I can answer that question being a Southern Baptist.  I see communion as the Lord's Supper.  Scripture verses where it happened are referenced and I find that I cannot take it if there is sin in my life that I have not confessed.  Otherwise, we are warned that problems could happen from doing that, i.e., from Scripture. 

I will say this although I am unaware if this is what you are seeking in your question.  I do not see the communion as the Eucharist in the same that a Catholic would but I am hesistant to take the Lord's Supper lightly.  Two, I would have no problem if wine were used as I consider that Biblical but few Southern Baptist would ever agree with me on that point.  Most Southern Baptist are completely abstinate concerning any alcoholic beverage consumption and for whatever reason make no exception even for the taking of the Lord's Supper. 

I hope this helps as this issue is at the center of many disputes between Catholics and say Southern Baptists.  It's a shame really that we cannot make more progress in working together on such issues in light of the need for real Christian unity the world over.

Joseph Bailey

Joseph

It's a shame really that we cannot make more progress in working together on such issues in light of the need for real Christian unity the world over.

I agree with you.

However there is great agreement between Catholics and many non-Catholic Christians at present.

We agree that "Jesus is Lord".  Surely that is an important and fundamental belief we share.

It is up to Southern Baptists to approach communion in their houses of worship as they think fit.  Catholics can share in their worship, but do not recieve the bread and wine/grape juice in their services.

I wish you well, and thank you for being here.

I am an  ordinary lay-person here and may be a bit wobbly about official Church teaching.  However I try to express my beliefsa with charity and commitment to the Catholic Church.

God bless,


NoelFitz.
_________________________________________________
In necessariis, unitas; in dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas.
_________________________________________________

Welcome to the forum, Joseph!

You made this quote: I believe that I am redeemed 100% and while I may still lapse into sin that I am forgiven of it and my eternity with God is secured.

How would you explain this in light of what John says in 1 John [15] And if we know that he hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have obtained the requests made of him.
[16] If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that.
[17] All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.(RSVCE).

If God has given us free-will, then is it possible to make decisions in our lives that could separate our communion with God? If sin is sin and eternity is secured, how do you address these 2 texts written by John where he distinguishes a difference between deadly sin (mortal) and non-deadly sin (venial) in the context of the connection to Revelation 21:27? If a person were to die in the state of mortal sin, do you believe that their eternity is still secured even though they did not die in a state of grace? As a former Baptist now Catholic, these were questions that I had to wrestle with.

I look forward to your response.

Pax Christi,

Catalina22

Joseph,

The term used is transubstantiation. Please take the time to read. This is what most Catholics believe.

From the Catechism:

1406 Jesus said: "I am the living bread that came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; . . . he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and . . . abides in me, and I in him" (? Jn 6:51, ? 54, ? 56).

1407 The Eucharist is the heart and the summit of the Church's life, for in it Christ associates his Church and all her members with his sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving offered once for all on the cross to his Father; by this sacrifice he pours out the graces of salvation on his Body which is the Church.

1408 The Eucharistic celebration always includes: the proclamation of the Word of God; thanksgiving to God the Father for all his benefits, above all the gift of his Son; the consecration of bread and wine; and participation in the liturgical banquet by receiving the Lord's body and blood. These elements constitute one single act of worship.

1409 The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ's Passover, that is, of the work of salvation accomplished by the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, a work made present by the liturgical action.

1410 It is Christ himself, the eternal high priest of the New Covenant who, acting through the ministry of the priests, offers the Eucharistic sacrifice. and it is the same Christ, really present under the species of bread and wine, who is the offering of the Eucharistic sacrifice.

1411 Only validly ordained priests can preside at the Eucharist and consecrate the bread and the wine so that they become the Body and Blood of the Lord.

1412 The essential signs of the Eucharistic sacrament are wheat bread and grape wine, on which the blessing of the Holy Spirit is invoked and the priest pronounces the words of consecration spoken by Jesus during the Last Supper: "This is my body which will be given up for you.... This is the cup of my blood...."

1413 By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651).

1414 As sacrifice, the Eucharist is also offered in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead and to obtain spiritual or temporal benefits from God.

1415 Anyone who desires to receive Christ in Eucharistic communion must be in the state of grace. Anyone aware of having sinned mortally must not receive communion without having received absolution in the sacrament of penance.

