Post # 1
1. is one eucharistic minister (one of my maids), plus our priest, enough to give Communion? We won’t have THAT many people taking it and I don’t want to add more people to the rehearsal.
2. that being said, any suggestions for (tactfully) expressing the necessary “while we hope one day all Christians will be able to take Communion together, please only take it if you’re a Catholic in good faith etc etc”? we’ve already had our programs printed (and didn’t really have any extra room), so what else could we do?
thanks bees! can’t wait to mrs. mcq in TWENTY DAYS!
Post # 3
1. How many people? Most likely yes.
2. People know. Or your priest might say something ” we welcome all to come up and receive the Eucharist or a blessing”… Not these words exactly but to direct people what to do. 99% of Catholic weddings I’ve been to, including my own, have had a priest that gives extra directions during a wedding because he knows its a mixed crowd.
Post # 4
@futuremrsmcq: For both of these you need to talk to your priest. If you are not having a cup, just two EMs will probably be enough. Right before the communion procession begins, your priest needs to mention what non-Catholics and non-receiving Catholics should do (something like, “you are welcome to come to the table of the Lord for a blessing”). He will probably have his own wording for this, or he might want you to type something up for him.
Post # 5
@futuremrsmcq: 1. Probably.
2. Let people decide of their own conscience. If the priest is concerned, he will say something. Enforcing religious rules can leave a bad taste in people’s mouths. People know, by and large.
Post # 6
@futuremrsmcq: What does “Catholic in good faith” mean?
Post # 7
1) Yes. We have 4 for like 1500 people each weekend. Unless you’re having 1000 guests, you’ll be fine.
2) The priest will announce this.
@Autumnsnow: That you’re Catholic and not in a state of mortal sin.
Post # 8
@Autumnsnow: I’ve seen it printed for big church events before is the only reason I was thinking it needed to be printed at all. I’m not sure if “in good faith” is the exact wording, but what I’m thinking of means that you’re Catholic and have recieved the sacraments of first holy communion and reconcilation, and you haven’t committed a mortal sin since your last reconciliation.
I definitely don’t want it to feel like enforcing but I don’t want non-Catholics to feel like they’re expected to go, and I don’t want the very conservative Catholics (our older family and family friends) to be offended. Just trying to toe that line the best way possible 🙂
thanks bees! I really appreciate it now that we’re down to the wire!
Post # 9
@Duncan: Enforcing religious rules may leave a bad taste in people’s mouths, but Catholics believe that the Eucharist IS God. It’s not like making people say the Lord’s prayer at gunpoint, it’s a fundamental tenant of our faith that the Eucharist is treated with the utmost respect, as much respect as God Himself deserves. To knowingly allow someone who is not Catholic/hasn’t received the sacraments/is in a state of mortal sin to recieve Communion is a grave sin.
Post # 10
@M72727: Nicely done assuming that I am not Catholic, and do not understand the Eucharist. Incorrect on both counts.
Is it your job to tell me that, since I didn’t go to mass this morning, I cannot receive the Eucharist next week? It is extraordinarily rare for a Christian of another denomenation to actually be refused the Eucharist, or for any member of the congregation that the priest or minister does not recognize.
Most people know that the Catholic Church teaches that non-Catholics cannot receive the Eucharist. Many understand the logic. Those that do not, and receive it out of ignorance of this, I would wager God will forgive fairly easily, consistent with the teaching that persons of virtue, who were never able to learn of Christ, are forgiven for not following Him.
We had several discussions about how to handle this, but decided that it is best to trust people to keep their own counsel, and follow their own consciences. Those who are unsure, and care, will ask. It would be insulting, patronizing, and paternalistic to insist upon educating our guests, who are knowledgable, wordly adults, who are likely already perfectly aware of the issue. It’s not some sort of deep, dark secret, and such attitudes only serve to perpetuate negative views of the Church and its followers.
And it’s tenet, not tenant.
Post # 11
Not to thread jack, but as a Protestant Christian, I do not believe in transubstantiation. Therefore, I would not take Catholic Communion. Usually the priest will announce that non-Catholics can cross their arms and receive a blessing instead of Communion and it’s just not an issue.
