Posted on 03/28/2009 2:49:11 PM PDT by NYer
A reader—SG—sent a note:
I have a close friend whose primary reason for not becoming Catholic is one of the strangest I can think of. He agrees with all of the Church's moral teachings, and he's even comfortable with practically all of its theological doctrines ... but the thing that is holding him back is its practice of closed communion.
I once told him that there is an easy remedy to that: Become Catholic, and you can receive the Eucharist daily! But he says his objection isn't simply because he is personally being deprived, but because he thinks no one should be deprived simply because they aren't Catholic.
So SG put together a little "quiz" to help his friend realize "either that he is not actually being deprived of anything of great value; or that he is being deprived, but justly; or that even if he is being deprived unjustly, there is still good reason to submit to this injustice because the reward is so great." He then asked for thoughts on the soundness of the logic used in the quiz. Here it is:
Four Questions for Those Who Oppose the Catholic Church's Practice of Closed Communion
1. Do you believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation, i.e. that the bread and wine, when consecrated, actually become the body and blood of Christ?
YES: Go on to question 2.
NO: Since you don't believe that what you are being deprived of is actually the body and blood of Christ, but merely bread and wine, you cannot argue that you are being deprived of anything of great value.
2. Do you believe that no special authority is required for a Christian to be able to consecrate the Eucharistic bread and wine?
NO: Go on to question 3.
YES: Then you are not being deprived of the body and blood of Christ, since you yourself should be able to consecrate the Eucharistic bread and wine.
3. If a Church defies God's will by unjustly withholding the Eucharist from a vast number of people, do you believe that God would still transubstantiate the Eucharistic bread and wine during the consecration by that Church's ordained ministers?
YES: Go on to the Final Question.
NO: Then either: 1) you are not being deprived of the body and blood of Christ, since the Eucharist that the Catholic Church distributes remains merely bread and wine, or 2) you are being deprived of the body and blood of Christ, but it is God's will that you be deprived, as a way of drawing you into the Church.
Final Question: What ransom would you not pay to receive the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist?
In other words, even if it is true that the Church is wrong to withhold the Eucharist from those who are not Catholic, isn't the Eucharist valuable enough to you that "paying the ransom" the Church demands is justified?
An analogy: Imagine if your child were kidnapped, and a ransom of $10,000 were demanded. You might firmly believe that kidnapping is wrong and that the kidnappers don't deserve to be rewarded for immoral behavior, but you might also acknowledge that it is more important to get your child back than to refuse to pay the ransom on principle.
In the same way, even if you think the Church is wrong to practice closed communion, isn't it more important to receive the Eucharist than to deprive yourself of it on principle?
I find the first set of questions more engaging and helpful than the final question, since it relies upon a negative analogy (ransom and kidnapping) that skews, I think, the positive nature of the Church's stance on non-Catholics receiving Eucharist (recognizing, of course, that there are extraordinary exceptions).
SG is certainly correct in saying this is a strange hiccup to have, especially if the person in question is "on board" with the Church's theological and moral teachings. But I do wonder about that, since this is very much a theological question that is intimately connected to what the Church teaches about the nature and meaning of both Holy Communion and the Church. On one level, there is the simple matter of Church authority, which is part of what the "quiz" is aimed at conveying: if you've accepted that the Church has the authority to administer the sacraments, and you believe the Church was founded and established by Jesus Christ, and continually guided by the power of the Holy Spirit, then why the qualms?
But there is another approach, one I've used in talking to various Evangelical Protestant friends and relatives. Some of them ask about Holy Communion simply out of curiosity, but some are upset that they cannot go forward and receive the Eucharist. This is, of course, most interesting since none of them have ever professed (to me at least) to believing in the Real Presence. Anyhow, I have used the analogy of marriage, which has the plus of being both an analogy and a reality, if understood correctly. Here's the basic outline:
1. God's relationship with His people is marital and nuptial in nature. The Catechism, drawing upon a variety of passages from Scripture, states:
2. The sacrament of marriage, of the other six sacraments, is most like the sacrament of the Eucharist in that it is the intimate and exclusive gift of one's self to another, a reality signified and realized in the exchange of vows and the union of body and soul. As Fr. James T O'Connor puts it in his magnificent book, The Hidden Manna (Ignatius Press, 2005; 2nd edition): "Our union with him in the Eucharist is like a marriage. This marriage imagery is but an extension of that used to describe the relationship between God and his people as depicted in the Bible" (p 338). St. Paul wrote: "'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church..." (Eph 5:31-32). In the words of the Catechism: "Since it signifies and communicates grace, marriage between baptized persons is a true sacrament of the New Covenant" (par 1617).
