Does anyone have bad stories from their Protestant days?

[SpiritMeadow]

Thanks for supplying the link. Did anyone do research to figure out if the info is legit.

If it is, then everyone who isn’t Catholic will just have to sit politely as they would in any other religion’s ceremony. It’s not your religion anyway, so what do you care?

I think it’s horrible that someone wouldn’t attend a family member’s or friend’s wedding because they can’t handle being a different denomination.

It’s unthinkable that someone wouldn’t go to their funeral Mass. That is really cruel. I wouldn’t count that person a friend, and I would consider any family member who did that a creep of the first order. I’m really shocked that someone would do this. What kind of person???

Your position is commendable! There are many here who had said that they will not attend weddings and christenings and such in non-Roman Catholic churches. Your a breath of fresh air indeed!

 

[O.S.Luke]

Reread what I said Kalt: No, our belief on the Real Presence it does not agree with Catholicism. Nor does Orthodoxy’s agree with Catholicism. I never claimed otherwise.

I give up. You’re assigning me things I didn’t say nor feel. Enough.

O+

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I think you are all forgetting about the Sacrament of Confession here…. And when we should not take Communion. And why we would do more harm to our non-Catholic Christian brothers and sisters if we allowed them to partake….I would much rather have you mad at us/me then placing your soul in peril.

We have the sacrament of confession as well. While I appreciate your parental concern, I think that we each should worry more about our own souls than stepping in for God. God will determine who has been faithful and who has not, and certainly doesn’t need our silly opinions about harm to the soul by receiving Eucharist if not properly ready in the eyes of some human.

 

[kalt]

You’re a bit over the top. I spent about 15 min. here yesterday…hardly all afternoon posting. I suspect I posted about 4 things all told. As regards this topic, how would you lke it if someone started a thread entitled, “tell us your bad stories from the RCC?” You’d be upset, and hurt, and would have every right to be so.

Actually, I would post to that topic. There’s nothing wrong with talking about bad experiences with the CC.

I don’t agree that I have no right to receive communion anywhere my friend. I don’t accept your Church’s position that it is God’s table is reserved for a select few. I accept that RC’s would not agree and that it was probably not right to do so. I’ve never actually been faced with the situation, so what I would do is conjecture.

That you would think that you would “probably” do what you know is wrong is strange. You think about what you would do, think about it beforehand, and conclude that you would probably choose to do wrong. ???

I simply indicated that I would be less likely to go to communion where it was known that I was not Catholic so as to not embarrass those people I was there with. It has nothing to do with being a rebel.

You seem determined to be angry. I have no clue why. I bear you no ill will.

I’m not angry at all. It’s the non-Catholic Christians here who seem to be very upset about having to follow the rules in a Catholic Church that **all **Catholics have to follow. That’s strange, imo. Why would you think that you don’t have to follow the rules of the house you’re in, agree with them or not? Especially when it’s not your religion? And you conjecture about what you would do, and you think that you would '“probaby” break the rules.

 

[kalt]

We have the sacrament of confession as well. While I appreciate your parental concern, I think that we each should worry more about our own souls than stepping in for God. God will determine who has been faithful and who has not, and certainly doesn’t need our silly opinions about harm to the soul by receiving Eucharist if not properly ready in the eyes of some human.

Do you confess your sins in sacramental Confession to a validly ordained priest?

You suggest that because you do something similar, you should be able to recieve Communion in the Catholic Church.

If you don’t believe in what the CC believes about the Eucharist (all that we believe about it) why do you care if you can’t recieve. You don’t beleive anyway!

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I remember attending a Lutheran service with my then boyfriend. I was a cradle Catholic but poorly catechized (as are most 30 somethings today). The service was very similar to a Catholic liturgy (they even kneeled and some used the sign of the cross) and when it came time to go forward to receive communion I hesitated. I remember very well my first Holy Communion, the time spent learning about the Eucharist and practicing going forward to receive, our first Confession prior to the big day, my beautiful white dress my grandmother made and my veil, the excitement and pagentry of the day. I had no idea what the Lutherans went through to receive communion, if there was special instruction, what they believed. Out of respect for their church, I did not receive. This was before I had any idea what the Catholic teaching was on reception of communion in other faith communities. My boyfriend was, amazingly, offended that I didn’t receive. He couldn’t understand why a Christian wouldn’t want to participate. We didn’t last too long.

Could not one just have respect for the beliefs of the Catholic Church and it’s members, and the process we go through to receive the Eucharist versus just walking in off the street (or being invited, or there for a wedding or funeral) and participating?

