Protestant exclusion from RC communion

[Michael Wrenn]

Why does the RCC accept other denominations' baptisms but then not allow those Christians to take communion in a RC church? This seems to me to be an inconsistency.

I hope our RC members will respond to this.

And let's try to discuss this in a Christlike manner -- if that's possible here.

 

[Zenas]

I’m not Catholic but I will give it a shot. First, Protestants don’t believe in transubstantiation of the communion elements. Following the consecration of the bread and wine they become literally the body and blood of Christ. Because Protestants don’t believe this, Catholics regard this as “not discerning the Lord’s body.” 1 Corinthians 11:29.

Second reason: The Eucharist (as it is called in the Catholic Church, the word “Eucharist” literally meaning “thanks”) is a sacrifice, a reenactment or representation, of the body and blood of Christ for our sins. In fact the act of taking the Eucharist works forgiveness of venial sins. Protestants don’t believe this and Catholics regard such nonbelief as a mockery of their sacrament.

Third reason: Catholics don’t permit their own people to receive the Eucharist until they have been confirmed. This is done by a bishop or by a priest specifically designated by the bishop to perform this rite. Protestants are not confirmed by a bishop or priest, so this is another reason they would not be permitted to take the Eucharist.

I'm sure most here view these doctrines with skepticsm and they are indeed good subjects for debate. I don't have time to engage in a debate but I think this adequately answers Michael Wrenn's question of "Why?".

 

[annsni]

Yep, pretty much what Zenas said.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Who in any Roman Catholic Church in the planet earth would stop anyone from walking in (off the street) & take communion, it just doesnt happen. The RC Church, after Vatican 2, has become probably the most liberal & apostate church that is on this planet. But Z is correct, if only in theory.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I’m not Catholic but I will give it a shot. First, Protestants don’t believe in transubstantiation of the communion elements. Following the consecration of the bread and wine they become literally the body and blood of Christ. Because Protestants don’t believe this, Catholics regard this as “not discerning the Lord’s body.” 1 Corinthians 11:29.

Second reason: The Eucharist (as it is called in the Catholic Church, the word “Eucharist” literally meaning “thanks”) is a sacrifice, a reenactment or representation, of the body and blood of Christ for our sins. In fact the act of taking the Eucharist works forgiveness of venial sins. Protestants don’t believe this and Catholics regard such nonbelief as a mockery of their sacrament.

Third reason: Catholics don’t permit their own people to receive the Eucharist until they have been confirmed. This is done by a bishop or by a priest specifically designated by the bishop to perform this rite. Protestants are not confirmed by a bishop or priest, so this is another reason they would not be permitted to take the Eucharist.

I'm sure most here view these doctrines with skepticsm and they are indeed good subjects for debate. I don't have time to engage in a debate but I think this adequately answers Michael Wrenn's question of "Why?".

I think you have provided a very good analysis. I hope to see more.

Just as a contrast, the Episcopal Church allows any baptized Christian to partake of communion, including their own members. They hold views from Zwinglianism to Anglo-Catholicism about the Eucharist. They require confirmation of their members, but do not make this a prerequisite to receiving communion.

Just as a personal note: I consider the term "baptized Christian" to be a redundancy. If one is a Christian -- that is, has accepted Jesus -- then that person has been baptized by the one true baptism which is the baptism by the Spirit into the body of Christ. Spirit baptism is the baptism which makes one a Christian and member of Christ's body, to which water baptism attests. No amount of water can make one a Christian. To say one is a Christian is to say that person has been baptized; conversely, one who has had water applied to him or her in an outward ceremony but has not come to faith in Jesus does not make that person a Christian. Slightly off point, but the Episcopal policy brought it to mind. In the Methodist Church, and in Baptist churches around here, the only requirement to receive communion is that one has come to faith in Jesus.

 

[annsni]

Who in any Roman Catholic Church in the planet earth would stop anyone from walking in (off the street) & take communion, it just doesnt happen. The RC Church, after Vatican 2, has become probably the most liberal & apostate church that is on this planet. But Z is correct, if only in theory.

No, they don't stop you but their "rules" are that you don't partake.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

No, they don't stop you but their "rules" are that you don't partake.

That's true. I called a local priest and asked if a non-Roman Catholic could partake of communion. He said no, but that such a person could come forward for a blessing by the priest.

 

[DHK]

Just as a personal note: I consider the term "baptized Christian" to be a redundancy. If one is a Christian -- that is, has accepted Jesus -- then that person has been baptized by the one true baptism which is the baptism by the Spirit into the body of Christ. Spirit baptism is the baptism which makes one a Christian and member of Christ's body, to which water baptism attests. No amount of water can make one a Christian. To say one is a Christian is to say that person has been baptized; conversely, one who has had water applied to him or her in an outward ceremony but has not come to faith in Jesus does not make that person a Christian. Slightly off point, but the Episcopal policy brought it to mind. In the Methodist Church, and in Baptist churches around here, the only requirement to receive communion is that one has come to faith in Jesus.

Matthew 28:19-20 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

The Great Commission would be absolutely meaningless unless the baptism referred did not mean "baptized by water."

 

[annsni]

That's true. I called a local priest and asked if a non-Roman Catholic could partake of communion. He said no, but that such a person could come forward for a blessing by the priest.

And since the Catholic churches are so large and the priest doesn't get to know his parishoners, he'd never know if one was Catholic or not if they came for Communion. Having grown up in the Catholic church (well, when I was young) and having had my first communion there - then going to Catholic middle and high school, I know the schpiel. I can go forward and get communion just as if I were one of them and they'd never know the difference. Of course one unfamiliar with the routine might stick out a bit more though.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Matthew 28:19-20 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

The Great Commission would be absolutely meaningless unless the baptism referred did not mean "baptized by water."

