A conversation about unity.

[Strong in Him]

He is welcome at Mass but not free to take the body and blood of Jesus because he does not believe that they are truly his body and blood.

According to your church - I doubt the Lord sees it the same way.
What did the disciples who were celebrating the Passover with Jesus truly believe? Did Jesus ask for a declaration of faith before he shared bread and wine with them?

It makes no sense for your husband or yourself to wish for communion when you both completely reject what is offered believing it to be symbolic or perhaps "spiritual" but not real.

The Minister, or vicar, says at communion, "the body of Christ, broken for you/the blood of Christ shed for you".
Do I believe that? Yes. Jesus is the bread of life and the true Vine. His body was broken for us and his blood shed for us. We eat and drink in memory of him. We take the bread of life into our bodies and ask Jesus to come again into our lives, fill us with his Spirit and cleanse us by his blood.
I believe that happens - and actually, not only at communion, but every day.
You/your church seem to demand that we believe that a piece of bread - most likely picked up at the supermarket - literally turns into the flesh of Jesus. And unless we believe in this literal act, then we are not receiving him and cannot be in communion with him.

Nonsense.
I believed in Jesus, received him as my friend and prayed to him long before I started receiving communion or knew what it was all about.
Like I said, how many of the disciples - including Judas Iscariot - really knew at the time what it was all about?

Only myself and the Lord have the right to judge what I believe and whether or not I am in fellowship with him.

I would not willingly take the bread and juice offered because for me that is just bread and juice.

Your choice.
To me it is the body and blood of Christ, I am eating and drinking to remember him and what he did for me, and I am receiving him, by faith, into my life.

I don't believe that anyone, or any human institution, has the right to tell me that that is invalid and I am NOT in fellowship - communion - with God through Christ.

 

[Valletta]

You are not really getting it are you? All Christians are the body of Christ. There are no Christians that are more Christian than others. Jesus didn’t come just for the sake of your tradition.

Jesus passed down HIS Sacred Tradition to us through the Apostles.

 

[Valletta]

According to your church - I doubt the Lord sees it the same way.
What did the disciples who were celebrating the Passover with Jesus truly believe? Did Jesus ask for a declaration of faith before he shared bread and wine with them?

Those disciples of Jesus who did not believe His words of eating His true Body and drinking His true Blood walked away. They found His words too much of a "hard saying" to accept.

1 Cor 11:29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. RSVCE

 

[Strong in Him]

Those disciples of Jesus who did not believe His words of eating His true Body and drinking His true Blood walked away. They found His words too much of a "hard saying" to accept.

I was talking about the Last Supper - the Passover meal that Jesus shared with his friends before he died.
How many of those at the table - including Judas - knew, and understood, what it was about?
Where, at that table, did Jesus demand they believe that the bread and wine literally became his body and blood?
How many were excluded from that meal because they did not "believe the correct things" about the bread and wine?

 

[Strong in Him]

Jesus passed down HIS Sacred Tradition to us through the Apostles.

Who wrote it down, and it's now in our Bible.
Neither they, nor Jesus, said that we had to believe the "correct" things about the Eucharistic bread and wine before we could receive it.

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

Jesus passed down HIS Sacred Tradition to us through the Apostles.

Who's "us?"

In the RCC the only people in the know are the officials. Other people (their congregants) are given only reasonable assurances that they are saved.

It seems kind of weird that none of them even really know if they are saved

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Who wrote it down, and it's now in our Bible.
Neither they, nor Jesus, said that we had to believe the "correct" things about the Eucharistic bread and wine before we could receive it.

Proof texts have already been shared with extensive discussion regarding "worthiness" of the manner of reception, and failing to "discern" the body and the blood.

Maybe look at what you have posted so far, I only see a vitriol-laced desire to brow-beat those who believe differently; with no desire for any meaningful or positive discussion.

Rather than desiring or even exploring where unity might be applied, your posting style (and that of some others) here are more akin to driving a wedge between fellow Christians.

Shameful actually.

 

[Strong in Him]

Other people (their congregants) are given only reasonable assurances that they are saved.

It seems kind of weird that none of them even really know if they are saved

Surely not?

 

[Valletta]

Who's "us?"

In the RCC the only people in the know are the officials. Other people (their congregants) are given only reasonable assurances that they are saved.

It seems kind of weird that none of them even really know if they are saved

Jesus is very much in the know. While all who are baptized have been saved through Baptism, we continue to be saved. The Bible is clear on salvation:

Phil 2:12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; RSVCE

 

[Strong in Him]

Maybe look at what you have posted so far, I only see a vitriol-laced desire to brow-beat those who believe differently; with no desire for any meaningful or positive discussion.

I'm not brow beating anybody. I was stating facts.
It has already been said in this thread that Catholics, alone, preserve the truth. How can there be unity, then, when others are being excluded?
I have said that Catholics would be welcomed at our church and at the Lord's table. I was told that we do not believe the correct things about the body and blood and that, one person at least, would not want to share "bread and juice" with us.

How is it that I am showing vitriol towards others?
I was trying to point out that belief was not a factor when Jesus desired to share a final Passover meal with his friends. Yes, even though they were going to betray, deny, desert and didn't fully understand him, they were still his friends.
So ALL friends of Jesus should be welcome at his table in EVERY church.

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

Jesus is very much in the know.

There's a lot of things that Jesus knows that we don't. God, after all

Officially those with reasonable assurance is categorically not assurance only. Reasonable assurance includes mandatory doubt

 

[Strong in Him]

Jesus is very much in the know. While all who are baptized have been saved through Baptism, we continue to be saved. The Bible is clear on salvation:

"Salvation" actually refers to two things.
i) Being saved from eternal death, hell and the final punishment for sin.
All Christians who accept Jesus are, and have been, saved for he, alone, gives eternal life. Peter and the Apostles urged people to be saved, Acts 4:12; Romans 10:9; Ephesians 2:8.
ii) The word "sozo" means wholeness - completely whole in body, mind and spirit. Obviously none of us will have this complete wholeness until we die. The Holy Spirit is still changing us into Jesus' image and likeness, 2 Corinthians 3:18.