As you said, you never bothered to find out what Lutherans go through to ready themselves to receive first communion. Nor any other faith it appears. We do not just “walk in off the streets”. The process is (Shockingly) very similar to what you go through. I don’t mind your following your church teaching, but really, it behooves you to have a modicum of knowledge before you relegate everyone else to such a casual understanding of faith.

 

[tomarin]

how would you lke it if someone started a thread entitled, “tell us your bad stories from the RCC?” You’d be upset, and hurt, and would have every right to be so.

The title of this thread irks me too.

 

[kalt]

Reread what I said Kalt: No, our belief on the Real Presence it does not agree with Catholicism. Nor does Orthodoxy’s agree with Catholicism. I never claimed otherwise.

I give up. You’re assigning me things I didn’t say nor feel. Enough.

O+

You want to distance yourself from it now that you’ve been shown that the beliefs are not the same, but when you were talking about it in earlier posts, you implied that because you also believe in the “real presence”, you should be able to recieve.

I’ve put no words in your mouth. I believe that Post #50 is yours. Correct me if I’m wrong.

If you don’t feel bad about not being in communion with the Catholic Church, then don’t feel bad about not recieving at Mass. It’s really that simple.

Believe what you believe and be strong in your convictions. If you were, you wouldn’t care a fig about not recieving at a Mass. You don’t beleive in the Mass, so you have no reason to be upset about not participating. Unless you really do care about not being in full communion.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Hi SpiritMeadow. I don’t really want to get into an argument about whether you “put words in my mouth” or not, so I’ll stick to facts we can agree upon.

You said:

I took offense at this because I did not “excuse poor behavior”. Have you an apology to offer?

As a matter of fact (sorry in advance for getting off topic), one of my pet peeves (if it’s possible to have more than one pet peeve) is Catholic posters who can’t or won’t see that CAF has the same kinds of problems (in reverse, of course) that the typical Protestant forum does.

(To be fair, though, I would imagine that on any given Protestant forum there are lots of Protestants who can’t see that that forum has the same kinds of problems that CAF has. )

I’m sorry you took offense. As I said last post, the words “poor behavior” are my conclusion. I did not attach them to you. If you believe the behavior is not poor then you will have to explain. If you agree it is, as I seem to see in the last post, then I wonder what we are discussing.

I have no problem with seeing CAF’s problems with uncharitible posts. And I certainly agree that Protestant forums suffer from the same problem in greater degree I would suggest. In my mind, it excuses neither, period.

 

[SC_Peach]

Just read the first couple of replies and decided to post.

I was terrified by the movies (80’s?)…A Thief in the Night, A Distant Thunder and Mark of the Beast. Horrible nightmares I had for months on end. Nothing young children should have ever been exposed to!! Hundreds of people would come and after it was over, the preacher would give “altar call” and they would stampede to the altar.
When the Left Behind book series came out and subsequently the movie, I stayed far away.

God Bless!
Kathy

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Again, your beliefs and the CC’s teaching don’t match up. The CC teaches that you don’t have the real presence in the Eucharist because you don’t have apostolic succession. Only a validly ordained person can consecrate the host, accordiing to the CC.

If your beleifs and the CC’s were in accord, you would say that your church doesn’t have the real presence in the Eucharist. You would know that you have to recieve that, except for Baptism, you would have to have recieved the sacraments in the CC.

If you don’t believe these things, then you don’t believe what the CC teaches about the Eucharist. And I say that no one should be put out by not being able to particpate in something they don’t even believe in.

you have utterly rewritten the definition of Eucharist in order to try to prevail in this discussion. This has nothing to do with apostolic succession, consecration of the host, or anything of that nature. Of course Episcopalians believe that RC priests can consecrate the host, and we agree they are validly ordained and have apostolic succession. These have nothing to do with Eucharist as being the real presence of Christ.

That fact that you are taught not to find valid any other consecration is beside the point and frankly of no import to me, or many here.

You are trying to now claim that no one can receive the Eucharist in a RCC unless they profess to believe its entire compendium of faith dogmas. While that may be your position, we don’t agree that it has anything to do with the Eucharist.

I also understand you used the term Wucharist as some form of derision. That is sad but apparently to be expected.

In the end, we simply believe that the Lord invites to the table, not a Church, and it has no right morally to deny anyone access. I guess that’s a real good reason to be an Episcopalian.

