Can a Catholic take communion at a Lutheran Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mommy2aj
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mommy2aj

Guest
I hope someone can help me.
My step dad, sister and brother are Catholic and my mom and grandma are Lutheran, as am I. Can my my step dad, sister and brother have communion at our Lutheran church when they come? I am unsure if this is against Catholic beliefs. I know the Lutheran church welcomes anyone that believes in Jesus Christ as they’re savior to the Lords Table. Anyone know what the Catholics standings are on this?
TIA
Laura
 
I don’t know. But I do know what the opposite of cheese is…MILK!
 
As painful as this is regarding your relatives, Catholics CANNOT take communion in a Lutheran Church.

Scott
 
For a Catholic to participate in communion at a Luthern Church would be gravley sinful. The Catholic would be lying to himself about the true nature of Holy Communion and the Catholic faith.
 
No, they souldn’t have communion at the Lutheran church if they are Catholic. It is the same reason Lutherans can’t recieve Eucarist at the Catholic Church. It is not the same beliefs. They souldn’t take it. It is that simple.
 
A Catholic believes not only in the transubstantiation of the bread and the wine, but also in the authority of the priest to offer it. To participate in communion at a Lutheran church would cause two problems. 1) It would be a proclamation of a lack of faith in the validity of the Catholic Eucharist. 2) It would confer the authority to offer the sacrifice into the hands of someone who is not ordained in the church nor a part of the apostolic succession.

Several years ago, a cousin of mine who lives in Michigan married an East Indian woman and they decided to hold a traditional Indian marriage ceremony. My cousin asked my Uncle, who is now a retired Carmelite priest, to attend. He informed my cousin that he could not attend the marriage as it may be misconstrued as a sign of approval by the church were he present, even if he didn’t officiate in any manner.

The same is true of your situation. If one believes in the validity of communion, which is a sacramental (sacred covenant oath) in the Catholic Church, then one cannot partake of an invalid communion elsewhere.

Thal59
 
40.png
Sanctus:
For a Catholic to participate in communion at a Luthern Church would be gravley sinful. The Catholic would be lying to himself about the true nature of Holy Communion and the Catholic faith.
Click to expand...
It is unfortunate that baptized Christians cannot share the body and blood of Christ at the same table. We should be celebrating our similarities instead of bickering about our differences. None of us can prove the existence of God. None of us can prove that Jesus was the Son of God who died and was crucified. None of us can prove that the Roman Catholic Church or the Lutheran Church or the Southern Baptist Church is the “original” church. Certainly the Roman Catholic Church is the largest Christian church because Rome was the largest empire in the world at the time of the death and resurrection of our Saviour. Peter was the rock upon which the universal Christian Church was founded but none of us can prove that Peter was the first pope. In fact the Roman Empire crucified Peter because the Roman Empire had no sense of morality. Thus to them killing Christians or anyone else was a pleasurable event for which they felt no guilt. The Roman Catholic Church did not exist until the 3rd century A.D.
God must be troubled when his people of one church forbid their members to partake of the rememberance of Jesus’ death and resurrection in another of His churches.
We are all saved by our faith in Jesus and our baptism because we cannot prove the existence of God. It is only by our faith that we are members of the Family of God.
I pray nightly that God will help us to celebrate our faith together rather than bickering over our differences.
 
Phil H:
It is unfortunate that baptized Christians cannot share the body and blood of Christ at the same table. We should be celebrating our similarities instead of bickering about our differences. None of us can prove the existence of God. None of us can prove that Jesus was the Son of God who died and was crucified. None of us can prove that the Roman Catholic Church or the Lutheran Church or the Southern Baptist Church is the “original” church. Certainly the Roman Catholic Church is the largest Christian church because Rome was the largest empire in the world at the time of the death and resurrection of our Saviour. Peter was the rock upon which the universal Christian Church was founded but none of us can prove that Peter was the first pope. In fact the Roman Empire crucified Peter because the Roman Empire had no sense of morality. Thus to them killing Christians or anyone else was a pleasurable event for which they felt no guilt. The Roman Catholic Church did not exist until the 3rd century A.D.
God must be troubled when his people of one church forbid their members to partake of the rememberance of Jesus’ death and resurrection in another of His churches.
We are all saved by our faith in Jesus and our baptism because we cannot prove the existence of God. It is only by our faith that we are members of the Family of God.
I pray nightly that God will help us to celebrate our faith together rather than bickering over our differences.
Click to expand...
Phil,
while i disagree with most of your post, I do agree that we need to be more united. But uniting does not mean forsaking truth. It is unfortunate that we cannot share the same Supper of our same Lord together-- but because some people have rejected the true nature of the Lord’s Supper, we cannot. Until that day when we are all reunited, we must obey the rules of the Church. Catholics are not permitted to take communion at any other church (aside from orthodox, and only with their permission). Please do not confuse the OP. She got her answer.
 
