Episcopalian Communion

[Contarini]

Hi Edwin,

For me I don’t see a logical or valid theological reason for this. I understand what the Church says but there seems to be no real coherent reason for this “ban”. I can see how that could be difficult for you. In my mind, taking communion somewhere where they practice open communion would, worst case scenario, be simply drinking wine or grape juice and eating bread. I mean theologically the worst case scenario is you took things that didn’t become the body and blood of Jesus.

The argument is that in a sense you’re “acting a lie,” pretending that Protestant Eucharist is Eucharist when it’s not. Also, it may be seen as blasphemous toward the real Eucharist.

My argument would be that I know, as surely as I know anything in the realm of religion, that I have received God’s grace through the sacrament in Protestant churches (not just Anglican), and it isn’t acting a lie to recognize that. The argument that Protestants (even Anglicans and, less convincingly, Lutherans) don’t quite recognize the Eucharist in the Catholic sense works in favor of allowing Catholics to receive communion in Protestant churches, I think. A Catholic can acknowledge Protestant Eucharist to be what Protestants (with the possible exception of Lutherans and Anglo-Catholic Anglicans) believe it to be.

Are you studying to become Catholic?

I rejoined RCIA this fall after having dropped out many years ago. I did not attend the meeting last night, mostly because of family pressures (Wednesday evenings are an extremely difficult time for me to get away) but to some extent also because of flagging certainty that this is something I should do. And that is mostly based on the fact that I’d be breaking communion with my family and with my other Anglican brothers and sisters.

I see you are Episcopalian? I hear a lot of people telling me that Liberal Catholics belong in the Episcopal Church.

I think that’s nonsense, but yes, you do hear that a lot.

Do you see a lot of Catholics coming in?

Relative to our numbers (we’re a very small denomination), yes. Relative to all the Catholics there are, or even all the folks who are leaving the Church (it’s been estimated that ex-Catholics would be the third largest religious body in America if they were a religious body), no. Some for doctrinal reasons, far more because they have gotten divorced. My best local Catholic friend (by that I mean that I know a lot of Catholics from grad school, etc., but he’s the Catholic in this town whom I know best) talked about becoming Episcopalian a few months ago, because he was fed up with stuff Catholic bishops were doing. I tried to talk him out of it, and after he visited our church he found it “too Protestant” (my wife and I choose the music, and often–including that Sunday–schedule a lot of evangelical hymns; also we’re way friendlier than Catholics find comfortable) and hasn’t been back.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

As a former Anglican I understand where you are coming from, and in my Protestant days I resented the fact that the Catholic Church did not deem it permissible for me to receive the Eucharist at a Catholic Mass.

I don’t resent that. As I said, I’m more concerned with the other way round. If the Catholic Church said, “You can still receive communion and otherwise participate fully in non-Catholic churches, but you must also believe everything we teach and otherwise submit to our discipline in order to receive communion with us,” I for one would have no problem submitting to that.

Nevertheless, I disagree with your statement that the Catholic position is somehow a lack of faith in the power of Communion to create unity among disunity. After all, several Protestant denominations have some form of Communion which is distributed to all those who desire to receive. And yet there are still separate denominations.

But it isn’t the “real” Eucharist, now is it?

I was being facetious, frankly.

Also, we have to ask what “denominations” are. After all, there are multiple geographically overlapping jurisdictional entities within Catholicism as well.

When I was an Anglican I frequently received Communion in Methodist churches and a variety of other Protestant services, and yet I felt no real unity with them.

Well, as someone who fairly regularly receives communion in Methodist churches (my parents are Methodists, and breaking communion with them is also a reason I have misgiving about becoming Catholic), I feel quite differently. . . . .

My Wesleyan roots have shaped me as a Christians, and I don’t want to renounce them. I want to act in a way that genuinely serves unity. I’m not sure that breaking communion with Christians I’m currently in communion with would do that. But if it were possible to be in communion with Rome and with those with whom I’m presently in communion (and that assumes that I would keep all the other requirements of being in communion with Rome), I’d definitely do it.

Moreover, Catholics themselves are not supposed to receive the Eucharist until they have undergone specific instructions in the sacrament. Wouldn’t it be odd to have such a requirement for Catholics and at the same time say it is ok for non-Catholics (without any such instructions and possibly not even accepting the doctrine of the Real Presence) to step up and receive the Eucharist at a Catholic Mass?

