Catholics, and why we don't go to "other churches"

[aicirt]

they may have meant why don’t Catholics join in with communion in other churches when they are visiting guests etc?

I know in my church (anglican) at communion the priest will invite people to come forward to communion if they have been confirmed in their own church. If they haven’t 'yesterday he added to place their hands over their chest then he will know-where as usually just carry a leaflet-perhaps he knew we’d run out of leaftlets as had big baptism on)

Knowing that Catholics would not receive communion in an anglican church I have no idea what priests mean if you are confirmed in your own church you can recieve communion here. Is he inviting Catholics to - if they choose to as well as any other denomination. It dont really matter since I know we do accept Catholics receiving in our church its just that the Catholic Church teaches Catholics not to just a point of interest. At my confirmation class in 1985 I was told that we can receive communion anywhere including Catholic Churches but Roman Catholics don’t like us to unless we get permission from the priest at the time. It may be this that the nurses were talking about as such.

I know the theology as such but why is it such a hard and fast rule that Catholics are taught not to receive communion elsewhere when we all worship the same God and all are Christian? Seems odd way forward to me to bringing about The Lords Family.

I had this discussion at lunch with some friends last week. I had stated that I wouldn’t even think about receiving communion in a Protestant Church. The Methodist friend asked, “Why not?” I said, “Because I’m not Prostestant.” We were at lunch so I didn’t want to get into the whole think about the Eucharist etc. I did ask her later if Methodists believe in the Real Presence or if communion is just to commemorate Christ’s Last Supper. She stated all Protestants denominations seek it as a memorial. Hmmm. I don’t think so but again not the time for heavy involved discourse…unfortunately.

Beleving in the Real Presence, among other things, is what makes me a Catholic. If Protestants don’t believe in the Real Presence, which is one of the reasons they’re Protestants,why would they want to receive in a Catholic Church?

We’re told, in the Bible, that it is a great sin to recive if unworthy. If one doesn’t believe, one is unworthy. If a Catholic is in sin and receives, he’s unworthy ergo the reason for confession. Protestants, who might think it is okay to receive in a Catholic Church, are receiving not believing and not having gone to confession.

 

[tarboy]

Beleving in the Real Presence, among other things, is what makes me a Catholic. If Protestants don’t believe in the Real Presence, which is one of the reasons they’re Protestants,why would they want to receive in a Catholic Church?

We’re told, in the Bible, that it is a great sin to recive if unworthy. If one doesn’t believe, one is unworthy. If a Catholic is in sin and receives, he’s unworthy ergo the reason for confession. Protestants, who might think it is okay to receive in a Catholic Church, are receiving not believing and not having gone to confession.

While symbolic, most protestants that practice a form of communion are expected to repent before the symbolic act. To them, they may feel they meet the requirements. You just need to explain that Catholic communion is reserved for worthy ‘Catholics’ and you in turn will respect their church rules, when visiting.

 

[JonNC]

Protestants do not believe in the Real Presence, as taught by Jesus in John 6, with respect.

From the Apology of the Augsburg Confession

The Tenth Article has been approved, in which we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh. And there is a long exposition of Cyril on John 15, in which he teaches that Christ is corporeally offered us in the Supper. For he says thus: Nevertheless, we do not deny that we are joined spiritually to Christ by true faith and sincere love. But that we have no mode of connection with Him, according to the flesh, this indeed we entirely deny. And this, we say, is altogether foreign to the divine Scriptures. For who has doubted that Christ is in this manner a vine, and we the branches, deriving thence life for ourselves? Hear Paul saying 1 Cor. 10:17; Rom. 12:5; Gal. 3:28: We are all one body in Christ; although we are many, we are, nevertheless, one in Him; for we are, all partakers of that one bread. Does he perhaps think that the virtue of the mystical benediction is unknown to us? Since this is in us, does it not also, by the communication of Christ’s flesh, cause Christ to dwell in us bodily? And a little after: Whence we must consider that Christ is in us not only according to the habit, which we call love, 57] but also by natural participation, etc. We have cited these testimonies, not to undertake a discussion here concerning this subject, for His Imperial Majesty does not disapprove of this article, but in order that all who may read them may the more clearly perceive that we defend the doctrine received in the entire Church, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered with those things which are seen, bread and wine. And we speak of the presence of the living Christ [living body]; for we know that death hath no more dominion over Him, Rom. 6:9.

