Confused about CCC and Eucharist

[Merlin89]

The Eucharist should not be used as a tool to promote harmony.

We all have a duty to strive for Christian unity, but using the Eucharist as something to enable everyone to feel included certainly does not seem right. Despite our Christian fellowship, there are still deep divisions amongst Christians concerning the nature of the Eucahrist and these divisions cannot be ignored.

Best to speak to your priest in the spirit of charity, but if it doesn’t get resolved bear in mind that this is the Eucharist we’re talking about There is nothing more sacred to us than the Eucharist, and in my mind that is far more important than the wishes of a priest to promote an appearance of Christian unity (which doesn’t exist when it come to the view of the Eucharist).

---

What you said is very right Brendan…this is a very serious issue that should not be over looked upon,llenadegracia I urge you to organise those your friends that have interest in this issue and try to attend the parish pastoral council(PPC)meeting in your parish to lay your worries about this matter…but if seen after the meeting them,there is no serious outcome,then the attention of the local ordinary(Bishop)must be brought closer to ascertain or invoke his Episcopal Authority on the matter…this matter concerns us all the family…

---

GOD HELP US AND GRANT US YOUR GREAT LIGHT TO SHINE ON OUR DARKNESS…PAX CHRISTI

 

[nicolakirwan]

Point of clarification–One need not be Catholic to believe in the Real Presence.

 

[Moore11]

Point of clarification–One need not be Catholic to believe in the Real Presence.

ok…?

 

[nicolakirwan]

ok…?

It’s often said that non-Catholics cannot partake of the Eucharist in Catholic Churches because to do so would be a failure to discern the Body and Blood of the Lord. That cannot be the sole basis for exclusion from Communion because one need not be in communion with the Catholic Church to believe in transubstantiation.

 

[Moore11]

It’s often said that non-Catholics cannot partake of the Eucharist in Catholic Churches because to do so would be a failure to discern the Body and Blood of the Lord. That cannot be the sole basis for exclusion from Communion because one need not be in communion with the Catholic Church to believe in transubstantiation.

That is correct. I must have missed where someone said that on this thread.

 

[nicolakirwan]

That is correct. I must have missed where someone said that on this thread.

“Non-Catholic” and not believing in transubstantiation are taken together at various points. My point was to separate the two.

 

[Moore11]

“Non-Catholic” and not believing in transubstantiation are taken together at various points. My point was to separate the two.

Well, the two may not need to be separated especially in regard to the original post. While belief in transubstantiation is not the sole qualification it certainly can come into play. I would wager that the VAST majority of non Catholic Christians do not understand transubstantiation in the way in which the CC and a few others do. I think not understanding what they are receiving is a valid concern. I don’t think anyone here needed the clarification as it pertains to the discussion.

 

[Brendan_64]

It’s often said that non-Catholics cannot partake of the Eucharist in Catholic Churches because to do so would be a failure to discern the Body and Blood of the Lord. That cannot be the sole basis for exclusion from Communion because one need not be in communion with the Catholic Church to believe in transubstantiation.

So just dish it out to anyone who lines up then? On the basis that they might believe in transubstantiation?

That is not the only issue involved though. Communion is a sign of unity. Christians belonging to Churches that are not in full Communion with Rome on the issue of the Eucharist cannot recieve Communion with us.

There is no room for compromise here. It is not up to the views of the individual priest or bishop on this matter. This is the actual physical presence of our Lord God Jesus Christ that is being given out. This is the meeting of the Divine and the human in Communion together. This is God made man and then dying for us, the holy sacrifice actually happening on the altar, and then consumed by us. This isn’t just an act of symbolic memorial. we cannot mess around with it.

Unless the Holy See determine that a particular Church is in full Communuion with us on this matter then** they cannot be permitted **to consume the body of our Lord Jesus Christ in Communion with us. There is nothing more sacred than the physical body of our Lord God Jesus Christ. There cannot be any compromise on this.

 

[nicolakirwan]

So just dish it out to anyone who lines up then? On the basis that they might believe in transubstantiation?

That is not the only issue involved though. Communion is a sign of unity. Christians belonging to Churches that are not in full Communion with Rome on the issue of the Eucharist cannot recieve Communion with us.

There is no room for compromise here. It is not up to the views of the individual priest or bishop on this matter. This is the actual physical presence of our Lord God Jesus Christ that is being given out. This is the meeting of the Divine and the human in Communion together. This is God made man and then dying for us, the holy sacrifice actually happening on the altar, and then consumed by us. This isn’t just an act of symbolic memorial. we cannot mess around with it.

Unless the Holy See determine that a particular Church is in full Communuion with us on this matter then** they cannot be permitted **to consume the body of our Lord Jesus Christ in Communion with us. There is nothing more sacred than the physical body of our Lord God Jesus Christ. There cannot be any compromise on this.

Well first of all, I did not say anything about priests just giving communion to whomever shows up. Nor did my post even imply that they should do that.

But I will push back on the point about what denominations are and are not in full communion. It presumes that everyone falls into denominational boxes and can be categorized and sorted as such, like individual Christians are mini-representations of any particular denominational institution. This is simply not the reality of Christendom today and will be even less so in the future.

 

[jwinch2]

But I will push back on the point about what denominations are and are not in full communion. It presumes that everyone falls into denominational boxes and can be categorized and sorted as such, like individual Christians are mini-representations of any particular denominational institution. This is simply not the reality of Christendom today and will be even less so in the future.

You can push back all you like but it does not change the objective reality that some people are in communion with the Catholic Church, and some are not. Furthermore, the implication that somehow these lines will blur in the future is categorically false with the possible and hopeful exception of continued development in the ongoing theological discussions between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

 

[Moore11]

Well first of all, I did not say anything about priests just giving communion to whomever shows up. Nor did my post even imply that they should do that.

But I will push back on the point about what denominations are and are not in full communion. It presumes that everyone falls into denominational boxes and can be categorized and sorted as such, like individual Christians are mini-representations of any particular denominational institution. This is simply not the reality of Christendom today and will be even less so in the future.

I’m sorry, I might misunderstand, but are you saying that it does not matter if one is Catholic or not?

 

[llenadegracia]

Ok…

I really appreciate all the discussion. This is an issue all Catholics really should ponder and dive into more, in my humble opinion.

Anyway, so say a person believes in transubstantiation…this person comes from a non-denominational background…so just any Christian church not affiliated with a declared denomination…still no Eucharist? I understand why this is and that this person still rejects the Church Christ began (not to mention not likely in a state of grace because if they’re not Catholic, slim chance they’ve been to Reconciliation…), but can someoene please explain this in lay terms to help solidify my understanding?

EDIT: And to the poster who said I should meet with the pastoral committee…we don’t have one/an active one? We’re a Newman center with a full time priest.

 

[nicolakirwan]

I’m sorry, I might misunderstand, but are you saying that it does not matter if one is Catholic or not?

I’m saying that the model of determining who can and cannot receive communion based on denominational confession (“I’m Orthodox”-OK; “I’m Baptist”-No Go) is a model that will not make sense to many people. The OP is talking about a college campus especially with young people. I do not agree with the priest having open communion, but the explanations given for who may and may not receive I can almost guarantee would not make sense to most of those students whose framework for understanding Christianity or their own faith is not likely to be denominationally based. They could completely accept the Church’s teaching about the Eucharist regardless of whether they have a denominational affiliation or not.

 

[Moore11]

Ok…

I really appreciate all the discussion. This is an issue all Catholics really should ponder and dive into more, in my humble opinion.

Anyway, so say a person believes in transubstantiation…this person comes from a non-denominational background…so just any Christian church not affiliated with a declared denomination…still no Eucharist? I understand why this is and that this person still rejects the Church Christ began (not to mention not likely in a state of grace because if they’re not Catholic, slim chance they’ve been to Reconciliation…), but can someoene please explain this in lay terms to help solidify my understanding?

EDIT: And to the poster who said I should meet with the pastoral committee…we don’t have one/an active one? We’re a Newman center with a full time priest.

How does this person believe in Transubstantiation? A non denom rarely would understand the real presence the way we define it.
I think the actual idea of the real presence here needs to be clarified. It is not enough to say “yup I believe that is Jesus” there are deeper theological implications. Where would a non denominational generic Christian come up with an understanding of the Eucharist without some sort of catechesis on it?

 

[nicolakirwan]

How does this person believe in Transubstantiation? A non denom rarely would understand the real presence the way we define it.
I think the actual idea of the real presence here needs to be clarified. It is not enough to say “yup I believe that is Jesus” there are deeper theological implications. Where would a non denominational generic Christian come up with an understanding of the Eucharist without some sort of catechesis on it?

I think that if the Eucharist can be explained to a 2nd grader, it can be explained in relatively short order to a college student. Now, whether one is in a spiritual condition to receive it is another matter altogether.

But the only reason I said anything is because there was ambiguity regarding whether people were saying someone simply had to believe in transubstantiation or that they had to be Catholic in order to receive communion. Then the fact that one can be Orthodox, but the Orthodox are not in communion with Rome presented another ambiguity as to the basis for inclusion or exclusion.

 

[Moore11]

I think that if the Eucharist can be explained to a 2nd grader, it can be explained in relatively short order to a college student. Now, whether one is in a spiritual condition to receive it is another matter altogether.

But the only reason I said anything is because there was ambiguity regarding whether people were saying someone simply had to believe in transubstantiation or that they had to be Catholic in order to receive communion. Then the fact that one can be Orthodox, but the Orthodox are not in communion with Rome presented another ambiguity as to the basis for inclusion or exclusion.

There was no ambiguity. None. You brought this up out of the blue. Then I questioned why and you said people might think that was the only reason. I have seen no reason for this at all. Could you please cite some examples from the thread where people were saying that the only criteria for reception is that all non Catholics don’t believe in the Real Presence?

There are some problematic themes in your posts. Just like you were sensitive to point out that some others believe in the Real Presence I am a tad sensitive when people start pointing things like that out to blur the lines between Catholic and non Catholics. There are many differences and it should be pointed out that even if some agreed with the idea of real presence the consecration of such hosts has to be valid. A Presbyterian minister can say any words he wants to but the end it is just bread.
Your second grader analogy does not quite match especially in the form of a College atmosphere where religious understanding is much much more complicated. A second grader goes through hours of instruction on Catholic theology of the Eucharist. A second grader hopefully has a Catholic worldview and upbringing. A second grader has the Bishop’s approval through a program he endorsed for education. A Newman Center brings so much more baggage than that.
Little Johnny is a freshman who is Catholic and asks his non denominational buddy/roommate to come to Mass in a well meaning attempt to evangelize. Over a few six packs and a green haze they talk of religion and using the same words for things his buddy decides he thinks that thee Eucharist is what his roommate says it is and hey, it jives with what his pastor back home has said in a round about way. So he goes. Should he receive? Heck no!!!

As for your depiction of denominations melting away I can’t see how that is possible or even happening. In fact in a lot of denominations there are denominations of the denominations. Further fractioning does not make something more whole.
But you are correct about one thing. In the future we all will be one.

 

[llenadegracia]

So if I was using the CCC to support why even a nondenominational Christian professing the belief of transubstantiation (and a deep understanding and seriously WAY better than the majority of Catholics understand transubstantiation) should abstain from receiving…is there any direct mention of this case in the CCC?

At my Newman center, this issue hits 3 types of non-Catholic Christians:

1. The roommates or casual friends of a Catholic. They usually come to Mass once…maybe twice a semester.
2. The Christian who attends Mass simply because the Newman Center/chapel is the only physical chapel on campus. This type will usually attend maybe once a month.
3. The non-Catholic Christian who attend Mass every week.

Let’s consider the best case scenerio: I and a few friends discuss this with the priest and he realizes he needs to start teaching according to the Church. Any good suggestions on how to go about implimenting this new accordance of the teachings of the CCC? I always find peace when priests will explain that if you are not Catholic that he will offer you a blessing instead or something of that nature… but anyway, students falling under type 1 and type 2 probably will not notice the change or simply think that they must have missed the announcement last time they attended Mass. But what to do about type 3? Any suggestions?

Personally, I do not think the priest will change his ways. He has made it very clear concerning his beliefs in the past. I still want to talk to him prior to contacting anyone though. I plan to do so ideally this week.

 

[Vico]

So if I was using the CCC to support why even a nondenominational Christian professing the belief of transubstantiation (and a deep understanding and seriously WAY better than the majority of Catholics understand transubstantiation) should abstain from receiving…is there any direct mention of this case in the CCC?

At my Newman center, this issue hits 3 types of non-Catholic Christians:

1. The roommates or casual friends of a Catholic. They usually come to Mass once…maybe twice a semester.
2. The Christian who attends Mass simply because the Newman Center/chapel is the only physical chapel on campus. This type will usually attend maybe once a month.
3. The non-Catholic Christian who attend Mass every week.

Let’s consider the best case scenerio: I and a few friends discuss this with the priest and he realizes he needs to start teaching according to the Church. Any good suggestions on how to go about implimenting this new accordance of the teachings of the CCC? I always find peace when priests will explain that if you are not Catholic that he will offer you a blessing instead or something of that nature… but anyway, students falling under type 1 and type 2 probably will not notice the change or simply think that they must have missed the announcement last time they attended Mass. But what to do about type 3? Any suggestions?

Personally, I do not think the priest will change his ways. He has made it very clear concerning his beliefs in the past. I still want to talk to him prior to contacting anyone though. I plan to do so ideally this week.

Catechism of the Catholic Church 1400 Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, "have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders."239 It is for this reason that, for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible. However these ecclesial communities, "when they commemorate the Lord’s death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory."240

1401 When, in the Ordinary’s judgment, a grave necessity arises, Catholic ministers may give the sacraments of Eucharist, Penance, and Anointing of the Sick to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church, who ask for them of their own will, provided they give evidence of holding the Catholic faith regarding these sacraments and possess the required dispositions.241

239 UR 22 § 3.
240 UR 22 § 3.
241 Cf. CIC, can. 844 § 4.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
***Unitatis Redintegratio **

• 1. Whenever the Sacrament of Baptism is duly administered as Our Lord instituted it, and is received with the right dispositions, a person is truly incorporated into the crucified and glorified Christ, and reborn to a sharing of the divine life, as the Apostle says: “You were buried together with Him in Baptism, and in Him also rose again - through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead”.(40)
     Baptism therefore establishes a sacramental bond of unity which links all who have been reborn by it. But of itself Baptism is only a beginning, an inauguration wholly directed toward the fullness of life in Christ. Baptism, therefore, envisages a complete profession of faith, complete incorporation in the system of salvation such as Christ willed it to be, and finally complete ingrafting in eucharistic communion.
     Though the ecclesial Communities which are separated from us lack the fullness of unity with us flowing from Baptism, and though we believe they have not retained the proper reality of the eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Orders, nevertheless when they commemorate His death and resurrection in the Lord’s Supper, they profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and look forward to His coming in glory. Therefore the teaching concerning the Lord’s Supper, the other sacraments, worship, the ministry of the Church, must be the subject of the dialogue.

1. Col. 2, 12; cf. Rom. 6, 4
   vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

CIC Canon 844 §4 If there is a danger of death or if, in the judgement of the diocesan Bishop or of the Episcopal Conference, there is some other grave and pressing need, catholic ministers may lawfully administer these same sacraments to other christians not in full communion with the catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who spontaneously ask for them, provided that they demonstrate the catholic faith in respect of these sacraments and are properly disposed.
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM

 

[Brendan_64]

But I will push back on the point about what denominations are and are not in full communion…

And who then decides which denominations are of are not in full Communion with us? The individual bishop, the priest, the extraordinary ministers of communion even? The only authority capable of determining this is the Holy See. You do, I presume fully accept the absolute authority of Rome?

It presumes that everyone falls into denominational boxes and can be categorized and sorted as such

And as far as the Catholic Church is concerned that is indeed the case. If you are part of a denomination you accept the teachings of that denomination. Within the Catholic Church while you may privately have misgivings on some less central issue, but you do not express these publicly. For someone from another denomination to join us in Communion is expressing a public communion and unity with Rome.

This is simply not the reality of Christendom today and will be even less so in the future.

So we should move with the times and ‘reform’ on our most sacred and core issues? We should just dish out Communion to anyone who turns up on the basis of "even though the person isn’t a Catholic, or belong to a denomination that is in Communion with Rome.

So we should just let them have it anyway, on the off-chance that, despite the position of their Church, this person does actually have a full belief and understanding of transubstantation, and is personally in Communion with Rome therefore taking an opposing position to the Church they belong to? If that is the case then perhaps they should consider the Christian denomination they belong to. The doors of the Catholic Church are open to all who believe as we do, but if a person stays in a Church not in Communion with Rome then they are publicly not in Communion with Rome and cannot recieve Communion with us.

 

[jmcrae]

It’s often said that non-Catholics cannot partake of the Eucharist in Catholic Churches because to do so would be a failure to discern the Body and Blood of the Lord. That cannot be the sole basis for exclusion from Communion because one need not be in communion with the Catholic Church to believe in transubstantiation.

And nor is that the reason.

The reason is that the priest, since he has no authority over non-Catholics by their hard-fought and hard-won choice let me point out - to tell them what to believe, he also has no authority to give them any Sacraments whatsoever, unless they first ask to be brought into full communion with the Church, and then once the appropriate preparations are made for that person to be made able to do so, then he hears their Profession of Faith and gives them whichever Sacraments of Initiation are appropriate for their situation, and then, after that, he has authority over them with regard to their faith and morals, and with regard to being able to give them the Sacraments.