Newbie struggling with Closed Communion

[japhy]

meaning until everyone becomes Catholic?

God-willing! Yes, the Catholic Church, the one Church of Christ, desires strongly that all who call themselves “Christian” may be united in her. The Second Vatican Council said as much:
In His Church He instituted the wonderful sacrament of the Eucharist by which the unity of His Church is both signified and made a reality. (Unitatis Redintegratio 2)

When such actions are undertaken prudently and patiently by the Catholic faithful, with the attentive guidance of their bishops, they promote justice and truth, concord and collaboration, as well as the spirit of brotherly love and unity. This is the way that, when the obstacles to perfect ecclesiastical communion have been gradually overcome, all Christians will at last, in a common celebration of the Eucharist, be gathered into the one and only Church in that unity which Christ bestowed on His Church from the beginning. We believe that this unity subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time. (Unitatis Redintegratio 4)

The way and method in which the Catholic faith is expressed should never become an obstacle to dialogue with our brethren. It is, of course, essential that the doctrine should be clearly presented in its entirety. Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism, in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss and its genuine and certain meaning is clouded. At the same time, the Catholic faith must be explained more profoundly and precisely, in such a way and in such terms as our separated brethren can also really understand. (Unitatis Redintegratio 11)

Baptism therefore establishes a sacramental bond of unity which links all who have been reborn by it. But of itself Baptism is only a beginning, an inauguration wholly directed toward the fullness of life in Christ. Baptism, therefore, envisages a complete profession of faith, complete incorporation in the system of salvation such as Christ willed it to be, and finally complete ingrafting in eucharistic communion. Though the ecclesial Communities which are separated from us lack the fullness of unity with us flowing from Baptism, and though we believe they have not retained the proper reality of the eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Orders, nevertheless when they commemorate His death and resurrection in the Lord’s Supper, they profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and look forward to His coming in glory. Therefore the teaching concerning the Lord’s Supper, the other sacraments, worship, the ministry of the Church, must be the subject of the dialogue. (Unitatis Redintegratio 22)
Yes, the Catholic Church really does want every Christian to be a Catholic Christian. She wants every human being to be a Catholic Christian. To say anything else, to desire anything less, would be unthinkable.

Also, it should be noted that the Catholic Church absolutely believes that unity of faith (doctrine, things to be believed) is a necessity for true communion with her. She has believed this since the beginning. That is why St. Paul struggled so hard to keep all the churches he wrote to in line with the same doctrine. The Church must be Catholic, i.e. universal.

 

[FastLearner]

But it is. You must be in Communion with the Catholic Church and accept her teachings to receive Holy Communion at her services.

To receive Communion you must be Catholics, but not all Catholics should receive Communion. There’s a difference there.

The requirement to receive Communion is that you’re in a state of grace, in good standing with the Catholic Church, and that you’ve confessed your mortal sins. Non-Catholics can’t fulfill these requirements, obviously, but that doesn’t mean that, by virtue of being a Catholic, you “get” Communion. Catholics aren’t entitled to it, which is how many non-Catholics believe Communion “works”. They get upset because they perceive that it’s sole purpose is to divide the people at Mass into Catholic and non-Catholic.

 

[Majobe]

When you are engaged, you have deep love and in your heart you are committed to the other person - however, you cannot yet share the communion of your bodies.

After the wedding, what seems to be a simple little service, you are “entitled” to fully commune with the one you love.

Right now, you are engaged. You are waiting.

Wow ,well said ,you’ve helped me explain it in simple terms.Our priest normally says not every one believes in Transubstantiation.We Catholics believe that the bread and wine actually changes while protestants believe that it doesn’ t change it is only a symbol reminding us of the last supper.Then there is no way that a person will share with us when we do not have the same belief.

Peace be with you.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

To receive Communion you must be Catholics, but not all Catholics should receive Communion. There’s a difference there.

The requirement to receive Communion is that you’re in a state of grace, in good standing with the Catholic Church, and that you’ve confessed your mortal sins. Non-Catholics can’t fulfill these requirements, obviously, but that doesn’t mean that, by virtue of being a Catholic, you “get” Communion. Catholics aren’t entitled to it, which is how many non-Catholics believe Communion “works”. They get upset because they perceive that it’s sole purpose is to divide the people at Mass into Catholic and non-Catholic.

