Who can Commune with God?
The stuff about communion and Guiliani and Egan, etc has really been bothering me (there's an interesting post on the whole subject at the Anchoress's), and has made me very aware of the worth of a person's worth (in the Church's eyes, in God's eyes).
I sadly remember nothing about the Eucharist from my RCIA classes - maybe it didn't come up?! I've looked around the web for stuff on it, and I've found info about who is worthy to take communion but not a lot about why their worthiness matters, except for reference to 1 Corinthians 11, and in particular, "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup" (1 Cor. 11:27–28) ... and "For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself" (1 Cor. 11:29) (from Catholic Answers: Who Can Receive Communion?)
In looking around I also came across a past blog post by Ben Witherington that touches on this subject. I know, he's a Protestant :) but I think his take on this is interesting, especially his remark in one of his comments following the post, in which he writes - [...] Jesus came into people's lives, whether sinners, tax collectors etc. without them already being in a worthy condition. And indeed, even at the Last Supper, Jesus distributed the elements to very unworthy participants whom he knew were about to deny, betray, and desert him. By the Catholic view of this, they should never have partaken of that Passover with Jesus in the first place and Jesus should have stopped them! . That expresses my own feeling. I wish I could have found some Catholic discussion of this point on the web, but couldn't, so here below is part of Ben's post .....
**************************
Who can Commune with God? (November 2006)
It is a delicate question--- Who can Commune with God? And today Catholic Bishops have been voting on this matter. The issue is this-- who is worthy to partake of the Eucharist? Should just anyone be allowed to do so? In the past, and now the Catholic Church has taken the posture not that priests should police the Eucharist or fence the table, but that all the congregation should be told in advance that in essence they must police themselves. If they are knowingly in violation of church teaching on some major matter they should not take the Eucharist. For example anyone, gay or straight who is having sex outside of Christian marriage are encouraged to abstain. Now this raises all kinds of questions.
In the first place, no one is actually 'worthy' of partaking of the body and blood of Jesus Christ. All have sinned and fallen short of the grace of God. If we waited until we were worthy we'd all still be waiting. But there is some pertinent material about this question to be found in 1 Corinthians 11. Paul says there that we must not partake of this sacrament "in an unworthy manner". Now that's a different matter than 'being worthy'. That has to do with how we partake of the sacrament, and Paul somewhat cryptically gives us another clue-- we should partake: 1) together, waiting for one another and doing it as a group together; 2) we should do it in a worthy manner; and 3) we should do it discerning 'the body'. Paul even goes so far as to say that if you violate these three rules you could get sick and die. That sounds pretty serious and drastic. Scholars have debated what 'body' Paul is talking about. In traditional Catholic theology it was assumed that this was a reference to the elements of the sacrament, but this is unlikely. For one thing where is the reference to discerning the blood? For another thing the context doesn't favor this reading of 1 Cor. 11. The 'body' here as elsewhere in 1 Corinthians refers to the Body of Christ in the ecclesiological sense--- that would be us, the church. Paul is saying that if you go ahead and take the Lord's Supper without doing it as an act of the communion of the saints, of the church itself, you have commited a grievous mistake. The Lord's Supper is not all about you and your private relationship with God. Its about your vertical relationship with God of course, but it is also about your horizontal relationship with your fellow believers as well. We have been reconciled to Christ corporately, and one of the functions of communion is to bind us to each other.
Most denominations have some sort of invitation to the Table-- ours goes back to the Anglican liturgy in which we say "all who truly and earnestly repent of their sins, and are in love and fellowship with their neighbor, draw near with faith..." John Wesley was to add to this that if one was prepared to repent and come to the table for the first time as an act of faith, even though one was not previously a Christian that that was fine-- he saw the Lord's Supper as a converting sacrament in such cases, and not just a confirming sacrament. What is however very clear from 1 Cor. 11 is that this is not a sacrament that was intended for those who "do not discern the body". Unlike baptism which is a passive sacrament, the Lord's Supper is an active sacrament, and must be consciously and actively partaken of. So perhaps now is a good time for us all to think about should and shouldn't take communion. One thing is clear to me-- this is indeed a means of grace which changes lives ........
