Protestant exclusion from RC communion

[WestminsterMan]

Phillip MUST have had it wrong here, as he taught the Eunech about jesus being the person foretold by Isaiah, and when he was asked if he could get baptised...

was told that IF he believed in his heart and had received jesus as messiah, could be!

baptist baptism right there!

Yet that does nothing to buttress your argument. Even Catholics believe that.

WM

 

[DHK]

Yet that does nothing to buttress your argument. Even Catholics believe that.

WM

Philip didn't teach him the Catechism.
Philip had no idea of what the RCC teaches.
Philip taught salvation was through Christ the Messiah, and that he must believe in him by faith and faith alone. There were no works involved. He was saved before he was baptized. Baptism didn't save. That part is made very clear in the passage. This passage refutes RCC doctrine.

 

[DHK]

Yep, although I think impalement would be their preferred choice of execution. Can't you just 'feel' the love here?:laugh:

These early believers, for the most part, including the Albigeneses, were pacifists. They didn't bear arms which makes the crimes of the RCC all the more horrendous.

 

[DHK]

Anti-Catholics like to play up the times when Catholics killed heretics, but they usually don't notice the times when the heretics attacked the Catholics.

They didn't. From J.T. Christian's book, A History of the Baptists

In tracing the history and doctrines of the Albigenses it must never be forgotten that on account of persecution they scarcely left a trace of their writings, confessional, apologetical, or polemical; and the representations which Roman Catholic writers, their avowed enemies, have given of them, are highly exaggerated. The words of a historian who is not in accord with, their principles may here be used. He says:

It is evident, however, that they formed a branch of that broad stream of sectarianism and heresy which rose far away in Asia from the contact between Christianity and the Oriental religions, and which, by crossing the Balkan Peninsula, reached Western Europe. The first overflow from this source were the Manichaeans, the next the Paulicians, the next the Cathari, who in the tenth and eleventh centuries were very strong in Bulgaria, Bosnia, and Dalmatia. Of the Cathari, the Bogomils, Patoreni, Albigenses, etc. . . . were only individual developments (C. Schmidt, Schaff-Hersog, I. 47).

That is to say, these parties were all of the same family, and this connection is rendered all the more forceful on account of the terms of reproach in which this writer clothes his language.

It has already been indicated that the Paulicians were not Manichaeans, and the same thing may probably be said of the Albigenses. The Albigenses were oppressed on account of this sentiment, which accusation was also made against the Waldenses. Care must be taken at this point, and too prompt credence should not be given to the accuser. The Roman Catholic Church sought diligently for excuses to persecute. Even Luther was declared by the Synod of Sens to be a Manichaean. The celebrated Archbishop Ussher says that the charge "of Manichaeanism on the Albigensian sect is evidently false" (Acland, The Glorious Recovery of the Vaudois, lxvii. London, 1857). It would be difficult to understand the Albigenses from this philosophical standpoint. They were not a metaphysical people. Theirs was not a philosophy, but a daily faith and practice, which commended itself to the prosperous territory of Southern France.

They held to the division of believers into two classes -- the perfect and the imperfect. This was the common classification of the Paulicians, Waldenses and Anabaptists. The most elaborate accounts are given of the initiation of the perfecti by a single immersion into the body of believers (Beausobre, Historic du Manichaeanism, II. 762-877).

The Waldenses were also found in the city of Albi and they were also called Albigenses because they resided in that city (Martin Schagen, The History of the Waldenses, 110). It was from Italy that the movement extended to Southern France; and the soil was wonderfully well prepared for the seed. The country was the most civilized portion of France, rich, flourishing, and independent; the people gay, intellectual, progressive; the Roman Catholic Church dull, stupid and tyrannical; the clergy distinguished for nothing but superstition, ignorance, arbitrariness, violence and vice. Under such circumstances the idea of a return to the purity and simplicity of the apostolic age could not fail to attract attention. The severe moral demands of the Albigenses made a profound impression, since their example corresponded with their words. They mingled with their tenets a severe zeal for purity of life and were heard with favor by all classes. No wonder that the people deserted the Roman Catholic priests and gathered around the Boni Honiness. In a short time the Albigenses had congregations and schools and charitable institutions of their own. The Roman Catholic Church became an object of derision (Scliaff-Herzog. I. 47).

This state of affairs greatly alarmed and aggravated the pope. In the year 1139 they were condemned by the Lateran Council; by that of Tours in 1163, and mission after mission was sent among them to persuade them to return to the Roman Catholic Church. Cardinal Henry, in 1180, employed force. Pope Innocent III published a crusade against them. Says the Historian Hume:

The people from all parts of Europe moved by their superstition and their passion for wars and adventures, flocked to his standard. Simon de Monfort, the general of the crusade, acquired to himself a sovereignty of these provinces. The Count of Toulouse, who protected, or perhaps only tolerated the Albigenses, was stript of his dominions. And these sectaries themselves, though the most inoffensive and innocent of mankind, were exterminated with the circumstances of extreme violence and barbarity (Hume, History of England, II. ch. xi).

 

[The Biblicist]

I'm not an expert, but I'm not sure that they hold circumcision equal to baptism. I think it's more that circumcision was a foreshadowing of baptism. However, it doesn't matter to me because I believe it from scripture and from the fact that all of Christendom (with the exception of a few heretics) believed it for the first 1500 years, and a majority of Christians still do today.

The CCC specifically likens the circumcision of Jesus Christ to baptism in regard to SACRAMENTAL significance as a "sign" and "seal."


All these texts below have been completely and fully answered many many times and your interpretations have been exposed as perversions of the texts and contexts.

However, neither you or TS or Walter have been able to respond to Romans 4:1-11 and the evidences I have provided. TS attempted to but then fled the scene when his arguments were exposed and condemned by contextual based data.

All you are doing is pitting these scriptures against the clear and explicit EXPLANATION of ceremonial rites by Christ (Lk. 5:15-17) Peter (Acts 10:43; 1 Pet. 3:21) and Paul (Rom. 4:6-12; Heb. 10:1-4).

I would be more than happy to take these proof texts of yours on one at a time if you are up to it?

 

[WestminsterMan]

The CCC specifically likens the circumcision of Jesus Christ to baptism in regard to SACRAMENTAL significance as a "sign" and "seal."

All these texts below have been completely and fully answered many many times and your interpretations have been exposed as perversions of the texts and contexts.

Hardly!

However, neither you or TS or Walter have been able to respond to Romans 4:1-11 and the evidences I have provided. TS attempted to but then fled the scene when his arguments were exposed and condemned by contextual based data.

Only in the vagaries of your own mind. You do know how foolish people look when they blow their own horn in an obvious attempt to cover up their short commings don't you?

All you are doing is pitting these scriptures against the clear and explicit EXPLANATION of ceremonial rites by Christ (Lk. 5:15-17) Peter (Acts 10:43; 1 Pet. 3:21) and Paul (Rom. 4:6-12; Heb. 10:1-4).

No... I am pitting them against your flawed interpretation of what you BELIEVE Christ's EXPLANATION to this is.

I would be more than happy to take these proof texts of yours on one at a time if you are up to it?

What you really mean is "...do you wish to waste your time arguing about something that, end the end, pits one's personal and fallible interpretation against another's personal and fallible interpretation?" Nope... I work for a living so I don't have the luxury of indulging in such an utterly futile waste of time.

But I suspect you will do it anyway, so knock yourself out.

WM

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Perhaps.... So, convince me of my error.

WM

Why dont you ...."to use an expression that I hope you dont find offensive" come out of the closet & just be honest about it! LOL. See I dont know you personally......perhaps you married a Catholic & you think that being Catholic is the right thing to do, or perhaps your drawn to all the traditions & rituals, or perhaps your disgusted by the secularism & shallowness of your Baptist Church.....these are all reasons but I would invite you to the love & joy of being a truly radical & orthodox follower of Christ Vs being Religious.....that doesnt make any sense from a Holy Spirit Full born Regenerated Life prospective. You make your choice, but dont expect me to support anything less than what you know you can have..... & I think you know where I'm coming from brother.

 

[WestminsterMan]

Why dont you ...."to use an expression that I hope you dont find offensive" come out of the closet & just be honest about it! LOL. See I dont know you personally......perhaps you married a Catholic & you think that being Catholic is the right thing to do, or perhaps your drawn to all the traditions & rituals, or perhaps your disgusted by the secularism & shallowness of your Baptist Church.....these are all reasons but I would invite you to the love & joy of being a truly radical & orthodox follower of Christ Vs being Religious.....that doesnt make any sense from a Holy Spirit Full born Regenerated Life prospective. You make your choice, but dont expect me to support anything less than what you know you can have..... & I think you know where I'm coming from brother.

Well... I do appreciate your honestly. But, most of the Catholics that I have met, fall into the category of the perspective that you describe. Like all churches however, there are probably many (if not a plurality) who just go through the motions making them more religious than Spirit filled. I do understand where you are comming from and I thank you for your concern.

WM

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Well... I do appreciate your honestly. But, most of the Catholics that I have met, fall into the category of the perspective that you describe. Like all churches however, there are probably many (if not a plurality) who just go through the motions making them more religious than Spirit filled. I do understand where you are comming from and I thank you for your concern.

WM

Allow me to rip a page from my being raised Roman Catholic. The word "Epiphany" An epiphany (from the ancient Greek ἐπιφάνεια, epiphaneia, "manifestation, striking appearance") is an experience of sudden and striking realization.

Richard Rohr, OFM commentary....." Most of us prefer ideas & words, we are afraid of any authentically new experience. Unlike the Magi, we do not tend to allow stars to divert us to a new & unknown place. Most of us stay inside our private castles & avoid such questionable adventures. Yes, we avoid death supposedly, but we also avoid birth. We miss out on the great epiphany."

....Epiphanies leave us totally out of control & they always demand that we change. We would rather have objectified religion, which leaves us potentially in control & never having to change at all.

....Religion without Epiphanies becomes digging in your heels; religion with epiphanies becomes living on your toes, ready to go wherever God manifests.

My own epiphany (I prefer to call it Regeneration) came 2 years ago now when I was saved by Gods Plan, Christs Crucifixion & the Holy Spirits revealing to me just how heinous a sinner I was for 52 years......and I was ashamed....very ashamed of the sin of unbelief. Thank Him for saving such as I who could just have easily been passed over to hell.

As Christ puts it:

Mark 12:29-30

New King James Version (NKJV)

29 Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’[a] This is the first commandment.

Again I would humbly suggest that you guys put that first then all the rest brothers will fall into place.

Blessings to all.

 

[WestminsterMan]

Allow me to rip a page from my being raised Roman Catholic. The word "Epiphany" An epiphany (from the ancient Greek ἐπιφάνεια, epiphaneia, "manifestation, striking appearance") is an experience of sudden and striking realization.

Richard Rohr, OFM commentary....." Most of us prefer ideas & words, we are afraid of any authentically new experience. Unlike the Magi, we do not tend to allow stars to divert us to a new & unknown place. Most of us stay inside our private castles & avoid such questionable adventures. Yes, we avoid death supposedly, but we also avoid birth. We miss out on the great epiphany."

....Epiphanies leave us totally out of control & they always demand that we change. We would rather have objectified religion, which leaves us potentially in control & never having to change at all.

....Religion without Epiphanies becomes digging in your heels; religion with epiphanies becomes living on your toes, ready to go wherever God manifests.

My own epiphany (I prefer to call it Regeneration) came 2 years ago now when I was saved by Gods Plan, Christs Crucifixion & the Holy Spirits revealing to me just how heinous a sinner I was for 52 years......and I was ashamed....very ashamed of the sin of unbelief. Thank Him for saving such as I who could just have easily been passed over to hell.

As Christ puts it:

Mark 12:29-30

New King James Version (NKJV)

29 Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’[a] This is the first commandment.

Again I would humbly suggest that you guys put that first then all the rest brothers will fall into place.

Blessings to all.

Very well said brother...and I completely agree.

WM

 

[Melanie]

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 am a Catholic but belong to very conservative end of the spectrum, I attend daily Mass which is offered in Latin in the form before the time of Vatican 2.

Transubstantiation of the bread and wine takes place at the words of consecration by a validly ordained priest...where the entire substance of the bread and wine is changed into our Lord's Body and Blood.

This being the case and I know that there could be endless arguments on this topic, a non Catholic is not permitted to receive Communion as they are not members of the RCC.

The second highlighted point is that to receive the Eucharist one needs to be confirmed. This is not the case as children after making their first communion often years berfore their confirmation. This is a varying custom from country to country. I made my first communion at the age of 8 I think, and then was confirmed at age 12 or 13.

If you wished to join the RCC here in Wanganui, you would be baptised again, as a conditional thing...again I do not want to embark on a debate with this. I am a member of the RCC not a canon lawyer.

Since Vatican 2 there have been enormous changes in the Church and IMHO not necessarily in keeping with the Magesterium of the Church.

My mother is a commited Lutheran and invited me to her Christmas Service which I attended. I was invited to partake in communion with her which I declined. It would be against my Faith to do so and hypocritical and disrespectful if I had to her church. She declined to attend Mass with me, mainly because it was around midnight and went for about 3 hours!!

I have no desire whatsoever to engage in a debate on these points, I merely state what is the case.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

They didn't. From J.T. Christian's book, A History of the Baptists

Thanks for that. If it had been up to the RCC, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, there would have been none of these Dissenters, Anabaptists, Quakers, Baptists left alive.

 

[Bro. James]

Welcome to the world of: True Baptists are not derived from the Protestant Reformation of the Catholic church. This realization can seriously change one's paradigms of church and salvation.

The Lord has had a remnant in every generation--as promised: "I will never leave you nor forsake you."

Peace,

Bro. James

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Welcome to the world of: True Baptists are not derived from the Protestant Reformation of the Catholic church. This realization can seriously change one's paradigms of church and salvation.

The Lord has had a remnant in every generation--as promised: "I will never leave you nor forsake you."

Peace,

Bro. James

So where does it come from then?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Welcome to the world of: True Baptists are not derived from the Protestant Reformation of the Catholic church. This realization can seriously change one's paradigms of church and salvation.

The Lord has had a remnant in every generation--as promised: "I will never leave you nor forsake you."

Peace,

Bro. James

Okay so where does it come from?

SORRY... DOUBLE POST

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I am a Catholic but belong to very conservative end of the spectrum, I attend daily Mass which is offered in Latin in the form before the time of Vatican 2.

Transubstantiation of the bread and wine takes place at the words of consecration by a validly ordained priest...where the entire substance of the bread and wine is changed into our Lord's Body and Blood.

This being the case and I know that there could be endless arguments on this topic, a non Catholic is not permitted to receive Communion as they are not members of the RCC.


The second highlighted point is that to receive the Eucharist one needs to be confirmed. This is not the case as children after making their first communion often years berfore their confirmation. This is a varying custom from country to country. I made my first communion at the age of 8 I think, and then was confirmed at age 12 or 13.

If you wished to join the RCC here in Wanganui, you would be baptised again, as a conditional thing...again I do not want to embark on a debate with this. I am a member of the RCC not a canon lawyer.

Since Vatican 2 there have been enormous changes in the Church and IMHO not necessarily in keeping with the Magesterium of the Church.

My mother is a commuted Lutheran and invited me to her Christmas Service which I attended. I was invited to partake in communion with her which I declined. It would be against my Faith to do so and hypocritical and disrespectful if I had to her church. She declined to attend Mass with me, mainly because it was around midnight and went for about 3 hours!!

I have no desire whatsoever to engage in a debate on these points, I merely state what is the case.

Thinking Stuff told me that the RCC looked at me as a lapsed Catholic & I have the ability (guess cause I received the sacraments up to confirmation) & could easily go back :smilewinkgrin:

Why though do you go back to a pre -Vatican II Mass? Like Latin....its a dead language ....how do you understand & appreciate the service when you cant understand the words....that I cant understand. I will respect your being a Roman Catholic, even a Retro Roman Catholic ....but does it transform you, does it awaken you (those bells rung at mass are a call to "be awake") .... has the Holy Spirit shown you your sins & have you claimed them as too much for you withstand anymore? Have you looked to Christ as your Savior & have you amended your life to Gods love rather than mere duty, surrender & trust rather than mere obedience? See I would ask these questions to anyone wishing to be ordained.... so I sincerely request an answer. We are called to be the salt & the light. I know some RC who have done that....but they are very few & I believe the RC CHURCH drags down ones direction sometimes to Christ....they do this by applying Christ Plus as the means of salvation & I think you know what I mean (why else are you in a Baptist forum observing & contributing). I believe you know there are errors here in the RCC & you need to hear them. But perhaps you have ties to them & thats what they want you to believe brothers & sisters....that you MUST be part of them to have salvation. Thats wrong minded, what you have to do is (Per Jesus) give God our whole minds, our whole hearts, our whole souls & our whole strength..... then, love one another.

I only mentioned the Epiphany encounter that the Magi went through because it tells a valuable transformative story of high ranking men that bring themselves in a perilous journey. And it leads to an encounter that rearranges their lives, their self images & most likely....much much more. And what do they rearrange their lives to see....why God Incarnate! A God who is no longer dangerous, threatening or brandishing punishments, but, believe it or not, a helpless baby. Is that not humbling, especially to men who were on the top of the food chain, perhaps even kings.

