Holy Eucharist

[toothdigger]

In the Didache, I found a passage on the Eucharist which implied that anyone who is baptized may partake.

In Pope Paul VI’s DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (1964) I found a passage which implied that a catechumen who has professed his or her intention to join the Catholic faithful has already been accepted by Mother Church.

So… my question is: If one truly believes in the real presence of Christ in that which only appears to be bread and wine, and if one has decided to convert, what prevents one from partaking…

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

In the Didache, I found a passage on the Eucharist which implied that anyone who is baptized may partake.

In Pope Paul VI’s DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (1964) I found a passage which implied that a catechumen who has professed his or her intention to join the Catholic faithful has already been accepted by Mother Church.

So… my question is: If one truly believes in the real presence of Christ in that which only appears to be bread and wine, and if one has decided to convert, what prevents one from partaking…

Actually it should be read that anyone who is not Baptized cannot receive Communion.

 

[toothdigger]

“But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord…”

from one translation…

 

[jmcrae]

Toothdigger;

Back in 50 AD, when the Didache was written, people didn’t get Baptised until they had completed all of their Sacramental Preparation - 7 years of RCIA. Of course, they were also baptizing their children and bringing them up as Catholics, but the issue of unprepared people at the table of the Eucharist who had received Baptism had not yet arisen. (10 years later, St. Paul wrote his famous Letter to the Corinthians, describing some problems with unprepared people being at the table of the Eucharist, so you can see that it didn’t take very long for that problem to come about, and the need for extra post-baptismal training for those who had been baptized as infants began to be apparent).

In Pope Paul VI’s DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (1964) I found a passage which implied that a catechumen who has professed his or her intention to join the Catholic faithful has already been accepted by Mother Church.

A Catechumen, of course, is an unbaptized person who is undergoing the RCIA process, in preparation to receive the Sacraments of Initiation in the following order:

Baptism
Confirmation
First Holy Communion

If he dies before reaching the Sacraments of Initiation, he will receive a Catholic burial, since it will be presumed that he had received Baptism by Desire.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

At the time of the Didache, there were no ‘Protestants’. In fact, there was not even a compilated “scripture” as we know it. People who were baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit were baptized into the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church–not into a Baptist, Lutheran, Episcopal, Assembly of God or non-denomination church.

While Catholics acknowledge a trinitarian baptism from one of those denominations (and others) as valid baptism, (sorry this doesn’t include Jehovah Witness or Mormons) that doesn’t mean that the baptism alone is the only requirement for worthy reception of the Eucharist, or even baptism and belief in the Real Presence.

The Didache is neither “scripture” nor sacred tradition. Catholics use Scripture and tradition through the guidance of the Holy Spirit to understand Christ’s teachings.

 

[jmcrae]

“But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord…”

from one translation…

Of course, in later documents we see that baptized persons who had become separated from the Church due to apostasy or heresy needed to be restored to the Church before returning again to the Table of the Eucharist - they could not just show up one day and start receiving again.

It’s the same with people today who are born into separated Christian communities. They need to be taught the truths of the Faith by attending Catechism classes, either through private instruction or by sitting in on RCIA Catechesis, then attend the Sacrament of Reconciliation, and then be brought into the Church through the Sacrament of Confirmation after making a public Profession of Faith, before they begin to receive the Eucharist in the Catholic Church.

 

[toothdigger]

While Catholics acknowledge a trinitarian baptism from one of those denominations (and others) as valid baptism, (sorry this doesn’t include Jehovah Witness or Mormons) that doesn’t mean that the baptism alone is the only requirement for worthy reception of the Eucharist, or even baptism and belief in the Real Presence.

Okay.
So, would you agree that Protestants have a “valid” Communion in the same manner that they have a valid baptism, assuming they baptize in the trinitarian manner?

 

[John_Lilburne]

Okay.
So, would you agree that Protestants have a “valid” Communion in the same manner that they have a valid baptism, assuming they baptize in the trinitarian manner?

Yes, I would agree with this. The Roman Catholic Church allows for this in the Code of Canon Law, canon 844 §4:
“If there is a danger of death or if, in the judgement of the diocesan Bishop or of the Bishops’ 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.”
(The Code of Canon Law: New revised English Translation, HarperCollins Liturgical, 1997, ISBN 000599375X, page 197).

The sacraments being referred to are penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick.

