Can catholics go to Lutheran services?

[steido01]

Contrary to what Don posted, the ELCA invites all baptized Christians who believe Christ is fully Presence in the Eucharist to commune in our parishes. Like children who are baptized but have not yet received their first holy communion, non-Christians are invited to come up during the distribution of the Sacrament to receive a blessing from the pastor.

I know that there is a range of practice within the ELCA; I meant no offense and I was careful to use the qualifier “some.” I have personally attended two, and know of at least two more ELCA churches where the Eucharist is regularly offered not just to confirmed members, not just to baptized Christians, but also to non-Christians. While this may not tow the official ELCA line, it does take place in some ELCA churches, like I stated.

I can PM the parishes to you, if you’d like to contact the pastors there. I presume they will be candid about their beliefs.

I stand by my last paragraph; churches that practice open communion should encourage visitors to follow their own church body’s guidelines regarding Eucharistic sharing. Roman Catholics who partake in a Lutheran Eucharist do so against the teachings of their own church. This fact should not be hushed.

 

[benjohnson]

I stand by my last paragraph; churches that practice open communion should encourage visitors to follow their own church body’s guidelines regarding Eucharistic sharing. Roman Catholics who partake in a Lutheran Eucharist do so against the teachings of their own church. This fact should not be hushed.

I’ve known one LCMS pastor that drove several visiting Catholic to the later service at the local Catholic cathedral.

Frankly, that’s true Eucharistic hospitality!

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I know that there is a range of practice within the ELCA; I meant no offense and I was careful to use the qualifier “some.” I have personally attended two, and know of at least two more ELCA churches where the Eucharist is regularly offered not just to confirmed members, not just to baptized Christians, but also to non-Christians. While this may not tow the official ELCA line, it does take place in some ELCA churches, like I stated.

I can PM the parishes to you, if you’d like to contact the pastors there. I presume they will be candid about their beliefs.

I stand by my last paragraph; churches that practice open communion should encourage visitors to follow their own church body’s guidelines regarding Eucharistic sharing. Roman Catholics who partake in a Lutheran Eucharist do so against the teachings of their own church. This fact should not be hushed.

Yes, please identify the ELCA parishes that allow non-Christians holy communion. You don’t have to PM me; just name the parishes. My problem with anecdotal comments is that we could apply the same standard to any church body including rather embarrassing practices in the LCMS [ie. ‘Church Growth’ Protestantism]. But if these ELCA churches exist, I think it is important that you publicly name them so all of us can view this heresy.

 

[hn160]

Contrary to what Don posted, the ELCA invites all baptized Christians who believe Christ is fully Presence in the Eucharist to commune in our parishes. Like children who are baptized but have not yet received their first holy communion, non-Christians are invited to come up during the distribution of the Sacrament to receive a blessing from the pastor.

Roman Catholics are not only welcome but many do commune in Lutheran churches.

The ELCA is in fellowship with Reform type groups that believe that it is only a memorial meal or at best it is a spiritual eating because Christ Body is confined to heaven. It is opened ended. I was a life long member of an ELCA congregration, I asked my pastor at the time of the anouncing of the altar and pulpit fellowship with the Reform Churches how the ELCA leadership could do this in light of the Confessions. He could not give me an answer. A Reform clergy can serve in any ELCA church or vise versa. I have a cousin that is an ELCA pastoress, she served as a pastor in an UCC church.

 

[benjohnson]

Yes, please identify the ELCA parishes that allow non-Christians holy communion.

Only because you asked: www.herchurch.org

They’re in the ELCA and they’re not even Christian. They have some form of goddess worship.

 

[Pepband_Mom]

It won’t count as going to Mass, but I think it’s okay.

As long as you fulfill your Sunday obligation, you could go, but Lutherans lack orders & cannot confect the Eucharist (or believe it’s symbolic) so what is the point? To make a friend “happy”?

Perhaps if you were helping someone attend incapable of going by themselves, that sounds reasonable & could be construed as an act of charity as it would be of great comfort to them; but always go to Mass & better for one to spend extra time in front of the Blessed Sacrament.

To whom much is given, much will be expected.

 

[Michael57]

Yes, please identify the ELCA parishes that allow non-Christians holy communion. You don’t have to PM me; just name the parishes. ** My problem with anecdotal comments is** that we could apply the same standard to any church body including rather embarrassing practices in the LCMS [ie. ‘Church Growth’ Protestantism]. But if these ELCA churches exist, I think it is important that you publicly name them so all of us can view this heresy.

 

[Michael57]

Contrary to what Don posted, the ELCA invites all baptized Christians who believe Christ is fully Presence in the Eucharist to commune in our parishes. Like children who are baptized but have not yet received their first holy communion, non-Christians are invited to come up during the distribution of the Sacrament to receive a blessing from the pastor.
**
Roman Catholics are not only welcome but many do commune in Lutheran churches.**

They’d be wrong to do so.

