A conversation about unity.

[Xeno.of.athens]

My solution of never again setting foot in a Catholic church? Agreed.

So much for unity.

It's up to you.

Faith and good deeds are not always fruit in the lives of professing Christians.

Holy Communion ought to be safeguarded.

Holy Communion must be closed because it is not merely symbolic fellowship but the real reception of Christ’s Body and Blood, requiring full communion with the Catholic Church. The Eucharist signifies and effects ecclesial unity; to admit those who do not profess the Catholic faith or who are in grave sin is to falsify that sign and risk sacrilege. St Paul warns, “Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11:27). Canon Law affirms this: “Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted… or who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion” (CIC 915). The Church is not being exclusive; she is being obedient to Christ’s command and protective of the sacrament’s sanctity.

Moreover, the Eucharist is the culmination of initiation into the Catholic faith, not a tool for ecumenical hospitality. Christ instituted the Last Supper within the covenantal context of the Passover, which was closed to the uncircumcised (Exodus 12:48). He said to the Twelve, “You are those who have continued with me in my trials… that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom” (Luke 22:28–30). This was not a public meal but a covenantal rite for those fully united to Him. To open Communion to those outside the Church or in a state of mortal sin is to ignore both the biblical precedent and the doctrinal integrity of the sacrament. The Church’s discipline is not uncharitable—it is truthful, reverent, and necessary.

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

and necessary.

Yes, that is always where the rubs come in.

The "or else" for non compliance with necessary.

Necessary for what and what is the penalty for non compliance and to what extents?

IF the conscience for some dictate that real presence is satisfactory rather than transubstantiation, is that close enough? OR are those in the real presence crowd doomed to heresy and potential eternal hell?

The "heretic/hell" formulas is how we all got to this place of divisions. It was like a whole new world of condemnation opportunities arose.

 

[Strong in Him]

It's up to you.

Of course.
Although as I'm never going to become a member of their church and they are never going to accept me unless I do, the choice is easy.

Faith and good deeds are not always fruit in the lives of professing Christians.

I'm not sure that good deeds are "fruit" at all. You don't even have to believe in God to do good deeds, as thousands of non Christians demonstrate.

Holy Communion ought to be safeguarded.

"Safeguarded" from who?
Born again, Spirit filled Christians who eat and drink, remembering that Christ died for them are in fellowship with him. Come to that, all believers are in fellowship, or communion, with him every day - whether they take "communion" or not. God also lives in all Christians by his Spirit. There is no teaching anywhere which says that people who have the "wrong" beliefs or say the "wrong" words will lose fellowship with him, or eternal life. Nothing can snatch us from God's hands not separate us from his love. He does not "disfellowship" with us over the Eucharist.

Holy Communion must be closed because it is not merely symbolic fellowship but the real reception of Christ’s Body and Blood, requiring full communion with the Catholic Church.

That is your view, your belief and your tradition, certainly.
Jesus didn't teach that. He shared his final meal on earth with a betrayer, someone who would deny him and others who would run away when he needed them most. What belief do you think they had, at the time when they were eating the meal?

The Eucharist signifies and effects ecclesial unity; to admit those who do not profess the Catholic faith or who are in grave sin is to falsify that sign and risk sacrilege.

In your tradition, maybe.

St Paul warns, “Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11:27).

Well firstly, none of us are worthy to receive.
It is the Lord who saved us, the Lord who cleanses us, the Lord who offered his life for us and the Lord who invites us to his table.
Secondly, that verse is often taken out of context. Paul was talking about the Corinthians have divisions and not treating each other as equals. Some people arrived at the fellowship meal and found there was little left; other believers were getting drunk at the meal. They were not respecting each other. He expanded on this in the next chapter when he talks about the church being the body of Christ. Each person has a different part to play - all are important and therefore equal.
Somehow this has become, "unless you believe the same things about the body and blood of Christ as we do, you're not welcome."

The Church is not being exclusive; she is being obedient to Christ’s command and protective of the sacrament’s sanctity.

Where did Jesus say, "anyone who does not believe that this bread is literally my body, may leave this table now"?
Sorry, but your church is being exclusive.
You may believe you have good grounds for being so . If anyone were to challenge the position in a court of law, you could be let off because it is your profound belief and obviously of great importance to you. But the action, "you may receive; you may not" is not one which fosters unity.

Moreover, the Eucharist is the culmination of initiation into the Catholic faith,

You mean the Christian faith; the Catholic church.

Christ instituted the Last Supper within the covenantal context of the Passover, which was closed to the uncircumcised (Exodus 12:48).

He wanted to share a final Passover with his friends, who all happened to be circumcised Jews.
That analogy doesn't work anyway, because I am a believing, baptised Christian.

This was not a public meal but a covenantal rite for those fully united to Him.

How far was Judas "fully united to him"?
Are you implying that non Catholics aren't?

