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.
As you can see from the context in Acts, the whole idea was to provide for a way for Gentiles to enter the Church tranquilly, without upsetting the Jews by doing things at table that would be unnecessarily provocative: eating meat sacrificed to idols, meat of strangled animals, and blood --- this is in reference to kosher (table) customs, not a restriction against receiving the Lord's blood in Christian worship.
This did not ban receiving Jesus Blood (which is different from supping on pig blood or strangled poultry), because Paul carefully explains this to the Corinthians:
"After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood"
" The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?"
My ealgeone, your supposition about how the disciples would have been capturing His blood at the Cross, or putting their mouths on Christ's wounded side, if they thought it was actually salvific, misses the point that they thought His Blood IS salvific; and Jesus showed them how they were to eat His Body and Blood, at the Last Supper. He identifies that the bread and wine were now His Body and Blood.
This is is what is signified by the words, "This is My Body" and "This is My Blood."<>p> How do you think the Apostles should have responded? "Amen"? Or "Not Really"?!
In terms of pictorial depictions (and by "depiction" I mean painting, as well as depiction by illustrative language in homilies), Christians equate the blood of Communion with both the blood on Calvary and the Blood of the Lamb. They are all the same saving blood:
This was an issue in the Bohemian Reformation of the 15h century, when the reformers (at that time) demanded that the laity be offered both the Body of Christ, and the Precious Blood in the chalice.
Man of Sorrows from Prague, Bohemian Reformation, 1470.
That's why I keep asking: Did any Christian believe the Mass (in the sense of its Eucharistic realism) was in contradiction to the NT until the 16th or 17th century? Might you let me know?
The ECFs are divided on this issue as they are on the other issues near and dear to Roman Catholicism.
The passage from Acts is talking about the consumption of animals: sacrificed animals, strangled animals, and animal blood. It makes no reference to the Blood of Christ.
Nor does it even remotely suggest that Christ's blood is filthy like the blood of a sacrificed animal.
If it had, the Apostle Paul would not have spoken so unmistakably to the Corinthians about the faithful receiving the communion in "the blood of Christ."
If the disciples believed as Rome claims, they would have been doing exactly that....drinking His actual blood.
That is what Rome teaches....the wine somehow becomes blood.
You might want to check the Greek on the terminology on this issue.
And again...context is your friend on this, and all issues.
1For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; 2and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3and all ate the same spiritual food; 4and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ. 5Nevertheless, with most of them God was not well-pleased; for they were laid low in the wilderness. 1 Corinthians 10:1-5 NASB
Paul tells us why we have the Lord's Supper.....
25In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. 1 Corinthians 11:25-26 NASB
25In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. 1 Corinthians 11:25-26 NASB
Precisely.
Surely you know this "Memorial Acclamation" is made in every Catholic Liturgy?
You heard it --- if your hearing is intact --- at those two Catholic funeral Masses you attended.
Oh really? Then find me one example where an early Church Father said the Catholic Mass was in contradiction to the New Testament.
What did He tell Nicodemus? We come to Him through believing in Him.
You might want to do a word search on the word believe in John. It might surprise you that is the message on how one comes to salvation in Christ....through belief in Him.
What will be used are the understandings of the various ECFs who do not see this issue as Rome claims.
This is why the opinions of the ECFs are not to be held to the same standard as inspired Scripture.
True of isolated "opinion". But the consensus of the Fathers is the only way to interpret Scriptures if what you're looking for is the lived continuity of understanding and practice.
Having native premodern Greek-speaking language fluency, and being immersed in the prayer, practice and culture of late-antiquity Christianity, they were much closer to the NT texts and ways of life and worship than, say, a committee of German-speaking skeptics 2,800 miles distant and a millennium and a half later.
It's like asking, Who could tell you more about what the Civil War was really like? Actual Civil War veterans and their sons, or 21st century Civil War re-enactors and their sons?
So --- if you prefer, I'll state it differently --- did any Christian say that Catholic communion in the Body and Blood of Christ conflicted with, or was contrary to, the NT until the 16th or 17th century?
Even as late as the late-15th century (Bohemian Reformation), the "reformers" saw the Eucharist as Christ's Blood, and stated it in those terms.
That wouldn't surprise me at all. That's what I believe.
Whoa there....you've made a change in the terminology. It used to be you'd say the unanimous consent of the ECFs....now it's the consensus of the ECFs. That's quite a difference.
Having native premodern Greek-speaking language fluency, and being immersed in the prayer, practice and culture of late-antiquity Christianity, they were much closer to the NT texts and ways of life and worship than, say, a committee of German-speaking skeptics 2,800 miles distant and a millennium and a half later.
And these are the ones who are in disagreement with each other and modern day Rome.
So --- if you prefer, I'll state it differently --- did any Christian say that Catholic communion in the Body and Blood of Christ conflicted with, or was contrary to, the NT until the 16th or 17th century?
As noted before....the ECFs are not in agreement over this issue.
