Thread: Oops: There goes my best intentions Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028575
Posted by thednt (# 16248) on
:
Went to Vigil Mass this evening at local Catholic church this evening (as an Anglican).
Took Holy Communion without thinking (ie not in Communion with the Catholic Church).
Priest gave me the deserved ticking off afterwards when he realised who I was (oops).
From a Catholic POV, is this a serious error I have committed?
To be honest, I was on auto-pilot as the words and rite of the Mass were in many ways similar to C of E worship.
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on
:
thednt, some topics on these boards are considered Dead Horses because they generate the same arguments every time and will likely not be resolved before the Parousia. Closed communion is one of them.
Thus I am transferring this thread to Dead Horses, and you can await replies to your query in the paddock.
Mamacita, Eccles Host
Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on
:
Many RC clergy I know struggle as much as we do with the state of Communion.
RC's accept our Baptism, and it is Baptism (not Confirmation) which is the pre-requisite for receiving the Eucharist.
This follows after a time of preparation for first communion. For those who are capable of understanding the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist is thus part of being able to receive the Sacrament.
For those of us who hold that same understanding (which at the end of the day I do - despite trying to hold a nice Anglican Via Media on the Real Presence my experience of the Eucharist compels me to accept it) it is doubly frustrating.
So I would apologise to the Priest. But assure him that I accept the Catholic Church's understanding of the Eucharist.
He would then be well within his rights to ask why you don't submit to the Holy See considering you have just taken the outward and inward action of one who is in full communion with the Church built on the Rock.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
On another note the official CofE view on who may receive is also not perfect - as it excludes anyone who may be excluded by their own communion. So a remarried RC is no more welcome at a CofE Altar than a RC one if you follow the rules.
Posted by thednt (# 16248) on
:
I dunno.
I seem to have put someone's nose right out of joint. Should have gone to Wednesday Mass and missed that due to on site 18 hour call out.
Go today, after another day working and go on auto-pilot.
Probably sends the message that I am not right in the head.
I had made contact through the Ordinariate in Manchester. However, a full conversion looks likely.
Back tomorrow, 9am, apologise and say it was not intended etc.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by thednt:
From a Catholic POV, is this a serious error I have committed?
From a Catholic (ie. RC) perspective, you participated in a sacrament available only to members of the Church, without being one (in the full sense required). So, yes, an error about something which they consider rather important, and given that you knew that you weren't, by their rules, supposed to do it, and appeared to do so deliberately, a serious error.
From an Anglican point of view, it was a valid Eucharist, which is the Lord's Supper (not the property of any one denomination), and you are a bona fide member of the Lord's people, as much in communion with him as the Pope is. There's no theological reason for you not to receive communion whereever your own conscience permits - but politeness and charity to your fellow Christians are important, too, and give a case for abstaining where it would cause offence. If people in the congregation knew that you were Anglican, to my mind, that is a compelling reason not to receive. Of course, you weren't actually being uncharitable - you received without thinking that it might offend.
It seems to me that you should judge yourself as having committed (inadvertantly) a social faux pas. You didn't sin by the mere act of taking communion, but you did, wrongfully give offence to other Christians. Don't beat yourself up about it. Don't try to justify it. Apologise unreservedly, carry on going to that church, and don't do it again.
Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on
:
From many (if not most) RC's point of view, what you did is really a business between you and your God. I know several RC priests who have no qualms giving communion to e.g. Lutherans. I think it is time to note that there is an increasing difference between what The Vatican says and what many a worthy priest / monk / layperson does "on the ground". In full conscience. In full communion with our brothers from other Christian denominations.
We aren't all Opus Dei types, you know ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
So welcome back to one of our masses whenever you feel it's right.
Posted by thednt (# 16248) on
:
I have to square things with the Parish Priest, as he knew I was Anglican.
One thing that did surprise me was how similar the wording is between the Catcholic and old-ASB rites I used to use in the C of E. Yes, this was my first Catcholic Mass.
Posted by thednt (# 16248) on
:
So, I went along for 9am Mass, said my apologies, stated it was a mistake and unintentional, did not take Mass this morning and all sorted.
Posted by Intrepid Thurifer (# 77) on
:
I don't care what the exclusive Roman Catholic Church teaches, if I ajm at a Cathilic mass I take communion just as I would at any other church
Posted by thednt (# 16248) on
:
For me, it's about respect.
If I go into a house/church and I know something is against the house rules, I don't do it out of respect for my hosts.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by thednt:
For me, it's about respect.
If I go into a house/church and I know something is against the house rules, I don't do it out of respect for my hosts.
AIUI, the only absolute prerequisite is baptism. If there's no Anglican (or Lutheran, etc) service which you can reasonably attend at that time, there's no problem. In our experience, RC priests tend to be very liberal in the application of this test.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
When I lived abroad, I regularly attended Mass at a Catholic church and sung in the choir there.
Wishing to be a respectful Anglican, I didn't receive communion. The other members of the choir, however, thought this was being rather bizarre and over-scrupulous ...
Posted by Scotus (# 8163) on
:
Edward Green has hit the nail on the head. Receiving communion at in the Catholic church is
quote:
the outward and inward action of one who is in full communion with the Church built on the Rock.
The OP made a genuine mistake which is fair enough, and it sounds like s/he may, praise God, be on a journey towards full communion with Peter.
Receiving communion is an ecclesial act, not an individual one - it signifies and effects our intimate union with Christ whose Body we receive and to whose Body we belong. Whilst it is true, even from a Catholic point of view, the Body of Christ comprises all the baptised, nevertheless the reality is that the bond of full communion which should exists between the entire people of God has been damaged by human sin. Full communion implies sharing the revealed faith and accepting the authority of the church given to it by Christ, as well as sharing in sacramental communion, and the first two things are a pre-requisite of the third. To put it another way, it is inconistent for someone who does not hold the Catholic faith and submit to the authority of the Catholic church to receive its sacraments.
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
When I lived abroad, I regularly attended Mass at a Catholic church and sung in the choir there.
Wishing to be a respectful Anglican, I didn't receive communion. The other members of the choir, however, thought this was being rather bizarre and over-scrupulous ...
For me, that begs the question of how much it's possible for a person to participate in a religion's rituals while still identifying with another religion or denomination.
Supposing the awkward talking point among the choir leads you to decide, one day, that you will take communion after all. What then? Will the priest say anything about it? Or will he just let it go?
Supposing the priest did say something about it. How would you respond if he asked you to go through the RCIA ceremony? Would you say, "I can't do that - I'm an Anglican"? Supposing you did go through the RCIA ceremony? Would that mean that you had ceased to be an Anglican? Or would it mean that you are now both a Catholic and an Anglican at the same time?
To be honest, I don't really understand why a person who regularly participates in Catholic ceremony but not Anglican ceremony would continue to self-identify as Anglican, unless (a) they are an academic in the field of Anglican theology (or perhaps just consider themselves to be well-read on Anglican history), or (b) they have a significant number of living or deceased friends or relatives who are Anglican.
You can swap "Anglican" and "Catholic" round in that last paragraph, or replace them with names of any other two religions or denominations, and I think the same thing applies.
Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on
:
When I'm at a Catholic mass I naturally feel sad that our divisions prevent me from receiving the Sacrament, but I would never dream of going up and taking it. Even if the priest was a flaming liberal and straight-up told me I could receive, it just wouldn't feel right sneaking into the temple by a back alleyway instead of striding through the main gates with confidence.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
If I am at a Catholic mass I take communion just as I would at any other Church - and the dear Catholic friends I attend with encourage me to do so.
The priests never comment.
<typo>
[ 13. March 2011, 04:25: Message edited by: Boogie ]
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
To be honest, I don't really understand why a person who regularly participates in Catholic ceremony but not Anglican ceremony would continue to self-identify as Anglican, unless (a) they are an academic in the field of Anglican theology (or perhaps just consider themselves to be well-read on Anglican history), or (b) they have a significant number of living or deceased friends or relatives who are Anglican.
In my case, the reason I didn't go to an Anglican church was because the nearest one was a two-hour train journey away.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
If I am in an RC church and anyone there knows me, I don't go forward because I don't want to risk distressing anyone during their worship. If no one knows me (I'm traveling, the only church around is RC), I fully participate in the worship because no one will be distressed and I am sure God is not at all offended by my participating.
The last RC church I visited was a tourist site in a tourist town, communion followed a publicly advertised concert, nothing in the bulletin or said up front suggested a closed communion (in a tourist attraction church I would expect an announcement if they cared because outsiders can't be assumed to know insider rules), most people went forward and the priest served everyone both bread and wine.
I guess there are a lot of local variations these days!
Posted by ButchCassidy (# 11147) on
:
Belle Ringer- exactly.
I am a Protestant but have lived in a Catholic hall of residence for 2 years. I participate fully in the Mass: I read readings, sing in choir etc. But when it comes to receiving communion, I get a blessing.
1 Corinthians 8 is IMO exactly for this situation. I know that God infact allows me to receive communion. But "not everyone knows this" (v7). And if I did receive, "the exercise of my freedom would become a stumbling block to the weak" (v9), ie some people would be angry, and it would destroy the beneficial power of that Mass for them. "So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge" (v11). To me it makes little difference whether I receive or am blessed in any case.
I think the trickier one is when I am leading prayers, and I must chant aloud the Hail Mary. When I am in my seat I can stay quiet and silently pray to God "to aid their prayer". When leading the Hail Mary however, I say the words but inwardly pray to God that their prayers to Mary will be answered by Him.
I do not believe praying to Mary is a sin as such, as it is in a Christian spirit; more an error of knowledge. If it was a sin, I would have to refuse I suppose, and incur some stumbling block to others..
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
The last RC church I visited was a tourist site in a tourist town, communion followed a publicly advertised concert, nothing in the bulletin or said up front suggested a closed communion...
Except the fact that it was a Roman Catholic church, that is.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by thednt:
I have to square things with the Parish Priest, as he knew I was Anglican.
If he knows you're an Anglican, why did he give you the sacrament?
Posted by lily pad (# 11456) on
:
Yeah, I might be old-fashioned or putting barriers up where they don't exist anymore but I would not receive in an RC church under any circumstances. If you aren't RC, you aren't to receive. As far as I am concerned, it doesn't matter who knows and who doesn't know. I know I am not RC and until something changes on their side or mine, I don't want to make it an issue.
Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by thednt:
I have to square things with the Parish Priest, as he knew I was Anglican.
If he knows you're an Anglican, why did he give you the sacrament?
If it's like my mom and dad's RC church, the priest may not have actually administered communion. Their priest gives the sacrament to laity who then administer communion. The priest then sits behind the altar and watches. Unless he got up and went running down to stop someone (which wouldn't be...well...nice and orderly), he really couldn't except by telling people before hand or after.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
The last RC church I visited was a tourist site in a tourist town, communion followed a publicly advertised concert, nothing in the bulletin or said up front suggested a closed communion...
Except the fact that it was a Roman Catholic church, that is.
When a church of any denomination invites the general public in a tourist area to a non-worship event such as a concert, the church is intentionally filing its hall with a mixture of various Christians and agnostics.