 

[palmas85]

Yes, I would agree with this. The Roman Catholic Church allows for this in the Code of Canon Law, canon 844 §4:
“If there is a danger of death or if, in the judgement of the diocesan Bishop or of the Bishops’ 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.”
(The Code of Canon Law: New revised English Translation, HarperCollins Liturgical, 1997, ISBN 000599375X, page 197).

The sacraments being referred to are penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick.

The problem with this is that the overwhelming majority of Protestants, yes, including those baptized in the Trinitarian formula, reject completely the Catholic belief in transubstantiation and consider it to be superstitious and blasphemous in the extreme. I doubt the average Protestant would even want to receive Holy Communion from the Catholic Church given how most of them feel about our beliefs.

There are scattered groups, Anglicans, Lutherans, Episcopalians for example that do accept some type of transformation but on most cases even they cannot explain exactly what they believe. So as I see it, any communion they receive in their own faith is merely symbolic and cannot approach in any way what the Catholic Church has Therefore any type of reception of Holy Communion by them must be done only in truly extraordinary and rare cases, to avoid any possibility of profanation and sacriliege.

 

[toothdigger]

The problem with this is that the overwhelming majority of Protestants, yes, including those baptized in the Trinitarian formula, reject completely the Catholic belief in transubstantiation and consider it to be superstitious and blasphemous in the extreme. I doubt the average Protestant would even want to receive Holy Communion from the Catholic Church given how most of them feel about our beliefs.

There are scattered groups, Anglicans, Lutherans, Episcopalians for example that do accept some type of transformation but on most cases even they cannot explain exactly what they believe. So as I see it, **any communion they receive in their own faith is merely symbolic **and cannot approach in any way what the Catholic Church has Therefore any type of reception of Holy Communion by them must be done only in truly extraordinary and rare cases, to avoid any possibility of profanation and sacriliege.

My question (as I meant it anyway) was: Do Protestants have a valid Communion with the Lord? I ask this because I think it is a crucial question for Jesus said that unless we eat of Him and drink of Him we have no part in Him… Yet Catholics appear to accept that Protestants are ‘saved.’ This is my question: how do these two seemingly opposing ideas mesh?

As you indicate: the Protestant Communion appears to be only
symbolic…

How is this enough to bring a Protestant into Christ’s family? Yet, Jesus also said that if you believe in your heart and confess with your mouth, you are saved…

 

[jmcrae]

Okay.
So, would you agree that Protestants have a “valid” Communion in the same manner that they have a valid baptism, assuming they baptize in the trinitarian manner?

I’m not sure that John Linburne is actually answering the question that I’m seeing here - correct me if I’m wrong, but are you not asking whether we believe that the ritual done in Protestant churches that goes by the name “Holy Communion” is a valid communion?

If that’s your question, then my answer would have to be “no.”

The reason is that although the Sacrament of Baptism can be conferred by anyone who has the sincere intention of doing so, the Sacrament of Holy Communion can only be conferred by a priest who has been validly ordained by a valid Bishop.

Since Protestants (generally speaking) haven’t got any valid Bishops, it isn’t possible for them to have a valid communion, because there is no one in their assembly who is qualified either to confect it or to distribute it.

This is different than saying that, under certain very specialized emergency conditions, Protestants could receive a valid Holy Communion from a Catholic priest, since what the Catholic priest would be giving to the Protestant would in fact be a valid Eucharist.

Protestants themselves are unable to confect a valid Eucharist in their ceremonies, however.

 

[toothdigger]

Yes, I would agree with this. The Roman Catholic Church allows for this in the Code of Canon Law, canon 844 §4:
“If there is a danger of death or if, in the judgement of the diocesan Bishop or of the Bishops’ 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.”
(The Code of Canon Law: New revised English Translation, HarperCollins Liturgical, 1997, ISBN 000599375X, page 197).

The sacraments being referred to are penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick.

Thanks for the quote from Canon Law. My other question: What is being ‘properly disposed?’

And what might the ‘demonstration of the Catholic faith’ be? :ehh:

 

[toothdigger]

I’m not sure that John Linburne is actually answering the question that I’m seeing here - correct me if I’m wrong, but are you not asking whether we believe that the ritual done in Protestant churches that goes by the name “Holy Communion” is a valid communion?

If that’s your question, then my answer would have to be “no.”