And that’s why I don’t have a problem with the Catholic position on non-Catholics (defined as people who don’t want to accept the doctrine and discipline of the Catholic Church) receiving communion. I do have a problem–admittedly stemming directly from my personal circumstances, but a real theological problem nonetheless–with the impossibility of entering into “full communion” with the Church without losing aspects of the faith (which would include actual fellowship with fellow Christians) one already possesses.

But this whole process and the idea it represents would be disrupted if Communion in Catholic Masses were suddenly open to whoever was interested in receiving.

I agree. What I’m daydreaming about is the possibility of people being admitted to communion in the Catholic Church based on a process of instruction (whether RCIA or not) designed to ascertain that their beliefs and moral/liturgical practice were conformable to that of the Catholic Church. The one reason I have for thinking that this may conceivably be possible is that there are reports that Pope JPII allowed Brother Roger of Taize to do this. Brother Roger was a Reformed Christian who apparently received communion from the Pope, while remaining also in full communion with the Reformed church.

If that can happen, then perhaps it should be discussed more openly and broadly.

Edwin

 

[runningdude]

…
Well, as someone who fairly regularly receives communion in Methodist churches (my parents are Methodists, and breaking communion with them is also a reason I have misgiving about becoming Catholic), I feel quite differently. . . . .

My Wesleyan roots have shaped me as a Christians, and I don’t want to renounce them. I want to act in a way that genuinely serves unity. I’m not sure that breaking communion with Christians I’m currently in communion with would do that. But if it were possible to be in communion with Rome and with those with whom I’m presently in communion (and that assumes that I would keep all the other requirements of being in communion with Rome), I’d definitely do it.
…
Edwin

By right of baptism, all Protestants share an imperfect communion with the Catholic Church. As Catholics, we desperately wish to share communion with all Christians, but we also have an obligation to protect them from “eating and drinking judgement upon themselves” (Saint Paul, 1 Corinthians 11:29) for receiving the Body and Blood of Christ without proper discernment.

 

[Contarini]

By right of baptism, all Protestants share an imperfect communion with the Catholic Church. As Catholics, we desperately wish to share communion with all Christians, but we also have an obligation to protect them from “eating and drinking judgement upon themselves” (Saint Paul, 1 Corinthians 11:29) for receiving the Body and Blood of Christ without proper discernment.

Got that. That’s not what I’m challenging. What I’m addressing is the situation (which happens to be mine) of a person ready to embrace everything the Catholic Church teaches except the requirement to separate himself from Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ.

Edwin

 

[runningdude]

Got that. That’s not what I’m challenging. What I’m addressing is the situation (which happens to be mine) of a person ready to embrace everything the Catholic Church teaches except the requirement to separate himself from Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ.

Edwin

But you see, by entering into a more perfect communion with Christ through the Catholic Church, you actually enter into a more perfect communion with all other Christians, Catholic or Protestant. We don’t see conversion to Catholicism as a “break”.

 

[Irishgal49]

But you see, by entering into a more perfect communion with Christ through the Catholic Church, you actually enter into a more perfect communion with all other Christians, Catholic or Protestant. We don’t see conversion to Catholicism as a “break”.

but it is a break–his friends and family see it that way–how to explain it to NON Catholics, not defend ourselves with each other is I think what he’s seeking.

 

[EricFilmer]

Got that. That’s not what I’m challenging. What I’m addressing is the situation (which happens to be mine) of a person ready to embrace everything the Catholic Church teaches except the requirement to separate himself from Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ.

Edwin

There is a separation, but only within certain situations. The separation experienced by Catholic converts with Protestants is not usually as radical as Jewish converts to Christianity (who, in many cases, are declared dead by their Jewish relatives). But regardless of how radical a separation there happens to be, Jesus taught us about such things as the “pearl of great price” (i.e., the willingness to give up everything to attain it; Matthew 13:45-46) and, "“No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God” (Luke 9:62, RSV). The idea is that in order to embrace the truths of Christ (and serve the kingdom of God on earth the way God intends) one will have to make sacrifices, and one should not put it off until another day.

Moreover, Jesus taught that by accepting him, there will be divisions within families and communities: “Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division; for henceforth in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three; they will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against her mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.” (Luke 12:51-53, RSV).