 

[kalt]

you have utterly rewritten the definition of Eucharist

I’ve done no such thing. And your false accusation only proves that you don’t know what Catholic teaching on the matter really is

in order to try to prevail in this discussion. This has nothing to do with apostolic succession,

I think it does, but if you can find something official by the Catholic Church that proves me wrong, I will concede the point.

consecration of the host, or anything of that nature. Of course Episcopalians believe that RC priests can consecrate the host, and we agree they are validly ordained and have apostolic succession. These have nothing to do with Eucharist as being the real presence of Christ.

That fact that you are taught not to find valid any other consecration

We aren’t taught that. Again, you don’t know Catholic teaching on the Eucharist.

is beside the point and frankly of no import to me, or many here.

You are trying to now claim that no one can receive the Eucharist in a RCC unless they profess to believe its entire compendium of faith dogmas. While that may be your position, we don’t agree that it has anything to do with the Eucharist.

I’ve outlined, very breifly, the rules about receiving communion in that Catholic Church. These rules apply to everyone, Catholic and non-Catholic alike.

You don’t like the rules, so you’re attacking the messenger.

I also understand you used the term Wucharist as some form of derision. That is sad but apparently to be expected.

You are apperenlty a paranoid person. Check my posts. They are full of typos.

Will you please tell me what Wucharist means? As far as I know it’s not a word.

Edited to add -

I did a search for “Wucharist”. Care to guess what came up? “Eucharist” There is no such word as Wucharist.

You’re looking paranoid and a little nutty here. You’re really grasping at straws to discredit the poster.

In the end, we simply believe that the Lord invites to the table, not a Church, and it has no right morally to deny anyone access. I guess that’s a real good reason to be an Episcopalian.

And that’s your non-Catholic POV. So there is no reason to feel upset about not recieving in the CC. You don’t believe in the Mass anyway. Why worry about it.

We aren’t Jewish and can’t participate in some of the things they do. Do we say that the Jews should change their rules to accomodate us, who have come from a Jewish tradition? How silly to suggest that. And yet non-Catholic Christians say that the CC should change its beliefs to accomodate them, who have come from a Catholic tradition.

 

[O.S.Luke]

You want to distance yourself from it now that you’ve been shown that the beliefs are not the same, but when you were talking about it in earlier posts, you implied that because you also believe in the “real presence”, you should be able to recieve.
Post 50 is mine. I read it. I had someone else read it. And yes, you are putting words into my mouth. I’ll let others here correct me if I’m wrong. I’ve known the beliefs of Catholicism and Methodism for 30 years. Wrote my master’s thesis on Transubstantiation, Thomism, and Real Presence vs. Real Absence. I’ve never thought the beliefs were the same. Never said it. You’re grasping at straws, or something.

If you don’t feel bad about not being in communion with the Catholic Church, then don’t feel bad about not recieving at Mass. It’s really that simple.

 

[kalt]

Post 50 is mine. I read it. I had someone else read it. And yes, you are putting words into my mouth. I’ll let others here correct me if I’m wrong. I’ve known the beliefs of Catholicism and Methodism for 30 years. Wrote my master’s thesis on Transubstantiation, Thomism, and Real Presence vs. Real Absence. I’ve never thought the beliefs were the same. Never said it. You’re grasping at straws, or something.

The Eucharist is more than about communion with the Catholic Church. It’s about communion with Christ, communion with the saints, and communion with the present. I don’t know why you wouldn’t get that, at all things, at a funeral. If you can’t understand that, then I pity you. I simply told you why it was painful for me to attend a mass, particularly a requiem mass. No, I don’t believe in transubstantiation. Neither do the Orthodox (although Catholics say their masses are valid. Hmmm…). Neither do the Anglicans. All do believe in the Real Presence. And I am free to commune at the Anglican Church - even though we are not in communion. We commune to receive Jesus Christ, not doctrine.

You’re being argumentative. Enjoy your arguments with yourself. I’m not playing anymore.

Thank you for your pity.

You said what you said, and it was in response to a “real presence” argument, implying that the beliefs are the same. If you didn’t mean to imply that, then you should have reworded it.

Take you bat and ball and go home when the other kids won’t change the rules for you.

Thanks again for the pity.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

And that’s your non-Catholic POV. So there is no reason to feel upset about not recieving in the CC. You don’t believe in the Mass anyway. Why worry about it.

We aren’t Jewish and can’t participate in some of the things they do. Do we say that the Jews should change their rules to accomodate us, who have come from a Jewish tradition? How silly to suggest that. And yet non-Catholic Christians say that the CC should change its beliefs to accomodate them, who have come from a Catholic tradition.

I was Catholic for years, I well know what the Eucharist is. You attach all kinds of new meanings to it as a means of avoiding the issue. I don’t care whether the RCC allows me to receive the Eucharist. I don’t worry about it at all. And you are wrong to think that the RCC finds any other consecration but Orthodox as valid. They really don’t, though I believe they have inched a bit toward to Lutherans.

