Receiving the Sacrament in another church


Recommended Posts

Guest MormonGator
1 hour ago, fatima said:

Well, I now know whose posts to ignore on this forum.

 

1 hour ago, Vort said:

As you wish. You apparently didn't read, or ignored, the last line of the post you found so offensive. But please, by all means, ignore away.

If the forum had awards, @Vort would win Mr. Congeniality in a landslide.  :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/23/2017 at 8:38 PM, Vort said:

Can you picture Jesus Christ taking a Catholic communion? Can you picture Thomas Monson doing so? Your stake president? (Ignore for the moment the fact that wine is used. That is irrelevant.)

I can see Christ and Pres. Monson taking communion. I think that Christ would want us to show love and respect to other religions, especially ones that draw men closer to him (as most Christian church do) if that meant participating in taking the communion I don't think they would have a problem with it at all. 

Edited by miav
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I considered whether or not to lash out at Vort, the Holy Spirit has guided me towards a different response.  I'll try to be brief and try not to prove why, but stick to the point at hand.

As I said, the Eucharist is the sum and summit of the Catholic faith.  We believe wholeheartedly (well, those of us who take our faith seriously) that Jesus Christ is Truly Present. Vort's words cut to the Most Sacred, Most Holy thing for a Catholic,  Jesus Christ Himself.  Please think about the reverence and care you take when you visit the Temple. it is a sacred place for Mormons.  I'm sure it hurts when someone mocks, misrepresents or otherwise insults the Temple.

Circling back to the original topic of this thread, just as one has to be worthy to enter the Temple, one also has to be worthy to receive Jesus Christ in the Eucharist (as much as any one of us can be worthy, anyway) To be worthy means to believe and live by the Precepts of the Church.  In our case, that determination is made by the individual, and he/she will be held accountable accordingly, rather than worthiness being determined by the bishop.

All Glory to God.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, miav said:

I can see Christ and Pres. Monson taking communion. I think that Christ would want us to show love and respect to other religions, especially ones that draw men closer to him (as most Christian church do) if that meant participating in taking the communion I don't think they would have a problem with it at all. 

Are you thinking of the same Christ who said this about other churches?

Quote

I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” (JSH 1:19)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, person0 said:

Are you thinking of the same Christ who said this about other churches?

Yes, just as the God of the Old Testament (who we believe to be Jesus) is shown to be a strick some would say angry God yet Jesus in the New Testament is a God of Love and forgiveness. Likewise Jesus cleansing the temple verses  the Jesus who taught " love thy neighbour as thyself." Christ is a God of love yet can speak with harshness. Just as we read of his speaking harshly towards other religions, I can also see Jesus showing love and respect to other religions, especially those that bring those closer to Him.

Edited by miav
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, fatima said:

I'm sure it hurts when someone mocks, misrepresents or otherwise insults the Temple.

Indeed. How exactly do you think I mocked, misrepresented, or otherwise insulted Catholic liturgy? The only thing I can see is my comparison of believing that Jesus Christ might partake of a Catholic communion with believing that God might be "sadistic and evil". My point was that I find neither thing to be believable; I was going for an extreme case, for illustrative purposes. But perhaps that particular item was ill-chosen.

In my defense, please note THE VERY NEXT SENTENCES I wrote:

Quote

I don't believe that Catholics are evil or even "wrong" to partake of their sacrament. But that sacrament is intended to mean something, and what it means is contrary to the assertions of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The bolded part constitutes the (rather obvious, I thought) point I was making.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, miav said:

Yes, just as the God of the Old Testament (who we believe to be Jesus) is shown to be a strick some would say angry God yet Jesus in the New Testament is a God of Love and forgiveness. Likewise Jesus cleansing the temple verses  the Jesus who taught " love thy neighbour as thyself." Christ is a God of love yet can speak with harshness. Just as we read of his speaking harshly towards other religions, I can also see Jesus showing love and respect to other religions, especially those that bring those closer to Him.

If Christ were to actually participate in the communion of a church that did not have the proper authority, he would be acting in political correctness rather than love and respect.  Likewise, those of us who are members of the Church gain nothing from participating, except polite appeasement.  Do we have a problem when people don't take the sacrament in our church?

