Unity Between Catholic and Protestant Christians

[Chris V++]

But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist), but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs. Matthew 7:6

But thanks for being completely honest about your beliefs. It really is refreshing.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

According to the Didache he meant do not allow an uninitiate to participate in the Eucharist.

Now, at least we are at a starting point.

The uninitiate according to the Didache is a person who has not received Christ as Saviour and therefore not genuinely converted to Him. It has nothing to do with any ritualistic initiation to a religious "club".

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

But thanks for being completely honest about your beliefs. It really is refreshing.

It is a real shame that the position of the Orthodox church is that those outside of their particular faith are detestable, outcast dogs who are just feeding on garbage; and that would include people of about every other Protestant, Pentecostal, and Charismatic church!

 

[HTacianas]

Paul told the Philippian jailor, when asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?", "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be baptised, and you will be saved". So, I believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and I have been baptised, so I am saved according to Paul's definition. How does that differ from the Orthodox position which would exclude me from the Eucharist?

I can answer that question actually: I have to be initiated by the appropriate ritual into the Orthodox "club" in the same way as I would have to go through the appropriate ritual to become a true Freemason. Same thing.

You would have to be baptized in water using the Trinitarian formula then have hands laid on you by someone with the power to give to you the Holy Spirit. Those are the "elementary principles" of Hebrews:

Heb 6:1 - ...the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God,

Heb 6:2 - of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

You would have to be baptized in water using the Trinitarian formula then have hands laid on you by someone with the power to give to you the Holy Spirit. Those are the "elementary principles" of Hebrews:

Heb 6:1 - ...the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God,

Heb 6:2 - of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

Yep. That's what happened to me. I was baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and had hands laid on me to receive the Holy Spirit when I was confirmed as a 29 year old in the Anglican church. So I fit your criteria perfectly - unless you believe that a bishop of the Anglican church doesn't have the power to confer the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands. However, the three Book of Acts examples show that the Holy Spirit fell on a filled new converts to Christ as soon as they received Him as Saviour. So if you believe that the Holy Spirit can be conferred only by an authorised person by the laying on of hands, then there is a disparity between that and the Biblical record.

 

[GaveMeJoy]

You cannot go into a Catholic Church, an Orthodox Church, a Coptic Orthodox Church, or a Church of the East and participate in the Eucharist. And that is not meant to exclude you, it is for your protection. From the Didache:

But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist), but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs. Matthew 7:6

And as Paul said:

1Co 11:29 - For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

see this is the exclusive elitist stuff that makes unity difficult. Orthodox think they own communion. Protestants have been baptized into the church and are saved by grace through faith. Those verses don’t apply to Protestants, they refer to unbelievers or believers in sin. Imagine the hubris to think that only your church denomination could administer the Lord’s supper. Wow

 

[GaveMeJoy]

But thanks for being completely honest about your beliefs. It really is refreshing.

Applying verses about unbelievers to Protestant believers is a good demonstration why unity is difficult

 

[Chris V++]

and that would include people of about every other Protestant, Pentecostal, and Charismatic church!

Catholic too. Catholicism is considered heretical too by Orthodox. But Catholics don't consider Orthodox heretics.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Catholic too. Catholicism is considered heretical too. But Catholics don't consider Orthodox heretics.

The latest is that there has been a reconciliation between Pope Francis and the head Patriarch of the Orthodox church. So maybe the non-heretical attitude is mutual between them now.

 

[HTacianas]

Yep. That's what happened to me. I was baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and had hands laid on me to receive the Holy Spirit when I was confirmed as a 29 year old in the Anglican church. So I fit your criteria perfectly - unless you believe that a bishop of the Anglican church doesn't have the power to confer the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands.

I am not sure specifically what the beliefs of the Anglican church are, but as I understand it their beliefs differ from the teachings of Orthodoxy. That is the heartbreak of schism.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I am not sure specifically what the beliefs of the Anglican church are, but as I understand it their beliefs differ from the teachings of Orthodoxy. That is the heartbreak of schism.

This is where true unity based on whether a believer is truly converted to Christ or not, and is showing the fruits of it. The Scripture says that there is only one Christ, one faith, and one baptism, and that should be the basis for unity. Paul said this in the face of the division between factions in the Corinthian church. He said that we all drink from the same Spirit. And He is the Holy Spirit as described in the New Testament. This means that He is not limited to the Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Pentecostal, or Charismatic faith groups. He is there in all of them and is the catalyst for true unity in the faith.

