Why can’t non-Catholics receive Holy Communion?

Question: How could the apostles participate in the last supper of taking His body and drinking His blood and it turning into it, if it was not shed yet?
Because it was symbolic.

Also Jesus said to the theif on the cross. Today you will be with me in paradise Greek=paradeisos, translation heaven, or by the later Jews the abode of Abrahams bosom until the resurrection. But Jesus descended after the crucifixtion, first to conquer satan and to set the captives free, those waiting in Abrahams bosom until the resurrection, for the promised Messiah. The theif didn't participate in baptism or communion. So it's not required for salvation, we do it out of obedience, an outward expression of an inward change that has happened. I do believe that unbelievers should not take communion for it will cause judgement, but God Love's them too and knows there hearts. And His blood covers a multitude of sins. it's not an unforgivable sin only Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. (denying of Jesus as the only atonement for sin).

Look at all the old testament saints Abraham, Enosh, Elijah, etc. they didn't participate in commumion it was by faith... God accredited it to him [Abraham] as righteousness. Romans 4:9
In His Strong love,
WT
John 3

Tanya,
Answer: I think God can do anything He wants, don't you? If it is symbolic, then you would have to throw out parts of the Bible. And why didn't Jesus indicate that it was symbolic at the last supper, rather than saying "This is my body" - wouldn't that make Jesus a liar? And if it's just symbolic, then there's no reason to stop others from participating. Right?

Finally, the theif didn't participate because he did not have the option. You do. This is the difference between the requirements of the thief and the requirements for you - to whom much is given, much is expected.

The Old Testament saints did participate in the Passover, which prefigured the Eucharist. They did accept the bread and wine from the priest Melchizedeck, which was also a type of the New Testament Eucharist. They also participated in circumcision, which prefigured baptism. But more importantly, they didn't go to heaven. They had to wait in a holding area for Christ to come and free them. Why? Because they didn't have the power of the Holy Spirit or the Sacraments to sanctify them. To whom much is given . . .

I think Jesus and the apostles were clear in the Bible on the importance of the Eucharist.

God bless,
Jay
John Chapter 6

This site has been a great aid in explaining to my fiancé why he may not receive Holy Communion with me at mass. He finally understands and is not offended by that anymore. Thanks!
Lisa

So basically what you are saying is that as a Catholic, you are also a cannibal? You eat literal body and drink literal blood so ipso facto... you are cannibals!

Strange that God would condemn the drinking of blood but yet again ask us to do it??

Mark, you put it very well indeed.

Roman Catholics are cannibals, and because of this, it would be gravely irresponsible to offer a Protestant the flesh of Christ if they were under the impression that it was merely symbolic.

As for God condemning the drinking of blood, notice the reason repeatedly given in the Old Testament: for the LIFE is in the blood. In John 6, we see Jesus telling us that unless we eat of his flesh and drink of his blood we shall not have LIFE within us. The reason Yahweh forbids drinking blood is the same reason the Lord Jesus Christ commands us to drink his blood.

The life is in the blood and it is in the blood of Jesus, and Jesus alone that we can find eternal life.

Lisa,
Thank you for posting your comment. I think it's wonderful that this site helped you and your fiance. I pray the two of you grow together spiritually even before your wedding day. God's presence in your marriage is the greatest wedding gift you can give each other. May He bless and keep you both.

Jay ,

A question about communion. In the past only the host was offered to the person receiving communion. Only the priest took both the host (Bread) and the wine, Now the church offers the
host and the wine. I do not drink the wine because even though the person giving the cup wipes it with a cloth I still am afraid that I
could catch a cold or some other disease from a person taking the cup who is sick. The cloth is not an antiseptic wipe so there is a chance to
pick something up from the cup. They use the same cloth to wipe the cup over and over until
communion is over.

If you don't drink from the cup are you still receiving the body and blood of Jesus in the Host? I have read various pros and cons on this
subject. What is your take on it ?

I know in many of the Protestant churches they fill up little cups that look like shot glasses when they have communion.

What is your position ?

Grace & Peace,

Clem

Hi Clem,
Both the bread and the blood contain the full body and blood of Christ, so you are still receiving the fullness of Christ by only accepting the host. The Church does recommend that you receive under both species.

Remember, the wine actually becomes the blood of Christ, so at some point this becomes an issue of faith: if we really believe in the Eucharist, then we should trust that God will protect us from sickness, etc. that derives from the cup. Protestants are actually receiving grape juice, not the blood of Christ, so they do have to worry about sickness, etc.

God bless,
Jay

This is all rediculous. For those of us who actually study the history of Christianity, we know the truth about the ceremonies that are performed by the Catholic religion. Nowhere in the bible does Jesus say that eating the bread or drinking the wine will bring you spiritual clenliness. In Matthew and Mark, who were actual 1st generation desciples of Christ, there is no mention of Jesus telling them to do this to remember him. Only in Luke, whom was a 2nd generation desciple, makes note of this. Could both Mark and Matthew forgotten about this? And could Luke, who wasn't even there, some how learn of this knowledge from another desciple. John doesn't even make mention of the episode. I do believe that the breaking of bread and drinking of wine should be done to remember the eve of Jesus Christ death, but to center a religion around this "ceremony" is missing the point. Jesus, many times, mentions the bread of life. This bread of life if the Word of God! Not his literal flesh. We feed our souls with the bread of life, the Word of God, not with flour and water. When will the Catholic religion put aside thier ceremonies and idols and begin to speak the truth? I continue to pray for every lost soul in the Catholic religion who looks upon a man who is crucified on a cross at the front of the church. Who is this man? Whos body is this? Is this what Jesus looked like? Noone knows! God said it himself. I ask every Catholic to read the 1st and 2nd commandments and discover the truth. Please do not read the abridged versions of the 10 commandments. Read it directly from the King James Bible. Please email me with your responses. I would love to hear the reasoning behind the superior importance of the Eucharist.

Well Ben from your comments I assume you aren't including yourself in that group of individuals who have studied the history of Christianity....

In both Matthew and Mark's gospels Jesus refers to the cup as containing "the blood of the covenant". If you knew anything about covenant, from a biblical prespective, you would understand the meaning of this. Of course, your comment completely avoids the reality of Jesus' words about "what" the Bread of Life is in John 6, not to mention St. Paul's explanation of the need for commemorating the breaking of the bread and the results of receiving the Lord's Body and Blood unworthily in 1 Cor 11:23-29. And there are, of course, THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS, many of whom wrote about the reality of Jesus' presence in the Eucharist and the need for commemorating the "breaking of the bread!" But I guess you choose to ignore them as well as the rest of the Church's history...

In reference to your overall comment...consider this a friendly wakeup call...don't jump in unless you have a foundation to stand on.

Keep praying for us, and know that we are praying for you.

In Christ,
Joe

Let us discuss how the Catholic religion began in the first place. As the fall of Rome was taking place, the fall of Christianity was also taking place. Christians were being persecuted within the entire empire. If Constantine hadn't needed the help of Christians inorder to keep his empire together, Christianity would have gone an entirely different course. Constantine called the council of Nicaea because 1) He wanted to find favor in the eyes of Christians for political reason, and 2)Becasue there was a confusion concerning the different opinions of who Jesus really was. If you would actually read the happenings of that particular council, which was the first gathering of Bishops, you would see how political the council turned out to be. The council did answer the question of who is Jesus, but it was also the beginning of the corruption of the church. The years following the coucil, the instutionalization of the Church led the bishops from serving the followers of Christ, to serving themselves in a political tug-o-war to gain the upper hand in the region. Because of this internal struggle between bishops, the Church lost focus and continues to do so today. The sacrements in which the Catholics introduced into the church from thier earliest of bishpos, as forms of salvation, brainwashed and manipulated Christians into believing that these things must be done in order to welcome the Holy Spirit into thier lives. I don't recall Jesus ever turning anyone away? Do you? I don't recall Jesus telling anyone that if you dont participate in the breaking of the bread, you won't be welcome into his kingdom. Do You? Every single Mass the Catholics perform the breaking of the bread as if it is the most important thing Christ ever taught us. Why is this? The history of brainwashing by the Catholic church does certainly want every soul to believe that the only way to salvation in through the church. This, NO catholic can deny. The bottom line is that Christ has welcomed all into his kingdom. Not through Confession to a Priest, Not through the breaking of the bread. Catholics for too long have looked on these "ceremonies" as the way to the Lord. NOT TRUE! Teach the truth, Paul said to be saved, we must speak it with our mouth and believe it in our hearts that Jesus is the Son of God and was resurrected. Paul did not say, to be saved, we must eat bread and drink wine. Lieral or not. The truth is the truth. By the way, you never did tell me who the guy was who is hanging on the cross at the front of your church.
P.S. Jesus said it himself:

Matthew 4:4
Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'

Amen

After posting my earlier commentary I realized that this topic is going to go unresolved until I completely teach what JOhn 6, concerning the bread of life, truly means. As we all know, Jesus spoke in parables so that those with ears would hear. Those who truly believe will understand. I've decided to break down this section of John 6 for your benefit so that all literal confusion will be removed. So that those who do not seem to understand the words of Christ can truly understand what He meant by the bread of life.

