Non-Catholics: Why do you WANT to receive the Eucharist?

[Bluegoat]

I will throw out there, that the Eucharist must be properly consecrated by a validly ordained Priest. I’m not suggesting that the Catholic Church has a monopoly on these, the Orthodox have valid Apostolic orders, and some Lutherans do, so I guess some Lutherans Eucharist might be valid (though Catholics can’t partake regardless under any circumstance).

But, it’s not enough just to say “well I believe it is, even though my Baptist minister says it’s not”, or “well my Anglican minster says it is, so I believe him”. You need valid orders, without them I honestly do believe you might as well be wishing upon a star. Believe all you want, it doesn’t make it so. I also believe Paul’s warning applies only to a validly consecrated host.

But this is a Catholic belief, essentially. Anglicans do think their orders are valid; Lutherans often think it is irrelevant; many others don’t believe in the True Presence, in which case valid orders really wouldn’t make a difference. Since the OPs question was asking what non-Catholics think and why they do not always see closed communion the same way, the answer is going to be that they think differently.

And of course they think their reasons are just as compelling as the Catholic ones.

 

[St_Francis]

Umm, that would include Catholics and Orthodox.

There is only one Catholic Church and it is unified. It is true that the Orthodox seem somewhat at odds over certain issues.

You are bound by Catholic teaching to believe that our Eucharist lacks the true body and blood. We are bound by no such belief about yours.

Does the fact that you have a different belief than we do about your ability to consecrate somehow give you the right to come as a guest to a Catholic Mass and partake of the Catholic Eucharist?

So, I can say that yes, it exists in the Lutheran Eucharist, just as it does in yours. And I pray for the day that unity comes to our communions.

Jon

I will join you in that prayer

 

[crazzeto]

But this is a Catholic belief, essentially. Anglicans do think their orders are valid; Lutherans often think it is irrelevant; many others don’t believe in the True Presence, in which case valid orders really wouldn’t make a difference. Since the OPs question was asking what non-Catholics think and why they do not always see closed communion the same way, the answer is going to be that they think differently.

And of course they think their reasons are just as compelling as the Catholic ones.

It’s not a Catholic belief, it’s an Orthodox Christian belief. Any Christian from an Orthodox Church (catholic or the eastern split) knows the truth of this matter. The host must be validly consecrated by a validly ordained priest.

 

[Bluegoat]

It’s not a Catholic belief, it’s an Orthodox Christian belief. Any Christian from an Orthodox Church (catholic or the eastern split) knows the truth of this matter. The host must be validly consecrated by a validly ordained priest.

Since we didn’t seem to be discussing the OC position, I thought it would be better not to mention it, as it would open a totally different can of worms. I agree that valid orders are essential, but certainly many groups do not.

And many are not really upset that the Catholics have closed communion. They would like to take it if they could, since that is consistent with their understanding of the Eucharist and also the unity of the Church. Obviously they think the Catholic position is wrong. But that doesn’t mean they are offended, or think that the Catholic position lacks internal logic.

If someone wants to know why another group sees things differently, the answer is likely that they see something differently. I’m not sure why that would cause argument.

But if we are discussing the Orthodox - I assume Catholics are comfortable with not being admitted to communion in Orthodox Churches for the same reason Catholics don’t admit Protestants?

 

[AmateurPianist]

Since you are asking…

On the 1-2 times per year I have occasion to go to a Catholic church.

Because I don’t see any reason why I should be denied. When I went to my grandparents Baptist church, they didn’t deny us communion because we were Methodists.

Because I feel a little awkward having to remain seated while everybody else goes up front. Sort of self-conscious I guess.

But, meh, it is not that important to me in the big scheme of things. That is the way you all choose to manage it, and it is your prerogative to manage it your way. So it is what it is I suppose.

 

[St_Francis]

Did you read the comment I was responding to? In this case, the Catholic poster was commenting on the possibility that the Real Presence exists in the Catholic Eucharist and in at least some non-Catholic Eucharists. She argued that even if this were the case, than it is still sensible/logical/acceptable that Catholics would deny the Eucharist to these other Christians when they are visiting a Catholic Church.

I am suggesting that if it were the case, to deny the Eucharist to a person in the Catholic Church, which God is willing to give them in some other Church, would be putting the Catholic Church above God.

