Why Can’t Protestants Take Communion?



Q. Why can’t Protestants receive communion at the Catholic Church?

A. To protect them from Judgment.

1 Corinthians 11: 27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be
guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.

Since, Protestants do not believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist as we do, they do not discern or recognize that Jesus’ body is present under the appearance of bread and wine. We would be allowing them to eat and drink judgment upon themselves. The prohibtion is actually very charitable but, unfortunately, it is usually seen as a rejection.

Evidence of this interpretation of this passage is supported by St. Justin the Martyr :

“We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true…”
-Justin Martyr –FIRST APOLOGY, 66,20–(150 A.D.)

Q. Why do we call the bread “The Host”?

A. Our use of this term, to refer to the consecrated bread, comes from the Latin word hostia, which means ‘victim’. We believe that Jesus Christ is really present in the consecrated bread and wine on our altars. The mass is a re-presentation of the sacrificial death of Jesus on the cross. Therefore, Jesus is the victim of sacrifice and we call the bread the host/victim to help us remember that it is no longer bread but the Real Presence of our Lord Jesus Christ given to us to strengthen and keep us on the journey to Heaven.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Advertisements

12 Responses

  1. Hello.

    This is Philip Duffin the Irish gentleman who made comments about the Doctrine of Purgatory a couple of days ago.

    I remember talking to a Presbyterian Minister about 15 years ago at a Roman Catholic/Evangelical theological conference held in Belfast.

    He said that he did not accept the RC Doctrine of TRANSUBSTANTIATION, THE REAL BODILY PRESENCE OF JESUS IN THE EUCHARISTIC ELEMENTS, because he believed that Jesus cannot appear as bread and wine because Jesus is ONE OF US!!!
    His body is in Heaven now; ever since his ascension interceding for us at God’s Right Hand.

    He has to appear in his body in his manhood to judge us at our death and also to come again in glory at the end of the world.
    This Presbyterian Minister believed in a real presence which was purely spiritual.

    God the Father sent The Holy Spirit into the world at Pentecost To be his presence in the world.

    When I quoted to the Presbyterian Minister John Chapter 6, The bread of Life. MY FLESH IS FOOD INDEED MY BLOOD IS DRINK INDEED.

    The Minister said that Jesus was speaking Figuratively and the bread of Life was about COMING TO FAITH IN JESUS and To eat bread means to receive doctrine.

    He also quoted John Chapter 6 Verse 63.
    IT IS THE SPIRIT THAT GIVES LIFE THE FLESH IS OF NO AVAIL.

    He went on to add that Presbyterians believed that it was a spiritual feeding on Christ’s body and blood and they rejected TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

    He also said Irish Presbyterians do not accept the Sacrifice of the Mass Because of their Theology that the Once and for all sacrifice HAS BEEN MADE AND IS ALL-SUFFICIENT TO ATONE AND FORGIVE ALL OUR SINS PAST PRESENT AND FUTURE.

    This conversation with this Protestant Minister has continually affected me and caused me to think about and even doubt the Catholic Position On the Eucharist.

    I would be very grateful if you would address the issues brought up by this Protestant Minister ( which are very convincing ) and help me reaffirm Catholic believe in the Eucharist.

    Yours in Christ.

    Phillip Duffin.

  2. Dear Phillip,
    Hi Again I did respond to your questions on Purgatory. I don’t know if you get notified or not when someone responds to your comment.

    Don’t let the Protestant minister worry you too much. Before I became Catholic I was looking into becoming Lutheran and I asked the pastor about communion. When he explained that they believe in real presence in communion, similar to the Catholic belief…I, obnoxiously responded, “then why didn’t Jesus just cut off his arm and pass it around at the last supper.” (I was not trying to be a brat it was an honest question but I am sure it offended him…he didn’t even try to respond) A year or so later I called to apologize and let him know I had become Catholic.

    I have dealt pretty extensively with questions about the Eucharist. If you go to my blog and click on Eucharist under Categories you can choose from all my posts about the Eucharist.
    I would especially recommend:

    -Sacrifice of the Mass,
    -Eucharist Symbol Only?
    -Jesus’ Flesh of No Avail?
    -Bread From Heaven

    You did a great job in citing Johnn 6. Eucharist Symbol Only should help with his comeback. Let me know what you think

  3. Some Protestants ask forgiveness before having communion. They are aware of what the Bible says.

  4. Hi – I have just come across your site- with this interesting justification for refusing to allow Protestants to receive Communion in the Catholic Church.

