So I'm teaching Religious Ed to 3rd graders the other day,

[hedgehog]

and the question of sharing communion with other Christians comes up. Now one of the students has a father who is (GASP!) non-CATHOLIC! and she goes to services with him on alternate Sundays. And I have to tell her that under Church law, Catholics aren't supposed to take Communion in non-Catholic Churches and non-Catholics aren't supposed to take communion at Catholic churches. Her reply?

"That's mean."

I'd put that answer up against 20 centuries of discussion of apostolic succession, transubstantiation, any number of theologians or popes.

"That's mean."

[AngryOldDem]

1. It sure is "mean," and it drives me absolutely nuts.

I'll go a step further and post this link to a story about a church in Arizona denying Communion to an autistic boy, who, because of his condition, has a problem eating and drinking certain foods. The boy knows and understands the significance of the host and takes is respectfully, as best he can. Nope, not good enough, because he host has to be ENTIRELY CONSUMED. Never mind anything else. When he was denied, he became extremely upset because he could not understand why. Quite frankly, neither do I.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0304communion0304.html

I'm so tired of some in the Church who constantly try to put God and Christ in a legalistic box. This kind of stuff is about the hardest thing for me to deal with as a Catholic. When I read stories like this it is very hard NOT to turn on my heel and just walk away.

I found this story on another Catholic board that I lurk on. I rarely post because I don't see eye-to-eye with these people, and have had a serious cyber run-in with the "priest" who has nearly a cultlike following there. Predictably, they saw nothing wrong with denying this child a place at the table.

WWJD? WWJD, indeed.

[hedgehog]

2. I went to a wedding at a Lutheran church last winter

It was for an old friend and everyone there was an adult. I'd guess half the people there were Catholics. The Lutheran Mass is very similar to the Catholic Mass. At Communion, we all got up and received Communion. The only way you could pick out the Catholics is that we hold our hands differently when we receive the Host and bless ourselves afterwards.

Momma always taught me it was impolite to refuse to eat when visiting at someone else's house.

[Matilda]

3. Mean, and unchristian.

Both our previous and our present parish priests allow non-Catholics to receive Communion in certain
circumstances. For example, in a mixed marriage, the non-Catholic can receive Communion during the
marriage ceremony, so it is more likely that the couple will have a Nuptial Mass. When I married
my Anglican husband, I opted not to have a Mass, because I would have felt strange receiving
Communion while he couldn't. The priest was a lovely man, but he didn't give us the option to have
my husband receive Communion, so I decided against a Nuptial Mass, which was a pity.

Now, although my husband is still not Catholic, as an actor he is a regular reader/commentator at
Mass, and has led many liturgical dramas on special feasts. On these occasions, both the past and
current PP encourage him to receive Communion, although it is strictly against the rules. But I
think that in view of the fact that he does a lot for the Church, and has actively encouraged both
our children in their spiritual lives, there's nothing disrespectful in him receiving Communion. I
do believe that it's in the spirit of Christ for him to do so.

[AngryOldDem]

4. The key words: Spirit of Christ

Or, to take a phrase from the Communion Rite itself: "Do this in memory of me."

Who are we to determine who receives Christ and who does not? I do not recall Christ adding ANY caveats when he said, "Suffer the little children to come unto me."

Christ refused no one. Christ welcomed everyone. The Church would do well to follow His example in these instances.

When the rules of man override the Spirit, something is seriously wrong. And I believe Christ had a few words to say about that, as well.

[Maeve]

5. Okay, I'll take the contra argument(dirty job, but somebody has to!)

Communion implies a "oneness" that is not shared with other groups and to share the sacrament without sharing the whole of the faith is dishonest. It implies a unity that does not exist.

That said, I personally imagine God's shaking head at this and saying with a sigh--"Whatever. Just be good to each other, won't you?"

[Beer Snob-50]

6. I gotta agree with Maeve!

Catholics believe that Communion "is" (I know, I sound like Bill Clinton) the body and blood of Jesus. It is part of our faith. It makes us what we are. No other religion believes that as we do. Communion does imply "oneness".


BTW teaching CCD is a tough job and especially these younger grades (I teach 10th myself). I gotta give ya props for doing it.

[hedgehog]

7. Therein lies the greatest mistake of all

To attempt to capture the mystery of "this is my Body , this is my Blood," into a simple definition is folly on all sides. I go with my student on this one. The oneness is the sharing, not the recitation of a catechism definition.

As an aside, as I've learned more of Church history, I've become more and more concerned with the emphasis we place on insisting that this is the true Body and Blood of Christ. I wonder how much of this theology actually stems from the old blood libel against the Jews? There are a lot of skeletons in our closets.

[Beer Snob-50]

8. I would agree that we have many skeletons in our closet

and I would submit that much of the theology stems from being pissed at the Jews. I think much of this comes from our belief that the Pope is infalliable and whatever he says goes.

[hedgehog]

9. I 'm trying to read the "Dogs of God" right now

I have to keep putting it down and coming back to it because what happened is so wrong in so many ways, and I see the repercussions still with us.

[Matilda]

10. I also think there are many articles of Church doctrine

that exist purely to bolster the Church as an institution.

I'm probably not putting this very well, but while I think that becoming a State institution under
Rome ensured the survival of the Church, it often happens that institutions end up promulgating
ideas that serve no other purpose than to shore up their own position. It's as if having attained
a certain status, its hierarchy has to work to ensure that it stays there.

So putting out ideas concerned with its status as the "One True Church" would become at times more
important than putting out ideas of universal love and brotherhood born of the teachings of Jesus
Christ.

Transubstantiation may or may not be literally true - it's beyond my understanding, so I'll take
it on faith - but I think that in certain situations, if people outside the Catholic Church can
accept the Eucharist with respect, that should be enough.

[hedgehog]

11. My feeling is, if you could put it into words, we wouldn't need

the Sacrament. That's why it's called a Mystery. If you've ever heard Garrison Keillor's monologue's about the various splinter groups that he grew up with, it really starts to put everything into perspective.