I realize that Jesus was addressing the problems that would arise when non-Christians became Christians, but I think that the same basic teaching can be applied in modern situations regarding Catholics and non-Catholic Christians. Protestants, of course, embrace truths of Christ, but the question at hand is, “How much?” From the Catholic perspective, the fullness of truth subsists in the Catholic Church. A lot of truth is found in Protestantism, but not the fullness. For example (once again, from the Catholic perspective), there are seven sacraments, not only one or two. Divine revelation comes from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, not Scripture alone (and so on). Along these lines, when I was an Anglican and discerned the truths of Catholicism, I felt there was an obligation for the sake of my spiritual journey in life to attend RCIA and become Catholic. This was not a popular decision among a number of my relatives, but enduring a period of family upheaval was part of the sacrifice I had to make. I still occasionally attend Protestant worship services with my family, but in accordance with Catholic instructions (i.e., I do not substitute the Mass for such events, and if communion is offered I respectfully decline). My family has since become very respectful of my Catholicism seeing as I have dispelled many misconceptions they had, and they have also observed what a positive effect the Catholic Faith has had on my life.

 

[Irishgal49]

By right of baptism, all Protestants share an imperfect communion with the Catholic Church. As Catholics, we desperately wish to share communion with all Christians, but we also have an obligation to protect them from “eating and drinking judgement upon themselves” (Saint Paul, 1 Corinthians 11:29) for receiving the Body and Blood of Christ without proper discernment.

(Edited) 1/3 of all Catholics DO NOT BELIEVE in transubstantiation. ONE THIRD. I have never heard one priest ever warn people about reasons not to receive. We don’t even warn our own. So much for discernment as many who don’t believe probably have no idea they shouldn’t receive.

 

[bmonk]

Without getting into the topic of who has and who hasn’t a valid Eucharist, let me emphasize that the Catholic Church’s position concerning the reception of the Eucharist challenges us (although sometimes in an uncomfortable way) to seek true unity rather than using things such as wedding Masses and funeral Masses as excuses for people to come together and pretend for an hour that the Body of Christ is not plagued by division.

I was thinking about this too–and you put it well. Perhaps we are too comfortable with the scandal of a divided Christianity–but unless it hurts, will we ever be moved to change the problem?

 

[EricFilmer]

(Edited) 1/3 of all Catholics DO NOT BELIEVE in transubstantiation. ONE THIRD.

To be honest, Irishgal49, I am leery about the accuracy of such published statements. I think many people (Catholics and otherwise) confuse belief with understanding. In other words, when such polls are taken, I think many Catholics are intending to state that they do not understand transubstantiation rather than intending to say that they fully reject the doctrine of transubstantiation. Naturally, this is just my opinion and presently I have no way of verifying this.

I have never heard one priest ever warn people about reasons not to receive.

For the record I have, but I agree that it is rarely done. As a side note, I have been in parishes where there are pamphlets in the narthex explaining who should and should not receive communion (with an explanation as to why). It would probably be a good idea if more parishes did this.

We don’t even warn our own. So much for discernment as many who don’t believe probably have no idea they shouldn’t receive.

I agree that lack of knowledge is a problem among Catholics, but I also think that it can be argued that the instructions are there, it’s just how well they are provided, and what the individual Catholic is willing to do in order to be fully informed about such matters. For example, the Catechism is available in all the many languages of the world. Adult Catholics have an obligation to know and follow Catholic teachings, and therefore every Catholic household should have a Bible and a Catechism (where they are actually read and studied). Every Catholic has an obligation to know about the the doctrines of the faith and the consequences of a “persistent, post-baptismal rejection of a Catholic doctrine or dogma” (i.e., the basic definition of heresy, the penalty of which is automatic excommunication [the act of heresy itself imposes such a penalty; it does not have to be imposed by a bishop or other Church official]).

The problem is that there are too many people who fill up the hours of the week with TV, sports, magazines, gossip, phone conversations, Facebook (and other computer related activities) and so forth. They learn about Catholicism in CCD or RCIA, but then forget much of what they learned, and decide to rely on a weekly 10 minute homily from a priest to keep them informed about Catholic teaching. Such an attitude is immature, unrealistic, and spiritually negligent. The attitude is, “If a priest or deacon doesn’t specifically tell me about a Church teaching, I don’t have to know it or follow it, nor should anyone even expect me to.”

Also, in terms of the subject at hand, one also has to recognize that (according to Canon Law), Catholics have the right to receive the sacraments (at appropriate times). So there are cases when certain Catholics should exclude themselves from receiving the Eucharist, but if they don’t then they are still exercising their right to receive. Priests are not to refrain from giving them communion unless the priest is fully aware that they are not in a state of grace (and other factors such as public scandal may come into play as well). As a general rule, priests have no way of discerning among the congregation who does and who does not reject the doctrine of transubstantiation.

 

[Contarini]

But you see, by entering into a more perfect communion with Christ through the Catholic Church, you actually enter into a more perfect communion with all other Christians, Catholic or Protestant.

