Protestant Communion

[Good Friday]

May the unity and joy of Christ be with all of us.

I wanted to point out that the Church does not teach that Non-Catholic Christians are simply receiving a cracker. Although it is not the Eucharist, it is something more than just receiving a cracker. In the Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, #22, the following is stated:

The Ecclesial Communities separated from us lack that fullness of unity with us which should flow from Baptism, and we believe that especially because of the lack of the sacrament of Orders they have not preserved the genuine and total reality of the Eucharistic mystery. Nevertheless, when they commemorate the Lord's death and resurrection in the Holy Supper, they profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and they await his coming in glory. Emphasis mine.

The above statement is also reaffirmed in Ecclesia de Eucharistia, by Pope John Paul II, in #30. Just thought I'd post that.

Edited July 24, 2003 by Good Friday

[Anna]

Nathan,

So good to see you posting! (I was missing you. )

I'd like to mention something from Jake's opening post. (Don't worry, Jake, I won't pick on you!)

"A lady on the Baptist board mentioned that her congregation only has 'closed' communion, meaning only the Baptists at her congregation can recieve it. Her explanation was that 'There is a danger in taking communion unworthily.'"

Where is this found in Scripture?

Corinthians Chapter 11:23-29 says "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 when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood: this do you, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as you eat this bread, and drink this cup, you do show the Lord's death until he returns. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body."

Wow. What a can of worms we open up when we attempt to interpret Scripture for ourselves. The Baptists are missing a very important point.

If "taking communion" is merely symbolic, (as the they seem to claim) then how could taking something symbolically bring about damnation?

Only Jesus Christ can judge the saved and the damned, the living and the dead.

So, is this Bread and Cup the Body and Blood of the Lord, or isn't it?

If It is, then we can understand Its power, and the need to examine oneself and confess prior to receiving Him.

But if It was only a symbolic guesture of unity, what difference it make, taking it worthily or unworthily?

Scripture points out, This is more than symbolic. It's the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, the Living God, with the power to save or beaver dam.

[jasJis]

Jake,

I don't want to pick on you either. I think Kathlikos or Monk would verify this. you posted:

But we are required to be present at Mass weekly, which is that very meeting whose sole purpose is to offer Communion, as those first Apostles did observe.

I think 'sole purpose' is too strong. 'Most important' purpose seems to be more correct. The Liturgy of the Word is extremely important, which is why if you come late to Mass, after the Gospel reading, it is not considered meeting the requirements of attending Mass.

[benedict_x]

Didja guys know that "IHS" means iota, eta, sigma?

Its the first three letters of the Greek spelling of Jesus.

Just thought I might contribute sumthin.

[Good Friday]

May the joy of Christ be with you, Anna. I'm glad to see you posting more too.

Just wanted to let you know that I wasn't responding so much to the original post as to some of the replies in which it was stated that Non-Catholic Christians receive only a cracker or only bread and wine, and that's all it means for them. What I was pointing out was that, while they are not receiving the Eucharist, the communion they are receiving isn't just bread and wine to them -- it's a symbolic commemoration of Jesus' death and resurrection. While it is not as important to them as it is to Catholics because they don't believe the same thing about it, they still treat their communion with a great deal of reverence.

Of course that doesn't mean they're right, but I was just clarifying what they believe about their communion. I think we can be much more productive when we accurately state what they believe, and since they don't believe that it's just a snack, I thought I would correct it. But yeah, I agree with pretty much everything you said, and I agree that private interpretation can lead to grave errors such as these.

[Jake Huether]

JasJis,

As soon as I posted that, I thought someone might say something. But I left it nonetheless

Indeed, I do believe the Eucharist to be the "most important" part of the Mass. I couldn't find the right word to substitute for "sole". But it does border on being the "sole" purpose, since it is the "Sacrifice" of the Mass that we, like Christ, so eagerly await.

So borderline in fact that St. Paul doesn't make mention of the litugy of the Word, only that the Corinthians are not meeting (as they should) for the Lord's Supper.

My point I guess was simply that according to Scripture there are no "meetings" that exclude the Eucharist, Communion if you will. When Protestants meet there is a great percentage of meetings that exclude communion. This is not Scriptural. So, if they claim the Bible to be the sole source for their faith, belief, and all practices - then why are they skipping communion in their meetings?

[Anna]

Dearest Nathan,

I'm quite certain that you stated the Catholic Teaching flawlessly. :wub: And I thank you for doing so. As Christians, even when our most sacred Sacraments are derided by non-believers, we should not stoop to their level and demean their practices, even though we understand such practices to be based on error and misinterpretation of Scripture.

The Church would never advise us to do so, and doesn't exemplify us doing so. (May I say, unlike the shepherds of many other denominations? )

I was simply posting the logical dilemma that occurs when this particular Baptist congregation comes to the conclusion that there is "danger" in receiving unworthily.

Where do they get this idea that receiving holy communion could be hazardous to one's spiritual health? From Scripture!

So, why would Scripture say this?

If they read and think about it, there is only One logical answer: This Ordinary Bread and Ordinary Cup are only ordinary in appearance! There is real supernatural power in them! For if we eat it unworthily, we are in danger of losing our souls for all eternity!!!!!! Scripture says so!!!

