Legalisms and the Eucharist?

[Michaeljc4]

I was at mass yesterday, and we read Gal 2:16, 19-21

Brothers and sisters:
We who know that a person is not justified by works of the law
but through faith in Jesus Christ,
even we have believed in Christ Jesus
that we may be justified by faith in Christ
and not by works of the law,
because by works of the law no one will be justified.
For through the law I died to the law,
that I might live for God.
I have been crucified with Christ;
yet I live, no longer I, but Christ lives in me;
insofar as I now live in the flesh,
I live by faith in the Son of God
who has loved me and given himself up for me.
I do not nullify the grace of God;
for if justification comes through the law,
then Christ died for nothing.

I’ve also just finished reading a fictionalized account of St. Paul’s missions by Walter Wangerin titled (somewhat unimaginatively), Paul. It’s a good book, and it shows how much Paul railed against the legalisms of the Jewish Christians: you much be circumcised, you must be purified, you must do this, you must do that…you get the idea.

In the front of the missal book at church, there is a rather lengthy discussion of who can, and can’t, receive communion during mass. I was struck by how…legalistic it sounded; just the sort of thing that Paul was desperate to get away from. I couldn’t help but make the comparison between what I was reading about excluding non-Catholic Christians and Paul’s words about being justified by faith in Christ, not in works of the law.

So…I’m pretty confused. Aren’t all the rules and rigmarole in the Catholic Church similar to the legalisms and “works of the law” in Paul’s letters? It seems like we have put barriers in the way of the Lord’s Supper…and I don’t think that’s what Jesus had in mind.

Can someone help to clarify this for me? I am asking legitimately, not trying to fight or argue, but to have this explained. When I see the Protestants sharing communion with anyone who wants it, I can’t help but wonder if they might be on to something. I suspect this topic has been covered over the past 600 years or so…

Charity, please, in your answers. I am not a theologian, just a lay person struggling to figure it all out.

 

[LilyM]

Why is it considered legalistic to adhere to Paul’s injunction to recieve the Eucharist worthily, properly discerning the Body and Blood, so as not to eat and drink our own damnation? He himself commanded us to take care with receiving the Eucharist.

The only real requirements are

a) to be in a state of grace (no unconfessed mortal sin)
b) to be Catholic - fair enough, as for us communion implies real unity of belief, and
c) to respect the Eucharist by observing the appropriate fast of an hour before communion (hardly onerous, unless you have some medical condition in which case you’re exempt!)

Everything else is padding and elaboration.

To understand these basic and easy requirements, you have to appreciate the importance, sacredness and power of the Eucharist. Paul speaks of both spiritual and physical sickness, even death, being visited upon those who received unworthily.

Plenty of people used to, up until a century ago, habitually recieve only a handful of times a year, or even less (hence the minimum requirement to do so yearly). They knew Who it was they were receiving when they did this, and were very careful not to disrespect Him by receiving Him unworthily. And were almost certainly a whole lot better off spiritually for that appreciation and carefulness.

It would be remiss in the extreme to allow any old one to recieve the Body and Blood of Christ to their own condemnation, without determining, for everyone’s peace of mind, under what circumstances you can receive!

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

This is one of the great debates that is ongoing in the church. The institution is far from perfect over the years. For various reasons different sects have broken off at different times due to failures of the organization at the time. There have been many attempts by all levels of the church to try to reconcile this. I was told my my priest a couple of years ago he was at an Eastern Orthodox service and he was refused under their laws and he has tried his best to make others welcome when they cannot receive communion (e.g. recieve blessing) being of a different sect (this was during a huge funeral of a local youth and almost everyone in town wanted to come). The RCC is not alone in rules like this, old grudges die hard for no more reason that it is “tradition”.

Other attempts have been with political and social stances (e.g. withholding communion over “pro-abortion” (really misleading term) and same-gender rights and unions from both politicians and regular laypeople.

Personally, as a frequent EM, I give it to everyone and would even if there was an statement from the bishop (but mine is not the type to do that).

 

[rpp]

Paul’s point in criticizing the legalism of the Jew was that that was the essence of their spirituality. They would do things without faith. They would go through the motions all the while plotting sinful activity in their heart.

