Why can't I take communion at a Catholic service?

[Arwen037]

I have serious doubts that when I reach the gates of heaven St. Peter is going to say “Sorry, you can’t come in. I know you tried to live by Christ’s rules, you believe in him fully, and you asked his forgiveness for your sins. But the fact is, we only let Catholics in. Really sorry about that.” And it is probably not going to work on anyone to tell them “Oh, you share some beliefs with us. It doesn’t matter if you share them all, just join our religion. Our’s is the the only TRUE religion.” Instead of wasting your evangilization on people who have already come to Christ, go evangilize to those who haven’t.

 

[MariaG]

I disagree.

If you believed that you had the fullness of the truth, if you believed that those who, although followers of Christ, were in greater jepardy without the knowledge, can you honestly say it is a “waste of time” to try explain what you see as the fullness of truth?

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

 

[gprescott]

Wow! I think I need to take RCIA all over again. I guess alot has changed in over 20 years. I attended my niece’s Catholic wedding last year and all the groom’s Baptist family was encourged to receive Communion…It was strange…and I saw an older Baptist women put Jesus in her pocket! Food for thought…

 

[gprescott]

Arwen, In my opinion, and I may get some grief for this…there is no “perfect” church. the only perfect church is Jesus’s sacred heart, and we may all very well strive for this, but we will never attain it until we meet with him.

Peace, Gwen

 

[adara]

:And that’s my point. Christ’s Divinity is always present. I’ve never understood how the Eucharistic controversy has anything to do with Christ’s divinity. All I was getting at in this post was the tendency of some Catholics to trumpet “Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity” as if this somehow set them apart from those benighted souls who only believe in the presence of the Body and Blood. When in fact it’s the presence of the Body and Blood that is at issue among Christians.

Ah, I see your point now. Sorry for the confusion.

I think that people who say “body and blood, soul and divinity” may be simply quoting the phrases they’ve read and/or been taught. For instance, I’m reading Catholicism for Dummies right now, and that specific phrase has shown up too many times in discussion of the Eucharist for it to not be an idiosyncratically Catholic way of putting things.

What I’m finding interesting in my current reading is how so many of the seeming Catholic idiosyncrasies of expression were begun specifically to refute heresies in ages past. And while the heresies as a serious matter have long since died out, the unique expressions remain. Perhaps the “divinity” part of this expression was in response to the heresy of Arianism, which “denied that Jesus had a truly divine nature equal to God the Father.” (Catholicism for Dummies, page 80) Certainly there is at least one part of the Nicene Creed (i.e., “one in being with the Father”) that was included especially to deny Arianism.

 

[MariaG]

And while the heresies as a serious matter have long since died out,

I don’t think you mean this the way I am taking it. But I think JW’s are a pretty serious threat to the Church, and slightly less, Oneness Pentecostals. You were speaking more as an internal threat to the church? Probably should drink another cup of before I respond to anymore. I think the brain cells are not yet awake!

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

 

[adara]

MariaG: I’m sorry, I worded that poorly. You’re correct, I meant internally to the Church. I had failed to consider the JWs because I was raised to consider them not Christians precisely because they don’t believe in the divinity of Christ. Though I hadn’t really defined “heresy” for myself very well before posting here, I checked the CCC and found that it defines the word similarly to how I’d understood it thus far: “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same.” (CCC 2089)

I suppose that it’s precisely because of the new wording that the heresies are not really an internal church sort of issue anymore; anyone who runs so often into a phrase like “body and blood, soul and divinity” is going to have a hard time defending a disbelief in the divinity while hoping to remain in good standing with the Church.

Side note: Wow, I can already tell this forum’s going to be really helpful in clarifying for myself exactly what and why I believe. Cool, and thanks.

 

[Sherlock]

Arwen,

You wrote: "I have serious doubts that when I reach the gates of heaven St. Peter is going to say “Sorry, you can’t come in. I know you tried to live by Christ’s rules, you believe in him fully, and you asked his forgiveness for your sins. But the fact is, we only let Catholics in. Really sorry about that.”

I’m afraid this reveals that you have some misconceptions regarding Catholic doctrine. The Church does not teach what you are stating here: for more clarification, please read the Catechism, 846-848, to understand the meaning of “no salvation outside the Church”. There is no need to be sarcastic: I am sorry that some have offended you on this list, but to respond with a caricature of what the Catholic Church teaches does not do anyone any favors.

You wrote: “Instead of wasting your evangilization on people who have already come to Christ, go evangilize to those who haven’t.”

I think MariaG put it well in her response to you. I would only add that I would wish the fullness of truth (and yes, I do believe that that is found in the Catholic Church) for everyone: I want the best for others, therefore I do not see efforts to bring people together (Jesus prayed that we might all be one, after all) as a “waste of time”. I left Protestantism many years back, but I have no hard feelings towards any of them or the teaching I received—and it is precisely because of those fond feelings that I pray that they might become Catholic.

