No tax, no blessing!

reply to post by adjensen

However, if a person believes in what the Eucharist represents, they would also believe that it is a very grave mortal sin to take it when they are not in communion with the church, and if they don't believe in it, then why take it?

I remember believing this very thing ^^ That under no circumstances was I (a Protestant) to take the Eucharist in a Catholic Church (I believe it was a Cathedral, a full-length, most-of-the-day High Mass Wedding)...

And I remember being afraid. Now, looking back, I no longer believe it would be a grave sin for me to partake in any sort of Christian "worship" or "rite".

But yes, absolutely, I remember being taught that I could not. Before my own confirmation I was allowed to go to the rail for a "blessing", but not receive the sacraments. Had to go to classes for several weeks and take a test to be "confirmed."

There is a Christian sect Ecclesia Gnostica (also see gnosis.org... ), that will offer sacrements to ANYONE, no matter what their former or current affiliation. That makes the most sense to me.

While Christian based on Gnosis not creed/belief, the church considers itself part of the fellowship of Universal Christendom, that is part of the One Holy Catholic (Universal) and Apostolic Church.[26][27]

The Ecclesia Gnostica is a liturgical orthopraxy rather than an orthodoxy. Liturgical practice is central to the existence of the church.[28]

The church does not proselytize. There is not an exclusive claim of salvation; salvation is not dependent on participation in the church. Salvation is also understood differently from salvation in mainstream Christianity: salvation is achieved through Gnosis, described as "an inner 'knowingness,' a change of consciousness."[29]

Gnosticism is grounded in the experience of Gnosis, which is the salvific and revelatory experience of transcendence. The experience of Gnosis receives expression in the Gnostic Mythos which allows the Gnostic to amplify and assimilate the experience of Gnosis and also makes further experience of Gnosis possible.[30]

The aim of instruction is not just one variety of the Gnostic Mythos, but the entire heritage of the Gnostic tradition, which includes: primary sources such as the Nag Hammadi scriptures, with consideration of the less reliable accounts and recensions of teachings found in heresiological texts, the Hermetic writings, and the teachings of the Prophet Mani.[31]

reply to post by wildtimes

Thanks for the info, my friend. interesting reading.

And I remember being afraid. Now, looking back, I no longer believe it would be a grave sin for me to partake in any sort of Christian "worship" or "rite".

Ahhh, fear. The one thing the church is better at providing its congregation than anything else.

reply to post by seabag


Again,, I am glad to be Pagan.
We do it the Old Fashion Way.
If someone in our Group is in Need,, we help them out.
We collect food for those in need in our group.
Our Sanctuary, is a Non Profit.
Never ONCE has anyone been asked to Pay 'dues' tithes,
because we Pay as we Go,, for the group and each other.

We have the added additional benefit of using the Outdoors as our 'church'.
Circle built of stones and other natural items for altar.

Simple, effective, and All are Welcome, regardless of membership.

Originally posted by wildtimes
There is a Christian sect Ecclesia Gnostica (also see gnosis.org... ), that will offer sacrements to ANYONE, no matter what their former or current affiliation. That makes the most sense to me.

The Methodist church has an "open table" -- communion is open the anyone that wants it, whether you're a member of the church or not, even if you're not a Methodist. In church one day a couple of years ago, there was a visitor who was nervous about communion, because he didn't know how it all worked, so I walked him through it... turned out he was a Hindu, so I'm not sure that was the proper thing to do, but I didn't bother looking it up in the Book of Discipline, so I don't know if "open table" includes non-Christians, though on that morning it did

But, as I said, the Catholic Eucharist is a much different thing, and I would never encourage a non-Catholic to participate in it.

Greetings, adj

My understanding (based on reading some years ago an explanation of its practices by a New England Catholic dioscese - I haven't checked up on the bishop , but he's now a cardinal, so he must have been doing something right) is that Catholic eucharist is offered to all adult ordinarily baptized Nicene Christians who aren't personally excluded.

This would make sense in light of the Church's position that the creedal "one baptism" confers membership in the Mystical Body of Christ, and that all persons are competent to perform the ceremony.