John 6:27
[27] Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval."

Concerning bodily food: Do not work for food of the physical nature only not, but work for food which has been given by the grace of God, love and the meat which endures everlasting life. Work for this: for everlasting life. In other words, use your life to work for eternal life, which does not come from the physical nature, but rather spiritual.

[28] Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

[29] Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Jesus said that there are no works that can be done, the ony works that one can do is to believe in Jesus. Believe that God sent him to us.

[30] They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

[31] Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
God did give thier fathers manna, bread, from Heaven to physically eat.

[32] Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.

Jesus said that Moses gave you bread from Heaven. If we can recall the bread that Moses gave them, we remember that it was of the physical form, edable. But God has now given us the true bread, Bread for the Soul. Food to feed the soul, not the stomach. This is the true bread.

[33] For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

The bread that Jesus is refering to is himself. Jesus and the message which he brought us is the Bread from Heaven. To believe in Christ and his Holy Word is where we gain life.

[34] Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
They still wanted this bread in the literal sense, but the bread in not of the physical form.

[35] And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Jesus then told them, I am the bread of life, if you believe in me then you shall never be lost again, and if you believe in me, you will never die! Die meaning eternal death.

[50] This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

Jesus said that the one who has seen God is the one who has come down from Heaven. He has come down so man can learn from him, feed his soul, and never die but live forever in Heaven!

[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

By eatting the bread, Jesus means, people which believing in Him and learn the Word of God, they shall live forever. And the bread that he gives is his flesh, the things he did; Jesus came down to earth to personally teach you, to personally feed your soul with his example and teaching.

[52] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

Blind and with hardend hearts, the Jews were still thinking literal. Eating this mans flesh.

[53] Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

Jesus said, those of you who don't believe in me in your heart, and those who don't learn from me will die. Die meaning eternal death, not physical. Everyone dies in the physical.

[54] Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Jesus said, anyone who does believe in me and has faith in me will be raised up on the last day. Once again, this is not a literal eatting of flesh or bread. This is spiritual.

[55] For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

For his actions and teaching are food for the soul, examples for you to follow. Learning and following from the Lord is eatting this hypathetical meat. Meat containing blood is considered by God to be life, and the teaching of the Word of God by Christ is the life, the blood, that we will drink.

[56] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

Whoever learns my teachings and lives like I do will live in me, and because of this, I will live in them. His Holy Spirit will live in us.

[57] As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

Because God has sent me, I am one with God. So if you do as I do, live as I live, be like me, learn from me, even you will be one with God by doing this.

[58] This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

I am the bread that came down from Heaven. I am the truth, the thing I speak and teach are the truth which feed your soul. Not the physical bread that your fathers ate in the desert. The bread in the desert was of physical substance, food for the living and breathing to nourish thier physical bodies. Everyone dies, no matter what kind of physical food you eat. But the bread of life, which is the Word of God, he who feeds his soul with the teachings of Christ will live forever with God.

[60] Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

Even some of the followers didn't understand, because they took it literal. Jesus meant this to be of a spiritual context.

[62] What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

What if you saw Me ascend up to Heaven, would you then believe me?

[63] It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

It is the spirit that benefits from what I say. Your flesh gains nothing from the things I speak. The words he speaks to you are the spirit, they are the life, they are the bread of life that feeds your soul.

Brothers in Christ, This commentary easily displays the passages true meaning of the bread of life. Joe, brother, Please understand that the Catholic church has turned a literal teaching by God into a paganistic symbolism which warrants no merit to the Lord. We can do nothing Physical to be accepted by God. It is by grace we know God, and it is only by grace we will be accepted into Heaven, not by partaking in any physical ceremony.

God Bless You!

Keep reading from there, because I have a question, Ben. If Jesus was just speaking metaphorically, as you argue, then why did he let all of His disciples leave over a simple misunderstanding? They wanted to follow him, after all, but they misunderstood what Jesus was saying, right, so they left. And the loving, prudent Christ simply let them leave, rather than correcting the misunderstanding like He does in other places, and thus condemned them to hell.

Also, you should learn some Greek (the language this was written in). Each time Jesus uses the word "eat", He strengthens the word and makes it more clear that He is speaking literally. The last use of the word literally means "gnaw" and is used only in reference to food. I recommend you read this more complete explanation of the Eucharist and this passage. Note that this isn't the only place where the Eucharist is presented as a literal truth.

God bless,
Jay

I came from a Covenant church and, We took communion and it meant the same thing as for Catholics so, I don't see why I should be omitted from being allowed to take communion even though I am not catholic.
If I went to a Lutheran church, would I not be allowed to do it there either?

I came from a Covenant church and, We took communion and it meant the same thing as for Catholics so, I don't see why I should be omitted from being allowed to take communion even though I am not catholic. Being able to partake in communion is a very important thing to me. You say that non-catholics can not partake to protect the soul but, not all catholics are true to their faith but, all catholics are allowed to take communion because, they are catholic. I am trying to have an open mind to the catholic faith but, if I choose not to be catholic then, I will have to seek a church where I can take communion.
If I went to a Lutheran church, would I not be allowed to do it there either?

Connie,
When we accept the Eucharist, we do so in a community of believers. If you don't believe what the Church is teaching, you shouldn't accept anyway. I'm not familiar with your church, but are you saying they taught that the bread and wine literally turn into the body and blood of Christ? It would be a very odd position for a protestant church.

The Catholic Church asks that those interested go through a class which teaches the fundamentals of the faith - this is the first step to joining. Once you join, the Church can be reasonably sure that you believe in transubstantiation, and allow you to accept communion. Remember, one of the functions of the Church is to protect the sacredness and holiness of the Eucharist.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

I have a question in regards to communion.

1. Did the first century chuches of the apostles
repeat the giving of the bread and the wine in remembrance of Jesus to the participants of that
assembly?

2.Did they celebrate anything that would resemble the Mass, or did they gather for teaching worship and to partake of the Lord's
supper?

3.Do you know approximately when the term Eucharist started being used?

4. Approximately when did the church start celebrating the Mass ?

5. Were their priests in the first century church?

If you don't know can you point me to a source that may contain this information ?

Thank You,

Your Brother in Christ

Clem

Connie, to address your three points:
1. What do you mean "it meant the same thing for us as for Catholics"? Do you mean that you and the others in the Covenant church believe that communion is not bread, that it although it appears to be bread, it is really the body and blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ? If so, I would be highly interested in hearing more about this remarkable organization. If you mean that the Catholics believe only that it is a figurative representation, then they should not be receiving communion until they receive better instruction about the faith.

2. For your information, not all catholics are allowed to receive communion. Catholics who commit a grave sin are asked to repent and go to Confession before receiving communion. I do not get to receive communion every week because I dont always make it to confession on Saturday. The Catholic Church employs the honor system so people like John Kerry who have been repeatedly asked to voluntarily not receive communion until they stop promoting the widespread destruction of innocent lives show tremendous disdain the Catholic faith.

3. Some Lutherans also have strict guidelines on who can receive communion. Some places requires members wishing to receive communion to carry "communion cards" which can be revoked. Some are more lax and will ask an outsider to demonstrate sufficient evidence of "Regeneration" before being allowed to partake of communion. Personally, I prefer the Catholic practice of using the honor system - though it does have its difficulties.

Jay, do you have any Bible verses to back up yor comments? You said, "I think God can do anything He wants, don't you? If it (the bread & cup) is symbolic, then you would have to throw out parts of the Bible. And why didn't Jesus indicate that it was symbolic at the last supper, rather than saying "This is my body" - wouldn't that make Jesus a liar? And if it's just symbolic, then there's no reason to stop others from participating. Right?
Posted by Jay at April 12, 2004 01:30 PM

Wrong Jay, The Lord Jesus Christ also said I am the door (John:10:9) So is Jesus Christ a peice of wood Jay?

