Communion for non-Catholics in the Catholic church

[Tantum_ergo]

Good point and very much agreed to. Jesus sees us as believers!

Not an ‘exclusion’. No one is ‘entitled’ to the reception of communion, not even Catholics (who are supposed to be in a state of grace). While anyone (including a protestant) can probably walk into his or her Catholic Church and “take” communion, Scripture does tell us that we can 'eat and drink the Body and Blood of the Lord unworthily" and that there are rather dire consequences for doing so.

 

[wmscott]

New to this forum, thought I would offer my humble opinion on the matter. I believe denying a christian the right to receive a gift specifically mentioned by Christ himself in the gospels to be for ALL of his followers is shameful. For the people that quote the passage in 1 Corinthians 11, I wish you would read the entire letter addressing the church at Corinth. This passage was obviously written to a group of “christians” who were taking the gift of Christ in vain and not following the teachings that Christ laid out for us to love one another as brother. Paul was not speaking to deny anyone the gift that our Lord had given us, but simply attempting to correct the non-loving manner in which it was being recieved i.e. “Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper, for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk. Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink ? Or do you despise the church (see later Greek explanation of what church meant) of God and shame those who have nothing ? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you.” People were coming and partaking in communion with one another while drunk and full, not appreciating fully the gift Christ had given us. By coming together and eating together as a “church”, the early christians were following a jewish custom of inviting to a meal thos which they wished to share peace and unity with. The church at Corinth was obviously denying the poor the opportunity to share in communion with them, explicitly denying the wishes of Christ. The word for church commonly used in the original Greek translations of the bible was Ekklesia- meaning in the simplest form a group of people (in this instance christians) coming together as a group.

PART ONE

Hi kh41507, welcome to CAF. there is no shame here, there are some great minds throughout history that have read the passages you cite and all have come to the same conclusion. They and we have read the entire chapter many times over, we are not cherry picking for the sake of proving a point. This is what our Church and Faith teaches. So I think that in your question you have already answered why the Catholic Church deals with Communion the way it does.

As in post # 68, I stated: “Fact is the Catholic Church cares very much for all souls (Protestants included ), not just Catholic souls, and as Spencerian referenced 1 Corinthians 11, the Catholic Church is so sensitive to protecting a person’s soul that the Church does not want anyone heaping condemnation upon themselves, either knowingly or unwittingly”

It is not that we do not want folks from receiving the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord and Savior. It is that we are so in tuned with what it really is that we do not want to be the instrument of someones condemnation.

The following are the footnotes to 1 COR 11 that explains this a little more:

9 [17-34] Paul turns to another abuse connected with the liturgy, and a more serious one, for it involves neglect of basic Christian tradition concerning the meaning of the Lord’s Supper. Paul recalls that tradition for them and reminds them of its implications.

10 [19] That . . . those who are approved among you may become known: Paul situates their divisions within the context of the eschatological separation of the authentic from the inauthentic and the final revelation of the difference. The notion of authenticity-testing recurs in the injunction to self-examination in view of present and future judgment (1 Cor 11:28-32).

11 [23-25] This is the earliest written account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper in the New Testament. The narrative emphasizes Jesus’ action of self-giving (expressed in the words over the bread and the cup) and his double command to repeat his own action.

12 [27] It follows that the only proper way to celebrate the Eucharist is one that corresponds to Jesus’ intention, which fits with the meaning of his command to reproduce his action in the proper spirit. If the Corinthians eat and drink unworthily, i.e., without having grasped and internalized the meaning of his death for them, they will have to answer for the body and blood, i.e., will be guilty of a sin against the Lord himself (cf 1 Cor 8:12).

13 [28] Examine himself: the Greek word is similar to that for “approved” in 1 Cor 11:19, which means “having been tested and found true.” The self-testing required for proper eating involves discerning the body (1 Cor 11:29), which, from the context, must mean understanding the sense of Jesus’ death (1 Cor 11:26), perceiving the imperative to unity that follows from the fact that Jesus gives himself to all and requires us to repeat his sacrifice in the same spirit (1 Cor 11:18-25).

