Posted on 03/28/2009 2:49:11 PM PDT by NYer
A reader—SG—sent a note:
I have a close friend whose primary reason for not becoming Catholic is one of the strangest I can think of. He agrees with all of the Church's moral teachings, and he's even comfortable with practically all of its theological doctrines ... but the thing that is holding him back is its practice of closed communion.
I once told him that there is an easy remedy to that: Become Catholic, and you can receive the Eucharist daily! But he says his objection isn't simply because he is personally being deprived, but because he thinks no one should be deprived simply because they aren't Catholic.
So SG put together a little "quiz" to help his friend realize "either that he is not actually being deprived of anything of great value; or that he is being deprived, but justly; or that even if he is being deprived unjustly, there is still good reason to submit to this injustice because the reward is so great." He then asked for thoughts on the soundness of the logic used in the quiz. Here it is:
Four Questions for Those Who Oppose the Catholic Church's Practice of Closed Communion
1. Do you believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation, i.e. that the bread and wine, when consecrated, actually become the body and blood of Christ?
YES: Go on to question 2.
NO: Since you don't believe that what you are being deprived of is actually the body and blood of Christ, but merely bread and wine, you cannot argue that you are being deprived of anything of great value.
2. Do you believe that no special authority is required for a Christian to be able to consecrate the Eucharistic bread and wine?
NO: Go on to question 3.
YES: Then you are not being deprived of the body and blood of Christ, since you yourself should be able to consecrate the Eucharistic bread and wine.
3. If a Church defies God's will by unjustly withholding the Eucharist from a vast number of people, do you believe that God would still transubstantiate the Eucharistic bread and wine during the consecration by that Church's ordained ministers?
YES: Go on to the Final Question.
NO: Then either: 1) you are not being deprived of the body and blood of Christ, since the Eucharist that the Catholic Church distributes remains merely bread and wine, or 2) you are being deprived of the body and blood of Christ, but it is God's will that you be deprived, as a way of drawing you into the Church.
Final Question: What ransom would you not pay to receive the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist?
In other words, even if it is true that the Church is wrong to withhold the Eucharist from those who are not Catholic, isn't the Eucharist valuable enough to you that "paying the ransom" the Church demands is justified?
An analogy: Imagine if your child were kidnapped, and a ransom of $10,000 were demanded. You might firmly believe that kidnapping is wrong and that the kidnappers don't deserve to be rewarded for immoral behavior, but you might also acknowledge that it is more important to get your child back than to refuse to pay the ransom on principle.
In the same way, even if you think the Church is wrong to practice closed communion, isn't it more important to receive the Eucharist than to deprive yourself of it on principle?
I find the first set of questions more engaging and helpful than the final question, since it relies upon a negative analogy (ransom and kidnapping) that skews, I think, the positive nature of the Church's stance on non-Catholics receiving Eucharist (recognizing, of course, that there are extraordinary exceptions).
SG is certainly correct in saying this is a strange hiccup to have, especially if the person in question is "on board" with the Church's theological and moral teachings. But I do wonder about that, since this is very much a theological question that is intimately connected to what the Church teaches about the nature and meaning of both Holy Communion and the Church. On one level, there is the simple matter of Church authority, which is part of what the "quiz" is aimed at conveying: if you've accepted that the Church has the authority to administer the sacraments, and you believe the Church was founded and established by Jesus Christ, and continually guided by the power of the Holy Spirit, then why the qualms?
But there is another approach, one I've used in talking to various Evangelical Protestant friends and relatives. Some of them ask about Holy Communion simply out of curiosity, but some are upset that they cannot go forward and receive the Eucharist. This is, of course, most interesting since none of them have ever professed (to me at least) to believing in the Real Presence. Anyhow, I have used the analogy of marriage, which has the plus of being both an analogy and a reality, if understood correctly. Here's the basic outline:
1. God's relationship with His people is marital and nuptial in nature. The Catechism, drawing upon a variety of passages from Scripture, states:
2. The sacrament of marriage, of the other six sacraments, is most like the sacrament of the Eucharist in that it is the intimate and exclusive gift of one's self to another, a reality signified and realized in the exchange of vows and the union of body and soul. As Fr. James T O'Connor puts it in his magnificent book, The Hidden Manna (Ignatius Press, 2005; 2nd edition): "Our union with him in the Eucharist is like a marriage. This marriage imagery is but an extension of that used to describe the relationship between God and his people as depicted in the Bible" (p 338). St. Paul wrote: "'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church..." (Eph 5:31-32). In the words of the Catechism: "Since it signifies and communicates grace, marriage between baptized persons is a true sacrament of the New Covenant" (par 1617).
