First of all, I was raised Southern Baptist where you had to be a member of the church to receive communion. Later in life, I joined the Presbyterian church where the pastor announced prior to communion that the table was not a Presbyterian table but was Jesus' table and that all who believed were welcome to receive the elements. I am now engaged to a Roman Catholic and have been attending mass with her. The way I understand it, to receive communion you must go through RCIA and join the church before receiving communion.

To make matters worse, I understand that since I am divorced that if I do not get an annulment and she marries me she may not receive communion anymore.

I am not sure I understand all of this and certainly lean more toward the Presbyterian thinking as I can't see any biblical reference to restrictions on receiving the elements because of what church I belong to or marital status.

I would appreciate comments regarding this as it has really confused me.

In the United Methodist church, we too practice open communion. The supper is open to all who come responding to Christ's love, desiring to live a new life in Christ and seek to live in harmony with their brother.

I heard a pastor in conversation with my mother once mark on a similar subject, "how can I judge the heart of the person? That is between them and God."

You may want to check out the bible and what it says about divorce and remarriage..

Matt.19
[9] And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery."

Mark.10
[11] And he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her;
[12] and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."

Luke.16
[18] "Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

You may or may not be eligible for an annullment, which is a finding by the Church (which has the power to bind and loose, per Jesus) that your first marriage was invalid - IOW, were you married under false pretenses, was your spouse forced to marry you, was it a shotgun wedding, was your spouse lying to you about having kids, etc...

As for not being able to receive the Body and the Blood of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist, you may also want to check out the Bible on that one...

1 Corinthians 11: [23] 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 you. Do this in remembrance of me."
[25] In the same way also 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 of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
[28] Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
[29] For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
[30] That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

Good luck with your situation. Pray, and then pray some more, from the heart...

Technicaly you are correct. If your wife goes and talks with the Priest he most likely will still let her have communion. He may require you be in RCIA though.

As a Methodist, I could never belong to a church that practices closed communion. This is so clearly wrong, I can't get past it.
I undertand the Bible says divorce and remarriage is a sin. So are lots of other things. Why does the RCC not refuse membership to anyone who has lied, lusted, cheated, profaned and on and on? Why is there not a phony "annulment" procedure to cure all of those sins?

BQ - Annullment refers specifically to marriage, and it is a detailed examination of your failed marriage to determine if your marriage was indeed a marriage (total committment at the time of the marriage).

All of the other ills you describe are done away with either initially at Baptism, or later on with the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession), per John 20....

[21] Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you."
[22] And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.
[23] If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

BQ

without getting into a giant discussion lets just suffice it to say we take it much more seriously than most protestants

quote:

---

without getting into a giant discussion lets just suffice it to say we take it much more seriously than most protestants

---

Wow. What a loaded statement!

don't get defensive I said "most"

i still say it is quite a loaded statement.

Are we talking about communion or marriage?

Please forgive me! I keep forgetting about the mythical heirarchy of sin!

I was speaking of communion but you are correct the same applies for both.

No interest in a debate on those issues it's been done to extreme on this board.

no interest in a debate? You say you take communion more seriously than most protestants and then say you said that to avoid a debate????? What a loaded statement!

Okay. Taking some of you examples to the exteme, can someone who has committed murder take communion if he has confessed and asked forgiveness?

On the marriage issue, I can truthfully say my ex-wife and I married for the wrong reasons. I am perfectly at peace over the decision. My faith is as strong or stronger than ever. I have no qualms at all about taking communion in my "home church".

big un

of course! Just look at Paul! He consented to many murders (self-called biggest sinner of all) and he partook in the supper and became an apostle!

I think that it's very sad that a group of people who profess Jesus as their Lord and Savior can't share communion together due to dogma. I understand the arguments and disagree completely with them.

And I'm with Sandy in thinking Beretta's comment is way over the top.

Marriage is a Sacrament, a physical conduit through which God grants us His Grace, which we receive in faith.

The Eucharist is the most important Sacrament, and the Source and Summit of our Christian existence, as the Eucharist is Christ received in faith.

Therefore, these must approached after a serious spiritual preparation. There should be fasting and repentance. A divorced person must make arrangements with the priest from this point forward to determine how to be so prepared. It is likely, and proper, that an annulment is necessary.

As for communion, any non-Catholic should respect Catholic belief about what the Eucharist is. It is not "closed" - the Church desperately seeks full union with all. But it cannot compromise its understanding of itself and its function as the fullness of faith while on Earth, infused with Apostolic spiritual authority by Christ to the Apostles to us.

quote:

---

It is not "closed" - the Church desperately seeks full union with all. But it cannot compromise its understanding of itself and its function as the fullness of faith while on Earth, infused with Apostolic spiritual authority by Christ to the Apostles to us.

---

Redstone, I understand and I do respect what Catholics believe of the Eucharist.

But that said, and respectfully, it *is* closed. There are no two ways about it. If you are not Catholic (or do not recognize the Pope as a successor to the apostles), you are not welcomed to take communion at a Catholic church, no matter your profession of faith. It doesn't get any more closed than that.