I am simply saying that what makes on a Christian is baptism by the Spirit into the Body of Christ upon a person's coming to faith and being spiritually reborn. Water baptism does not accomplish that, but is a testimony and picture of it. Water baptism does not make one a Christian. Surely you believe this?

 

[Walter]

No, they don't stop you but their "rules" are that you don't partake.

I think it would pretty difficult for them to know whether those jumping into the communion lines were Catholic and who are not. The local Catholic Churches have thousands of attendees on Sundays and people transfer in and out of the parishes all the time. I notice that it is posted in the local parish bulletin that communion is meant only to be taken by Catholics.

I talked with a member of an LCMS parish in the town I recently moved to, and he told me that at one time some LCMS parishes required a person to show a 'membership card' to the usher on leaving their pew to get in the communion line. He said they now practice 'close' communion instead of 'closed communion'.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

And since the Catholic churches are so large and the priest doesn't get to know his parishoners, he'd never know if one was Catholic or not if they came for Communion. Having grown up in the Catholic church (well, when I was young) and having had my first communion there - then going to Catholic middle and high school, I know the schpiel. I can go forward and get communion just as if I were one of them and they'd never know the difference. Of course one unfamiliar with the routine might stick out a bit more though.

True, but like you said, I was relaying what the "rules" are.

 

[DHK]

I am simply saying that what makes on a Christian is baptism by the Spirit into the Body of Christ upon a person's coming to faith and being spiritually reborn. Water baptism does not accomplish that, but is a testimony and picture of it. Water baptism does not make one a Christian. Surely you believe this?

Then your statement:

"Just as a personal note: I consider the term "baptized Christian" to be a redundancy."

This is not redundant to most of us. It has a very important meaning.

 

[Walter]

Who in any Roman Catholic Church in the planet earth would stop anyone from walking in (off the street) & take communion, it just doesnt happen. The RC Church, after Vatican 2, has become probably the most liberal & apostate church that is on this planet. But Z is correct, if only in theory.

Really? More liberal than the United Church of Christ, the Presbyterian Church, USA, The Episcopal Church, The Unitarian Universalists Church? I serously doubt it. How about all those good Protestant clergy beeing sent to 'preach the gospel' out of Union Theological Seminary in NYC, Harvard Divinity School, Church Divinity School of the Pacific, etc. etc.?? Are you SURE they are more LIBERAL than those folks?

 

[Walter]

And since the Catholic churches are so large and the priest doesn't get to know his parishoners, he'd never know if one was Catholic or not if they came for Communion. Having grown up in the Catholic church (well, when I was young) and having had my first communion there - then going to Catholic middle and high school, I know the schpiel. I can go forward and get communion just as if I were one of them and they'd never know the difference. Of course one unfamiliar with the routine might stick out a bit more though.

Somehow I missed this post, Ann. Your observation is the same as mine. I've noticed that in the local parish if someone doesn't say 'amen' when the priest, deacon, lay eucharistic minister states 'the Body of Christ' before giving the host, then the person giving communion asks if the person receiving is Catholic.

 

[Walter]

I think you have provided a very good analysis. I hope to see more.

Just as a contrast, the Episcopal Church allows any baptized Christian to partake of communion, including their own members. They hold views from Zwinglianism to Anglo-Catholicism about the Eucharist. They require confirmation of their members, but do not make this a prerequisite to receiving communion.

Just as a personal note: I consider the term "baptized Christian" to be a redundancy. If one is a Christian -- that is, has accepted Jesus -- then that person has been baptized by the one true baptism which is the baptism by the Spirit into the body of Christ. Spirit baptism is the baptism which makes one a Christian and member of Christ's body, to which water baptism attests. No amount of water can make one a Christian. To say one is a Christian is to say that person has been baptized; conversely, one who has had water applied to him or her in an outward ceremony but has not come to faith in Jesus does not make that person a Christian. Slightly off point, but the Episcopal policy brought it to mind. In the Methodist Church, and in Baptist churches around here, the only requirement to receive communion is that one has come to faith in Jesus.

I've been reading that more and more dioceses within TEC are opening their communion lines to anyone baptised or not. Clergy in The Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles had a joint service with Hindus in which everyone was encouraged to 'come to the table.' Of course, this is just one of the reasons why the ACNA has come into being.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Then your statement:

"Just as a personal note: I consider the term "baptized Christian" to be a redundancy."

This is not redundant to most of us. It has a very important meaning.

I am simply saying that water baptism is not what makes one a Christian. I believe you would agree with that.

 

[DHK]

I am simply saying that water baptism is not what makes one a Christian. I believe you would agree with that.

yes...........

 

[annsni]

Somehow I missed this post, Ann. Your observation is the same as mine. I've noticed that in the local parish if someone doesn't say 'amen' when the priest, deacon, lay eucharistic minister states 'the Body of Christ' before giving the host, then the person giving communion asks if the person receiving is Catholic.

Yep! I've never seen it happen myself but I can guess it would. Actually, a friend of mine is a eucharistic minister and I could ask her what they do!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I've been reading that more and more dioceses within TEC are opening their communion lines to anyone baptised or not. Clergy in The Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles had a joint service with Hindus in which everyone was encouraged to 'come to the table.' Of course, this is just one of the reasons why the ACNA has come into being.

Yes, indeed!