But we do not know that God gives them the True Presence in their service. While it may be a possibility that the True Presence exists in non-Catholic situations, we do not know that. Since Episcopalians and Lutherans do not have the same belief about the True Presence–they believe in consubstantiation rather than Transubstantiation–and because there has been a loss of Apostolic succession, the issue is extremely confusing.

eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

You are assuming, however, that anyone who believes in the True Presence would also believe that this rule would somehow prevent the unworthy from receiving. But since such a person would not think that all non-Catholics are unworthy, it doesn’t necessarily follow that this would be the best way to accomplish that from that individuals point of view.

The Catholic Church teaches that non-Catholics should not receive the Eucharist, but that Orthodox may receive under certain conditions. This is related to what the Catholic Church teaches about the Eucharist and about the consecrations of non-Catholic denominations.

The rules for Catholics also exist. No Catholic should present himself to receive the Eucharist if he is aware of having mortally sinned. However, Catholics have recourse to a Confession we know to be valid.

It may well be that there are non-Catholics worthy to receive, in which case they should join the Catholic Church, and I do agree that there are Catholics receiving unworthily, which is against the rules of the Church. However, the fact that some Catholics break the rules of the Church and receive unworthily is no justification to allow unknown worthy non-Catholics to receive. Would you have the priest interview each and every non-Catholic present at each Mass to see whether or not they are worthy? That would be a logistical nightmare. Thus to protect the Eucharist, we have rules. The fact that some break them is not a reason to change them.

The OP wanted to know why a non-Catholic would want to receive the Eucharist in a Catholic Church, and not agree with closed communion, or at least not in all circumstances. The main reason that this happens is that they do not see the real Eucharist, however they understand it, as being something that only the Catholic Church has.

I would disagree with you here: that would be true only for a few. Those whose own denomination teaches that there is no change in the bread and the wine, that the liturgical action is merely symbolic, would believe that this is true also of the Catholic consecration. Rather than thinking that the Catholic True Presence and their own are equal, they would think that the Catholic Eucharist is merely a symbol, as their own bread and wine are merely symbolic.

However, consider what you are saying just with regards to your teachings. You posit that the Anglican community has the True Presence, and that therefore every Anglican who presents himself for Communion at a Catholic Church would be just as likely as any Catholic to be worthy to receive. And yet your church teaches that artificial birth control, abortion, homosexual activity are all moral activities which would not bar one from worthiness to receive. These are actions which the Catholic Church teaches are gravely sinful. Thus, we see that Anglicans are not properly educated on sin, and may well inadvertently present themselves to receive when they are not at all worthy. This is something over which the Catholic Church has no control or authority; hence, to protect the Eucharist, the True Presence of Christ our Lord, the Church has a rule that the Eucharist is limited to Catholics and Orthodox who meet certain criteria.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

With due respect, saying that you ‘should’ have this (when you know that the teaching of Catholics is that you should not) is rather bad manners. Really, it is. You may not agree with us. But (and somebody brought this up with the Orthodox who do not usually permit Catholics to receive communion in their churches, and how did we like DEM apples), the fact that we might not ‘agree’ doesn’t mean that we ride roughshod over others. I perfectly accept the right of the Orthodox to determine exactly whom may or may not receive communion in THEIR church. No ifs, ands, or buts. Their church, their rules. I perfectly acknowledge them and their right to make their rules in THEIR church.

No Catholic is storming into a Lutheran Church to say, “Stop giving communion, it’s not real” or “Give me communion but it’s transsubstantiation, not consubstantiation, no matter what YOU say it is”.

So why are some advocating really the equivalent of Larry Lutheran and Alex Anglican (or even Buster Baptist, albeit it’s rather unlikely Buster would come along for the ride) coming into the neighborhood Catholic church and saying, "Yo, padre. We aren’t Catholic, we don’t agree with all your beliefs, but to us, communion is Jesus. And because we believe THAT, we think we have every right to come in here and demand you give him to us, despite the fact that we aren’t gonna become Catholic, no way, no how. Because (threat voice) if you don’t give us what we want and what we claim we are entitled to have simply because we want it, then you are big bad blue Meanies, you’re ‘denying us’, you’re intolerable bigots and you have absolutely no right to make any kind of determination in YOUR Church about nonCatholic Christians.

Again, I say it’s bad manners. It really is. And I would be ashamed to do the equivalent of this threatening, entitlement ranting and demands in any Christian church in which I happened not to be a member.

