“How a Non-Catholic respectfully communes at Mass” (Presidents Bush and Clinton)

The Anchoress ^ | August 30, 2006

[NYer]

The Nicene Creed was written in the Fourth Century, not the First.

Yes and apologies for not being more specific. I was pointing you to the Epistle to the Smyrneans, in response to the question you posed earlier.

[NYer]

There is one church, founded by Christ, and it's only head is Christ.

That is correct and Peter is the rock on which the Church was built by Christ. There is only one church that traces its ancestry back to Christ and that is the Catholic Church.

[jkl1122]

The Catholic church hardly resembles the church of the 1st century that we read about in the New Testament.

[muawiyah]

Still, the odds are good the First Century Christians in Wales and those in India probably didn't know about that epistle. They most likely didn't know all that much about Peter and Paul after they left Jerusalem and vicinity.

[muawiyah]

It does, however, closely resemble the organized missionary structure adopted by early Christians around the Mediterranean.

There are other branches of Christianity that trace themselves directly to various apostles other than Peter.

[jkl1122]

There is only one source to which Christians should trace back to, and that is Christ. And the church we read about in the New Testament is the pattern we should seek to follow today.

[Sun]

"There are reasons that will allow a priest to give communion to a non-Catholic. I don't know the details, but I know they exist. John Paul II gave the Eucharist to Tony Blair, who is not Catholic. I think he even wrote an encyclical about the ecumenical administering of the Eucharist to non-Catholics."

I never heard of that. Would you happen to have a link? It really doesn't make sense to me, ESPECIALLY when it comes to Clinton, who could be excommunicated even if he WERE a Catholic.

[ga medic]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1193898/posts

I just looked quickly and found a discussion of this on FR. I am not justifying Clinton receiving the Eucharist. Just pointing out that there is an exception to the Catholic Only line of thinking.

[muawiyah]

Any believer may baptise ~ that's another one most Catholics never really think about until faced with a real case.

[phatus maximus]

respectfully asked...

I decided to watch a Mass on EWTN last weekend and I have a question about what I saw...

The priest was the only person who consumed the wine during the distribution of communion. Why would that be done since Christ told us to take and eat and take and drink? I didn't understand what that practice was all about? Please help me understand this...

Blessings in Christ to you and yours!

[pipeorganman]

I see no one has answered your question, so I'll take a stab at it.

The priest was the only person who consumed the wine during the distribution of communion. Why would that be done since Christ told us to take and eat and take and drink? I didn't understand what that practice was all about? Please help me understand this...

1) Catholics believe that at the Last Supper, Jesus, ordained the 12 Apostles priests and Bishops. Therefore His words "take and eat" and "take and drink" may apply only to the Apostles and their ordained successors. Thus it is a fitting symbol of the fullness of the priesthood that only the priest receive both elements.

However, the above should be seen only as symbolic. The Roman Rite does allow, under certain circumstances, the receiveing of the precious Blood by the lay communicants. Also, in both the Eastern Catholic Rites and the Eastern Orthodox Churches, communion is received under both kinds, either by intinction or by the Sacred Host being broken up and placed into the Precious Blood and fed to the faithful with a silver spoon.

2) We generally speak of the consecrated bread as the Body of Christ and the consecrated wine as the Blood of Christ due to the elements being consecrated separately and also as a form of shorthand. In reality, the consecrated bread becomes the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ and the consecrated wine becomes the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. Thus, when we receive only one of the Species, whether the Sacred Host or the Precious Blood, we receive Christ completely.

The reason that each Species is the entire Christ is that at Mass, prior to the words of consecration, the bread symbolizes the earthly body and the wine symbolizes the earthly blood of Our Lord. When the priest consecrates the bread, it symbolizes Our Lord's death upon the Cross. When he consecrates the wine, it symbolizes the Precious Blood which poured forth from the centurion's wound to His side. Thus, the Blood being separated from the Body. However, at the consecration, both the bread and wine become His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, as they are His glorified, resurrected Body. Each Species is the entire Christ, just as the Resurrected Lord was entire; Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

3) A practical reason is that since every crumb of the Host and every drop of the Precious Blood is Jesus, we want to treat It with the utmost respect and honor. Thus we are on guard against spilling the Precious Blood. We are especially sensitive about spilling It on the floor where It could be trampled. So, generally, to prevent accidents, only the priest receives from the chalice.

I hope that this has answered your question