*************************
I sadly remember nothing about the Eucharist from my RCIA classes - maybe it didn't come up?! I've looked around the web for stuff on it, and I've found info about who is worthy to take communion but not a lot about why their worthiness matters, except for reference to 1 Corinthians 11, and in particular, "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup" (1 Cor. 11:27–28) ... and "For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself" (1 Cor. 11:29) (from Catholic Answers: Who Can Receive Communion?)
In looking around I also came across a past blog post by Ben Witherington that touches on this subject. I know, he's a Protestant :) but I think his take on this is interesting, especially his remark in one of his comments following the post, in which he writes - [...] Jesus came into people's lives, whether sinners, tax collectors etc. without them already being in a worthy condition. And indeed, even at the Last Supper, Jesus distributed the elements to very unworthy participants whom he knew were about to deny, betray, and desert him. By the Catholic view of this, they should never have partaken of that Passover with Jesus in the first place and Jesus should have stopped them! . That expresses my own feeling. I wish I could have found some Catholic discussion of this point on the web, but couldn't, so here below is part of Ben's post .....
**************************
Who can Commune with God? (November 2006)
It is a delicate question--- Who can Commune with God? And today Catholic Bishops have been voting on this matter. The issue is this-- who is worthy to partake of the Eucharist? Should just anyone be allowed to do so? In the past, and now the Catholic Church has taken the posture not that priests should police the Eucharist or fence the table, but that all the congregation should be told in advance that in essence they must police themselves. If they are knowingly in violation of church teaching on some major matter they should not take the Eucharist. For example anyone, gay or straight who is having sex outside of Christian marriage are encouraged to abstain. Now this raises all kinds of questions.
In the first place, no one is actually 'worthy' of partaking of the body and blood of Jesus Christ. All have sinned and fallen short of the grace of God. If we waited until we were worthy we'd all still be waiting. But there is some pertinent material about this question to be found in 1 Corinthians 11. Paul says there that we must not partake of this sacrament "in an unworthy manner". Now that's a different matter than 'being worthy'. That has to do with how we partake of the sacrament, and Paul somewhat cryptically gives us another clue-- we should partake: 1) together, waiting for one another and doing it as a group together; 2) we should do it in a worthy manner; and 3) we should do it discerning 'the body'. Paul even goes so far as to say that if you violate these three rules you could get sick and die. That sounds pretty serious and drastic. Scholars have debated what 'body' Paul is talking about. In traditional Catholic theology it was assumed that this was a reference to the elements of the sacrament, but this is unlikely. For one thing where is the reference to discerning the blood? For another thing the context doesn't favor this reading of 1 Cor. 11. The 'body' here as elsewhere in 1 Corinthians refers to the Body of Christ in the ecclesiological sense--- that would be us, the church. Paul is saying that if you go ahead and take the Lord's Supper without doing it as an act of the communion of the saints, of the church itself, you have commited a grievous mistake. The Lord's Supper is not all about you and your private relationship with God. Its about your vertical relationship with God of course, but it is also about your horizontal relationship with your fellow believers as well. We have been reconciled to Christ corporately, and one of the functions of communion is to bind us to each other.
Most denominations have some sort of invitation to the Table-- ours goes back to the Anglican liturgy in which we say "all who truly and earnestly repent of their sins, and are in love and fellowship with their neighbor, draw near with faith..." John Wesley was to add to this that if one was prepared to repent and come to the table for the first time as an act of faith, even though one was not previously a Christian that that was fine-- he saw the Lord's Supper as a converting sacrament in such cases, and not just a confirming sacrament. What is however very clear from 1 Cor. 11 is that this is not a sacrament that was intended for those who "do not discern the body". Unlike baptism which is a passive sacrament, the Lord's Supper is an active sacrament, and must be consciously and actively partaken of. So perhaps now is a good time for us all to think about should and shouldn't take communion. One thing is clear to me-- this is indeed a means of grace which changes lives ........