 

[Arwen037]

I never said that’s what the Catholic church teaches. I merly pointed out that what you are saying about needing to evanglize to me isn’t valid.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Arwen037:

I never said that’s what the Catholic church teaches. I merly pointed out that what you are saying about needing to evanglize to me isn’t valid.

I think the pendulum swings both way here. Many Protestants find it necessary to evnagelize Catholics. I think people are just truly doing what they feel lead by God to do.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Anna_Elizabeth]

gprescott:

Wow! I think I need to take RCIA all over again. I guess alot has changed in over 20 years. I attended my niece’s Catholic wedding last year and all the groom’s Baptist family was encourged to receive Communion…It was strange…and I saw an older Baptist women put Jesus in her pocket! Food for thought…

I do hope you were mistaken, gprescott; however, on the sheer possibility that what you believe you saw is correct, you MUST go to the pastor about this. If the pastor was the violator, then go directly to the bishop.

Many people believe that such tales are made up, but, unfortunately, that is not the case. There are various reasons for which people wish to obtain consecrated hosts, none of them good. Until we return to receiving on the tongue, this will continue to be a danger.

It is, of course, bad enough that the priest invited everyone to receive the Eucharist. That in itself should prompt you to take action. If I can help you in any way, please privately “message me,” but please don’t ignore this! :tsktsk:

God bless,

Anna

 

[Contarini]

adara,

My guess is that the “soul and Divinity” formula originated as a refutation of the claim that Catholics are cannibals. The point being that you aren’t chomping on Jesus’ carcass but feeding in a mystical (though not “spiritual” in the sense of ghostly or immaterial) manner on the Living Christ. The Christ in the Eucharist is not dead meat but the whole risen and ascended Person.

It’s also possible that it was polemical and based on a rather unfair reading of what Protestants who claim to believe in the Real Presence (such as Lutherans) believe. I’ve been arguing here that that’s how it’s often used now. But I’m inclined to think that the original purpose was what I’ve suggested above. In that context I think it’s a very useful claim. I don’t think it’s anti-Arian because I don’t think it occurred till post-Reformation times. (I could be wrong, though–it might have been used in the Middle Ages, but I can’t think of an example.)

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Sherlock]

Arwen,

You wrote: “I never said that’s what the Catholic church teaches.”

Well, when you wrote, "I have serious doubts that when I reach the gates of heaven St. Peter is going to say ‘Sorry, you can’t come in. I know you tried to live by Christ’s rules, you believe in him fully, and you asked his forgiveness for your sins. But the fact is, we only let Catholics in. Really sorry about that’ ", I think I can be forgiven for thinking that you were dismissing what you viewed as Catholic doctrine. I mean, otherwise, what was the point of stating this? Needless sarcasm?

You wrote: “I merly pointed out that what you are saying about needing to evanglize to me isn’t valid.”

Why isn’t it valid? What is irrational or illogical in the reasons I (and MariaG) gave which would render what I said “invalid”? Evangelicals have actively evangelized Catholics—although I find their Protestant theology flawed, I certainly respect their motivations and desire to evangelize. It makes rational, logical sense that they would evangelize, believing what they do. My argument is with their theology, not with the “validity” of their perceived need to evangelize.

 

[Arwen037]

Let me explain this AGAIN Sherlock. I disagree with enough Catholic beliefs that I won’t be changing any time soon, and probably never will. Continuing to “evangallize” (I’m not sure that telling people that only Catholics are true believers is what Jesus had in mind when he commisioned the disciples) to me AFTER I’ve said I won’t be joining the Catholic church is NOT going to convert me. It only servers to annoy the heck out of me and to confirme my descision to remain Lutheran.

 

[MariaG]

I’m not sure that telling people that only Catholics are true believers is what Jesus had in mind

That is not what either of us has said. We did not say only Catholics are true believers. We said we believe only the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth. Protestants are our separated brethren who although true believers in Christ, do not have the fullness of truth.

 

[Sherlock]

Arwen,

You wrote: “Let me explain this AGAIN Sherlock. I disagree with enough Catholic beliefs that I won’t be changing any time soon, and probably never will.”

First off, there’s no reason to be testy. I answered your initial question without insulting your religion, and yet it seems as if you are choosing to be offended—which is never a useful approach for Christians to take. Yes, I do understand that you disagree with Church teaching, though you haven’t given any particulars (topics for other threads, I suppose), nor have I asked you for any.

You wrote: “Continuing to “evangallize” (I’m not sure that telling people that only Catholics are true believers is what Jesus had in mind when he commisioned the disciples) to me AFTER I’ve said I won’t be joining the Catholic church is NOT going to convert me.”

