I want communion!!!!

[Scott1]

What does that have to do with what I believe about the Eucharist? The hang-up here appears to be yours, not mine. I am able to see Christ as present in the Eucharist, in all times and places. You are not.

I don't dispute that at all.

And who is the Church? The people ... all of us.

You'll have to forgive me if I have a different definition.

Now you're picking the fly **** out of the pepper. I believe Christ is LITERALLY present in the Eucharist. Now what do we do?

Dance.:dan:

 

[Dunemeister]

You'll have to forgive me if I have a different definition.

Different even from St. Paul's. St. Paul defined the church as those who hold to a particular profession:

Moses writes concerning the righteousness that comes from the law, that ‘the person who does these things will live by them.’ But the righteousness that comes from faith says, ‘Do not say in your heart, “Who will ascend into heaven?” ’ (that is, to bring Christ down) ‘or “Who will descend into the abyss?”’ (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? ‘The word is near you, on your lips and in your heart’ (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For one believes with the heart and so is justified, and one confesses with the mouth and so is saved. The scripture says, ‘No one who believes in him will be put to shame.’ For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and is generous to all who call on him. For, ‘Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.’

So why is the Roman Catholic church less generous than God? Why do they put Christians to shame by denying them communion when those Christians call upon one and the same God? If I am made righteous by my faith in Jesus, why am I excluded from communion with others who are likewise made righteous and therefore included in God's family? This is a classic case of forsaking the commandment of God for the sake of tradition.

This saying of Paul is difficult for all parties to this dispute to swallow. We are Christians because of a common fidelity to Jesus and belief in his resurrection. It's on THAT BASIS ALONE that we ought to be permitted communion. To deny communion to a person with this faith is to grieve the Holy Spirit of God and to put a roadblock in the way of Christian unity. That hinders our witness because it wrecks our credibility. And in the end, it makes a mockery of our mission to unite the world under Christ.

 

[Scott1]

Different even from St. Paul's. St. Paul defined the church as those who hold to a particular profession:

Okey dokey.

And in the end, it makes a mockery of our mission to unite the world under Christ.

Everyone should just come home to the one true Church.

 

[Scott1]

Have you folks read this before: The Gift of Authority

The Document published here is the work of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC). It is a joint statement of the Commission. The authorities who appointed the Commission have allowed the statement to be published so that it may be widely discussed. It is not an authoritative declaration by the Roman Catholic Church or by the Anglican Communion, who will evaluate the document in order to take a position on it in due time.

 

[sojourner]

Everyone should just come home to the one true Church.

Everyone is home in the one true Church. haven't you heard that, "In my Father's house are many rooms?"

 

[Muffled]

Everyone is home in the one true Church. haven't you heard that, "In my Father's house are many rooms?"

Just as long as we don't have to double up and share a room with a Catholic. Why would I ever want to go "home" to a church that has so many silly godless rules and thinks my beliefs aren't worthy to be accepted. (In fact I have had protestant churches that were rule bound call me a heretic)

I have taken what passes for communion in a Roman Catholic church (wafer only). Maybe no-one wanted to make a fuss because my lack of kneeling and crossing myself should have been a tip-off that I wasn't Catholic. As for why I would go there, I was sent by God for whatever his purposes and communion is something I would participate in as I understood it. I freaked out a Catholic one day when I told her that I had taken communion twice that day. I must have used up two months of a protestants quota on that day but only two days of a Catholic's quota.

 

[rheff78]

Just as long as we don't have to double up and share a room with a Catholic. Why would I ever want to go "home" to a church that has so many silly godless rules and thinks my beliefs aren't worthy to be accepted. (In fact I have had protestant churches that were rule bound call me a heretic)

I have taken what passes for communion in a Roman Catholic church (wafer only). Maybe no-one wanted to make a fuss because my lack of kneeling and crossing myself should have been a tip-off that I wasn't Catholic. As for why I would go there, I was sent by God for whatever his purposes and communion is something I would participate in as I understood it. I freaked out a Catholic one day when I told her that I had taken communion twice that day. I must have used up two months of a protestants quota on that day but only two days of a Catholic's quota.

that just shows your ignorance of what the Catholic Church believes and teaches. If you REALLY want to know, just ask. Godless rules huh? Not a bery Christian attitude. At least Sojourner acknowldeges the Church, you have no idea do you?

 

[sojourner]

that just shows your ignorance of what the Catholic Church believes and teaches. If you REALLY want to know, just ask. Godless rules huh? Not a bery Christian attitude. At least Sojourner acknowldeges the Church, you have no idea do you?

I know that sometimes it sounds as though I don't like Catholics, or the RCC. In fact, I have great respect for the RCC, and I have many dear friends who are Catholic. I do have some problems with that branch of the Church -- such as the openness of the Table, and the ordination of women. I don't think I would go so far as to call doctrine or practice "Godless rules," even if I do have a problem with them. I know that we're all limited human beings -- even the Pope -- and that we all operate within the parameters of our understanding. The Catholic faith is a beautiful, ancient, and honorable thing. I am proud to call Catholics "brother" and "sister," even if I disagree in some areas of doctrine, practice and polity.

