Protestant exclusion from RC communion

[Thinkingstuff]

Michael,
I just wanted to add one more aspect as to why Catholics accept other denominations baptism but doesn't allow them to participate in the Eucharist.

In order to have a valid sacrament you must have both matter and form. For baptism the matter is water and the form is any Christian no matter what position in life baptizing in the nicean trinitarian formula. Lay catholics can baptize validly.

The Eucharist has both Matter and form as well. It has the bread and water and wine. And a Proper minister. However, the problem lies not with matter but one aspect of form. The participant. They must be properly disposed to recieve the sacrament. Thus a Roman Catholic who has grave sin

A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess

cannot take the sacrament. Thus a protestant who is not properly disposed because of lack of belief is not permited either. Catholics consider if such a person were to do this they are eating and drinking to their own condemnation thus allowing them to grievously sin and even suffer the consiquences Paul spells out in Corinthians.

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

The bread in the supper conveys proper sanctification in Christ not merely salvation in Christ:

1 Cor. 5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

A observing church can observe something they call the Lord's Supper which the Scriptures deny is the Lord's Supper - 1 Cor. 11:20.

A congregational body wherein is division as in ecumenical divisions (1 Cor. 1:10-11), doctrinal division, schisms (1 Cor. 11:17-19) or open immorality (1 Cor. 5) invalidates the act in God's sight so that it is "not the Lord's Supper" (1 Cor. 11:20).

Not only does the Lord require the INDIVIDUAL to examine themselves but the Lord requires the INSTITUTION observing it to examine themselves as an ecclessiatical "body of Christ" (1 Cor. 12:27; 1 Cor. 5) for worthiness to observe the Supper.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Michael,
I just wanted to add one more aspect as to why Catholics accept other denominations baptism but doesn't allow them to participate in the Eucharist.

In order to have a valid sacrament you must have both matter and form. For baptism the matter is water and the form is any Christian no matter what position in life baptizing in the nicean trinitarian formula. Lay catholics can baptize validly.

The Eucharist has both Matter and form as well. It has the bread and water and wine. And a Proper minister. However, the problem lies not with matter but one aspect of form. The participant. They must be properly disposed to recieve the sacrament. Thus a Roman Catholic who has grave sin cannot take the sacrament. Thus a protestant who is not properly disposed because of lack of belief is not permited either. Catholics consider if such a person were to do this they are eating and drinking to their own condemnation thus allowing them to grievously sin and even suffer the consiquences Paul spells out in Corinthians.

Thanks. That is reasonable. I don't agree with it, but it's reasonable.

 

[The Biblicist]

Thus a protestant who is not properly disposed because of lack of belief is not permited either.

Are you saying that the salvational "belief" of a non-catholic is sufficient to accept his baptism which Rome inteprets to be salvational (regeneration/justification) but the same salvational "belief" is not accepted for administration of the Supper which Rome interpets to be salvational?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Are you saying that the salvational "belief" of a non-catholic is sufficient to accept his baptism which Rome inteprets to be salvational (regeneration/justification) but the same salvational "belief" is not accepted for administration of the Supper which Rome interpets to be salvational?

You are confusing yourself. Did you actually read what I wrote? There are two things needed to have the sacrament Matter and Form in both instances Matter requirement is met. Form is met in baptism but not in eucharist. Then I explained exactly what part of the form is missing. Proper disposition of the Participant which requires belief or faith. On one hand any christian can baptize validly as long as its done in the trinitarian formula. Matter and form are met because for both protestant and catholics it is obeying Jesus Christ commandment about thsis and the participant believes that they have died to themselves and are raised to life in Christ in faith. The problem with the eucharist is the participant in which they do not hold that Jesus Christ is really present in the Eucharist Ie transsubstantiation. He believes it is nothing more than just bread and wine thus is not properly disposed and eat and drink to their own condemnation.

 

[Yeshua1]

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

WM

the RCC official holds to one placing faith in Yeshua, getting saved first, THAN being water baptized?

As that was what the passage taught!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

the RCC official holds to one placing faith in Yeshua, getting saved first, THAN being water baptized?

As that was what the passage taught!