What I think is a little odd is that Martin Luther (Lutheran church is named for him) said that anyone who doesn’t believe in the True Presene “let him be anathema”. But the Lutheran church is not in communion with the Roman Catholic, therefore they may not recieve communion.
 
A Catholic may go to a Protestant service such a a Lutheran service and I encourge them to. It is sometimes difficult to talk about or to understand another religion/sect/denomination unless you see it first hand. I have been to many Lutheran services before coming home to Christs body, His Catholic Church. I almost joined the Lutheran sect too. They try to be good Christians and the ones I know are great people - they just are not Catholic yet!😉

What Catholics cannot do is to participate in the Protestant service. This would include songs and communion. Many Protestant songs contain herisey and the communion is only ‘symbolic’ and invalid since not performed by Catholic clergy. For a Catholic to take part in a Protestant service would be like turning your back on what Jesus taught.:tsktsk:

Jesus founded a Church and not a book. Jesus founded the Catholic Church on pentecost. The Catholic Church gave us the Bible. Jesus told us to be loyal to His body, His Catholic Church and not a book or schismatic sect.

The Lutherans are sometimes called “Catholic light”. Being close to Catholics is not being the same as a Catholic.

Go to the Lutheran Church and learn from it and enjoy it. DO NOT participate in the herisey though. Stay loyal to Jesus and His body, His Catholic Church.

God Bless,
 
Phil H:
It is unfortunate that baptized Christians cannot share the body and blood of Christ at the same table.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is unfortunante that all Christians do not recognize the Truth and share in the gifts of the Eucharist.
Phil H:
None of us can prove the existence of God. None of us can prove that Jesus was the Son of God who died and was crucified. None of us can prove that the Roman Catholic Church or the Lutheran Church or the Southern Baptist Church is the “original” church.
Click to expand...
As per the existance of God you have to ask what kind of “proof” you desire, can the existance of God be more than adaquatley argued by reason? Yes…but that’s not why we believe, we believe because we have faith, a Faith passed down from the apostles. As for proving the original church, history is more than sufficent in proving which one is the “original” church
Phil H:
Peter was the rock upon which the universal Christian Church was founded but none of us can prove that Peter was the first pope.
Click to expand...
hmm…let’s think about the logic of that statement…
Phil H:
The Roman Catholic Church did not exist until the 3rd century A.D.
Click to expand...
Again, history dictates otherwise. You are going to need to provide some proof for your claims. Though, truthfully, the “Roman Catholic Church” dosen’t exist at all–it’s just the Catholic Church which is divided into it’s Latin Rite and the various Eastern Rites.
Around the year A.D. 107, a bishop, St. Ignatius of Antioch in the Near East, was arrested, brought to Rome by armed guards and eventually martyred there in the arena. In a farewell letter which this early bishop and martyr wrote to his fellow Christians in Smyrna (today Izmir in modern Turkey), he made the first written mention in history of “the Catholic Church.” He wrote, “Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church” (To the Smyrnaeans 8:2). Thus, the second century of Christianity had scarcely begun when the name of the Catholic Church was already in use.
Click to expand...
Brief History of the Catholic Church’s Name
“Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter” (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).
Click to expand...
"In this chair in which he himself had sat, Peter in mighty Rome commanded Linus, the first elected, to sit down. After him, Cletus too accepted the flock of the fold. As his successor, Anacletus was elected by lot. Clement follows him, well-known to apostolic men. After him Evaristus ruled the flock without crime. Alexander, sixth in succession, commends the fold to Sixtus. After his illustrious times were completed, he passed it on to Telesphorus. He was excellent, a faithful martyr . . . " (Poem Against the Marcionites 276–284 [A.D. 267]).
Click to expand...
“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).
Click to expand...
Phil H:
God must be troubled when his people of one church forbid their members to partake of the rememberance of Jesus’ death and resurrection in another of His churches.
Click to expand...
Again, as Jesus desired there be no divisions among us it is clear that there was one Church founded…to be both a faithful Catholic and participating in Protestant communion service is lying about what the Catholic (universial) faith teaches; it is not possible for a Catholic to be in communion with the Catholic Church and also in communion with the Luthern Church, pretending that this is possible does both religions a disservice. It is a shame that we are not one, we must strive for unity; however, truth can not and must not be comprimised. It is a shame that all Christians don’t dispose themselves to participate fully in the beautiful sacrifice of the Mass and Holy Communion.

