a) The Church is the body of Christ, and the body of Christ has its essential being in the Roman Catholic Church.

b) What the Roman Catholic Church truly IS goes far beyond the temporal construct of RC baptismal records. To the extent that you are brought to God through Christ by grace, you are in some sense a part of the Church, whether you know it or not.

c) The ambiguity in b) can only really be supported by dropping any idea of “once saved always saved”, and seeing the Church on Earth as a group of people who are in the process of being saved, or i.e. being incorporated into Christ. That process is complete when you are glorified in a heavenly body and not before.

d) given the above 3, its simple to reconcile the apparent contradiction of post- and pre- Vatican II “flavors”. The Catholic sacraments are the intended path for salvation, but God can work outside of that plan. But when he does, successfully, the person affected ultimately becomes Catholic.

Definitionally there’s the obvious difference between Jesus and Church, but for the Catholic there’s no separating the Church from the Revelation.

Are we off topic yet?

I appreciate your presentation of the Vatican II flavor of Catholic-Protestant relations. I’ve noted that the inability to partake in what is clearly the mystical high point of mass is a powerful attraction to most liturgically/sacramentally starved protestants.

At one point I was impressed that I was a separated brother and that I was saved because it was no fault of my own that I was born into a schismatic church, but now that I’ve read the catechism and discovered that much the same thing is said for Muslims and atheists, I’m a bit less excited.

Our basic problem is that I can delineate the difference between Jesus and the church, but I don’t believe a person can be true to the RC and articulate that difference. The distinction between Christ and the church is really all one needs to look at these days to see where the real fault line lies.

I appreciate the dialog, and I know I’m accepted by many Catholics. When I attend mass, the local priest goes out of his way to speak of Christians of other faith traditions. The differences in our views of communion are the differences in our views of Jesus. That’s the real tragedy.

This time its the word “commune.” I look it up here:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/commune

It seems like you’re taking the 1st set of definitions (various forms of to be one with) and the 2nd set of definition (to receive the Eucharist) and concluding that because it is the same word that these two meanings are somehow irrevocably tied together.

Well, sure there are doctrinal issues that separate us, just as there are probably issues that separate you from Christians you can celebrate a “communion” with.

But I just want to make sure you don’t read too much into your not being able to receive the Eucharist with Catholics. It doesn’t mean we don’t think you are united with us in many profound and meaningful ways.

Most Catholics (devout or not) are aware –painfully aware– of the symbolic separation that can be felt when a non-Catholic attends a mass. The fact that many Catholics don’t understand why this is necessary is one of the many failings in Catholic pedagogy over the last several decades.

Now, I am **not** a theologian, but here’s one angle. Catholicism maintains a strong sense that the Tradition is greater than those who maintain it. Even a priest or a bishop is merely supposed to safeguard the liturgy, not to own it or make it into whatever they please. In a newer denomination, without a long-inherited liturgy, the thinking context for worship or communion is totally different. Protestants, to put it bluntly, are free to offer communion to whomever they please, while Catholics don’t have that option, because the Eucharist as a thing that is done is literally a part of the doctrinal content of revelation. I guess it goes back to Scripture+Tradition as opposed to just Scripture.

But what I really want to say is that, understanding the Catholic meaning of receiving the Eucharist is different from the protestant notion, there’s no internal contradiction when we still say, yes you’re a Christian. Yes, you belong to Jesus.

I guess I’m missing the point. I realized about 35 years ago that Roman Catholics couldn’t commune with me nor me with them.

I’ve lived with that just fine for all this time. I respect it. And I deeply disagree. Deeply.

But I’m not camping in George’s backyard, sending him emails or, if he’s an RC blogger, leaving him comments.

I’m writing posts and leaving it to people to work it out in their own lives.

I’m the LAST person to insult the Lutheran or RC who can’t commune with me. And the fact that they condescendingly find some way to say I might be a Christian is appreciated. Seriously. We’re making progress.

A nice rhetorical flourish, but it kind of ends the conversation, doesn’t it?

I appreciate your wanting to avoid contradictions, have all the cards on the table, etc. But have you fully taken into account that George is also not supposed to receive communion except under strict circumstances? Doesn’t that hint at a whole different idea of what a liturgical communion is or should be, from the bottom up?

In other words the ritual that George’s church is trying to perform obviously bears little resemblence in its essential meaning and purpose to your idea of “the Lord’s Table”. You can’t assume that because they sometimes use the same words (“the Lord’s table”) to describe it that you are talking about the same thing. To then go and critique how they are going about that ritual based on your concept of what “the Lord’s table” should be is simply what logicians call an equivocation.

And if my invitation for them to commune with me bothers them, I apologize in advance.

And if there’s more to the Lord’s Table than belonging to Jesus, I don’t want to know what it is.

I’ve belonged to several churches over the years, and am currently an Elder at a Christian Missionary Alliance church. While we hold strongly to The Lords Table being something for Christians only, we allow visitors to commune with us without checking their baptismal credentials at the door. Granted, some people will certainly not have accepted Christ who take communion, but is that really an issue for the church or for those individuals?

It could very well be that taking communion outside of a fellowship with Christ could actually start the process of convicting the unbeliever of their separation from our Lord and move them towards accepting who He is, and accepting Him as Lord and Savior of their lives. This is not a doctrinal stance on communion from my denomination, but this issue applies to any church, and I’m convinced that unbelievers are taking communion all over the world on any given Sunday, I’m just not so sure it is as abominable as we may think.