Receiving communion at Protestant services

[MaryClare]

This is getting off topic a bit. The question was, is it proper for a Catholic to receive non Catholic sacraments of communion. It was not about the place of Jesus in Protestant churches that do not except the teachings of the papal authority. No one said Jesus has nothing to do with Protestant Churches. But I did say that there is no true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist in a Protestant church. To take communion in one, when you are in communion with a Catholic church is to suggest you either do not believe what Catholics do about communion and view it as simply bread and wine, or that you do know and believe Catholic communion is what it is, and you just don’t care.

 

[2towers]

I made this error at my Dad’s funeral this March. He was an Episcopal Priest, and the funeral was at his old church. There were plenty of folks there that were pretty hostile towards me for that fact. [that I converted to Catholicism. “Whats up with that anyway, they say the creed, why all the hostility?” . I also neglected to include his church for contributions in lieu of flowers. I asked that contributions go to the American Cancer society and the Hospice that we used. They did not like that AT ALL! “Whose father is this anyway?” I thought.

They were all pretty hot… at my own Dads funeral. The Priest was GREAT though. So they had communion, the Episcopal Bishop did the service. So my family went up to the communion rails when the question hit me. “Uh oh, should I take their communion?” All eyes on 2towers. So I took it. I wasn’t 100% sure it was wrong, but I certainly had an idea it was.

What an awful thing to go through at your Dad’s funeral. Anyway, I confessed it. I found out here on a thread I started too. I won’t EVER do it again, that’s for sure. Sorry for all the extra details, I am still not over it all.

 

[Gorgias]

What an awful thing to go through … Anyway, I confessed it.

… I won’t EVER do it again, that’s for sure. … I am still not over it all.

No worries; you’re in good company – St Peter could say much the same thing, about stressful situations that he faced.

Be at peace.

 

[stpurl]

I understand your teachings and I certainly wouldn’t presume to tell you what to do or teach, but then you had to spoil it all, “No one is turned away unless they walk away by choice. As it is with Christ”. . .

In which you very pointedly imply that Catholics in their communion are acting UNLIKE Christ. Not very polite, especially when this is not the Apologetics or the NonCatholic forum, but the Liturgy and Sacraments forum, which is talking about Catholic Liturgy and Catholic Sacraments.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

In which you very pointedly imply that Catholics in their communion are acting UNLIKE Christ. Not very polite, especially when this is not the Apologetics or the NonCatholic forum, but the Liturgy and Sacraments forum, which is talking about Catholic Liturgy and Catholic Sacraments.

I’m so sorry you assumed that is what I was implying. I was speaking of how many non-Catholic churches understand rituals around the remembrance of the Lord’s Supper. No one is turned away: ‘Let them come unto me.’ I made no reference to the Roman Catholic Sacrament of Communion.

 

[stpurl]

You mean when you were speaking of ‘why would we not break the bread together’ you were specifically speaking only of your fellow Protestant churches (not all of whom practice open communion, though) even though you were responding to a Catholic who had spoken of how we saw participating in protestant communion not as ‘breaking bread’ but as expressing a unity with a belief of the Eucharist being symbolic, a meal only, and not what in our Church is the Source and summit of our teaching in the Real Presence?

If all the Eucharist consisted of was a symbolic ‘breaking bread’ then one would imagine all could share. . .but for Catholics this is not so, and cuts at the heart of a belief of Christendom that existed for 1500 years before men decided the eucharist was ‘only a breaking of bread’. . . and exists within us (and the Orthodox, and certain small groups of other non-Catholic Christians to this day). . .

 

[Gorgias]

I was speaking of how many non-Catholic churches understand rituals around the remembrance of the Lord’s Supper. No one is turned away: ‘Let them come unto me.’

“Let them come unto me” is Christ’s response to those who would turn away children who are seeking an encounter with Christ himself. That’s not what those who celebrate ‘symbolic’ communion are doing. A different quote comes to mind in that case: “anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.”

 

[ComplineSanFran]

You mean when you were speaking of ‘why would we not break the bread together’ you were specifically speaking only of your fellow Protestant churches (not all of whom practice open communion, though) even though you were responding to a Catholic who had spoken of how we saw participating in protestant communion not as ‘breaking bread’ but as expressing a unity with a belief of the Eucharist being symbolic, a meal only, and not what in our Church is the Source and summit of our teaching in the Real Presence?

