Why can't I take communion at a Catholic service?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Arwen037
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
First, I’ll respond to the sheep comment which no one apparently decided to contemplate before they poked fun. I wasn’t referring to being a sheep of the Lord ladies and gents, I was referring to a more secular use of the term. In Christ, we should all be sheep (followers and children) of the Christ Shepherd (leader and caretaker). That is not what I mean at all, I’m sorry if I’m too obvious. A sheep does not question or think, they simply follow. That is not what Christ wants from us. Read the Bible and that is plainly seen. He wants the opposite. Christ wants us all to think and believe, have faith, and love our neighbors. How can you do those things while following blindly?

We can’t. We are not talking about things that we “know” here. Religion and Christianity is not “knowing” anything, rather it is “having faith through believing” in something. To “know” is to have physical evidence, we “believe” that God is real and that Christ was his only begotten son, etc. In order to have true faith, in order to truly believe in something, you have to have no question of its legitimacy in your heart and mind. You have to have no questions, no doubts, and believe. If someone doubts or has a question like “Why can’t I take part in Communion in the Catholic Church?” then it is to be answered for them and they must then understand the response…otherwise the respondant did not do their job. If the Questioner has received an answer, but does not understand it, then what we have is a situation that is valid in any walk of life.

Everyone has the right to question in order to understand and believe in something. No one should believe in something without understanding it. To do so is what is often called “naive” and results in people spouting on paragraph after paragraph about something they understand little of. If someone is to tell me a “truth” and I don’t completely understand it, am I to just say “Oh ok, I still believe it is a truth?” NO. I am not. To fully believe something, one must answer all questions and all doubts in their minds/hearts concerning that issue. To follow blidnly would be a crime against themself.

People do not have to be called to be Cardinals Mercygate. But they can fully understand that which they believe. I have no doubt that you understand why Catholic Tradition is what it is, so why would you deny that understanding to anyone else? If no one here can understand the flaw in…
Originally Posted by jimmy
Kim
Click to expand...
You do not have to understand everything the Catholic Church believes. You just have to accept it to be the truth.
Click to expand...
…then my time here at this website is over. I am an individual person as are all of you. Religion and our connection to God is a personal one. Not even the Church can tell someone to “believe this” without any proof/explanation. In case you haven’t noticed, the RC Church does given explanations of things…this is done for a reason…if they wanted people to simply follow blindly, they wouldn’t bother with explanation. Please people, think for yourselves and attempt to think “outside of the pulpit” (bad pun, I know 😉 ) for just a minute even.
 
40.png
Arwen037:
I’m part of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America. I went to a Lutheran school for 5 years. I then switched to a Catholic school. I’ve been going to Catholic schools for about 5 years now. I’ve gone through the Confirmation teachings of both churches (I was only confirmed in the Lutheran church though). I’ve been told that I can’t take communion at Catholic services because Lutherans don’t believe the same thing about communion as Catholics do. But everything I’ve heard indicates we have the same beliefs about communion, and a great percentage of other issues. I don’t get why Lutherans aren’t allowed to take communion at Catholic churches and vise versa. Could someone please explain this to me?

I’m sorry if this has been addressed elsewhere, but I haven’t been able to find it. If it has, could you please direct me there?
Click to expand...

You aren’t by any means the first person to wonder about this 😃​

Point 1: the Eucharist is not something to which a Christian has a right: it’s a gift, from the generosity of God. So it’s not as though we can ever say “God owes me this” - He doesn’t 🙂 So, neither can the Church.
  1. Since the Catholic Church does not (except rather rarely) allow other Christians to share in the Eucharist Christ has provided for her; not sharing, can be seen as good manners and consideration for a Church to which one does not fully belong.
For Christians to abide by the rules of Churches to which they don’t belong, is an example of not using one’s own freedom as a Christian to do one’s own will. It’s gracious, it may well hurt, it’s not self-willed, and it’s a recognition that other Christians have their ways of doing things. It’s really a way of behaving in a loving manner to those from whom one is separated to some degree. Because love is not self-willed - not even in this.