God Bless,
 
Phil H:
God must be troubled when his people of one church forbid their members to partake of the rememberance of Jesus’ death and resurrection in another of His churches.
We are all saved by our faith in Jesus and our baptism because we cannot prove the existence of God. It is only by our faith that we are members of the Family of God.
I pray nightly that God will help us to celebrate our faith together rather than bickering over our differences.
Click to expand...
I honestly can’t comprehend why a Protestant would even consider partaking of what the original Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, et al.), almost without exception (the “almost” being used only because I have not read each and every but only many of them) referred to as an “abomination.” If there were greater fidelity to Protestant tradition maybe more people would understand why intercommunion should not be allowed.
 
The CCC says this about it:

1396 The unity of the Mystical Body: the Eucharist makes the Church. Those who receive the Eucharist are united more closely to Christ. Through it Christ unites them to all the faithful in one body - the Church. Communion renews, strengthens, and deepens this incorporation into the Church, already achieved by Baptism. In Baptism we have been called to form but one body.230 The Eucharist fulfills this call: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? the bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread:"231

If you are the body and members of Christ, then it is your sacrament that is placed on the table of the Lord; it is your sacrament that you receive. To that which you are you respond “Amen” (“yes, it is true!”) and by responding to it you assent to it. For you hear the words, “the Body of Christ” and respond “Amen.” Be then a member of the Body of Christ that your Amen may be true.232

1397 The Eucharist commits us to the poor. To receive in truth the Body and Blood of Christ given up for us, we must recognize Christ in the poorest, his brethren:

You have tasted the Blood of the Lord, yet you do not recognize your brother,… You dishonor this table when you do not judge worthy of sharing your food someone judged worthy to take part in this meal… God freed you from all your sins and invited you here, but you have not become more merciful.233

1398 The Eucharist and the unity of Christians. Before the greatness of this mystery St. Augustine exclaims, "O sacrament of devotion! O sign of unity! O bond of charity!"234 The more painful the experience of the divisions in the Church which break the common participation in the table of the Lord, the more urgent are our prayers to the Lord that the time of complete unity among all who believe in him may return.

1399 The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. “These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy.” A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, "given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged."235
*
1400 Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, "have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders."236 It is for this reason that Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible for the Catholic Church. However these ecclesial communities, "when they commemorate the Lord’s death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory."237*

1401 When, in the Ordinary’s judgment, a grave necessity arises, Catholic ministers may give the sacraments of Eucharist, Penance, and Anointing of the Sick to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church, who ask for them of their own will, provided they give evidence of holding the Catholic faith regarding these sacraments and possess the required dispositions.238

212 St. Ambrose, De Sacr. 5, 2, 7: PL 16, 447C.

213 St. Ambrose, De Sacr. 4, 2, 7: PL 16, 437D.

214 Roman Missal, EP I (Roman Canon) 96: Supplices te rogamus, omnipotens Deus: iube haec perferri per manus sancti Angeli tui in sublime altare tuum, in conspectu divinae maiestatis tuae: ut, quotquot ex hac altaris participatione sacrosanctum Filii Corpus et Sanguinem sumpserimus, omni benedictione caelesti et gratia repleamur.

