Receiving the Sacrament in another church


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, fatima said:

there was no need to denigrate another faith in his effort to say that it wouldn't be right...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.

  1. How did I "denigrate another faith"?
  2. To which Catholics have I given poor treatment because of their beliefs?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
14 minutes ago, fatima said:

 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. 

You raise a great point. As a rule, I think LDS show much, much more respect for other faiths than what other faiths show for LDS. I've always thought LDS are way more accepting, polite, and tolerant than given credit for. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, fatima said:

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.

No.  The Priest was not wrong to deny me communion.  I don't know why you think so, being Catholic and all.

The disrespect is your own perception.  Which is understandable as it is a sacred thing to you.  It is not sacred to @Vort but he did not say it with disrespect.  He simply stated it as a point of fact from his perspective.  It is not his duty to know nor understand the sanctity of the Eucharist.  It is for Catholics to know and understand that non-Catholics don't hold the same reverence to it.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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..is that sort of [whatever] a "sin"? Probably a minor one.

I'm not saying it would be different.  I'm asking,"How likely is it for there to be a practical reason to want to partake of communion vs a practical reason to be baptized?"  Sure, if you really wanted to just go swimming, then whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I'm not saying it would be different.  I'm asking,"How likely is it for there to be a practical reason to want to partake of communion vs a practical reason to be baptized?"  Sure, if you really wanted to just go swimming, then whatever.

If one does not consider baptism a sacred thing not to be trifled with then why isn't the idea of getting baptized just to show a friend respect just as practical as taking communion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vort said:

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.

(aside: stifling surprise at Vort's use of " 'nother ")

I believe the parallel is failing partially because it isn't a very good one in a practical sense.  Yes, they are both types of ordinances and historically for similar purposes.  But the participation of the sacrifice would more closely resemble being the one placing the wafer on another's tongue.  It would be like asking a non-member to prepare or bless the sacrament in our faith (less the authority aspect).  Why on earth would anyone ask for such participation of a non-member in either case?

Taking the bread or water from a tray being passed would be like eating of the meat as it is being passed around, not participating in the sacrifice itself.

1 hour ago, Vort said:

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.

I'm really making an effort to understand your converse position.  Why is it so important to you?  In that vein, I'm considering how we'd feel if we were to participate in an ordinance more similar to the temple ordinances?  There are certainly many LDS Masons.  Is that a mockery?  I'd think that would be even worse, if that is truly a mockery of sacred things.  Yet, the Church has made comments that there is no prohibition for any Saints becoming part of the Masonic brotherhood.

So, which is worse?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I'm really making an effort to understand your converse position.  Why is it so important to you?

I don't know that it is. But it seems obvious to me that a believing Latter-day Saint does not take the communion of another faith.

4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

In that vein, I'm considering how we'd feel if we were to participate in an ordinance more similar to the temple ordinances?  There are certainly many LDS Masons.  Is that a mockery?  I'd think that would be even worse, if that is truly a mockery of sacred things.  Yet, the Church has made comments that there is no prohibition for any Saints becoming part of the Masonic brotherhood.

As far as I know -- and I am not a Mason, so I could be wrong -- the Masonic practices stake no claim of being a divine covenant or form of worship. They are the symbols of a brotherhood, not the ordinances of a Priesthood. And I think it far more likely that the kingdom of God borrowed some of the symbolism of Masonic rites rather than the other way around, so it would be backward to claim Masonic rites as any sort of "mockery" of our temple ordinances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

No.  The Priest was not wrong to deny me communion.  I don't know why you think so, being Catholic and all.

The disrespect is your own perception.  Which is understandable as it is a sacred thing to you.  It is not sacred to @Vort but he did not say it with disrespect.  He simply stated it as a point of fact from his perspective.  It is not his duty to know nor understand the sanctity of the Eucharist.  It is for Catholics to know and understand that non-Catholics don't hold the same reverence to it.

So you are not/would not be offended if someone came here and called the Temple or Joseph Smith "sadistic and evil"?  If it happened on the CA forum I would be offended for those good and Godly LDS that I know, and I would take a moment to chastise a fellow Catholic for saying such. But you would chalk that up to "a point of fact from my perspective"?  You'd be wrong for doing so.  

Lastly, you are well versed in Catholic theology, but your priests were wrong.  I suspect in the first situation the priest wasn't as much withholding the Eucharist as he was concerned about modesty.  He didn't say, "no", he said cover up and come back.  In the second situation, again, the priest was just plain wrong.  Whatever he suspected was your sin, he had no way of knowing if you had just come from the Confessional, so he had no right to deny you communion.  Denying the Eucharist is not a practice that is endorsed by the CC, although an individual priest may erroneously do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, fatima said:

So you are not/would not be offended if someone came here and called the Temple or Joseph Smith "sadistic and evil"?

