Non-Catholic Exclusion of the Eucharist

[ComplineSanFran]

I’m not so sure it was as monolithic as that, as we can see very early on that different churches/households wrestled with very different teachings and happenings even at that early time (we see this through Acts, Paul’s writings, and Revelation). But regardless, I think that it is an interesting point on Baptism since that is what the RCC has pointed out unites believers, and it was important enough for the writer(s) of the Didache to say; this is how we draw the line at who does or does not commune together. That would mean if a member of one community traveled to the next, even if they were not personally known, baptism was the litmus test. I don’t think it is an airtight rule book for exactly what we should do in today’s world, but I do think it is something to ponder.

I agree with you Kliska, on several points. Well past the Biblical era into the early church, there was dissension and disunity. And, yes, the one unifying factor was Baptism. If you were a baptized Christian, you were welcomed wherever you went.

Should we hold to that today? In many cases, we already do.

 

[Gorgias]

If that actually was confusing, let me explicate. No one handles the consecrated elements, save some one in Orders, who administers the sacrament, to a recipient. IOW, no Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist. A lay person touches the Body/Blood only in consuming them.

No, it wasn’t confusing. You implicitly were making the claim that your denomination gives more honor to species that we Catholics would call ‘unconsecrated’ than Catholics give to species that we consider to be ‘consecrated.’ That’s kinda uncool.

In any case, to your point: the Catholic Church doesn’t assert that only the ordained may handle the Eucharist. In fact, in the earliest days of the Church, that was the case – people who went to Mass took Eucharist home to their family members who were unable to be there. Only later did the Church, in a period of hypersensitivity, decide that no one should handle the Eucharist. So, the Church wouldn’t agree that “only ordained ministers may handle the Eucharist” is evidence of greater respect for the species…

 

[GKC]

No, it wasn’t confusing. You implicitly were making the claim that your denomination gives more honor to species that we Catholics would call ‘unconsecrated’ than Catholics give to species that we consider to be ‘consecrated.’ That’s kinda uncool.

In any case, to your point: the Catholic Church doesn’t assert that only the ordained may handle the Eucharist. In fact, in the earliest days of the Church, that was the case – people who went to Mass took Eucharist home to their family members who were unable to be there. Only later did the Church, in a period of hypersensitivity, decide that no one should handle the Eucharist. So, the Church wouldn’t agree that “only ordained ministers may handle the Eucharist” is evidence of greater respect for the species…

It would seem to suggest that we might give more restrictions now, to what we consider consecrated, than does the RCC, now, I agree. It is evident that the RCC doesn’t see it that way.

 

[Duane1966]

Some do, some don’t, it depends on the Congregation and/or the denomination.

The Didache is another writing were there are definite interpretation differences. I do confess the Church, and the creeds, as do other believers. It is just interesting that baptism was indeed the deciding factor of whether or not participation in the Eucharist was allowed. If one were Baptized as a believer, they could participate.

You forget one important point. The following is taken from this link: home.earthlink.net/~mysticalrose/closed.html

The policy of a “closed Communion” is nothing new; in fact it goes back to the earliest Christians. The Didache, a book of Church discipline dating back to the late first century A.D., clearly states that only Christians can receive the Eucharist:

*"But let no one eat or drink of this eucharistic thanksgiving, but they that have been baptized into the name of the Lord". -Didache 9:10-12 *

So the concept of a closed Communion goes all the way back to the Church of Apostolic times!. Those churches which observe it today are merely being faithful to the practice of the earliest Christians.

Note that this text only explicitly excludes non-Christians from the Sacrament. Back then the Church was united; there were no “denominations” to exclude. However, as tragic divisions started to form within Christendom itself, it soon became necessary to close access to the Lord’s Table even to some baptized Christians.

Why? Because the Eucharist is the Sacrament of our unity in Christ. Those who receive it must have unity in the Faith. Those who are not in unity cannot receive.

Even back then some Christians were excluded from the Sacrament, as the following quote from the Didache indicates:

***And on the Lord's own day gather yourselves together and break bread and give thanks, first confessing your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. And let no man, having his dispute with his fellow, join your assembly until they have been reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be defiled; for this sacrifice it is that was spoken of by the Lord; "In every place and at every time offer Me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great king, saith the Lord and My name is wonderful among the nations". -Didache 14:1-5 ***

Any Christian who had a dispute with a fellow Christian was not allowed to receive the Eucharist with the rest of the community until the dispute was reconciled.

