Taking Communion at a protestant church

  • Thread starter Thread starter dandee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Seatuck said:
I agree. It is a public action which says something that is not true. Therefore it is a public lie. Taking communion in a protestant church says we are in union when in fact we are not.
Click to expand...
There isn’t any good reason that the Church isn’t in communion with one another.

We should fix it since we are the first one’s with access to true instant global communication ability.
 
DD2007 said:
I’m not Catholic anymore and they say you have to be in full communion with the Pope to recieve. They also have rules against divorce and remarriage which is a catagory I fall into.
Click to expand...
Hmm, there are a whole lot in that category, but who gets to check the records to see if they have been?

A new member comes in, and so be it. Guess it’s how much one owns up to when asked.

Annulment is the proper route for the Catholic… divorce for the rest.

On the side, I have received Communion from a Priest who all the while (in his heart) had his eye’s on the women he was going to marry when he left the Priesthood… publicly to his congregation. Was the Eucharist valid with her in his heart prior to his leaving the fold? I know, in my heart (by faith) I had the right intentions, but the other part of that transforming bread/wine into body/blood was a bit out-of-sorts… while still wearing the robe. (And this can apply to Confession too).

Sometimes I just don’t know where to call it… is it a (faith) belief thing for us, or is it real? How can one know?
 
DD2007 said:
There isn’t any good reason that the Church isn’t in communion with one another.

We should fix it since we are the first one’s with access to true instant global communication ability.
Click to expand...
You are right. Everyone should become Catholic which is the Church Christ went to all the trouble to start .
 
Michael_David said:
Hmm, there are a whole lot in that category, but who gets to check the records to see if they have been?

A new member comes in, and so be it. Guess it’s how much one owns up to when asked.

Annulment is the proper route for the Catholic… divorce for the rest.

On the side, I have received Communion from a Priest who all the while (in his heart) had his eye’s on the women he was going to marry when he left the Priesthood… publicly to his congregation. Was the Eucharist valid with her in his heart prior to his leaving the fold? I know, in my heart (by faith) I had the right intentions, but the other part of that transforming bread/wine into body/blood was a bit out-of-sorts… while still wearing the robe. (And this can apply to Confession too).

Sometimes I just don’t know where to call it… is it a (faith) belief thing for us, or is it real? How can one know?
Click to expand...
Sure it was real! It doesn’t matter what’s in his heart. What matters is that there is a group of Christians gathered together to worship God. He said when two or three are gathered in His name there he is also.

Your communion was valid because of your faith in the Lord not your faith in the priest.
 
Seatuck said:
You are right. Everyone should become Catholic which is the Church Christ went to all the trouble to start .
Click to expand...
Everyone is catholic already. I think that the Church should make a real effort to determine what are the real issues that divide it’s members and what can be done to reconcile.
 
DD2007 said:
Sure it was real! It doesn’t matter what’s in his heart. What matters is that there is a group of Christians gathered together to worship God. He said when two or three are gathered in His name there he is also.

Your communion was valid because of your faith in the Lord not your faith in the priest.
Click to expand...
Now we are back to receiving Communion at a Protestant Service… with ‘faith in the Lord’… not the Priest, or Minister.
 
Michael_David said:
Now we are back to receiving Communion at a Protestant Service… with ‘faith in the Lord’… not the Priest, or Minister.
Click to expand...
There is one Church one Christ. It doesn’t matter what you name the building. The Church is the believers. His people.
 
Michael_David said:
If Baptism and Confirmation is required for taking Communion, and these other religions have a similar form of these, how different are we? In these respects? How similar?
Click to expand...
Confirmation is not required before making your first Communion.
 
DD2007 said:
Everyone is catholic already. I think that the Church should make a real effort to determine what are the real issues that divide it’s members and what can be done to reconcile.
Click to expand...
I don’t see that everyone is catholic. There are such vast differences in beliefs among the christian denominations that I can’t agree with it. Not all baptisms are valid for instance. Not all folks who claim to be Christians believe in the trinity. There is one truth and all must accept it and come to the Catholic Church.
 
tulsacubfan said:
Confirmation is not required before making your first Communion.
Click to expand...
Thank You, and I do know that, but Confirmation was fairly close to each other back in my younger day… Today, it seems more stretched out.

