I want communion!!!!

[Arrow]

Can someone explain to me why the pope will not let me partake in communion during mass.

thanks,
Arrow

 

[3.14]

pope = rules
rules = communion restrictions
communion = only realy worth something when done according to the rules
mass = only realy worth something when done according to the rules

 

[NIX]

Can someone explain to me why the pope will not let me partake in communion during mass.

thanks,
Arrow

Because it is a Catholic communion, and you are not Catholic?
(ie...Because it is a Catholic Ritual, and you have not been properly (indoctrinated) "invested" in Ritual Catholicism)
You do not have the right, because you have not been through the "rites".

3.14, in some funny way, your answer really knocked me out!

*Nixxie*

 

[rheff78]

ALright, here we go:

Unlike protestant churches who believe communion is taken just as a symbol, the Catholic Church believes in what we call transubstantiation, meaning that wafer of unleavened bread actually turns in to the body and blood of Jesus Christ. So, in order to take Communion at a Catholic Church you must be a Catholic who believes this takes place. If you don't believe it and take communion you're making light of the whole reason the Catholics take communion. Hope that helps.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Can someone explain to me why the pope will not let me partake in communion during mass.

My short list of possible reasons:

- you're not Catholic
- you insulted his mother

 

[Charity]

ALright, here we go:

Unlike protestant churches who believe communion is taken just as a symbol, the Catholic Church believes in what we call transubstantiation, meaning that wafer of unleavened bread actually turns in to the body and blood of Jesus Christ. So, in order to take Communion at a Catholic Church you must be a Catholic who believes this takes place. If you don't believe it and take communion you're making light of the whole reason the Catholics take communion. Hope that helps.

Actually it is very important in a lot of the protestant churches also....Before a communion service, we are always read the scriptures, and have prayer because to partake of this sacrament unworthily is treading on dangerous territory...We also believe that the bread represents His broken body and the wine (we use grape juice) is the blood..........So there Rheff, see you don't have the monopoly on Jesus (just joking with that last remark) WE do take communion very seriously.

I think that everyone should receive instruction and not just participate without knowing the reason we believe and hold this sacred. :highfive:

 

[Arrow]

ALright, here we go:

Unlike protestant churches who believe communion is taken just as a symbol, the Catholic Church believes in what we call transubstantiation, meaning that wafer of unleavened bread actually turns in to the body and blood of Jesus Christ. So, in order to take Communion at a Catholic Church you must be a Catholic who believes this takes place. If you don't believe it and take communion you're making light of the whole reason the Catholics take communion. Hope that helps.

Ouch

I fail to see the connection. If i love God and you love God, and Jesus gave us both communion...we believe a little different, but how does belief cheapen something? And no it is not a matter of the heart in the sense that i do not pay enough tribute to it. If belief in transubstantiation was so needed to not cheapen communion, then i feel that someone in the Bible would have elaborated more upon the subject.

thanks for the input,
Arrow

 

[rheff78]

Actually it is very important in a lot of the protestant churches also....Before a communion service, we are always read the scriptures, and have prayer because to partake of this sacrament unworthily is treading on dangerous territory...We also believe that the bread represents His broken body and the wine (we use grape juice) is the blood..........So there Rheff, see you don't have the monopoly on Jesus (just joking with that last remark) WE do take communion very seriously.

I think that everyone should receive instruction and not just participate without knowing the reason we believe and hold this sacred. :highfive:

Charity, I did not mean to insinuate that ya'll didn't take it seriously, I jsut didn't know enough about what ya'll believe to comment more on it. I don't like commenting on things I know nothing about (unlike some people on this forum).

 

[rheff78]

Ouch

I fail to see the connection. If i love God and you love God, and Jesus gave us both communion...we believe a little different, but how does belief cheapen something? And no it is not a matter of the heart in the sense that i do not pay enough tribute to it. If belief in transubstantiation was so needed to not cheapen communion, then i feel that someone in the Bible would have elaborated more upon the subject.

thanks for the input,
Arrow

your failure to see the connection is the reason that you are not permitted to recieve communion.

 

[Arrow]

your failure to see the connection is the reason that you are not permitted to recieve communion.

Dude, who gave the pope the authority to deny something Jesus established for all believers? According to what you have said, communion is now Catholic not Christian, and what other Christians practice is communion to a lesser extent. I fail to see the connection because there is no connection to be made.

 

[Mister Emu]

For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

Just to note, no one is going to physically stop you from receiving communion.

 

[SoyLeche]

Dude, who gave the pope the authority to deny something Jesus established for all believers? According to what you have said, communion is now Catholic not Christian, and what other Christians practice is communion to a lesser extent. I fail to see the connection because there is no connection to be made.

