Protestant Communion

[LilyM]

Ding, ding, ding. Give Lily a prize.

I have Celiac. I have had it for a number of years. But I was diagnosed only 2 years ago. Before that, I would eat bread, crackers and pasta with no problem.

It wasn’t until I had a blood test that said my iron levels were so low, they wanted me to have a blood transfusion, that I even knew there was a problem. Further testing showed Celiac.

When I stopped eating wheat, my iron levels came up. If I slipped and had some wheat, it wasn’t a big deal. No real problems. NOW, since it has been so long since I have had wheat, if I get just a little bit of it, look out. It is like I have a stomach virus.

Now, I know someone else that has Celiac. In fact, I know quite a few. But one of them eats wheat about once a week. She also receives regular Communion, rather than the very low gluten Communion. She doesn’t have any problems with it. It is because she eats wheat when she shouldn’t.

So it could be that the OP’s friend eats wheat often enough to not have visible signs. If she does have Celiac, she should have a blood test and a biopsy. That would show the real picture. If she didn’t have celiac, but maybe a low level gluten intolerance, it could that she grew out of it or as Lily said, she could have become less sensitive to it.

Yeah, my BIL was diagnosed a few years back. Poor thing - he SO misses having his beer :bighanky:

 

[NHInsider]

A friend of mine has had a disease throughout her life where she couldn’t eat food with gluten. Over the weekend some of my protestant friends went to a service out of town and before they even got there my friend with the gluten disease felt that God was calling her to be healed and to come to His table. She found out when they got there that they were having a communion service. She felt that God was calling her to be healed, she normally wouldn’t take communion because she would react to it but she did and she was fine and ever since she’s been eating bread and stuff she’s fine it really is a miracle.

Now I understand God can work through Protestant services and Protestants have access to a lot of truth and grace just not the fullness like the Catholic Church has. My question is it seems to me that God could be causing confusion in calling her to His table to heal her almost as if confirming a false belief (which is disbelief in transubstantiation). What should I make of this? I’ve had experiences of Jesus in the Eucharist I know he’s there I’m just confused as to how he would work through an invalid communion service as if to confirm it?

Possibly the Lord wanted to make the healing obvious. Most Protestant groups use ordinary bread for their communion services, which might be more likely to trigger a reaction than a host. (You also don’t indicate whether your friend is a Catholic - if she is not, then calling her to the Eucharist wasn’t an option for the Holy Spirit, was it?)

At any rate, the bread didn’t heal her, God healed her (if the miracle proves true). He used the symbolic communion service to reveal the healing.

My response would be to praise God for healing if and to the extent that it proves real. He can use any means He chooses.

 

[Newbie2]

Your church is the only one who thinks they have the fullness of truth.

Perhaps there’s a good reason for that?

I understand that you have read your catechism well. The problem is that you only believe what you leaders have told you to believe, but you are ignorant of what God’s church is. Staking claim to something doesn’t make it yours. It’s the word of God, yet your church claims it as theirs. Your leaders have misinterpreted Scripture so as to give them the authority that only God deserves. There are many things in Catholic doctrine that are designed to give the your leaders power, control and authority over it’s members.

Perhaps designed by God himself? (sans “control”)

I think the key here is this:

***Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord in a Lutheran Lord’s Supper.
-Cardinal Ratzinger ***

We need to understand Lutheran theology as the Pope does; although there is “real presence” in the Lutheran Eucharistic sacrament, it is not received in the manner as we Catholics receive it. There is no transubstantiation, the real presence comes directly from God. Methinks that “valid” ordination in the Apostolic succession is a moot point, since there is no consecration of the wine or bread.

Furthermore, methinks that attempts by Catholics to nullify the benefits to Lutherans from their “version” of communion are counterproductive in helping them and others to understand the fullness of our Catholic tradition. One might as well say that Lutheran baptisms are invalid as well, due to the invalid-ness of the pastor’s ordination (which we know is not the case).

So let’s be careful about what we say about the validity or non-validity of Lutheran communion, especially in light of how Benedict understands it.

 

[steve_b]

A friend of mine has had a disease throughout her life where she couldn’t eat food with gluten. Over the weekend some of my protestant friends went to a service out of town and before they even got there my friend with the gluten disease felt that God was calling her to be healed and to come to His table. She found out when they got there that they were having a communion service. She felt that God was calling her to be healed, she normally wouldn’t take communion because she would react to it but she did and she was fine and ever since she’s been eating bread and stuff she’s fine it really is a miracle.