Yes, this I why I said

You must be in Communion with the Catholic Church and **accept her teachings **to receive Holy Communion at her services

I qualified your response which seemed to indicate that non-Catholics in the state of grace could receive. You must be Catholic AND in the state of grace, which is why I referenced the parable of the wedding garment.

Lux

 

[redrosetea]

Communion is a privilege and not a right…With it comes grave responsibilities…and to drink and eat in a state of mortal sin bring punisments

If people long for the Eucharist so badly why wouldn’t they convert? They want the perks without the sacrifice

 

[DebChris]

To receive Communion you must be Catholics, but not all Catholics should receive Communion. There’s a difference there.

The requirement to receive Communion is that you’re in a state of grace, in good standing with the Catholic Church, and that you’ve confessed your mortal sins. Non-Catholics can’t fulfill these requirements, obviously, but that doesn’t mean that, by virtue of being a Catholic, you “get” Communion. Catholics aren’t entitled to it, which is how many non-Catholics believe Communion “works”. They get upset because they perceive that it’s sole purpose is to divide the people at Mass into Catholic and non-Catholic.

When Joan of Arc was asked if she was in a state of grace, she replied, “If I am in a state of grace, I pray God keep me there, and if I am not I pray that God bring me into the state of grace.”
We may not receive Holy Communion if we are in a state of mortal sin, which is a rejection of God’s grace. One of the healing qualities of the Eucharist that is often overlooked is its ability to remove venial sin, its power to bring us into the state of grace if we are somehow lacking. “For the righteous man sins seven times a day.”
Mortal sin still needs to be removed through the Sacrament of Reconciliation before receiving the Eucharist. We must be reconciled to Christ and to His Church.

 

[palmas85]

FrDavid96;5472113:

Please look at it from this perspective:

The Church does not have “closed Communion” There is no such thing. There is only Communion.

You say that you have a difficult time imagining that if Christ were personally present, he would deny anyone’s participation. Absolutely right. No doubt about it.

The Church does not deny anyone the Sacraments, least of all Holy Communion. Everyone, without any exception, may receive Communion in the Church. …

The door is always

open.

Thank you so much, FrDavid. Finally, I see an answer that is compassionate and

consistent with the Church’s emphasis on unity and community. I’m closer, but I’m still searching for an explanation that rests peacefully in my soul. Most Catholics don’t seem to recognize how awful it feels to not be able to freely receive communion. It’s not so much about being excluded from the group that hurts. What hurts is feeling excluded from Christ. But the Holy Spirit continues to work on me through people like you. And I’m feeling closer to Him every day as a result. Thanks again for your thoughtful responses.

I must assume here that you are speaking about yourself here.

Remember, very few if any true Protestants believe that when a Catholic receives Holy Communion, he or she is receiving the Body and Blood of Christ. They just don’t believe it, So how could being excluded from eating a piece of bread, which to them it is, be hurtful?

In the case of a Catholic who cannot receive because he or she is in a state of mortal sin it is good to remember that they themselves put themselves in that position. I know that I have many many times in my life.

I believe that you said you could not receive because your marriage had not been annulled. Have you re-married? If not, and you are not having intimate relations with someone you can certainly receive Holy Communion, provided you are in a state of grace and have the right intent. Merely having a civil divorce does not preclude one from receiving the sacraments.

 

[DebChris]

Awork(name removed by moderator)rogress;5475668:

FrDavid96;5472113:

…
In the case of a Catholic who cannot receive because he or she is in a state of mortal sin it is good to remember that they themselves put themselves in that position. I know that I have many many times in my life.

I believe that you said you could not receive because your marriage had not been annulled. Have you re-married? If not, and you are not having intimate relations with someone you can certainly receive Holy Communion, provided you are in a state of grace and have the right intent. Merely having a civil divorce does not preclude one from receiving the sacraments.

Not receiving is painful. It is one of the reasons that so many Catholics feel that unless we do receive Communion during Mass that we have not attended. This sense of loss leads us to the Confessional, to the reconciliation that Christ offers.True, going to Mass on Sunday meets the obligation, but the emptiness remains.
Unrelated to the Sacrament, there was a time when I was so angry at God, at the situation in which I found myself that I told Him to “get lost,” something that I will never do again. God never leaves us, yet He allowed me to feel that abandonment. I could not stand a single week of not having God in my life.

