Communion for Catholics

[rr1213]

Ultimately I think that we need to respect the wishes of the communion that is offering the Eucharist. Personally, based primarily on my years in the UMC and Episcopal Churches, I believe in an open communion, that is, a Eucharist available to all baptised Christians. There have been times, decades ago, when I took communion while attending Catholic mass. Nonetheless, since I am not Catholic, Catholics believe that this is inappropriate and, as a guest or visitor in their house, I should respect that position by not accepting the elements during communion in a Catholic Church. If that approach is right for non-Catholics, shouldn’t the same approach be right for Catholics who are not in acceptable communion with their Church?

 

[mlloyd]

Ultimately I think that we need to respect the wishes of the communion that is offering the Eucharist. Personally, based primarily on my years in the UMC and Episcopal Churches, I believe in an open communion, that is, a Eucharist available to all baptised Christians. There have been times, decades ago, when I took communion while attending Catholic mass. Nonetheless, since I am not Catholic, Catholics believe that this is inappropriate and, as a guest or visitor in their house, I should respect that position by not accepting the elements during communion in a Catholic Church. If that approach is right for non-Catholics, shouldn’t the same approach be right for Catholics who are not in acceptable communion with their Church?

I agree, I have no intention or wish to disrespect the rules of my host. I am just struggling for understanding. Catholics do not condemn non-Catholics, yet they reserve the sacraments (which they believe to be instituted by Christ for our salvation) for those who are in full agreement with their doctrine. How exactly is this reconciled?

 

[jmcrae]

So what does being a member matter?

Being a member matters because we have a record of the member’s baptism (anybody can say they were baptized, but we know that members have been baptized, because we have their baptismal records) and members have been trained in Sacramental Prep and/or RCIA to discern whether they need to go to Confession or not, and have at some point in their journey been given an Examination of Conscience to use that shows them how to know whether they can receive Holy Communion.

Non-members can say, “I have discerned that I can receive” but we don’t know what their basis for discerning is (it could be “I feel nice today; therefore I am in the state of grace”), and we already know that they don’t go to Confession.

But if a member says they have discerned that they can, we know that they went to Confession if they thought they needed to, and we know that they used a proper Examination of Conscience to discern whether they could receive or not - and if they didn’t, well, it’s not because they didn’t know how or why, and the responsibility belongs to them; they answer to God for that, and it’s not due to any lack of training from us.

That’s why being a member is important.

On that note, outside of a very few members of RCIA (persons discerning whether to become Catholic), I have never yet heard of a non-Catholic who thought he should be allowed to go to Confession, even though he’s not Catholic, and not thinking about becoming Catholic. :ehh:

Ultimately, the Church is responsible to Christ for the right handling of the Sacraments. That’s why it’s so important to the Church that all members be properly educated in the use of the Sacraments, and that non-members be assumed not to know what’s going on, and treated accordingly.

If someone wants to receive the Sacraments in the Catholic Church, it is perfectly possible for them to become Catholic. If it’s important enough to them (if they take the Sacraments as seriously as the Church does), then they will.

 

[mlloyd]

Being a member matters because we have a record of the member’s baptism (anybody can say they were baptized, but we know that members have been baptized, because we have their baptismal records) and members have been trained in Sacramental Prep and/or RCIA to discern whether they need to go to Confession or not, and have at some point in their journey been given an Examination of Conscience to use that shows them how to know whether they can receive Holy Communion.

Non-members can say, “I have discerned that I can receive” but we don’t know what their basis for discerning is (it could be “I feel nice today; therefore I am in the state of grace”), and we already know that they don’t go to Confession.

But if a member says they have discerned that they can, we know that they went to Confession if they thought they needed to, and we know that they used a proper Examination of Conscience to discern whether they could receive or not - and if they didn’t, well, it’s not because they didn’t know how or why, and the responsibility belongs to them; they answer to God for that, and it’s not due to any lack of training from us.

That’s why being a member is important.

On that note, outside of a very few members of RCIA (persons discerning whether to become Catholic), I have never yet heard of a non-Catholic who thought he should be allowed to go to Confession, even though he’s not Catholic, and not thinking about becoming Catholic. :ehh:

Ultimately, the Church is responsible to Christ for the right handling of the Sacraments. That’s why it’s so important to the Church that all members be properly educated in the use of the Sacraments, and that non-members be assumed not to know what’s going on, and treated accordingly.