First Confession… First Communion. Confirmation by 8th grade, or later if one is in CCD.
 
tulsacubfan said:
I’m not sure I think the symbolic recreation of the Lord’s Supper in any church is a “worthless ritual.” It is not the sacramental Eucharist, but I think it is a bit harsh to call it a worthless ritual. My husband was raised a Baptist (since converted) and we will occasionally attend a Baptist service with his mother (and also attend Mass). We attended Christmas Eve service one year and we participated in the Lord’s Supper. At no time did I think this was a valid sacramental Euharist. Rather, I thought it was a symbolic recreation of the Lord’s Supper.
Click to expand...
I used the quotes because that was what the previous poster called it. From the true faith perspective, it isn’t real communion. However, my mistake I made (similar to your view) was to act AS IF it were not mearly a brotherhood symbol which is how I viewed it. I realize how upset our Protestant Brethren get with our “overly pius” view of communion. Most of us do not wish to hurt their feelings but we must follow our faith. What they offer is NOT what we believe it is required to be.

BTW, my youngest son is an avid Cubbie. Maybe next year!
 
Corki said:
Since canon law is binding on all Catholics, violating it would be, by definintion, a sin. Mortal or venial would depend on the usualy three conditions. I think it would be hard to receive communion at at protestant church without full knowledge or consent. Grave matter would be the subjective one.

In my opinion (which isn’t worth much), IF by “taking” protestant communion, there was any chance that someone would misunderstand what the individual or Catholics in general believe about the Eucharist, then it would be grave matter. Also, IF by participating in the protestant communion service there was any danger to the person’s own faith or the faith of others (ie children who might witness this and think its ok), then it would be grave matter.
Click to expand...
I missed the reference to Canon law. Can you point (again)?
 
All this got me to thinking… a good and bad thing depending…

Speaking of other Churches and a question of authority, and a side-dish of beliefs, does authority come from the Church (the Parishioners as such), or from Christ?

If Peter, the first Pope, passed it on to the next Pope and on and on to Pope Benedict… how is St. Paul’s passing it on to Timothy and Timothy passing it on to… and you see where I’m going here?
And if we go further, does the Pope pass it to the Cardinals? Who Pass it to the Bishops, who pass it to the Priests that are Ordained locally, not by the Pope? And if each of the 12 had such Missions from Christ and went to their respective lands and carried on the Mission with successors with ‘their blessing’… how does this follow?

And it is the Cardinals that select the next Pope, with Christ’s guidance. Christ passed it to the 11 plus St. Paul, even as He called Peter the Head of His Church. The Mission was to go and make disciples of all nations… etc. And as disciples, what is then passed to those next disciples, and on and on? Can a disciple then pass authority to another?

Can you see where I’m confused? If the Pope’s fingers are not even in Ordaining of Priests (rather the Bishop), it seems the Pope is there to settle Theology disputes amongst the servants duly authorized) doing God’s work here on earth. Making the earth as such, a Universal Church… as well as the Parishioners that belong to it.

It’s the question: does the Pope retain that authority (while alive) or does he pass it on (while alive)… Either the Pope is it, or everyone else that he passes it on to while still Pope also is. If only one can be Pope (as their was only one Christ), but many can be disciples (servants), where is the line drawn?

Is the mass in Rome, with the Pope saying it, the only real Mass?
 
newbetx said:
BTW, my youngest son is an avid Cubbie. Maybe next year!
Click to expand...
You have raised a wonderful son!

My new line is - This is Next Year! Have said it since 2003 - sooner or later it will be Next Year!!
 
DD2007 said:
I think that all celebrations of the Lord’s Supper are valid in all the denominations of the Church. Since we are all a priesthood of believers and our one mediator is Jesus Christ all that is required is faith. An ordained Catholic Priest is not required. All that is required is a group of believers gathered together to remember the Lord through the paschal supper He told us to observe as often as we do it.
Click to expand...
Your profile says that you are Presbyterian. As I understand it, the official stance of the Presbyterian community is that a duly ordained minister of Sacrament and Word is required to pronounce the words of the Institution prior to the distribution of the elements.

This would mean that, according to the belief system that you claim, at least one of the assembled believers has to have been ordained to the ministry of Sacrament and Word, and that he needs to be the one to pronounce the words of Institution, before the assembled believers partake of the bread and wine.