If it adds to the advertised event some activity it wants to restrict to just members, it will say so. Intentionally invited outsiders can't be expected to know in-group rules they are not told, and many (most?) non-Catholics including agnostcs don't know RC rules. Why would they?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Intentionally invited outsiders can't be expected to know in-group rules they are not told, and many (most?) non-Catholics including agnostcs don't know RC rules. Why would they?
Did you know the rule?
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
On a tangental note; I went to an RC nuptial mass, out of respect I didn't take communion but out of habit I participated in the mass and said the relevant responses -because they were, then anyway, the same as the Anglican ones. This lapsed RC (who is a very unpleasant person anyway) made it clear she disapproved of me saying the responses-it was my belief that it was just taking the bread and wine when I didn't believe in transubstantiation that was the problem-not saying the words of the mass.
Is it wrong to "participate" in the mass in any way if you're not an RC?
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
On a tangental note; I went to an RC nuptial mass, out of respect I didn't take communion but out of habit I participated in the mass and said the relevant responses -because they were, then anyway, the same as the Anglican ones. This lapsed RC (who is a very unpleasant person anyway) made it clear she disapproved of me saying the responses-it was my belief that it was just taking the bread and wine when I didn't believe in transubstantiation that was the problem-not saying the words of the mass.
Is it wrong to "participate" in the mass in any way if you're not an RC?
No, your lapsed RC friend(?) doesn't know what he's talking about.
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
When a church of any denomination invites the general public in a tourist area to a non-worship event such as a concert, the church is intentionally filing its hall with a mixture of various Christians and agnostics.
Yes, most certainly.
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
If it adds to the advertised event some activity it wants to restrict to just members, it will say so. Intentionally invited outsiders can't be expected to know in-group rules they are not told, and many (most?) non-Catholics including agnostcs don't know RC rules. Why would they?
If a person doesn't know the rules, I don't think it would be seen as a big breach. But since you know them, it is different. I'm not RC. I'm Lutheran. If I am in A RC church, I don't participate in the Eucharist, because I know that I shouldn't. You also know that you shouldn't.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Intentionally invited outsiders can't be expected to know in-group rules they are not told, and many (most?) non-Catholics including agnostcs don't know RC rules. Why would they?
Did you know the rule?
I didn't go forward, and then when I saw the guy was serving both bread and wine figured I had misunderstood the denomination of the church but it was too late to respond. Checked the bulletin, not a clue what denomination or whether communion is open or closed.
Later someone confirmed my initial guess it was Catholic.
Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on
:
I wouldn't take RC Mass, because I know they have a rule where you can't take it if you're not RC, and so I respect their rule.
However, if it is not an RC church, but another kind of church which is very 'high', such as high Anglican, I have no idea how to tell if I am supposed to take it or not. I once accompanied someone to a high church service, and at the Mass, I explained to the priest that I can't take it because I'm not Catholic (I was confused and thought it was a Catholic church) and he asked my background and then said I could take it. But I was aware that the church understanding of the wine and wafer might be different from mine, so I was confused about why I was allowed to take it.
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter: From many (if not most) RC's point of view, what you did is really a business between you and your God. I know several RC priests who have no qualms giving communion to e.g. Lutherans. I think it is time to note that there is an increasing difference between what The Vatican says and what many a worthy priest / monk / layperson does "on the ground". In full conscience. In full communion with our brothers from other Christian denominations.
We aren't all Opus Dei types, you know
So welcome back to one of our masses whenever you feel it's right.
Quite the opposite actually. The generation that would be so inclined to deliberately profane the sacrament are retiring or dying off and being replaced with young, orthodox clergy who will not. Eucharistic unity is the end point of true ecumenism not the starting point as it is the single most visible sign of true unity in faith. No serious theological argument can be made otherwise.
To encourage another to commit sacrilege is unconscionable.
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
If I am in an RC church and anyone there knows me, I don't go forward because I don't want to risk distressing anyone during their worship. If no one knows me (I'm traveling, the only church around is RC), I fully participate in the worship because no one will be distressed and I am sure God is not at all offended by my participating.
I don't think God is offended by worship either, but that's not the same as receiving communion. Not all worship is receiving communion. I think God knows what's in our hearts, but that should make us more humble and careful of what we do. Because we may not agree with the "house rules", so to speak, and we may think it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. But God knows if we know what the host's "house rules" are or not, and I believe it matters to God whether we care about respecting our hosts and neighbours too, so if in the long run God doesn't ding us for doing something we think doesn't really matter, he may ding us for our attitude towards our neighbors and toward the things they hold important. Basically, it's the Golden Rule.
quote:
The last RC church I visited was a tourist site in a tourist town, communion followed a publicly advertised concert, nothing in the bulletin or said up front suggested a closed communion (in a tourist attraction church I would expect an announcement if they cared because outsiders can't be assumed to know insider rules), most people went forward and the priest served everyone both bread and wine.
I guess there are a lot of local variations these days!
This sounds odd to me. I've lived in tourist areas, and I've gone to churches that received tourists and that sometimes held public concerts.
What time was this concert? What sort of concert was it?
Whenever I've seen or been to a concert at a Catholic church it's been in the evening, like they usually are at the theater, which normally is much too late for Mass. Daily Mass is usually in the early morning, midday, or afternoon and Sundays are taken up by Mass all morning and midday so in my experience it would be unusual that a Mass would follow a public concert.
Most bulletins in Catholic churches in this country are just for parish announcements and to list phone numbers, Mass & confession times, etc. It's in the so-called "missalettes" in the pews with the order of Mass and the readings that you'll find the statement, either at the front or the back, from the bishops on who may receive communion.