To open Communion to those outside the Church or in a state of mortal sin is to ignore both the biblical precedent and the doctrinal integrity of the sacrament.

So Judas wasn't "in mortal sin" when he took part in the Last Supper?

I don't believe there is a "biblical precedent", Believers broke bread daily after the ascension - there is no record of what they believed and whether or not they were sinners.
Paul didn't say that some Corinthians should be excluded from the Lord's Supper.

 

[ARBITER01]

You mean the Christian faith;

No,........................ he meant exactly what he said, the Catholic faith.

 

[Strong in Him]

No,........................ he meant exactly what he said, the Catholic faith.

Aren't Catholics Christians then?

Different faiths are; Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism etc etc.
Catholics are members of the Christian faith. No one seems willing to admit it, but there is only ONE Gospel, which Catholics, and Protestants, share. Catholics and Protestants both have faith in Jesus, are saved and have eternal life.
There will be no factions in heaven.

 

[ARBITER01]

Aren't Catholics Christians then?

Different faiths are; Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism etc etc.
Catholics are members of the Christian faith. No one seems willing to admit it, but there is only ONE Gospel, which Catholics, and Protestants, share. Catholics and Protestants both have faith in Jesus, are saved and have eternal life.
There will be no factions in heaven.

Oh yea,..... that's a trick question just waiting for me to be honest.

I would refer you back to the Reformation. I don't think things have changed one bit, and I'm perfectly fine with that. There are bigger fish to fry with Jesus.

 

[Strong in Him]

Oh yea,..... that's a trick question just waiting for me to be honest.

I would refer you back to the Reformation. I don't think things have changed one bit, and I'm perfectly fine with that. There are bigger fish to fry with Jesus.

I'm sorry but I really don't know what you are referring to.

Our faith is Christianity.
There are, sadly, many groups within that - Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, evangelical, Methodist, Orthodox, Lutheran, URC etc etc.
ALL who love God, have received Jesus and been filled with his Spirit, are Christians.
We have the same God, same Saviour, Same Spirit, same Gospel, almost the same Bible etc etc. We have discussions on these forums and when somebody quotes a parable, we know that it was Jesus who said that and not Mohammed. We know that Jesus saves and not a different god. We have eternal life through Jesus, not through the endless reincarnation of Hinduism.

There IS a difference between "faiths" and "denominations" - look in any Bible handbook or maybe encyclopaedia.

 

[ARBITER01]

I'm sorry but I really don't know what you are referring to.

Our faith is Christianity.
There are, sadly, many groups within that - Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, evangelical, Methodist, Orthodox, Lutheran, URC etc etc.
ALL who love God, have received Jesus and been filled with his Spirit, are Christians.
We have the same God, same Saviour, Same Spirit, same Gospel, almost the same Bible etc etc. We have discussions on these forums and when somebody quotes a parable, we know that it was Jesus who said that and not Mohammed. We know that Jesus saves and not a different god. We have eternal life through Jesus, not through the endless reincarnation of Hinduism.

There IS a difference between "faiths" and "denominations" - look in any Bible handbook or maybe encyclopaedia.

I think you should do a bit more research on this subject instead of just accept things at face value.

I don't have anymore input to your questions or statements on this.

 

[Strong in Him]

I think you should do a bit more research on this subject instead of just accept things at face value.

I don't have anymore input to your questions or statements on this.

Oh well, if you don't want to engage any more; so be it.
I accept Catholics as belonging to the Christian faith. They may not view me in the same way, but that doesn't change the facts.

And if Catholics believe they really do have an entirely different faith to Protestants, there will never be unity. There isn't even any room for discussion.

 

[Strong in Him]

This reminds me of a Machine-shop teacher I had from 1974-77. This gentleman was in his mid-50's, had to retire early from the Ford Motor Company due to severe degenerative arthritis. Despite the debilitating illness, he had the reputation of being about the best Machine Shop Teacher in Ontario; and he had so many connections that being in his class, you were a shoe-in for an apprenticeship anywhere you wanted, or an introduction to any Engineering school you wanted. He was one of the most memorable and best teachers of my high school years.

So, what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

This: On the very first day, in his class-room, in his very first words to us, he stated "we are each here for different reasons, I am here to teach, you are here to learn; if you are not in agreement with this arrangement, there is the door, get out, we don't want you".

Everyone knew where they stood, even though some of us were destined to go into industry, some taking another direction. In his classroom, we accepted his rules;

Sounds ok, and yes, teachers are there to teach, keep classroom discipline etc and pupils are there to do as they are told, get their homework done, pass exams and not misbehave or give bad attitude.

But I'm sure there are many teachers who would say that they've learnt from their pupils. Maybe not in terms of academic knowledge, but patience, how to listen, how to manage challenging behaviours and, maybe sometimes, illnesses and so on.
And a child who challenged the rules would be told they had "attitude".