Pretend you were a member of a local protestant congregation and Christ visited your church and participated in the communion.  Immediately you as the member of that congregation would interpret that the ordinances in which you were participating were correct and valid.  The same would happen as a Latter-Day Saint, I would be immediately convinced that my religious beliefs had been substantiated by His act of participation.  If this were to occur in an unauthorized and non-authoritative church then the result of Christ's action would be to lead people away from him to a sense of security in their incorrect beliefs and practices.  Christ will never do anything that will lead people away, except allowing by their own agency.

I would say, more likely, Christ may attend the service and intentionally not participate in the communion. This would allow for those who have 'ears to hear' (or eyes to see) to ask Him why.  He would then lovingly rebuke them and instruct them that the ordinance was false and that if they will follow Him, He will lead them and instruct them in the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

34 minutes ago, person0 said:

 He would then lovingly rebuke them and instruct them that the ordinance was false and that if they will follow Him, He will lead them and instruct them in the truth.

I see your point, I do agree with you that Christ would teach them the correct way to preform the ordnance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, person0 said:

If Christ were to actually participate in the communion of a church that did not have the proper authority, he would be acting in political correctness rather than love and respect.  Likewise, those of us who are members of the Church gain nothing from participating, except polite appeasement.  Do we have a problem when people don't take the sacrament in our church?

Pretend you were a member of a local protestant congregation and Christ visited your church and participated in the communion.  Immediately you as the member of that congregation would interpret that the ordinances in which you were participating were correct and valid.  The same would happen as a Latter-Day Saint, I would be immediately convinced that my religious beliefs had been substantiated by His act of participation.  If this were to occur in an unauthorized and non-authoritative church then the result of Christ's action would be to lead people away from him to a sense of security in their incorrect beliefs and practices.  Christ will never do anything that will lead people away, except allowing by their own agency.

I would say, more likely, Christ may attend the service and intentionally not participate in the communion. This would allow for those who have 'ears to hear' (or eyes to see) to ask Him why.  He would then lovingly rebuke them and instruct them that the ordinance was false and that if they will follow Him, He will lead them and instruct them in the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we know that to some extent Jesus does accept the sacraments of other churches. Why? If you speak to the members of other churches they report that they feel the presence of the Holy Ghost. Also from observation, many appear to be filled with the Holy Ghost- glow, shiny skin, being peaceful and full of love.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, person0 said:

If Christ were to actually participate in the communion of a church that did not have the proper authority, he would be acting in political correctness rather than love and respect.  Likewise, those of us who are members of the Church gain nothing from participating, except polite appeasement.  Do we have a problem when people don't take the sacrament in our church?

Pretend you were a member of a local protestant congregation and Christ visited your church and participated in the communion.  Immediately you as the member of that congregation would interpret that the ordinances in which you were participating were correct and valid.  The same would happen as a Latter-Day Saint, I would be immediately convinced that my religious beliefs had been substantiated by His act of participation.  If this were to occur in an unauthorized and non-authoritative church then the result of Christ's action would be to lead people away from him to a sense of security in their incorrect beliefs and practices.  Christ will never do anything that will lead people away, except allowing by their own agency.

I would say, more likely, Christ may attend the service and intentionally not participate in the communion. This would allow for those who have 'ears to hear' (or eyes to see) to ask Him why.  He would then lovingly rebuke them and instruct them that the ordinance was false and that if they will follow Him, He will lead them and instruct them in the truth.

I completely agree with you that Christ would abstain from an illegitimate/illicit sacrament/ordinance, for exactly the reason you are putting forth here.  Receiving communion in any church, IMO, implies that you are in communion with that church.  It always makes me wonder why anyone would even want to take communion in a church that is not their own.

The difference (once again, IMO) is that Christ knew the heart of each person He spoke to, and He knew exactly what they needed to hear.  We lack that perfect charity and wisdom, and we certainly don't know enough about anyone on an internet forum.  Therefore of we hope to bring others to the Fullness of Truth,  we must offer the beauty of our faiths, respect for where others are in their journeys, and measure our words with care.

Person0 and Vort said effectively the same thing, but Vort was rude, insulting and violated what Catholics on this forum hold Sacred.  Person0 simply made the case, and I am in full agreement with the conclusion.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

I think we know that to some extent Jesus does accept the sacraments of other churches. Why? If you speak to the members of other churches they report that they feel the presence of the Holy Ghost. Also from observation, many appear to be filled with the Holy Ghost- glow, shiny skin, being peaceful and full of love.