3. The Church teaches (and many non-Catholics agree with her) that the marital embrace/sexual union is meant for marriage only. There are several reasons for this, but it's enough to note that sexual union involves the gift of each spouse to the other, and that this gift reflects, in a profound way, the gift of Christ to his Bride, the Church. To be married is to publicly proclaim one's love, loyalty, and singular commitment to the other; it is to swear a sacred, covenantal oath. It is not enough to say, as many do, "Hey, baby, I love you. We don't need to get married to have sex. That's just a piece of paper." On the contrary, that "piece of paper" is evidence that you have made a public, life-long commitment rooted in and demonstrating real love.
4. Likewise, reception of the Eucharist—the true Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ—is meant for those who are in full communion with Christ and his Church, which is his Mystical Body. The Eucharist is the marriage feast of the Lamb (CCC, par 1617, 1244). Receiving Holy Communion, then, is a public vow of full communion and complete commitment with the Catholic Church. "How lovely it was, that first kiss of Jesus in my heart -- it was truly a kiss of love," wrote St. Thérèse about her first Communion, "I knew that I was loved and said, 'I love You, and I give myself to You forever.' Jesus asked for nothing, He claimed no sacrifice. Long before that, He and little Thérèse had seen and understood one another well, but on that day it was more than a meeting -- it was a complete fusion."
5. Therefore, it's not enough to say, "I love Jesus," since even those who are not married can express love for one another; nor is it enough to say, "I'm planning on entering the Church soon," since those who are engaged are not married, however sincere their intent to be married. Sex before or outside of marriage is, put simply, a lie. It is partaking of that which is meant for marriage only, and it does so outside of the proper public and marital bonds.
Likewise, receiving Holy Communion as a non-Catholic (again, with an understanding of certain limited exceptions) is a lie. It says, "I am in communion with the Catholic Church despite not being in communion with the Catholic Church." Sincerity isn't enough. Good intentions aren't enough. Warm, fuzzy feelings aren't enough. Obviously this sometimes happens without a full understanding that what is taking place is wrong; as with all sinful acts there is an objective and subjective facet, as well as differing degrees of culpability. But this is why it is such a travesty for Eucharist to be knowingly given to someone who is not Catholic, because it causes someone to speak a lie with their actions.
As I indicated above, this approach is based on the belief that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ, and the Church's teachings about the nature and meaning of the sacrament of marriage and the sacrament of the Eucharist. That SG's friend says "he thinks no one should be deprived simply because they aren't Catholic" suggests a failure, in some important way, to appreciate those teachings and what necessarily follows from them in Church practice and discipline.
Yah, that's one meaning...It also means to worship...
Your problem is that when you ask a friend to pray for you, you do not get on your knees and bow your head to your friend...
Nor, do ask (pray) that your friend will perform a work that only God can do...
I’m not obsessed nor do I hate Catholics any more than I hate a little puppy that can’t find it’s way home...
So you decide that THIS specific definition applies to the actions of others you've never met?
Uncanny!
I’ve never met a puppy who was an obsessed anti-Catholic bigot.
Some of the posters are being dishonest and trying to fleece the crowd...
Fleece the crowd? Dishonest? Why say that? What possible reason would people have to lie about this? No, I see no reason to suggest that. I do disagree with NYer suggesting that we do not pray to the saints, but I don't for a second think there is any dishonesty about it. I am quite confident that the people who say this do so because of a misplaced idea that what they are saying is true. No, they are not dishonest. They are surely not trying to fleece you. They are just incorrect. Surely you have been incorrect?