Jay, do you have any Bible verses to back up yor comments? You said, "I think God can do anything He wants, don't you? If it (the bread & cup) is symbolic, then you would have to throw out parts of the Bible. And why didn't Jesus indicate that it was symbolic at the last supper, rather than saying "This is my body" - wouldn't that make Jesus a liar? And if it's just symbolic, then there's no reason to stop others from participating. Right?
Posted by Jay at April 12, 2004 01:30 PM

Wrong Jay, The Lord Jesus Christ also said I am the door (John:10:9) So is Jesus Christ a peice of wood Jay?

Jay, do you have any Bible verses to back up yor comments? You said, "I think God can do anything He wants, don't you? If it (the bread & cup) is symbolic, then you would have to throw out parts of the Bible. And why didn't Jesus indicate that it was symbolic at the last supper, rather than saying "This is my body" - wouldn't that make Jesus a liar? And if it's just symbolic, then there's no reason to stop others from participating. Right?
Posted by Jay at April 12, 2004 01:30 PM

Wrong Jay, The Lord Jesus Christ also said I am the door (John:10:9) So is Jesus Christ a peice of wood Jay?

Jay, do you have any Bible verses to back up yor comments? You said, "I think God can do anything He wants, don't you? If it (the bread & cup) is symbolic, then you would have to throw out parts of the Bible. And why didn't Jesus indicate that it was symbolic at the last supper, rather than saying "This is my body" - wouldn't that make Jesus a liar? And if it's just symbolic, then there's no reason to stop others from participating. Right?
Posted by Jay at April 12, 2004 01:30 PM

Wrong Jay, The Lord Jesus Christ also said I am the door (John:10:9) So is Jesus Christ a peice of wood Jay?

Grant,
Go read the second half of John 6 and 1 Corinthians - they're chock full of Scripture that says the Eucharist is real. Until you show me Scripture that says, "Unless you open the door, you have no life in you," I don't think you have an argument.

By the way, as you read John 6, I recommend looking up the Greek. Because each time Christ says "eat," He hardens the word and makes it more literal. The last time literally means "gnaw" or "chew." The Bible is clear.

God bless,
Jay

I would like to know as an Anglican (who has not been confirmed) can I take Holy Communion in the Catholic Church?

Why can't a Protestant recieve the Eucharist?

Erin,
I believe the article explains it very well - please let me know if something is unclear.

Donna,
No, only Catholics may participate in Catholic Communion (this would include Orthodox Catholics and Roman Catholics). The Anglican church is a protestant church that doesn't have the Eucharist.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

I don't know which Anglican church you are familiar with. I am confirmrd in the Anglican Church and have recieved communion - ie. Eucharist, many times. The Anglican Church offers universal eucharist, that means any protestant, or "Roman" Catholic for that matter, can take eucharist in the Anglicn Church, if they are confirmed. (lets not get confused -Anglicans are Catholic in the sense that they believe in one universal church -from the Nicene creed which is part of every anglican service "We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church"). I have the feeling that you believe Anglican Eucharist (i.e. protestant - I attend Lutheran Services occasionally)is some how inferior. It is just as important to Anglicans, and serves the same spiritual purpose as it does in the RC mass. I have seen many RC communionns, and I can't say that I could see any difference,in fact I find very little difference between an Anglican Service and an RC Mass.

Any comments

Cheers

Mark

Mark, I believe what Jay meant when he said the Anglican Church "doesn't have Eucharist" was that only Catholics and Orthodox offer the Eucharist as the "Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity" of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

All Protestant congregations reject the teaching that the bread and the wine actually become the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ - Catholics call this Transubstantiation.

Some Lutherans and Anglicans believe in Consubstantiation which is different. These people believe that the Lord is present and localized "with, in, under, above, around, and through" the bread and the wine but that the bread and wine are still bread and wine which have been infused with the "Real Presence" of Our Lord.

I would also like to add to Jay's comment that Protestants may not receive communion in the Roman Catholic Church. While the Roman Catholic Church does not offer Eucharist to non-Catholics or to Catholics in a state of serious sin, the Roman Catholic Church, its Popes, its bishops, its priests, its religious, and hopefully the laity all eagerly desire to share communion with all believers.

Pope John Paul II has stated that during Our Lord's agony in the garden, he sweat drops of blood so that we would be one - and that this means full, visible, unity and shared communion amongst all the baptized. The second Vatican Council commented on the growing desire amongst all Christians in the 20th century to share communion and said that this was the work of the Holy Spirit himself.

This brings us to the obvious question: if the Catholic Church so eagerly desires to share communion with Protestants, why does she refuse to offer it to Protestants or to Catholics in a state of serious sin? To use an analogy, why would hosts ever refuse to share food with family members or guests?

One could imagine a host refusing to share food with family members or guests if they knew that the guests or family members had an allergy or health condition that made a speicific food temporarily or indefinitely harmful to someone.

Similarly, because the Catholic Church believes that the Eucharist is the "Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity" of Our Lord Jesus Christ, it only offers it to people who can discern that this is the case. For St. Paul says that those who partake of the Eucharist without discerning the body will eat and drink judgement upon themselves.

The Catholic Church does not wish to have Protestants drink judgement upon themselves and so become a stumbling block to their brethren - hence the rule against offering communion to those who do not yet recognize it as the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church wishes first to help individuals and groups recognize and discern the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Once this happy event occurs, these people and groups usually convert to a Catholic or Orthodox Church in a fairly short time. This brings us to one of the "exceptional circumstances" which allows a Protestant to receive communion in the Roman Catholic Church.

If a Protestant has come to believe in the miracle of Transubstantiation, the Church usually waits for the Protestant to enter the Catholic Church before offering them communion. But in conditions where there is imminent danger of death, the Church may skip the waiting period. For example, if a man is about to be received into the Catholic Church in a few months but his Catholic wife is dying and not expected to live until the next Easter (when converts are usually welcomed into the Church), then the priest may hurry things along a little.

The one condition the Catholic Church does not compromise on is that one must express a belief in the Eucharist in accord with the Catholic Church's teachings and that mere belief in the Real Presence does not suffice.

This brings us back to Jay's original comment that Anglicans do not have the Eucharist in the sense that they do not offer "the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity" of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Forgive my wordiness but I did want to stress that the Catholic Church eagerly desires to share communion with Protestants but will not do so until Protestants can, as St. Paul says, "discern the Body".

Would you please explain to me , why the ECLA Luthern Church includes the Nicene Creed in their Sunday SErvice, Micki

Help me understand the Catholic interpretation of John 6:54 "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink."
Two examples;
First, I could fake my way through the Catholic "process" having false convinctions about Christ's authority, and take part in the Eucharist without believing in salvation through Christ, yet still receive salvation because I ate of his flesh and drank his blood?
Second, while Jesus was living on earth, could a non-Christian have bitten Jesus' flesh and recieved eternal life ie Tyson vs Holyfield?
It seems a literal interpretation of John 6 with respect to the physical act of eating Jesus' flesh bringing a person salvation is not taking into context the entire chapter or book, for that matter.

Therefore to help me understand, the Eucharist can get me into heaven regardless of by beliefs about Christ because I ate his flesh, and it is the act of participating in the sacrament that will do it?

Andrew, the Roman Catholic Church has always taught that receiving Holy Communion under false pretenses places the recipient's soul and eternal salvation in great danger rather than assisting it in reaching salvation.

St Paul explains this as the reason many have gotten sick and died in his first letter to the Corinthians. Jesus and the Apostles made it quite clear that Judas, even though he partook of the Eucharist, did not inherit eternal life.

In the language of canon law, reception under false pretenses would be valid (by the act of participating in the sacrament - ex opere operato) in the sense that the Body and Blood Soul and Divinity of Jesus was really and truly consumed but not licit in the sense of bringing the soul closer to God.

Returning to the example of the Last Supper, all 12 apostles validly ate of the Lord's flesh and blood, but Judas did so illicitly and added to his list of unrepented sins.

So back to your final point: the Eucharist validly becomes the Body and Blood of Christ regardless of your beliefs but it only helps you get into heaven if you do so licitly. Liceity depends very much on your beliefs and whether you have repented of your most serious sins.

Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me." Luke 19

Is it possible that "do this in memory of me" is just a command in the same category as:

So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. 1 Corinthians 10:31

Maybe we're just supposed to be recognizing Christ every second of every day.

