The Eucharist/Communion-Protestant vs Catholic

For the sake of this post, I am going to call it the Host.

Ok So I already know the difference between protestants and Catholics on the Host. (what they believe)

My question is, what is the difference in the actual rite/ceremony?

No matter what you believe about the Host, in reality it is what it really is.

Would not the outcome still be the same?- If done in sincerity.
How about per person? (if some believe what the Catholics believe and some believe what the protestants believe)

Yes I know there are “rules” about Catholics and protestants taking the Host together… but I am asking to put that aside for a moment.

Short answer: NO.

Only a validily ordained priest with apostolic succession can confect the Eucharist. (and that means only Catholics), and many protestants don’t even claim otherwise.

Regardless of what you believe, they are different because in reality it is what it really is in a Catholic Mass and isn’t what it really isn’t in a protestant service.

There are a lot of Protestant denominations and a lot of different communion rites. Some denominations have communion monthly, others quarterly, others yearly. The Christian churches/Churches of Christ/Disciples of Christ have communion weekly.

Many, if not most, use grape juice rather than wine. The bread varies. The bread and juice are distributed among the members of the congregation in special trays after relevant scripture is read.

Generally, the bread is regarded as nothing more than bread, as communion is symbolic only. Some denominations believe that God extends grace in a special way during communion, but it has nothing to do with the “elements.”

Lutherans and Episcopalians are different, however. They are much more like the Catholics, at least in practice.

So you are referring to the authority that was first given to Peter correct?

To all of the Apostles (Judas had left by this time) in the Upper Room.

When Jesus said, “Do this…”, He signalled that all of them were priests because only priests can offer the sacrifice of the mass. Otherwise, they could not “do” as He commanded.

The Mass is the Liturgy that The Apostles passed on to other faithful men, commissioned with the Laying On of Hands. This is what Jesus Christ gave to them when He called to Himself The Twelve Apostles and commissioned them to do what He did.

Anyone who attempts to to do this without receiving the Authority that He gave them that was passed down from The Apostles is Not doing what Jesus Christ commissioned. No one can do this on their own authority without receiving it in a direct line of succession from The Apostles.

No. The outcome is not the same.

There is only one Communion. One Eucharist.

It either is the Eucharist, or it is-not-Eucharist. There is no third option.

Only when the bread is consecrated by a validly ordained priest (and all other conditions) does Communion actually occur.

It also does not matter what individual people believe or not. If a thousand people who all believe in the True Presence gather together led by one who is not a validly ordained priest, no Communion happens. Likewise, if a validly ordained priest celebrates Mass in front of a thousand non-believers, Communion still happens.

Amen:thumbsup:

Ok so lets say there is a great persecution, people cannot receive the Host unless there is an ordained priest among them?

Also is there any “rule” the Host must be taken every Sunday?

First to clear one thing up, besides Catholics, the Orthodox Churches (plus the Church of the East) also have valid Eucharist because they have valid Orders.

In regards to your above question, Catholics are required to attend Mass every Sunday and Holy Day. However, we only have to receive communion at least once a year, during Easter time.

If there is a priest shortage where a Church can only be seen by a priest once a month or so, then a “Communion Service” without a priest is possible on Sundays. The month’s worth of Hosts would be consecrated by the Priest at the Mass and left in the tabernacle all month for each Sunday (life expectancy of Hosts must be considered… Don’t want stale ones, etc).

Or perhaps a Deacon will drive to another parish, mid month to receive more hosts.

But what I describe is rare, except in the most remote locations of the world. For example: the most northern and western parts of Alaska, or in the middle of the Amazon Rainforest.

(and that means only Catholics and Orthodox)

Yes, you need a priest in order to have the Eucharist.

No, one is not required to receive communion every Sunday or at every Mass. The precept of the Church is that one must receive communion at least once a year. (There is also a precept that we are required to attend Mass every Sunday and holy day; but one can attend Mass without receiving communion.)

