<< When Roman Catholics receive communion, we are receiving the BODY and BLOOD of Christ. Protestant do not believe this at all. >>
This is the same thing my sister, who converted from Lutheran to Catholic, tries to tell me. She remembers that one person told her that yeara ago. However, I was taught, in the ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) congregation, the same thing that you claim we don't believe.
Instead of believing what your priests or teachers tell you that other religions believe, or basing your statements on what one believer in that system believes, why don't you base your opinion on direct observation. If you visit an ELCA congregation and listen to the communion liturgy, you will see and hear something like this (quoting from memory here, so words are not exact).
At the proper times during the Words of Institution,the pastor holds up the bread for all to see,
{yes, someone baked it or bought it, but the same is true in your church}
breaks it, and repeats,"This is my body which is broken for you"and, a few sentences of ritual later, he holds up the cup
{yes, the cup contains wine, same as in your church}
and says,"This is my blood which is shed for you".
I don't know about your church, but that sounds like we believe that the bread and wine are the body an blood of Jesus.
Instead of listening to what one person says is wrong about another religion, visit that religion, or read materials that are written by people in that religion, and see for yourself what they believe, from their point of view. Even though some Catholic Priests say that it is a sin to worship in another church, it is not. We can learn from each other.
How do these incorrect opinions form? My sister remembers one sunday school teacher who told her that it was merely bread and wine. But I have a friend who remembers a catholic sunday school teacher telling her the same thing. Just as I'm sure that there are individual Lutherans who do not yet believe that the bread is the body, I'm also sure that there are individual Catholics who also do not yet believe it. If I recall my own earliest questions, I remember being told that it starts out as bread and wine, but it turns into Jesus's Body and Blood as a result of our belief.
Just because my friend tells me that he, a Catholic, believes it to be bread and wine, doesn't mean that all Catholics agree. I ask you to give other religions the same benefit of the doubt.
The same is true with seeking to understand other religions.
I'm sure you've heard Catholic "experts" tell you that the Buddhists are wrong because Buddha is not a God. Read the Buddhist Literature, especially material that was written by the man who is now considered to be the first buddha and by his immediate disciples, and you will see that he never claimed to be God, but said that each of us can search for God within us, and when we reach a certain level of awareness, we will have found our personal Buddha. I do not know if I have yet found my personal level of Buddha awareness within me, but I know that I'm getting closer and closer.
She also said:
<< I have seen Protestants receive communion from our Church before.
However it is upsetting to most priests and Catholics because most Protestants
do NOT understand the significance of this most precious sacrament. >>
I believe that it should be up to EACH INDIVIDUAL BELIEVER what communion means to them. I'm sure that there are individual catholics who do not understand the full significance of this most precious sacrament, just as I'm sure that there are individual protestants who do not understand. But I am just as certain that there are believers of EVERY protestant denomination that do understand it, even if it is not practiced in their church except on rare occasions.
The church that I most frequently take Communion in in has communion about thirty times per year. My mother sings a solo every week in a church that only has Communion twice a year. What does this mean in my family? If I miss communion on an important holiday because my sister tells me I'm not good enough to sit at Jesus's table, it's no big deal, because I'll get it within a week or two. But it bothers me more that she expects my mother not to do so, because it may be three or four months before my mother is able to take communion again.
In essence, my sister's belief means that my mother does not join Jesus at HIS table on Thanksgiving and Easter. Mom sits in the pew while everyone else in the family goes up to The Lord's Table.
Christmas and Maundy Thursday are the two big observances that allow Mom and I commune together, usually in a Methodist Church, another Protestant Denomination that believes in the Body and the Blood. Is it right for the Pope to prevent my mother from communing with her God on Thanksgiving and Easter. I believe it to be wrong. My mother should be able to decide for herself if it is right, and it should not bother anyone else. It is nobody else's business.
My sister's refusal to think that I'm good enough doesn't bother me as much, because I do not go to their house for Thanksgiving except every few years. I am able to join Jesus at HIS table on the other Thanksgivings. I suspect that part of the reason that I do not visit their home as much is because I subconsciously rebel against the thought that they cannot allow me to worship God in the way that I believe to be right. In other words, I believe it to be right that I be allowed to take communion, whether or not my sister believes me to be a believer. I know that Jesus expects me to join him. It is HIS table, not the Catholic table, not the Lutheran table, not my table, and not my sister's table.