But we are not children. Yes, we accept, and respect, what another church teaches - that doesn't mean we don't have the right to question it or challenge people to explain it.

This is like Christian unity, ultimately, we may not agree, but we do respect an honor the house rules.

I never said that I didn't.
I thought, and still think, the rules are sometimes wrong. That doesn't mean that I have ever deliberately disobeyed them or done what Jesus did and openly challenged them.

Not always do we have clergy that spell it out as clearly as Morris Smith did in that class room so many years ago, but non of us are that naive that we should not know enough to find out ahead of time and either behave in a respectful and edifying manner in the houses of others.

I did. I just put up with it - doesn't mean that I believed their rules were correct, or beneficial and showed real Christian love.

I seem to remember that Jesus was invited for a meal by a Pharisee, Luke 14.
He healed a man on the Sabbath when he knew the leaders wouldn't have liked it. He as good as told them that they were being hypocritical - and then he criticised the guests for all choosing the best places.
I seem to remember that Jesus went into the temple on one occasion, overturned the tables of the money lenders, made whips and drove the traders out and then told them all that they had turned God's house into a robbers' den.
I was never going to go that far; I didn't even complain. But Jesus and the disciples had form for "breaking someone else's rules."

When you are welcomed by someone, as a guest and are shown hospitality, it does not mean that you are welcome to sleep with the wife of the person who invited you into their home.

Well Jesus didn't sleep with the Pharisee's wife - he did criticise his friends though.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Oh yea,..... that's a trick question just waiting for me to be honest.

I wonder what "honest" means in your post. I suspect it is a substitute for other words that are far less acceptable in a civil discussion.

I would refer you back to the Reformation. I don't think things have changed one bit, and I'm perfectly fine with that. There are bigger fish to fry with Jesus.

 

[ARBITER01]

I wonder what "honest" means in your post.

Let me answer that with a question,...

Why would I purposely refuse to be honest on "here" about a subject?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Let me answer that with a question,...

Why would I purposely refuse to be honest on "here" about a subject?

I cannot read minds so why ask me what your state of mind might be? Surely you know your own mind and your own motives.

 

[The Liturgist]

Honestly, I see it the opposite. Partaking at a denomination/church that believes it to only be a symbol or "spiritual communion" is simply showing that you can agree with the basics that they believe and partake of a symbolic event. Contrarily, partaking at a church that believes that their Eucharist has the Real Presence....but I don't believe that it does, that's a step towards legitimizing their beliefs, which I don't agree with, so there isn't unity in their ideas.

The issue with that thesis I would argue is that it cannot be applicable in the case of denominations like the SDA which dogmatically reject the Real Presence.

 

[ARBITER01]

I cannot read minds so why as me what your state of mind might be? Surely you know your own mind and your own motives.

Did you know that the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement is the fastest growing branch of Christianity in the world?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Did you know that the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement is the fastest growing branch of Christianity in the world?

one or more CF members have said so, it does not matter.

 

[ARBITER01]

one or more CF members have said so, it does not matter.

Well, I think it matters considerably.

We as a modern Protestant branch of Christianity have only been around for a little more than a 100 years, yet we are on the cutting edge with GOD it seems. We are doing quite well currently, so why would we be interested in looking back to other denominations, whether Protestant or not, and being concerned with unity?

I don't see how entertaining that would be beneficial to us one bit, given our current projection of growth to 1 billion by 2050.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Well, I think it matters considerably.

We as a modern Protestant branch of Christianity have only been around for a little more than a 100 years, yet we are on the cutting edge with GOD it seems. We are doing quite well currently, so why would we be interested in looking back to other denominations, whether Protestant or not, and being concerned with unity?

I don't see how entertaining that would be beneficial to us one bit, given our current projection of growth to 1 billion by 2050.

Size is irrelevant; a barrel of spoiled ale is not better than a glass of fresh Pilsner.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Well, I think it matters considerably.

We as a modern Protestant branch of Christianity have only been around for a little more than a 100 years, yet we are on the cutting edge with GOD it seems.

you might as well compare yourselves to Islam.

We are doing quite well currently, so why would we be interested in looking back to other denominations, whether Protestant or not, and being concerned with unity?

Have you never read Jesus' prayer in John's gospel, chapters 13 to 17?

I don't see how entertaining that would be beneficial to us one bit, given our current projection of growth to 1 billion by 2050.

If you fight for your own party then have at it.

 

[ARBITER01]

If you fight for your own party then have at it.

I think we should.

I don't see any benefit to looking back and trying to drag another denomination along with us, especially when some of them only want things on their terms, with no consideration to ours.

Why have the battle, why put up with the fight, why deal with the ridiculousness of it? I don't see how it would be an improvement to us if we were somehow joined in doctrine to another denomination of old.

Maybe I'm being a little bit smug, but I see us moving ahead with GOD, and HE's not placed it in our hearts to be concerned with the plight of other faith groups.