By "desperately seeks full union", you mean that the Catholic church "desperately seeks that all who call themselves Christian should subject themselves to the authority the Catholic church claims".

As a non-Catholic, the closed nature of Catholic communion feels to me to say to me that I'm either not Christian or a lesser Christian.

The latter doesn't make sense and doesn't jibe with what the Bible says. The former seems to be in direct conflict with what the Catholic church says about its sentiments towards non-Catholic Christians.

I know that the Catholic church will not change its policy. I'm not even really suggesting that it should, because to do so would be to compromise what it believes.

However, I think it's a great tragedy that Christians do not welcome each other at the table of our Lord. Catholics are not the only ones to do so, so I'm not just picking at Catholicism. However, it's incorrect to state that the Catholic communion is not closed. It is. A statement to the contrary is window dressing.

Somehow I knew this would turn into a Catholic bash party.

quote:

---

But that said, and respectfully, it *is* closed. There are no two ways about it. If you are not Catholic (or do not recognize the Pope as a successor to the apostles), you are not welcomed to take communion at a Catholic church, no matter your profession of faith. It doesn't get any more closed than that.

---

Non-Catholics cannot partake, right. But closed is inaccurate as anyone has the capacity to do so. And more than this, the Catholic Church wants you to.

quote:

---

By "desperately seeks full union", you mean that the Catholic church "desperately seeks that all who call themselves Christian should subject themselves to the authority the Catholic church claims".

---

Yes.

quote:

---

As a non-Catholic, the closed nature of Catholic communion feels to me to say to me that I'm either not Christian or a lesser Christian.

---

As a former "outsider", I understand the sentiment. But it is more accurate to say that the Catholic Church wants you to come to the fullness of faith, its center being the Eucharist, which is the Source and Summit of all Christian experience.

quote:

---

The latter doesn't make sense and doesn't jibe with what the Bible says. The former seems to be in direct conflict with what the Catholic church says about its sentiments towards non-Catholic Christians.

---

How so? Remember also there is that which existed before the Bible, and from which the Bible came.

quote:

---

I know that the Catholic church will not change its policy.

---

The Catholic Church cannot change its policy. Like with the ordination of women, there is nothing to discuss. The matter is settled. Christ was a celibate male; priests must be celibate males. The Last Supper was for the Apostles; the Eucharist is for those who accept its claims.

quote:

---

I'm not even really suggesting that it should, because to do so would be to compromise what it believes.

---

Correct.

quote:

---

However, I think it's a great tragedy that Christians do not welcome each other at the table of our Lord.

---

Exclusion is necessary, but it's not truly exclusive is it? All can join, and I hope many do.

Why would anyone want to take communion in a Catholic or Orthodox church when they don't believe what they believe about the Eucharist?

St. Paul said that anyone who doesn't "recognize" the Body and Blood of the Lord is eating and drinking judgement to himself.

The exclusion is not just for the heck of it, but also to protect the partaker from this judgement.

At a Catholic mass once, I heard the priest say, before communion, "We belive that this is the real Blood and the real Body of our Lord. If you believe that, too, then come. Receive."

I really liked that approach. It was more inclusive than what I'm used to and, at the samed time, warned the partaker of the seriousness of what he was about to do.


[This message has been edited by primrose (edited 5/14/2008 11:59p).]

quote:

---

However, I think it's a great tragedy that Christians do not welcome each other at the table of our Lord. Catholics are not the only ones to do so, so I'm not just picking at Catholicism. However, it's incorrect to state that the Catholic communion is not closed. It is. A statement to the contrary is window dressing.

---

Communion means in total agreement with and to be united. How can you be in unity with your fellow communicants if you don't believe what they believe, and in fact, you protest what they believe? It's impossible to be in union as long as you are protesting what Catholics believe.

In the United Methodist church, we too believe in the real presence of Christ. We do not claim to understand how it happens, but we know that after being consecrated, the bread and wine become spiritually the body and blood of Christ. We know that they are still physically bread and wine, but a change occurs in the same way that Christ gave his disciples real bread and real wine yet they ate of his body and drank of his blood, before he had even died. A holy mystery indeed!

There was a thread just a few days ago in which someone commented that many protestants and catholics really aren't that different in their beliefs of communion, we just might use a few different terms to describe it.

On a side note, anyone who has taken communion in a United Methodist church knows that we use grapejuice. The reasoning behind that isn't that we think that Jesus only drank non-alcoholic wine, but that we recognize that many in the church may be recovering alcoholics or may abstain from alcohol for spiritual reasons and do not want communion to become a stumbling block before them.

quote:

---

I speak as to sensible people; judge for youselves what I say. The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? THe bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

---

1 Corinthians 10: 15-17

What are we saying when any church denies fellow Christians the bread and body, the wine and the blood? Paul tells the people elsewhere to examine themselves before taking communion. Is this not between the person and God? Can others examine the heart of a person to know their intentions?

Does it make a difference that there was one Church then and all regarded the Sacrament in the same way?