I could care less whether you change your beliefs to accomodate anyone. I am proud that my faith tradition does not usurp what is Christ’s invitation and select who and who it does not allow. No doubt there are many former Catholics who left for just this reason, being turned away. You would call it their own doing, but we would differ there.

You have been given a chance to explain your use of the word Wucharist. Only now are you claiming it a typo. I’m not paranoid, just used to rude behavior here by a number of people who belittle others who don’t agree with them. Your terms of my being paranoid and nutty are the usual namecalling we have become so accustomed to.

I’d say your the one who came here with an attitude, since the opening salvo to me impugned my integrity in being sorry for your lack of knowledge. It wasn’t lack of knowledge, that is clear, it was the usual put down of other faith traditions. You now usurp the Eucharist and call it the “Catholic” Eucharist. There is but one, and that one was instituted by Jesus Christ.

Obviously we are at cross purposes and there is little left to say.

 

[Tezza]

As you said, you never bothered to find out what Lutherans go through to ready themselves to receive first communion. Nor any other faith it appears. We do not just “walk in off the streets”. The process is (Shockingly) very similar to what you go through. I don’t mind your following your church teaching, but really, it behooves you to have a modicum of knowledge before you relegate everyone else to such a casual understanding of faith.

I’m sorry. I didn’t realize I had said something to cause anyone such irritation. I was merely telling of my experience from years ago before I was well-versed in any faith, including my own. I don’t suppose many would study the liturgical norms and practices of other denominations other than their own unless they were searching or just interested. My boyfriend at the time was, at best, a nominal Lutheran who didn’t attend services that often, and I had no idea that I would even face the thought of receiving communion or the dilemma I would feel. Again, since I had just "walked in off the street (a term I chose to use to simply imply I had never been before–I’m sorry you found it offensive) I didn’t receive out of respect for his church.

I have no idea if there is an RCIA-type program for Episcopalians or Lutherans, but I’m always glad to learn if you’d like to fill me in.

I do know I could join an non-denominational-type church they day I attended and participate in the Lord’s Supper (if it was offered that day), make an alter call (if it was offered that day), probably get re-baptized shortly thereafter (sometime in the near future).

Peace in Christ

 

[Peter_J]

You are antagonizing me

I hope I won’t offend you by saying this, O.S. Luke, but it seems to me that you’re … shall-we-say not using a lot of common sense? If someone is treating you poorly (an all-too-common situation on internet discussion forums) then why do you want to carry on extensive (I haven’t counted how many posts, but it’s been quite a few) conversation with that person? Have you no one else to talk to?

 

[Peter_J]

I’m sorry you took offense. As I said last post, the words “poor behavior” are my conclusion. I did not attach them to you. If you believe the behavior is not poor then you will have to explain.

I don’t know what your problem is, or why you’re being so difficult. It’s very simple: you said that I was excusing poor behavior. Since I was not excusing poor behavior, I took offense.

And now you’re trying to twist my words to mean that I don’t consider the behavior in question “poor”?

I think I’ll take my own advice (that I gave to O.S. Luke in the previous post) and discontinue this conversation.

 

[RedSoxFan]

Most of my stories are usually dealing with atheists more so than protestants.

I guess the one case would have been when a guy I worked with was a complete donkey.

There was a kid in the group house who claimed to be a Satanist. I believed this was just an act to outrage people or for shock value. It didn’t phase me at all, but my co-workers were shaken by it a bit. If a client asked for one I would get them a blessed rosary. Well the satanist turned the cross upside down. Once again for the effect. I would tell him that was how St. Peter was martyerd and that’s what it reminded me of.

Well Mr. Donkey, after hearing how I dealt with the incident, quipped “So instead of worshipping Jesus he’s now worshiping Peter!”

I looked at him like he had 10 heads and then never talked to him again. Now that I think about it my rosary intention for tonight will be for him.

 

[cthulhubryan]

I can only speak for the OFFICIAL understanding of the Eucharist in the United Methodist Church, which DOES believe in the Real Presence, and the Eucharist is a sacrament.

I must respectfully inform you that you are mistaken. The book of discipline tells us that while the Holy Spirit nourishes any who partake of communion it is not considered to be the actual body and blood of Our Lord. The United Methodist Church does not believe in transubstantiation.

I do believe in the Real Presence of Christ. So does my denomination. You question my pain? How arrogant.

I also believe in the Real Presence, but our denomination does not.