Taking Communion at a protestant church

[jmcrae]

Presbyterianism and Catholicism are a lot different. 1. We don’t have an authoritative church.

Uh - has anyone revealed this information to your Moderator of General Council? Not that anyone listens to him, anyway, but at least he would be able, with a clear conscience, to take the next two years off and go on a holiday, if he doesn’t actually have any authority to do the work that he does, hey?

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.

So - it’s okay for them to do it that way, because of those reasons - so, would it be okay, do you think, if a member of Session at your own church were to start leading services of Holy Communion in the Church, without assistance from the ordained members of clergy - would they get away with that? If so, then why bother with ordained members of clergy - that’s a lot of money to spend for an unnecessary job position, and a lot of unnecessary time and money spent sending him to school - and if not, why not?

 

[DD2007]

Uh - has anyone revealed this information to your Moderator of General Council? Not that anyone listens to him, anyway, but at least he would be able, with a clear conscience, to take the next two years off and go on a holiday, if he doesn’t actually have any authority to do the work that he does, hey?

So - it’s okay for them to do it that way, because of those reasons - so, would it be okay, do you think, if a member of Session at your own church were to start leading services of Holy Communion in the Church, without assistance from the ordained members of clergy - would they get away with that? If so, then why bother with ordained members of clergy - that’s a lot of money to spend for an unnecessary job position, and a lot of unnecessary time and money spent sending him to school - and if not, why not?

No, that’s not the order of things agreed upon within the congregation. If necessary it would be fine. But you are going to the extreme.

What makes the Lord’s Supper valid is the faith of the individual Christian not who spoke over it.

 

[jmcrae]

No, that’s not the order of things agreed upon within the congregation.

So, the bottom line is, it is done this way because of man’s tradition. Right?

 

[DD2007]

So, the bottom line is, it is done this way because of man’s tradition. Right?

Absolutley to a degree. It is that way because the Pastor is the normal one to preside over worship. However the bible is very vague on that. People come up with organized worship that they think is the best way to insure order in the Church. Everyone does.

There are many groups that blow the instructions of the Bible way out of proportion. I hope you don’t think we’re one of those.

The Bible is the word of God in it is contained the gospel of Jesus Christ which is the truth that the Church is a pillar and foundation of. It is apostolic becasue it is handed down to us by the witness of the apostles. That’s why we proclaim one holy catholic (universal in greek) and apostolic church.

Anyway the point wasn’t to validate Presbyterianism, but to illustrate that the Church as a whole contains the gospel of Christ and the sacraments. We should make a concentrated effort in our lifetimes to move toward unity. At the very least open communion with one another.

 

[MDK]

No, that’s not the order of things agreed upon within the congregation. If necessary it would be fine. But you are going to the extreme.

What makes the Lord’s Supper valid is the faith of the individual Christian not who spoke over it.

So, Christ didn’t need to do it, but if the Apostles believed, then they would be consuming the Body and Blood of Christ, otherwise they wouldn’t?

So, the Lord’s Supper is only the Lord’s Supper if the individual believes it is? Is there any reality of the Lord in that He is either there or isn’t, regardless of whether the individual Christian believes?

 

[jmcrae]

At the very least open communion with one another.

It is because of our very different understandings of what it means to be One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, and what it means to be Church, as well as our very different understandings of Communion itself, that open communion isn’t possible.

To have open communion before these issues are resolved is to put the cart before the horse.

 

[DD2007]

It is because of our very different understandings of what it means to be One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, and what it means to be Church, as well as our very different understandings of Communion itself, that open communion isn’t possible.

To have open communion before these issues are resolved is to put the cart before the horse.

It’s a nice thought though.

 

[DD2007]

So, Christ didn’t need to do it, but if the Apostles believed, then they would be consuming the Body and Blood of Christ, otherwise they wouldn’t?

So, the Lord’s Supper is only the Lord’s Supper if the individual believes it is? Is there any reality of the Lord in that He is either there or isn’t, regardless of whether the individual Christian believes?

I believe that the Lord’s Supper is a means of grace through faith. I believe that faith comes from grace as well.

