Posted on 01/09/2016 9:51:31 AM PST by Salvation
Called to Communion
Msgr. Charles Pope
Question: The priest quotes Jesus at Mass, saying, “Take this all of you and eat of it.” There are no caveats like, “unless you are divorced, gay or any number of other qualifiers.” Jesus gave the bread to Judas. Shouldn’t the Church act as Jesus did and remove the caveats and qualifiers Jesus never had?— Bill McKenna, via email
Answer: The same Jesus you (rightly) extol as our model is the one who forbade divorce and remarriage, calling the second union an ongoing state of adultery (Mt 19:1-12). He also forbade illicit sexual union of other sorts, calling it lust that risked the fires of Gehenna (hell) (Mt 5:27-30). Further, through his appointed spokesmen, the apostles (Lk 10:16; Acts 1:8), he also makes clear in numerous places (e.g. Rom 1:18-32, Eph 5:1-20) that acts of fornication, adultery and homosexual acts exclude one from the kingdom of God, as do other serious sins.
Whether Jesus gave Judas Communion or not is debatable (i.e., which bread did Jesus give him?); but let’s just say that he did receive Communion. Note that the result for Judas was not sanctification but suggests more the effects of sacrilege. Scripture says, “After (Judas) took the morsel, Satan entered him” (Jn 13:27).
And this sad effect on Judas is illustrative of St. Paul’s later teaching that it is a very bad idea to receive holy Communion in a state of serious sin, because it brings further condemnation and provides a deeper stronghold for Satan. St. Paul writes, “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor 11:27-29).
So it would seem that there are what you call “qualifiers.” Further, your view that the words of the Lord, “Take this all of you,” should be understood univocally is not supported by other Scripture passages that require certain things of those who receive. There surely is a general call to “all” to receive, but that call presupposes that we discern the body of the Lord and are able to receive holy Communion in a worthy manner (i.e., free from mortal sin).
Monsignor Pope Ping to OSV column.
Nicely addressed.
DITTO.
Liberals and Communists (but I repeat myself) are always looking for ‘loopholes’ they can use to further their agenda.
Clearly one sentence out of context of a lifetime of work could be manipulated to mean a different things.
But “Take this, all of you, and eat from it” manipulated to mean “I love communism” is stretching it a bit.
Whichever earlier loaf it was from, it evidently isn't from the afikomen, since that would not have been broken until after the meal.
The Orthodox have an answer which I think is lacking in the Catholic and Lutheran celebrations. For those who are of the specific faith but who are not able to take the actual elements, there is the remainder of the prosphora from which the Eucharistic bread is taken, called the antidoron, which can be consumed after the Liturgy. For those not in communion--if, e.g., as a Lutheran I were to participate in an Orthodox liturgy--there is the remainder of the prosphora loaves that were blessed by the priest but not used to obtain the Eucharistic bread, which is distributed as a gesture of Christian fellowship to non-Orthodox visitors. Since this tradition precedes the Great Schism, I wonder why it did not remain in the Latin church.
If you look at it in the figurative, Jesus is offering his body — his Self. It is given freely to all who would embrace Him as their Savior.
23For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.†25In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.†26For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.
1 Corinthians 11:23-26 NASB
+1
“Scripture says, “After (Judas) took the morsel, Satan entered him†(Jn 13:27).”
If “Christ” is actually present in the bread, how could Satan simultaneously enter Judas while “Christ” was in him?
Wow! Another brilliant post by Msgr. Pope. This is catechesis at the highest level.
Because when you receive unworthily you are eating and drinking your own destruction (1 Corinthians).
“Because when you receive unworthily you are eating and drinking your own destruction (1 Corinthians).”
Good passage, but doesn’t explain how Christ (allegedly) could be present and satan present in the same person at the same time.
Clearly, Christ was not present in the bread. It was bread.
These priests have another hundred questons like the one you ask: http://en.denzingerbergoglio.com/queries-and-doubts/
Short answer: because Christ wasn't in that bread, nor did He claim to be.
In the Passover ritual, there are a number of cups of wine and loaves of unleavened bread, of which the cup and loaf that are consumed after the meal relate to the Eucharist. The afikomen, which is the loaf eaten after the meal, would not have been dipped and then handed out by the seder leader. My guess is that it is simply unleavened bread that was part of the shulchan orech, or the dinner that is eaten before the tzafun and barech--though it could have been at any time during the pre-meal ritual, or even before that. In any case the (afikomen) bread--the bread Christ does claim is His body--and the third cup of wine, that together became the elements of the Eucharist, come after the meal, and so are not connected to the dipped bread that our Lord gave to Judas.
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.