I received communion in another non Catholic Church

[porthos11]

If Catholics are sure that the bread in communion in a Protestant church is “just a piece of bread”, then what would be wrong with just eating a piece of bread? Surely eating bread is not a sin.

Because even if it’s just a piece of bread, it’s being offered as communion, and to receive it is to affirm the belief of the community offering it and your, well, communion with that community. Catholics cannot participate in such affirmations until unity is restored.

We’re even unable to receive Communion in Orthodox churches under normal circumstances, as well as in fringe Catholic groups not in good standing with the Holy See, even through their Eucharists are valid.

Because of that, the original poster’s actions were objectively improper. Even sinful.

 

[Thorolfr]

Because even if it’s just a piece of bread, it’s being offered as communion, and to receive it is to affirm the belief of the community offering it and your, well, communion with that community. Catholics cannot participate in such affirmations until unity is restored.

I recently went to an assembly of one of the 65 synods of the ELCA and the local Catholic diocese sent someone to bring greetings to our assembly from their bishop. So I guess it was nice to know that they were willing to say ‘hello’ even if they don’t think it’s OK to affirm us or have communion with us.

 

[porthos11]

I recently went to an assembly of one of the 65 synods of the ELCA and the local Catholic diocese sent someone to bring greetings to our assembly from their bishop. So I guess it was nice to know that they were willing to say ‘hello’ even if they don’t think it’s OK to affirm us or have communion with us.

Yes, saying “hello” is fine, or even to send greetings. Rapproachment between Christians is fine, as is being courteous and nice.

This does not come to the same level as eucharistic communion.

Look, the fact is that we are not in communion and because of the, we cannot receive communion in each other’s services.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I recently went to an assembly of one of the 65 synods of the ELCA and the local Catholic diocese sent someone to bring greetings to our assembly from their bishop. So I guess it was nice to know that they were willing to say ‘hello’ even if they don’t think it’s OK to affirm us or have communion with us.

As a Christian and a Lutheran. If I came up to you and said, “I think God is this fig newton” Please, pray to this fig newton with me and profess the belief I have in it. Would you do so?

Or outside of the faith, If a Hindu person came up to you and said Shiva Vishnu and Kali are the “trinity” of my faith. Pray to them. Would you do it?

 

[thistle]

With respect to Protestant communities, that is true. However, with respect to the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches, there are circumstances under which the Catholic Church does permit us to receive Communion.

Please remember the Orthodox are not non-Catholic. They are a schismatic part of the Catholic Church.

 

[thistle]

Since Anglicans have open communion, they would welcome any follower of Christ who took communion in one of their churches, so they wouldn’t consider it desecration or sacrilege for a Catholic to take communion there. As for a Catholic, to them it is apparently “just a piece of bread”.

On the other hand, since Lutherans and Anglicans do believe in the Real Presence in their communion, it does feel a little disrespectful sometimes when Catholics constantly state that what we receive in communion is “just a piece of bread”.

Belief in anything other than transubstantiation is heresy and that is what a Catholic would be committing by receiving Communion in a Lutheran or Anglican church.

 

[Thorolfr]

Belief in anything other than transubstantiation is heresy and that is what a Catholic would be committing by receiving Communion in a Lutheran or Anglican church.

So were Christians including Catholics before the 11th or 12th century all heretics considering that the concept of “transubstantiation” with “substance” and “accidents” did not exist before then?

 

[LaughingBoy1503]

If Catholics are sure that the bread in communion in a Protestant church is “just a piece of bread”, then what would be wrong with just eating a piece of bread? Surely eating bread is not a sin.

We believe that Churches without a valid priesthood do not have The True presence. Of course eating a piece of bread is not a sin. But doing so in a ceremony that mimics the partaking of The Eucharist when it is not, is a sin.

 

[seaton2005]

Yes, if it were me I would go to confession. Especially since you remembered the rule before receiving.

Just out of curiosity, what could possibly be sinful about this? Why would one need to go to confession about this?

 

[seaton2005]

We believe that Churches without a valid priesthood do not have The True presence. Of course eating a piece of bread is not a sin. But doing so in a ceremony that mimics the partaking of The Eucharist when it is not, is a sin.

Who are we to say what is a valid priesthood or not? Are you serious? Come on now.

 

[LaughingBoy1503]

Since Anglicans have open communion, they would welcome any follower of Christ who took communion in one of their churches, so they wouldn’t consider it desecration or sacrilege for a Catholic to take communion there. As for a Catholic, to them it is apparently “just a piece of bread”.

On the other hand, since Lutherans and Anglicans do believe in the Real Presence in their communion, it does feel a little disrespectful sometimes when Catholics constantly state that what we receive in communion is “just a piece of bread”.

Sorry that you feel disrespected in that we believe the lutheran church does not have a valid Eucharist, but it would be hypocritical for us to say otherwise. I have heard That some (if not all) lutheran confessions still refer to The pope and or the papacy as having something to do with the antichrist. I find that disrespectful.

 

[LaughingBoy1503]

Who are we to say what is a valid priesthood or not? Are you serious? Come on now.

Read up on Apostolic succession. I do not have time to explain everything to you right now

 

[Hans_W]

Who are we to say what is a valid priesthood or not? Are you serious? Come on now.

It boils down to the old “We have the Truth”. Needless to say, the other side is claiming the same.

I can’t believe the comments on this thread. Are we not all Christians? I assume that Christ is in every Christian Church, as well as in a Synagogue, or a Mosque, or a Temple, or whatever. It is up to me to seek Him.

For many years I played the organ in both Anglican and Catholic churches. Didn’t make any difference (apart that the Anglicans had the better organs). I find this whole discussion really ridiculous!

Of course, I prefer to participate in a Catholic service. And as a Catholic I know the difference. But committing a sin when I receive communion in an Anglican service … ?! You find the same fundamentalist attitude when some Protestants claim that Catholics are not really Christians, and that the pope is the antichrist. I always thought that we Catholics are above this sort of level.

 

[AXO]

As general rule the communicatio in sacris is not licit and a serious offence. The reason is that the sacraments, and especially the Eucharist, signify the unity with the Body of Christ, which is the Church (cf. Second Vatican Council, decree Unitatis redintegratio on ecumenism, nn. 2, 8). The person guilty of prohibited communicatio in sacris (which is this case) is to be punished with a just penalty (cf. CIC, can. 1365). I shall emphasize its seriousness. Without the necessary circumstances it is a delict against the unity of the Church and canonically punishable. Even with this situation, the legality of the participation in the sacred rites within Western schismatic churches (Anglican, etc.) is not guaranteed and should be case-by-case examined due to the possible lack of apostolic succession.

Who are we to say what is a valid priesthood or not? Are you serious? Come on now.

It is truly regrettable to see this rhetorical question coming from a Catholic faithful.

 

[thistle]

So were Christians including Catholics before the 11th or 12th century all heretics considering that the concept of “transubstantiation” with “substance” and “accidents” did not exist before then?

Oh really. Please show me evidence to back up your claim.
Catholics have always believed in the Real Presence, meaning the complete change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ’s body and blood by a validly ordained priest

 

[Thorolfr]

It boils down to the old “We have the Truth”. Needless to say, the other side is claiming the same.

I can’t believe the comments on this thread. Are we not all Christians? I assume that Christ is in every Christian Church, as well as in a Synagogue, or a Mosque, or a Temple, or whatever. It is up to me to seek Him.

For many years I played the organ in both Anglican and Catholic churches. Didn’t make any difference (apart that the Anglicans had the better organs). I find this whole discussion really ridiculous!

Of course, I prefer to participate in a Catholic service. And as a Catholic I know the difference. But committing a sin when I receive communion in an Anglican service … ?! You find the same fundamentalist attitude when some Protestants claim that Catholics are not really Christians, and that the pope is the antichrist. I always thought that we Catholics are above this sort of level.