FWIW, Catholics can’t receive the Eucharist in the Orthodox Church 🙂 - so we Catholics must respect their rules as well 🙂 ##
 
Contarini said:
: All Protestants believe that the Divinity of Christ is present. It’s the Body and Blood that are controversial.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify:

There are in fact Protestants who don’t believe that the Divinity of Christ is present, at least not any more present than at any other time (since God is always omnipresent). I, for instance, was raised (as a member of the Grace Brethren denomination) to believe that communion is only a memorial or “remembrance.”

Also, my native denomination practices three-fold communion/remembrance: washing of the feet (symbolizing Christ’s current sanctification), a love feast (kind of a potluck, symbolizing our future glorification at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb), and bread and cup (symbolizing Christ’s past justification by his death for us). Many GB churches only practice this remembrance twice a year, once on the Thursday before Easter (to occur at the same time of year as the original Last Supper) and once on New Year’s Eve (presumably to remind us that we are new creations due to Christ and to allow us to pause and reflect on how to live that out in the coming new year).

For context, I should mention that I believed fully and sincerely in these teachings until a couple of years ago, when I began researching the beliefs of other denominations (including Catholicism) for my own curiosity’s sake. This intellectual journey led me to my current status as a member of this year’s RCIA class.
 
Bryan,

You wrote: “I am an individual person as are all of you.”

Can’t help but think of that line in “Life of Brian”, with the crowd obediently intoning, “We are all individuals”…But anyway, thanks for stating the bloody obvious.

I returned to the Church after a fling with atheism (which was simply too illogical), Protestantism (which could not answer questions that ought to be knowable), agnosticism (the result of my intellectual dissatisfaction with Protestantism), and finally back to the Church. My point in telling you this is that I have indeed examined my faith and do not consider my accepting and following Church teaching to be “blind”. I do not think that someone who assents to Church authority regarding matters of doctrine has automatically checked their capacity for critical thinking at the Church door (actually, this IS what I felt when attending a Baptist church in my Protestant years), so don’t imply that that is so. Nor do I accept that those whose do not accept Church teaching are doing so because they are intellectually superior—this is an attitude I find very prevalent in dissident circles, and it’s arrogant and foolish.

You wrote: “Not even the Church can tell someone to “believe this” without any proof/explanation.”

She doesn’t—she has reasons and explanations, though too few bother to look at them thoroughly. When I was returning to the Church, I had areas of difficulties that I looked into more thoroughly, and to my surprise found that I could not disagree with the reasons given for Church teaching in those areas. It happened so often that I began to expect that any area of difficulty that I had previously held on to would crumble as soon as I looked more closely at it—and it did. (Reminds me of a well-known quote from Newman, “Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt.”) Also, in the course of these examinations I began to appreciate the God-given authority of the Church, and the importance, therefore, of obedience. This is why I can agree with those who say that is important to accept Church teaching, though they may not understand the reasons: it is better to obey AND understand, but not everyone has the time or intellectual capacity to examine every area of doctrine. I wonder if you have looked closely at the importance of obedience.

You wrote: “Please people, think for yourselves and attempt to think “outside of the pulpit” (bad pun, I know ) for just a minute even.”

Please, Bryan, don’t assume that dissent equals intellectual depth, and don’t disparage the intellects of those who recognize the teaching authority of the Church, for just a minute even.
 
40.png
Contarini:
I don’t think the Lutherans have a dogmatic view on this. Melanchthon did hold this view, but he was regarded with some suspicion as too “Calvinist” in his view of the Eucharist. The general Lutheran practice, if I’m not mistaken, is to consume all the consecrated elements so that the issue doesn’t arise. But I’m willing to be corrected by Lutherans.

Edwin
Click to expand...
That’s what we did in my Lutheran “parish” but in my grandmother’s the practice is different. I’m not sure what they do with the bread, but I know that the wine is poured down a sacrarium into the ground. I remember asking the minister why Lutherans don’t reserve the gifts and he said it would be tantamount to idolatry. Adoring Jesus is tantamount to idolatry. Figure that out.

Anyway… Arwen, I spent 18 years of my life as a Lutheran, and I was a member of a “high church” parish much like yourself, so I know where you’re coming from. Your particular pastor may believe in transubstantiation, but not all Lutherans do, nor did Luther. If you examine the Book of Concord you’ll see what the general opinion was. The Catholics and Orthodox (who once were in union with us) are the only ones who have proclaimed transubstantiation from the very beginning. Communion is just that. Even before I converted, I stopped taking communion in the Lutheran church because no two parishes had the same view of such a basic doctrine… You can go to any Catholic parish and know that everyone has the same understanding. Can you honestly say that of Lutherans?
 
This is a very interesting subject and one of those questions that the average Catholic is more likely to come across in the daily living of his Faith. Although I sometimes wish that my non Catholic family or friends would ask me about infant Baptism or Apostalic Succesion, this is the topic I have had to answer more than any other. The answers given to the original question have been accurate and sometimes blunt. That is my dilema. It is easy to be accurate and blunt via a posting on-line. It’s much harder when the person is sitting next to you in the pew and they are someone you love and don’t want to push further from the Church. I’ve tried different approaches and non of them seem satifactory. Recently I came up with an anology that may help, but I have yet to test it out. When explaining why a non Catholic can not receive Communion I want to try this one. "If I was on vacation in England and it happened to be the British Election Day and I went to the polls and said “I’d like to vote” They woud say “I’m sorry, but you must be a English citizen to vote.” I might say, “what’s the big, let me vote, afterall we all speak the same language.” They might say “That’s true and we have many things in common with you, but your country broke away from our country.” I could say, “I didn’t break away my forefathers did and besides, that was a really long time ago.” The truth is I would never expect to be able to vote in England. I also know that If I want to vote in England, I would need to become an English citizen. I recognize that the actions of my forefathers had consequences that I accept to this day, hundred of years later. Such is the case with our Faith, it’s a sad but true fact and ignoring or denying that doesn’t make it go away or bring us any closer to the unity the Christ desires. Feel free to pick apart my analogy. I know it’s not perfect, no analogies ever are.

Pax,
Cathedraladm
 
Cathedraladm,

You wrote: “Feel free to pick apart my analogy. I know it’s not perfect, no analogies ever are.”

I think it’s a good analogy—I’ll have to remember it the next time I am asked questions regarding this (which I am, fairly often). Thanks for your insights.
 
Thank you Sherlock. I appreciate the fact that you just backed up everything I was saying. All I was asking of people was to think for a moment. I’m glad that you know the reasons why things are as they are, that’s great! That’s what I like to hear from people who speak about the Bible and religion. That’s all anyone can ask. I’m glad that you do not follow blindly and while I respect those that do as good Christians, I can only pray for them that they will find the time and measure to answer their questions on tradition and authority. It is those institutions and questions that warrant the most explanation.
 
Hi

I am a convert to Catholicism from the Methodist church.

Transubstantiation only happens in the Catholic Church. It is the only place you can receive the body, blood, soul and divinity of our Savior. If you believe that…then how can you not be there? How could you thinkt that God would perform the miracle of the Eucharist in the Church if it was not in compliance with His will?

One who recevies the Eucharist and answers the call of God will find that the misconceptions previously held will melt away. I had several issues with the Catholic Church as a teenager. I could not get any helpful answers from my Catholic friends. But God drew me in and now I understand his perfect desire for us. All of the things that many Protestants do not like about the Catholic Church fall into place and you find yourself wondering why you never saw it before!!
 
Bryan,

You wrote: “Thank you Sherlock. I appreciate the fact that you just backed up everything I was saying.”

'ullo, 'ullo? Ummm, no Bryan, I did not back up what you were saying. Your focus has shifted around a bit from your original response, so let me remind you what it was: in response to another poster saying, “You do not have to understand everything the Catholic Church believes. You just have to accept it to be the truth”, you responded, “Not true. Blindly believing something isn’t always an option. Everyone should seek the truth through doctrine, tradition, the Bible itself, or in their own hearts. Never accept anything just because someone tells you it is the truth, find it to be the truth for yourself. That is just something to live by, never, ever be a sheep.”

Now, in my response to you I stated: “Also, in the course of these examinations I began to appreciate the God-given authority of the Church, and the importance, therefore, of obedience. This is why I can agree with those who say that is important to accept Church teaching, though they may not understand the reasons: it is better to obey AND understand, but not everyone has the time or intellectual capacity to examine every area of doctrine. I wonder if you have looked closely at the importance of obedience.”

You see, Bryan? I am NOT supporting your view, I am supporting the original poster who wrote, “You do not have to understand everything the Catholic Church believes. You just have to accept it to be the truth”. I think he or she was right. In my particular case, I did search out and examine very carefully the reasons why I should believe the Church when she teaches doctrine. But not everyone has the time or inclination to do so, Bryan. Some people just seem to understand the virtue of obedience, something that took me a while. Some people understand the Church’s authority and from Whom she derives it, and that is enough for them to accept what she teaches even if they don’t go over every doctrine with a magnifying glass. To suggest, as you do, that those who are thus obedient to Church authority are “sheep” is insulting, and your line, "“Please people, think for yourselves and attempt to think “outside of the pulpit” (bad pun, I know ) for just a minute even” is worse. And, of course, the dreaded “close-minded” is thrown out by you to describe, apparently, those who accept Church teaching on matters such as closed communion. You being so superior, so enlightened, you have a different view…and how predictable.

No, Bryan—I’m not backing up what you are saying.
 
40.png
jebojora:
Transubstantiation only happens in the Catholic Church. It is the only place you can receive the body, blood, soul and divinity of our Savior.
Click to expand...
And in the Old Catholic and Orthodox Churches, and where there is a validily consecrated Anglican Bishop in the Anglican Church (consecrated by Old Catholic or Orthodox Bishop). Although some of these might not describe it as transubstantiation.
 
Sherlock, I think it is time for a name change.

You took the time to understand what you were taught and “believed” and now understand and believe it (dare I say?) more.

Yes, you did back up what I said in that you yourself have taken the time to come to understand things you are told. Stop arguing with me about this, the starter of this thread I’m sure doesn’t appreciate it. I didn’t make an error in my comment, you made an error in how you received it.

Thanks and goodbye.
 
First, I’ll respond to the sheep comment which no one apparently decided to contemplate before they poked fun.
Click to expand...
I did not poke fun at it. It was your analogy. I was pointing out the huge error I saw in it.
A sheep does not question or think, they simply follow. That is not what Christ wants from us.
Click to expand...
Then why the analogy of Christ being the shepherd and us sheep?Christ tells us to come to Him like little children. Sometimes a child doesn’t understand things but has to accept that their father is right.
In order to have true faith, in order to truly believe in something, you have to have no question of its legitimacy in your heart and mind. You have to have no questions, no doubts, and believe.
Click to expand...
Having a true faith does not mean you do not have questions or even sometimes doubt. It simply means you trust in God and for a Catholic, her Church.

I have to go now, but I think you have a distorted view of what faith *has *to be. Faith and reason do not always go hand in hand. Blessed is he who believes without seeing. Can you not see how that can apply to those who as you put it, “blindly follow” without understanding. Some of us need full explanations and need to “put our fingers in holes of Christ’s wounds” but Christ tells us the one who is blessed is the one who can believe without doing that. The one that can “blindly follow” without “proof”.

Christ knew exactly what He was saying by calling Himself the good Shepherd. I just wish I could be a better sheep and follow my Shepherd more fully.

Your sister in Christ,
Maria
 
Bryan,

You wrote: “Sherlock, I think it is time for a name change.”

Actually, Sherlock is the name I was born with. Yes, I know you’re thinking of the “Sherlock Holmes” connection (my, how original of you) but I can assure you I did not choose the name because I regard myself as especially good at deducing clues in criminal cases. I didn’t choose it at all, though I have to say it is a great name for an artist to have (people tend to remember it). Now, hopefully this information will keep you from wasting time with my name in the future.

You wrote: “Yes, you did back up what I said in that you yourself have taken the time to come to understand things you are told.”

I may have taken the time, but that’s not the point. I was writing to support the notion of believing and accepting without necessarily understanding everything out of obedience—I merely made the observation that some recognize the virtue of obedience and recognize the authority of the Church without having to go down the path I did. Some of us (myself included) have to stick our hands into the wounds of Christ like St. Thomas in order to believe, some believe without seeing. You call those people sheep: I say that that is an insult.