Exactly. If there is no priest, there is no Communion (no Eucharist, no Body of Christ, or whatever other word one might use).

If they have the Eucharist from a different Mass, whether that’s from a distant priest, or from an earlier Mass, then they can receive Communion without a full Mass.

Also is there any “rule” the Host must be taken every Sunday?

No. There’s no such rule (not in the sense that you mean the question in this context).

I read that in Korea, after initial evangelization, then the persecution and execution of all priests, The Faith survived for over two hundred years until finally missionary priest arrived again.

Rites and ceremonies can vary wildly, from very formal rites/ceremonies, to very informal ones. It all depends upon the denomination and specific church.

And no, our feelings don’t change the truth. No matter how I “feel” about 1+4, it always equals 5. No matter how much I “feel” it equals 6, doesn’t change it a bit. 1+4=5.

When considering this issue, re-read Paul’s exhortations to Timothy and Titus about who they should and should not ordain as priests and bishops. It really gives another layer of understanding when you consider how important it is that these men can say prayers that change ordinary bread and wine into the most Precious substance in the universe. It’s also worth considering that God entrusts Himself to us COMPLETELY in a totally defenseless manner. He comes under the appearance of bread and wine, and if we abuse Him, He will not resist us. So those who can confect the host should be sober, thoughtful, prayerful, responsible men.

Exactly. If there is no priest, there is no Communion (no Eucharist, no Body of Christ, or whatever other word one might use).

If they have the Eucharist from a different Mass, whether that’s from a distant priest, or from an earlier Mass, then they can receive Communion without a full Mass.

No. There’s no such rule (not in the sense that you mean the question in this context).
[/quote]

I read that in Korea, after initial evangelization, then the persecution and execution of all priests, They kept The Faith over two hundred years (although without the Sacraments) until finally missionary priest arrived again.

the Catholic sacrament of Holy Eucharist?"

Answer: For Catholics, the Holy Eucharist / Catholic Mass is considered the most important and highest form of prayer. In fact, attending Mass is an obligation, under penalty of mortal sin, each Sunday and on certain other Holy Days of Obligation. The Mass is divided into two sections, the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

In the book of Malachi, the prophet predicts elimination of the old sacrificial system and the institution of a new sacrifice: "I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord of hosts, and I will not accept an offering from your hand.

The Roman Catholic Church believes that the bread and wine of the Holy Eucharist become the actual body and blood of Jesus. They attempt to support their system of thought with passages such as John 6:32-58; Matthew 26:26; Luke 22:17-23; and 1 Corinthians 11:24-25. In A.D. 1551, the Counsel of Trent officially stated, "By the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood.

In Jewish thought, bread was equated with the Torah, and “eating of it” was reading and understanding the covenant of God (cf. Deuteronomy 8:3). For example, the apocryphal book of Sirach states, "‘He who eats of me will hunger still, he who drinks of me will thirst for more; he who obeys me will not be put to shame, he who serves me will never fail.’

It is very clear that Jesus referred to Himself as the Bread of Life and encouraged His followers to eat of His flesh in John 6. But we do not need to conclude that Jesus was teaching what the Catholics have referred to as transubstantiation. The Lord’s Supper / Christian communion / Holy Eucharist had not been instituted yet. Jesus did not institute the Holy Eucharist / Mass / Lord’s Supper until John chapter 13.

Whether the Catholic definition of Holy Eucharist is a “re-sacrifice” of Christ or a “re-offering” of Christ’s sacrifice, the concept is unbiblical.

Christ does not need to be re-sacrificed. Christ’s sacrifice does not need to be re-offered.

Hebrews 7:27 declares, "Unlike the other high priests, He (Jesus) does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people.

He sacrificed for their sins ONCE for all when He offered Himself." Similarly, 1 Peter 3:18 exclaims, "For Christ died for sins ONCE for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, t

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.