The Roman Catholic Church is oftentimes criticized for clarifying that Protestants should not participate of Holy Communion at Mass. There are significant doctrinal distinctions between Catholics and Protestants as respect not only Holy Accord but also the goal of the Mass. Anglican Communion
Stated simply, Catholics believe the bread and wine served as O Communion is mysteriously altered into the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharistic Liturgy during Mass. Protestants, generally speaking, do not share in this belief-at least not doctrinally. Consequently, Catholics and Protestants simply disagree on the Christological implications of Holy Communion. Logic then insists that if there is disagreement over the very nature of O Communion there is, in actuality, no unity of belief, and therefore no “communion” in the true sense of the expression.
Many non-Catholics are supporter of the idea of intercommunion i. e., accord that is open to all confessing Christians irrespective of their own denominational connection. The Church concludes that intercommunion is a conflict, as it does not represent true communion. A commonly expressed sentiment by those discouraged from obtaining Holy Communion prior to being “in communion” with the Church, is that they are being improperly shut out of this “universal” sacrament.
The debate runs that if a person truly believes that Jesus is calling him or her to take part in Holy Communion, this individual or she are able to do so regardless of his or her particular Religious belief. “Communion is accord, ” they say, and “who are you to deny a believer the right to participate in Holy Communion? ” Egalitarian impulses can lead one to take umbrage at being inwardly smile at of the supposedly widespread sacrament of Holy Accord. But is such response regular with right reason? Could it be not plausible the “unfairness” we sense is not accurately “unfairness” but instead a frustration systematic of the lack of accord, unison, union, concord, unanimity of belief? And is it not equally encomiable that when we promote intercommunion we lessen the chances that Christian accord, unison, union, concord, unanimity will be realized because of a lack of “true communion” among Christian believers?
Before we commence to answer these questions we should first explore just what is meant when we use the term “communion”. Webster’s Dictionary defines communion as “an act or illustration of sharing. ” This kind of definition in turn offers rise to the description of communion which specifically incorporates the Christian description of the sacrament of Holy Communion. But to define communion in that manner is to engage in a certain degree of tautology and is entirely unsatisfactory. Therefore to understand specifically what we indicate when we use the term “communion” we must apply some hermeneutical guidelines in order to pull forth from our distributed Judeo-Christian history the true meaning of “communion. very well
Examining the etymology of the word “communion” we find that it is translated from the Ancient greek language koinonia. Koinoinia can be defined as an alliance or fellowship. Importantly, koinonia is employed nineteen times in most editions of the Greek New Testament. Pertaining to present purposes, the main use of the phrase in the New Testament is at one particular Corinthians 10: 16 (KJV) wherein the English term “communion” can be used to signify koinonia. Specifically, St. Paul states “the cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the bloodstream of Christ? The bakery which we break, is it not the accord of the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we who are many, are one body, for we all partake of one loaf. ”
For much of the English speaking world the King James Variation of the Bible was your primary translation of the Bible in use for almost 400 years. As a result, it is likely that the vernacular of the term “communion” is derivative of the King James Type. This really is significant because the language St Paul uses is undeniably Christological. This individual speaks not of signs, but rather utilizes an expression that invokes a collaboration or fellowship with the body and blood of Christ. In the starting clause of 1 Corinthians 10: 16 St. Paul says nothing of fellowship or interaction with other Christians; rather, he can speaking specifically of the relationship between the believer and god, and how the two are joined by the consuming of the bread and wine. In the words spoken rigtht after he states that this fellowship must not only be personal however in partaking of the accord with the body and blood of Christ we necessarily become one with the other person at the same time we become one with Christ. Read in context this passage makes clear that there is both an individual and a social part of communion-both are necessary parts of the sacramental whole. Both are essential for believers to be fulfilled and/or completed in the divine campione in which they consider.
One cannot analyze the etymology of the term “communion” and ignore the context in which the word gained currency. Any kind of attempt for a common understanding of what is meant by the term “communion” must necessarily believe that most Christians (and for that matter non-Christians) understand communion in light of the Greek term koinoinia. Thus the Everyday terms term “communion” has a direct linguistic relationship to the Lord’s Supper implemented by Christ, although the term can certainly have a secular meaning it in all likelihood is pregnant with a specific Christian meaning. Possibly most important of is the simple fact that the term consists of a historical, scriptural, and sacramental component which contains all Christians into one body through the take action of consuming bread and wine in a sacramental context. Thus St. Paul is speaking of a “true communion, ” and in doing this is passing on to the people of Corinth what the Apostles had learned about the Holy Communion from Erlöser Christ himself. But what exactly is “true accord? “