Eating bread and drinking wine a problem?

[carn]

Regarding attending a lethern service, an apologist makes them following comment:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=623830
“But you will be there as an observer and may not receive their eucharist.”

Its obvious one should attend mass and not attend a luthern service instead of mass.
But considering that what is offered at a lutheran service is just bread and wine and the whole event is nothing more than coming together, praying and reading scripture, i do not see what exactly would be wrong with eating bread and wine offered, as long as one does not fool oneself into thinking its anything else. What is the reason behind the comment?

 

[lizaanne]

First and foremost, we are not allowed to. It is not up for debate - the Church does not allow us to participate in “communion” at other ecclesial communities.

It can cause confusion and scandal. Others who know you to be Catholic, see you taking the bread and wine at a Lutheran service, and it could confuse them to believe that the Lutheran bread and wine is the same as the Eucharist.

You don’t receive anything but calories by consuming that bread and wine. There is no grace there, so just don’t do it.

~Liza

 

[carn]

First and foremost, we are not allowed to. It is not up for debate - the Church does not allow us to participate in “communion” at other ecclesial communities.

No intend to deabte it, just looking for the reason/rule. Do you happen to know, where it is in cathechism?

It can cause confusion and scandal. Others who know you to be Catholic, see you taking the bread and wine at a Lutheran service, and it could confuse them to believe that the Lutheran bread and wine is the same as the Eucharist.

If it was just that it could cause confusion and scandal, then it would depend on the exact situation, the risk could be weighed against the advantage.
(e.g. in the linked question the questioner asks about accompanying his lutheran mother on chistmas. Depending on exact habits of the lutheran group abstaining might be viewed as impolite - “haughty catholic shows up and rubs under our nose, that our service/communion/whatever is lesser” - or there could be other reasons to weigh against the problem of confusion and scandal.)

You don’t receive anything but calories by consuming that bread and wine. There is no grace there, so just don’t do it.

As i said there can be reasons in favor of partaking. If its a “do not do ever” it would be different from a “do not do, because it could cause…”.

 

[Church_Militant]

His Holiness John Paul II covered this very clearly in his encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia

1. Precisely because the Church’s unity, which the Eucharist brings about through the Lord’s sacrifice and by communion in his body and blood, absolutely requires full communion in the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments and ecclesiastical governance, it is not possible to celebrate together the same Eucharistic liturgy until those bonds are fully re-established. Any such concelebration would not be a valid means, and might well prove instead to be an obstacle, to the attainment of full communion, by weakening the sense of how far we remain from this goal and by introducing or exacerbating ambiguities with regard to one or another truth of the faith. The path towards full unity can only be undertaken in truth. In this area, the prohibitions of Church law leave no room for uncertainty,92 in fidelity to the moral norm laid down by the Second Vatican Council.93I would like nonetheless to reaffirm what I said in my Encyclical Letter Ut Unum Sint after having acknowledged the impossibility of Eucharistic sharing: “And yet we do have a burning desire to join in celebrating the one Eucharist of the Lord, and this desire itself is already a common prayer of praise, a single supplication. Together we speak to the Father and increasingly we do so ‘with one heart’”.94
2. While it is never legitimate to concelebrate in the absence of full communion, the same is not true with respect to the administration of the Eucharist* under special circumstances, to individual persons *belonging to Churches or Ecclesial Communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church. In this case, in fact, the intention is to meet a grave spiritual need for the eternal salvation of an individual believer, not to bring about an *intercommunion *which remains impossible until the visible bonds of ecclesial communion are fully re-established.
   This was the approach taken by the Second Vatican Council when it gave guidelines for responding to Eastern Christians separated in good faith from the Catholic Church, who spontaneously ask to receive the Eucharist from a Catholic minister and are properly disposed.95 This approach was then ratified by both Codes, which also consider – with necessary modifications – the case of other non-Eastern Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church.96
3. In my Encyclical* Ut Unum Sint* I expressed my own appreciation of these norms, which make it possible to provide for the salvation of souls with proper discernment: “It is a source of joy to note that Catholic ministers are able, in certain particular cases, to administer the sacraments of the Eucharist, Penance and Anointing of the Sick to Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church but who greatly desire to receive these sacraments, freely request them and manifest the faith which the Catholic Church professes with regard to these sacraments. Conversely, in specific cases and in particular circumstances, Catholics too can request these same sacraments from ministers of Churches in which these sacraments are valid”.97
   These conditions, from which no dispensation can be given, must be carefully respected, even though they deal with specific individual cases, because the denial of one or more truths of the faith regarding these sacraments and, among these, the truth regarding the need of the ministerial priesthood for their validity, renders the person asking improperly disposed to legitimately receiving them. And the opposite is also true: Catholics may not receive communion in those communities which lack a valid sacrament of Orders.98
   The faithful observance of the body of norms established in this area 99 is a manifestation and, at the same time, a guarantee of our love for Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, for our brothers and sisters of different Christian confessions – who have a right to our witness to the truth – and for the cause itself of the promotion of unity.