You're right about God being the only judge of a man's heart and motives. And it's a good thing, too.

I remember when the AIDS crisis first broke on the scene. In our Church, we all receive from the same spoon. Many didn't want to receive in that way for fear of contamination. But, in that case, you might as well be drinking soup.
If you believe in the Real Presence, you know that AIDS might go into the cup, but it would not come out. Same for the alcohol v. juice. Nothing bad could come out of the cup, because it contains the Real Body and the Real Blood of Jesus.

That's what I believe.



[This message has been edited by primrose (edited 5/15/2008 7:46a).]

herein lies my only problem:

quote:

---

which is a finding by the Church (which has the power to bind and loose, per Jesus)

---

The power of Jesus residing in men.

"It takes a big man to admit he's wrong. I am not a big man."

But if Jesus only meant that to go as far as the Apostles, after that there would have been chaos, I think.
Didn't the Apostles ordain Bishops to carry on after them , and then the bishops ordained Bishops to carry on after them?

[This message has been edited by primrose (edited 5/15/2008 8:31a).]

quote:

---

On a side note, anyone who has taken communion in a United Methodist church knows that we use grapejuice. The reasoning behind that isn't that we think that Jesus only drank non-alcoholic wine, but that we recognize that many in the church may be recovering alcoholics or may abstain from alcohol for spiritual reasons and do not want communion to become a stumbling block before them.

---

So, out of curiosity, do you believe His first miracle was turning water into non-alcoholic wine?

On another note, Southern Baptists who tell me this are the best. The ones who oust their pastors because they see them 'having a drink' with their dinner at a restaurant. Fairly comical. All the while forgetting this was His first miracle and it was basically to keep the party going because people were concerned they had run out of wine (doesn't sound like just grape juice).

Also, Jesus didn't only mean apostles. He told Peter himeself that His church would be built on Peter and the whatever Peter tightened would be tightened in heaven; what he loosened would be loosened in heaven.

So, He left behind more than just a book - He left behind His Church. Peter was our first pope.

quote:

---

So, out of curiosity, do you believe His first miracle was turning water into non-alcoholic wine?

---

Reread my comment and I think you will find your answer.

quote:

---

How can you be in unity with your fellow communicants if you don't believe what they believe, and in fact, you protest what they believe?

---

Do you believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior?

If we share that belief, are we not in communion?

Thats not all it comes down to.

That view makes the Eucharist just another form of fellowship. Fellowship is an important part of it, but thats not ALL it is.

Do you believe that the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, physically present in the hosts of bread and wine?

If not, then we are NOT in communion.

As primrose said - its not just about protecting the sanctity of the eucharist - but also about the salvation of the person receiving it.

The Bible says that if you receive communion without discerning the Body and Blood of Christ, you drink judgement on yourself.

- With the new Indiana Jones movie coming out, i feel inclined to point out the classic scene where the Nazi choose the wrong Grail, and he suddenly aged centuries in a matter of seconds and then crumbled into dust.

No, we dont believe that you will crumble to dust... but we do believe (and we're pretty clearly backed up by the Bible on this) that to receive Holy Communion without discerning the true presence or while in a state of mortal sin - IS a mortal sin. This is not limited to Non-Catholics. Its equally wrong for those Catholics who dont believe in the true presence to receive.

The Eucharist is taken too lightly in our society. Most people think of it as something that we are entitled to do, but think of the prayer that you say right before communion:

"Lord, I am not worthy to receive you but only say the word, and I shall be healed."

EDIT: I mistook the Nazi aging really fast in Holy Grail, with the Nazi's face melting off in the Lost Arc...

[This message has been edited by kbaum07 (edited 5/15/2008 11:31a).]

quote:

---

The Bible says that if you receive communion without discerning the Body and Blood of Christ, you drink judgement on yourself.

---

And this is determined by if you are a member of a certain church? We too in the UMC believe these things but believe that they are judged by God, not man. That is why we have a prayer of confession before communion, why we retell the story of the Last Supper, why we bless the loaf and cup, and talk about the meaning of it all. We do not believe that we can deny communion to people who seek it. We offer communion to all who respond to Christ's calling and seek to live a new life in Christ. Man cannot judge the heart, God can.

quote:

---

We do not believe that we can deny communion to people who seek it. We offer communion to all who respond to Christ's calling and seek to live a new life in Christ. Man cannot judge the heart, God can.

---

And so do we. But, given the important and sacred nature of the Holy Eucharist, we dont jsut allow anyone off the street come in and receive... they must go through classes to educate them on exactly what it IS that they are receiving. It cannot be jsut and impulse "I want to receive communion today!" - discernment is a process that takes time. If someone really wants to receive Christ in the Eucharist, they must be patient and truly discern it.

I would not feel right if someone came to a church and asked for communion and we denied it to them. I would rather err on the side of letting a person be guided by the spirit and their heart than by what classes they have taken. I would rather they be judged by the eyes of God than the eyes of man. I would rather not deny a person a means of God's grace through communion.