Why do you want Catholic Communion??????!!??!?!

[ConstantineTG]

Both of the religions are apostolic and the Orthodox are welcome to receive in a Catholic Church.

It is the Orthodox who want nothing to do with us as far as communion goes.

We don’t accept this explanation as much as you don’t accept the explanation of non-Catholics why they should be able to receive in the Catholic Church. Your concept of “validity” does not exist in the Orthodox Church. Communion for us is something more than just mere Sacramental Validity. You say that you don’t want to give Communion to Protestants because they don’t believe in everything the Catholic Church teaches. Well, we don’t believe in everything the Catholic Church teaches, and you don’t believe in everything the Orthodox Church teaches, so why again do some Catholics think they should be given Communion in the Orthodox Church?

 

[ufamtobie]

Yes, so it isn’t a view that Catholic Eucharists are somehow better than Lutheran or Anglican, etc., but that they are all in fact equal and the same and should be open to all believers. They want Catholic communion because they want to commune with Catholics, too.

Jon

Jon, if they / you want to commune with Catholics, they / you should become Catholics.

RE: The Most Holy Eucharist, We know that the Catholic Church being the first and only Church established by Jesus Christ Himself, is truly where one can find, eat and drink 100% the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, in the Eucharist. Any other church you don’t know for sure, if it is truly 100% the Body and Blood of Christ, one may hope and pray it is, one may believe it is, but is it? Now why would anyone want to put themselves through this.

Jon, as you stated above " so it isn’t a view that Catholic Eucharists are somehow better than Lutheran or Anglican, etc., but that they are all in fact equal and the same"

Jon, No, The Eucharist in your church is not “equal and the same” as the Eucharist in the Catholic Church! JonNC, you believe, correct me if I am wrong, but you Jon, believe in Consubstantiation, we Catholics believe Transubstantiation, the two don’t go hand in hand. In order to receive the Most Holy Eucharist in the Catholic Church truly one must receive the Body and the Blood believing that it is “Transubstantiation” and believe it to be so, by the only Church Christ founded, is the correct one for the First Church tells me so.

Jon, it may not be a big difference to you and your Church, but truly it is, Why? Because it is Our Lord’s Flesh and Blood, therefore no outsider can eat the Flesh and Blood in the Catholic Church, believing it is “Consubstantiation”.

Jon, Forum Master? wow you are moving up in this world lol soon you will be a Practicing Catholic, much better than forum Master:thumbsup:

Let go and let God’s Church lead you.

Ufam Tobie

 

[steido01]

you… believe in Consubstantiation, we Catholics believe Transubstantiation, the two don’t go hand in hand. In order to receive the Most Holy Eucharist in the Catholic Church truly one must receive the Body and the Blood believing that it is “Transubstantiation” and believe it to be so, by the only Church Christ founded, is the correct one for the First Church tells me so.

Lutherans do not believe in consubstantiation. Ugh.

 

[JRKH]

We don’t accept this explanation as much as you don’t accept the explanation of non-Catholics why they should be able to receive in the Catholic Church. Your concept of “validity” does not exist in the Orthodox Church. Communion for us is something more than just mere Sacramental Validity. You say that you don’t want to give Communion to Protestants because they don’t believe in everything the Catholic Church teaches. Well, we don’t believe in everything the Catholic Church teaches, and you don’t believe in everything the Orthodox Church teaches, so why again do some Catholics think they should be given Communion in the Orthodox Church?

Excellent post. Yes indeed this is a good question.
Of course there is no easy answer to any of this. I am so grateful to both of our Churches for putting forth the efforts at reconciliation but, until then, we as Catholics must wait for an invitation from our Orthodox brothers to receive.
For myself, I would not attempt to receive at an Orthodox service out of respect for my Orthodox brothers.

Peace
James

 

[Peter_J]

Both of the religions are apostolic and the Orthodox are welcome to receive in a Catholic Church.

It is the Orthodox who want nothing to do with us as far as communion goes.

We don’t accept this explanation as much as you don’t accept the explanation of non-Catholics why they should be able to receive in the Catholic Church.

I don’t read Miriam1947’s post as an attempted answer to your question, but as a “setting the record straight” post. Which is probably a good idea, since some readers may have been unaware of Catholic policies and/or Orthodox policies.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Excellent post. Yes indeed this is a good question.
Of course there is no easy answer to any of this. I am so grateful to both of our Churches for putting forth the efforts at reconciliation but, until then, we as Catholics must wait for an invitation from our Orthodox brothers to receive.
For myself, I would not attempt to receive at an Orthodox service out of respect for my Orthodox brothers.

