This past weekend a discussion with the Internet Monk, which began for me at least on twitter, emerged in two different posts. In the first, the iMonk posted a link to a sermon by David Chanski on the Baptist view of the Lord’s Supper and his own…

This discussion is over. Hope the truly saved are praying that the rest of us become one of them someday.

You have not been denied of Jesus’ presence, but you have denied his presence where He says He is in His supper.

I am not sure why it matters since the Baptist view of the Supper is that it is merely a meal of remembrance. If you guys actually thought more of it, I’d be more concerned about what you do, or don’t believe, about the bread and wine.

As it is you have nice memories with bread and wine, but it is not the Lord’s Supper that you eat and drink.

In other words, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t cling to your Baptist opinions about the Supper and then get cranked up when Roman Catholics, Lutherans and Eastern Orthodox say, “Nope, nothing doing.”

The fault lies with the Baptist view, not the view of historic Christianity.

Anyone who wants to participate in the above pissing contest may do so anywhere but here.

Sorry for the Driscoll-esque vocabulary. I’ve been denied the actual presence of Jesus for my entire life.

Calvinism, and all its various denominational heirs, including Baptists, have been doing this since the 16th century, and in so doing placing itself precisely at odds with the text of Scripture and the greater majority of the Christian Church since its earliest days.

The rationalistic aversion to deal with the reality of our Lord’s locating himself in the sacramental elements is the root cause of Calvinism’s persistent denial of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

That’s the problem.

So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church…or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

The problem isn’t that, for-example, that knowing and believing every last little detail of Trent’s ordo salutis is intrinsically salvific (especially since good chunks of it were of recent intellectual origin); it’s that by disagreeing with them, you’ve rejected the pope’s God-given authority to tell you everything you’re supposed to believe and do. What’s of central importance isn’t the content of the doctrine; it’s that the pope said you’re supposed to believe it.

There is only one with the authority to teach the Church or interpret Tradition; the Holy Father in Rome. And Pope Pius IX was very, very, very clear at Vatican I: Anything and everything, things great and things small, ultimately comes down to the pope’s authority. For Rome, “the article on which the Church stands or falls” is the power and primacy of the Roman pontiff. That’s why when you read about priests or bishops getting excommunicated, it’s almost always for insubordination or one kind or another, whereas nearly every other sin gets some forbearance.

Grace and Peace be upon you+

I think much of this conflict and discussion about Communion comes from the different views you as a Protestant and those of us who are Catholics have of the Church: You believe in an “invisible church”, we believe in a visible Church. (So do the Orthodox, btw.) So you feel rejected when you are told that you mustn’t partake in the Eucharist, while Catholics here don’t really understand why you would want to take the Catholic Eucharist at all if you don’t believe in Catholicism. It may be difficult to understand, but the Eucharist is not only the Lord’s Supper, it is “the” spiritual reality that gives the Church her form – John Paul II’s last encyclical was even called “Ecclesia de Eucharistia”, “The Church (comes) from the Eucharist”!

Another reason for such misunderstandings may be as well that today’s spirit, especially in Protestantism, is quite individualistic and tending to go into the direction of over-emphasizing feelings – which I think is detrimental to spiritual and theological clarity. I guess that a Baptist of the 17th century wouldn’t have had any problems with “not feeling invited” but rather would have rejected the Catholic Eucharist outright, even if it had been offered to him – because he “wouldn’t partake of that Bread of the Devil confected by the pagan minions of the Antichrist” (or some similar rhetoric ).