Receiving the Sacrament in another church

[NightSG]

6 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

For those who are desiring to participate, but are concerned about the use of wine, most congregations I've encountered will instruct you to cross your arms over your chest to indicate that you are declining the wine, but still wish to receive the wafer. It is common for children to do this, not uncommon for adults, and I believe is a fairly well recognized signal. (Maureen might be better informed)

Never heard of it, but then, I've never been a member of a church that used actual wine, and most of the times I've attended anything at those that do, it was a special occasion when there were enough visitors that they gave detailed instruction on each part of the service.

I don't know if the practice of coming forward to participate is necessarily universal even within the Methodist church, though; ISTR attending a small service where there were several disabled members, and it was brought to all the seats, (in the individual cup and wafer form, as opposed to the common cup and broken bread) rather than having a different process for ~15% of those present.  

Also of note, when I looked up details on the bulk-lot wafers out of curiosity, some were gluten free, (and some were vegan, one even listed as Kosher/Halal?!?) and others varied as to recipe, while a broken bread communion will usually have a single gluten free loaf available at one specific location.  (AFAICT, for at least larger congregations that do common cup and broken bread, there will tend to be a station at each side of the front to be taken standing, and one at the main altar to be taken kneeling, which is usually the one with more options.  Individual cup and wafer is either taken in the seats or received kneeling at the chancel rail.  "Hospital packs" with the sealed individual cup and wafer are generally used when they're to be placed at the each seat before the service, and those wafers are usually gluten free.  Of course, there's a lot of variation in practice and I wouldn't be surprised to see any combination of the above, especially among very small congregations.)

[NightSG]

13 hours ago, person0 said:

Hey, I just looked it up. . . I always though that other church's did communion just as a thing they do, not really a big deal, because I went to a service once and that's basically how it seemed to me, and because of how rarely they did it.

There's a huge variation even within United Methodists; I grew up in a pair of fairly relaxed Methodist churches, but visited others that varied from, to my mind, an almost Catholic atmosphere with Methodist liturgy to one that felt more like a Pentecostal service.  (Or maybe the snakes, screaming and fainting weren't intended to be part of the service; their building was sort of poorly maintained, it was August in Texas, and they did chuck the snake out the door as soon as it was caught.)

Now that most have two Sunday morning services, I can't say what goes on in the "contemporary" one other than bad music and what I think most traditional Christians would call general lack of respect.  (Shorts, t-shirts, guys wearing ball caps during the service, etc.)

[Guest]

20 hours ago, Vort said:

I disagree with the common wisdom so far displayed. I think a Latter-day Saint has no business partaking of the sacred emblems of a false priesthood -- sacred to those who believe and follow that false priesthood, that is. It is the rough equivalent of offering a sacrifice on the altar of another religion.

Ok. So I spent some time thinking about this.  I've decided that I don't agree.  Take the shock value of sacrificing on an altar and there really is no logical argument made.  It's entirely rhetorical.

I'd have no problem attending such a meeting.  Nor would I have a problem with eating some of the lamb (assuming it was lamb that was being sacrificed).

The fact it's a false priesthood doesn't enter into it.  How many other Faith's actually claim divine authority?  Maybe Catholics.  That's about all. And their ceremonies are basically closed communion.  So there wouldn't be a conflict. 

Show me some faith that claims divine authority with open Communion and that may be a partial point. But I still don't have a problem with it.

[dahlia]

22 hours ago, Maureen said:

Wouldn't that be something each church would decided; if visitors are allowed to take communion.

M.

Yes. I didn't even think of that. I was just wondering if it was theologically taboo to take communion elsewhere. I'm not sure I agree with others that there would not be a spiritual benefit to it, tho. I think receiving the Sacrament is always beneficial and I was glad to take it before I was baptized LDS. 

And I chose 'Methodist' because it was the first thing that came to mind.

[dahlia]

21 hours ago, Vort said:

I disagree with the common wisdom so far displayed. I think a Latter-day Saint has no business partaking of the sacred emblems of a false priesthood -- sacred to those who believe and follow that false priesthood, that is. It is the rough equivalent of offering a sacrifice on the altar of another religion.

Hmm. I was just asking an idle question, but this is something to think about. I guess if we say the Church is true, then perforce, all others are false, still, I don't know if I would go so far as to say that taking Communion with the congregation is offering a sacrifice on the altar  of another religion. But... I'm not going to say that it isn't, either. I'm going to think more about it. 

[NightSG]

4 minutes ago, dahlia said:

And I chose 'Methodist' because it was the first thing that came to mind.

Oh sure, it had nothing to do with the deviled eggs and the Mexican casserole.

(New reality TV show idea: Mormons vs Methodists - Potluck Wars.)

[dahlia]

12 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Oh sure, it had nothing to do with the deviled eggs and the Mexican casserole.

(New reality TV show idea: Mormons vs Methodists - Potluck Wars.)

Never been to a Methodist church/community. I have no idea what they eat. 

I grew up Catholic, where it was pretty close to a sin to even go into another church, unless it was for a funeral or a wedding. You weren't supposed to take part in the service and you sure weren't taking Communion.

