Appropriateness Of Taking Communion In Other Denominations

[Spammer]

Bikeemikey - you misunderstand. No one is or will be angry. That's not the issue. The issue is me going to the LDS temple knowing full well that I'm not supposed to. I know this through an understanding of what the church teaches officially. I would never do such a thing. It's disrespectful, even though I do not believe in the legitimacy of Mormon temple rites. I must show respect for others' beliefs. Even if I encounter an eccentric temple president in some corner of the globe who invites me to attend an endowment session I would not go. I know he is contradicting church teaching and should not be inviting me. I would hope that non-Catholics who know about our official policy of closed communion would show the same level of respect. Not knowing the policy and a breakdown in the system, of course, is a different matter. Back to the temple example, if there is such a breakdown and I truly did not know the policy, after my visit, once I learn about temple recommends, I certainly would never go back. That would be very inappropriate. That's all I'm trying to say about closed communion. Non-Catholics/Non-Orthodox who know better just shouldn't participate.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Spammer

[Bikeemikey]

Bikeemikey - you misunderstand. No one is or will be angry. That's not the issue. The issue is me going to the LDS temple knowing full well that I'm not supposed to. I know this through an understanding of what the church teaches officially. I would never do such a thing. It's disrespectful, even though I do not believe in the legitimacy of Mormon temple rites. I must show respect for others' beliefs. Even if I encounter an eccentric temple president in some corner of the globe who invites me to attend an endowment session I would not go. I know he is contradicting church teaching and should not be inviting me. I would hope that non-Catholics who know about our official policy of closed communion would show the same level of respect. Not knowing the policy and a breakdown in the system, of course, is a different matter. Back to thr temple example, after my visit, once I learn about temple recommends, I certainly would never go back. That would be very inappropriate.

If you go to the LDS temple, get to the doors and say hi, Im not mormon and have no temple recommend and you get it you must be there on one of the non-mormon only temple days.

Seriously, if you are not in the church your friend invites you to go to the temple,

and you remind him that you cant because you not mormon,

he goes and checks and says, I checked and found out you can,

then you get there and they let you in with no temple recommend... and you answer all of their questions honestly and get in

then what you thought you knew was wrong.

You are not the authority in this situation. You do not know the system and have to trust that those who do and are in charge of it will lead you correctly. All you have to do is turn up, be respectful, do what they recommend you do... thats it.

Getting in a back and forward about what you read on the internet or what some other catholic priest said about what you can and can't do would be totally inappropriate in almost all of these contexts. As the tourist you get the free ride... what ever you thought the system required before you went in to the event, respect dictates that you do what the system asks you to do to show reasonable respect once your in.

[Spammer]

Lol, ok. You win. I'm a Catholic now and grew up LDS. Seminary, mission, temple marriage, the whole shebang. There's no Internet research here. I know all about temple recommends and closed communion. Go ahead and be a tourist. Take communion. I, for one, would never disrespect LDS teachings by entering a temple after it's been dedicated. I couldn't do that.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Spammer

[volgadon]

Lol, ok. You win. I'm a Catholic now and grew up LDS. Seminary, mission, temple marriage, the whole shebang. There's no Internet research here. I know all about temple recommends and closed communion. Go ahead and be a tourist. Take communion. I, for one, would never disrespect LDS teachings by entering a temple after it's been dedicated. I couldn't do that.

I completely agree with your perspective. I served on an army base across the street from an old Catholic church, and would visit it frequently. Never took communion, and sat respectively in the back, enjoying the feeling of worship and joy the congregation brought.

[Bikeemikey]

I completely agree with your perspective. I served on an army base across the street from an old Catholic church, and would visit it frequently. Never took communion, and sat respectively in the back, enjoying the feeling of worship and joy the congregation brought.

But would you not take communion if you were specifically invited by the priest running the ceremony?

I feel that respect and reverence for religions not my own is embodied by reverently observing and not getting in the way, and by being responsive to requests to participate when reasonable.

