacraments? And more curiously, why, if they reject her, her teachings, and her teaching authority, they would even want them?

Blessings,

Gerry

For the most part, Catholics who attend Protestant Eucharists would be welcome to participate, even though we know that Catholics do not believe the same as we do in some things. We consider it to be the Lord’s Table, not our talbe. From the Catholic perspective, they shouldn’t participate of course, but from OUR perspective they are welcome. Since Protestants generally (there are exceptions) have this viewpoint, I think that many Protestants are hurt and/or offended when they are unable to take communion at a Catholic mass.

Why would Protestants want to take communion at a Catholic mass? They’re attending mass there, right? Why not? Catholics would be welcome at their Eucharist, why not Protestants at the Catholic Mass? This is particularly a problem when you have divided families–for example a Protestant husband who, although of one flesh with his wife, cannot participate in the Eucharist with his Catholic wife.

I understand the Catholic arguments as to why it is not permissible from the Catholic viewpoint, but the purpose of this post is to illustrate the issue from the Protestant viewpoint.

 

[rr1213]

Catholics aren’t members of a denomination. Therefore, I assume you are not Catholic. Orthodox Christians aren’t members of a denomination so I gather you aren’t Orthodox. Since these two groups are the only ones capable of confecting the Eucharist you must be mistaken.

CDL

Old Catholics?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I respect the Catholic position. My in-laws are Catholic and we attend Mass with them when we visit. They have told me I should take comminion with them but I haven’t since it would not be proper to disrespect the Catholic Church’s position. Many Protestant Churches have closed communion as well.
The church I attend, the Presbyterian Church in Canada does have an open communion. We believe that it is Christ’s table, not ours so all believers should be welcome.

Your inlaws are in error.

I suspect that the reason they have invited you to take communion is because they themselves do not believe that the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul and divinity. You might ask them about this and point out to them the guidelines for communion which are printed in the front of every missal.

Even though you have an “open communion”, Catholics should refrain from taking communion at your services because doing so would imply a real spiritual communion which, sadly, does not exist.

Thank you for being respectful even if they are not. :tiphat:

 

[MrS]

Why would Protestants want to take communion at a Catholic mass? They’re attending mass there, right? Why not? Catholics would be welcome at their Eucharist, why not Protestants at the Catholic Mass? This is particularly a problem when you have divided families–for example a Protestant husband who, although of one flesh with his wife, cannot participate in the Eucharist with his Catholic wife.

.

Why… because of that word deplored by Protestants everywhere… TRADITION.

Even the early church had this teaching which is not just a discipline - it is capital T Tradition… that those who were seeking to join the church could attend the Liturgy of the Word… where ALL are welcome.

But when the 2nd half of the Mass began… the Liturgy of the Eucharist… they were escorted out.

Though we would not escort our separated brethren out the door, they are not yet able to partake, fully, in the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

;

 

[Randy_Carson]

What you said here is wrong. You are taking the Nicene Creed out of context. It reads one holy, catholic and apostolic church (meaning one universal church not just the RC). I wholeheartedly believe in the Creeds and th real presence of Jesus in the eucharist.

You are correct.

The text reads “one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.”

There is only one church, however, that meets all four of these requirements.

The Catholic Church.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Old Catholics?

Well, I am 60. By some standards that makes me old.

I don’t know anything about the “Old Catholics” who I think broke away from the Catholics and are therefore “New catholics” or “New Something or other.”

CDL