Eating bread and drinking wine a problem?

[Catholic90]

Missouri Synod Lutheran churches will not allow anyone other than Missouri Synod Lutherans to partake of communion in their church. It is closed communion.

 

[carn]

All right, but why would the Pope spend verbiage on forbidding something that is impossible in any case?

As far as i can see, nearly all sentences deal with the issue of non-catholics being allowed or not allowed to receive catholic sacraments and with the issue, when a catholic can receive a valid sacrament from non-catholic group.
The issue of a catholic acting in a way that under the customs of the non-catholic group would mean receiving a “sacrament” is mentioned in only that sentence. And maybe Popoe is just stating that non-catholics do not offer a valid communion.

And at least in german version its not obviously forbidding it, it may be just stating that it is impossible. And english “may” sometimes is also used in the sense of “can” in the sense of capability. But it is also used in wording a prohibition.

I don’t see how you can read his prohibition, and have it make sense, in any other way than “Don’t do that thing the other group calls communion, and which outwardly resembles our communion in every way but does not inwardly involve the true Eucharist.”

Even if it is meant as prohibition, it could still mean that going through the motions is wrong, that intent is wrong (e.g. it is heretic to attend such a service and thinking it is as valid as catholic) or maybe both.

I also think it being a prohibition is more plausible, but so far i did not see any argument, except comments that i should simply accept that it is that way.

 

[Newsy]

The Lutheran Church believes they have a valid sacrament. Some Lutheran Churches also believe they have the Body and Blood of Christ in their sacrament. I have been told the LCMS has even used the term transubstantiation in some of their paperwork. I don’t know, JonNC would be a better source on this.

The point is that the Catholic Church doesn’t accept their communion as valid. The Church has made it well known that non-Catholics cannot receive ours and Catholics cannot receive theirs. By receiving , what they believe to be the Body and Blood, it profanes what we believe to be the Body and Blood. Either you accept the Church’s stance on the matter or not, its up to you.

Luvtosew said, “Also I remember something I heard on EWTN not long ago, someone called in with a quest. about Catholics attending a nieces wedding in a non Catholic Church, Methodist I think, and she was told she should not attend the service, which I found quite upsetting.”. The Church is clear on this matter, we may attend family weddings, funerals and Baptisms in non-Catholic settings. We cannot receive communion there. If the program on EWTN stated otherwise, it was wrong. I would guess that maybe there was more involved in the question you heard.

 

[carn]

The point is that the Catholic Church doesn’t accept their communion as valid. The Church has made it well known that non-Catholics cannot receive ours and Catholics cannot receive theirs.

The Church has made it well known that they do not accept their communion as valid. The Church has made it well known that non-catholics cannot receive “ours”.
And the Church has it made well known that Catholics receiving “theirs” cannot be a replacement for catholic communion.

If the Church has made it well known that catholics are not allowed to receive “theirs” then, this is news to me, as practically all i ever read about this subject was about the issue of non-catholics not receiving “ours”. The other issue i never heard about because so few seem to care.

By receiving , what they believe to be the Body and Blood, it profanes what we believe to be the Body and Blood. Either you accept the Church’s stance on the matter or not, its up to you.

I’ll accept the Church stance on this, but currently do not know for certain what the Church’s stance is.
I checked CIC Can. 897 and following (rules about communion), searched for communion and Eucharist and as expected it does not say much about non-catholic communion. That is not suprising as these passage and theses words are about the sacrament, which the others do not have.
Can. 908 forbids that priest to concelebrate the Eucharist with priest or official members of communities not in communion with the Church. This does not even imply that a priest attending a non-catholic service is not allowed to eat bread there.

We cannot receive communion there.

We are not allowed to or we are unable to?

Citations for the one or the other would be nice. The papal document, especially in its german translation, is ambigous from mypoint of view.

 

[Newsy]

We are not allowed to or we are unable to?

Citations for the one or the other would be nice. The papal document, especially in its german translation, is ambigous from mypoint of view.

I don’t read or speak German, so you are out of luck on that.

Canon 844.2
"§2 Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ’s faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid. "

The only non-Catholic Communities, that have valid sacraments, would be the Eastern Orthodox. There may be a few other communities such as the Oriental Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc.

Canon 844.2 would not apply to any community that doesn’t have valid sacraments, i.e. Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists, etc.

You asked if this meant we weren’t allowed or we can’t, physically we are able. Unless there is a communion bouncer at the church, you could physically receive communion there, but the Catholic Church does not allow us to do so in good conscience.

Hope this helps!