From what I've seen on this issue it was not formalized until the 12th century. That certainly doesn't sound like "consensus" to me.
But again, like so much of Roman Catholicism it developed much later than the NT period.
Maybe about some issues. The date of Easter. The doctrine of Christ's divinity. (Although --- no, I'll take that back. If they disagreed with the doctrine of Christ's divinity, they wouldn't be ECF's. They wouldn't be Christians.) So ---
--- if you prefer, I'll state it differently --- did any Christian or any Christian Church say that Catholic communion in the Body and Blood of Christ conflicted with, or was contrary to, the NT until the 16th or 17th century?
[You say] As noted before....the ECFs are not in agreement over this issue.
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul.
That is...those who disagree with Rome over this issue.
But I'll bite. Give me the text where Jesus says "This is not My Body." Or says "This is a metaphor --- a simile --- a parody --- irony --- sorta --- kinda --- a literary device --- a figure of speech ---just kidding --- Semitic Hyperbole --- a vision --- a ghost --- hallucination --- a hoax --- April Fools! " -- or anything else that would deny the part where he says "This is My Body." Bonus question: try that with St. Paul.
Not meant to be funny. Proof for the Roman Catholic understanding is not there unless one practices eisegesis.
Jesus often used hyperbole in His dealings with people.
Jesus told people to gouge out their eye or cut their hand off if it caused them to sin.
Jesus told the young ruler to sell his possessions and follow Him.
I don't see any maimed Roman Catholics or any RCs who've sold all of their stuff.
Roman Catholics want to take Jn 6:52-57 as literal yet ignore these statements by Christ.
In John 6 they take 6:52-57 as literal yet not this passage from the same chapter:
35Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.
Here Roman Catholics do not apply the literal interpretation to the passage.
Why?
But all of this ignores the simple message of not only this passage but of John, Matthew, Mark, Luke and the NT.
Belief in Him for salvation.
35Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. 36“But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe. 37“All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. 38“For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39“This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. 40“For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.” John 6:35-40 NASB
Jesus continues this theme:
. 46“Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father. 47“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. 6:46-47
He continues the theme of belief but now clarifies the meaning of what He's been saying:
63“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. 64“But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. 6:63-65
The disciples who remained with Him understood it was about belief in Him that lead to salvation....not eating/drinking flesh and blood.
67So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?” 68Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life.
69“We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.” 6:67-69.
It is the consistent message of the NT....believe in Him for salvation.
In no other passage where the Gospel is mentioned is it ever said a person must eat/drink the flesh/blood of Jesus for salvation.
It is always about coming to Christ through belief in Him.
If it is not about belief in Him for salvation, then Jesus lied to Nicodemos.
We all know that Jesus sometimes used parables, similes, Semitic hyperbole and all the rest. There are three ways to tell when He's doing that:
For instance, Jesus said to pluck out your eye or cut off your foot rather than let it lead you into sin. Nobody did that, and the one guy who (his enemies allege) did maim himself, Origen, had always interpreted Jesus' words in that very passage allegorically. Origen wrote vehemently that anyone who would do such a thing would be an idiot.
You don't once show that these criteria apply to the Lord's realism about His Body being real food, and His blood being real drink, because you can't.
There is a related, but separate question, whether one must receive Holy Communion ("eat and drink the Body and Blood of the Lord") in order to have eternal life.
Examining Scriptures, How Scripture proclaims we are saved:
By believing in Jesus Christ (Jn 3:16; Acts 16:31)
By repentance (Acts 2:38; 2 Pet 3:9)
By baptism (Jn 3:5; 1 Pet 3:21; Titus 3:5)
By eating His flesh and drinking His blood (Jn 6)
By the work of the Spirit (Jn 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6)
By declaring with our mouths (Lk 12:8; Rom 10:9)
By coming to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4; Heb 10:26)
By works (Rom 2:6-7; James 2:24)
By grace (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8)
By His blood (Rom 5:9; Heb 9:22)
By His righteousness (Rom 5:17; 2 Pet 1:1)
By keeping the commandments (Matt 19:17)
By our words (Matt 12:37)
By compassion toward the needy (John 10:25-37; Matthew 25:31-46)
By enduring to the end (Matt.24:13)
All those things comprise the ramifications and consequences, the fully-developed meaning of one single thing: having "faith in Christ." Faith, fully understood, means being incorporated into Christ. It includes all the things I quoted from Scripture, above, and Scripture never lies. The above are the ways in which we have faith, because they are the ways we are faithful. They are the ways we grow in His grace and become more and more incorporated into Christ.
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.
But "Faith alone"?
--- True, that exact phrase is used by the Apostle James, and is found in the Bible just once: I quote it in my tagline.
Mrs D....do you have any formal training on how to understand the Bible?
Jesus also explicitly says that if you eat and drink you will live forever.
Why are you not taking that literally as well?
It’s in the same passage.
I sure do see an awful lot of Catholic funerals.
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.