....... You disagree with a LOT of what we think, teach, and do. Especially you disagree with us about what we're doing with the Eucharist. We say,"There are amazing graces available to the devout and penitent here," and you say,"No thanks," politely.
Well, as regards transubstantiation, we say "that's not true", politely. :) But that still prompts the question of why we would nevertheless be unwelcome to share in the celebration of the Supper with you. The way you present it, it seems like the graces you offer, including the accompanying theology, are actually mandatory or else you close the door. Any Roman Catholic would always be welcome to partake of the Lord's Supper in any Bible-believing church. We only ask that any partaker honestly consider himself a believer.
Also, No a lying, cheating, murdering, raping, unrepentant Roman Catholic is NOT EITHER perfectly welcome to receive it. If he does so unrepentantly he just exacerbates his already mortal state of sin. VERY bad mojo.
Ah, I didn't understand your reaction and so I went back and studied everything that's been said. My response, that you're alluding to, was based on your saying this:
And the sacraments are not denied to anyone in extremis in any event.
I had never seen the word "extremis" before so I just assumed it meant somehow separated from the Church, like someone who was unrepentant. But now I've looked it up and see that it really means something much more like: "close to death". So, I owe you an apology. I totally misunderstood.
Any Roman Catholic would always be welcome to partake of the Lord's Supper in any Bible-believing church. We only ask that any partaker honestly consider himself a believer.
It really comes down to if you believe the sacrifice at the cross was sufficient. The Lord's Supper and Baptism are great illustrations of this fundamental difference and evidence that our respective churches do teach a different Gospel, something to consider on Resurrection Sunday.
I have to think about that. Do you all require Baptism for reception of the Lord's Supper?
Of course it would be something like "openness" to the graces etc. blah blah that would be mandated. If I get that chance I'll tackle one of my guys on this. The usual line is full ecclesiastical communion is a "ordinarily" (blessed waffle word) required for full sacramental communion (but near death or in other amazing circumstances we're willing to take a chance.)
I think part of the rationale is the "discerning the body" part of the Corinthians thing - NOT JUST discerning the transubstantiated body (which would be discernible only by faith in any event) but the corporate unity of the Church. Something like that. As I said, I need to think and ask about it.
As for the misunderstanding: It's all that there Latin's whut it is. I'm sorry too for communication failure too. "In extremis" was a term used in my Protestant growing up household so I just figgered ... The desire for economy of words leads to jargon leads to confusion.