Closed communion non-Christian?

[QuasiCatholic]

Hello!

So I’m in RCIA and I have a question (actually, 2) about communion. First, I’m curious how you would respond to the idea that having a closed communion is – in essence – an un-Christian policy.

In my RCIA packet handout on the Eucharist, it goes on at length about how Jesus was willing to eat with anyone – Jews, Gentiles, sinners, tax collectors, whoever – and that this “table fellowship” was essential to his ministry and the basis of the Eucharist.

Presumably, not everyone Jesus ate with already believed his ministry – instead, eating with them was a chance to share it and win them over. Is it not somewhat hypocritical then if the church denies communion to someone based on religious differences, etc.? Aren’t they basically saying that person doesn’t deserve to receive Jesus at that moment, even though Jesus himself would have welcomed them?

Secondly (and sorry this is long) I don’t understand why Anglicans/Episcopalians can’t take communion at a Catholic church. My points in this regard are as follows:

1. Anglicans believe in the real presence
2. If an Anglican converted, he wouldn’t be re-baptized. So baptism isn’t an issue.
3. Children receive first communion before they’re confirmed, so confirmation isn’t an issue.
4. I can see the problem maybe being that they haven’t gone to confession, and therefore aren’t in a state of grace
   BUT 5) People who convert go to their first confession BEFORE the conversion takes place, so there’s a precedent for non-Catholics going to Catholic confession.
5. So if a baptized, real-presence-believing Anglican went to confession beforehand, why couldn’t they take communion?

 

[QuasiCatholic]

Wow, really? No answers? My boyfriend couldn’t answer this either…

 

[PietroPaolo]

Hello!

So I’m in RCIA and I have a question (actually, 2) about communion. First, I’m curious how you would respond to the idea that having a closed communion is – in essence – an un-Christian policy.

In my RCIA packet handout on the Eucharist, it goes on at length about how Jesus was willing to eat with anyone – Jews, Gentiles, sinners, tax collectors, whoever – and that this “table fellowship” was essential to his ministry and the basis of the Eucharist.

Presumably, not everyone Jesus ate with already believed his ministry – instead, eating with them was a chance to share it and win them over. Is it not somewhat hypocritical then if the church denies communion to someone based on religious differences, etc.? Aren’t they basically saying that person doesn’t deserve to receive Jesus at that moment, even though Jesus himself would have welcomed them?

1. The Eucharist isn’t about “table fellowship” it’s about eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of the Lamb of God. It is about consuming the Sacrificial Victim. Thus it is a Ritual Act, a Ritual Sacrifice.
2. “Communion” signifies (as the Latin suggests) being in Union. Taking Communion in a Church is a public act declaring a person to be in Union with the Church. If a person isn’t in Union with that Church, it is lying. Lying is, of course, wrong.

Secondly (and sorry this is long) I don’t understand why Anglicans/Episcopalians can’t take communion at a Catholic church. My points in this regard are as follows:

1. Anglicans believe in the real presence
2. If an Anglican converted, he wouldn’t be re-baptized. So baptism isn’t an issue.
3. Children receive first communion before they’re confirmed, so confirmation isn’t an issue.
4. I can see the problem maybe being that they haven’t gone to confession, and therefore aren’t in a state of grace
   BUT 5) People who convert go to their first confession BEFORE the conversion takes place, so there’s a precedent for non-Catholics going to Catholic confession.
5. So if a baptized, real-presence-believing Anglican went to confession beforehand, why couldn’t they take communion?

See above, particularly # 2.

 

[1ke]

In my RCIA packet handout on the Eucharist, it goes on at length about how Jesus was willing to eat with anyone – Jews, Gentiles, sinners, tax collectors, whoever – and that this “table fellowship” was essential to his ministry and the basis of the Eucharist.

The Eucharist and “table fellowship” are not the same thing in any way, shape or form.

