Receiving communion at Protestant services

[stpurl]

I thought it might be (or Church of Scotland) but it is confusing to non-Europeans to see Baptist and Protestant. Actually, it’s good to address something like this because it helps us in the U.S. to realize that some of the things which we say and seem obvious and known to us aren’t obvious or known to others.

 

[Uriel1]

Yes, “Church of Scotland” is Also synonymous with “Presbyterian”, while the breakaway “Free Church of Scotland” is known as the “Wee Frees.” And yes, all are protestant; I often ask what are they protesting about, and they generally don’t know.
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

 

[Pup7]

Well…

http://jesus-is-savior.com/Believer's%20Corner/why_baptists_are_not_protestants.htm

That’s not the first place I’ve read/heard that either.

 

[Gorgias]

Well I guess I’ll just have to be in a state of sin because I disagree.

Well, that pretty much is the very definition of ‘sin’.

Just out of curiosity, though, with what do you ‘disagree’?

• Do you disagree that the Church has a teaching on intercommunion?
• Or, maybe, knowing the norms, do you disagree with the interpretation of them that asserts that intercommunion is prohibited?
• Or, perhaps, knowing that the interpretation is accurate, you deny that the Church has the authority to assert these norms?
• Or, knowing that the Church teaches this and has the authority to do so, do you merely refuse to assent to the norms?

Inquiring minds…

 

[Tis_Bearself]

recently learned that Catholics are not supposed to receive communion at non-Catholic churches. I don’t really understand why, however.

Why would I want to denigrate the Roman Catholic Sacrament of Holy Eucharist by receiving some Protestant imitation of it?
I wouldn’t be receiving the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in a Protestant church, and I don’t want to give any impression I approve of what they are doing by offering Communion as a “symbolic” act or claiming their clergy has the power to change bread and wine into the Body and Blood.

As somebody posted on here a while back, if I want crackers I’ll go to 7-11.

I can see going to a Protestant church just to pray together and have some ecumenical fellowship, but I draw the line at Communion. Holy Eucharist is simply too important and key to the Catholic religion. “Accept no substitutes!”

 

[Eric_Hyom]

I was talking about Catholic perspective but your post is trying to create an argument out of nothing.

We have had civil wars in Britain and Ireland, when the country has been divided by Catholics and Protestants, and we spent years killing each other. Fortunately, we have moved on since then.

The Bible has not changed, God has not changed, but we are changing towards each other. I just ask, have we really come to the greatest understanding of ‘One God’ and One Jesus Christ’.

Can we truthfully say that Christ is only present in the Catholic Eucharist, and Christ is not present in any other Eucharist.

I am a Catholic, and a few years ago, I was deeply saddened, the bishop withdrew the cup in our diocese because there was a risk of bird flu. I strongly felt that we should have continued to take the cup, knowing that it is the real blood of our Lord.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Can we truthfully say that Christ is only present in the Catholic Eucharist, and Christ is not present in any other Eucharist.

Yes, we can truthfully say that.
If you have doubt about something so central, so basic to our faith, then I think you should perhaps seek spiritual direction, because doubt about that is a very, very serious problem.

Christ is certainly present in the room when Protestant people gather in a group to pray, and I have no doubt he loves them and is pleased with their prayers, but He does not appear in the Real Presence in their Eucharist. No ifs, ands, or buts. He simply just doesn’t.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I am a Catholic, and a few years ago, I was deeply saddened, the bishop withdrew the cup in our diocese because there was a risk of bird flu. I strongly felt that we should have continued to take the cup, knowing that it is the real blood of our Lord.

If you were receiving Christ’s body via the Host, you do not need to also receive from the cup.
Either species contains the Body and Blood of Our Lord.
It’s not like you missed any part of Him by only partaking of the host and not partaking of the cup.
So your “strong feelings” are simply a preference you have, not any teaching of the Church.

 

[Dlee]

Why Baptists are NOT Protestants!

Guess I’ve been guilty of adding Baptists to the protestants when grouping. Hmmm. I know many at my former Baptist Church lean toward Calvin. But again, that is individual interpretation, not from the pastor or as the article points out, any organization with authority. It always bothered me that there is so much individual interpretation.

 

[Pup7]

Me too.

That’s pretty much how I ended up Catholic.

 

[Uriel1]

Eric_Hyom:

I am a Catholic, and a few years ago, I was deeply saddened, the bishop withdrew the cup in our diocese because there was a risk of bird flu. I strongly felt that we should have continued to take the cup, knowing that it is the real blood of our Lord.

If you were receiving Christ’s body via the Host, you do not need to also receive from the cup.
Either species contains the Body and Blood of Our Lord.
It’s not like you missed any part of Him by only partaking of the host and not partaking of the cup.
So your “strong feelings” are simply a preference you have, not any teaching of the Church.