The Church’s teachings are designed and intended to lead people to personal holiness, not to merely carry out certain actions.

Do not confuse a legalistic attitude with a desire to follow the laws of God.

Also, I think this topic better belongs on the “Moral Theology” or general “Apologetics” forums.

 

[rpp]

This is one of the great debates that is ongoing in the church. The institution is far from perfect over the years. For various reasons different sects have broken off at different times due to failures of the organization at the time. There have been many attempts by all levels of the church to try to reconcile this. I was told my my priest a couple of years ago he was at an Eastern Orthodox service and he was refused under their laws and he has tried his best to make others welcome when they cannot receive communion (e.g. recieve blessing) being of a different sect (this was during a huge funeral of a local youth and almost everyone in town wanted to come). The RCC is not alone in rules like this, old grudges die hard for no more reason that it is “tradition”.

Other attempts have been with political and social stances (e.g. withholding communion over “pro-abortion” (really misleading term) and same-gender rights and unions from both politicians and regular laypeople.

Personally, as a frequent EM, I give it to everyone and would even if there was an statement from the bishop (but mine is not the type to do that).

This is a totally misleading answer. And I am shocked that you would distribute Holy Communion to someone in disobedience to your Bishop.

What is most shocking is that you are wither a deacon or a priest (You identified yourself as an “EM”) and therefore should know better.

 

[LilyM]

This is one of the great debates that is ongoing in the church. The institution is far from perfect over the years. For various reasons different sects have broken off at different times due to failures of the organization at the time. There have been many attempts by all levels of the church to try to reconcile this. I was told my my priest a couple of years ago he was at an Eastern Orthodox service and he was refused under their laws and he has tried his best to make others welcome when they cannot receive communion (e.g. recieve blessing) being of a different sect (this was during a huge funeral of a local youth and almost everyone in town wanted to come). The RCC is not alone in rules like this, old grudges die hard for no more reason that it is “tradition”.

Other attempts have been with political and social stances (e.g. withholding communion over “pro-abortion” (really misleading term) and same-gender rights and unions from both politicians and regular laypeople.

Personally, as a frequent EM, I give it to everyone and would even if there was an statement from the bishop (but mine is not the type to do that).

I like the quote from the previous poster here - it is NOT the virtue of charity to confirm or encourage people in their sin. Nor is it Christlike. On the contrary, it is a work of mercy to admonish the sinner (in all gentleness and love, of course, but all sin must be shunned and condemned)

And yet that is precisely what you are doing by giving communion to pro-abortion politicians or Rainbow Sashers etc - confirming and encouraging them in their public and unrepentant sin. You are an accomplice to it in fact - every bit as sinful as they.

Christ was generous in his forgiveness to sinners, but always insisted that they sin no more.

 

[Michaeljc4]

b) to be Catholic - fair enough, as for us communion implies real unity of belief, and

But that’s what I don’t understand. I can see how the Church teaches that only a priest can transubstantiate bread into the body of Christ (the sacrament of Holy Orders, apostolic succession, etc.). Why aren’t other Christians allowed to partake? If you are a Christian and a Methodist or something, why wouldn’t you be able to participate in the Eucharist, especially since it’s so central to the faith?

 

[rpp]

I like the quote from the previous poster here - it is NOT the virtue of charity to confirm or encourage people in their sin. Nor is it Christlike. On the contrary, it is a work of mercy to admonish the sinner (in all gentleness and love, of course, but all sin must be shunned and condemned)

And yet that is precisely what you are doing by giving communion to pro-abortion politicians or Rainbow Sashers etc - confirming and encouraging them in their public and unrepentant sin. You are an accomplice to it in fact - every bit as sinful as they.

Christ was generous in his forgiveness to sinners, but always insisted that they sin no more.

Well said, LilyM

 

[LilyM]

But that’s what I don’t understand. I can see how the Church teaches that only a priest can transubstantiate bread into the body of Christ (the sacrament of Holy Orders, apostolic succession, etc.). Why aren’t other Christians allowed to partake? If you are a Christian and a Methodist or something, why wouldn’t you be able to participate in the Eucharist, especially since it’s so central to the faith?

