Why not distribute unconsecrated bread and wine at Mass to those unable to take part in the Eucharist?

[AJV]

FWIW, in *some *Orthodox churches of stricter persuasion, the antidoron is NOT given to all and sundry, but only to the Orthodox (and usually, those who have fasted). Some of these stricter churches, particularly in the West, have relented to the point of giving *unblessed *bread to the non-Orthodox if they identify them, butnot the antidoron.

In any case, the antidoron does not really solve the primary ‘problem’ as such - that of the exclusion from the Holy Communion. If anything, you are highlighting the difference telling people “well, you can’t get the Body and Blood of Christ but here’s some blessed bread to make you feel better”. It can come across as even more exclusionary and patronizing.

 

[mike52ad]

The Eucharist, the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ, is a sign of our unity in belief and connects us to every other Roman Catholic in the world. Distribution of unconsecrated bread and wine at or after Mass erodes the symbolism that our partaking in the sacrifce and meal produces. However well meaning the gesture, this is not a desirable result. Catholics have the Eucharist and it is a wonderful permanent gift given to us. We should not deliver the wrong message to our Protestant and non-Christian friends. It is special and reserved for Catholics.

 

[Jeanne_S]

jmjconder:
For what purpose? Since the Eucharist is a sign of unity - wouldn’t this suggestion pretend the unity is in the appearance of bread rather than in the Eucharist?

 

[Fan_of_Trent]

This could only weaken the Church. Jesus makes clear that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Light. Read my signature. Does he say, “Eat some bread, drink some wine, and feel included?” There should be a deep HUNGER inside a person who cannot receive, and they should want to remedy the situations that stop them from receiving. Not get some empty substitute - what in the world would that do for them?

This is one of the most bizarre posts I have ever seen here! Started by an unbeliever at that!

Exactly my thoughts. If non-Catholics want to receive the Eucharist, all they have to do is become Catholic.

The Church and Her beliefs, practices and traditions should never be changed or compromised for the sole purpose of making others “feel good”. This would be a great way to further degrade the importance and primacy of the Blessed Sacrament in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It would send the message that some people can turn away from God and the gift he gave the Church and still somehow feel “catholic”. Sure we should welcome non-catholics into our Churches, but never to participate in the Eucharist. The idea is to evangelize and convert, not come up with some compromise to the True Faith. Catholicism is an all or nothing proposition. You either believe everything or you don’t. If one wishes to reject the Church’s teachings there are 35,000+ protestant denominations to choose from. Please don’t try to water down the Faith.

I don’t know what the practice is in the Eastern Orthodox Churches, and frankly, it doesn’t matter. We are talking about the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox beliefs are considered schismatic and have been since 1054.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

Why should non-Catholics get the Eucharist? Why should they be in our churches? Why should they get unconsecrated bread and wine? There is no reason for them to get it.

**“Why should they be in our churches?” **
That’s about the most un-Christian thing I’ve ever heard! My mother (a Protestant) married my father (a Catholic). She did not officially convert for many years, but she believed very strongly in us all going to church as a family, so she went to Catholic Mass every week for 12 years before converting. How will someone ever convert if they can’t enter one of our Churches? Your statement makes no sense.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

The Jewish people had customs involving the breaking of bread and wine together that had nothing to do with the Eucharist…

 

[Roeshambow2]

Better yet, pass out empty bags…they can be reused.

 

[Traditionalism]

**“Why should they be in our churches?” **
That’s about the most un-Christian thing I’ve ever heard! My mother (a Protestant) married my father (a Catholic). She did not officially convert for many years, but she believed very strongly in us all going to church as a family, so she went to Catholic Mass every week for 12 years before converting. How will someone ever convert if they can’t enter one of our Churches? Your statement makes no sense.

I later laid it out a bit more, and it was foolish of me how I worded it. I aimed it more at people who won’t convert(meaning they never will, set in stone), and why should they come to our churches and expect the Eucharist?

See above.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I prayed this morning before Liturgy, and will continue to pray, that we can reflect on some of the comments and reactions posted here with contrite hearts. The Catholic Church I thought I knew does not shut its doors to anyone. That does not mean Holy Eucharist is offered to anyone, but does mean that the opportunity to experience the love of God and be witness to the True Faith is open to all humanity. There are other religions that are indeed closed, and openly criticized here and elsewhere for it. Is this really the Catholic Church for which martyrs spilled their blood?

