Catholic Apologetics: Non-Catholics in the Communion Line

Catholic Answers ^ | April 15, 2015 | Michelle Arnold

[metmom]

yes, we know that the Catholic church teaches a lot of add-ons to Scripture.

But God still doesn’t differentiate between “mortal” sins and “venial” sins.

All sin is violation of God’s command and is worthy of death.

If you break one, you are guilty of all, according to James, the RCC’s favorite author of the NT.

[Elsie]

Must be nice to be part of the protected elite class.

We soon WILL be!!

Psalms 12:8 The wicked freely strut about when what is vile is honored among men.

 

 

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/08/lgbt-protections_n_7027546.html

 

And THEN we'll get rid of these pesky CHRISTIANS!

[daniel1212]

However, how about denying communion to baby-killers and sodomites in your ranks...

If the sin is particularly scandalous, this is the time to talk privately with the pastor. Give him the information. Then trust him to handle it in an appropriate manner. It is unlikely that the pastor will be able to tell you anything about how he handles the matter. Give it over to him and then do your best to put the whole thing out of your mind.

..there's a question about whether this canon'' – the relevant church law – "was ever intended to be used'' to bring politicians to heel. He thinks not. "I stand with the great majority of American bishops and bishops around the world in saying this canon was never intended to be used this way.'' -- from the thread [Archbishop]

Albany Bishop Howard Hubbard says it is "unfair and imprudent" to conclude that Gov. Andrew Cuomo and his girlfriend, Sandra Lee, shouldn't receive Communion simply because they're living together. -- from the thread Bishop: None of your business (Hubbard rejects Catholic expert's criticism of Gov. Cuomo)

[Archbishop Timothy Dolan] also does not outright deny the sacrament to dissenting Catholic lawmakers, yet he is seen as an outspoken defender of church orthodoxy in a style favored by many theological conservatives. -- from the thread "US bishops elect NYC archbishop as head in upset (Catholic bloggers blamed)" http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2711746/posts?page=289#289

Another example is Ted Kennedy, who was given Masses in his own house at the same time he impenitently promoted abortion and homosexual rig hts. And then was honored with a glorious funeral, in which Pres, Obama gave a eulogy, contrary to canon law., and even offered a prayer for Teddy’s soul. (http://www.canonlaw.info/blogarch09.htm)

In a recent letter to the Pope which was read at his graveside, he insolently asserts he “never failed to believe and respect the fundamental teachings” of his church, and tried to be a faithful Catholic, etc.. The closest thing we get to any kind of contrition is the ambiguous, “I know that I have been an imperfect human being, but with the help of my faith, I have tried to right my path,” before he goes on to to defend his wonderful works, including universal health care. Not a word of remorse about supporting abortion or promoting homosexual rights, or indolence and a welfare state.

Nor did the pope censure him at all in his response, but “the Holy Father cordially imparts his Apostolic Blessing as a pledge of wisdom, comfort and strength in the Lord.” (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/08/29/ted-kennedy-to-pope-benedict-i-am-writing-with-deep-humility/)

Which things example the RC pastorate interpreting itself, while SSPX types are accused of being Protestant because they presume to interpret Rome themselves, contrary to how leadership overall does.

For indeed,

"It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors." - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.

[ealgeone]

A “baby-killer” or sodomite, if they claim to be Catholic, could have went to confession and confessed this sin and told God they would never again partake in this sin, they are absolved of this sin. That is the reason they would receive communion. Now if this baby-killer or sodomite is practicing this sin, or if these same persons are politicians that believe in these sins and promote these sins, THEY HAVE EXCOMMUNICATED THEMSELVES and if they present themselves for communion GOD KNOWS they are committing a mortal sin by partaking in Holy Communion.

What about those catholics who vote for politicians who support the above??

[Legatus]

Is the schismatic portion still considered "of the Church"?

I don't even know anymore. Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma would say "no" but it's not infallible, even though he takes its information from authoritative sources.

"Hunker down and pray" is the best advice I've ever received. That's why I don't fault sedevacantists or SSPX adherents for their positions, nothing makes sense right now.

[Legatus]

What about those catholics who vote for politicians who support the above??

THIS is why we need a new Inquisition... I realize this freaks everyone out, but everyone who claims to be Catholic needs to put up or shut up. No need for racks and other devices, just simple yes or no questions and opportunities to accept what the Church teaches or stop calling themselves Catholic. SOMETHING needs to be done because this is getting ridiculous.

[verga]

However, how about denying communion to baby-killers and sodomites in your ranks, even though “Catholic?”

Something we are in 100% agreement on.

[Resettozero]

...nothing makes sense right now.

Nothing?

[daniel1212]

The Orthodox Churches are not Catholic,

Which is more Roman elitism, which exclusive claim to be the "Catholic" church is contradicted by EOs, while both contradict Scripture, more so Rome .

In the Nicene Creed of faith our Church is described as the "One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church": "One" because there can only be one true Church with one head Who is Christ... Each of these titles is limiting in some respects, since they define Christians belonging to particular historical or regional Churches of the Orthodox communion.. “because it has all the proper attributes, the Orthodox Church is the living realization of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.” — http://www.antiochian.org/node/17076

. It may also be called the Orthodox Catholic Church, the Orthodox Christian Church, the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, the Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ, or simply the Church.

those united with the Pope of Rome are properly called “Roman Catholics,” not “Catholics,” just as we are properly called “Orthodox Christians...” - http://oca.org/questions/romancatholicism/catholic-and-orthodox

Then there are those who attempt to join together all Christian religions into one faith. They would be horrified at the idea of a service with Hindus and Christians celebrating together, yet they do not bat an eyelash at the idea of Orthodox celebrating with Roman Catholics, who with no authority broke off from the Church close to a thousand years ago. — http://www.orthodox.net/articles/against-ecumenism.html

Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of faith and in order to justify new doctrine, erected in the last century, a theory of "doctrinal development." Following the philosophical spirit of the time (and the lead of Cardinal Henry Newman), Roman Catholic theologians began to define and teach the idea that Christ only gave us an "original deposit" of faith, a "seed," which grew and matured through the centuries. The Holy Spirit, they said, amplified the Christian Faith as the Church moved into new circumstances and acquired other needs.

Consequently, Roman Catholicism, pictures its theology as growing in stages, to higher and more clearly defined levels of knowledge. The teachings of the Fathers, as important as they are, belong to a stage or level below the theology of the Latin Middle Ages (Scholasticism), and that theology lower than the new ideas which have come after it, such as Vatican II.

All the stages are useful, all are resources; and the theologian may appeal to the Fathers, for example, but they may also be contradicted by something else, something higher or newer. On this basis, theories such as the dogmas of "papal infallibility" and "the immaculate conception" of the Virgin Mary (about which we will say more) are justifiably presented to the Faithful as necessary to their salvation. - http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html

Orthodoxy is not simply an alternative ecclesiastical structure to the Roman Catholic Church. The Orthodox Church presents a fundamentally different approach to theology, because She possesses a fundamentally different experience of Christ and life in Him. To put it bluntly, she knows a different Christ from that of the Roman Catholic Church.” — Clark Carlton, THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997; http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=13-07-033-b.

[CynicalBear]

>>Actually, i think there is a good case for closed communion<<

I believe one would be hard pressed to show evidence from scripture of the apostles teaching that it is the ekklesia who restricts someone from taking communion. It's always the personal responsibility of the individual as far as I can tell. It's the individual assemblies who allow or disallow fellowship so that would be the only example of "closed communion".

[CynicalBear]

Hypocrisy indeed. It’s not like they didn’t know those priests were sodomites. They moved them from place to place knowing they were.

[CommerceComet]

But left before the institution of the Lord's Supper. Matt 26:24-26

Not according to Luke 22:20-21

20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. 21 But behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table.

Note verse 21.

[RnMomof7]

And ironically it is Caths who claim to believe in the Real Presence that should be excluded from the Lord's Supper, as they usually have never actually been converted, and i speak from experience, praise God now, and contort the Lord's Supper into a form of endocannibalism, supposing to receive spiritual life via physically eating human flesh, though Platonically explained.

When I was PCA we had a closed communion ... The Pastor would announce that as the elements were being passed

[PJammers]

I don’t plan on it. I guess what I’m getting at is we can’t determine what is in a person’s heart when they take communion. Judas was an Apostle who witnessed miracles yet his heart wasn’t”right” with Jesus. I’m sure there are many Judas’ in the communion line at the holidays.

[CommerceComet]

Actually, i think there is a good case for closed communion, to ensure it is only those who are of the Body of Christ are partaking, as the Lord's supper is to show His death by that shared communal meal, as per 1Cor. 11.

Having had lots of discussion on this issue with conservative Presbyterians, I never found their arguments for closed communion very compelling. Bottom line, it is the Lord's Table and not the Table of Our Regulatory Principle is Stricter than Yours Church.

I found it odd that 1 Corinthians 11 is cited for support of the elders fencing the table by those who hold to closed communion. Paul chastises the Corinthian Church for creating divisions with the meal that is supposed to build unity. Yet when elders temporarily determine the sheep and the goats, aren't they doing the same thing? It might be for good motives but it accomplishes the same thing. Further, when the passage talks of a self-examination (verse 28) and not examination by ecclesiastical authorities.

If I visit a church which practices closed communion, I'll respect their rules and not partake if disallowed and won't create a scene or enter into a great debate but I won't go back.

[Springfield Reformer]

>>Actually, i think there is a good case for closed communion<<
I believe one would be hard pressed to show evidence from scripture of the apostles teaching that it is the ekklesia who restricts someone from taking communion. It's always the personal responsibility of the individual as far as I can tell. It's the individual assemblies who allow or disallow fellowship so that would be the only example of "closed communion".

This would make a good discussion for a Protestant/Evangelical caucus thread.  I've been on both sides of the issue.  In the early days, when I was attending a Dutch Reformed fellowship (no I am not Dutch), they were insistent on tight control over participation in the Lord's Supper.  The argument was that God would hold the leadership responsible for permitting unworthy participation, and given that Paul says illness and death can result, it only follows that strong oversight is necessary to the well-being of any who might participate.

