Baptist Communion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JessiL
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
lilypadrees said:
As Catholics, are we to listen to a priest who tells us what we want to hear or to the priest who tells us the truth? The answer, of course, is we are to listen to the priest who tells us the truth.
Click to expand...
Perhaps we are to listen to the priest who has the responsibility and authority for our soul.
 
A priest’s authority is circumscribed by the doctrine of the faith and the laws of the Church. If he tells you to do something contrary to either, he is not acting within the scope of his authority.
 
Genesis315 said:
A priest’s authority is circumscribed by the doctrine of the faith and the laws of the Church. If he tells you to do something contrary to either, he is not acting within the scope of his authority.
Click to expand...
So who decides whether to obey or not?
 
thistle said:
40.png
rondirect:
Do you have that statement on “auto-type?” And, yep, another like from lilypadrees! And, you say this is getting boring about 25 posts ago. LOL!
Click to expand...
I will keep saying it until you get it into your head that a Catholic may not receive Communion in any Protestant church no matter what.
THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS!
Click to expand...
Actually, there are some exceptions as stated in Canon Law. But that’s neither here or there in regards to this instance stated by the OP.

The reason is because it should be quite clear what they’re passing around at that Baptist church that she and her husband attend is NOT Holy Communion. Unless I misunderstood the Baptist practice, neither their bread nor their grape juice is consecrated by one of their ministers. And since bread and grape juice was NOT “consecrated” by one of the Baptist ministers, it cannot be considered Holy Communion. That’s the Baptist view and that’s her view too, so if in fact she did decided to partake in eating the bread and grape juice they pass around, she would not be in any shape or form partaking in a Baptist version of Holy Communion because Baptist don’t believe in that.

On the other hand, if she was attending a Anglican Mass then of course she should NOT receive the Holy Communion from that Mass. That is what the Catholic Church prohibits: receiving holy communion from most other Christian churches that offer Holy Communion (consecrated bread and wine) to their members.
 
Last edited:
My parish priest and my confessor both tell me the truth. If they didn’t, I’d go elsewhere because I want the truth.
 
lilypadrees said:
My view of that article is that you misinterpreted the meaning of its contents. That’s all I have to say about it since another poster explained the true meaning so eloquently.
Click to expand...
I did not misinterpret the meaning of either the article or the Canon statement. You did not mention the last one. You have nothing to say because I believe you can’t. Anyone who agrees with you is truth, those who question you or disagree are wrong, even to the point of proving statements that are “misinterpreted.”

To tell me that my comments to someone is “trying to find excuses for someone to disobey them,” is disrespecting my viewpoint. You say it is because “it is the truth,” so it is not disrespectful. Those are your words. So, in your mind, telling the truth is not disrespectful? If I told someone that they are short and very much overweight and they are 5’3" and 400 pounds, I am telling the truth and not disrespectful?

And, no, I am not still encouraging the OP to participate. I gave her my viewpoint as you and others have done a few times and that was it. The rest of my posts on this topic were in response to the issue presented by the OP and discussion of the same.

I agree with you regarding contradicting church teachings to a point. It is, however, not being disrespectful. If there is a ruling or law regarding something that is vague or does not make sense, I question my pastor or actually a friend who is a priest and our bishop’s Episcopal Secretary. I respect the answer. Even for you to say, “It’s disrespectful to continue to contradict Church teaching,” is assuming that is my life long mission to be Catholic and contradict church teaching continuously. You don’t know me, some here do, and you are so far from the truth regarding my character.

To me, the most telling statement in your post is:
“As Catholics, are we to listen to a priest who tells us what we want to hear or to the priest who tells us the truth? The answer, of course, is we are to listen to the priest who tells us the truth.”

Seriously? Sorry, but with all due respect, are you clairvoyant, psychic or perhaps a visionary? How on earth do you discern what a priest tells you as being truth or not? How do you know if the priest is just giving you lip service or is being truthful to the best of his knowledge? Of course we all want to listen to the priest that tells the truth, but assuming you really do not know the answer, one would take his word as truth, or why bother asking. You might feel uncomfortable with the answer, but do you continue your quest to find a priest with “right” answer? Perhaps, me thinks, you might want to reconsider posting such statements.

Peace,
Ron
 
Last edited:
lilypadrees said:
My parish priest and my confessor both tell me the truth. If they didn’t, I’d go elsewhere because I want the truth.
Click to expand...
I didn’t think that would be allowed. It’s certainly not allowed for clergy and their Bishops or Superiors. It’s not allowed for Women religious. I guess you could resign your vows but that is pretty extreme. I have heard of Diocesan priests moving away from their Diocese because they did not get along with their Bishop. It didn’t work out well. Obedience to the person in authority is serious business, whether you agree with them or not. I thought that was a basic tenant of Catholicism.
 
lilypadrees said:
My parish priest and my confessor both tell me the truth. If they didn’t, I’d go elsewhere because I want the truth.
Click to expand...
So glad for you. Your trust in them is great. It is, however, amazing how you know what is told to you is truth or not. And, the OP thought the same thing. Why would he not tell her the truth…she knew nothing about Canon Law, and assumed that he did. There is more to this story that we will not ever know I think. The fact that she still felt uncomfortable is normal and now it is her choice to make.
 
Last edited:
rondirect said:
This is getting more interesting than anticipated. First of all, my post was in jest. I have been respectfully posting to both of you without malice, but it is apparent that you and Miss Lily have taken this on as a “fight” until I learn the truth. Thistle: you can say your auto-response all you want, but to say “until you get it into your head,” is rather putting yourself in a superiority class for which no PIP belongs. Your shouting, “THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS!” is wrong.

From the Canon Law on Sacraments:

§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

Now we can discuss which protestant churches have valid “sacraments” until the cows come home, but many here have spoken up regarding their “valid” communion already. In my research, this subject is one of the biggest issues facing the church today; so here we are.

I have also sent you a portion of an article from the US Catholic that states, “In the end, this may be fulfilling the “spirit” of canon law while going against the letter.” However, you and Miss Lily refuse to respond to that article. Why? Because it is not fall within your “NO EXCEPTIONS” statement as does the excerpt from Canon Law on Sacraments above.

I could say that I will continue repeating these EXCEPTIONS until you get it into your head that there are, but I won’t say that! LOL! Now, just for the record, this last sentence was in je
Click to expand...
NOT A SINGLE WORD of what you just quoted/commented allows Catholics to receive Communion in any Protestant churches and in case you still have not figured it out despite other posters too pointing it out there are no Protestant churches that have a valid Communion.
 
The primary function of Catholic priests is to administer the Sacraments by virtue of their priestly ordination, which nobody else can do. As for giving adice, it is just just - advice. Of course, most of the times they get them right by virtue of their training, but not all the times. Catholics who are well informed would be able to know if advices are doubtful and therefore can get second opinion.

The topic of Holy Communion is simple and clear but unfortunately sometimes made contentious by people within and without the Church.
 
Last edited:
And she has made her choice which she stated in a later post.

As for my priest and confessor, I’ve known them both for many years. They haven’t steered me wrong yet.

I don’t know the OP’s priest. But she has said enough to indicate that he may not have understood what she was asking.
 
If you are unsure about what your priest says, you get a second opinion.
 
**
“lilypadrees said:
If you are unsure about what your priest says, you get a second opinion.
Click to expand...

If the second opinion backs up the first does that necessarily mean they are right? They could be both wrong! If the second opinion is different from the first then you need a third to back up one of the others.

Sorry…I just messing with you…for fun. 😉
 
Last edited:
:hugs: No, Wannano, it doesn’t necessarily mean they’re right. But it would give pause for thought. One should obey their parish priest or confessor. But as in all things, I always add the caveat “as long as they are teaching correctly.” If I have any doubts about advice I’ve been given, I search the Catechism and other Catholic documents.
 
Perhaps say that you’re a Catholic and while you respect Baptists and see them as your fellow Christians, for reasons of faith, you only take Communion at a Catholic Mass.

I wouldn’t think there was a need to explain further unless you are pressed hard on this, and even if pressed you could always say that you don’t want to go onto it any further, if you dodn"t wish to explain in detail.

I think ecumenism has a place, but it shouldn’t involve downplaying our differences (or even pretending that there are no real and substantial differences). I would see your going as not being about ecumenism, but more about kindness and respect for your husband.
 
Alright, rondirect. I’ll give you my view of the article from US Catholic magazine. I was actually trying to be polite by not commenting on it not because of the article’s contents but because of the publication itself.

US Catholic magazine is not a reliable source for moral or doctrinal matters. Anything within its pages is not to be taken seriously. Therefore, respectfully speaking, the article is a bunch of bunk.
 
Last edited:
PeterT said:
Unless I misunderstood the Baptist practice, neither their bread nor their grape juice is consecrated by one of their ministers. And since bread and grape juice was NOT “consecrated” by one of the Baptist ministers, it cannot be considered Holy Communion.
Click to expand...
One small correction.

The words of consecration are said over the bread and wine in the Baptist Church. The issue is that Baptist ministers do not have valid Holy orders and therefore do not have the authority to actually consecrate the bread and wine. (Baptist ministers don’t even need to have any particular training. All they need is “the call,” and if they are able to get enough followers, they are eligible to head a church.)

Additionally, Baptists generally view the Lord’s Supper as a symbolic rememberance of Christ’s sacrifice.
 
mrsdizzyd said:
40.png
PeterT:
Unless I misunderstood the Baptist practice, neither their bread nor their grape juice is consecrated by one of their ministers. And since bread and grape juice was NOT “consecrated” by one of the Baptist ministers, it cannot be considered Holy Communion.
Click to expand...
One small correction.

The words of consecration are said over the bread and wine in the Baptist Church. The issue is that Baptist ministers do not have valid Holy orders and therefore do not have the authority to actually consecrate the bread and wine. (Baptist ministers don’t even need to have any particular training. All they need is “the call,” and if they are able to get enough followers, they are eligible to head a church.)

Additionally, Baptists generally view the Lord’s Supper as a symbolic rememberance of Christ’s sacrifice.
Click to expand...
Why would anyone be foolish enough to believe ministers can be effective without formal training? Certainly the Apostles all had University degrees!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top