The Catholic Church does allow Eastern Orthodox to receive communion with us, as they believe in the Real Presence.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Protestant Taking Communion...
- Thread starter John the Engineer
- Start date
- Status
Polycarp1
Born-again Liberal Episcopalian
Catholic theology makes the distinction between a valid Mass and a licit Mass. That is, someone who has never been given the "faculty" of being capable of celebrating the Sacrament of the Eucharist cannot offer bread and wine and have them become the Body and Blood of our Lord -- regardless of what he or she believes about what is going to happen when he or she does that. Any of our devout Catholic laymen here would believe sincerely that the consecrated Host and Cup are the Body and Blood -- but would not have been ordained a priest, and could not, therefore, consecrate the Sacrament, even if they should take it into their heads to perform a Mass (which of course they would not, but by way of illustration assume one of them to have decided to do so).
Now, an ordained priest who has been suspended from his priestly duties by his bishop still possesses the "faculty" to validly celebrate the Eucharist (and by canon law can do so when an extremely unlikely circumstance causing a pastoral necessity occurs) but may not licitly do so, since the bishop has suspended him. A good example is a priest who finds himself called to marriage, and therefore asks to be laicized in order that he may marry. He remains a validly ordained priest, but may not exercise his priestly vocation except in case of emergency, by the laws of the church.
A Catholic may only participate in a non-Catholic worship service of any sort when what is being done is in accord with the Catholic faith. For this reason, Good Friday devotions and prayer services (e.g., during the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity which just concluded) are acceptable. But attending a Protestant communion service would be improper, because the belief of what is occurring would not be the same for the celebrant and the attending Catholic.
A Catholic could validly attend Divine Liturgy in an Orthodox church, and, while he or she could legitimately receive Communion from the Orthodox priest or bishop by the rules of Catholicism, it is Orthodox doctrine that only members of the Orthodox church may be communed, so a Catholic attending Divine Liturgy could not be communed.
It is the current teaching of the Catholic Church, more or less, that the priests of the Anglican and Lutheran Churches are not validly ordained to the same understanding that the Catholic Church has of what a priest is ordained to do. (That sentence has a great deal of weasel-wording in it, to make clear that, while Catholicism has backed down from the definitive "Anglican orders are invalid" stance of Leo XIII, the church still holds that an Anglican priest is not ordained as a "sacrificing priest" in the way that a Catholic priest is, and that the question of Anglican orders is still highly questionable in consequence.) Accordingly, while a Catholic will still be warmly welcomed in an Anglican church and invited to partake of the Eucharist, he or she is expected by the Catholic Church not to take communion there.
This applies even more so to the Protestant churches who do not believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist as the Catholic Church does. (Orthodox, Anglicans, and Lutherans do believe in the Real Presence, but do not use the understanding of Scholastic theology that the mode under which the Real Presence comes to occur is the transubstantiation of the elements.)
What would be the case in the Old Catholic Churches who withdrew from the Roman Rite in 1870 over the doctrine of Papal infallibility is something I do not have an answer to.
Now, an ordained priest who has been suspended from his priestly duties by his bishop still possesses the "faculty" to validly celebrate the Eucharist (and by canon law can do so when an extremely unlikely circumstance causing a pastoral necessity occurs) but may not licitly do so, since the bishop has suspended him. A good example is a priest who finds himself called to marriage, and therefore asks to be laicized in order that he may marry. He remains a validly ordained priest, but may not exercise his priestly vocation except in case of emergency, by the laws of the church.
A Catholic may only participate in a non-Catholic worship service of any sort when what is being done is in accord with the Catholic faith. For this reason, Good Friday devotions and prayer services (e.g., during the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity which just concluded) are acceptable. But attending a Protestant communion service would be improper, because the belief of what is occurring would not be the same for the celebrant and the attending Catholic.
A Catholic could validly attend Divine Liturgy in an Orthodox church, and, while he or she could legitimately receive Communion from the Orthodox priest or bishop by the rules of Catholicism, it is Orthodox doctrine that only members of the Orthodox church may be communed, so a Catholic attending Divine Liturgy could not be communed.
It is the current teaching of the Catholic Church, more or less, that the priests of the Anglican and Lutheran Churches are not validly ordained to the same understanding that the Catholic Church has of what a priest is ordained to do. (That sentence has a great deal of weasel-wording in it, to make clear that, while Catholicism has backed down from the definitive "Anglican orders are invalid" stance of Leo XIII, the church still holds that an Anglican priest is not ordained as a "sacrificing priest" in the way that a Catholic priest is, and that the question of Anglican orders is still highly questionable in consequence.) Accordingly, while a Catholic will still be warmly welcomed in an Anglican church and invited to partake of the Eucharist, he or she is expected by the Catholic Church not to take communion there.