Why? Because Jesus once said “If you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.” (Matthew 5:23-24). God wants us to worship Him in love, humility and unity, not with prideful divisions among us, rooted as they are in sin.

Now consider this: the Protestant denominations have a dispute with the Catholic Church! And this dispute is far from reconciled. So by the standards set in this early Church document, our separated brethren cannot partake of the Eucharist in a Catholic Mass, even though they are fellow Christians. Their dispute with Catholics excludes them!1

This is the logic behind a closed Communion. It is not an arbitrary or spiteful policy, but a necessary one for a divided Christendom.

Now Kliska, you clearly do not believe what the Catholic Church believes. And yet the Eucharist, which is a sign of the Church’s unity in Christ, you think based on baptism, should be administered, to those who clearly are not in union with the Church that Christ founded.

Now anyone who is a Christian, but not a Catholic, clearly believes that the Catholic Church is not the Church that Christ founded. And since they believe that, why would they want to receive something that signifies unity, when they do not believe what the Church, that administers that sacrament, says about the sacrament?

I might add that Iraenaeus, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, all hold that if you are not of like mind with the Church, you are not to be given communion. So we see from the earliest of times, a withholding of the Eucharist, even to the baptised.

 

[Duane1966]

I agree with you Kliska, on several points. Well past the Biblical era into the early church, there was dissension and disunity. And, yes, the one unifying factor was Baptism. If you were a baptized Christian, you were welcomed wherever you went.

Should we hold to that today? In many cases, we already do.

This is not true. If you read the ECF’s, even if you were baptised, if you were not in union with the bishop, you were to be refused communion.

 

[Kliska]

You forget one important point. The following is taken from this link: home.earthlink.net/~mysticalrose/closed.htmlNow Kliska, you clearly do not believe what the Catholic Church believes. And yet the Eucharist, which is a sign of the Church’s unity in Christ, you think based on baptism, should be administered, to those who clearly are not in union with the Church that Christ founded.

Now anyone who is a Christian, but not a Catholic, clearly believes that the Catholic Church is not the Church that Christ founded. And since they believe that, why would they want to receive something that signifies unity, when they do not believe what the Church, that administers that sacrament, says about the sacrament?

I might add that Iraenaeus, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, all hold that if you are not of like mind with the Church, you are not to be given communion. So we see from the earliest of times, a withholding of the Eucharist, even to the baptised.

My contention is that the goal post has moved drastically since the beginning. As I said in another post, I don’t really buy that all churches were exactly the same, in fact we can see that they were not, even in scripture. There obviously was the question of who could participate in the Eucharist, the Didache gives us one answer. The question was; are you baptized? We saw even the Ethiopian Eunuch was baptized directly after being told that Jesus was the One who fulfilled Isaiah, he confessed that, and was baptized. That Ethiopian could have communed with any group of Christians, and what would have been the chances that Ethiopian would have been taught and agreed to exactly the same thing as those in the congregations/households?

Once more, as has been stated even by the RCC, the RCC agrees that those of us who are baptized using the correct formula are indeed baptized into Christ, and into His death. Separating the Body of Christ is a no-no and is one of the reasons Paul takes the Corinthians to task. That is breaking unity in the eyes of many.

 

[rcwitness]

This is not true. If you read the ECF’s, even if you were baptised, if you were not in union with the bishop, you were to be refused communion.

You are chasing a moving target. They believe everything and nothing.

 

[Duane1966]

My contention is that the goal post has moved drastically since the beginning. As I said in another post, I don’t really buy that all churches were exactly the same, in fact we can see that they were not, even in scripture. There obviously was the question of who could participate in the Eucharist, the Didache gives us one answer. The question was; are you baptized? We saw even the Ethiopian Eunuch was baptized directly after being told that Jesus was the One who fulfilled Isaiah, he confessed that, and was baptized. That Ethiopian could have communed with any group of Christians, and what would have been the chances that Ethiopian would have been taught and agreed to exactly the same thing as those in the congregations/households?

The chances are 100% that Ethiopian was taught and agreed to what he was taught. And if he had professed not to believe something Philip taught him, rest assured, he would have been refused communion. And we also clearly see the Didache saying baptism is not the only criteria. It also commands unity, for the reception. The Didache clearly says do not let anyone join the assembly unless they are reconciled to the assembly.

The goal post is the same. It is many Christians that have regressed drastically.