BECAUSE to be Methodist or anything other than Catholic or Orthodox ISN’T to be truly unified with the faith as passed on from the Apostles. Hence our concern with Apostolic succession for all Bishops and Priests! A concern that most of our Protestant brethren don’t share. Even those who do have, from our perspective, long lost Apostolic succession in any event.

Remember, most Protestants don’t share our beliefs about the very nature of the Eucharist itself - don’t believe in the Real Presence, nor in transubstantiation. How can we share Eucharist with people who disagree with us about such very fundamental matters?

It seems odd that you happily accept that only a Catholic priest can consecrate the Eucharist, yet you’d permit communion to Methodists who DON’T accept that only Catholic priests can do so, but think their own can as well

 

[Michaeljc4]

It seems odd that you happily accept that only a Catholic priest can consecrate the Eucharist, yet you’d permit communion to Methodists who DON’T accept that only Catholic priests can do so, but think their own can as well

Good point. I actually just looked it up (and found the answer, oddly enough, on a website called Catholic Answers…that is, this one!) If one doesn’t believe in the reality of transubstantiation–if someone thinks the Eucharist is just a symbol, not the actual body of Christ, they aren’t “getting” it, and shouldn’t be allowed to receive it. Now I understand.

Transubstantiation is the hardest doctrine of the Church for me to accept. It is the great Mystery, and it’s what makes the Catholic Church so different from all of the other Christian Churches (it’s not the only thing, obviously, but it’s a biggie). I’ve been giving it a lot more thought lately, trying to get my head around it. It’s quite mind boggling. Scary. Exciting, too. Requires a lot of faith.

I’m working on it. Pray for me, please, and thanks for helping me out.

 

[rpp]

There are many aspects regarding the Precious Body and Blood of Chirst we receive in the Holy Eucharist.

When you receive Holy Communion, you are stating that you agree with everything the Church teaches on matters of faith and morals.

Also, there are real problems when a person receives Holy Communion in an unworthy state.

‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]

If you read the entire context of this verse, you will see that Holy Communion is not merely a meal or just something that a bunch of friends share as a welcoming gesture. It is serious business, as serious as it gets.

God bless you, Michaeljc4. I hope these answers help you to better understand.

 

[rpp]

Oh, you mentioned looking at articles on this site. Have you seen this one?

“The Real Presence” catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp

 

[Michaeljc4]

Thanks, rpp! When I first came back to the Church after an 18 year absence, I focused on social justice issues (which I still love). Now I’m working–hard–on the things that still baffle me. The Real Presence is one of them, and while it may be something obvious to you (and many others), it’s still something I struggle with. Being a Catholic is hard. Perhaps that’s why people say “I am a practicing Catholic.” Maybe if I keep practicing, I’ll get good at it.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

I like the quote from the previous poster here - it is NOT the virtue of charity to confirm or encourage people in their sin. Nor is it Christlike. On the contrary, it is a work of mercy to admonish the sinner (in all gentleness and love, of course, but all sin must be shunned and condemned)

And yet that is precisely what you are doing by giving communion to pro-abortion politicians or Rainbow Sashers etc - confirming and encouraging them in their public and unrepentant sin. You are an accomplice to it in fact - every bit as sinful as they.

Christ was generous in his forgiveness to sinners, but always insisted that they sin no more.

I view pronouncements like those to come from teachings that are under much debate and have been issued in a hostile-like way. I view the most common terms related to abortion to be highly politicized right now which leads to over-simplified distortions (e.g. “pro-abortion” does not equal “pro-choice”, it is not that simple).

Also, shunning people is not what was meant in the scriptures. I am sympathetic to the acceptance movement of same-gender couples. They are loving, good, charitable, spiritual people and appear to be placed in the scapegoat position as the “issues” around them did not come to prominence until after the hierarchical sex scandles. They appear to have taken on an type neo-leper reputation. Even Jesus embraced the lepers of his time who were driven out of their areas due to physical differences.

I guess I would say that my philosophy comes from trying to focus on the persons’ positives and not on their negatives. We are all fallible humans and have our own faults.

 

[LilyM]

Thanks, rpp! When I first came back to the Church after an 18 year absence, I focused on social justice issues (which I still love). Now I’m working–hard–on the things that still baffle me. The Real Presence is one of them, and while it may be something obvious to you (and many others), it’s still something I struggle with. Being a Catholic is hard. Perhaps that’s why people say “I am a practicing Catholic.” Maybe if I keep practicing, I’ll get good at it.