God is close to the broken hearted. He is close to the person whose spouse has abandoned the marriage. Divorce by no means excludes a person from the Sacraments. What excludes a person is sin. It is remarriage that is seen as adultery, and the reason that a person who has remarried (without a decree of nullity) has excluded himself or herself from the Sacraments of the Church.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Hi again,

I think we’re getting a little off track here. the OP was

But what I’m not ready to accept is that a protestant, who approaches the altar with a genuine desire to commune with Christ, would be receiving it in an unworthy manner.

It is not as much unworthy, since none of us are worthy, it is that we must be in communion with the Catholic Church to receive the sacraments entrusted to her by Jesus himself. The Church has this responsibility and authority, and it is not up to an individual to decide the teachings are not correct.

Non-Catholics should respect the teachings, if they wish to worship in a Catholic Church. There are many churches which teach differently, and it would be best to attend one which teaches what a person believes, rather than ignore Catholic teaching in a Catholic Church.

Lux

 

[JimG]

I try to explain that the requirement to receive Communion isn’t that you’re Catholic, but that you’re in a state of grace and have confessed your mortal sins. Non-Catholics that can’t confess and Catholics that haven’t confessed shouldn’t receive Communion because it physically harms their soul. Unfortunately, the modern “conveyor belt” style of Communion where everyone goes up solely because they’re Catholic undermines this argument.

This comment has a good deal of merit. The current method of having the ushers send up people for communion row by row, sort of makes the implicit assumption that everyone will be receiving. There should never be such an assumption, and it makes those not receiving unduly stand out.

I grew up with a different practice. At communion time, those who wished to receive, left their pews and approached the altar, at random. No usher went up row by row. It was understood that not everyone had to receive, and there was no implied stigma for not receiving. (Even the fast from midnight helped, as a person might simply ‘break his fast’ by having a drink of water in the morning if he felt unworthy to receive that day.)

 

[DebChris]

This comment has a good deal of merit. The current method of having the ushers send up people for communion row by row, sort of makes the implicit assumption that everyone will be receiving. There should never be such an assumption, and it makes those not receiving unduly stand out.

I grew up with a different practice. At communion time, those who wished to receive, left their pews and approached the altar, at random. No usher went up row by row. It was understood that not everyone had to receive, and there was no implied stigma for not receiving. (Even the fast from midnight helped, as a person might simply ‘break his fast’ by having a drink of water in the morning if he felt unworthy to receive that day.)

The practice, regardless of where I have attended Mass, has always been for the usher to maintain order in the church by having the ushers stop by each pew so that anybody in that pew who wanted to receive Communion could go forward. It does not mean that the person who may not, or who chooses not to receive stands out except perhaps within the person’s own family. If it is difficult to return to my seat, it is possible to go through a pew behind where I was seated, break into line and retake my seat.
This type of usher directed order is even more important in large churches than it is in small. The person who does not receive does not stand out any more than the person unable to contribute to the basket as it comes around.

I did not cite my source for the following which I think I copied from the pope’s encyclical on the Eucharist:
“Amen” expresses a personal belief in the Eucharist; it manifests a need and desire for the Lord. It is an open profession of belief in the presence of Christ in the eucharistic bread and wine, as well as his Body, the Church.

 

[Victorious]

This comment has a good deal of merit. The current method of having the ushers send up people for communion row by row, sort of makes the implicit assumption that everyone will be receiving. There should never be such an assumption, and it makes those not receiving unduly stand out.

I grew up with a different practice. At communion time, those who wished to receive, left their pews and approached the altar, at random. No usher went up row by row. It was understood that not everyone had to receive, and there was no implied stigma for not receiving. (Even the fast from midnight helped, as a person might simply ‘break his fast’ by having a drink of water in the morning if he felt unworthy to receive that day.)

This is reason no. 4,278 for having a three-hour fast before Communion. A one-hour fast doesn’t provide much cover for those who can’t receive for one reason or another. (Not that we ought to be making judgments about people who stay seated for Communion, but, well, we humans are our potty little selves.)