I would never walk into a Catholic service and take assume the default is to take communion. I would how ever take it if I was informed by those with me that it would be the appropriate thing to do and some offense could be caused by my failure to participate.

I think active participation or non-participation is not really the point. It is about reverence and there will be examples where it is more reverent to participate than to not participate, regardless what our preconceived ideas when we first enter the experience.

As the outside a certain degree of necessary reverence is embodied in willingly being directed by those in charge of the experience.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[Storm Rider]

With the holiday season approaching I will undoubtedly visit my nonmormon relatives churches. Is it appropriate for LDS to take communion at those churches? Have you ever taken communion at another denominations church? Fortunately my relatives are mostly methodist, but what if the communion consisted of wine? would that change your opinion?

I would not partake of any closed communion regardless of the church that has it. If it was an open communion I might partake, it depends upon the prayer that was said before it. The issue for me is that I will not put myself in a situation where I have to deny my beliefs to follow a group. I also try to follow the Spirit's guidance in those situations and when there is doubt, I don't.

Partaking of a communion elsewhere has no affect on one's standing in The Church of Jesus Christ. Committment to another church would affect one's standing before the Lord.

[Calm]

But would you not take communion if you were specifically invited by the priest running the ceremony?

I feel that respect and reverence for religions not my own is embodied by reverently observing and not getting in the way, and by being responsive to requests to participate when reasonable.

I would never walk into a Catholic service and take assume the default is to take communion. I would how ever take it if I was informed by those with me that it would be the appropriate thing to do and some offense could be caused by my failure to participate.

I think active participation or non-participation is not really the point. It is about reverence and there will be examples where it is more reverent to participate than to not participate, regardless what our preconceived ideas when we first enter the experience.

As the outside a certain degree of necessary reverence is embodied in willingly being directed by those in charge of the experience.

In the case of the Catholic Church, if a particular priest asked, I think I would say something along the lines of I am honoured, but I feel I show more respect by being an observer rather than a participant at this time because of my concerns that the priest was doing something unapproved by the Church itself. In the case of the Catholic faith, a priest does not have the right to alter how things are done to suit himself. If a priest chose to ordain a woman, it would not be a valid ordination and IMO if the woman understood this, it would be an insult to the general membership of that faith even if one particular member---the priest---believe it was the opposite. Same in the LDS Church and any other that restricts priesthood. The rituals of a faith community do not belong to an individual to do with what he wants according to what it means to him or her if he has agreed to abide by the rules of that faith community (as all priests do in the example given).

In the case of the Eucharist, for the Catholic faith, is it not just a symbol of God, but his actual flesh and blood? I cannot think of anything else in the world deserving of more care to properly treat and respect than God. And even if I don't believe the same, I think I should exercise that same level of care to the best of my ability.

Edited November 9, 2012 by calmoriah

[harfad]

I think I get his point. If I went to a church in which I was told by the members of the congregation as well as the priest that it was ok for me to take communion, I would assume they know their religion better than I do. I wouldn't argue with them. If they were transgressing the rules of their church, that would be their problem, not mine. It is not going to affect me either way, is it.

[Bikeemikey]

In the case of the Catholic Church, if a particular priest asked, I think I would say something along the lines of I am honoured, but I feel I show more respect by being an observer rather than a participant at this time because of my concerns that the priest was doing something unapproved by the Church itself. In the case of the Catholic faith, a priest does not have the right to alter how things are done to suit himself. If a priest chose to ordain a woman, it would not be a valid ordination and IMO if the woman understood this, it would be an insult to the general membership of that faith even if one particular member---the priest---believe it was the opposite. Same in the LDS Church and any other that restricts priesthood. The rituals of a faith community do not belong to an individual to do with what he wants according to what it means to him or her if he has agreed to abide by the rules of that faith community (as all priests do in the example given).

