Taking Communion at Protestant Church during Catholic Conversion

[1ke]

But doesn’t the Catholic Church teach that Roman Catholics may recieve the eucharist in our churches if it’s urgent or part of the last rites? (Not to say that we allow catholics to recieve in our church though).

We believe differently from the CC so this argument doesn’t seem imminent to me.
We even believe differently in the transformation of the body and blood.
Catholicism teaches transubstantion while we believe in con substration, very different in many ways.

And there is NO absolutely NO communion between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church so to say that the communion part of the eucharist is should prevent OP from receiving at his Protestant church while catholics may recieve in Orthodox Churches according to the Roman rules make no sense…

The Lutheran ecclesial community is not a Church. It has no valid Holy Orders, does not have a valid Eucharist, therefore a Catholic may not participate.

The Orthodox Churches are true Churches, with Apostolic Succession, Holy Orders, and valid Eucharist.

You mistake the problem if you believe it to be one of visible communion only. It is much more serious than that.

 

[ephesians4]

From the Catholic conversion point of view, I would say if in your heart you are promised, you are promised.

From the other church’s point of view, a symbolic communion is a bit of an insult to their church, and taking part in a way that… I’m sorry would not be completely in good faith, detracts from the dignity, seriousness and respect people are attempting to pay the Lord when they do it in good faith, and in a sense an insult to Him to participate in any version of communion in any church for any reason other than really participating.

I’m not sure this does anyone any favours, even though the person nudging you to participate might be praying their heart out for your “last communion” to be a revelatory experience that turns you from your current path.

I would say, behave with integrity, and with love towards your family member.

Reconciling love for her, and Jesus, and the Church, and for your fellow Christians at the Lutheran church all together leaves you with only one thing to do, which is to sit the communion part out. In my opinion.

Have you considered going up with her, but only for a blessing? That might be reasonable, and might satisfy. Just make sure you let the priest know it’s only a blessing, and that you are ready to quietly/politely extricate yourself from any attempt at foisting.

 

[SyroMalankara]

But doesn’t the Catholic Church teach that Roman Catholics may recieve the eucharist in our churches if it’s urgent or part of the last rites? (Not to say that we allow catholics to recieve in our church though).

No, only if there are no other options - eg. war, moral/ethical objection, safety, danger of death and no Catholic priest available, etc.

We believe differently from the CC so this argument doesn’t seem imminent to me.
We even believe differently in the transformation of the body and blood.
Catholicism teaches transubstantion while we believe in con substration, very different in many ways.

Depends on the bishop. Definitely not the same as Lutherans or protestants though, and much closer to Catholic. At least that’s what every single Orthodox bishop has historically taught, despite recent ex-protestant recent-convert rhetoric.

And there is NO absolutely NO communion between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church so to say that the communion part of the eucharist is should prevent OP from receiving at his Protestant church while catholics may recieve in Orthodox Churches according to the Roman rules make no sense…

This is untrue. There is no communion between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church, yes. There is communion among members, and frequently depending on the status on the ground.

 

[SyroMalankara]

I wouldn’t say this is purely about “making people feel good”.

Much of this is semantics, or labels.

I’m not quite Catholic, but yet I’m not quite Protestant anymore either.

If you’ve begun RCIA or something similar - should you repose (God forbid), you’d be given a Catholic funeral. So in the Church’s eyes, you’re Catholic albeit in transition.

*The Lutheran Communion:

• Lutherans believe that the Body and Blood of Christ are “truly and substantially present in, with and under the forms” of consecrated bread and wine (the elements). *The in with under is troubling for Catholics - and most non-ELCA Lutherans as well. Which Lutheran synod does your family belong?

It’s not as if I’m confused on the meaning, and it’s not as if I’d view Lutheran Communion as a replacement, or equal, to Catholic Communion.

Then when you venerate prior to eating, aren’t you committing idolatry?

However, the presence of God is believed in Lutheran communion, I suppose it brings the question of “Is something better than nothing?”… and yes, there is an elementy of family union for one last time.

Something may be better than nothing… or something may be worse than nothing. Receiving Eucharist, though is a sign of Communion with the entire Body, which you are no longer. So it would be a lie (how much or how little depends on your state, that I cannot comment on)

 

[pianistclare]

From the Catholic conversion point of view, I would say if in your heart you are promised, you are promised.

