- Status
C
crazzeto
Guest
Oh, dang no I’m sorry I read that wrong… I read that as you were saying that we Catholics are supposed to beleive that that there is no real presense. My bad!
J
JimG
Guest
Sorry I didn’t notice your reply earlier, and the thread has proceeded on, but I’ll answer anyway.
In my old NAB, verse 29 reads: “He who eats and drinks without recognizing the body, eats and drinks a judgment on himself.” The admonition would apply to receiving communion without recognizing that it is the body of Christ.
That admonition could only apply where a valid Eucharist exists–i.e., primarily in a Catholic Church. So, in my view, the Catholic Church would do a disservice by allowing communion to everyone, regardless of their beliefs or disposition. It would not apply to non-Catholic churches which do not have a valid Eucharist. There is no offense in not recognizing the body when the body is not there.
The Church would be in the position of saying: This is Jesus–in his entirety–body and blood, soul and divinity. He is present here, but whether you ‘recognize the body’ or not, you are welcome to receive. That would be a direct violation of Paul’s admonition and endanger the soul of the person who is not properly disposed.
Catholics also cannot approach the Eucharist without being properly disposed. I had an aunt who went years to Mass without receiving communion. Her application for annulment of a previous marriage was denied. Not wishing to deny her current husband, and unwilling to reject the decision of the tribunal, she refrained from communion for many decades until her husband’s age and health eventually resolved the matter for her.
E
emeraldcoast
Guest
J
JimG
Guest
Well, she was quite active in her parish, and her pastor well understood her situation. I tried to advise her to reapply (her initial application having taken place at a time when annulments were almost never granted.) But she would not hear of it. But she remained faithful–both to her 2nd husband and her Church.
J
japhy
Guest
This is a doctrinal and pastoral issue. here’s a link to the response I received from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments when I asked about the matter of blessings given during the Communion procession.
Here are the five observations that were made by the Congregation on the matter:
1. The liturgical blessing of the Holy Mass is properly given to each and to all at the conclusion of the Mass, just a few moments subsequent to the distribution of Holy Communion.
- Lay people, within the context of Holy Mass, are unable to confer blessings. These blessings, rather, are the competence of the priest (cf. Ecclesia de Mysterio, Notitiae 34 (15 Aug. 1997), art. 6, § 2; Canon 1169, § 2; and Roman Ritual De Benedictionibus (1985), n. 18).
- Furthermore, the laying on of a hand or hands — which has its own sacramental significance, inappropriate here — by those distributing Holy Communion, in substitution for its reception, is to be explicitly discouraged.
- The Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio n. 84, “forbids any pastor, for whatever reason to pretext even of a pastoral nature, to perform ceremonies of any kind for divorced people who remarry”. To be feared is that any form of blessing in substitution for communion would give the impression that the divorced and remarried have been returned, in some sense, to the status of Catholics in good standing.
- In a similar way, for others who are not to be admitted to Holy Communion in accord with the norm of law, the Church’s discipline has already made clear that they should not approach Holy Communion nor receive a blessing. This would include non-Catholics and those envisaged in can. 915 (i.e., those under the penalty of excommunication or interdict, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin).
#5 is very clear: the Church’s present discipline is that non-Catholics are not to approach the sacrament, nor to enter the procession to receive a blessing.
A blessing is not a substitute or replacement for receiving the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Most Holy Eucharist.
The Communion procession is for Communion, not for other blessings, advice, etc. If you wish to receive a blessing from a priest because you cannot receive Communion, you should approach him outside the Mass. And if you are asking for such a blessing, you should consider why it is you are asking for such a blessing, and to what end. Is it simply a formality, a “substitute” for Holy Communion? Or is it an expression of your desire to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church, so as to be able to approach the altar and receive Jesus present in the sacrament?
