Protestant Taking Communion...

[ps139]

It is the current teaching of the Catholic Church, more or less, that the priests of the Anglican and Lutheran Churches are not validly ordained to the same understanding that the Catholic Church has of what a priest is ordained to do. (That sentence has a great deal of weasel-wording in it, to make clear that, while Catholicism has backed down from the definitive "Anglican orders are invalid" stance of Leo XIII, the church still holds that an Anglican priest is not ordained as a "sacrificing priest" in the way that a Catholic priest is, and that the question of Anglican orders is still highly questionable in consequence.) Accordingly, while a Catholic will still be warmly welcomed in an Anglican church and invited to partake of the Eucharist, he or she is expected by the Catholic Church not to take communion there.

I have actually heard of a Lutheran group who is considered to be validly ordained. Has anyone else heard of them?

 

[Lotar]

The ECLA has a bishop. I don't know if he's considered valid though.

 

[Polycarp1]

According to the understanding of Anglicans and Lutherans to whom the question matters, Bishops in the Church of Sweden (a Lutheran church) and the Lutheran Church of Finland preserved the Apostolic Succession when they converted (under orders of King Gustavus I Vasa) from Catholicism to Lutheranism, and transmitted valid orders down to the present. At least some American Lutheran bishops were consecrated by them and in token preserve valid orders.

 

[ps139]

According to the understanding of Anglicans and Lutherans to whom the question matters, Bishops in the Church of Sweden (a Lutheran church) and the Lutheran Church of Finland preserved the Apostolic Succession when they converted (under orders of King Gustavus I Vasa) from Catholicism to Lutheranism, and transmitted valid orders down to the present. At least some American Lutheran bishops were consecrated by them and in token preserve valid orders.

Thanks Polycarp

 

[Aaron-Aggie]

I like to cut and paste so I going do so even though every one has well addressed this issue

As always I offer no interpetation of this, please seek the advice of a priest.

PART I : THE SACRAMENTS

Can. 840 The sacraments of the New Testament were instituted by Christ the Lord and entrusted to the Church. As actions of Christ and of the Church, they are signs and means by which faith is expressed and strengthened, worship is offered to God and our sanctification is brought about. Thus they contribute in the most effective manner to establishing, strengthening and manifesting ecclesiastical communion. Accordingly, in the celebration of the sacraments both the sacred ministers and all the other members of Christ's faithful must show great reverence and due care.


Can. 841 Since the sacraments are the same throughout the universal Church, and belong to the divine deposit of faith, only the supreme authority in the Church can approve or define what is needed for their validity. It belongs to the same authority, or to another competent authority in accordance with can. 838 §3 and 4, to determine what is required for their lawful celebration, administration and reception and for the order to be observed in their celebration.


Can. 842 §1 A person who has not received baptism cannot validly be admitted to the other sacraments.


§2 The sacraments of baptism, confirmation and the blessed Eucharist so complement one another that all three are required for full Christian initiation.


Can. 843 §1 Sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who opportunely ask for them, are properly disposed and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.


§2 According to their respective offices in the Church, both pastors of souls and all other members of Christ's faithful have a duty to ensure that those who ask for the sacraments are prepared for their reception. This should be done through proper evangelization and catechetical instruction, in accordance with the norms laid down by the competent authority.


Can. 844 §1 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments only to catholic members of Christ's faithful, who equally may lawfully receive them only from catholic ministers, except as provided in §2, 3 and 4 of this canon and in can. 861 §2.


§2 Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ's faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.


§3 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the eastern Churches not in full communion with the catholic Church, if they spontaneously ask for them and are properly disposed. The same applies to members of other Churches which the Apostolic See judges to be in the same position as the aforesaid eastern Churches so far as the sacraments are concerned.


§4 If there is a danger of death or if, in the judgment of the diocesan Bishop or of the Episcopal Conference, there is some other grave and pressing need, catholic ministers may lawfully administer these same sacraments to other Christians not in full communion with the catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who spontaneously ask for them, provided that they demonstrate the catholic faith in respect of these sacraments and are properly disposed.