Peace
James

Respect is the key phrase here.

 

[Peter_J]

Jon, if they / you want to commune with Catholics, they / you should become Catholics.

RE: The Most Holy Eucharist, We know that the Catholic Church being the first and only Church established by Jesus Christ Himself, is truly where one can find, eat and drink 100% the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, in the Eucharist. Any other church you don’t know for sure, if it is truly 100% the Body and Blood of Christ, one may hope and pray it is, one may believe it is, but is it? Now why would anyone want to put themselves through this.

Hmmm … is paragraph 2 addressed to Catholics who want to receive Orthodox communion?

Regardless, I think it’s sad how triumphalistic Catholics (and Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, …) can be.

 

[JRKH]

Hmmm … is paragraph 2 addressed to Catholics who want to receive Orthodox communion?

Regardless, I think it’s sad how triumphalistic Catholics (and Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, …) can be.

Not sure what you mean by “triumphalistic” here.
Each person or group has specific beliefs and at least some of these, the ones that pertain directly to salvation, are important enough to be declared in no uncertain terms. This is what I see ufamtobie doing in his post.
So is making such a declarative statement “Triumphalist”…or is is merely speaking the “God’s honest truth” (as he perceives that truth)?

Sometimes - and I am not accusing you - I think triumphalism is more in the ear of the hearer than in the intent of the speaker…

For example…it is not triumphalism that requires the Catholic Church to hold with “closed communion”, rather it is a deep sense of responsibility. Yet there are those who “see” triumphalism in the Church’s position…

Peace
James

 

[Peter_J]

Not sure what you mean by “triumphalistic” here.
Each person or group has specific beliefs and at least some of these, the ones that pertain directly to salvation, are important enough to be declared in no uncertain terms. This is what I see ufamtobie doing in his post.
So is making such a declarative statement “Triumphalist”…or is is merely speaking the “God’s honest truth” (as he perceives that truth)?

In my humble opinion, you should read a bit more carefully. Otherwise what you read just turns into whatever you would want it to say.

 

[MaryT777]

Respect is the key phrase here.

Amen, Dustin.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Amen, Dustin.

Thanks Mar lol

Let’s look at the word communion

communion: 1. ( often initial capital letter ) . Also called Holy Communion. Ecclesiastical .
a. the act of receiving the Eucharistic elements.
b. the elements of the Eucharist.
c. the celebration of the Eucharist.
d. the antiphon sung at a Eucharistic service.
2. a group of persons having a common religious faith; a religious denomination: Anglican communion.
3. association; fellowship.
4. interchange or sharing of thoughts or emotions; intimate communication: communion with nature.
5. the act of sharing, or holding in common; participation.

2 and 3 are major here.

 

[JonNC]

=ufamtobie;10911391]Jon, if they / you want to commune with Catholics, they / you should become Catholics.

Hi Ufam,
You are exactly right, of course. Similarly, for those who want to commune with Lutherans, or Anglicans, or Orthodox. My personal desire to commune with any or all of these would be in the context of an overall unity of doctrine.

RE: The Most Holy Eucharist, We know that the Catholic Church being the first and only Church established by Jesus Christ Himself, is truly where one can find, eat and drink 100% the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, in the Eucharist. Any other church you don’t know for sure, if it is truly 100% the Body and Blood of Christ, one may hope and pray it is, one may believe it is, but is it? Now why would anyone want to put themselves through this.

As our communion is part of Christ’s universal Church Catholic, we know for sure.

Jon, as you stated above " so it isn’t a view that Catholic Eucharists are somehow better than Lutheran or Anglican, etc., but that they are all in fact equal and the same"

Jon, No, The Eucharist in your church is not “equal and the same” as the Eucharist in the Catholic Church! JonNC, you believe, correct me if I am wrong, but you Jon, believe in Consubstantiation, we Catholics believe Transubstantiation, the two don’t go hand in hand. In order to receive the Most Holy Eucharist in the Catholic Church truly one must receive the Body and the Blood believing that it is “Transubstantiation” and believe it to be so, by the only Church Christ founded, is the correct one for the First Church tells me so.

As Steido pointed out, Lutherans have always rejected consubstantiation. What we believe is what Christ said, “This [bread] is my body.”

Jon, it may not be a big difference to you and your Church, but truly it is, Why? Because it is Our Lord’s Flesh and Blood, therefore no outsider can eat the Flesh and Blood in the Catholic Church, believing it is “Consubstantiation”.