How does this not reflect the teachings of John 6, as reflected by the Last Supper accounts in the Gospels and by Paul?

Also Protestants do not have the Sacrament of Holy Orders, therefore, nobody in any Protestant denomination has the authority to call upon Jesus in their Churches. Jesus is only present in the One True Apostolic Church - ie the Catholic Church.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger - * "I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, **need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord *[Heilschaffende Gegenwart des Herrn] in a Lutheran [evangelische] Lord’s Supper."

So, that is the reason I would never, even if I were allowed to, receive any pretence of the Body and Blood of my Saviour. God bless . I believe all Protestants will eventually come home to Mother Church - where they will be received with joy!

I respect your loyalty to your faith, and I too pray for the day when our divisions end.

Jon

 

[liturgyluver]

Protestants do not believe in the Real Presence, as taught by Jesus in John 6, with respect.

You are quite wrong to say that Protestants do not believe in the real presence. Most of the mainstream denominations do, and there are countless books about the Eucharistic theology of Calvin, Luther and Cranmer and how these are used in the liturgies of the Reformed, Anglican and Lutheran churches. I would accept though that - apart from very high Anglicans - their concept of the real presence is different from the Catholic one of transubstantiation.

 

[aicirt]

While symbolic, most protestants that practice a form of communion are expected to repent before the symbolic act. To them, they may feel they meet the requirements. You just need to explain that Catholic communion is reserved for worthy ‘Catholics’ and you in turn will respect their church rules, when visiting.

Ah…according to my friend, her church would be more than happy to include me in the Lord’s Supper. They apparently do not mind that I’m Catholic. But I would not think of doing that.

All that said, I came home and read where some Protestant Churchs have “closed” communion limiting participation to their own…just like us. So there really should not be a discussion.

 

[Brian_H]

You are quite wrong to say that Protestants do not believe in the real presence. Most of the mainstream denominations do, and there are countless books about the Eucharistic theology of Calvin, Luther and Cranmer and how these are used in the liturgies of the Reformed, Anglican and Lutheran churches. I would accept though that - apart from very high Anglicans - their concept of the real presence is different from the Catholic one of transubstantiation.

Exactly. And it is so easy to educate yourself about what other faiths believe before spouting off on here. People do a disservice to the faith when they criticize other faiths without a correct understanding of their beliefs. It is no different than those with an anti-catholic agenda distorting Catholic teaching in an attempt to further their agenda.

 

[BenedictFTW]

You are quite wrong to say that Protestants do not believe in the real presence. … I would accept though that - apart from very high Anglicans - their concept of the real presence is different from the Catholic one of transubstantiation.

This is the only concept we conceive of - the “Catholic one of transubstantiation”. All else is error/false/unreal. The Real Presence is - transubstantiation. Most Protestants who say they believe in the Real Presence are speaking of consubstantiation. Not the same thing at all and not what Jesus said.

 

[BenedictFTW]

From the Apology of the Augsburg Confession

How does this not reflect the teachings of John 6, as reflected by the Last Supper accounts in the Gospels and by Paul?

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger - * “I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, **need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord ***[Heilschaffende Gegenwart des Herrn] in a Lutheran [evangelische] Lord’s Supper.”

I respect your loyalty to your faith, and I too pray for the day when our divisions end.

Jon

The long quote you used from your Church, with all due respect merely says that their idea of the Real Presence is consubstantiation. This is not what we believe. We believe in Transubstantiation.

This is how I read what you quoted from our Pope:

Pope Benedict XVI is extremely careful how he puts things. When he says “…ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of 'validity” he means that this is not the only consideration. He does not mean to dismiss it.

“Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord.” He does not mean to say that any communion from any Protestant Church is as valid as the Catholic Communion. What he means is that despite the invalidity of the Protestant Communion, the heart of the receiver - ie the Protestant who truly believes in what they profess - may bring them salvation. This is the basis of our belief that SOMETIMES there MIGHT BE salvation outside of the Catholic Church. However, there is also the root of Truth, which is Jesus Christ, the fullness of Whom can only be found in the Catholic Church. The Pope in no way denies this in this quote.

 

[JonNC]

=BenedictFTW;9271720]The long quote you used from your Church, with all due respect merely says that their idea of the Real Presence is consubstantiation. This is not what we believe. We believe in Transubstantiation.

Lutherans reject consubstantiation. It i a charge by Calvinists against us. No where in any lutheran document will you find consubstantiation.

This is how I read what you quoted from our Pope:

Pope Benedict XVI is extremely careful how he puts things.

Good advice, wouldn’t you say?

When he says “…ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of 'validity” he means that this is not the only consideration. He does not mean to dismiss it.

Of course not.

“Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord.” He does not mean to say that any communion from any Protestant Church is as valid as the Catholic Communion. What he means is that despite the invalidity of the Protestant Communion, the heart of the receiver - ie the Protestant who truly believes in what they profess - may bring them salvation. This is the basis of our belief that SOMETIMES there MIGHT BE salvation outside of the Catholic Church. However, there is also the root of Truth, which is Jesus Christ, the fullness of Whom can only be found in the Catholic Church. The Pope in no way denies this in this quote.

What says is, " salvation-granting presence of the Lord ". He doesn’t mention what the believer believes. In fact, Lutherans and Catholics agree that the presence is not related to the faith, or lack thereof, of the partaker.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

This is the only concept we conceive of - the “Catholic one of transubstantiation”. All else is error/false/unreal. The Real Presence is - transubstantiation. Most Protestants who say they believe in the Real Presence are speaking of consubstantiation. Not the same thing at all and not what Jesus said.

I can’t think of a communion that believes in consubstantiation, though there may be some.

For Lutherans, the problem with the term consubstantiation is the same as that with transubstantiation. They are metaphysical constructs which we don’t use. We believe Christ’s words: “This [bread] is my body”.

Jon

 

[gamewell45]

they may have meant why don’t Catholics join in with communion in other churches when they are visiting guests etc?

I know in my church (anglican) at communion the priest will invite people to come forward to communion if they have been confirmed in their own church. If they haven’t 'yesterday he added to place their hands over their chest then he will know-where as usually just carry a leaflet-perhaps he knew we’d run out of leaftlets as had big baptism on)

Knowing that Catholics would not receive communion in an anglican church I have no idea what priests mean if you are confirmed in your own church you can recieve communion here. Is he inviting Catholics to - if they choose to as well as any other denomination. It dont really matter since I know we do accept Catholics receiving in our church its just that the Catholic Church teaches Catholics not to just a point of interest. At my confirmation class in 1985 I was told that we can receive communion anywhere including Catholic Churches but Roman Catholics don’t like us to unless we get permission from the priest at the time. It may be this that the nurses were talking about as such.

In my parish, the Priest will invite “all Baptized” Christians to partake in Communion; those who are not Baptized or who choose not to are more then welcome to come forward for a blessing. I guess it just depends on the church that your in at the time.

 

[perro_sarnoso]

I was in school, in the nurse’s office. When two nurses were talking. Religion came up. One nurse Protestant and the other was Catholic. I think the Catholic one said she had to drive to the nearest Catholic Church (not that far, but she made it seem like it) as opposed just walking up the street to nearest Baptist Church, just a block from my school.

The Protestant nurse said “I don’t understand why Catholic don’t just go to the Baptist Church”

I don’t even know how to respond. What’s everyone else’s take on this?

While christian denominations fancy the term “communion” in their services- it is not the Eucharist.

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is head and shoulders above any protestant service.

The priest is “in persona Christi” - not the protestant minister. The hands of the priest have been consecrated to carry out the Consecration of the bread and wine so that it will become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ - this consecration of the priest’s hands was done by a bishop…in the lineage of Peter…appointed by Jesus. Not so for a protestant minister.