 

[sw85]

It is clear from many threads on CAF that the prohibition on taking part in the Eucharist for non-Catholics, and Catholics in some situations causes distress and confusion.

Could this not be overcome at least in part by the distribution to these people of unconsecrated bread and wine, with appropriate words being said (other than 'body of Christ etc)?

Leaving aside the obvious practical considerations (conventions for avoiding people getting muddled as to which was which etc) is there any reason why this could not be done? And if there is a rule against it, would it not be helpful if the rule were changed?

This sounds like a uniquely horrible idea utterly bereft of merit.

For one thing, if they are “distressed and confused” because they cannot receive communion, it is because their sins/lifestyles cut them off from the grace of communion with the Church. The solution is for them to amend their life, not for the Church to cater to their disordered lifestyles with meaningless gestures.

For another, this would cause more confusion, not less. Two communion lines, one for unconsecrated host and another for consecrated host? How is this supposed to work, exactly? Do we have someone lower a sign from the rafters (“THIS LINE FOR SINNERS ONLY”), and if so, how is this supposed to ameliorate feelings of distress and alienation for those who can receive only from this line? Yet not having such a clear distinction would scandalize those faithful who live their lives according to the teachings of the Church, since there would never be a meaningful way to tell who’s receiving what, why. We already have enough confusion with the ridiculous blessings-in-communion-line fiasco, and does that not cater to their sensibilities enough?

For a third, what would be the point of this? Communion doesn’t exist to put people at ease. It exists to as a channel of sacramental grace. This is another reason the whole blessings-in-communion-line business is so especially annoying; we already have enough contentless feel-good chicanery distracting people from the significance of communion.

 

[Hokomai]

As you sign in as a Non Believer I am just wondering why this bothers you, after all the Catholic Church teaches what it teaches, and does what it does, in the way its prescribed for 2000 years, I will pray that you start to Believe and see that Our Way is not the Lord’s Way. Let things that you dont believe in disturb you.:::yawn:

I don’t think it bothers me, but I ask these questions because I learn things from the answers. As you rightly point out the Church is an enduring institution and to understand my society it helps to understand the Chuch. On the other hand I may just be strange.

 

[Hokomai]

This sounds like a uniquely horrible idea utterly bereft of merit.

Why not just come out and say what you really think?

 

[TheRealJuliane]

This sounds like a uniquely horrible idea utterly bereft of merit.

For one thing, if they are “distressed and confused” because they cannot receive communion, it is because their sins/lifestyles cut them off from the grace of communion with the Church. The solution is for them to amend their life, not for the Church to cater to their disordered lifestyles with meaningless gestures.

For another, this would cause more confusion, not less. Two communion lines, one for unconsecrated host and another for consecrated host? How is this supposed to work, exactly? Do we have someone lower a sign from the rafters (“THIS LINE FOR SINNERS ONLY”), and if so, how is this supposed to ameliorate feelings of distress and alienation for those who can receive only from this line? Yet not having such a clear distinction would scandalize those faithful who live their lives according to the teachings of the Church, since there would never be a meaningful way to tell who’s receiving what, why. We already have enough confusion with the ridiculous blessings-in-communion-line fiasco, and does that not cater to their sensibilities enough?

For a third, what would be the point of this? Communion doesn’t exist to put people at ease. It exists to as a channel of sacramental grace. This is another reason the whole blessings-in-communion-line business is so especially annoying; we already have enough contentless feel-good chicanery distracting people from the significance of communion.

+1, should close this topic.

 

[10gr8kids]

I don’t think it bothers me, but I ask these questions because I learn things from the answers. As you rightly point out the Church is an enduring institution and to understand my society it helps to understand the Chuch. On the other hand I may just be strange.

I don’t think you are strange, it only makes sense to understand how others think. There would be less fighting if we all truly tried to understand eachother.

I do agree with sw85’s third point. The Echuarist isn’t about making people feel comfortable and welcomed, it is about Jesus giving Himself to us. If we were to give out unconsecreated bread and wine to those who cannot receive Jesus in the Eucharist, it would seem like we were saying, "It’s no big deal to receive Jesus, just have this bread, it’s basically the same thing. We don’t think it’s that important "
At least that is what it would seem like to me.
Another analogy, someone is sick and dying, there is medicine that will cure them, should we give them a placebo just to make them feel good or help them understand what the “real medicine” can do for them?

