Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

>    Isn't the Communion a universal act among the faith? Would a visiting
>    Catholic *not* take the communion of a Protestant Church????

	Communion is a universal act among the faith but it is not exactly
	the same. I had a long talk with a Catholic priest about Communion
	and about who should take it in his church. He said that all who come
	for communion in the Catholic church should accept the church doctrine
	that the wine and wafer actually become the blood and body of Christ.
	I do not so out of respect I will not take communion in a Catholic
	church. Painful those this is as I don't get to a protestant church
	as often as I'd like on Communion Sundays I feel that I should respect
	the wishes of the church I'm in at the time.

	I'm sure that others have equally good (or not so good depending on
	your outlook) reasons for not sharing in communion while in other
	churches.

			Alfred

The Holy Eucharist is extremely central to the faith of Catholics (including
Anglicans).  The doctrine of the Real Presence, which was not questioned
until Zwingli came along, is crucial to our understanding of this holy meal.

The attached explanation of what the Episcopal Church has said about others
receiving in the Episcopal Church, while it does not address Episcopalians
receiving elsewhere, will illustrate the problem.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        What the Episcopal Church
                           Has Said Officially
                                  About

                             WHO MAY RECEIVE
                              HOLY COMMUNION
                                  IN THE
                             EPISCOPAL CHURCH

                                    by
                      The Rt. Rev. William Wantland
                           Bishop of Eau Claire

A number of questions have been raised recently in regard to the reception of
Communion in the Episcopal Church by non-Episcopalians.  Unfortunately, in
some dioceses, people are being told that "any baptized Christians may receive
Holy Communion."

The 1979 General Convention has laid down clear guidelines, and they are to be
strictly adhered to.  The reason is simple:  The Eucharist is generally
necessary for salvation (BCP p.860; Jn 6:53).  However, anyone who receives
the Sacrament without recognizing the Real Presence of Christ endangers his
or her eternal soul (BCP p.316; I Cor. 11:29).  Hence we must both respect
the consciences of those who do not see the essential nature of the Eucharist,
and protect them (and those who fail to recognize the Real Presence) from
endangering their souls.

We are therefore reminded of the Exhoration in the Prayer Book: "But if we
are to share rightly in the celebration of these holy Mysteries, and be
nourished by that spiritual Food, we must remember the dignity of that holy
Sacrament.  I therefore call upon you to consider how Saint Paul exhorts
all persons to prepare themselves carefully before eating of that Bread and
drinking of that cup.

"For, as the benefit is great, if with penitent hearts and living faith we
receive the holy Sacrament, so is the danger great, if we receive it improperly,
not recognizing the Lord's Body" (pp.316,317).

The guidelines, as duly adopted by General Convention at Denver, are:

  "Resolved by the House of Bishops (the House of Deputies concurring),
  that the following standard be adopted for those of other Churches who
  on occasion desire to receive the Holy Communion in the Episcopal Church:
  
    a. They shall have been baptized with water in the name of the Father,
       and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and shall have previously
       been admitted to the Holy Communion within the Church to which they
       belong.
       
    b. They shall examine their lives, repent of their sins, and be in love
       and charity with all people, as this Church in its catechism (BCP,
       p.860) says is required of all those who come to the Eucharist.
       
    c. They shall approach the Holy Communion as an expression of the Real
       Presence of Jesus Christ whose sacrifice upon the cross was sufficient
       for all mankind.
       
    d. They shall find in this Communion the means to strengthen their life
       within the Christian family `through the forgivenes of (their) sins,
       the strengthening of (their) union with Christ and one another, and
       the foretaste of the heavenly banquet...' (BCP, pp.859-60)
       
    e. Their own consciences must always be respected as must the right of
       their own Church membership to determine the sacramental discipline
       of those who, by their own choice, make that their spiritual home."
       (1979 Journal, p.C-50).
  