When distributing communion priests are acting on good faith and wouldn't stop anyone unless it was pretty obvious something was fishy. This goes for Catholics too, mind you. You're not supposed to receive unless you've gone to Confession and are in a state of grace but most priests (as far as I've seen) don't ask each communicant as they come up to receive whether they went to Confession last Saturday or not.
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
p.s. to what I wrote above:
I think we're all liable to self-deception so it isn't enough to tell yourself, "God knows what's in my heart, he knows what I meant to do" because he sure knows it better than we know ourselves.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Intentionally invited outsiders can't be expected to know in-group rules they are not told, and many (most?) non-Catholics including agnostcs don't know RC rules. Why would they?
Did you know the rule?
I didn't go forward, and then when I saw the guy was serving both bread and wine figured I had misunderstood the denomination of the church but it was too late to respond. Checked the bulletin, not a clue what denomination or whether communion is open or closed.
Later someone confirmed my initial guess it was Catholic.
I would have thought that, given you know that some churches have closed communion, and you didn't know what kind of church this was, the reasonable thing to do would have been to not go forward, out of respect for the church if it happened to be one that had a closed communion. Err on the side of not offending and all that.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
I wouldn't take RC Mass, because I know they have a rule where you can't take it if you're not RC, and so I respect their rule.
However, if it is not an RC church, but another kind of church which is very 'high', such as high Anglican, I have no idea how to tell if I am supposed to take it or not. I once accompanied someone to a high church service, and at the Mass, I explained to the priest that I can't take it because I'm not Catholic (I was confused and thought it was a Catholic church) and he asked my background and then said I could take it. But I was aware that the church understanding of the wine and wafer might be different from mine, so I was confused about why I was allowed to take it.
Happened to some friends of ours in a church in north Queensland. They are RC and saw a sign for Mass. Went on Sunday, found out the words of the liturgy a bit unusual, while the ritual was that they only experienced at the highest of High Masses. At the end of the service they found out it was Anglican.
Back to my earlier post. AIUI, if I cannot attend an Anglican service, I may attend an RC one. This usually happens on holidays at a village where Anglicanism has never been heard of. We go and talk to the priest beforehand, explain as best we can (our French and Italian don't run to technical theological terms) that we approach the Mass much as they do; yet to receive a knockback.
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
To be honest, I don't really understand why a person who regularly participates in Catholic ceremony but not Anglican ceremony would continue to self-identify as Anglican, unless (a) they are an academic in the field of Anglican theology (or perhaps just consider themselves to be well-read on Anglican history), or (b) they have a significant number of living or deceased friends or relatives who are Anglican.
In my case, the reason I didn't go to an Anglican church was because the nearest one was a two-hour train journey away.
Yes - but that doesn't answer the question of why you don't become a Catholic.
Not saying it's wrong that you don't; it's just that I don't really understand it. Then again, the fact that I don't rate denominational allegiance that highly may itself be a result of my partially Evangelical background.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
Although in the distant past participation in the sacred mysteries was limited to those who were of the 'household of the Faith' anyone may now ,if they so wish ,attend both the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The mass is divided into these two parts. The first part (Liturgy of the Word) is in a sense evangelistic and directed towards all.The second part (Liturgy of the Eucharist) is really for those who are in some way committed.
There are rules in the Catholic Church about who may actually receive the Sacred species and these rules apply to those who are (card carrying) Catholics as well as to those who are not.Nowadays with a practice of practically everyone going to communion it is not always known by casual observers that not all of those who claim to be catholics are automatically allowed to take Communion.Whether they do or not is another matter.With catholics coming and going from one parish/Mass centre to another most priests have little idea of who some of the communicants are,,but would simply assume that they are communicants in good faith.
To my mind ,if this is the case, there is no great harm done, though the rules are still there to be found out by those who are interested in taking an active part in the church community.
BTW ,one does NOT take or receive Mass.One takes or receives Communion. One can attend Mass,celebrate Mass, participate in Mass,assist at Mass, hear Mass,but one does not TAKE Mass (in the sense of receiving communion).
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
To be honest, I don't really understand why a person who regularly participates in Catholic ceremony but not Anglican ceremony would continue to self-identify as Anglican, unless (a) they are an academic in the field of Anglican theology (or perhaps just consider themselves to be well-read on Anglican history), or (b) they have a significant number of living or deceased friends or relatives who are Anglican.
In my case, the reason I didn't go to an Anglican church was because the nearest one was a two-hour train journey away.
Ricardus may find that the distance factor is a possible (by RC canon law) justification for receiving the Sacrament, providing that he has an understanding of the Eucharist analogous to that of the RCC.
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
This sounds odd to me. I've lived in tourist areas, and I've gone to churches that received tourists and that sometimes held public concerts.
What time was this concert? What sort of concert was it?
Whenever I've seen or been to a concert at a Catholic church it's been in the evening, like they usually are at the theater, which normally is much too late for Mass.
I've walked in to Mass at my church before and been surprised by a 'special musical guest' that was more a concert than a worship, complete with folks coming just to see the musical guest.
Being Episcopalian and a fluffy version at that, my priest at such events has always made a point before the Liturgy of the Eucharist began to remind everyone we've got Open Communion at our shack.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
To be honest, I don't really understand why a person who regularly participates in Catholic ceremony but not Anglican ceremony would continue to self-identify as Anglican, unless (a) they are an academic in the field of Anglican theology (or perhaps just consider themselves to be well-read on Anglican history), or (b) they have a significant number of living or deceased friends or relatives who are Anglican.
In my case, the reason I didn't go to an Anglican church was because the nearest one was a two-hour train journey away.