My brother has found a different solution. When he visits our sister, he has his own vehicle, so he goes to a different church while they go to their church. That way, everyone is able to commune. He feels uncomfortable not being able to commune.
For all practical purposes, I prefer going, as a complete stranger, to any church that practices "open communion," rather than going to a church that has "close communion." The "Open Communion" which means that it is up to the individual believer as to whether he is worthy of having communion.
Someday, we will learn that it is an individual's relationship with God that counts, not the denomination that he belongs to. As long as it is the prevailing catholic attitude that it is wrong for me to take communion, I will do them the favor of not trying very hard to visit. At the reception after the installation service for a new Lutheran Pastor, a catholic deacon told me that even though the Catholic standard is that I should not take Catholic communion, that there was nothing to stop me from going up and taking Catholic communion anyway, that the only reason the priest could refuse it to me was if he had severely drastic reasons for refusal (as in believing me to be worse than a murderer or something like that). I told him that as long as the official tradition was that I was not good enough to receive the catholic communion, I would not do so. I didn't used to believe this. When my sister converted to Catholocism, the priest, knowing us not to be Catholic, invited my father, mother and I to also take Mass. My mother and I accepted, my father refused. Now, I understand my father's refusal. He probably felt he would be a hypocrite to take it once, knowing that the next time he visited a Catholic Church, it would be refused.
By the way, I am, on occasion, the Worship Assistant (Assistant Pastor) at one of the churches that I visit, and on Communion Sundays, the pastor and I serve the Body, while trained communion assistants serve the Blood. My words to each individual receiver as they kneel at the rail are always one of "Christ's body broken for you," or "Christ's body shared for you," or "Christ's body given for you". (I don't like to use the same words every time). I've been in churches where the words were given ONCE, then you just got the body and blood with no words spoken. That was always less special than having the message provided with the Communion.
My friend also gave these as reasons that Catholic Communion is better:
<< There are rules that we must follow, like not eating one hour before receiving our precious Lord. Or going to confession and being free from mortal sin. >>
The ELCA Pastor might not tell members that they may not eat for one hour before receiving the Communion, but since the communion always occurs an hour after people sit down in their pews, I don't see this as much of a difference in tradition. I have visited Catholic Churches where, the moment a person had received the Communion, he would walk back down the outside aisle and outside the door, right to the parking lot without even waiting for the rest of the service (it looked like a race for the parking lot). I haven't seen this in any protestant church I've visited, and thankfully, I didn't see it in many Catholic services.
The only difference between Catholic Confession and Lutheran Confession (the one I'm most aware of) is that in Catholic Confession, you individually confess to a priest, while in Lutheran Confession, you confess to God. Yes, I know, you believe that you are confessing to God when you confess to the Priest, but I see nothing wrong with making confession a part of the service, so that you are forgiven during the service before the communion. Just because we do not use "individual confession" does not make it any less of a confession. We are to be confessing our sins to God, not to man.
To me, I see no difference in your point about being free from mortal sin. Whether you are forgiven verbally by the priest, or you are forgiven in your heart during silent confession, you are equally free of sin. There were Sundays that I took communion when I didn't feel forgiven, but I'm sure that there are times that some catholics, some lutherans, some baptists, some methodists and ... and ... and ... do not feel forgiven, and still take the Communion. I remember a catholic, when I was helping teach a class for troubled adults, who admitted he took mass on Sundays to please his probation officer, not because he felt forgiven. He knew he was not free of sin. I told him, though, that he would eventually feel the meaning of the Communion, and that he should continue trying to understand. I also told him when he finally felt it in his heart, he would also understand himself better.
I can imagine my sister telling me that particular man was not Catholic (even though he was baptised, confirmed and a member), because he was not following the rules and because it wasn't in his heart. But by this logic, it would exonerate the churches that she said were wrong because some of their members did not understand the body and blood. In other words, most arguments can argue both sides of the same question in religion.
In some of the traditions I have participated in, including Lutheran, we are told that if we do NOT feel forgiven, we are NOT to come to the altar, but instead, we are to go to that person and ask forgiveness. I suspect this might also be part of the catholic tradition but I'm not going to stick my neck out and say so. There are still people in my life from years ago that I'm sure have not forgiven me, and by one set of christian logic, I should not take communion until I have asked that person's forgiveness. But since some of those people can't even be found, and the events are so long ago, I have not seen the need, except to forgive myself.