 

[carn]

@Church Militant

Thanks for the link.

Unfortunately i do not see, that the question is clearly adressed.

“… Conversely, in specific cases and in particular circumstances, Catholics too can request these same sacraments from ministers of Churches in which these sacraments are valid”.97
These conditions, from which no dispensation can be given, must be carefully respected, even though they deal with specific individual cases, because the denial of one or more truths of the faith regarding these sacraments and, among these, the truth regarding the need of the ministerial priesthood for their validity, renders the person asking improperly disposed to legitimately receiving them. And the opposite is also true: Catholics may not receive communion in those communities which lack a valid sacrament of Orders.”

He first talks about when non-catholics might receive sacraments. He then says that catholics can ask and receive sacraments from non-catholic but valid sources. Then he says that non-catholics lacking certain preconditions (“faith regarding the sacraments”) may not receive the sacraments. And the opposit is also true, catholics may not receive communion (which is one sacrament) from invalid sources.

He seems to discuss here the issue of sacraments and the various combinations that might arise (non-catholic receiving catholic sacraments, catholics receiving valid catholic sacraments,…)

This leaves me scratching my head for three reasons:

1. A catholic partaking in a lutheran service might not assume he is receiving a sacrament (e.g. because he considers the lutheran communion invalid). He therefore is not aware of breaking any rule forbidding him from receiving a non-catholic sacrament.
2. A catholic partaking in a lutheran service cannot receive a sacrament, because their communion is not a valid sacrament. So breaking a rule forbidding the receivable of non-catholic sacraments is in truth impossible, because they have none.

Now this could be argued against by saying that implicitely he is meaning the pseudo sacraments the others offer and these a catholic might not receive.

But when a catholic and a non-catholic christian marry normally there is also someone from the “competition” also giving his blessings for the marriage (at least if the non-catholic is serious about religion). The catholic has to receive a permission for such a marriage. But the´catholic to some effect is partaking here in receiving something non-valid sacrament (what the non-catholic pastor does). Of course he also gets the real thing the same time, but nonetheless he is allowed by the church to take part in allowing a non-catholic pastor to attempt to perform a non-valid sacrament.

So even if the above is meant as forbidding catholic to take part in pseudo sacraments, it seems it is not absolute.

(Of course i see that its safer to assume, it is meant as you suggest. I just do not think it is clear. Forbidding to receive sacraments where none are offered doesnt make much sense.)

 

[Luvtosew]

I would go and I’d take the bread and wine, because they don’t believe its the body and blood,

and isn’t it only Catholic Priests who can only turn it into the real presence?

so your just sharing bread and wine.

Please do what you feel is right, this is just my opinion, I am what is called a cafeteria Catholic about some things, so just my opinion.

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.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Regarding attending a lethern service, an apologist makes them following comment:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=623830
“But you will be there as an observer and may not receive their eucharist.”

Its obvious one should attend mass and not attend a luthern service instead of mass.
But considering that what is offered at a lutheran service is just bread and wine and the whole event is nothing more than coming together, praying and reading scripture, i do not see what exactly would be wrong with eating bread and wine offered, as long as one does not fool oneself into thinking its anything else. What is the reason behind the comment?

It does not make sense.
What exactly are you doing eating the bread and drinking the wine?
Pretending something?
When I go to someone else’s worship, like Jewish or Muslim or Protestant, I keep a reverent atitude but I am definitively an outsider…
Oh! It is the same God! Well, the Jewish are an exception…
But for most of the time, we are not together, so why pretend?