But that isn’t true. If I have been receiving communion with fellow Christians and then I stop, that’s a break. Whether you want to describe it that way or not is irrelevant.

And that’s even before we get into the fact that my wife is discerning ordination in the Episcopal Church. . . .

Edwin

 

[runningdude]

But that isn’t true. If I have been receiving communion with fellow Christians and then I stop, that’s a break. Whether you want to describe it that way or not is irrelevant.

And that’s even before we get into the fact that my wife is discerning ordination in the Episcopal Church. . . .

Edwin

It is a break, and can be a painful break, but no one said the demands of Christ were easy. However, Christ assures us the eternal awards are worth it.

“And everyone who has given up houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands for the sake of my name will receive a hundred times more, and will inherit eternal life.”

NAB Matthew 19:29

If your wife is willing to dedicate herself to God, then she should be in a better understanding than most people should you feel the need to dedicate yourself through conversion to Catholicism.

 

[Contarini]

It is a break, and can be a painful break

Fine. But that’s not what you said in #25.

If your wife is willing to dedicate herself to God, then she should be in a better understanding than most people should you feel the need to dedicate yourself through conversion to Catholicism.

Yes, actually I see a lot of parallels between the two processes of discernment (and our bishop made this comparison as well when we explained the situation to him).

Edwin

 

[runningdude]

Fine. But that’s not what you said in #25.

You are nitpicking. Catholics don’t see conversion as a break in communion, because there is no true sacramental communion among Protestants.

It could be a painful “break” in human relationships, but it is more importantly a more perfect union with Christ.

Yes, actually I see a lot of parallels between the two processes of discernment (and our bishop made this comparison as well when we explained the situation to him).

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

You are nitpicking. Catholics don’t see conversion as a break in communion, because there is no true sacramental communion among Protestants.

It could be a painful “break” in human relationships, but it is more importantly a more perfect union with Christ.

It’s not nitpicking, but I get what you are saying. To you there’s no break, because you think there’s no true sacramental communion among Protestants. Well, the word “true” can mean a lot of things. There is something that is not just human relationships (important as those are) but is based on faith in Christ.

Let me put it this way: I came to believe in the sacraments through experiencing Protestant sacraments. To then deny that there’s some kind of sacramental communion among Protestants would be kicking away the ladder by which I climbed. It would be both illogical and unjust.

Edwin

 

[runningdude]

It’s not nitpicking, but I get what you are saying. To you there’s no break, because you think there’s no true sacramental communion among Protestants. Well, the word “true” can mean a lot of things. There is something that is not just human relationships (important as those are) but is based on faith in Christ.

Let me put it this way: I came to believe in the sacraments through experiencing Protestant sacraments. To then deny that there’s some kind of sacramental communion among Protestants would be kicking away the ladder by which I climbed. It would be both illogical and unjust.

Edwin

You know, I actually get where you are coming from. I’ve stopped to consider what it would take to make me leave Catholicism. Would it take mere attrition? Nope. An appearance by an angel? Nope, because Satan can appear in angelic form. Could it be an appearance from Jesus? As far as I’m concerned, I’ve already met Jesus through the sacrament of the Eucharist, and He didn’t tell me to leave!

What I concluded was that only a movement from the Holy Spirit could cause me to renounce my faith, because Christ promised that where there is the Holy Spirit, there is the Church. It is through the Holy Spirit that the sacraments are celebrated, communion confected. If the Holy Spirit moved me away, it would be because the Church I was in was untrue, and if I turned down the Holy Spirit’s guidance towards the true Church, that would be the only unforgivable sin.

I take back what I said about there being no “sacramental” relationship among Protestants; baptism does fill you with sacramental grace! I’ve even seen the Holy Spirit work among Protestants - the Lord works in mysterious ways! However, it is only before the blessed sacrament, the Eucharist, within a Catholic Church, that I’ve personally felt the full unity of the Trinity; the Holy Spirit and the Body of Christ in union with Father. I can’t prove it anymore than that, but that is my gut feeling and the source of my faith.

Its tough. Leaving Protestantism, you would still be united with them in Baptism if not Communion. I will pray that the Holy Spirit provide you and your wife guidance through your discernment.

R.D.

 

[CleverUserName]

Episcopalian teaches itself to be a “third branch” of Catholicism. It sees itself, the Catholic Church, and the Orthodox Churches as all equivalent to each other. It often extends this to Lutherans and other Protestants. Because of this false “equivalency”, they wrongly believe that their communion is objectively identical to the Catholic Church’s.