For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 1 Corinthians 11:29

TANK,

I think that such a reading does not do justice to the context in which the events occured (i.e. the Passover meal), nor does it take into account Jesus' other pronouncements regarding eating His body.

If all Jesus wanted was for all of us to think of Him when we ate, why not teach this at the other, more public meals He presided over? Why only to His disciples, at Passover? And if your reading is correct, how does it relate to His teaching that unless His followers eat His flesh and drink his blood we cannot have life within us?

In such cases it is useful to know what the disciples of the apostles understood Jesus' words to mean. About that there is little doubt.

If a number of people know that a person who is not a roman catholic, and that, that person regulary recieves Communion, are they themselves commiting sin because they haven't notified the clergy. And what course of action should be taken in such a situation.
Help would be gratefully received.
Gezz

Gezz,

I'm not sure if those who fail to notify the clergy are committing a sin... I would simply let your priest know that the person isn't Catholic and receiving Communion. That way he can speak to the individual.

Or, if you know the person, maybe you should speak to the person first. It could be that they simply don't know that they should not be receiving Communion.

In Christ,
Joe

How then does it work if a Catholic participates in a Protestant communion? Is it against Canon Law for a Catholic to part take in Protestant communion in which the sacrements are not considered the actual body and blood of Jesus, but rather symbolic of the same? Are there any consequences for this particular Catholic? Should their Priest or clergy be notified?

From my experience most Protestant ministers,pastor, priest (as in the Anglican denomination), would likely welcome this particular Catholic to participate in this event as a declaration of their Christian faith based on their belief in Jesus, His life, His teachings, and the significance of His crucifiction as salvation for all who believe and accept Him. To me, this universal acceptance seems to represent what it means to be a Christian and in line with Jesus' teaching. Actually, one of the dictionary definitions for 'catholic' is including or concerning all humandking; universal.

At mass the priest talks about this...and they do their best, but the church (as an instituation) has difficulty with this -- with good intentions I guess i.e. protecting the ignorant from devine judgement, which may lead to death or illness, by limiting non-catholics from participating until they convert and 'truely' understand. From my experience as someone married to a non-catholic, these imposed restrictions / limitations extend to other very personal areas. Sometimes I wonder if it isn't just an attempt to disguise a recruiting strategy behind religious dogma.

Anyway, sorry for getting tangential. My initial questions are not sarcastic. Any answer would be much appreciated.
Thanks

James,
Have you read the encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia by Pope John Paul II? I think it could be really helpful for you to understand the reasons and find the answers you're looking for. I've cut-paste some of Chapter III here:
>

I will suggest to read the entire encyclical, but especially Chapters III and IV for what you're looking for. You can find it on the Vatican website, here:
http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0821/__P5.HTM

God bless,
Rafa

James,
The issue at hand is that the Protestant (key word--Protest) sects have most profoundly eradicated the unity of what was the catholic (i.e., universal)Church back in the 1500s and it continues each day as we see more and more "churches" popping up. So for a Protestant minister to welcome all comers to communion doesn't really ring true at all since there really is none. Especially if you compare it to Christ's prayer for the church that they we all may be one as he and the Father are one. Our father in heaven and our brother in Christ are one PERFECTLY. What you have with God you have with Christ and vice versa. So if Christ's prayer for us is that we may be PERFECTLY one like him and his father then how can we say that all the various sects besides the Catholic Church signify that unity. We cannot and it is glaringly apparent. So as to your question, the Church instructs us as faithful Catholics to not to participate in a non-Catholic communion service because it gives an appearance of a unity that does not exist. However, the Catholic Church desires that unity with all non-Catholics, but until there is some consideration given on the Protestant side there will never be the perfect unity that Christ intended. I pray for you and your wife because I know that it can be extremely difficult when both are not Catholic. Stay strong and witness to your wife through your faithfulness to your Catholic beliefs and as questions are raised answer with a humble heart--and if you don't know how to answer then come back here or other great sites like www.catholic.com. Conversion is generally not from words but more from witnessing through the life you live.
In Truth,
Matthew

To all:
Something to keep in mind when we hear the words eating flesh and drinking blood is that we have to understand the context of the times. The Bible does mention "to eat someone's flesh" and "to drink someone's blood" symbolically, but in those passages, it means something completely different than most Protestants want it to: in Jesus' times it meant to slander someone, to assault a person; or to revile them (Micah 3:3, Psalm 27:2; Isaiah 9:18-20). So, even if Jesus did speak symbolically, he would be saying, "You have to revile me to get to Heaven," which is not a very plausible explanation. The passages themselves show it:

Psalm 27:2 When the WICKED CAME AGAINST ME to EAT UP MY FLESH, my ENEMIES AND FOES, they stumbled and fell.

Micah 3:1-4 - 1 And I said: Hear, you heads of Jacob and rulers of the house of Israel! Is it not for you to know justice? 2 you who HATE THE GOOD AND LOVE THE EVIL, who tear the skin from off my people, and their flesh from off their bones; 3 who EAT THE FLESH OF MY PEOPLE, and flay their skin from off them, and break their bones in pieces, and chop them up like meat in a kettle, like flesh in a caldron. 4 Then they will cry to the LORD, but he will not answer them; he will hide his face from them at that time, because THEY HAVE MADE THEIR DEEDS EVIL.

Isaiah 9:18-20 - 18 For WICKEDNESS BURNS LIKE A FIRE, it consumes briers and thorns; it kindles the thickets of the forest, and they roll upward in a column of smoke. 19 Through the wrath of the Lord of hosts the land is burned, and the people are like fuel for the fire; no man spares his brother. 20 They snatch on the right, but are STILL HUNGRY, AND THEY DEVOUR ON THE LEFT, but are not satisfied; each DEVOURS HIS NEIGHBOR'S FLESH

So if the Protestant understanding that Jesus is being exclusively figurative is to be believed, we would have to say that in order to inherit eternal life, one must revile Jesus, and do evil deeds, and be wicked toward him. So we see that Jesus IS being literal in his exhortation to the crowd "to eat his flesh and drink his blood" otherwise this passage makes no logical sense taking into account the vernacular of the times.
In Truth,
Matthew

1. Interesting logic. Perhaps a valid interpretation of a figurative example of 'eating someones flesh'. However, I'm not sure why it assumed that protestants can't make the distinctions between two completely different contexts. I am sure that if you talk to any protestant they would assure you that they don't believe that one must revile Jesus and do evil deeds to achieve eternal life. I realize what point you are trying to make i.e. in the context of the times the figurative use of eating flesh was an expression of distain.

Anyway, I'm having a hard time understanding the catholic perspective on communion. I understand that one of the distinguishing features re: communion between protestant and catholic is that Jesus was being figurative v.s.literal. But when actually taking communion, catholics eat what is literally a wafer -- no matter what you do to it, bless it or whatever, it will always be a wafer - you may believe otherwise, but then the wafer represents or symbolizes something i.e. it represents the body of Christ. HOwever, the catholic interpretation is that one needs to eat the actual body and drink the actual blood of Jesus for salvation and that this is the central celebration of the catholic church (taken from the first comment on this discussion board). But it is actually a wafer.

2. Why is there such a focus on salvation by way consumption of the literal physical 'body' of Christ in the catholic church? It seems an means to an end, rather than an end it is self i.e. the actual act of eating a wafer in its self does not make a contribution to the greater good of the here and now. Do you really think this what Jesus meant or wanted ... people to what ever they want during the week, confess their sins, eat a biscuit, and be saved after its all said and done --too easy. Shouldn't people focus their energy living their lives through the 'body of Christ', referring symbolically to his doctrine and his teaching as a way to salvation -- if we love one another without conditions or judgment the world would be a better place, we would be at peace with God as we were made in his image and to love each other is to love God, salvation for all instead of for specific individuals. Based on my own understanding of spirituality the second scenario makes more sense. Jesus was about the big picture. In the Bible, if we always prefer a literal meaning, we may miss the point. The disciples made this mistake when Jesus told them to beware of the "yeast" of the Jewish leaders (Matthew 16:6). The disciples thought about their failure to bring any bread.

Jesus Christ reminded them that he could create bread for thousands if necessary. He wasn't worried about physical bread. The disciples then understood that Jesus meant doctrine or teaching when he had said "yeast" (verse 12). It was a figure of speech.

Jesus explained his ministry in figurative language rather than in plain words (John 16:25). His parables, for example, often puzzled people.

