Why Are Non-Catholic Christians Excluded From Receiving the Catholic Eucharist, or Communion?

[originally uploaded on 30 January 2003]

The following was stimulated by a worthwhile, constructive exchange with an evangelical Christian who wrote to me. As a "preamble," the first section of this paper is comprised of two older replies to letters on this general subject. The words of my correspondents will be in green.

*****

I am told I cannot receive Eucharist at the Catholic Mass, so I go up each time and cross my arms and ask for a blessing. Wish they would accept my faith in the basic Christian tenets as being acceptable for being able to participate in Communion. Surely Jesus would let me sup with Him at His table by recognizing I have been "baptized" into the Christian faith. Why can't Catholics recognize my "baptism"? They only acknowledge "one baptism for the forgiveness of sins." Well, I do also, but is not my procedural "baptism" equal to theirs?

You're confusing things a bit here. First of all, we certainly do recognize Protestants as fellow Christians, who have been validly baptized (provided only that it was trinitarian). So that part shouldn't trouble you. Communion is a somewhat different matter. That is a symbol of unity (doctrinal and relational), and as you mentioned above, such oneness is currently lacking in the Body of Christ. For us to offer communion to anyone without requiring doctrinal consent would be dishonest for us and in our opinion a corruption of communion as a symbol of unity in the Body. It's not a matter of "looking down" upon our "separated brethren" but of simple honesty and seeking to be true to what we feel is Christ's teaching.

If it is painful, that is just part of the sad "fallout" from the schism which was brought upon the Church when the Protestants separated in the 16th century. It ought to be painful, because you are a thoughtful, committed, conscientious Christian who values unity and oneness, as Christ did. But should you decide to become Catholic, you would be immediately welcome at the Lord's Table. Until then, no one has any business looking down their nose at you. In fact, one time before I was received (but after I had decided to become Catholic), I was asked at Mass to take the bread and wine up to the altar. That was a thrill because I felt I played a key role in the whole service, even though I couldn't yet take communion.

Why do you think there is Catholicism and Protestantism, and within Protestantism so many subsets of denominations? Why do you think we are not all "one"?

Because the Protestant principle makes it impossible. I think it is at least as much a failure of thinking as it is an ethical failure, because most Protestants I know value unity as a goal to strive for. Protestantism began because Luther misunderstood the relationship of faith and works, and because the early Protestants - seeing actual corruption in practice in the Catholic Church - threw the baby out with the bath water. But I think they have a false view of what the true Church is.

When Jesus prayed for us to be "one" in John 17, didn't that mean one in spirit, mind and body, encompassing one universal way we do things at "church"?

I think so, because in John 17:20-21 He wants us to be "one" just as He was with His Father. Since they were absolutely one in essence, I think that rules out the doctrinal relativism which reigns today, or even the divisions within the Catholic Church (i.e., liberals who aren't really true, observant Catholics, and who are being dishonest with themselves). At the very least institutional division is biblically forbidden, in my opinion. Denying that is clearly being unscriptural. You are altogether right in being troubled by that.

I mean He knew there would be all these denominations springing forth. Did He want that to happen?

Absolutely not, based on this passage and many others. But despite that, He will obviously work with and through sincere, committed Protestants (or Orthodox).

How does a Protestant fit into the picture when Jesus says that unless a man eat of his flesh and drink of his blood, there is no life in you [Jn 6:53]? Since a Protestant believer has not done this, then what are we to think about not having life in us? We obviously do have the life of God through the Spirit.

Very good question, as always. Karl Keating actually cited this verse in a letter to me when I was aProtestant, and arguing for "central" doctrines, "secondary doctrines," and "peripheral doctrines" - his point being that the Eucharist must therefore be pretty important in the overall scheme of things!

As you note, it doesn't mean that Protestants aren't Christian, lack grace or the Holy Spirit, etc. Nor do we teach that one can't be saved without partaking in the Eucharist in the full sense of theword. So Catholics must interpret the verse in light of those facts. Personally, I think Jesus is using hyperbole simply to illustrate the essential and overwhelming importance of communion and - beyond that - the sacramental principle.

When taken in the larger sacramental sense, Protestants receive the sacramental benefits of baptism and marriage, both of which we acknowledge as valid sacraments for Protestants, and they also receive grace from the Sacrifice of the Mass and the accompanying prayers, etc. So implicitly, we believe that Protestants benefit spiritually from the Real Presence even if they don't believe in it. And they obtain grace from partaking in communion at their services, even if the Real Presence is lacking (and many Protestants, of course, think it is lacking). A reverential, holy disposition is very pleasing to God. I always took Communion very seriously as a Protestant, even though I didn't accept Transubstantiation for a second in those days, and I think God accepts that for what it is worth - which is indeed a lot.

