Euacharist for all?

[coco2]

Does anyone know when the Church made rules about receiving the Eucharist? I know all of the rules, and the reasoning behind it, but I am praying for the day we have open Communion. It is hard for me to think that Christ would not want to come to someone through the Eucharist. I have occasionally not received for various reasons and it makes a difference in my week. I can literally tell when I haven’t received Christ in the Eucharist that week. I think my life is transformed because of the Eucharist, and I think that is why Christ gave it to us. Why on earth are we keeping others from receiving? Once again, I know the reasons. They have separated themselves from the truth, from the Church either by leaving the Church or through mortal sin. I guess these reasons frustrate me, and it always hits me hard during Holy Week, particularly Holy Thursday. We used to belong to a parish that had shared the first half of the Holy Thursday Mass with the Episcopal and Lutheran church. Right before liturgy of the Eucharist they would all file out and go to their respective churches for communion. I would always try to hold back tears because it seemed so wrong to me, deep in my soul. No one else ever seemed bothered by it, but it brought me great sadness and still does.

 

[Hans_W]

I can’t answer your question, but I reason the same way as you.

 

[lmelahn]

Does anyone know when the Church made rules about receiving the Eucharist? I know all of the rules, and the reasoning behind it, but I am praying for the day we have open Communion. It is hard for me to think that Christ would not want to come to someone through the Eucharist. I have occasionally not received for various reasons and it makes a difference in my week. I can literally tell when I haven’t received Christ in the Eucharist that week. I think my life is transformed because of the Eucharist, and I think that is why Christ gave it to us. Why on earth are we keeping others from receiving? Once again, I know the reasons. They have separated themselves from the truth, from the Church either by leaving the Church or through mortal sin. I guess these reasons frustrate me, and it always hits me hard during Holy Week, particularly Holy Thursday. We used to belong to a parish that had shared the first half of the Holy Thursday Mass with the Episcopal and Lutheran church. Right before liturgy of the Eucharist they would all file out and go to their respective churches for communion. I would always try to hold back tears because it seemed so wrong to me, deep in my soul. No one else ever seemed bothered by it, but it brought me great sadness and still does.

As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, those Christians who have retained the fullness of the faith in the Eucharist (the Eastern Orthodox as well as the Oriental Orthodox churches and the Assyrian Church of the East—this is not an exhaustive list) may receive the Eucharist in the Catholic Church. The faithful of those churches are urged, however, to follow the disciplines in their churches (which are usually more restrictive than ours).

Our current discipline, somewhat more open than that in force previously, dates from the 1983 Code of Canon Law. However, the idea that only Christians in full communion and good standing should receive the Eucharist dates at least to St. Paul:

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord (1 Cor. 11:27).

In other words, it is not really beneficial to receive the Eucharist when one is not ready to receive it (either through privation of sanctifying grace, or some defect of faith in the Sacrament), because doing so would not be respectful to Christ.

We must, however, pray that persons unable to receive will take the necessary steps to prepare themselves: going to the Sacrament of Reconciliation, or taking steps to join the Church, or whatever is necessary. Those who do not do so through no fault of their own will experience the mercy of God, and we can look forward to being in full communion together in Heaven.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Does anyone know when the Church made rules about receiving the Eucharist? I know all of the rules, and the reasoning behind it, but I am praying for the day we have open Communion.

Closed Communion is the rule from God, as mentioned by the St. Paul in Corinthians. The Church cannot change this.

 

[DeniseNY]

. Why on earth are we keeping others from receiving?.

By being in a state of mortal sin, we keep ourselves from receiving. I know that upon my return to the Church, and prior to getting up the courage to go to confession, I certainly did not feel worthy of receiving.

 

[Brendan_64]

We used to belong to a parish that had shared the first half of the Holy Thursday Mass with the Episcopal and Lutheran church. Right before liturgy of the Eucharist they would all file out and go to their respective churches for communion. I would always try to hold back tears because it seemed so wrong to me, deep in my soul. No one else ever seemed bothered by it, but it brought me great sadness and still does.

To receive the Eucharist a person must truly believe in what the Church teaches regarding the real presence, transubstantiation etc… Lutherans and Episcopalians do not believe as we do regarding the nature of the Eucharist.

Receiving the Eucharist at a Catholic Mass is a sign of communion with the Church. Episcopalians and Lutherans are not in communion with the Catholic Church.

There is a real danger that when we focus too heavily on our similarities at the expense of ignoring our differences, we sail very close to indifferentism, which is a heretical position.

 

[nodito]

I would always try to hold back tears because it seemed so wrong to me, deep in my soul. No one else ever seemed bothered by it, but it brought me great sadness and still does.

Of course it’s sad! We were meant to be one Church. Christian unity is something that Christ and His Church desires. We should pray for the day to come when we can all profess a shared belief. But until Protestants are able to do this with us, it does not benefit them to receive the Eucharist. In fact, it would be harmful, because whoever receives unworthily eats and drinks condemnation on themselves. So it is not that we are denying the Eucharist to anyone. The Church is eager to welcome them back in the fold when they feel ready.

 

[KCT]

Saying “Amen” means we believe it is so. If they don’t believe, why stand up and say “Amen”?

If they do believe, why are they not in RCIA?

 

[Hans_W]

To receive the Eucharist a person must truly believe in what the Church teaches regarding the real presence, transubstantiation etc…

Just thinking back to last Sunday, Easter Sunday. They had to slot in an extra service, so we had five services at our parish church, all chocker block full to capacity, more than 1000 people per service. Basically everybody went to communion.

If you had to test them individually beforehand about their belief in real presence, transubstantiation, their state in terms of mortal sin - I wonder how many would have been able to receive communion. But I am sure that they all benefited.

 

[KCT]

If you had to test them individually beforehand about their belief in real presence, transubstantiation, their state in terms of mortal sin - I wonder how many would have been able to receive communion. But I am sure that they all benefited.

I once heard a priest say that when we receive in a state of mortal sin, we bind ourselves more closely to our sins. Not sure that’s a benefit…

 

[jilly4ski]

I once heard a priest say that when we receive in a state of mortal sin, we bind ourselves more closely to our sins. Not sure that’s a benefit…

Indeed, what reason have we to amend our lives and cast away our sins if we can just go on and receive communion like normal.

 

[Hans_W]

I once heard a priest say that when we receive in a state of mortal sin, we bind ourselves more closely to our sins. Not sure that’s a benefit…

Coming back to that Easter service - obviously scores of Catholics attended who only visit the church twice a year. I can’t imagine anyone of them “having bound themselves closer to their sin” by receiving communion. Your priest will have judged them, but I don’t think that Christ rejected them if they wanted to receive Him with an open heart.

 

[Brendan_64]

If you had to test them individually beforehand about their belief in real presence, transubstantiation, their state in terms of mortal sin - I wonder how many would have been able to receive communion. But I am sure that they all benefited.

And if someone received Communion in a state of mortal sin, hence committing another sin of sacrilege when receiving, how would that be a benefit to them?

 

[Sy_Noe]

Coming back to that Easter service - obviously scores of Catholics attended who only visit the church twice a year. I can’t imagine anyone of them “having bound themselves closer to their sin” by receiving communion. Your priest will have judged them, but I don’t think that Christ rejected them if they wanted to receive Him with an open heart.

I personally don’t believe Christ would reject them either because He said in Jn 6 He would turn no one away. But I understand how faithful Catholics interpret Paul and that open communion is not what the Roman Church subscribes too.

 

[PTL]

The Mass is Christ’s wedding banquet. Remember the passage in the Gospel that one person attended the wedding banquet without proper wedding garment was thrown out?

People in mortal sin don’t have proper wedding garment on them; therefore, they are not supposed to receive the Eucharist. This is directly from the Gospel, directly from Christ himself. It is very clear.

 

[Vico]

Does anyone know when the Church made rules about receiving the Eucharist?..

St. Paul, excommunications: 1 Corinthians 5:5 1 Timothy 1:20Catechism of the Catholic Church

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

 

[FreeEver]

I occasionally watch EWTN and two shows in particular, The Journey Home, host, Marcus Grodi and Life on the Rock, host, Father Mark.

On each show, they interviewed individuals who publicly admitted receiving Holy Communion while not in the state of grace. Both individuals (males, ages 30’s – 40’s) upon receiving Holy Communion were deeply touched spiritually/psychologically in a positive manner. That is, they alleged that they could feel the presence of Our Lord and needed to change their life style to serve God instead of their own selfish whims.

Marcus did not challenge the individual (a fallen away Catholic for a number of years). Father Mark politely commended to the TV audience that the guest who at that time (years ago) was not Catholic should not have received Holy Communion in accordance with Church teachings.

I’m just commenting on this not to argue with anyone, but to point out only Our Lord can judge those individuals who elect to receive the Eucharist while not being free from mortal sin or in the state of grace,

Both individuals are now devout practicing Catholics.

God Bless and Peace to all.

 

[Tigg]

Just thinking back to last Sunday, Easter Sunday. They had to slot in an extra service, so we had five services at our parish church, all chocker block full to capacity, more than 1000 people per service. Basically everybody went to communion.

If you had to test them individually beforehand about their belief in real presence, transubstantiation, their state in terms of mortal sin - I wonder how many would have been able to receive communion. But I am sure that they all benefited.

To place the grave sin of sacrilege upon another mortal sin is beneficial? You’ll need to explain this one further!!

Sac·ri·lege (noun) the violation or profanation of anything sacred or held sacred…

Coming back to that Easter service - obviously scores of Catholics attended who only visit the church twice a year. I can’t imagine anyone of them “having bound themselves closer to their sin” by receiving communion. Your priest will have judged them, but I don’t think that Christ rejected them if they wanted to receive Him with an open heart.

While it is true we may never judge the state of another’s soul, I highly doubt they fooled the omniscient Christ no matter how much denial and/or delusion engulfed them. ** Lord, bring us into the light and be merciful**!

 

[Tigg]

I occasionally watch EWTN and two shows in particular, The Journey Home, host, Marcus Grodi and Life on the Rock, host, Father Mark.

On each show, they interviewed individuals who publicly admitted receiving Holy Communion while not in the state of grace. Both individuals (males, ages 30’s – 40’s) upon receiving Holy Communion were deeply touched spiritually/psychologically in a positive manner. **That is, they alleged that they could feel the presence of Our Lord and needed to change their life style to serve God instead of their own selfish whims. **

I’m just commenting on this not to argue with anyone, but to point out only Our Lord can judge those individuals who elect to receive the Eucharist while not being free from mortal sin or in the state of grace,

Both individuals are now devout practicing Catholics.

Actually, our Lord can use anything He wants to bring souls back to Himself. I can almost envision an extreme discomfort and compunction which could be used to enable them to repent. If they did indeed repent, that would be an occasion of extraordinary grace and if true, we give great glory to God. But this is completely different from those deceiving themselves by thinking they can obstinately remain in manifest grave sin without sorrow for that sin or without changing their life.

 

[His_helpmeet]

From what I’ve read, the Church has ALWAYS had closed Communion. In fact, in the early Church, those who were not baptized couldn’t even stay during the Liturgy of the Eucharist - they had to leave. (This is the origin of the dismissal of the catechumens and candidates after the Liturgy of the Word.)