Atheists taking Communion

Archaeopteryx · Mar 18, 2019

Ttalkkugjil said:
Those who are serving the elements should serve them only to those who are known within the congregation as being faithful followers of Christ.

Presumably that requires some deeper knowledge of who is actually presenting to receive communion, which may well work on most Sundays because most of the same people attend Mass. However, there are obviously circumstances where the opportunity to give communion to unfamiliar individuals arises; that is, individuals unfamiliar to the priest. From personal experience, the priest is not unusually reluctant to administer the Eucharist in these situations, though perhaps, given your suggestion, he should be?

Ttalkkugjil · Mar 18, 2019

Archaeopteryx said:
Presumably that requires some deeper knowledge of who is actually presenting to receive communion, which may well work on most Sundays because most of the same people attend Mass. However, there are obviously circumstances where the opportunity to give communion to unfamiliar individuals arises; that is, individuals unfamiliar to the priest. From personal experience, the priest is not unusually reluctant to administer the Eucharist in these situations, though perhaps, given your suggestion, he should be?

Imho, the pastor should be reluctant. Unfamiliar individuals should not be served. Well, perhaps if they have a well known church member vouch for them.

sfs · Mar 18, 2019

In my church, they request that only believers participate; there is no attempt to enforce that request. In my wife's church, the statement is, "This is God's table. All are welcome here" or words to that effect.

Archaeopteryx · Mar 18, 2019

sfs said:
In my church, they request that only believers participate; there is no attempt to enforce that request. In my wife's church, the statement is, "This is God's table. All are welcome here" or words to that effect.

I like that solution, in that it implies a level of openness. Although I'd still be worried about potential implicit coercion; that is, nonbelievers are allowed to abstain, in principle, but in practice they may encounter some social consequences for doing so—the public act of abstaining may cast a spotlight on the individual and force them to justify their choice to abstain, even though such a choice is nominally respected.

Dave G. · Mar 18, 2019

Jesus said " when ever you do this do it in memory of me ". I doubt the atheist is doing that but more following the crowd.

Archaeopteryx · Mar 18, 2019

Ttalkkugjil said:
Imho, the pastor should be reluctant. Unfamiliar individuals should not be served. Well, perhaps if they have a well known church member vouch for them.

That's interesting, but foreign to my experience, I have to say. I've attended a fair few Masses, both as a believer and as a nonbeliever, and I've found that in the vast majority of cases the priest is happily willing to administer communion to whoever comes forward. You might be right, however, in that a certain level of familiarity should be required, and that this would presumably solve the problem, at least in part.

Archaeopteryx · Mar 18, 2019

Dave G. said:
Jesus said " when ever you do this do it in memory of me ". I doubt the atheist is doing that but more following the crowd.

That relates to the question of implicit coercion I keep raising. In some circumstances, the atheist may feel that she needs to "follow the crowd," or otherwise she will be the subject of gossip, or subjected to condemnation, or treated differently in her family and community. That is, I see the Church as having a constructive role in solving this problem by weakening the cultural forces that lead to this kind of implicit coercion, and thereby allowing those who genuinely do not believe in the Eucharistic doctrine full freedom to abstain from the Eucharist, without fear of negative social repercussions.

stevenfrancis · Mar 18, 2019

Archaeopteryx said:
This thread is potentially relevant to a number of subforums, but for the moment I think the Ethics & Morality forum suits just fine. What do you think about atheists who partake in the Most Blessed Sacrament?

For context, the Eucharist is often considered the holiest of sacraments in the Catholic tradition—it is the "source and summit of the Christian life." However, there are various circumstances where a nonbeliever, including an atheist, may feel compelled to partake in holy communion even though they do not subscribe to the Eucharistic doctrine. Is doing so wrong, and if so, why?

Here is my attempt an answer (or at clarifying the question?): For an atheist to partake in this ritual is disingenuous; she shares none of the theological commitments that underlie its fundamental purpose and thus her participation can only be interpreted as a pretence, which itself could cause offence amongst those who genuinely believe and cherish the sacrament. On the other hand, the atheist may feel subject to implicit coercion; that is, she may belong to a community where being true to her beliefs—and hence not partaking in the Eucharist—would result in condemnation, and even scorn. And so she feels that she must do so, if only to avoid such ramifications, even if it means concealing her own beliefs regarding the Eucharist.