If all the Eucharist consisted of was a symbolic ‘breaking bread’ then one would imagine all could share. . .but for Catholics this is not so, and cuts at the heart of a belief of Christendom that existed for 1500 years before men decided the eucharist was ‘only a breaking of bread’. . . and exists within us (and the Orthodox, and certain small groups of other non-Catholic Christians to this day). . .

I think that breaking bread together is a Christian symbol that transcends traditions. It has pan-denominational ties to the historic Last Supper. I really do believe, theologically, that we can participate in each other’s breaking of the bread and honor that Biblical ritual without putting our own denominational judgement on what it is and what it isn’t for other branches of Christianity. Presbyterian or Mormon or UCC rituals of the Last Supper are what they are, and they have meaning for our fellow Christians. It doesn’t negate what you, as Roman Catholic, or I, as Anglican, believe in as Sacrament in our own sanctuaries.

When your faith says to limit the Sacrament to certain people, then you follow that teaching. I am not saying do otherwise. But I truly see no reason why you cannot break bread with the Methodists or any other Christian community and remember the reason we are here in the first place - to worship God.

Oh, and by the way, the early church had MANY meals together when they broke bread as community and it was not more than that - fellowship and agape.

 

[Gorgias]

But I truly see no reason why you cannot break bread with the Methodists or any other Christian community

However, this isn’t merely a matter of ‘breaking bread’; it’s an attempt to call a particular liturgical act “Eucharist.” In that, then, you’re comparing apples to oranges.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

However, this isn’t merely a matter of ‘breaking bread’; it’s an attempt to call a particular liturgical act “Eucharist.” In that, then, you’re comparing apples to oranges.

Not at all. The act of breaking bread is a rite - a Christian rite - defined as such by the denominations. HOW it is defined varies, and as I said earlier, the effect of it varies, but it is still the same rite known as the Thanksgiving rite (Eucharist) of the Lord’s Supper.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

However, this isn’t merely a matter of ‘breaking bread’; it’s an attempt to call a particular liturgical act “Eucharist.” In that, then, you’re comparing apples to oranges.

Not at all. The act of breaking bread is a rite - a Christian rite - defined as such by the denominations. HOW it is defined varies, and as I said earlier, the effect of it varies, but it is still the same rite known as the Thanksgiving rite (Eucharist) of the Lord’s Supper.

Well, then… you’re kinda agreeing with me. It’s not just a community celebration, it’s an attempt to celebrate the Eucharist. And, as such, Catholics celebrate it in a particular way (i.e., in the context of a Mass) and with a particular expectation (it becomes the Body and Blood of Christ). Anything other than that – even if our non-Catholic Christian friends think it’s something else – isn’t proper for Catholics to celebrate.

 

[stpurl]

I’m sorry that after hearing the clear teaching you still don’t understand why we cannot ‘choose’ to accept a non-Catholic symbolic ‘breaking bread’ as the equivalent to our Eucharist which contains the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ.

And your "the early church had many meals together’. . . I daresay that from Monday-Saturday there were communal means. . .But not the liturgy/Eucharist on Sundays.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

And your "the early church had many meals together’. . . I daresay that from Monday-Saturday there were communal means. . . But not the liturgy/Eucharist on Sundays.

Read a bit of your history…

“The agape was thus related to the Eucharist as Christ’s last Passover [was] to the Christian rite which he grafted upon it. It preceded and led up to the Eucharist, and was quite distinct from it.” [vol. 1, p. 66] The Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, which represents both catholic and Protestant views, says this about the love feast: “In the history of early Christian practice, however, agape is also a liturgical term. Translated “love-feast” (Jude 12), it springs from the meal that the New Testament variously calls the “breaking of bread” (Acts 2:42-47; 20:7-12) and “Eucharist” (1 Cor. 11:20-34). A core tradition in the early church, the meal explicitly recalls the meals Jesus celebrated with his disciples, especially the Last Supper … and the post-resurrection meals recounted in Luke 24 and John 20-21.” [p. 17]”

In Justin Martyr, the Eucharist seems to have absorbed the fraternal functions characteristic of agape. …On the other hand, in Clement’s Alexandria (ca. 200) agape and Eucharist are joined, in spite of the signal abuses to which Clement gives witness.

