We were unable to attend our regular church for Good Friday because my wife had to work during their services. I found another local church with an evening Good Friday mass which we went to. It was absolutely beautiful. We decided to continue the Easter Triduum at this new church. So we went to the Vigil and Easter Sunday.
Easter Sunday. The sanctuary was already packed so we heading to the "overflow mass" in the social hall. This was monsignor's first mass since he had had surgery. He preached on the Gospel text, John 20, when Mary and the disciples discover the empty tomb.
He said that Peter is a symbol of authority in this Gospel and The Beloved Disciple is a symbol of love. He recognizes that The Beloved Disciple gets to the tomb before Peter. The main idea of his homily was "love always trumps authority."
Later, during the Eucharistic prayers, the priest broke from the liturgy and said a word about the church's Eucharistic practice. I cannot give a perfect quote here, but I will try to remember. He said "I invite everyone here to come forward. If Eucharist is not part of your tradition I encourage you to come forward for a blessing so that we can welcome, accept and bless you." And then he quoted Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female." We are all one in Christ.
There is more he said, and he said it quite beautifully. Eucharist is part of my tradition (even as a Protestant), and I understood it has an invitation. It was the first time at a Catholic church that I felt welcome and invited to commune. I heard a radical message of Christ's love and welcoming.
Friday, April 17, 2009
A Welcoming Eucharist
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
That makes me mad. You're happy that you found a priest liberal enough to be wishy-washy about who receives communion. But the Eucharist is not the property of liberal priests, it's the patrimony of the Church: given by God into its custody and care, who knows when and how to offer it in sacrifice and when and who shall be allowed to partake of it.
If that priest was inviting any and all present to receive communion, he was being disobedient. And you -- I understand from what you say that you received communion but if I'm wrong please correct me -- knowing the Church's guidelines and requirements for receiving communion -- since I have told them to you -- if you did receive communion you were being disrespectful of the Church's laws and ordinances and ultimately, whether you realize it or not, of the Sacrament itself.
Urgghh! If I had been present it might have required an effort to restrain myself from punching someone.
Agellius, can I have your permission to publish your comment to my other blog (to which I moved protestantcatholic)? It is now at theprophetjoel.com
One word of clarification: The priest did not invite any and all to communion, but those "for whom Eucharist is your tradition." That is, baptized Christians.
Secondly, the Catholic Church does not have a 100% completely closed communion. Canon 844 subsection 2
"Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid."
We can discuss the implications of this canon, however it is clear that there is not an absolute ban on Eucharistic sharing.
I welcome a discussion on this topic, and I would encourage you to post to the new blog.
http://theprophetjoel.com/2009/04/a-welcoming-eucharist/
pardon me, I quoted the incorrect subsection. I meant to quote subsection 4
"If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed."
This one shows that there is not a 100% ban on Eucharistic sharing
Agellius,
I am having trouble importing your comments to the new blog. Could you copy them over there? I would like to continue the discussion.
Post a Comment