From the other church’s point of view, a symbolic communion is a bit of an insult to their church, and taking part in a way that… I’m sorry would not be completely in good faith, detracts from the dignity, seriousness and respect people are attempting to pay the Lord when they do it in good faith, and in a sense an insult to Him to participate in any version of communion in any church for any reason other than really participating.

I’m not sure this does anyone any favours, even though the person nudging you to participate might be praying their heart out for your “last communion” to be a revelatory experience that turns you from your current path.

I would say, behave with integrity, and with love towards your family member.

Reconciling love for her, and Jesus, and the Church, and for your fellow Christians at the Lutheran church all together leaves you with only one thing to do, which is to sit the communion part out. In my opinion.

Have you considered going up with her, but only for a blessing? That might be reasonable, and might satisfy. Just make sure you let the priest know it’s only a blessing, and that you are ready to quietly/politely extricate yourself from any attempt at foisting.

My thought exactly.
She’s your mother.
There’s no goodbye necessary. No one last time necessary. Does she envision you will be lost to her? Perhaps you should take the time to explain more deeply what conversion means to you and what it will be and won’t be to you. Sorry. She sounds a bit panicky. Reassure her, but don’t do something that ultimately, does not fix what is troubling her.
TK’s replies are spot on.
Either you believe, or you don’t. It’s not a symbolic gesture for the sake of our relatives.

 

[Mr_Friscus]

I spoke with my preist today.

He said since I’m not a Roman Catholic yet, I’m free to take the Protestant communion without moral consequence.

Sounds like we may have been overthinking it.

 

[MaryT777]

I spoke with my preist today.

He said since I’m not a Roman Catholic yet, I’m free to take the Protestant communion without moral consequence.

Sounds like we may have been overthinking it.

Yes, indeed~ Glad you had the chance to talk to your priest.

Mary.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

I spoke with my preist today.

He said since I’m not a Roman Catholic yet, I’m free to take the Protestant communion without moral consequence.

Sounds like we may have been overthinking it.

That’s what I said, although I’m not a qualified priest, theologian or any other qualified brand of Catholic, other than layman.

I thought it was common sense frankly.

 

[recentrevert]

I spoke with my preist today.

He said since I’m not a Roman Catholic yet, I’m free to take the Protestant communion without moral consequence.

Sounds like we may have been overthinking it.

That sounds false to me - could the Christians in Rome offer incense to the Roman gods just because they had not yet been baptised? No!

Receiving Lutheran ‘communion’ would seem to be an act of false worship whatever you believed. I am not sure if you are bound by the laws of the Church before you enter into her officially (although you are baptised) but this is not just a matter of Church law it would be against the law of God.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

That sounds false to me - could the Christians in Rome offer incense to the Roman gods just because they had not yet been baptised? No!

Receiving Lutheran ‘communion’ would seem to be an act of false worship whatever you believed. I am not sure if you are bound by the laws of the Church before you enter into her officially (although you are baptised) but this is not just a matter of Church law it would be against the law of God.

There’s a big difference between offering incense to Roman gods, and a Christian partaking of communion in a. Christian Church. That’s obvious.

 

[Richard_White]

My question for the OP is: “Why is he going to Confession if he is not Catholic yet?” Does he not know that he cannot partake in the sacraments until he is fully Catholic? Now, anyone can go and meet with a priest for spiritual direction, which, according to previous threads, I believe he did at first, but now it seems as if he went to Confession for real. I think he needs some instruction from somebody.

By the way, I do not think that he should be receiving “communion” with the Protestants. Now that he is a Catholic Candidate, as someone said earlier, he should be relying on Catholic doctrine, rather than continuing with Protestant heresies.

May God bless you all abundantly and forever!

 

[pnewton]

I spoke with my preist today.

He said since I’m not a Roman Catholic yet, I’m free to take the Protestant communion without moral consequence.

Sounds like we may have been overthinking it.

There you go! You do what your priest suggests. It will make your mother happy and your priest says it is okay, which it probably is.

I have to say, it has been a long time since I heard a good question here. One that is both new and a head-scratcher. I think of it, since it is just bread, is it really different then joining in on a communal supper after church and eating a sandwich?

I noticed an absence of any authoritative answer here (as in documented), so, I guess your priest is the way to go.

 

[pnewton]

That sounds false to me - could the Christians in Rome offer incense to the Roman gods just because they had not yet been baptised?

Since a sacrifice is not being offered, I think the eating of meats offered to idols is a better parallel, which we are told is okay, as it is just meat. It was only forbidden when it was a stumbling block for others, in other words, as a prudential practice. St. Paul was clear it was just meat.

 

[TK421]

Nope. Don’t particularly care if you asked a priest or a bishop or a cardinal. Being ordained makes you able to administer the sacraments, not become a clairvoyant. Taking communion in a church you are doctrinally departed from is still bad theology, bad logic, and bad praxis. The very act of communion is rendered meaningless and purely superficial. You could just as easily ask another priest and get a different answer.

But, this is just a forum, and this question is obviously a murky one, and I’ve offered my 2 cents, which reflects the historical attitude & teaching toward communion. God bless you on your journey home OP.

 

[TK421]

I’ve presented this question to Ask An Apologist to see what he has to say about it. He might reference something that hasn’t been discussed here. I will post it here in the future if it is answered.

 

[pnewton]

I’ve presented this question to Ask An Apologist to see what he has to say about it. He might reference something that hasn’t been discussed here. I will post it here in the future if it is answered.

Good idea. Like I said, it’s not often we see something new.

 

[dcana]

We believe differently from the CC so this argument doesn’t seem imminent to me.
We even believe differently in the transformation of the body and blood.
Catholicism teaches transubstantion while we believe in con substration, very different in many ways.

No offense, Cactus, but I’m not sure this is true. If it is I would be very surprised. I had thought only Lutherans believe in consubstantiation.

I know the Orthodox tend to think of things less in terms of theology and more in terms of mystery, but to say they believe in consubstantiation means that they believe the bread and wine remain, which, IMO, goes against Our Lord’s simple words, “This is my Body.” Not sure why so many have a problem with the word transubstantiation. It simply means that the reality, the substance, of what was there, namely bread and wine, has changed into the substance of Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, by the action of the Holy Spirit. Consubstantiation means that one thing (a host, for example) is two things at once, which I view as nonsense. If you have a piece of bread, then you have a piece of bread, plain and simple. You can’t have a piece of bread that is also something else, like a fish, a book, or even Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

Any comments? Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.

Thanks

 

[Smfm]

If you take communion at a protestant church your only eating bread.

 

[ProVobis]

No offense, Cactus, but I’m not sure this is true. If it is I would be very surprised. I had thought only Lutherans believe in consubstantiation.

I know the Orthodox tend to think of things less in terms of theology and more in terms of mystery, but to say they believe in consubstantiation means that they believe the bread and wine remain, which, IMO, goes against Our Lord’s simple words, “This is my Body.” Not sure why so many have a problem with the word transubstantiation. It simply means that the reality, the substance, of what was there, namely bread and wine, has changed into the substance of Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, by the action of the Holy Spirit. Consubstantiation means that one thing (a host, for example) is two things at once, which I view as nonsense. If you have a piece of bread, then you have a piece of bread, plain and simple. You can’t have a piece of bread that is also something else, like a fish, a book, or even Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

Any comments? Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.

Thanks

My personal opinion is that consubstantiation is easier to believe than transubstantiation. When one holds a visible white piece of host and says “This is my body” it’s hard to make someone believe it is no longer the bread. But it is clear in the Latin that “Hoc,” (as in “hoc est enim corpus meum”) being in neuter gender no longer is the “panem” which is masculine in gender but corpus, which is neuter in gender. So the Latin confirms the transubstantiation. “Hoc” (this) = “corpus” (body) and not = “panem” (bread). The English is so vague one can draw either conclusion, it’s the body all right but it could be bread still or not bread anymore. Hope that makes sense. .

Excuse the lack of capitalization where you think it might be more appropriate.

 

[Mr_Friscus]

That sounds false to me - could the Christians in Rome offer incense to the Roman gods just because they had not yet been baptised? No!

Receiving Lutheran ‘communion’ would seem to be an act of false worship whatever you believed. I am not sure if you are bound by the laws of the Church before you enter into her officially (although you are baptised) but this is not just a matter of Church law it would be against the law of God.

You are aware that Lutherans believe in the Trinity, do you not?

I think you’re a bit too dramatic here.

So, is my priest a heretic?