*************************
posted by crystal | 1:17 PM
21 Comments:
Nice post, Crystal. I thought the Anchoress's post was very reasonable (I don't normally read her page because she's so right-wing). I should not be disrespectful towards my cardinal-archbishop, but I found this whole thing unnecessary. Bishops should not use the sacrament to enforce political uniformity.
I'd never been to the Anchoress' page before, but a post at America magazine's blog on the subject had a link to that post of hers.
The wafer wars :(
Crystal, I am not much on strange events (miracles) but I just finish posting this question on another blog. I have posted it on some other blogs. Unfortuneately I have been bad and I am shut out from some blogs. So here is my question. You or someone might try an answer.
Question. I am familiar with Vatican 2 position on religious responsibility vis-a-vis civic responsibility. If a public official, say a senator (John Kerry}, can be denied the eucharist because of his views on abortion, would this not also apply to other public officials like, say, Supreme Court Justices? If a SC justice voted not to overturn Roe v. Wade would they not have committed a (grave)sin and thus be denied the sacrament? Jack
Ben says...
By the Catholic view of this, they should never have partaken of that Passover with Jesus in the first place and Jesus should have stopped them!
Huh?? Excuse, me, but we say before we receive communion:
"Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed."
Witherington doesn't know what he's talking about. If he had taken the time to do the most rudimentary legwork, hw eould have seen what his catholic counterparts in scripture scholarship had written in the New Jerome Bible Commentary, which is decades old now. It has ll the same community concerns that witherington offers insight into..
The death of Jesus, which is an act of love (Gal 2:20), is proclaimed existentially (2 Cor 4:10-11) in and through the shared eating and drinking (10:16). Authentic remembering is imitation of Christ (11:1), whereby God's saving love (Rom 8:39) is made present effectively in the world. From this perspective it is clear why the comportment of the Corinthians (v 21) made an authentic eucharist impossible (v 20). until he comes: Until Christ returns in glory (15:23).
27. Paul now applies this understanding of the eucharist to the situation at Corinth. whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily: Paul has in mind the lack of loving concern for one another displayed by the Corinthians (v 21). The gen. tou kyriou obviously applies to the bread as well as to the cup. will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord: If participants in the eucharistic meal are not united in love (v 26), they class themselves among those who murdered Jesus (Deut 19:10; cf. Heb 6:4-6; 10:29). 28. Hence, the importance of self-examination leading to reconciliation (Matt 5:23-24) prior to participation in the eucharist. 29. discerning the body: This is the criterion by which believers must judge themselves. They must evaluate the authenticity of their relationships to other members of the body of Christ, a theme already known to the Corinthians (6:15) and mentioned in 10:17. 30. weak and sick: Against the Jewish background of the association of sin and sickness (Mark 2:1-12; John 9:1-2) Paul interprets an epidemic at Corinth as divine punishment. a large number: Many (hikanoi) had died, and many had been enfeebled. 31. if we made a practice of assessing ourselves: Self-correction is the only way to forestall divine punishment. 32. being judged by the Lord we are disciplined: Acceptance of unpleasant experiences as educative warnings is an incentive to avoid the type of behavior that merits condemnation. together with the world: The selfishness displayed by some Corinthians was typical of the comportment of "those perishing" (1:18). 33. wait for one another: This is one practical way of "discerning the body" (v 29) and avoiding the selfishness (v 21) that destroyed the sharing that should characterize the eucharist. 34a. When taken in conjunction with v 22 this appears as a compromise designed to diminish the impact of social differences on community life. The wealthy might indulge themselves at home, but at the eucharistic meal they should limit themselves to the common fare. 34b. the other matters: Paul was unhappy with other aspects of the liturgical assemblies, but these were minor and could wait until he arrived.
Witherington should know better, instead of using old straw-man agitprop you'd expect from a clown like John MacArthur.
Jack,
Given what I understand of the subject, I think one has to be actually promoting abortion, or helping or advising someone, to have one to be in mortal sin. I'm not sure that being pro-choice, for a voter or a legislator or a judge, would count as the same. I read, I think, that politicans in Rome who are pro-choice are not kept from taking communion.