In the case of the Eucharist, for the Catholic faith, is it not just a symbol of God, but his actual flesh and blood? I cannot think of anything else in the world deserving of more care to properly treat and respect than God. And even if I don't believe the same, I think I should exercise that same level of care to the best of my ability.

I respect that. Any decision made in an attempt to reverence the faith-religions of others is a pretty safe bet.

[Bikeemikey]

I think I get his point. If I went to a church in which I was told by the members of the congregation as well as the priest that it was ok for me to take communion, I would assume they know their religion better than I do. I wouldn't argue with them. If they were transgressing the rules of their church, that would be their problem, not mine. It is not going to affect me either way, is it.

That's how I feel about it. Thanks for the summary.

[Spammer]

I respect that. Any decision made in an attempt to reverence the faith-religions of others is a pretty safe bet.

That's exactly what I'm saying about closed communion.

[MiserereNobis]

It truly saddens me that a priest urged non-Catholics to receive communion. May God have mercy on him for advocating, sanctioning, and performing a sacrilege. Many whacky things have happened in the Catholic Church post-Vatican II. Thankfully, things are get back on the traditional track. Deo gratias!

[SamIam]

With the holiday season approaching I will undoubtedly visit my nonmormon relatives churches. Is it appropriate for LDS to take communion at those churches? Have you ever taken communion at another denominations church? Fortunately my relatives are mostly methodist, but what if the communion consisted of wine? would that change your opinion?

NON-MEMBERS AND THE SACRAMENT. Non-members cannot comply with the covenants embodied in the blessings of the sacrament and, therefore, should not partake of it. ((Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3 vols., edited by Bruce R.McConkie.)

This is one definition of how we view the rights of non-members to partake of LDS sacrament. Reverse it and I think it might apply to us when we participate with them. I would think that in addition that any act that sustains false authority to administer the sacred ordinance of the sacrament is making a mockery of your own beliefs.

Also, a similar principle is contained in Corinthians 8. If you can extrapolate from the principle there to your situation, it may provide room for consideration.

[thesometimesaint]

An interesting and related question is, Would it affect one's standing in the LDS Church if one were to take communion in another church? Would it disqualify one from going to the temple for example? I don't think that it would, but I suppose it depends on the commitment with which one did it. If it was done with a commitment that represented some kind of "divided loyalty" (i.e. not knowing which church was the right one), then it might; otherwise I don't think that it should.

I don't believe the innocent taking of the Communion of another church would result in any disciplinary action. However teaching others to do so would.

[Saints Alive]

It truly saddens me that a priest urged non-Catholics to receive communion. May God have mercy on him for advocating, sanctioning, and performing a sacrilege. Many whacky things have happened in the Catholic Church post-Vatican II. Thankfully, things are get back on the traditional track. Deo gratias!

are we even sure this was a capital C Catholic Priest and not a catholic episcopal priest? I believe he said he was in New Zealand I think their episcopal/Anglican churches refer to themselves as catholic.

[harfad]

Yes. In Anglicanism there is a High Church an a Low Church. The High Church is more formal and its rituals and liturgy closely resembles Catholicism, and is setimes referred to as "catholic" (with small c). See the following links:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_church

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Catholicism

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100330064729AAden12

http://www.anglicancatholic.org.uk/about-the-anglican-catholic-church/

[volgadon]

It truly saddens me that a priest urged non-Catholics to receive communion. May God have mercy on him for advocating, sanctioning, and performing a sacrilege. Many whacky things have happened in the Catholic Church post-Vatican II. Thankfully, things are get back on the traditional track. Deo gratias!

I wouldn't take communion even if a Roman Catholic or Greek Orthodox priest offered it to me. Considering the importance of it in your faiths, I couldn't bring myself to stomp all over them.

[Bikeemikey]

are we even sure this was a capital C Catholic Priest and not a catholic episcopal priest? I believe he said he was in New Zealand I think their episcopal/Anglican churches refer to themselves as catholic.

