A catholic in protestant worship

[atg2]

hello,i occasionally go to a protestant service;with protestant friends.am i committing a sin? regards

 

[GeorgeSword]

Nope, lots of Catholics do this. So long as you still attend Mass and don’t receive the Eucharist there, it’s fine. However, it is best to take what you are told at the Protestant service with a grain of salt.

 

[dashso40]

I don’t think it is a sin, as long as you do not miss Catholic Mass, but I don’t think it is a good idea…You may be tempted to leave your faith…I would not go to a Protestant church…

 

[Lorrie]

Nope, lots of Catholics do this. So long as you still attend Mass and don’t receive the Eucharist there, it’s fine. However, it is best to take what you are told at the Protestant service with a grain of salt.

Actually Catholics are the only ones that have the Eucharist.

As others have said, no, it’s not a sin to go to Protestant services. Just make sure your faith is strong so you aren’t tempted to stray when it comes to your faith. Also, we as Catholics aren’t allowed to receive communion in places other than the Church.

 

[JPUSC]

What’s “في هدوء هناك جمال” mean?

 

[Lorrie]

What’s “في هدوء هناك جمال” mean?

Private messaging you.

 

[atg2]

hello, yeah i thought as much;cos’ i think all churches are the same…for the same purpose.regards

 

[TristanCross]

What about the Lutheran Eucharist? It is greatly exhorted in Luther’s Small Catechism that the Eucharist the literal Body and Blood of Christ.

 

[GeorgeSword]

Actually Catholics are the only ones that have the Eucharist.

Well, the Lutherans and Anglicans have at least something called the Eucharist
EDIT: Missed Tristan’s post when I first wrote this… the Lutheran and Anglicans do have something called the Eucharist, as I said, but it doesn’t actually become the Body and Blood outside of the Church.

 

[Lorrie]

What about the Lutheran Eucharist? It is greatly exhorted in Luther’s Small Catechism that the Eucharist the literal Body and Blood of Christ.

I don’t put too much stock in what Lutherans say or believe, especially because Martin Luther stated that the Pope is the anti-Christ.

Well, the Lutherans and Anglicans have at least something called the Eucharist
EDIT: Missed Tristan’s post when I first wrote this… the Lutheran and Anglicans do have something called the Eucharist, as I said, but it doesn’t actually become the Body and Blood outside of the Church.

I’ve always felt more comfortable calling it “communion” when it comes to all other religions. It tends to make me feel bad to think that other religions refer to their communion as the Eucharist when in our religion it means so much more.

 

[Bluegoat]

I’ve always felt more comfortable calling it “communion” when it comes to all other religions. It tends to make me feel bad to think that other religions refer to their communion as the Eucharist when in our religion it means so much more.

In what way? There are other churches who see the Eucharist as the literal transformation of the elements into the Body and Blood of Christ.

 

[pickguard1]

In what way? There are other churches who see the Eucharist as the literal transformation of the elements into the Body and Blood of Christ.

I think what Lorrie means is that the Lutheran and Anglican theology on the Eucharist is not Catholic, as well as the orders for their Clergy not having Apostolic Succession. These two things from a Catholic perspective make the consecration of the bread and wine not possible for Lutherans and Anglicans. So while there may be a devout belief in the Real Presence, it is not the case that the Eucharist is confected in Lutheran or Anglican services. Denial of the dogma of Transubstantiation, as well as lacking the prieslty faculties to confect the Eucharist means that, even if Lutherans and Anglicans call it the Eucharist, it is not what Catholics consider the Eucharist to be - The Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine.

I believe Lutherans and Anglicans believe in Consubstantiation rather than Transubstantiation, meaning they believe it is the Body and Blood etc, along with or fused with the bread and wine. The Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation means that it only looks like bread and wine, but is totally the Body and Blood, etc. A subtle difference, but a gaping one.

 

[pickguard1]

Of course I have to admit that there is an error in this thread that ONLY the Catholic Church has the Eucharist. The Orthodox do as well, as they hold the doctine of Transubstantiation and have Apostolic Succession. They are not Catholic, though due to the schism.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

hello,i occasionally go to a protestant service;with protestant friends.am i committing a sin? regards

There was a similiar question posted in the ask an apologist section. I can’t find it off hand. But, the answer I believe was that a Catholic has no business attending a protestant service.
ATB

 

[Lorrie]

Thank you, PickGuard1, that was what I meant.

I apologize to you, atg2, for derailing this thread.

 

[jmcrae]

In what way? There are other churches who see the Eucharist as the literal transformation of the elements into the Body and Blood of Christ.

Yes, but it doesn’t actually happen, because of the loss of the priesthood, due to the break in their line of Bishops. For example, for 100 years, the Anglicans were using incorrect wording when ordaining their priests. They have fixed the wording, but that doesn’t solve the problem, since they have no living Bishops who were properly ordained. They try to solve that problem by having Bishops from the Eastern churches ordain their Bishops, to try to restore the Apostolic line, but an issue with that is that it is not possible for the Eastern Bishop to have the intent to ordain someone who is not only not going to be under his jurisdiction as his priest, but is not even a member of the same religion as himself. He can be a validly ordained Bishop and he can say the right words, but how can he intend to ordain someone into a religion that he himself is not a member of?

With the Lutherans, the problem is even more basic - they never had any valid Bishops to begin with, at the time of the schism - it was lay people “ordaining” lay people right from the word go.

 

[Bluegoat]

Of course I have to admit that there is an error in this thread that ONLY the Catholic Church has the Eucharist. The Orthodox do as well, as they hold the doctine of Transubstantiation and have Apostolic Succession. They are not Catholic, though due to the schism.

