Baptist Communion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JessiL
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have been in many churches where they literally used broken bits of saltine crackers with the thimbles of grape juice. I’ve also seen those little bitty bread “crackers”. At one special Christmas Eve service, it was a whole large loaf of wheat bread, piled up with a cornucopia of breads and winter veggies, which was then cut up into cubes.

I don’t know why some of you are so upset by lilypadrees’ use of the word cracker. It often is a cracker, which is a type of bread. She didn’t say it’s always a cracker. Please take a breath…there is no need to argue about this.
 
Last edited:
There is a Protestant poster, in one of the threads, who referred to our hosts as crackers. I wanted to correct him but then realized that was probably how they referred to the communion accident. Funny that people were offended by this. Surely a little clarification should be sufficient if it is deemed necessary.
 
Definition of “cracker” according to Merriam-Webster:
A dry thin crispy baked bread product that may be leavened or unleavened.
Click to expand...
That’s what we, and a lot of others, have at communion. There’s no reason to flip out over it. Some people just need to chill. 😎 You know who you are!
 
I agree. I have no idea why the thread got derailed about such a silly thing. And jumping all over @lilypadrees about it is uncalled for.

In every average non-denominational church I’ve been in, they also called it crackers. It was just symbolic and certainly not reverenced AT ALL. In the Episcopal Church, I think it was called bread or wafers. Reverenced more, but not adored like in the Catholic Church.

Why all the defensiveness over a symbol? 🤔
 
Last edited:
Depends on which individual Episcopal church/parish you have in mind. As it would also depend, on which Anglican church, ditto, more generally.

In my parish and such Anglo-Catholic flavored parishes, it is more likely to be, before the priest consecrates the host (and wine), called the host, or wafer (unleaved; you will be familiar with the idea). After, called the Blessed Body. Reverenced, yes. And formally adored, in the Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, when that service is held.

Motley, you know.
 
Last edited:
thistle said:
First off we were not present at this conversation and are only receiving one side of it so you cannot simply state as fact “Your priest said it was OK and not a sin. Done.” You don’t know if this was actually said or if the OP or even the priest misunderstood what was being asked.
Click to expand...
Absolutely agree. I was merely responding on the premise of what the OP stated.
thistle said:
Second, if the priest said it was okay then that is not DONE because the priest would be contradicting the teachings of the Church. We are not to agree with a priest if what he says is against Church teaching.
Click to expand...
Agree again. However, how does one discern if the priest is right or wrong at the time we ask him a canon law question? You, personally, would not ask because you know the law.
thistle said:
For the last time it is NOT okay for a Catholic to receive Communion in a Protestant church. There are NO EXCEPTIONS.
Click to expand...
There are exceptions. There are a few articles pertaining to weddings and funerals where a priest was present along side of another pastor from another denomination.

Thistle: I appreciate your post and taking the time as others have done here. This thread allowed me to examine many articles regarding this subject. Yes, I get it and have always believed in the canon law and the articles prove it. However, it seems to me that some people here are so stiff-necked and ruled by only the letter of law without employing love and understanding to a situation that can be bent using a pastoral judgment. Like you said, we were not there, just perhaps the priest knew better, but considered the couple’s dilemma and used that judgment. Since then, the OP has cleared up the issue somewhat.
Peace.
 
My dear lilypadrees: God bless you for fighting so hard about this issue. Please allow me to explain a bit further, as I have done with thistle above:
lilypadrees said:
Are you Catholic, @rondirect? If so, how can you condone receiving a “symbol only” Communion in a church that we are not fully united with? You know that Catholics are not to receive in these churches because if we do, we are agreeing with that church’s teachings and saying that the Catholic Church’s teachings are wrong.
Click to expand...
Just because a Catholic receives communion as a “symbol only,” that does not mean “we are agreeing with that church’s teachings and saying that the Catholic Church’s teachings are wrong.” If believe in the action, yes, then, you are correct. However, I take the action, as I have said before, as meaning nothing because we know what’s in our hearts and minds that this is not really communion in the Catholic sense.
lilypadrees said:
The OP may have asked her priest if it was a sin to receive Communion in her husband’s church and been told that it wasn’t a sin. But that doesn’t mean it’s okay to receive Communion in that church. She has already stated that she feels uncomfortable doing that. So why encourage her to do something she feels uncomfortable doing? For her husband? She’s already going with him when she can. That is enough.
Click to expand...
No, the OP “did,” not “may” ask her priest about receiving in her husband’s church. If that is the priest’s answer, how can you follow it up by saying, “but that doesn’t mean it’s okay to receive Communion in that church.” The priest said so, who are we to say it’s not OK? I mentioned this in the post with thistle: If a priest knows the couple and this issue is a stress on their relationship (later on we learned it was not), the priest has the right to use a pastoral judgment, and just perhaps he might have.

If you posted something that you felt uncomfortable with, looking for answers of guidance, I would do for you just like I did for the OP. I was trying to help her feel more comfortable with answers that I felt were appropriate. That’s why she posted; looking for guidance. Do you know this couple? If not, you state,“She’s already going with him when she can. That is enough.” How did you determine or know that for sure? Perhaps, it is not enough.

“Seem to take Communion lightly.”
Sorry, but another post statement of assuming something rather judgmental. Don’t mean to be rude to you, but that’s how I read it. Almost every one of you posts ends with the Catholic belief regarding Communion. I know it. I believe it. I practice it. This thread is more than just one denomination’s belief against another’s. It’s about a mixed religious couple stressing over Communion.

I just believe differently about this specific issue than you: The OP asked the priest, he gave his blessing, most likely from a pastoral judgment over law for this couple in a stressful situation, I tried to make the OP feel more at ease and to know what’s in her heart and mind and please her husband. The Church also teaches love and compassion as well.
Peace.
 
Last edited:
rondirect said:
There are exceptions. There are a few articles pertaining to weddings and funerals where a priest was present along side of another pastor from another denomination.
Click to expand...
Catholics may attend baptisms, weddings and funerals at Protestant churches but they may NEVER receive Communion. Receiving Communion there is absolutely forbidden and there are no exceptions to that.
 
rondirect: “No, the OP “did,” not “may” ask her priest about receiving in her husband’s church. If that is the priest’s answer, how can you follow it up b saying, “but that doesn’t mean it’s okay to receive Communion in that church.” The priest said so, who are we to say it’s not OK?”

lilypadrees:
  1. The OP said, “I asked my priest and he said it wasn’t a sin to partake of it but wasn’t able to give much more guidance regarding if I should just participate for ecumenism’s sake or a way of sharing the truth in a loving way.”
Not everything wrong is considered a sin. So while her priest said it wasn’t a sin to receive in her husband’s church, that doesn’t mean he said it was the right thing to do.
  1. About attending her husband’s church, the OP said, “I try to support him by attending with him when I can.”
lilypadrees: Supporting her husband by going with him when she’s able to doesn’t compromise her Catholic faith. But expecting a Catholic to receive Communion in a church whose beliefs she doesn’t share compels her to want to explain why she can’t receive with them, and to do it correctly. That , I believe, is the reason she spoke to her priest NOT because of anything her husband said or did.
 
Last edited:
lilypadrees said:
  1. The OP said, “I asked my priest and he said it wasn’t a sin to partake of it but wasn’t able to give much more guidance regarding if I should just participate for ecumenism’s sake or a way of sharing the truth in a loving way.”
Not everything wrong is considered a sin. So while her priest said it wasn’t a sin to receive in her husband’s church, that doesn’t mean he said it was the right thing to do.
Click to expand...
Wrong = sin. Priest said not a sin. By deduction, receiving in her husband’s church = not wrong.
lilypadrees said:
That , I believe, is the reason she spoke to her priest NOT because of anything her husband said or did.
Click to expand...
Operative words here: “I believe.” You are making assumptions.
 
thistle said:
Catholics may attend baptisms, weddings and funerals at Protestant churches but they may NEVER receive Communion. Receiving Communion there is absolutely forbidden and there are no exceptions to that.
Click to expand...
This from a previous posters link:

Still, within the confines of canon law, the exceptions to the rule are rather limited, and receiving communion from a Lutheran pastor during a wedding would normally be seen as “illicit” for Catholic wedding guests. At the same time, some Catholics would like to, and do, receive communion on these rare occasions.

These Catholics, after a careful examination of their conscience, find compelling reasons to “gain a needed grace” by receiving communion in a Protestant church. And it is also true that eucharistic sharing has occurred at the highest levels of the church. Even Jesus occasionally broke the religious law of his day, though he did so to fulfill the “spirit” of the law.

So it is possible that one could follow Jesus’ lead. In our example a compelling reason might be to demonstrate one’s deep love and commitment to nurturing the relationship of the newly married couple. Intercommunion could be a “yes” to God by witnessing to God’s presence in the marriage and committing to God’s work of salvation in their lives.

In the end, this may be fulfilling the “spirit” of canon law while going against the letter.

This article appeared in the October 2011 issue of U.S. Catholic (Vol. 76, No. 10, page 46).
 
Last edited:
rondirect said:
receiving communion from a Lutheran pastor during a wedding would normally be seen as “illicit” for Catholic wedding guests.
Click to expand...
The article implies all Lutherans allow open communion. Many don’t.
It would be illicit for non-Lutherans and even other Lutherans to partake in their communion depending on the synod. Same with many Presbyterian churches. The reason is doing so means you accept all of their beliefs and standards. It’s also why these churches bar their members from communing at other denominations.
 
Last edited:
rondirect: “Wrong = sin.”

Tell me, if you touch a hot stove, are you sinning?

rondirect: “Operative words here: “I believe.” You are making assumptions.”

Actually, I got it from her post.
 
rondirect said:
Still, within the confines of canon law, the exceptions to the rule are rather limited, and receiving communion from a Lutheran pastor during a wedding would normally be seen as “illicit” for Catholic wedding guests. At the same time, some Catholics would like to, and do, receive communion on these rare occasions.

These Catholics, after a careful examination of their conscience, find compelling reasons to “gain a needed grace” by receiving communion in a Protestant church. And it is also true that eucharistic sharing has occurred at the highest levels of the church. Even Jesus occasionally broke the religious law of his day, though he did so to fulfill the “spirit” of the law.

So it is possible that one could follow Jesus’ lead. In our example a compelling reason might be to demonstrate one’s deep love and commitment to nurturing the relationship of the newly married couple. Intercommunion could be a “yes” to God by witnessing to God’s presence in the marriage and committing to God’s work of salvation in their lives.

In the end, this may be fulfilling the “spirit” of canon law while going against the letter.

This article appeared in the October 2011 issue of U.S. Catholic (Vol. 76, No. 10, page 46).
Click to expand...
This is getting boring. Let repeat this again. A Catholics may NOT receive Communion at a Protestant Church whatever the circumstances. There are NO EXCEPTIONS and trying to scratch around trying to find one is a waste of time. Catholics are NOT PERMITTED to receive Communion at a Protestant church EVER!
 
thistle said:
This is getting boring. Let repeat this again. A Catholics may NOT receive Communion at a Protestant Church whatever the circumstances. There are NO EXCEPTIONS and trying to scratch around trying to find one is a waste of time. Catholics are NOT PERMITTED to receive Communion at a Protestant church EVER!
Click to expand...
You may find this boring; I find this quite interesting.

Anyway, so basically, the priest is wrong and now this article is wrong. Why? Because it goes against your rigidness of not fulfilling the “spirit” of canon law, but adhering to the letter of the canon law. And, if I want to “scratch around” to find an answer, you need not worry, for to me it is not a waste of time to find answers and exceptions. That’s how I learn. Why do I think you would ask priest after priest a question until you find one that agrees with you what you think should be the right answer?

The article I quoted is from another poster on this thread, perhaps you did not care to read it. What in this letter do you not understand? It clearly states exceptions to the rule we are discussing. And, IMHO, the priest the OP spoke to might have referred to this article (in his mind - sure think he heard it before) and used his authority to use a Pastoral judgment in this case. You are aware of the different classes of judgments, are you not? I’ll stick with what the priest said and what this article states.

Thistle: please understand that I think that a discussion like this is good. No harm is intended.

Peace.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top