As I see it, "working out your salvation" does not mean working out whether or not you are saved - it means applying your salvation, new beliefs and new life. Working out how we can glorify God in the situations in which we find ourselves.
God has also said that nothing can snatch us from his hand, John 10:29, nor separate us from his love, Romans 8:38-39.

 

[Hentenza]

Jesus passed down HIS Sacred Tradition to us through the Apostles.

According to your church. Historically, given the Catholic Church growing pains, I’m not sure you understand the scope of what that means.

 

[tampasteve]

Surely not?

Absolutely not, that was a super uninformed opinion being stated.

 

[The Liturgist]

But even the orthodox, you know, the other orthodox sects, disagree, legitimately so.

Actually the doctrine of the Orthodox Church (we are not sects) is very nearly identical to that of the Roman Catholic Church. We believe the Catholic Church, which we know includes us, and which might include others, since we don’t claim to know where the Church is not, posesses the fullness of the truth.

One minor difference might be that since schisms have on occasion occurred and been resolved, for example, among the Eastern Orthodox, ROCOR was briefly canonically isolated from the other canonical churches, and likewise among the Oriental Orthodox the Armenians were out of cumminion with the Syriac Orthodox, and probably the Copts, for a few centuries, there is no definite answer on who was in the wrong during a schism. The Roman Church has had schisms, most notably the Great Western Schism (that sounds like a railway) during the Avignon Papacy, but in those, correct me if I’m wrong @Xeno.of.athens - there is generally an established Pope vs. antipope or antipopes in the case of the aformentioned Great Western Schism, but I would assume the laity in parish churches not intending to participate in a schism whose worship remains the same are not viewed as being seriously endangered, since they are not knowingly engaged in schismatic activity - rather that would require a situation where the schism was obvious to the laity, such as with the Presbyterians vs. Catholics in Scotland.

Another difference relates to the same issue, and that is that most Orthodox other than the Ecumenical Patriarchate do not regard Orthodoxy as depending on being in communion with a particular church (and historically, neither has most of tne EP, but the current Archbishop of North America does seem to take such a view).

However in general the idea of unity remains the same, also the idea of apostolic succession, although the Eastern Orthodox use the model of Apostolic Succession of St. Cyprian of Carthage rather than that of another more famous bishop in North Africa, St. Augustine of Hippo, that means only Orthodox bishops can confer Apostolic Succession; I do not know if this applies to the Oriental Orthodox or the Assyrian Church of the East or the Ancient Church of the East; the latter two have the complication of having endured centuries of an hereditary Patriarchate in which one nephew, usually the younger, of the Catholicos of the East would inherit his uncle’s role, while the elder would be responsible for continuing the patriarchal family - this was uncanonical, a violation of the apostolic canons which preclude a bishop from appointing his successor, and contributed to the schism between the Assyrian Church of the East and the Ancient Church of the East.

 

[The Liturgist]

I’m really baffled as to why some members want to partake of the Euchaeist of churches which believe in a doctrine, the Real Presence, which they reject.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I’m really baffled as to why some members want to partake of the Euchaeist of churches which believe in a doctrine, the Real Presence, which they reject.

It's some kind of obsession.

 

[Strong in Him]

I’m really baffled as to why some members want to partake of the Euchaeist of churches which believe in a doctrine, the Real Presence, which they reject.

Generally, I don't.
I don't belong to the Catholic church and would not go there to demand communion.

I referred to two incidents in a previous post;
i) I was in a Catholic church to preach a sermon. Every year, during the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity the churches in my area had a pulpit swap. The Catholic church had agreed to take part in this, and that year they "swapped" with the Methodists - so they got me.
I had hoped that, given the nature of the event, the church would be holding an ordinary service, or that they might consent to let me take part in communion. Neither of those things happened.
I would have no problem taking communion - receiving the body and blood of Christ - in a Catholic church. This is what we do to remember Jesus, the bread of life and true vine who gave his life for us.
It was ironic, and rather hurtful, that during a week of prayer for Christian Unity, which the Catholic church had fully agreed to take part in - I felt excluded and unwelcome.
ii) the second occasion was when I wanted to go on a silent retreat. Yes, I was fully aware that it was being led/run by Catholics - so what? Despite what others might think, I have no problem worshipping alongside Catholics.
Their literature made a point of saying that all were welcome. I thought that might mean that other denominations would be welcome at the retreat and that, if communion was to be shared, other provision would be made for the non Catholics. I was wrong. 90% (at least) of those there were nuns and it was obvious that I was the only non Catholic. (No liturgy was provided; everyone else knew what they were saying/doing.)
I would have had no problem receiving the body and blood of our Lord had it been offered - it wasn't. Not to me, anyway.

I left the retreat early.

 

[Strong in Him]

It's some kind of obsession.

Judgement.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I’m really baffled as to why some members want to partake of the Euchaeist of churches which believe in a doctrine, the Real Presence, which they reject.

.... up until about two weeks ago, I was trying to look for possible churches who might permit the exploration of natural science, methodological naturalism and the theory of evolution without cutting me off over it.

But now, from what I've engaged through further study and by the general attitude of all you "Catholic" and/or "Orthodox" fellow Trinitarian Christians in this here thread, I don't think I'll be exchanging (or accommodating) my minimalist, philosophical theology any time soon.

If I have to jump through a bunch of additional doctrinal hoops just to be "accepted," then unity as Catholics see it can take a hike.