    I am a Presbyterian, and from my church background we have what we call the “Open Table”. That means that at every Communion the Minister will tel the congregation that “this is the Table of Our Lord. It is open to all who love the Lord Jesus in sincerity and truth and are in communion with His universal church. We therefore invite members of any brach thereof to join with us in this Holy meal”

    It is from that teaching that I divine that this is the Lords Table not the Table of Presbyterians, or Methodists, Anglicans or Catholics.

    This teaching informs my thinking, when I attend a Catholic church. Growing up in Northern Ireland you can imagine the struggle to come through to a point where I can honestly say that I recognise in the Roman Catholic church, a branch of Christ’s church. But thanks be to God I have come through it. If that is so – then it seems to me that I am therefore compelled to recognise that the celebration of the Eucharist is done in your church’s obedience to Christ’s command – and that it is therefore the “Table of Our Lord”.

    This is so no matter what you think goes on “behind the scenes” in regard to trans-substantiation.

    If I as a Christian from a Presbyterian background can honestly recognise in the Catholic church a branch of the church of Christ, and can see the Eucharist as the Lords Table – I feel it is my duty to follow His command and participate in Communion when it is celebrated.

    I just cannot see though, how you can justify the refusal of participation in the Table of Our Lord to anyone who does not accept your branch of the Church’s teaching on transsubstantiation.

    Is it not the willingness of the individual to publicly profess a faith in Christ Jesus that is important and his willingness to comply with the command of Our Lord to “do this as often as ye meet”.

    Surely to impose a “test” on participants in Communion is a step too far. It is a demand not that we recognise this as “The Lords Table” but the table of the Roman Catholics.

    Also the converse would also be true – since we Presbyterians do not accept transsubstantiation, doesnt that mean that what we call “The Lords Table” is a false and empty ceremony – a “blasphemy” in fact, as Dr Paisley would call the Mass.

    And finally, doesnt the Catholic church in certain circumstances permit the giving of the Eucharist to Protestants? Before they give it on those occasions they do not demand a “Test” that the Protestant accept transsubstantiation. On those occasions then, are the Protestants not every bit committing the same “Sin” you claim they would be on ANY occasion they take Communion in the Catholic church. And arent the Catholics who give it, committing an even greater sin in giving it.?

    It really does seem to me that what you are arguing is a cleverly disguised promotion of the rightness of Roman Catholic teaching alone – and indeed the complete wrongness of anything else including all Protestant teaching on this.

    With such an attitude, can we ever achieve christian unity? Or is that concept merely the absorption of Protestants once they give up their “wrong thinking” of all that we hold dear?

  5. I am a Presbyterian, and from my church background we have what we call the “Open Table”… We therefore invite members of any branch thereof to join with us in this Holy meal”

    It is from that teaching that I divine that this is the Lords Table not the Table of Presbyterians, or Methodists, Anglicans or Catholics.

    BFHU: Phillip, I am not trying to be mean but …
    Mk 7:8-9 ” You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men.” And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition! Thus making void the word of God through your tradition which you hand on.”

    This teaching informs my thinking, when I attend a Catholic church.

    BFHU: I hope you respect the Catholic Church enough to humbly abide by her rules.

    I can honestly say that I recognize in the Roman Catholic church, a branch of Christ’s church. I am therefore compelled to recognize that the celebration of the Eucharist is done in your church’s obedience to Christ’s command – and that it is therefore the “Table of Our Lord”.

    BFHU: True

    If I as a Christian from a Presbyterian background can honestly recognise in the Catholic church a branch of the church of Christ, and can see the Eucharist as the Lords Table – I feel it is my duty to follow His command and participate in Communion when it is celebrated.

    BFHU: You should not. We are all believers in Christ but our Faith is not ONE. There is not unity between your beliefs and ours so to receive commUNION in the Catholic Church is sort of a lie b/c there really is not UNION. Your church and ours is not really ONE as Christ commanded. The Protestants left the Catholic Church and rejected many of the doctrines taught to the apostles by Christ.

