But I can�t help thinking that much of this ritual is just to keep the Church relevant and in power. Their franchise, so to speak, seems based on handing out Sacraments. That is their "currency". Their currency at one time used to be exclusive access to the Bible until Martin Luther changed that.

Actually, Luther didn't change that so much as Guttenberg did. Most people couldn't read during those times . . .

I'll grant you the connection between "priestcraft" and the Sacraments, but that doesn't characterize "the franchise" nor does it constitute a viable criticism of priestcraft. Might as well say we ought to have education without teachers and universities, or a military without officers and battalions. Priestcraft, religious ritual and the institutional Church go together in similar fashion, but there is much more to "the franchise" than that. Ultimately, its purpose is to manifest the life of Christ and to feed the members of the mystical body with this life. That's especially what the Sacraments are about, and the appropriate manner for their celebration is a ritual of remembering and worship. Wherever you have a ritual, you have a celebrant; that's pretty universal. And all of this speaks to a deep, mythical and even mystical level of our being, which is why (at least in the Catholic traditions) we don't just preach and teach, but ritually enact our mythology and communicate with God sacramentally. Such communication entails the senses and visible signs of God's presence through the sacramental symbols, thus involving the body as well as mind and spirit. We "taste and see" the goodness of the Lord, "hear" the words of forgiveness, "smell" the oil of healing, are washed clean in the waters of baptism and so forth.

But I will say that even if I fully believed that Christ was actually present in the Eucharist in a way that was unique that I might find even more reason to be lax about handing out this Sacrament since it would seem to be a great blessing to do so, particularly if one is giving it to those who might need it most.

It's not that kind of "food," Brad, and never was meant to be -- not even in the earliest of Christian communities. I think the article I linked to explains that.

From Stephen: And BTW, that question about the Trinity is as good as any to put to a Hindu claiming to have found God, hence my insistance on Christ's role as the Son in the former discussion.

Hindus aren't complaining about not being able to receive the Eucharist in the Catholic Church, which is why I brought up that point.

I'm just trying to explain, here, the rationale for the teaching, and I think I've done that through the link I provided and some follow-up discussion. I do empathize with Christians who feel excluded, but surely you can understand why the Church through the centuries has insisted on the criteria it has come to for worthy reception of the Eucharist (which includes far more than simply being a nominal Catholic, btw). Receiving Christ in the Eucharist is, for Catholics, the height and summit of the life of faith; we believe he communicates his risen life to all levels of our being through this Sacrament . . that he is truly present to us in the Eucharistic Species. In general, Protestants don't believe this, so they aren't really in communion with Catholics on this very important point. And if they do believe this about the Catholic Eucharist, then it follows that they are in communion with the Church not only with regard to this understanding, but the authority by means of which the understanding is affirmed and supported. But that's just not true of Protestants, most of whom would deny being in communion with the teaching of Catholic bishops and the Pope . . . which is why they're Protestants, no? If they are in union with the Church's teachings and teachers on such pivotal issues, then it would seem that the most authentic move would be to actually become a Catholic. If not, then to respect the teaching of the Catholic Church on this issue would seem to be the most appropriate response while continuing in one's Protestant faith journey. Expecting the Catholic Church to provide the ministry of Eucharist to Protestant Christians and, maybe, just anyone who happens to want to show up (their need constituting the justification) makes no sense to me at all.

I realise that salvation and the sacrements are two differeent issues, but still it seems hypocritical to me that the Church can confer one on followers of a different religion, while witholding the other from fellow believers in Christ.

Hey, w.c., you're in no hurry to defend the rights of Christians outside the Holy See .

Anyway, I respect the need to maintain the teachings and traditions of the Catholic church, so I'll drop it for now.

Thanks for you explanation, Phil. And here�s why:

Stephen said: Anyway, I respect the need to maintain the teachings and traditions of the Catholic church, so I'll drop it for now.

