Communion at Protestant churches

[jmcrae]

The issue is Catholics receive the REAL Body and Blood of Christ at the Epiclesis and Transubstantiation.

Yes.

They also participate in the symbolic Protestant Communion fellowship.

No. We are not allowed to participate in Protestant holy communion, because it sends a false signal that Catholics and Protestants are in some way equal.

This is in keeping with Jesus’ message in John 17.20?

No. They separated from us. It is up to them to return to the Church. We are not beholden to participate in false worship, just to make them feel included.

 

[BrewMax]

Yes.

No. We are not allowed to participate in Protestant holy communion, because it sends a false signal that Catholics and Protestants are in some way equal.

No. They separated from us. It is up to them to return to the Church. We are not beholden to participate in false worship, just to make them feel included.

This is in no way charitable nor respectable. We obviously do not agree but there is no need to weild assertions of false religion and false teaching around like this is the 11th century.

 

[jmcrae]

This is in no way charitable nor respectable. We obviously do not agree but there is no need to weild assertions of false religion and false teaching around like this is the 11th century.

If they were not promulgating false teaching, they would be Catholic - the schism would be over.

What has the century got to do with it? Sin is sin, regardless of the date on the calendar.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

If they were not promulgating false teaching, they would be Catholic - the schism would be over.

What has the century got to do with it? Sin is sin, regardless of the date on the calendar.

Are you saying that us protestants are sinning just by virtue of not being Catholic?

 

[jmcrae]

Are you saying that us protestants are sinning just by virtue of not being Catholic?

No, I am saying that Catholics sin when they participate in non-Catholic worship (like receiving Protestant holy communion, etc.)

Protestants of modern times cannot sin, because they do not have the necessary knowledge or intent - they are doing the best they can with what they have. (Would that we Catholics would work even half as hard with the many gifts that we are given - the world would be a much better place, I think.)

 

[BrewMax]

If they were not promulgating false teaching, they would be Catholic - the schism would be over.

What has the century got to do with it? Sin is sin, regardless of the date on the calendar.

You very much resemble a Nazi. You have a hatred for anyone who doesn’t share your same obsession to the point of fear. This is a sickness, not a blessing. Always remember, God is above all else, love.

 

[LilyM]

You very much resemble a Nazi. You have a hatred for anyone who doesn’t share your same obsession to the point of fear. This is a sickness, not a blessing. Always remember, God is above all else, love.

Love such as God embodies is the opposite of condoning sin and error. Which is permissiveness and licence, not love.

Jesus loved all perfectly - even the scribes and Pharisees and moneychangers in the Temple. He still didn’t hesitate to call their sin sin and their error error, to call them vipers, whited sepulchres and worse, and to drive them out of the Temple.

Paul also had no problems roundly condemning sin and error when he saw it.

What jmcrae has said is more than mild in comparison!

 

[jmcrae]

You very much resemble a Nazi. You have a hatred for anyone who doesn’t share your same obsession to the point of fear. This is a sickness, not a blessing. Always remember, God is above all else, love.

Yes, God is love.

To be in the Catholic Church is to be with God. To be outside of the Church is to be away from God. The further away they get from the Church, the further away they get from Love. This is not good.

We know all this, because we know from reading history and the Bible that Christ did not found any church except for the Catholic Church (see Matthew 16:18-19 and John 21:15-19), which He called His body (see I Corinthians 12), and Christ is God (see John 1); therefore, the Catholic Church is Christ’s body. Is Christ off somewhere, away from His body? (see Matthew 28:20b)

No?

Well then, to be with Christ, we have to be in His body, which is the Catholic Church.

So, why shouldn’t I think it’s important for people to be in the Church?

 

[Mannyfit75]

You very much resemble a Nazi. You have a hatred for anyone who doesn’t share your same obsession to the point of fear. This is a sickness, not a blessing. Always remember, God is above all else, love.

I don’t see him preached hate. He is merely saying that Catholics cannot received communion in Protestant Communion service. The belief system is completely different. Most mainstream Protestant believe in the Symbolic meaning while Catholics believe in the Real Presence of the Holy Eucharist.

The Protestants lack valid Holy Orders to consecrate the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of the Lord.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

You very much resemble a Nazi. You have a hatred for anyone who doesn’t share your same obsession to the point of fear. This is a sickness, not a blessing. Always remember, God is above all else, love.

