I was wondering about this part myself. Maybe the OP can clear it up for us.
(Laughing Lagomorph, who was raised Roman Catholic, baptised and confirmed but no longer considers himself Catholic and therefore would not now take communion, out of respect for the sacrament).
It’s not as interesting as you might think. I decided that I would be married in the Church, even though I had serious doubts about fundamental Catholic doctrine. If it had just been about premarital sex and homosexuality, I probably would have sucked it up and remained a Catholic in opposition to the teachings of the Church.*
Anyway, I’ve been to church dozens of times since then. Since I wasn’t the groom, I didn’t feel it was my responsibility to take Communion, and I have not done so. I’ve since joined the Unitarians, who don’t have communion (“This is… whatever you think it is” “Amen”). I’ve learned to sit quietly in the pew and contemplate God and let the Doctrinal Catholics take Communion.
*I went to confession with the meanest, most vile priest in the Diocese, just to make sure I was good with God. I figured if the guy who hung around Planned Parenthood and somehow managed to get the names of the women who went there (and called their parents to inform on them) said I was forgiven then by God, I was forgiven all right. It turns out women have an entirely different take on this sort of thing, and don’t believe you should have anything to do with such a man. You live and learn.
Just a note on the Episcopalian communion - I believe it’s up to the priest whether the communion is open to Episcopalians only, all Christians, or all people. I’ve been at two Episcopalian weddings where the priest knew that half the attendees were pagan, and we were all invited to share in communion if we wished, Christian baptised or not. She specifically spoke to me before one wedding (I’m a pagan minister) and told me it was more than all right for me to partake, she in fact hoped I would, and that my doing so might encourage others to do so as well. (I did so, as I consider Christ one of the faces of Divinity, and partook with true love and respect for Christ and his followers. I hope I didn’t offend.)
I will not take Catholic communion for obvious reasons, and I did not know I could recieve a blessing instead. That’s something to consider for next time - is it indeed open for non-Catholics, or only Catholics who do not qualify for communion at this time?
Episcopal minister checking in here.
At most Episcopal churches all baptized Xians are welcome to
receive communion. My parish takes things further since we
believe in radical welcoming: All are welcome to receive at our
table…you don’t have to believe to receive, plain and simple.
As we say, “The body of Christ shall be denied to no one, such is
the love of Christ.” Love always trumps law, at least that
what JC taught. 
I was born and raised RC and will not receive communion when
in a RC Eucharist. “Da rules is da rules.”
The Eucharist is considered by Catholics to be something special that ties the True Church together, but anyone can (and arguably should) receive blessings. The blessings one might receive in the communion line are no different than any other blessing you might receive at any other time. That said, however, it’s not entirely common: Most people who choose not to receive Communion will just remain in the pews, and of those who do come up, most just walk right past the eucharistic ministers (there’s typically one priest and a half-dozen or so laypersons giving out Communion) with arms crossed across chest. So if you want a blessing, you might have to specifically say so to the priest or minister, so that he’ll know that’s what you’re waiting for.
One additional point that has been mentioned, but not stated clearly: beyond the issue of the Real Presence (with or without the discussions of Transubstantiation), the Catholic Church also holds that the Eucharist is a sign of unity, as in Communion. There are groups whom the RCC recognizes as probably believing in the Real Presence in the Eucharist with whom intercommunion is still prohibited because other theological issues separate us. Thus, it is not merely a matter of the RCC saying that “you don’t believe the right things” (although that may play a part), and is never a matter of the RCC saying that anyone is not “good enough” (the whole point of the Eucharist is an expression of forgiveness), but it is also a matter that the sharing of the Eucharist among people who are not actually united in belief is (perceived by the RCC to be) a false statement.
Now, we have had this discussion, before, and there are many people who see intercommunion as a way to express a general Christian solidarity or a hope of eventual Christian reconciliation. For better or worse, that is not the position of the RCC.
(In terms of the OP, the issue of explaining when one may or may not participate in the Eucharist was handled rather poorly. The official position is NOT that some people are unworthy, but that many people are separate, nothing more.)
I went to a Catholic boys high school in the 1990s, and anytime we had a school mass, all the non-Catholics in attendance were expected to line up with everyone else and ask for a blessing. It would typically be around 5% of the congregation, but it’s not something I’ve seen too often at the (admittedly infrequent) masses I’ve attended since then however.
When I go to a Catholic,or any Church for a funeral or wedding, I just stay in my place. I go for the person who invited me to a wedding, or to a funeral out of respect for the person being buried. I usually try to avoid going to a Catholic service unless it is for a close relative,because I do not believe in their religion and feel foolish sharing what they call the peace of Christ, as I do not believe there is such a thing. I usually sit as far back as I can so it is not obvious. I only go for funerals and weddings and if invited other than that, I decline.