This applies even more so to the Protestant churches who do not believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist as the Catholic Church does. (Orthodox, Anglicans, and Lutherans do believe in the Real Presence, but do not use the understanding of Scholastic theology that the mode under which the Real Presence comes to occur is the transubstantiation of the elements.)
What would be the case in the Old Catholic Churches who withdrew from the Roman Rite in 1870 over the doctrine of Papal infallibility is something I do not have an answer to.
Upvote
0
Benedicta00
Well-Known Member
Polycarp,
What you said is true. There is a difference in invalid and illicit. A validly ordained priest who may have been told that he may not hear confession of consecrate the Eucharist and does so any way, the sacrament is valid because once a priest always a priest but the sacrament it illicit.
A priest who was ordained by a bishop who is not a true successor to the apostles does not consecrate or give absolution. That would be invalid.
I think the problem with Anglicans is we simply do not know who is validly ordained and who isn't but the sacrament, if they were valid is considered illicit. The sspx sacraments may be valid but illicit.
Luthers communion is not valid since he was a priest and not a bishop, he could ordain no one and he, as a priest who consecrated in his Church, it wasnt valid because his intent to do what the Church does was not there. He rejected the belief in transubstantiation and the true meaning of the real presence.
What you said is true. There is a difference in invalid and illicit. A validly ordained priest who may have been told that he may not hear confession of consecrate the Eucharist and does so any way, the sacrament is valid because once a priest always a priest but the sacrament it illicit.
A priest who was ordained by a bishop who is not a true successor to the apostles does not consecrate or give absolution. That would be invalid.
I think the problem with Anglicans is we simply do not know who is validly ordained and who isn't but the sacrament, if they were valid is considered illicit. The sspx sacraments may be valid but illicit.
Luthers communion is not valid since he was a priest and not a bishop, he could ordain no one and he, as a priest who consecrated in his Church, it wasnt valid because his intent to do what the Church does was not there. He rejected the belief in transubstantiation and the true meaning of the real presence.
Upvote
0
Forgive me if this is considered by anyone to be in poor taste. But the seasonal Catholics are sometimes referred to as "Chreasters" ... Mass attendence is normally limited to Christmas and Easter.Shelb5 said:
Upvote
0
Filia Mariae
Senior Contributor
If someone only attends Mass a few times a year, or has substituted a Protestant service for the Mass, then they are in a state of mortal sin because of their failure to meet the most basic obligations of their faith and therefore cannot receive the Eucharist.
It's also unlikely that someone who doesn't go to Mass believes in the Real Presence, if they believed, they'd be there. Who gives up a chance to be with Jesus?
Upvote
0
Filia Mariae
Senior Contributor
Or CEO's- Christmas and Easter OnlyForgive me if this is considered by anyone to be in poor taste. But the seasonal Catholics are sometimes referred to as "Chreasters" ... Mass attendence is normally limited to Christmas and Easter.
Upvote
0
Polycarp,
Nice post. I'm feeling lazy today and don't feel like looking stuff up. So I'm just winging it (translation: the chances of me being mistaken are even larger than normal!). But regarding the Catholic non-recognition of Anglican orders, (orders whose validity were not in dispute at the time of split from the Catholic Church, btw) . . . doesnt it have something to do with some change in the Rite of Ordination at some point in the Anglican Church? Again, Im winging it here, so correct me if Im wrong, but isnt it somehow related to the changing in the wording (and intent) of the ordination rite in such a way that denies the sacrificial nature of the Mass or something like that?
Nice post. I'm feeling lazy today and don't feel like looking stuff up. So I'm just winging it (translation: the chances of me being mistaken are even larger than normal!). But regarding the Catholic non-recognition of Anglican orders, (orders whose validity were not in dispute at the time of split from the Catholic Church, btw) . . . doesnt it have something to do with some change in the Rite of Ordination at some point in the Anglican Church? Again, Im winging it here, so correct me if Im wrong, but isnt it somehow related to the changing in the wording (and intent) of the ordination rite in such a way that denies the sacrificial nature of the Mass or something like that?
Upvote
0
David:
I don't have the quote either, but yes, the Anglicans CHANGED their wording and the way they ordain. Thus, they invalidated their ordaining procedure. Had they kept the original "formula" they would still have valid holy orders.
TIM
I don't have the quote either, but yes, the Anglicans CHANGED their wording and the way they ordain. Thus, they invalidated their ordaining procedure. Had they kept the original "formula" they would still have valid holy orders.
TIM
Upvote
0
ChoirDir
Choir Director
In any dialogue I've ever had with Protestants, it always comes up that they consider the Eucharist to be symbolic. Now if you ask them about Solo Scriptura, they will defend it saying that each person is filled the Holy Spirit in their interpretation.
