Non Catholic Takes Communion

[Raxus]

As someone said to me quite indignantly a few days ago, “I don’t get that.

I wonder how many of them actually go on to educate themselves, as opposed to just contenting themselves with their own indignance. Less work to just be mad.

 

[TC3033]

TC3033:

I think you’d be hard pressed to find a lot of Christians from open communion churches who understand the why of closed communion.

Do those Christians need everything spoon-fed to them, or are they capable of opening Google to find out why the Catholic person in their life told them no?

Classy…

I digress, most of the time this topic comes up as one is entering a Catholic church with a Catholic friend and they say “oh crap, I forgot…you can’'t take communion”…met with a reply of “why”…and and then a shoulder shrug of “you’re not Catholic”. Now I’m not going to go running out to google and research the how/why/where/what/when of closed communion (I didn’t even know closed communion was even a term until my 30’s) when I have google standing right in front of me telling me the only reason I’m not welcome at your table is because I’m not Catholic.

Shouldn’t they have done the research and be able to explain it, rather than I needing to run to google?

 

[stpurl]

I understand, and honestly, that is what I was trying to convey. One can ‘understand’ intellectually, meaning one hears the words, “Only Catholics may receive communion in a Catholic Church —in a state of grace- because the reception of what we believe is the actual, not symbolic, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ is the culmination of our acceptance of all Catholic dogma, doctrine, and disciplines and a sign of our unity and affirmation of such”. . . And say, “Well, yeah, that’s what YOU believe but I’m not buying it. You say you have Jesus and now you’re trying to keep it from me, even though I believe in Jesus too. We have this same ceremony with bread and wine in our church and all are invited to partake as a sign of our Christian brotherhood and sisterhood and YOU CATHOLICS are as welcome to take in OUR CHURCH as anybody else. Your attitude is wrong and unfair and ours is right and just, and we will abide by our attitude since it IS right and just’.

Understanding something on an intellectual level is one thing, acceptance of what is told is quite another.

 

[Raxus]

Classy…

I digress, most of the time this topic comes up as one is entering a Catholic church with a Catholic friend and they say “oh crap, I forgot…you can’'t take communion”…met with a reply of “why”…and and then a shoulder shrug of “you’re not Catholic”.

shrug Ignorance only goes so far as an excuse in a day and age where we literally have access to a highway of digital information that rides around in our pockets.

Now I’m not going to go running out to google and research the how/why/where/what/when of closed communion (I didn’t even know closed communion was even a term until my 30’s) when I have google standing right in front of me telling me the only reason I’m not welcome at your table is because I’m not Catholic.

This sentence is a contradiction. Not sure what you mean.

Shouldn’t they have done the research and be able to explain it, rather than I needing to run to google?

Possibly. Even probably. The shortcomings of others don’t excuse the duty you have to fully inform yourself of the things you have questions on, however. If they fail, you proceed and find the answer another way.

 

[Phemie]

There is only one Church. Christ established one. And that One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is the Catholic Church. It is not divided amongst itself in beliefs. All Christians were meant to be in it. But sadly, we humans caused schisms and broke from it.

Note that in the Creed, the word catholic is not capitalized. So it is not referring only to the Catholic Church.

 

[Fauken]

Note that in the Creed, the word catholic is not capitalized. So it is not referring only to the Catholic Church.

And in that line where the word catholic is used, so too are the words “One” “Holy”, and “Apostolic”. Catholic is referring to the university of the Church, but the Creed is most certainly referring to the Catholic Church. It is listing the four marks of the Church.

 

[TC3033]

shrug Ignorance only goes so far as an excuse in a day and age where we literally have access to a highway of digital information that rides around in our pockets.

I’m not going to jump on google to double secret verify what someone (of that religion) tells me.

This sentence is a contradiction. Not sure what you mean.

It means, like my statement above, if a Catholic (whom I would presume would be knowledgable on the subject) tells me something…I would assume they know what they’re talking about and I wouldn’t immediately run to google to double check their work.

Possibly. Even probably. The shortcomings of others don’t excuse the duty you have to fully inform yourself of the things you have questions on, however. If they fail, you proceed and find the answer another way.

How does one, who is not of that particular religion, know if that person has a shortcoming? Everytime a Catholic tells me something, I need to run to the internet and double-check it?

 

[Irishmom2]

I don’t know why you feel any need to invite her along to mass. You know she doesn’t believe what you do. And she has shown she will do what she wants to do. If she wants to go to mass on her own, she is free to do so.

God may have made you friends for a reason, but you don’t know that this is the reason. I doubt he thinks it is your responsibility to get her to believe as you do. You have presented it to her, and now, let it be.

 

[Yesw]

Catholic…She seems to believe that Communion in the Catholic Church is the same

Episcopal Church be practicing ‘open Communion?’​

September 4, 2007

Laura Peckham

There is a movement afoot in the Episcopal Church to invite everyone present at the Eucharist, baptized or unbaptized, to receive Communion. This invitation, issued usually by the presider stating something like, “This is Christ’s table, and all are welcome,” defies the Constitution and Canons of the church and the ordination vows of the one presiding. The rationale given is that since Jesus welcomed all, we should not put up restrictions, that this is an important means of showing the radical hospitality of Jesus.

I disagree. In the Gospel accounts, it is only the disciples, Jesus’ intentional followers, who are with Jesus at the institution of the Lord’s Supper (Matthew 26:20; Mark 14:17-18; Luke 22:14; John 13:22). The early church clearly saw participation in the Eucharist as only for those who are intentional followers of Jesus – baptized members of the body of Christ. Paul addresses the church at Corinth, all of whom are baptized, and chastises them for treating the Lord’s Supper as any other meal, “For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.” All records indicate that for hundreds of years the early church did not allow the unbaptized catechumens to be present at the Eucharist proper but dismissed them after the reading of the lessons.

