A conversation about unity.

[MarkRohfrietsch]

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.

Missing out on something, maybe?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Judgement.

Judge not...

 

[Strong in Him]

Judge not...

Agreed - but I wasn't the one doing the judging.

The judgement was that some people have an obsession with wanting to receive communion in a Catholic church.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Agreed - but I wasn't the one doing the judging.

The judgement was that some people have an obsession with wanting to receive communion in a Catholic church.

I can't say that I ever had an obsession with it, but it isn't something I detest. It's just that THEY feel the need to contest my presence if I don't give my full assent to the totality of Magisterial dogmas.

Sorry y'all. But I still luv my Catholic brethren though.

 

[tampasteve]

So ALL friends of Jesus should be welcome at his table in EVERY church.

Parking of the eucharist/communion is an outward sign of being properly prepared as well as unity with the church that you are taking it at. If you are not Catholic then you are not prepared or in unity with the church, why would you want to pretend otherwise? I am in an impaired state with the RCC and can't take communion either. The Eucharist matters to the Catholic Church, it isn't just a symbol and it isn't just sharing a meal - it is the literal body and blood of Christ, it isn't just a sign or symbol. If one attends a denomination where it is just a symbol or sign then fine, we can all partake as that is just a symbolic gesture.

 

[Valletta]

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

Follow the Bible on salvation. Your salvation does not depend upon assurance or reasonable assurance from any man. We have been saved through Baptism but can fall. Again:

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]

Parking of the eucharist/communion is an outward sign of being properly prepared as well as unity with the church that you are taking it at. If you are not Catholic then you are not prepared or in unity with the church, why would you want to pretend otherwise?

As far as I am concerned I would not be pretending anything.
There is one God, one Saviour, One Holy Spirit and one Gospel. All who receive Christ have eternal life, John 6:40, are children of God, John 1:12 and have passed from death to life. That's everyone - Catholics, Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists, non denominational or someone in deepest Africa who has just been taught the Gospel.
I don't agree with some aspects of Catholic teaching but I have often said on these forums that they are my brothers and sisters in Christ. We have the same Saviour and same heavenly Father - of course we are in unity. The Catholic church might not see it that way but that is what I believe Scripture teaches.
When I was in a Catholic church, at their invitation, it would have been nice to have received communion, with them, as fellow Christians together.
Yes, maybe in their eyes I'm the same as an infidel/not worthy of it/out of communion with the church. I don't see it that way and, fwiw, I don't believe God does either.

Though it is academic in a way as I doubt I will ever go to a Catholic church again.

I am in an impaired state with the RCC and can't take communion either.

According to the Catholic church, maybe not.
I'm sure you'd be very welcome to receive it elsewhere.

The Eucharist matters to the Catholic Church,

It matters to me too.
It matters very much that Jesus told his disciples to "do this in memory of me" and churches, of all denominations, impose man made rules which exclude people.

it isn't just a symbol and it isn't just sharing a meal - it is the literal body and blood of Christ,

When we have communion the Minister says "the body of Christ to keep you in eternal life" - that is what it is and that is what we receive.
I'm not going to get into an argument about whether it remains a piece of homemade/shop-bought bread or turns into literal flesh; I don't see that that's necessary and Scripture doesn't teach it.
If Catholics remain adamant that I am not receiving the body of Christ or regard it appropriately; so be it.
They would have no right to judge nor to comment on my relationship with the Lord. Especially not on a public forum in a thread which claims to be interested in unity.

 

[Valletta]

I can't say that I ever had an obsession with it, but it isn't something I detest. It's just that THEY feel the need to contest my presence if I don't give my full assent to the totality of Magisterial dogmas.

Sorry y'all. But I still luv my Catholic brethren though.

It is indeed a "hard saying," I would go to a Catholic Church and pray before the Lord in the Holy Eucharist and ask Him to reveal to you if it is really Him inside of the tabernacle. You are welcome to attend a mass, very welcome, just not to participate in receiving Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. Realize that most Catholics at this moment in time would not be allowed to receive communion, we are to be properly disposed.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It is indeed a "hard saying," I would go to a Catholic Church and pray before the Lord in the Holy Eucharist and ask Him to reveal to you if it is really Him inside of the tabernacle. You are welcome to attend a mass, very welcome, just not to participate in receiving Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. Realize that most Catholics at this moment in time would not be allowed to receive communion, we are to be properly disposed.