Once more, as has been stated even by the RCC, the RCC agrees that those of us who are baptized using the correct formula are indeed baptized into Christ, and into His death. Separating the Body of Christ is a no-no and is one of the reasons Paul takes the Corinthians to task. That is breaking unity in the eyes of many.

Again, are you reconciled to the Church? You choose to be out of communion with her, and yet say you should be able to share in the sign of her unity. That is hypocrisy. And who has done the separating? You PROTEST us, and yet want to share in our unity, though you do not believe what that unity entails.

 

[Duane1966]

You are chasing a moving target. They believe everything and nothing.

:tiphat: I am not sure truer words have ever been spoken.

 

[JonNC]

:tiphat: I am not sure truer words have ever been spoken.

How about, “This is my body.”?

Jon

 

[Duane1966]

How about, “This is my body.”?

Jon

Lol. If something is true, and another thing is also true, can one of them be truer?

 

[JonNC]

Lol. If something is true, and another thing is also true, can one of them be truer?

Truest?

Jon

 

[Kliska]

The chances are 100% that Ethiopian was taught and agreed to what he was taught. And if he had professed not to believe something Philip taught him, rest assured, he would have been refused communion. And we also clearly see the Didache saying baptism is not the only criteria. It also commands unity, for the reception. The Didache clearly says do not let anyone join the assembly unless they are reconciled to the assembly.

And the sign that they were “reconciled” was that they were baptized and they weren’t having a spat with anyone in the congregation. That bit is directly taught by Jesus. We aren’t to be angry at our brothers and sisters. If they have something against us, or us them, we are to be reconciled to that brother or sister.

How long did it take to get the Ethiopian baptized? The course of a conversation on a road. I’m sure he believed Philip and Philip told him about Jesus, and how He was Messiah and fulfilled Isaiah. When the Ethiopian confessed that, he was baptized right then and there. Does that happen in the RCC today? It does not. Seems to indicate the length of teaching and what one had to agree with was a remarkably shorter list.

The goal post is the same. It is many Christians that have regressed drastically.

Sorry, I don’t see the evidence in scripture for that, in fact I see the opposite.

Again, are you reconciled to the Church?

Absolutely. Am I “reconciled” to the RCC? No, and perhaps unfortunately it is conversations such as these that remind me why.

You choose to be out of communion with her, and yet say you should be able to share in the sign of her unity.

No, I say all Christians should be able to share in the sign of His unity. His death. His burial. His resurrection. Until He comes again.

That is hypocrisy. And who has done the separating? You PROTEST us, and yet want to share in our unity, though you do not believe what that unity entails.

Quite the opposite. I believe what His unity entails. I believe in “open communion” to the extant that all baptized believers should be able to participate in the Eucharistic Celebration and to receive side by side. Those that deny members of the body of Christ a place at His table make me wonder. Again, I am not separating anyone. I don’t “protest” you, I wasn’t alive at the time…

 

[Duane1966]

And the sign that they were “reconciled” was that they were baptized and they weren’t having a spat with anyone in the congregation. That bit is directly taught by Jesus. We aren’t to be angry at our brothers and sisters. If they have something against us, or us them, we are to be reconciled to that brother or sister.

And if after baptism, there comes a time when they are not reconciled, should we give them communion?

How long did it take to get the Ethiopian baptized? The course of a conversation on a road. I’m sure he believed Philip and Philip told him about Jesus, and how He was Messiah and fulfilled Isaiah. When the Ethiopian confessed that, he was baptized right then and there. Does that happen in the RCC today? It does not. Seems to indicate the length of teaching and what one had to agree with was a remarkably shorter list.

True, but then again, the Church was only a seed then, not the tree that she is now. And if things were so simple, why did St. Paul have to write any of his letters? Things obviously were not as simple as you seem to try to paint it.

Tell me, if after baptism, if the Ethiopian had said that he did not believe that Jesus was bodily resurrected, but did believe that he died for our sins, and still considered himself a Christian, do you think they would still have shared the Eucharist with him?

Sorry, I don’t see the evidence in scripture for that, in fact I see the opposite.

Amazing, we read the same texts, and reach different conclusions.

Absolutely. Am I “reconciled” to the RCC? No, and perhaps unfortunately it is conversations such as these that remind me why.

And if you are not reconciled to the RCC, why would you argue that She should allow you the Eucharist? The Eucharist, the sign of our unity with Christ and His bride. You want the unity with Christ, but reject His bride. I am confused, why would you want to partake of something that shows a sign of unity with not only Christ, but a particular Church that claims things that you do not believe in?