This is a good summary of what I believe from the Westminster Catechism:

Q: What is the Lord’s Supper?
A: The Lord’s Supper is a sacrament, wherein, by giving and receiving bread and wine, according to Christ’s appointment, his death is shewed forth;1 and the worthy receivers are, not after a corporal and carnal manner, but by faith, made partakers of his body and blood, with all his benefits, to their spiritual nourishment, and growth in grace.2

 

[MDK]

I believe that the Lord’s Supper is a means of grace through faith. I believe that faith comes from grace as well.

This is a good summary of what I believe from the Westminster Catechism:

Q: What is the Lord’s Supper?
A: The Lord’s Supper is a sacrament, wherein, by giving and receiving bread and wine, according to Christ’s appointment, his death is shewed forth;1 and the worthy receivers are, not after a corporal and carnal manner, but by faith, made partakers of his body and blood, with all his benefits, to their spiritual nourishment, and growth in grace.2

Thank you. I really don’t know that I understand what you’re trying to say… is it that you believe the Lord’s Supper is simply symbolic and Jesus’ Body and Blood are not really present, so it is the believer’s faith in Christ’s sacrifice that gives them grace as they celebrate the remembrance of His real and true Body and Blood Sacrificed for us on the cross?

For us, this would be an extreme sacrilege and bring condemnation on us. Paul tells us that receiving the Body and Blood of Christ while in this state of belief (unworthily) would make us “guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.”

 

[po18guy]

I don’t think it is reasonable to think that the Roman Catholic Church has a monopoly on the Eucharist.

Actually, we share it with the Eastern Orthodox. I really wonder why they don’t get the grief that the Catholic Church does…???

Simply put, ONLY the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches have roots that trace, unbroken, directly back to Christ. Those of other faith traditions do not like to hear this, but it remains the truth.

“The truth remains the truth, even if no one believes it. A lie remains a lie, even if everyone believes it” - Bishop Fulton Sheen

 

[jmcrae]

Actually, we share it with the Eastern Orthodox. I really wonder why they don’t get the grief that the Catholic Church does…???

Probably because they hate the Pope. And after all, that’s the unity that really matters.

 

[MDK]

I don’t think it is reasonable to think that the Roman Catholic Church has a monopoly on the Eucharist.

I wouldn’t word it like that, as the Eucharist was certainly intended for all of His family. He also made one Church for all of His family, with a valid priesthood where we could partake of His Sacraments including the Most Blessed Sacrament which is the Eucharist.

However, as told in John 6, some people found this a hard saying, and walked away. We don’t know if these people started their own churches based on the way they understood Christ’s teachings differently from the Gospel taught by those Christ sent out. We do know that he who hears those Christ sent out, also hears Christ.

 

[po18guy]

However, as told in John 6, some people found this a hard saying, and walked away. We don’t know if these people started their own churches based on the way they understood Christ’s teachings differently from the Gospel taught by those Christ sent out. We do know that he who hears those Christ sent out, also hears Christ.

I wonder why Jesus let those in John 6:66 walk away, since:

1 Timothy 2:3-4 "This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

Do some really think that Jesus hardened even His Sacred Heart against those who found His truth to be a “hard saying”? Impossible. The hardened hearts are clearly those who walked away from the call to eat His Body and drink His Blood.

 

[MDK]

I wonder why Jesus let those in John 6:66 walk away, since:

1 Timothy 2:3-4 "This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

Do some really think that Jesus hardened even His Sacred Heart against those who found His truth to be a “hard saying”? Impossible. The hardened hearts are clearly those who walked away from the call to eat His Body and drink His Blood.

Yes, it is clearly something that God wants us to do to come to Him and be united with Him, by making an incomparable gift of Himself in the Eucharist. If we don’t eat His Body, and drink His Blood, then we have no life in us. There was no effort by Christ to clarify His teaching either to the ones who walked away, or to His Apostles in reference to those who walked away. So it was not as if they had heard incorrectly and that it really was supposed to be only metaphorical or symbolic. No, He asked His Apostles if they would like to go as well, because this is the way it is… he meant exactly what He said, and they heard Him correctly and they knew what He meant. His Flesh is real Flesh and His Blood is real Drink. Peter answered, as he normally does, that there was nowhere else to go. Christ is the only Way.

It’s really the greatest thing on earth. Thinking about Christ’s promise that He faithfully keeps, giving us a priesthood to celebrate Him in mass and apply the merits of His death on the cross to our lives, a tear rolled down my cheek last Sunday when the priest consecrated the host, because it is something so incredible that our Lord comes to us in this way. The little boy in front was too young to understand the mass, but stared at me for a while, wondering what was going on… my face was not sad in the least, but joyful and grateful, and a tear was rolling down the cheek.

The Eucharist is still a hard saying today, for those who look with the eyes of flesh, and not of faith.

 

[Corki]

I missed the reference to Canon law. Can you point (again)?

I was referring to post #2 which included:

We look to Canon Law 844 for the answer-

Quote:
Can. 844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone, without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and ⇒ can. 861, §2.
§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-
Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I am not an expert, but from what I have heard - the reason Catholics do not partake in communion in Protestant churches is because it would stand the communion as equal to the Eucharist which is actually the Body and Blood of Christ - whereas Protestants only think of communion as a symbol.

In addition to that; the hands of the Protestant preacher is not ordained and cannot confect the sacrament.

SO basically to partake with Protestants gives both Communions equal status. Therefore it both elevates the symbol to the equal;ity with the Actual, and lowers the Actual Body abd Blood to equality with a symbol.

Peace

 

[TraceG]

First post here. Though I’d like to convert it’s too late to enter RCIA for confirmation in April.

I’m wondering. My parents usually go to a small Protestant church where they live. If they are going to service on a sunday that I am there and they give a communion that day do I refuse???or do I just say, “nah I’m staying home”, or say, “nah I’m going to a Catholic church in town?”

I have no Catholics in my family so I’m sure my family would be perplexed.

 

[MDK]

First post here. Though I’d like to convert it’s too late to enter RCIA for confirmation in April.

I’m wondering. My parents usually go to a small Protestant church where they live. If they are going to service on a sunday that I am there and they give a communion that day do I refuse???or do I just say, “nah I’m staying home”, or say, “nah I’m going to a Catholic church in town?”

I have no Catholics in my family so I’m sure my family would be perplexed.

Please refuse! It’s not a real Sacrament. So, it doesn’t have any more salvific power than the Jewish sacrifices in that did not really atone for sin. Even more than that, it’s unfortunately that their teaching does violence to Christ’s teaching. If you intend to be in communion with Christ and through the Church He built, then it would benefit you to start reading the Catechism, and start being true to the teaching starting now… without the unfortunate delay in waiting for RCIA to start again.

I have family in the Methodist Church, and I’ve been asking them to come home, since they don’t have real confession, nor the Eucharist.

 

[po18guy]

I am not an expert, but from what I have heard - the reason Catholics do not partake in communion in Protestant churches is because it would stand the communion as equal to the Eucharist which is actually the Body and Blood of Christ - whereas Protestants only think of communion as a symbol.

It would reduce our belief in the Eucharist to that which is clearly not the Eucharist. This would, in truth almost amount to idolatry, since it is only bread and wine or juice. We are to avoid even “near occasions of sin” - that which leads us to sin. This is in that vicinity.

In addition to that; the hands of the Protestant preacher is not ordained and cannot confect the sacrament.

Precisely. Nailed it.

SO basically to partake with Protestants gives both Communions equal status. Therefore it both elevates the symbol to the equality with the Actual, and lowers the Actual Body and Blood to equality with a symbol.

Absolutely. It is a sad truth that valid holy orders were lost in the early Lutheran church. It is likewise sad that the Lutheran church had to come about in the first place, since Christ prayed that we be One.

 

[po18guy]

First post here. Though I’d like to convert it’s too late to enter RCIA for confirmation in April.

I’m wondering. My parents usually go to a small Protestant church where they live. If they are going to service on a sunday that I am there and they give a communion that day do I refuse???or do I just say, “nah I’m staying home”, or say, “nah I’m going to a Catholic church in town?”

I have no Catholics in my family so I’m sure my family would be perplexed.

Welcome! You have valid reasons for your interest in the Catholic Church. Stay strong and learn your faith, so that you may defend it in the face of questioning or doubts. Here is a story of just what difficulties a particular Catholic went through to get in the church:

catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0707dr.asp

I am certain that you will have no such difficulties in entering!

Christ’s peace be with you.