 

[O.S.Luke]

I don’t think anyone is asking the Catholic Church to change it’s “rules.” While I don’t think the Eucharist needs protecting (indeed, it is Christ Himself), Catholics can do as they please.

The fact of the matter is that Catholics believe that Eucharist/Communion signifies unity of belief (even tho Orthodox are welcome to receive, which is a bit strange) in addition to the Real Presence of Christ. In Lutheranism, Anglicanism, and my own Methodism, we embrace the Real Presence (and NOT consubstantiation, as someone mistakenly noted earlier) and admit the confessing and repentant baptized, regardless of denomination, as our common baptism is our unity in Christ.

No one is asking Catholics to change. However, as I said earlier, I personally cannot attend the worship of God where Christ’s Body and Blood is offered and not be able to partake, no matter what church I might be in. It is simply too painful. But that’s just me.

 

[ralphinal]

I don’t think anyone is asking the Catholic Church to change it’s “rules.” While I don’t think the Eucharist needs protecting (indeed, it is Christ Himself), Catholics can do as they please.

The fact of the matter is that Catholics believe that Eucharist/Communion signifies unity of belief (even tho Orthodox are welcome to receive, which is a bit strange) in addition to the Real Presence of Christ. In Lutheranism, Anglicanism, and my own Methodism, we embrace the Real Presence (and NOT consubstantiation, as someone mistakenly noted earlier) and admit the confessing and repentant baptized, regardless of denomination, as our common baptism is our unity in Christ.

No one is asking Catholics to change. However, as I said earlier, I personally cannot attend the worship of God where Christ’s Body and Blood is offered and not be able to partake, no matter what church I might be in. It is simply too painful. But that’s just me.

Do you think that anyone who is baptised should be allowed to participate or is a belief in the Real Presence needed?

 

[Bluegoat]

But we do not know that God gives them the True Presence in their service. While it may be a possibility that the True Presence exists in non-Catholic situations, we do not know that. Since Episcopalians and Lutherans do not have the same belief about the True Presence–they believe in consubstantiation rather than Transubstantiation–and because there has been a loss of Apostolic succession, the issue is extremely confusing.

Well, you are missing the conversation again. The situation under discussion was hypothetical - “If the other groups also have the True Presence, then such and such would follow”. It was not about whether or not that was the case in fact.

As it happens, the Catholic Church is quite clear that they do not think any Protestants have valid orders, so they do not have the Real Presence. It has nothing to do with transubstantiation, which the Orthodox also reject.

It may well be that there are non-Catholics worthy to receive, in which case they should join the Catholic Church,

Clearly they would not agree.

I would disagree with you here: that would be true only for a few. Those whose own denomination teaches that there is no change in the bread and the wine, that the liturgical action is merely symbolic, would believe that this is true also of the Catholic consecration. Rather than thinking that the Catholic True Presence and their own are equal, they would think that the Catholic Eucharist is merely a symbol, as their own bread and wine are merely symbolic.

Yes, that was part of what I was saying. A group that thought the Eucharist was only symbolic would think the same of the Catholic Eucharist, and so would see no reason that Catholics should have closed communion. A group that thought they did also have the Real Presence would also see no good reason for it.

However, consider what you are saying just with regards to your teachings. You posit that the Anglican community has the True Presence, and that therefore every Anglican who presents himself for Communion at a Catholic Church would be just as likely as any Catholic to be worthy to receive. And yet your church teaches that artificial birth control, abortion, homosexual activity are all moral activities which would not bar one from worthiness to receive. These are actions which the Catholic Church teaches are gravely sinful. Thus, we see that Anglicans are not properly educated on sin, and may well inadvertently present themselves to receive when they are not at all worthy. This is something over which the Catholic Church has no control or authority; hence, to protect the Eucharist, the True Presence of Christ our Lord, the Church has a rule that the Eucharist is limited to Catholics and Orthodox who meet certain criteria.

Well, the Anglican Church does not teach that, although it seems parts of the Anglican Church in North America are pushing some aspects of that agenda. Of course, they are very much splitting themselves off from the Anglican Communion in this, and there has been talk of some sort of “suspension”. And Anglicans in NA comprise only a tiny portion of Anglicans worldwide.
However, I think this is the most convincing argument, but even then, if we are discussing the proposition that there was indeed the Real Presence in other Churches, than it still seems to me to be a form of hubris. Essentially it would be saying "Well, we know God still gives them the Eucharist, but they don’t follow are rules about X which we think are important so we won’t let them have it in OUR Church.

