Communion at a Protestant church

  • Thread starter Thread starter susanbherald
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JonNC said:
The question was how did the confessions reference the Fathers and the early Church.
Click to expand...
No, that was not the question. It was suggested that somehow the Lutheran Confessions has historical pedigree to the ‘ancient church’ and how that church would look today, as laid out in the BOC. I asked how, no answer was given.
 
I’m actually more of the opinion that to avoid communion at a protestant Church, or to ask them not to take it, is more respectful when you think about it. We have very different views on what communion is. To just take communion there just to seem to be polite is a bad reason, and not respectful of their views on communion.
 
AugustTherese said:
40.png
JonNC:
The question was how did the confessions reference the Fathers and the early Church.
Click to expand...
No, that was not the question. It was suggested that somehow the Lutheran Confessions has historical pedigree to the ‘ancient church’ and how that church would look today, as laid out in the BOC. I asked how, no answer was given.
Click to expand...
And that suggestion is, in many ways, accurate.
 
JonNC said:
Except that the Angolan-Catholic and Evangelical Catholic communions wouldn’t fit the grape juice and crackers category.
When used regarding doctrine and practice, the word is inaccurate.
Click to expand...
Except, (from a Catholic perspective) it’s correct. No valid orders means no Eucharist.

And, regardless of what it is thought to be by the members of the respective ecclesial bodies, Protestant communion is still intercommunion, which is prohibited by Catholic canon law.
 
Maximilian75 said:
40.png
JonNC:
Except that the Angolan-Catholic and Evangelical Catholic communions wouldn’t fit the grape juice and crackers category.
When used regarding doctrine and practice, the word is inaccurate.
Click to expand...
Except, (from a Catholic perspective) it’s correct. No valid orders means no Eucharist.

And, regardless of what it is thought to be by the members of the respective ecclesial bodies, Protestant communion is still intercommunion, which is prohibited by Catholic canon law.
Click to expand...
Then it seems respectful to say, “from a Catholic perspective, the real presence is not there”. We recognize the Catholic perspective, even if we don’t agree with it.

It is only intercommunion when various communions participate together.
 
Last edited:
No need to be polite in this sense if this is not your relgion. Forgo the chirade.
 
Dhc8_Type said:
First off your bread and cup of grape juice is insulting.
Click to expand...
I have wondered at times where this comes from. Maybe it is because I am not American but out of ALL the non-Catholic services I attended I actually have never seen the Grape juice and Cracker thing. Maybe grape juice together with wine for those who are underage or do not drink but never only grape juice. The cracker thing not at all.

Not to sound insulting but I was actually surprised the first time I attended a Catholic mass. I was wondering what is that little round thing that looks like a rice cake. I was used to bread. As in the one you buy from the local bakery and it is broken up.

Point is I think that phrase is old. It surely is not “out there” in any way.

Regards
 
Last edited:
JonNC said:
40.png
lilypadrees:
I gave the definition of “consubstantiation,” JonNC. The Lutheran (no one here on CAF, a LCMS) and I were discussing transubstantiation. She said Lutherans do not believe in transubstantiation. That they believe that the substance of the bread and wine coexists with the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist.

Do you deny that Lutherans believe this?
Click to expand...
What I deny is irrelevant. What the Lutheran tradition teaches, as described by the numerous Lutheran theologians from Gerhard to Sasse, is relevant.
Lutheranism rejects the term and concept, the metaphysical construct of consubstantiation, on the same basic grounds that they rejected Transubstaniation.
Lutherans believe what Christ stated as He held bread in His hands: This is my body
Click to expand...
Here is a link to the Lutheran theologians:
40.png
Lutheran belief - Sacramental Union (not Consubstantiation) Non-Catholic Religions
=QNDNNDQDCE;12087939]-]/-]My thesis is that the word consubstantiation fittingly and accurately describes the Lutheran doctrine of “sacramental union,” which is taught in the Formula of Concord. Hi QN, Our paths typically cross on this issue.
smiley
The Lutheran rejection of the term is a reaction to a misunderstanding of transubstantiation rather than any fault of the word “consubstantiation.” Or at least that is what I think is the case. At least, the doctrine of sacramental union is …
Click to expand...
and
40.png
Lutheran belief - Sacramental Union (not Consubstantiation) Non-Catholic Religions
Krauth: Consubstantiation. The charge that the Lutheran Church holds this monstrous doctrine has been repeated times without number. In the face of her solemn protestations the falsehood is still circulated. It would be easy to fill many pages with the declarations of the Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and of her great theologians, who, without a dissenting voice, repudiate this doctrine, the name and the thing, in whole and in every one of its parts. In the “Wittenberg Concord…
Click to expand...
 
Even though Orthodox dont really allow us though we allow them; it wouldn’t be a sin since they have valid apostolic succession just in schism but if you are in a majority Orthodox country it would be fine to take the Eucharist in an emergency. It really comes down to what the church believes it is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top