***

The bottom line with regard to this matter of closed communion and the prohibition of non-Catholics from the Catholic Eucharist, is the prerogative of any Christian communion (just as with any civil institution, place of work, the military, government offices, etc.) to make its own rules, and require the observance of them, and adherence to them, in order to gain membership in the fullest sense. I consider this a self-evident truth.

It is unreasonable to demand otherwise, just as I would never take it upon myself to go to some Protestant church service - which required membership for communion -, and demand that I be given communion because, after all, I, too, am a Christian like they are. It shows respect to another group when one recognizes that they are entitled to create whatever membership criteria they wish. I extend that respect when I am in Protestant or Orthodox circles; Protestants ought to extend it in Catholic circles, as well.

No personal insult towards Protestants is intended by their not being allowed to take communion; that is simply the way institutions and membership criteria work. People are excluded from all sorts of groups for a variety of reasons; some good, some bad. I see nothing wrong with the Catholic Church's requirement that a person fully accept its doctrines in order to be received at the Lord's Table.

I don't see how that "right" can be overcome by any argument. Do those who disagree with this policy expect the Catholic Church to change its centuries-old, passed-down doctrine in response to their private opinions of what it should or should not do? This eventually (at the presuppositional level) gets down to the initial crisis with Martin Luther, who thought the same thing. That's just not how it works, according to the Catholic perspective. The liberals within our ranks also want to change Church doctrine and Church policy, to suit their whims and desires. Homosexual activists want to change the nature of the marital bond, to include themselves. Many Protestants want to take communion in a Catholic Church (as President Bill Clinton did). I don't see any difference of principle. If someone wishes to become a Catholic, they are free to do so.

Christian unity in Jesus Christ is supremely imprtant, but so also is doctrinal agreement across the board, according to Paul's statement: ". . . one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph 4:5). Now, if someone wishes to argue that this "faith" (Gk. pistis) is simply referring to trust in God and personal commitment to Jesus, as opposed to a doctrinal meaning, as I would contend (for this passage), Greek scholar Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (abridged, one-volume edition) disagrees:

The Faith. Paul can call the message itself pistis. As such, pistis is a principle, e.g., in contrast to law (Rom. 3:31; cf. 3:27: the law of faith). Along these lines pistis is Christianity either as being a Christian or as the Christian message or teaching (cf. Gal. 6:10; 1:23). Acts 6:7 and Eph. 4:5 offer similar uses, and cf. 1 Tim 3:9; 4:1,6. Orthodox doctrine is pistis in Jude 3, 20 and 2 Pet. 1:1. The phrases in 1 Tim. 1:2,4; 2:7; Titus 1:1,4; 3:5 are to the same effect.

Looking at some of the cross-references listed, we see this clearly (RSV):

Acts 6:7: . . . a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith.

Galatians 1:23: . . . He . . . is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.

1 Timothy 1:2: To Timothy, my true child in the faith . . .

1 Timothy 3:9: they must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience.

1 Tim 4:1: . . . some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons.

1 Tim 4:6: . . . nourished on the words of the faith and of the good doctrine which you have followed.

Titus 1:4: To Titus, my true child in a common faith . . .

Jude 3: . . . contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

Thus, this one verse offers a clear connection of at least one of the sacraments (baptism) with acceptance of a common set of doctrines: itself (i.e., one faith or tradition) something taught repeatedly by the Apostle Paul elsewhere:

1 Corinthians 15:1-2 . . . I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, by which you are saved, if you hold it fast - unless you believed in vain.

2 Thessalonians 2:15: . . . stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth, or by letter.

2 Thessalonians 3:6: . . . keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

2 Timothy 1:13-14 Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me . . . guard the truth which has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.

2 Timothy 2:2 And what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

No relative truths, or central vs. secondary Christian truths, or denominations here; there is but one doctrine, and one accepts it in its entirety or not. Now, if a person argues that this doesn't apply to the Eucharist, I have to disagree again, because Paul is very clear in 1 Cor 10:16 and 11:27-30 that he regards the Eucharist as the literal Body and Blood of Christ. In the second passage he says that anyone partaking unworthily "will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord." That's not to say that disbelief in the Real Presence is such unworthy partaking itself, but rather, that Paul himself considered the Eucharist the literal Body and Blood, which is the only way to account for a profanation of it, as it is difficult to be "guilty of profaning" Jesus' Body if the Eucharist is a mere symbol. Therefore, the Real Presence is part of the apostolic deposit of faith which Paul passed down and urged people to accept in faith, in its entirety.

Moreover, in the context of the eucharistic Pauline passages, we also see his concern for doctrinal and familial unity in the Body of Christ. Six verses before one of these passages Paul writes:

But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.