§5 In respect of the cases dealt with in §2, 3 and 4, the diocesan Bishop or the Episcopal Conference is not to issue general norms except after consultation with the competent authority, at least at the local level, of the non-Catholic Church or community concerned.

Also see this : http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/intercom.htm

 

[Benedicta00]

According to the understanding of Anglicans and Lutherans to whom the question matters, Bishops in the Church of Sweden (a Lutheran church) and the Lutheran Church of Finland preserved the Apostolic Succession when they converted (under orders of King Gustavus I Vasa) from Catholicism to Lutheranism, and transmitted valid orders down to the present. At least some American Lutheran bishops were consecrated by them and in token preserve valid orders.

But if a Lutheran “priest” valid or not does not believe in the true meaning of the real presence intending to do what the Church does and/or says the words of consecration incorrectly, the sacrament is not valid, correct?

 

[Benedicta00]

Many Protestants believe in the keeping of a Holy Lent, and at least some, like us Anglicans, go for the imposition of ashes on Ash Wednesday in token of ongoing repentance "revved up" in the traditional season for focusing on repentance and amendment of life.

Which is not to say that folks may not "go through the motions" without the requisite intent, in New Orleans or elsewhere, Catholic or not....

Here, there are many good Protestants who celebrate Ash Wednesday and give ashes. I was referring to the cultural Christians in my area. If you have ever lived here or visited here you would know what I was saying. Ashes are just a cultural thing to them and have no real spiritual significance.

The routine is, you have your fun during Mardi Gras season and that is all people of all faiths or of no faith at all, it is only a party here except the fundemental baptist, they boycott it because they feel it is pagan and sinful. Then you go get ashes the next day, eat seafood (no fasting) and on Fridays during lent you eat crawfish and on Good Friday everyone pretty much as the day off so the go to the casino or shopping. On Easter they may or may not go to Mass.

That is a typical lapsed Catholic during lent down here.

 

[John the Engineer]

Wow, I go to sleep for one little night and wake up to find five pages! Amazing discussion guys. Unfortunately I had to "skim" the last few cause I gotta get to some stuff, but just wanted to thank everyone for your responses.

 

[Lotar]

But if a Lutheran “priest” valid or not does not believe in the true meaning of the real presence intending to do what the Church does and/or says the words of consecration incorrectly, the sacrament is not valid, correct?

The Lutheran position on the real presence is similiar to that of the EO, they don't want to push a definition. A Lutheran is required to believe in the real presence, but the definition of how it takes place is up to the believer.

The EO do not subscribe to transubstantiation, yet their sacraments are valid. So why would the Lutheran Church's be invalid?

 

[Oblio]

Lotar, could you post the Lutheran Communion Prayer ?

Is it something along the lines of :

I believe O Lord, and I confess, that this is truly thine own Pure Body and thine own Precious Blood ...

 

[Lotar]

Lotar, could you post the Lutheran Communion Prayer ?

Is it something along the lines of :

I believe O Lord, and I confess, that this is truly thine own Pure Body and thine own Precious Blood ...

I'll have to search for it, I don't have it memorized.

Here is what it says in the small catechism:

The Sacrament of the Altar


As the head of the family should teach it in a simple way to his household.

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]What is the Sacrament of the Altar?
It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine, instituted by Christ Himself for us Christians to eat and to drink.

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Where is this written?
The holy Evangelists Matthew, Mark, Luke and St. Paul write: Our Lord Jesus Christ, on the night when He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and gave it to the disciples and said: "Take, eat; this is My body, which is given for you. This do in remembrance of Me." In the same way also he took the cup after supper, and when He had given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you; this cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for you for the forgiveness of sins. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]What is the benefit of this eating and drinking?
These words, "Given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins," shows us that in the Sacrament forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given us through these words. For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]How can bodily eating and drinking do such great things?
Certainly not just eating and drinking do these things, but the words written here: "Given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins." These words, along with the bodily eating and drinking, are the main thing in the Sacrament. Whoever believes these words has exactly what they say: "forgiveness of sins."[/font] [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Who receives this sacrament worthily?
Fasting and bodily preparation are certainly fine outward training. But that person is truly worthy and well prepared who has faith in these words: "Given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins." But anyone who does not believe these words or doubts them is unworthy and unprepared, for the words "for you" require all hearts to believe. [/font]

http://old.www.lcms.org/president/aboutlcms/bookofconcord/smallcatechism.asp#sacrament[/font]

