praying with non-Catholics

[hermitcrab]

In all my years, when folk of whatever tradition have visited and prayer has been suggested, we have always been amenable and joined with each other… be it Chaplet of Divine Mercy, Compline, singing praise with Taize and other tapes, or, when there have been tragedies, simply impromptu words of prayer and of mutual comfort. .

“When two or three are gathered together in My Name. I am with them,” is a truth so strong and beautiful.

Lean on that, not on all these "suppose"s

#Let me ask you this. Suppose your family is Protestant. Not a bad assumption. Now suppose you have a Catholic relative who is visiting for a few days, who suggests a group prayer session. What sort of group prayer session would you be amenable to? Maybe some hymn singing? Or perhaps the Liturgy of the Hours or the approximate on universalis.com/ ? And how would you respond to a Catholic who was friendly, upbeat, and eager to pray in a group with you?#

 

[Abira]

hermitcrab, what denomination are you? You talk like a quaker but that doesn’t fit the language you use lol

or you can phone a friend…o tell me to stop being nosey lol

 

[Orionthehunter]

From OS Luke (compilation of several posts. I don’t think I took anything out of context as it omitted only comments that were about matters other than the Real Presence):

Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists - all embrace the real presence of Christ at the table. They are NOT just words.

As far as Real Presence, we - along with the Eastern Church - are content to let the Mystery be a mystery. Christ is present, but we don’t pretend to know how.
I understand, CTOS - did my thesis on Real Presence in seminary under the direction of catholic sacramental scholars.

The problem with transubstantiation is that it’s a Western term, born of Thomism and Aristotelian philosophy. In short… the wrong discipline to explain a mystery/sacrament (mysterion). I think the Eastern Church has it right: it’s the body and blood of Christ. No explanation or naming needed.

Luther never said the phrase “consubstantiation.” Nor does the Lutheran Church ever embrace it. In fact, most Lutheran bodies reject the term in official statements. Wikipedia’s entries are not accurate on this matter at all.

Using metaphysical terms and philosophies in regards to the Holy Mystery seems antithetical to me. Christianity did fine for 11 centuries before coining transubstantiation. When rationalism became all the rage, the Church felt like it should follow suit.

It’s the Body and Blood of Christ. Period. Why say more?

OS Luke, you are correct that all claim that Christ is present in the bread and wine. However, the “presence” is different from that of the Catholics. You discount the use of the words transubstantiation, consubstantiation, or the word (or lack of word) to describe that used in other denominations such as yours. To do so is not truly honest.

I once was told to consider the following “What do they do after the service is over with the host?”

Catholics reserve all blessed hosts in the tabernacle and consume all the wine as well as perform a sacred cleansing of all vessels that had contained the bread or wine. The reason is Catholics believe that Christ has changed the bread and wine into His actual Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity and this change is permanent.

Most if not all other denominations just put the unused wine and unused hosts in a back room to be blessed at the next service. During the interim, the bread and wine is just ordinary bread and wine. The change is either symbolic or transient vs. the permanent change in the Catholic Eucharist.

OS Luke, you might try to minimize this difference but it is very real to Catholics. If you were a Catholic, we would characterize your attitude as very grave matter and akin to blasphemy.

As a Christian brother who has obviously been trained and informed about what the Catholic Church teaches, your characterization of our teaching regarding the reception of this profound changed matter into our Lord as “arrogance” or a selfish denial of graces is not charitable. As I said before, we don’t teach some are not to recieve to protect the Real Presence but for the benefit of the soul of the recipient. You know this. Why do you then claim otherwise?

 

[mikew262]

Reading your post just reminded me of a question that’s going to make me sound very stupid…

So how should a Protestant respond when a Catholic makes the Sign of the Cross?

I know this sounds silly, but once I had a Catholic coworker over for dinner, and when I said I was going to say Grace, she made the Sign of the Cross, and it threw me so badly (not used to it at all) that she had to remind me to finish saying the prayer…

So what, if anything, should I have said/done?

Zirconia

Do nothing. Just say your prayer.

 

[catsrus]

originally posted by ctos
Would it be better to want to lead them?

And what if you mentioned something about our Blessed Mother while praying? Would they be supremely irritated? Would you be sure to pray only as they would understand, lest they be offended and their hearts hardened? (Consider the point of not eating sacrificed meats, lest those who are wont to believe in the sacrifice be tempted to eat it themselves cf. 1 Cor. 8:8 ff. – sometimes we adjust our behavior to take account of someone else’s weakness. In this case the Protestant has a weak understanding of the saints, and so rather than try his understanding, we pray as they understand prayer, and so build unity.).

I don’t want to lead them because I don’t want to upset them.
Let’s face it. We just pray differently.
And I bow my head in respect and let them do their own prayers so that I don’t get caught up in praying in a way (saying something) that does not adhere to my solid core Catholic beliefs.
That happened to me once in a lutheran church and I won’t take the chance of it happening again.

 

[hermitcrab]

Prayer is prayer… It is only a short while since I was at a Roman Catholic convent on some business.

We prayed the Angelus together on our knees before the Tabernacle.

I am not Roman Catholic, of course… we also prayed togther about the problems I was there to help with, informally.

Prayer together is our gift to each other in Jesus and the Holy Spirit, our hearts open in love.

I don’t want to lead them because I don’t want to upset them.
Let’s face it. We just pray differently.
And I bow my head in respect and let them do their own prayers so that I don’t get caught up in praying in a way (saying something) that does not adhere to my solid core Catholic beliefs.
That happened to me once in a lutheran church and I won’t take the chance of it happening again.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Greetings and peace be with you all,

I am a Catholic and this evening I attended a churches together prayer evening in a Salvation Army hall, and the service was led by a Baptist minister. I find it a great joy to be able to pray with Christians of other denominations. Last week I was in a Baptist Church and we went out into the streets together giving out leaflets that welcomed people to the newly refurbished Baptist Church.

My job is supporting people with a learning disability and I have introduced some to our Catholic Church. I have helped a couple find fellowship in our local Baptist Church. I have supported a gentleman to find his roots in an Anglican Church, and a lady has found Christ when I helped her build a relationship with the Salvation Army.

When I support any of our guys in one of the other churches and communion is offered; then I take it willingly. When I see a couple of hundred people gathered together in Christ’s name I believe that he is present. And to me it seems a greater sin to reject Christ in those circumstances. In the eyes of the Catholic Church I feel as if I am committing spiritual suicide but I seem compelled to go down this road.

Communion should be the greatest thing that Christians share together and it should bring us together, but it seems that communion is used to keep us apart. This seems like a grave sin to me, atheists revel in the fact that Christianity is split, it seems we work against each other

The same God hears the prayers of Christians, Muslims, Hindu and Jew. God is greater than the sum of all the religions of the world put together. It makes no sense that God would wish to exclude anyone.

If I have offended anyone, I would ask for your forgiveness.

In the spirit of growing together in Christ

Eric

 

[ctos]

When I support any of our guys in one of the other churches and communion is offered; then I take it willingly. When I see a couple of hundred people gathered together in Christ’s name I believe that he is present. And to me it seems a greater sin to reject Christ in those circumstances. In the eyes of the Catholic Church I feel as if I am committing spiritual suicide but I seem compelled to go down this road.

Well, what do others think? Is Eric off to hell, or is he making a good point? No but seriously, what do you think? I am sympathetic to the notion that socially, among those people, Christ in some way is present. CCC 1400 says that eucharistic intercommunion is not possible with the churches coming from the Reformation. The first Protestants were excommunicated heretics. The Church doctors and so on teach that we should avoid heretics and excommunicates. Today’s Protestants aren’t necessarily in the same boat. Today’s Moslems may not be in the same boat as Mohammed, for that matter. This is another area where the mind of the Church is important to follow. I have heard it said that the pope gave Communion to various non-Catholics, like the Taize Brother Roger. There is some confusion as to what was going on at that Mass.

 

[O.S.Luke]

OS Luke, you are correct that all claim that Christ is present in the bread and wine. However, the “presence” is different from that of the Catholics. You discount the use of the words transubstantiation, consubstantiation, or the word (or lack of word) to describe that used in other denominations such as yours. To do so is not truly honest.

I quoted two official documents. None of those terms are used regarding the Presence of Christ at the Eucharist. So I’m a little unclear what you’re saying.

Most if not all other denominations just put the unused wine and unused hosts in a back room to be blessed at the next service. During the interim, the bread and wine is just ordinary bread and wine. The change is either symbolic or transient vs. the permanent change in the Catholic Eucharist.

That would be unheard of in my tradition:
This Holy Mystery Document:
The consecrated elements of bread and wine are used for distribution to the sick and others who wish to commune but are unable to attend congregational worship. If any bread and wine remain, they should always be disposed of by (1) the pastor and/or others at the pastor’s direction consuming them in a reverent manner following the service; (2) returning them to the earth by pouring (2 Samuel 23:16), burying, scattering, or burning.

As a Christian brother who has obviously been trained and informed about what the Catholic Church teaches, your characterization of our teaching regarding the reception of this profound changed matter into our Lord as “arrogance” or a selfish denial of graces is not charitable. As I said before, we don’t teach some are not to recieve to protect the Real Presence but for the benefit of the soul of the recipient. You know this. Why do you then claim otherwise?

We are not to partake of the sacrament unworthily… and our worth only comes through the repentance and forgiveness of sins. As noted above, Jesus served Judas and Peter with the foreknowledge that they would betray and deny him. Yet even Peter was redeemed, and Christ made him the Rock.

Protecting/denying the table from the baptized is, at least to me, denying Christ to others. If I did so, I would fear for my soul if I met my Maker and He asked me why I denied His Son to those who needed Him most.

The Body of Christ will always be an imperfect communion as long as Christians withhold Christ from each other. But to be sure: Protestants and Catholics alike are guilty of such. No one has a monopoly on arrogance or ignorance.

O+

 

[ctos]

Protecting/denying the table from the baptized is, at least to me, denying Christ to others.

Even from the beginning those who lapsed in some way were excommunicated. Baptism doesn’t preclude excommunication, and therefore is not a guarantee of receiving Communion.

 

[ctos]

The Body of Christ will always be an imperfect communion as long as Christians withhold Christ from each other.

Don’t overlook the possibility that you are using your free will to reason in such a way as to preserve your status as a Methodist, despite the argument for Catholicism being a superior one. You are withholding yourself from the Eucharist. All you’ve said, that I can see, is that you object to the Church’s accident/substance distinction. Ask yourself, how do you really know that the Church is incorrect? For all you know, that is what happens. We haven’t said that there is no mystery. We have simply clarified aspects of the Eucharist.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Don’t overlook the possibility that you are using your free will to reason in such a way as to preserve your status as a Methodist, despite the argument for Catholicism being a superior one. You are withholding yourself from the Eucharist. All you’ve said, that I can see, is that you object to the Church’s accident/substance distinction. Ask yourself, how do you really know that the Church is incorrect? For all you know, that is what happens. We haven’t said that there is no mystery. We have simply clarified aspects of the Eucharist.

I don’t think I need to “preserve” my “status” as a Methodist. My vows reside in Methodism, my baptism was into the church catholic. And I’ve never withheld myself or anyone else from the Eucharist in my life!

I do object to using rational science to describe a mystery. Why should we? The Eastern Church has no such need.

I wonder…can you truly clarify a mystery? A sacrament? Or for that matter, anything sacramental?

Ask yourself, how do you really know that the Church is incorrect?

How do you really know that Eastern Church or Protestant Church is incorrect? The scienific method is of no use here.

O+

 

[O.S.Luke]

Even from the beginning those who lapsed in some way were excommunicated. Baptism doesn’t preclude excommunication, and therefore is not a guarantee of receiving Communion.

Can one “guarantee”, or even have the power to refuse, Christ, if one comes with repentence and forgiveness?

 

[La-Petite-Fleur]

I wanted to vote, but what is meant by “non-Catholics”? I have no problem praying with Protestants, or Jews & Muslims as long as nothing is said against Jesus’ divinity. But to pray with say, a witch, who prays to her gods… I couldn’t engage in that.

 

[hermitcrab]

padre Pio also gave communion to all Christian traditions and in one recorded case to a non-Christian.

Many Franciscan Friars do the same.

Well, what do others think? Is Eric off to hell, or is he making a good point? No but seriously, what do you think? I am sympathetic to the notion that socially, among those people, Christ in some way is present. CCC 1400 says that eucharistic intercommunion is not possible with the churches coming from the Reformation. The first Protestants were excommunicated heretics. The Church doctors and so on teach that we should avoid heretics and excommunicates. Today’s Protestants aren’t necessarily in the same boat. Today’s Moslems may not be in the same boat as Mohammed, for that matter. This is another area where the mind of the Church is important to follow. I have heard it said that the pope gave Communion to various non-Catholics, like the Taize Brother Roger. There is some confusion as to what was going on at that Mass.

 

[ctos]

padre Pio also gave communion to all Christian traditions and in one recorded case to a non-Christian.

Many Franciscan Friars do the same.

Hello, hermit! Any citations you can share? I’m not insinuating doubt or anything, I just like to follow things up where I can.

 

[hermitcrab]

There is the definitive and fully accepted bio of Padre Pio, by Ruffin, which gives full details of this.

Ruffin himself was a sceptic and a non-Christian… not any more!

And I know personally the Franciscans I mentioned.

We have non RC friends in other lands who are welcomed at Mass and for communion. By parish priests who know their status.

And we know also folk in the US who also receive communion in RC Churches, in one case a woman Episcopalian priest who also attends Rosary Hour.

Hello, hermit! Any citations you can share? I’m not insinuating doubt or anything, I just like to follow things up where I can.

 

[hermitcrab]

With you on this, Pastor. Bless you.

Can one “guarantee”, or even have the power to refuse, Christ, if one comes with repentence and forgiveness?

 

[ctos]

Can one “guarantee”, or even have the power to refuse, Christ, if one comes with repentence and forgiveness?

Thanks O. for the message.

Before I give an answer, I just want to reiterate a fact: from the beginning, Baptism did not guarantee Communion. Baptism does not guarantee Communion. It’s as simple as that. That is the correct understanding. This is how the Church has always been since the apostolic age. That fact is a sufficient answer.

Now, your question partly gets at issues of public sin vs. private sin. There are occasions when a priest is obliged to give Communion, and I don’t know all the rules offhand. But to some extent it relates to an assumption that a person repents prior to receiving Communion. I don’t want to take the time to hunt down the relevant information, because my point is proven already: The Church has never considered Baptism as a guarantee of receiving Communion.

 

[ctos]

There is the definitive and fully accepted bio of Padre Pio, by Ruffin, which gives full details of this.

The 1982, or the 1991, or both? Anyway I just ordered the 1982 through a library service. Can you quote a paragraph or something?