You know, there’s another consideration behind closing Communion to non-Catholics, which has been touched on, and that is the danger of desecration. I’m not suggesting that all non-Catholics want to take the Eucharist in order to desecrate it (though this does happen, and some Catholics do it too, to their shame). But how many non-Catholics join the herd going to Communion and receive It, don’t know what to do with It, and then start looking for ways to dispose of It? Look at the big scandal with the Prime Minister of Canada receiving Communion and apparently putting the Host in his pocket. And a couple of years ago, our rector addressed the congregation at the end of Mass about the fact that Hosts were being found on the floor, smashed between the pages of missalettes, and even in the garbage.

Of course, there’s no way to know for sure who’s doing this, but isn’t it most likely to be people who don’t believe and don’t realize the enormity of what they’re doing? I think lack of understanding probably mitigates guilt, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be prevented as far as possible. After all, we are talking about the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ here, and this is something we should go out of our way to safeguard.

(Incidentally, as bad as it is to toss the Host into the trash, or cram it into a missalette, or throw it on the floor, I suspect that those who do fully understand, and do intend deliberately to desecrate the Sacred Species, are apt to do far worse things.)

 

[DebChris]

When I received First Communion, the fast was three hours. I have heard stories of the number of people who fainted due to fasting before Communion. I accept the shortening of the required fast time as a pastoral decision of the Magisterium. A single hour means that a person is not distracted by hunger pains and can concentrate on the celebration of the Mass. But I digress from the original purpose of this thread.
Many non-Catholic denominations actually have breakfast immediately before their worship service. A friend of mine visited a non-Catholic service in which members of the congregation actually ate during the service. This eating minimized the reverence due Him whom we claim to worship.
A Baptist pastor was surprised when I refused breakfast at his church because I had not yet been to Mass. He was a great cook and I knew what I was missing. When I explained that I needed to be hungry for the spiritual food I would receive, he was surprised. It was an idea he had never considered.

A few years back, the local bishop required all priests of the diocese to teach and review the proper disposition and how to receive the Eucharist. This included brushed teeth if a person chose to receive on the tongue and clean hands properly cupped (As St. Cyril says to form a throne) for those of us who receive in this manner.
One of the priests was from NY where descrecation of the Eucharist is a felony. EMCHs are trained to observe those who receive. The minister of the cup is not to let a person pass by him/her with host in hand.
The Eucharist for Catholics is more than a symbol representing Christ. It is Jesus Christ whom we receive Body, Soul, and Divinity. We receive this marvelous gift in awe and thanksgiving.
Unlike natural food that changes to become part of the body, it is we who nourished by the Body of Christ become what we have received.

 

[JimG]

Fainting from a 3 hour fast? That seems rather odd to me. I grew up at a time when one could take no food or water from midnight until receiving communion. Nobody fainted. But when we went to having Saturday vigil Masses and afternoon Mass, a 3 hour fast seemed a reasonable compromise.

 

[DebChris]

Fainting from a 3 hour fast? That seems rather odd to me. I grew up at a time when one could take no food or water from midnight until receiving communion. Nobody fainted. But when we went to having Saturday vigil Masses and afternoon Mass, a 3 hour fast seemed a reasonable compromise.

These are minimum times. Therefore, people fast for longer periods then 3 hours, or the current hour obligation. When we go to Mass, it is never desirable that our thoughts be on “getting it over with so that I can eat.” Growling stomachs can be a very real distraction. Again, I did hear stories from those present when individuals did faint from hunger.
Pastoral exceptions are made for individuals who because of health concerns such as age and Diabetes need to eat more frequently.
I think this discussion of past and present required fasts may take us away from the original question.
When we receive the Eucharist, we make a public statement about what we believe. We come with a certain disposition that recognizes the host as more than mere bread and wine. We receive the Bread of Life. We receive Christ.
Amen, amen I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you…Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him (John 6:54,56)

If you prepare for it with care and enter into it with faith, the Eucharist can draw you into the compelling love of Christ and set you afire. When you go out from the sacred mystery, you know you were caught up in it if you ‘grasp by deed what you hold by creed.’ And if you return to the place where the Blessed Sacrament is kept, Christ present in the tabernacle, you can regain your sense of the fathomless love his present there silently speaks.

