going to other churches


#1

Is it ok as a Catholic to attend a friend’s Baptist Church?


#2

I did because of my love and respect for a friend. Her church was newly built and I wanted to share in her joy. Of course I filled my own obligation by going to my own church’s earlier mass.


#3

I attend my boyfriends church, merely as an observer. I don’t participate, but rather pray the rosary during their service. I have raised a few eyebrows ! :yup:

  ~ Kathy ~

#4

[quote=DEESYPAL]Is it ok as a Catholic to attend a friend’s Baptist Church?
[/quote]

Yes. Just make sure you also get to Mass. A Baptist service does not fulfill the Sunday obligation.


#5

Everyone gave good answers, but neglected one thing:

If it happens to be one of the weeks where that church is doing it, you must NOT partake in their bread and “wine.”


#6

That’s true! Timidity


#7

[quote=Timidity]Everyone gave good answers, but neglected one thing:

If it happens to be one of the weeks where that church is doing it, you must NOT partake in their bread and “wine.”
[/quote]

WHY?

They don’t claim it’s the Eucharist. They openly admit it’s bread and wine (probably grape juice)

What is wrong with remembering Jesus’ sacrifice, even if it’s not consecrated Eucharist? Does it have cooties? :slight_smile:


#8

[quote=ruzz]WHY?

They don’t claim it’s the Eucharist. They openly admit it’s bread and wine (probably grape juice)

What is wrong with remembering Jesus’ sacrifice, even if it’s not consecrated Eucharist? Does it have cooties? :slight_smile:
[/quote]

You’ve seen the answer to that question many times on other threads. For shame, ruzz! :frowning:


#9

Ruzz, let me give you a rather detailed explanation from EWTN:

THE CATHOLIC POINT OF VIEW ON THE VALUE OF PROTESTANT COMMUNION

Such is Communion reconstituted by Protestant piety. The scriptural accounts, detached from their first traditional context and transposed to the context of a spiritual experience that was innovating, will continue nevertheless to make something of their exceptional solemnity felt. The celebration of Communion is represented to us, by those who speak of it with most fervour and emotion, as the privileged moment in which the Christian community beseeches the Lord to appear in their midst, at their table, as he appeared on Easter Sunday to console them and assure them of his forthcoming return (Oscar, Cullmann, “Christologie du Nouveau Testament”, page 183). How could we be indifferent in the presence of such a faith when, in another order, we feel respect for the celebration of the Jewish Passover, even today?

Similar celebrations have, in our view, the value, not indeed of the sacraments of the new Law, but of what theology calls sacramentals. By reason of the light they contain, they direct souls, unconsciously, no doubt—but here is the secret of Jesus—towards the point where, as once in his Incarnation, he comes in the Eucharist to touch the world bodily.

INTERCOMMUNION

To accept intercommunion between the Catholic Church on the one hand and the Protestant communions on the other is—let us be quite clear about it—to accept the equivalence of the Catholic Eucharist and of the Protestant Communion.

In complete good faith, the Protestants in favour of intercommunion will say they believe what we believe and that they can therefore be admitted to our Eucharist. The reason is that they regard all that distinguishes us from one another when we speak of the real presence of Christ, as secondary, incidental, destined to disappear one day, and therefore negligible in practice. If they really believed in this real presence as we affirm it, they would come to it, they could no longer bear even for a moment to be separated from it. But they do not think of it, they desire reciprocity, and that the celebrations of Communion be recognized as equivalent everywhere.

A little book “Le pain unique”, published at Taizé and distributed by the “Editions du Swuil”, sums up in three key words three ways of understanding the real presence: "transubstantiation (the Council of Trent), consubstantiation: (Luther), concomitance (Calvin).

"According to the doctrine of transubstantiation, the substance of the bread and wine, that is ‘what makes bread and wine be what they are as earthly nourishment’, this substance is changed and becomes a new being: the body and blood of Christ; there is a change of substance.

"For the doctrine of consubstantiation, the substance, the deep being of bread, and wine continues to exist, but is closely united with the substance, the deep being, of the body and blood of Christ, as in the case of molten iron the metal and the fire are closely connected.

"For the doctrine of concomitance, the bread and wine remain what they are, but, on the occasion of the Eucharist and of communion they become a vehicle of the real presence of Christ. The body and the blood of Christ, his humanity and divinity, are united in the act of eating the bread and drinking the wine of the Eucharist.