 

[Polycarp1]

From "An Outline of the Faith, commonly called the Catechism" (BCP pp. 859-860)

The Holy Eucharist
Q What is the Holy Eucharist?

A The Holy Eucharist is the sacrament commanded by Christ for the continual remembrance of his life, death, and resurrection, until his coming again.

Q Why is the Eucharist called a sacrifice?

A Because the Eucharist, the Church's sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, is the way by which the sacrifice of Christ is made present, and in which he unites us to his one offering of himself.

Q By what other names is this service known?

A The Holy Eucharist is called the Lord's Supper, and Holy Communion; it is also known as the Divine Liturgy, the Mass, and the Great Offering.

Q What is the outward and visible sign in the Eucharist?

A The outward and visible sign in the Eucharist is bread and wine, given and received according to Christ's command.

Q What is the inward and spiritual grace given in the Eucharist?

A The inward and spiritual grace in the Holy Communion is the Body and Blood of Christ given to his people, and received by faith.

Q What are the benefits which we receive in the Lord's Supper?

A The benefits we receive are the forgiveness of our sins, the strengthening of our union with Christ and one another, and the foretaste of the heavenly banquet which is our nourishment in eternal life.

Q What is required of us when we come to the Eucharist?

A It is required that we should examine our lives, repent of our
sins, and be in love and charity with all people.

The six Eucharistic Prayers of the Episcopal Church:

Rite I (traditional language), Eucharistic Prayer I (This follows very closely the liturgy devised by Archbishop Cranmer in 1547.)

Rite I, Eucharistic Prayer II (begins at bottom of page)

Rite II (contemporary language), Eucharistic Prayer A

Rite II, Eucharistic Prayer B (adapted from "The Apostolic Liturgy of Hippolytus")

Rite II, Eucharistic Prayer D (begins halfway down page; adapted from the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, and conforms to one of the Eucharistic Prayers in the Sacramentary of Paul VI)

(In all cases, link is to the first page in the Prayer Book; click on "Next" to continue reading)

 

[thereselittleflower]

John

did you get your questions answered? There is a lot of interesting discussion here . .

I want to commend you for your insight and sensitivity to spiritual understanding that has protected you from partaking in communion at Catholic Mass . .

Just understanding that it is really the body and blood of Jesus would not be enough to enable one to partake in communion at a Catholic Mass

One must also have a clean heart . . not knowingly have unconfesed (mortal) sin on their heart

and one must be in full communion with the Catholic Church . .as we particpate in Christ's body and blood, we particpate with each other and join ourselves to each other in full communion in what we believe . .

This is why a Catholic cannot paticpate in a Protestant Communion . .because they would be making public statement that they would be joining themselves with that particular congregation and all that they believed . . which would be in opposition to what the Catholic really believes in many areas . .

The Catholic Church does not allow a non-Catholic, or even a Catholic who is not properly prepared to receive the Eucharist, to receive the body and blood of our Lord, for their protection . .

Paul said in 1 Corinthians that may are sick and "sleep" (dead) because they partook of the Eucharist unworthily, not discerning the body of our Lord . .

The Catholic Church takes this very seriously . . .


Peace in Him!

 

[John the Engineer]

Well I didn't really have any question to be answered, I was just asked to start a new thread to explain how I felt about it. Really there's nothing of my belief that says a Catholic cannot partake of our communion, because our communion is only a symbol of faith and a belief that you are doing it in rememberence of him, not that it is actually him.

So from our viewpoint taking your communion would not be a "problem" because to us it is just bread and wine, symbols. By the same token you taking our communion means a symbol of your faith in Jesus Christ's death and resurrection. There is nothing that says you are of our faith or belief. In fact we make a clear statement that when people give their lives to Christ in our church we are not recruiting new members or saying you are a part of our church, you are giving yourself to him and learning to follow him, not us.

Our church in a lot of ways follows different view. People are bound to the Lord, and they grow in the church but they are not accountable to the Church. The church is there to serve the Lord's people, to nurture their walk.

From a Catholic standpoint a Protestant is not allowed to take the Eucharist because the belief is not upheld in its fullest, from their view. IE: In the way it was offered. As well, Catholics are not allowed to take the Protestant communion because it is an expression of faith in the belief of the Protestant Church.

Sort of an interesting double view. Because my communion is only a symbol, I do not feel the need to defile the Catholic communion for my own sanctity. My belief and forgiveness comes from God, and communion is not required in order for my faith and eternal life to be upheld. Indeed I have taken communion many times outside of Church, with my own implements. And in fact my church, over radio, asks listeners to prepare their own communion at home. We believe it is the action you take of faith that is holy, not the actual bread and wine (juice )

It is interesting to note that Jesus gave communion to a sinner. Judas, who betrayed him.

Feel free to comment in any way, I'm not going to be offended or anything by questions or such.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Well I didn't really have any question to be answered, I was just asked to start a new thread to explain how I felt about it. Really there's nothing of my belief that says a Catholic cannot partake of our communion, because our communion is only a symbol of faith and a belief that you are doing it in rememberence of him, not that it is actually him.

So from our viewpoint taking your communion would not be a "problem" because to us it is just bread and wine, symbols. By the same token you taking our communion means a symbol of your faith in Jesus Christ's death and resurrection. There is nothing that says you are of our faith or belief. In fact we make a clear statement that when people give their lives to Christ in our church we are not recruiting new members or saying you are a part of our church, you are giving yourself to him and learning to follow him, not us.

Our church in a lot of ways follows different view. People are bound to the Lord, and they grow in the church but they are not accountable to the Church. The church is there to serve the Lord's people, to nurture their walk.

From a Catholic standpoint a Protestant is not allowed to take the Eucharist because the belief is not upheld in its fullest, from their view. IE: In the way it was offered. As well, Catholics are not allowed to take the Protestant communion because it is an expression of faith in the belief of the Protestant Church.

Hi John

I know what you mean . ..

And coming from a protestant view point what you say makes perfect sense . . and it is what I used to think as well . .

What I have found is there are deeper levels to communion than ever we have been taught within protestantism ..

The Eucharist is an act of the convenant . .the New Covenant . . it is an Oath . . it is the means by which we renew our baptismal oath . . .every time we partake of communion, we are stating that we believe and we will follow and we will obey our Lord in ALL things! It is not merely fellowship . . it goes far deeper than that . . .

A convenant comes with both blesssing and cursing . . convenant theology is not well understood today . . A very prominent theologan, Scott Hahn (a convert to the Catholic faith) is coming out with a book this spring calle Swear to God in which he goes over the oath nature of the sacraments, espeically the Eucharist . .

When we partake of the Eucharist we are renewing our vows, our oath, to follow and obey Christ in all things . . it was in beginning to understand the implications of this that I decided I should go through the process of RCIA instead of insisting on being admitted to the Church right away (which I could have done) . . That if I make this act of renewing my baptismal vows and fail to keep those vows, I eat and drink cursing to myself . .

1Co 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

1Co 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

1Co 11:30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

So, as I gain a deeper understanding of what the body and cup of our Lord is, what it means, what it signifies, I have a deeper respect for what it is and is meant to be . .

Sort of an interesting double view. Because my communion is only a symbol, I do not feel the need to defile the Catholic communion for my own sanctity. My belief and forgiveness comes from God, and communion is not required in order for my faith and eternal life to be upheld. Indeed I have taken communion many times outside of Church, with my own implements. And in fact my church, over radio, asks listeners to prepare their own communion at home. We believe it is the action you take of faith that is holy, not the actual bread and wine (juice )

I know . .and because that is what you believe it to be, that is, in fact, what it actually is for you .. you are not partaking of the flesh and blood of Christ .. you are partaking of a symbol . . so what a Catholic sees in communion does not exist in a Protestant church which only sees it as a symbol . . The flesh and blood of Christ cannot be where it is not intended to be . . I also have partaken in communion as you describe above . .and have spiritually received great blessing from it . . but while still a protestant, as I became aware of what communion was supposed to be . not just a symbol, but actually the flesh and blood of Christ, I began to perceive and feel the lack of the actuality of this in protestant communion . . .that it was merely a symbol was no longer enough . .

Yes, you can and do receive Christ spiritually in a protestant communion service . . but there is more to this - God gave us more than just a symbol . ..

I do understand that if a Catholic were to partake of communion in a protestant church service, they would not be seen by protestants as doing anything other than partaking of a symbol of our Lord's death .. and that they would not, to the Protestant mind, be saying they agreed with Protestants . .

But in understanding what the Eucharist is, what the act of partaking in commion means, it would be very wrong for us to do so, because we would be joining ourselves to you in every way, not just recognizing the death of our Lord . . does this make sense?

It grieves me that we cannot partake in each other's communion services . . but I understand why . .

When you visit a Catholic Mass, most Catholic priests allow you to go up with the congregation to receive a blessing .. you just go with your arms crossed over your cheste and the priest blesses you . . we do this every Sunday while awaiting coming into the fullness of the Catholic faith . .




Peace in Him!

 

[Oblio]

My belief and forgiveness comes from God, and communion is not required in order for my faith and eternal life to be upheld.

Joh 6:53-57 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. (54) Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. (55) For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. (56) He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. (57) As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

 

[John the Engineer]

Oblio, what that verse is missing is how often you are required to partake. There is nothing saying that it must be once a week, once a month, once a year, or even once in your life. And indeed wasn't it Christ who said at the Mount of Olives "Let this cup pass from me", what cup was he drinking? So to say that drinking of the cup means an actual drink of fluid, or eating of the bread meaning an actual ingestion of bread, is what is required to gain eternal life, would not be accurate. When you look at Jesus word in prayer at the Mount of Olives he calls what he must do a "cup" (I wish I knew the original Latin better, I'd have to consult a good friend for that one), but in our lives we must drink of the same cup, and carry on our lives in actions that show that we are in "communion with Christ".

Therese, while I understand your statements, and maybe you don't fully realize some of what you've said, but they can be taken quite offensively to a Protestant. Indeed it is probably quite accurate to what the Catholic Church believes about Protestant ways, but then again my Pastor has received letters of praise for the ministry he has done from the Pope and Mother Teresa. This truly shows that the Catholic Church does not invalidate the spreading of the Gospel by the Protestant Church.

When you look over the entire change of the Old Covenant to the New Covenant the general theme is a change of action to faith. I was part of a study group that went over this in some depth, and it's very intriguing to study. While in the old testament you did things to attone for your sin. There were actions and sacrifices and clear laws. But in the New Covenent it became your faith by which your relationship with God operated. I believe we operate fully in the New Covenant, and you have to be careful how you put your belief. There have been a lot of converts both from Protestant to Catholic and Catholic to Protestant (I know of several dear friends in the church that were raised Catholic) We are all of the same faith, but we interpret the bible in different means.

For you to say that Protestants have not fully partaken is no more accurate than for me to say that Catholicism is following false doctrine. There are arguments both ways through a lot of the bible. If you've ever heard the George Carlin bit about welcoming everyone to hell, and Satan telling them "Christians over there, yeah, sorry, Jews had it right all along" is very true.

So how do I feel about communion both ways? Simply put, you have your communion, we have ours. God bless you for following the Lord how you find him blessing you to go. I have followed my God and through my personal study of the bible found what I believe.