14 [29-32] Judgment: there is a series of wordplays in these verses that would be awkward to translate literally into English; it includes all the references to judgment (krima, 1 Cor 11:29, 34; krino, 1 Cor 11:31, 32) discernment (diakrino, 1 Cor 11:29, 31), and condemnation (katakrino, 1 Cor 11:32). The judgment is concretely described as the illness, infirmity, and death that have visited the community. These are signs that the power of Jesus’ death is not yet completely recognized and experienced. Yet even the judgment incurred is an expression of God’s concern; it is a medicinal measure meant to rescue us from condemnation with God’s enemies.

 

[wmscott]

PART TWO

Yes, St Paul was addressing the Church at Corinth, that Church at that time was practicing and receiving the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord and Savior incorrectly as you and the Sacred Scriptures have pointed out. However, this is the first place where it needed to be corrected. It has been corrected many times over through out the ages. What St Paul is saying to the church at Corinth also applies to all. You cant isolate this to one place and one point in time to further a position from your standpoint and then take other passages and apply it across the board when it does further your position.

The Catholic Church has the obligation and duty to ensure that those who receive the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord and Savior do so in a worthy manner, not as a tool for exclusion or separation, rather a way to protect ones soul from condemnation. This should be seen as a positive aspect of the Catholic Church not a way to attack Her with negative assertions.

Peace

 

[tweetymom]

What a bunch of baloney. Please don’t get me started started about the sacraments. I made my communion and confirmation in the 60’s & 70’s. I had NO IDEA what they were about. Do you want to know why? The nuns refused to talk to us public school kids because we didn’t go to the Catholic school. All the time dragged out of line by our hair saying - “Get in the back of the line where you belong - you’re too poor to stand with the rest of us.” Enough said or would you like to hear more? So tell me - what does one have to do to be chosen? WHAT? Tell me because I would love to hear it.

Let me just say this. I choose to not partake in Communion in the Catholic church BECAUSE all people (including me) are not welcomed to do so.

I take Communion at my church who welcomes all to the table.

Jars,
same thing happened to me in the the 50’s. My parent’s( Catholic )divorced when I was 4 years old, so I never had my first communion until I was 11 and my dear grandmother moved heaven and earth to get me accepted into the cat. class. There I was made fun of by the nuns because I was 11, and that my parents were divorced. Nothing was explained to me, just do this and do that. Nuns were very mean and I had my hands slapped with a ruler if I asked questions that I did not understand. I cried everyday and only stayed to please :my dear grandmother and never told her what was happening. I had my first confession and communion and really did not understand what anything meant, and didn’t until I joined a Protestant Bible Study at age 38. I now go to CC because my husband is a Catholic, and I take Communion. However I am more comfortable in my old Church. But I can still worship God whereever I am. God Bless you Jars.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

nd didn’t until I joined a Protestant Bible Study at age 38. I now go to CC because my husband is a Catholic, and I take Communion.

You do, Tweety?

that is very. . .interesting. I thought I had understood that though you were a baptized Catholic, you did not consider yourself as one, do not participate in the sacrament of reconciliation, etc? Could you please explain your situation? Truly, I had thought from your many posts that you did not consider yourself Catholic. . .

 

[tweetymom]

You do, Tweety?

that is very. . .interesting. I thought I had understood that though you were a baptized Catholic, you did not consider yourself as one, do not participate in the sacrament of reconciliation, etc? Could you please explain your situation? Truly, I had thought from your many posts that you did not consider yourself Catholic. . .

You know what they say about assuming? I am a Cathoolic who does not agree with all it says. Maybe a Caferteia Catholic comes to mind.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I did not use the word assume, Tweety. So the cute ‘joke’ doesn’t apply does it?

It’s just that on other threads you had presented yourself such that (if I recall correctly, I’m not certain) you even removed “Catholic” from your profile and that in discussions with others you have presented not only that you ‘disagree’ with certain Catholic teachings but that you do so not as a ‘dissenting’ or cafeteria Catholic but as a Protestant "observer’. Again, you have a lot of posts and threads and things can get a bit confusing.

 

[Darron_Steele]

I was baptised Episcopalian. In this faith, all baptised Christians are welcomed to accept communion. I have been married now to my husband for 10 years and he is Catholic and our two children are being raised Catholic. I am offended that Catholics do not “allow” non-Catholics that are baptised to receive communion. When I’ve asked my husband about this in the past, he has simply said that is just how it is.
I have considered converting, but this is my sticking point with the Catholic faith.

Comments?

I do not blame you.

In 1 Corinthians 11, one of the biggest problems Paul had was that some people were taking the Lord’s Supper in ways that prevented Christians in their congregation from partaking with them. He told them to wait for each other and partake together: “my brethren, when ye come together to eat, wait one for another” (ASV).

A place where there are Christians barred from receiving the Lord’s Supper is no place I would ever make my congregation home. The Lord’s Table is to be treated with respect, not as a means to advance a church group leadership’s platform.

If you want to attend Catholic meetings without having to give up receiving the Lord’s Supper in a church congregation, have you considered Saturday evening Mass? That is how I do that.

You have every right to be offended – but remember, those responsible will answer to the Lord for
a) treating His table as their table, and
b) turning away from His table those whom He has called.
As much as you feel slighted, remember that the Person who has even more grounds to be offended is the Host. Now, He will get justice for Himself, but I think that even though it is an offensive practice against us, it is even worse that it is offensive practice against the Lord.

 

[tweetymom]

I did not use the word assume, Tweety. So the cute ‘joke’ doesn’t apply does it?

It’s just that on other threads you had presented yourself such that (if I recall correctly, I’m not certain) you even removed “Catholic” from your profile and that in discussions with others you have presented not only that you ‘disagree’ with certain Catholic teachings but that you do so not as a ‘dissenting’ or cafeteria Catholic but as a Protestant "observer’. Again, you have a lot of posts and threads and things can get a bit confusing.

You do not have to use the word assume. Yes i am a Catholic go every week to Mass I do not recall saying I was a Protestant observer. I put Catholic but called a protestant in my Profile because i was angry. I have sinced remove anythin like that. I really am jist a Christian who goes to Catholic Church. I am confused by most of your post also.

 

[kh41507]

I beleive the reasons I have so many differences with the catholic church is specifically what you unintentionally proved. The catholic church feels that it has the RIGHT too go what is beyond scripture and make its own rules. The reason given in previous posts state that the passage in 1 Corinthians is the explanation for why others cannot receive communion. The passage only states that the church at Corinth was taking communion incorrectly by being drunk and not sharing with the poor. As a correction directly from an apostle included in the NT, I follow these rules, but refuse to ADD TO THESE! To take this passage and turn it into an excuse to portray your own dominance and “righteousness” over fellow christians is severely reading this out of context. To say that the catholic church can “correct” others wrongly taking communion in further church histroy is giving church leaders more power that Christ, who in his infinite wisdom wanted ALL of those who beleive in him to accept his bread of life.This is clearly understood from scripture, I don’t know how or why this would ever be perverted the way it has, other than for a power struggle between factions of the TRUE CHURCH the way Jesus described it (all of us). To say that a mere human can speak for Christ or above Christ is a horrendous blasphemy in my opinion… Another lesson from scripture is that Jesus sat with the sinners, tax collectors, prostitutes, and other “undesirables” in the Jewish hierarchy. Jesus sat at dinner, broke bread, shared his blood and body with those that the strict Jewish people would not associate with. To say that you must follow man’s rules to have a seat at the table of communion with Christ is inherently crushed by the spirit of Christ and all of his actions throughout his glorious life.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I do not blame you.

In 1 Corinthians 11, one of the biggest problems Paul had was that some people were taking the Lord’s Supper in ways that prevented Christians in their congregation from partaking with them. He told them to wait for each other and partake together: “my brethren, when ye come together to eat, wait one for another” (ASV).

A place where there are Christians barred from receiving the Lord’s Supper is no place I would ever make my congregation home. The Lord’s Table is to be treated with respect, not as a means to advance a church group leadership’s platform.

If you want to attend Catholic meetings without having to give up receiving the Lord’s Supper in a church congregation, have you considered Saturday evening Mass? That is how I do that.

You have every right to be offended – but remember, those responsible will answer to the Lord for
a) treating His table as their table, and
b) turning away from His table those whom He has called.
As much as you feel slighted, remember that the Person who has even more grounds to be offended is the Host. Now, He will get justice for Himself, but I think that even though it is an offensive practice against us, it is even worse that it is offensive practice against the Lord.

Could you, would you, mind telling us poor Catholics **how following the word of the Lord Himself is ‘an offense’ to Him? ** I mean, you might be offended, but to accuse Catholics of offending **GOD **is another story. That is offensive to **us. **

Oh, and please do me one more favor. Start a thread and give that **very same post you just did. . .but direct it to the ORTHODOX Church. Because, you know, the Orthodox Christians do not allow non-Orthodox to receive communion. Please tell THEM how they are offending God. We wouldn’t want them to feel neglected. We Catholics ALWAYS get told how offensive we are when the poor Orthodox, who are ‘offending’ in the very SAME way, don’t hear. You don’t want THEM not to have the chance to ‘repent’, do you?

Because if you don’t, I will. I’ll tell them how ‘offended’ some Christians are regarding their ‘policy’.
**

 

[pete_29]

I find it amazing that people who won’t accept what the Catholic Church teaches actaully want to participate in one of Her Sacraments. Or is it that your embarrassed that everyone else is receiving and you aren’t. If that’s the case it seems to be more of a problem with your pride than Catholic Church rules. Now that’s shameful!

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I beleive the reasons I have so many differences with the catholic church is specifically what you unintentionally proved. The catholic church feels that it has the RIGHT too go what is beyond scripture Actually, the Catholic Church has every right to go ‘beyond Scripture’ in the sense that Jesus Christ is not ‘limited’ to His written word’ the Holy Spirit was sent to 'guide us to truth- and guiding means that there is something ‘in addition’ to what is already out there, doesn’t it? However, nothing that the Church has done in this is ‘beyond’ Scripture in any sense WHATSOEVER and make its own rules.And your church doesn’t make ITS own rules? Really? People can come into your church naked? Blow bubbles through the sermon? I think your church makes plenty of rules that are not ‘found’ in Scripture but don’t ‘contradict’ Scripture. St. Paul never gives us a ‘format’ for a service and tells us exactly HOW the people are to dress or conduct themselves; different churches in different places have different ‘rules’. And that’s fine, because they don’t ‘contradict’ Scripture. . .and NEITHER DO CATHOLICS. The reason given in previous posts state that the passage in 1 Corinthians is the explanation for why others cannot receive communion. The passage only states that the church at Corinth was taking communion incorrectly by being drunk and not sharing with the poor. That’s YOUR interpretation. What is your authority? Why do we accept your say-so and not 2000 years worth of continuous and AUTHORITATIVE TEACHING? As a correction directly from an apostle included in the NT, I follow these rules, but refuse to ADD TO THESE! Bully for you. Catholics don’t 'add to" Scripture either. To take this passage and turn it into an excuse to portray your own dominance and “righteousness” over fellow christians is severely reading this out of context. And how’s the plank in your eye, friend? Where is the PROOF that this is an ‘excuse’ as you have charged? This is simply YOUR OPINION. You have no proof and you’re actually being insulting and indeed libelous to Catholics. How rude! How UnChristian!To say that the catholic church can “correct” others wrongly taking communion in further church histroy is giving church leaders more power that Christ, who in his infinite wisdom wanted ALL of those who beleive in him to accept his bread of life. Your authority for this 'interpretation? This is clearly understood from scripture, I don’t know how or why this would ever be perverted the way it has, other than for a power struggle between factions of the TRUE CHURCH the way Jesus described it (all of us). To say that a mere human can speak for Christ or above Christ is a horrendous blasphemy in my opinion… I’m glad you’re finally acknowledging this is ONLY YOUR OPINION. Exactly what are you presuming the Catholic Church is ‘doing’ in this accusation? Another lesson from scripture is that Jesus sat with the sinners, tax collectors, prostitutes, and other “undesirables” in the Jewish hierarchy. Jesus sat at dinner, broke bread, shared his blood and body with those that the strict Jewish people would not associate with. To say that you must follow man’s rules to have a seat at the table of communion with Christ is inherently crushed by the spirit of Christ and all of his actions throughout his glorious life.

I do recommend you check out, on-line, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and check out the section on the Eucharist, in order that you understand the SCRIPTURAL BASIS FOR THE POSITION OF THE CHURCH, and WHAT THE CHURCH ACTUALLY TEACHES. . .not just your own ill-informed opinion. God bless.

 

[tweetymom]

I find it amazing that people who won’t accept what the Catholic Church teaches actaully want to participate in one of Her Sacraments. Or is it that your embarrassed that everyone else is receiving and you aren’t. If that’s the case it seems to be more of a problem with your pride than Catholic Church rules. Now that’s shameful!

If you were speaking to me I have no pride when it comes to Jesus. * have no embarrass when it comes to Jesus either. I take Communion with a very humble heart. I do not get concerned about the CC rules. And I am not ashamed to admit it.*

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I find it amazing that people who won’t accept what the Catholic Church teaches actaully want to participate in one of Her Sacraments. Or is it that your embarrassed that everyone else is receiving and you aren’t. If that’s the case it seems to be more of a problem with your pride than Catholic Church rules. Now that’s shameful!

Oh, I don’t find it surprising. In the case of many (but not all) it is pure childishness, really. "Catholics think they’re better n’ we are, but they aren’t the boss of me. If what they have is what they say it is, we’re **entitled **to it and we’ll scream, stamp our feet, call names and demand to ‘get’ something we think we’re entitled to just by virtue of breathing. . .even though we don’t believe it is what it is, don’t believe in the people who ‘have’ it, and in fact, hate and despise these people and this ‘cracker’ anyway. "

Just like a 2 year old who sees something shiny and throws a tantrum because Mommy and Daddy won’t 'give it to me." It doesn’t matter if the ‘shiny’ thing were a $10,000 gold coin–or a used hypodermic syringe–all that matters is “I WANT THAT and if I can’t have it, I’ll throw a fit”.

What makes it sad is that there is a small (and I believe growing) portion of non-Catholic Christians who are not only well informed of what the Sacrament is, but who are well-disposed and godly and who truly desire that Sacrament. . . and yet, because of the actions of the loud-mouthed majority, are often and unfairly treated as if **they **were like those childish whiners.

We have to be very careful to be respectful. . .yes, even of the ‘whiners’. . .respect of course for them as children of God, though one need not ‘respect’ silly, childish **actions. **Again, this is why most of us are careful to speak of disagreements with people’s actions or words as being ‘wrong’ or ‘foolish’, but not calling the people themselves FOOLS.

 

[Carlan]

If you were speaking to me I have no pride when it comes to Jesus. * have no embarrass when it comes to Jesus either. I take Communion with a very humble heart.* I do not get concerned about the CC rules. And I am not ashamed to admit it.**

RULES? My is that how you look upon the teaching authority of our Church,the Magisterium? The whole of Truth? The revelation of Jesus Christ?Carlan

 

[kh41507]

The reason most outside of your “church” has such a negative view of your denomination, which is all that catholicism is, is your unwillingness to see how interpretations can vary. There is no ONE TRUE church leader, Jesus was our high priest. If your basis for your spirituality is what someone else tells you it is, and you give more authority to a book of rules written by MEN than you do the holy scripture and God himself, then we cannot even have a rational debate because our differences are split on that point. ALL men are susceptible to corruption and evil which is evident in the history of Christianity. Jesus himself stated that “no one is good, except for the father who is in heaven”. Therefore Christ himself stated that God is the only one that has the true authority to speak for himself. If we are listening to MEN (who as we apparently just learned CANNOT and ARE NOT good) and will not question there so called authority, given by themselves, than we are listening to an authority which scripturally is not “good” and therefore is able to be corrupted by its own “authority”. The catechism is not, and will never be, the be all end all authority on Christ, for it was written by men for men. God is not of this world, and therefore cannot be constrained by any rules we institute on his behalf, whether intention was “good” or not. The church fathers and apostles were men just as ourselves, with sin and greed and corruption just as all men have. They on the other hand, were willing to admit they did not have all of the answers, and God as the ultimate authority. The scripture tells us multiple times that we ALL are all now priests among ourselves, with no barrier between God and his people. If God trusts us all enough to be his priests, are we not free to differ in interpretation of HIS word if the differences are of minor and minute doctrinal belief? God trusted us all as priests, so my “authority” as you put it, comes from God himself. I don’t see it as “authority”, I see it more of a gift from Christ who called everyone to be a minister, and I do not take this responsibility lightly. If you would like to argue with God about whether or not I can interpret scripture with his help, please be my guest, but scripturally I beleive he is very clear on this point. I only argue your viewpoint on communion is incorrect as it goes directly against the gospel Jesus was teaching, which was equality among all and the ability of everyone to be his own priest with help from the Spirit. You have the right to your opinion, and as Jesus shared open communion at his table with EVERYONE who would accept him. Everyone is responsible to their own actions, and if one takes communion with God inappropriately as described biblically, they take that upon themselves. Ignorance is biblically a forgiveable sin as Jesus described to Ceiphas, but knowing the word of God and refusing HIS teaching is not. If you would like to continue this healthy debate with biblical teaching, I am all for continuing. If you can only cite the catechism and prior church teaching, I must respectfully resign from the debate for the reasons I stated above.

 

[tweetymom]

Carlan:
RULES? My is that how you look upon the teaching authority of our Church,the Magisterium? The whole of Truth? The revelation of Jesus Christ?Carlan

YES man made rules that are not in the Bible,most of them at least.

 

[wmscott]

I beleive the reasons I have so many differences with the catholic church is specifically what you unintentionally proved. The catholic church feels that it has the RIGHT too go what is beyond scripture and make its own rules. The reason given in previous posts state that the passage in 1 Corinthians is the explanation for why others cannot receive communion. The passage only states that the church at Corinth was taking communion incorrectly by being drunk and not sharing with the poor. As a correction directly from an apostle included in the NT, I follow these rules, but refuse to ADD TO THESE! To take this passage and turn it into an excuse to portray your own dominance and “righteousness” over fellow christians is severely reading this out of context. To say that the catholic church can “correct” others wrongly taking communion in further church histroy is giving church leaders more power that Christ, who in his infinite wisdom wanted ALL of those who beleive in him to accept his bread of life.This is clearly understood from scripture, I don’t know how or why this would ever be perverted the way it has, other than for a power struggle between factions of the TRUE CHURCH the way Jesus described it (all of us). To say that a mere human can speak for Christ or above Christ is a horrendous blasphemy in my opinion… Another lesson from scripture is that Jesus sat with the sinners, tax collectors, prostitutes, and other “undesirables” in the Jewish hierarchy. Jesus sat at dinner, broke bread, shared his blood and body with those that the strict Jewish people would not associate with. To say that you must follow man’s rules to have a seat at the table of communion with Christ is inherently crushed by the spirit of Christ and all of his actions throughout his glorious life.

Did you even read post 81& 82 that I replied to you on? No, it seems your whole point of being here is to disrespect and discredit the beautiful Catholic faith. You have arrogantly set yourself up in Authority to tell us Catholics just how wrong we are, is this the type of Christian charity you practice and teach others to extend towards others?

In post 74 you come here and offer your “humble opinion” when in fact you wanted to point out our shameful behaviors. You have no intent to learn what Catholics believe and why, now you ratchet it up and put you and your own fallible personal brand of theology over the Catholic Church and expect all to bow to the alter of kh41507. Real Christian like of you isn’t it?

It is “Christians” like you the St Paul had to admonish and set back on the straight and narrow, It is “Christians” like you that the Catholic Church has had to correct since the beginning and especially since the Reformation because of your insistence on leading Christ’s Church into error.

You really, really need to learn what the Catholic Church teaches rather than spout off with personal opinions and insults.

 

[kh41507]

Please read my previous post regarding the priesthood whom Jesus appointed, i.e. everyone willing to accept HIS teachings. I do not mean to admonish catholicism. I beleive your faith on most points is beautiful. The catholic church is responsible for spreading the faith of Christ far and wide, and should be widely commended for this. There are many other wonderful things the catholic church is responsible for, I’m sure you don’t need me to further expand on this point. The debate is focused on communion, not the correctness of all other church teaching. I am offended and saddened that you see my posts as only degrading. I did not come here to demean anyone, only to offer my opinion as God has given it to me. The question that arose from this debate is why non-catholic Christians feel the way they do, and I simply wished to explain these reasons.