:)
Posted on 10/18/2011 2:09:05 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
:)
you are mixing up a dogmatic issue (the theme of this article) and a discipline (celibacy). We have a lot of threads to discuss the latter. Let’s focus on the dogmatic reasons for the article
A little research on the Internet also proved that the Amish and similar groups maintain closed communion. (Only baptized Amish are allowed to attend their communion services.)
Closed communion is simply the historic Christian practice.
You have a way with words which escapes me. Thank you for saying it so well.
"Nicely ripped to shreds by Father Zuhlsdorf over at What Does The Prayer Really Say."
US Catholic promotes reception of Protestant “communion”? Fr Z really rants.
A reader alerted me to an article in US Catholic suggesting that Catholics can receive “communion” in Lutheran (read: Protestant) services.
Sound right to you?
Good… thought not.
Let’s have a look with my comments and emphases.
Should you pass on communion at a Lutheran church or participate fully?
You are at the wedding of a beloved family member or friend, which is taking place at a Lutheran church. You gladly accepted the invitation to celebrate this happy day with the bride and groom. But then there is a call to come to the table of the Lord’s Supper, to receive communion. This is the awkward moment you knew was coming.
Can you, and should you, a practicing Catholic, accept the invitation? [This is where you are to say, "No. Of course not."]
According to the Code of Canon Law, receiving communion in a Protestant church is generally not permissible. [generally?] According to canon 844, “Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments to Catholic members of the Christian faithful only and, likewise, the latter may licitly receive the sacraments only from Catholic ministers.” [Hmmm... isn't there actually a bit more text to that canon?] The key term here is licit. If a Catholic receives communion from a Protestant minister, it is generally considered “illicit” or unlawful. [Not to mention it a blasphemous act of idolatry. We are not talking a here about an ancient and apostolic Church with valid orders and sacraments, such as an Orthodox Church. Protestants have "ecclesial communities", but not Churches, as the clear document from the CDF teaches. They have no valid orders or Eucharist. They have an entirely and heretical notion of the Eucharist. Reception of their "communion" is wrong.]
The reason for the Catholic Church’s general rule against sharing in the Eucharist with other churches is that a person can only be in full communion with one church. As a Catholic, the core of one’s union with Christ is union with the church. The center of this union lies in the reception of the sacrament of the Eucharist during Mass, which is both a confession and embodiment of unity with the Roman Catholic Church. [There is a bit more to it than that, but let that pass. And it is always fascinating to see how some people reduce doctrinal points to "rules", when "rules" are actually based on doctrine.]
But canon 844 includes an exception to the rule “whenever necessity requires or general spiritual advantage suggests, and provided that the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided.” [A situation might develop when a Catholic cannot approach or be visited by a Catholic minister of a sacrament. It is possible to receive a valid sacrament from a non-Catholic validly ordained minister in an emergency. Protestants could give advice and comfort, but no valid Eucharist or absolution.]
The Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism said that, as a general rule, [there's that language again] common worship and eucharistic and other sacramental sharing should “signify the unity of the church.” But it acknowledges that such sharing can also be seen as advancing unity. In fact, according to the decree, “the gaining of a needed grace sometimes commends” it. [squish...splat...]
Still, within the confines of canon law, the exceptions to the rule are rather limited, and receiving communion from a Lutheran pastor during a wedding would normally be seen as “illicit” for Catholic wedding guests. [I think it would be seen as the sin of blasphemy. Blasphemy involves words or gestures, also thoughts, which show contempt for God or dishonor God regardless of whether the person intends that contempt or dishonor or not. Blasphemy is against the virtue of religion and a mortal sin.] At the same time, some Catholics would like to, and do, receive communion on these rare occasions. [And they are wrong to do so.]
These Catholics, after a careful examination of their conscience, [Huh? Is he psychic?] find compelling reasons to “gain a needed grace” by receiving communion in a Protestant church. [] And it is also true that eucharistic sharing has occurred at the highest levels of the church. Even Jesus occasionally broke the religious law of his day, though he did so to fulfill the “spirit” of the law. [Ahhh.... I seeeeee.... the old "what would Jesus do?" argument as a way to justify something just plain wrong.]
So it is possible that one could follow Jesus’ lead. In our example a compelling reason might be to demonstrate one’s deep love and commitment to nurturing the relationship of the newly married couple. [In other words, do something blasphemous to make them feel good?] Intercommunion could be a “yes” to God by witnessing to God’s presence in the marriage and committing to God’s work of salvation in their lives. [And treat a piece of bread and sip of wine as if they were God.]
In the end, this may be fulfilling the “spirit” of canon law while going against the letter.
By Kevin Considine, a Ph.D. candidate in theology at Loyola University in Chicago. This article appeared in the October 2011 issue of U.S. Catholic (Vol. 76, No. 10, page 46).
Mr. Considine is perhaps just trying to be too clever by half in engaging in this kabuki dance with law and ecumenism.
I don’t think he is being purposely duplicitous by not giving his readers the full benefit of the text of canon 844.
The second paragraph of canon 844 states,
“Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ’s faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.”
Note that last little phrase “in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.”
Validity matters. The community, or Church the minister belongs to matters.
Protestant ecclesial communities (they are not Churches, properly understood – cf. HERE.) lack valid ordination, correct theology and intention, and are, therefore, entirely incapable of offering validly consecrated Eucharist at their communion. They are therefore excluded by can. 844.
Canon 844 is speaking about, for example, our separate brothers and sisters of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Polish National Catholic Church, and the pre-Calcedonian Churches. These are the Churches, fully and properly so-called. They have valid orders and Eucharist.
Under the stringent conditions laid out in the first part of can. 844 paragraph two, it is morally and canonically proper for a Catholic to receive the Eucharist from (and to confess to and be anointed by) a priest, deacon or bishop of one of those real Churches.
Can. 844 cannot pertain to Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, etc.
Mr. Considine makes a valiant attempt at raising the flag of antinomianism and claiming it to be the flag of Christ, namely, that we must “break the religious law of the day” to “fulfil the ‘spirit’ of the law.”
Twenty centuries of Catholic theology are thus to be tossed to the breeze like so much straw. A legal system both accomodating and submissive to the teachings of Christ, is reduced to absurdity. And his argument? Disobey Christ’s Church in order to obey Christ.
His statement that intercommunion “could be a ‘yes’ to God by witnessing to God’s presence in the marriage and committing to God’s work of salvation in their lives,” demonstrates a woefully inadequate understanding of the Mystery of the Eucharist and what happens in the reception of Holy Communion. I hope the writer was just trying to be clever and creative. But he was too clever by half.
Thanks, US Catholic, for another reason to spend our subscription budget money on The Catholic Herald and The Wanderer.
If I may point out something here, not all Protestant Churches see Communion as open or allow small children to participate. The Church where I grew up, which is a FreeWill Baptist Church, saw it as closed only to Christians due to the restrictions placed on the service in 1 Cor. 11 and would not allow children to participate because of this passage. The warning in verses 27-29 was proclaimed so that each person taking part in the service knew exactly what was at stake before taking part and we combined the service with a footwashing service immediately after Communion.
It was drilled into me from a young age that this was not a trivial matter and that it was among the most Holy and reverent of services that we had, second only in importance to an alter call or believer's baptism.
You know nothing about my beliefs. And there is nothing in the quote you posted that proves you correct.
good one!
I don’t know what churches you’ve been to but I’ve attended Presbyterian, Baptist, Assemblies of God, Lutheran, non-denominational, and not one of those churches practiced totally open communion. Some didn’t fence the table as well as I expect my Presbyterian ministers to do, but none allowed “small children” to “see it as snacks”. Not even the groups that view communion as a mere memorial rather than some more spiritual reality.
And most properly-educated Protestants would not attempt to receive in a Catholic mass either. I don’t, because I know they don’t want me to and I also know that I disagree with them about what specifically the sacrament means. So I don’t kneel and I don’t go forward and it’s not that big a deal.
ah, then you’ve never been sitting in a church with stupid parents who let little Iodine take a little bread cube and a little cup of grape juice because she’s so cute and she’s fussing an oh well
Jesus wouldn’t mind, He loved the little children, red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in His sight, no harm, no foul, it’s only bread and grape juice
Over the course of my (ahem) half a century of life I’ve seen it all
Got to hand it to the Catholics
no Catholic parent would EVER give a kid the Host to shut them up
and oh, the Catholics “want you” to receive the eucharist as long as you have been educated about and accept what it represents
Wouldn’t know. Never seen it in a Presbyterian church, but I only attend good conservative churches with people who take it seriously.
The caliber of parents I see at mass? Some of ‘em I bet would hand the kid a wafer if they thought they could get away with it. I mean, they aren’t teaching them anything else - like sitting still, being quiet, not eating snacks, not playing with toys. It’s about the parenting and not the denomination I think although having servers who can prevent three year olds from receiving certainly helps.
I think it’s great that you attend mass!
but it’s not a “wafer”
I attend mass because my husband is Catholic. He attends Presbyterian services with me. I understand that it is the Catholic teaching that it is not a wafer but that’s not a teaching I agree with, so it would be inappropriate for me to call it anything else. The same reason it’s inappropriate for me to kneel. I can respect what the Catholics teach and believe but if I don’t agree it’s inappropriate for me to make motions like I do - any more than I should take communion there.
Now I hope I can add further clarification without sounding too persnickety. The word "host" in itself doesn't mean anything but a flat piece of bread. Even unconsecrated, we call them "hosts."(E.g. Fr. Raymond got a package of Mass suppies at the mission station via USPS, but unfortunately the box was damaged and a bunch of hosts spilled out. The ones that got dirty he put in the disposal.")
In other words,"host" is just a synonym for such words as "wafer,""cracker," "matzo" or unleavened bread.
However, here's what we think when the various words are used:
Host: "Ah, here's a good non-Catholic who knows a bit about terminology." (Accurate and neutral, i.e. does not imply belief.) :o)
Wafer: "Good soul, means well, but probably gets her religious information from People magazine.":o|
Cracker: "Bad news. An unpleasant person who actually doesn't know jack-chick about Catholicism.":o(
Matzo: "Baruch Atah Adonai Eloheinu!! A Hebrew-Catholic!!":oD
After it's consecrated, it can be called a "consecrated host" (still accurate and still theologically neutral). We Catholic believers would also say "the Lord's Body" or "the Body of Christ".
The definition of the word “host” seems to me to imply that it becomes a host FOR something. Since I don’t concede that theological point I don’t like using that term. Since I don’t think anyone has a problem with me referring to the wine as “wine”, I don’t think that calling it a “wafer” is disrespectful either.
“Cracker” means someone is being deliberately offensive since I can tell from looking that the item in question isn’t actually a cracker. I might as well call it a pretzel.
You wrote, “... we ought not to act out a level of union which we do not, in fact, possess.”
Hm.
I believe that those who follow Christ are the Bride of Christ. And so, if you’re a Christ-follower, then you and I are both members of the Bride of Christ. If we are both members of the Bride of Christ, then we in truth do share a particularly strong union.
Ah, that’s just one thing that bugs me about the Roman Catholic religious tradition: Too often members of the RC Church look down on other Christ-followers who aren’t members of their particular tradition.
I’m saddened, but not surprised, that you don’t think we have fellowship in Christ.
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.