“There is general agreement that from the mid-third century, agape and Eucharist go their separate ways.” [p. 17]

Nevertheless, even though the agape and communion went their separate ways, the church continued to practice both of them until some time after the time of Constantine. Perhaps the love feast would have continued on down to our times if the original apostolic pattern (holding the love feast and the Eucharist together) had not been broken. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia makes this observation on the separation of the agape and Eucharist, and the eventual extinguishment of the agape:

In the Didache (ca. A.D. 100) there is no sign as yet of any separation. The direction that the second Eucharistic prayer should be offered “after being filled” appears to imply that a regular meal had immediately preceded the observance of the sacrament. In the Ignatian epistles (ca. A.D. 110), the Lord’s Supper and the agape are still found in combination… "

http://earlychurch.com/LoveFeast.html

 

[stpurl]

Springs from (as in other meals) not as a substitute for… .

And “Scroll Publishing”?

 

[ComplineSanFran]

And “Scroll Publishing”?

Scroll Publishing specializes in Early Church History. Why?

 

[stpurl]

Oh gee, I don’t know. . maybe.because it’s a non-Catholic Christian source and the majority of non-Catholic Christians don’t believe in anything but a symbolic Eucharist and a ‘liturgy meal’, and thus would not ‘find’ the early Church’s liturgy to be ‘different’ from their interpretation (and obviously would not find anything like the “Catholic practice?”)

 

[Gorgias]

even though the agape and communion went their separate ways, the church continued to practice both of them until some time after the time of Constantine. Perhaps the love feast would have continued on down to our times if the original apostolic pattern (holding the love feast and the Eucharist together) had not been broken.

Compline,

But, here’s the thing: you’re not suggesting that Catholics eat at Protestant agape meals. You’re suggesting we partake in a Eucharist that we don’t believe is really Eucharist. And then, you’re asking us to accept a Protestant ‘eucharist’ as if it were an agape meal.

So, how can you keep suggesting that it’s ok, if it’s trying to be something that we think it’s not?

 

[MaryClare]

You have to be properly disposed for all Sacarments or you are not doing them justice.

I would invite any Protestant to simply ‘break bread’ with me at any ordinary dinner, but what you do not seem to understand is that the Eucahrist isn’t just a meal of Thanksgiving to Catholic Christians.

The Eucharist becomes the actual body and blood of Christ. If you treat it just like any other meal, and you are when you have it at a Protestant Church, then you are not properly disposed for it.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

But, here’s the thing: you’re not suggesting that Catholics eat at Protestant agape meals. You’re suggesting we partake in a Eucharist that we don’t believe is really Eucharist. And then, you’re asking us to accept a Protestant ‘eucharist’ as if it were an agape meal.

So, how can you keep suggesting that it’s ok, if it’s trying to be something that we think it’s not?

Of course I am not suggesting that agape meals are the status quo for non-RC communities. The point I was trying to make is that throughout Christian history, from the very beginning, we have taken the story of the Last Supper and told it under multitudes of circumstances, the agape dinners (with bread broken and wine drunk), being one that is known historically. The Eucharist was a part of dinner (and if you read Paul, often a very drunken dinner).

I recall once, several years ago, a question was asked if the Apostles celebrated Mass facing the altar or facing the people. I banged my head, to say the least, but it made me realize that many church-goers think that Christians have practiced the rituals the same way since the days of Jesus.

Christians have never believed and practiced the same way throughout history. We have told our stories in very different ways, especially in modern times. Nobody is asking you, as RC, to sign on the dotted line when you cross into a Methodist or Lutheran church. That may be the case in the reverse situation, but it is not true in this case. I love going to churches not my own and hearing the same Gospel and participating in the rituals that are familiar yet different.

And why do you say that those Eucharistic (Thanksgiving) rituals are trying to be something they are not? They are exactly what they should be, as are yours. How can they be rooted in the Gospel and not be what Christ intends them to be? No one is pretending here and asking you to participate in deception. These are your brothers and sisters in Christ, following the Gospel according to their interpretation and tradition. Just as you are.

Regardless of all this, I do understand and respect that your tradition teaches that you cannot participate in any rites outside your own. It is very sad.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

If you treat it just like any other meal, and you are when you have it at a Protestant Church, then you are not properly disposed for it.

That is not accurate in the least bit.