  These guidelines, then, tell us that a person may receive the Blessed
  Sacrament only if (1) that person is duly baptized and admitted to
  Communion; (2) has made a proper self-examination and preparation for
  Communion; (3) recognizes the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament;
  (4) sees the Eucharist as a means to strengthening union with Christ,
  forgiveness of sins, and a foretaste of our communion with Christ in
  the life everlasting; and (5) does not violate either the conscience of
  the person receiving Communion or the discipline of his or her Church.
  
  Unless all five of these guidelines are met, a person should not receive
  the Sacrament, and no Episcopalian, lay or clergy, should ever encourage
  any person to receive Communion contrary to the guidelines.  It is
  therefore suggested that at any special service where there might be
  non-Anglicans who might receive Communion, an announcement be made along
  these lines:
       
       "All baptized persons who are admitted to Communion, who recognize
       the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, whose own
       conscience permits, and who are duly prepared to make their
       Communions are invited to receive Holy Communion."

	What is the "Real Presence" in this context? The rest is clear
	to me.

			Alfred

Roman Catholics are governed by Canon 844:

Can. 844 �1. Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments to
Catholic members of the Christian faithful only and, likewise, the latter
may licitly receive the sacraments only from Catholic ministers with due
regard for ��2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and can. 861, �2 [which permits
anyone to administer the sacrament of baptism in cases of necessity].

�2. Whenever necessity requires or genuine spiritual advantage suggests,
and provided that the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, it is
lawful for the faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible
to approach a Catholic minister, to receive the sacraments of penance,
Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in
whose churches these sacraments are valid.

�3. Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments of penance,
Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the oriental churches
which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, if they ask on
their own for the sacraments and are properly disposed.  This holds also
for members of other churches, which in the judgment of the Apostolic See
are in the same condition as the oriental churches as far as these
sacraments are concerned.

�4. If the danger of death is present or other grave necessity, in the
judgment of the diocesan bishop or the conference of bishops, Catholic
ministers may licitly administer these sacraments to other Christians
who do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot
approach a minister of their own community and on their own ask for it,
provided they manifest Catholic faith in these sacraments and are properly
disposed.

�5. For the cases in ��2, 3, and 4, neither the diocesan bishop not the
conference of bishops is to enact general norms except after consultation
with at least the local competent authority of the interested non-Catholic
church or community.

    RE: .2
    
    Makes sense to me. Sounds like the visitor to our church could have
    received communion from us.
    
    Marc H.

    RE: .4
    
    How about a plain english translation?
    
    Marc H.

"Real Presence" means that the Bread and Wine are truly the Body and Blood
of Christ, and that the Holy Eucharist is a re-making present of Christ's
sacrifice on Calvary, so that we may receive the benefits today.

For the first seven or eight centuries, Christians weren't terribly
concerned about how this presence was brought about.  The dominant
theory of sprituality was "monism", in which there is a continuum from
the "Kosmos" (or non-spiritual) to "Theos", purely spirit.  There was
no problem with the spirtual reality of Christ's presence in the Sacrament
invading the world.  The Bread and Wine simply "become" the Body and Blood,
and noone really cared "how".

Then the "dualist" theory came into vogue, in which there is a complete
separation of the spiritual and physical.  More complicated explanations
of the Real Presence were required; the dominant one (and that officially
taught by the Roman Catholic Church) is Transubstantiation.

In dualism, what you see, the physical world, are called "accidents"; the
truth of something is expressed in is spiritual reality.  Bread and Wine have
both physical accidents and a spiritual reality.  Plain old Bread and Wine are
both physically and spiritually Bread and Wine.  Once consecrated to be the
Body and Blood of Christ, the accidents do not change, but the spiritual
reality does change, and the Bread and Wine are completely changed in their
real spiritual substance into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

Anglicans accept Transubstantiation as one possible explanation of the Real
Presence, but prefer to simply say "it is" and not care exactly how this
happens.  Lutherans tend to believe that the consecrated bread and wine
are both bread and wine and the Body and Blood -- this is known as
consubstantiation.

The oriental churches believe that the Divine Liturgy brings about an
opening into heaven, where in the heavenly banquet all Bread is the Body
of Christ and all Wine is the Blood of Christ.

Anglicans, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox all believe that the Real Presence
can only be brought about by a Priest who is a direct successor, in Apostolic
Succession, of one of the Apostles.

/john

    Roman Catholics should only receive Holy Communion from Roman Catholic
    priests.  Roman Catholic priests should only offer Holy Communion to
    Roman Catholics.
    
    The rest are exceptions to the general rule.  But as CP likely has more
    quibblers than Roman Catholics, John Covert included the exceptions for
    you.

re .5  "a plain English translation" -- basically, Roman Catholics may
only receive communion in Roman Catholic churches unless there is a
serious reason; then they may only receive in churches where the sacraments
are valid.  The sacraments are valid, in the teaching of Rome, only in
Roman Catholic, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, and Old Catholic churches.
The sacraments are questionable in Anglican churches; at the end of the
last century Pope Leo XIII declared Anglican orders "absolutely null and
utterly void" for some fairly complicated reasons, all of which have (in
my opinion) been resolved, at least for the priests at my church.  In
1986, Rome invited Lambeth to make a formal declaration that we believe
the same thing about orders -- but we failed to do so.

re .6 "it seems that the Episcopalian could have received"

Not really.  There are at least three problems:  (1) the celebrant was
not in apostolic succession, (2) I'm not sure your church believes that
the Bread and Wine _become_ the Body and Blood, (3) you seem to use juice,
and not wine.

/john

    RE: .8
    
    Does that mean that Roman Catholics do not believe that communion
    occurs at non-catholic churches? Or is the Roman Catholic Communion
    different from the Protestant communion...in your mind.
    
    Marc H.

    RE: .9
    
    Interesting about the juice. The church records  showed that around
    1880's, we changed from wine to juice. Proir to that, we used wine.
    I don't know why we changed...I'll have to check on that.
    
    Marc H.

Catholics (in this case including Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans)
believe that the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist only occurs in Churches where
the sacraments are valid; for any of the sacraments (except baptism, which is
generally valid) to be valid, the holy orders of the priests must be valid.

The documents of Vatican II state that even the rites of non-Catholic
churches confer sanctifying grace.

For baptism to be valid, it must be done with water and in the name of the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and in accordance with the rules of
the Christian community in which it is done.

/john

    RE: 12
    
    Our Baptism uses water and the same words as the Roman Catholic
    service, during the actual Baptism.
    
    Interesting discussion.......
    
    Marc H.

When attending a communion service (or any service) at any church other than
your own, I suggest you spend a good amount of time praying silently for the
unity of the Church.

When I attend Mass in a Roman Catholic or Orthodox church, I make an act of
spiritual communion ("O most loving Jesus, O most blessed Saviour, come to me,
I beseech thee, and unite me to thyself.  Though I cannot now receive thee
sacramentally, yet I believe that thou art able, even when received by
faith and desire only, to heal, enrich, and sanctify me.  Come thou
spiritually into my heart.  I desire to unite myself to thee, with all
the affections of my soul.  Possess me wholly; let the consuming fire
of thy love absorb me, and thy presence abide so intimately in me,
that it will be no longer I that live, but thou who livest in me.  Amen").

As an Anglican, I am permitted to receive in continental Old Catholic
Churches (those churches in union with the See of Utrecht).  The Polish
National Catholic Church in the U.S. cut us off when we started to ordain
women.

/john

    RE: .14
    
    Excellent
    
    Marc H.

re Note 599.1 by CVG::THOMPSON:

>         I had a long talk with a Catholic priest about Communion
> 	and about who should take it in his church. He said that all who come
> 	for communion in the Catholic church should accept the church doctrine
> 	that the wine and wafer actually become the blood and body of Christ.
> 	I do not so out of respect I will not take communion in a Catholic
> 	church. 

        As a Catholic I thank you for your regard and respect.  
        However, I do wonder if in so showing respect to a particular
        denomination's practice you tacitly support a denial of the
        universality of Christian communion.  Perhaps by showing
        respect to Roman Catholic teaching you show disrespect to
        Jesus' teaching in the Gospels and to the Body.

        There is also the lesser issue if, in showing respect to
        Roman Catholic teaching, you do necessarily show disrespect
        to the beliefs of other Christians.  I call this a lesser
        issue because there can be no greater disrespect than to show
        disrespect to Jesus and his teaching.

        Bob

    Bob,
    
    Do you believe in the authority of the local church?  Reason I ask is
    I belong to a church that believes in closed communion.  Only church
    members may partake.  I tend to disagree with this although to me it
    was a nit so I didn't pay it much attention.
    
    The teaching behind this is that if you are not a member of the church,
    you are then not accountable to that church.  If you partake of
    communion as a non member, you may in fact be eating and drinking in an
    unworthy manner as mentions to the Corinthians.  
    
    The reason I disagree with this is that although I agree in the role of
    the local church, Paul also states that we need to examine our own
    hearts in this matter.  Since the church I belong to in most cases
    cannot discern my heart condition unless I am involved in open sin,
    they would not be able to discern whether or not I am partaking in an
    unworthy manner.  Therefore, the argument is moot.  The decision has to
    come from within your own heart.  
    
    If I attended a Catholic Church, I would also respectfully not partake
    as they have set the laws of the church.  I would also have to discern
    my own convictions on this matter.
    
    Best Rgds.,
    
    Jack

    As a Roman Catholic, one believes what the Church teaches to be Jesus
    taught.
    
    It is the essence being a Protestant to deny this, while accepting the
    Jesus is Our Lord and Savior.
    
    Disrespect is not intended, rather it is profound respect to what Jesus
    taught.
    
    And indeed, The Lord's Supper or Communion is not a "universal"
    characteristic of faiths that call themselves Christian.  Bob, are you
    insisting that for a faith to be called Christian, they must have a
    belief in the Lord's Supper?
           

    RE: .16 I don't understand what you are getting at.

    I think my disagreement with the Catholic church is over a small point.
    Does the bread and wine represent Christ or is it Christ? I believe it
    represents Him. Not that it is Him. Except for that I don't believe
    there is much disagreement.

    		Alfred

    Of course "small" in this case is a relative term.

re Note 599.18 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY:

>     As a Roman Catholic, one believes what the Church teaches to be Jesus
>     taught.
  
        Some do, some don't -- this is not universally true.

>     And indeed, The Lord's Supper or Communion is not a "universal"
>     characteristic of faiths that call themselves Christian.  Bob, are you
>     insisting that for a faith to be called Christian, they must have a
>     belief in the Lord's Supper?
  
        I would question their lack of belief in the Lord's Supper
        before I would question their being Christian.

        Bob

re Note 599.19 by CVG::THOMPSON:

        Yes, I would agree that this is a small (relatively) point.

        Bob

>        Yes, I would agree that this is a small (relatively) point.

Yet Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Orthodox, and Lutherans consider this an
extremely major point.

    	Christ was the Word that spake it;
    	He took the bread and brake it
    	And what that Word doth make it
    	That I believe, and take it.

			-- Attributed to Queen Elizabeth I and/or John Donne.

/john

    .19 and .21
    
    However, that was one of the major points on which much of the
    Protestant Reformation was built.
    
    
    This whole discussion reminds me of one of the major points on which I
    disagreed with the Episcopalian church.  I was raised an Episcopalian
    and was confirmed at the age of 12, 6th grade.  It was the practice at 
    that time to confirm children who grew up in the church at that age.  I 
    don't know if that has changed. Physically I may have been an adult at 
    age 12 by some definitions but spiritually I was anything but an adult.  
    At that age I went through the whole confirmation/communion thing because 
    it was expected of me by my parents, my priest, etc. and I was a "good"
    girl and did what I was told.  After all, that was the way I was
    raised. 
    
    Many kids have not gotton to the point of defying authority to the point 
    that they're actually capable of thinking and making life decisions and
    commitments for themselves at the age of 12.  Since that is true, I don't 
    see how the Episcopalian church can go through this elaborate ritual of 
    confirmation with children who are required to sign their souls on the 
    dotted line when these children have no concept of what's really being 
    asked of them.  I don't feel my soul is in peril because my religious and 
    spiritual beliefs have changed since I was confirmed.  If anything, I feel 
    I have grown closer to God and thereby closer to the person God intends me 
    to be by leaving those things behind me. I recognize that there are some 
    people who are mature enough spiritually, intellectually and emotionally 
    by age 12 to make that kind of commitment.  However, I believe those 
    children are pretty few and far between.  If we go by what you reported 
    the Episcopalian church says, John, then the church is limiting those 
    people who have a chance of salvation by those who are mature enough to 
    make that commitment by the age of confirmation.  That just doesn't make 
    sense to me as far as God is concerned.  I don't think God discriminates 
    according to age.  
    
    I may have put that rather awkwardly and I don't really expect you to
    speak for the entire Episcopalian synod, John.  I'm just trying to
    explain why I have a hard time with some of the declarations and
    guidelines of faith that the Episcopalian church adheres to and why I'm
    not a member of that church anymore.
    
    Nanci

>>        Yes, I would agree that this is a small (relatively) point.
>
>Yet Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Orthodox, and Lutherans consider this an
>extremely major point.

    This is why I used the word "relatively." While it is not at all a
    major issue for me I realize it is major for those churches. However,
    I doubt it's anywhere near as major an issue as Jesus being or not
    being God. Or the importance of His death and resurrection. We do not
    disagree on the presence of God at communion or the nature of what
    it symbolizes. We disagree only on the physical nature of the bread
    and wine.
    
    			Alfred

>We disagree only on the physical nature of the bread and wine.

I don't know that we disagree on the physical nature -- if we define physical
as the accidents which our senses can perceive.  There is no physical change.

We differ on the spiritual nature, the substantial reality, where the change
occurs.

--------------

re Nanci.  You might like even less what the Episcopal Church does now.  There
has been a significant de-emphasis on Confirmation; children are communicated
much younger now, as with Roman Catholics, "as soon as they can understand
that the Body and Blood are not just ordinary food".  Confirmation comes later,
but usually not a lot later.

In this area we are not Protestants.  We do not expect people to decide to
accept or reject the doctrine of the Church, for it is Truth, and thus the
Sacraments should be made available to those who can discern their reality
even if they cannot fully understand, because the Sacraments provide a means
of grace and a nourishment to our souls.

There was a resolution before the Diocese of Massachusetts, which was withdrawn,
to authorize communicating infants in the name of "children's rights".  Now,
the Greek Orthodox do communicate infants, but for somewhat more realistic
reasons.

/john

>I don't know that we disagree on the physical nature -- if we define physical
>as the accidents which our senses can perceive.  There is no physical change.
>
>We differ on the spiritual nature, the substantial reality, where the change
>occurs.

    I begin to suspect that I don't understand what the Catholic position is.
    I think I'll pick up a book. I'll be in the library of a Catholic
    school in about a half hour.

    FWIW, the Methodist church has far looser restrictions on who can 
    accept communion. What is asked is a belief in Jesus death and
    resurrection and that one come requesting forgiveness of sins and
    a commitment to act in accordance with God's Laws in the future.

    Also in the Methodist church communion is first taken at a much
    older age than in the Catholic church. Generally. One is first
    confirmed, usually as a teenager (about the same age as Catholics
    have confirmation). I generally because the clergy has the option
    to examine a child earlier to determine if they understand what 
    communion is all about. I and others in my church went through this
    less formal process years before confirmation. It was hardly a rubber
    stamp process BTW.
    
    			Alfred

    The Episcopalian and Catholic church's have their "examination"
    processes too which are the confirmation classes.  Unfortunately when I
    went through confirmation classed they taught me to memorize the
    catechism by rote rather than discussing the meaning of any of it with
    me.  I just blithely recited what I'd learned and could have been
    speaking Sanskrit for all it meant to me.
    
    John - you're right.  I like what the Episcopalian church is doing now
    even less.  But then, that's why I'm not an Episcopalian any more. 
    Thanks for the additional information.
    
    Nanci

    Every church where I've been a member either practiced an open
    communion or didn't celebrate communion as a physical ceremony.
    
    Richard