3. Wouldn't Jesus be considered a protestant with respect to the religion he grew up with? Aren't there several examples indicating that he was upset with the what Judaism as an institution had become -- a political institution based in religious dogma subordinate and manipulate to achieve political power, money, and influence within the society of the time; only accessible to the elite, not for impure, non believers or trouble makers (of which Jesus was one), the weak, the disabled, etc.

4. I know most people tend to associate protestantism with the King Henry 8th forming a church not under the rule of the pope, called the Episcopal Church (Anglicanism), which all people under British rule forced to follow. The King removed Rome as the religious leader in spite because the Pope did not allow the King to divorce. Anyway, protestant movements existed in the late 1300's, but were driven underground.

Martin Luther did emerge in the 1500's. He was a Catholic Priest. He was upset at the Catholic church because papal abuses and the sale of indulgences by church officials to fund the renovation the Bascilica in Rome... and attack in protest (as did Jesus against the Jewish establishment when they abused their power). Luther was declared a heretic because of his attack against a corrupt system (to do so is using power to subordinate). During that time the Catholic church was not very accessible to the common person - he made it more accessible to those who were not Kings or well versed in Latin so that all could receive the word of God.

Luther also became convinced that the Church had lost sight of several of the central truths of Christianity taught in Scripture—the most important of them being the doctrine of justification by faith.
I'm not Lutheran, just find this stuff interesting.

Milly,
Just to respond to your points.

Catholics believe that during Mass, just as during the Last Supper, the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Jesus is present in the wafer body, blood, soul, and divinity. This is not figurative and there are numerous examples of the bread and wine obviously becoming flesh and blood during mass - in a way that even those without faith can see.

When we consume the Eucharist, we actually receive grace from God that enables us to better live out our lives. Remember, Jesus said you must eat His body and blood, Catholics are just living it out. And Catholic doctrine requires it to be lived in order to get to heaven: those who commit mortal sin cannot partake of the Eucharist and cannot get to heaven without Confession. These are the Sacraments that lead us to heaven (as designed by God in the second convenant).

Jesus was not speaking in parables in the second half of John. Each time our Bibles translate the word "eat", Jesus is actually using a stronger word that is less figurative. The last time would be better translated as "chew" or "gnaw". Also remember, if the apostles misunderstood Jesus' teaching, He would explain it to them later. In this passage Jesus loses all of His apostles except for the Twelve because they interpreted it the way Catholics do. Would He simply allow them to walk away over a misunderstanding?

In terms of religion, you are off-track. In Matthew 16:18 Jesus clearly indicates He is forming a "church" while He is on earth. There are several other passages in Matthew that underline the type of Church He was building. In addition, He condemned the actions of the priests of Judaism, but remember He also consistently taught that the people had to obey what the priests taught (they were just not to follow their actions). The Cheif Priest of Judaism was still prophesying (because of his position) while Jesus was condemning their actions. He came to form a new Church that actually had the power to help people get to heaven (the Sacraments), rather than simply point the way as the old church did.

Now on to Luther. Luther had to actually remove books of the Bible and ignore others (namely James, which he wanted to remove) in order to teach justification by faith alone (which is taught no where in Scripture). Luther choose to rebel against God's Church, rather than work to stop the abuses that members of that Church were indulging in. An individual making an error does not condemn all - remember there were many very good priests at that time as well.

What this boils down to is that God created a Church and Luther revolted against it and invented new doctrines (sola fides, sola scriptura) to enable his rebellion. Remember, no church would claim that Luther died a good man (he died in an extremely sinful state). If God chose him for this, why did he have such an awful life? The answer is actually your first point: he believed it didn't matter.

God bless,
Jay

I have found exclussion from receiving the eucharist at the Roman Catholic Church hurtful, and insulting.

I can not imagine that Our Lord himself would, if presiding at the Mass in human form, invite all present to receive his most precious body and blood...apart from "the anglican at the back."

I have read through all your answers. They lack charity, and any real understanding of the eucharistic intention of the Anglican Mass or Eucharistic.

The Church of Rome bears a great deal of resposibility for the division of the Church in England.

The Church of England was part of the Roman Church, until for political reasons the Pope excoomunicated Elizabeth the First.( A fact many Romans ignore... they would rather harp back to Henry VIII...who can appear a villian, failing to acknowledge that the Church of England was part of the Roman Communion under the notorious "Bloody Mary". ).

The Roman Church in England falls well short of our Lord's own standards when it fails to recognize others, who a brothers and sisters within the Catholic Church, of which the Roman
( as the Anlican Church ) is only a part.

By force of Anglo-Saxon then Norman political the ancient Celtic Church in England was driven out by the Roman See, which did not arrive on these shores until Augustine.

The Anglican Church lies firmly in the independant tradition of the Celtic or Orthodox Churches, but within the Catholic and Apostolic Church as do they.

Rob. ( Praying for an Anglo Catholic Revival, and the return of any who have weakened the Catholic Faith by leaving the Anglican Faith).

Rob,

The exclusion of Protestants from Roman Catholic communion services bothered me so much, I left the Roman Catholic Church. After a few years, I finally understood why the Roman Catholics excluded Protestants and then returned to the Roman Catholic Church. Understanding the reason for the exclusion hasn't made it any less painful nor should it. Our Lord sweat drops of blood in Gesthemane while praying for unity amongst his believers.

Rob,
I understand your sentiment, but to echo "Broken Record" above it [communion] represents unity. As it stands now that unity does not exist between the Anglican and Catholic Church. Furthermore, the denial of the Eucharist from non-Catholics is also a protective measure for them. St. Paul clearly states in 1 Cor 11:27-30

"Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying."

In essence those who have not discerned the Body put themselves in physical and mortal danger. Back to your concerns though. If you were not already aware the Catholic Church in her ecumenical efforts towards unity is in the process of addressing issues of unity with the Anglican Church. Read the brief article below from the Catholic News Agency. I think that it will give you much comfort.

Anglican group seeks reunion with Rome

Portland, Sep. 30, 2005 ( CNA) - The Anglican Church in America has decided to seek union with the Roman Catholic Church. If unification were successful, this would be the first post-Reformation church to reunite with Rome, reports journalist Ken Tatro from “keep me current” in Oregon. The Anglican Church in America is part of the worldwide Traditional Anglican Communion, which consists of churches that split from the mainstream Anglican Communion in 1979 in opposition to the ordination of women clergy and to changes made to the Book of Common Prayer, which includes the basic doctrines and prayers.

Tatro reported that an international gathering of members of the Traditional Anglican Communion, including their highest-ranking cleric, Archbishop John Hepworth, met at St. Paul’s in Portland last week.

They voted in favor of starting a formal discussion with Rome and eventually creating what is called a “single Eucharist community.” This would allow members of the Traditional Anglican Communion and the Roman Catholic Church to take communion at each other’s churches.

The leaders hope to propose a formal plan to the Vatican by next year. It is unclear how long the process of reunification will take.

Despite unification, from a basic theological and operational standpoint, nothing will be different within the church, said Very Rev. Lester York, dean of St. Paul’s.

York told Tatro that St. Paul’s is gaining membership as the Episcopal Church ordains homosexual clergy and debates blessing same-sex unions. He said his church is attracting people who no longer find the liberalism of other Protestant faiths acceptable.

Formal unity with Rome would better reflect the sect’s doctrine, York told the reporter. He said his church’s beliefs are similar to Roman Catholic and has the same seven sacraments.

Traditional Anglican Communion leaders have been discussing unification with Rome for the past few years, York reported. These discussions have included former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who is now Pope Benedict XVI.

May steps like these advance and ultimately fulfill Christ's prayer to the Father in John 17 that "they all may be one."
Peace be with you Rob,
Matthew

Rob:

I think you make a good point about living with the tension of being disappointed that many folks cannot receive Communion, but knowing that there are valid reasons for them not being able to do so. For the virtuous man, this tension exists in every aspect of life. An unmarried man has to live with the tension of wanting to "know" a woman and yet having to show restraint and self-control, because it is only right that he go through some sort of rigor to "woo" a woman. While I can sympathize with those who are put off by those who would like to Commune but can't, it nonetheless seems to me that they are like men who would "have" a woman without marrying her. Neither Communion nor a woman can be "earned," but surely some effort on the part of the seeker in both cases is necessary, beyond a simple proclamation of fidelity. It takes work and effort to Commune worthily, just as it takes work and effort to "know" a woman worthily. In the meantime, that tension of wanting but not being able to have, and knowing that you shouldn't have until certain prerequisites are met, can be quite nourishing, though at the time you seem only to be doing without.