Very well could have been.

[Robert F. Smith]

Cobalt-70, on 08 November 2012 - 02:03 PM, said:

One of my very respected BYU religion professors told my class that he had attended a Methodist service and he felt inspired to participate. And yes, it was wine...

Saints Alive, on 08 November 2012 - 02:11 PM, said:

That is highly unusual for a Methodist church. There official position is that while wine is acceptable, grape juice is preferred. It would be almost as unusual as seeing wine in an LDS sacrament service. The methodist were, after all some of the biggest supporters of the temperance movement.

I might be remembering the denomination wrong, but I remember for sure that he said it was wine, because that surprised me when I heard the story.

By partaking of the wine, no matter how well-intentioned that BYU professor may have been, he would be violating one of the standards which is specifically required in order to obtain and renew an LDS temple recommend.

This would be tantamount to an observant Jew partaking of pork (or other non-kosher food) just to be ecumenical.

[Robert F. Smith]

For what its worth, I am unware of any instruction in the CHI directly on this topic. Curious that there would be none, since the question surely has arisen many times over the years.

If wine is part of that communion, then no CHI comment is necessary. The D&C already contains the Word of Wisdom.

[Robert F. Smith]

It would be extremely inappropriate to take communion at a Catholic or Orthdox church. Both churches have a closed communion, open only to baptized and confirmed/chrismated members. No one (especially in large parishes) checks credentials at the door or at the cup, but taking communion in those churches is a public statement that you are one of them, when you're not. In my view, this is on par with a non-Mormon, however well-meaning, successfully walking into a temple and participating in the endowment ceremony.

You are mostly correct here. However, communion is a public, exoteric rite, so cannot be compared to the esoteric rites which take place in a temple, whether ancient Jewish or modern Mormon -- both aggressively exclude those not members of the covenant.

The Passover rite, on the other hand, is a fully exoteric rite, whether practiced by (1) Jews who invite strangers (those outside the Jewish covenant) into full participation in the Seder meal, or (2) by Mormons who do not bar those outside the LDS covenant from partaking of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper (children under 8 and other unbaptized can partake).

[volgadon]

The Passover rite, on the other hand, is a fully exoteric rite, whether practiced by (1) Jews who invite strangers (those outside the Jewish covenant) into full participation in the Seder meal,

Even in the Seder, not everything is completely open. For example, I took one of my mission companions to a Chabad Seder, we were allowed to participate in everyhting but the washing of hands, which as LDS we were to do entirely symbolicly, without water.

[Robert F. Smith]

NON-MEMBERS AND THE SACRAMENT. Non-members cannot comply with the covenants embodied in the blessings of the sacrament and, therefore, should not partake of it. ((Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3 vols., edited by Bruce R.McConkie.)

This is one definition of how we view the rights of non-members to partake of LDS sacrament.

The opinions of Elders Smith & McConkie notwithstanding, non-members are permitted to take the LDS Sacrament of the Lord's Supper regularly, and it is not an issue which members worry about. If they are too young, they will eventually get old enough to become members, and if they are adults in an investigator class, they will soon learn the importance of covenantal observance of that rite.

[Robert F. Smith]

I think I get his point. If I went to a church in which I was told by the members of the congregation as well as the priest that it was ok for me to take communion, I would assume they know their religion better than I do. I wouldn't argue with them. If they were transgressing the rules of their church, that would be their problem, not mine. It is not going to affect me either way, is it.

What about the religious principles which you yourself observe? Are you so suggestible that you would jettison your own principles?

[Robert F. Smith]

Even in the Seder, not everything is completely open. For example, I took one of my mission companions to a Chabad Seder, we were allowed to participate in everyhting but the washing of hands, which as LDS we were to do entirely symbolicly, without water.

However, did you eat matza and drink the wine? And, if non-LDS non-Jews, would any other part of the meal be off-limits?