Hey, remember doctors and lawyers call their businesses a ‘practice’ as well - and for the same reason!

 

[LilyM]

I view pronouncements like those to come from teachings that are under much debate and have been issued in a hostile-like way. I view the most common terms related to abortion to be highly politicized right now which leads to over-simplified distortions (e.g. “pro-abortion” does not equal “pro-choice”, it is not that simple).

Also, shunning people is not what was meant in the scriptures. I am sympathetic to the acceptance movement of same-gender couples. They are loving, good, charitable, spiritual people and appear to be placed in the scapegoat position as the “issues” around them did not come to prominence until after the hierarchical sex scandles. They appear to have taken on an type neo-leper reputation. Even Jesus embraced the lepers of his time who were driven out of their areas due to physical differences.

I guess I would say that my philosophy comes from trying to focus on the persons’ positives and not on their negatives. We are all fallible humans and have our own faults.

Not shunning people - not ever. I have very close relationships with people from all walks of life and who indulge in all sorts of behaviours. It is certainly possible to be clear that you don’t accept a certain behaviour or behaviours, but to do so in a charitable and respectful way - just as it is possible to politely disagree on any other issue.

Jesus didn’t shun people, of course not, but neither did he confirm them in their sins. And remember the lepers he healed were suffering from a physical illness, not sin!

And if you call me hostile to sin, I’ll take that as the greatest compliment ever! Everyone who sincerely follows Christ MUST be hostile to sin (although not to sinners). Are you seriously saying that homosexuality isn’t a sin? St Paul certainly would disagree with you there. Or that abortion isn’t a sin? The commandment ‘thou shalt not kill’ would disagree with you there.

How DID Christ treat those who WERE sinful - the Pharisees, the buyers and sellers in the Temple? He made his disapproval of their sin (though not of themselves) plain as day. Called them whited sepulchres, hypocrites, serpents, drove them out of the Temple with whips! Even the woman in adultery, though he was gentle to her personally, he commanded to ‘go and sin no more’. The opposite of what these politicians and Rainbow Sashers are doing.

And if they had presented themselves at the Last Supper (which Judas DIDN’T receive, or at least not while in his sins) He would have refused them. He certainly rebuked Judas for kissing him in the Garden!

By giving someone the Eucharist you are giving approval of their behaviour and lifestyle, saying plainly that you view it to be no sin to be homosexual, in spite of St Paul’s clear condemnation of it, no sin to support abortion - murder! That’s why you are every bit as sinful as they if you choose to do so.

 

[rpp]

I view pronouncements like those to come from teachings that are under much debate and have been issued in a hostile-like way. I view the most common terms related to abortion to be highly politicized right now which leads to over-simplified distortions (e.g. “pro-abortion” does not equal “pro-choice”, it is not that simple).

Also, shunning people is not what was meant in the scriptures. I am sympathetic to the acceptance movement of same-gender couples. They are loving, good, charitable, spiritual people and appear to be placed in the scapegoat position as the “issues” around them did not come to prominence until after the hierarchical sex scandles. They appear to have taken on an type neo-leper reputation. Even Jesus embraced the lepers of his time who were driven out of their areas due to physical differences.

I guess I would say that my philosophy comes from trying to focus on the persons’ positives and not on their negatives. We are all fallible humans and have our own faults.

The Church’s teachings on abortion and homosexual activity are not up for debate.

Abortion is always evil. Homosexual activity is always evil. People of thr same gender cannot marry. Heterosexual activity outside of marriage is alway evil. Shunning people simply because they sin is always evil. Receiving Holy Communion with unconfessed grave sins on the recipeints’ conscience is always evil.

These Church has always taught these things. Furthermore, the Church does not posses the ability to change her teaching on this as these are part of the revealed Truth from God. These are part of the doctrines of the Church.

It is important to be compassionate. But it is not compassionate to tell someone that it is okay to do something which is evil and may lead to the destruction of their soul. It is tantamount to a doctor telling a patient with heart disease that eating salty french fries, fried chicken and smoking cigarettes is no big deal. Sure the patient likes to do those things, but they may lead to his early death. If a doctor fails to admonish his patient’s poor eating habits, we would not call him compassionate.