1416 Communion with the Body and Blood of Christ increases the communicant's union with the Lord, forgives his venial sins, and preserves him from grave sins. Since receiving this sacrament strengthens the bonds of charity between the communicant and Christ, it also reinforces the unity of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ.

1417 The Church warmly recommends that the faithful receive Holy Communion each time they participate in the celebration of the Eucharist; she obliges them to do so at least once a year.

1418 Because Christ himself is present in the sacrament of the altar, he is to be honored with the worship of adoration. "To visit the Blessed Sacrament is . . . a proof of gratitude, an expression of love, and a duty of adoration toward Christ our Lord" (Paul VI, MF 66).

1419 Having passed from this world to the Father, Christ gives us in the Eucharist the pledge of glory with him. Participation in the Holy Sacrifice identifies us with his Heart, sustains our strength along the pilgrimage of this life, makes us long for eternal life, and unites us even now to the Church in heaven, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and all the saints.

1103 Anamnesis. the liturgical celebration always refers to God's saving interventions in history. "The economy of Revelation is realized by deeds and words which are intrinsically bound up with each other.... (The) words for their part proclaim the works and bring to light the mystery they contain."²² In the Liturgy of the Word the Holy Spirit "recalls" to the assembly all that Christ has done for us. In keeping with the nature of liturgical actions and the ritual traditions of the churches, the celebration "makes a remembrance" of the marvelous works of God in an anamnesis which may be more or less developed. the Holy Spirit who thus awakens the memory of the Church then inspires thanksgiving and praise (doxology).

The Holy Spirit makes present the mystery of Christ

1104 Christian liturgy not only recalls the events that saved us but actualizes them, makes them present. the Paschal mystery of Christ is celebrated, not repeated. It is the celebrations that are repeated, and in each celebration there is an outpouring of the Holy Spirit that makes the unique mystery present.

1105 The Epiclesis ("invocation upon") is the intercession in which the priest begs the Father to send the Holy Spirit, the Sanctifier, so that the offerings may become the body and blood of Christ and that the faithful by receiving them, may themselves become a living offering to God.²³

1106 Together with the anamnesis, the epiclesis is at the heart of each sacramental celebration, most especially of the Eucharist:

You ask how the bread becomes the Body of Christ, and the wine . . . the Blood of Christ I shall tell you: the Holy Spirit comes upon them and accomplishes what surpasses every word and thought . . . Let it be enough for you to understand that it is by the Holy Spirit, just as it was of the Holy Virgin and by the Holy Spirit that the Lord, through and in himself, took flesh.²⁴

1107 The Holy Spirit's transforming power in the liturgy hastens the coming of the kingdom and the consummation of the mystery of salvation. While we wait in hope he causes us really to anticipate the fullness of communion with the Holy Trinity. Sent by the Father who hears the epiclesis of the Church, the Spirit gives life to those who accept him and is, even now, the "guarantee" of their inheritance.²⁵

In Christ,

Remember, the Sun is always shining!

Joseph 

You wrote:

Catholics seem to be of the belief that they cannot be 100% sure of their salvation in Christ. 

I agree with you that this is Catholic belief. One does not know for sure whether one is in the state of grace or not.  One hopes in God’s mercy, as we are all sinners. 

We know St Paul said 

because? if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For one believes with the heart and so is justified, and one confesses with the mouth and so is saved.  The scripture says, “No one who believes in him will be put to shame.”  For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and is generous to all who call on him.  For, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” (NRSV, Rom 10:9-13) 

However one must  believe in one’s heart with sincerity.  If one  rejects God/Jesus by sin, does one  really believe in the  heart that Jesus is Lord?

Perhaps in this context it is appropriate to think of:

 Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive commendation from God. ^[1] (NRSV, 1 Cor 4:5). 

These are difficult concepts.  However in spite of the difficulty about predestination and the Eucharist we both believe that Jesus is our Lord and saviour.  

Noel, I will have to lovingly disagree with the first part of your statement:

One does not know for sure whether one is in the state of grace or not.  One hopes in God’s mercy, as we are all sinners. 

On can know for certainty whether or not one is in mortal sin.  (Some don't bother to ask the question, so they may not know.)  If one is not under the stain of mortal sin, and one is baptized, they know for certainty that they are in the state of grace.