Regardless of what non-Catholics think of the Eucharist, know this: when you receive Holy Communion in a Catholic church, no matter what you think you are doing or receiving, you are receiving the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord and Savior. You are not receiving bread or wine. If you receive this blessed gift unworthily, you are adding sin to sin. Furthermore, this is not just a “meal” or “banquet”. This is the Marriage Supper of the Lamb under the veil of a sacrament; this is the consumption of a sacrificial offering. Catholic doctrine is that the Eucharist is a true sacrifice (the same sacrifice numerically as that of Christ on the cross, with only the manner of the offering being different: the Eucharist is unbloody) offered to God.
Let me repeat: the Eucharist is a sacrifice; receiving Holy Communion is partaking in a sacrificial meal. As St. Paul asked, “Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings?” (1 Cor 9:13; cf. 1 Cor 10:16-21) You are partaking in a sacrificial offering at an altar. If, as some Protestants believe, the Mass is a satanic pagan corruption of true worship of God, then the Eucharist would be offered “to demons and not to God,” and anyone who receives Holy Communion at Mass is partaking of the “table of demons,” and what did St. Paul say about that? “You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.” (1 Cor 10:21)
Non-Catholics, please consider this: regardless of whether the Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist is true (and I believe that it is), Catholics believe they are offering a sacrifice to God and are then partaking of that offering. If they are right, and you want to receive it too, why aren’t you Catholic?! And if they are wrong, and it is a pagan offering and a fellowship with demons, why would you want to receive it?!
B
Bluegoat
Guest
:yup:
R
rev_kevin
Guest
I guess what I don’t really understand is I thought Jesus gave it for all and not just a select few. Just because a non-Catholic wants to receive the body and blood of Christ, which was for all men not just Catholics they should have that right. In Luke 22:17-34 Jesus shared it with Judas the one who was to betray him. He shared it with Peter who will deny him 3 times. If they are worthy to receive his body and blood why isn’t everyone worthy.
“This is the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Happy are those who are called to his supper.” Who’s to say that the non-Catholics haven’t been called to his supper. It doesn’t say "This is the lamb of God happy are those Catholics who are called to his supper. How do you know that they haven’t been called to his supper.
“Lord, I am not worthy to receive you but only say the word and I shall be healed.” If the non-Catholic is not worthy and they say these words then they should be able to receive his body and blood. Who’s to say that when you say that that you are worthy to receive his body and blood. How do you know you have been healed. Who’s to say that the non-Catholic hasn’t been healed. Where does it say in the Bible that you have to have special training and go through a ritual or cerimony inorder to receive his body and blood.
“This is the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Happy are those who are called to his supper.” Who’s to say that the non-Catholics haven’t been called to his supper. It doesn’t say "This is the lamb of God happy are those Catholics who are called to his supper. How do you know that they haven’t been called to his supper.
“Lord, I am not worthy to receive you but only say the word and I shall be healed.” If the non-Catholic is not worthy and they say these words then they should be able to receive his body and blood. Who’s to say that when you say that that you are worthy to receive his body and blood. How do you know you have been healed. Who’s to say that the non-Catholic hasn’t been healed. Where does it say in the Bible that you have to have special training and go through a ritual or cerimony inorder to receive his body and blood.
J
JimG
Guest
Of course, no one is intrinsically worthy to receive the person of Jesus in holy communion. That’s why we pray, “Lord, I am not worthy.” Yet Jesus did command us to eat his body and drink his blood, and then instituted the sacrament which makes that possible at the last supper.
And yet Paul does warn us against receiving unworthily. We have to take him at his word. If we do receive him unworthily, it doesn’t hurt him–it hurts us. It’s sort of like saying to Jesus, “OK, I don’t really believe you’re there, but whatever.” or “Yeah, you might be there, but I don’t believe everything you say, but no big deal.” It’s disrespectful to the Son of God. Not a good thing.
R
rev_kevin
Guest
So if a non-Catholic says the Lord I am not worthy prayer and means it then its alright for them to receive his body and blood. If Jesus didn’t think Judas wasn’t worthy don’t you think he would have excluded him like a some priests are doing to those who disagree with the doctrin of the church. Who says that Jesus isn’t there in their minds. How do you know what is in somebodies mind.