 

[Kotton]

The Church has made it well known that they do not accept their communion as valid. The Church has made it well known that non-catholics cannot receive “ours”.
And the Church has it made well known that Catholics receiving “theirs” cannot be a replacement for catholic communion.

Correct.

If the Church has made it well known that catholics are not allowed to receive “theirs” then, this is news to me, as practically all i ever read about this subject was about the issue of non-catholics not receiving “ours”. The other issue i never heard about because so few seem to care.

Yes the Church has always not allowed Catholics to receive in other churches, it’s not new to us. You evidently are young/new convert/lack proper catechesis or just plain don’t listen.

I’ll accept the Church stance on this, but currently do not know for certain what the Church’s stance is.

You have been told several times on this thread.

We are not allowed to or we are unable to?

Both.

Citations for the one or the other would be nice. The papal document, especially in its german translation, is ambigous from mypoint of view.

The citations given on this thread are enough for the rest of us, as 1ke said, “You are being obtuse.”

Kotton

 

[carn]

The citations given on this thread are enough for the rest of us, as 1ke said, “You are being obtuse.”

The question i am pondering is why such good catholics do not care about the truth?

I have given before Newsys last post exactly 1 citation, so not citations, but only citation, singular.
Second, i read it carefully.
Third, i found it ambigous and looking in another language made that worse.
Fourth, i argued how the ambiduity arises.
Then i get called obtuse, but for what exactly. That i read the english version and say, mmh ok not that clear, and read the german version and say, that sounds a lot like the church does not have such a rule?

@Newsy

Good point, but again this ambiguity. It does not say explicitely what the church thinks of a catholic receiving bread in a non-catholic community without valid sacrament.

It says, that under certain circumstances catholics may receive sacraments from communities with valid sacrament. It is an exception to a general rule, written somewhere else. And that rule i am still looking for.

It is implying certainly that in other circumstances catholics may not receive sacrament from communities with valid sacraments. But it discusses the receiving of sacraments, so i do not see that it must mean that it is also meant regarding communities that have no sacraments.

I would have expected some clearly worded rule. That irritates me, that it is not clearly worded.

 

[carn]

After gooling more i finaly found that the applying law is this one (found around all the myriad cases of non-catholic attending catholic communion illegaly one, where a catholic attended a non valid non-catholic “event”. It referred to 1365 as the breached rule):

“Can. 1365 A person guilty of prohibited participation in sacred rites (communicatio in sacris) is to be punished with a just penalty.”

That just leaves finding what sacred rites means exactly, but very likely what non-catholics do are also sacred rites, although failed ones, and they are not according to church law, therefore forbidden. And with 1365 participation is forbidden.

 

[Newsy]

After gooling more i finaly found that the applying law is this one (found around all the myriad cases of non-catholic attending catholic communion illegaly one, where a catholic attended a non valid non-catholic “event”. It referred to 1365 as the breached rule):

“Can. 1365 A person guilty of prohibited participation in sacred rites (communicatio in sacris) is to be punished with a just penalty.”

That just leaves finding what sacred rites means exactly, but very likely what non-catholics do are also sacred rites, although failed ones, and they are not according to church law, therefore forbidden. And with 1365 participation is forbidden.

Canon 844.2 is addressing this issue. IF, you cannot get to a Catholic Church, you may accept valid sacraments elsewhere. This means that if you can get to a Catholic Church, you are obligated to go there. IF, you have to go to a non-Catholic Church for any sacraments, then you must find Valid sacraments. This means that you must find the nearest location of EO or other valid sacrament Church. Since they are not specifically stating churches without valid sacraments, it is implied that invalid sacraments would be of no use. Therefore, it would serve no purpose to accept invalid sacraments, it could however cause scandal.

Canon 1365 is referring to any group without valid sacraments and any group opposed to Catholic Teaching, for example the Freemasons.

 

[carn]

Therefore, it would serve no purpose to accept invalid sacraments, it could however cause scandal.

But therefore it is not the rule forbidding it.
If from a statement follows that a certain act does not have some or any positive consequences, then this statement does not forbid the act.

Canon 1365 is referring to any group without valid sacraments and any group opposed to Catholic Teaching, for example the Freemasons.

I found german news article about a priest attenting in public a protestant service and partaking in their “eucharist” (He was not con- or intercelebrating, he was attending as a normal protestant would attend service). He was subjected to disciplinary action by the bishop due to prohibited participation in sacred rites. Therefor i think its quite likely 1365 is the forbidding rule, i have been looking for.

Thanks for help in finding the answer to all, you were right all along, it is church law.