 

[1ke]

Regarding attending a lethern service, an apologist makes them following comment:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=623830
“But you will be there as an observer and may not receive their eucharist.”

Its obvious one should attend mass and not attend a luthern service instead of mass.
But considering that what is offered at a lutheran service is just bread and wine and the whole event is nothing more than coming together, praying and reading scripture, i do not see what exactly would be wrong with eating bread and wine offered, as long as one does not fool oneself into thinking its anything else. What is the reason behind the comment?

Read Ecclesia de Eucharistia.

 

[Church_Militant]

@Church Militant

Thanks for the link.

Unfortunately i do not see, that the question is clearly adressed.

"… Conversely, in specific cases and in particular circumstances, Catholics too can request these same sacraments from ministers of Churches in which these sacraments are valid”.97

Lutheran communion is invalid. No apostolic succession, no valid priesthood.

These conditions, from which no dispensation can be given, must be carefully respected, even though they deal with specific individual cases, because the denial of one or more truths of the faith regarding these sacraments and, among these, the truth regarding the need of the ministerial priesthood for their validity, renders the person asking improperly disposed to legitimately receiving them. And the opposite is also true: Catholics may not receive communion in those communities which lack a valid sacrament of Orders."

There’s no ambiguity in that. What part do you not understand?

He first talks about when non-catholics might receive sacraments.

That “might” is extremely rare.

He then says that catholics can ask and receive sacraments from non-catholic but valid sources.

Eastern Orthodox…that’s all.

Then he says that non-catholics lacking certain preconditions (“faith regarding the sacraments”) may not receive the sacraments. And the opposit is also true, catholics may not receive communion (which is one sacrament) from invalid sources.

And…?

He seems to discuss here the issue of sacraments and the various combinations that might arise (non-catholic receiving catholic sacraments, catholics receiving valid catholic sacraments,…)

Read the whole encyclical. I suggest that you do what I did and print it out and study it with a highlighter in hand.

This leaves me scratching my head for three reasons:

1. A catholic partaking in a lutheran service might not assume he is receiving a sacrament (e.g. because he considers the lutheran communion invalid). He therefore is not aware of breaking any rule forbidding him from receiving a non-catholic sacrament.

Don’t know of any such Catholics. I’ve been to Lutheran services and I sure wouldn’t have. Why would I want to give a false witness by actions (Which is specifically what His Holiness is talking about.) that might scandalously give the Lutherans a wrong impression as well as any other Catholics present. There has never been open communion in 2,000 years, and this has not and will not change.

1. A catholic partaking in a lutheran service cannot receive a sacrament, because their communion is not a valid sacrament. So breaking a rule forbidding the receivable of non-catholic sacraments is in truth impossible, because they have none.

I’ve already covered that as has His Holiness. They may be sacraments, in fact Lutherans profess them to be so, and even their rites may be accurate, but they still are not valid…for reasons already given.

Now this could be argued against by saying that implicitely he is meaning the pseudo sacraments the others offer and these a catholic might not receive.

That doesn’t even make sense…

But when a catholic and a non-catholic christian marry normally there is also someone from the “competition” also giving his blessings for the marriage (at least if the non-catholic is serious about religion). The catholic has to receive a permission for such a marriage. But the´catholic to some effect is partaking here in receiving something non-valid sacrament (what the non-catholic pastor does). Of course he also gets the real thing the same time, but nonetheless he is allowed by the church to take part in allowing a non-catholic pastor to attempt to perform a non-valid sacrament.

Here you’ve changed topics and this is another matter altogether. You prove that you do not even understand marriage in the Catholic Church. I suggest that you do some research on Catholic marriage to discover who actually minsters the sacrament to whom.

So even if the above is meant as forbidding catholic to take part in pseudo sacraments, it seems it is not absolute.

You’re not a Catholic are you? Your profile doesn’t say…

The decision and opinions do not belong to you and the encyclical is very clear.

(Of course i see that its safer to assume, it is meant as you suggest. I just do not think it is clear. Forbidding to receive sacraments where none are offered doesnt make much sense.)