    I just cannot see though, how you can justify the refusal of participation in the Table of Our Lord to anyone who does not accept your branch of the Church’s teaching on transsubstantiation.

    BFHU: This practice dates back to Christ and can be verified by the writings of St. Justin Martyr in the first centruy after the death of Jesus.

    We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true…”
    -Justin Martyr -FIRST APOLOGY, 66,20–(150 A.D.)

    Is it not the willingness of the individual to publicly profess a faith in Christ Jesus that is important and his willingness to comply with the command of Our Lord to “do this as often as ye meet”.

    BFHU: No. There must be unity and a heeding of the warning Paul gives us. And the Catholic Church echoes Paul in requesting that non-Catholics refrain from communion.

    I Cor. 11:29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

    Surely to impose a “test” on participants in Communion is a step too far.

    BFHU: There is no imposition of a “test”. We leave it up to the individual to discern his worthiness (no unconfessed mortal sin) and union with the Church.

    It is a demand not that we recognise this as “The Lords Table” but the table of the Roman Catholics.

    BFHU: No it is an admonition that if you receive without recognizing that the bread and wine are the real and substantial body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ or with unconfessed mortal sin on your soul, you receive unworthily and eat and drink condemnation on yourself.

    Also the converse would also be true – since we Presbyterians do not accept transsubstantiation, doesnt that mean that what we call “The Lords Table” is a false and empty ceremony – a “blasphemy” in fact, as Dr Paisley would call the Mass.

    BFHU: Protestant communion is not transubstantiated and therefore safe for Protestant consumption. The Real Presence of Christ is not there and we are not allowed to partake of it, precisely b/c it is empty. This guards our faithful from thinking they have fulfilled their Sunday obligation by going to a Protestant service. I have never heard anyone call it a “blasphemy.”

    And finally, doesnt the Catholic church in certain circumstances permit the giving of the Eucharist to Protestants?

    BFHU: NO.

    It really does seem to me that what you are arguing is a cleverly disguised promotion of the rightness of Roman Catholic teaching alone –

    BFHU: There is nothing “clever” or disguised about our teaching. Jesus taught this to the apostles and Paul even wrote about it in his letter to the Corinthians.

    and indeed the complete wrongness of anything else including all Protestant teaching on this.

    BFHU: Yes. Protestant teaching on this is wrong. Even Martin Luther disagreed with Presbyterian beliefs on their communion.
    By what authority did Calvin jettison 1500 years of Christian belief in Transubstantiation? How did he dare to do such a thing?

    With such an attitude, can we ever achieve christian unity? Or is that concept merely the absorption of Protestants once they give up their “wrong thinking” of all that we hold dear?

    BFHU: Christian unity will never be achieved by the Catholic Church giving up any of her doctrine. The point of ecumenical talks is to try to clear away the misunderstandings, prejudices, lies, and half-truths that adhere among many Protestants regarding the Catholic Faith. I am a convert. I was a very zealous Protestant, sola scriptura down to the ground. And believe me, Protestants have a lot of traditional beliefs about the Cathoic Church that are completely wrong.

  6. what a disappointing response to my post.

    It seems from all you say that either you are openly hostile to Christian Unity ( the prayer of Christ on the night He was betrayed) or such unity as you would pursue is exclusively the absorption of all teaching and thinking that differs with what you say the Roman Catholic church presently teaches.

    Surely on this last point, you recognise that what the Catholic church teaches has not been the same throughout history?
    Arent you a little blinkered to assert that your church’s teaching dates back to Justin Martyr? Trans substantiation was not proclaimed never mind understood to occur until centuries later.

    I feel a little upset that you cite Jesus harsh criticism of the Pharisees set out in St Mark ( a gospel I am intimately familiar with having memorised the entire gospel). I cant see how you think this applies to the issue under discussion. Go back and really read it – really try to understand what Our Lord was getting at and WHO he was getting at.

    I feel sorry that you are not even at the starting point for meaningful communication between our different traditions.

    I shall pray for you – and hope that one day you will write again, from a more enlightened perspective.