That a specific individual is able to feel the Holy Ghost is nothing like the same as Christ accepting an ordinance done by individuals without authority.  The first is a matter of a specific individual's righteousness, and the Holy Ghost leading them along toward further light.  The second implies authorization, ignoring the very laws regarding priesthood and authority which Christ himself established and taught.  In scripture, Christ makes it clear that no ordinance performed without authorization from him is accepted.

Were it possible for just any old person to start performing ordinances (and the sacrament is an ordinance), there would be no point in even having the Church.  But we believe in the priesthood, in its keys, power, and authority.  One cannot dismiss these without dismissing the truthfulness of the Church.

What would be more accurate is to say that Christ recognizes the good in individuals, regardless of who or where they are, and regardless of their current understanding regarding priesthood authority or anything else.  And when there is a good person striving to continue doing the best they know how (and more-so, striving to improve), of course they will occasionally feel the promptings of the Holy Ghost.  But it's not the unauthorized ordinance being accepted - it's the sincere intent of the participant which is accepted.  (And yes, there's a big difference.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
4 hours ago, fatima said:

  It always makes me wonder why anyone would even want to take communion in a church that is not their own

My thoughts completely. 

Growing up I knew of some people who wouldn't even enter a church they weren't members of. To me, that's way too extreme. By all means go to a friends wedding or someones funeral-but when communion is offered you can just casually sit down and not do anything. Believe me, there will be many people doing the same! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, it isn't about accepting or not accepting another's ordinance or even intent.  It is not about the validity of the authority or not.  For me, I simply ask the question: what principle is violated by doing something?  And I have to always turn it around and ask if I'd feel the same on the other side?

Remember a recent poster -- a non-Mormon -- asked what she could do to NOT have her father (a convert) sealed to her late mother (if memory serves correctly).  How dare they do so!

My reaction was, if she doesn't believe we have such powers to seal, then all we're doing is placing some names in a computer with a check box by the word "sealed".  Why is she reacting this way?

The parallel would be a Methodist, for example, asking,"If Mormons believe we require some authority which we don't have, then all we're doing is eating a piece of bread and drinking a bit of grape juice.  So, what's with the offense?"

Consistency is important.

If you simply have a preference to not participate, fine, don't participate.  But does it have to be based on some sort of offense towards God?  If you simply don't feel like it, fine.  I have nothing against that.  But the question in the OP was "is there something wrong (i.e. sinful) with it?"  I am simply not seeing it.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Is there something wrong with and LDS member getting baptized by another church....just to, you know...be respectful or whatever?

This is where the question of "why would you?" becomes quite valid.

While there is a correlation in LDS theology, it is not so in other faiths.  "Why would you..." take communion in other churches?  I was visiting a friend and I was hungry.

"Why would you..." bet baptized in another church?  I got nothing.  Give me a valid reason.  It's not like you just wanted to go swimming.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/25/2017 at 7:06 AM, fatima said:

Circling back to the original topic of this thread, just as one has to be worthy to enter the Temple, one also has to be worthy to receive Jesus Christ in the Eucharist (as much as any one of us can be worthy, anyway) To be worthy means to believe and live by the Precepts of the Church.  In our case, that determination is made by the individual, and he/she will be held accountable accordingly, rather than worthiness being determined by the bishop.

All Glory to God.

 

It is made by the individual OR the Priest.  Yes, I have fallen in line for the Eucharist and been denied it.  At least a couple times that I can remember.  One time that I remember, I was wearing a spaghetti strap sundress and instead of giving me the Eucharist, the Priest guided me to the side and whispered softly and kindly that I change to more modest clothing and attend a later service.  Another time, the Priest asked me to first go to confession.

On 6/25/2017 at 7:06 AM, fatima said:

While I considered whether or not to lash out at Vort, the Holy Spirit has guided me towards a different response.  I'll try to be brief and try not to prove why, but stick to the point at hand.

As I said, the Eucharist is the sum and summit of the Catholic faith.  We believe wholeheartedly (well, those of us who take our faith seriously) that Jesus Christ is Truly Present. Vort's words cut to the Most Sacred, Most Holy thing for a Catholic,  Jesus Christ Himself.  Please think about the reverence and care you take when you visit the Temple. it is a sacred place for Mormons.  I'm sure it hurts when someone mocks, misrepresents or otherwise insults the Temple.

@Vort was not being disrespectful.  Vort simply do not believe in the authority of the Catholic Church and his post reflects such.  This is Mormonhub.  Not Catholic Answers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

This is where the question of "why would you?" becomes quite valid.