We are also told if we cannot forgive someone else for something that they have done to us, we should also not come to the Lord's Table until we have forgiven those people. I know a LOT of people of ALL religions who take communion without forgiving others. My personal belief is that if we cannot forgive someone else for something they have done to us, then there is something inside us that we cannot forgive ourselves for, even if we don't know what it is. It's like the thief who thinks everyone else is a thief, but an honest man tends to treat everyone around him as being honest.
My friend also told me
<< After all the Catholic church is the Universal Christian church. It is the one true Christian Church. >>
I refer you to the dictionary. The adjective "catholic" means "worldwide". The word comes from the greek "katholikos" which means universal. Lutherans believe in "the catholic church" (note lower case). These exact words are in the Nicene Creed. But when I say those words, I am not saying that I believe in the Roman Catholic church, I am saying that I believe in the WorldWide or the Universal Church. Just because a church puts the word "world wide" in their name doesn't mean that it is world wide in every sense of the world. Yes, I know that the Catholic Church has churches all over the world, but so do many of the other churches.
Yes, as stated in the Nicene Creed and in other creeds, the "catholic church" is the world wide church, by the dictionary definition. But the Roman Catholic Church is merely one denomination in the worldwide church. There is also the Lutheran catholic Church (notice I'm back to the lower case catholic again); the Methodist catholic church, the Episcopal catholic church, etc.
In fact, when you look at the dictionary definition, Roman Catholic is merely ONE SUBDEFINITION of the word catholic.
Here is the full listing from the Merriam Webster Dictionary:
cath*o*lic (adjective)
[Middle French & Late Latin; Middle French catholique, from Late Latin catholicus, from Greek katholikos universal, general, from katholou in general, from kata by + holos whole -- more at CATA-, SAFE]
First appeared 14th Century
1 a often capitalized : of, relating to, or forming the church universal
b often capitalized : of, relating to, or forming the ancient undivided Christian church or a church claiming historical continuity from it
c capitalized : ROMAN CATHOLIC
2 : COMPREHENSIVE, UNIVERSAL; especially : broad in sympathies, tastes, or interests
-- ca*thol*i*cal*ly (adverb)
-- ca*thol*i*cize (verb)
God is infinite. The Bible even says that merely part of the hem of his robe fills the church. There is much of God that does not fit in the church. There is enough of God to go around.
You said that the Catholic Church is the one true church. Other churches also make the same claim. One member of one such church, a child, told me that theirs was the "Only Perfect Church". I'm sorry, but until we are all perfect, there will not be a perfect church on earth.
There will not be a universal church or a worldwide church until we can look at each other and recognize that we all worship the same God. Then God will be truly Universal, and all believers in God will be part of God's Universal Church, not just members of a denomination that is subject to human frailty and imperfection.
In a prior letter to my friend, I told her that I felt it was wrong for the U.S. Baptist Organization to choose "The High Holidays" (the greatest of the Jewish Holidays) to announce their program to convert Jews to Baptist and to make a public statement that they believe 50% to 75% of the Jews to be Atheist.
She commented:
<< I agree with you there John. I understand your concern for the Jewish. I wasn't aware that the Baptist church did this on such a special day. I think many Christians feel the same way when the Jewish and the African Americans decided to celebrate their modest holidays in the season of the Birth of our Lord. It was not thoughtful, however, Jesus did ask us to forgive seventy times seven so I will not hold a grudge there. >>
But the difference here is the Africans and the Jews are NOT using Hannukah and Kwanzaa as statements that the Christians are wrong, and they are not using Christmas to announce a program to convert Christians to Judaism, for example.
In essence, the Christians forced the Jews to make a bigger holiday out of Hannukah (also spelled Chanukah). Chanukah is not given any special emphasis in worship at all. It is still considered to be a minor holiday. Wayward members do not flock to the synagogue for Chanukah, like wayward Christians flock to church for Christmas and Easter. If you visit with Jews during this period, they will tell you, just like they tell their children, that the only reason they celebrate it is because they do not want to give the children Christmas presents. That already existing observance was picked because it was close to Christmas. Children need the occasion. The adults do not. I can't speak for Kwanzaa because I have not studied it yet.