There’s no assumption to it. The document and His Holiness’ intent is quite clear. All your arguments are wishful thinking and fallacious reasoning. It’s a good thing you’re here at CAF, because at this point…you really don’t know what you’re talking about. That happens a lot with n-Cs.

 

[joanofarc2008]

It is because long and short you would be showing support to an invalid priesthood.

 

[Church_Militant]

I would go and I’d take the bread and wine, because they don’t believe its the body and blood,

and isn’t it only Catholic Priests who can only turn it into the real presence?

so your just sharing bread and wine.

Please do what you feel is right, this is just my opinion, I am what is called a cafeteria Catholic about some things, so just my opinion.

Read the encyclical LtS and be obedient to what the Church teaches.

As John Martignoni says in his 2 minute apologetics response to As Catholics, do we have to accept everything the Church teaches?

As Catholics, do we have to accept everything the Church teaches?
If you want to call yourself Catholic, but you want to pick and choose for yourself which of the Church’s teachings to accept and which to reject, you give everyone else who calls themselves Catholic the right to do the same thing. For example, you believe women should be priests…in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1577 states, “Only a baptized man validly receives ordination…For this reason the ordination of women is not possible!” You don’t believe that…well, that’s fine…[RIP] just tear that page out of your Catechism…you just made it a Catechism of your Catholic Church…not mine.
But remember, if you can throw doctrines out, so can everyone else who calls themselves Catholic. That gives Joe Parishioner over at St. Doubting Thomas Catholic Church the right to throw out the Church’s social justice teachings…he doesn’t feel like feeding the hungry, caring for the poor, and all that other “bleeding heart” stuff - Paragraphs 2401 -2463 [RIP]…he just made it a Catechism of his Catholic Church…not mine and not yours.
You believe contraception is okay? Paragraph 2370 says contraception is intrinsically evil! [RIP] Joe Parishioner doesn’t like what the Church teaches on the death penalty - Paragraphs 2266-2267**[RIP]**. You don’t like what it teaches on pages 55-60 [RIP]. He doesn’t like what it teaches on pages 128-140 [RIP]
Can you see what’s happening? I heard it said once that there is a shortage of vocations to the priesthood in the United States, but no shortage of vocations to the Papacy! If we don’t believe in all of it, if we each appoint ourselves Pope and throw out a doctrine here or a doctrine there, then our faith is no longer Catholic.

 

[1ke]

Unfortunately i do not see, that the question is clearly adressed.

What part of Catholics may not receive communion in those communities which lack a valid sacrament of Orders is unclear?

 

[carn]

It is because long and short you would be showing support to an invalid priesthood.

What partaking would or would not show depends a bit on circumstances. But of course a lie from politeness would still be a lie.
Church Militant:

They may be sacraments, in fact Lutherans profess them to be so, and even their rites may be accurate, but they still are not valid…for reasons already given.

That is the core of the problem, how can what the lutherans do/offer be sacraments if they are not valid?

One cannot offer gold if one only has fool’s gold. A rule requiring then “Do not take gold from him.” is then not meaningful as it is worded. It could have at least two meanings either “Do not take fool’s gold from him.” or “Do not try to get real gold from him.”. Which it is depends on context.

Therefore the sentence
“Catholics may not receive communion in those communities which lack a valid sacrament of Orders.”
is not meant literally, because:
oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Holy_Communion
“By Communion is meant the actual reception of the Sacrament of the Eucharist.”
And for something to be a sacrament:
oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Sacraments
“In every sacrament three things are necessary: the outward sign; the inward grace; Divine institution.”

The lutherans lack Divine institution, it is lacking in their bread sharing. Therefore it lacks something necessary for it being a sacrament. Therefore it is not communion because it cannot be the reception of a sacrament.

Therefore the statement:
Catholics (and anybody else) cannot receive communion in a lutheran service.
is a true statement, at least if assuming the statements of that catholic encyclopedia are correct.
And therefore the rule:
“Catholics may not receive communion in those communities which lack a valid sacrament of Orders.”
is on its own not clear, because forbidding what is impossible is pointless, it normaly means that the attempt is forbidden.

And regarding obeying the Church, that i am required to do. But i am not required to obey your interpretation of what the Church says, if i am uncertain whether your interpretation is correct.