Given the variety of circumstances in which one may be presented with the opportunity to receive communion, what should an atheist, or a non-Catholic, do?

archer75 · Mar 18, 2019

Plenty of atheists might not even be aware of what it means or that they are not supposed to participate.

FireDragon76 · Mar 18, 2019

First off, I think every human being is more psychologically complicated than simply being only a believer or an unbeliever. Even within a Christian, we do have doubts, it's just the nature of being a human being in a fallen world.

Belk said:
While it might not have the same meaning for an atheist are we not constantly told that God's grace is for all? Why would a lack of belief be a barrier to communion. Perhaps the individual grew up in the church before losing their faith so the ritual contains a more personal meaning?

God's grace is indeed for all people and I am not necessarily personally oppossed to atheists receiving communion as long as they do so in a manner that is respectful and they do not attempt to disrupt the service or oppose our beliefs. In the end, I suppose this would be a pastoral issue and the discretion of those administering the sacraments.

Sara miles, the author of the book Take this Bread, received communion as an atheist because she felt drawn to do so at St. Gregory of Nyssa in San Francisco. She eventually joined that church and became an Episcopalian. She no longer identifies as an atheist, though, so perhaps that is not the best example.

bekkilyn · Mar 18, 2019

Maybe instead we might ask who Christ would turn away from his table?

stevenfrancis · Mar 18, 2019

I'd say they ought to suck up whatever embarrassment they may have over not taking communion, and just not take communion, and accept a blessing from the Priest, or leave it be altogether and just stay in the pew during this time. This is for survival of not only the soul, but even one's earthly body. (Although an Atheist wouldn't believe in a soul or hell or damnation or sickness or death by supernatural means, so it's unclear why they are in a Eucharistic setting to begin with).

This is St. Paul's warning about it. And this was presented to believers!!

23 The tradition which I received from the Lord, and handed on to you, is that the Lord Jesus, on the night when he was being betrayed, took bread,24 and gave thanks, and broke it, and said, Take, eat; this is my body, given up for you. Do this for a commemoration of me.[6] 25 And so with the cup, when supper was ended, This cup, he said, is the new testament, in my blood. Do this, whenever you drink it, for a commemoration of me. 26 So it is the Lord’s death that you are heralding, whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, until he comes. 27 And therefore, if anyone eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord unworthily, he will be held to account for the Lord’s body and blood. 28 A man must examine himself first, and then eat of that bread and drink of that cup; 29 he is eating and drinking damnation to himself if he eats and drinks unworthily, not recognizing the Lord’s body for what it is.[7]30 That is why many of your number want strength and health, and not a few have died.[8] 31 If we recognized our own fault, we should not incur these judgements;

TuxAme · Mar 18, 2019

The Eucharist is the New Passover, so it would be helpful to see what restrictions there were on non-Jews participating in the "original" holy day. From Exodus 12:

And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “This is the ordinance of the passover: no foreigner shall eat of it; but every slave that is bought for money may eat of it after you have circumcised him. No sojourner or hired servant may eat of it. In one house shall it be eaten; you shall not carry forth any of the flesh outside the house; and you shall not break a bone of it. All the congregation of Israel shall keep it. And when a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it. There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you.”

What can we gather from this? That the Passover is restricted to believers. In the New Testament (1 Corinthians 11), Saint Paul echoes this, applying it to the New Passover of Jesus Christ. By highlighting the dangers of the faithful receiving the Blessed Sacrament unworthily, he also implicitly warns against its receival by the unfaithful. So, if an atheist (a nonbeliever) would like to receive the Sacrament, he must be circumcised. In the New Covenant, this means being baptized. In other words, he must become a believer.

FireDragon76 · Mar 18, 2019

stevenfrancis said:
I'd say they ought to suck up whatever embarrassment they may have over not taking communion, and just not take communion, and accept a blessing from the Priest, or leave it be altogether and just stay in the pew during this time. This is for survival of not only the soul, but even one's earthly body. (Although an Atheist wouldn't believe in a soul or hell or damnation or sickness or death by supernatural means, so it's unclear why they are in a Eucharistic setting to begin with).

This is St. Paul's warning about it. And this was presented to believers!!

