Communion at Protestant churches

  • Thread starter Thread starter Greg_Dent
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PatienceAndLove said:
I have a question-
While DH and I were engaged, I attended service with him, before we attended Mass. When I realized it was “Communion” Sunday, I went and hid in the restroom. When I came back, DH had saved the cracker for me (I got back just in time for them to hand out the juice).
I “took” “communion”, but I never felt right about it. When he and I discussed it on our way to Mass, he told me that him saving “communion” for me was a political statement about his feelings regarding my stance as a Christian. Apparently, only those who have received Jesus and their personal Lord and Savior were to receive. And he and MIL had been going round and round as to the stance of Catholics as Christians. I told him “Thanks, but next time (if there is a next time)… NO.”
This was a few months back, but I am feeling like, perhaps I need to confess this? Thoughts?
Click to expand...
I rather happen to hold a view that we confess to God alone unless we have wronged another. In that case, we confess to the one we wronged. If you feel you must confess something, that is a matter for your own conscience. I’m wondering, however, whether there is a fundamental difference between your views and those of your fiancé. I would consider whether this might cause a problem at a later date.
 
John_Calvin said:
I rather happen to hold a view that we confess to God alone unless we have wronged another. In that case, we confess to the one we wronged. If you feel you must confess something, that is a matter for your own conscience. I’m wondering, however, whether there is a fundamental difference between your views and those of your fiancé. I would consider whether this might cause a problem at a later date.
Click to expand...
See above.
And he was “taking” “communion” as a political statement rather than a spiritual fulfillment.
 
John_Calvin said:
I rather happen to hold a view that we confess to God alone unless we have wronged another. In that case, we confess to the one we wronged. If you feel you must confess something, that is a matter for your own conscience. I’m wondering, however, whether there is a fundamental difference between your views and those of your fiancé. I would consider whether this might cause a problem at a later date.
Click to expand...
How does one who holds your view of self confession ever know if his sins are forgiven? Did not Christ impart the order of binding and loosing of sins? And this power to forgive sins didnt stop after the death of the Apostles but has been passed down by the Apostles through the succession of bishops down to priests unto this very day. Confession to a priest is the only way one can know whether or not his or her sins are truly forgiven.
 
StMarkEofE said:
How does one who holds your view of self confession ever know if his sins are forgiven? Did not Christ impart the order of binding and loosing of sins? And this power to forgive sins didnt stop after the death of the Apostles but has been passed down by the Apostles through the succession of bishops down to priests unto this very day. Confession to a priest is the only way one can know whether or not his or her sins are truly forgiven.
Click to expand...
This is based upon the promise contained in the scripture itself

6 If we say that we have fellowship with him while we are walking in darkness, we lie and do not do what is true; 7 but if we walk in the light as he himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. 8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he who is faithful and
just will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.​

The Holy Bible : New Revised Standard Version. 1989 (1 Jn 1:6-9). Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

God’s promise trumps any church ordinance.
 
John_Calvin said:
This is based upon the promise contained in the scripture itself

6 If we say that we have fellowship with him while we are walking in darkness, we lie and do not do what is true; 7 but if we walk in the light as he himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. 8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he who is faithful andjust will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
God’s promise trumps any church ordinance.
Click to expand...
Excellent. Now take the verses you quoted in conjunction with the verses that St Mark refers to–and you have sacramental confession as seen in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

That is God’s promise. 😉
 
Mickey said:
Excellent. Now take the verses you quoted in conjunction with the verses that St Mark refers to–and you have sacramental confession as seen in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

That is God’s promise. 😉
Click to expand...
Is this the passage you reference?

When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” 6 Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, 7 “Why does this fellow speak in this way? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” 8 At once Jesus perceived in his spirit that they were discussing these questions among themselves; and he said to them, “Why do you raise such questions in your hearts? 9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Stand up and take your mat and walk’? 10 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he said to the paralytic— 11 “I say to you, stand up, take your mat and go to your home.” 12 And he stood up, and immediately took the mat and went out before all of them; so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this!”

The Holy Bible : New Revised Standard Version. 1989 (Mk 2:5-12). Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Note that it is Jesus himself who pronounces forgiveness as in 1 Jn cited previously. Also, note that the healing is given as a demonstration that the pronouncement of forgiveness was effective. He states “so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority …” While “Son of Man” may mean simply “man”, I think it is here used in a Messianic sense to refer exclusively to Jesus Christ alone.
 