While there is a correlation in LDS theology, it is not so in other faiths.  "Why would you..." take communion in other churches?  I was visiting a friend and I was hungry.

"Why would you..." bet baptized in another church?  I got nothing.  Give me a valid reason.  It's not like you just wanted to go swimming.  

The theory is consistent. If someone is just [whatever] enough to take communion because they're hungry and beyond that it's moderately innocent per their intent, then it's about the same as someone getting baptized to go swimming. Not appropriate anyway you cut it. But sinful? Well..is that sort of [whatever] a "sin"? Probably a minor one.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

For me, it isn't about accepting or not accepting another's ordinance or even intent.  It is not about the validity of the authority or not.  For me, I simply ask the question: what principle is violated by doing something?  And I have to always turn it around and ask if I'd feel the same on the other side?

Remember a recent poster -- a non-Mormon -- asked what she could do to NOT have her father (a convert) sealed to her late mother (if memory serves correctly).  How dare they do so!

My reaction was, if she doesn't believe we have such powers to seal, then all we're doing is placing some names in a computer with a check box by the word "sealed".  Why is she reacting this way?

The parallel would be a Methodist, for example, asking,"If Mormons believe we require some authority which we don't have, then all we're doing is eating a piece of bread and drinking a bit of grape juice.  So, what's with the offense?"

Consistency is important.

If you simply have a preference to not participate, fine, don't participate.  But does it have to be based on some sort of offense towards God?  If you simply don't feel like it, fine.  I have nothing against that.  But the question in the OP was "is there something wrong (i.e. sinful) with it?"  I am simply not seeing it.

Paul taught that it was not a sin to eat meat that had been sacrificed to idols (though he emphatically said that he would never eat such meat if it offended a brother). However, eating meat sacrificed to an idol is much different from participating in the animal sacrifice or sitting at the sacrifice partaking of it. The meat is just meat, but participating in the sacrificial event is a whole 'nother matter.

A wafer is just a wafer. Wine is just wine. Other than Section 89, there is no reason we might not eat wafers or drink drinks that others use for their sacraments. Even if the grape juice has been specially "consecrated" and has, in another religion's view, become the literal blood of Christ, we don't believe that. It's still just grape juice. So drinking it is not wrong or sinful (unless we're breaking our covenants as per Section 89). But taking part in another religion's sacramental service or Last Supper or whatever they call it is indeed inappropriate. Such ordinances, however sincere and well-meant, are false sacraments presided over by a false priesthood, and are ultimately mockeries (though perhaps well-intended mockeries) of the true order of sacrament.

I confess, I'm quite surprised to hear much opposition to this view from other Latter-day Saints. This seems pretty cut-and-dried to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The theory is consistent. If someone is just [whatever] enough to take communion because they're hungry and beyond that it's moderately innocent per their intent, then it's about the same as someone getting baptized to go swimming. Not appropriate anyway you cut it. But sinful? Well..if that sort of [whatever] a "sin"? Probably a minor one.

I am reminded of when I see a child take a handful of bread from the sacrament tray.  It could be viewed as more offensive to us who view it as sacred than it is of consequence (spiritually or otherwise) to the child, except that said behavior is inappropriate.  Also, I've seen my fair share of baptisms where the 8 year old might have done it for the right reasons, but still couldn't resist the temptation to try and stay in the water as long as possible afterward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

It is made by the individual OR the Priest.  Yes, I have fallen in line for the Eucharist and been denied it.  At least a couple times that I can remember.  One time that I remember, I was wearing a spaghetti strap sundress and instead of giving me the Eucharist, the Priest guided me to the side and whispered softly and kindly that I change to more modest clothing and attend a later service.  Another time, the Priest asked me to first go to confession.

@Vort was not being disrespectful.  Vort simply do not believe in the authority of the Catholic Church and his post reflects such.  This is Mormonhub.  Not Catholic Answers.

I think you know enough about Catholic theology to know that the priest was in the wrong to deny you communion, if you were still Catholic at that time.  Also, I do recognize that this is Mormon Hub, but the thread was on the topic of other faith communions, and there was no need to denigrate another faith in his effort to say that it wouldn't be right.  This forum has shown far more respect to other Christian denominations than the Catholic Answers forum shows towards Mormons, which is why I try to educate myself here.  However, based on your logic, the poor treatment LDS receive at CA is simply a reflection of a valid disbelief in LDS authority, and not a terrible lack of Christian charity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share