    Ask the Lord and He will give you insight.

    Finally, you are WRONG when you assert the Catholic Church can never give Communion to a Protestant – go and read your own Cathechism or ask a priest.

  7. Phillip: It seems from all you say that either you are openly hostile to Christian Unity
    ( the prayer of Christ on the night He was betrayed)

    BFHU: I am not hostile to unity. I very much would rejoice in the unity of all of Christianity.
    What a witness to the world that would be. The disunity presents such confusion for everyone, especiallynewly converted Christians…unless they are Catholic.
    Phillip:Or such unity as you would pursue, is exclusively the absorption of all teaching and thinking
    that differs with what you say the Roman Catholic church presently teaches.

    BFHU:Of course. The Catholic Church is THE CHURCH founded by Jesus. It was the only Church that
    existed until the eastern churches broke unity after 1000 years. That defection resulted
    in 14 Eastern Orthodox churches. They all believe what the Catholic Church believes except they reject the
    primacy of the Bishop of Rome. The Protestant break away, from the unity desired by Jesus, occurred about 500
    years ago and has resulted in over 40,000 different denominations. Unity among those who love Jesus
    can only be achieved by a return of all the prodigal children of God to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic
    Church. TRUTH cannot be compromised even for a superficial, feel-good-unity. I say superficial
    because any unity that happened would only be on the things we already agree on together. What
    divides us would still be a source of division.

    Phillip: Surely on this last point, you recognise that what the Catholic church teaches
    has not been the same throughout history?

    BFHU: Such as?

    Phillip: Arent you a little blinkered to assert that your church’s teaching dates back to
    Justin Martyr?

    BFHU: Not at all. It obviously does go bact to Justin Martyr and even more all the way back to
    Jesus Christ Who founded His Church on Peter.

    Phillip: Trans substantiation was not proclaimed never mind understood to
    occur until centuries later.

    BFHU: On what authority do you make this claim? All of our doctrine was taught by Jesus to the disciples.
    Over the centuries our understanding has deepened as the faithful have meditated and mined
    these truths for the riches they contain.

    Phillip:I feel a little upset that you cite Jesus harsh criticism of the Pharisees set
    out in St Mark.

    Mk 7:8-9 ” You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the
    tradition of men.
    ” And he said to them, “You have a fine way of
    rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition! Thus
    making void the word of God through your tradition which you hand on.”

    Phillip:
    I cant see how you think this applies to the issue under
    discussion. Go back and really read it – really try to understand what Our Lord
    was getting at and WHO he was getting at.

    BFHU: I think it applies to this discussion because, Jesus taught His disciples. The disciples
    evanelized the world and spread Christianity. Centuries later,men were deceived by Satan and rebelled
    against His Church and drew many souls after them. Now, centries later, these Protestant faiths have
    held to certain beliefs for so long they don’t even realize that they did not always exist in Christianity.
    They have no idea that they really are the traditions taught by men and not Christ. They even go so far
    as to dismiss the teaching of St. Paul in the very scripture they hold dear, that admonishes Christians
    NOT to partake of the Eucharist unworthily–in mortal sin and without believing that Jesus is really and
    truly THERE!

    Phillip: I feel sorry that you are not even at the starting point for meaningful
    communication between our different traditions.

    BFHU: I don’t know exactly what you think a starting point would look like. But if you think Catholics and
    I should be ready and willing to jettison our doctrines, even one, then, NO I am not going to do that.
    The Catholic Church is not going to do that. What we want to do is free Protestants from all the lies,
    deceptions, half-truths, and misconceptions they have about the Catholic Faith. Once they realize the
    truth…the actual teaching and history of the Catholic Church, it is hoped that men of good will will
    rejoice to enter her. That is what happened to me.

    Phillip: I shall pray for you – and hope that one day you will write again, from a more
    enlightened perspective.

    BFHU:Thanks for your prayers, I can always use them.

    Phillip: Finally, you are WRONG when you assert the Catholic Church can never giveC ommunion to a
    Protestant – go and read your own Cathechism or ask a priest.

    BFHU: Where in the Catechism?