:tiphat: Good morning

Just a few thoughts on an interesting story.

As you know, in Catholic understanding, before a miracle can be proclaimed, one needs absolute evidence a disease in this case really existed, and was absolutely cured by that communion service alone and zero medical intervention or any other human intervention was possible for a cure prior to this. For example, was she already cured prior to this and eating a small piece of bread confirmed she was cured? Or did she have a minor allergy vs a severe form, and eating a small piece of bread was not going to give her major problems?

As you know, the Church when investigating miracles puts a miracle in question through incredable scrutiny so that later if a miracle is proclaimed, it stands up to the severest cross examination and is not found to be untrue.

Shana:

Now I understand God can work through Protestant services and Protestants have access to a lot of truth and grace just not the fullness like the Catholic Church has. My question is it seems to me that God could be causing confusion in calling her to His table to heal her almost as if confirming a false belief (which is disbelief in transubstantiation). What should I make of this? I’ve had experiences of Jesus in the Eucharist I know he’s there I’m just confused as to how he would work through an invalid communion service as if to confirm it?

Think of it in reverse.

There are Catholics who suffer from

1. • gluten allergies.
   • And there are alcoholics.
   #1 can’t receive the host, #2 can’t drink from the cup
   
   Let’s say both believe in the Catholic doctrines intimately and passionately.
   
   Does God immediately heal #1 and #2 of their physical affirmaties
   • through reception of the Eucharist in the species they are allergic to?
   • If He doesn’t, does that mean the Eucharist is invalid of what we say it is?
   • Or does it mean the person receiving has no faith?
   it sounds like your friend is on journey. We’ll pray

 

[promethius]

Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord in a Lutheran Lord’s Supper.
***-Cardinal Ratzinger ***
[content removed from post]

So let’s be careful about what we say about the validity or non-validity of Lutheran communion, especially in light of how Benedict understands it.

I hate to burst your bubble, but Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope Benedict are two different persons of different levels of teaching authority. To take a Cardinal Ratzinger quote and try to give it papal authority by saying that it’s Benedict’s position is dishonest at best. If the pope wishes to affirm what he said when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, he will restate it now. Until that time it remains just the statement of a cardinal, and not of the person who is benedict

 

[Newbie2]

I hate to burst your bubble, but Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope Benedict are two different persons of different levels of teaching authority. To take a Cardinal Ratzinger quote and try to give it papal authority by saying that it’s Benedict’s position is dishonest at best. If the pope wishes to affirm what he said when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, he will restate it now. Until that time it remains just the statement of a cardinal, and not of the person who is benedict

Yes, that is true. No bubble to burst here, Chum.

However, I’d ask if this statement has been refuted or revised by either JPII, or if Pope Joseph has revised his statement. If not, it’s the best evidence that we have by a Theologian with admittedly some authority as to the Catholic Church’s current position on the matter…unless you have something more current.

 

[Philthy]

However, I’d ask if this statement has been refuted or revised by either JPII, or if Pope Joseph has revised his statement. If not, it’s the best evidence that we have by a Theologian with admittedly some authority as to the Catholic Church’s current position on the matter…unless you have something more current.

I dont think its clear at all what his position is from this quote. IMHO he simply affirms that we acknowledge that although God has bound himself to the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist where Apostolic succession exists, he is not necessarily bound by that to not be present in other circumstances.

 

[JonNC]

I dont think its clear at all what his position is from this quote. IMHO he simply affirms that we acknowledge that although God has bound himself to the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist where Apostolic succession exists, he is not necessarily bound by that to not be present in other circumstances.

I think that is exactly what Cardinal Ratzinger was saying.

Jon

 

[Philthy]

I think that is exactly what Cardinal Ratzinger was saying.

Jon

Im glad you liked it! I probably should have been a little more clear however in one aspect.
IMHO he simply affirms that we acknowledge that although God has bound himself to the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist where Apostolic succession exists, he is not necessarily bound by that to not be present in other circumstances, **and we are not bound by our faith in Apostolic succession **to discount God’s ability to be present in other circumstances.

That does not exclude the possibility that other articles of faith - apart from Apostolic succession - lead us to think it unlikely to occur in certain circumstances. Im just throwing this thought in because some might make the intellectual jump from what I posted above to generalizing his thoughts beyond the range of his comments: belief in apostolic succession as limiting God’s grace.