23 The tradition which I received from the Lord, and handed on to you, is that the Lord Jesus, on the night when he was being betrayed, took bread,24 and gave thanks, and broke it, and said, Take, eat; this is my body, given up for you. Do this for a commemoration of me.[6] 25 And so with the cup, when supper was ended, This cup, he said, is the new testament, in my blood. Do this, whenever you drink it, for a commemoration of me. 26 So it is the Lord’s death that you are heralding, whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, until he comes. 27 And therefore, if anyone eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord unworthily, he will be held to account for the Lord’s body and blood. 28 A man must examine himself first, and then eat of that bread and drink of that cup; 29 he is eating and drinking damnation to himself if he eats and drinks unworthily, not recognizing the Lord’s body for what it is.[7]30 That is why many of your number want strength and health, and not a few have died.[8] 31 If we recognized our own fault, we should not incur these judgements;

I do not believe St. Paul is speaking to the act of receiving communion, but to the gluttinous attitude of people eating the agape meal in the 1st century. There is no reason for anyone to be so scrupulous about receiving the sacrament, it was instituted by Christ for the forgiveness of sins. People can reject the grace in the sacrament and it will do them no good, but I do not believe Jesus hurts people out of some sense of spite. Nor do I believe the Eucharist is something magical that poisons people.

FireDragon76 · Mar 18, 2019

Archaeopteryx said:
That relates to the question of implicit coercion I keep raising. In some circumstances, the atheist may feel that she needs to "follow the crowd," or otherwise she will be the subject of gossip, or subjected to condemnation, or treated differently in her family and community. That is, I see the Church as having a constructive role in solving this problem by weakening the cultural forces that lead to this kind of implicit coercion, and thereby allowing those who genuinely do not believe in the Eucharistic doctrine full freedom to abstain from the Eucharist, without fear of negative social repercussions.

In some churches its just the reverse, if you abstain from communion, you may be seen as a conscientious person.

When I first went to my Lutheran church, I was merely an Orthodox catechumen who had been baptized as a Methodist as a child. I wasn't going to receive communion but people were encouraging me to go up and participate, so in the interests of accepting their hospitality, I did so. It was a positive experience but I doubt I would have been shamed for abstaining. I've never seen anybody in my church shame anyone for not participating, it's just not what we do.

Dave G. · Mar 18, 2019

Archaeopteryx said:
That relates to the question of implicit coercion I keep raising. In some circumstances, the atheist may feel that she needs to "follow the crowd," or otherwise she will be the subject of gossip, or subjected to condemnation, or treated differently in her family and community. That is, I see the Church as having a constructive role in solving this problem by weakening the cultural forces that lead to this kind of implicit coercion, and thereby allowing those who genuinely do not believe in the Eucharistic doctrine full freedom to abstain from the Eucharist, without fear of negative social repercussions.

I can tell you that in any Catholic church I was ever involved with or part of there are specific guide lines to receiving communion. I only bring that up because Catholics were mentioned. In the evangelical church system I'm heavily involved in they state outright that communion is for born again believer ( for those who accept Jesus as their Lord and savior) and to self examine before taking communion. It seems pretty clear in those two circumstances the choice is pretty clear. But in other churches communion is more open.

However in what ever case the atheist knows that this is about God, about Jesus, which is something they don't subscribe to. Is this person not a professing atheist or something ( hidden from friends and relatives) ?

Not David · Mar 18, 2019

bekkilyn said:
Maybe instead we might ask who Christ would turn away from his table?

Wasn't there a parable of a King who took an unworthy man out of his table?

FireDragon76 · Mar 18, 2019

David Cabrera said:
Wasn't there a parable of a King who took an unworthy man out of his table?

None of us come to the table worthy.

Ttalkkugjil · Mar 18, 2019

bekkilyn said:
Maybe instead we might ask who Christ would turn away from his table?

Christ did not include any but followers of his at the Lord's Supper.

TuxAme · Mar 18, 2019

FireDragon76 said:
None of us come to the table worthy.

But not everybody is cast outside.

Atheists taking Communion

Wanderer

Social Pastor

Senior Member

Wanderer

Well-Known Member

Wanderer

Wanderer

Disciple

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Contemplative Christian

Disciple

Quis ut Deus?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Antiochian Orthodox

Well-Known Member

Social Pastor

Quis ut Deus?

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency