Posted on 04/23/2018 7:28:38 AM PDT by Salvation
credit: J. Lippelmann, Catholic Standard
Last week in the Office of Readings of the Liturgy of the Hours we read from St. Justin Martyr who said:
No one may share the Eucharist with us unless he believes what we teach is true; Unless he is washed in the regenerating waters of baptism for the remission of his sins, and unless he lives in accordance with the principles given us by Christ (Apologia Cap 66: 6, 427-431)
St Justin may also have in mind a text from the Letter to the Hebrews which links proper doctrine to the reception of Holy Communion:
Brethren, Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings, for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace and not by their ceremonial foods, which are of no value to those devoted to them. For we have an altar from which those who serve at the [old] tabernacle have no right to eat. (Heb 13:9-10)
Thus Communion points to doctrine, not merely to hospitality. The Eucharist comes from a basic communion of belief and serves to strengthen that belief. It is no mere ceremony, it is, as we shall see, a family commnuion rooted in a common belief that makes us brothers and sisters in the Lord and in communion with who He is and what He teaches.
In the modern debate about who can and should receive Holy Communion there is generally the presumption that everyone has a right to approach the Eucharistic Sacrifice and partake of the Body and Blood of the Lord. Thus, to limit or discourage indiscriminate reception of Communion is not only dismissed as unjust, but also, contrary to the practice of Jesus Christ who “welcomed everyone,” even the worst of sinners.
In this sort of climate, it is necessary to explain the Church’s historical practice of what some call “closed communion.” Not everyone who uses this terminology means it pejoratively, though some do. But to some extent, it is fair to say, that we do have “closed communion.” For the Catholic Church, Holy Communion is not a “come one, come all” event. It is reserved for those who, by grace, preserve union with the Church through adherence to all the Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God. Our response of “Amen” at Holy Communion signifies our communion with these realities along with our faith in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
But many today have reduced Holy Communion to a mere sign of hospitality, such that if the Church does not extend Holy Communion to all, we are considered unkind. There is often a mistaken notion about the nature of the Last Supper (and the Eucharist that proceeds from it) that lurks behind this misconception. Many years ago, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger articulated the misunderstanding well. I summarize the description here from his Collected Works, Vol 11, Ignatius Press pp 273-274:
Nowadays [some] New Testament scholars … say that the Eucharist … is the continuation of the meals with sinners that Jesus had held … a notion with far-reaching consequences. It would mean that the Eucharist is the sinners’ banquet, where Jesus sits at the table; [that] the Eucharist is the public gesture by which we invite everyone without exception. The logic of this is expressed in a far-reaching criticism of the Church’s Eucharist, since it implies that the Eucharist cannot be conditional on anything, not depending on denomination or even on baptism. It is necessarily an open table to which all may come to encounter the universal God …
However, tempting the idea may be, it contradicts what we find in the Bible. Jesus’ Last Supper was not one of those meals he held with “publicans and sinners”. He made it subject to the basic form of the Passover, which implies that the meal was held in a family setting. Thus, he kept it with his new family, with the Twelve; with those whose feet he washed, whom he had prepared by his Word and by this cleansing of absolution (John 13:10) to receive a blood relationship with him, to become one body with him.
The Eucharist is not itself the sacrament of reconciliation, but in fact it presupposes that sacrament. It is the sacrament of the reconciled, to which the Lord invites all those who have become one with him; who certainly still remain weak sinners, but yet have given their hand to him and have become part of his family.
That is why, from the beginning, the Eucharist has been preceded by a discernment … (I Corinthians 11:27ff). The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles [the Didache] is one of the oldest writings outside the New Testament, from the beginning of the Second Century, it takes up this apostolic tradition and has the priest, just before distributing the sacrament saying: “Whoever is holy, let him approach, whoever is not, let him do penance” (Didache 10).
Thanks to Pope Benedict’s writing prior to his papacy, we can see the root of the problem: the failure to see the Eucharist for what it truly is—a sacred banquet wherein those who enjoy communion with the Lord (by His grace) partake of the sign and sacrament of that communion. Holy Communion serves to celebrate and deepen the communion already operative through the other sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Confession.
If you want to call this communion “closed,” fine, but at its heart it is more positively called a “sacrum convivium,” a sacred meal of those who share a life together (con = with or together + vivium = life). This is not a “come one, come all” meal; it is a Holy Banquet for those who wear the wedding garment. The garment is righteousness and those who refuse to wear it are cast out (cf: Matt 22:11-12 & Rev 19:8).
Many moderns surely would prefer a “no questions asked” invitation to all who wish to come. We moderns love this notion of inclusiveness and unity. But to a large degree it is a contrived unity that overlooks truth (the opposite of which is falsehood, not just a different viewpoint). Yes, it overlooks the truth necessary for honest, real, and substantive unity. Such a notion of communion is shallow at best and a lie at worst. How can people approach the Eucharist, the sacrament of Holy Communion and unity, and say “Amen” when they differ with the Church over essentials such as that Baptism is necessary; that there are seven Sacraments; that the Pope is the successor of Peter and the Vicar of Christ on Earth; that homosexual acts, fornication, and adultery are gravely sinful; that women cannot be admitted to Holy Orders; that there is in fact a priesthood; that Scripture must be read in the light of the Magisterium; and on and on? Saying that there is communion in such a case is either a contrivance or a lie, but in either case, it does not suffice for the “Amen” that is required at the moment of reception of Holy Communion.
Such divisions do not make for a family meal or a “sacrum convivium.” Hence, to share Holy Communion with Protestants, dissenters, and others who do not live in communion with the Church is incoherent. To paraphrase Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict), the Eucharist is not a table fellowship with publicans and other “sinners”; it is a family meal that presupposes grace and shared faith.
Tomorrow we can look to the need to receive Holy Communion, free of grave or serious sin.
John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
Don’t change the subject.
God prohibits the consumption of blood.
In the animal sacrifices, which foreshadowed the redemptive work of Christ on the cross, the blood was NEVER consumed.
God specifically said that the blood was to be poured out for the atonement.
Here, like we've told you many times before.
John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
Also, the thing that tells us it must be a metaphor and to not be taken literally is the the interpretation of taking it literally contradicts the rest of the body of revealed Scripture, all those prohibitions against eating blood.
That sure is a lot of requirements for salvation.
So which one of that list saves someone?
All of them? Some of them? One of them?
Or is it different means for different people?
You are very clearly demonstrating that you have NO clue what salvation by grace through faith in Christ without works means.
You have completely misrepresented what salvation by faith means.
Not intentionally, no doubt but all you've done is resorted to putting out Catholic talking points.
I don’t think St. Paul contradicts St. James. Do you?
This is the summit of our faith.
You didn't know this?
This is what He does for us. "Life in Christ" sums it all up. This is the life of Faith.
Awaiting your reply.
No, I don’t which is why the Catholic interpretation of James is wrong.
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
Yes....if one understands what faith is.
You can't "earn enough points" to get into Heaven.
If you're trying to do it that way you are not saved.
Hence why Christians say Roman Catholics believe work earns salvation.
Ya'll have the cart before the horse....though I'm not sure you have the horse.
It's the other way around. One professes faith in Christ because the person believes in Christ.
If they were to die two seconds after that they gain Heaven as He promised.
If one is blessed to live longer one begins to produce fruit for the kindgom....not to stay in the kingdom....but because you're in the kingdom.
Hear the Word.
Believe the Word.
Serve the Word.
That's the order.
This is a living, working, active and growing faith, not easy-believe-ism or what some call "faith alone," a merely verbal and notional faith.
You're sounding mighty proud of your "works" there. You might be bordering on a mortal sin....though the NT doesn't teach that.
If you read Romans, especially in the Greek, yes....it is faith alone that saves us. No work can gain Heaven for you.
Jesus told the unbelieving Jews this in John 6.
26Jesus answered them and said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. 27“Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal.” 28Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?”
29Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” John 6:26-29 NASB
Roman Catholics however seem to be where the unbelieving Jews were..... 30So they said to Him, “What then do You do for a sign, so that we may see, and believe You? What work do You perform? John 6:30 NASB
That is very clear in Scripture.
Jesus would not contradict Himself. However, Rome has.
Well, I did look at them and yes, you did cherry-pick. But you also took the verses out of context which is just as bad as cherry picking.
Awaiting your reply to my question.
How can God command circumcision as a perpetual institution, and then say henceforth men do not need to be circumcised?
How could God command the prescribed rituals of Passover as a perpetual intitution, and then drop the Old observance of Passover in the Christian era?
, How could God command The observance of the Seventh Day as The Sabbath, and then countenance the observance of Sunday as the Lord's Day?
The answers. Or at least one part, one aspect of the answer, because this goes very deep.
Circumcision was fulfilled and taken up into Baptism as the way to be initiated into God's community, and Passover was fulfilled and taken up into Easter (Pascha) as the celebration of our liberation from slavery, sin and death. Saturday marked the rest of God after He had worked for six days in Creation; Sunday marks the day of the Lord's Resurrection, His greatest work of all; the dawn of the New Creation.
The prohibition of consuming blood was because of the sacredness of life ( "Life is in the blood") and this was fulfilled by God's astounding invitation to us now not to refrsin, but to partake of the Sacred, in fact the most Sacred object in the visible Universe, the precious Blood of the Lamb, Our Lord Jesus Christ.
This is not the blood of a strangled chicken, which defiles. This is the saving, lifesaving Blood of God's dearly beloved Son, which purifies us and makes us clean.
The Old Covenant was the time of signs and symbols. The New Covenant is concealed in the Old; the Old Covenant is revealed in the New. This is the perennial Faith of the Church. Then, for 2,000 years, and now: we proclaim the death of the Lord, and profess His Resurrection, until He comes again.
. Still awaiting your answer. Shouldn’t be to hard.
Your comment: “Since baptism saves no one, it doesn’t matter if you’ve been baptized or not or are a member of the denomination or not.”
Please show me where Jesus agrees with your statement. False statements may harm others.
While some may try hard to understand the Bible, this is an example that personal opinion is in error and misleading and why we should follow Catholic teaching to understand what Jesus tells us in necessary for salvation:
Gospel Mk 16:15-20
Jesus appeared to the Eleven and said to them:
“Go into the whole world
and proclaim the Gospel to every creature.
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved;
whoever does not believe will be condemned.
These signs will accompany those who believe:
in my name they will drive out demons,
they will speak new languages.
They will pick up serpents with their hands,
and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not harm them.
They will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”
Then the Lord Jesus, after he spoke to them,
was taken up into heaven
and took his seat at the right hand of God.
But they went forth and preached everywhere,
while the Lord worked with them
and confirmed the word through accompanying signs.
Notice whoever does not believe will be condemned. The key is believing. You can be baptized but not believe. Your handle sums up Rome very well.
You can also say that you believe, but be in mortal sin at the time of your death.
Baptism forgives the sins at the time of Baptism, and the Sacrament of Confession/Reconciliation forgives sins confessed to a Catholic priest.
Baptism is not just a symbol, as so many Evangelicals claim. According to the Bible, it is a marvelous grace—a great gift from God, which we do not deserve in the least and which washes away our sins, bestows upon us the Holy Spirit, grants us new life in Christ, and absorbs us into the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church. As even Martin Luther himself put it, baptism “works the forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and grants eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.