If you don't think that the Pope has authority to deny you communion - why do you want a Catholic communion in the first place? Many, if not most, Protestant churches offere a communion. Go get it there.

 

[rheff78]

Dude, who gave the pope the authority to deny something Jesus established for all believers? According to what you have said, communion is now Catholic not Christian, and what other Christians practice is communion to a lesser extent. I fail to see the connection because there is no connection to be made.

Well, if you want to get into that. Jesus gave him the power. Apostolic succession. Anyway, I never said communion is just Catholic, OUR communion is for Catholics. I have no knowledge of how or what the other Christian religions give communion. I only know what we believe. Why do you want communion with us anyway? Like SoyLeche said, there are many other churches that offer coummnion.

 

[sojourner]

Well, if you want to get into that. Jesus gave him the power. Apostolic succession. Anyway, I never said communion is just Catholic, OUR communion is for Catholics. I have no knowledge of how or what the other Christian religions give communion. I only know what we believe. Why do you want communion with us anyway? Like SoyLeche said, there are many other churches that offer coummnion.

A couple of points, with a bit of a disclaimer at the beginning:
First of all, I'm not a "catholic-basher." The following comments are not a judgment -- just observations.

1) I seem to remember a debate concerning the efficacy of the Communion if it was consecrated by an unworthy priest. I think the conclusion that was reached was that a human priest, acting unworthily, could not nullify the efficacy of the Communion.

I wonder why that doesn't seem to work the other way, too, that is, why does a communicant's "unworthiness" affect the efficacy of Communion, but a priest's does not?

2) I was not aware that Communion was in any way "yours," "mine," or "ours." I thought the Table belonged to Christ, and he issues the invitation.

 

[Scott1]

Dude, who gave the pope the authority to deny something Jesus established for all believers? According to what you have said, communion is now Catholic not Christian, and what other Christians practice is communion to a lesser extent. I fail to see the connection because there is no connection to be made.

To be clear... this is the rule of both the RCC and Orthodox faiths.... and it's not just the Pope who has denied you, it is ALL of us who are in communion with the Church.

You are welcome to become Catholic if you'd like to participate in Communion, but NO ONE has a right to receive it... I believe it is a honor that took me a year of prayer and study (I'm a convert) to earn.

Remember the teaching from 1 Cor. 11:27-29 - in these verses, Paul says that eating or drinking in an unworthy manner is the equivalent of profaning (literally, murdering) the body and blood of the Lord. If this is just a symbol, we cannot be guilty of actually profaning (murdering) it. We cannot murder a symbol. Either Paul, the divinely inspired apostle of God, is imposing an unjust penalty, or the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ.... and if you don't believe that, you will damage your soul by partaking in Communion... and we won't let that happen.

This has been the foundation of the Christian faith since the begining:
"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

 

[rheff78]

A couple of points, with a bit of a disclaimer at the beginning:
First of all, I'm not a "catholic-basher." The following comments are not a judgment -- just observations.

1) I seem to remember a debate concerning the efficacy of the Communion if it was consecrated by an unworthy priest. I think the conclusion that was reached was that a human priest, acting unworthily, could not nullify the efficacy of the Communion.

I wonder why that doesn't seem to work the other way, too, that is, why does a communicant's "unworthiness" affect the efficacy of Communion, but a priest's does not?

2) I was not aware that Communion was in any way "yours," "mine," or "ours." I thought the Table belonged to Christ, and he issues the invitation.

See Scott's post, he got to it before me.

 

[Dunemeister]

Well, if you want to get into that. Jesus gave him the power. Apostolic succession. Anyway, I never said communion is just Catholic, OUR communion is for Catholics. I have no knowledge of how or what the other Christian religions give communion. I only know what we believe. Why do you want communion with us anyway? Like SoyLeche said, there are many other churches that offer coummnion.

An exclusive communion is a primary barrier to reconciliation in the divided church. By not permitting others of different denominations to participate at the communion table, the RCC in effect denies their status as Christians. Besides, as an Anglican, I view the Roman Catholic Church as my mother church, and I would like to be able to enjoy full communion with her.

The point was originally raised for me by a situation that arose between me and a RC friend of mine when we visited each other's churches. The service at my Anglican church was almost indistinguishable from a Roman Catholic mass (I go to what's called an Anglocatholic church), and at the time for communion, my friend asked, "should I take communion here?" I asked "are you baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost"? He said "Yes." So I said, "Well then, there's your answer." And so he partook with the rest of us. When I went with him to his church, I asked the same question, and he got very flustered and embarrassed, saying "I'm sorry, you really shouldn't." I was extremely offended at the time, and I almost walked out.

Denying communion to someone who has been baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost is utterly contrary to Christian love. Taking communion unworthily is not a matter of whether a person holds to a strange metaphysical theory or not. It's an ethical issue. 1 Corinthians chastises a church for allowing communion to become a place where social status and wealth become apparent, whereas it should be a equalizing event that obscures and eliminates social divisions. Yet somehow, the RCC (and perhaps the Orthodox, too, although I haven't had any dealings with them) has managed to make it a key element in (further) dividing the Christian community.

 

[sojourner]

An exclusive communion is a primary barrier to reconciliation in the divided church. By not permitting others of different denominations to participate at the communion table, the RCC in effect denies their status as Christians. Besides, as an Anglican, I view the Roman Catholic Church as my mother church, and I would like to be able to enjoy full communion with her.

The point was originally raised for me by a situation that arose between me and a RC friend of mine when we visited each other's churches. The service at my Anglican church was almost indistinguishable from a Roman Catholic mass (I go to what's called an Anglocatholic church), and at the time for communion, my friend asked, "should I take communion here?" I asked "are you baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost"? He said "Yes." So I said, "Well then, there's your answer." And so he partook with the rest of us. When I went with him to his church, I asked the same question, and he got very flustered and embarrassed, saying "I'm sorry, you really shouldn't." I was extremely offended at the time, and I almost walked out.

Denying communion to someone who has been baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost is utterly contrary to Christian love. Taking communion unworthily is not a matter of whether a person holds to a strange metaphysical theory or not. It's an ethical issue. 1 Corinthians chastises a church for allowing communion to become a place where social status and wealth become apparent, whereas it should be a equalizing event that obscures and eliminates social divisions. Yet somehow, the RCC (and perhaps the Orthodox, too, although I haven't had any dealings with them) has managed to make it a key element in (further) dividing the Christian community.

You know, it's funny. On several occasions of serious ecumenical effort, when everything had been agreed upon, and consensus has finally seemed possible, when it came time to share the Meal, the impending concordat was shattered. it's funny that the Body of Christ is the one insturment we use to hack, instead of to heal. To me, that's a greater desecration of the Body of Christ (which is the community of followrs) than opening the Table. Even Jesus ate with sinners and prostitutes...

 

[Scott1]

An exclusive communion is a primary barrier to reconciliation in the divided church.

Primary? I don't think so....it's done out of love.... we want you to come home to your "mother church".

Just FYI:

The Eucharist and the unity of Christians.
Before the greatness of this mystery St. Augustine exclaims, "O sacrament of devotion! O sign of unity! O bond of charity!" The more painful the experience of the divisions in the Church which break the common participation in the table of the Lord, the more urgent are our prayers to the Lord that the time of complete unity among all who believe in him may return.
The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. "These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy." A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, "given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged."Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, "have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders." It is for this reason that, for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible. However these ecclesial communities, "when they commemorate the Lord's death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory."

Denying communion to someone who has been baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost is utterly contrary to Christian love.

Why is your restriction to only those who are "validly" baptised any different than our restriction based upon valid Holy Orders?

Peace,
S

 

[rheff78]

An exclusive communion is a primary barrier to reconciliation in the divided church. By not permitting others of different denominations to participate at the communion table, the RCC in effect denies their status as Christians. Besides, as an Anglican, I view the Roman Catholic Church as my mother church, and I would like to be able to enjoy full communion with her.

The point was originally raised for me by a situation that arose between me and a RC friend of mine when we visited each other's churches. The service at my Anglican church was almost indistinguishable from a Roman Catholic mass (I go to what's called an Anglocatholic church), and at the time for communion, my friend asked, "should I take communion here?" I asked "are you baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost"? He said "Yes." So I said, "Well then, there's your answer." And so he partook with the rest of us. When I went with him to his church, I asked the same question, and he got very flustered and embarrassed, saying "I'm sorry, you really shouldn't." I was extremely offended at the time, and I almost walked out.

Denying communion to someone who has been baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost is utterly contrary to Christian love. Taking communion unworthily is not a matter of whether a person holds to a strange metaphysical theory or not. It's an ethical issue. 1 Corinthians chastises a church for allowing communion to become a place where social status and wealth become apparent, whereas it should be a equalizing event that obscures and eliminates social divisions. Yet somehow, the RCC (and perhaps the Orthodox, too, although I haven't had any dealings with them) has managed to make it a key element in (further) dividing the Christian community.

Well, there is a difference though. We believe that the Eucharist IS the body,blood, sould and divinity of Jesus Christ. IF you don't believe that, why would you want to take communion with us?