The reason is that although the Sacrament of Baptism can be conferred by anyone who has the sincere intention of doing so, the Sacrament of Holy Communion can only be conferred by a priest who has been validly ordained by a valid Bishop.

Since Protestants (generally speaking) haven’t got any valid Bishops, it isn’t possible for them to have a valid communion, because there is no one in their assembly who is qualified either to confect it or to distribute it.

This is different than saying that, under certain very specialized emergency conditions, Protestants could receive a valid Holy Communion from a Catholic priest, since what the Catholic priest would be giving to the Protestant would in fact be a valid Eucharist.

Protestants themselves are unable to confect a valid Eucharist in their ceremonies, however.

You are correctly interpreting my question. Does it not follow, then, that other ‘christians’ are not Christian at all? at least not if you take Christ’s words literally - that if you do not eat and drink of Him, you have no part in Him?:crying:

 

[toothdigger]

A Catechumen, of course, is an unbaptized person who is undergoing the RCIA process, in preparation to receive the Sacraments of Initiation in the following order:

Baptism
Confirmation
First Holy Communion

If he dies before reaching the Sacraments of Initiation, he will receive a Catholic burial, since it will be presumed that he had received Baptism by Desire.

So, would it follow that a baptized Christian (preparing to undergo the RCIA or a process much like it) who died before completing that process would, in fact, be treated like a Catholic in terms of burial?

 

[John_Lilburne]

Thanks for the quote from Canon Law. My other question: What is being ‘properly disposed?’

And what might the ‘demonstration of the Catholic faith’ be? :ehh:

I think “properly disposed” means understanding oneself to not be in a state of mortal sin, as would apply to a Catholic going to Communion.

One commentary about “demostration of the Catholic faith” has:
“… This does not mean that the person needs detailed knowledge about the theology of the sacrament in question, but only that the recipient believes in the essential meaning of the sacraments. For example, in reference to the reception of the Eucharist, it suffices that the recipients believe the consecrated bread and wine is spiritual food, the body and blood of the Lord. (See cans. 889, §1 and 913, §2). …”
(John Huels, The Pastoral Companion, Franciscan Press, 1995, ISBN 0-8199-0968-8, page 347.)

The canons he refers to, 889 and 913, could be looked up in the Code of Canon Law at vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM .

 

[toothdigger]

I think “properly disposed” means understanding oneself to not be in a state of mortal sin, as would apply to a Catholic going to Communion.

One commentary about “demostration of the Catholic faith” has:
“… This does not mean that the person needs detailed knowledge about the theology of the sacrament in question, but only that the recipient believes in the essential meaning of the sacraments. For example, in reference to the reception of the Eucharist, it suffices that the recipients believe the consecrated bread and wine is spiritual food, the body and blood of the Lord. (See cans. 889, §1 and 913, §2). …”
(John Huels, The Pastoral Companion, Franciscan Press, 1995, ISBN 0-8199-0968-8, page 347.)

The canons he refers to, 889 and 913, could be looked up in the Code of Canon Law at vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM .

Does it follow that a Protestant who has decided to convert to Roman Catholicism and believes that the Eucharist is the true body and true blood of the Lord Jesus could at least request to participate in that part of the mass?

And, thank you for the link. I will take a look at it…

 

[toothdigger]

Does it follow that a Protestant who has decided to convert to Roman Catholicism and believes that the Eucharist is the true body and true blood of the Lord Jesus could at least request to participate in that part of the mass?

And, thank you for the link. I will take a look at it…

And it says:
“Can. 912 Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion.”

What law? The Canon? or secular law?

 

[toothdigger]

And it says:
“Can. 912 Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion.”

What law? The Canon? or secular law?

“Can. 923 The Christian faithful can participate in the eucharistic sacrifice and receive holy communion in any Catholic rite, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 844.”

“Can. 843 §1. Sacred ministers cannot deny the sacraments to those who seek them at appropriate times, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.”

So: what exactly does “without prejudice to the prescript of…” mean?

 

[jmcrae]

So, would it follow that a baptized Christian (preparing to undergo the RCIA or a process much like it) who died before completing that process would, in fact, be treated like a Catholic in terms of burial?

Yes.

 

[jmcrae]

And it says:
“Can. 912 Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion.”

What law? The Canon? or secular law?

Canon law.

Non-Catholics are prohibited from receiving Holy Communion by canon law, other than in extraordinary life/death circumstances.