(1 Cor 11:17-19)

Fifteen verses before this passage, Paul mentioned apostolic traditions:

1 Corinthians 11:2: I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.

And in the very next verse after his strong statement of the Real Presence, Paul talks about unity also:

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. (1 Cor 10:16-17)

1 Corinthians 11:2 above occurs 17 verses after this passage. It is all of a piece: doctrinal unity, unity in love, and partaking of the Eucharist. The Catholic view, then, as we see, is eminently biblical: there is one faith, and the Eucharist, as a symbol of this doctrinal unity, is the actual Body and Blood. That is the received faith. If someone doesn't believe this, they shouldn't partake of the Eucharist, because that is the central rite of the Christian faith, which from the beginning held that the consecrated bread and wine were transformed miraculously into the Body and Blood. Jesus taught the same in John 6 (see especially John 6:53, which ties such a belief to spiritual "life" itself).

This is not to say that all who don't accept the Catholic belief on this are damned or terrible persons. They are not necessarily at all. Those are separate issues. I am explaining why Catholics believe in closed communion. Whoever disagrees will at least know exactly why we hold to our position. It is a biblical and apostolic tradition, not some terrible oppressive tradition of men that the Catholics came up with in order to make outsiders feel miserable and inferior. We must follow that tradition which we believe we have received; passed-down from the apostles. If that offends someone, then there is nothing else we can do. We can't go against what we believe to be the teaching of our Lord Jesus and the apostles.

Sin can exclude one from a Christian community and its rites, of course, but so can dissent on various beliefs held to be indispensable in those communities (at least with regard to the Eucharist). That's why virtually every Christian communion holds to a creed or confession. It is specifically intended to outline what that community believes; therefore, by definition, it will exclude those who disagree. The Protestant tendency is to minimize or underemphasize those doctrines where Christians have historically disagreed. Catholics don't approach it that way, as explained above.

Protestants are, of course, fully Christian by virtue of baptism and adherence to the tenets of the Nicene Creed. But that doesn't mean that we "relativize" or "marginalize" our doctrine on the Eucharist, because Christians exist who deny our doctrine. I continue to be baffled as to why this is such an issue for many Protestants. It never was for me before I converted. I never felt excluded because I was not yet a Catholic in belief. And when I was convinced, I converted, and it was a non-issue.

All Christian groups believe certain things. And when you believe one thing, logic dictates that its contraries are excluded and regarded as false. It doesn't follow that it is prideful to do so (except under secular, relativist-type philosophical / ethical premises, which are very common today), and Protestants have no basis to make such an unwarranted charge other than their own disbelief in transubstantiation. They don't believe it, and so some conclude that a group which requires belief in it must be "prideful." With all due respect, I find that to be an underwhelming, unimpressive argument. But if it must be made, then it should apply across the board to any Christian group which believes anything and makes it a requirement.

Closed communion is not a denial of mercy at all, but simply a requirement for inclusion into the community, as Paul taught us. Jesus said "he who is not with us is against us," and "a house divided against itself cannot stand." Jesus accepted the distinction between false traditions of men and the true tradition of God (Mk 7:8-13). This proves that He taught one true tradition, which could be ascertained.

If the critics of the Church are correct about this matter, Jesus should and would have stated in Matthew 28:20, "teach them to observe all that I have commanded you, except for the Eucharist; you must allow anyone with any eucharistic belief to partake of communion." Jesus "excluded" the rich young ruler from following Him fully because He required him to give up his riches (which were his idols) and the man would not. He didn't say, "sure, you can come follow Me whatever you think of your riches; that is no problem." It just doesn't work that way. Demands to receive the Catholic Eucharist without believing all that the Church teaches is an unreasonable and unbiblical demand.

The Protestant tendency is to underemphasize true doctrine in its entirety and to over-emphasize the aspects of "fellowship" and subjectivity and experience over against doctrine. We are saying that they can't be separated, and I gave our rationale why, from Holy Scripture. It always comes down to the fundamental Protestant-Catholic differences in the end. We think doctrinal and ecclesiological unity is more important than Protestants do, and our view on the issue of the Eucharist and who can receive it obviously reflects that. Since Protestants reject the premise underlying our "liturgical rule," they (some, at any rate) object to our practice. So it is a matter of root premises once again.

To put it another way, for us to change in this respect would be to adopt fundamentally Protestant presuppositions (which, of course, we can't do, without ceasing to be true to our own principles and premises). Therefore - logically speaking - I continue to assert that in this sense non-Catholics who demand to be admitted to Catholic communion are trying to force the Catholic Church to be more Protestant, and, failing that, they sometimes uncharitably conclude that we are obviously, clearly "uncharitable." So, to follow the logic through even further, it boils down to: "consistent Catholicism is intrinsically uncharitable to non-Catholics and won't cease to be so until it becomes more Protestantized."