What one cannot know for sure is whether or not he/she will never again commit a mortal sin (thus losing the state of grace) and whether or not he/she will repent of that possible future sin.  Hence, we do not believe in one-saved-always-saved because we recognize that we still have the freedom (the freewill) to choose to turn away from God.  And we may choose not to turn back through the grace of the sacrament of confession.

I fully embrace the second part of your statement about hope in God's mercy.

Joseph,

To add to Noel and Loretta, being baptized and not under the stain of mortal sin{ murder, adultery, apostasy, etc.}, one should be sure of his salvation. As Catholics, we believe that nothing impure will enter heaven. Our human state does not allow for immediate acceptance into heaven. We believe that one must be purified, as silver, and that this purification takes place in purgatory, and that time spent there is dependent on the amount of cleansing one needs. Martyrs are washed in the Blood of the Lord and obtain immediate entrance, some that would be called saints by the way they lived their life for the Lord, will require less time than a sinner such as myself.

So, we pray. We pray for those who have passed that their time in the fire may be lessened that they may enter into everlasting love more swiftly. We pray that Mary intercede for us, the way only a mother can speak to a Father or a Child on behalf of a son or daughter.

I believe I am "saved" by Christ's Cross not by anything I do with my body or say with my lips, but together, by my belief in Him whom the Father has sent, and my struggle here on earth to labor for those whom He gave to us; the poor, the hungry, the lonely.

I await your reflection on the Catechism.

In Christ,

Remember, the Sun is always shining!

Loretta 

As I have written on many occasions, I am an ordinary Catholic and may be wrong. One of the things I appreciate about this roundtable is that we can express our views, knowing that we may be in error, yet are prepared to learn. 

For a sin to be mortal the act must be grievous and committed with clear knowledge and full consent.  To obtain forgiveness in confession all mortal sins must be confessed and we must have a sincere purpose of amendment. 

From shame, guilt, pride, forgetfulness or carelessness do I do acts which are mortally sinful that I do not confess fully?  When I confess do I remember and confess all my grievious sins?  Do I really have a sincere purpose of amendment? 

I do not clearly  know.  I do my best, I think, at least most of the time.  I really do not know if I confess all my grievous sins fully and if I am fully forgiven.  

All I can do is my best and hope in God’s mercy.

Joseph, Catholic doctrine teaches that only a Catholic priest may consecrate the bread and wine to become body and blood of Christ. In order for the Southern Baptists to come to some sort of mutual understanding of Catholic communion, they would have to admit the infallibility of the Pope and allow the Pope to appoint Catholic Priests to preside over the worship of the Southern Baptists. Also the Southern Baptists would also have to admit thier identity is Roman Catholic. The Southern Baptists so far have not been willing to make these concessions for the sake of unity.

In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Amen

Pope Benedict XVI's book "Jesus of Nazareth was phenominal and I would encourage all to read, Catholic and non-Catholic alike.  I can't wait until his volume 2 comes out where he will write about The Last Supper and Jesus' Passion, Death, and Ressurection.  From what I understand, the release date is sometime in Spring 2008.

Finally, by the Eucharistic celebration we already unite ourselves with the heavenly liturgy and anticipate eternal life, when God will be all in all (CCC 1326). 

The feast of heaven and earth.  Christ comes to us in the Eucharist and we meet him there.

Pax Chiristi. 

Catalina22

Concerning the comment about "Catholic Priest's presiding over communion," I believe that we have hit the bullseye here on this issue.  The question before us is not to continue to relive the agrument ongoing since 1517, but how can we, with all of the years since and what is clear that God has worked in both Catholicism and Protestantism, find common ground to do the one thing that every Christian period is called to do: Fulfill the Great Commission.  A Catholic cannot take communion in a Baptist church service, for instance, because it is not administered by a Catholic Priest and is not seen as taking the literal body/blood of Christ.  Then on the flip side where a Southern Baptist to enter a Catholic Church on any given Sunday he/she would have to abstain from taking of communion precisely because he/she is not a Catholic.  Yet, both groups agree that communion/the Lord's Supper is central to the definition of Christianity.  Both sides agree that this rite must be observed/done or the practice of their religious faith is not proper or even right in God's eye.  Yet, there is no easy answer to reconciliation and that is why I emphasize "agreeing to disagree" as when we look around at the world today we must become cognizant of the reality that whether it is radical Islam seeking death/destruction/violcen at all turns, a resurging paganism that is driving much of the global climate debate and thus why few Christians care about that important issue, pluralism as our new God and how that saying a "racist comment" today is worse than murder, or just wild sin going on, we need to unite in prayer/Bible study/witness for God.