Participation in the Eucharist was not a form of entrance into the life of Christ but was one of the characteristics of living a Christian life. The first act of faith in Christ is baptism. If we now say that the Eucharist is for anyone and everyone, we intimate that:

1. Baptism is not the sacramental entrance into life in Christ. If one can be fully involved in Christian life without baptism, what value are we placing on baptism?
2. The Eucharist is merely a remembering of events in history and therefore is not a sure means of grace. This is contrary to the teachings of article 25 of the Thirty-nine Articles ( Book of Common Prayer , page 872) and to the Catechism. ( BCP p. 857).
3. Knowledge of Christ and the church are not important. No understanding of the Eucharist is required or expected.

Have we sufficiently considered what “open Communion” will mean

 

[OraLabora]

And in that line where the word catholic is used, so too are the words “One” “Holy”, and “Apostolic”. Catholic is referring to the university of the Church, but the Creed is most certainly referring to the Catholic Church. It is listing the four marks of the Church.

Validly baptized non-Catholic Christians are part of the One Holy and Apostolic Church.

They just don’t know it yet

And they have some catechetical catching up to do

 

[TomH1]

Your experience in my experience seems unique.

I know a lot of non-Catholics. All those who are church goers know that the Catholic Church does not allow non-Catholics to receive communion. The vast majority are indignant about the fact. No matter how well it is explained to them or how frequently they do not change their position.

They have decided the Catholic Church is wrong and they are not going to change their minds. I’ve also lost count of the number of times some people think we’re not even Christians!

What I will say in their favour is despite their indignance they do not take communion in a Catholic Church on the rare occasion they find themselves there.

I would say to the OP that I think her friend is being very manipulative. I do not immediately agree with those who say drop her as a friend. I would, however, explain the position again and inform her that you feel manipulated. If she wants to go to Catholic Church with you she respects the teachings of the Catholic Church. She should not receive communion for two reasons. First, because she is not a Catholic. Secondly, I would guess she is in a state of mortal sin, which is another reason she should not receive. I am inferring she is in mortal sin because she has received communion when she should not and she cannot have been absolved of that sin.

However, friendship is a two-way street. It seems to me she wants it one way, and her way. I think it needs clearly explaining to her that she is testing this friendship to its limits and possibly putting it in jeopardy.

Why is she so insistent on going to a Catholic Church and not her own church? Is it because she may be wants to be a Catholic and does not have the courage to admit it? Or, does she just want to basically stick two fingers up at Catholicism by behaving in this way?

 

[JMMJ]

I wouldn’t get into all that with her. I would just tell her that polite people follow the rules of the house of the host they are visiting. I would let her know her behavior is unacceptable and I wouldn’t be attending with her, as a result. No need for discussion about Church teaching, sin, etc. at this point.

I have a dear friend that I refuse to go to the movies with. We used to go all the time, but she talked in a loud voice during the movie and disturbed me and all the people around us. She has no interest, for whatever reason, in modifying her behavior. We had several very clear discussions about this. She doesn’t believe she is disruptive. So I told her, “Sorry, no more theatre outings with me, then.”. We go to lunch, out for drinks, and to the museum and shopping together and have a great time. But no movies. I would handle the communion issue the same exact way.

 

[YADA]

As long as our Church leadership is perfectly fine with allowing pro-choice politicians who are very vocal in their support for the killing of innocent babies via abortion get their photo ops receiving the Most Holy Eucharist … Then I say we should borrow the theological stance of Pope Francis and remind ourselves “Who am I to judge?”

Obviously, many priests and Bishops don’t believe that partaking of the Body and Blood unworthily is harmful to both body and soul as St Paul states in the scriptures.

I watched a priest once at a private Mass - very small group - Masters degree students during a period of formation deny one student Communion. The entire co-hort was upset, that student was embarrassed as it being such a small group all witnessed …I defended the Church teaching and the priest …

A couple of years later when interviewed about candidate John Kerry and his stance in support of abortion and whether he should / could receive Communion I heard this same priest say that when someone presents themselves at Communion he would not deny them the Eucharist …

What I took away from that is public scandal is no longer an issue

Rich powerful well known Catholics can violate Church teaching without any ecclesiastical consequences and stay in good standing

And since double standards results in no standards - I no longer attempt to impose standards on the average person …

I will explain Church teaching …but I don’t attempt to “impose” Church teaching or rules

 

[TomH1]

I wouldn’t get into all that with her. I would just tell her that polite people follow the rules of the house of the host they are visiting. I would let her know her behavior is unacceptable and I wouldn’t be attending with her, as a result. No need for discussion about Church teaching, sin, etc. at this point.

I agree and I think it should be enough. However, it does not seem to be working out this way for the OP.

 

[TC3033]

Your experience in my experience seems unique.

I can say the same thing…

 

[AlNg]

At a university Mass, a priest indicated that all were welcome to receive Holy Communion.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

And he was wrong.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Would that because of an infallible doctrine written down somewhere

Yes. I don’t know why you need the Catholic concept of Communion explained to you. You’ve been here long enough to know.

 

[MarkRome]

If you have another chance to explain communion, try saying that partaking of the Eucharist is an outward expression saying with your actions that you believe everything that the Catholic Church teaches and professes. Ask if she does. If she says no, then say that if you do something that is untrue, then it is a lie with your actions.
Say something like that, probably a bit more gracefully.

 

[Aulef]

Love the Holy Eucharist more than anyone else and you will know what to do.