I would absolutely be offended. But calm your breathless hysteria long enough to note two things:

  1. I did not call Catholicism "sadistic and evil". You need to reread what I wrote.
  2. I am not on a Catholic forum, but an LDS forum.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

If one does not consider baptism a sacred thing not to be trifled with then why isn't the idea of getting baptized just to show a friend respect just as practical as taking communion?

You rephrased.  I'll follow in step.  

What is the practical likelihood that someone will invite someone to be baptized knowing full well that we're not subscribing to the beliefs?  Likewise (and this was the meaning behind my last response to you) what is the practical likelihood that someone will invite you to take their communion with no subscribing intent?

I'm beginning to see that it really is about communication, desire, intent, etc.  Is everything being communicated?  Is the desire or lack thereof clearly communicated?  What is their intent if they do invite you?

I don't really imagine I'd partake if I weren't invited.  That is like interrupting a private conversation.  If I am invited, what is their intent?  Do they believe I'll be "saved" simply because I partook with no intent?  Or is it just a practice that has no meaning to them either?

Baptism.  What would be their intent if they were to ask you to be baptized?  If their intent is to make us part of their faith, then it would be fraud for me to accept.  That is why I simply don't see that happening.  But would someone simply offer a piece of bread while passing it around - with no expectations or hopes?  Maybe. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Vort said:

I don't know that it is. But it seems obvious to me that a believing Latter-day Saint does not take the communion of another faith.

As far as I know -- and I am not a Mason, so I could be wrong -- the Masonic practices stake no claim of being a divine covenant or form of worship. They are the symbols of a brotherhood, not the ordinances of a Priesthood. And I think it far more likely that the kingdom of God borrowed some of the symbolism of Masonic rites rather than the other way around, so it would be backward to claim Masonic rites as any sort of "mockery" of our temple ordinances.

The origin of Masonic rites are so confusing that many Masons don't even know them.  While there is the lore (that a branch of Masonry itself began) of the Hiram Key.  But most educated Masons and historians discount this theory.  Historians have noted that the keys and rites are very similar to ancient Catholic rites that were used around the time of the origin of the Masonic order.  Could there have been a connection?  Probably.  (of course no one knows for sure).  But it is too coincidental to ignore when they themselves have no alternative explanation that is reasonable based on the historical evidence.

Where did the Catholics get it from?  Take a wild guess.

So, do the Masons claim divine covenant or worship?  No.  But it was taken from a religious order that was which was taken from the original endowment of old.  This is why there are similarities without being identical.  So, it still becomes a trivializing of something that we should be taking as extremely sacred.  Yet, no prohibition exists?

And again, I'll point out that those who believe communion to be a covenant or form of worship, are generally closed communion.  Others, to be honest, I don't know what it is supposed to be for them.  It seems rather pointless.  Why would I find offense at something that is essentially pointless?  As I said before, I might consider it a waste of time.  But apart from that, what?

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

You rephrased.  I'll follow in step.  

What is the practical likelihood that someone will invite someone to be baptized knowing full well that we're not subscribing to the beliefs?  Likewise (and this was the meaning behind my last response to you) what is the practical likelihood that someone will invite you to take their communion with no subscribing intent?

I'm beginning to see that it really is about communication, desire, intent, etc.  Is everything being communicated?  Is the desire or lack thereof clearly communicated?  What is their intent if they do invite you?

I don't really imagine I'd partake if I weren't invited.  That is like interrupting a private conversation.  If I am invited, what is their intent?  Do they believe I'll be "saved" simply because I partook with no intent?  Or is it just a practice that has no meaning to them either?

Baptism.  What would be their intent if they were to ask you to be baptized?  If their intent is to make us part of their faith, then it would be fraud for me to accept.  That is why I simply don't see that happening.  But would someone simply offer a piece of bread while passing it around - with no expectations or hopes?  Maybe. 

I'm less worried about their intent than I am about my own or the theoretical other LDS person in said situation. I would not take another's sacrament because of the holiness of the sacrament, what it means, what it represents, etc. It is sacred to me and I do not believe it should be trifled with. The intent of the person offering it is less relevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm less worried about their intent than I am about my own or the theoretical other LDS person in said situation. I would not take another's sacrament because of the holiness of the sacrament, what it means, what it represents, etc. It is sacred to me and I do not believe it should be trifled with. The intent of the person offering it is less relevant.

There was a faith I came across in the Middle East that believed in baptism so much that they refused to bathe because it seemed like a mockery of the ordinance of baptism.  Does that really make sense?  If you take the intent out of the equation, how is your statement different than this faith's position on bathing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

There was a faith I came across in the Middle East that believed in baptism so much that they refused to bathe because it seemed like a mockery of the ordinance of baptism.  Does that really make sense?  If you take the intent out of the equation, how is your statement different than this faith's position on bathing?

I didn't take the intent out. I prioritized the intent of the baptizee over the baptizer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I didn't take the intent out. I prioritized the intent of the baptizee over the baptizer.

Then why don't you feel the same way about swimming or bathing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Then why don't you feel the same way about swimming or bathing?

I don't follow. I'm saying that my partaking of Catholic communion would be a problem because of my intent not because of the Catholic's. I don't understand what swimming or bathing has to do with it. I would have a problem taking part in a Catholic baptism because of my intent, not the Catholics. Once again...swimming?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I don't follow. I'm saying that my partaking of Catholic communion would be a problem because of my intent not because of the Catholic's. I don't understand what swimming or bathing has to do with it. I would have a problem taking part in a Catholic baptism because of my intent, not the Catholics. Once again...swimming?

First:

I'm getting you and Vort mixed up.  While you both agree on the policy, your reasoning for it is at odds with each other.

Second:

You said it was about your own intent regarding a very similar physical act.  What is different about taking a bath vs being baptized?  Baptism is religious.  Bathing is physical maintenance.  HOWEVER, If we take the baptizer's intent out of the equation, and to us it is in no way religious, then how is it religious?  If not religious, how is it any different than bathing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

You said it was about your own intent regarding a very similar physical act.  What is different about taking a bath vs being baptized?  Baptism is religious.  Bathing is physical maintenance.  HOWEVER, If we take the baptizer's intent out of the equation, and to us it is in no way religious, then how is it religious?  If not religious, how is it any different than bathing?

Let's see.

Well...because one would have to be pretty stupid to be baptized by a church and confuse it with merely taking a bath. Because....duh. One who engaged in that would either be a mindless idiot or they would have intent.

I will grant that the mindlessness and idiocy is less likely in the casual participation in communion...but there's still intent that, to my mind, seems at odds with who and/or what we should be striving to do and be. Either one disregards the sanctity of the sacramental ordinance, or one does not understand it, or some such. I will grant, also, that there are a whole host of "some such" that could be a reality, but they all relate to the intent of the individual engaging in the activity.

Sure, the intent of the person baptizing or whatever relates...if their intention is to bathe you then it can't be viewed as a baptism. But if you think it is a baptism then it's still a problem to haphazardly skip into what one believes to be a corruption of a sacred ordinance.

Whether you view it as legitimate or not, you are still aware of the intent (yes, their intent plays a role). But in the end, it's your intent that makes the action problematic more than theirs, which I think was my point.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Well...because one would have to be pretty stupid to be baptized by a church and confuse it with merely taking a bath. Because....duh. One who engaged in that would either be a mindless idiot or they would have intent....

You're positing a completely ridiculous hypothetical comparison and mocking me for making a completely ridiculous hypothetical response?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Mocking you?

Yes.

15 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Because....duh. One who engaged in that would either be a mindless idiot

Don't worry, I'm taking it in stride.  It's just part of the conversation and we're still friends.

But my point is that you started down the road of ridiculous when you compared a fairly casual ordinance in other faiths (communion in an open communion faith) to a fairly intentional ordinance such as baptism which has (in other faiths) quite a different level of seriousness to it.

While to us they are essentially the same ordinance/covenant, they are not necessarily so in other faiths.  They are completely different.

There is a level of casualness in an open communion faith that would have someone simply invite a friend to take the communion when they didn't even know anything about their faith.  No one would do such a thing with baptism.  So we went down the path of the purely theoretical.  That led to such a ridiculous conclusion of 'what if' that I wrote about baptism being a bath.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Yes.

Don't worry, I'm taking it in stride.  It's just part of the conversation and we're still friends.

But my point is that you started down the road of ridiculous when you compared a fairly casual ordinance in other faiths (communion in an open communion faith) to a fairly intentional ordinance such as baptism which has (in other faiths) quite a different level of seriousness to it.

While to us they are essentially the same ordinance/covenant, they are not necessarily so in other faiths.  They are completely different.

There is a level of casualness in an open communion faith that would have someone simply invite a friend to take the communion when they didn't even know anything about their faith.  No one would do such a thing with baptism.  So we went down the path of the purely theoretical.  That led to such a ridiculous conclusion of 'what if' that I wrote about baptism being a bath.

So I say that someone who got baptized by a church and confused it for taking a bath would have to be a mindless idiot and you take it for my mocking you?

Okay...conversation...degraded...and..........dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Okay...conversation...degraded...and..........dead.

What?  You didn't realize we'd already reached reductio ad absurdum a while back?  The thing is that I have no problem discussing the absurd.  But that's just me.

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