Not so my friend; read from USC of CB’s
Christ Himself Is Present in the Eucharistic Species

1. Christ is "truly, really, and substantially contained"18 in Holy Communion. His presence is not momentary nor simply signified, but wholly and permanently real under each of the consecrated species of bread and wine.19
2. The Council of Trent teaches that "the true body and blood of our Lord, together with his soul and divinity, exist under the species of bread and wine. His body exists under the species of bread and his blood under the species of wine, according to the import of his words."20
3. The Church also teaches and believes that "immediately after the consecration the true body of our Lord and his true blood exist along with his soul and divinity under the form of bread and wine. The body is present under the form of bread and the blood under the form of wine, by virtue of the words [of Christ]. The same body, however, is under the form of wine and the blood under the form of bread, and the soul under either form, by virtue of the natural link and concomitance by which the parts of Christ the Lord, who has now risen from the dead and will die no more, are mutually united."21
4. Since, however, by reason of the sign value, sharing in both eucharistic species reflects more fully the sacred realities that the Liturgy signifies, the Church in her wisdom has made provisions in recent years so that more frequent eucharistic participation from both the sacred host and the chalice of salvation might be made possible for the laity in the Latin Church.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

You ignored paragraph 10 in your rush to highlight the last paragraph.

He is not missing anything.

 

[Uriel1]

You ignored paragraph 10 in your rush to highlight the last paragraph.

He is not missing anything.

read Matt 7:1-3
I included para 10 so that people like you could see I had not ignored it, but I’ll simplify the qualifier for you. Caritate non ficta

sharing in both eucharistic species reflects more fully the sacred realities that the Liturgy signifies

 

[Tis_Bearself]

From the USCCB document which you insist on selectively quoting. Note the part I have bolded is a Doctrine of the Church. We have been over this before. I am not going to argue it further with you.

Catechesis for Receiving the Body and Blood of the Lord

1. When Communion under both kinds is first introduced by the Diocesan Bishop and also whenever the opportunity for instruction is present, the faithful should be properly catechized on the following matters in the light of the teaching and directives of the General Instruction:

• the ecclesial nature of the Eucharist as the common possession of the whole Church;
• the Eucharist as the memorial of Christ’s sacrifice, his death and resurrection, and as the sacred banquet;
  the real presence of Christ in the eucharistic elements, whole and entire—in each element of consecrated bread and wine (the doctrine of concomitance);
• the kinds of reverence due at all times to the sacrament, whether within the eucharistic Liturgy or outside the celebration;38 and
• the role that ordinary and, if necessary, extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist are assigned in the eucharistic assembly.

 

[JackMcCoy]

Why would any Catholic want to receive communion at another church? Protestants do not consider their communion as anything other than a symbol.

 

[steve-b]

I recently learned that Catholics are not supposed to receive communion at non-Catholic churches. I don’t really understand why, however.

Catholics believe it is the body blood soul and divinity of Jesus because Jesus not only said so but because He said "DO THIS" in memory of me.

DO THIS = ποιεῖτε open the link. Consecration of the apostles also took place here. THEY now have the authority and power from Jesus to do exactly what JESUS DID, change mere bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus. Jesus said these words instituting the Eucharist.

Catholics can’t violate what they have been given via this sacrament, in the only Church Our Lord established, going outside the Church without grave sin.

kjack2222:

FOLLOW UP QUESTION: re: the idea that receiving at their church is scandalous. What just happened on the 500th anniversary of the reformation? Didn’t we kinda reconcile and say that the differences that divide us no longer do so? What about orthodox churches? Their sacraments are considered valid but they don’t recognize the pope do they? Thank you everyone for your responses and keeping things positive and cordial

No

Canon law:
844 §1

Look up the definition of Licit & illicit

 

[Eric_Hyom]

If you were receiving Christ’s body via the Host, you do not need to also receive from the cup.
Either species contains the Body and Blood of Our Lord.

Agreed, but if our diocese was already offering the cup at daily mass, why should we stop because of an outbreak of bird flu?

We had the choice of following health and safety rules and withdraw the cup, or trusting in our Lord and carrying on as normal. Sadly, we bowed to health and safety pressures, I felt this to be a lack of faith and trust in our Lord.

 

[Uriel1]

Tis_Bearself may “take away her ball” if she likes; the readers will see a pattern, but I have not selectively misquoted. Jesus called it bread and wine for a reason. And the early church did exactly that as you know, and as the CCC reminds us…

The Mass of all ages

** CCC 1345** As early as the second century we have the witness of St. Justin Martyr for the basic lines of the order of the Eucharistic celebration. They have stayed the same until our own day for all the great liturgical families. St. Justin wrote to the pagan emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161) around the year 155, explaining what Christians did:

On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place.
The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits.

When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things.

Then we all rise together and offer prayers* for ourselves . . .and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation.

When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss.

Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren.

He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks (in Greek: eucharistian) that we have been judged worthy of these gifts.

When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying: ‘Amen.’

When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the “eucharisted” bread, wine and water and take them to those who are absent.

res ipse loquitur, caritate non ficta

 

[Uriel1]

The Church teaches that each of the species in themselves offer both the body and the blood.

Jesus on the other hand when giving Peter the keys to the Kingdom told us to eat his body and drink his blood that we might have eternal life. [ John 6:54]

 

[thistle]

Tis_Bearself may “take away her ball” if she likes; the readers will see a pattern, but I have not selectively misquoted. Jesus called it bread and wine for a reason. And the early church did exactly that as you know, and as the CCC reminds us…

YOU seem to be the one trying to mislead people.

If someone receives only the Host or only the Chalice they are receiving the complete body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. Do you disagree with this statement?