Ricardus may find that the distance factor is a possible (by RC canon law) justification for receiving the Sacrament, providing that he has an understanding of the Eucharist analogous to that of the RCC.
Exactly. It's not so much the distance, but great difficulty of attending a Eucharist of your normal church. If it's an ordinary Sunday, but the Anglican church down the road only has a service on the 4th Sunday of the month (quite common in much of Europe) a quiet chat to the RC priest will almost certainly see you in. But do take the trouble to have the chat and don't make a presumption.
And in answer to other posts, it's very easy to be an Anglican and adhere to Anglican teachings, yet attend an RC church regularly without swimming across. Many Anglicans would accept much Roman teaching, but not such matters as the magisterium, the Immaculate Conception, and a range of other matters - just like our Eastern Orthodox friends in fact.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by thednt:
For me, it's about respect.
If I go into a house/church and I know something is against the house rules, I don't do it out of respect for my hosts.
That would be my take on it, too.
The food on offer in the 'house' may be as nutritional and tasty as any I might find in my own place. But knowing that the head of the household has directed I not be fed at his table, leaves me, I feel, with no choice but to refrain from pushing myself forward. Both out of acknowledgement of the house-rule and out of self-respect.
Just my personal feeling.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
If we don't go to Communion, what is our proper posture? From my understanding, it is to kneel throughout the time that the Blessed Sacrament is being carried about or distributed. But this would very likely block the movement of others in the pew who do wish to go to Communion. So one must at least get up and move into the aisle to accommodate them.
I've sometimes attended RC masses in which going to Communion = going with the flow, and any nonconformist gets looked at funny. If this was the case in your experience, perhaps your defense is that you didn't want to be a stumbling block (perhaps literally).
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
Although what alogon says about kneeling when the Blessed Sacrament is being carried about,the most common practice on this side of the pond is that people sit when Communion is being distributed. There isn't usually any problemabout those who wish to get past those who are not going to communion.
I wonder what those who are not actually members of the Catholic church (in communion with the pope) do ,if they go to an orthodox church ? If they try to approach the altar there,there might be problems.If I am correct the priest should know that the communicant is orthodox and will not give communion otherwise.
I do understand that western christians in general and Anglicans in particular may feel comfortable in a catholic church,more so that in an orthodox church,but they are missing somrthing important,namely being in full communion with those around them,assuming that they are in full communion with the rest of the Catholic church.
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
In my experience, there are so many people who don't go up to receive communion, that not receiving is not looked at as being unusual, and staying behind in the pew is pretty normal.
In the U.S. it's normal to kneel at the Agnus Dei and afterwards through Communion, except in dioceses where the bishop has asked for a different posture. Where people kneel through communion, if someone wants to pass you to go up and receive, you simply get up or sit for a moment, let the person or people pass, and then kneel again.
At any given Mass there are plenty of Catholics who, for whatever reason, will not go up to receive communion. The traditional thing to do in that situation (and at other times) is to make an act of Spiritual Communion . That's a very old-school, traditional thing to do.
Posted by Geneviève (# 9098) on
:
My experience here in the US has been that it depends on the RC diocese and/or the community as to whether communion is open to all Christians. I don't receive if I know I am not welcome--I don't want to give offense and I find the attitude offensive.
OTOH, I have received communion--known to the priests--in one diocese. I have received communion (or would be welcomed) in every Jesuit community I've known.
All of which seems to mean, in response to the OP, that the rule or the application of the rule varies quite a bit. In the case of the OP, you did the right thing to apologize if the priest was so upset. But a sin???? Have you offended God? I rather imagine God is offended by the all the rules the various Christian denominations have set up to exclude each other.
[ 26. March 2011, 01:49: Message edited by: Geneviève ]
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Geneviève: My experience here in the US has been that it depends on the RC diocese and/or the community as to whether communion is open to all Christians. I don't receive if I know I am not welcome--I don't want to give offense and I find the attitude offensive.
OTOH, I have received communion--known to the priests--in one diocese. I have received communion (or would be welcomed) in every Jesuit community I've known.
Quelle surprise...
quote:
All of which seems to mean, in response to the OP, that the rule or the application of the rule varies quite a bit. In the case of the OP, you did the right thing to apologize if the priest was so upset. But a sin???? Have you offended God? I rather imagine God is offended by the all the rules the various Christian denominations have set up to exclude each other.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
Of course it's not a sin to receive communion if you believe yourself to be in a state of grace and to have prepared yourself by being in communion with your fellow sisters and brothers in the faith.
However,if you doubt the truth of what the church proclaims and are not in communion with your brothers and sisters and you know that you are not in communion with them and you know that you are not in communion with the understanding of the church,why go forward to receive
communion ?
All that notwithstanding ,the Catholic church (not just memebers of the Jesuit order )offers
communion to those baptised Christians who share its faith in the eucharist and who are for one reason or another deprived of the ministrations of their own clergy.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Of course it's not a sin to receive communion if you believe yourself to be in a state of grace
I'd say it's a sin to think you're in a state of grace. God's call, not mine.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
A 'state of grace' does not mean that one thinks one is perfect,but rather that one is not aware of having committed a mortal sin.
Without knowledge and awareness of the seriousness of sin,one cannot commit a mortal sin and therefore one is in a 'state of grace'.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
I suspect that few--if any--people die in a state of grace, with everything taken care of.
That helped make me a universalist.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Oh. Since I think the distinction between "mortal" and "venal" (sp?) sins is to say the very least questionable, I'm probably not the best person to ask.
Also the Orthodox understanding of sin, not being based on Roman (or any other) law, acknowledges the possibility of sins "committed in knowledge or in ignorance" and even sins that we're not aware of committing. This is because our understanding of sin is the "falling short of the mark" understanding, not "intentionally breaking the law".