Has there been a change in the official teaching and practice of the Presbyterian community since the last time I looked?
 
Michael_David said:
All this got me to thinking… a good and bad thing depending…

Speaking of other Churches and a question of authority, and a side-dish of beliefs, does authority come from the Church (the Parishioners as such), or from Christ?
Click to expand...
From Christ, but in an orderly manner (hence “ord”-ination)
If Peter, the first Pope, passed it on to the next Pope and on and on to Pope Benedict… how is St. Paul’s passing it on to Timothy and Timothy passing it on to… and you see where I’m going here?
And if we go further, does the Pope pass it to the Cardinals?
Click to expand...
Cardinals can be Bishops or priests. Those who are Bishops have received the authority from the Pope (Bishops receive their Bishopric from the presiding Pope at the time that they are elevated to Bishop) to ordain priests.
Who Pass it to the Bishops, who pass it to the Priests that are Ordained locally, not by the Pope? And if each of the 12 had such Missions from Christ and went to their respective lands and carried on the Mission with successors with ‘their blessing’… how does this follow?
Click to expand...
Apostles ordained Bishops (can preside over all seven Sacraments, including Ordination of priests), priests (ministers of Sacrament and Word, can preside over all except Confirmation and Holy Orders) and Deacons (ministers of Word and service; can preside over Marriage and Baptism).
And it is the Cardinals that select the next Pope, with Christ’s guidance. Christ passed it to the 11 plus St. Paul, even as He called Peter the Head of His Church. The Mission was to go and make disciples of all nations… etc. And as disciples, what is then passed to those next disciples, and on and on? Can a disciple then pass authority to another?
Click to expand...
If he has been given the authority to pass on authority (that is to say, if he is a Bishop) then he can do this; otherwise, no.
Is the mass in Rome, with the Pope saying it, the only real Mass?
Click to expand...
No, since the Pope passes his authority to ordain priests, deacons and (in emergency) Bishops to the Bishops.

If something were to happen to the Vatican and all except one of the Bishops in the world were to be killed, that one remaining Bishop would automatically become Pope, and he would be authorized to immediately start ordaining Bishops.

If something were to happen where a region was cut off from the Church (as happened with Communism in Poland) and there were only one remaining Bishop, he could validly ordain other Bishops, as well as ordain priests and deacons. There were, in fact, many clandestine ordinations of Bishops in the Eastern Bloc during the Communist regime, especially in Poland; that’s why the Catholic Church there is so strong today.

However, if every Bishop in the world were killed, that would be the end of the Church, since no one would be left who has the authority to confer Ordination on others.
 
jmcrae said:
Your profile says that you are Presbyterian. As I understand it, the official stance of the Presbyterian community is that a duly ordained minister of Sacrament and Word is required to pronounce the words of the Institution prior to the distribution of the elements.

This would mean that, according to the belief system that you claim, at least one of the assembled believers has to have been ordained to the ministry of Sacrament and Word, and that he needs to be the one to pronounce the words of Institution, before the assembled believers partake of the bread and wine.

Has there been a change in the official teaching and practice of the Presbyterian community since the last time I looked?
Click to expand...
Presbyterianism and Catholicism are a lot different. 1. We don’t have an authoritative church. We are a group of believers who gather together with the Bible as the authority. We also use the historic creeds and confessions as examples to follow however these can contain error and sacred scripture trumps them all.

Scripturally there are three modes of Government in a Church, however it doesn’t specify which to use etc.
  1. Episcopal - The system you use.
  2. Presbyterian - The system we use.
  3. Congregational - The system the Baptists use.
In regards to who can oversee the Lord’s Supper it says nowhere in scripture that it must be an Ordained minister. Those rules are our rules that we use for order. We also have rules for who can be ordained that are very controversial as well. Some groups ordain women some don’t…etc

When you get down to the basics though you see that God is the focus of worship we are all a priesthood of believers Christ is the sole mediator between God and man and He said he would be with us until the end of the world.

So do I believe that a Lord’s Supper in a Baptist Church in some small town in Georgia is valid with no properly ordained people in the room at all?..sure. It is the Lord’s supper not the pastor’s. He is with those who have faith in Him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top