No, I say all Christians should be able to share in the sign of His unity. His death. His burial. His resurrection. Until He comes again.

But the Eucharist is also a sign of the unity we Catholics share with each other. You cannot have unity with Christ, but not His body. It is an oxymoron.

Quite the opposite. I believe what His unity entails. I believe in “open communion” to the extant that all baptized believers should be able to participate in the Eucharistic Celebration and to receive side by side. Those that deny members of the body of Christ a place at His table make me wonder. Again, I am not separating anyone. I don’t “protest” you, I wasn’t alive at the time…

Yet Jesus says the opposite in Mt. 18:17. Jesus basically says, if they do not listen to the Church, kick them out. Now if that person that is kicked out should say s/he still wants communion based on his/her baptism, would Jesus say give it to them, or tell them to be reconciled to the Church first?

I would add this, from 1 John:

19They went out from us, but they were not really of our number;* if they had been, they would have remained with us. Their desertion shows that none of them was of our number.

Do you think if those that went out from us still wanted to share the Eucharist, but remain estranged, John would have obliged? After all, those that went out, had been baptized.

 

[rcwitness]

And the sign that they were “reconciled” was that they were baptized and they weren’t having a spat with anyone in the congregation.

What if the whole congregation was falling away from the body? Isn’t that what Jesus warned the 7 churches in Revelations?

That bit is directly taught by Jesus. We aren’t to be angry at our brothers and sisters. If they have something against us, or us them, we are to be reconciled to that brother or sister.

But what was Jesus’ resolution to disputes? He says to bring it to “the Church”.

How long did it take to get the Ethiopian baptized? The course of a conversation on a road. I’m sure he believed Philip and Philip told him about Jesus, and how He was Messiah and fulfilled Isaiah. When the Ethiopian confessed that, he was baptized right then and there. Does that happen in the RCC today? It does not. Seems to indicate the length of teaching and what one had to agree with was a remarkably shorter list.

It doesn’t happen through the instruction of the Didache either. There is a “time” for proper instruction. Kliska, one of the major issues between myself and the Evangelical church I grew up with was the rejection of the importance of Baptism. I was helping with youth group. I was a leader, and even after converting fully into the Catholic faith! I respected their doctrines. But when I saw they were claiming eternal assurance of salvation to these little ones without leading them to Baptism, I had to speak up. I asked, "If they are at the age to accept Jesus as their savior (which I prayed with some for this purpose!), why do we not lead them to His Baptism. The answer was that Baptism is a sign of a commitment to Jesus, and they can choose that later, when they want.

No, I say all Christians should be able to share in the sign of His unity. His death. His burial. His resurrection. Until He comes again.

But what constitutes a Christian who is accepting the faith which the mystical body professes? You are trying to give the ritual of Baptism more than it deserves. We are saying Communion of His Body and Blood is Baptism plus continuing in the faith, which the Spirit Who compelled you to reconcile through Baptism, also leads to completing Baptismal grace in Confirmation. Confirmation draws on the leadership of a Bishop. Baptism does not. Baptism brings forgiveness of sins. And in this way, brings us into a unity with all who are buried in Christ. Yet there are more elements to the faith than forgiveness of sins. The Scriptures touch on many. And rejection of some, is a direct rejection of the faith altogether!

Quite the opposite. I believe what His unity entails. I believe in “open communion” to the extant that all baptized believers should be able to participate in the Eucharistic Celebration and to receive side by side. Those that deny members of the body of Christ a place at His table make me wonder. Again, I am not separating anyone. I don’t “protest” you, I wasn’t alive at the time…

“Open Communion” would result in excommunications, if logically practiced. Then the excommunicated would simply find a communion who except their heresy. The end result is the same, but with greater condemnation for the one who received His Body and Blood, and denied matters of the Deposit of Faith!

You see? Taking Communion cannot be merely about Baptism (forgiveness of sins), there has to be an acceptance of what the body is Teaching. And not just what some members say, but what the leadership officially decrees in her capacity to Teach. No other denomination can claim an official Teaching like the Catholic faith. They do not have a Magisterium which contains law.

The Evangelical church (which obviously cannot be called a church in the proper sense) does not have one common faith which it upholds. Some say Baptism is necessary for Communion, while some says it is not.

We are lawful (and Christ’s mercy is the heart of all our law). Justice and mercy must live in harmony. It is right to demand obedience and submission to the Catechism for rightful Communion. It is lawful.

Hebrews 13:17

Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.

Who are our leaders? Are they keeping watch over your soul? Are they not the ones who Baptize you and your family, Confirm you in the faith, and serve His Body and Blood to you when you gather? I know my leaders, and it’s not just my immediate pastor, deacon and board members.

 

[steve_b]

Hey guys. So my boyfriend of one year is a Nondenominational Evangelical Free Christian,

:juggle:
a:

and he feels very discriminated against by the Catholic Church because he isn’t allowed to receive Communion. How do I explain to him in a gentle way why he can’t, and convince him he isn’t being “discriminated against”? Nothing I’ve tried has worked. The fact that we believe the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ is irrelevant to him. He thinks that he should be allowed to receive because he’s a Christian. I don’t know what to do or say anymore…

For his protection, he is not allowed to receive.

 

[Kliska]

This dialogue has indeed showed forth one of the major issues in true ecumenism; lack of true empathetic understanding through no conscious fault of those involved which means it is extremely hard to overcome. I have no doubt the Catholics would like to understand or think they do understand what aggrieves “Evangelicals” who believe in open communion in these instances. I have no doubt “Evangelicals” would like to understand or think they do understand why Catholics hold to closed communion. However, there is so much intellectual wrangling that the heart of the matter, His heart, His meaning, His will gets shoved aside. Both sides agree on that, then both sides point the finger at the other.

Not doing that anymore. Prayer for all that we see the situation through His eyes and that we are guided by His Spirit.

Grace and peace,
K

 

[rcwitness]

This dialogue has indeed showed forth one of the major issues in true ecumenism; lack of true empathetic understanding through no conscious fault of those involved which means it is extremely hard to overcome. I have no doubt the Catholics would like to understand or think they do understand what aggrieves “Evangelicals” who believe in open communion in these instances. I have no doubt “Evangelicals” would like to understand or think they do understand why Catholics hold to closed communion. However, there is so much intellectual wrangling that the heart of the matter, His heart, His meaning, His will gets shoved aside. Both sides agree on that, then both sides point the finger at the other.

Not doing that anymore. Prayer for all that we see the situation through His eyes and that we are guided by His Spirit.

Grace and peace,
K

Ok. I think that is why the Church will not “open Communion” to all Baptized. Communion among people arguing over matters in the faith, which the Church has resolved and given final answers over in councils, goes against the very nature of Communion.

A Communion which doesn’t stand for one mind, one judgement and one unified leadership looks dangerously close to a harlot.

And if these “Baptized Christians” who take communion in multiple denominations are receiving from the Catholic Church also, and openly professing heresies, which the Church has condemned, does the Church just allow it to go on?

But the truth is, when one does not wish to profess the Catholic faith, devote to His one Eucharist, receive Confirmation, etc. It is because they are at odds already with matters. One must make peace first, and then share in this meal.

 

[Gorgias]

This dialogue has indeed showed forth one of the major issues in true ecumenism; lack of true empathetic understanding through no conscious fault of those involved which means it is extremely hard to overcome.

Kliska,

In a way – since we’re talking about ‘understanding’ – I’m chuckling as I ask this, but… what’s your definition of ‘true ecumenism’? What are its goals?

 

[TC3033]

Maybe you didn’t see, but I have stated that I, myself, was raised Evangelical. My parents still are Evangelical.

BTW, I have asked my dad if he would break bread with a group of Christians (ya know, as in just friends and he or another layman believer would lead?). He felt very uncomfortable and opposed to the idea. So has most that I have asked.

Hmm, that’s a new one and goes against everything that I learned

If you look back to those posts, I began the analogy of the family meal, then he “spun” it to fit his own perspective, then I defined my own analogy (which I conceived) with the child refusing to accept a rule of the house. I was not disagreeing that his perspective isn’t his perspective. I understand the Evangelical perspective. There are also many other denominated perspectives out there. Catholic Communion is not about many ideas. It’s about receiving Jesus’ body and blood through sacramental faith. We aren’t open to opposing views and heterodox opinions. We all must be open to one faith.

I started the analogy of the meal wayyy back on like page 5 and had it morphed for me 3 or 4 times. And I don’t think that anyone is opposing your viewpoint. There are a handful of us in here who were trying to explain the to the OP her boyfriends viewpoint so that she can better understand where her loved on is coming from (which is what is being told to all us evangelicals in here, that we need to understand), but then just have our explanation of our feelings turned around and told “no, it’s more like this”.