  8. paragraph 1401 Catechism of the Catholic Church permits communion to Christians not of the Roman Catholic church who are in case of grave necessity.
    I have heard of this practice occurring in missionary situations, where there is no ordained clergy available for some great distance.

    I have heard of priests who do not take the narrow minded view you espouse, regarding their Protestant neighbours as true followers of Jesus Christ – of priests being able to see Christ’s truth in these congregations of the faithful.

    I am sorry you are so unwilling to find truth deposited by Christ in other branches of His church. You are wrong to regard your tradition as representing the sole repository of the Holy Spirit or God’s truth, or His grace since the first schism between East and West let alone the Reformation of the Western Church in 1517.
    If God was prepared for his chosen people to be broken off in order to graft in the gentiles, – for the descendants of Aaron to be cast aside for a time – in favour of the Apostles, for St Paul to become the leader of the early church as witnessed by Luke in Acts, for St James to lead the early church in Jerusalem His Holy city, is He not able also to cause His Spirit to reside in Christian leaders such as Martin Luther and Jean Calvin, John Huss – murdered by decree of the Pope in 1415- or do you maintain that the Roman Catholic church was following the teaching of Jesus when they burned him and others to death? If so – should you not be consistent and ask the Pope to come after us Protestants today?

    As a Protestant, I am at least prepared to see the development of God’s dealings with humanity and of Christian thinking in consequence – to look back at past actions such as these burnings and the murder indeed also of the Catholic Chancellor in England Sir Thomas More – to look back with shame and see these things as wrong – eternally wrong – a product of the sinful frailty of human kind.

    Dont you think a more honest reflection on the history of YOUR branch of the church shows wrong doing and error equally contained within its ranks?

    Like the chosen people – a stiff necked people more interested in placing heavy burdens on people when their ancestors were not able to bear them? Wasnt it THESE people Our Lord was castigating when He referred to “you have let go of the commands of God and are holding onto the traditions of men” e.g. that it is necessary to believe in a specific philosophical idea of what goes on in communion before you are allowed to participate in the Holy meal that Christ opened to ALL his followers. and not just your part.

  9. Phillip: paragraph 1401 Catechism of the Catholic Church permits communion to Christians not of the Roman Catholic church who are in case of grave necessity.

    BFHU:
    Let us also take a look at the paragraph above the one you cite.

    CCC 1400 Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, “have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders.”239 It is for this reason that, for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible.

    Now the paragraph you cited.

    1401 When, in the Ordinary’s judgment, a grave necessity arises, Catholic ministers may give the sacraments of Eucharist, Penance, and Anointing of the Sick to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church, who ask for them of their own will, provided they give evidence of holding the Catholic faith regarding these sacraments and possess the required dispositions

    First, it is in the Ordinary’s judgment–that is not the judgement of the local parish priest. The ordinary is the BISHOP. So the bishop’s permission must be obtained first.

    Secondly-A grave necessity is most likely the danger of death and the one given sacraments is most likely one who is in the process of entering the Church. Feeling rejected or hurt feelings do not equal a grave (as in deadly) necessity. Neither of these are deadly or are the sacraments a necessity unless one is about to die and believes all that the Catholic Church teaches.

    Phillip:I have heard of this practice occurring in missionary situations, where there is no ordained clergy available for some great distance.

    BFHU: What you may have heard of or even witnessed with your own eyes in a Catholic Church means absolutely nothing unless the priest or bishop is a faithful son of the Church
    and loyal to the Pope. All kinds of nonsense occurs in Catholic Churches by rebellious priests all over the world. They may have good intentions but frankly, they are heretics.

  10. I am sure like me you havent got time to spare to an endless debate in this column – but for your own sake, you may want to address the rest of my last post – after all, later readers would I am sure, like to hear your comments.

  11. I plan to and will put it up as a post on the site.

  12. Phillip: I have heard of priests who do not take the narrow minded view you espouse, regarding their Protestant neighbours as true followers of Jesus Christ – of priests being able to see Christ’s truth in these congregations of the faithful.

    BFHU: I would hope that all priests regard their Protestant brothers as true followers of Jesus Christ. There is definitely Christ’s truth in these congregations of the faithful.

    Phillip: I am sorry you are so unwilling to find truth deposited by Christ in other branches of His church.

