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.
“The way I understand it, the only time an Orthodox believer is allowed to approach a Latin priest (allowed by Rome, that is) is in case of grave emergency. And Latins are allowed to approach an Orthodox priest in similar circumstances.”
That’s my understanding, too.
Seems to me, even if apples were oranges, it's a bit rude to ignore what you know is the policy of any organization which permits you to attend their events.
OK, just wanted to be clear. Seems to me a good policy which allows for emergency access to what are valid priests, yet recognizes that in normal circumstances our lack of inter-communion is a reality.
“.....the teaching of the Catholic Church that transubtantiation does NOT occur in Anglican services....”
Very few Anglicans believe in trasubtantiation any way. For the traditional Anglican position, See Article XXVIII of the 39 Articles of Religion:
XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper.
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.
The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.
The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped
I wonder how many Episcopalians know or care about the articles of religion these days.
Catholics, despite what you may have been told, do not pray to Mary or the saints. We ask for their intervention.
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. I understand what you are trying to do in drawing a distinction between how we pray to our Lady and how we pray to the Lord. I think you are right in seeing a distinction there. However, I cannot agree that it would mean we don't pray to the saints at all. The problem is not that we pray, but that we haven't helped people understand why doing so is right and proper, which it of course is.
“It says, “I am in communion with the Catholic Church despite not being in communion with the Catholic Church.”
No, it says I am in communion with CHRIST, which is far more important than ANY church.
“No, it says I am in communion with CHRIST,...”
That’s an odd notion. Communion with Christ? Where did this come from?
“The way I understand it, the only time an Orthodox believer is allowed to approach a Latin priest (allowed by Rome, that is) is in case of grave emergency.”
I was too quick in my response. In point of fact, Rome allows me to receive communion at any Mass. Orthodoxy forbids me to do so, though in an emergency I can and an Orthodox priest would give the sacraments to a Latin in the same circumstances, though not otherwise.
Does medicine only work if the patient fully understands what it is and how it works? Do doctors need to provide their patients an education in chemistry and a pharmacy before adminstering drugs? The medicine, administered properly is good for the sick patient. It matters not what the patient understands of the medicine.
The Body and Blood are good and nourishing to the faithful. Does that change if the partaker does not fully understand its significance? Does anyone really fully understand this sacrament?
You sound like a Donatist.
The “transubstantiation” referred to in Article XXVIII referes to the notion that the bread and wine cease being bread and wine and become flesh and blood. We are only visually fooled into seeing bread and wine. This is the Eucharistic equivalent of the heresy that says Christ is divine but not human. Christ is fully God and fully man. The elements of the Eucharist are fully Body and Blood and fully bread and wine. This is what is now called “Real Presence”. A careful review of the Anglican liturgy, particularly the Prayer of Humble Access, reveals this. To that end, Anglicans, Orhtodox and Catholics are today essentially agreed on the doctrine of the Eucharist.
It's irrelevant what you agree with.
If my children were with me at a Catholic Mass I would not hesitate to take them to Communion since they have already received at the Episcopal church we go to.
You and your children are Protestants, not Catholics. I suggest you review 1 Corinthians 11 and correct your erroneous rationalization of what you would do.
Are you also aware that Luther prayed the rosary daily until his death?
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?
Are you sure that these Lutherans don’t embrace consubstantiation?
Are you a baptized Catholic?
Why don’t you sit down with a priest and talk about your reasons for leaving for awhile.
The truth remains that you are still a Catholic.
We don’t pray “to” the Blessed Virgin Mary. We ask her to intercede for her. We always ASK!
They start from a murky assumption and lead each other into a ditch, but hey, it hurts so good
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
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.