I think the comparison with Nazism and declaration of having hatred for others persons are not just hyperbole, but entirely misplaced. jmcrae and I have disagreed numerous times and she always presents herself strongly, but I’ve never experienced the sense that there was any animosity behind those views. Actually, just the opposite. I sense a great deal of passiion (not uncommon for one who has “converted”) and a willingness to put herself out there for what she believes. But this is important to understand why I think your statements are inappropriate when it comes to describing jmcrae. She isn’t just passionate about her own beliefs, she is also passionate about reaching people with them because she wants the very best for them that she can share with them, and her (now) Catholic faith is indeed that which is the very best in her life. So, her passion, which admittedly comes on like gangbusters at times, is movtivated not by hate but by love.

jmcrae, I’m still going to disagree with many of your positions, but never let anyone fault you for what motivates you.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

sorry, double posted

 

[BrewMax]

Yes, God is love.

To be in the Catholic Church is to be with God. To be outside of the Church is to be away from God. The further away they get from the Church, the further away they get from Love. This is not good.

We know all this, because we know from reading history and the Bible that Christ did not found any church except for the Catholic Church (see Matthew 16:18-19 and John 21:15-19), which He called His body (see I Corinthians 12), and Christ is God (see John 1); therefore, the Catholic Church is Christ’s body. Is Christ off somewhere, away from His body? (see Matthew 28:20b)

No?

Well then, to be with Christ, we have to be in His body, which is the Catholic Church.

So, why shouldn’t I think it’s important for people to be in the Church?

you don’t seem Christianlike at all, you just seem very obesessed with Cathoicism.

 

[Mannyfit75]

you don’t seem Christianlike at all, you just seem very obesessed with Cathoicism.

You need to practice what you preach as well.

 

[jmcrae]

you don’t seem Christianlike at all, you just seem very obesessed with Cathoicism.

So, if I weren’t “obsessed” with Catholicism (like, trying to learn the truth about Jesus) then I’d be a “better” Christian?

Maybe I should join a cult or something where they worship their cars, but it’s okay because the cars are all named “Jesus.” Because it doesn’t matter what you worship as long as you name it “Jesus,” right?

 

[Grace_Seeker]

So, if I weren’t “obsessed” with Catholicism (like, trying to learn the truth about Jesus) then I’d be a “better” Christian?

Maybe I should join a cult or something where they worship their cars, but it’s okay because the cars are all named “Jesus.” Because it doesn’t matter what you worship as long as you name it “Jesus,” right?

Hold on. Some has to be the first to be gracious in this discussion. You know full well that there is a big difference between knowing “about” Jesus and actually “knowing” Jesus.
From what you’ve written elsewhere, as important as knowing about Jesus is to you, I would still think you fall into ultimately being more interested in the second category. You don’t have to take BewMax’s bait just because it is offered.

 

[jmcrae]

Hold on. Some has to be the first to be gracious in this discussion.

You are right. Thank you.

 

[goodcatholicman]

The position has been well stated here. And, as a protestant pastor, I want to say that though I may disagree with your conclusions, I can actually respect it and do not wish to argue against it. (At least not at this time. ) Yet I do remain curious about a few events in my person life with respect to communion in the Catholic church.

Given the teachings of the Catholic church, why would it be that on more than one occassion I have been invited to participate in the sharing of communion with Catholic priests? Why, when I was not even yet ordained, but merely a college student, did the bishop of the diocese actually issue a letter to the catholic student body at our university saying that it was permissible for them to participate in our campus-wide Christmas communion service, with the only caveat that we offer the elements in the name of the Holy Trinity, “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost”? Why, at my first church, was I approached by the local Catholic congregation to see if I was willing to continue the tradition of a joint Christmas Even communion service between the two congregations? (Which, btw, we did.)

HMMMMM, smells like an Episcopalian minister talking here…Catholics can be just as easily confused as everyone else. Just because the Bishop said it doesn’t mean it is not in error. JPII was pretty clear on the topic.

 

[LilyM]

HMMMMM, smells like an Episcopalian minister talking here…Catholics can be just as easily confused as everyone else. Just because the Bishop said it doesn’t mean it is not in error. JPII was pretty clear on the topic.

Interesting - I suppose our non-Catholic friend here thinks that no Bishops of any other denomination can ever possibly be in error, and that they can never go against the express teachings of their particular denomination?? In fact the opposite is the case, the more detailed and explicit the teaching the EASIER it is, either through ignorance or wilfully, to go against it.

Does he think that he as a pastor can never possibly do or say something that goes against the teachings of HIS denomination, whether intentionally because he disagrees with it or unwittingly because he misunderstands it?

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Interesting - I suppose our non-Catholic friend here thinks that no Bishops of any other denomination can ever possibly be in error, and that they can never go against the express teachings of their particular denomination?? In fact the opposite is the case, the more detailed and explicit the teaching the EASIER it is, either through ignorance or wilfully, to go against it.

Does he think that he as a pastor can never possibly do or say something that goes against the teachings of HIS denomination, whether intentionally because he disagrees with it or unwittingly because he misunderstands it?

Well, I happen to be the very person that goodcatholicman quoted, so I can actually answer your questions rather than leaving them as rhetorical statements.

First, for goodcatholicman’s benefit, I am a United Methodist pastor, not Episcopalian.

Second, most certainly I understand that bishops of all background can and do make mistakes, even the Pope. I am not always sure that Catholics are willing to recognize this. However, I am glad to see that perhaps I myself am mistaken about that unwillingness.

Third, and most importantly, I would think that if this is one of the essential teachings the Catholic church that it would not be a point on which a Bishop would be unaware, indoubt, or unwilling to practice. Therefore, I can conclude one of only two things:
(1) It is not actually an essential teaching of the Catholic church,
(2) There is some other reason unbeknownst to me at the time (not yet myself educated in these matters if referring to the incident in college) that allowed for the unique experience, such as (I now suspect and reported in later posts), that this event was understood by the bishop not as a eucharistic service but as a simple love feast which can be ecumenical.

Your other questions are enough of a rhetorical nature that they need no response of any kind.

 

[LilyM]

Well, I happen to be the very person that goodcatholicman quoted, so I can actually answer your questions rather than leaving them as rhetorical statements.

First, for goodcatholicman’s benefit, I am a United Methodist pastor, not Episcopalian.

Second, most certainly I understand that bishops of all background can and do make mistakes, even the Pope. I am not always sure that Catholics are willing to recognize this. However, I am glad to see that perhaps I myself am mistaken about that unwillingness.

Third, and most importantly, I would think that if this is one of the essential teachings the Catholic church that it would not be a point on which a Bishop would be unaware, indoubt, or unwilling to practice. Therefore, I can conclude one of only two things:
(1) It is not actually an essential teaching of the Catholic church,
(2) There is some other reason unbeknownst to me at the time (not yet myself educated in these matters if referring to the incident in college) that allowed for the unique experience, such as (I now suspect and reported in later posts), that this event was understood by the bishop not as a eucharistic service but as a simple love feast which can be ecumenical.

Your other questions are enough of a rhetorical nature that they need no response of any kind.

The answer is definitely number 2. Absolutely it is an essential teaching of the Church both that non-Catholics cannot recieve our Communion and that we cannot receive Communion in a non-Catholic church.

I can’t answer for why your Catholic bishop allowed what he did, not knowing the circumstances. It’s entirely possible that he thought the service WAS ecumenical and not a formal communion service of any kind or any denomination. That’s erring in ignorance, not wilfulness.

Otherwise - Bishops are answerable only to (possibly) the Catholic Bishop’s Conference of their particular country and then to Rome itself. Neither of these being omniscient or omnipresent. So for such an event as a one-time distribution of communion to non-Catholics it normally requires a complaint to one or both of these authorities to bring the matter to light. If those who ARE aware don’t complain and those who wouldn’t approve aren’t made aware …

Having said that, of course there are many occasions when Bishops DO wilfully step outside the Church’s teachings (and they often have - such as the clergy of England pretty much en masse during Henry VIII’s break from the Church). Doesn’t always result in wholesale defection, schism, heresy or what have you, if the Bishops concerned stay sufficiently under the radar.

And remember that there are over a billion Catholics (with corresponding millions of clergy and probably tens of thousands of bishops). They would be lucky if the Pope had time to spend five minutes every couple of years on each of 'em on an individual basis. Not exactly conducive to indepth instruction as to what they’re supposed to be doing!

So overall it’s not exactly terribly difficult to stay under the radar if one desires to do so.