Ground level ecumenicism - if you attend a non-Catholic service,

[hedgehog]

Poll question: Ground level ecumenicism - if you attend a non-Catholic service,

do you take communion?

For what it's worth, I do. I asked my UCC husband to baptize our kids in the RC church because the UCC tends to reserve Communion for very special occasions. My husband converted to the RC a few years later, largely for the same reason.

Please add your thoughts so we can get a discussion going.

[rug]

1. I don't even take Communion in the Catholic Church.

I was married outside the Church and my wife has no interest in convalidating it, so I follow the rules on taking Communion.

Communion is not symbolic. Depending on the church there is a wide variety of beliefs as to each church's view of communion. So I don't take it.

[hedgehog]

3. It all goes back to who determines the beliefs of the Church -

all of us or a self selected group. My observation is that most Catholics in the US receive Communion respectfully wherever it is offered.

I don't believe your marriage has anything to do with whether you should take Communion or not.

On edit - I've seen both Catholics and Protestants rattle off the formulas their creeds give to describe Communion, but I doubt any of them could have explained the differences in their own words. I think trying to define Communion is like trying to define God!

If Protestant Communion is not a sacrament, then what harm in being polite? If it is a sacrament, then why should I refuse it?

[rug]

5. Taking Communion is not a matter of being polite.

That's what coffee is for.

The Eucharist is at the center and connects to a whole host (heh) of things. As far as marriage goes, if it too is a sacrament, then it should be treated as such. If I am in a nonsacramental marriage, then I don't think I should take Communion. While the Church can change its position on open or closed Communion, I respects and understand its position.

Frankly, I don't mind attending Mass and making a "spiritual" communion. It certainly has given me a perspective on the prayers used: "happy are those who are called . . . ", "Lord, I am not worthy . . . . only say the word . . . .", etc.

[hedgehog]

7. I said polite. I should have said respectful and humble.

If I as a Catholic refuse Communion, I am saying to all those present that they are only play acting, that only Rome has the real Christ and that they must return to Rome. I am saying that men can tell God where S/he can be present and where S/he can not be present. That sounds rather like some form of idolatry to me. Trying to define the Eucharist with words and saying that we have captured the Mystery is self delusion. I leave it to God to determine what is meant by the Body and Blood, and offer thanks for whatever grace I receive.

What makes a marriage sacramental isn't standing in front of a priest and reciting a formula. The sacrament is in the living sign of God's love. If you and your wife are one, then the marriage is sacramental.

[Matilda]

2. And on the subject of Communion,

I see that along with the liturgical changes, the Church is making moves to restrict wine being given at Communion.

"Since 1975, the U.S. was one of a few places, according to the statement, that was “given experimental privileges for the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds” and the privileges expired in 2005."

That's interesting, because Australia must be another of "the few", as we've been receiving both forms since I can't remember when.

There are a number of reasons given, but this one caught my eye: "When both forms are used frequently, ‘extraordinary’ ministers of Holy Communion are disproportionately multiplied.”

The Vatican says that extraordinary ministers of the Eurcharist are to be used only in times of necessity, but they are the norm here. Like altar girls, they're now part of the regular Sunday masses. Is this part of a move to take us back to the "good old days"?


http://ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/phoenix-diocese-restrict-communion-wine

[hedgehog]

4. If you go to the Q&A for Phoenix, you'll find that Communion can be

given under both species on special occasions provided that Extraordinary ministers do not participate. So, why do we even have Extraordinary ministers if we can't ever use them?

:shrug:

[Matilda]

6. I also noted this phrase:

"The new norms will promote unity in the celebration of the Eucharist all around the world"

What it doesn't say is "unity in the celebration of the Catholic Eucharist", but I think that's what it means. I know the High Church of England has celebrated the Eucharist with both forms for longer than we have, and I wonder whether the Vatican is trying to take us back to the days when we were very different.

This ties in with the new/old liturgy, which was too similar to the Protestant version for some people. Now we're stressing the differences again, and I can't help thinking this is a regressive action.