dahlia

Receiving the Sacrament in another church

Recommended Posts

Just now, anatess2 said:

Charity is not just in the way we structure our sentences.  It is also in the way we interpret the structure of other people's sentences.  Basically, charity is not just to speak kindly.  It is also to take the default position that the other person was also trying to speak kindly even as the way it was written didn't hit our brains as such.

It's also to love and forgive and be patient with and etc., even those who are rude and/or even evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

It's also to love and forgive and be patient with and etc., even those who are rude and/or even evil.

Yes.  Charity is to forgive without needing to hear I'm sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/23/2017 at 9:38 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.)

Yes, I can. I think Jesus would be ecumenical and wouldn't want to offend anyone. My 2 cents. As for President Monson, I have no idea. He's more steeped in Mormon theology than I am.

Also, guys - I ask a little question and when I come back people are arguing and apologizing... what the heck? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
11 minutes ago, dahlia said:

- I ask a little question and when I come back people are arguing and apologizing

Welcome to the internet @dahlia;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Yes, language is very fluid.  Charity is not just in the way we structure our sentences.  It is also in the way we interpret the structure of other people's sentences.  Basically, charity is not just to speak kindly.  It is also to take the default position that the other person was also trying to speak kindly even as the way it was written didn't hit our brains as such.  This is the internet.  The written word is devoid of vocal inflection and non-verbal cues and can easily come off differently from how it was intended.  I'm especially vulnerable to this as English is only my 3rd language.

The "cracker" as opposed to "bread" is not an effort to reduce it to the lowest possible terms.  It is simply a material differentiation of the actual bread that Mormons use versus the wafer that Catholics use.  Calling the wafer bread gives a different visual.  The fact is - It is closer to a cracker than it is to bread.  So it is not an intent to disrespect for non-Catholics to call it cracker instead of bread because... it is a cracker.  I understand this completely because in Bisaya, a cracker is called a biscuit, and the biscuit that comes with your fried chicken is called bread.  So, it takes a lot of mental calisthenics for me to call what in my head is a biscuit a cracker and what in my head is a bread, a biscuit.  Do you know that it took me about 2 years or so before I stopped thinking of the LDS Sacrament as a Mass?  It took a lot of mental calisthenics to stop myself from calling it Mass when I gave a lesson.  And I wouldn't expect non-Catholics to have to go through that mental calisthenics when talking about the Eucharist. 

 

I agree that giving the benefit of the doubt is required for charity. However, we are called to be charitable, not called to be doormats. :)  Discernment is not removed from decision making.  All in all, in both the internet and IRL there are times where disengaging is the charitable thing to do.

I binge watched the Great British Baking Show and the food terms aren't that difficult to grasp.  The visual clues of the food itself are right there.  They say they're going to bake biscuits, and they bake crackers.  They say they are going to bake scones and they bake biscuits. ;)  At which point I learned, very late in life I might add, that the scones we call scones in Utah are not called that anywhere else in the world (except by people from Utah or with Utah connections). 

But calling Catholic communion "cracker", in the USA, is meant to be insulting and derogatory. It is widely used by anti-Catholics. It is similar in intent to calling temple garments "magic underwear".  The intent is to mock and reduce sacred belief to absurdity. 

When I was becoming Catholic, I felt I had entered a foreign land where I didn't speak the language or know the customs. Every once in a while the place I now call home, throws me for a loop with a new "foreign" thing. Not in doctrine but in culture, and that's just here in the US. Catholicism is incredibly, culturally, diverse and it would be impossible to learn all the Catholic "stuff" of every culture. 

Edited by Blueskye2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
29 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

But calling Catholic communion "cracker", in the USA, is meant to be insulting and derogatory. It is widely used by anti-Catholics. It is similar in intent to calling temple garments "magic underwear". 

I'd tend to agree with this parallel.  However, we need to understand that sometimes (on both sides) we use the terms because we don't know the proper term.  I'm fairly certain that many non-Mormons don't know that we call them "garments."  In fact, I'd daresay, many average Americans don't even use the word "garment" very often.

Likewise, I hear the term "wafer" used among Catholics.  But many non-Catholics know it as anything other than a "cracker."

In both cases, there is often some judgment to be called for to determine if someone is mocking or simply ignorant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I'd tend to agree with this parallel.  However, we need to understand that sometimes (on both sides) we use the terms because we don't know the proper term.  I'm fairly certain that many non-Mormons don't know that we call them "garments."  In fact, I'd daresay, many average Americans don't even use the word "garment" very often.

Likewise, I hear the term "wafer" used among Catholics.  But many non-Catholics know it as anything other than a "cracker."

In both cases, there is often some judgment to be called for to determine if someone is mocking or simply ignorant.

Agreed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
26 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

In both cases, there is often some judgment to be called for to determine if someone is mocking or simply ignorant.

