Atheists taking Communion

[Albion]

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?[/quoite

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.

[quote 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?

Yes, it is wrong, but not for the reasons most people think. The church is not a government agency and the worship service is not something every person has an equal right to by way of the laws or Constitution. The church is a private association with its own policies, most of which are very heartfelt.

No one locks the doors or demands identification cards at the entrance, but that does not mean that visitors are excused from abiding by the policies of that church. The Holy Communion service is very meaningful to the members and it, traditionally, has been reserved for those people who are of the same mind about the meaning of the sacrament.

While I hear people say that despite this, despite knowing the churchs policy against non-believers taking communion, they do it anyhow, since they feel entitled or else they find some other benefit from doing so--define entirely by themselves of course. They think that if it is a church, God is welcoming to all, etc. etc.

That is wrong to do just as we would all say it is wrong to taunt the animals in the zoo or shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre. It is certainly unfair, deceitful, and cruel to the unsuspecting minister who admits such a person to communion.

By the way, there are some denominations that invite anyone to commune, since those churches have a revised view of the matter, and that would be a different situation.

 

[Kaon]

The Lord's Supper is not a manmade practice, at the very least that is a sub-Christian thing to say.

The practice of continual recitation of the last supper is a man-made practice - especially in the sense that Passover is already a holy day. Please show me where the Most High God, or the Word of God Himself commanded us to practice the Lord's Supper. Otherwise, it is a tradition of man. I am genuinely asking.

Now the actual "Eucharist" is another issue.

 

[Albion]

Jesus told his Apostles, with whom he was sharing the meal, that the meaning of it would be manifest "AS OFT" as they repeated it.

That said, we know it was not a one-time event. We could still say that it applied only to the Apostles, but the meal they were sharing was apparently one that every practicing Jew observed and repeated throughout life.

 

[FireDragon76]

The practice of continual recitation of the last supper is a man-made practice.

No, Jesus himself instituted it. It is not manmade, it is a divine ordinance. He commanded the disciples to continue the practice: "do this is remembrance of me". You have no right to contradict the faith once delivered to the saints merely because you wish to score some perceived cheap polemical point against churches you disagree with.

 

[bekkilyn]

I believe it is more harmful to both ourselves and our witness to be exclusive in who we invite to the Lord's table vs. being open to all who feel called to it in some way regardless of what they profess to believe or have professed. Sure, it means that sometimes people who are "unworthy" may join in, but what harm are they actually doing? At worst, they aren't "getting" anything out of it other than a bit of bread/cracker and juice/wine, and they aren't preventing anyone else from any of their own experiences.

There is nothing that we can do as human beings to ruin what is God's based on what we do or don't do. If God considers communion to be a sacrament, then it is going to be a sacrament regardless of human behavior. We will get out of it what we put in, and perhaps, just perhaps, God may grace us with more. An atheist who doesn't put in much probably isn't going to get much from communion, but maybe, just maybe God will bestow his grace in a way that that atheist comes away with a new understanding, not only of God, but of God's people as a welcoming community.

Sure, we can treat communion like a country club membership where only the elites are allowed to participate after paying their membership dues, but that just puts up yet one more roadblock, one more obstacle, to those who are seeking God, whether they know they are doing so or not.

 

[Kaon]

No, Jesus himself instituted it. It is not manmade, it is a divine ordinance. He commanded the disciples to continue the practice: "do this is remembrance of me". You have no right to contradict the faith once delivered to the saints merely because you wish to score some perceived cheap polemical point against churches you disagree with.

Where? He said to break bread (eat) with each other in remembrance of Him; when you drink (wine) do it in remembrance of Him.

I am not contradicting faith at all - I am asking where the Word of God Himself actually told us to make a ceremony of eating and drinking? I didn't say it is a bad thing; I am saying it is a man-made ceremony. The point of "Eukharistia" is thanksgiving, good favor and remembrance of His body (us). Paul makes this in the first half of 1 Corinthians 11, and continues to explain what that means at and after v23:

For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.

But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.

Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.

And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.​

Paul is still a man, but he is explaining what the Eucharist is actually about. So, where does the Most High God actually tell us to do this as a ceremony? I am not saying it is bad; I am say it is man-made.

 

[FireDragon76]

Where? He said to break bread (eat) with each other in remembrance of Him; when you drink (wine) do it in remembrance of Him.

And we still do that. The fact we choose to do so with reverence and dignity does not contradict that. I honestly wonder what your problem is? Do you think that such an occasion does not deserve dignity and thanksgiving to God? That would be a strange thing indeed for a true Christian to say.

 

[Kaon]

And we still do that. The fact we choose to do so with reverence and dignity does not contradict that. I honestly wonder what your problem is? Do you think that such an occasion does not deserve dignity and thanksgiving to God? That would be a strange thing indeed for a true Christian to say.

I never said it contradicts anything. I didn't say that one cant or shouldn't practice the Eucharist. I said that it was a man-made tradition to create a ceremony out of it. I have no problem except addressing the OP. I also critiqued how (as evidenced) there are a lot of people who believe traditions of men are requirements from the Most High God. We are not teaching them the basics; we are teaching them dogma.

You should be giving thanks every time you nourish your body, because your body is a part of the whole. But, you can also make a practice of it; just don't say it is a directive from the Word of God Himself.

 

[FireDragon76]

I never said it contradicts anything. I didn't say that one cant or shouldn't practice the Eucharist. I said that it was a man-made tradition to create a ceremony out of it.

Jesus instituted that ceremony himself, stop quibbling over words. What else do you call taking bread and wine and pronouncing them his body and blood and instructing us to do this in his memory? Is that not a ceremony? He could have simply given people bread and wine and said "hey, remember me after I'm gone", but that's not what he did.

I have no problem except addressing the OP. I also critiqued how (as evidenced) there are a lot of people who believe traditions of men are requirements from the Most High God. We are not teaching them the basics; we are teaching them dogma.

And I have a problem with uneducated people speaking for a 2,000 year old religion just to try to score some polemical point.

. But, you can also make a practice of it; just don't say it is a directive from the Word of God Himself.

You have been warned. You simply have no right to deny the divine institution of the Lord's Supper and instruct us to believe that as Christians.

 

[Kaon]

Jesus instituted that ceremony himself, stop quibbling over words. What else do you call taking bread and wine and pronouncing them his body and blood and instructing us to do this in his memory? Is that not a ceremony? He could have simply given people bread and wine and said "hey, remember me after I'm gone", but that's not what he did.

Eucharist means thanksgiving. Paul explains what it means in 1 Corinthians 11:23 and on. I never said it was not OK to do this; I said it was a tradition of man to make a ceremony out of it. Did the Word of God tell His people to make a ceremony out of this rememberence - which goes way beyond mere bread and wine? I kindly asked you where the Word of God says this.

And I have a problem with uneducated people speaking for a 2,000 year old religion just to try to score some polemical point.

Ok.

You have been warned. You simply have no right to deny the divine institution of the Lord's Supper and instruct us to believe that as Christians.

Everything you have said so far has been an emotional reaction to something very similar: where does the Word of God Himself say to make a ceremony of the Eucharist. You keep insinuating that I am uninformed, and blaspheming - but you still haven't shown where the Word of God Himself (Christ) told us to make a ceremony of this - and that it isn't as Paul said (a thanksgiving every time we eat or drink, as we are all part of one body).

There is no such thing as a "divine institution," because the only thing Divine is the Most High God. The Word of God Himself is King. An institution is a man-made thing; the body of Christ is not denominated and bounded.

 

[FireDragon76]

Eucharist means thanksgiving. Paul explains what it means in 1 Corinthians 11:23 and on. I never said it was not OK to do this; I said it was a tradition of man to make a ceremony out of it. Did the Word of God tell His people to make a ceremony out of this rememberence - which goes way beyond mere bread and wine? I kindly asked you where the Word of God says this.



Ok.





Everything you have said so far has been an emotional reaction to something very similar: where does the Word of God Himself say to make a ceremony of the Eucharist. You keep insinuating that I am uninformed, and blaspheming - but you still haven't shown where the Word of God Himself (Christ) told us to make a ceremony of this - and that it isn't as Paul said (a thanksgiving every time we eat or drink, as we are all part of one body).

There is no such thing as a "divine institution," because the only thing Divine is the Most High God. The Word of God Himself is King. An institution is a man-made thing; the body of Christ is not denominated and bounded.

Jesus was God in the flesh, stop skirting around this issue. If you deny this, you are no Christian. Therefore, what God in the flesh ordains is a divine ordinance and cannot be dismissed as "man-made".

The "ceremony" of the Eucharist is nothing more than obedience to Christ joined with our praise and thanksgiving. There is absolutely nothing wrong with celebrating this in a dignified manner worthy of one whom we proclaim the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

This thread is closed for review. This is not a place to debate theology. ​