Again, it really only makes sense if you DON’T believe any other groups have the Real Presence.

 

[Bluegoat]

With due respect, saying that you ‘should’ have this (when you know that the teaching of Catholics is that you should not) is rather bad manners. Really, it is. You may not agree with us. But (and somebody brought this up with the Orthodox who do not usually permit Catholics to receive communion in their churches, and how did we like DEM apples), the fact that we might not ‘agree’ doesn’t mean that we ride roughshod over others. I perfectly accept the right of the Orthodox to determine exactly whom may or may not receive communion in THEIR church. No ifs, ands, or buts. Their church, their rules. I perfectly acknowledge them and their right to make their rules in THEIR church.

No Catholic is storming into a Lutheran Church to say, “Stop giving communion, it’s not real” or “Give me communion but it’s transsubstantiation, not consubstantiation, no matter what YOU say it is”.

So why are some advocating really the equivalent of Larry Lutheran and Alex Anglican (or even Buster Baptist, albeit it’s rather unlikely Buster would come along for the ride) coming into the neighborhood Catholic church and saying, "Yo, padre. We aren’t Catholic, we don’t agree with all your beliefs, but to us, communion is Jesus. And because we believe THAT, we think we have every right to come in here and demand you give him to us, despite the fact that we aren’t gonna become Catholic, no way, no how. Because (threat voice) if you don’t give us what we want and what we claim we are entitled to have simply because we want it, then you are big bad blue Meanies, you’re ‘denying us’, you’re intolerable bigots and you have absolutely no right to make any kind of determination in YOUR Church about nonCatholic Christians.

Again, I say it’s bad manners. It really is. And I would be ashamed to do the equivalent of this threatening, entitlement ranting and demands in any Christian church in which I happened not to be a member.

No one has suggested they would take communion in a Catholic Church anyway, or Catholics can’t make any rule they like. They are simply answering the original question, which is what their** non-Catholic perception is **of the Catholic practice of closed communion.

It is very difficult to do this without saying what they actually think. If you have a problem, perhaps you should address the person who posed the question in the first place.

 

[livnlern]

I have to go back to the question in the OP. Why do you want to receive the Eucharist if you’re not Catholic?
A couple of definitions of communion are:
– intimate fellowship or rapport(in this case with the Catholic church and its teachings)
–a body of Christians having a common faith and discipline

So, in other words, receiving Holy Communion implies that you share in the beliefs of the people assembled in the Catholic church. Why would it have any meaning for you if you’re not a practicing Catholic?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

To *join *the Catholic Church.

Christ never so much as ever mentioned The Catholic Church, much less called anyone to join it.

There is no unity among the various *Lutheran *groups, much less between all the different groups which call themselves Christian. You cannot celebrate something which does not exist, and you cannot strengthen something which is not there.

I don’t think that the blessings of The Holy Eucharist depend on the reality that every denomination (including The Catholic Church) agrees with itself so that it has a unity of one: self alone with self alone. I don’t think the blessings have anything to do with denominations at all - whether such agrees with some other (as some Protestant ones do) or not (as The Catholic Church does not).

.

 

[crazzeto]

Christ never so much as ever mentioned The Catholic Church, much less called anyone to join it.

I don’t think that the blessings of The Holy Eucharist depend on the reality that every denomination (including The Catholic Church) agrees with itself so that it has a unity of one: self alone with self alone. I don’t think the blessings have anything to do with denominations at all - whether such agrees with some other (as some Protestant ones do) or not (as The Catholic Church does not). .

This is a flawed argument, Jesus built a Church and made Peter, the Rock (Kepa/Cephas) the foundation of it. It is this Church wich is Catholic, or Universal. Of this church Jesus said “He who hears you hears me, he who rejects you rejects me”.

 

[michaeldaniels]

At the risk of sounding uncharitable…as an Episcopalian, you do not share in the Precious Body and Blood of Christ either…you consume bread and wine every Sunday…not Holy Communion. Only validly ordained Priests can Consecrate the bread and wine…Anglican Priest are not validly ordained…and as far as denying it to others…they must first truly understand what The Eucharist is and totally believe it is without a doubt the Precious Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ…Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. Secondly it has to do with being in a State of Grace…as non-Catholics and subsequently unable to go to confession, your soul is not in the right state to receive the Most Blessed Sacrament…I could go on and on…but you see, there are several reasons why non-Catholics can not and should not receive Holy Communion

Hi Apryl,

From my point of view as a Christian, I can’t ever imagine denying another Christian the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is Jesus’ invitation that we partake in the Lord’s Supper.