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
if you doubt the truth of what the church proclaims and are not in communion with your brothers and sisters and you know that you are not in communion with them and you know that you are not in communion with the understanding of the church,why go forward to receive communion ?
The problem with that argument is that it assumes a Catholic ecclesiology. A non-Catholic is unlikely to share your presumptions - they probably don't think that "the church" means the RCC, or that "what the Church proclaims" means Catholic doctrine, or that they disagree with or doubt "the understanding of the Church", and they will probably consider (with some justification) that if they are not in communion with some of their brothers and sisters in the faith, that it is through no doing of theirs that such a situation exists.
Regardless of whether you think that a Catholic understanding of these points is right, it's pretty pointless to make it the basis of your argument, because the only people whom the issue applies to are those who are unlikely to have a Catholic understanding. You need to argue that even from an ecumenical-Protestant understanding (it's the Lord's Supper, all Christians are invited by the person who instituted it, protestants are no less Christian and no less members of the Church than Catholics, a policy which bars Christians and members of the Church from communion is sadly mistaken or actually sinful, and to refuse to take communion with other Christians without good reason would be wrong) it would still be better for a non-Catholic to abstain.
I think there are arguments that do work - based on politeness, respect, humility and not giving offence - but an argument which presupposes that the Catholic view of Church is right is a dead duck. If we thought that the Catholic view of Church were right, we'd be Catholics already.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
Of course I agree that my argument assumes a Catholic ecclesiology,but what else would one expect if one is in a Catholic church ?
I also agree that the separation of
Christians causes distress and that we have to work for the reunion of Christians in one communion.By that I do not necessarily mean that evryone should become a Roman Catholic.However I recognise that that time has not yet come.
Of course it is the Lord's Supper,but it is part of our whole understanding of what the Church is.For a catholic the community of the church is part of the Lord's Body and the Lord's Supper is not for one individual alone but we have to be part of the community.
The divisions amongst christians are sad,but from the Catholic point of view the attempt to paper over the cracks by pretending that one is in communion,when one is not,is not the best way forward.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Of course I agree that my argument assumes a Catholic ecclesiology,but what else would one expect if one is in a Catholic church ?
But the dilemma doesn't arise at all if one accepts a Catholic ecclesiology. The only people who need to worry about the question "Should I, a non-Catholic, take communion in a Catholic church?" are non-Catholics. Obviously.
Having thought through the point myself (and concluded that I should not, even if no one present knows I'm not a Catholic, although I would if specifically invited) I can assure you that your approach would have been utterly wasted on me at the point where I was still undecided. It does not engage with a single reason that I would want to take communion* and would not have provided me with a single reason which I could accept as to why I should not.
You are trying to persuade non-Catholics, here, not Catholics. There's no point making an argument in terms that almost no one outside the RCC will accept.
(*referring to it as "an attempt to paper over cracks", or "pretending" is not merely lacking in empathy, it is downright insulting)
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
Your answer here indicates to me some measure of disagreement with the Catholic position.If there is disagreement with the catholic position then why would you wish ,as a person in disagreement with the teachings of the Catholic church,to receive Communion in a church with whose teachings you disagree ?.
It is not meant to be an insult when I say that those who receive communion in a catholic church without accepting the teachings of the Catholic church are wrong to do so.It is simply a statement of fact that not all christians are in full communion with each other.It is certainly not an attempt to suggest that some are,by virtue of their denominational allegiance alone,better than others.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Your answer here indicates to me some measure of disagreement with the Catholic position.If there is disagreement with the catholic position then why would you wish ,as a person in disagreement with the teachings of the Catholic church,to receive Communion in a church with whose teachings you disagree ?
Because of finding communion with God to be a more important factor than communion with a particular church.
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Your answer here indicates to me some measure of disagreement with the Catholic position.If there is disagreement with the catholic position then why would you wish ,as a person in disagreement with the teachings of the Catholic church,to receive Communion in a church with whose teachings you disagree ?
Because of finding communion with God to be a more important factor than communion with a particular church.
What on Earth are you talking about?
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Your answer here indicates to me some measure of disagreement with the Catholic position.If there is disagreement with the catholic position then why would you wish ,as a person in disagreement with the teachings of the Catholic church,to receive Communion in a church with whose teachings you disagree ?.
If you don't even understand what could possibly motivate the other side to the argument, isn't that a pretty big clue to you that you aren't going to have a great deal to contribute on the point?
quote:
It is not meant to be an insult when I say that those who receive communion in a catholic church without accepting the teachings of the Catholic church are wrong to do so.
No, and I have neither taken offence at that, nor said that I have.
What is insulting is your allegation that those people who think it right to take communion are "pretending" (your word). I mean, do you really think that? You think that I'd go along to some church and get some sort of kick out of passing myself off as a Catholic? It didn't cross your mind that I might possibly go there to worship God - I have to be "pretending" if I participate in your rituals more fully than your rules (not mine) permit?
You are expressing an absurdly low opinion of your fellow Christians. I'm not sure whether you actually hold that opinion, but it's pretty clearly meant to be insulting either way.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
Indeed I used the word 'pretending' and I do apologise if it caused offence. I was using the word in the sense of 'claiming'.
I know and think that I understand that many (but not all) non catholic christians have a different idea of what exactly the 'Church' is and have differing ideas of what the eucharist is. I accept that we are all children of God and I see us all as members of the family of God and in that sense all members of the one holy catholic church. I accept that many (mainly )Reformed christians put forward the argument that because of this we have no right to put any limits on who can or may receive Communion at the Lord's supper.I have no argument with them about this.Within their own communities they are entitled to do what they think is right and I also accept that they believe that their point of view is the most acceptable one to Almighty God.