Jesus ate with sinners because he was ministrying to them. Jesus came to fulfill the law, not to abolish it. He told the woman caught in adultery to sin no more, for example. Jews of his day had a serious misunderstanding of God’s universality. While the Jews were his chosen people, they saw non-Jews as “unclean”. Jesus went among these people to show the Jews that God’s kingdom was for all people.

However, Jesus’s call to people was to repent, be baptized, and become disciples. It is only after they are disciples that they came to the Eucharistic table.

Presumably, not everyone Jesus ate with already believed his ministry – instead, eating with them was a chance to share it and win them over.

We do this in the breaking open of the Word. We do this in community-- such as parish dinners, in fellowship over coffee and donuts, etc. Everyone is welcome in such a context.

You are confusing eating dinner and the Eucharist. They are not at all the same thing.

Is it not somewhat hypocritical then if the church denies communion to someone based on religious differences, etc.?

No. Paul himself says that those who eat or drink the Body or Blood without discerning bring ruin (death) upon themselves.

Aren’t they basically saying that person doesn’t deserve to receive Jesus at that moment, even though Jesus himself would have welcomed them?

None of us “deserves” to receive Jesus. None of us “deserves” heaven.

You’ve made an assumption about what Jesus would do. We see by example what Jesus actually did do. He ate the Eucharistic meal only with his Apostles and disciples.

Secondly (and sorry this is long) I don’t understand why Anglicans/Episcopalians can’t take communion at a Catholic church.

Because they are not Catholics.

1. Anglicans believe in the real presence

Necessary, not sufficient, for full communion.

1. If an Anglican converted, he wouldn’t be re-baptized. So baptism isn’t an issue.

Necessary, not sufficient, for full communion.

1. Children receive first communion before they’re confirmed, so confirmation isn’t an issue.

Not relevant, I am not sure what your point is.

1. I can see the problem maybe being that they haven’t gone to confession, and therefore aren’t in a state of grace

Yes, this is true, they are not in a state of grace most likely. But not the main reason that they must refrain from the Eucharist. It is because they are separated from the Church.

BUT 5) People who convert go to their first confession BEFORE the conversion takes place, so there’s a precedent for non-Catholics going to Catholic confession.

Their first confession takes place after their conversion and formal declaration that they wish to join the Church. It takes place before they receive the other sacraments.

I don’t understand this line of thinking at all.

I suggest you read Ecclesia de Eucharistia.

1. So if a baptized, real-presence-believing Anglican went to confession beforehand, why couldn’t they take communion?

Because they are not Catholic. One must be in communion to receive communion.

And, there are, of course, exceptions. If one is a member of a particular Church, one may receive Catholic sacraments. The Anglicans are not a particular Church, they have neither valid Orders not Apostolic Succession.

 

[QuasiCatholic]

1. The Eucharist isn’t about “table fellowship” it’s about eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of the Lamb of God. It is about consuming the Sacrificial Victim. Thus it is a Ritual Act, a Ritual Sacrifice.

Whoever makes these RCIA materials would beg to differ. I quote:

“But the Mass is clearly not trying to replicate either the ancient sacrifices of the Temple ritual or the bloody events of Calvary. The ritual gestures performed by the priest at Mass are not a stylized reenacting of the slaying of Jesus. Christ our Lord could die only once: he will never die again. Rather is in celebrating this family meal, which we call the Mass, that we try to unite ourselves with Jesus’ act of will and attempt to summon ourselves closer to that same total self-dedication that Jesus had when he died upon the cross.”

1. “Communion” signifies (as the Latin suggests) being in Union. Taking Communion in a Church is a public act declaring a person to be in Union with the Church. If a person isn’t in Union with that Church, it is lying. Lying is, of course, wrong.

Yes, but there is only one universal church, and Catholics and Protestants are both part of it. So I could see limiting it to Christians. But we’re all Christians regardless of denomination.

 

[PietroPaolo]

Whoever makes these RCIA materials would beg to differ. I quote:

“But the Mass is clearly not trying to replicate either the ancient sacrifices of the Temple ritual or the bloody events of Calvary. The ritual gestures performed by the priest at Mass are not a stylized reenacting of the slaying of Jesus. Christ our Lord could die only once: he will never die again. Rather is in celebrating this family meal, which we call the Mass, that we try to unite ourselves with Jesus’ act of will and attempt to summon ourselves closer to that same total self-dedication that Jesus had when he died upon the cross.”

RCIA materials are not necessarily always in conformity with the teaching of the Church, unlike the Cathechism of the Catholic Church which states that the Mass is

"The memorial of the Lord’s Passion and Resurrection.

The Holy Sacrifice, because it makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior and includes the Church’s offering. The terms holy sacrifice of the Mass, “sacrifice of praise,” spiritual sacrifice, pure and holy sacrifice are also used, since it completes and surpasses all the sacrifices of the Old Covenant. (1330)"

Yes, but there is only one universal church, and Catholics and Protestants are both part of it. So I could see limiting it to Christians. But we’re all Christians regardless of denomination.

No, there is only one Church, that Church is the Catholic Church. The Church is, as the Bible tells us, the body of Christ. It is tangible, it isn’t “invisible.” From the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

SECOND QUESTION

What is the meaning of the affirmation that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church?

RESPONSE

Christ “established here on earth” only one Church and instituted it as a “visible and spiritual community”, that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted. “This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic …]. This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him”.

THIRD QUESTION

Why was the expression “subsists in” adopted instead of the simple word “is”?

RESPONSE

The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church

 

[PietroPaolo]

Whoever makes these RCIA materials would beg to differ. I quote:

“But the Mass is clearly not trying to replicate either the ancient sacrifices of the Temple ritual or the bloody events of Calvary. The ritual gestures performed by the priest at Mass are not a stylized reenacting of the slaying of Jesus. Christ our Lord could die only once: he will never die again. Rather is in celebrating this family meal, which we call the Mass, that we try to unite ourselves with Jesus’ act of will and attempt to summon ourselves closer to that same total self-dedication that Jesus had when he died upon the cross.”

Yes, but there is only one universal church, and Catholics and Protestants are both part of it. So I could see limiting it to Christians. But we’re all Christians regardless of denomination.

You might also read Humani Generis in which Pope Pius XII clearly and simply states the Church’s teaching that

“the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing”

 

[QuasiCatholic]

You might also read Humani Generis in which Pope Pius XII clearly and simply states the Church’s teaching that

“the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing”

So in your opinion, Protestants aren’t Christians, huh?

 

[PietroPaolo]

So in your opinion, Protestants aren’t Christians, huh?

Did I say that?

There is only one Church. If you have a problem with that, you’ll have to take it up with Christ for He set it up that way. Protestants are separated from the one true Church through accident of birth or deliberate choice. They are imperfectly united to the One Church by those elements of Catholicism which they have managed to keep (sacramental baptism for example). Their imperfect union with the Church can be overcome and we pray they will return to the One Church which their ancestors broke from.

 

[PietroPaolo]

So in your opinion, Protestants aren’t Christians, huh?

May I ask why you are becoming Catholic? Do you plan on remaining a “quasi-Catholic” after reception into the Church?

 

[anonymous_in_fl]

I’m hoping dince you are in RCIA that you have a copy of the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church) that will answer these questions for you. It is also free online; just do a google search.

1. No, the Mass/Eucharist is not a regular meal. Jesus ate regular meals with everyone and anyone----- only the apostles (believers) were at The Last Supper which is the institution of the Eucharistic meal.
2. No, Anglicans and Episcopalians do not believe in the True Presence (transubstantion); only Catholics do.

These are just some of the reasons we have a closed communion; there are many others but you may ask your RCIA instructor to assist you in discovering those or maybe another poster here at CAF will share.

 

[QuasiCatholic]

1. No, Anglicans and Episcopalians do not believe in the True Presence (transubstantion); only Catholics do.

This is only partially true. Anglicans and Episcopalians very much DO believe in the true presence. They don’t believe in transubstantiation per se – the church just prefers to say the method by which the real presence occurs is a divine mystery, which doesn’t rule out the possibility of transubstantiation. Episcopalians are free to believe or not believe in that particular explanation if they wish.

 

[QuasiCatholic]

May I ask why you are becoming Catholic?

I ask myself that same question every time I come on here.

When I go to church, or to RCIA, or talk to my priest, I understand why I’m signing up.

When I talk to people here, I’m amazed by how little I subscribe to your version of theology. It’s like there’s two different Catholic Churches living in alternate universes or something.

For what it’s worth, my cradle Catholic boyfriend has told me not to come here to discuss theology anymore because you are “the crazy Catholics” and not representative of most people’s beliefs. But I haven’t really found any other venues for a good theology debate …

 

[phil19034]

Whoever makes these RCIA materials would beg to differ. I quote:

“But the Mass is clearly not trying to replicate either the ancient sacrifices of the Temple ritual or the bloody events of Calvary. The ritual gestures performed by the priest at Mass are not a stylized reenacting of the slaying of Jesus. Christ our Lord could die only once: he will never die again. Rather is in celebrating this family meal, which we call the Mass, that we try to unite ourselves with Jesus’ act of will and attempt to summon ourselves closer to that same total self-dedication that Jesus had when he died upon the cross.”

Yes, but there is only one universal church, and Catholics and Protestants are both part of it. So I could see limiting it to Christians. But we’re all Christians regardless of denomination.

Catholic means universal. The Catholic Church is the Universal Church. Within the Catholic Church are the 26

Read these from EWTN:
ewtn.com/expert/answers/rites.htm
ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm
ewtn.com/library/councils/v2east.htm
catholicdoors.com/faq/qu14.htm

The Churches within the universal or Catholic Church are all of the 23 autonomous particular Churches plus all several 100 particular Churches (typically known as a diocese inside the Latin Church).

Protestants by birth are separated brothers in Christ.

In order to receive Communion, you are declaring that you believe and follow the one, true Catholic Church. This is why not just Protestants, but also Catholics who do not following the Church’s teachings may not receive Communion.

Orthodox on the other hand may receive Communion because their teaching are not in conflict with the Church and all seven of their Sacraments are valid. Though, they cannot receive Confession in a Catholic Church.

God Bless

 

[PietroPaolo]

I ask myself that same question every time I come on here.

When I go to church, or to RCIA, or talk to my priest, I understand why I’m signing up.

When I talk to people here, I’m amazed by how little I subscribe to your version of theology. It’s like there’s two different Catholic Churches living in alternate universes or something.

For what it’s worth, my cradle Catholic boyfriend has told me not to come here to discuss theology anymore because you are “the crazy Catholics” and not representative of most people’s beliefs. But I haven’t really found any other venues for a good theology debate …

I just quoted the Catechism, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and a Pope, if I’m a “crazy Catholic” then so is the Magisterium of the Church. It’s not my version of theology, it’s the Church’s (as demonstrated by the quotations I used to back up what I was saying).

If coming here upsets you or retards your journey into the Faith, then I’d agree with your boyfriend. Stop coming. But I’d also recommend buying a Catechism to make sure you understand what the Church actually teaches. Some of your ideas are at odds with clear and repeated Catholic teaching (e.g. the Mass is a “meal”, Prots and Caths are in the same one invisible Church)

 

[Church_Militant]

Okay, so who says that closed communion is un-Christian?

Let me offer you an article of mine about What Was Authentic Early Christian Worship Really Like?

And I would also suggest that both you and your boyfriend take the time to study the following papal encyclical. Ecclesia de Eucharistia (Note especially sections 43-46)

These should clear up some of your problems.

 

[Robyn_p]

So in your opinion, Protestants aren’t Christians, huh?

Just FYI, Here’s what the Church officially teaches about Protestants:

818 All who have been justified by faith in baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in The Lord by the children of the Catholic Church…

838 The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter. Those who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.

It’s because the unity we have with Protestants is imperfect and incomplete that receiving communion would be dishonest, because it would be a sign of complete unity that sadly isn’t a reality yet.

However, there are certain situations where the Church does allow non-Catholics to receive who believe in the Real Presence, usually emergencies.

In a way (hear me out here ) it’s a good thing and more loving for the Church to limit communion.

1. For the protection of those who don’t believe it really is Jesus, since as St. Paul says, if they eat without discerning the body of Christ, they eat judgment on themselves.
2. The Church sees a great significance in the act of communion, even if others don’t. It MEANS something. It might not mean anything for non-Catholics except that they’re receiving Jesus, but that’s not all it is for Catholics. It’s a sign of our unity with the Church, When we receive communion, we’re saying we are in communion with the Catholic Church and that we accept everything she teaches. That’s why we say, “Amen.” That amen is an assent.

The Church doesn’t expect non-Catholics to make that assent when they don’t believe it. It’d be like when someone has you sign a piece of paper without telling you what it says, and after you sign it, you find out doing that meant you agree with everything on the waiver, even if you don’t. That’s not honest, or fair. Same thing with communion. It means something, and if a person goes up not realizing it, they’re being put in the awkward situation of saying with their bodies that they are in agreement with the Church when in reality, they aren’t. If I was a non-Catholic, I wouldn’t want to be in that situation.

It’s not about judging or keeping people apart from Jesus, but letting them be able to make an informed, total, “amen” and having the sign correspond to reality.

 

[Vico]

Hello!

So I’m in RCIA and I have a question (actually, 2) about communion. First, I’m curious how you would respond to the idea that having a closed communion is – in essence – an un-Christian policy.

In my RCIA packet handout on the Eucharist, it goes on at length about how Jesus was willing to eat with anyone – Jews, Gentiles, sinners, tax collectors, whoever – and that this “table fellowship” was essential to his ministry and the basis of the Eucharist.

Presumably, not everyone Jesus ate with already believed his ministry – instead, eating with them was a chance to share it and win them over. Is it not somewhat hypocritical then if the church denies communion to someone based on religious differences, etc.? Aren’t they basically saying that person doesn’t deserve to receive Jesus at that moment, even though Jesus himself would have welcomed them?

Secondly (and sorry this is long) I don’t understand why Anglicans/Episcopalians can’t take communion at a Catholic church. My points in this regard are as follows:

1. Anglicans believe in the real presence
2. If an Anglican converted, he wouldn’t be re-baptized. So baptism isn’t an issue.
3. Children receive first communion before they’re confirmed, so confirmation isn’t an issue.
4. I can see the problem maybe being that they haven’t gone to confession, and therefore aren’t in a state of grace
   BUT 5) People who convert go to their first confession BEFORE the conversion takes place, so there’s a precedent for non-Catholics going to Catholic confession.
5. So if a baptized, real-presence-believing Anglican went to confession beforehand, why couldn’t they take communion?

I did not see anybody post this from the Holy See:

DIRECTORY FOR THE APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES AND NORMS ON ECUMENISM (1993)17. Catholics hold the firm conviction that the one Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church “which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”.22 They confess that the entirety of revealed truth, of sacraments, and of ministry that Christ gave for the building up of his Church and the carrying out of its mission is found within the Catholic communion of the Church. Certainly Catholics know that personally they have not made full use of and do not make full use of the means of grace with which the Church is endowed. For all that, Catholics never lose confidence in the Church. Their faith assures them that it remains “the worthy bride of the Lord, ceaselessly renewing herself through the action of the Holy Spirit until, through the cross, she may attain to that light which knows no setting”.23 Therefore, when Catholics use the words “Churches”, “other Churches”, “other Churches and ecclesial Communities” etc., to refer to those who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church, this firm conviction and confession of faith must always be kept in mind.

…

b) Sharing Sacramental Life with Christians of Other Churches and Ecclesial Communities

1. A sacrament is an act of Christ and of the Church through the Spirit.130 Its celebration in a concrete community is the sign of the reality of its unity in faith, worship and community life. As well as being signs, sacraments—most specially the Eucharist—are sources of the unity of the Christian community and of spiritual life, and are means for building them up. Thus Eucharistic communion is inseparably linked to full ecclesial communion and its visible expression.

At the same time, the Catholic Church teaches that by baptism members of other Churches and ecclesial Communities are brought into a real, even if imperfect communion, with the Catholic Church 131 and that “baptism, which constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn… is wholly directed toward the acquiring of fullness of life in Christ”.132 The Eucharist is, for the baptized, a spiritual food which enables them to overcome sin and to live the very life of Christ, to be incorporated more profoundly in Him and share more intensely in the whole economy of the Mystery of Christ.

It is in the light of these two basic principles, which must always be taken into account together, that in general the Catholic Church permits access to its Eucharistic communion and to the sacraments of penance and anointing of the sick, only to those who share its oneness in faith, worship and ecclesial life.133 For the same reasons, it also recognizes that in certain circumstances, by way of exception, and under certain conditions, access to these sacraments may be permitted, or even commended, for Christians of other Churches and ecclesial Communities.134
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/general-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930325_directory_en.html

 

[1ke]

When I talk to people here, I’m amazed by how little I subscribe to your version of theology. It’s like there’s two different Catholic Churches living in alternate universes or something.

The people here are giving authentic Church teaching-- which is easily found in the documents referenced-- Catechism, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, Humani Generis, documents from the CDF, documents written by the Pope. When we find ourselves in that “alternate universe” it is we who are at odds with reality-- the Church is the only reality that exists.

For what it’s worth, my cradle Catholic boyfriend has told me not to come here to discuss theology anymore because you are “the crazy Catholics” and not representative of most people’s beliefs. But I haven’t really found any other venues for a good theology debate …

Interesting. Your boyfriend must not be well versed in Church teaching. I find it very sad when Catholics call what the Church teaches crazy, or those who adhere to it crazy. It is what it is. The crazy ones, IMHO, are the ones trying to deny Church teaching and live according to their own ideas-- that is not the path to holiness.

Everyone here has given you documents written by the Church for the Church which confirms what we are saying and shows that your position is not in line with Church teaching. If that’s “crazy” well, then, guilty as charged.

 

[Hopey]

Whoever makes these RCIA materials would beg to differ. I quote:

“But the Mass is clearly not trying to replicate either the ancient sacrifices of the Temple ritual or the bloody events of Calvary. The ritual gestures performed by the priest at Mass are not a stylized reenacting of the slaying of Jesus. Christ our Lord could die only once: he will never die again. Rather is in celebrating this family meal, which we call the Mass, that we try to unite ourselves with Jesus’ act of will and attempt to summon ourselves closer to that same total self-dedication that Jesus had when he died upon the cross.”

What is the name of the book you are using?

Although the Mass can be compared to a meal, it is also the un- bloody sacrifice of Calvary.
From CC
1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."190

and I think this is appropriate
1396 The unity of the Mystical Body: the Eucharist makes the Church. Those who receive the Eucharist are united more closely to Christ. Through it Christ unites them to all the faithful in one body - the Church. Communion renews, strengthens, and deepens this incorporation into the Church, already achieved by Baptism. In Baptism we have been called to form but one body.233 The Eucharist fulfills this call: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread:"234
If you are the body and members of Christ, then it is your sacrament that is placed on the table of the Lord; it is your sacrament that you receive. To that which you are you respond "Amen" ("yes, it is true!") and by responding to it you assent to it. For you hear the words, "the Body of Christ" and respond "Amen." Be then a member of the Body of Christ that your Amen may be true.235