Very well, then (to follow this reasoning to its conclusion): how does one become more "Protestant"? The Protestant invariably says, "by being more biblical." We reply, "alright; show us your principles in the Bible." That gets us, in turn, back to Holy Scripture (and I have supported the Catholic view from Scripture, above). Protestants need to show how our view is wrong from Scripture, and how theirs is right or preferable, from Scripture. The Bible is what we both equally revere, and so that is the only way we can resolve this, because it offers us an objective standard by which to judge the practice. Otherwise, our point stands, from both the principle and the biblical data (and I would say, universal Christian practice up to the 16th century).

We can't change our view on this because we are duty-bound to the teachings of Scripture (as we interpret it, of course) and the way the Church had always operated for 2000 years. It was always the case that the new Catholic had to undergo a lengthy period of catechesis and introduction to the Catholic ethos before being admitted to the Lord's Table. We can't simply change that because some Protestants are distraught over it.

Catholics believe that Protestants have many means of grace: baptism, marriage, preaching of the word of God (though not technically sacramental grace), the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, emphases on prayer and evangelism and Bible study, and so forth. I know that firsthand because I lived it myself and will thank God forever for what I learned as a Protestant, and how I developed a relationship with God (much of which is often sadly lacking in Catholicism-in-practice).

But simply because I acknowledge the presence of grace doesn't mean that I can go into, for example, a Missouri Synod Lutheran congregation and ask to receive the Eucharist, lest I be "excluded" and am therefore "impeded" from the grace that God has for me. It doesn't work that way. I, as a Catholic, recognize their policy of closed communion and respect it (and wouldn't dream of charging them with a lack of charity, at all). Secondly, I recognize that Lutherans have a different understanding than we do about the miraculous change in the Eucharist, and that would cause me not to partake as well. Thirdly, I would adhere to my own Church's rules about attending other churches and how much we can participate and remain self-consistent and obedient Catholics. I would never feel excluded (it wouldn't even cross my mind); I would simply respect the honest differences and rejoice in what we do have in common. And I would receive communion in my own church, as one would expect.

If I started to become convinced that the Lutherans had more truth than the Catholics, that would be something else again. Likewise, if a Protestant who seeks the Catholic Eucharist becomes convinced of Catholicism, then their struggle to obtain more grace from the Catholic Eucharist would be over.

One evangelical Protestant wrote on a public discussion board:

If "high" sacramentologies really are closer to the truth - and there is some sense in which participation in a common Eucharist is an essential component of salvation ("unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood...") as Catholics themselves like to argue - then the Catholic judgment to deny (what they consider to be) a valid Eucharist is a deliberate attempt to obstruct the participation of others in God's grace.

No; rather it is a deliberate attempt to follow our Lord's and St. Paul's command to adhere to the "tradition," passed-down, and to require adherence for all who desire to join the Church (and its rites) which we consider the fullness of the faith and the same Church that Jesus founded in His commission to Peter. Protestants relativize and trivialize this Tradition in large measure by relegating many areas of Christianity up for grabs, based on their principle of private judgment. That's not how either the early Church or the Catholic Church today works. If others find that "uncharitable," there is nothing we can do about it; we must follow truth and divine and apostolic and biblical commands, as we see them.

Certain things require certain other things in order to happen. You can't be truly forgiven unless you repent. That's how it works. It's part of the package. What are we to do: allow unlimited forgiveness whether one repents or not (which would entail wiping out hell altogether)? That's not what Jesus did. He forgave the woman caught in adultery, but He also said, "go and sin no more."

Are Calvinists supposed to allow other Christians who deny all five points of TULIP to come into their ranks, teach, and participate as fully as anyone else, lest they be perceived as "uncharitable" and deliberate excluders of the widest distribution of grace possible? I think not. Are pacifist Quakers or Mennonites supposed to grant soldiers admittance to their worship services and rites? No. Must the Amish cease their culturally isolationist ways because they exclude others? No. Are we supposed to "bless" homosexual marriage because if we don't, the homosexual will be outrageously excluded from the grace of sacramental marriage (which we believe Protestants possess as well)? Of course not; we cannot change what we are commanded to do. This present case is only one example of many such scenarios.

It is sometimes argued that God is everywhere, so why the objection to Protestants receiving Jesus as present in the Blessed Eucharist? But omnipresence and sacramental Real Presence, are, of course, two different things. The distinction and marvel of the Eucharist is precisely that it is actual and substantial; thus an extension of the incarnation. Omnipresence does not have that characteristic because it is spiritual and non-corporeal, and applies to God the Father and God the Holy Spirit as well. Only the Son has a body, thus only He is present in the miracle of the Eucharist, because He is the incarnate God.

END