Is it a sin to take the Eucharist at two different churhes?

[George95]

or vice-versa.

You knew what I meant.

 

[Basil the Great]

I was taught taking communion in another Church is automatic excommunication. We are not allowed to take communion in other Church’s and remain Catholic. I need to look it up. Maybe I was taught wrongly about this (would not surprise me) but I do know that Catholics taking communion outside the Church is forbidden in most cases. And Catholics practice closed communion.

Based upon the Canon Law #844 that I referred to, it would appear that taking Communion from a Protestant minister does not = automatic excommunication.

 

[Basil the Great]

A bishop of Rome excommunicated an Orthodox bishop. 1054

Unbiased people now should see that as First Blood, and why 1 became 2

It boggles my mind how some Catholics see themselves as THE ONE TRUE CHURCH

Some Orthodox do too - both notions make me nauseous.

As I recall, the excommunication Bull from Cardinal Humbert included the Patriarch of Constantinople "and all his followers", which would seem to agree with the analysis of some historians that the entire Eastern Church was included in the excommunication. However, I believe that some Catholic historians/theologians have questioned the validity of the excommunication, since it was a Cardinal and not the Pope who signed the excommunication. Regardless, thanks to Pope Paul and Patriarch Athenagoras, both sides cancelled out their excommunications back in the 1960's.

 

[Michie]

Based upon the Canon Law #844 that I referred to, it would appear that taking Communion from a Protestant minister does not = automatic excommunication.

Yes. I already said I was mistaken in this thread.

 

[Basil the Great]

Back to the OP's original question, whether or not a sin is involved is probably up to each individual Christian to decide, as I do not believe that Scripture is clear on the issue.

 

[Basil the Great]

Yes. I already said I was mistaken in this thread.

Thanks and sorry that I missed it.

 

[Albion]

The Lutherans at the church I attend also believe for them the bread and wine becomes the body and blood of Christ. With the same faith that when the Catholic priest says for us this becomes the body and blood of Christ, I believe that it also becomes the body and blood of Christ when the Lutheran priest says it.

That's right--as the two churches' official beliefs stand.

The difference is that the Lutheran view is that the bread and wine do not cease to exist when joined to Christ's body and blood, whereas that is the Catholic belief (the bread and wine are completely changed over into something else--Christ's body and blood--regardless of how it looks and tastes).

 

[annad347]

..You said yourself that you are questioning some Catholic doctrine and theology; but by communing with them, you express personal concord with their teaching

My issues with the Catholic church has nothing to do with salvation or belief in Jesus Christ, its mostly with the traditions. Lutherans participate in the same traditions, which surprised me, though I'm still learning.

Their beliefs in the Eucharist are technically different, the words (slightly), the process, the presentation... bread and wine becomes the body and blood of Jesus Christ... the body and blood of Jesus Christ is present in bread and wine... but the importance and reason we take the Eucharist in both Churches is the same... GOD. I believe both. He is present. He becomes. I take what He presents, I become one with Him.

 

[Albion]

My issues with the Catholic church has nothing to do with salvation or belief in Jesus Christ, its mostly with the tradition. Lutherans participate in the same traditions, which surprised me, though I'm still learning.

Their beliefs in the Eucharist are technically different, the words (slightly), the process, the presentation... bread and wine becomes the body and blood of Jesus Christ... the body and blood of Jesus Christ is present in bread and wine... but the importance and reason we take the Eucharist in both Churches is the same... GOD. I believe both. He is present. He becomes. I take what He presents, I become one with Him.

There isn't much argument among us concerning that thinking, BUT there is with the idea that the more times a person communes in a single day, the better it is.

You will find very little support for that POV, no matter which church you consult.

 

[annad347]

You will find very little support for that POV, no matter which church you consult.

That's a shame.

 

[George95]

That's a shame.

Is it a shame because of the different beliefs you’re saying or?

 

[annad347]

Is it a shame because of the different beliefs you’re saying or?

That none of the churches being able to understand my POV of how The Eucharist is a combination of both churches beliefs... but I understand the church leaders are talking so maybe one day they will come to a united understanding.

 

[zoidar]

The two churches I attend is Catholic and Lutheran... and have been taking the Eucharist at both services... so am I committing a sin by doing so, and if I am which which commandment am I breaking??

Do the Catholic church accept that?

From my view there is no problem in doing so, since Christians from all branches are brothers and sisters by the Holy Spirit and not by theology. As a Protestant I would take the Eucharist in the RCC If I was allowed. I take the Lords supper in the different churches I attend. As I do so I believe I do it not only in union with the members of that church, but also in union with the Church of all Christians in the world, of which Christ is the head.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

There isn't much argument among us concerning that thinking, BUT there is with the idea that the more times a person communes in a single day, the better it is.

You will find very little support for that POV, no matter which church you consult.

I believe that there is/was a provision in Cannon Law in the Catholic Church that prohibited one from communing multiple times in one day. I seem to recall that a Priest could only celebrate the Eucharist twice in one day (at one time); this may have changed.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

That none of the churches being able to understand my POV of how The Eucharist is a combination of both churches beliefs... but I understand the church leaders are talking so maybe one day they will come to a united understanding.

I believe that that is a misunderstanding on your part; it is not a combination of both Churches beliefs. It is a means of grace given to the Church (small c) catholic. It is a question of who's authority you accept. Both Churches have valid Eucharist (although they would say we do not) because it is not about the person administering the sacrament; it is only about what God does for us through His word and the elements of the bread and wine. Our Lutheran Confessions are at odds with the teaching of the Catholic Church in this respect. We believe that 'Word and Sacrament remain efficatious even when administered by evil men'. The Catholic Church teaches that ours is invalid and illicit. Illicit because we are doing so outside Papal authority, and invalid because we do not have Rome's Apostolic Succession (there are exceptions).

You are serving two masters.

When you commune at a Catholic Church, you are (whether you admit it or not) stating that our Lutheran Eucharist is invalid and illicit (illegal) through your participatory actions; because that is their teaching attached to and associated with the Catholic Eucharist. You need to make up your mind.

Even Lutheran Synods that have retained Catholic Apostolic Succession, the Catholic Church teaches that their Eucharist is valid, but illicit.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Do the Catholic church accept that?

From my view there is no problem in doing so, since Christians from all branches are brothers and sisters by the Holy Spirit and not by theology. As a Protestant I would take the Eucharist in the RCC If I was allowed. I take the Lords supper in the different churches I attend. As I do so I believe I do it not only in union with the members of that church, but also in union with the Church of all Christians in the world, of which Christ is the head.

If you are talking about the State Church, from a Lutheran perspective, yes, but that does not change how the Catholic Church views this practices. The "Mission Province of Sweden" retain the historic practice of closed communion , as does the "Evangelical Lutheran Mission Diocese of Finland (who are in fellowship with Lutheran Church Canada BTW). Both of these independent Synods have, by the Catholic definition, valid Apostolic Succession.

Among traditional Liturgical Churches, closed communion is still the norm for most; open communion is a recent innovation that expresses false ecumenism. I am certain that most Catholic, Orthodox, and Confessional Lutheran theologians would agree on this one point.

 

[GodsGrace101]

A group of Christians started teaching the (incorrect) doctrine of the dual nature of Christ at the council of Chalcedon (AD 451) and left the early church. This is the first split, from this time the Christians being referred to as Non-Chalcedon and Chalcedon.

A group of Chalcedon Christians later twisted the Nicene Creed and that led to the Schism in 1054.

It was Catholics who twisted the Creed so, Catholics left (Eastern) Orthodox.

What did the Council of Chalcedon twist?
Do you not believe that Jesus is 100% God and
100% man ??

As to the schism of 1054, the nuance is difficult to understand for most Christians.

Would you care to enlighten us?

My understanding is that the Orthodox believe the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Father. Is this correct?

The council is numbered as the fourth ecumenical council by the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and most Protestants. Oriental Orthodox Churches do not agree with the conduct and the proceedings of the Council, commonly calling it "Chalcedon, the Ominous". This disagreement led the Oriental Orthodox Churches to separate from the rest of Christianity after the Council of Chalcedon.

Followers of the Council believe its most important achievement was to issue the Chalcedonian Definition, stating that Jesus is "perfect both in deity and in humanness; this selfsame one is also actually God and actually man."[2] The council's judgments and definitions regarding the divine marked a significant turning point in the Christological debates.[3]

source: Council of Chalcedon - Wikipedia

BTW,,,I'm not here to protect the CC,,,I just like the history of Christianity.

 

[pescador]

If you are talking about the State Church, from a Lutheran perspective, yes, but that does not change how the Catholic Church views this practices. The "Mission Province of Sweden" retain the historic practice of closed communion , as does the "Evangelical Lutheran Mission Diocese of Finland (who are in fellowship with Lutheran Church Canada BTW). Both of these independent Synods have, by the Catholic definition, valid Apostolic Succession.

Among traditional Liturgical Churches, closed communion is still the norm for most; open communion is a recent innovation that expresses false ecumenism. I am certain that most Catholic, Orthodox, and Confessional Lutheran theologians would agree on this one point.

I am so happy that I am non-denominational! The arguments about which "church" is valid and which "church" isn't valid stems from the beginning of Christianity. Paul wrote about this absurdity and Revelations says a lot about how the various churches are regarded as being in serious error.

 

[GraceBro]

The two churches I attend is Catholic and Lutheran... and have been taking the Eucharist at both services... so am I committing a sin by doing so, and if I am which commandment am I breaking??

I can't speak for either the Catholics or Lutherans. They may believe it is a sin. But, to God, the Eucharist itself is the sin. Whether the definition of Holy Eucharist is a "re-sacrifice" of Christ, or a "re-offering" of Christ’s sacrifice, or a “re-presentation” of Christ’s sacrifice, the concept is unbiblical. Christ does not need to be re-sacrificed. Christ’s sacrifice does not need to be re-offered or re-presented. Hebrews 7:27 declares, "Unlike the other high priests, He (Jesus) does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins ONCE for all when He offered Himself." Similarly, 1 Peter 3:18 exclaims, "For Christ died for sins ONCE for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God..." Christ’s once-for-all death on the cross was sufficient to propitiate God for all of our sins (1 John 2:2). Therefore, Christ’s sacrifice does not need to be re-offered. Instead, Christ’s sacrifice is to be received by faith (John 1:12; 3:16). Eating Christ’s flesh and drinking His blood are symbols of fully receiving His sacrifice on our behalf, by grace through faith. Thankfully, God is no longer counting our sins against us (2 Corinthians 5:19; Romans 4:8) and there is no longer any sacrifice for sin (Hebrews 10:17-18). Therefore, regardless if you believe what you are doing is a sin, it is not being held against you by God. Although, your fellow churchgoers may not be so forgiving.

 

[GodsGrace101]

I can't speak for either the Catholics or Lutherans. They may believe it is a sin. But, to God, the Eucharist itself is the sin. Whether the definition of Holy Eucharist is a "re-sacrifice" of Christ, or a "re-offering" of Christ’s sacrifice, or a “re-presentation” of Christ’s sacrifice, the concept is unbiblical. Christ does not need to be re-sacrificed. Christ’s sacrifice does not need to be re-offered or re-presented. Hebrews 7:27 declares, "Unlike the other high priests, He (Jesus) does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins ONCE for all when He offered Himself." Similarly, 1 Peter 3:18 exclaims, "For Christ died for sins ONCE for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God..." Christ’s once-for-all death on the cross was sufficient to propitiate God for all of our sins (1 John 2:2). Therefore, Christ’s sacrifice does not need to be re-offered. Instead, Christ’s sacrifice is to be received by faith (John 1:12; 3:16). Eating Christ’s flesh and drinking His blood are symbols of fully receiving His sacrifice on our behalf, by grace through faith. Thankfully, God is no longer counting our sins against us (2 Corinthians 5:19; Romans 4:8) and there is no longer any sacrifice for sin (Hebrews 10:17-18). Therefore, regardless if you believe what you are doing is a sin, it is not being held against you by God. Although, your fellow churchgoers may not be so forgiving.

You've covered all your bases as regards the "re-sacrificing"....but my question would be:

Why did Jesus say to do this in remembrance of Him?
To remember what?
On the evening of the trial He offered His body and blood which would be broken the next day.

Are the two involved in some way?
Both the communion and the sacrifice.
Perhaps both are to be remembered?