This Baptist lady is just thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis close to figuring out the logical conclusion: Jesus meant what He said literally, when He said "This is My Body, This is My Blood."

Wow.

If only we could post on the Baptist Board and help her to see the Truth.

Pax Christi. <><

Edited July 24, 2003 by Anna

[hyperdulia again]

i still say it IS just a cracker regardless of what they believe about it.

[IcePrincessKRS]

While I agree with Anna and Friday that we shouldn't demean the "communion" other religions practice, I would like to add that to some of them do consider it just wine/grape juice and bread/cracker.

My grandmother is Episcopalain, and when I was about 14 she told me about a service that she had gone to with my cousin Robert, who was about 5. (I think it may have been Christmas or Easter, actually. ) She told me that she had let Robert go up and receive communion. I was suprised, my brother Michael is the same age as Robert, and we all know as Catholics we don't receive First Holy Communion until we're about 7. I expressed my suprise and said something along the lines of "wow, he's kind of young isn't he? I didn't make my First Communion until I was 7." And Grandma replied, "Well he knows its only bread and wine, and since he understands that its ok." I still remember to this day thinking, "Not in my Church!" but not responding to her comment.

[Jake Huether]

Anna?

C'mon Katie, she's MAMMA to you.

[IcePrincessKRS]

Anna?

C'mon Katie, she's MAMMA to you. 

Yeah, but not everyone realizes that, so when talking about serious stuff on here I call her "Anna" so they know who I'm talking about.

[God Conquers]

How deep can a protestant go in their worship? If the Lord's Supper is just symbolic, how does it bring us any closer together as a community than sitting cross-legged and singing Kumbaya?

I recently went to a big Christian Music festival where delerious? was playing as the main act. Some people consider them the "best" worship band. (I do not, but that's besides the point.) As they were playing (they are quite good) I had to take a step back for a moment. I realized that, for most of the people present, this was it. Singing along live while the most "in" worship band was playing on stage is as deep as their worship of Christ goes. Singing a Bible verse is the most they can get out of Christianity. I was sad. I hope this isn't entirely true, but it was definately the impression I had at the time.

We can worship Christ PHYSICALLY present, then consume Him, physically uniting ourselves to Him in a union which mimics the Trinity. Christ allows us to go that deep. Why sell ourselves short of that?

[Anna]

God Conquers,

You are soooooooooooooo right.

A couple of years ago, my husband's gramma died at the age of 99 years. She had been a member of the Church of the Nazarene.

At the funeral service, her pastor stood and said a few consoling words, led in a prayer, and then invited anyone who wished to come forward and say a few things about gramma.

Then, it was over.

As we left, my eldest daughter said, "That is the saddest funeral I've ever attended." Not because it was her dear great grandmother, but because it had no spiritual depth whatsoever.

A funeral Mass is so moving that your very soul is moved. While physically and emotionally aching, the soul is stirred to new heights of hope for departed, trust in God's mercy, and anticipation of the day we may be united in heaven with all the angels and saints. It's like the fifteen decade rosary all at once: joyful, sorrowful, and glorious! (And luminous, too!)

Pax Christi. <><

[Good Friday]

May the love of Christ be with you God Conquers, Hyper, et al:

I didn't mean to imply that the Protestant communion is anything other than bread and wine. It certainly is not the Body and Blood of Our Lord, and so of course it is not the Eucharist. What I was trying to say was that I didn't think it was appropriate or constructive to call it a cracker and grape juice, which falsely reduces their practice to a mid-worship snack. And I also thought we should give some thought as to what they believe about it. Many people assume, as God Conquers did, that the Protestant communion has little or no meaning to them. That's simply not true, and I don't think we should misrepresent what they believe.

Neither the Holy Father nor the Second Vatican Council seems to think that the Protestant communion is just a mid-worship snack. I'll repeat the quote that I posted before:

The Ecclesial Communities separated from us lack that fullness of unity with us which should flow from Baptism, and we believe that especially because of the lack of the sacrament of Orders they have not preserved the genuine and total reality of the Eucharistic mystery. Nevertheless, when they commemorate the Lord's death and resurrection in the Holy Supper, they profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and they await his coming in glory. Emphasis mine.

As much as we may be inclined to reduce the Protestant communion to a mid-worship snack, the teaching of the reigning Pope and of an Ecumenical Council does say that "when they commemorate the Lord's death and resurrection in the Holy Supper, they profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and they await his coming in glory."

I don't mean to harp on this, and I'm not trying to argue with anyone, but I don't think it's a good idea to misrepresent the beliefs of our separated brothers and sisters. We can't expect them to stop calling the Eucharist our "wafer god" while we continue to reduce their communion to a mid-worship snack. Neither insult is necessary, and both are false.

Edited July 25, 2003 by Good Friday

[hyperdulia again]

Most Protestants that I know disagree with HH and V2 on this matter, they really do think of it as a mid-worship snack, but if any protestant here doesn't I say to you: the Catholic Church doesn't think your "Communion" is a mid-worship snack, I do. And if you find that offensive I apologise and fall humbly to your feet begging pardon.