Hi Jeff,
I'm not sure I understand. If Jesus had at the last supper the same standards that the church has now, I can't see him allowing Judas to eat the bread and drink the wine. I think that's what Ben was saying?
If the eucharist is Jesus, then Jesus seemed to be very ok with people who were sinners (like Matthew the tax collector). He didn't expect them to become good before he hung around with them, he hung around with them and they became good as a result. So, I can't believe that taking communion would be dangerous to a person (as Paul says) if their intention was good. Paul may have believed that the epidemic was caused by God's wrath, but surely the church now doesn't see it that way?
Crystal.
Kerry did not urge or promote abortion.But if I am correct some bishops said he should be denied communion. I know this is not a real issue for you, but I think it should be answered by someone. Jack
I can't answer why some bishops decide to do this under these circumstances and some do not .... not all do. I read something by Jesuit Thomas Reese on this ....
[...] In talking about abortion, it is important to distinguish a person’s position on the morality of abortion from a person’s position on whether the state should criminalize abortion. A person who feels that there is nothing wrong with abortion is clearly taking a position contrary to the position of the Catholic Church. But it is a separate question whether abortions should be criminalized.
Many canon lawyers and moralists believe that a politician could be against abortions and still oppose criminalizing it for prudential reasons, for example, because he believes such laws would be unenforceable, divisive and politically unrealistic. He may believe that a more realistic approach is to enact programs (healthcare, childcare, welfare, employment) that will reduce the number of abortions by giving women a real choice, by empowering them to say yes to life. These politicians point to the fact that there were fewer abortions during the Clinton Administration than during the Bush Administration. Raising the minimum wage, for example, would reduce more abortions than outlawing partial birth abortions. Such a politician could say, “I am opposed to abortion and will do everything possible to reduce the number of abortions short of putting women and doctors in jail.”
So far, the vast majority of the U.S. Catholic bishops oppose denying Communion to pro-choice Catholic politicians and voters. During the 2004 presidential election, only about 10 to 12 bishops of the approximately 190 diocesan bishops spoke out in favor of denying Communion. When the bishops meet in Baltimore this November, the question of denying Communion to pro-choice politicians will once again be debated when they vote on a new statement on “Faithful Citizenship.
And here's an article, a discussion at the Pew Forum on this issue with Thomas Reese and George Weigel - link
Thank you Crystal. The discussion was just what I thought. Father Reese was the usual timid Catholic and Weigel simply shows himself to be the fool most serious thinkers know he is---arrogant, intolerant, a Bush toadie. FEW catholics agree with the hierarchy on abortion becuase the Church's position violates human common sense. Reese made an attempt and then ran for cover.
Only one conclusion can be drawn: No Catholic should be allowed on the Supreme Court or any Federal court. This may sound harsh, but Weigel et al are simply the inquisition in suites with Bush label pins. BTW what theological works has Weigel authored. Why do poeple call him a theologian, when he is nothing but a right wing political operative. And poor Father Reese. His collar must shake when he has any real thought.
But Crystal you are the greatest---the only person I've found who would even take a stab at this question. Jack
Well, I don't know much about Weigel but I have the highest respect for Fr. Reese and often post his writings here. Probably you can find this subject discussed all around the blogosphere as it's been so in the news - I don't deserve any credit for picking the topic.
Crystal,
Witherington didn’t take exception with Catholic eucharistic theology for being based on Paul’s thought rather than that of Jesus himself. He was saying that Catholics don’t understand Paul properly. He faulted our eucharistic theology because it “violates the very nature of the Incarnational presence of Jesus.” Nothing could be further from the truth! Witherington took us to task for having an individualistic piety and an understanding of the sacrament that stresses the vertical relationship to God over the horizontal. He accused us of having an improper understanding of what “discerning the body” means. What did I just give you in the passage of exegesis above, which Witherington himself should be well aware of? Has he never heard of Jerome Murphy O’Connor, Raymond Brown, or Joseph Fitzmyer? Of course he has.