Tobias

Tobias, I would like to suggest that a "simple proclamation of fidelity" is all that is truly required in order to begin communion rightly. If our brother Rob really believed that bread and wine ceases to be bread and wine, is in fact the Body and Blood of Our Lord, and only appears to be bread and wine when a priest ordained by a bishop (who can trace back to the original apostles rather than King Henry) consecrates the host, I doubt there would be any danger of him drinking judgement upon himself.

That being said, it might be wise (but not strictly necessary) to undergo a period of preparation and discernment beforehand. In addition, it would also be wise to go to the Sacrament of Reconciliation before receiving First Communion. If someone (Catholic or Protestant) wished to receive communion but refused to go to confession regularly, that too would be unwise but not necessarily sinful.

Broken Record:

I agree with you in spirit, but where the spiritual rubber hits the road I'd have to disagree. I honestly don't know very many people who believe in the Eucharist as much as they ought to. I know plenty of folks like ourselves who sincerely wish to believe in it more, and even partake of the Meal in the hopes that our eyes will be opened that much more to the reality of what we are partaking of. Nothing wrong with that, if you realize that doing so is an unfortunate necessity of our natures or ignorance. But the priests and hierarchs who are eternally responsible for how the Eucharist is distributed cannot be too careful in discerning how much unbelief is mixed in with belief in any given individual, even if their belief is a given. I believe that it is in the governing wisdom of the Holy Spirit that the overwhelming majority of folks are made to live with the tension of not yet being able to have what they believe in, if for no other reason than that those who will minister the Eucharist to them will know better that they are in earnest. Not to mention, anybody serious about Communion, in my opinion, is going to pray and fast beforehand--if not some more things beyond a profession. I know of two people who were anxious to commune, went through all the ropes too quickly, and within a year fell into apostasy of all sorts. As was later made manifest they saw the Eucharist primarily as a means of being one of the gang. A little more investigation into their desire might have made that plain. You obviously can't prevent every abuse, but catechism and time can help some of that unbelief to the surface. I speak as one who actually argued that my hierarchs were rushing me along a little too quickly and wouldn't it be better if they made me wait another year? And I only commune about three times a month; there's always that bad week in which my head is not on the job.

To the best of my knowledge, the ultimate story regarding "worthiness" of Communion is the story of St. Mary of Egypt. You will remember that, after being shown by the Virgin that she was a wretched slut, she went into the desert to pray for seventeen years (I think that was how long she was out there). While there, she saw no one, ate only two loaves of bread and some bitter herbs, and was subjected to the harsh elements of the desert summer and winter, spending the last several years out there, "alone," completely naked. She had not Communed or attended a liturgy once that entire time, but she prayed unceasingly. A priest and monk who was on a pilgrimage to the desert found her and got her whole story out of her. She recited Scriptures that she had never read and knew intimately many of the practices of the monastery where the priest lived, which she had never visited. After telling him many edifying things, she sent him away and told him to come back to her in a year's time with Communion, so that she could take her first Communion. He did, and after she communed (singing a wonderful praise to God for finally being able to do so) she sent him away telling him to come back again in a year. He did so, and when he came back, he found her dead, but completely intact, in the exact same spot she had communed. I can't remember if she left a note, but it was made plain to him that she had laid in that same exact spot for a year. Her whole face glowed with joy. He buried her there and came back to tell all the brethren of his monastery about it.

Now, the point of that whole story is that you can see what *really* ought to happen prior to Communion. She did seventeens years of intense preparation for what was the absolute pinnacle of her spiritual life. I know myself that I'm not strong enough for that, and I feel--without psychological guilt--unworthy of every Communion. I therefore cannot help but shudder at the thought of someone taking Communion without having at first passed some point of no return, simply taking it in their stride without having made some major changes to their life *prior* to the Communion. St. Mary goes into the desert of the soul before communing; St. Paul disappears for years before preaching; that seems to me the best way. At the very least, theirs had better be like Flannery O'Connor's attitude: "The Eucharist is central; everything else is expendible."

Perhaps I am too harsh. But perhaps it's not so bad to have someone pushing towards the extreme opposite of the way I think a lot of folks take it: some kind of spiritual pill. I know that I have been guilty of treating priests like spiritual bartenders. Thank goodness I'm not a priest! Nobody would be allowed to go!

Tobias

Broken:

Check this out. Right before going to bed this evening, I flipped open my copy of *Lives of the Desert Fathers,* edited by Sister Benedicta Ward, and I literally landed on the following passage:

On Eulogius

We also visited another priest called Eulogius. Whenever he offered the sacrifice to God [Communion], he received so great a gift of knowledge that he knew the spiritual state of each monk who approached the altar. Often when he saw certain monks about to come up to the altar, he kept them back, saying, "How do you dare to approach the sacred Mysteries when you entertain wicked thoughts? You, brother; last night you let your mind dwell on obscene thoughts of fornication. Another," he said, "has reflected inwardly that it makes no difference whether he approaches the grace of God as a sinner or as a righteous man. And another has had doubts about the sacrifice, saying, 'I wonder if it will sanctify me if I approach it?' Abstain for a while from the sacred Mysteries and repent with all your soul that you may win forgiveness for your sins and become worthy of the Communion of Christ. If you do not first purify your thoughts you may not approach the grace of God."

Tobias

Tobias, I can't help but think we are saying the same thing but using different words. Your stories suggest to me that it is wise to receive communion with sufficient preparation. The Second Vatican Council suggests that it is not necessary.

For example, when there is danger of death, a Protestant may make a profession of faith in line with a Catholic understanding of the Eucharist (belief in the Real Presence, while praiseworthy, is insufficent). In addition, when there is danger of death, a Catholic who has sinned mortally may make an act of Pefect Contrition and receive general absolution and then take communion without sacriliege.

We all know the abuses that come from the common practice of General Absolution which is why the Vatican is cracking down on this. That being said, my reading has indicated that unless one has committed mortal sin and not gone to confession, Catholics should be receiving every time they attend Mass.

The idea being that God does not ask us to become perfect in order to receive communion. He invites us to receive communion in order to become perfect. I think we both know that we ought to receive communion with more attention and devotion. But I am of the firm impression that when attention and devotion fall woefully short of the ideal, we should still receive communion.

My reading suggests that those faithful to the Roman Catholic Church are still living under the curse of the Jansenist heresy which tells people to receive communion as little as possible on the off chance that despite extreme and intense disciplines preparation the soul is unworthy. This was one of the reasons Saint Pius X lowered the age of reception and encouraged frequent communion.

Now comes the really awkward part for me, to provide advice to someone obviously more advanced than myself. I often avoid receiving communion because I commit mortal sin almost every week and only make it to confession about once every two weeks. It sounds like you are avoiding communion only because you are not as focused as you wish to be or in your words "your head is not on the job".

Since you have said you are a convert, may I be so bold as to suggest that this "not good enough so avoid it entirely" line of thinking comes from before your conversion and needs to be abandoned? You know I am not suggesting you relax your efforts to focus more fully on the Eucharist. I am only suggesting that when you fail to do so, the sin is not mortal, may not even be venial, and should certainly not discourage you from receiving the Eucharist.

Remember that the graces of the Eucharist flow from the work of God (ex opere operato) and that the work of the believer (ex opere operantis) can only help us receive and make good use of these free graces. And so, when our state is less than it should be, the graces we receive are less and thus we should strive to do more so that we may receive more. But when are conduct is less than it should be, we should be eager to receive what little graces we can rather than cut ourselves off from the little that is available.

When we are hungry, it is better to eat enough than too little. But it is also better to eat too little than to not eat at all.

Broken Record:

I think that we might, after all, be talking past each other. We both agree that there should be some preparation, but I think that we're coming to the decision of how much preparation from opposite sides of the question. I think I can make more clear what my side looks like, from this side at any rate:

"Your stories suggest to me that it is wise to receive communion with sufficient preparation. The Second Vatican Council suggests that it is not necessary."

For real? I am not as up on the SVC as much as I once was. Is this what the SVC says or is this how the Hans Kung types interpret it?

What you say later about the abuses of General Absolution and Jansenism--being at opposite poles from one another--suggest perhaps that the SVC was trying to correct the Jansenist elements of the Church by aiming for the opposite extreme. This, of course, is Aristotle coming out again in the Church. You'll remember that in his *Nicomachean Ethics* Aristotle said that every virtue exists in a golden mean between two extremes. He said that you cannot reach the Golden Mean by aiming for it, but by aiming for the vice opposite the one you're trying to escape. If you look at the history of the Church, you see this sort of thing coming up again and again. This age's debauchery is replaced by tomorrow's juridical view of the world; that age's stranglehold on behavior is replaced by an age of lawlessness. Etc.