I, as a person who believes that he is a Christian because of what I read in the Scripture, not in any other document (and in a nod to David, I am still looking over those sections of the Cathechism) but seeks to live that faith out as a Southern Baptist, will always have issue with "infallibility of the pope."  I will, in part, because that doctrine was developed so many centuries after Christ and I cannot help but wonder why that is so.  However, as a non-Catholic though and as I have written about in other posts here, I am convinced 100% that in Pope Benedict XVI, we are witnessing the living mantra of "a man for his times."  Regardless of what I believe I am certain that for the Roman Catholic Church in 2007, that a Pope who will speak out and say that the authority of the Catholic Church is real, that Catholicism is to play a central role in salvation, and to be bold about it is the hand of God at work.  Benedict is Pope but what was he prior to his pontificate?  The main man responsible for faith/doctrine.  Now whatever I do not accept or have an issue with one thing is certain and that is Benedict has spent a life in study, meditation, research, and knowing what the Church teaches. Only a moron would not notice the importance of that in such a position as being Pope.  When Ratzinger is called Benedict XVI and by default the Vicar of Christ, there is (at the risk of being kicked off here with this next bit) perhaps more legitimacy to him being called that than most or maybe even all Pope's.  The unintended consequence of Raztinger being Pope will no doubt be a much stregnthened Church that may know what it believes and perhaps be a little more bold in proclaiming it.  I mean, what did we hear after John Paul's death?  That the next Pope would be a "caretaker" but I think that Benedict is going to have a lasting impact on the Church in a deeper way than his predecessor.  For us, sharpening our ponts in the differences of what we believe is not a bad thing if we just respect each other and no matter how heated the debate becomes realize that we have one overarching goal: Fulfilling the Great Commision.

Joseph Bailey

Joseph

I really think you express my views with more clarity and accuracy than I do.

With sensitivity, integrity and insight you get to the heart of things.

You wrote:

The question before us is not to continue to relive the agrument ongoing since 1517, but how can we, with all of the years since and what is clear that God has worked in both Catholicism and Protestantism.

I fully agree.

We have the Bible in common.  We believe Jesus is our Lord and our Saviour.

We disagree, but we do it with respect and love.  The agreements are greater than the disagreements.

Basically our disagreements are over the meaning of the Eucharist, some sacraments  and about predestination.

I hope you will stay around here.

I really do think the principal enemy of both of us is atheism.

God bless,


NoelFitz.
_________________________________________________
In necessariis, unitas; in dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas.
_________________________________________________

Yana 

I am trying not to disagree with contributors here. 

You wrote: 

I disagree that Joseph has a good understanding of Catholic communion, if he did, he would not be able to deny receiving Christ in the Eucharist in the Catholic mass. 

My clear understanding is that Catholics   do not receive the Eucharist in a Baptist Church and Baptists do not receive Eucharist in a Catholic Church.

Joseph and I know that this is correct procedure.  You are in errror to deny it, with respect. 

You also wrote:

I submit to you Noel that no one who loves Christ as we Catholic do would be able to deny Christ in the Catholic Eucharist, therefore, Joseph would need to embrace all that is Catholic in order to come to some understanding of our communion. 

The whole point is that Joseph does not love Christ as we Catholics do, he is not a Catholic. He loves Christ  as Baptists do.  I do not love Christ as those Baptists do, I am not a Baptist. 

To understand our communion all Joseph needed to do was  ask someone who knows or reads about Catholic Communion. He has done this and understands Catholic Communion.   

It really is simple.  Catholics believe that in Communion they receive Jesus Christ, really truly and substantially.  In detail what these terms men is complex.  They are based on Aristotelian/Thomistic Philosophy/theology.  Knowledge of the hylomorphic theory and matter/form/ and substance/accidents are not needed.   

Even 7seven year old people can grasp the idea that Catholics believe that Jesus is present in the Catholic Eucharist. One does not need to embrace all that is Catholic in order to come to some understanding of what we believe about our communion.  God bless,


NoelFitz.
_________________________________________________
In necessariis, unitas; in dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas.
_________________________________________________