As you know the Catholic church also has its point of view.Rightly or wrongly it believes that the greatest treaure of the Church is the eucharist and in normal circumstances the eucharist is only offered to those who are in full communion with that same church.
It makes no judgement on those who are not in full communion with the Church.
Ultimately we are all children of the one God and therefore brothers and sisters- that for me applies equally to christians,Jews and Moslems as well as others.We should try to understand each other and respect our differences,try to understand why and how they have come about,working for reconciliation,but not necessarily claiming that we are all the same.It is in this sense that I use the words 'papering over the cracks'
To my mind a person who goes to communion in a Catholic church without believing in the teachings of the church is 'papering over the cracks' of the differences between the communities.'Papering over the cracks' can sometimes give a semblance of unity but it's maybe better to wait until the day when the brethren dwell fully in unity. that is what I would work for.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Your answer here indicates to me some measure of disagreement with the Catholic position.If there is disagreement with the catholic position then why would you wish ,as a person in disagreement with the teachings of the Catholic church,to receive Communion in a church with whose teachings you disagree ?
Because of finding communion with God to be a more important factor than communion with a particular church.
What on Earth are you talking about?
My primary concern when I go to the Communion rail is not my relationship or 'communion' with the people around me. That is a consideration, yes. But my primary purpose in having communion is to strengthen my relationship with God by reminding myself about Jesus' sacrifice for me - his body and his blood.
Which is something I can do in any church, regardless of whether I have any knowledge of the people around me, and whether I have any knowledge about their particular doctrinal beliefs.
Now, someone else will have to tell me for certain whether that marks me out as a terribly Protestant person. But the word/name 'communion' on its own doesn't really tell you 'communion with WHO?'. And from the dialogue between Forthview and Eliab I rather suspect that there are different ideas about the correct answer to that. And I know that in other areas, Protestants have a history of emphasising personal relationship with God a lot more, and relationship with the church a lot less.
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Your answer here indicates to me some measure of disagreement with the Catholic position.If there is disagreement with the catholic position then why would you wish ,as a person in disagreement with the teachings of the Catholic church,to receive Communion in a church with whose teachings you disagree ?
Because of finding communion with God to be a more important factor than communion with a particular church.
What on Earth are you talking about?
My primary concern when I go to the Communion rail is not my relationship or 'communion' with the people around me. That is a consideration, yes. But my primary purpose in having communion is to strengthen my relationship with God by reminding myself about Jesus' sacrifice for me - his body and his blood.
Which is something I can do in any church, regardless of whether I have any knowledge of the people around me, and whether I have any knowledge about their particular doctrinal beliefs.
Now, someone else will have to tell me for certain whether that marks me out as a terribly Protestant person. But the word/name 'communion' on its own doesn't really tell you 'communion with WHO?'. And from the dialogue between Forthview and Eliab I rather suspect that there are different ideas about the correct answer to that. And I know that in other areas, Protestants have a history of emphasising personal relationship with God a lot more, and relationship with the church a lot less.
If that is your view then do it in a church where such a view is acceptable and not in a church where it patently is not, if for no other reason than having the common decency to observe "house rules".
Though according to my own Church the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox have valid sacraments and my own Church would permit me to receive communion in an Orthodox Church, I would never dream of doing so at a Divine Liturgy because I know the Eucharistic discipline of those Churches - the Eucharist is reserved only for those in full communion, bar the very gravest of circumstances. I would not even do so if invited to commune by the priest, and bar in extremis I would only, theoretically, do so if an Orthodox bishop specifically and unsolicitedly invited me to do so.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
If that is your view then do it in a church where such a view is acceptable and not in a church where it patently is not, if for no other reason than having the common decency to observe "house rules".
Pause for a moment and consider how I'm going to know the house rules.
Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Geneviève:
I rather imagine God is offended by the all the rules the various Christian denominations have set up to exclude each other.
I'm sure He is. But the Christian response to exclusion is not to demand inclusion. If the master of the house won't share his goods, even if a slave willingly opens the side door at midnight while his lord sleeps, I have no business taking them.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
If the master of the house won't share his goods, even if a slave willingly opens the side door at midnight while his lord sleeps, I have no business taking them.
It's the other way around. The Master invites us to take them - some of his slaves, out of a mistaken sense of duty, hold them back.
It's still right to refrain, of course. Slaves have feelings too.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
Indeed the Master invites us to take his gifts.He offers them freely to us,but can we be sure that he wants us just to march in ,take the gifts and go ? He opens his doors to us.He constantly invites new guests to come and join him.However there are some guests who come in without the wedding garment.
For most Christians,but not all,the initial wedding garment is the white garment worn after the cleansing rituals of baptism.Only then are the guests ,who have now become members of the family ,allowed to receive the other gifts - the Sacraments - Confirmation,Communion.
All Christians are part of that family of God(as indeed are all human beings created by God) but due to human weaknesses we have become somewhat separated from one another. We see things in different ways and one of the major differences is the way in which different christians understand what is meant by the 'Church'
Those Christians who see themselves as entitled,by virtue of their baptism,to participate fully in the most intimate rites of any other members of the Christian family are entitled to think and act in that way,but they should not be surprised if some other christians say 'No,we want to know more about you and how exactly you are a member of the family before sharing our Master's gifts with you.'
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
To my mind a person who goes to communion in a Catholic church without believing in the teachings of the church is 'papering over the cracks' of the differences between the communities.'Papering over the cracks' can sometimes give a semblance of unity but it's maybe better to wait until the day when the brethren dwell fully in unity. that is what I would work for.