"For example, when there is danger of death, a Protestant may make a profession of faith in line with a Catholic understanding of the Eucharist (belief in the Real Presence, while praiseworthy, is insufficent). In addition, when there is danger of death, a Catholic who has sinned mortally may make an act of Pefect Contrition and receive general absolution and then take communion without sacriliege."

Agreed on both points. Desperate times call for mercy. But I am especially in agreement with when you say that belief in Real Presence isn't enough. I can't remember what saint said this, but it's relatively popular: "Die before you die, that you may live. For he who does not die before he dies dies utterly in the hour of death." This is the sort of seriousness with which I hope folks are approaching the Eucharist. I will address what appears to be my own Jansenist feelings below, but I should make it clear here that I am not talking about "worthiness" of the Eucharist so much as degree of concentration, I suppose is one way to put it. Again, thanks be to God that I am not, but if I were responsible for the Eucharist myself, I would be looking not so much for accomplishments on the part of the recipient as a level of focus beyond, "Oh, I sure do believe it's real. What more do you want from me?"

"The idea being that God does not ask us to become perfect in order to receive communion. He invites us to receive communion in order to become perfect. I think we both know that we ought to receive communion with more attention and devotion. But I am of the firm impression that when attention and devotion fall woefully short of the ideal, we should still receive communion."

I agree with you and don't agree. I think that God actually does ask us to become perfect in order to receive communion; but he will allow us to have it nonetheless if we're not. Again, it's tricky because there's no hard-fast rules, and I certainly don't mean to imply that it's a cut-and-dry question. I once heard it said that God requires two types of perfection from us: total perfection, so that we are totally transparent before God; or, failing that, this moment's perfection wherein we are consciously and mindfully being the very best we can given the decisions we have made prior to this moment. The first is perfection of consummation and the second is perfection of condition. I would require, not an acquisition, but a focused intention on the latter, for anybody going to Communion--which, again, may be precisely where we are talking past each other.

"My reading suggests that those faithful to the Roman Catholic Church are still living under the curse of the Jansenist heresy which tells people to receive communion as little as possible on the off chance that despite extreme and intense disciplines preparation the soul is unworthy. This was one of the reasons Saint Pius X lowered the age of reception and encouraged frequent communion."

One of the worst things that Jansenism and even anti-Jansenism have done is destroy the very real value of shame by totally identifying it with guilt. It's a subtle difference, but VERY much worth the understanding, at least for me. I feel shame on approaching the Eucharist, but I do not feel guilt--or I shouldn't. My shame is not a Jansenist one; it's a kind of joyous acknowledgement of my shortcomings. Guilt, unbridled, produces only more guilt. It belies the dignity and potential elevation of the one who feels guilty. But shame, on the other hand...well, even an Emperor can feel shame, and lose none of his nobility. Shame is itself a noble sentiment. Guilt is for the fearful. I realize I'm not putting it very well, but maybe this will help: shame allows you to bring your faults with you to the Eucharist with the understanding that the Eucharist is more real than your faults. Guilt makes you drag your faults with you with the understanding that your guilt is more real than the Eucharist. When a man with shame says, "I fear God," he fears His awesomeness and power, His very His-ness. When a man with guilt says, "I fear God," he fears His judgement. Shame knows nothing of the despair with which guilt is riddled.

The problem with sin is that it aggravates our feelings of guilt, so much so that Lewis suggests in The Screwtape Letters that it's not so much the sin itself that the demons are after, but the despair that ensues, which is much more tasty for them.

I agree with you in large part about the ongoing Jansenism, and I see it in my own Eastern Orthodoxy. I went to a Romanian Orthodox liturgy about a month ago where none of the twenty-five or so folks took Communion. It was ridiculous; the priest came out, showed them the Cup that none of them even thought about approaching, and then when back into the altar with it. We get people from Russia and Greece who show up once a month to light candles and say they don't come to church regularly because they're not worthy. I hope I haven't made myself out to be sympathetic to such an extreme!

"Now comes the really awkward part for me, to provide advice to someone obviously more advanced than myself. I often avoid receiving communion because I commit mortal sin almost every week and only make it to confession about once every two weeks. It sounds like you are avoiding communion only because you are not as focused as you wish to be or in your words "your head is not on the job"."

Believe me, dog, I don't stand out as somebody unusually "advanced" in the spiritual path. I'm a Count No-'Count if there ever was one. Regarding the particulars: I confess once a month. This is just about right for me. Perhaps I should go more often. I see my "spiritual father," the man to whom I go most often for advice on these things, about once a month or more. I go to liturgy every week and Vespers about twice a month. But none of that counts as much to me as the seriousness with which I approach those things. Again, I can't help but think of St. Mary. Some folks gets to confession once every two decades, and I'm still nowhere near their seriousness. To hit your next point,

"Since you have said you are a convert, may I be so bold as to suggest that this "not good enough so avoid it entirely" line of thinking comes from before your conversion and needs to be abandoned?"

...it's not so much about accomplishments as intentions. I come from exactly the opposite temperament that you're talking about here. It was only about eight years after my first belief in sacraments of any kind that it suddenly occurred to me to give them any conscious effort at all. I have spent most of my life in the Church thinking that all the sacraments were there for the taking. I would sometimes hit Waffle House (man, do I miss that) on the way in to Mass. I would even feed the jukebox while I was there. Not that my mind isn't a bedlam of distractions as it is, but I think that I just couldn't focus on the preponderance of grace that was happening during the service without "Achy Breaky Heart" bouncing around in my head. No, good sir, you've got me all wrong. I am one in desperate need of rigor, or at least was.

"Remember that the graces of the Eucharist flow from the work of God (ex opere operato) and that the work of the believer (ex opere operantis) can only help us receive and make good use of these free graces. And so, when our state is less than it should be, the graces we receive are less and thus we should strive to do more so that we may receive more. But when are conduct is less than it should be, we should be eager to receive what little graces we can rather than cut ourselves off from the little that is available.
When we are hungry, it is better to eat enough than too little. But it is also better to eat too little than to not eat at all."

Agreed; but I'd still argue that refraining from eating on occasion wouldn't hurt, but would actually do some good. Sometimes, and this may sound absurd, but I think that the Eucharist sometimes over-eclipses some of the other little graces of the Church. Some folks think that the Eucharist stands in for praying at home and that sort of thing. There's a guy in our Church, a Serbian concentration camp survivor (and escapee) who, if he misses one of his daily prayers during the week doesn't commune that Sunday. He doesn't miss Communion very often. This is his way of teaching himself not to neglect the daily prayers. Even on Sundays that he doesn't commune, he always comes up and asks just to be able to kiss the Chalice. Axios!

I really apologize for being so long-winded. I'll try to tighten up these posts from now on.

Tobias

Here's the quotation that I botched:

Die thou before thou diest,
That so thou shalt not diest
When thou dost come to die;
Else thou diest utterly.
--Angelus Silesius, *Cherubic Wanderer*

Tobias

Tobias wrote:
For real? I am not as up on the SVC as much as I once was. Is this what the SVC says or is this how the Hans Kung types interpret it?

I was merely speaking of the exceptions made (in SVC) for Protestants and Catholics which are made when the danger of death looms. In my mind this means that many norms are "unnecessary" but in the usual cases, one typically goes beyond the necessary minimums out of wisdom or prudence.

Some folks get to confession once every two decades

I was under the impression that once a year was required by precept under pain of mortal sin unless one was actually unable. Apparently Pope John Paul II remarked that in the United States, "the communion lines are very long but the confession lines are very short". I don't think it was a compliment.

Agreed; but I'd still argue that refraining from eating on occasion wouldn't hurt, but would actually do some good.

I was under the impression that the Vatican rejected that idea in some recent document concerning liturgical abuses. I am pretty sure it said that "taking a break" from the Eucharist in order to better appreciate it was unwise.

if he misses one of his daily prayers during the week doesn't commune that Sunday.

Here is a clear case of someone more advanced than I am. That being said, I'm pretty sure he would do even better to commune even on the odd occassion that he does miss his daily prayers. I think the reason is that the soul which is less healthy has even more need of God's grace than the soul which is more healthy.