 

[Muffled]

that just shows your ignorance of what the Catholic Church believes and teaches. If you REALLY want to know, just ask. Godless rules huh? Not a bery Christian attitude. At least Sojourner acknowldeges the Church, you have no idea do you?

Evidently your idea of what constitutes a Christian attitude and what does not differs from mine. You probably think your churche's rules are God inspired but I view them as man made and contrary to the spirit of God. I am not sure what you consider acknowlegement. The Roman Catholic church exists. Is that what you meant? I do not believe that the Roman Catholic church has apostolic authority or even if there is such a thing. I have lots of ideas but that doesn't mean you are going to agree with them.

 

[sojourner]

To get back to the topic at hand, I think this

So why is the Roman Catholic church less generous than God? Why do they put Christians to shame by denying them communion when those Christians call upon one and the same God? If I am made righteous by my faith in Jesus, why am I excluded from communion with others who are likewise made righteous and therefore included in God's family? This is a classic case of forsaking the commandment of God for the sake of tradition.

This saying of Paul is difficult for all parties to this dispute to swallow. We are Christians because of a common fidelity to Jesus and belief in his resurrection. It's on THAT BASIS ALONE that we ought to be permitted communion. To deny communion to a person with this faith is to grieve the Holy Spirit of God and to put a roadblock in the way of Christian unity. That hinders our witness because it wrecks our credibility. And in the end, it makes a mockery of our mission to unite the world under Christ.

is right on the money.

 

[rheff78]

Evidently your idea of what constitutes a Christian attitude and what does not differs from mine. You probably think your churche's rules are God inspired but I view them as man made and contrary to the spirit of God. I am not sure what you consider acknowlegement. The Roman Catholic church exists. Is that what you meant? I do not believe that the Roman Catholic church has apostolic authority or even if there is such a thing. I have lots of ideas but that doesn't mean you are going to agree with them.

Ideas are fine, but it's when you go criticising things you know nothing about is where the problem starts.

 

[rheff78]

I know that sometimes it sounds as though I don't like Catholics, or the RCC. In fact, I have great respect for the RCC, and I have many dear friends who are Catholic. I do have some problems with that branch of the Church -- such as the openness of the Table, and the ordination of women. I don't think I would go so far as to call doctrine or practice "Godless rules," even if I do have a problem with them. I know that we're all limited human beings -- even the Pope -- and that we all operate within the parameters of our understanding. The Catholic faith is a beautiful, ancient, and honorable thing. I am proud to call Catholics "brother" and "sister," even if I disagree in some areas of doctrine, practice and polity.

Agreed, and I feel the same as you.
One thing though, what is your problem with the ordination of women? Is it with the Catholic Church or were you referring to something else? Is it that you're upset we won't ordain women?

 

[crystalonyx]

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.

Wow, I went to a mass once when I was much younger and took communion, what was I thinking?

 

[crystalonyx]

It does seem that someone could do a check on the "holy" wine to see if it had changed to blood.

 

[sojourner]

Agreed, and I feel the same as you.
One thing though, what is your problem with the ordination of women? Is it with the Catholic Church or were you referring to something else? Is it that you're upset we won't ordain women?

the problem I have with the RCC is its refusal to ordain women to either the presbyterate or the episcopate.

 

[Scott1]

Listen... I'm all for this groovy "I'm ok.. you're ok" trip... have at it... do your thing. I'll try to explain one last time:

Everyone is welcome to come to a Catholic Mass... there is more to our worship than a persons selfish desire to receive Communion. Come.... be fed by the Word in communion with your fellow Christians. We can say a few "Hail Mary's" and I'll take you through the Stations after Mass. Deal?

No one.... NO ONE... has the right to impose their beliefs upon another. Period. Dress it all up in cheery, ecumenical tones, but in fact all you are doing is trying to attack what I believe.

The Eucharist is a type of the Lord's Supper.... this was a specific event and a closed table.

We believe:
The whole Church is united with the offering and intercession of Christ. Since he has the ministry of Peter in the Church, the Pope is associated with every celebration of the Eucharist, wherein he is named as the sign and servant of the unity of the universal Church. The bishop of the place is always responsible for the Eucharist, even when a priest presides; the bishop's name is mentioned to signify his presidency over the particular Church, in the midst of his presbyterium and with the assistance of deacons. The community intercedes also for all ministers who, for it and with it, offer the Eucharistic sacrifice:

Let only that Eucharist be regarded as legitimate, which is celebrated under [the presidency of] the bishop or him to whom he has entrusted it.Through the ministry of priests the spiritual sacrifice of the faithful is completed in union with the sacrifice of Christ the only Mediator, which in the Eucharist is offered through the priests' hands in the name of the whole Church in an unbloody and sacramental manner until the Lord himself comes.
...and if you don't believe this, why would you lie and accept communion?

Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 2 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 1 ARTICLE 3

 

[sojourner]

Listen... I'm all for this groovy "I'm ok.. you're ok" trip... have at it... do your thing. I'll try to explain one last time:

Everyone is welcome to come to a Catholic Mass... there is more to our worship than a persons selfish desire to receive Communion. Come.... be fed by the Word in communion with your fellow Christians. We can say a few "Hail Mary's" and I'll take you through the Stations after Mass. Deal?

