Communion question

  • Thread starter Thread starter Paul_theApostle
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Paul_theApostle

Guest
Do eastern Catholics at times attend Roman/latin church Masses and take communion there?

Or perhaps if they attend a wedding or funeral ,do they take the communion?

Also I know Latin Catholics can attend an Eastern liturgy for a once off and take communion,seeing that the Easterns use leavened bread and the latins unleavened,is it okay for the latin to mix this different type of Communion?

does the bread being leavened or unleavened make any difference to our spirituality?
 
Catholics can receive Communion in any rite any number of times, it needn’t be simply a “once off” kind of thing. Attending Mass/Divine Liturgy in any Catholic rite fully satisfies the Sunday obligation, as well.

Latins use unleavened bread because it is most likely the type Jesus used at the Last Supper. Byzantines use leavened (risen bread), because it represents the risen Christ.

I’m Latin, and don’t know enough Easterns to answer your first question, but I would imagine the answer is “yes”, especially when they don’t live near a parish of their own, and only Latin parishes are nearby.
 
I’m Ruthenian Catholic and my wife, our son, and I attend Mass about once every month or son, and I do receive communion on those occasions.
 
Just a minor thing about the form of bread used in the Communion.

My Eastern Orthodox friend, who is a priest, explained that the Greek word in Gospels that was used in the context of Lord’s Supper was “artos”, specifically meaning leavened or raised bread, while the word for unleavened bread is always “azymos”.

And therefore he (half-jokingly) considered the Roman Catholics as heretics and (in all earnestness) us Lutherans (we use the unleavened oblates) as very little better than pagans.

Well, we are good friends, still.
 
Attejohannes said:
Just a minor thing about the form of bread used in the Communion.

My Eastern Orthodox friend, who is a priest, explained that the Greek word in Gospels that was used in the context of Lord’s Supper was “artos”, specifically meaning leavened or raised bread, while the word for unleavened bread is always “azymos”.

And therefore he (half-jokingly) considered the Roman Catholics as heretics and (in all earnestness) us Lutherans (we use the unleavened oblates) as very little better than pagans.

Well, we are good friends, still.
Click to expand...
There people among the EO that believe unleavened bread to be heresy. Some say that it is soulless because it didn’t rise and therefore accuse us of the Apollonarian heresy.
 
The nature of the Communion is probably one of the most fundamentally debated matter between different Churches and Denominations, although all at the end confess that it remains a mystery.

Someone summarised the main different views this way:
Roman Catholics receive the flesh and blood of Christ in bread and wine
Calvinists receive bread and wine
Lutherans receive the flesh and blood of Christ with bread and wine.

Of course, soon a theologically educated Catholic remarks to me that actually also Lutherans receive only bread and wine, because our Communion is just an imitation of the Real Thing and is not a valid Sacrament. Now when I have said it, there is no need for anyone to say it again. Thank you.
 
Regarding Calvinisits, you are absolutely right. Of course they regard the Communion as a profound spiritual experience and not just eating a piece of bread and sipping some wine.

For me the difficult theological point as a Lutheran is to understand the difference between our understanding of the Communion and the Catholic standpoint. We believe that Christ is really and concretely present in consecrated bread and wine, although the substance of the bread and wine does not change. The Catholics (and Orthodox as I understand) believe in the actual change of the elements of the Sacrament although their appearance remain unchanged. Is this correct?

Must be difficult to explain these subtlities to, let us say a muslim, who would like to be instructed in Christianity
 
Attejohannes said:
Regarding Calvinisits, you are absolutely right. Of course they regard the Communion as a profound spiritual experience and not just eating a piece of bread and sipping some wine.

For me the difficult theological point as a Lutheran is to understand the difference between our understanding of the Communion and the Catholic standpoint. We believe that Christ is really and concretely present in consecrated bread and wine, although the substance of the bread and wine does not change. The Catholics (and Orthodox as I understand) believe in the actual change of the elements of the Sacrament although their appearance remain unchanged. Is this correct?

Must be difficult to explain these subtlities to, let us say a muslim, who would like to be instructed in Christianity
Click to expand...
Lutherans (traditionally) teach that Christ is in, under, and with the bread. That is, Christ co-exists with the bread.
Catholics teach that the bread is no longer there (except in appearance) and it is only Christ that is present.
 
Zekariya said:
Lutherans (traditionally) teach that Christ is in, under, and with the bread. That is, Christ co-exists with the bread.
Catholics teach that the bread is no longer there (except in appearance) and it is only Christ that is present.
Click to expand...
The traditional Lutheran view compares the presence of Christ in the bread (and wine) with the Incarnation. Christ became truly Man and remained truly God, not that His human form became something that was human only in appearance. Likewise the consecrated bread and wine are simultaneously bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ.
 
Attejohannes said:
The traditional Lutheran view compares the presence of Christ in the bread (and wine) with the Incarnation. Christ became truly Man and remained truly God, not that His human form became something that was human only in appearance. Likewise the consecrated bread and wine are simultaneously bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ.
Click to expand...
That is considered heretical by the Catholic Church. We believe that the Eucharist is Christ. It looks like bread, however, It is no longer bread except in It’s appearance. After the consecration, there is no bread and wine except in It’s appearance.
 
Zekariya said:
Lutherans (traditionally) teach that Christ is in, under, and with the bread. That is, Christ co-exists with the bread.
Catholics teach that the bread is no longer there (except in appearance) and it is only Christ that is present.
Click to expand...
Dear Zekariya

It has been a pleasure to communicate with you, but maybe we are drifting (my fault) out of the actual topic of this thread…

P.S. You are a namesake of my second son
 
Zekariya said:
That is considered heretical by the Catholic Church. We believe that the Eucharist is Christ. It looks like bread, however, It is no longer bread except in It’s appearance. After the consecration, there is no bread and wine except in It’s appearance.
Click to expand...
Well, of course this is not the only point of doctrin, regarding which I am heretical from the Catholic point of view. And I like it immensely, when someone like you has the guts to say it directly, but without offence intended.

We see so much false ecumenism these days.
 
Attejohannes said:
Well, of course this is not the only point of doctrin, regarding which I am heretical from the Catholic point of view. And I like it immensely, when someone like you has the guts to say it directly, but without offence intended.

We see so much false ecumenism these days.
Click to expand...
Indeed! Indeed! 🙂
 
Paul_theApostle said:
Do all Eastern Catholic churches use leavened bread?
Click to expand...
No. The Maronites, Armenians, and, I believe, the Chaldeans and Syro-Malabars, use unleavened bread.

Whether the use of unleavened bread by the Armenians and Maronites is a truly a latinization is debatable.
 
malphono said:
No. The Maronites, Armenians, and, I believe, the Chaldeans and Syro-Malabars, use unleavened bread.

Whether the use of unleavened bread by the Armenians and Maronites is a truly a latinization is debatable.
Click to expand...
It’s interesting, on that matter, I recently read a piece where the author postulated that Maronites historically used unleavened and leavened bread interchangeably because it was a kind of “whatever was available at the time” kind of notion until the 17th century (I think it was).
 
MorEphrem said:
It’s interesting, on that matter, I recently read a piece where the author postulated that Maronites historically used unleavened and leavened bread interchangeably because it was a kind of “whatever was available at the time” kind of notion until the 17th century (I think it was).
Click to expand...
Yes, that exactly what I meant. 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top