3. The Church teaches (and many non-Catholics agree with her) that the marital embrace/sexual union is meant for marriage only. There are several reasons for this, but it's enough to note that sexual union involves the gift of each spouse to the other, and that this gift reflects, in a profound way, the gift of Christ to his Bride, the Church. To be married is to publicly proclaim one's love, loyalty, and singular commitment to the other; it is to swear a sacred, covenantal oath. It is not enough to say, as many do, "Hey, baby, I love you. We don't need to get married to have sex. That's just a piece of paper." On the contrary, that "piece of paper" is evidence that you have made a public, life-long commitment rooted in and demonstrating real love.
4. Likewise, reception of the Eucharist—the true Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ—is meant for those who are in full communion with Christ and his Church, which is his Mystical Body. The Eucharist is the marriage feast of the Lamb (CCC, par 1617, 1244). Receiving Holy Communion, then, is a public vow of full communion and complete commitment with the Catholic Church. "How lovely it was, that first kiss of Jesus in my heart -- it was truly a kiss of love," wrote St. Thérèse about her first Communion, "I knew that I was loved and said, 'I love You, and I give myself to You forever.' Jesus asked for nothing, He claimed no sacrifice. Long before that, He and little Thérèse had seen and understood one another well, but on that day it was more than a meeting -- it was a complete fusion."
5. Therefore, it's not enough to say, "I love Jesus," since even those who are not married can express love for one another; nor is it enough to say, "I'm planning on entering the Church soon," since those who are engaged are not married, however sincere their intent to be married. Sex before or outside of marriage is, put simply, a lie. It is partaking of that which is meant for marriage only, and it does so outside of the proper public and marital bonds.
Likewise, receiving Holy Communion as a non-Catholic (again, with an understanding of certain limited exceptions) is a lie. It says, "I am in communion with the Catholic Church despite not being in communion with the Catholic Church." Sincerity isn't enough. Good intentions aren't enough. Warm, fuzzy feelings aren't enough. Obviously this sometimes happens without a full understanding that what is taking place is wrong; as with all sinful acts there is an objective and subjective facet, as well as differing degrees of culpability. But this is why it is such a travesty for Eucharist to be knowingly given to someone who is not Catholic, because it causes someone to speak a lie with their actions.
As I indicated above, this approach is based on the belief that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ, and the Church's teachings about the nature and meaning of the sacrament of marriage and the sacrament of the Eucharist. That SG's friend says "he thinks no one should be deprived simply because they aren't Catholic" suggests a failure, in some important way, to appreciate those teachings and what necessarily follows from them in Church practice and discipline.
I attended Mass at St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, which is obviously a major tourist attraction, and I was in line for Communion behind a Japanese man who obviously was not Catholic, for he didn’t know what to do! The priest gave him communion anyway and as I stepped up, I heard him confide to his altar server in Italian—”his First Communion”.
They didn’t make a big deal of it.
True. The Catholic Church sees no impediment for the Orthodox to receive as far as the Catholic Church is concerned. We urge the Orthodox to obey their bishops but pose no obstacle for their receiving with us ourselves.
“I wonder how many Episcopalians know or even care about the Articles of Religion these days.”
Unfortuneatly. not near enough. The Church has been taken over by Ultra Libs and Homos. I don’t even attend the Episcopal Church anymore. When we get a Conservative Anglican Church in this area, I’ll probably join it.
In the Eastern Churches, the sacraments are referred to as the Holy Mysteries because, as you pointed out, it is a mystery as to how it works.
“People who don’t receive Communion can come forward for a blessing with their arms crossed across their chest. Many do it. Why doesn’t this individual want to come forward for a special blessing by the priest?”
I saw this for the first time last week at a funeral mass. It reminded me of our practice of blessing a non-Orthodox who approaches at communion time with the chalice. Its a nice thing to do.
My last dealing with a priest turned out to be a bad one. It involved an annulment and the Diocese of Hartford. I feel they betrayed and lied to me. There really is no way to resolve it.
I have no real animus toward the Church. I just don't believe much of what they say or preach.
I go to the Episcopal church and hear sermons that are relevant and I can understand. The sermons I used to hear in Catholic churches always left me cold.
I studied the Gospels in High School. It's not like I don't have an idea what they mean. I just never hear a Catholic priest explain the Gospel passage he just read in a way that connects.
“Consubstantiation” is a term often used to describe the Lutheran view of the Real Presence. It is not a term used by Lutherans however.
Speak for yourself.
The Catholic Church teaches, as always, that the substance of the bread and wine are totally obliterated and only the substance of Body and Blood exists. This is the "change" in "substance" that is what "Transubstantiaion" means.
What you describe is not the Catholic position.
From the CCC: (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a3.htm#1376)
1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.”
****** I think this is not quite true. Pray means nothing more than to ask humbly. It comes from the Latin which translates as ‘to entreat.’ Therefore we Catholics actually do pray to Mary. ******
Thanks for the honesty...Of course you guys pray to Mary, and your saints...
Some of the posters are being dishonest and trying to fleece the crowd...
Here’s a link to Catholics Online...A page with the title of Prayers to Mary with many, many prayers to Mary...
Why the deception???
http://www.catholic.org/prayers/prayer.php?s=31
The Melkite Catholics in our parish, fold their arms across their chests in preparation to receive communion. However, the practice in our Church is to bless children who have not yet made First Communion and non-Cathoic visitors, by gently placing the chalice on their head. As Kolokotronis noted, it is a reverent blessing to behold and always comes as a beautiful surprise for first time Catholic visitors who approach to receive communio with young children in tow.
The reason that article condemns that idea is quite simply because that is Catholic dogma, dogma which has not changed one iota.
To that end, Anglicans, Orhtodox and Catholics are today essentially agreed on the doctrine of the Eucharist.
Orthodox and Catholics are essentially agreed on the doctrine of the Eucharist. Anglo-Catholic Anglicans who (tacitly or explicitly) reject Article XXVIII are pretty much essentially agreed also, but Rome doesn't consider their priests' orders to be valid (by and large) so, while they say correct things about the Eucharist, they don't really have the real Eucharist (in Rome's view).
There is no "essential agreement" between Catholics and Orthodox, on the one hand, and Anglicans who accept Article XXVIII on the nature and meaning of the Eucharist.
Here: We ask the saints for favors -- primarily or exclusively intercessory prayer -- and we say nice things about them. We do those things in postures or contexts commonly associated with Christian prayer. (Kneeling, hands folded, heads bowed, in a church, etc.)
You can call that "prayer". You can call it "pepperoni pizza". You can call it anything you want.
So, why the obsession? We know the saints aren't God, and aren't gods, either. But they're closer to God than you are, and if I wouldn't hesitate to ask your prayers, why should I hesitate to ask theirs?
Well, apparently your church likes to call them prayers...So why shouldn't I, and you...
So, why the obsession? We know the saints aren't God, and aren't gods, either. But they're closer to God than you are, and if I wouldn't hesitate to ask your prayers, why should I hesitate to ask theirs?
Then why do you ask them for things that only God can provide??? Here's a couple of your prayers...
Powerful Aid Prayer to St. Michael
Glorious Prince of the heavenly hosts and victor over rebellious spirits, be mindful of me who am so weak and sinful and yet so prone to pride and ambition. Lend me, I pray, thy powerful aid in every temptation and difficulty, and above all do not forsake me in my last struggle with the powers of evil.
Amen.
~~~~~~
Prayer to St. Francis for Life
Gentle St. Francis, you were so devoted to the humanity of Christ. Your heart burst with appreciation toward O God for taking on human life. You saw beauty and goodness in all living things - in birds that sing, the fish that fill our waters, and all that lives in nature.
Help us to imitate your reverence for life wherever it may be. Especially, humble Francis of Assisi, help us to help others to see the worth of each living, unborn baby sheltered in its mother's womb.
May all people have the grace to understand that these tiny, budding lives have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
~~~~~~
I doubt that you ask one of your frinds to heal you, or provide a wife/husband for you...Why would you ask someone you hope is in heaven to do it???
Nor is such a request in the prayers you posted.
Perhaps such obsessions are born of hatred....or something more sinister.
Pray means ask.
Leave the Calvinists out of it, that's completely off topic.
“Substance” is understood as not being the physical qualities, but what the it’s essentially or “substantially” made of. “Substance” comes from Latin and means what stands underneath, not the upfront. The fact remains that the elements of the Eucharist, once consecrated, retain the physical qualities of bread and wine. Afterall, it does taste like bread (or a bread like substance if your parish uses wafers), and “drunk with the Holy Spirit” won’t sway officer friendly if you drive home after having reverently disposed of too much excess consecrated wine. What the Articles of Religion are doing is refuting the common misunderstanding of transubstantiation that it means the the people are somehow fooled into seeing and tasting bread and wine. It really is bread and wine. And it really is flesh and blood. I don’t want to get into the Definition of Chalcedon, but I that’s how I think of it.
Besides, the liturgy gives a strong hint of Anglican thinking- just read the Prayer of Humble Access.
Please see my response to SoothingDave. I think the confusion is more about a misunderstanding of terms than of anythin substantive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.