    BFHU: I am not unwilling. You have jumped to so many conclusions. All the truth residing in all the Protestant communities they received from the Catholic Church. Even Martin Luther acknowledges this.

    Phillip:You are wrong to regard your tradition as representing the sole repository of the Holy Spirit or God’s truth, or His grace since the first schism between East and West let alone the Reformation of the Western Church in 1517.
    BFHU: Why am I wrong? The Catholic Church was given the Deposit of Faith by Christ through His apostles. Why would anyone want anything else? Or anything devised by mere men?

    Phillip: If God was prepared for his chosen people to be broken off in order to graft in the gentiles, – for the descendants of Aaron to be cast aside for a time – in favour of the Apostles, for St Paul to become the leader of the early church as witnessed by Luke in Acts, for St James to lead the early church in Jerusalem His Holy city, is He not able also to cause His Spirit to reside in Christian leaders such as Martin Luther and Jean Calvin, John Huss – murdered by decree of the Pope in 1415-

    BFHU: The institution of the New Covenant by GOD, confirmed by the miracles of the incarnation, of Jesus, crucifixion, resurrection, and the marvels surrounding all that Jesus and the apostles did reveals the unmistakable hand of God in the “grafting on the Gentiles”. By comparison, the Protestant Rebellion had…nothing.

    It is true that Luther and others saw great defects in the Church but rebellion and the breaking of unity was unwarranted and the result of pride and arrogance. It was not approved or mandated by God. But, I do sympathize with Luther’s disillusionment and frustration with the abuses in the Catholic Church. And yes, of course, the Holy Spirit can reside in Protestants and I am sure He does.

    Phillip:or do you maintain that the Roman Catholic church was following the teaching of Jesus when they burned him and others to death?

    BFHU: The Church did not burn him at the stake. The state government considered heretics to be dangerous b/c they could lead to popular revolts, uprisings, and death. So, the state, b/c of the established religion, had an interest in maintaining unity. The Church was called in by the state to examine the suspect for heresy b/c it was within their competence. The Church ministers also made sincere attempts to save the man by trying to convince him of the errors he held to and talk him into recanting his heresy in order to save his soul and his life. That was how it was all supposed to work. But at times, no doubt, men were evil.

    Phillip: If so – should you not be consistent and ask the Pope to come after us Protestants today?

    BFHU: That is just silly. We live in a different world under very different governments.

    Phillip: As a Protestant, I am at least prepared to see the development of God’s dealings with humanity and of Christian thinking in consequence – to look back at past actions such as these burnings and the murder indeed also of the Catholic Chancellor in England Sir Thomas More – to look back with shame and see these things as wrong – eternally wrong – a product of the sinful frailty of human kind.

    BFHU: Me too.

    Phillip: Dont you think a more honest reflection on the history of YOUR branch of the church shows wrong doing and error equally contained within its ranks?

    BFHU: Absolutely. Why would you think I would think otherwise?

    Phillip:Like the chosen people – a stiff necked people more interested in placing heavy burdens on people when their ancestors were not able to bear them? Wasnt it THESE people Our Lord was castigating when He referred to “you have let go of the commands of God and are holding onto the traditions of men” ie.

    BFHU: Yes, at that time and in that place Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees about their hypocrisy. But they were not the only people capable of doing that sort of thing.

    Phillip: “you have let go of the commands of God and are holding onto the traditions of men” ie.that it is necessary to believe in a specific philosophical idea of what goes on in communion before you are allowed to participate in the Holy meal that Christ opened to ALL his followers.

    BFHU: Well, you can argue about this with St. Paul I and the Catholic Church humbly submit to the teaching of the Church and the warning of St. Paul What Scripture can you cite to refute St. Paul? Where does scripture say the Holy meal was open to anyone and everyone? And what constitutes “one of His Followers”? The Anglican bishop who lives with his homosexual lover? The pro abortion President and Catholic Vice President elect of the United States? New Age Christians? Is there anyone you would exclude?

    We know the mass of the early Christians was held in great secrecy and it has always been limited to those who believe with the Church. That is why rumors abounded that the Christians were cannibals b/c they heard that they ate the body and drank the blood of a human sacrifice.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: