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.
I absolutely can not think of any way to respond to your admonition to most everyone and your sympathy to Arwen. Try reading posts 79, 81, 82, 88, 89, 93, 94, 95, 96, and 99.

Respectfully,
Maria
 
PastorVW,

You wrote: “Obviously, under our theology I cannot exclude them without denying their salvation - but if I understand Catholic theology, attending my church is fine - but recieving communion is not, correct?”

That’s correct. Because catechesis has been so poor for so long, the Catholics you have given communion to may not be aware that they are, in fact, going against the teachings of their faith. You are then, ironically and unfortunately, in the position of being able to instruct Catholics in their own faith, since they obviously are in need of such instruction. If they are, as you say, “active”, then they are committing a sin, and should not be given communion given your requirement that they not have unconfessed sin in their life.
 
MariaG,

You wrote: " I absolutely can not think of any way to respond to your admonition to most everyone and your sympathy to Arwen. Try reading posts 79, 81, 82, 88, 89, 93, 94, 95, 96, and 99."

Amen, Maria, and charitably put.

Jade, please read the posts that MariaG has suggested. I am surprised that you see “hostility” directed only towards Arwen, yet are blind to the hostility and sarcasm coming from her despite appeals to reasonableness and charity.
 
Sherlock posted: “I am surprised that you see “hostility” directed only towards Arwen, yet are blind to the hostility and sarcasm coming from her despite appeals to reasonableness and charity.”

My apologies to Sherlock and MariaG, It was not my intention to imply that I see ‘hostility’ directed only at Arwen, I am very well aware of the ‘hostility’ that she gives back and do not think that is the correct way to respond.
I was saying that I can relate to her situation about her original question and that as I know what it is like to get some answers that can be rather on the blunt side, I admire her for sticking through it.
 
Jade,

You wrote: “I was saying that I can relate to her situation about her original question and that as I know what it is like to get some answers that can be rather on the blunt side, I admire her for sticking through it.”

I know you’re just trying to be nice, but it really would be much more admirable for Arwen to address the points that are made instead of resorting to sarcasm. I admire a straightforward and well-reasoned exchange, and have managed to have that on this list with others with whom I had differences in opinion, blunt or no. That has not been the case here with Arwen, unfortunately.
 
Oh, so now we’re resorting to personal attacks, eh Sherlock? That’s so mature. I’m very proud of you. :clapping:
 
Arwen,

I am not personally attacking you (I don’t know you at all). I am criticizing your method of responding to points that have been raised by myself and others, a method which is not conducive to a reasonable exchange of viewpoints. You have repeatedly resorted to sarcasm instead of answering specific questions or points. This latest post of yours is, I’m afraid, more of the same. As I mentioned in my earlier post, I have had good discussions with others on this list whose positions and theology are very different from mine—it is perfectly possible to have good discussions with those with whom you disagree. I am disagreeing primarily with your inability to address specifics and your tendency to respond with sarcasm. If you drop the sarcasm and focus on specific arguments, you would lend your position more credibility.
 
You know what, I tried being polite and not being sarcastic. I responded to specific questions. But I keep getting told some of the same things over and over again. And there is a limit to how many times I want to answer the same question. And my religion has been attacked several time, so I responded to those people sarcastically. You then took it personally. If you want me to sincerly apologize, here is my apology.

I am sincerly sorry you are so close monded that you can’t accept any other religion as being good. Even when most of the beliefs are the same. I am sorry you can’t bear to hear anything other than what you think. I am sorry you take everything so personally. And you know what? I don’t care if you think I’m being sarcastic here, because I know and God knows that I’m not.
 
Arwen,

You wrote: “I am sincerly sorry you are so close monded that you can’t accept any other religion as being good.”

And what are you basing this statement of yours on? Please cite evidence from my posts that would support this charge of yours. Actually, I find much good in many other religious traditions, and would be willing to spell them out for you if you wish (I have not done so previously because it would not be germane to the topic here on this thread).

You wrote: " I am sorry you can’t bear to hear anything other than what you think."

Again I have to ask, can you cite any passage from my posts that would support this? You can’t, can you? Let me enlighten you: most of my friends are Protestants of various stripes, with an atheist to boot. Obviously they wouldn’t be friends if your charge were true. Really, this is rather childish…

You wrote: “I am sorry you take everything so personally.”

What does this charge come from? I can think of just one time when I mistakenly thought you were responding to me when you weren’t. In general, I have defended my faith, not myself, although in this response I am obviously having to do so.

You wrote: " But I keep getting told some of the same things over and over again."

That’s right, your question was answered within a few posts. End of story—move on to another thread, and this will solve your problem. This is what is termed a “no-brainer”.

You wrote: “If you want me to sincerly apologize, here is my apology.”

Ah, a Jane Fonda apology! Well, whatever—better than nothing, I suppose. But you’re wrong: I have not asked you for an apology. I HAVE suggested you drop the sarcasm.

Here’s a hint for you, Arwen: don’t take on more than you can handle. I don’t think you’re very familiar with the discipline of having a discussion with those you disagree with while remaining rational and charitable.

And another hint: use spell-check.
 
I tried to be reasonable. You have been very reasonable up until recently. I thank you for thee good explanations you gave earlier in this thread. But because of the responses I get from others, and from you because of responses I make to others, I don’t think I’ll be using this forum any more. I thought it might be helpful to understanding my friends’ religion, but it’s not worth this much aggrivation.
 
Arwen,

You wrote: “I tried to be reasonable.”

Then try harder—it would help to answer the questions asked instead of employing sarcasm. That would be being reasonable.

You wrote: " You have been very reasonable up until recently."

Thank you, I’m glad that you think I have been reasonable. As for “until recently”: that wouldn’t happen to coincide with when I asked you to support your rather ridiculous charges against me (such as not being able to “bear to hear anything other than what you think”, or being “so close monded that you can’t accept any other religion as being good”), would it? Why is it unreasonable to ask you to back up statements such as those with some evidence? And it’s hard not to notice that you didn’t provide that evidence when asked…I guess I was supposed to let you throw out insults without actually holding you accountable to them. Accepting responsibility for what one says is one indication of maturity----only children, or the childish, think that it is reasonable to throw out unflattering charges without having to either back them up or take responsibility for them.

You wrote: “But because of the responses I get from others, and from you because of responses I make to others, I don’t think I’ll be using this forum any more.”

Well, that might be best, Arwen. If one is easily offended or unable to sustain a rational discussion, this forum is no place to be.

You wrote: “I thought it might be helpful to understanding my friends’ religion, but it’s not worth this much aggrivation.”

Much (though certainly not all) of your aggravation was self-inflicted. However, there are certainly many other good resources for you to learn about your friends’ religion: I would suggest Catholic Answers (catholic.com) as a good source for specific questions, and there are many good books out there as well (Dr. Scott Hahn, Peter Kreeft, Karl Keating, Fr. Benedict Groeschel, G.K. Chesterton—there are many good authors. I would also recommend the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which you might be able to find at your library.) Those resources might be better suited to your temperament and abilities. Best wishes to you, and God bless.
 
40.png
Arwen037:
Hey Katholikos, Catholics don’t have a valid Eucharist.

Did me saying that change any of the facts? No. So why bother? To make a point. You can make whatever claims you like, but that doesn’t make it true. We do in fact have a valid Eucharist. I don’t think you are in any position to say otherwise. And if you think you are, please tell me, how many years have you been studying Lutheran theology?
Click to expand...
Arwen, if you’re still here, I’d like to answer your question.

The modern Lutheran church(es) are all descendants of the one Lutheran church founded by Martin Luther; the original no longer exists. I have no need to study a man-made religion. The founder of the Catholic Church was Jesus Christ, First Person of the Blessed Trinity, God Himself. I can never study it enough.

Your denial of the validity of the Catholic Eucharist has no impact on reality. And my denial of the validity of the Lutheran Eucharist doesn’t make it untrue. What matters is what really is – objective Truth – regardless of who believes it.

As was pointed out by Catholic4AReason (Nancy), Lutherans have no valid priesthood (actually, they have no priesthood at all) and therefore they cannot confect the Eucharist. The authority to confect the Eucharist comes from the Apostles – Catholic and Eastern Orthodox priests are ordained in Apostolic Succession; Episcopal priests and other Protestant ministers are not.

Episcopalians call their clergy “priests,” but all Lutherans, as far as I know, call their clergy “ministers.” I’m sure you’ll correct me if I’m wrong.

Lutheran ministers are not validly ordained priests in Apostolic Succession. Therefore, they lack the power to confect the Eucharist. The liturgy during which the Eucharist becomes the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ and is given to the congregation as spiritual food is a sacrifice. The job description of a priest is “one who offers sacrifice.” That’s why the liturgy is called the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Peace be with you, 🙂 Jay
 
wow, wow, wow.
One can’t receive communion if they are not IN communion.

I want to be positive about this, if you do believe in transubstantiation then you are not it in communion with Lutherans, because they teach Communion is only a symbol.

I suspect you are more Catholic than Lutheran in your faith and the True Presence is calling you to the Catholic Church, which is NOT rare. I find many non-Catholics develop a Catholic understanding of Communion, and because the protestant pastor is neither ordained as part of the apostolic succession nor has the intent to confect the Eucharist as the true Body & Blood the Lutheran understanding that it only a symbol is correct in that case.

Taizé is an ecumenical movement of Lutherans and Catholics, with Rome’s approval that celebrates ecumenical liturgy. At Communion the Catholics line up for a Consecrated Host and Lutherans line up for a blessed host.

In all candor there is a ebb & flow, and few Catholics become Lutheran but MANY Lutherans can not resist the True Presence and become Catholic.

I think your being called by Christ in to the fullness of the Divine Banquet, Blessed above millions who will never know the privilege.

In my ignorant opinion, I think you are already Catholic, and don’t know it yet, Welcome to the Church.

I love Taizé, especially the music. If you can track them down please let me know what you think?

Blessings on Blessings,

Timothy
 
Jade wrote:
I too have done a lot of study into the Catholic and Lutheran faith’s (primarially their differences). But what I would really like to stress (and I may get corrected by my Catholic brothers and sisters, as I am still confused a little about the catholic church being the one “true” church ( if anyone would like to teach me more about this, please do!)
Click to expand...
When you became a Catholic, you made a profession of faith in which you said, “I believe everything the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church teaches,” or words to that effect. The Catholic Church teaches that she – and she alone – is the One True Church, founded by Christ for the salvation of the world.

Christ has a Bride (Eph 5:25-33, 2 Cor 11:2 et al.), not a harem. He has a unified body of which He is the head (Col. 1:15-18, Eph 1:22-23 et al.), not splintered body parts.

Jesus Christ has only one Church.

When did you become a Catholic, and why? If you believe one church is as good another, and they’re all “true” – or that more than one is “true” – then you are a relativist, not a Catholic.

This is likely the fault of your teachers. Not to worry. This can be remedied. Recommended reading:

One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, The Early Church was the Catholic Church, by Kenneth D. Whitehead

amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0898708028?v=glance

Peace be with you, Jay
 
When have you asked questions that I didn’t answer and only responded with sarcasm? And if you want me to go find when I think you stopped being resonable I can do that. And it was before you asked me to support my “ridiculous” charges. I really was going to support them, but I decided you would deny them all, and there would be no point in it. And you seem to be throwing out insults of your own here. It’s the pot calling the kettle black. And you’re right on the me being unreasonable thing. It is completely unreasonable of me to continue to frequent a place where I’ve been told over and over again my religion isn’t valid. And that is enough to offend anyone I bet. And as far as “self-inflicted” aggrivation, what aggrivates me the most is being told various parts of my relgion are in valid by people who haven’t studied my religion for a single year, and being told that I believe something that I don’t in actuallity believe. I would by no strech of the imagination call that self-inflicted.
 
40.png
Arwen037:
. . . what aggrivates me the most is being told various parts of my relgion are in valid by people who haven’t studied my religion for a single year. . .
Click to expand...
Anwen, was your post directed to Sherlock?

On the Q of validity, it’s unfortunately true that no Lutheran church (nor any other Protestant church) has valid Holy Orders, direct from the Apostles, transmitted through Succession from one bishop to another down through the centuries. Therefore, Protestant “priests” or ministers have neither the power nor the authority to confect the Eucharist, forgive sins, or to confer any of the seven sacraments upon anyone. One doesn’t have to study Lutheran theology to know this. One only needs to know a little about the history of Christianity.

Believe anything you choose. But that doesn’t make it true.

Peace, Jay
 
Arwen,

You wrote: “It is completely unreasonable of me to continue to frequent a place where I’ve been told over and over again my religion isn’t valid.”

Whether or not you think you are being unreasonable in coming to this forum is up for you to decide: I’ll leave that for you to wrestle with. But I haven’t seen where you have been told “over and over” that your religion isn’t valid—could you provide some quotes from posts that would support this? Now, it is true that you have been told that a Lutheran “Eucharist” is not valid (it’s not, for the reasons that Katholikos and others have mentioned: lack of Apostolic succession. The Orthodox churches have maintained that succession, so Catholics do recognize their Eucharist as valid—so it’s not a “Catholic only” thing). That doesn’t mean your religion isn’t “valid”, though I think you’ll admit that this is a very subjective term when applied to a religion as a whole: just what does “valid” mean when applied to a religion? Can you see the difference between saying a particular sacrament is invalid, and saying that a religion is invalid? Perhaps this is the problem you are having.

You wrote: “And it was before you asked me to support my “ridiculous” charges. I really was going to support them, but I decided you would deny them all, and there would be no point in it.”

Oh, by all means, please snip the relevant parts of my posts on this thread that would lead normal people to conclude that (to use your own words): 1–“you are so close monded that you can’t accept any other religion as being good”, and 2–“you can’t bear to hear anything other than what you think.” That’ll do for starters. Again, I think it would be most helpful if you actually snip the relevant passages out of posts I’ve actually written. You see, that way there’s no way I could do what you fear, by denying them: since my posts are here for all to see, I have nothing to deny, eh?

You wrote: “And as far as “self-inflicted” aggrivation, what aggrivates me the most is being told various parts of my relgion are in valid by people who haven’t studied my religion for a single year, and being told that I believe something that I don’t in actuallity believe.”

For starters, just so you know, it’s “aggravation”, not “aggrivition”. Just thought you might want to know, so you can spare yourself some embarassment in the future (a few mispellings can be chalked up to simple typos, but when repeated, it’s more probable that you are simply unaware of how to spell the word). But back to your point: how is it that you are aware of the time that any of the posters on this thread have studied Lutheranism? I don’t remember you asking for people’s educational credentials, nor do I recall if any one proffered theirs. I certainly wouldn’t make assumptions about a stranger’s credentials—those sorts of assumptions have a way of backfiring. In my case I have studied various Protestant religions much longer than one year (I was a Protestant for some years), and it is a probable indication of your tender years that you seem to think that one year represents a lot of time. That’s OK.

I gotta run, but will try to answer other aspects of your post later this evening.

God bless.
 
Arwen,

I forgot to mention in my previous post that I attended Lutheran churches, among others, when I was a Protestant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top