The fact is that we Catholics do in fact pray to the Saints, but that doesn't carry with it the many added meanings which some people have put on prayer. Prayer is not an act of adoration, in and of itself. Some prayers are, of course, and these can only be offered to God. But it is not correct to simply assert that prayer is an act of adoration, when it isn't, and thereby condemn anyone who asks for the intercessions of the saints.
I believe the error that NYer made was an honest one and had to do with the meaning of the word prayer. It probably comes from living in a Protestant country in which the conversation has been dominated by such groups. They insist that prayer is worship due only to God and so praying to the saints is automatically idolatry. Of course, as I pointed out, prayer is only to ask humbly or entreat, and of course asking for prayers from another Christian is not idolatry. The only thing which would make it wrong would be if being dead meant they either could not pray to God themselves, or could not hear our prayers to them. This is certainly not true, but even if it were it would not making the asking evil, but only impotent. Big difference, I am sure you would agree.
***Pray means ask.***Yah, that's one meaning...It also means to worship...
No, it doesn't. That is not an accepted meaning of pray in any context whatsoever. Prayer can be an act of adoration, if during the prayer you express such. But, prayer is not adoration. They are not the same at all. Singing too, like prayer, can be adoration, but singing doesn't mean you are worshiping something. If it did then listening to Frank Sinatra would be idolatry.
Your assumption that such is true is probably why so many people are saying we don't pray to the saints. But I won't concede your error. Pray means to humbly ask, and nothing more. And God is the God of the living, not the dead, and so the living with Christ who are separated from this world can pray for us. And we can ask for their prayers. We are one Church, one Body of Christ, and death cannot separate us from one another. That idea is no longer possible after Christ's resurrection.
But it is not correct to simply assert that prayer is an act of adoration, when it isn't, and thereby condemn anyone who asks for the intercessions of the saints.
That's what I said in my post...Prayer can be asking for something...Prayer can be adoration, or worship...
But you notice in just the couple of prayers that I posted, there is no intercession asked or intended...It s expected these saints have supernatural god-like powers and actually answer prayer and perform miracles on their own...
You're trying to play with semantics...
Act 1:14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
Eph 6:18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;
Php 4:6 Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God.
Do you know what supplication means???
Jesus showed us how to pray and what prayer is...
Mat 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Mat 6:10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
Mat 6:11 Give us this day our daily bread.
Mat 6:12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
Mat 6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.
The prayer starts with adoration/veneration/worship...It then goes into supplication...And it ends up with more adoration/veneration/worship...
And this is exactly the way you pray to the Angel Michael and your saint Francis...
It doesn't matter what you call it...You guy are saying the Lord's prayer to your saints and Mary...
No, it's not. You haven't established any such thing.
You guy are saying the Lord's prayer to the Saints and Mary...
Again: claimed, not demonstrated.
Where "play with semantics" is defined as "disagree with Iscool's distorted misrepresentation of the private intent of about a billion Catholics."
A thing is either one substance or the other. It is its essence, the answer to the question "what is it?"
You still exhibit a difference between what you say is the Anglican position and what is the Orthodox/Catholic position.
And that's OK. You can believe what you want. But please recognize that we are not the same.
We do teach that God miraculously removes the substance of the bread and wine and changes it into the substance of Body and Blood. And also He miraculously makes it retain the appearance of bread and wine. Or as you say "fools" us into thinking they are bread and wine.
Your "common misunderstading" is our dogma.
Is Christ really human, or does God just miraculously makes Jesus retain the appearance of a man?
I don’t agree with the analogy you are attempting to make.
Just accept the fact. You can’t change it. Anglican understanding of the Eucharist is different than that of Catholics. You believe, as you’ve said numerous times, that the elements remain bread and wine while simultaneously being Body and Blood.
We don’t believe that.
But you believe it looks, tastes, feels, smells and sounds like bread? These are the physical qualities of bread. It is physically bread.
So, Christ was mistaken?
We make the distinction between the substance (what it is) and the accidents (how it seems to the senses).
Yes, it looks and tastes like bread. But it is not bread. It has been changed.
