Is it really so bad for a non Catholic to receive communion? (believe, scriptures)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So you believe that the bread and wine literally becomes the body and blood (actual flesh and blood) of Christ?
Because that's what Catholics believe. And they have a belief about it that is different from Baptists, or pretty much any other denomination. They believe one is in sin if they take it with sin on their conscience.
actually, over 200 million Eastern Orthodox (along with the over 1 billion Catholics) at least as a matter of official dogma have essentially the very same belief in the "real" (objective) presence of Christ "body and blood, soul and Divinity" in the Eucharist under the "appearance" of bread and wine (they differ in just how it happens). for that matter think the traditional Lutheran theology is that Christ is literally present "along with" the bread and wine. right, wrong, or indifferent, the bottom line is that for folks in these communions is that they believe that they are really and truly following Christ's apparent command to "...EAT My body and DRINK My blood...for My flesh IS real food and My blood IS real drink...." (John 6: 53-58).
for better or worse, Churches who hold these doctrines generally have the expectation that anyone who does take communion with them holds essentially the same doctrines and those who don't would reasonably not want to make that kind of at least implicit agreement and "commitment" when they say "yes, I believe" (i.e. "amen") when the bread and wine are offered to them generally with some variation of the words: "the Body of Christ" and "the Blood of Christ".
different churches with different ideas of what communion means and another understanding of what various scriptures "really" mean will reasonably have different practices and "rules" for who can or should (or should not) step up to receive communion.
in the peace of Christ who (thank God) still loves and forgives us despite our ignorance and misunderstanding of, and bickering with others who may differ from us in some way but who are also striving to love God and their neighbor.
Last edited by georgeinbandonoregon; 09-12-2017 at 06:25 PM..
I am not very religious, but I am Catholic and go to Mass on all Holy Days of Obligation. I have some friends who know somebody who is Episcopalian but goes to Catholic Mass because none of his religion's churches are nearby and he receives Communion. This deeply upsets my friends who are super religious and go to Mass every single day and fast beforehand. They have been obsessing over it for the past month, and they are currently on their way to the other guy's home to confront him about it and try to force him to stop receiving Communion. If that doesn't work they are going to go to the parish priest before Mass on Sunday and tell him to refuse to give this guy Communion. Their actions are pissing me off. I am holding my tongue because I don't eat to upset them and lose friends, but I believe that if this guy believes in God (which he does) and wants to receive Communion he should be allowed to. I believe my friends have no right whatsoever to dictate this guy's actions. I am furious to the point where I am thinking about texting this guy and warning him what he is about to face but I am not getting involved. I love my friends to death, but in this instance, I don't believe they could be any wronger.
Why doesn't he just become Catholic? It's easy enough to join RCIA.
actually, over 200 million Eastern Orthodox (along with the over 1 billion Catholics) at least as a matter of official dogma have essentially the very same belief in the "real" (objective) presence of Christ "body and blood, soul and Divinity" in the Eucharist under the "appearance" of bread and wine (they differ in just how it happens). for that matter think the traditional Lutheran theology is that Christ is literally present "along with" the bread and wine. right, wrong, or indifferent, the bottom line is that for folks in these communions is that they believe that they are really and truly following Christ's apparent command to "...EAT My body and DRINK My blood...for My flesh IS real food and My blood IS real drink...." (John 6: 53-58).
for better or worse, Churches who hold these doctrines generally have the expectation that anyone who does take communion with them holds essentially the same doctrines and those who don't would reasonably not want to make that kind of at least implicit agreement and "commitment" when they say "yes, I believe" (i.e. "amen") when the bread and wine are offered to them generally with some variation of the words: "the Body of Christ" and "the Blood of Christ".
different churches with different ideas of what communion means and another understanding of what various scriptures "really" mean will reasonably have different practices and "rules" for who can or should (or should not) step up to receive communion.
in the peace of Christ who (thank God) still loves and forgives us despite our ignorance and misunderstanding of, and bickering with others who may differ from us in some way but who are also striving to love God and their neighbor.
My understanding is that Lutherans hold to consubstantiation, meaning that the body and blood are present WITH the host, where Catholics teach TRANSsubstantiation--meaning that it replaces the host. I'm not sure what category the Eastern Orthodox fall into.
If you'd like to debate the theology of that, I'd be happy to. I don't believe you can support it via Scripture, if we look at all of Scripture, in context. Certainly not from the Bread of Life discourse in John 6.
My understanding is that Lutherans hold to consubstantiation, meaning that the body and blood are present WITH the host, where Catholics teach TRANSsubstantiation--meaning that it replaces the host. I'm not sure what category the Eastern Orthodox fall into.
If you'd like to debate the theology of that, I'd be happy to. I don't believe you can support it via Scripture, if we look at all of Scripture, in context. Certainly not from the Bread of Life discourse in John 6.
yes. think I already mentioned that the Lutherans belief that the body and blood of Christ are indeed WITH the bread and wine which is literally "CONsubstantiation"(though many Lutherans prefer to use the term "sacramental union")---the important thing for the purpose of the discussion is that Lutherans believe they are REALLY (objectively) there and not "merely" symbolically or in a "spiritual" sense or even as a "remembrance" (memorial) of Christ's past actions. yes, am aware of "transubstantiation" which simply means that by the power of God in Christ (Who can do ANYTHING including transcending "natural law" as in working a miracle or so Christians believe: from changing water into wine, walking on water, rising from the dead for example) through the ministry of a priest the bread and wine are completely changed and replaced by the body and blood of the risen and glorified Christ. again, the Orthodox as far as I can see believe essentially the very same thing---they just don't like to use the "Roman" term preferring to call the change (often termed "metousiosis") a "sacred mystery"---but they also believe the consecrated elements of bread and wine really and truly become the body and blood of Christ who as Victim ("Lamb of God") AND Priest eternally offers Himself to the Father for the salvation of the world and to His people for their continuing nourishment and sanctification.
wouldn't you know it Wikipedia has an interesting and informative article "real presence of Christ in the Eucharist" that outlines the various beliefs and doctrines on this subject from the various Churches.
for the purposes of the thread, it doesn't matter whether you or I or anybody else think these beliefs are right or wrong or which interpretation of relevant scriptures support (or don't support) them---simply that going to communion in a church with such beliefs could be regarded as showing that one also holds those beliefs at least by implication (again by the act of saying "amen"/yes/I do when offered the elements) and if one doesn't then respect for other's beliefs would indicate it MIGHT be better to abstain (which is what I believe you have already suggested) or maybe as I suggested having at least a candid discussion with the priest, presider, or minister on what they're doing especially if they are going to do it on an on-going basis.
in the peace of Christ.
.
Last edited by georgeinbandonoregon; 09-13-2017 at 07:48 PM..
yes. think I already mentioned that the Lutherans belief that the body and blood of Christ are indeed WITH the bread and wine which is literally "CONsubstantiation"(though many Lutherans prefer to use the term "sacramental union")---the important thing for the purpose of the discussion is that Lutherans believe they are REALLY (objectively) there and not "merely" symbolically or in a "spiritual" sense or even as a "remembrance" (memorial) of Christ's past actions. yes, am aware of "transubstantiation" which simply means that by the power of God in Christ (Who can do ANYTHING including transcending "natural law" as in working a miracle or so Christians believe: from changing water into wine, walking on water, rising from the dead for example) through the ministry of a priest the bread and wine are completely changed and replaced by the body and blood of the risen and glorified Christ. again, the Orthodox as far as I can see believe essentially the very same thing---they just don't like to use the "Roman" term preferring to call the change (often termed "metousiosis") a "sacred mystery"---but they also believe the consecrated elements of bread and wine really and truly become the body and blood of Christ who as Victim ("Lamb of God") AND Priest eternally offers Himself to the Father for the salvation of the world and to His people for their continuing nourishment and sanctification.
wouldn't you know it Wikipedia has an interesting and informative article "real presence of Christ in the Eucharist" that outlines the various beliefs and doctrines on this subject from the various Churches.
for the purposes of the thread, it doesn't matter whether you or I or anybody else think these beliefs are right or wrong or which interpretation of relevant scriptures support (or don't support) them---simply that going to communion in a church with such beliefs could be regarded as showing that one also holds those beliefs at least by implication (again by the act of saying "amen"/yes/I do when offered the elements) and if one doesn't then respect for other's beliefs would indicate it MIGHT be better to abstain (which is what I believe you have already suggested) or maybe as I suggested having at least a candid discussion with the priest, presider, or minister on what they're doing especially if they are going to do it on an on-going basis.
in the peace of Christ.
.
Agreed. And my point was that my Baptist Church teaches things that are different than Catholic or Lutheran. We should be respectful enough of the church to recognize their beliefs and abstain if they do not wish us to partake.
Agreed. And my point was that my Baptist Church teaches things that are different than Catholic or Lutheran. We should be respectful enough of the church to recognize their beliefs and abstain if they do not wish us to partake.
absolutely agree!!!! that said, my point (poor as it may be, LOL) is that the belief in the "real(objective/physical) presence" of Christ in the Eucharist is not JUST a Catholic thing or an Orthodox thing, or even a Lutheran thing (no matter how much disagreement there may be between those Churches as to exactly how it happens or what it is called) a very great number of Christians in several denominations right, wrong, or indifferent believe and confess this. and yes, someone who does NOT believe as they do should at least be aware of the implications of "communing" with such churches and if it is indeed "respectful" of those beliefs to receive communion with them (especially on a regular basis) in such a situation.
as said before, ultimately in this and many other things someone does hopefully should come down to some kind of serious decision involving a person's informed understanding of the issues involved (hopefully not JUST because the church is closer, or the vestments and music remind them of their former church) and a desire to do the "right" (not just the easy or expedient) thing as a way of nurturing ("feeding" if you will in the context of the belief by those Churches in truly "eating the flesh" and "drinking the blood" of Christ in the Eucharist) their on-going relationship with God in Christ through the Holy Spirit---which (hopefully) is vitally important to a Christian no matter what their beliefs on the nature of the Eucharist---and then actually living their faith in love of God and neighbor after that (most important of all, IMHO!!!).
in the peace of Christ.
Last edited by georgeinbandonoregon; 09-15-2017 at 10:05 AM..
And my point is that the exclusion of people who believe in the message of Jesus and live according to it because of what they believe ABOUT the nature of communion is completely opposed to the nature of that message and I won't put that onus on those people who keep their nose in the air about such silly matters.
And my point is that the exclusion of people who believe in the message of Jesus and live according to it because of what they believe ABOUT the nature of communion is completely opposed to the nature of that message and I won't put that onus on those people who keep their nose in the air about such silly matters.
You have been very vocal in the past regarding what YOUR beliefs are (and are now, actually). You expect us to agree with you and see things your way, but it's amazing how you won't extend the same courtesy.
And my point is that the exclusion of people who believe in the message of Jesus and live according to it because of what they believe ABOUT the nature of communion is completely opposed to the nature of that message and I won't put that onus on those people who keep their nose in the air about such silly matters.
\\
since in point of fact, I know of no Catholic church, priest, or congregation that actually asks to check a personal membership card (there is no such thing in the Catholic church anyway) of sign an affidavit ANYBODY who comes up looking half-way decent (people in shorts and flip-flops go up all the time!!!) there is really no practical bar for the person in question to go up and receive likely nobody will even notice (except in this case some of the o.p.'s other friends in particular situation). frankly, there are lots of other Catholic churches with lots of services at lots of times around and it's easy to blend in and do what he apparently wants to do.
please (re)read my second paragraph in response 37---don't think there is any particular rigidity or lack of charity there---the decision to partake or not partake is ultimately a hopefully sincere and reasoned PERSONAL decision made between the individual communicant and God.
in the peace of Christ.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
