Posted on 12/27/2008 2:48:02 PM PST by NYer
Q. Why can’t Protestants receive communion at the Catholic Church?
A. To protect them from Judgment.
1 Corinthians 11: 27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be
guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.
Since, Protestants do not believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist as we do, they do not discern or recognize that Jesus’ body is present under the appearance of bread and wine. We would be allowing them to eat and drink judgment upon themselves. The prohibtion is actually very charitable but, unfortunately, it is usually seen as a rejection.
Evidence of this interpretation of this passage is supported by St. Justin the Martyr :
“We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true…”
-Justin Martyr -FIRST APOLOGY, 66,20–(150 A.D.)
Q. Why do we call the bread “The Host”?
A. Our use of this term, to refer to the consecrated bread, comes from the Latin word hostia, which means ‘victim’. We believe that Jesus Christ is really present in the consecrated bread and wine on our altars. The mass is a re-presentation of the sacrificial death of Jesus on the cross. Therefore, Jesus is the victim of sacrifice and we call the bread the host/victim to help us remember that it is no longer bread but the Real Presence of our Lord Jesus Christ given to us to strengthen and keep us on the journey to Heaven.
AMEN to that...
Thank you.
“Those who insist their denomination is the only way to salvation and their doctrine is the only way to have communion with God put themselves as gods.”
Maybe, maybe not. Our Lord founded ONE Church, not many. But those who claim that all are saved and that any belief is as good as any other certainly cannot claim to be followers of the Word.
Bingo.
One question:
Is Jimmy Akin a Catholic???
What exactly do you do at communion, in rememberance? If you say any less than eat his flesh and drink his blood, then you are not doing what he specifically asked you to do in rememberance of him. Do THIS in rememberance of me. They ate his flesh and drank his blood. He did not say eat this as a symbol.
I respect your right to believe as you do, but I have learned that I cannot mince words, as I am not interested in a one world religion, and if I thought every religion was valid as long as the basics were all there, then I would be helping to forge that very road. If all were the same in validity, I would not be Catholic and you would not be ________. Nor would Muslims, Jews, or Buddists be what they are. No. No more. I will not change your mind, and that I am fine with, but I will not agree that all are basically fine. Truth is truth. God bless you and keep you.
Where did you learn that?
Here’s what a top Anglican convert to Catholicism and and a towering intellectual of his time said:
Cardinal Newman, 1848: “To me, nothing is so consoling, so piercing, so thrilling, so overcoming, as the Mass, said as it is among us. I could attend Mass for ever, and not be tired. It is not a mere form of words, – it is a great action, the greatest action there can be on earth. It is not the invocation only, but, if I dare to use the word, the evocation of the Eternal. He becomes present on the altar in flesh and blood, before whom angels bow and devils tremble.”
I just happened to drop by the thread and I can see that things are getting ugly with some of the usual suspects. May the Lord grant you grace and forbearance!
Thank you. Odd that folks who believe that everyone is saved still have room to poor fire and vitriol on the Universal Church, the One True Church founded by Our Lord.
Here is what a leading Anglican convert to Catholicism and a towering intellectual of his time wrote:
Cardinal Newman, 1848: “To me, nothing is so consoling, so piercing, so thrilling, so overcoming, as the Mass, said as it is among us. I could attend Mass for ever, and not be tired. It is not a mere form of words, – it is a great action, the greatest action there can be on earth. It is not the invocation only, but, if I dare to use the word, the evocation of the Eternal. He becomes present on the altar in flesh and blood, before whom angels bow and devils tremble.”
Who is Jimmy Akin?
My question is a simple one. Why do they serve communion to Ted Kennedy or John Kerry and their clear apostate friends, and yet not offer it to a believing Protestant?
Love heals all theology.
I wish you well on your journey with our Blessed Lord!
To deny this is to deny the Bible was inspired by God!
Yes, your doctrine is the only one that is correct; any other doctrine which believes otherwise - which includes most of the Protestants, and large groups within the Catholic church up until 1215 - most be heretics.
In essence, you are the gatekeeper to who can have communion with Him; you have replaced Jesus as the gatekeeper. Your Church annoints its doctrine (which was formalized in 1215 with the Lateran Council) as the sole means of communication with God. I will let you ruminate on your newly claimed position in the hierarchy of a man's relationship with God.
Check out Cardinal Henry Newman: Foremost theologian and Anglican convert that created a “theological” earthquake at the time in his conversion to Catholicism and a towering intellectual scholar of his period who said:
Cardinal Newman, 1848: “To me, nothing is so consoling, so piercing, so thrilling, so overcoming, as the Mass, said as it is among us. I could attend Mass for ever, and not be tired. It is not a mere form of words, – it is a great action, the greatest action there can be on earth. It is not the invocation only, but, if I dare to use the word, the evocation of the Eternal. He becomes present on the altar in flesh and blood, before whom angels bow and devils tremble.”
Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the LordThe fate of those who mock Our Lord is theirs, unless the minister KNOWS that someone ought not take Communion, they are presumed to be in a State of Grace. The Church respects our individual conscience in this matter, knowing full well that an Omnipotent God sees all.
On that we agree. And before He came, God set up ONE chosen people to follow him. That was changed when Jesus came and broke the old religious requirements. No longer were just the priests able to meet with the Living God; we all could have a personal relationship with Him.
But those who claim that all are saved and that any belief is as good as any other certainly cannot claim to be followers of the Word.
And I don't see anyone here arguing that. If you do not profess in a personal faith in God and a relationship through Jesus Christ, I will gladly tell you that you are doomed to eternal death.
However, if you profess your faith in Christ, then I will accept that. It is not my role to judge whether your profession is good enough, or your doctrine is "pure". That is between you and God. I may have my opinion, but I will not voice it nor declare it.
I will not condemn you; go and sin no more. If only more Christians would follow that statement!
I’ll take the easy ones first.
Orthodox - generally the same as Catholic.
Anglican - it depends. (High church Anglo - Catholics retained much of the Catholic theology, low church is more reformed in its theological tradition.) And of course, most of the Episcopal church has strayed so far from Christianity, that the question is probably irrelevant to them.
Charismatic - that covers a lot of ground. I’ll exclude the ‘Charismatic Catholics’. I think you’ll find most charismatics don’t spend a lot of time discussing issues like this; they are more experiential in their worship. To the extent that they do consider it, most would probably adopt the Baptist view.
Congregationalist - came out of the Puritian tradition, and historically would take the Calvinist view. As a practical matter, it is largely post-Christian now - see my comments on the Episcopalians.
Methodist/Wesleyan - came out of the Anglican tradition - generally low church. As such, they would historically tend toward the Reformed view.
Unitarians - not Christian, so doctrinally, ‘none of the above’.
Adventists - Came out of a historical Calvinist background
Quakers - http://www.firstfriendswhittier.org/welcome/sacraments.html
Mormons - I had to look it up. Symbolic/memorial. Closest to Baptist.
And of course, Anglicans, Congregationalists, Adventists, LDS, and Unitarians are welcome to correct, expound and explain.
thx for posting that. I was gearing up for another joust — that was just what I needed.
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.