Do you not feel bad denying a friend/family member attending Mass with you the body and blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ??

God Bless!

 

[AmericanJosiah]

This is a flawed argument, Jesus built a Church and made Peter, the Rock (Kepa/Cephas) the foundation of it. It is this Church wich is Catholic, or Universal. Of this church Jesus said “He who hears you hears me, he who rejects you rejects me”.

Off topic, but I disagree. Jesus did NOT say those words to The Catholic Church or any other denomination. He didn’t say those words to Peter or any bishop in Rome. He didn’t say those words to any Apostle. Yes, Jesus founded the church - but that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any denomination - including The Catholic Church. OF COURSE you disagree with me or you could not be Catholic, but IMHO anyone who is literate can see what Scripture says and DOES NOT say in this regard.

Back to the discussion of why Protestants participate in The Holy Eucharist. I gave my reply.

.

 

[crazzeto]

Off topic, but I disagree. Jesus did NOT say those words to The Catholic Church or any other denomination. He didn’t say those words to Peter or any bishop in Rome. He didn’t say those words to any Apostle. Yes, Jesus founded the church - but that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any denomination - including The Catholic Church. OF COURSE you disagree with me or you could not be Catholic, but IMHO anyone who is literate can see what Scripture says and DOES NOT say in this regard.

Back to the discussion of why Protestants participate in The Holy Eucharist. I gave my reply.

You’re right, so you probably shouldnt’ have brought it up. And the Catholic Church isn’t a denomination, it’s is thee Christian Church, set up by Christ. Denominations are the splinter groups that exist today.

Edit
On a personal note, is there any reason why you do that big blank space thing at the bottom of your post with the period? Not that it’s horrible or anything, but I keep getting caught by it… Accidently embedding my respnose in your quote.

 

[Cathhsmom]

Just a FYI for those of other faiths that cannot receive in the Catholic church, not all Catholics can recieve Holy Communion, either. When in a state of mortal sin, you should not recieve communion. So, it is not only the non-Catholics who should remain seated, but also many Catholics who unfortunately treat it as has been expressed here as a “right” that they have rather than a precious privilege. I know how hard it is to sit there. I was a non-baptized Christian when my dh and I got married. We didn’t have a wedding mass because half of our guests wouldn’t be able to partake. We went to Mass together for 2 years before I entered RCIA. So, for 3 years, I could not partake. I remember well the hunger to recieve our Lord in the Eucharist.

I just wanted to let you know that you would not be alone. As a Catholic, I would not recieve communion from the Lutheran church, or any other church that I would visit as a guest and not just because I would not be sure if it was validly consecrated, but mainly because doing so would be a lie that I was in communion with that church, which I am not. I have family who are Mormon and have a communion. I recieved from this as child, but if I ever visited their church again, would not be able to recieve of this but would just pass it on. It is not a condemnation of them, just as them not recieving in our church would not be a condemnation of them, but the honest truth that we are not in union with each other.

I, too, pray for unity among believers.

 

[michaeldaniels]

IV. THE GRAVITY OF SIN: MORTAL AND VENIAL SIN

1854 Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. The distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture,129 became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corroborated by human experience.

1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.

Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.

1856 Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God’s mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation:

When the will sets itself upon something that is of its nature incompatible with the charity that orients man toward his ultimate end, then the sin is mortal by its very object . . . whether it contradicts the love of God, such as blasphemy or perjury, or the love of neighbor, such as homicide or adultery. . . . But when the sinner’s will is set upon something that of its nature involves a disorder, but is not opposed to the love of God and neighbor, such as thoughtless chatter or immoderate laughter and the like, such sins are venial.130
1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131

1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.

1863 Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul’s progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not break the covenant with God. With God’s grace it is humanly reparable. "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness."134

While he is in the flesh, man cannot help but have at least some light sins. But do not despise these sins which we call “light”: if you take them for light when you weigh them, tremble when you count them. A number of light objects makes a great mass; a number of drops fills a river; a number of grains makes a heap. What then is our hope? Above all, confession.135
1864 "Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven."136 There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.137 Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

Rick,

Mortals sins? I don’t think that you will find me on “America’s Most Wanted”…

God Bless!

 

[Lutheranteach]

What makes an order valid?