What I find difficult to stomach (no pun intended) is that the Priest blesses the bread to make it Christ. You have to repent of your sin (do you have to go to confession?) in order to partake, so I would presume the Priest would have to be in the same order with the Lord in order to bless the bread and wine? By this I mean a Priest cannot bless it if he is living in sin. Does this mean that all who are partaking of communion of a sinning Priest are sinning themselves without knowing? If the bread is more than symbolic then they would be at fault for not partaking of the Eucharist because it was not the Eucharist. In the same way, can a Priest absolve sin if he is living in sin? So does that mean a Catholic who goes to confession with a sinning Priest is not truly absolved?

I have been at a church that was found to have an unholy Pastor. But when it was discovered and he was sent away we still had our faith and we were not any less in the eyes of the Lord. We had still followed him. But a Priest is responsible for duties that keep the parishiners (sp?) from sin.

 

[Spotty]

John,

From what you're writing, it's becoming more and more apparent that you would benefit from reading the full writings of Martyr and the Didache. A lot of your questions will be answered at that point. Have you ever heard of "The Fourth Cup?" It may address a tangent (or direct) implication to your question regarding Gethsemane:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/4thCup.htm

God Bless!

-Spotty

 

[John the Engineer]

I started reading, but the English is very difficult to read. Was this a translation or a duplication? I'll finish it up later, but I'll post my comments about the first half I have read.

First, the fourth cup might not have been around back then. The practices of Jews come from a very small culture, and so it could have been handed down from the early days past the days of Christ. This is still something that's debated.

Second, there's still the unaddressed cup. And in fact he drinks the wine at the last moment, so it can be interpretted as in that moment is when he drank the wine the separation was removed between us here on earth and heaven above. How then do we continue to make a sacrifice that has already been sacrificed and has done what it was meant to do?

Luke 22:19 "... do this in rememberence of me."

If you are doing something to remember someone or something, do you actually have them with you? When you look at a picture, indeed a symbol of that which it pictures, is that actually the person? In the same way do the Protestants view Jesus. The sacrifice has been made, Jesus died for our sins so that we may have life. We are baptized in water and then again in the Holy Spirit. We partake of communion in rememberence, not actual, of Christ.

Something else to consider, when the Jews sacrificed a lamb for sin, as he is saying the Lord was, did they dwell on their sins? Did they sacrifice again for their sins they had previously sacrificed for? No, if they sinned again, they sacrificed again. But Jesus was the final sacrifice, the end of the old covenant. The sacrifice was made, and so it was finished and attonement was made eternally for sin if we accept it.

If anyone who is reading this, especially moderators, believe I am out of line, please understand my heart. I learn and truly dig deep into the Lord's word by challenge. It is through these discussions that I find out about Catholicism, and am challenged to see into my own life and faith. We are truly all of "one bread" by your standard because we are all of one faith in Christ, and thus we are all of "one body", but the way we partake of that bread is different. I like learning this, and I am not looking to invalidate your faith or belief, indeed I am learning more and more that they are holy ways of the Lord.

Here's a great analogy for you. Three people came into your house as guests. The first sat at your table, took the fork and knife, and ate the meal you had prepared for them. The second sat and took chopsticks and ate. The third ate with their hands. So does the first have the right to tell the second that they ate the meal the wrong way? Or that he hasn't eaten the meal correctly? And with the third? So too aren't we all at the Lord's table, eating with different implementations, but we are gathered in his presence. Let us discuss the way the Lord has given us to partake of what he has prepared for us at his table, for I see nobody here who is not eating of the same bread and spirit of the Lord.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Oblio, what that verse is missing is how often you are required to partake. There is nothing saying that it must be once a week, once a month, once a year, or even once in your life. And indeed wasn't it Christ who said at the Mount of Olives "Let this cup pass from me", what cup was he drinking? So to say that drinking of the cup means an actual drink of fluid, or eating of the bread meaning an actual ingestion of bread, is what is required to gain eternal life, would not be accurate. When you look at Jesus word in prayer at the Mount of Olives he calls what he must do a "cup" (I wish I knew the original Latin better, I'd have to consult a good friend for that one), but in our lives we must drink of the same cup, and carry on our lives in actions that show that we are in "communion with Christ".

