Don't Ask Don't Tell Communion Policy!?

[mtngal25]

Don’t ask don’t tell gives grave scandal to practicing Catholics because many may think, well, if protestants can receive without going to confession, then why do I have to go? Double standards never work but causes confusion and sacriledge. This practice can go outside the nursing homes and carry on in charismatic prayer groups and in parishes. A person can say that they took communion somewhere else so they can continue to receive it anywhere else in a Catholic church–without instruction, without confession, and without following any rules of the church. Some Catholics may know this person is not Catholic and if the priest knows it, then someone will say, well, I don’t have to follow the rules either if they don’t. Once you let the barriers down, then respect for the Eucharist goes out the window. When that goes, so does the faith in the True Presence. Therefore, the person who started this is responsible for turning Catholics into protestants which is the easy way out of abiding by church standards. Fasting, confession of mortal sins, birth control rules and abortion rules, etc–all this would be ignored by the fake who receives in a Catholic church without being Catholic. These reasons are the reasons why I prefer the old method of the priests bringing communion only to Catholics and not anyone else. There are too many abuses against the Eucharist today.

 

[Aramis]

Each person must express belief in the True Presence, and every other Eucharistic doctrine, including the necessity of a validly ordained priesthood (which is almost an impossible standard for non-Catholics to meet, since they would have to at the same time deny their own ministers version of the Last Supper memorial).

Lutherans and Anglicans often (mistakenly) believe their priests to have valid orders, Rev. Fr. Many of them also believe in the real presence, and high-church Anglicans and some forms of Lutheranism even still have sacramental confession (invalid by Catholic standards due to lack of valid ministry). Some Anglicans and Lutherans even teach the real presence.

Some Lutherans differ from Catholic primarily in episcopal term-election, and non-sacramental ordination of bishops. Since this invalidates their priesthood in Catholic eyes, it is overlooked, but they genuinely don’t see the issue, and are often more protective of the Eucharist than some Catholics.

These are, in fact, the ones most likely to be attending… and they are the ones who most likely meet the requirements as well.

 

[FrDavid96]

Lutherans and Anglicans often (mistakenly) believe their priests to have valid orders, Rev. Fr. Many of them also believe in the real presence, and high-church Anglicans and some forms of Lutheranism even still have sacramental confession (invalid by Catholic standards due to lack of valid ministry). Some Anglicans and Lutherans even teach the real presence.

Some Lutherans differ from Catholic primarily in episcopal term-election, and non-sacramental ordination of bishops. Since this invalidates their priesthood in Catholic eyes, it is overlooked, but they genuinely don’t see the issue, and are often more protective of the Eucharist than some Catholics.

These are, in fact, the ones most likely to be attending… and they are the ones who most likely meet the requirements as well.

That’s exactly my point. If they believe that their remembrance of the Last Supper is actually Communion, and/or they believe that their invalidly-ordained priests are validly ordained, then they cannot at the same time believe what the Church requires: namely, that a validly ordained priest is necessary to consecrate the Eucharist.

In other words, one cannot believe in both valid Communion and invalid “communion” at the same time. The two ideas contradict each other.

 

[sedonaman]

Is the world going to end if we follow the rules?

 

[lutherlic]

Lutherans and Anglicans often (mistakenly) believe their priests to have valid orders, Rev. Fr. Many of them also believe in the real presence, and high-church Anglicans and some forms of Lutheranism even still have sacramental confession (invalid by Catholic standards due to lack of valid ministry). Some Anglicans and Lutherans even teach the real presence.

Some Lutherans differ from Catholic primarily in episcopal term-election, and non-sacramental ordination of bishops. Since this invalidates their priesthood in Catholic eyes, it is overlooked, but they genuinely don’t see the issue, and are often more protective of the Eucharist than some Catholics.

These are, in fact, the ones most likely to be attending… and they are the ones who most likely meet the requirements as well.

I was an ELCA Lutheran (after mergers; the majority of US Lutherans are ELCA Lutherans). Religious education varied widely. Many people were only somewhat familiar with Lutheran beliefs (including the real presence) at best. A brief course entitled “what Lutherans believe” was offered for anyone but no instruction was required to join. They also offer an “open table” for communion. They are absolutely NOT in any way more protective of the Eucharist than we are.

The smaller LCMS Lutherans are a different matter. My understanding of Anglicanism is that they vary widely.

 

[Aramis]

I was an ELCA Lutheran (after mergers; the majority of US Lutherans are ELCA Lutherans). Religious education varied widely. Many people were only somewhat familiar with Lutheran beliefs (including the real presence) at best. A brief course entitled “what Lutherans believe” was offered for anyone but no instruction was required to join. They also offer an “open table” for communion. They are absolutely NOT in any way more protective of the Eucharist than we are.

The smaller LCMS Lutherans are a different matter. My understanding of Anglicanism is that they vary widely.

The ELCA are, generally, full-on protestantism; they are often considered to out of touch and step with the other Lutheran synods… of which there are at least 4 operating in the US, possibly more; I’ve not kept up.