Roman Catholics are the only one’s supposed to recieve communion in their church and even those must be (so called) in the state of grace.
I do not know if it is so now but it used to be that they were obliged to go to Confession and Communion once a year at Easter time. I have a lot of relatives that are Catholic,and of other religions.
Monavis
This discussion reminded me of an incident from my middle-school years. As long as we’re on the subject, maybe you all can settle the dispute once and for all.
My friend “Judy” and I were at the Lutheran confirmation(?) of our friend “Lucy.” Judy and I are both Jewish. When it came time for communion, Judy and I had no idea what to do. Everyone else was going up, so we figured it would be polite for us to do so as well. I was on crutches, however, so we decided Judy only would go. I felt embarrassed being the only one sitting there.
After the ceremony, we discovered that Jewish people shouldn’t take communion. Judy was mortified. She was worried that Lucy would be upset that she had done something wrong at her very important confirmation ceremony.
Also, as she was fairly religious, and in the midst of studying for her Bat Mitzvah, Judy was terribly concerned that she had done something horribly wrong from a religious standpoint.
Lucy wasn’t upset about it, except she was mad at herself for not warning us. She just assumed we knew to stay in our seats. We talked over the religious aspects of it, and decided that it was simply an honest mistake, and therefore had no religious or moral significance from either a Lutheran or Jewish standpoint. As Lucy said, “To me, it was important. To you, it was a snack.”*
Lucy’s mother, who was a lifelong practicing Lutheran agreed with our assessment, as did my Jewish mom. Judy’s mom got seriously bent out of shape, however, and Judy got in big trouble. She said that for a Jewish person to take communion was really really horrible, even if it was done out of ignorance.
So what say you all?
There are two distinct analyses that must be completed: was this “really horrible” in the Lutheran view, and was it “really horrible” in the Jewish view?
While I suspect the Lutheran and Catholic analysis would be similar, I of course defer to anyone who has expertise in Lutheran discipline. That said, I believe the issue is simply one of honest error, to which no serious sin can attach. Serious sin requires advertance of the will – you must know something is wrong, and decide to do it anyway, in order to commit a serious sin. So I am reasonably sure that the Lutheran view would be that no serious sin was involved. Again, I welcome correction.
The Jewish viewpoint is more interesting. If the communion was offered under both species - bread and wine - then the wine is almost certainly yayin nesech. In fact, while Rambam cites Pasuk 32:38 for the authority against yayin nesech, Sefer HaChinuch includes in the ban from that pasuk any food consecrated to a deity… into which communion bread would certainly seem to fall.
I’m guessing, however, that a girl just studying for her bat mitzvah is not likely to be keeping to the Orthodox tradition. I have no idea how the Reform or Conservative traditions view yayin nesech.
And of course halakhic law doesn’t typically punish honest error either.
I’m hpoing Anne Neville returns to the thread; I’m very curious at her response to my commentary on gadol kvod habriot.
Well, it was definitely an honest error on my part, due to my lack of knowledge (it’s been a while). Dad meant well, and didn’t mean to humiliate me. My husband and son went up and took communion. Uh oh! :dubious:
The church I attended when I was in my 20’s did baptisms for adults a couple times a year. The belief was that as an adult, you have full knowledge of what you are doing, versus being an infant and being baptised. I did take first communion as well, but again was a child and lacked the understanding I have as an adult.
I remember some of the nuns that taught me, and my husband had gone to Catholic school through the 8th grade. Most nuns and priests are wonderful, but we both have some bad memories. This was during the 70’s when a teacher could, and did, hit children with rulers, pointers, etc. In the 8th grade my husband had an awful experience with a priest (nothing sexual or anything that terrible), and does not care for the Catholic church.
Recent controversy aside in the Catholic church, he feels that one should not judge or look down on another. On the other hand, I feel that it is important to obey the “rules” and wasn’t sure in this case.
I now see that my dad was correct in what he was trying to tell me, just not in the way he went about letting me know.
I’m not Orthodox, and that’s a rule that I don’t know of any non-Orthodox Jews who follow.
But your comment on how taking communion when you shouldn’t is sacrilege was enlightening. I thought at first that purple haze’s dad was out of line in doing what he did, but now I understand why he did it. Ignorance has been fought.
We say it’s OK to drink it, in general. I’m Conservative, and we use kosher-certified wine for kiddush and during Passover (due to chametz issues), but at other times, I will drink non-kosher-certified wine. We say that wines produced in western countries are acceptable because what Christians do when they worship, while not something we want to encourage Jews to do, isn’t idolatry. Communion not being idolatry, she didn’t drink yayin nesekh. I don’t think the Reform or Reconstructionist movements have a position on kashrut of wines.
Thanks Bricker! My ignorance took a thumping today! That last post, including the link to Credo of the People of God, explained a lot to me and cleared up some misperceptions I had. I appreciate it!
A couple of years ago (back when I actually had a personal interest in all this), the United Methodists debated moving in just that direction, as many pastors already had. Ultimately, the Church pulled back from that extreme position, stating instead that although no one coming freely should be denied access to the Lord’s Table and full participation therein, the invitation should be extended explicitly to “those who love [Christ], repent of sin, and seek to live as Christian disciples,” and those unbaptised who choose to receive “should be counseled and nurtured toward baptism as soon as possible.” (The official United Methodist statement on Communion is This Holy Mystery. The section on who is invited can be found here.
I was one of the few voices at my seminary opposed to a “radically open” table. My reasoning was simple–besides the weight of eccumenical tradition limiting Communion to the baptized, there is the serious (IMO) danger of misrepresenting what the Eucharist is. Someone like Green Bean or her friend Judy, or my dad, a secular Jew of strong atheist conviction, might hear “All are welcome to receive at our table…you don’t have to believe to receive, plain and simple.
As we say, ‘The body of Christ shall be denied to no one, such is
the love of Christ,’” and think that Communion is merely a ceremony of welcoming and friendship. Were my father to think this and therefore receive Communion out of friendship and politeness, only to later be told that he participated in a sacrament mystically uniting him to the Body of Christ and making him a member of such body, one with all believers, united by the power of the Holy Spirit, I imagine he’d be right horrified!
OTOH, when that does happen, and especially when it happens deliberately, not by accident and miscommunication, it is an opportunity for teaching, not repudiation. I myself first received the Eucharist in a Catholic church in a foreign country in which I did not speak the language. I was encouraged to do so by well-meaning but unknowledgeable children, who could not understand why I didn’t get in line like everyone else. Although I received Communion in error and ignorance, I nevertheless felt what I believed to be the presence of the divine, and was impressed enough by this experience that I subsequently became a Christian and was baptized.
For the record, though, (1) I didn’t become a Catholic, and (2) it didn’t take.
Make of that what you will.
This is completely false. It is not up to the priest. Or, more correctly, the priest can certainly offer communion to non-baptised, non-Christian individuals, but by doing so the priest is violating the canons (rules) of the Epicopal Church. Technically speaking, the priest who served you communion knowing you to be a pagan could be brought up on charges.
Practically speaking, ecclesiastical discipline in the Episcopal Church is pretty much non-existant unless you tick off your bishop. So I doubt she would be in much jeopardy. But she was wrong nevertheless.
At the only Episcopalian wedding I ever attended, the officiant made a point of informing the guests that only baptized Episcopalians were invited to participate in communion. As a baptized Presbyterian who’d never heard of closed communion at the time, I was a bit offended. I understand the reason now, but I don’t appreciate the way it was handled.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I view wedding & funeral ceremonies as different in nature from worship ceremonies, in that they do not tend to be primarily attended by believers and/or seekers - and I don’t care much for practices that make people feel like outsiders. I understand that others may disagree, but it just seems rude to me.
That’s why, at my Episcopal wedding, we decided not to include a celebration of the Eucharist as part of the ceremony. We expected that at least some of our guests would be non-Christian or non-baptised, and we didn’t want them to feel excluded. At the same time, we didn’t think that inviting them to participate in a sacrament that they didn’t understand or believe in would have been appropriate either. So we left it out.
The practice of limiting communion to Episcopalians only is curious, and not required by the Episcopal Church USA. It may be that the priest chose to err on the safe side, not knowing for sure who in the pews was baptised or otherwise able to participate.
So we obviously need a tie-breaker, or even better, a cite.
Skammer, what’s your source of information? **Eggerhaus **claims, at least, to actually be an Episcopal priest. Or is there a schism within the church?
No schism (yet, anyway).
My cite is the Canons of the General Convention of the Episcopal Church (2003) (warning: large PDF)
As for being vulnerable to presentment,
I should add that I don’t have any intentions of filing a presentment against Eggerhaus, and when I submitted my first post above I had not seen his (her?) post in which he admitted to preforming open communion. Otherwise I would have been a bit more diplomatic, and more courteous to him specifically.