That's funny, because if I were to invite you to one of the Restorationist churches I used to attend, they'd have zero problem with you joining in Communion as long as you've already been baptized "somewhere" in a Trinitarian church.

Nevertheless, I appreciate the Pascalian style invitation.

 

[jas3]

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

A sense of entitlement maybe? It baffles me too. It's like going to a wedding and being mad you can't walk up in the middle of the service and try on the rings yourself.

 

[Carl Emerson]

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.

The 'real presence' has become a divisive demand rather than a Grace as the Wind of the Spirit blows.

 

[Strong in Him]

A sense of entitlement maybe? It baffles me too. It's like going to a wedding and being mad you can't walk up in the middle of the service and try on the rings yourself.

I can't speak for anyone else, but you clearly haven't read my reply.

I have no "sense of entitlement"; I don't normally go to a Catholic church and have no intention of doing so in the future.
And I also have no intention at all of going to Mass, trying to trick the priest into giving me communion and telling him the truth afterwards.

 

[The Liturgist]

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.

Don’t forget the Confessional Lutherans, the Assyrian Church of the East and the Ancient Church of the East. The latter two will permit NIcene Christians to receive the Eucharist, but only if they believe in the real presence, which I think is as open as any of the traditional liturgical churches that believes in the real presence can safely be.

The bitter irony in all of this is that the aforementioned churches with the possible exception of the Confessional Lutherans are among the least likely to bother you over any issue of natural science of evolution; indeed the idea of the BIg Bang as an explanation of Hubble’s discovery of the increasing distance between galaxies was articulated by a Roman Catholic priest who engaged in astronomy (and not even at the Vatican Observatory, if memory serves, although that is a very good scientific institute).

The doctrine you’re being asked to accept by the way as a precondition to receiving our Eucharist - not even to attending our services, mind you, or receiving a blessing, or in the case of the Orthodox, antidoron (blessed bread) but merely receiving the Eucharist, is that you believe what Christ our True God said about it, that it is His Body, broken for us and for many for the remission of sins, and His blood of the new covenant, and that the Eucharist is an anamnesis of our Lord, in which we participate in the Last Supper - there is indeed only one Eucharist, and one Baptism, and that is what we participate in.

Also in the case of the Orthodox an Orthodox Christian cannot be an Iconoclast, a Nestorian, a Eutychian, a Monothelite, or otherwise an adherent of a doctrine contrary to the faith of the ecumenical councils (the Oriental Orthodox did not participate in the fifth, sixth and seventh council and disagreed with the specific wording adopted at the fourth, but did agree with the fourth in terms of having anathematized Eutyches, and with the Sixth and Seventh also anathematized monothelitism and iconclasm despite not participating in the councils; indeed unlike the Eastern Orthodox the Oriental Orthodox never had a Patriarchate come under the control of Iconoclasts).

Even with regards to the Eucharist, what matters to the Eastern churches, with our emphasis on apophatic theology (using the via negativa rather than affirmative statements of doctrine) is that people do not believe a theology that denies the real physical presence of Christ; as far as how that presence occurs, we have no official explanation, other than it is a sacred mystery, although on occasion some of our saints have used the word Transubstantiation, but primarily to differentiate our position from that of Calvinists who admit only a spiritual presence, or Zwinglians who reduce the Eucharist to a sign or symbol, or Memorialists who deny even that, or Receptionists.

And there are scriptural reasons for not believing in Zwinglianism, Memorialism or Receptionism, for our Lord did not say “This is a symbol of my body” or “This is not really my body in any meaningful way” or “This will not become my body until you partake of it” but rather “This is my body” and “This is my blood.” Which is why Martin Luther famously carved HOC EST CORPVS MEVM into the table at the Marburg Colloquy.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

.... 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.

That's right, unity takes more than just saying "I believe in Jesus, I demand that you accept me and give me communion even though I utterly reject the Holy Eucharist as the real body and blood of Jesus Christ. And I demand membership even though I completely reject your bishops and priests and confession and all those terrible "Popery" things". yep, that is not acceptable as unity to Catholics, I cannot see why anybody would call that unity.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The 'real presence' has become a divisive demand rather than a Grace as the Wind of the Spirit blows.

It has been a cause for some to go into schism for many many centuries. Why would it be otherwise now?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Agreed - but I wasn't the one doing the judging.

The judgement was that some people have an obsession with wanting to receive communion in a Catholic church.

if such persons do not have an obsession with it then why do they write so many complaints about not receiving communion in a Catholic Church when they are Protestants who reject the core of Catholic teaching?