But here again you seem to be presenting as Catholic teaching (“telling people that only Catholics are true believers”), something that the Catholic Church does not teach. This makes at least 3 or 4 times that either I or MariaG have pointed this out, yet you continue to attack this straw-man. Again, I’m sorry that others here have said “join the Catholic Church” in such a clumsy and/or offensive way as to turn you off, but responding with a distortion of Catholic teaching is clumsy and offensive. And I don’t understand why evangelizing is so offensive to you: I truly don’t mind if someone is so convinced of the truth of their theology that they wish to share it with me, as it says that they care about my soul. Take the JWs, for example—now, I can respond to their evangelizing efforts by knowing my own faith—and theirs—well enough to have a reasonable discussion without resorting to making up stuff about their beliefs. This is what makes for a profitable, and charitable, discussion. Attacking a false interpretation of their beliefs would be uncharitable and unreasonable on my part. I would also lose any credibility with them, and thus any chance I would otherwise have to bring them to the truth.

 

[Stephen-Maguire]

Arwen037:

Let me explain this AGAIN Sherlock. I disagree with enough Catholic beliefs that I won’t be changing any time soon, and probably never will. Continuing to “evangallize” (I’m not sure that telling people that only Catholics are true believers is what Jesus had in mind when he commisioned the disciples) to me AFTER I’ve said I won’t be joining the Catholic church is NOT going to convert me. It only servers to annoy the heck out of me and to confirme my descision to remain Lutheran.

Anyway as this thread is “Why can’t I take Communion at a Catholic service” i’m wondering why you would want to take Communion ? seeing as you seem to be in a rebellious mood in regards to the Catholic Church.
And i’m not trying to evanglize to you, after all you did ask the question, and you got a response, but the way you were leaning made me wonder if you did want to join, as for me i’m not bothered one way or another if you join or not, so the best of luck to you in the future.

 

[Katholikos]

Arwen037:

I would like to point out that I DO relize now why I can’t take communion in a Catholic church. Not because I don’t believe in transubstanciation, but because I don’t agree with all the beliefs of the Catholic church.

There’s another good reason why those who are not Catholic should not receive Communion in a Catholic Church – they’re not invited. The Church has rules to protect the Eucharist against sacrilege and to protect the souls of those who do not belong to the Church from committing the sin of sacrilege as well.

St. Justin Martyr wrote in 155 A.D.: “And this food is called among us Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing that is for the remission of sins and for rebirth, and who so lives as Christ handed down.”

The Church, instructed by the Apostles, has always denied Communion to those outside her jurisdiction. The Eucharist is reserved for those who not only believe, but are free of serious sin.

Someone earlier wrote that permission to receive Holy Communion may be obtained from a bishop. Here’s the law of the Church in that regard:

Canon 844 §4 If there is a danger of death or if, in the judgment of the diocesan Bishop or of the Episcopal Conference, there is some other grave and pressing need, Catholic ministers may lawfully administer these same sacraments to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who spontaneously ask for them, provided that they demonstrate the catholic faith in respect of these sacraments and are properly disposed.

If one is not Catholic, the likelihood of obtaining a bishop’s permission to receive Holy Communion – unless one is on his deathbed – is somewhere between zip and zilch. One must “demonstrate the Catholic faith” – i.e. convince the bishop that one believes everything the Church teaches, and be “unable to approach a minister of their own community” – a possibilty but not a probability.

It is not lawful for a priest to invite those who are not Catholic to receive the Eucharist. To do so is a grave sin and should be brought immediately to the bishop’s attention.

Protestant ministers (including Lutherans and Episcopalians) do not have the ability to confect the Eucharist. Protestants are quite correct in believing that the communion they receive is symbolic or “spiritual.”

 

[Arwen037]

Hey Sherlock, please tell me. When did I say that was the church’s teaching? Oh wait, I didn’t. So why are you accusing me of that? But if you look through, there are plenty of people who have been acting like I’m not a true christian since I’m not catholic.

 

[Katholikos]

Arwen037:

Hey Sherlock, please tell me. When did I say that was the church’s teaching? Oh wait, I didn’t. So why are you accusing me of that? But if you look through, there are plenty of people who have been acting like I’m not a true christian since I’m not catholic.

Catholicism and Christianity have been synonomous terms since c. 33 A.D when the Church was born. Lutherans and other Protestants with their novel doctrines first appeared 16 centuries or more later. However, no one can judge whether another is or is not a “true Christian.” But it can be said with 100% certainty that those who are not Catholic have part of the truth, but not the whole truth.

The Catholic Church alone is the “household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of Truth” (2 Tm 3:15).

For me, half a loaf was not better than none.

JMJ Jay
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!