231 ⇒ 1 Cor 10:16-17.

232 St. Augustine, Sermo 272: PL 38, 1247.

233 St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in 1 Cor. 27, 4: PG 61, 229-230; cf. ⇒ Mt 25:40.

234 St. Augustine, In Jo. ev. 26, 13: PL 35, 1613; cf. SC 47.

235 UR 15 # 2; cf. ⇒ CIC, can. 844 # 3.

236 UR 22 # 3.

237 UR 22 # 3.

238 Cf. ⇒ CIC, can. 844 # 4.
 
This is an interesting question, and demonstrates just how splintered Protestantism is. Orthodox Lutherans, in the United States the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, also practice Closed Communion, as this is what Luther himself believed in and was Lutheran tradition until the previous century. The liberal, mainstream Evangelical Lutheran Church in America allows the innovative ‘Open Communion’, which Luther was against. The largest Lutheran synod isn’t even really Lutheran anymore. They are heterodox not only by the Catholic Church’s standards, but by Luther and Melancthon’s own standards!
 
The other thing that often gets over looked when discussing how the Catholic Church administers Holy Communion is that it’s not just a “closed communion” in the sense that it’s only Catholics who can receive but the Church also protects us by reminding us that as Catholics we must be properly disposed to receive Holy Communion. So it’s not just an exclusion of Protestants, it’s a call for all to truly submit to the mercy and forgivness of the Lord in Confession, to unite ourselves in his suffering in our fasting, to unite of ourselves in our beliefs so that when we receive the Precious Body and Blood of our Lord we may recieve all the wonderful graces associated with the Mass and Holy Communion. The last thing we as Catholics and the Church would want is for anyone to profane the Body and Blood of our Lord. So it unthinkable why a Catholic would want to participate in a Protestant communion service, when, as Catholics we know that it is not the Real Presence–and to understand Communion mearly as a symbol of unity is a horrible misreprentation of our Lord’s Sacrifice.

Peace,

Joseph
 
St.Paul says thatif you partake of the body and blood of the Lord unworthily you are responsible for His body and blood and he said that was why people were sick and dying.Non-Catholics believe communion is a symbol,the Eucharist is the Body, Blood,soul and Divinity of Jesus.To treat him as a symbol or a sign of unity would be a sacrelige.You would have to get permission from a Bishop first and believe the truths of the Eucharist.
 
Phil H:
It is unfortunate that baptized Christians cannot share the body and blood of Christ at the same table. We should be celebrating our similarities instead of bickering about our differences. None of us can prove the existence of God. None of us can prove that Jesus was the Son of God who died and was crucified. None of us can prove that the Roman Catholic Church or the Lutheran Church or the Southern Baptist Church is the “original” church. Certainly the Roman Catholic Church is the largest Christian church because Rome was the largest empire in the world at the time of the death and resurrection of our Saviour. Peter was the rock upon which the universal Christian Church was founded but none of us can prove that Peter was the first pope. In fact the Roman Empire crucified Peter because the Roman Empire had no sense of morality. Thus to them killing Christians or anyone else was a pleasurable event for which they felt no guilt. The Roman Catholic Church did not exist until the 3rd century A.D.
God must be troubled when his people of one church forbid their members to partake of the rememberance of Jesus’ death and resurrection in another of His churches.
We are all saved by our faith in Jesus and our baptism because we cannot prove the existence of God. It is only by our faith that we are members of the Family of God.
I pray nightly that God will help us to celebrate our faith together rather than bickering over our differences.
Click to expand...
After reading your first sentance, I knew you are not Roman Catholic. Just because someone has been Baptised ":In the name of the Father, and the Son and of the Holy Ghost does not meant that that person knows what the Eucharist actually is. For a knowledgable Catholic to recieve Communion at a Church other than a Catholic Church means that he would be “:making believe”: and that is a sacrilidge. No Sir, Catholics can’t recieve ouitside the Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top