 |
| Photo by Jonathan Aquino. |
"Taste and see that the Lord is good; blessed is the one who takes refuge in Him." Psalm 34:8.
My fiance and I were attending mass on a weekday in an old, dark and Gothic Catholic Church. It was time to receive communion and as we stood up, I shared in whispers with my fiance my doubts about taking communion - my conscience was not in complete peace at the moment.
A lady in front of me suddenly turned and asked me with a stern face "Are you Catholic?!" I felt hurt. I felt judged. I felt my faith and commitment questioned.
Of course, she probably was asking me this after hearing my hesitant whispers to my fiance, because in her pious devotion to the Eucharist, she wanted to make sure that only Roman Catholics partake of the Body and Blood.
The Eucharistic Table Should be a Place of Unity & Healing
I believe in the Real Presence. I believe that Jesus offers Himself to us at the Eucharistic table, and when we partake of the bread and wine, we are partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ.
One of the most beautiful aspect of Eucharistic theology is the notion that we are not only communing with Christ Himself, but also with the people around the table. This common union, or communion, is one of the main reasons we come to the Eucharistic table.
The other main reason, of course, is to receive and feed on Christ. In receiving Christ we receive many nourishing graces, including our continuing healing.
The current practice of closed communion in the Catholic Church, where only good standing members of the Church in full communion with Rome are welcomed to come to the table, is one that brings division and hurt, and thus it accomplishes the opposite of what the Sacrament signifies.
I know I'm not the only who's been hurt by this practice.
I have read the reasons behind close communion, but as with any other matter of Christian living and practice, we should look for Jesus as our ultimate model.
Jesus Shares the Last Supper with His Disciples - Including Judas Iscariot
Jesus shared His Body and Blood with Judas Iscariot moments before He was betrayed by him. Jesus knew this, as He knew Judas' heart, and He still chose freely to share Himself with him.
We can only imagine why Jesus chose to do this. Maybe He thought that Judas could still find healing. Maybe His decision to share Himself with someone who would soon betray Him is another sign of His unconditional love. Whatever the reason, the fact that He shared Himself with Judas flies in the face of one of the main reasons Roman Catholics close communion to non-Catholics.
If it is true that in sharing communion with others we are declaring a unity predicated on uniformity of beliefs and practices, then Judas should not have taken communion.
Not only that, but it is unlikely that the rest of the disciples comprehended fully what what's happening in front of them. They hardly knew the depth and power of the mystery being shared with them.
Having the first Eucharist as our model, it is hard to defend the notion that uniformity of belief is a pre-requisite for unity, since not only the disciples had different views on Jesus, but also, they hardly understood what was happening in front of their eyes!
Are we safeguarding communion for the fortunate few who are healthy enough in their walk with God? Could we be keeping communion from those who need it the most?
I thought only the sick were in need of a physician.
If People Want to Receive Christ, Who am I to Prevent It?
We cannot force Christ on others. We can only invite people into communion with Christ.
We should also not force others from receiving Christ. The Eucharistic table should be open, therefore, for those who want to receive Christ.
Our privilege is to invite others to Christ, not to decide who receives Him or not.
I agree Daniel. Everyone should come to the table. It is the narrow mindedness of the "Pharisees" of the church who prevent others from inclusion. Jesus included Judas because Jesus is unconditional love. Judas partook in communion with the apostles because he didn't hesitate, ask questions or whisper to someone else about his doubts. If he had, the other apostles would most certainly (in my mind) have asked him if he were the betrayer and prevented him from participating. Imagine the long term results of that one!.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, I believe there are many people who go to Communion in a Roman Catholic church who are not the orthodox pious followers of the church, but instead are followers of our Lord. I know several people in our parish who are not Roman Catholic, yet partake in the Eucharist. No-one stops them or makes a fuss - not even our priest, who, I am pretty sure (well, maybe), knows these folks are from a different faith background. Our best man at our wedding (38 years ago) was from a Lutheran background. He did a reading as well as partook in the Eucharist. Of, course we never told our priest that Brian was of a different faith background, he would not have been allowed to participate. No lightening bolts came down, no-one denied him access, and Christ enjoyed having another person at His table.
It seems to me,these are "rules" set down in the church by the Roman Catholic "Pharisees".
Hi Mary Lee,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment!
Yes, it is the narrow mindedness of the Pharisees, who still believe that "impure" people are inaccessible to God. Jesus' response that he came for the sick and not the healthy (of course, Jesus said this with a touch of sarcasm, given how unhealthy Pharisees' attitudes and hearts were) should be our MO in the church's ministry and Sacraments.
Blessings,
Daniel.