@Luvtosew
Acting only upon what is feeling right is wrong, if something is forbidden. And what Church Militant cited can indeed mean its forbidden, its just not that clear from my point of view, because from the wording it seems to forbid something, which is impossible. But that only means that something is forbidden, just not the literal thing, which does not require to be forbidden, because its impossible.

At least undoubtly attending such a lutheran service and partaking fully could be a lie.

 

[carn]

What part of Catholics may not receive communion in those communities which lack a valid sacrament of Orders is unclear?

Look up defintion of communion. Communion means the sacrament. One cannot receive communion in a community which lacks a valid sacrament of Orders. Its impossible.

 

[lizaanne]

Look up defintion of communion. Communion means the sacrament. One cannot receive communion in a community which lacks a valid sacrament of Orders. Its impossible.

You are nit picking, and trying to justify behavior that is condemned by the Church. Why do you persist in your stubornness, and flatly refuse to accept the multiple CORRECT responses to your question?

You asked - we answered. Now, if you feel you have greater wisdom than the Church and can make these decisions for yourself, then have an issue you need to work out privately through prayer and spiritual direction.

The Church is not a buffet line. You do not get to just pick and chose what you like and don’t like, according to your own feelings and interpretations — especially when an issue is so clearly spelled out in black and white as this.

~Liza

 

[carn]

I just checked the german version of Ecclesia de Eucharistia and it gets slightly more confusing:
vatican.va/edocs/DEU0210/__P6.HTM

“Und auch umgekehrt wird ein katholischer Gläubiger die heilige Kommunion in einer Gemeinschaft, in der das gültige Weihesakrament nicht vorhanden ist, nicht empfangen können.”

In this wording in german it is not forbidding anything. It just states just, that a catholic cannot receive communion in a community lacking a valid sacrament. And it seems it is meant in the sense of futility of impossibility, that a catholic cannot receive commuion. If in german one wants to say “not allowed to” one would normally not say “nicht empfangen können” but “nicht empfangen dürfen”.

In english its slightly different, because “may not” is more along the lines of “is not allowed to”.

But both are translations as the original is probably latin.

 

[Usagi]

Look up defintion of communion. Communion means the sacrament. One cannot receive communion in a community which lacks a valid sacrament of Orders. Its impossible.

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

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.”

I attended the baptismal liturgy of an Episcopal friend’s child. They have open communion, but of course as a Catholic I am not to partake. As in many Catholic parishes, they advised crossing one’s arms over one’s chest if one did not wish to receive. I did so, to no consequence other than a strange smile from the lady distributing the bread. Is that an option in your Lutheran services?

Usagi

 

[carn]

You are nit picking, and trying to justify behavior that is condemned by the Church. Why do you persist in your stubornness, and flatly refuse to accept the multiple CORRECT responses to your question?

Cause none of these answers seems to bother or at least acknowledge that the wording is strange. (And in the german wording of the document it is even more of a problem.)

You asked - we answered. Now, if you feel you have greater wisdom than the Church and can make these decisions for yourself, then have an issue you need to work out privately through prayer and spiritual direction.

Do you hold any chrch office or any other method allowing you to decide what the Church is saying with these words, if i doubt your interpretation what the words are saying?

Otherwise the formulation “we answered. Now, if you feel you have a greater wisdom than the Church” looks rather strange.

And regarding nipicking, don’t you think that every word of the document was carefully chosen? From my experience the care of wording would shame any judge for his slopiness in use of words.

If so, why is the word communion used here in regard to communities that cannot offer communion?

The Pope and those helping him drafting the document certainly realized that communion is normaly reserved for the sacrament, they would immidieately see that “Do not receive the communion where it can never be received.” is in itself a strange rule. Therefore the wording of the rest of the text will take care of that problem through context. But i cannot see how.

 

[carn]

Is that an option in your Lutheran services?

In case i attend a lutheran service, i will decline.Better safe, than sorry.

But that does not change my curiosity, whether it is actually forbidden with those words.

 

[1ke]

Look up defintion of communion. Communion means the sacrament. One cannot receive communion in a community which lacks a valid sacrament of Orders. Its impossible.

You are being obtuse.