 

[Greg27]

I agree legalism is a sin, if people think they can kick other people out from their prescence because they are ‘unworthy’ in some way of being in their prescence. Jesus did associate with sinners and forgived their sins, as the beautiful story from Luke’s Gospel in this week’s lectionary cycle showed us.

In terms of the CC not allowing people communion, what it asks for is people examine their moral conscience before taking communion. Clearly everyone who goes to church is a sinner in some way, so in my view it would be problematic if one person started to point out someone and say ‘I don’t believe this person is worthy to receive communion for reason x or reason y’; then the priest would have to do a fairly detailed examination of everyone, as there are probably plenty of people who go to communion who have sins which may be serious but they have not confessed.

The only way to formally bar a person from the eucharist would be to excommunicate them, which a bishop might do to a politician who votes in favour of abortion (though so far no bishop has actually exercised this power), or else the priest in his discretion refuses to give someone who is openly and gravely sinning in such a public way it is scandalous to the church and the congregation. Otherwise a person has to bar themself according to their conscience. I think most people would know when to do this.

Any Catholic well advanced in their spiritual life knows when a sin seriously hurts their relationship with God and needs serious and immediate repentance and amending through confession to God, and I think the same applies to Orthodox and Protestants as well (it is interesting how holy people in all branches of Christendom are deeply aware of sin which is lethal and kills the prescence of God, whatever it is.)

If we are talking about a contentious moral/political issue like abortion, I think the same applies. If I rejected the teaching of the CC on a wide range of issues, I would just leave the Church. If I had doubts about one or two matters, I’d contemplate them in some detail and how they relate to my relationship with God and why I go to the CC. In terms of personal sin, one must examine how that sin impacts on your relationship to God, to others, and to the church, and on your journey to God. One must sound out the depths of one’s soul at all times…whether or not one is a member of the CC.

 

[banjo]

I couldn’t help but make the comparison between what I was reading about excluding non-Catholic Christians and Paul’s words about being justified by faith in Christ, not in works of the law.

Michael,

It’s also important to understand what St. Paul means when he uses the phrase “works of the Law”. The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible; Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch; Ignatius Press, contains an excellent essay about this phrase.

 

[rpp]

I agree legalism is a sin, if people think they can kick other people out from their prescence because they are ‘unworthy’ in some way of being in their prescence. Jesus did associate with sinners and forgived their sins, as the beautiful story from Luke’s Gospel in this week’s lectionary cycle showed us.

In terms of the CC not allowing people communion, what it asks for is people examine their moral conscience before taking communion. Clearly everyone who goes to church is a sinner in some way, so in my view it would be problematic if one person started to point out someone and say ‘I don’t believe this person is worthy to receive communion for reason x or reason y’; then the priest would have to do a fairly detailed examination of everyone, as there are probably plenty of people who go to communion who have sins which may be serious but they have not confessed.

The only way to formally bar a person from the eucharist would be to excommunicate them, which a bishop might do to a politician who votes in favour of abortion (though so far no bishop has actually exercised this power), or else the priest in his discretion refuses to give someone who is openly and gravely sinning in such a public way it is scandalous to the church and the congregation. Otherwise a person has to bar themself according to their conscience. I think most people would know when to do this.

Any Catholic well advanced in their spiritual life knows when a sin seriously hurts their relationship with God and needs serious and immediate repentance and amending through confession to God, and I think the same applies to Orthodox and Protestants as well (it is interesting how holy people in all branches of Christendom are deeply aware of sin which is lethal and kills the prescence of God, whatever it is.)

If we are talking about a contentious moral/political issue like abortion, I think the same applies. If I rejected the teaching of the CC on a wide range of issues, I would just leave the Church. If I had doubts about one or two matters, I’d contemplate them in some detail and how they relate to my relationship with God and why I go to the CC. In terms of personal sin, one must examine how that sin impacts on your relationship to God, to others, and to the church, and on your journey to God. One must sound out the depths of one’s soul at all times…whether or not one is a member of the CC.

Greg27, this was well said, particularly the last paragraph. Thank you. Very charitable too.