Since Orthodox and Catholics agree that the invocation of the Holy Spirit makes the change, I guess that means our Protestant brethren don't think the Holy Spirit is capable of changing the gifts
Since Orthodox and Catholics agree that the invocation of the Holy Spirit makes the change, I guess that means our Protestant brethren don't think the Holy Spirit is capable of changing the gifts
Upvote
0
So being "direct to the point which may seem a tad unPC, and certainly is not the whole story"...
Holy Eucharist of the Holy Mass is for practicing Catholics, and those persons whom the Church allows [under some circumstances which would need to be discussed with a priest or even a Bishop].
"Lax" Catholics should speak with a priest, and receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation, before they casually partake of Holy Eucharist.
Holy Eucharist of the Holy Mass is for practicing Catholics, and those persons whom the Church allows [under some circumstances which would need to be discussed with a priest or even a Bishop].
"Lax" Catholics should speak with a priest, and receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation, before they casually partake of Holy Eucharist.
Upvote
0
Benedicta00
Well-Known Member
Skripper said:Forgive me if this is considered by anyone to be in poor taste. But the seasonal Catholics are sometimes referred to as "Chreasters" ... Mass attendence is normally limited to Christmas and Easter.
In New Orleans because of Mardi Gras they also will go on Ash Wednesday to get their ashes. Not because they are repenting but just because. Here it is more like a cultural tradition rather than a religious one. Even non-catholics will go get ashes.
Upvote
0
Benedicta00
Well-Known Member
Bastoune said:Laissez les bons temps rouler... comme mes yeux (like my eyes!)
"Let the good times roll" and I don't know the rest.
Upvote
0
KC Catholic
Everybody's gone surfin'...Surfin' U.S.A
- Feb 5, 2002
- 4,010
- 76
- 58
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
I just want to thank everyone here for a very friendly, informative discussion. Good questions and kind responses. 
The Eucharist is what brought me home to the Catholic Church. I literally ached to receive the Eucharist and unfortunately out of selfishness I took several times when I should have been humble and remained seated. My wife was not as strong a Catholic as she is now so she didn't want to offend me by insisting I understand why it was not proper for me to receive.
I did approach our priest while in RCIA and apologized for taking communion. He explained that I could come forward with my arms crossed on my chest and head bowed to receive a blessing and did so until I was received in the Church - and receiving that blessing was special to me.
When Eucharistic Adoration came to our parish, I surpised my wife, her family and many of her Catholic friends by signing up for Adoration at 2am (I worked 2nd shift), but it was a perfect time and the Holy Spirit continued to speak to my heart and bring me closer and closer to converting. And it worked.
I wanted the Eucharist because I knew deep down inside my heart it was Christ. So I can identify with those who want to receive but can't because you are not Catholic. And I pray for unity with our brothers and sisters that we can all share in the Eucharist.
The Eucharist is what brought me home to the Catholic Church. I literally ached to receive the Eucharist and unfortunately out of selfishness I took several times when I should have been humble and remained seated. My wife was not as strong a Catholic as she is now so she didn't want to offend me by insisting I understand why it was not proper for me to receive.
I did approach our priest while in RCIA and apologized for taking communion. He explained that I could come forward with my arms crossed on my chest and head bowed to receive a blessing and did so until I was received in the Church - and receiving that blessing was special to me.
When Eucharistic Adoration came to our parish, I surpised my wife, her family and many of her Catholic friends by signing up for Adoration at 2am (I worked 2nd shift), but it was a perfect time and the Holy Spirit continued to speak to my heart and bring me closer and closer to converting. And it worked.
I wanted the Eucharist because I knew deep down inside my heart it was Christ. So I can identify with those who want to receive but can't because you are not Catholic. And I pray for unity with our brothers and sisters that we can all share in the Eucharist.
Upvote
0
Polycarp1
Born-again Liberal Episcopalian
With all due respect to the good will of those who asked, I'd like to hold the question of the validity of Anglican Orders until the IDD forum opens again. I cannot in good conscience speak against what I believe to be true -- that my church has valid orders and a full and functioning episcopacy and priesthood, even from the Catholic perspective -- and to "preach the Anglican view" would be contrary to the purpose and functioning of this forum. So I ask your indulgence on leaving the question alone for the moment.
Thanking you in advance for your charity on this.
Thanking you in advance for your charity on this.
Upvote
0
Polycarp1
Born-again Liberal Episcopalian
Many Protestants believe in the keeping of a Holy Lent, and at least some, like us Anglicans, go for the imposition of ashes on Ash Wednesday in token of ongoing repentance "revved up" in the traditional season for focusing on repentance and amendment of life.Shelb5 said:
Which is not to say that folks may not "go through the motions" without the requisite intent, in New Orleans or elsewhere, Catholic or not....
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
