"Communion" at a Protestant Church

[Col103]

My mom, and I with her, have for years attended an Evangelical non-denominational church where communion is served weekly as a symbol in the traditional protestant sense. To make a long story short, after a lot of prayer and reading apologetics and scripture, I came to the conclusion that the Catholic Church really does hold the fullness of truth. I have been attending mass regularly for months now and am excited to begin RCIA in the fall.

With that necessary background out of the way- I was talking to one of the priests at the Newman Center at my university (which is where I’ve been going to mass for the most part) about “communion” in that symbolic sense. I told him that while I understood why non Catholics couldn’t receive the Eucharist, I didn’t understand fully why Catholic’s could not partake in a symbolic “Lord’s Supper” as long as they understood that it was only symbolic and in no way a valid Eucharist. The second part of my question was if I too should stop participating in communion when I go to church with my mom.

The priest’s answer was that it was perfectly fine for both confirmed Catholics and for myself to participate in a symbolic Lord’s Supper and that any prohibition against it is left over from an older time when the poorly catechized might be confused on what was a valid Eucharist.

That answer surprised me and didn’t really match up with what I’ve read, so I thought I’d see what y’all’s thoughts on it were.

 

[1ke]

The priest’s answer was that it was perfectly fine for both confirmed Catholics and for myself to participate in a symbolic Lord’s Supper and that any prohibition against it is left over from an older time when the poorly catechized might be confused on what was a valid Eucharist.

That is unfortunate. This is not correct as it pertains to Catholics. I’m sorry you got bad information, especially from a source that should be trustworthy.

 

[Phemie]

My mom, and I with her, have for years attended an Evangelical non-denominational church where communion is served weekly as a symbol in the traditional protestant sense. To make a long story short, after a lot of prayer and reading apologetics and scripture, I came to the conclusion that the Catholic Church really does hold the fullness of truth. I have been attending mass regularly for months now and am excited to begin RCIA in the fall.

With that necessary background out of the way- I was talking to one of the priests at the Newman Center at my university (which is where I’ve been going to mass for the most part) about “communion” in that symbolic sense. I told him that while I understood why non Catholics couldn’t receive the Eucharist, I didn’t understand fully why Catholic’s could not partake in a symbolic “Lord’s Supper” as long as they understood that it was only symbolic and in no way a valid Eucharist. The second part of my question was if I too should stop participating in communion when I go to church with my mom.

The priest’s answer was that it was perfectly fine for both confirmed Catholics and for myself to participate in a symbolic Lord’s Supper and that any prohibition against it is left over from an older time when the poorly catechized might be confused on what was a valid Eucharist.

That answer surprised me and didn’t really match up with what I’ve read, so I thought I’d see what y’all’s thoughts on it were.

You seem to know what’s right. What your priest says violates Canon 844 §1 which says *"Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, *who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone"
**
Canon 844 goes on to say:§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non- Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

Churches whose sacraments are valid would be the Orthodox Churches.

 

[Cor_ad_Cor]

Communion is an intimate connection we share with our Lord and his Church. Much like any other relationship, it is not OK to engage in that behavior with another outside of our commitment. Communion, whether the true Eucharist or not, is very much a faith statement on the part of the communicant and the church/faith tradition in which it is received.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

My mom, and I with her, have for years attended an Evangelical non-denominational church where communion is served weekly as a symbol in the traditional protestant sense. To make a long story short, after a lot of prayer and reading apologetics and scripture, I came to the conclusion that the Catholic Church really does hold the fullness of truth. I have been attending mass regularly for months now and am excited to begin RCIA in the fall.

With that necessary background out of the way- I was talking to one of the priests at the Newman Center at my university (which is where I’ve been going to mass for the most part) about “communion” in that symbolic sense. I told him that while I understood why non Catholics couldn’t receive the Eucharist, I didn’t understand fully why Catholic’s could not partake in a symbolic “Lord’s Supper” as long as they understood that it was only symbolic and in no way a valid Eucharist. The second part of my question was if I too should stop participating in communion when I go to church with my mom.

The priest’s answer was that it was perfectly fine for both confirmed Catholics and for myself to participate in a symbolic Lord’s Supper and that any prohibition against it is left over from an older time when the poorly catechized might be confused on what was a valid Eucharist.

That answer surprised me and didn’t really match up with what I’ve read, so I thought I’d see what y’all’s thoughts on it were.

You’d be participating in Communion of a group that is not in unity with the Catholic Church, and implicitly “joining” that other congregation. Since you’re converting, you need to sever your connection with that other church, and therefore should stop receiving there.

 

[Church_Militant]

Print out the following excerpt from Pope St. John Paul the Great and rest assured that he made a mistake. To receive n-C communion is scandalous false witness since it infers that we agree with their doctrine on communion which we do not. See Ecclesia de Eucharistia (17 April 2003) | John Paul II

CHAPTER FOUR
THE EUCHARIST
AND ECCLESIAL COMMUNION
34. The Extraordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops in 1985 saw in the concept of an “ecclesiology of communion” the central and fundamental idea of the documents of the Second Vatican Council.67 The Church is called during her earthly pilgrimage to maintain and promote communion with the Triune God and communion among the faithful. For this purpose she possesses the word and the sacraments, particularly the Eucharist, by which she “constantly lives and grows”68 and in which she expresses her very nature. It is not by chance that the term* communion* has become one of the names given to this sublime sacrament.

The Eucharist thus appears as the culmination of all the sacraments in perfecting our communion with God the Father by identification with his only-begotten Son through the working of the Holy Spirit. With discerning faith a distinguished writer of the Byzantine tradition voiced this truth: in the Eucharist “unlike any other sacrament, the mystery [of communion] is so perfect that it brings us to the heights of every good thing: here is the ultimate goal of every human desire, because here we attain God and God joins himself to us in the most perfect union”.69 Precisely for this reason it is good to cultivate in our hearts a constant desire for the sacrament of the Eucharist. This was the origin of the practice of “spiritual communion”, which has happily been established in the Church for centuries and recommended by saints who were masters of the spiritual life. Saint Teresa of Jesus wrote: “When you do not receive communion and you do not attend Mass, you can make a spiritual communion, which is a most beneficial practice; by it the love of God will be greatly impressed on you”.70
35. The celebration of the Eucharist, however, cannot be the starting-point for communion; it presupposes that communion already exists, a communion which it seeks to consolidate and bring to perfection. The sacrament is an expression of this bond of communion both in its* invisible* dimension, which, in Christ and through the working of the Holy Spirit, unites us to the Father and among ourselves, and in its* visible* dimension, which entails communion in the teaching of the Apostles, in the sacraments and in the Church’s hierarchical order. The profound relationship between the invisible and the visible elements of ecclesial communion is constitutive of the Church as the sacrament of salvation.71 Only in this context can there be a legitimate celebration of the Eucharist and true participation in it. Consequently it is an intrinsic requirement of the Eucharist that it should be celebrated in communion, and specifically maintaining the various bonds of that communion intact.

1. The safeguarding and promotion of ecclesial communion is a task of each member of the faithful, who finds in the Eucharist, as the sacrament of the Church’s unity, an area of special concern. More specifically, this task is the particular responsibility of the Church’s Pastors, each according to his rank and ecclesiastical office. For this reason the Church has drawn up norms aimed both at fostering the frequent and fruitful access of the faithful to the Eucharistic table and at determining the objective conditions under which communion may not be given. The care shown in promoting the faithful observance of these norms becomes a practical means of showing love for the Eucharist and for the Church.
2. In considering the Eucharist as the sacrament of ecclesial communion, there is one subject which, due to its importance, must not be overlooked: I am referring to the relationship of the Eucharist to ecumenical activity. We should all give thanks to the Blessed Trinity for the many members of the faithful throughout the world who in recent decades have felt an ardent desire for unity among all Christians. The Second Vatican Council, at the beginning of its Decree on Ecumenism, sees this as a special gift of God.89 It was an efficacious grace which inspired us, the sons and daughters of the Catholic Church and our brothers and sisters from other Churches and Ecclesial Communities, to set forth on the path of ecumenism.

(Cont’d)

 

[Church_Militant]

Our longing for the goal of unity prompts us to turn to the Eucharist, which is the supreme sacrament of the unity of the People of God, in as much as it is the apt expression and the unsurpassable source of that unity.90 In the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice the Church prays that God, the Father of mercies, will grant his children the fullness of the Holy Spirit so that they may become one body and one spirit in Christ.91 In raising this prayer to the Father of lights, from whom comes every good endowment and every perfect gift (cf. *Jas *1:17), the Church believes that she will be heard, for she prays in union with Christ her Head and Spouse, who takes up this plea of his Bride and joins it to that of his own redemptive sacrifice.

1. Precisely because the Church’s unity, which the Eucharist brings about through the Lord’s sacrifice and by communion in his body and blood, absolutely requires full communion in the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments and ecclesiastical governance, it is not possible to celebrate together the same Eucharistic liturgy until those bonds are fully re-established. Any such concelebration would not be a valid means, and might well prove instead to be an obstacle, to the attainment of full communion, by weakening the sense of how far we remain from this goal and by introducing or exacerbating ambiguities with regard to one or another truth of the faith. The path towards full unity can only be undertaken in truth. In this area, the prohibitions of Church law leave no room for uncertainty,92 in fidelity to the moral norm laid down by the Second Vatican Council.93

I would like nonetheless to reaffirm what I said in my Encyclical Letter Ut Unum Sint after having acknowledged the impossibility of Eucharistic sharing: “And yet we do have a burning desire to join in celebrating the one Eucharist of the Lord, and this desire itself is already a common prayer of praise, a single supplication. Together we speak to the Father and increasingly we do so ‘with one heart’”.94

1. While it is never legitimate to concelebrate in the absence of full communion, the same is not true with respect to the administration of the Eucharist* under special circumstances, to individual persons *belonging to Churches or Ecclesial Communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church. In this case, in fact, the intention is to meet a grave spiritual need for the eternal salvation of an individual believer, not to bring about an *intercommunion *which remains impossible until the visible bonds of ecclesial communion are fully re-established.

This was the approach taken by the Second Vatican Council when it gave guidelines for responding to Eastern Christians separated in good faith from the Catholic Church, who spontaneously ask to receive the Eucharist from a Catholic minister and are properly disposed.95 This approach was then ratified by both Codes, which also consider – with necessary modifications – the case of other non-Eastern Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church.96

Cont’d

 

[Church_Militant]

1. In my Encyclical* Ut Unum Sint* I expressed my own appreciation of these norms, which make it possible to provide for the salvation of souls with proper discernment: “It is a source of joy to note that Catholic ministers are able, in certain particular cases, to administer the sacraments of the Eucharist, Penance and Anointing of the Sick to Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church but who greatly desire to receive these sacraments, freely request them and manifest the faith which the Catholic Church professes with regard to these sacraments. Conversely, in specific cases and in particular circumstances, Catholics too can request these same sacraments from ministers of Churches in which these sacraments are valid”.97
   These conditions, from which no dispensation can be given, must be carefully respected, even though they deal with specific individual cases, because the denial of one or more truths of the faith regarding these sacraments and, among these, the truth regarding the need of the ministerial priesthood for their validity, renders the person asking improperly disposed to legitimately receiving them. And the opposite is also true: Catholics may not receive communion in those communities which lack a valid sacrament of Orders.98

The faithful observance of the body of norms established in this area 99 is a manifestation and, at the same time, a guarantee of our love for Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, for our brothers and sisters of different Christian confessions – who have a right to our witness to the truth – and for the cause itself of the promotion of unity.

He can find that encyclical on the Vatican website for context. If he argues with you, suggest that he ask his bishop about it.

 

[RPRPsych]

Bravo, Church Militant!

 

[LeahTherese]

My mom, and I with her, have for years attended an Evangelical non-denominational church where communion is served weekly as a symbol in the traditional protestant sense. To make a long story short, after a lot of prayer and reading apologetics and scripture, I came to the conclusion that the Catholic Church really does hold the fullness of truth. I have been attending mass regularly for months now and am excited to begin RCIA in the fall.

With that necessary background out of the way- I was talking to one of the priests at the Newman Center at my university (which is where I’ve been going to mass for the most part) about “communion” in that symbolic sense. I told him that while I understood why non Catholics couldn’t receive the Eucharist, I didn’t understand fully why Catholic’s could not partake in a symbolic “Lord’s Supper” as long as they understood that it was only symbolic and in no way a valid Eucharist. The second part of my question was if I too should stop participating in communion when I go to church with my mom.

The priest’s answer was that it was perfectly fine for both confirmed Catholics and for myself to participate in a symbolic Lord’s Supper and that any prohibition against it is left over from an older time when the poorly catechized might be confused on what was a valid Eucharist.

That answer surprised me and didn’t really match up with what I’ve read, so I thought I’d see what y’all’s thoughts on it were.

I think you already know the answer - but in one sense (maybe) the priest is also correct, in that the current prohibition may well have arisen under the circumstances he describes. But whatever the original reason for it, and whatever our own understanding of the nature of the Eucharist in the Catholic Church (and the communion at any protestant church), we should refrain from receiving it because at the very least our actions may be taken by others (eg in that church) that we as Catholics (or converts on a journey!!) agree with their eucharistic doctrine.

It’s understandable to want to participate I think but at best that is showing a sense of ‘communion’ with another church; not with Christ, which is what we understand to be at the heart of the sacrament. I think that underpins the rule as it stands.

 

[exnihilo]

I faced the same issue in my process of conversion. I joined an RCIA class not with the definite intention of converting but to learn more then what my reading alone had taught me. At the same time I was still attending my Protestant Church with my wife. At some point I became convinced that the Eucharist was only to be found in the Catholic and Orthodox Church. Once that was the case I didn’t want to receive communion in my Protestant Church because then I thought it to be a mere imitation of the true sacrament.

Since you aren’t yet Catholic I would think you could continue to receive communion in your Protestant Church. But if you’ve become convinced, like I was, that the Eucharist isn’t to be found there then I don’t see why you’d want to receive. There might be pressure from others because not receiving could easily be viewed as a rejection of their Church. But you have to follow your conscience and this is a very important matter.

It is worth pointing out that based on my understanding of history this idea of intercommunion or open communion is fairly new even among Protestants. Most Protestants used to have closed communion even from other Protestants. The idea was communion meant among other things an assent to the particular Church’s teaching and authority. With the rise of non-denominational Churches and a lessening of the importance of a denomination’s distinctive teachings the idea of closed communion has lost favor.

 

[Padres1969]

You seem to know what’s right. What your priest says violates Canon 844 §1 which says *“Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, **who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone”

---

Canon 844 goes on to say:§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non- Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

Churches whose sacraments are valid would be the Orthodox Churches.

Is it possible the OP’s priest reads Canon 844-1 differently? I mean it does say “sacraments” as in the Catholic sense of the word, or even a protestant sense. It’s possible the symbolic “lords supper” or whatever the evangelical church they’re attending calls it, doesn’t view it as a sacrament, but rather a simple symbolic recreation of the lord’s supper and nothing more without any sacramental connotation. In that case would the OP even be attempting to partake in a sacrament, licitly or illicitly, any more so than having a glass of wine and a piece of bread at home would be a “sacrament”?

 

[Phemie]

Is it possible the OP’s priest reads Canon 844-1 differently? I mean it does say “sacraments” as in the Catholic sense of the word, or even a protestant sense. It’s possible the symbolic “lords supper” or whatever the evangelical church they’re attending calls it, doesn’t view it as a sacrament, but rather a simple symbolic recreation of the lord’s supper and nothing more without any sacramental connotation. In that case would the OP even be attempting to partake in a sacrament, licitly or illicitly, any more so than having a glass of wine and a piece of bread at home would be a “sacrament”?

But the Anglicans and the Lutherans DO regard it as a sacrament. We know theirs is not a valid sacrament though so why would we want to pretend it is?

 

[Padres1969]

But the Anglicans and the Lutherans DO regard it as a sacrament. We know theirs is not a valid sacrament though so why would we want to pretend it is?

True, but that’s a different situation. Anglicans and Lutherans view the Eucharist much as Catholics do with just the differences in the specifics of Christ’s presence in the Sacrament (if even that since some Anglicans even subscribe to Transubstantiation as Catholics do). With Anglicans and Lutherans you have two groups who profess that the Eucharist is a sacrament and that Christ is present in that sacrament. Obviously the Catholic view is that they’re doing so invalidly and are in essence pretending to do what Catholics do. And by extension if a Catholic attempted to partake in Lutheran or Anglican Eucharist they’d be partaking in an illicit sacrament.

But the OP’s mother’s church sounds like an Evangelical Christian church not unlike the ones I’ve visited in those families of churches. And in those cases, they’re not professing their “lord’s table” remembrance to be a sacrament, or to have any kind of supernatural connotation. Rather it’s simply the congregation partaking of a piece of bread and a small cup of wine (or more often grape juice) as a simple remembrance of the original Last Supper. They don’t even call it Eucharist or communion as in particularly the latter case it’s not even a sign of union with their particular church or denomination and is open to any and all. Basically it’s no more meaningful in a sense than if you and I decided we were going to remember the Last Supper by pulling out some Welch’s Concord Grape Juice and Wonder Bread and partake of them together right now in remembrance of the Last Supper. We’d not be attempting anything that’s not true in that we’d be openly eating a piece of bread and a glass of grape juice, nothing more.

That may be why the priest deemed it to not be impermissible for the OP to partake since the OP is neither attempting to partake of an illicit sacrament nor through the OPs knowledge engaging in indifferentism since the OP knows that it is as the congregation remembering perceives it, nothing but grape juice and bread.

 

[1ke]

Is it possible the OP’s priest reads Canon 844-1 differently? I mean it does say “sacraments” as in the Catholic sense of the word, or even a protestant sense. It’s possible the symbolic “lords supper” or whatever the evangelical church they’re attending calls it, doesn’t view it as a sacrament, but rather a simple symbolic recreation of the lord’s supper and nothing more without any sacramental connotation. In that case would the OP even be attempting to partake in a sacrament, licitly or illicitly, any more so than having a glass of wine and a piece of bread at home would be a “sacrament”?

No. It is not only canon law that states this but NUMEROUS Church documents and it is clear we must refrain from communion, whatever they call it.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Since 1517 true communion is whether we will pray for each other’s true welfare in danger.

Do not pander to anyone’s sentimentality. Some people have a shallow attachment to our conformity amidst them.

Making “spiritual communion” without any elements is valid no matter how much people insist it isn’t.