Discerning the body: This is the criterion by which believers must judge themselves. They must evaluate the authenticity of their relationships to other members of the body of Christ
It was the whole reason the altars got turned around, to put the emphasis on the liturgy as a “public work” and to emphasize our all being one body in Christ. As for worthiness… Worthy or not, everyone is called to repentance and self examination.. It’s a theme running consistently from John the Baptist, to Jesus, to Paul. Becoming a new creation. Putting off the old man and putting on the new.
Witherington is either a liar, a bigot, or he’s seriously misinformed. He ought to be more careful , especially considering the fact that Protestant churches break community with each other all the time, often over picayune matters like whether or not they care for the preacher’s style. We struggle to stay united in the same body regardless of the myriad differences we have with each other.
Jeff,
Witherington is either a liar, a bigot, or he’s seriously misinformed.
Isn't it just the case that he disagrees with Catholic teaching, which you would expect from a Protestant? While there are big differences between Catholic and Protestant teaching, I guess I see a lot more that's similar and worth looking into.
But i think I probably shouldn't have posted what he said here because I don't really understand what he (and you) are saying about Paul, about the body/community, and about jesus and the eucharist.
Isn't it just the case that he disagrees with Catholic teaching, which you would expect from a Protestant?
No. I don't expect a Protestant to agree with every Catholic Church teaching. I expect someone who's supposed to be as knowledgable as he is not to misrepresent Catholic teaching.
If I understand you correctly, what bothers you is that Ben said that Catholic eucharistic teaching emphasizes the relationship between the person and God rather than the person's relationship with the members of their community, and this is a misrepresentation? OK, I understand.
I meant my post to be ablout what I thought of as the difference between how Jesus was with people and how the eucharist is with people. When I looked up stuff about communion, I saw a page at Catholic Answers that said this .....
To receive Communion ..... you must be in a state of grace. "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup" (1 Cor. 11:27–28). This is an absolute requirement which can never be dispensed. To receive the Eucharist without sanctifying grace in your soul profanes the Eucharist in the most grievous manner.
They didn't mention where Paul says taking communion when you are not good enough will probably make you sick or even kill you.
This just seems so weird to me, that if you dare to approach God when you are not good enough, he'll smite you. So, when I saw Ben mention the thing about Jesus and the last supper, it rang a bell - that's why I posted what he'd written.
Does Witherington take Paul to task for that? He wrote:
Paul says there that we must not partake of this sacrament "in an unworthy manner". Now that's a different matter than 'being worthy'. That has to do with how we partake of the sacrament, and Paul somewhat cryptically gives us another clue-- we should partake: 1) together, waiting for one another and doing it as a group together; 2) we should do it in a worthy manner; and 3) we should do it discerning 'the body'. Paul even goes so far as to say that if you violate these three rules you could get sick and die. That sounds pretty serious and drastic.
Why is that more comforting? Isn't that just a difference in the manner in which someone can be "bad"?
I thought that Ben was saying that Paul meant (heh :) that how you take communion is what is being judged in worth (which has to do with your horizontal relationship with your community?), not you, the person (vertical relationship between you and God).
I don't know about the difference. One way seems like a judgement of whether someone is good enough to be with Jesus/God, the other about whether he is a good community member (loves his neighbor?). My own person bent is to focus on the former and to say to myself that if I'm good enough for God then I should be so for the community as well. But I know my view is probably skewed.
:-) If in Mark 12: 28-34, Jesus says that the two great commandments are...
You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.'
The second is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these."
... then it seems to me that the two of them go together inseperably.
Yes, :) I was going to say that I'm not doing as well with the second commandment, but actually I'm not doing very well with the first one either, just trying harder with that one.
Wafer wars . . . . I somehow missed the Rudy G story. Thankfully.
Yawn.
I'm waiting for the pedophile-hiding Bishop Murphy to try and refuse communion to someone for not agreeing with him politically.
William,
Is Jimmy Breslin keeping after him (Murphy)? Breslin's the last of the old breed.
Don't mind me, you guys just talk amonst yourselves :)
Post a Comment
<< Home