J
JimG
Guest
Priests will not refuse communion to anyone unless they have very good reasons to do so. A Catholic or a non-Catholic may approach for communion in a state of mortal sin. The priest has no way of knowing this. But Jesus does. The priest has no way of knowing even who is Catholic and who is not. But Jesus knows our internal disposition and our intentions. When it comes to communion, with St. Paul’s warning in mind, I would say to anyone, Catholic or not–proceed at your own risk.
We cannot harm Jesus by receiving unworthily. But we can harm our own souls.
As for Judas: Did receiving Jesus unworthily in the Eucharist benefit his soul?
As for Peter: He did not receive unworthily, and did not deny Christ until later. And he was given the grace to repent.
R
rev_kevin
Guest
I guess you don’t watch the news when Kennedy was refused communion because of his stand on the health care issue. Then there was a priest who gave communion to gays that were mocking the Catholic faith. Can you explain this?
If Judas received the Eucharist unworthily that was given to him by Jesus why would Jesus do that knowing he will receive it unworthily and giving it to a unworthy person?
But Jesus knew Peter was going to deny him Luke 22:34 “Peter let me tell you something. The rooster will not crow tomorrow morning until you have denied three times that you even know me.” Jesus already knew Peter would do this just like he already knew that Judas was going to betray him so how can you say that he did not receive it unworthily. Now Judas did not turn Jesus in until after the Last Supper or later. No sin had been commited until he actually turned Jesus in. Everybody is given the grace to repent but that is after the fact when you ask for forgiveness.
The question was if a non-Catholic said the Lord I am not worthy prayer and means it can they receive the body and blood of Chirst?
J
JimG
Guest
I don’t know whether any priest has actually denied the Eucharist to Congressman Kennedy or not, although his bishop advised him–two years ago!–that in view of his actions in support of abortion he ought not to be receiving it.
I don’t know why priests gave communion to ACT-UP members. It seems likely to me that the priest was simply clueless as to just who these oddly dressed people were. One sees all types in the communion line without making judgments about them. A priest is loathe to refuse communion to anyone who approaches in the communion line. When in doubt, good faith is presumed.
Because of that presumption, a non-Catholic almost assuredly could receive communion. Should they? Obviously not. The rules are clearly stated in the front of the missalette.
What would be the motivation? If they believe the Catholic Eucharist to be the body of Christ in the same manner as Catholics do, they should consider entering the Catholic Church. If they simply believe it’s their right to enter any church and receive whatever sacraments are offered, they should consider reading the front of the missallette first and let their conscience be their guide, always keeping in mind 1 Cor 11: 29.
I don’t know why priests gave communion to ACT-UP members. It seems likely to me that the priest was simply clueless as to just who these oddly dressed people were. One sees all types in the communion line without making judgments about them. A priest is loathe to refuse communion to anyone who approaches in the communion line. When in doubt, good faith is presumed.
Because of that presumption, a non-Catholic almost assuredly could receive communion. Should they? Obviously not. The rules are clearly stated in the front of the missalette.
What would be the motivation? If they believe the Catholic Eucharist to be the body of Christ in the same manner as Catholics do, they should consider entering the Catholic Church. If they simply believe it’s their right to enter any church and receive whatever sacraments are offered, they should consider reading the front of the missallette first and let their conscience be their guide, always keeping in mind 1 Cor 11: 29.
R
rev_kevin
Guest
I have a missalette right in front of me right now in english and spanish and I see no rules.
I don’t believe that Jesus meant for the Eucharist to be only given to a select group of believers. Jesus came here for all men so that sins may be forgiven. He said take and eat all of you this is my body which is given up for you.
You never answered the questions I have possed which was about Peter and Judas. Why would Jesus give the the Last Supper to them if he knew what was in their hearts. Wouldn’t Jesus be guilty of giving the Euchrist to a unworthy person and knowing it. If the Bishop told the priest not to give the Euchrist to Kennedy based on his stands on abortion why would Jesus give it to Judas based on his pending death on the cross. Wouldn’t they both be in the same catigory. Abortion is death and betraying Jesus to be put to death is the same thing.