No one.... NO ONE... has the right to impose their beliefs upon another. Period. Dress it all up in cheery, ecumenical tones, but in fact all you are doing is trying to attack what I believe.

The Eucharist is a type of the Lord's Supper.... this was a specific event and a closed table.

We believe:
The whole Church is united with the offering and intercession of Christ. Since he has the ministry of Peter in the Church, the Pope is associated with every celebration of the Eucharist, wherein he is named as the sign and servant of the unity of the universal Church. The bishop of the place is always responsible for the Eucharist, even when a priest presides; the bishop's name is mentioned to signify his presidency over the particular Church, in the midst of his presbyterium and with the assistance of deacons. The community intercedes also for all ministers who, for it and with it, offer the Eucharistic sacrifice:

Let only that Eucharist be regarded as legitimate, which is celebrated under [the presidency of] the bishop or him to whom he has entrusted it.Through the ministry of priests the spiritual sacrifice of the faithful is completed in union with the sacrifice of Christ the only Mediator, which in the Eucharist is offered through the priests' hands in the name of the whole Church in an unbloody and sacramental manner until the Lord himself comes.
...and if you don't believe this, why would you lie and accept communion?

Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 2 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 1 ARTICLE 3

first of all, I don't think it's fair for you to assume that a non-Catholic's intention in making Holy Communion is "selfish" -- implying that a Catholic's intention is not. How do you know the intention of any but yourself. That shouldn't even be used to justify the policy of a closed Table.

Second, I agree with your quotation in green. the Pope would be associated with every celebration of the Eucharist, since there is only one Eucharist. And, in your own Preface to the Eucharistic Prayer, it is said that "It is a good and joyful thing, always and everywhere to give thanks to you, Holy Father..." (The term, Eucharist, comes from the Greek word for "thanks.") Therefore, whenever bread is broken in the midst of the assembly, for purposes of uniting with Christ in his sacrifice -- wherever we participate in that anamnesis, it is a good and joyful thing, in which the Pope (as well as all Christians) is spiritually present. Even though we use different terminology, I serve my congregation as presbyter, and celebrate the Eucharist at the pleasure of the region (diocese), which has a bishop (or regional minister).

Your quotation would seem to imply that I would be welcome at the Table of Christ...no matter where it is located. Especially since I recognize the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

 

[Scott1]

first of all, I don't think it's fair for you to assume that a non-Catholic's intention in making Holy Communion is "selfish" -- implying that a Catholic's intention is not. How do you know the intention of any but yourself. That shouldn't even be used to justify the policy of a closed Table.

Did I address the post to you personally? NO. Look at the thread title. Furthermore, I still believe that ANY insistance that a person MUST be allowed to partake of the Sacrament as selfish... if you believe your Communion to be sufficient, why the need to partake in ours? There are many other ways to come together as Christians.... I would say a good start would be not telling a brother in Christ that we "put Christians to shame"..... polemics are not a great way to enter into communion... IMO.

Second, I agree with your quotation in green.

You believe that Pope Benedict is the sign and servant of the unity of the universal Church?

Your quotation would seem to imply that I would be welcome at the Table of Christ...no matter where it is located. Especially since I recognize the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

I don't doubt your personal beliefs... but they are not ROMAN CATHOLIC beliefs and as such, prevent your participation in ROMAN CATHOLIC SACRAMENTS. I just don't get what is so difficult to understand about that.

In Christ,
S

 

[sojourner]

if you believe your Communion to be sufficient, why the need to partake in ours?

As I said earlier, there's no such thing as "yours," "mine," or "ours" when it comes to Eucharist. Eucharist belongs to Christ. If I happen to be visiting a Catholic parish for Mass, and Christ is there, I imagine that Christ is inviting to his Table with the rest of the family. I have the same need to partake as you, or any other Catholic person has.

You believe that Pope Benedict is the sign and servant of the unity of the universal Church?

Yes, just as I believe that the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Orthodox Patriarch, and our own General Minister are signs of the unity of the universal Church, in their own ways.

ROMAN CATHOLIC SACRAMENTS. I just don't get what is so difficult to understand about that.

I just don't get why it's so difficult for you to understand that the sacraments are not "Roman Catholic, or Orthodox, or Lutheran, or Anglican -- they're Christian. They should be shared with all Christians -- in fact, the very theology of the universality of Eucharist demands it.

 

[Dunemeister]

I don't doubt your personal beliefs... but they are not ROMAN CATHOLIC beliefs and as such, prevent your participation in ROMAN CATHOLIC SACRAMENTS. I just don't get what is so difficult to understand about that.

In Christ,
S

Okay, so here it is. There OUGHT NOT TO BE Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, Reformed, Non-denominational, or what-have-you sacraments. Only Christian sacraments. The communion meal is designed to be a sign and facilitator of Christian unity. To use it as a pretext for division of Christians into "those in the right group" and "those in the wrong group" is anathema.