God experiences invariably humbles us to the core, and makes us fall in love with God forever. And this is where we are all together as Christians.....when God humbles us. We all agree as Christians that Christ died, He has risen & He will come again.....amen.

Now Ive ofter wondered if after this trip to meet Christ....the Incarnate God, could they (the Magi) have ever gone home again? LOL, think about that awhile.

Blessings to all!

 

[The Biblicist]

What you really mean is "...do you wish to waste your time arguing about something that, end the end, pits one's personal and fallible interpretation against another's personal and fallible interpretation?" Nope... I work for a living so I don't have the luxury of indulging in such an utterly futile waste of time.

But I suspect you will do it anyway, so knock yourself out.

WM

Well, do you suppose the truth could be a reasonable goal rather than just saying whatever it takes to win a point?

What do you suppose is the real value in a "type" or "figure"? I believe I know the true answer to that. I don't ask this question to trip you up or as a "gotcha" question but rather to see if you are really interested in having any kind of substantive discussion? Or have you simply classified me as a person who is a pest that you will treat with scorn as a pest and see no value in having any substantive discussion with at all? Just wondering.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

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.

There’s really no inconsistency at all…with regard to baptism, not all baptisms are valid, only the baptisms done in the Trinitarian formula and with water are considered valid…regarding communion in the RCC, the reason non-Catholics are not permitted to partake has to do with the elements themselves, being the Body and Blood of Christ and St. Paul’s warning to those who partake without discerning the Body and Blood…

But as large as most Roman Catholic Churches are, I agree with some that it’s impossible for the Clergy to really effectively protect the elements…especially when anyone can administer the elements…I’ve been to RC Mass and have seen teenagers handing out the wafers and even I was offered one by a priest and had to turn it away and ask for a blessing…

As an Orthodox Christian, our services are a tab bit different…actually, that’s an understatement…we go through great pains to protect the chalice…only our priests administer the elements and if our priests do not know you, you don’t get to partake…generally, if I’m traveling and visit another Orthodox Church, my parish priest will call the parish I’m visiting and give them a heads up that I’m visiting from out of town and normally, I’ll make a follow up phone call or catch the priest before the start of Orthros…or I’ll just abstain…There’s no “mortal sin” in the Orthodox Church if I were to miss communion…

Also, on a side note…the Fundamental Baptist Church I was a former member of had a “closed” communion to only its members…which was odd, because communion is only a remembrance or memorial meal anyway and has no spiritual effect…but still it was “closed”…lol…it was funny, because I could then go to coffee hour and eat the little wafers and drink the same grape juice that was used in their communion…imagine that…

 

[The Biblicist]

Also, on a side note…the Fundamental Baptist Church I was a former member of had a “closed” communion to only its members…which was odd, because communion is only a remembrance or memorial meal anyway and has no spiritual effect…but still it was “closed”…lol…it was funny, because I could then go to coffee hour and eat the little wafers and drink the same grape juice that was used in their communion…imagine that…

May I suggest a valid reason why they practiced closed communion that fits entirely with your whole argument of protecting the ordinance from profane use.

We believe that the cup represents the blood of Christ that provides redemption for all true people of God.

However, we believe the "one bread" not only represents the literal body of Jesus Christ but also the metaphorical body of Christ which we believe is the assembly observing the supper. This is Paul's argument in 1 Cor. 5.

The Jews would prepare to observe the Passover by systematically removing all leaven from their individual homes. The father would light a candle and lead his family through the house finding and disposing of all leaven within his home. The bread used in the passover was to be "unleavened" as well.

In 1 Cor. 5 there was a member in the church at Corinth that needed to be removed by chuch discipline before they could properly "eat" the Lord's Supper which is the only "passover" for the Christian ("Christ our passover"). The "whole lump" represented the church at Corinth as a metaphorical "body of Christ" (1 Cor. 12:27). Church discipline PUBLICLY removes revealed leaven from within the church body so that the "whole lump" becomes a "new lump" cleansed from publicly known leaven in their midst. Hence, both the observing church and the observing individual have responsibility to examine themselves so not to partake of the supper unworthily.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Thanks to all who have responded in this thread.

I believe in open communion -- any who have accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior should be allowed to partake. The Lord's Supper is not a Catholic supper, a Baptist supper, or any other denomination's supper. It is the Lord's Supper.