Also, I recall that it is NOT a part of Jewish belief to proselytize. They do not try to convert non-believers over to their point of view. I think it's against the teachings of the Torah and Jewish Law, not to mention tradition.
In any case, I do know that the Jews are not attacking Christmas, but I do know that some Christians believe it to be a deliberate attack on Jesus. I know Jesus would not believe it to be so. Jesus's history included Hanukkah, and ours should.
On the same line of thought of religions attacking religions, I remember a lady in the Lutheran Church who told me in all seriousness, on Easter Day a few years ago, that NBC's Airing of "The Ten Commandments" on Easter Night was a deliberate plot by the Jews to ruin Easter. I just could not convince her that the movie about Moses was just as Christian as it was Jewish.
I've also noticed a lot less antagonism by the Jews I've known toward the Christians than by the Christians I've known toward the Jews. When I held a joint membership in a Methodist Church and a Jewish Synagogue, singing in BOTH choirs and attending both services, and studying Hebrew and Intro to Judaism one night a week, and attending Sunday School one morning a week, not one Jew berated me. However, some christians were upset that I would have the audacity to do such a thing.
Not one member of the Synagogue publicly told us there was anything wrong with my wife marrying a Gentile, but there were a number of Christians who told me that I was wrong to marry a Jew. Either that or they told me that it was my duty as a Christian to convert her to Christianity.
In one of my prior letters, I asked you to "give other faiths a chance, and perhaps to decide that it is possible for each believer to be just as right as the others." You replied,
<< I agree with you there John. >>
But then you still try to convince me that the only way I'll be able to partake of The Body and The Blood is to become Catholic.
<< If you are so eager to receive the flesh of our Lord then you should go through the same schooling that we as Catholics must go through in order to receive our lord. >>
I'm sorry, you can't have it both ways. Either there is good in my belief system, and a priest should be willing to let me make my OWN personal decision after my own PERSONAL confession to God, or there isn't. I see no middle ground there. I will continue to receive the flesh of my Lord, which I hope that Catholics will eventually agree is "Our Lord."
And I know that I don't have to be "capital C Catholic" to be God's Child. I know that God loves me as I am, and I know that I am saved, and I know that I am sharing God's Gift (Jesus's Body and Blood) when I take communion, no matter where I take it, and no matter where I give it. When I eat the bread and wine in a Jewish Service, I also know that Jesus is there with me.
When I take Communion, I sing these Hebrew words to myself before I drink the cup. I know that Jesus said these words when he shared wine with his disciples. I even sang these words during our Communion Liturgy on the Sunday that we celebrated the day that believers spoke in many diferent languages.
"Baruch Attah Adonai, Elohehnu Melechah olam, Boray Puhree
huhgahfen"
"Blessed art the Lord our God, Ruler of the Universe, who brings us
the fruit from the vine".
(I do it better to music than I do typing, some of the words are some spelled right, and some spelled phonetically). If you want to hear the words, call 479-298-3626 almost any afternoon (Central US Time Zone) and I'll sing them for you. (I find it easier to remember the pronunciation when I sing them than when I chant them.)
As often as I've sung them in group settings, I still haven't memorized the words for the bread.
In my last letter, I mentioned that there will be an agreement signed by the Pope on October 31, acknowledging and agreeing with Martin Luther's statement that we are saved only by the grace of God, that good works or payments cannot buy our way into heaven. You replied,
<< I agree with you in part. The Bible is clear that faith holds a first and prominent roll in the salvation of every person. And of course no one can BUY their way into heaven. Our works are equally as important as our faith. They go hand in hand. >>
I hope you change your mind when your pope makes his statement. I think he's hedging the statement by saying that God can use our good works as part of the process of grace, but that it is not the good works that get us into heaven.
I think the point is that it's not what we do, but what's in our hearts. If our hearts weren't already in the right place, the good works would not make a difference. And if our hearts are already in the right place, we're going to do the good works anyway. I'm looking forward to reading his statement on October 31.
My friend finished by saying << God Bless you! >>
I answered by saying,
He has, many times over, even if my sister doesn't believe it. I think her husband understands my spiritual path better than she does.
Best Wishes, or in the words of one "prophet" who baptised me in a dream (yes, my spiritual dreams take strange directions, he chose to baptise me in the Vulcan tradition). (In other words, the God of the world Vulcan was also the same as the God of the world Earth).
"Peace, Live Long and Prosper" (Spock)
John