I’m pretty certain protestants have no problem with a catholic taking communion in a protestant church.
But it is NOT a sacrament in protestant churches. They do not believe in transubstantiation, so why deny them of doing it in “remembrance of me [Christ]”?
I would say no. For that matter, if a family member was in a Catholic Church and, for one reason or another, was not prepared to receive communion (for instance, serious sin without a chance to go to confession), then he should not go to communion either.
Communion is about receiving the Body and the Blood of Jesus Christ, it is not about pleasing your family or making a polite social gesture. That should be the governing consideration.
No.
If he’s washed in the Blood.
Yep.
“If a Catholic receives communion from a Protestant minister, it is generally considered ‘illicit’ or unlawful.”
If you are a follower of Jesus, you are welcome to partake of communion in any Christian church that I’m aware of. It’s a wonderful time to ponder the precious death of our Savior as a community of believers.
Or you can call us anathema, shake the dust off your holy feet, and refuse to share a sacred meal with “Protestants.”
ping
This thread could use a comment from the LCMS perspective.
No
It's like not having sexual union with a person you're not married to. You may love a person dearly, but if you're not married, you don't do the act which signifies marriage.
I am amazed that the author of this article had the ignorance (or the gall) to refer to Canon 844. It absolutely does not apply here. Canon 844 has to do with valid Sacraments, e.g. in the Orthodox Church, all of whose Sacraments are recognized as valid by the Catholic Church beause they,like we, have preserved the unbroken line of Apostolic Succession.
This is not a put-down of Reformed, Evangelical, Protestant, Baptist or what-have-you, because they do not claim Apostolic Succession as Catholics and Orthodox do; in fact, it has nothing to do with them. It simply does not apply.
In short,the author of this article is regrettably misinformed and sowing confusion.
Kind of embarrassing. LOL
And this from a Ph. D. - just goes to show. Feel free to pick apart the errors here. The short answer, btw is NO, the longer answer is NO, NEVER.
Natural communion is merely a visible for the spiritual communion that feeds the soul — taking in God’s word (bread) and spirit (wine). If you do the spiritual, the natural doesn’t really matter.
But, that said, if a Catholic BELIEVES it is a sin to take communion at a non-Catholic church, it is:
“whatsoever is not of faith is sin.”
As an Orthodox Christian, I have been told that if we receive communion in a non-Orthodox church, that we have basically excommunicated ourselves from our church.
Absolutely not, it is NOT the consecrated Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.
They look at it as a symbol only.
I was at an Episcopal service once and walked right by with my arms crossed over my chest signifying I desired a blessing only.
1) ttfergu
Mr. Considine is engaging in a bit of duplicity here by not giving his readers the full benefit of the text of canon 844, which task I would encourage all readers to take upon themselves.
Particularly, the second paragraph of canon 844 states, "Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ's faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid."
All of this is important, but germane to this conversation, is that last little phrase "in whose Churches these sacraments are valid." Protestant ecclesial communities, lacking valid ordination, are simply not capable of valid Eucharist. The canon is speaking about our Eastern Orthodox brethren, the Polish National Catholic Church, and the pre-Calcedonian Churches - these are the Churches (fully and properly so-called) that have valid Eucharist. Under the stringent conditions laid out in the first part of paragraph two, it is morally and canonically proper for a Catholic to receive the Eucharist from (and to confess to and be anointed by) a priest, deacon of bishop of one of these Churches. Not from a Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Anglican or whatnot - that is not permitted by the law or by logical consistency.
Mr. Considine makes a valiant attempt at raising the flag of antinomianism and claiming it to be the flag of Christ - we must "break the religious law of the day" to "fulfil the 'spirit' of the law." Here he discards twenty centuries of Catholic theology and a legal system that is both accomodating and submissive to the teachings of Christ - one must disobey Christ's Church in order to obey Christ? Absurd!
His statement that intercommunion "could be a 'yes' to God by witnessing to God's presence in the marriage and committing to God's work of salvation in their lives," demonstrates little more than a woefully inadequate understanding of the Mystery of the Eucharist, and what happens in the reception of Holy Communion.
2) Michelle Romani
Mr. Cosidene should also avail himself of the document Dominus Iesus, authored by no less than the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.
As tfergu explains in his comment, the Canon that Mr. Considine incompletely references applies to those Churches not in communion with the Church such as the Greek Orthodox. The Church recognizes these as "sister Churches", again, per Dominus Iesus, while she regards those that are Anglican, Baptist and other Protestant denominations as "ecclesial communities."
Dominus Iesus makes it perfectly clear what constitutes a Church. Unfortunately, the article presented by Mr. Considine does not take this important document into account.
As someone who holds a Journalism Degree from the University of Texas, I believe in reporting thinga fairly and accurately. By leaving out an important section of Canon 844, I believe that the article in question may very well be misleading the faithful into thinking that receiving "communion" in a Protestant ecclesial community is okay when, in reality, it is not.
3) Habemus
I see no reference here to the Pope John Paul II's encyclical "Ecclesia de Eucharistia" which was written in 2003.
In this document, he says, with regard to receiving "communion" in Protestant churches:
“The Catholic faithful, therefore, while respecting the religious convictions of these separated brethren, must refrain from receiving the communion distributed in their celebrations, so as not to condone an ambiguity about the nature of the Eucharist and, consequently, to fail in their duty to bear clear witness to the truth. This would result in slowing the progress being made toward full visible unity” (30).
“Catholics may not receive communion in those communities that lack a valid sacrament of orders” (46).
I have been Lutheran all my life and have never seen communion at a wedding.