Catholics that partake in communion outside of the Catholic faith with churches not in communion with the Catholic Church are not following the teaching of their Catholic Church.

LINK

From the article:

According to the Code of Canon Law, receiving communion in a Protestant church is generally not permissible. According to canon 844, “Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments to Catholic members of the Christian faithful only and, likewise, the latter may licitly receive the sacraments only from Catholic ministers.” The key term here is licit. If a Catholic receives communion from a Protestant minister, it is generally considered “illicit” or unlawful.

The reason for the Catholic Church’s general rule against sharing in the Eucharist with other churches is that a person can only be in full communion with one church. As a Catholic, the core of one’s union with Christ is union with the church. The center of this union lies in the reception of the sacrament of the Eucharist during Mass, which is both a confession and embodiment of unity with the Roman Catholic Church.

• See more at: uscatholic.org/church/2011/08/can-catholic-receive-communion-protestant-church#sthash.tMNzoukK.dpuf

And speaking of “anecdotal”…

 

[Michael57]

You’re more than welcome. Just don’t receive communion, as both the LCMS and the CC practice close(d) communion.

Jon

Best answer. :tiphat:

 

[steido01]

Yes, please identify the ELCA parishes that allow non-Christians holy communion. You don’t have to PM me; just name the parishes…
But if these ELCA churches exist, I think it is important that you publicly name them so all of us can view this heresy.

I name the churches that I am aware of not to re-ignite the spiteful feelings of the 1970’s (which were undoubtedly painful for all those involved), but only because you have asked that I do so. Please remember that I am only the messenger, and that I offer these examples reluctantly and only per your insistence.

I have personally attended two ELCA churches that not only permitted, but actually invited anyone who “feels moved” to partake. These were the Congregation at Luther College in Decorah, IA and First Lutheran Church in Onalaska, WI. The latter has changed pastors and “vision” several times since I last attended; I do not know if they continue their practice. It’s my understanding that the College still employs the same pastors.

The College has been a ‘Reconciling in Christ’ congregation since the beginning of the movement, and effectively jettisoned/silenced any opposition from individuals or groups like ‘Word Alone,’ etc. Pan-religious chapel services were routine. One such service combined prayer led by a Muslim (complete with dutiful observance of Qibla - which all were invited to join) and open communion. I walked out in disbelief.

Two other churches that I know of include the University Lutheran Chapel at Berkeley and the preposterous Ebeneezer/Herchurch in San Francisco (which not only invites all to commune, but believes that everyone in attendance “co-consecrates!”).

My problem with anecdotal comments is that we could apply the same standard to any church body including rather embarrassing practices in the LCMS [ie. ‘Church Growth’ Protestantism].

Oh, the LCMS has its fair share of problems! The Enemy knows how to sow division, and no communion is immune to human sin. Please understand; the point of my post was not to divide, but rather to educate. Roman Catholics (and the Orthodox, Confessional Lutherans, etc.), in accordance with their own church’s teachings, should not receive communion at another altar, regardless of whether they have been invited to do so.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I name the churches that I am aware of not to re-ignite the spiteful feelings of the 1970’s (which were undoubtedly painful for all those involved), but only because you have asked that I do so. Please remember that I am only the messenger, and that I offer these examples reluctantly and only per your insistence.

I have personally attended two ELCA churches that not only permitted, but actually invited anyone who “feels moved” to partake. These were the Congregation at Luther College in Decorah, IA and First Lutheran Church in Onalaska, WI. The latter has changed pastors and “vision” several times since I last attended; I do not know if they continue their practice. It’s my understanding that the College still employs the same pastors.

The College has been a ‘Reconciling in Christ’ congregation since the beginning of the movement, and effectively jettisoned/silenced any opposition from individuals or groups like ‘Word Alone,’ etc. Pan-religious chapel services were routine. One such service combined prayer led by a Muslim (complete with dutiful observance of Qibla - which all were invited to join) and open communion. I walked out in disbelief.

Two other churches that I know of include the University Lutheran Chapel at Berkeley and the preposterous Ebeneezer/Herchurch in San Francisco (which not only invites all to commune, but believes that everyone in attendance “co-consecrates!”).

Oh, the LCMS has its fair share of problems! The Enemy knows how to sow division, and no communion is immune to human sin. Please understand; the point of my post was not to divide, but rather to educate. Roman Catholics (and the Orthodox, Confessional Lutherans, etc.), in accordance with their own church’s teachings, should not receive communion at another altar, regardless of whether they have been invited to do so.

