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

[pescador]

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?

I don't see any problem with understanding what Jesus said and did at the Passover meal. He knew what was to be His fate so while he was with His disciples he gave them a ritual to remember His sacrifice. Whenever one eats the bread and drinks the wine, whether formally in church or normally outside of church, s/he is supposed to identify with Christ's suffering on their behalf. It is akin to eating unleavened bread and lamb on Passover. leaven representing sin and lamb symbolizing the sacrifice of life. Jesus sacrificed His body and His blood so that we may escape death, just as the Hebrews escaped Pharaoh. All He asked is that we remember Him when we eat bread and drink wine.

 

[pescador]

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.

"Eating Christ’s flesh and drinking His blood are symbols of fully receiving His sacrifice on our behalf." We are not eating Christ’s flesh and drinking His blood, we are eating bread and drinking wine.

The bread and wine ritual is not a re-sacrifice. Jesus simply asked that when we eat the bread and drink the wine that we remember His sacrifice. Even though there is no comparison, on July 4 we remember United States independence; it doesn't mean we are starting a war against England.

 

[GodsGrace101]

I don't see any problem with understanding what Jesus said and did at the Passover meal. He knew what was to be His fate so while he was with His disciples he gave them a ritual to remember His sacrifice. Whenever one eats the bread and drinks the wine, whether formally in church or normally outside of church, s/he is supposed to identify with Christ's suffering on their behalf. It is akin to eating unleavened bread and lamb on Passover. leaven representing sin and lamb symbolizing the sacrifice of life. Jesus sacrificed His body and His blood so that we may escape death, just as the Hebrews escaped Pharaoh. All He asked is that we remember Him when we eat bread and drink wine.

You said Jesus gave the Apostles a ritual to remember His sacrifice.

You believe this is communion.
Is it wrong for the CC to really remember His sacrifice at Mass?

It's my understanding that it is NOT re-sacrificing Jesus but is a remembrance of Him...as if we were standing at the cross.

If it is this way...are you still opposed to it and why.

BTW,,,the explanation to me was by priests...not some book.

 

[GodsGrace101]

"Eating Christ’s flesh and drinking His blood are symbols of fully receiving His sacrifice on our behalf." We are not eating Christ’s flesh and drinking His blood, we are eating bread and drinking wine.

The bread and wine ritual is not a re-sacrifice. Jesus simply asked that when we eat the bread and drink the wine that we remember His sacrifice. Even though there is no comparison, on July 4 we remember United States independence; it doesn't mean we are starting a war against England.

I believe it's the same with the Mass....

Did you ever study John 6:54?
Do you know that in that verse the word EAT means TO CHEW? (in Greek).

I always found this very interesting.

 

[pescador]

You said Jesus gave the Apostles a ritual to remember His sacrifice.

You believe this is communion.
Is it wrong for the CC to really remember His sacrifice at Mass?

It's my understanding that it is NOT re-sacrificing Jesus but is a remembrance of Him...as if we were standing at the cross.

If it is this way...are you still opposed to it and why.

BTW,,,the explanation to me was by priests...not some book.

I am not opposed to eating bread and drinking wine to remember Christ's sacrifice, whether in church (Catholic or Protestant) or outside of it. I don't know where you got that idea.

What is wrong is for the Catholic Church to deny communion to non-Catholics; that is arrogance to the extreme. Eating bread and drinking wine can be done anywhere, any time; it doesn't have to be in a formal church setting. Remember, Jesus shared the Passover meal with his disciples in a room in someone's house, not in the temple.

 

[GodsGrace101]

I am not opposed to eating bread and drinking wine to remember Christ's sacrifice, whether in church (Catholic or Protestant) or outside of it. I don't know where you got that idea.

What is wrong is for the Catholic Church to deny communion to non-Catholics; that is arrogance to the extreme. Eating bread and drinking wine can be done anywhere, any time; it doesn't have to be in a formal church setting. Remember, Jesus shared the Passover meal with his disciples in a room in someone's house, not in the temple.

The Passover meal was eaten in a home,,,not a temple.
So that says nothing.

