R
rr1213
Guest
I’d say that Lutherans (and Anglo-Catholics for that matter) are the exceptions which prove the rule…
- Status
P
Paul3144
Guest
It’s not “just” crackers and grape juice. Christ is really and truly present in Communion. As I’ve said before, I hold to the Reformed position about Communion and not a mere memorialist position.
Now, doggone it, Bill. When Protestants have said that about your Eucharist, you and other Catholics are rightly offended and indignant. And on more than one occasion, I have jumped in on your side, and you know it! Why do I jump in? Because I know His presence is in your Eucharist, I know you believe it, and it is just downright uncharitable to call it “just crackers and juice”, or “cracker worship”.
You think because we don’t have apostolic succession, that we lack the real presence, and that’s fine. Believe what your church tells you. But you know I believe it is the real presence, and your pope, when he was a Cardinal, stated that there is a salvation granting presence of Christ in a Lutheran Eucharist, Atleast show me the respect Cardinal Ratzinger does, and the respect I show you.
Jon
EDIT: Here is Cardinal Ratzinger’s quote
B
Bill_Pick
Guest
John, I have only been to a Batist Church and a ND church and it was just crakers and grape Juice,sorry but that is all I seen, Crakers and grape juice, And I called it like it was,do you have crakers and grape juice at you church,
Bill, my friend in Christ,
Did they say it is just crackers and juice, or did they treat it with reverence as a memorial of the Last Supper? I suspect it was the latter.
As for Lutherans, we have bread and wine, which become the true and substantial body and blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Jon
B
Bill_Pick
Guest
Well JohnNC to answer your question I<D say no i saw no reverence people talking to one another ,laughing ==I did not see any thing that look like a memorial to me,I,m sorry maybe it was just me…I do not remember any one not talking
R
rr1213
Guest
Interesting. Could you please provide a cite to Cardinal Ratzinger’s quote? I’d like to read further.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Denominationalism in and of itself is division. As long as we have denominations, we do not have unity, and as long as we do not have unity, we can’t share the Eucharist together, because sharing the Eucharist together would be to signify a unity that does not actually exist between us.
We don’t have unity under Christ. We are divided into our various denominations.
That respect is what will ultimately lead to the unity that we are all seeking.
Indeed. Well, if that was the case, shame on them. People I know who hold a symbolic or spiritual presence view are usually quite reverent. I’m sorry some group gave you such a false impression. Of course, now you know how strongly many of us feel about His presence in the Eucharist - as strongly as you do. May we all be blessed by it.
Jon
J
jargon631
Guest
well…i dont know what the church law is on that, but i would think that since the act/meaning of communion is pretty universal, it wouldnt really matter…fd
J
jmcrae
Guest
If you’re not Catholic, and you don’t know the answer, you should probably not be answering questions on the Catholic Answers Forum that pertain to what the Catholic Church actually believes and teaches.
As it turns out, according to Church law, it is forbidden for Catholics to receive Holy Communion in any church other than the Catholic Church - and it also turns out that the reason is that each different denomination has its own understanding of the meaning of Holy Communion (hence the term, “denomination”).
A
allhers
Guest
Well you’d be wrong, it does matter as has been pointed out by many on here already, perhaps you missed this. We Catholics may not receive at their services and they ought not to receive at our Masses.:
In keeping with the sacramental meaning of the Eucharist this canon reserves the sacraments to Catholics, that is, those who are in communion with the Church. It then addresses the question of Catholics receiving the sacraments from non-Catholics. It sets the following strict conditions:
a. necessity or genuine spiritual advantage
b. when the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided
c. it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister
d. a church which has valid sacraments
This last condition is the key one, since it eliminates ALL the Reformation churches (Anglican, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist etc.), none of whom have valid sacred orders, and therefore, a valid Eucharist. The possibility of a Catholic receiving from the minister of another church, when the first three conditions are fulfilled, is limited to the Orthodox Churches, other Oriental Churches, Old Catholics, Polish National and others whose sacraments are recognized by the Holy See. As paragraph 3 notes, the members of those churches may likewise receive from a Catholic minister, when they ask and are disposed.
Under what conditions, therefore, may non-Catholics from the Reformation churches receive? Paragraph 4 addresses this matter and sets stricter conditions than for non-Catholics who belong to Churches which have a valid Eucharist, true Eucharistic faith and valid Penance. These conditions are:
(read the rest here)
ewtn.com/expert/answers/intercommunion.htm
G
Greg27
Guest
This is forbidden by canon law, because the Protestant churches are separated from Rome and thus their orders are irregular (and ergo, so are their sacraments). I think Catholics can receive the sacraments only from Eastern Orthodox churches, and under certain strict conditions. Basically I don’t see why this would be an option since in any country where there are Catholic Churches the churches and ministers can be found readily enough.
P
pismopal
Guest
My departure from the protestant gatherings of believers was precisely because they don’t have a Holy Communion, in the real sense that Catholics have. Those who put so much emphasis on the words of the Bible…somehow de-emphasize John 6 and come up with something else that they call communion. Why not? They are outside the True Church and can’t have Holy Communion so the meanings must change…sorry…there it is:shrug:
M
mathematician
Guest
From an Anglican point of view yes. From a Catholic point of view, no.
P
Paul3144
Guest
I’ll respond some more later, but I’ve got to go to church to receive Communion. 
J
jmcrae
Guest
You can tell what the community’s belief is about the Real Presence, by what happens to the left-over elements after the service is over. I am not aware of any Southern Baptist communities reserving it in a Tabernacle to worship it as God, but I am certainly willing to be corrected.
The Reformed position is that Jesus is spiritually present with the elements, but the elements don’t actually become Him - they see themselves as consuming bread and wine in Christ’s presence; but not actually entering into physical union Christ Himself, as Catholics do.
The majority of Baptists don’t even believe that Christ is spiritually present, other than how He is normally present in their hearts anyway - they typically see it as simply a reminder that Jesus ate the Last Supper with the disciples and then died on the Cross.
P
pismopal
Guest
Enjoy the crackers and grape juice:shrug:I’ll respond some more later, but I’ve got to go to church to receive Communion.
P
Paul3144
Guest
Do you not get how bigoted and offensive this is? If I told you to enjoy the crackers and wine at your Church, you would be offended, and rightly so. I don’t do that because Christ is spiritually present is both of our Communions, and because it would be rude.
- Status