Christian unity and the Eucharist

[BryanW92]

The local Catholic Church had a Prayer Service for Christian Unity on Tuesday. They invited all of the churches in the immediate area to attend. I went with six other Methodists.

It was a beautiful service and I really felt the Spirit at work in that place. But, as the priest went through the service, he got to one part where he said that the Eucharist unites all Christians and I was a little sad that if I came to Mass, he wouldn't be able to serve me.

Does anyone know the scriptural basis for their practice of denying communion to everyone who isn't a confirmed RC? Are they just saying that we aren't reconciled to our brothers (Catholics) because we are "protest"ant?

 

[Historicus]

I'm not sure about a Scriptural basis...but to quote the Catachism of the Catholic Church:

"Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, "have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders." It is for this reason, that for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible. However these ecclesial communities, "when they commemorate the Lord's death and resurrection in the Holy Supper...profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory."

It then goes on to say:

"When, in the Ordinary's judgment, a grave necessity arises, Catholic ministers may give the sacraments of Eucharist, Penance, and Anointing of the Sick, to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church, who ask for them on their own will, provided they give evidence of the Catholic faith regarding these sacraments and possess the required dispositions."

There are many instances even when confirmed Roman Catholics cannot receive the Eucharist too. I'm assuming a Scriptural basis would be 1 Corinthians 11 and Paul's caution against receiving in a "unworthy manner."

 

[circuitrider]

I think Historicus pretty much covered it. They believe we need to believe exactly as they do about communion to be able to commune together. United Methodists take the more Anglican view that it is a holy mystery and none of us fully understand God's grace anyway. So that gives us a more open view to persons who don't always agree with us still being able to approach the table.

On the other hand, I have received communion from a Catholic priest who was involved in an Emmaus Community that I was an active member of and he did this because he believed it was the right thing to do.

 

[Maid Marie]

On the other hand, I have received communion from a Catholic priest who was involved in an Emmaus Community that I was an active member of and he did this because he believed it was the right thing to do.

Cool.

 

[circuitrider]

Cool.

Yes, it was a cool experience as is the Emmaus/Cursillo movement!

 

[BryanW92]

Yes, it was a cool experience as is the Emmaus/Cursillo movement!

I can't agree more. I wish more people would experience it.

 

[BryanW92]

I'm not sure about a Scriptural basis...but to quote the Catachism of the Catholic Church:



It then goes on to say:


There are many instances even when confirmed Roman Catholics cannot receive the Eucharist too. I'm assuming a Scriptural basis would be 1 Corinthians 11 and Paul's caution against receiving in a "unworthy manner."

Thanks for posting the CCC explanation. The RCC does consider the Anglicans/Episcopals to be in full communion now, don't they?

I can't really blame the RCC for excluding most Protestants though, considering the way most people in my church approach it. They have more reverence and spend more time in preparation to speak to the barista at Starbucks.

 

[GraceSeeker]

Thanks for posting the CCC explanation. The RCC does consider the Anglicans/Episcopals to be in full communion now, don't they?

Though I wouldn't want to bet my house on it (especially as I don't own it to begin with), I don't think so. I think there is still an issue about not being under authority, as in not accepting the authority of Peter, and therefore still seen as seperated brethern. Even with the Greek Orthodox Church, though they recognize that their celebration of the eucharist is valid they won't participate in it.

 

[Maid Marie]

Yes, it was a cool experience as is the Emmaus/Cursillo movement!

I can't agree more. I wish more people would experience it.

My UMC cousin was going to try to set something up for me but the contact person in PA never answered her phone calls/emails.

 

[Maid Marie]

Thanks for posting the CCC explanation. The RCC does consider the Anglicans/Episcopals to be in full communion now, don't they?

I can't really blame the RCC for excluding most Protestants though, considering the way most people in my church approach it. They have more reverence and spend more time in preparation to speak to the barista at Starbucks.

Though I wouldn't want to bet my house on it (especially as I don't own it to begin with), I don't think so. I think there is still an issue about not being under authority, as in not accepting the authority of Peter, and therefore still seen as seperated brethern. Even with the Greek Orthodox Church, though they recognize that their celebration of the Eucharist is valid they won't participate in it.

The RCC does not consider Anglicans to be in full communion. They have an Anglican ordianariate or some such thing as of a few years ago so that those Anglicans who want to be Roman Catholic can join with a congregation and that congregation can preserve Anglican forms of worship.

And Bryan, good point about why many Protestants should be excluded. I have been in some churches in which it was an afterthought or "adult snack time" while the kiddies left for their classes. There was no reverence at all.

It seems to me that I have heard once non Catholics can participate in Catholic Eucharist if their church was not available [i.e. An Anglican on vacation in a place where the Anglican church has no presence] and if that person believed that transubstantiation truly was occurring.

 

[BryanW92]

I went to a non-denom a few years ago just to see why they were drawing everyone away from other churches in my town. The service was fun and upbeat and all the usual stuff you get in a "religious consumer experience" (as I call it).

But, when they got to "prayer time" (where the musicians play quieter and without vocals), the pastor said, "we're serving communion over in the corner. If you want it, please come and get it."

Only a few got up and took it.

 

[BryanW92]

The RCC does not consider Anglicans to be in full communion. They have an Anglican ordianariate or some such thing as of a few years ago so that those Anglicans who want to be Roman Catholic can join with a congregation and that congregation can preserve Anglican forms of worship.

You're right. I knew that the RCC had done something to bring Anglicans back into the fold.

 

[Maid Marie]

I went to a non-denom a few years ago just to see why they were drawing everyone away from other churches in my town. The service was fun and upbeat and all the usual stuff you get in a "religious consumer experience" (as I call it).

But, when they got to "prayer time" (where the musicians play quieter and without vocals), the pastor said, "we're serving communion over in the corner. If you want it, please come and get it."

Only a few got up and took it.

Oh barf.

 

[circuitrider]

I went to a non-denom a few years ago just to see why they were drawing everyone away from other churches in my town. The service was fun and upbeat and all the usual stuff you get in a "religious consumer experience" (as I call it).

But, when they got to "prayer time" (where the musicians play quieter and without vocals), the pastor said, "we're serving communion over in the corner. If you want it, please come and get it."

Only a few got up and took it.

That is a sad way to treat a sacrament.

 

[BryanW92]

That is a sad way to treat a sacrament.

Yes it is.

 

[GraceSeeker]

That is a sad way to treat a sacrament.

They may not even recognize it as a sacrament. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the Baptists and Assembly of God only recognized the Lord's Supper as an ordinance, not a sacrament???

 

[BryanW92]

They may not even recognize it as a sacrament. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the Baptists and Assembly of God only recognized the Lord's Supper as an ordinance, not a sacrament???

At this particular church, they talked it up like it was a sacrament, but treated it as an ordinance. I'm not sure if they knew the difference. That's always my biggest concern in a non-denom. I wonder what standard the pastor is trained to.

 

[circuitrider]

That is the problem I have with non-denominational church. You have no idea in many cases what they believe.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

It hurts my heart to hear of communion; which should be the heart of worship, being something tossed over to the side. Why was the congregation not a part of blessing the elements in communal worship?

Anyway... that aside.

First off, great to see other Emmaus folks!

Second,

The Roman Catholic Church has provisions for allowing persons to take communion who are not Roman Catholic, at the discretion of the Priest. The Priest has the responsibility to ensure that the person truly and fully believes what the RCC teaches on communion, and believes in-fact that this transformation is taking place on the altar at the hands of the one officiating it. Some examples where this occurs include weddings, where one of the spouses is not or has not yet converted, but wants to partake in communion with their spouse during the marriage. My brother-in-law is a devout and active Lutheran. He married my sister-in-law, my wifes entire family, with the SOLE exception of my wife, is very devoutly Roman Catholic. My brother-in-law was permitted to take communion one time, at the wedding, after much counselling and discussion with the Priest.

For me, the open and available communion is essential as the table belongs to Christ, not our church. But I have to admit there's a level of respect and appreciation for at least having such a reverent attitude toward the sacrament. I worry less about a church who offers the sacrament only to an elect few, than to a church who tosses the sacrament off to the side as an auxiliary, non-essential component of worship.