The problem is that Catholics believe the host is the actual body and blood of Jesus...they feel that if someone does not agree with this, then they would be receiving the host without the proper knowledge of what they are doing.

Your avatar is a little confusing BTW.
Pescador means fisherman.
But the image looks like that frozen man that was found in the Southern Tyrol in Northern Italy and is now housed in a museum in Bolzano. Do they think he was a fisherman? There are many lakes in that region.

 

[GraceBro]

"Eating Christ’s flesh and drinking His blood are symbols of fully receiving His sacrifice on our behalf." We are not eating Christ’s flesh and drinking His blood, we are eating bread and drinking wine.

The bread and wine ritual is not a re-sacrifice. Jesus simply asked that when we eat the bread and drink the wine that we remember His sacrifice. Even though there is no comparison, on July 4 we remember United States independence; it doesn't mean we are starting a war against England.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1366, "The Eucharist IS THUS A SACRIFICE because it RE-PRESENTS (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit." The catechism continues in paragraph 1367: The SACRIFICE OF CHRIST and the SACRIFICE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST are ONE SINGLE SACRIFICE: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the SAME CHRIST who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross IS CONTAINED AND IS OFFERED IN AN UNBLOODY MANNER . . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory." I am glad you believe as you do. The Catechism says differently is all I am saying. Grace and Peace.

 

[George95]

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.

But when you put it like that, it’s almost like saying the church should adapt to my beliefs. It also sounds like saying the church doesn’t understand. The issue is that you have some churches and people viewing the Eucharist as being a symbolic snack, rather than the True Body and Blood. The Eucharist was universally celebrated in the way Christ says it is from the Last Supper until a few hundred years ago.

 

[George95]

I am not opposed to eating bread and drinking wine to remember Christ's sacrifice, whether in church (Catholic or Protestant) or outside of it. I don't know where you got that idea.

What is wrong is for the Catholic Church to deny communion to non-Catholics; that is arrogance to the extreme. Eating bread and drinking wine can be done anywhere, any time; it doesn't have to be in a formal church setting. Remember, Jesus shared the Passover meal with his disciples in a room in someone's house, not in the temple.

His Disciples understood it to be what He said it to be, His Body and Blood. “Eating bread and wine” just resonates it being a snack and not viewed with the proper reverence.

 

[pescador]

The Passover meal was eaten in a home,,,not a temple.
So that says nothing.

The problem is that Catholics believe the host is the actual body and blood of Jesus...they feel that if someone does not agree with this, then they would be receiving the host without the proper knowledge of what they are doing.

Your avatar is a little confusing BTW.
Pescador means fisherman.
But the image looks like that frozen man that was found in the Southern Tyrol in Northern Italy and is now housed in a museum in Bolzano. Do they think he was a fisherman? There are many lakes in that region.

So you and I agree. As I said, Jesus shared the Passover meal in somebody's house -- in the upper room to be exact. There was no house of worship, no priests in ornate robes, no formal ceremony, even thought they existed in Israel at the time, so we should follow that example, not that of the Catholic church, which even denies people the bread and wine. May God have mercy on them.

You are very perceptive! I live in New Mexico and fish often, hence the name Pescador. The man in the picture is indeed Otzi, found in the Ötztal Alps in 1991. He was a primitive man, a hunter, that I'm interested in. I even have a replica of the knife he carried. The documentary on him is wonderful; what an anthropological find!

 

[GodsGrace101]

So you and I agree. As I said, Jesus shared the Passover meal in somebody's house -- in the upper room to be exact. There was no house of worship, no priests in ornate robes, no formal ceremony, even thought they existed in Israel at the time, so we should follow that example, not that of the Catholic church, which even denies people the bread and wine. May God have mercy on them.

You are very perceptive! I live in New Mexico and fish often, hence the name Pescador. The man in the picture is indeed Otzi, found in the Ötztal Alps in 1991. He was a primitive man, a hunter, that I'm interested in. I even have a replica of the knife he carried. The documentary on him is wonderful; what an anthropological find!

Yes, Italy and Austria battled a little for him...but Italy won since he was found in Italy. I've seen the documentary about him. My daughter and her family
did see this "frozen person" in Bolzano a couple of years ago, but she's not as interested in these things.
Maybe you should make a trip? It's a beautiful area!
One of my favorite. (I've never been to that museum however).

As to the CC,,,,things get out of shape in our churches. What about those that require that a person be REBAPTIZED to join? This is also incorrect.

 

[Albion]

so we should follow that example, not that of the Catholic church, which even denies people the bread and wine.

How do you figure?

 

[ewq1938]

 

[annad347]

You’re right, combination was the wrong word. I understand Jesus Christ in the Eucharist is different for both churches… present/becoming, I just think the meaning, reason and purpose of the Eucharist is the same for both churches, Jesus Christ

It is a question of who's authority you accept.

To be honest, I question what exactly authority means… and how it can be continues from Peter to present Pope when one or more of the Popes obtained their authority, in an unholy manner.

I have nothing but respect and acceptance of our present Pope, for who he is and who he represents. Same with my the priests who serve at the church I attend… but I’m not the only one who worships in the Catholic church or any church with a little doubts in their leader.

You are serving two masters

I’ve been told that before. I don’t understand, my master in both churches is Jesus Christ? My taking the Eucharist, no matter the church, is to remember the sacrifice Jesus Christ made for me, how is that serving two masters?

Also, the Catholic and Lutheran rules change from state to state, country to country?? Too much.

 

[pescador]

Yes, Italy and Austria battled a little for him...but Italy won since he was found in Italy. I've seen the documentary about him. My daughter and her family
did see this "frozen person" in Bolzano a couple of years ago, but she's not as interested in these things.
Maybe you should make a trip? It's a beautiful area!
One of my favorite. (I've never been to that museum however).

As to the CC,,,,things get out of shape in our churches. What about those that require that a person be REBAPTIZED to join? This is also incorrect.

My daughter and grandchildren live in Florence. I'm not sure how far Bolzano is from Florence, but it would be worth the trip.

Rebaptism is ridiculous! Can one be symbolically buried, then be symbolically reburied? There are some very strange doctrines around but the Catholic church leads them all IMHO.

Otzi

 

[annad347]

But when you put it like that, it’s almost like saying the church should adapt to my beliefs. It also sounds like saying the church doesn’t understand.

I can see what you mean, I don't think that's what I'm trying to do... or rather hope that's not what I'm trying to do.

I'm not trying to force my beliefs on anyone. I know Catholic believe in a transformation, where Lutherans believe in a presence. I believe in both... and I don't understand why it would be wrong to believe in both.

 

[George95]

I can see what you mean, I don't think that's what I'm trying to do... or rather hope that's not what I'm trying to do.

I'm not trying to force my beliefs on anyone. I know Catholic believe in a transformation, where Lutherans believe in a presence. I believe in both... and I don't understand why it would be wrong to believe in both.

Cause Lutherans do not believe that it transforms in anyway. The two views contract each other.

 

[All4Christ]

Unless the priest (and those administering the Eucharist) at the Catholic Church are aware of you partaking of the Eucharist at another church outside of Catholicism, then I believe it is a sin from both the open communion and closed communion perspective. You seem to be aware that the Catholic Church does not allow for that, which would indicate that you are deceiving the priest or the ones administering communion by omission. If you are baptized Catholic, then (from what I understand) it is considered a sin to do so from their perspective.

Either way, it is a problem to partake from two churches if one does not permit that and you go ahead anyways without making that clear.

 

[All4Christ]

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.

That canon still applies today in Orthodoxy (unless there is an express direction of economia by the bishop for a specific need)

 

[annad347]

I'm not an expert on being Catholic, but I do understand why they do what they do.

I don't believe anyone should be denied the Eucharist, and from my understanding they don't deny people the Eucharist, as much as others think they do... but I think it has to do with 1 Corinthians 11:27-30 and I'm sure its written in Catechism in some. Priest need to make sure everyone who takes the Eucharist does it in a manner that is not insulting to God. I think.