[NightSG]

3 minutes ago, dahlia said:

Never been to a Methodist church/community. I have no idea what they eat. 

Go to an LDS potluck with about 150-200 people there.  Superficially, it looks a bit like a Methodist potluck for 50.

Only looks, mind you; Methodists have these special things called "seasonings" that they put in stuff.  Unless you're in a primarily Hispanic ward where the rules are sometimes relaxed, those things are apparently against some LDS rule I can't find in any of the books.

[Blueskye2]

On 6/22/2017 at 4:42 PM, dahlia said:

Are Mormons allowed to 'take Communion' at a non-LDS church? For example, if you go to a Methodist church with a friend, can you have Communion? 

Why not?

Regarding alcohol, A Methodist named Welch invented pasteurized grape juice for one reason: to provide non-alcoholic "wine" for Methodist's communion. 

 

 

[Vort]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Ok. So I spent some time thinking about this.  I've decided that I don't agree.  Take the shock value of sacrificing on an altar and there really is no logical argument made.  It's entirely rhetorical.

I'd have no problem attending such a meeting.  Nor would I have a problem with eating some of the lamb (assuming it was lamb that was being sacrificed).

The fact it's a false priesthood doesn't enter into it.  How many other Faith's actually claim divine authority?  Maybe Catholics.  That's about all. And their ceremonies are basically closed communion.  So there wouldn't be a conflict. 

Show me some faith that claims divine authority with open Communion and that may be a partial point. But I still don't have a problem with it.

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 cannot honestly picture such a thing. Oh, I can imagine it, the way I can imagine that God is actually sadistic and evil. But I cannot view it as a reasonable possibility.

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.

[NightSG]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Can you picture Jesus Christ taking a Catholic communion?

Uh...think about that one for a minute, dude; Catholics believe in literal transubstantiation.

Besides, He would be too busy healing all the knee injuries from the constant sit-stand-sit-kneel-stand-sit-kneel-stand calisthenics.

[Maureen]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

Can you picture Jesus Christ taking a Catholic communion?...

Can you picture Jesus Christ taking the LDS sacrament?

"...this do in remembrance of me..."

"...to taken upon us the name of Christ..."

Why would Christ need to remember his own sacrifice or take upon his own name?

M.

[Vort]

11 minutes ago, Maureen said:

Can you picture Jesus Christ taking the LDS sacrament?

Of course I can. When the Lord provided the emblems of the so-called "Last Supper", I can easily believe he partook as well.

[NightSG]

59 minutes ago, Vort said:

Of course I can. When the Lord provided the emblems of the so-called "Last Supper", I can easily believe he partook as well.

The lesser known secondary purpose of the emblems was so the others wouldn't be sitting there with empty plates watching Him eat a surf-and-turf.

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Vort said:

Can you picture Jesus Christ taking a Catholic communion? Can you picture Thomas Monson doing so? Your stake president?

Yes I can in the same way I could imagine them spending time on Mormonhub forums.  They probably have better things to do.  But that would be the exent of any such "sin".

[Vort]

24 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Yes I can

If you don't find my example convincing, then I guess you won't agree with my opinion.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

If you don't find my example convincing, then I guess you won't agree with my opinion.

I guess that's the bottom line.

[Blueskye2]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Yes I can in the same way I could imagine them spending time on Mormonhub forums.  They probably have better things to do.  But that would be the exent of any such "sin".

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/cathedral-celebrates-100th-anniversary--president-monson-speaks-of-service-given-jointly-by-two-faiths

...but no, he didn't receive communion because Catholics ask that non-Catholics, do not.

[mordorbund]

17 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/cathedral-celebrates-100th-anniversary--president-monson-speaks-of-service-given-jointly-by-two-faiths

...but no, he didn't receive communion because Catholics ask that non-Catholics, do not.

Do General Authorities still wrestle after meetings*? Cuz President Monson has that look in his eye...

 

*or did that end in the pioneer era?

[Vort]

26 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

...but no, he didn't receive communion because Catholics ask that non-Catholics, do not.

Had he been offered communion, I am confident he would have politely declined. @Carborendum believes otherwise.

[Blueskye2]

15 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Do General Authorities still wrestle after meetings*? Cuz President Monson has that look in his eye...

 

*or did that end in the pioneer era?

Dunno, but that looks like before the service, to me.

[fatima]

19 hours ago, 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 cannot honestly picture such a thing. Oh, I can imagine it, the way I can imagine that God is actually sadistic and evil. But I cannot view it as a reasonable possibility.

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.

I've always found LDS to be very respectful, so I'm shocked at the rudeness of this post.  The Eucharist is the sum and summit of the Catholic faith, and the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is on solid Scriptural, Traditional and historical ground, even if you don't see it.

 

[Vort]

28 minutes ago, fatima said:

I'm shocked at the rudeness of this post.

Get in line, sister.

[fatima]

11 minutes ago, Vort said:

Get in line, sister.

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

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, fatima said:

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

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.