“This last conception has sometimes evolved to the extent of separating the real presence of Christ from the species of the bread and wine, in such a way that often, in Protestantism, holy communion has become a kind of agape on the occasion of which the presence of Christ was affirmed. In this case one can no longer see what difference there is between Christ’s promise: If two or three are gathered in my name, I am in their midst and Christ’s words at the Supper: This is my body… this is my blood”.

(Continued next post)


#10

Continued from previous post:

Immediately before this exposition of the conceptions of Luther, of Calvin, of the Council of Trent, the author writes:

“We can note here the essential agreement of these three positions: Christ is really present in the Eucharist. Nevertheless, there is a divergency in the conception of the way and manner in which this real presence takes place” (p. 59).

The Catholic Church will never accept the essential equivalence between the doctrine of the Council of Trent and the conflicting doctrines—at variance also with each other—of Luther and of Calvin. The day on which the Church were to accept it, she would cease to exist, she would become Protestant. For the Church there will always be a gulf between this eucharist which, under the sacramental signs, brings us immediately the redeeming Sacrifice and the body itself of Christ, now risen, and the other eucharist which proposes to us immediately bread and wine, taking us back to the memory of Christ and his mysteries.

All attempts—however generous they may be supposed to be, and even if they are as happily ecumenical as they appear it first sight or presumably authorized, is it is claimed—all attempts to proclaim the essential objective equivalence of the apostolic Eucharist received from the Saviour and handed down in Scripture and of the Eucharist re-interpreted after long centuries in the context of an innovating and divergent spiritual experience, are radically invalidated in advance by reason of the very nature of things.

The Eucharist of the one Church of Christ—however numerous may be the children who belong to her without yet knowing her and without the Church herself being able to recognize them fully—is divine. It is untouchable and adorable.


#11

WOW! Tantum ergo… that’s a lot of heavy reading. I’m not exactly sure I understand it all.

[quote=Tantum ergo]The Catholic Church will never accept the essential equivalence between the doctrine of the Council of Trent and the conflicting doctrines—at variance also with each other—of Luther and of Calvin.
[/quote]

I’m not disputing that that bread and wine is NOT the holy Eucharist.

I don’t understand why if you KNOW it’s just a hunk of bread, it hurts to just eat it knowing it’s a hunk of bread. I mean, if you are honest and KNOW that it’s not the holy Eucharist, you aren’t Equating it to it. Right? What’s the harm. I can see if you pretend it’s something that it’s not.

Like when I wear a yamaka at a Jewish wedding. I’m not claiming to be Jewish or that it means anything to me. As long as the believer knows and isn’t pretending. I can understand the reverse. A protestant who thinks it’s just a hunk of bread eating the holy Eucharist would be wrong.

Mikey, I wasn’t being flip. I honestly don’t understand. And I haven’t read every thread.

I


#12

Dude…

If we Catholics join you on your communion… we are telling you that “what you are doing is ok.”

We disagree with you on what Jesus MEANT regarding the Last Supper. If we disagree with you… why would we join you?

It is not out of disrespect… but, out of respect for OUR beliefs.

We want to share with you the truth about Holy Communion. That it is NOT just a symbol.

Hope this helps.


#13

[quote=RattleSnake]Dude…

If we Catholics join you on your communion… we are telling you that “what you are doing is ok.”

We disagree with you on what Jesus MEANT regarding the Last Supper. If we disagree with you… why would we join you?

It is not out of disrespect… but, out of respect for OUR beliefs.

We want to share with you the truth about Holy Communion. That it is NOT just a symbol.

Hope this helps.
[/quote]

Yes, that is a much more simplistic answer.

However, I think then you might being a bit too technical.

If you came to my house and we “broke bread”. That is we gave you a roll, then we said grace “Dear Jesus, thank you for your great sacrifice on the cross”. Would you refuse the bread?

I’m not sure Protestants do “communion” in the same sense as Catholics at all. Any more than Jews eat Matza.

But hey, at least that makes some sense. You are protesting the protestants I guess.


#14

So far I still have the same feelings Ruzz does. I’m not talking about a Lutheran Church that believes in real presence I’m talking about just some non-denom church that says this is bread. Just as I assume most of you would accept a prayer by a fundamentalist, even though he doesn’t believe in everything else we do. Or at my father’s wake, we did a few things purely as symbols, that we literally made up ourselves to show our respect.

I have a hard time seeing the “conflict”. I avoid the communion at a lutheran church because of doctrinal differences, but at a fundy church I don’t see any more difference with their bread than clapping when someone says something good.

Or perhaps I’m missing something :slight_smile: and someone can educate me (it’s happened before, I’m open). Though all I’ve heard so far is, “because it’s not the Eucharist” and noone’s claiming it is.

Anybody with a better idea?


#15

I think we’re drifting from the original poster’s question. If we want to debate the propriety of the Church’s stance on this issue, perhaps we should start a new thread…


#16

[quote=Timidity]I think we’re drifting from the original poster’s question. If we want to debate the propriety of the Church’s stance on this issue, perhaps we should start a new thread…
[/quote]

To answer the original question…YES…you can attend your friends church.There is nothing wrong in attending another church, so long as you remember your roots and honor them by attending Mass.
~ Kathy ~


#17

[quote=DEESYPAL]Is it ok as a Catholic to attend a friend’s Baptist Church?
[/quote]

I would say it is ok to visit your friends church ONLY if you completely understand your Cathoic Faith. Most likely, you WILL be targeted as a Catholic to “get saved”. You can expect your Catholic Faith to be attacked and questioned and put on the spot. If you are weak in your apologetics skills, don’t step foot in that church.

Just be prepared…

and also, it is only fair if you attend your friends church, that she attends Mass with you also. If she’s not willing to reciprocate, then most likely her only intention is to convert you.


#18

[quote=masondoggy]I would say it is ok to visit your friends church ONLY if you completely understand your Cathoic Faith. Most likely, you WILL be targeted as a Catholic to “get saved”. You can expect your Catholic Faith to be attacked and questioned and put on the spot. If you are weak in your apologetics skills, don’t step foot in that church.

Just be prepared…

and also, it is only fair if you attend your friends church, that she attends Mass with you also. If she’s not willing to reciprocate, then most likely her only intention is to convert you.
[/quote]

Fully agreed! And very well stated. Please be advised, that as a former Prot and A/G…that IS the reason they invite you to services.

Please be aware of this clear teaching from the CCC on this very matter of intercommunion:

1400 Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, "have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders."236 It is for this reason that Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible for the Catholic Church. However these ecclesial communities, "when they commemorate the Lord’s death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory."237

236 UR 22 # 3.

237 UR 22 # 3.
Pax vobiscum,


#19

CM, what is an A/G? Also, see my last post to you about being witnessed to. It seems sometimes coming to our “services” is only to get ammunition to convert us, as Steph700 mentioned.

Thanks, Paula

[quote=Church Militant]Fully agreed! And very well stated. Please be advised, that as a former Prot and A/G…that IS the reason they invite you to services.
[/quote]


#20

[quote=masondoggy]I would say it is ok to visit your friends church ONLY if you completely understand your Cathoic Faith. Most likely, you WILL be targeted as a Catholic to “get saved”. You can expect your Catholic Faith to be attacked and questioned and put on the spot. If you are weak in your apologetics skills, don’t step foot in that church.

Just be prepared…

and also, it is only fair if you attend your friends church, that she attends Mass with you also. If she’s not willing to reciprocate, then most likely her only intention is to convert you.
[/quote]

If your faith is strong, I don’t see much harm in visiting another church. I’ve been to Jewish Temples, Hindu Temples and Mosques. My faith is strong, it doesn’t change me. I’ve always had a curiosity for the “other” side of the fence. Not to convert to, but to understand them. So much in our lives is driven by prejudices which we have no personal experiences. How many people misundersand Catholics because of stereotypes and not facts?

Unless you make a point of advertising your Catholic faith, I doubt anyone will even notice you in a protestant church. Blonde hair, blue eyes really stand out in a Hindu Temple. But that doesn’t mean they want to convert you. In my experience, most of the time they are thrilled that you are interested in them.

Think of it this way. If a Hindu, Jew, Muslim or Protestant came to YOUR church, would you try to attack them and convert them or be thrilled that they are interested in learning about your faith. I don’t think everything has to be a battle. Certainly not in the Christian world.

Of course, you still need to fullfil your obligation to go to mass.

But why not explore an invitation to VISIT another place of worship to learn more. Heck, visiting Holland didn’t make me want to become a Socialist. But it did make me appreciate my own country as well as understand other people better.

.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.