But as you say, CB, when the time came to defend the practice using Scripture, there were only general principles and inferences.  No explicit prohibition.  And no accounting for the situation where you might have a visitor from an out-of-denomination fellowship who is no doubt worthy spiritually but not on paper.  In my later years I concluded, and still hold, that while leadership does have a responsibility to protect the flock from itself to some degree, that does not extend into areas where they do not have Scripturally designated jurisdiction.  1 Corinthians 11:28 defines the jurisdiction for this explicitly, "let a man examine himself." This is between the individual and God. No prohibition on bringing leaders in for advice, as in "Pastor X, I need to reconcile with someone before I do this, can you help me do that?"  But come the moment of decision, it is up to the individual.  The leadership cannot be judged for honoring proper jurisdiction.  Likewise, I believe parents of younger children have jurisdiction to help them decide when they are ready.  

But I respect the concern that drives the other position.  Honoring the Lord above all is paramount among His children, even when we have slight differences of opinion on how best to do that.

Peace,

SR

[xone]

Looks like a contradiction. The timeline:

1. Judas went to the Chief priests to betray Jesus for money (Matt. 26:14; Mark 14:10; Luke 23:2-6).

2. The disciples all ate at least the initial part of the Passover Supper (Mark 14:17; Luke 22:14).

3. After the intial part of the Passover Supper was ended, the devil puts it in Judas' heart to betray Jesus; Jesus washes all their feet (John 13:2-11).

4. They were told that they were not all clean, a clear reference to Judas. (John 13:11). 5. All, or a few of them, sat back down at the table to dip sops. (John 13:12, 28).

6. The disciples are then told that one of them would betray Jesus. (John 13:21).

7. They ask, including Judas, "Is it I?" and who it was. (Matt. 26:25; John 13:22-25).

8. They are told that the one that dips his 'sop' with Jesus would be His betrayer. (John 13:26; Mark 14:18-20).

9. Judas is told that he is the one and given the 'sop.' (John 13:27, 30).

10. After being given the sop, Judas IMMEDIATELY goes out from them and goes to the chief priests. (John 13:30).

11. Jesus institutes the Lord's Supper/Christian Communion with the eleven. (Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:19-20). Judas is no longer present.

12. Jesus Expounds upon the meaning of His life and the Gospel (John 13:31 to John 18:1).

13. The eleven sing a Hymn (Mark 14:46).

14. The eleven go out to the Mount of Olives and the Garden of Gethsemane (John 18:1; Luke 22:39).

15. Judas takes Jesus' enemies to Him, betraying him with a kiss (Matt. 26:47; Mark 14:43; Luke 22:47, 48; Acts 1:16; John 18:2-5).

16. Judas repents and hangs himself (Matt. 27:3; Acts 1:25).

Looks like a contradiction. Only if Scripture isn't looked at in its totality. Luke typically didn't record events chronologically.

Last Supper Timeline

[verga]

Apparently, only FRoman Catholics can call other FR posters that noun. How did that happen?

We are the only ones that actually study Canon law. J/K

Seriously in any faith group you are going to find 4-5 distinct groups. 1) The lapsed / Socials. They attend on special occasions (Christmas and Easter, weddings and funerals) or when and if they feel like it

2) The nominals. They know most of the rules and follow them because that is the way they were raised. Their kids attend Sunday morning religious ed classes and are schooled in the basics just like them but no more than that. They may or may not attend various functions but are not on committees or groups. They participate but will not lead. This is probably 70-80% of that churches members.

3) The Devout. Not only do they know the rules they can quote them and have copies of the book at their finger tips.They attend every function, are on every committee and are involved at the leadership positions. They make the councils and boards.

4) The Extremists. These are the people that ones that know better than everyone and will go out of their way to TELL you they know better. They don't take it one step too far they take it the entire stair case to far. They are not on the committee or board they start their own committee or board and are the chair. Think Westboro Baptist meets Hale-Bopp.

5) The Called/Ordained Genuinely devout. They have dedicated their lives to service. Regardless of their "denomination" They have a genuine love of the Lord and seek to serve Him through service to Him directly and through others to Him. Think Mother Teresa, Billy and Ruth Graham, etc...

There are a number of subsets and there can be cross overs / transitional members of the various groups, but these make up pretty much any congregation.

[verga]

Why would anyone want to participate in something they consider sacrilege or blasphemous?

[CynicalBear]

I would suggest that in a true New Testament assembly of the ekklesia of Christ this conversation would be unnecessary. Paul taught that if one of the assembly saw someone who was sinning they should bring it up personally with that person. I he didn't listen to that person several should go together. If that person didn't listen even to them it should be brought to the local assembly and then if he didn't listen they would not allow that person to meet with them at all. In that scenario those who vote for abortion for instance would no longer be allowed to participate with that assembly and partake.

The current organization of "churches" allows too many to shirk the personal responsibilities thinking it's the "higher ups" that have that responsibility. The "churches" today are in a sad state of affairs.