 

[Chris V++]

I was baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and had hands laid on me to receive the Holy Spirit when I was confirmed as a 29 year old in the Anglican church. So I fit your criteria perfectly - unless you believe that a bishop of the Anglican church doesn't have the power to confer the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands.

That's exactly right. An Anglican pastor woudln't possess the Spirit to begin with, since the apostolic succession was broken during the schism, and the Anglican ended up on the wrong team, so the Spirit wasn't his (or hers) to give.

 

[HTacianas]

see this is the exclusive elitist stuff that makes unity difficult. Orthodox think they own communion. Protestants have been baptized into the church and are saved by grace through faith. Those verses don’t apply to Protestants, they refer to unbelievers or believers in sin. Imagine the hubris to think that only your church denomination could administer the Lord’s supper. Wow

Please read closely the story of the Samaritans beginning at Acts 8:14.

When you are finished, take a shot at this question:

Was Simon the sorcerer a Christian?

 

[HTacianas]

This is where true unity based on whether a believer is truly converted to Christ or not, and is showing the fruits of it. The Scripture says that there is only one Christ, one faith, and one baptism, and that should be the basis for unity. Paul said this in the face of the division between factions in the Corinthian church. He said that we all drink from the same Spirit. And He is the Holy Spirit as described in the New Testament. This means that He is not limited to the Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Pentecostal, or Charismatic faith groups. He is there in all of them and is the catalyst for true unity in the faith.

Can a Jehovah's Witness participate in communion in the Anglican Church? How about a Mormon or a Christadelphian?

 

[Chris V++]

The latest is that there has been a reconciliation between Pope Francis and the head Patriarch of the Orthodox church. So maybe the non-heretical attitude is mutual between them now.

The Pope is cool with the Orthodox, but the feeling isn't mutual. Rome would have to repent of it's heresies before the Orthodox would welcome them back into the fold.

 

[royal priest]

But this is the problem. I have received Jesus Christ as my Saviour, and have been baptised in the name of the Lord. Also I know that when I eat and drink during the Lord's Supper at my church I know that I am honouring the blood of Christ which cleanses me from all unrighteousness, and the body of Christ which has made me whole. So, in Biblical terms, I can't see how I could be excluded from participating in the Lord's Supper in any church, Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant.

So, in my opinion, it is not the Jesus of the Bible who does not consider me a true Christian, but the religious organisation that would prevent me from sharing in the Eucharist with all the others there. That would mean to me that the organisation does not consider me a true Christian according to their doctrinal basis. So there is a difference between their doctrinal belief and what the Bible says about me.

Not to mention a Protestant cannot commune in the Roman Mass because through it, Jesus' sacrifice is offered in such a manner so that the sacrement itself confers propitiation.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

That's exactly right. An Anglican pastor woudn't possess the Spirit to begin with, since the apostolic succession was broken during the schism, and the Anglican ended up on the wrong team, so the Spirit wasn't his (or hers) to give.

I agree, and I would add that there is no Apostolic succession, because the last Apostle died without a successor. The doctrine of Apostolic succession is a Catholic one in which Peter was supposed to be the first Pope and his successors carried on the Apostolic role. Of course, there is no historical evidence that Peter was ever a bishop of Rome. Anyway, during his time, the bishop of Rome did not have the pre-eminence over the other regional bishops. That came well after Peter was martyred.

 

[dms1972]

My own view (something along the lines of what Bishop Ryle wrote in a tract called The True Church) - is that there are true christians within both Protestanism and Roman Catholicism, and that is were the unity resides - one in the Spirit, not in some sort of organisational structure.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Can a Jehovah's Witness participate in communion in the Anglican Church? How about a Mormon or a Christadelphian?

To be able to participate in communion in any Protestant church, one has to believe that Jesus Christ is God, who shed His blood for the remission of sin and rose again to give us eternal life.

Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that Jesus is divine, and also don't believe in the trinity, so none of them could be baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, so that lets them out.

Mormons believe that Jesus is a created being and the brother of Lucifer, so that would let them out as well.

I don't know what Christadelphians believe, but if they don't believe in the divinity of Jesus or the resurrection, then they would not be able to participate in communion.

 

[Chris V++]

Anyway, during his time, the bishop of Rome did not have the pre-eminence over the other regional bishops.

That's one of the Orthodox gripes with Rome. They say the Bishop of Rome is to be considered 'the first among equals.' Papal supremacy is considered an 'innovation.' and heresy.