J
japhy
Guest
In the “Breaking Bread” missalette/hymnal, the regulations for Holy Communion are printed on the inside of the back cover. I don’t know what you have.
In the Acts of the Apostles, we read that people were baptized first and then “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.” (Acts 2:42) Communion is a covenant meal: you must be in covenant with God to partake of it.
Because they were His Apostles and He chose to let them all receive it. Just because they received it does not necessarily mean each of them received it worthily. I haven’t seen Jesus prevent a person from receiving Holy Communion, although there are reports from early Church Fathers of heretics attempting to receive the Eucharist and finding it in their hands to be a cinder of ash.
No, Jesus is not guilty of anything. The person who receives unworthily is guilty of receiving.
It is the Bishop’s duty to safeguard the Eucharist as best he can; but it is also his duty to safeguard the souls under his care. Therefore, to prevent a politician from further sinning and threatening his own soul by receiving in a state of public mortal sin, the Bishop has the right to tell the politician not to receive for the good of his own soul, and because of the scandal that could/would arise from it.
As for your other question, simply saying “Lord, I am not worthy…” does not automatically make a person worthy to receive Holy Communion. That prayer does not negate mortal sins, nor does it make up for the fact that a person isn’t a Catholic, or isn’t baptized, etc.
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
M
michaeldaniels
Guest
R
rev_kevin
Guest
Ok I found it on the back page. So because you are not Catholic you have no right to receive the gift that Jesus gave to all men. His body and His blood. Now did Jesus give his body and blood when he died on the cross for a select few or was it for all men. If he gave his life for all men then celebrating in the Euchrist is for all men.
“Lord you are holy indeed, the fountain of all holiness. Let your Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy, so that they may become for us the body and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ. Before he was given up to death, a death he freely accepted, he took bread and gave you thanks. He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said: Take this, ALL of you, eat it: this is my body which will be given up for you. When supper was ended, he took the cup. Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples and said: Take this, ALL of you, and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for ALL so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.” Here in the words from the mass I see nothing that says its for a select few. I see the word ALL, meaning everyone.
Acts 2:42 says: “They joined with the other believers and devoted themselve to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, sharing in the Lord’s Supper and in prayer.” Sharing in the Lord’s Supper refers to Communion services the were celebrated in remembrance of Jesus and a patterned after the Last Supper thatJesus had with his disciples before his death.
Covenant: a solemn and binding agreement.{ Mat.26:28, for this in my blood which seals the covenant between God and his people} People under the old covenant {those who lived before Jesus} could approach God through priests and animal sacrifice. Now all people can come directly to God through faith because Jesus’ death had made us acceptable in God’s eyes. Romans 3:21-24.
If Jesus chose and let them all receive it. Why wouldn’t he do the same to day. Now wouldn’t it be the duty of Jesus to safe guard the Euchrist just like its the Bishops duty to do after all ist his body and blood.
If it doesn’t negate mortal sin by simply saying it then it stands to reason if a Catholic simply says it they are guilty as well. But the question was if they meant in not if they just say it. Lets say they were Baptized or does it have to be by a priest in the Catholic faith.
C
Cav
Guest
Hi
I just want to add one more opinion. I am a non catholic who is waiting to take rcia classes next september. Often I have gone to mass and been the only one in several rows who has not gotten up and I have almost felt that I was being disrespectful. I have never gone up as I took communion in my own church and did not feel it was my place as a non catholic but for others who do … I certainly would think of it as a nice thing to do if it is within there comfort zone. I will wait until I go through the rcia. Also I think many who go up might be confused and think this is ok with everyone …
I just want to add one more opinion. I am a non catholic who is waiting to take rcia classes next september. Often I have gone to mass and been the only one in several rows who has not gotten up and I have almost felt that I was being disrespectful. I have never gone up as I took communion in my own church and did not feel it was my place as a non catholic but for others who do … I certainly would think of it as a nice thing to do if it is within there comfort zone. I will wait until I go through the rcia. Also I think many who go up might be confused and think this is ok with everyone …
- Status