As for being able to participate, the obvious answer is to join the Church or respect the role of a visitor. To me it’s like suggesting that non-Muslims should be able to go to Mecca, because, y’know, they just want to go. We could try to bend Islam to our will in the interest of reconcilliation, but the easiest way to Mecca is through conversion.

If Vatican II rolled back many of the doctrines that led to the Reformation, why are there still Protestant denominations? If the roadblocks have been removed, why not return?

Rhetorical question, as we both know there are many major theological issues left to be resolved. As such, one cannot in good faith, ignore them to live some happy-go-lucky self-denial existence. For example, if I had a severe bacterial infection I knew was killing me, I suppose I could shun the antibiotics that would make me better (but make me feel like crap in the meantime) to live a life full of ignorant bliss … until I died prematurely.

If we gave Protestants equal status wouldn’t that be sort of an admission that the Reformation was necessary and Catholics have been wrong for the last 500 years?

Yes, it would, but I fail to see why that is still perceived as a threat to the Catholic Church. Afterall, Vatican II rolled back many of the doctrines that lead to the Reformation in the first place.

You indicated we are wrong on Communion – so why would you want to partake?

Two reasons – one, if we’re all celebrating the sacrifice of Christ that brings us Grace, why should i be unwelcome at you rtable when you are expressly welcome at mine? Two, when I take my older daughters to Mass – as I do regularly when they are with me, as well as Presbyterian worship – I want to be able to particiapte fully in the worship. In Catholic Communities (if I’m being honest) I can’t.

“…we want to be seen as the Christians we are, not as a secondary group who almost gets it right, but not quite.”

Phillip – I’m going to also agree with Tom again on this. If we gave Protestants equal status wouldn’t that be sort of an admission that the Reformation was necessary and Catholics have been wrong for the last 500 years? The fact remains, on most articles of faith ALL Christian faiths line up, but on numerous theological matters the gap is wide. We’re not denying Communion as some sort of punishment for the Reformation, but at the same time Protestants have made it very clear they think we are wrong on many issues. You indicated we are wrong on Communion – so why would you want to partake?

The fact that there are multiple denominations is a clear indication that people think their church “has it more right” than the others. There is no doubt that if you look at the statements from the Catholic Church on ecumenism, she clearly recognizes that Protestants are Christians, that they are brothers and sisters in Christ. That doesn’t mean that they are not in error. From the Catholic Church POV, the Reformation resulted in some serious theological errors, which have resulted in some serious errors in practice and interpretation of the faith. Those things cannot be glossed over. They need to be confronted and discussed. Closed communion is a clear message stating that very thing … we should not act like there are no problems when there clearly are big issues which need to be resolved.

Thomas,
from a Catholic Theological standpoint, you may be correct that Catholic Eucharist is lasagna, and Protestant Eucharist is Ramen. The challenge, however comes from Scripture, where “brand names” were’nt applied to the act. Christ commanded us to do this in His name, we do it in His name, and so we receive the grace of His salvation. To argue that the “meal” is less filling because it isn’t done your way smacks a bit of elitism.

And that strikes at the heart of the matter. To you rpoint about what do Protestants want – we want to be seen as the Christians we are, not as a secondary group who almost gets it right, but not quite.

Catholic theologians have had a saying since the days of the Donatists (fourth or fifth centuries). The saying, when said in Latin is beautiful but I can’t remember it. In the vernacular, it goes: God gives grace to those who do what they can. In other words, do your sacraments confer grace (which is what everything boils down to)? Of course they do. Baptism is a non-issue because the Catholic Church holds that all apostolic churches (which includes those churches which arose during the Reformation) have a valid baptism.

Theologically, the Sacrament of the Eucharist is no small matter and much more complex (the Catholic Church claims that even an atheist could deliver a valid baptism). Arguments have abounded for ages as to whether communion could be valid with a leavened host, and in today’s day and age, the matter of the consecration (can a woman act in persona Christi?) raises issues which have led the Church to seriously question whether some denominational communions are indeed valid. I’m using valid in a theological context here.

I’m going to use an analogy here, and it’s probably flawed and may come across as condescending … I don’t mean it to be. From a theological POV, I think the Catholic Church believes that people who receive the Eucharist in a church not in communion with Rome can have receive grace from the Sacrament. Using pasta as the analogy, non-Catholic communion would be more likely viewed as Ramen Pride, where as Catholic (and Orthodox) communion would be viewed as lasagna. Sure, you can get nutrition from both, but one is more nutritious than the other.

Then there is the warning to not take communion and thereby eat damnation onto yourself. The early Church took that warning very seriously, which is why the Church today wants people to honestly know AND ACCEPT what the Church teaches for their Communion. What is hardly ever acknowledged is that the Catholic Church asks her members to refrain from taking Communion in other churches, since the Body of Christ is wounded from all the factions, partaking in such communion services brushes aside what are very real offenses.

To answer your last post Philip, I guess it boils down to what do Protestants want from the Catholic Church? As we’re seeing with the Anglicans, the Catholic Church is allowing them to keep their rich traditions and worship styles. Their bishops will be equals with the Pope (who is the Bishop of Rome, the First amongst Equals), and they will sit in Ecumenical Councils and have an equal say in all church matters. For those who do not wish to return, why should they receive all the benefits with none of the devotion and commitment?

2. Here’s another way to frame our disagreement – I get the sense that Catholics (though perhaps not you both personally) don’t believe or accept that the Eucharist is “as sacred” to Protestants because we don’t subscribe to transsubstantiation. Nothing could be further from the truth, especially for me personally. As I said earlier, Protestant Churches still label two acts as Sacrements – Eucharist and Baptism. It just strikes me as silly that because I don’t believe tha the bread and wine become something else, I can’t fully participate in your version of the practice. That’s like saying I can’t come into your house because, although I’m wearing a shirt and shoes, they don’t match the color of your drapes. Which is more important:

- that all three of us, as Believers, work to make Christ’s teachings manifest in the world, while celebrating His sacrifice in our names?

- Or that we enforce human created “Brand mentalities” that exclude from the Table and thus the grace of salvation?

I think I could make a strong case for the former, based entirely on Scripture. I’m not at allsure I could, or should for the latter.