 

[JimG]

These are minimum times. Therefore, people fast for longer periods then 3 hours, or the current hour obligation. When we go to Mass, it is never desirable that our thoughts be on “getting it over with so that I can eat.” Growling stomachs can be a very real distraction. Again, I did hear stories from those present when individuals did faint from hunger.
Pastoral exceptions are made for individuals who because of health concerns such as age and Diabetes need to eat more frequently.
I think this discussion of past and present required fasts may take us away from the original question.
When we receive the Eucharist, we make a public statement about what we believe. We come with a certain disposition that recognizes the host as more than mere bread and wine. We receive the Bread of Life. We receive Christ.
Amen, amen I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you…Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him (John 6:54,56)

If you prepare for it with care and enter into it with faith, the Eucharist can draw you into the compelling love of Christ and set you afire. When you go out from the sacred mystery, you know you were caught up in it if you ‘grasp by deed what you hold by creed.’ And if you return to the place where the Blessed Sacrament is kept, Christ present in the tabernacle, you can regain your sense of the fathomless love his present there silently speaks.

Yes, I agree completely. Catholics receive the actual body and blood of Jesus at communion–Jesus in his entirety. Yet often one could not appreciate that fact from observing the manner in which we receive. Pre-communion fasts are simply a recognition of, and preparation for, what we are about to do and who we are about to receive.

 

[Leonius]

I am so glad that I chose to join the Catholic Church. But closed communion almost kept me from embracing Catholicism. (I have yet to make my first communion because my annulment has not yet been granted. I will admit, despite my comments that follow, that the postponement of the Eucharist for me increases my longing, which will surely enrich that first communion experience.)

Nevertheless:
I have a difficult time imagining that if Jesus were really present at the Table that he would deny me and my devout, non-Catholic, Christian friends and family this sacred meal.

And yet, the Catholic Church is the only one that claims He is Really Present there, which ironically, is the thing that makes me want to be Catholic the most!

I understand the transubstantiation and 1 Corinthians 11:27-32 argument.

But what I’m not ready to accept is that a protestant, who approaches the altar with a genuine desire to commune with Christ, would be receiving it in an unworthy manner.

Thanks in advance for your help and prayers.

Protestants do not have the Faith, they do not believe all that God has revealed, that is enough to make them unworthy.

What you imagine about Jesus is immaterial, it is what He actually commands us through His Church that matters. You must rid yourself of this mentality that you get to decide who Christ is. Christ is real, He has revealed Himself He is not ours to mould into whatever we want Him to be, we must accept Him as He really is.

 

[michaeldaniels]

The Eucharist is the Source and Summit of our Faith…Do you understand confession? And that sacramental confession is the only way to remove the stain of mortal sin from your soul and restore Sanctifying Grace…which is the only state you can receive The Most Blessed Sacrament in…therefore, non Catholics not only are excluded because they do not truly believe it is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ…but they are also unable to receive because they do not have the benefit of Sacramental Confession which would put them in the correct state to allow them to receive…And let me tell you something about Catholicism…this isn’t protestantism…you can’t pick and choose what you will agree with and accept…If it is doctrine/dogma…or part of the deposit of faith, you must accept it…otherwise, what separates you from the heretics?..You don’t have to understand it, but you must accept it and follow it.

I am so glad that I chose to join the Catholic Church. But closed communion almost kept me from embracing Catholicism. (I have yet to make my first communion because my annulment has not yet been granted. I will admit, despite my comments that follow, that the postponement of the Eucharist for me increases my longing, which will surely enrich that first communion experience.)

Nevertheless:
I have a difficult time imagining that if Jesus were really present at the Table that he would deny me and my devout, non-Catholic, Christian friends and family this sacred meal.

And yet, the Catholic Church is the only one that claims He is Really Present there, which ironically, is the thing that makes me want to be Catholic the most!

I understand the transubstantiation and 1 Corinthians 11:27-32 argument.

But what I’m not ready to accept is that a protestant, who approaches the altar with a genuine desire to commune with Christ, would be receiving it in an unworthy manner.

Thanks in advance for your help and prayers.

 

[deb216]

But what I’m not ready to accept is that a protestant, who approaches the altar with a genuine desire to commune with Christ, would be receiving it in an unworthy manner.

Anyone who can stand in the Presence of the Lord and say, “no miracle has taken place here. This is not the Body and Blood of Christ Jesus. It is just wine and wafers to be shared amongst believers…” is, by definition, unworthy. In my opinion, they should stick to their symbolic communion until they are truly ready for the real thing. When that happens, they will swim the Tiber and become Catholic.