Posted on 04/23/2018 7:28:38 AM PDT by Salvation
credit: J. Lippelmann, Catholic Standard
Last week in the Office of Readings of the Liturgy of the Hours we read from St. Justin Martyr who said:
No one may share the Eucharist with us unless he believes what we teach is true; Unless he is washed in the regenerating waters of baptism for the remission of his sins, and unless he lives in accordance with the principles given us by Christ (Apologia Cap 66: 6, 427-431)
St Justin may also have in mind a text from the Letter to the Hebrews which links proper doctrine to the reception of Holy Communion:
Brethren, Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings, for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace and not by their ceremonial foods, which are of no value to those devoted to them. For we have an altar from which those who serve at the [old] tabernacle have no right to eat. (Heb 13:9-10)
Thus Communion points to doctrine, not merely to hospitality. The Eucharist comes from a basic communion of belief and serves to strengthen that belief. It is no mere ceremony, it is, as we shall see, a family commnuion rooted in a common belief that makes us brothers and sisters in the Lord and in communion with who He is and what He teaches.
In the modern debate about who can and should receive Holy Communion there is generally the presumption that everyone has a right to approach the Eucharistic Sacrifice and partake of the Body and Blood of the Lord. Thus, to limit or discourage indiscriminate reception of Communion is not only dismissed as unjust, but also, contrary to the practice of Jesus Christ who “welcomed everyone,” even the worst of sinners.
In this sort of climate, it is necessary to explain the Church’s historical practice of what some call “closed communion.” Not everyone who uses this terminology means it pejoratively, though some do. But to some extent, it is fair to say, that we do have “closed communion.” For the Catholic Church, Holy Communion is not a “come one, come all” event. It is reserved for those who, by grace, preserve union with the Church through adherence to all the Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God. Our response of “Amen” at Holy Communion signifies our communion with these realities along with our faith in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
But many today have reduced Holy Communion to a mere sign of hospitality, such that if the Church does not extend Holy Communion to all, we are considered unkind. There is often a mistaken notion about the nature of the Last Supper (and the Eucharist that proceeds from it) that lurks behind this misconception. Many years ago, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger articulated the misunderstanding well. I summarize the description here from his Collected Works, Vol 11, Ignatius Press pp 273-274:
Nowadays [some] New Testament scholars … say that the Eucharist … is the continuation of the meals with sinners that Jesus had held … a notion with far-reaching consequences. It would mean that the Eucharist is the sinners’ banquet, where Jesus sits at the table; [that] the Eucharist is the public gesture by which we invite everyone without exception. The logic of this is expressed in a far-reaching criticism of the Church’s Eucharist, since it implies that the Eucharist cannot be conditional on anything, not depending on denomination or even on baptism. It is necessarily an open table to which all may come to encounter the universal God …
However, tempting the idea may be, it contradicts what we find in the Bible. Jesus’ Last Supper was not one of those meals he held with “publicans and sinners”. He made it subject to the basic form of the Passover, which implies that the meal was held in a family setting. Thus, he kept it with his new family, with the Twelve; with those whose feet he washed, whom he had prepared by his Word and by this cleansing of absolution (John 13:10) to receive a blood relationship with him, to become one body with him.
The Eucharist is not itself the sacrament of reconciliation, but in fact it presupposes that sacrament. It is the sacrament of the reconciled, to which the Lord invites all those who have become one with him; who certainly still remain weak sinners, but yet have given their hand to him and have become part of his family.
That is why, from the beginning, the Eucharist has been preceded by a discernment … (I Corinthians 11:27ff). The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles [the Didache] is one of the oldest writings outside the New Testament, from the beginning of the Second Century, it takes up this apostolic tradition and has the priest, just before distributing the sacrament saying: “Whoever is holy, let him approach, whoever is not, let him do penance” (Didache 10).
Thanks to Pope Benedict’s writing prior to his papacy, we can see the root of the problem: the failure to see the Eucharist for what it truly is—a sacred banquet wherein those who enjoy communion with the Lord (by His grace) partake of the sign and sacrament of that communion. Holy Communion serves to celebrate and deepen the communion already operative through the other sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Confession.
If you want to call this communion “closed,” fine, but at its heart it is more positively called a “sacrum convivium,” a sacred meal of those who share a life together (con = with or together + vivium = life). This is not a “come one, come all” meal; it is a Holy Banquet for those who wear the wedding garment. The garment is righteousness and those who refuse to wear it are cast out (cf: Matt 22:11-12 & Rev 19:8).
Many moderns surely would prefer a “no questions asked” invitation to all who wish to come. We moderns love this notion of inclusiveness and unity. But to a large degree it is a contrived unity that overlooks truth (the opposite of which is falsehood, not just a different viewpoint). Yes, it overlooks the truth necessary for honest, real, and substantive unity. Such a notion of communion is shallow at best and a lie at worst. How can people approach the Eucharist, the sacrament of Holy Communion and unity, and say “Amen” when they differ with the Church over essentials such as that Baptism is necessary; that there are seven Sacraments; that the Pope is the successor of Peter and the Vicar of Christ on Earth; that homosexual acts, fornication, and adultery are gravely sinful; that women cannot be admitted to Holy Orders; that there is in fact a priesthood; that Scripture must be read in the light of the Magisterium; and on and on? Saying that there is communion in such a case is either a contrivance or a lie, but in either case, it does not suffice for the “Amen” that is required at the moment of reception of Holy Communion.
Such divisions do not make for a family meal or a “sacrum convivium.” Hence, to share Holy Communion with Protestants, dissenters, and others who do not live in communion with the Church is incoherent. To paraphrase Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict), the Eucharist is not a table fellowship with publicans and other “sinners”; it is a family meal that presupposes grace and shared faith.
Tomorrow we can look to the need to receive Holy Communion, free of grave or serious sin.
“I look at it and see a clarion call to repentance.”
I strongly agree with you as that is a wonderful event.
Evangelical.
And you can see into their souls? Wow.
"The road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops" - attributed to St. John Chrysostom
Saints have flourished in corrupt times all through the Church's history. The proper response is to pray for our earthly shepherds.
Need they believe that "the cup of blessing which we bless, is the communion of the blood of Christ?"
If the "Rainbow Sash" people came to your church --- the self-described gay-affirming Christian group I mentioned at #8 --- they could receive?
For that matter (this is just hypothetical, since I would not want to) --- could I?
What do the keys in Matthew 16 signify?
Would a Roman Catholic priest allow communion to a person on their death bed without benefit of baptism if requested?
Need they believe that "the cup of blessing which we bless, is the communion of the blood of Christ?"
If you mean the literal blood of Christ...no. For that is not what the NT teaches.
If the "Rainbow Sash" people came to your church --- the self-described gay-affirming Christian group I mentioned at #8 --- they could receive?
As probably in your church, each person has to search their heart.
My little ones wanted to participate in communion prior to their salvation. I told them they could not until they were saved.
For that matter (this is just hypothetical, since I would not want to) --- could I?
I was going to ask you the same question!
However, I have been to two RC weddings. When it came time to approach for the Eucharist, I declined.
Good grief...already answered several times.
In virtually every Christian (non-Catholic) church I've been in, communion is open to all who profess faith in Christ for salvation.
If you don't, you are asked not to partake.
It is made clear that it's an honor system and that if you partake wrongfully, that is between you and God.
Since baptism saves no one, it doesn't matter if you've been baptized or not or are a member of the denomination or not.
Here's an idea, when YOUR church starts enforcing its own rules about receiving communion, then you can go after other churches and how they do it.
Until then, it's hypocritical to grill others about their requirements for communion when we all know that Catholic priests continue to give communion to pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage, liberal politicians like Kerry and Pelosi, and Kennedy.
Don't hold others to standards you yourselves fail to meet.
Sorry, I must have missed it. Could you give me a sentence or two?
Search the threads.
Since Baptism is needed to receive Holy Communion, the priest would, with the person's permission, baptize him first. If you have some water handy, it can be done in literally 4 seconds (I just timed myself). He could receive all the Last Rites (Baptism, Anointing, and Communion --- this is called "Viaticum") right there on his deathbed.
Need they believe that "the cup of blessing which we bless, is the communion of the blood of Christ?"... If you mean the literal blood of Christ...no. For that is not what the NT teaches.
My NT keeps saying "is" to mean "is." This "is" My Body. This "is" My Blood. I "am" the living bread. The bread that I give "is" my flesh for the life of the world. My flesh "is" true food and My Blood "is" read drink.
If I have misinterpreted "is" to mean "is", then the Apostle Paul makes the same mistake. He recalls that Jesus said This "is" my body, and then adds that anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.
So, if it depends on what "is" is, what does "is" mean in your NT?
If the "Rainbow Sash" people came to your church --- As probably in your church, each person has to search their heart.
In my Church, persons "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion." [Canon 915]. Each of those adjectives counts.
In the "Rainbow Sash" case I referred to, the sash itself made it "manifest" (outwardly shown) that they were affirming sodomy ("grave sin"). Plus, they were "obstinately persevering": they were warned that the rainbow sashes twisted Holy Cmmunion into a kind of vehicle for protest, and that they could only receive if they removed the sashes.
99.9% of the time, it is indeed left for the person approaching Holy Communion to examine their own conscience. As I mentioned before, I've only heard of people being turned away from Communion twice in my whole life, and both times it involved people who actually told the priest they wanted to receive in order to make a point about affirming Gay Wonderfulness.
Could professed Christians wearing an outward sign proclaiming Christian Gay Wonderfulness receive in your church?
My little ones wanted to participate in communion prior to their salvation. I told them they could not until they were saved.
Thanks for that answer, it's interesting. God bless your kids. In the Western Church, Communion is usually delayed until the Age of Reason (around 7) when the children can distinguish that what they are receiving is the real Body and Blood of Christ. It used to be older, but about 100 years ago, Pope Pius X lowered the age from 12 to 7.
In the Eastern Church (e.g. Byzantine Greek Catholics), equally validly, infants and tiny toddlers are brought up to receive Communion.
"However, I have been to two RC weddings. When it came time to approach for the Eucharist, I declined."
You did well. Thank you. I would show my sincere respect by doing the same in your church.
**He could receive all the Last Rites (Baptism, Anointing, and Communion -— this is called “Viaticum”) right there on his deathbed.**
And my priest has performed another sacrament at the bedside of someone dying — marriage.
If the dying is validly baptized then they can partake of the sacrament of Penance/Reconciliation.
Livestock aside, you did not answer my question about the significance of the "keys" in Matthew 16.
Relying on the Biblical passage in Isaiah 22 about the keys being taken away from the Master of the King's Household, Shebna, and given to his replacement, the new viceroy Eliakim, I would say the keys represented his office as the King's chief officer.
That makes sense, doesn't it?
Yes, eexactly. Thank you.
Since Baptism is needed to receive Holy Communion, the priest would, with the person's permission, baptize him first. If you have some water handy, it can be done in literally 4 seconds (I just timed myself). He could receive all the Last Rites (Baptism, Anointing, and Communion --- this is called "Viaticum") right there on his deathbed.
Except that is not NT baptism.
But let's continue to play....there's no water available.
My NT keeps saying "is" to mean "is." This "is" My Body. This "is" My Blood. I "am" the living bread. The bread that I give "is" my flesh for the life of the world. My flesh "is" true food and My Blood "is" read drink.
If I have misinterpreted "is" to mean "is", then the Apostle Paul makes the same mistake. He recalls that Jesus said This "is" my body, and then adds that anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.
So, if it depends on what "is" is, what does "is" mean in your NT?
No. If one reads the passage in context of John 6, and John 6 in the context of the overall book of John and the New Testament, one does not find a literal understanding of the passages in question.
Paul tells us why we have the Lord's Supper.
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
In my Church, persons "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion." [Canon 915]. Each of those adjectives counts.
Rome is then being a little duplicitous then. They allow so many to partake without objection.
Does your priest go through a list of questions before each person is allowed the Eucharist?
I didn't think so.
Further, how do you know the priest you're receiving the Eucharist from is in "good standing"? Are their motives pure? Are they in sin in some capacity?
Evangelical Lutheran Church, ULG 49: “All baptized persons are welcomed to communion when they are visiting in the congregations of this church”.
So I think that varies amongst evangelicals.
And don't side with the wolves.
Amen.
If they’re not baptized they’re not likely a believer in Christ.
I am not asking questions in order to throw shade on non-Catholic people as if my own church were a model of fidelity in this regard. It certainly is not.
I ask questions, because I seek understanding. I presume you do, too?
I would show my respect for the integrity of your church, whatever it is, by not receiving your communion. And this is how you, properly, would be asked to show respect for mine.
It's all about mutual respect.
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.