You wrote: “Stop arguing with me about this, the starter of this thread I’m sure doesn’t appreciate it.”

Come now, be a big boy. Don’t hide behind the skirts of Arwen—if she disapproves, she can say so herself or merely skip over our posts. I assume she can think for herself. And I wouldn’t be inclined to argue except that you insulted those who you obviously regard as less sophisticated than you, by your use of the “sheep” label, the oh-so-predictable charge of “close-mindedness”, and the heart-rending plea for us to just “think for ourselves” for just a minute (because, of course, if we just did so, we’d probably agree with you and not that stuffy old Church!)
 
MariaG: I have a good understanding of the term and entity that is “faith.” I also understand that there are people out there who don’t need explanations. OBVIOUSLY Arwen needed an explanation…so that’s that. With your logic, those people should just ignore their doubts, go to a Church that tells them what to think, work at a job that tells them what to think, live with a person that thinks for them, and be a drone for the rest of their life. I’ll pray for you. God bless.

Sherlock: Sorry for the name comment, I didn’t mean any harm. You wrote…
I may have taken the time, but that’s not the point.
Click to expand...
I assure you sir, that is the point. You had questions, so you answered them. If you can’t see that some people just have to have questions answered, then you are truly blind of even yourself. God Bless and I will pray for you.

I will not be returning to this thread.
 
:There are in fact Protestants who don’t believe that the Divinity of Christ is present, at least not any more present than at any other time (since God is always omnipresent).:

And that’s my point. Christ’s Divinity is always present. I’ve never understood how the Eucharistic controversy has anything to do with Christ’s divinity. All I was getting at in this post was the tendency of some Catholics to trumpet “Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity” as if this somehow set them apart from those benighted souls who only believe in the presence of the Body and Blood. When in fact it’s the presence of the Body and Blood that is at issue among Christians.

There are indeed Protestants who believe that Christ’s Body and Blood are in no way present in the Eucharist, and that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is no different than that which we experience constantly. I wasn’t disputing that. Indeed, it’s probably true that the majority of Protestants, at least of American Protestants, think this, although the more historic Protestant traditions do not teach it.

In Christ,

Edwin
 
But the discussion was about your advice to the OP to never ever be a sheep. I and others were trying to point out that it is not a “blessed” thing to be a doubting Thomas. Probably most of us here are doubting Thomas’ but Christ calls the “sheep” blessed. I think there is a difference between answering the doubts you have and “never ever be a sheep” in my opinion. And it was my opinion that was given.

I am truly sorry you were offended. No offense was intended, nor was it given.

You assumed I was poking fun at you. I just disagreed with you. In fact, I tried to do it in a nice non-threatening, questioning way.

I personally think that we should all strive to be sheep. Most of us here, fall completely short of that. Once questions or doubts arise, we certainly need to try to get them answered. However, sometimes we need to try to be better sheep, place it in God’s hands and ask Him to help our unbelief.

A follower of the Good Shepherd,
Maria
 
I would like to point out that I DO relize now why I can’t take communion in a Catholic church. Not because I don’t believe in transubstanciation, but because I don’t agree with all the beliefs of the Catholic church. And I don’t think you can in good conscience tell me to join the Catholic church even though I disagree with them. And I wish people would stop telling me to join the Catholic church. It’s not going to happen. That would be even more sacreligious than taking communion in the church.
 
Arwen,

You wrote: " And I wish people would stop telling me to join the Catholic church. It’s not going to happen. That would be even more sacreligious than taking communion in the church."

I’m sorry that you’re frustrated. I’m guessing that it’s the manner in which you are being advised to join the Catholic Church that is the real problem—being a Christian, I am sure that you understand the need to evangelize, but you obviously aren’t receiving the kind of evangelizing here that you ought.

I would appreciate some clarification: why would becoming Catholic be “sacrilegious”? I suspect you are probably saying that becoming Catholic while you disagree with the Church would not be a good thing—is that right? I just wanted to be sure…
 
And I don’t think you can in good conscience tell me to join the Catholic church even though I disagree with them. And I wish people would stop telling me to join the Catholic church. It’s not going to happen. That would be even more sacreligious than taking communion in the church.
Click to expand...
I agree.

God Bless you on your journey,
Maria
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top