If someone wants to receive the Sacraments in the Catholic Church, it is perfectly possible for them to become Catholic. If it’s important enough to them (if they take the Sacraments as seriously as the Church does), then they will.

The Church does not teach that Priests forgive sins does it?
Does it not teach that God forgives sins through the Priest and that confession itself is not so much for the person to have their sins forgiven (since God will always do this if we ask for it and are sorry) but to emphasize humility and to gain a greater state of grace for doing so?
That being said, though I am no stranger to the act of confession, I believe that myself as well as any other non-catholic should be able to go to confession since I don’t think the Catholic Church has anything against non-catholics confessing their sins to God and others…

As for needing to understand the Church’s teachings to be baptized, why does the church allow infant baptism then?

 

[jmcrae]

The Church does not teach that Priests forgive sins does it?

God works through the priest to forgive sins. Without the priest in the Confessional, mortal sins cannot be forgiven at all. Notice that the priest, acting in persona Christi, says, “I absolve you,” not “God absolves you.”

As for needing to understand the Church’s teachings to be baptized, why does the church allow infant baptism then?

One of the requirements for infant baptism is that the child is going to be raised in the Catholic faith. We don’t baptize just any infants, but only those who are going to live in a Catholic family and be trained up as Catholics.

When they reach the age of reason, they are taught how to go to Confession and how to receive Holy Communion. These Sacramental Preparation classes take place during the school year, and usually take several months to complete.

 

[Contarini]

Once again, I believe in one church. I think it’s fair to call that church Catholic. But why aren’t all Christians members of this universal (Catholic) church.

Well, post-Vatican-II Catholicism would say that we are, but imperfectly!

Obviously without a schism or reformation, Paul talked about them synonymously,

There were schisms in Paul’s day. See 1 Cor. 1.

but there are very few Christian Churches who would not say they trace themselves back to the time of Christ, what gives them any less of a claim to this one true church?

Because the connection is less direct. In the Reformation, what became the “Roman” Catholic Church (i.e., the branch of Western Christianity that accepted the Council of Trent) kept its institutional apparatus largely unchanged from the pre-Reformation Church and did not undergo the dramatic changes in worship and doctrine that took place in those parts of Western Christianity that identified themselves as Protestant. Sure, there were changes, but they did not involve the repudiation of large sections of previous belief and practice as false or even idolatrous, as happened in Protestantism.

Here’s a parallel example–both Christianity and modern Judaism can claim descent from ancient Hebrew religion and Second Temple Judaism. There are aspects of Second Temple Judaism that were continued more closely in Christianity than in Judaism (sacrifice being the most obvious example), and in fact the destruction of the Temple and the end of the sacrificial system brought more dramatic change to Judaism than anything that happened in 16th-century Catholicism. But we still tend to think of the continuities between Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism as substantial enough to speak of them as the same religion in a way that Christianity and Second Temple Judaism are not (even though theologically we Christians would of course dispute this, arguing that Christianity is the divinely ordained fulfillment of ancient Judaism). Rabbinic Judaism continues to identify itself around the Torah, the Sabbath, circumcision, and the promise of God to Abraham and his physical descendants, while Christianity has made significant changes to all these ideas. I think this is even more the case with regard to Catholicism and Protestantism.

Edwin

 

[mlloyd]

God works through the priest to forgive sins. Without the priest in the Confessional, mortal sins cannot be forgiven at all. Notice that the priest, acting in persona Christi, says, “I absolve you,” not “God absolves you.”

One of the requirements for infant baptism is that the child is going to be raised in the Catholic faith. We don’t baptize just any infants, but only those who are going to live in a Catholic family and be trained up as Catholics.

When they reach the age of reason, they are taught how to go to Confession and how to receive Holy Communion. These Sacramental Preparation classes take place during the school year, and usually take several months to complete.

Surely the Church doesn’t teach that the only way to be forgiven of mortal sin is to confess to a Priest… First of all, the Priest says he absolves you IN THE NAME OF the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, it is still God that has the sole power to do so. Second, wouldn’t that be the same as claiming to know who goes to Hell and who goes to Heaven?

I know what I was taught as a young grade schooler about communion and confession, and I don’t think it was anything that I couldn’t explain to a friend in an hour or two… (I’m not claiming my teachers taught it perfectly)

 

[jmcrae]

Surely the Church doesn’t teach that the only way to be forgiven of mortal sin is to confess to a Priest.

That’s the normal way.

Under extraordinary circumstances, at the moment of death, if no priest is available and if the person was not able to go to Confession at the time that they sinned, the person can also be saved by Perfect Contrition, which is to love God perfectly and have total sorrow for all sins, not out of fear of Hell, but out of total purity and love for God.

Since we can’t guarantee that we will experience no fear of Hell at the time of death, or that we will have perfect love of God at that time, it’s better to go to Confession, I think.

Having myself been in an accident where I expected to die, I will tell you that at the moment just before potential annihilation, it’s extremely difficult to pray at all, let alone coherently, or with perfect love of God.

First of all, the Priest says he absolves you IN THE NAME OF the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, it is still God that has the sole power to do so. Second, wouldn’t that be the same as claiming to know who goes to Hell and who goes to Heaven?

Jesus tells our priests, “Whose sin ye forgive is forgive; whose sin ye retain is retained,” and “What ye bind on earth is bound in Heaven, and what ye loose on earth is loosed in Heaven.”

Jesus gave our priests authority on earth to forgive sins in His name. They exercise this ministry in the Confessional.

I know what I was taught as a young grade schooler about communion and confession, and I don’t think it was anything that I couldn’t explain to a friend in an hour or two… (I’m not claiming my teachers taught it perfectly)

What you say here is true of venial sins, and since your teachers were explaining this to little children who typically don’t have any mortal sins, it makes sense that they would tell you that Confession (in the case of little children) is optional, since we can confess our venial sins directly to God.

But we must confess our mortal sins to a priest before we can receive Holy Communion, and (under normal circumstances) in order to be able to go to Heaven.

 

[mlloyd]

What you say here is true of venial sins, and since your teachers were explaining this to little children who typically don’t have any mortal sins, it makes sense that they would tell you that Confession (in the case of little children) is optional, since we can confess our venial sins directly to God.

But we must confess our mortal sins to a priest before we can receive Holy Communion, and (under normal circumstances) in order to be able to go to Heaven.

If this is true, then why doesn’t the Catholic Church say that all other christians (who obviously do not confess to priests) are condemned to Hell if they commit a serious sin?

Jesus tells our priests, “Whose sin ye forgive is forgive; whose sin ye retain is retained,” and “What ye bind on earth is bound in Heaven, and what ye loose on earth is loosed in Heaven.”

I think you’re speaking of the same verse, and I’ve always wondered how it can definitely be said that when Jesus said ‘what you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven’ refers to sins.

 

[jmcrae]

If this is true, then why doesn’t the Catholic Church say that all other christians (who obviously do not confess to priests) are condemned to Hell if they commit a serious sin?

It does. Not very loudly, for politically correct considerations, but it does. I think it comes out most clearly in Dominus Iesus - at least, it was while I was reading that document (still Protestant at the time) that it dawned on me that I needed to become Catholic so that I could go to Confession. It was more of a “someday I should do this” feeling, rather than a blinding flash of light (that came several months later, when I finally figured out what is meant by “One. Holy. Catholic. Apostolic.”) but my path to the Catholic Church was irrevocable, after that point.

I think you’re speaking of the same verse, and I’ve always wondered how it can definitely be said that when Jesus said ‘what you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven’ refers to sins.

Not only sins, but also the disciplines of the Church, the order and “non-essentials” of rituals, etc. - basically, Jesus was giving priests the authority to govern all aspects of the Church in whatever manner makes the most sense to them, and especially the Pope to govern the whole Church in a practical manner.

 

[Sixtus]

What is there in the Bible that suggests:

1. That you must be baptized into A SPECIFIC church such as the Roman Catholic church or Eastern Orthodox church and
2. That you cannot partake in communion in a Catholic Church without believing all Catholic doctrine?

First off we do not believe there are ‘many’ churches. We believe there is but one church founded by Christ.So I think you mean denominations.

St Paul tells us that before we receive we should make sure we are worthy else we eat and drink judgement to ourselves… That means being in a state which the Catholic [and Orthodox] say is necessary before reception.

We also believe in the Real Presence. Some may not. That to us would be sacraligious.

If one did not believe in the teachings of the Church, why would one want to receive?

 

[mlloyd]

First off we do not believe there are ‘many’ churches. We believe there is but one church founded by Christ.So I think you mean denominations.

St Paul tells us that before we receive we should make sure we are worthy else we eat and drink judgement to ourselves… That means being in a state which the Catholic [and Orthodox] say is necessary before reception.

We also believe in the Real Presence. Some may not. That to us would be sacraligious.

If one did not believe in the teachings of the Church, why would one want to receive?

If you only believe in one church founded by Christ, then why aren’t all baptisms (like those in Jesus’ time) consided valid in that church as long as they are done in God’s name?

 

[mlloyd]

Which is right? Well, the one with the Pope.

21So then, no more boasting about men! All things are yours, 22whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas[c] or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, 23and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God. (1 Corinthians: 21-23)

 

[jmcrae]

If you only believe in one church founded by Christ, then why aren’t all baptisms (like those in Jesus’ time) consided valid in that church as long as they are done in God’s name?

All Trinitarian baptisms are considered valid. Baptisms that are intended to be purely symbolic, and those where persons are baptized into an entity named Jesus who has none of the qualities of the real Jesus (ie: Mormon’s baptism, who believe that Jesus is an extraterrestrial creature) cannot be accepted because there was no proper intent for the Sacrament to take place.

 

[Contarini]

All Trinitarian baptisms are considered valid. Baptisms that are intended to be purely symbolic . . . cannot be accepted because there was no proper intent for the Sacrament to take place.

That is not my understanding of current Catholic practice. My understanding is that sufficient intent is generally defined today simply as intent to baptize–to perform the Christian rite of initiation (rather than, say, to simulate baptism in a play), regardless of the operative theology of baptism. If I’m wrong, I’d like to see documentation. If I were ever to become Catholic, this would be a matter of practical relevance for me (since I was baptized by a Baptist pastor).

Edwin

 

[mlloyd]

That is not my understanding of current Catholic practice. My understanding is that sufficient intent is generally defined today simply as intent to baptize–to perform the Christian rite of initiation (rather than, say, to simulate baptism in a play), regardless of the operative theology of baptism. If I’m wrong, I’d like to see documentation. If I were ever to become Catholic, this would be a matter of practical relevance for me (since I was baptized by a Baptist pastor).

Edwin

Both of these come as kind of a surprise to me… I thought you did have to be baptized into the Catholic church, at least the Eastern Orthodox church… but you’re saying for example a non-denomonational baptism is considered valid in the Catholic Church?

And my friend told me that Baptist was a Christian religion in which you had to be baptized in their church for it to be valid, is this incorrect?

 

[Orionthehunter]

Both of these come as kind of a surprise to me… I thought you did have to be baptized into the Catholic church, at least the Eastern Orthodox church… but you’re saying for example a non-denomonational baptism is considered valid in the Catholic Church?

And my friend told me that Baptist was a Christian religion in which you had to be baptized in their church for it to be valid, is this incorrect?

All who recieve a valid Trinitarian baptism are reborn in Christ. Most religions who follow Christ have Baptism’s accepted by the Catholic Church.

From the Catechism:
The sacramental bond of the unity of Christians

1271
Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: “For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.” “Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn.”

 

[mlloyd]

In that case, I’ll take my own thread blatantly off topic…

Was I wrong in thinking that non-catholic christians who want to become catholic must be baptized again? If this is correct… why?

 

[water]

In that case, I’ll take my own thread blatantly off topic…

Was I wrong in thinking that non-catholic christians who want to become catholic must be baptized again? If this is correct… why?

why don’t you start new topic for this question to have more answers from others? – just a suggestion.

…and about Eucharist. If you do believe that Jesus’ real presence in the Eucharist, I would recommend you to go to adoration. Spend an hour each time there and talk to Him. Isn’t it great that at a Catholic Mass, you believe the real presence of Him in the Eucharist and you are invited to eat His Flesh and Blood. Where else should you go for this?

 

[Grace_Angel]

why would a noncatholic want to take communion in a Catholic church if they did not believe what it was /stood for etc.?

Possibly just desecration, or because, they wanted to “taste” what it was like. Did it taste like “body and blood.” possibly, so show disreprect and/or because no one is going to tell them what to. Many reasons, but none because they are catholic. If they were even considering catholicism they would have begun with respecting the beliefs of the faith they are interested in.
Grace Angel.