None of my personal friends who are Catholics believe all the teachings of the Catholic Church. Many, for example, go to communion while using birth control such as the pill. They apparently find your argument unconvincing. They apparently agree with many Protestants that unity is something much broader and more embracing than agreement on every doctrinal detail.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
I'm glad that you use the word 'apparently'.
The Catholic church ,like many other religious communities is not made up of only those who are 100% in agreement with the teachings of the Magisterium.I think it is probably the same for other Christians.Even those whose only teaching aid is the infallible Bible find it very difficult to have everyone of one mind.
Nevertheless the Catholic church is fairly clear about what it teaches,but like all evangelism it is an ongoing process of trying to tell people what it claims to be the Good News of Jesus Christ.
Most of us are not put on the spot to have to defend the teachings of the Church to the point of death nor to be forced to abjure any allegiance to the Church.
It is only when and if we arrive in Heaven that the Church will become perfect.
There are human beings all over the world many of whom are Americans.Americans often recognise non Americans as human beings but it doesn't necessarily make all human beings Americans.It does no disservice to French people to say that they are not Americans and that they therefore do not have all the rights and privileges of citizens when they come to the United states.
Were I to go to the United States I hope you would recognise me as a fellow citizen of the world,but how would you feel if I came in and demanded all the rights and privileges of an American citizen without any of the duties ?
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
Belleringer, I agree with you 100% that unity in love is much more important than unity in every doctrinal detail.I have no difficulty in recognising ALL my brothers and sisters as beloved children of the one Lord.I do not claim to have any better understanding of things than others. I am more than happy to accept that others have different ideas from me,but it doesn't mean that the different ideas don't count for anything and can easily be swept aside, just because we should like ideally for everyone to be one big happy family.
Respecting others doesn't necessarily mean letting them do whatever they want.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Forthview, I think you've rather missed the key point that these Catholics are continuing to go to Communion while not in full agreement with the Church.
If Catholics can do this, why not non-Catholics?
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Forthview, I think you've rather missed the key point that these Catholics are continuing to go to Communion while not in full agreement with the Church.
If Catholics can do this, why not non-Catholics?
They shouldn't. That's the point. The Eucharist is reserved not merely for those in full communion, but those in full communion who are properly disposed and not in a state of objective sin, i.e. those who have gone to confession before Mass.
Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
Orfeo - anyone who claims to be ( and who in certain circumstances can prove) that they are a baptised Catholic remains that as long as he/she wishes to be.Few ,if any of us,are perfect.
Like Belle ringer I too know many Catholics who have little understanding of and little interest in the minutiae of Catholic doctrine and who are unable to give 100% assent to all the teachings of the Church.Very few Catholics who were at Mass yesterday would have noticed that the priest might be wearing vestments of a slightly different hue (rose instead of purple) Even fewer ,supposing they noticed ,would have cared.
Many catholics are not fully convinced of the message of Jesus Christ as it is conveyed to them through the medium of the Church. The Church has an ongoing struggle ,just as it has had over the last 2000 years both to interest and then to convince those who claim to be its followers of the efficacy of its message.
Were it the case that everyone was a perfect follower of Jesus Christ,living in perfect harmony and love with God and fellow man,untroubled by questions of morality of actions we would not then need the Church.
Not only the Catholic church but surely other faith communities,not only Christian faith communities,believe that they have a message which is worth passing on to others,irrespective of how these others react.
If someone is a part of your family and wants to continue to be a part of your family ,even if they don't follow all the 'rules' of the family then a loving father or mother will surely still see that person as a member of the family.
Technically,as the previous colleague has pointed out ,access to Communion is NOT open to the baptised who deny what are considered to be absolute truths of the Catholic faith or who have committed grievous sin expressing sorrow for what they have done. However it is not for me to judge the worthiness or otherwise of those who claim to be Catholics.That I leave to the Lord.
I understand that just as some Catholics who may be in a state of sin approach the Sacrament,so also there may be others,not in a state of sin,but also not in perfect communion with the Church who approach the altar to receive Communion.I respect their views and have no hesitation in recognising in some of them those who love the Lord,but I ask them also respectfully to consider the views expressed by the Magisterium of the Catholic church.I don't ask them to agree with these views but I do ask them to try to consider them and perhaps see why ,from a Catholic point of view,going to communion in a church where you do not share the views of the church is 'papering over the cracks' of differences between the various faith communities.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Okay, the bit of that last reply that struck me was the reference to 'family'. Earlier on you described non-Catholics as your brothers and sisters in Christ. But now - and correct me if I'm wrong here - it looks as if you're using the word 'family' to refer to Catholics only.
Do you regard fellow Catholics as your brothers and sisters in Christ, but other Christians as your cousins?
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
I recognise all human beings,irrespective of their religion as my brothers and sisters.
I recognise all those who claim to be Christians
as Christians and as my Christian brothers and sisters.
I recognise all those who claim to be Catholics in communion with the Bishop of Rome as my Catholic brothers and sisters.
At the same time I recognise that I as a British citizen,have certain rights within the United Kingdom which I don't have in the United States for example,even although these people are my brothers and sisters.
I recognise my Moslem brothers and sisters as brothers and sisters but I do not claim any particular rights when I attend their religious rites.
I recognise my Christian brothers and sisters who are,for example, memebers of the Presbyterian National Church of Scotland,but I don't claim any rights to tell themhow they should best worship God,our common Father.
They have their way and I have my way.It is not for me to say which way is better.Ultimately some day we will recognise them all as basically the same and that is something which,in my own small way I try to work towards.What I don't do is 'pretend' that at the moment there are no differences.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0