Well said. I think people of differing religions need a thick skin when talking to others. Sometimes "offensive" terms are used not out of spite, but ignorance. So true @Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that offensive terms are often used from ignorance rather than insult (in a lot of cases--obviously, they are used for insult very purposely by some). So, in order to help an ignorant person:

@fatima, I know that apologies have been made and explanations given, but I'm trying to understand the offense that Vort gave so that I can know how to avoid it when talking with my Catholic friends. I don't see that he ever called the communion "cracker" (honestly, did not know that term was offensive--so that explanation was very helpful), so I'm still a little lost on what was said that was offensive. I'm really not trying to get the mud to be slung around again, just really trying to understand so we can avoid the offense in the future. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, beefche said:

I agree that offensive terms are often used from ignorance rather than insult (in a lot of cases--obviously, they are used for insult very purposely by some). So, in order to help an ignorant person:

@fatima, I know that apologies have been made and explanations given, but I'm trying to understand the offense that Vort gave so that I can know how to avoid it when talking with my Catholic friends. I don't see that he ever called the communion "cracker" (honestly, did not know that term was offensive--so that explanation was very helpful), so I'm still a little lost on what was said that was offensive. I'm really not trying to get the mud to be slung around again, just really trying to understand so we can avoid the offense in the future. 

I inferred that Vort was saying our Sacrament (the Eucharist) is 'sadistic and evil'.  If are not already aware, Catholics are often accused by certain groups of being 'cannibals', and that we crucify Christ again in our Sacrament, so I thought Vort had these things in mind when he posted.  This usually comes from Evangelicals, but not exclusively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, fatima said:

I inferred that Vort was saying our Sacrament (the Eucharist) is 'sadistic and evil'.  If are not already aware, Catholics are often accused by certain groups of being 'cannibals', and that we crucify Christ again in our Sacrament, so I thought Vort had these things in mind when he posted.  This usually comes from Evangelicals, but not exclusively.

Except @Vort didn't say that, so @beefche, there's really not much you can learn to avoid in this exchange because I know for a fact you have not ever said or ever will say that the Eucharist or anything of the Catholic Church is sadistic and evil.  We can't control how others take our well-intended statements.  So, the only thing we can do is make corrections and explanations just like we did here.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

If only that were possible.

As long as we're still breathing there's always hope that things will get better.....(name that book/movie)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
12 hours ago, beefche said:

As long as we're still breathing there's always hope that things will get better.....(name that book/movie)

I got... Annie?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps we might inquire of the word of the Lord on this subject, namely the scriptures.  There are a couple of questions that this topic boils down to:

1. What does the Lord think about ordinances that are performed without proper authority (even though they may look similar to those done by the saints)?

2.  What has the Lord said about other religious sects and denominations?

3.  What is the duty of the saints in regard to other churches?

The scriptures are very clear on these things and it is simple to apply the teachings.

1.  See Numbers chapter 16.  Korah, Dathan, and Abiram challenged Moses.  They claimed that everyone of the congregation of Israel were holy, not just the priests who were given authority to serve the Lord in the tabernacle.  Moses challenged them back, and dared them to bring an offering of incense before the Lord the next day.  Moses warned them about the consequences of performing ordinances without the proper priesthood authority.  When they made the offering, the earth opened up and swallowed them.  In Acts 19, we read of some "vagabond Jews" who pretended to be exorcists and called out to a possessed person, "We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth."  The evil spirit in their "patient" jumped upon them and thrashed them, sending them fleeing.  As he did so, the evil spirit said, "Jesus I know, and Paul I know, but who are ye?"  The evil spirit did not obey because these Jews had falsely assumed authority without proper ordination.  Lesson: the Lord does not trifle when it comes to priesthood and ordinances.  

2.  In the First Vision, the Lord commanded Joseph to "go not after them," meaning the other churches.  We do not practice tolerance by participating in the false ordinances of other religions.  The Lord told Joseph in no uncertain terms that their creeds were abominations, their professors corrupt, and 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" (JS-History 1:19).  Other churches are not simply mistaken or almost true.  They are the instruments that blind the eyes and harden the hearts of men.

3. Our responsibility is to invite all to come unto Christ.  That means they come to his kingdom by baptism.  The Book of Mormon points the way to his kingdom.  Baptism is the gateway to the kingdom.  We are to invite them to repent of their errors and abandon them, not to partake of the errors in a spirit of goodwill.  Some will say this is not a humble approach and that it will offend people.  We do not have to be disagreeable to cry repentance.  The Lord said, "...Ye are not sent forth to be taught, but to teach the children of men the things I have put into your hands by the power of my Spirit" (D&C 43:15).  

We have the word of the Lord.  Why is it nobody looks in for answers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is important to note that many different denominations and sects of traditional Christianity view the sacrament (communion) completely differently. To partake of the sacrament in an LDS church means something completely different than in a Catholic church which means something completely different than in a Lutheran church, Methodist, Baptist, Calvinist, Anglican, the list goes on forever (Here's a Wikipedia article explaining some of the differences). I never partake of the sacrament when visiting another church unless I fully understand what it means and what statement I am making. There's transubstantiation, there's consubstantiation, there's pneumatic presence, it's extremely complicated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Larry Cotrell said:

It is important to note that many different denominations and sects of traditional Christianity view the sacrament (communion) completely differently. To partake of the sacrament in an LDS church means something completely different than in a Catholic church which means something completely different than in a Lutheran church, Methodist, Baptist, Calvinist, Anglican, the list goes on forever (Here's a Wikipedia article explaining some of the differences). I never partake of the sacrament when visiting another church unless I fully understand what it means and what statement I am making. There's transubstantiation, there's consubstantiation, there's pneumatic presence, it's extremely complicated.

I don't think it's complicated at all. An active and faithful LDS member should not participate in any invalid form of the sacrament, last supper, communion, whatever-they-call-it.

Simple. Straightforward. Easy. All that fancy pneumatic talk don't much matter.

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now