 

[TheRealJuliane]

What a terrific question and a very loving idea.

I have a follow up, taking it a little further:

When Jesus was giving out the bread/wine at the passover dinner with his followers, did he specify or put limits on who should continue this ritual in the future and exactly how?

Seems like Jesus’ words in the three gospels where the scene is described (and in corinthians?), says something: “this is my body, do this in remembrance of me…”
But I don’t recall any specific instruction after that.

His words sound very inclusive, just as your post suggests.

Did he give any more “rules” after that? That a person had to go to confession beforehand…or fast beforehand…or go to religious classes and convert to the same religion…or not be a sinner…or not be of another religion…before taking part in this ritual?

I don’t think so…

He had already lost most of his earlier followers when he told them in plain terms that they would have to eat of his flesh and drink of his blood or they would have no life within them. They self-excluded and walked away, because those sayings were “hard.” The ones who would stay with him were the ones at the Last Supper, and those were the ones who spread Christianity. There was no Church before Jesus gave the Keys to Peter. So there was no such thing as exclusion from an institution which had not existed before.

 

[jmjconder]

**Would you give a $1,000,000 dollars to a person who needed paper kindling for their fire?

I would not! Eucharist is infinitely more precious!**

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Would you give a $1,000,000 dollars to a person who needed paper kindling for their fire?

Would you give your leftover bread to a starving child?

 

[Quaesitor]

Personally, I started RCIA last year, at the beginning of December, then decided I wanted to start from the very beginning this year (two more weeks till we start, whoop!). So I’ve been going to Mass now for awhile and haven’t been able to take part in communion, but that doesn’t bother me. What I can’t wait for is the day when I do come into full communion and can rightfully take part in the Mass and in Christ fully and completely. I’ll wait, I don’t need something that would mean nothing in reality.

Just my two cents worth.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Let me clarify a few things here.

First, this image here:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

These are to be used as the actual loaves for the Eucharist. The person who made this even used the same seal (or stamp) that I personally use for the Prosphora I make (or quite close to the design).

The antidoron is bread cut out from the same loaf or loaves that is used for the Eucharist. Not the entire bread is used for the Eucharist, at least if those who would follow the strict tradition. As you can see in the image, the seal or stamp makes a square imprint in the middle, the priest would cut along the sides of the square and all the outside parts are not used for the Eucharist. That is traditional, some would use the whole bread anyway but usually these are the parishes that normally do not offer antidoron (like ours).

Antidoron is NOT intended for non-Catholics (or non-Orthodox). Remember that fasting is from midnight and normally after Orthodox/Matins and Divine Liturgy which could be anywhere from 2-3 hours, it would be late morning or almost noon, depending what time the parish starts the services. People are hungry. The practicality of this is that people are given the bread so they can start having something in their stomach as soon as they receive the Eucharist. The practice of how the antidoron is blessed differs also. Some would give it at the end of the Liturgy so it is blessed by touching the bread to the Chalice. Others bring it out during Communion so people can eat and drink right after receiving Communion, I don’t think there is any other additional blessing done besides the prayers during proskomide.

Now, again traditionally non-Christians (or non-Catholics/non-Orthodox) are dismissed at the conclusion of the Liturgy of the Catechumens (or Liturgy of the Word). So definitely the antidoron isn’t mean for such a group. Only in recent times when the dismissal has became more ceremonious that those not belonging to the Church are there for Communion and the actual end of the Liturgy. As mentioned in this thread, some jurisdictions allow for them to receive the antidoron, some don’t.

So, in conclusion, don’t mistake the antidoron as something to simulate the Eucharist for the non-members of the Church. It is not the intention of the tradition.

 

[ProVobis]

If memory serves, at least some of our Orthodox and Eastern Catholic brothers do distribute unconsecrated bread after their liturgies. No confusion at all that I can tell, certainly no higher incidence of improper communions either. :shrugs: and it is a nice friendly gesture towards those who cannot receive, makes them feel still part of the body.

During Christmas time, the Poles (and others) exchange unconsecrated bread (opłatek) with one another as a show of communion. I’ve heard this done after the liturgies as well. It’s really a beautiful custom, something even some Americans who attend there like to participate in.