What’s interesting is that consubstantiation actually has its roots in the Catholic Church. Duns Scotus is often credited for promoting that view. To my knowledge, no communion teaches consubstantiation. Lutherans never have.

Jon, Forum Master? wow you are moving up in this world lol soon you will be a Practicing Catholic, much better than forum Master:thumbsup:

I already am, just not in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Pray for the day unity between us comes.

Jon

 

[Carlan]

Jon, if they / you want to commune with Catholics, they / you should become Catholics.

RE: The Most Holy Eucharist, We know that the Catholic Church being the first and only Church established by Jesus Christ Himself, is truly where one can find, eat and drink 100% the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, in the Eucharist. Any other church you don’t know for sure, if it is truly 100% the Body and Blood of Christ, one may hope and pray it is, one may believe it is, but is it? Now why would anyone want to put themselves through this.

Jon, as you stated above " so it isn’t a view that Catholic Eucharists are somehow better than Lutheran or Anglican, etc., but that they are all in fact equal and the same"

After reading this , I decided to look up my notes

Question: "What is consubstantiation"And Transubstantiation and the difference?​

Answer: Consubstantiation is the view that the bread and wine of Communion / the Lord’s Supper
are spiritually the flesh and blood of Jesus, yet the bread and wine are still actually only bread and wine
In this way, it is different from transubstantiation, in which the bread and the wine are believed to actually become the body and blood of Jesus. Transubstantiation is a Roman Catholic dogma that stretches back to the earliest years of that church,
while consubstantiation is relatively new, arising out of the Protestant Reformation.
Consubstantiation essentially teaches that Jesus is “with, in, and under” the bread and wine, but is not literally the bread and wine.
Martin Luther, the founder of the Protestant Reformation, was a Roman Catholic priest
who was fed up with the abuses of the Roman Catholic Church and wanted to reform the church so it could return to its roots.
Luther learned all about the doctrine of transubstantiation in his theological training,
and it made up part of his belief system because, as a priest, he celebrated the Mass many times,and the dogma of transubstantiation is central to the Roman Catholic Mass.

Thus, when the Reformation started as a backlash to the Roman Catholic abuses
(such as the sale of indulgences), and the reform movement was summarily denounced by the church,
the leaders of the Reformation were largely Roman Catholic believers who wer now
without a church since they had been excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church.
Thus was born the climate in which the elements of the Mass, the bread and the wine,
could be examined in a scriptural light. So, instead of transubstantiation,
a doctrine that must be taken on faith alone since no apparent change is present in the bread and wine,
the doctrine of consubstantiation was formulated to explain what happened to the bread and wine and why there was no real physical change to these basic elements.

The change from trans- to con- is the key to seeing the bread and wine
as the body and blood of Jesus. The prefix trans- means “change” and says that a change takes place; the bread actually becomes the body of Jesus, and the wine actually becomes the blood of Jesus.
The prefix con- means “with” and says that the bread does not become the body of Jesus but co-exists with the body of Christ so that the bread is both a bread and the body of Jesus. The same thing is true of the wine. It does not become the blood of Jesus, but co-exists with the blood of Jesus so that the wine is both wine and the blood of Jesus.

In this way, the make-up of the Host central to the worship service approaches reality
since the physical property of the bread and wine do not change;
the bread tastes like unleavened bread, not flesh, and the wine tastes like wine, not blood.
However, these two essential elements, the flesh and the blood, remain as co-existing elements with the bread and wine so that the teaching of Jesus, in Matthew 26:26-28 and Mark 14:22-24,
can be properly observed.
Consubstantiation is held by some Eastern Orthodox churches, and some other liturgical
Christian denominations (Episcopal and Lutheran, as examples). Even among these groups,
consubstantiation is not universally accepted.
----------Peace, Carlan

 

[RyanBlack]

Which Eastern Orthodox Churches teach consubstantiation? I know of none.