 

[Elene]

But that’s a common problem. People regularly use the word senile in the UK to mean a person who has a disease of the central nervous system. The correct use of the word senile means old age. I remember a former colleague using the phrase: “I’ve reached the statutory age of senility”. She was using the term correctly. She’d reached 65 the legal retirement age in the UK, the age which in effect the law said she was “old”. My objection to the misuse of this word is that a word which means old has become confused as a word that means someone has a dementia-type illness. This then leads to discrimination against older persons where they’re all labelled as having lost their mental faculties. That is wrong and unacceptable.

I have worked as a technical editor for medical publications in both the UK and the US. What you’ve said above is correct, but only for the UK. In the US, the usage above would be incorrect. Senility does not mean old age here, and to call someone senile in the US simply because he or she has reached a certain age would clearly be offensive.

We often don’t realize how different British and American English are until we get into the finer points of meaning

 

[elts1956]

Its not practical to interrogate each person who wishes to receive communion and its not possible with some in nursing homes.
The parish should make clear to the nursing home that they come to bring the eucharist to Catholic residents. Occasionally a few nonCatholics are going to “sneak through” but that’s just the way it goes.

There is a difference between interrogating all patients and asking for baptism/confirmation certificates and allowing openly non-Catholic people to recieve.

I would tell the Parish Priest; and if no positive result I would write to the Bishop.

The Eucharist should not be administered to non-Catholics; or lapsed Catholics.

Perhaps the Deacons time would be better spent instead of abusing the Eucharist to offer to provide RCIA to the non Catholics at the home; or present some other Ecumenical interactions – the Eucharist should not be used as a “get together” - it is not tea and biscuits.

Apparently this was being ignored by the Parish Priest. Check out the OP. I don’t think I misread it. Catechisis anyone?

 

[Being_Brave]

OP, that’s disturbing. Since I started attending Mass and realized just how important Eucharist is, I’m almost terrified just watching the Priest handle the bread and wine…I get nervous thinking he’s going to trip or someone is going to sneeze and startle him and he’ll spill or something…I have to laugh at myself for making it such a stressful event for myself, and I’m working on it I don’t take Eucharist, since I’m not technically Catholic yet and am in no shape to do so. That someone entrusted with that privilege would knowingly do that is just…wow.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I have worked as a technical editor for medical publications in both the UK and the US. What you’ve said above is correct, but only for the UK. In the US, the usage above would be incorrect. Senility does not mean old age here, and to call someone senile in the US simply because he or she has reached a certain age would clearly be offensive.

We often don’t realize how different British and American English are until we get into the finer points of meaning

Then you’ll also know there is some similarity: no one in the UK would thank you for calling them senile.

 

[mtngal25]

I believe in doing what the old rules did before the 60’s–no non Catholics should ever receive the Eucharist from a Catholic priest or another Catholic minister. One must adhere to all the teachings of the church and be formally admitted to the church in order to receive. To change this practice is to abuse the sacrament and cause confusion to Catholics. The Eucharist is what unites Catholics in the faith and it is attesting to a lie for anyone to give communion to someone who is not Catholic. In the old days we did not have this problem because only the priests gave out communion. If someone received without being Catholic, the priest did not know about it so the act lay on the shoulders of the recipient. Why become Catholic if one can receive without being Catholic? Then one does not have to follow the rules of the church or go to confession or think some sexual practices matter or whatever–just hop up and receive like all is hunky dory. I would not want to be a part of such a lax church with lax policies. I hate witnessing sacriledge, therefore, I would not attend a parish where this type of junk is going on. I stopped going to charismatic groups largely because they were giving communion to anybody who came along–even some Church of God people, so I was scandalized and quit going there. Instead, I attend the fssp parishes where they explain clearly who can recieve and who shouldn’t. Protestants should receive in their own churches and follow their own precepts and leave Catholic sacraments alone. They are just playing games to see if they can get away with it. Episcopalians used to do that in the past–sneak up and laugh about it. I knew some who did that and I reported them to the priest. That never happened again.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I believe in doing what the old rules did before the 60’s–no non Catholics should ever receive the Eucharist from a Catholic priest or another Catholic minister. One must adhere to all the teachings of the church and be formally admitted to the church in order to receive. To change this practice is to abuse the sacrament and cause confusion to Catholics. The Eucharist is what unites Catholics in the faith and it is attesting to a lie for anyone to give communion to someone who is not Catholic. In the old days we did not have this problem because only the priests gave out communion. If someone received without being Catholic, the priest did not know about it so the act lay on the shoulders of the recipient. Why become Catholic if one can receive without being Catholic? Then one does not have to follow the rules of the church or go to confession or think some sexual practices matter or whatever–just hop up and receive like all is hunky dory. I would not want to be a part of such a lax church with lax policies. I hate witnessing sacriledge, therefore, I would not attend a parish where this type of junk is going on. I stopped going to charismatic groups largely because they were giving communion to anybody who came along–even some Church of God people, so I was scandalized and quit going there. Instead, I attend the fssp parishes where they explain clearly who can recieve and who shouldn’t. Protestants should receive in their own churches and follow their own precepts and leave Catholic sacraments alone. They are just playing games to see if they can get away with it. Episcopalians used to do that in the past–sneak up and laugh about it. I knew some who did that and I reported them to the priest. That never happened again.

Well said and I fully agree with you. You do not say directly but imply that part of this problem may because of the existence of EMHC. However, from what the OP said the parish priest is fully aware of the situation and condones it. The “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Communion Policy” seems to have been initiated by a deacon.