Episcopalians invite everybody, so that all can experience’s Christ love through communion. It is a noble intention, but problematic for Catholics.

As Catholics, we have access to the true Body of Christ. By receiving from Anglicans who claim their church and communion are equivalent to our own, we are implicitly accepting this claim.

We are called to proclaim the truth of Jesus Christ through our every action. Merely “snacking” at another church doesn’t cut it!

I recently attended a memorial service at an Episcopalian Church, and all members of the congregation were invited to receive the bread and wine, so it is important to know why it is not permitted to do so! Fortunately, I had a lot of other Catholic relatives that also sat out, so I didn’t stick out for not receiving .

They have a lot of the “smells and bells” of Catholicism. The liturgy I attended was very reverent, though celebrated by a woman minister. The words used were nearly identical to the Mass before the recent revisions. It even used communion rails!

It shares many spiritual elements with Catholicism with an Anglican (Episcopalian) touch, many of them beautiful in their own right. This is why Pope Benedict carved out a special nook for the Anglican converts to maintain some of these traditions in the Personal Anglican Ordinates established in several countries.

Excellent,concise post

 

[Prophet_of_doom]

I am trying to understand why I can’t take communion in an Episcopalian Church? I believe the Catholic Church’s teaching on Transubstantiation completely. The Episcopalian Church says it believes in the “real presence” but haven’t really defined what that means exactly.

Assuming they are not meaning it the way we are why is it a big deal if I have “refreshments” because that would be all that it is right? So where’s the crime in a shot of wine and an oyster cracker? I see it as just having a snack. I would feel like I was being a snob to say no when people are being kind and giving an invitation. If you go ahead and have communion why is that a sin? I guess I need to read on this more–any guidance on reading materials would be appreciated.

BTW, this is hypothetical, I’m not going there to church. I was just reading about them because someone said they were the “same” as Catholics in a lot of ways but I found them to be very vague and not specific on what they mean when they give theological viewpoints. I heard they were “Catholic Lite” but I wasn’t impressed. I got the impression you could “write your own ticket” and that usually gets me in trouble.

Thanks,

Lorrie

Change the question and reverse it. When a christian church, with whom we share a common baptism, a common Lords Prayer and a common creed, celebrates the Eucharist does ANYBODY believe that Christ departs from this Eucharist on the grounds that the celebrant went to the wrong seminary, was ordained by not quite the right bishop with not quite the right words? Remember Christs response when the apostles complained that a couply of guys were curing the sick and they “are not one of us” . Christ insisted that the two guys were left alone and that what was done in his name was good and sound and he reminded the apostles that “… those who are not against us…” etc. If we ask the question “When does Christ DEPART from the bread and wine?!” perhaps we would get a more loving answer, a more Christ like answer from within your heart and from the Spirit. Work on it, pray on it, the loving and spirit filled answer will reveal in your heart.

 

[Irishgal49]

Change the question and reverse it. When a christian church, with whom we share a common baptism, a common Lords Prayer and a common creed, celebrates the Eucharist does ANYBODY believe that Christ departs from this Eucharist on the grounds that the celebrant went to the wrong seminary, was ordained by not quite the right bishop with not quite the right words? Remember Christs response when the apostles complained that a couply of guys were curing the sick and they “are not one of us” . Christ insisted that the two guys were left alone and that what was done in his name was good and sound and he reminded the apostles that “… those who are not against us…” etc. If we ask the question “When does Christ DEPART from the bread and wine?!” perhaps we would get a more loving answer, a more Christ like answer from within your heart and from the Spirit. Work on it, pray on it, the loving and spirit filled answer will reveal in your heart.

That is very nicely stated, thank you for such a warm answer.

 

[muffindell]

Change the question and reverse it. When a christian church, with whom we share a common baptism, a common Lords Prayer and a common creed, celebrates the Eucharist does ANYBODY believe that Christ departs from this Eucharist on the grounds that the celebrant went to the wrong seminary, was ordained by not quite the right bishop with not quite the right words? Remember Christs response when the apostles complained that a couply of guys were curing the sick and they “are not one of us” . Christ insisted that the two guys were left alone and that what was done in his name was good and sound and he reminded the apostles that “… those who are not against us…” etc. If we ask the question “When does Christ DEPART from the bread and wine?!” perhaps we would get a more loving answer, a more Christ like answer from within your heart and from the Spirit. Work on it, pray on it, the loving and spirit filled answer will reveal in your heart.

The only bit of sense in the whole thread! We must ask is it the doctrine that we follow or the words of Christ and his followers (they were there after all!)?