 

[Peter_J]

soon you will be a Practicing Catholic

I’ve never heard of the Practicing Catholics before. Are you an American group, or international?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I already am,
Jon

Indeed! I knew you were on an undercover mission

 

[JonNC]

After reading this , I decided to look up my notes

Question: "What is consubstantiation"And Transubstantiation and the difference?​

Answer: Consubstantiation is the view that the bread and wine of Communion / the Lord’s Supper
are spiritually the flesh and blood of Jesus, yet the bread and wine are still actually only bread and wine
In this way, it is different from transubstantiation, in which the bread and the wine are believed to actually become the body and blood of Jesus. Transubstantiation is a Roman Catholic dogma that stretches back to the earliest years of that church,
while consubstantiation is relatively new, arising out of the Protestant Reformation.
Consubstantiation essentially teaches that Jesus is “with, in, and under” the bread and wine, but is not literally the bread and wine.
Martin Luther, the founder of the Protestant Reformation, was a Roman Catholic priest
who was fed up with the abuses of the Roman Catholic Church and wanted to reform the church so it could return to its roots.
Luther learned all about the doctrine of transubstantiation in his theological training,
and it made up part of his belief system because, as a priest, he celebrated the Mass many times,and the dogma of transubstantiation is central to the Roman Catholic Mass.

Thus, when the Reformation started as a backlash to the Roman Catholic abuses
(such as the sale of indulgences), and the reform movement was summarily denounced by the church,
the leaders of the Reformation were largely Roman Catholic believers who wer now
without a church since they had been excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church.
Thus was born the climate in which the elements of the Mass, the bread and the wine,
could be examined in a scriptural light. So, instead of transubstantiation,
a doctrine that must be taken on faith alone since no apparent change is present in the bread and wine,
the doctrine of consubstantiation was formulated to explain what happened to the bread and wine and why there was no real physical change to these basic elements.

The change from trans- to con- is the key to seeing the bread and wine
as the body and blood of Jesus. The prefix trans- means “change” and says that a change takes place; the bread actually becomes the body of Jesus, and the wine actually becomes the blood of Jesus.
The prefix con- means “with” and says that the bread does not become the body of Jesus but co-exists with the body of Christ so that the bread is both a bread and the body of Jesus. The same thing is true of the wine. It does not become the blood of Jesus, but co-exists with the blood of Jesus so that the wine is both wine and the blood of Jesus.

In this way, the make-up of the Host central to the worship service approaches reality
since the physical property of the bread and wine do not change;
the bread tastes like unleavened bread, not flesh, and the wine tastes like wine, not blood.
However, these two essential elements, the flesh and the blood, remain as co-existing elements with the bread and wine so that the teaching of Jesus, in Matthew 26:26-28 and Mark 14:22-24,
can be properly observed.
Consubstantiation is held by some Eastern Orthodox churches, and some other liturgical
Christian denominations (Episcopal and Lutheran, as examples). Even among these groups,
consubstantiation is not universally accepted.
----------Peace, Carlan

Among confessional Lutherans, it has been universally rejected! Consubstantiation has never been accepted by Lutherans. Consubstantiation is a spurious charge against us by the Reformed.

So:

Consubstantiation. The charge that the Lutheran Church holds this monstrous doctrine has been repeated times without number. In the face of her solemn protestations the falsehood is still circulated. It would be easy to fill many pages with the declarations of the Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and of her great theologians, who, without a dissenting voice, repudiate this doctrine, the name and the thing, in whole and in every one of its parts.

Charles Porterfield Krauth, 19th century

It is impossible to define Luther’s doctrine as consubstantiation. Even the words ‘in the bread’, ‘with the bread’, ‘under the bread’, or ‘in, with, and under the bread’, were never regarded by Luther as more than attempts to express in these old, popular terms inherited from the Middle Ages the great mystery that the bread is the body, the wine is the blood, as the Words of Institution say.

-Herman Sasse, 20th century

It is the great mystery of the sacrament that the bread IS the body, the wine IS the blood. This is what Christ said, and what we believe.

Jon

 

[aidanbradypop]

Among confessional Lutherans, it has been universally rejected! Consubstantiation has never been accepted by Lutherans. Consubstantiation is a spurious charge against us by the Reformed.

So:
Charles Porterfield Krauth, 19th century

-Herman Sasse, 20th century

It is the great mystery of the sacrament that the bread IS the body, the wine IS the blood. This is what Christ said, and what we believe.

Jon

So you are saying that some have branded this label without it actually being true? Sounds like something Catholics go through Now if you would excuse me…I must go worship Mary. lol

 

[JonNC]

So you are saying that some have branded this label without it actually being true? Sounds like something Catholics go through Now if you would excuse me…I must go worship Mary. lol

Exactly!!

Jon

 

[aidanbradypop]

Exactly!!

Jon

I knew you would get a laugh from that.

Serious question now…I attended a wedding at a LCMS parish a few years back. Both were Lutheran and members of the LCMS. Why wasn’t the Holy Eucharist given to them at their wedding? If marriage is a Sacrament in Lutheranism, why no mass?