Salvation is a big term inclusive of a lot of things to include Justification, sanctification, glorification, ad infinitum. Thus Catholics believe that we are saved, we are being saved, and we will be saved. To properly answer you then I must say that to an adult one must first believe and then be baptized. That is what that passage teaches. Certainly the Ethiopian was saved at that time and was being saved as he lived his life for Jesus and eventual will be saved at the consumation of all things.

 

[The Biblicist]

You are confusing yourself. Did you actually read what I wrote? There are two things needed to have the sacrament Matter and Form in both instances Matter requirement is met. Form is met in baptism but not in eucharist. Then I explained exactly what part of the form is missing. Proper disposition of the Participant which requires belief or faith. On one hand any christian can baptize validly as long as its done in the trinitarian formula. Matter and form are met because for both protestant and catholics it is obeying Jesus Christ commandment about thsis and the participant believes that they have died to themselves and are raised to life in Christ in faith. The problem with the eucharist is the participant in which they do not hold that Jesus Christ is really present in the Eucharist Ie transsubstantiation. He believes it is nothing more than just bread and wine thus is not properly disposed and eat and drink to their own condemnation.

The Baptist does not believe there is anything in baptism but water and type but wholly denies LITERAL SPIRITUAL UNION WITH CHRIST IN BAPTISM or remission of sins in baptism or regeneration in baptism or justification in baptism and so the faith of the non-Catholic is as much anti-literallism in baptism as in the Supper as he believes the TYPE but rejects the LITITERALISM in both EQUALLY.

 

[Yeshua1]

The Baptist does not believe there is anything in baptism but water and type but wholly denies LITERAL SPIRITUAL UNION WITH CHRIST IN BAPTISM or remission of sins in baptism or regeneration in baptism or justification in baptism and so the faith of the non-Catholic is as much anti-literallism in baptism as in the Supper as he believes the TYPE but rejects the LITITERALISM in both EQUALLY.

yes, for we hold to being in 'spiritual union" with jesus once faith placed in him, and at that moment, receive new natures in him, and his holy Spirit!

 

[The Biblicist]

Salvation is a big term inclusive of a lot of things to include Justification, sanctification, glorification, ad infinitum. Thus Catholics believe that we are saved, we are being saved, and we will be saved. To properly answer you then I must say that to an adult one must first believe and then be baptized. That is what that passage teaches. Certainly the Ethiopian was saved at that time and was being saved as he lived his life for Jesus and eventual will be saved at the consumation of all things.

Baptists believe in the exact same three point salvation but identify "saved" as a past tense completed non-repeatable action (regeneration/justification) whereas "beng saved" is a continuous incompleted action (progressive sanctification) and deals with the here and now of daily life saving it for the glory of God each day whereas "shall be saved" refers to a yet future completed non-repeatable action (glorification).

 

[Yeshua1]

Baptists believe in the exact same three point salvation but identify "saved" as a past tense completed non-repeatable action (regeneration/justification) whereas "beng saved" is a continuous incompleted action (progressive sanctification) and deals with the here and now of daily life saving it for the glory of God each day whereas "shall be saved" refers to a yet future completed non-repeatable action (glorification).

can a RC even agree with paul that we are right now seated in heavenly places in christ?

That they are persuaded, like paul, that jesus will keep ALL THINGS against that day?

That they will be kept and presented to the father by jesus, as per Jude?

that we have been sealed, and will be raised up by Jesus , to receive our full inheritance?

ALL of that was already said done by God for us, and will be completed by God for us...

Can sincere RC agree with all of that?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

can a RC even agree with paul that we are right now seated in heavenly places in christ?

Yes which makes the Eucharist, prayers to the saints possible.

That they are persuaded, like paul, that jesus will keep ALL THINGS against that day?

Yes. Jesus keeps his promises. But he doesn't go against our wills.

That they will be kept and presented to the father by jesus, as per Jude?

Yes.

that we have been sealed, and will be raised up by Jesus , to receive our full inheritance?

absolutely

ALL of that was already said done by God for us, and will be completed by God for us...

Yes as long as we stay connected to the vine. Ie Jesus. Not if we seperate ourselves from him.

Can sincere RC agree with all of that?

For the most part. Yes.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The Baptist does not believe there is anything in baptism but water and type but wholly denies LITERAL SPIRITUAL UNION WITH CHRIST IN BAPTISM or remission of sins in baptism or regeneration in baptism or justification in baptism and so the faith of the non-Catholic is as much anti-literallism in baptism as in the Supper as he believes the TYPE but rejects the LITITERALISM in both EQUALLY.

Doesn't matter what you believe about baptism. If you believe Jesus died for our our sins. And that he will raise you up at the last day. And that you need to repent of your sins and be remade in his image. And you are baptized out of obedience then you have met all the requirements. However, proper disposition of the Eucharist requires that you believe in the real presence of it.

 

[Yeshua1]

Doesn't matter what you believe about baptism. If you believe Jesus died for our our sins. And that he will raise you up at the last day. And that you need to repent of your sins and be remade in his image. And you are baptized out of obedience then you have met all the requirements. However, proper disposition of the Eucharist requires that you believe in the real presence of it.

Why does a person even need to take the Eucharist though?

Didn't cross provide for full atonement for sins, and once jesus is received by faith and one is saved, what can it add to that?

 

[The Biblicist]

Doesn't matter what you believe about baptism. If you believe Jesus died for our our sins. And that he will raise you up at the last day. And that you need to repent of your sins and be remade in his image. And you are baptized out of obedience then you have met all the requirements. However, proper disposition of the Eucharist requires that you believe in the real presence of it.

This is absolutely inconsistent! If it doesn't matter what a person beleives ABOUT baptism, which is a salvational ordinance to Rome, it should make no difference what a person beleives ABOUT the supper as it is equally a salvational ordinance to Rome.

We are not baptized out of obedience for salvation and that is precisely how Rome defines "out of obedience." We utterly deny Roman salvational views of baptism as much as Roman salvational view of the supper.

Rome demands that SPIRITUAL UNION and JUSTIFYING GRACE are found in baptism as SPIRITUAL UNION and grace are found in the Supper and the Baptist repudiates both EQUALLY.

Romes position is oxmoronic and totally inconsistent as their view of the Supper where SPIRITUAL UNION is obtained with Christ is NO DIFFERENT than their view of baptism were SPIRITUAL UNION is obtained with Christ as the Supper is simply CONTINUATION of what was first received in baptism and if Baptist reject was first received in baptism then that is a much more serious rejection than something merely CONTINUED in the supper.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes which makes the Eucharist, prayers to the saints possible.


Yes. Jesus keeps his promises. But he doesn't go against our wills.


Yes.


absolutely


Yes as long as we stay connected to the vine. Ie Jesus. Not if we seperate ourselves from him.

For the most part. Yes.

jesus said that NONE can take them out of the fathers hand, Paul said NOTHING will/can seperate us from the love of God in Christ..

Do RC agree with them?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

jesus said that NONE can take them out of the fathers hand, Paul said NOTHING will/can seperate us from the love of God in Christ..

Do RC agree with them?

Yes, in a sense. Even if I apostate from Jesus Christ that will not separate me from the love of God in Christ.

And, If I remain in Christ nothing can take me out of the fathers hand. But If I choose to apostate myself from Jesus Christ then I've separated myself from him and will suffer the consequences for it.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

This is absolutely inconsistent!

It is only inconsistent if you confuse yourself as you already have. Paul makes it clear that you must have the aspect of believing in the real presense to be properly disposed to recieve it.

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for[e] you. Do this in remembrance of me.”[f] 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.[g]

whereas with baptism

In case of necessity, baptism can be administered lawfully and validly by any person whatsoever who observes the essential conditions, whether this person be a Catholic layman or any other man or woman, heretic or schismatic, infidel or Jew.

The essential conditions are that the person pour water upon the one to be baptized, at the same time pronouncing the words: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost."

 

[Yeshua1]

It is only inconsistent if you confuse yourself as you already have. Paul makes it clear that you must have the aspect of believing in the real presense to be properly disposed to recieve it.

again, the Lord is NOT referencing physical presense, as there is NO need for that, as he obtained FULL atonement for us on the Cross!

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, in a sense. Even if I apostate from Jesus Christ that will not separate me from the love of God in Christ.

And, If I remain in Christ nothing can take me out of the fathers hand. But If I choose to apostate myself from Jesus Christ then I've separated myself from him and will suffer the consequences for it.

the Bible makes no conditions to staying saved, in christ though!

As God is the one that saves and secured us in christ, and NONE can remove us from God!

if a catholic refused Eucharist, is that a Mortal Sin? refused the sacraments, would that condemn him?