No, in fact, the Orthodox do not hold to the doctrine of transubstantiation. They reject it as an innovation which speaks about things we cannot know. They say that the bread and wine are indeed transformed into the Body and Blood, and leave it at that.

And Catholics also, had valid Eucharists before the theory of transubstantiation was ever developed. (Indeed, the Orthodox might suggest that the development of transubstatiation contributes to the Catholics lack of valid sacraments, in the sense that it takes them outside the Church.)

I believe Lutherans and Anglicans believe in Consubstantiation rather than Transubstantiation, meaning they believe it is the Body and Blood etc, along with or fused with the bread and wine. The Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation means that it only looks like bread and wine, but is totally the Body and Blood, etc. A subtle difference, but a gaping one.

Well, strictly speaking, Anglicans are required to believe that the elements turn into the real Body and Blood, what they call the “Real Presence”. Beyond that, there aren’t any actual requirements, only theories - in this sense it is similar to the Orthodox position. Many Anglicans choose to leave it at that. Some do hold to a doctrine of consubstantiation, while others tend to favour transubstantiation. Some will even say that the change is “spiritual” but what that means can vary a lot depending on who actually says it - in some cases it actually seems to mean the same thing as transubstatiation. Other times it actually moves outside of what Anglicanism traditionally allows. But all of that is to some extent, from an Anglican POV, missing the point - it is transformed, God does it, we don’t know how.

I believe the Lutheran position is similar. Martin Luther seemed to have a rather practical attitude. He seemed himself to have a fairly conservative view of what happened, but insisted that people should not be required to say they did not see bread and wine there still after the consecration. I’m not sure that he meant that as doctrine though so much as what should be expected of simple people.

Yes, but it doesn’t actually happen, because of the loss of the priesthood, due to the break in their line of Bishops. For example, for 100 years, the Anglicans were using incorrect wording when ordaining their priests. They have fixed the wording, but that doesn’t solve the problem, since they have no living Bishops who were properly ordained. They try to solve that problem by having Bishops from the Eastern churches ordain their Bishops, to try to restore the Apostolic line, but an issue with that is that it is not possible for the Eastern Bishop to have the intent to ordain someone who is not only not going to be under his jurisdiction as his priest, but is not even a member of the same religion as himself. He can be a validly ordained Bishop and he can say the right words, but how can he intend to ordain someone into a religion that he himself is not a member of?

With the Lutherans, the problem is even more basic - they never had any valid Bishops to begin with, at the time of the schism - it was lay people “ordaining” lay people right from the word go.

Well, of course Catholics don’t believe that Anglican orders are valid, though you are mistaken about the historical circumstances. The period in question was really only with one ordination near the beginning of Anglicanism, and wasn’t really an issue of wording - in fact Catholic ordinations, considered to be valid have also used the same wording. usually the question is raised as to the intent of the ordination, but this is a foggy issue, and the Catholic position on what happened seems rather inconsistent. As well, there have been any number of other lines of apostolic succession that have been infused into the Anglican Church since then, though that is rarely addressed.

Not all Lutherans are in the same boat, some do indeed claim a valid apostolic succession - I’m not sure on which grounds the Catholic Church disputes their validity.

In any case, it stated that in Catholicism the Eucharist “means so much more” not that it had the only valid Eucharist. I don’t think that is really quite accurate.

 

[jmcrae]

As well, there have been any number of other lines of apostolic succession that have been infused into the Anglican Church since then, though that is rarely addressed.

The question here is, can a Bishop validly ordain a man who not only is not going to be under his authority, but is actually going to be a priest in an entirely different religion?

Because as far as I understand it, the ordination ceremony, when properly and validly celebrated, includes a vow from the priest-to-be of obedience to the Bishop who is ordaining him.

One assumes that this aspect of the ceremony is missing from those Anglican ceremonies where they are bringing in Bishops from the Eastern Churches, though. (Either that, or the priest-to-be makes the vow without intending to keep it, which seems as if it would also cause the Ordination to not be valid.)

 

[Bluegoat]

The question here is, can a Bishop validly ordain a man who not only is not going to be under his authority, but is actually going to be a priest in an entirely different religion?

Because as far as I understand it, the ordination ceremony, when properly and validly celebrated, includes a vow from the priest-to-be of obedience to the Bishop who is ordaining him.

One assumes that this aspect of the ceremony is missing from those Anglican ceremonies where they are bringing in Bishops from the Eastern Churches, though. (Either that, or the priest-to-be makes the vow without intending to keep it, which seems as if it would also cause the Ordination to not be valid.)

Well, the Catholic Church does not, in fact, think these are issues with regard to the question of the validity of Anglican orders (or the orders of other groups or churches that have broken away from the Catholic Church, like the orthodox, or some of those groups which have left over Vatican II stuff. All are considered to have valid orders and sacraments.)

I wasn’t actually thinking of them bringing in Eastern Bishops, which as far as I know has never happened. Rather, I was thinking of European, Catholic infusions.

 

[jmcrae]

Well, the Catholic Church does not, in fact, think these are issues with regard to the question of the validity of Anglican orders (or the orders of other groups or churches that have broken away from the Catholic Church, like the orthodox, or some of those groups which have left over Vatican II stuff. All are considered to have valid orders and sacraments.)

The Anglicans are not considered to have valid Orders. The others are valid because they move in an unbroken line within themselves - they aren’t bringing in Bishops from outside - from a totally different religion - to do their Ordinations for them.

I wasn’t actually thinking of them bringing in Eastern Bishops, which as far as I know has never happened.

Um - that’s how Anglicans do their Ordinations, due to the fact that they have no valid Apostolic Succession.

Rather, I was thinking of European, Catholic infusions.

You mean validly ordained Catholic priests who become Anglicans? Oh, I see - yes, in those specific, individual instances, a case could be made that there could well be a valid Eucharist, there.