 

[The Liturgist]

The 'real presence' has become a divisive demand rather than a Grace as the Wind of the Spirit blows.

The divisive demand is that being made by non-members of various churches inexplicably demanding to receive communion in them despite rejecting the beliefs those churches have concerning 1 Corinthians 11, in particular 1 Corinthians 11:27-34. Frankly I’m astonished at the lack of respect being shown for the faith of the most persecuted churches on the planet, in that people want to partake of our Eucharist apparently, without either becoming members of our churches or even agreeing with our doctrine. Why do they want to do that? I don’t know.

We, meanwhile, are working on restoring communion among ourselves, for we define unity as a Eucharistic unity, and have been making excellent progress.

The idea that doctrine is irrelevant or an impediment to communion originates in the 18th century with Pietism, and in the Anglican communion with a similiar movement of the same age called Latitudinarianism, which in the latter case was a bit more specific, seeking to de-emphasize the different views of High Church Anglicans from Low Church Anglicans (in the end, in most provinces the High Church or Anglo Catholic position became dominant).

The problem with Pietism and Latitudinarianism is they in turn led to the Broad Church movement, which led to the acceptance of liberal theology in the interests of avoiding disunity, which led to the mainline Protestant churches in the US tolerating gay marriage. Indeed, that nearly happened to the LCMS, as their main seminary came with a hair‘s breadth of being taken over by liberals, but the plot was thwarted at the last moment.

The other thing that is absurd about all of this is that at no time has any member of a traditional church present in this thread sought to partake of the Eucharist of those denominations which reject the idea of the real presence (a list which no longer includes Anglicanism, at least in the US, since we do not use the 1662 BCP but rather a version of the Scottish BCP, and the non-Juring Scottish Episcopalians always believed in the Real Presence, but being Anglicans would have admitted to the Eucharist anyone except a “notorious evil liver” as provided for in the rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer.

 

[jas3]

I can't speak for anyone else, but you clearly haven't read my reply.

I have, even though I usually have you ignored. It speaks to an astounding lack of even basic familiarity with the traditional Christian (and, I would add more specifically, the traditional Methodist) understanding of communion. Being a guest at another church entitles you to their sacraments no more than being a guest at a wedding entitles you to try on the rings.

I'll add that I find the idea of a "pulpit swap" frankly incomprehensible. But then again, that kind of ecumenist nonsense is part of why I didn't become Roman Catholic when I left Methodism.

 

[The Liturgist]

when they are Protestants

It would be more accurate to say “Reformed Protestants and Restorationists” since our Lutheran and High Church Anglican friends are Protestants but accept the real presence; indeed in the US some Continuing Anglicans enumerate seven sacraments. And in London, post Traditiones Custodes, if one wants to attend a Traditional Latin Mass, St. Magnus the Martyr is the only option in the square mile of the City of London (also I can’t recall if there are any Roman Catholic churches there other than the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church located in the former King’s Weigh House, which was a high church Reformed Catholic Congregational parish which taught the Real Presence and whose final presbyter attempted to use it as a bridge between Catholicism and Protestantism, as a means of restoring unity along Catholic doctrinal lines, but without success, so he gave up and joined the RCC.

 

[The Liturgist]

But then again, that kind of ecumenist nonsense is part of why I didn't become Roman Catholic when I left Methodism.

Rest assured, you won’t find that in the Orthodox Church, except between churches we are in communion with, for example, Fr. Josiah Trenham delivered a homily at a parish near his that if I recall is of another denomination and made a delightful joke about the youth of his parish sneaking out to associate with the youth of that parish. Also people like Metropolitan Kalllistos Ware have spoken at Oriental Orthodox churches but not in the context of the homily at the Divine Liturgy (although intercommunion does exist, at least in the middle east*, for members of the Syriac Orthodox and Antiochian Orthodox under the ecumenical agreement between the Syriac Orthodox and Antiochian Orthodox Patriarchs in the early 1990s, His Holiness Ignatius Zakka Iwas and His beatitude Ignatius IV, but that being said the two churches haven’t yet formally concelebrated the liturgy).

*In the US, apparently this is not the case with the AOCNA, but the AOCNA is a special case - an autonomous church of ethnic Antiochians that used to be part of the Russian Orthodox Church which was itself shattered into two parts like the rest of the ROC as a result of the Bolshevik revolution, and which in its reunified state retains various Slavonic influences in its church music and other things, for example, the system of liturgical colors.