We do not agree. I accept that.
And Satan smiles – he’s got another one!
Twice in John the betrayal of Christ is linked to Judas not believing the real presence:
“I am the bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the desert and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven: that if any man eat of it, he may not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’ Then Jesus said to them: ‘Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.’…
But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that did not believe and who he was that would betray him. John 6: 48-54, 65
When Jesus had said these things, he was troubled in spirit; and he testified, and said: ‘Amen, amen, I say to you, one of you shall betray me.’ The disciples therefore looked one upon another, doubting of whom he spoke. Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved. Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him and said to him: ‘Who is it of whom he speaketh?’ He therefore, leaning on the breast of Jesus, saith to him: Lord, who is it? Jesus answered: ‘He it is to whom I shall reach bread dipped.’ And when he had dipped the bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. And after the morsel, Satan entered into him.” John 13:21-27
The betrayal of Christ was now complete. To Judas, this was only bread and wine. Satan entered into the heart of Judas that he conquered with doubt about the word “IS”
Paul later talks about the dangers of not discerning the real presence of Christ’s in the bread:
“For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread, And giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me. In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood. This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he come. Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you: and many sleep. But if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.”
1 Cor 11:23-31 Many are weak, infirmed and dead in spirit for not believing.
Indeed, the devil is happy when people deny the real presence in the Eucharist.
Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, ,that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians:not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.
Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.” –Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391
So Martin Luther says only the devil believes the bread is only bread.
Where would he get such an idea? From Christ Himself!
You're trying to play with semantics...
Hardly. I am being honest and upfront, and using the words for what they mean. Pray means to ask humbly. It is only to talk and ask. Yes, praying to God involves adoration, but all prayer doesn't. These are facts.
Do you know what supplication means???
Yes, I do. It also does not mean adoration.
The prayer starts with adoration/veneration/worship...It then goes into supplication...And it ends up with more adoration/veneration/worship...And this is exactly the way you pray to the Angel Michael and your saint Francis...
That is untrue. Let us look at your examples.
Glorious Prince of the heavenly hosts and victor over rebellious spirits, be mindful of me who am so weak and sinful and yet so prone to pride and ambition. Lend me, I pray, thy powerful aid in every temptation and difficulty, and above all do not forsake me in my last struggle with the powers of evil. Amen.
Here we refer to St. Michael as what he is, the prince of the angels. We honour his role and place, and ask for his aid against Satan. And is asking for his help against the Devil who he fights an act of adoration? Of course not, or else asking a doctor for help when you are sick is also adoration. Or asking for prayers from your friends or from your Church is adoring all of those people. No, there is no adoration of an angel here, and neither does it resemble the Our Father.
Okay, now for the next one.
Gentle St. Francis, you were so devoted to the humanity of Christ. Your heart burst with appreciation toward O God for taking on human life. You saw beauty and goodness in all living things - in birds that sing, the fish that fill our waters, and all that lives in nature./i>
And he was all of these things. No problem here.
Help us to imitate your reverence for life wherever it may be. Especially, humble Francis of Assisi, help us to help others to see the worth of each living, unborn baby sheltered in its mother's womb.
Good, few better people to ask for help in being like St. Francis than St. Francis himself. I have asked my wife and children to help me be a better Christian and person, and I suffer no scruples that I am adoring them as God. No problem here either.
May all people have the grace to understand that these tiny, budding lives have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
And so we do pray. But, notice that these words are not being asked of St. Francis himself, but are merely reflecting our prayers with him.
It doesn't matter what you call it...You guy are saying the Lord's prayer to your saints and Mary..
No, sorry, there is no similarity. The way I talk to the saints is the way I would talk to them if they stood before me. I honour their lives and persons, and humbly ask for their help and prayers too. Yes, that is prayer, but nothing like the Our Father.
LCMS adheres to close communion out concern for those who would not perceive the True Presence and eat and drink destruction on themselves. As the article points out, why would one want to take part with a group that they don't agree with. The LCMS does not embrace the doctrine of transubstatiation.
https://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/Theol_lord_supper1.pdf
Section C.1 on page 4.
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.