In this day and age (in the information age), we�re going to have these type of questions, and although a certain amount of obedience is needed, the proletariat ain�t as ignorant as they used to be. I think this stuff needs to be addressed, not swept under the rug, and we are indeed lucky to have someone like Phil at our disposal who can so skillfully and willingly (and cheerfully) answer these type of questions and observations. And I think it's also helpful to point out that there are more than a few anti-religious and/or anti-Catholic people who, perhaps through no immediate fault of their own, have had it drummed into their heads that there is no answer to the questions and observations that have been raised. I think brother Phil shows otherwise, and quite admirably.

I realise that salvation and the sacrements are two differeent issues, but still it seems hypocritical to me that the Church can confer one on followers of a different religion, while witholding the other from fellow believers in Christ.

That's some parting shot while you're expressing respect!

Salvation and receiving the Sacraments are different issues with different contingencies. Even within the Church, there are different requirements for receiving each Sacrament, and often different groups who are eligible. Sacraments are of such importance that proper preparation for respectful receptivity must be seen to (even if it can't always be guaranteed). We don't just dispense the Sacraments to anyone because they're Catholic; sometimes they are actually refused to someone for any number of reasons.

Stephen, can you honestly say that you believe what Catholics do about the Eucharist? Do you think you qualify for reception according to the rules I copied in one of my posts above? If so, then why not speak to a priest about receiving the Eucharist? Go about this the right way.

----

Thanks for the kind remarks, Brad.

I wish it were as simple as "believe in Jesus and live in love," but from the first, the Christian community has had to deal with a wide range of questions pertaining to what constitutes membership in the Body, how one is prepared for such, who can receive baptism, what is proper preparation for such, etc. It's just inevitable. One can view all this as being "exclusive," or one can see it as safeguarding the integrity of membership in the Body of Christ.

Phil, this makes a lot of sense to me.

I'm enjoying this discussion very much. I don't know enough about the Catholic Church to contribute, but have an open mind and am happy to be learning.

Sorry Phil, I didn't mean to take a cheap shot while sneaking out the back door. That wasn't my intention. Is it possible to offer respect while finding fault with something? Maybe. Just not in the same breath, eh?

Apologies to you too, w.c., if my last remark to you came across as snidey.

I'm quite happy with the communion I'm in and don't feel the need to pursue the issue with the Church. It just would have been nice, that's all .

Understood, Stephen. I hope I've helped to explain that this practice isn't meant as a snub and that there's some kind of method in the madness.

Phil, or anyone else, can you advise me re an 84 year old widowed neighbor whom I help at times. He was raised a Catholic, still loves the Faith, but left the Church because wife #2 was a Mormon and together they had a daughter. A Catholic Priest told him that the daughter is illegitimate because he was nor married in the Church and the child was not raised as a Catholic.

This man is in failing health and I have tried to encourage him to return to the Church. In fact, today, I discussed with him the Sacraments and the Eucharist. His spirit has become rebellious to my efforts since the Jehova Witnesses visit him quite often.

This old man told me that once this Priest said this about his daughter, he was finished with the Church. How sad for him to leave his roots and foundation. Any suggestions, or should I just let it be?.

Stephen:

You don't ever have to worry about making chiding remarks with me, or more serious ones leveled at my false self when it takes over. The humor is welcome in any case, and when it's not funny it can still be true and good therapy all the same. I'd rather live through a disturbance and discover the resilience than skirt carefully around the edges of a topic.

As for your quip, I'm actually not a Catholic, but am considering the process of becoming one. My background is Anglican-Episcopal. As for Protestants in general, I work with Baptists and others and find their fellowship warm and inspiring. But they are usually a bit surprised when they find Catholic saints of old emphasizing the importance of the new birth and a personal relationship with Jesus, and that this is emphasized in the new catechism.

I've had similar experiences to what you and Freebird are reporting. I can somewhat accept the conditions for exclusion Phil posts, but when it comes to really wanting to receive the Holy Communion, and if the priest knows you and some basic things such as confession and Real Presence are understood, then I don't see the problem with occasional crossing over. But it does make sense that if one is finding something in the Catholic church that isn't found in one's home church, then more exploration is warranted.

My sense is that the Roman Church gained much from its clashes and exchanges with Protestants, and still does.

I did have a Greek Orthodox priest tell me he wouldn't teach me the Jesus Prayer. The orthodox can be far more rigid than the Roman Church, if you can imagine. I think this is something like what Freebird encountered.

"I hope I've helped to explain that this practice isn't meant as a snub and that there's some kind of method in the madness."

Indeed, and thank you.

"You don't ever have to worry about making chiding remarks with me, or more serious ones leveled at my false self when it takes over. The humor is welcome in any case, and when it's not funny it can still be true and good therapy all the same. I'd rather live through a disturbance and discover the resilience than skirt carefully around the edges of a topic."

My sense is that the Roman Church gained much from its clashes and exchanges with Protestants, and still does.

Absolutely, w.c.

And if we had had a different/better pope during the time of Luther, he'd have seen just what a gift to the Church this inspired man was offering and history might have been different.

FWIW (on the topic of open Communion), I've only been trying to explain the Church's position. Personally, I don't have a problem with a non-Catholic receiving Communion if he or she is a committed Christian who believes what the Catholic Church teaches about Christ's presence in the Eucharist. That doesn't bother me, although I think it's more appropriate to honor the Church's teaching by abstaining. What does bother me is Catholics going to Communion unmindfully and Protestants going even though they don't believe it's the real presence, but think they have some kind of "right" to the Sacrament.

Phil,

A few questions I hope you don't mind:

To what extent is the N.T. church a model for the church today? Is it, rather, a first step in an evolutionary process that the church is engaged in, or can it be the basis of church fellowship today ? Is the spirit of the early church still with us? Granted the different historical contexts.

What are the differences between church practise and activity within the mystical body?

Stephen, as you know, there were differences among the N.T. churches. Paul's letters attest to such,, as do accounts of the early communities in Acts and those a few years later in Paul's writings. It seems to have been an evolutionary process from the first, with shared belief and a basic form of worship providing the cohesion. That is still the case, I would say, although not so radically simple as we find in the early Church. Centuries of interaction with various cultures and responding to a wide range of heretics has contributed to an elaboration on the basic beliefs that I don't think the Apostles foresaw. But, then, many of them actually expected the Lord to return before they even died.

I do believe the spirit of the early Church is still with us, however, as evidenced by the many charisms we see manifest among the people of God, along with their faith and love. I think that's true for Christianity as a whole, and in all the different churches to some degree.

Yes, thanks.

"I do believe the spirit of the early Church is still with us, however, as evidenced by the many charisms we see manifest among the people of God, along with their faith and love. I think that's true for Christianity as a whole, and in all the different churches to some degree."

Totally agree and think that such displays of love, faith, gift etc, are manifestations of the workings of the mystical body on earth. The practise of the church, it's forms and structure, are different and are, of course, subject to change, but, I would suggest that the grounds of our meeting always have to refer back to the principles of the early church, regardless of its disputes, as there seems to be a purity, power and purpose(especially of Paul and those close to him, and despite contentions over law, cicumcision etc.) that can only be evidenced after an outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

Anyway, I've been mulling over implicit faith and am mellowing to the idea in certain circumstances. It would seem to be the way of a gracious God. Still, for me, there has to be a moving away from the worship of other named aspects of God, not because the name is paricularly offensive, but because the idea of God seems to be radically different in various religions, eg. the Hindu idea of God seems more akin to a universal consciousness within creation, rather than a personal creator without. (Shiva in tantra is consciousness within the creature, Shatki the female energy. Both are created energies, both are worshipped as aspects of God, hence my suggestion of the idolatorous nature of Hindu worship.) Still, as I say, I'm mellowing.