 

[JonNC]

Im glad you liked it! I probably should have been a little more clear however in one aspect.
IMHO he simply affirms that we acknowledge that although God has bound himself to the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist where Apostolic succession exists, he is not necessarily bound by that to not be present in other circumstances, **and we are not bound by our faith in Apostolic succession **to discount God’s ability to be present in other circumstances.

**That does not exclude the possibility that other articles of faith **- apart from Apostolic succession - lead us to think it unlikely to occur in certain circumstances. Im just throwing this thought in because some might make the intellectual jump from what I posted above to generalizing his thoughts beyond the range of his comments: belief in apostolic succession as limiting God’s grace.

And a good Catholic should probably agree with this. My use of the quote is in no way intended to imply something it does not, but only what is. Could one imagine a Cardinal even saying this 100 years ago, much less eventually become pope? That what this is; evidence that the Holy Spirit is moving amongst Christians of good will, who are earnestly seeking reconciliation for Christ’s Church.

Jon

 

[Newbie2]

I dont think its clear at all what his position is from this quote. IMHO he simply affirms that we acknowledge that although God has bound himself to the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist where Apostolic succession exists, he is not necessarily bound by that to not be present in other circumstances.

Not clear? Look at it again:

Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord in a Lutheran Lord’s Supper.

He is saying that even though we Catholics posess Apostolic succession and by implications Lutherans do not, that we shouldn’t say that Christ’s saving presence isn’t present in the Lutheran sacrament of communion.

If you want to take issue with what he means by “…need not…”, I’ll grant that that’s open to a bit of interpretation whether it means “should not” or “may not” or “are not obligated to”. Otherwise, it ***is ***clear that he does not deny nor suggest that we should deny the real presense in Lutheran communion.

 

[JonNC]

Not clear? Look at it again:

Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord in a Lutheran Lord’s Supper.

He is saying that even though we Catholics posess Apostolic succession and by implications Lutherans do not, that we shouldn’t say that Christ’s saving presence isn’t present in the Lutheran sacrament of communion.

If you want to take issue with what he means by “…need not…”, I’ll grant that that’s open to a bit of interpretation whether it means “should not” or “may not” or “are not obligated to”. Otherwise, it ***is ***clear that he does not deny nor suggest that we should deny the real presense in Lutheran communion.

I want you and others on this thread to know that I have noticed a profound charity in many of your comments, and a willingness to look past our mutual divided past. It has moved me and renewed my hope for a brighter future between our communions.

Blessings,
Jon

 

[Newbie2]

Thanks, Bro.

I used to be Missouri Synod Lutheran, and one of my best friends is now studying to become a Lutheran Minister.

We used to laugh, when I first converted to Catholocism, about whether I was a Latholic or a Clutheran.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I think the key here is this:

***Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord in a Lutheran Lord’s Supper.
-Cardinal Ratzinger ***

We need to understand Lutheran theology as the Pope does; although there is “real presence” in the Lutheran Eucharistic sacrament, it is not received in the manner as we Catholics receive it. There is no transubstantiation, the real presence comes directly from God. Methinks that “valid” ordination in the Apostolic succession is a moot point, since there is no consecration of the wine or bread.

Furthermore, methinks that attempts by Catholics to nullify the benefits to Lutherans from their “version” of communion are counterproductive in helping them and others to understand the fullness of our Catholic tradition. One might as well say that Lutheran baptisms are invalid as well, due to the invalid-ness of the pastor’s ordination (which we know is not the case).

So let’s be careful about what we say about the validity or non-validity of Lutheran communion, especially in light of how Benedict understands it.

The Catholic Church states that Lutherans and anyone that uses the correct form with the proper intent can be baptized and there is no restriction really. So Lutherans obviously have a valid baptism if these things are adhered to. But if a group of Lutherans decides to reject the Trinity and baptize differently than the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, then that baptism is invalid.

Since no one is claiming the Lutherans have an invalid sacrament of baptism then it is mute.

What should be clear is that the Lutheran church does not have any validly ordained priests or bishops and cannot perform some other sacraments which many find necessary, such as confession and the Eucharist and ordination.

The Lutheran church will be greatly blessed when they reject the man made traditions that Martin Luther and others created that are not Christian. I pray for them.

*I never understood how Lutherans could reject Christian teachings for the new teachings of some Catholic Monk that had once honored the Papacy and not long after rejected it to create new teachings. Adding the word Faith the scripture. Rejecting scripture like James and Apocaypse and even calling them an epistle of straw or not from the Holy Spirit. It is based one Monk and his views while rejecting the teachings and traditions of 1500 years of Christianity and millions of other clergy that came before and taught correctly.