Question on Real Presence vs Transub

[Matorin]

Must one be a catholic to take Eucharist or only believe in transubstantiation, but say, be more Lutheran, Anglican, or Reformed in other beliefs?

A follow-up question is if one converts to Catholicism but does not accept transub but accepts Real Presence (that is, that the elements remain while Christ is truly present) is that enough for taking the Eucharist? Or is it impossible to be truly Catholic and not accept a teaching of the Catholic church?

Then the obvious question is a combo of these two: can someone who believes Real Presence but not transub and who also holds more Lutheran, Anglican or Reformed beliefs in areas of baptismal regeneration, infallibility of pope, etc partake in the Eucharist during mass?

Thanks ahead of time!

 

[VetA]

Must one be a catholic to take Eucharist or only believe in transubstantiation, but say, be more Lutheran, Anglican, or Reformed in other beliefs?

A follow-up question is if one converts to Catholicism but does not accept transub but accepts Real Presence (that is, that the elements remain while Christ is truly present) is that enough for taking the Eucharist? Or is it impossible to be truly Catholic and not accept a teaching of the Catholic church?

Then the obvious question is a combo of these two: can someone who believes Real Presence but not transub and who also holds more Lutheran, Anglican or Reformed beliefs in areas of baptismal regeneration, infallibility of pope, etc partake in the Eucharist during mass?

Thanks ahead of time!

By all rights believing in the Real Presence is a major factor, but recieving Holy Communion implies that you believe the truth of the church so those who are not catholic or claim to be catholic but do not accept the truth (pro-abort ‘catholic’ politicans for example) shoild not recieve because they are not in ‘communion’ with the church

 

[Monica4316]

Must one be a catholic to take Eucharist or only believe in transubstantiation, but say, be more Lutheran, Anglican, or Reformed in other beliefs?

In order to become Catholic, a person needs to agree with the Catholic Church and with all its dogmas. Then, they can receive the Eucharist. The reason for this is that receiving Communion is a sign of unity, so it’s important that we all have unity of faith. Sadly, there are many Catholics don’t totally agree with the Church, but it’s important to. I’m a convert, and it took me a while to start agreeing with the Church on many topics, but eventually God brought me there, and prayer and research helped I found much of my disagreement came from misunderstanding

A follow-up question is if one converts to Catholicism but does not accept transub but accepts Real Presence (that is, that the elements remain while Christ is truly present) is that enough for taking the Eucharist? Or is it impossible to be truly Catholic and not accept a teaching of the Catholic church?

being Catholic includes having Catholic beliefs. Do you mean consubstantiation? We don’t believe that the elements remain… it is fully Christ. If you have some problem with transubstantiation, it’s also an option to take the Eastern view and believe that it’s fully Christ, just not define it further. Eastern Catholics take this approach. But in any case, we don’t believe that the bread and wine remain.

Then the obvious question is a combo of these two: can someone who believes Real Presence but not transub and who also holds more Lutheran, Anglican or Reformed beliefs in areas of baptismal regeneration, infallibility of pope, etc partake in the Eucharist during mass?

Thanks ahead of time!

I’d say no.

Receiving the Eucharist requires becoming Catholic formally, then going to Confession, and keeping the fast… and also agreeing with the Church teachings. All this is seem sort of like preparation for the Sacrament, and a way to live the full life of the Church

hope that helps,

God bless

 

[Matorin]

In the same vein as there being “one baptism”, obvious you take a different meaning to

*Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf. *

than you do to the same phrase which you get there being “one baptism?”.

“Because there is one loaf” is not dependent on anything else, THAT IS WHY WE ARE ONE BODY. Correct? Now, I think what you are trying to say is that there is one loaf but because Christ is not present in a baptist communion (or is he, and they are just refusing to acknowledge it like the Corinthian church was?) then they are not part of that one body, except that Vatican 2 makes it evident that they ARE one body with the Catholic church, just separated (although how is this really ONE? But don’t answer that, I will ask it in a few days). In any case, can you really say “you can not partake in communion because, although you are remembering the Lord’s death until he comes, and examining yourself, and you take Christ literally when he says ‘This is my body’ but because you will not be forced to become Aristotelian and NeoPlatonist- that you believe that God can make the wafer and wine into both God and wine without changing the wine into a shell of wine that houses God (transubstantiation), or because you place trust in the Holy Spirit to guide you in interpretation instead of the Magesterium.”

Is that really a reason to DENY SOMEONE the VERY LORD as we are both commanded to do and as they desire to? I do not think so. I am curious as to whether or not the Catholic church, which here are represented by the people on this bored, does.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Matorin,

It seems you are asking very earnest questions and the best place to ask them may be Apologetics.

Having said that, I will make an effort on a very basic level. A Catholic is someone who believes everything the Church sets forth as doctrine. There is no “picking and choosing” which parts you like and which parts you don’t. I will say tho’, that with belief comes a building understanding of those things that may at first seem to be hard to believe.

Just as a side note regarding the consecrated elements of the Eucharist ~ after the Consecration they are no longer properly referred to as the “bread” or the “wine”. They are the “Precious Body” and the “Precious Blood”. I recall someone once saying that when they went to receive the Eucharist that they had received the host, but they had “run out of wine” so they didn’t receive that. But they didn’t run out of wine, they ran out of the “Precious Blood” and to refer to it as wine after the consecration is incorrect.

As far as your question regarding denial of the Eucharist ~ the Church does not set out to “deny” anyone the Eucharist, but according to Scripture an individual needs to be in a “state of grace” to receive the Precious Body and Precious Blood of Our Lord. Otherwise, to receive courts damnation. This isn’t a rule established by the Church, it is in the Bible. Even many Catholics sometimes find themselves outside that definition and do not receive for a time, until they can go to Confession, be Reconciled with God, and receive Absolution.

Hope this helps! But you might also want to visit Apologetics where far more learned persons tend to post!

 

[Matorin]

What you are talking about is

“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.”

I call it the bread and cup of the Lord because so does Paul, and if that is good enough for Paul it is good enough for me. We ask ourselves “what is an unworthy manner?” and Paul explains what that means. “Without discerning the body” is what he says, and he says this to the Corinthian church who is taking communion as simply no more than another meal. At the very least, he is saying there is something Holy about it and it should not be a potluck. I would include that “discerning the body” excludes non-Real Presence partakers. However, if I am examining myself for sin and discerning the body, why then am I in danger of drinking judgement on myself? If the Eastern Orthodox Christians can partake in RC Eucharist because they stop at “discerning the body”, and don’t debate the “how” which, in my opinion, if it is supposed to be a mystery why are we trying to exactly explain the “how”, and instead they focus on the “what” and “who”, then why can I not partake as well?

But yes I will put this in apologetics