[i]I was under the impression that once a year was required by precept under pain of mortal sin unless one was actually unable. Apparently Pope John Paul II remarked that in the United States, "the communion lines are very long but the confession lines are very short". I don't think it was a compliment.[/i]

That's funny. No, I'm down with following the rules. I'm only pointing out that there are notable exceptions to the rules, in which quality did not correlate to quantity, quantity however being a useful guideline for those who don't yet have quality.

[i]I was under the impression that the Vatican rejected that idea in some recent document concerning liturgical abuses. I am pretty sure it said that "taking a break" from the Eucharist in order to better appreciate it was unwise.[/i]

I'm not making myself clear on that point. Let me first say that I am not advising anyone to ever stop taking the Eucharist. Secondly, I agree with the Vatican that distance does not automatically or even naturally engender faith or understanding. What I do believe, however, is that the Eucharist cannot and should not be taken for granted--a vice that even Believers are sometimes given to--that somehow or another taking it, and just taking it, will increase my faith. Even if I was wrong, what we know to be true are the injunctions given to us from Paul and Christ Himself on the deadly serious attitude we should have towards it, as if it were a matter of life and death. If I realize that I am not taking it seriously, it isn't necessarily well for me to just commune anyway without examining my reasons for being so passive or lazy about the Reality, with some vague idea that doing communing will help me take it more seriously. Just as distance does not automatically generate faith, so neither does merely showing up, especially in a vague way in which belief is somehow mixed in. Communing does something objective to the soul of him who communes, whether he wills it or not; I think we can agree on that. But that is only half of what communing is supposed to be about. There must also be a subjective embrace of what the Eucharist does for the "full effect" to be realized. The usual dichotomy of whether Eucharist is objectively real or just subjective doesn't actually apply. The Eucharist is both, and it needs to be both for the full health of the individual. I guess what I am primarily opposed to is the attitude that says that, without any subjective and intensely concentrated "reaction" to or preparation for the Eucharist, where we try to be at the top of our "game," we still have right or claim to the objective power of the Eucharist. I can say that something is objectively real and still not partake of it; in fact, that may be a more authentic way, in special cases, of partaking of the objective reality. When this respect becomes fear people stop taking communion altogether, and I'm obviously not suggesting that.

It's like a servant who readily obeys everything his king tells him to do, with some idea that he will always be protected thereby, but the king is always nagged about where his servant's heart is. "Is it really with me? Or with the safety and rewards and graces he gets from being around me?" The king might even look for the servant to contradict him, the king, for the king's own good, and therefore harming his own, the servant's, reputation, that he might more authentically indicate his commitment to the king. Perfect obediance isn't always perfect obediance.

I would sum up my ideal state of mind towards the Eucharist as being, "It is better that the Eucharist exists than that I should ever be able to take it. I will therefore do everything within my power to be worthy of taking it every time that I can."

Paul says that we cannot approach it unworthily. This is an idea that is largely alien to most of the Believers that I know. They don't see themselves as being capable of being unworthy. While there's plenty of wiggle-room in there for what is and isn't worthy, I should think that a man who hates his brother, for instance, is justified in "leaving his gift" of self "at the altar" and going to reconcile with his enemy before communing. This isn't true for everybody, but one could see how it would be true for that man that knows his own lazy nature and that, after communing, he won't feel so obliged to reconcile with his neighbor or he'll even forget (which, by the way, is me to a t). He's not necessarily denying grace; he's trying to make sure, if he's leaving for the right reasons, that he doesn't take grace for granted. We all know human nature. The man who swears he will mend his ways if only he is given a little grace beforehand often doesn't. He already had the grace he needed to do the right thing and therefore partake of greater graces. There are obviously better men than this, though, who know they will follow through. I'm not such a man.

[i]Here is a clear case of someone more advanced than I am. That being said, I'm pretty sure he would do even better to commune even on the odd occassion that he does miss his daily prayers. I think the reason is that the soul which is less healthy has even more need of God's grace than the soul which is more healthy.[/i]

But that's only if the soul in need of God's grace can put itself into a position in which it can receive that grace, usually by way of "smaller" graces. I'm not saying that the Eucharist isn't real for the person who doesn't believe it. God is in Hades, but those who are there will not avail themselves of His presence, and their disbelief no more removes Him from there than their disbelief in the graces they have received, such as in Eucharist. A man might say to himself, "See, I don't have to say my morning and evening prayers every day, because when I commune everything is just fine. After all, the Eucharist contains all morning and evening prayers." This, obviously, is a justification for laziness. The truth is that, yes, the Eucharist contains all prayers and truths in it, but to deny prayers is, in a sense, to deny some aspect of the Eucharist.

Tobias

Question: I am a "Catholic" engaged to a Lutheran. I plan to become Lutheran with every intention, and am presently attending a Lutheran Church (which carries many Catholic practices). Since I met my fiance, I have learned so much about my faith, and since I have studied history, I do not want to fall into all of the Catholic corruptions. I believe in the Lutheran Christian faith, and have attended communion, am I wrong?

Hello, E Marie.

It is wrong to engage in any spiritual practice whatsoever without seeking guidance from some sort of spiritual authority or "elder" on the matter. The more, the better, and the more alive, the better (i.e., a living fool is sometimes better than a book). You are not obligated to follow any or all of them, but it is almost certain that, even if you subject yourself to the scrutiny of kooks, you will find yourself engaging the question(s) in a more serious way and with insights that you wouldn't have had before, even if you disagree with the kooks. Bad counsel is better than no counsel at all, as engaging it concretely shows to God (so to speak) a sincerity to work at finding an answer to the question. Simply hoping for the best and acting on one's own--while not entirely unavoidable--isn't nearly as effective as actively looking for help from an authority. To paraphrase Goethe and Edmund Hillary: "When you move, Providence moves, too."

Whether Lutheranism is right or wrong, you should not simply commune because you feel it is right to do so. This is parallel to sex before marriage. Neither sex nor communion are evil things, but one can approach them in an inadvertently evil way by taking them before one has properly prepared for them by some form of abstention. I know it sounds paradoxical, even weird, but love and devotion are as often shown in restraint as in expression--as you will shortly find out when you have been married for a little while. As the scriptures say, the man who temporarily leaves his gift at the altar in order to orient himself more directly to God is more acceptable to that altar than the man who thinks himself incessantly worthy of approaching it--because he feels like it.

I, personally, think that Lutheranism is a somewhat confused "branch" of the Church, so to speak. On the one hand, some Lutheran churches do try to faithfully adhere to the Apostolic Succession that they broke away from. Such churches are outside the Catholic Church only because of simple inertia: once you've gotten several thousand people moving in a certain direction, if they wanted to change direction and come all the way back to their origin it would take a tremendous amount of organization, charisma, and prayer. Asking for an entire church to re-enter their origins would be like asking an oil tanker to do a donut in the middle of the ocean during a hurricane. However, there are many Lutheran churches that have fallen into the opposite excesses that Luther was fighting against, as though a sin in one direction meant that there was no sin in the opposite direction. If the Catholic Church was too interested, in Luther's day, with earthly power and money, most modern Lutheran churches are eager to divest themselves of even spiritual power and wish never to have to be beholden to any authority whatsoever.

That being said, I don't feel right speaking as a spiritual authority to you (which I am not), and can only emphasize that you should speak to a spiritual authority on the matter. I highly suggest that you speak to at least one Catholic and one Lutheran authority. Look for an authority that is opposed to what you are doing, and try it against what you already think. DO NOT allow yourself to be satisfied with an authority that already agrees with your current behavior. Besides helping you to avoid cowardice and laziness, this helps you to REALLY a) be honest with yourself, and b) be clear with what it is you are opposed to. Again, you don't have to agree with that authority, but you should be genuinely curious and hopeful to gain some new insight that you don't already have.

As far as falling into the excesses of the Catholic Church--the excesses that Luther was fighting against--it must be remembered that the Catholic Church was divested of virtually all of its earthly power some time ago. Most priests work for slave wages, or so it seems, and only embezzlers are getting rich. The chances of you falling into "Catholic corruptions" is slim, at best. Corruption is everywhere, and it is best to stay vigilant against it in every form. Be careful not to fall into the trap of thinking that, because you are in a camp that opposes one form of corruption, that camp is somehow free of the opposite corruption. If the boat is tipping over to starboard, it can just as easily tip over to port. In fact, the boat stopped tipping over to starboard centuries ago, and has long since been dipping the port side into the water. We have gone from "Catholic corruption" to "pseudo-theological funk and decay, and liturgical goopiness."

Tobias

E Marie,

There was a time that I disag