Actually Don, I appreciate your information. Two of the chapels listed that encourage full participation in the Mass, are at universities. Academic settings, in particular, seem to be most willing to cross the line of inclusion, so to speak. I doubt any of these parishes advertise in writing that non-Christians are invited to partake of the Sacrament but practice open communion just like most Christians, knowing fully well that anyone can come forward. The infamous Ebenezer Church in San Francisco is unique in many ways; most notably feminist theology in a heavily gay environment that influences women’s ordination *.

The Mass, celebrated among Lutherans, Anglicans, Roman Catholics, etc. culminates in the sharing of the holy Communion as Our Lord commands us. You suggest that this not be done unless a variety of qualifiers are satisfied, contrary to the practice of the Church. The LCMS takes an extreme position among Lutherans and Christians, in general; even to the point of not praying with other Christians and isolated itself from the larger Church. The fact that the LCMS would not even participate in and sign the Declaration on Justification with the Roman Catholic Church is, in my opinion, a sectarian position that places the Missouri Synod outside the mainstream of Christianity. Some ‘church growth’ parishes in the LCMS come very close to being biblical literalists, bible-belt fundamentalists who believe the world is 10,000 years old and diminish the importance of the sacraments because it is more important to “personally accept Christ” rather than acknowledge that Christ in the means of grace for all unworthy humans.

Having stated the above, I am a product of the LCMS strong catholicity of faith but no long identify with a Synod I see as too extreme.*

 

[benjohnson]

The LCMS takes an extreme position among Lutherans and Christians

I think a few billion Catholics and Orthodox would disagree with any statement that their Eucharistic hospitality is ‘extreme’. So would the historic church for that matter.

Some ‘church growth’ parishes in the LCMS come very close to being biblical literalists…

That scripture is written down seems to get in the way of a lot of modernity.

The LCMS is literalist - but usually the difficulty of accepting the literal view of Genesis et al is usually due (in my opinion) to a lack imagination. For example - 6 creative acts in 6 days for God may not be 7 rotations about the Earth’s access for His creatures.

 

[steido01]

Actually Don, I appreciate your information.

Thanks for not shooting the messenger! I really do appreciate being able to converse civilly with you.

Two of the chapels listed that encourage full participation in the Mass, are at universities. Academic settings, in particular, seem to be most willing to cross the line of inclusion, so to speak.

I wouldn’t disagree with your observation; universities tend to be rather liberal. But how does this excuse them from following proper practice - much less, practice involving a Sacrament ?

I doubt any of these parishes advertise in writing that non-Christians are invited to partake of the Sacrament but practice open communion just like most Christians, knowing fully well that anyone can come forward.

Both the college and the church I attended printed “ALL are welcome” on their bulletins and on their information pamphlets. The pastors also said the same when they bid the congregation to come forward. It was rather explicit. During the Muslim-“Lutheran” communion service, the pastors/speakers kept reiterating how we all worshiped the same God, so it was all OK.

The infamous Ebenezer Church in San Francisco is unique in many ways; most notably feminist theology in a heavily gay environment that influences women’s ordination .
OK. How does this excuse them from following proper practice involving a Sacrament? What has the ELCA done to curb Herchurch’s -at best- unorthodox and perhaps non- or anti-Christian practice?
EvangelCatholic;11168118:

The Mass, celebrated among Lutherans, Anglicans, Roman Catholics, etc. culminates in the sharing of the holy Communion as Our Lord commands us. You suggest that this not be done unless a variety of qualifiers are satisfied, contrary to the practice of the Church

. The LCMS takes an extreme position among Lutherans and Christians, in general; even to the point of not praying with other Christians and isolated itself from the larger Church.
…
Having stated the above, I am a product of the LCMS strong catholicity of faith but no long identify with a Synod I see as too extreme.

Point of clarification: That the LCMS tends to find ambiguous documents like the JDDJ somewhat meaningless in the cause of lasting ecumenism, is true (for better or for worse ). It is not true that the LCMS does not pray with other Christians; we most certainly have and continue to do! We do not, however, engage in what can be interpreted as syncretistic worship with those who do not share our beliefs. We are far from the only church body to share this conviction.

In fact, close[d] communion is practiced by 1.2 billion Catholics, 300 million Orthodox, roughly 13 million Lutherans, a sizable percentage of Baptists and at least 15 million Anglicans. It would seem that the practice of the Church favors close[d] communion. How, exactly, is this majority Christian viewpoint “extreme?”

Even if it were, shouldn’t more “accepting” bodies respect the “extreme” teachings of their visitors’ home churches? Encouraging visitors from closed communion churches to take part in an open communion is no different than encouraging them to break from other teachings of their church. Why not simply convert them the old fashioned way?

 

[bill99]

I have always been in the elca witch I hope to leave soon because they like to be political correct instead of correct

 

[Pius_Joung]

I am a Latin rite Catholic. Soon, I will be travelling to a place with no Catholic churches near by. On January first, which is a holy day of obligation, am I permitted to worship at a luteran church?

 

[steido01]

I am a Latin rite Catholic. Soon, I will be travelling to a place with no Catholic churches near by. On January first, which is a holy day of obligation, am I permitted to worship at a luteran church?

Where in the world is there a Lutheran church, yet no Catholic church?

To answer your question, it would not, under normal circumstances, meet the “Sunday obligation” required by your communion. You should talk with your priest. That said, you would still hear the Word preached, and the order of service would likely be cosmetically indistinguishable from your usual Mass.

 

[Stilldreamn]

I am a Latin rite Catholic. Soon, I will be travelling to a place with no Catholic churches near by. On January first, which is a holy day of obligation, am I permitted to worship at a luteran church?

Perhaps there is an Eastern Orthodox church nearby?

 

[Pius_Joung]

This is Norway - I will be travelling pretty far North… The Vicar General is the parish priest of St Olav’s Cathedral in Trondheim. He says that it is possible to get a communion before hand and then simply go to the Lutheran service to pray. However, it is strictly prohibited that I receive communion of course…
It sucks - there are no Eastern Orthodox churches near by either, nor are there any eastern Catholic churches nearby.

I can listen to their preaching, pray with them, use a rosary to pray… It is not a sin if I cannot go to a church he says…

I used to live in Australia, where there would always be a Catholic Church somewhere… this sucks

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Attending a Lutheran service would not satisfy the Sunday obligation. Neither would attending an Eastern Orthodox service. You are required to attend a Catholic (in communion with Rome) service. However, there is no Sunday obligation if you cannot fulfill it. If you cannot reasonably make it to a Catholic service, you can attend some other kind of service (prudent discretion should be exercises), but that decision has no relation to the Sunday obligation. You would be just as fine to stay home if you wanted as far as that goes.

 

[Contarini]

MoreCoffee,

Thank you for the post; however, I don’t think you dealt with the question I asked. Nor do I think you helped your position by posting more verbiage from Mortalium Animos.

You stated…
“Not everything written or said by a pope is binding on Catholics in all ages. Pius XI lived between 31 May 1857 – 10 February 1939, relations between protestants denominations and between those denominations and Catholics were rather different in those times. You may not need to look any deeper than the changes in relations to answer your question.”

I couldn’t agree more. Relations between protestant denominations and Catholics were much different in those times. That being said, it is the Catholic Church that changed, not protestantism (I grew up in the Baptist church).

Protestantism has changed radically. Conservative Baptists resist those changes, so you might not know about them.

But clearly there has been doctrinal development too. As the late Fr. Stanley Jaki has pointed out, the groundwork was laid by the popes of the 3rd century in their insistence that baptism was valid even if administered outside the Catholic Church, and this position was further developed by St. Augustine. The development of ecumenism within Protestantism–the fact that mainstream Protestants (i.e., “mainliners” and moderate evangelicals) are now much more appreciative of Catholicism–has helped the Catholic Church in this development, as has the change in the political situation which has broken down the old “throne and altar” alliances irreparably and has made it clear that fellow-Christians are not the enemy–a secular society based on coercion and consumerism is the enemy of all our souls.

We, as Catholics, lost our identity and in so doing embraced something other than Catholicism; namely protestantism.

That’s just nonsense.

So, if we “take part in their assemblies” are we, or are we not “giving countenance to a false Christianity” which is “alien to the one Church of Christ”? If protestantism was a false Christianity in 1928, as this encyclical seems to be implying, would it not still be today? And if it isn’t a “false Christianity” please explain how it is that can be when protestantism still retains the same convoluted and misguided beliefs today as they did in 1928. If you continue to claim that this is simply “disciplinary and hence subject to change as the needs of the Church demand”, then please explain how this is so. How can a “false Christianity” in 1928 cease to be so today, simply by invoking the word “disciplinary”, when that “false Christianity” hasn’t changed?

It has. The fact that you don’t know this may not be your fault, but it’s certainly not the fault of the post-Vatican II Church either .

But the major difference is that Mortalium Animos is defining Protestantism by what differentiates it from Catholicism.

The Pope’s judgment of Protestantism was wrong. Objectively, obviously wrong. And you are in a cleft stick if you think otherwise. You have to create your own “real” Catholicism in opposition to the authorities within your own Church. In other words, you have to make a Protestant move while decrying Protestantism

You’re right there really wasn’t much of an ecumenical movement in the 1920’s.

It was just getting started and tended to be associated with the more liberal elements of Protestantism.

I think you are seriously misguided here. I grew up in the Baptist church and I can tell you that the issues that define protestantism and its identity are the same as they were in 1928.

Your apparent belief that Baptists define Protestantism would be amusing if it weren’t so destructive. (Also, your statement isn’t true of all Baptists by any means. But U.S. Baptists, especially in the South, are, by and large, pretty conservative.)

Edwin