For this and many other reason s (too numerous to mention here), I choose to travel as far as I have to, to attend the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Keep it simple. In hoc signo vinces.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I think part of it has to do with confusion over what exactly transubstantiation means when divorced from its scholastic context. I have been told countless times that transubstantiation has nothing to do with substance theory. If that is true, then I am at a total loss as to what it could possibly mean or why it is inherently superior to Luther’s sacramental union.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Not sure there’s any difference in any Theology but definition.

therealpresence.org/archives/Eucharist/Eucharist_023.htm

 

[fhansen]

I was in school, in the nurse’s office. When two nurses were talking. Religion came up. One nurse Protestant and the other was Catholic. I think the Catholic one said she had to drive to the nearest Catholic Church (not that far, but she made it seem like it) as opposed just walking up the street to nearest Baptist Church, just a block from my school.

The Protestant nurse said “I don’t understand why Catholic don’t just go to the Baptist Church”

I don’t even know how to respond. What’s everyone else’s take on this?

One could attend their services for one reason or another but you wouldn’t be attending Church- there is no other Church than the Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Church.

 

[Rolltide]

One could attend their services for one reason or another but you wouldn’t be attending Church- there is no other Church than the Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Church.

Well… there is the Oriental Orthodox Church, the Polish National Catholic Church, the Assyrian Church of the East…

 

[Nicea325]

I was in school, in the nurse’s office. When two nurses were talking. Religion came up. One nurse Protestant and the other was Catholic. I think the Catholic one said she had to drive to the nearest Catholic Church (not that far, but she made it seem like it) as opposed just walking up the street to nearest Baptist Church, just a block from my school.

The Protestant nurse said “I don’t understand why Catholic don’t just go to the Baptist Church”

I don’t even know how to respond. What’s everyone else’s take on this?

Part of the problem from many non-Catholics and even some Catholics themselves is the belief that church is church and we all worship the same God. Trust me I encounter this type of ignorance by parents who enroll their children in the catechetical program. Church “hopping” is a belief which many believe is “okay” or “acceptable” by many Christians.

 

[coachkfan1]

I was in school, in the nurse’s office. When two nurses were talking. Religion came up. One nurse Protestant and the other was Catholic. I think the Catholic one said she had to drive to the nearest Catholic Church (not that far, but she made it seem like it) as opposed just walking up the street to nearest Baptist Church, just a block from my school.

The Protestant nurse said “I don’t understand why Catholic don’t just go to the Baptist Church”

I don’t even know how to respond. What’s everyone else’s take on this?

Because we are not Baptists!

 

[JonNC]

Part of the problem from many non-Catholics and even some Catholics themselves is the belief that church is church and we all worship the same God. Trust me I encounter this type of ignorance by parents who enroll their children in the catechetical program. Church “hopping” is a belief which many believe is “okay” or “acceptable” by many Christians.

I agree. This is a serious problem, at least from a Lutheran POV, as we are a very doctrinal communion. The local Baptist Church, as an example, down the street is very much a Christian Church, but its doctrines are quite different, and not “the same”.

Peace, my friend.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

I agree. This is a serious problem, at least from a Lutheran POV, as we are a very doctrinal communion. The local Baptist Church, as an example, down the street is very much a Christian Church, but its doctrines are quite different, and not “the same”.

Peace, my friend.

Jon

And also with you Jon! I believe you Jon because I am sure your Lutheran church and faithful leaders find it unacceptable. Here is what I once encountered by a young mother with her unbaptized child:

My child is confused about Jesus? I replied, " Confused how?" Mom…"Well after service this past Sunday, someone from the congregation told my son and I, Jesus is not God?

I said, “WHAT?” Who here told you Jesus is not God? Mom…“Oh the other church we at times go on Sunday.” I replied, “What other church do you attend and do you know the name.” Mom…“Oh yeah…it is called the Kingdom of Hall and people are really nice.”

I assuming you get the picture? No wonder mom and her child were confused. Bad…bad…practice!