Some protestant faiths do believe in the true presence in the Eucharist. Certainly not all. That said, if the pope, the vicar of Christ on earth says it is ok for them to receive, I most certainly would not have a hard time with that at all.
However, most do not. For example, the Baptists believe in a symbolic presence. And is it OK for a Protestant to go to Holy Communion if he believes that after having three or more children, within marriage, it is OK to use artificial birth control to prevent any further children ?
Protestantism is not always about the Eucharist, but many times more about the Papacy, about Justification, about the Scripural Canon, about the Magisterium and many other Dogmas of the Church.
But many Protestatns beleive the Eucharist to be a symbol. And is it OK for a Protestant to go to Holy Communion if he believes that after having three or more children, within marriage, it is OK to use artificial birth control to prevent any further children ?
I’m not talking about the official teachings of their communion. I’m talking about what an individual non-Catholic Christian might believe. Just as certainly as there are Catholics who do not believe in or recognize the True Presence, there are Protestants who do.
Bob you bring up two interesting points, which I’ll speak to separately.
HBob you bring up two interesting points, which I’ll speak to separately.
“How can a sincere Protestant believe in the Eucharist?”
Believe it or not, there are many educated Protestants that do believe in the real presence, but they have a problem is with the metaphysical language. Many of these often end up becoming Catholics once they get a clearer understanding of the metaphysical language regarding the Eucharist. Tony Blair is a good example.
“And what about confession?”
Canon law requires confession for Catholics in a state of mortal sin, not for non Catholics. The Church believes that Christ’s forgiveness finds its way to the soul by way of many means, not just confession. In addition, canon law does not allow non-Catholics to go to cnfession. You cannot demand what you cannot allow. This is one of Pope Benedict’s biggest gripe with the Catholic laity. He gets upset that we do not use philosophical reason and logic in observing our faith. He’s really trying to bring that back. This is a good example. If you say someone can’t go to confession because they’re not Catholic, then you can’t demand it of them.
Finally Sacramental Theology says that the Eucharist and Reconciliation are intimately related as are all the sacraments, but they are not the same sacrament nor should Reconcilition be seen as a prerequisite for communion. The prerequisites for communion are faith and being in a state of grace.
The Ordinary cannot judge a person’s state of grace. So they leave that up to the individual conscience and God. He can only judge the person’s faith in the sacrament of the Eucharist. That’s how he makes his judgement call whether to allow someone to communion or not.
However, canon law is very clear that this is done for very serious reasons. Again, there is that word, “reason.” You have to remember that the Church uses the word reason not meaning justification, as in this is justifiable because . . . . The Church uses that version of reason and the intellectual version of reason. The Ordinary must have a rationale for allowing it. There is something that he wants to achieve or avoid.
This is tricky stuff. Pius X was the first person who applied intellectual reason as a requirement for the reception of the Eucharist. Of course Pius X was also a PhD in Philosophy. That kind of helps.
JR
This is a good example of *not *using philosophical reason and logic. If all of the conditions are met so that Holy Communion can be given to a non-Catholic, then so to the Sacrament of Confession. And if the person in question doesn’t understand the necessity to be free from mortal sin when receiving Our Lord in the Eucharist, then they are not demonstrating the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist.
You can do both. I did and have the scars to prove it. LOLH
Hello JR. I think I am going to have to go back to school for my 21st year of education. This time in either philiosophy which always drove me kooky, or Catholic theology which should be VERY interesting. Think it’s too late? Cheers.
I was addressing your question about Protestants and their belief in the Real Presence.
What you say may be true, but still, they don’t seem to be able to make up their minds about what is right. For example, I thought that it used to be that Holy Communion was considered to be a sign of unity, so that those who partake of Holy Communion were in full unity with the Pope and the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. So now they are telling me that it is not a sign of unity, since the unity is not there between Catholics and Protestants, but Protestants are allowed to receive Holy Communion?
No Bob, that’s not what we’re telling you. It continues to be a sign of unity. Those non-Catholics who are allowed to receive holy communion are unified to the Church in their belief in the Eucharist.
ThanksCanon law says that communion can be denied to anyone who is not in communion with the Church. When a person is in a state of sin that separates him from the Church, he or she forfeits that right.
Be careful with divorced Catholics. The problem is not divorced Catholics. The problem is adultery. If you are divorced and celibate, you can receive communion.
There have been exceptions made by Pope Benedict, but he refused to explain it. He did give communion to Tony Blair when he was still Anglican and said that it was an act of charity. At John Paul II’s funeral, Ratzinger did give communion to Brother Roger of Taize, the Superior General of the Brothers of Taize. Brother Roger was Lutheran. The rationale was that even though Brother Roger was Lutheran, he was (he’s dead now) the head of an approved religious order. When Blair converted to the Cathlic Church, the Pope welcomed him, but the Church did not require that he recant his positions on abortion or same-sex marriage. The Vatican’s explanation was that Balir has some developing to do in the faith.
Basically, this is Pope Benedict’s way of telling the laity to mind their own business.
There is a point in Canon Law that allows non-Catholics who believe in the Eucharist to receive communion as long as it is approved by an Ordinary.
In the case of a diocese the Ordinary is the Bishop. In the case of a religious house, the Ordinary is the Major Religious Superior.
I hope this is clearer.
JR
Actually, this isn’t correct according to canon law. The only thing the Ordinary gets to decide is if there’s some “grave or pressing need” other than danger of death. The other requirements must be there, and if not, scandal/sin has occured somewhere along the way - whether the Ordinary allowed it to occur or not.
I thought that if it was permitted by the local ordinary, then it must be OK.
It is permitted and okay…for them. It doesnt’ sit well with my sensibilitites. It distracts me from the Holiness of the Sacrifice.
I think that you have a good point there. Where is the reverence? I mean what are we supposed to think if the dress code at a cheap restaurant is more strict than for a Eucharistic minister in a Catholic Church ?It is permitted and okay…for them. It doesnt’ sit well with my sensibilitites. It distracts me from the Holiness of the Sacrifice.
I like the sanctity, the calm, the reverence. I don’t need to be staring at a rock band on a sweatshirt while trying to feel God’s glory.
I know it’s allowed by the rules but it’s not my cup-o-tea.