Therese, while I understand your statements, and maybe you don't fully realize some of what you've said, but they can be taken quite offensively to a Protestant. Indeed it is probably quite accurate to what the Catholic Church believes about Protestant ways, but then again my Pastor has received letters of praise for the ministry he has done from the Pope and Mother Teresa. This truly shows that the Catholic Church does not invalidate the spreading of the Gospel by the Protestant Church.

WHOA!! Where in the world di you ever get the idea that I believe that the the Catholic Church invlaidates the spreading of the Gospel by the Protestant churhes??

I think perhaps you are reacting negatively to something I said . . perhaps you could read again what I said . . because what you read into it is not there . .

When you look over the entire change of the Old Covenant to the New Covenant the general theme is a change of action to faith. I was part of a study group that went over this in some depth, and it's very intriguing to study. While in the old testament you did things to attone for your sin. There were actions and sacrifices and clear laws. But in the New Covenent it became your faith by which your relationship with God operated. I believe we operate fully in the New Covenant, and you have to be careful how you put your belief. There have been a lot of converts both from Protestant to Catholic and Catholic to Protestant (I know of several dear friends in the church that were raised Catholic) We are all of the same faith, but we interpret the bible in different means.

But this has nothing to do with the nature of convenants . .with what a convenant IS! The New Covenant is differant then the Old . .but it is STILL a Covenant!

For you to say that Protestants have not fully partaken is no more accurate than for me to say that Catholicism is following false doctrine. There are arguments both ways through a lot of the bible. If you've ever heard the George Carlin bit about welcoming everyone to hell, and Satan telling them "Christians over there, yeah, sorry, Jews had it right all along" is very true.

I am sorry you feel this way . . if we receive Christ spiritual and physically, but you receive Christ only spiritually, then, to us, protestants do not fully partake in Christ in communion . . I know you feel you do . . and that you do not understand our beliefs in communion . .

So how do I feel about communion both ways? Simply put, you have your communion, we have ours. God bless you for following the Lord how you find him blessing you to go. I have followed my God and through my personal study of the bible found what I believe.

What I find difficult to stomach (no pun intended) is that the Priest blesses the bread to make it Christ. You have to repent of your sin (do you have to go to confession?) in order to partake, so I would presume the Priest would have to be in the same order with the Lord in order to bless the bread and wine? By this I mean a Priest cannot bless it if he is living in sin. Does this mean that all who are partaking of communion of a sinning Priest are sinning themselves without knowing? If the bread is more than symbolic then they would be at fault for not partaking of the Eucharist because it was not the Eucharist. In the same way, can a Priest absolve sin if he is living in sin? So does that mean a Catholic who goes to confession with a sinning Priest is not truly absolved?

You can only be faithful to the truth you know.

The preistly annointing is independent of whether a priest is a good priest or a bad priest .. it is not based on his personal character or sinlessness, but on the annointing that is on him . . the personal sin of a priest does not affect the consecration of the Eucharist . . int eh same way, sin does not affect the administering the sacrament of confession . . the validity of the sacraments are not dependent on the presonal sinlessness or impeccability of the priest .. It is Christ now acting thorugh the priest . . not the priest himself alone . .

I have been at a church that was found to have an unholy Pastor. But when it was discovered and he was sent away we still had our faith and we were not any less in the eyes of the Lord. We had still followed him. But a Priest is responsible for duties that keep the parishiners (sp?) from sin.

OK .. I am not sure what you mean exactly by the last sentence, but I think I dealt with it above ..


John .. you were offended by what I said . .no offense was meant .. but I want to remind you where you are . . you are in OBOB .. you came here to understand our faith better, to understand why we beleive what we beleive . .to get offended when we tell you does not help us tell you .. we want you to ask questions, we want to explain our faith to you . . please don't attack us when we do . .

We are trying to tell you how we see things from our perspective .. I did not expect you to become offended by it .. but do you want us to hold the truth from you?


Please reconsider what this is all about ..




Peace in Him!