So, your Hindu friend would appear to be out, probably, but your Methodist friends, assuming they have been baptized (and of course infant baptism is fine with Rome), would be welcome.

Originally posted by eight bits
This would make sense in light of the Church's position that the creedal "one baptism" confers membership in the Mystical Body of Christ, and that all persons are competent to perform the ceremony.

So, your Hindu friend would appear to be out, probably, but your Methodist friends, assuming they have been baptized (and of course infant baptism is fine with Rome), would be welcome.

Hello, my friend

Yes and no, but mostly no. In the front or back of every Missal that I've seen is a page referring to who can receive the Eucharist at Mass. Roman Catholics who are not in a state of mortal sin, Eastern Orthodox in a similar state, and that's it. I tried to find the text of the admonition online, to no avail, sorry, but it's pretty clear that one must be "in communion" with the Roman Catholic church to receive it, and that would generally require that one be a Roman Catholic or an Eastern Orthodox member.

The slight "yes" is in one very specific instance -- when a non-member is in danger of death, and they attest that, though they are not a member, they are in communion, believe that Christ is actually present in the Eucharist, and all that goes with that. Under those circumstances, and those alone, would a non-Catholic (Methodist in my example,) be allowed to receive it.

Catholic ministers may give Holy Communion licitly to members of the Oriental Churches which are not in full communion with the Catholic Church whenever they ask for it of their own will and possess the required dispositions. Catholic ministers may licitly give Holy Communion to members of other ecclesial communities only if, in grave necessity, they ask for it of their own will, possess the required dispositions, and give evidence of holding the Catholic faith regarding the sacrament. (Source - #293)

By that citation, Hartmut Zapp would be likely entitled to the Last Rites and receipt of the Eucharist on his deathbed, but that's it, and non-dying Protestants would similarly be precluded from receiving it.

Oh, Yaktabey, adj, you had to make me look it up, and you didn't even give me a star for showing interest in the question.

old.usccb.org/liturgy/q&a/mass/communion.shtml (because of the "&" you'll have to C&P it, and maybe add http://)

For our fellow Christians
We welcome our fellow Christians to this celebration of the Eucharist as our brothers and sisters. We pray that our common baptism and the action of the Holy Spirit in this Eucharist will draw us closer to one another and begin to dispel the sad divisions which separate us. We pray that these will lessen and finally disappear, in keeping with Christ's prayer for us "that they may all be one" (Jn 17:21).

Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Holy Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law (canon 844 § 4). Members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of communion by Christians of these Churches (canon 844 § 3).

I interpret this to mean that American bishops, and in particular the bishop of the diocese whose rules I examined, exercise their prerogative to permit sharing in "exceptional circumstances." Hence the this celebration of the Eucharist in the first paragraph. On the other hand, the tone of the paragraph suggests the inclination to a certain liberality in the exceptionalness.

The circumstances under which I encountered the rules (that first paragraph above rings a bell) was when the cathedral was inviting the larger community to join its celebration of an event of secular interest. So, perhaps that was "exceptional" enough; non-Catholics would surely be there in some numbers. The rules I saw gave some precision to the term "Christian," but it was not only the churches that are "nearly" Roman catholic, or historically closely related to it.
-

reply to post by eight bits


Thanks for looking that up, yes, that's the text as I recall it (and a star apiece for the assist )

I wonder what the rationale behind "not allowed and here's a bunch of reasons" versus "okay, this one time, and here's why the reasons don't matter today" would work out to be. Love 'em or leave 'em, it's tough to say that the RCC isn't in love with rules, their justification and their enforcement. About all I can come up with is that they'd use non-consecrated hosts, but I kind of doubt that.

Interesting, though, thanks for tracking down another exception.

reply to post by adjensen

Dear adjensen,

What the Church is doing now, and I assume it's the same throughout the country, is advising the congregation that if they are non-Catholics, or Catholics with Mortal Sin, they come up to the priest during Communion with their arms crossed over their chests and the priest will give them a blessing instead of Communion.

With respect,
Charles1952