The Eucharist is the heart of the Church and a sign of the unity the members of the Church share.

I would advise a confessing Roman Catholic to receive the Eucharist only from an ordained Priest conducting a valid Mass. As someone mentioned earlier, to stray from that practice could be devastating to ones spiritual life. Make a steady habit of making confession and then joyfully receive the unlimited forgiveness offered through the Bread and Wine - The Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I personally, based on what was just said, would not receive communion at a R.C Mass or any other service than an Orthodox Lutheran Mass.
 
Correct me if I’m wrong; If a Catholic receive communion from a non-Catholic service, it would be Idolatry, as we believe the Host is the Body & Blood of Christ. If we were to take Communion in this context, but missing the true presence, we are idolizing bread & grape juice.
 
Idahown said:
Correct me if I’m wrong; If a Catholic receive communion from a non-Catholic service, it would be Idolatry, as we believe the Host is the Body & Blood of Christ. If we were to take Communion in this context, but missing the true presence, we are idolizing bread & grape juice.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily, and also most likely not. 🙂 Just scanning this thread you can see that those who have done this do so with full realization that in a non-Catholic (or Orthodox) communion the Body and Blood of Christ are not sacramentally present and that they aren’t in any way worshipping the bread and the grape juice they receive. They indicate that they accepted this communion more out of a desire not to offend or to show some sort of unity with their fellow Christians whose service they were attending than as a statement of belief in what was presented as communion.
 
FCEGM said:
Not necessarily, and also most likely not. 🙂 Just scanning this thread you can see that those who have done this do so with full realization that in a non-Catholic (or Orthodox) communion the Body and Blood of Christ are not sacramentally present and that they aren’t in any way worshipping the bread and the grape juice they receive. They indicate that they accepted this communion more out of a desire not to offend or to show some sort of unity with their fellow Christians whose service they were attending than as a statement of belief in what was presented as communion.
Click to expand...
So it would depend on a persons understanding of the huge difference between Catholics communion being the real body and blood of Christ, and a simple representation of bread and grape juice.
 
Idahown said:
So it would depend on a persons understanding of the huge difference between Catholics communion being the real body and blood of Christ, and a simple representation of bread and grape juice.
Click to expand...
Right; most Catholics - let us pray! - would know the difference. So if they know the difference but still err in partaking of communion in a non-Catholic service, they would not be committing idolatry.
 
mtr01 said:
“Canon law” is a reference to the Code of Canon Law, which is the Catholic Church’s set of guidelines (to put it simply). It is not part of the Bible (and I don’t think you could buy a copy at a bookstore). However, it is available online - just google “code of canon law”.

And yes, Catholics do have a different canon of Scripture than Protestants. The Catholic Bible has 73 books (as determined in the 4th century). During the “reformation” Martin Luther dropped 7 books from the Bible, and all Protestant denominations afterward followed his example, which is why Protestant bibles only have 66 books. Most bookstores will carry Catholic Bibles (e.g., The New American Bible, The (New) Jerusalem Bible, Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition, Douay-Rheims).
Click to expand...
I know Martin Luther disagreed with the Catholic Priests…way back when and that is how the Lutheran Denomination came to be. I didn’t remember that there were “orginally” 73 books in the Bible…But was King Henry part of the Catholic Church? If so, then why would he not have all 73 books in the Bible? The King Henry Edition of present has the 66 books in the Bible? Which ones are missing? …I think I’m going into a whole new topic in questioning the Catholic Church, what they felt was to be allowed in the Bible and what they felt was to be left out. I will do my research in looking into the Canon.:confused:
 
dthurmond said:
I know Martin Luther disagreed with the Catholic Priests…way back when and that is how the Lutheran Denomination came to be. I didn’t remember that there were “orginally” 73 books in the Bible…But was King Henry part of the Catholic Church? If so, then why would he not have all 73 books in the Bible? The King Henry Edition of present has the 66 books in the Bible? Which ones are missing? …I think I’m going into a whole new topic in questioning the Catholic Church, what they felt was to be allowed in the Bible and what they felt was to be left out. I will do my research in looking into the Canon.:confused:
Click to expand...
Martin Luther proposed to adopt the canon used by rabbinic Judaism. Martin Luther subtracted seven books to better promote his own opinions. He used the Old Testament used by the Jews who rejected Christ, to “Septuagint” the translations the apostles and other New Testament writers of the early Church did.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top