Post # 13
@Duncan: Is it my Job to deny you communion? If I am the Priest or Eucharistic Minister it is ABSOLUTELY my job to deny communion if I know for a fact you are not Catholic or are in a state of mortal sin. You’re correct that many people will just give out communion anyway, but that doesn’t lessen the sin of doing so (unless they are unaware that they should not).
At my younger brother’s baptism I had MANY family members who are not Catholic (But ARE “highly educated, worldly adults”) that did not know they shouldn’t recieve communion, and as such DID SO. As they PLAYED WITH IT instead of consuming it, the priest and several Catholic family members had to walk around and take it back from them. Much more embarrassing to those guests than just announcing that they shouldn’t recieve, wouldn’t you say?
I frankly don’t care care if people are offended that they are asked not to recieve communion when they should not. They are adults, and it’s not patronising or paternalistic to inform people about the religious traditions that should be followed while they’re in a Church of certain denominations, especially when relaying that information takes about 30 seconds. It’s being considerate of the fact that they may not have studied your faith. As someone who has seen the results of not giving direction where it may (or may not) be needed, I think that not saying anything is unwise.
I assumed you were not Catholic because I could not imagine that any Catholic would treat the Eucharist, the Body of Christ with flippance; with the attitude of “I’m sure it’ll be okay, even though the Church has said it isn’t”. I also assumed that a Catholic would value treating the Eucharist with respect over possibly “leaving a bad taste in someone’s mouth” I apologise for that assumption, as I was clearly wrong.
You’re absolutely correct that the Eucharist is not a dark secret, but it is to be treated with reverence. If having religious traditions that involve showing reverence towards God “only serve to perpetuate negative views of the Church and its followers” than I’d rather take that consequence than actively avoid informing my nearest and dearest what is expected in order to be reverent.
As for correcting my spelling: Seriously amusing. That definitely added to the conversation.
Post # 14
@M72727: You assume, again, that there is no disparity of beliefs within the Church – and no, I am not only referring to the laity. You must have been unable to imagine that mass had not always been performed in the vernacular, or the first time you attended an English mass, depending on your age.
What perpetuates negative stereotypes is to condescend to others, and to assume they do not, or could not, understand, and that they would not, in the first place, be respectful, and accepting, of your beliefs.
Your insistence that it is the priest’s duty to deny the Eucharist is entirely inconsistent with the actual practice of priests, who act on direction from the Holy See, received via their bishops. Why, precisely, are you the authority on correct practices over the clergy and curia?
I did not correct your spelling; you used an entirely different word.
I’m done on this; I won’t be engaging further. Feel free to get the last word if you like.
Post # 15
oh, sigh… I wish we would just go back to everyone receiving communion kneeling and on the tongue… then only people who knew HOW to do that would do so!
At the weddings of some of DH’s cousins, I watched non-Catholic family members walk up and receive communion without a second thought. At our wedding, everybody knelt (or stood if they wanted to receive in the hand) at the communion rail, per the priest’s instructions (and our decision.) And guess what? I guess even that must have been “weird enough” for the non-Catholics. NO ONE went up who wasn’t 100% Catholic! Shocker, right?
Post # 16
@red_rose: Absolutely agreed! I also love the elegance of the high latin mass, although I’m sure most people (especially children who probably don’t know any latin) get more out of the modern version.
There are people at my church who kneel to recieve communion and they always get the side-eye from someone. It’s sad.
Fortunately it seems as though much of today’s youth seem to be moving back towards the utter reverence of the past (as well as the traditional latim hymns over guitar music, which is just a personal preference but YAY). It also seems as though Pope Francis, as well as Benedict XVI, are encouraging this. Maybe in 20 years we WILL all be kneeling to recieve again. After all, they very recently changed the English mass to bring it more in line with the original latin version!
@Duncan: I’m no authority, but the Pope and the Chatechism are authorities even if some priests practice something different. Most priests in my area do deny communion, and if they do not the Bishops get involved. No human being is perfect, and sometimes it’s easier for people to do wrong than cause a scene.
Tenet and Tenant are different words that are spoken the same, at least in my area. I made a mistake, similar to using there or their (also completely different words), which you felt the need to correct even though most people could easily determine what was meant. With that said, the semantics of what sort of a mistake I actually made doesn’t change the fact that correcting that mistake had nothing to do with the topic at hand, nor did it add to the conversation.
It is not condecending to inform someone of your beliefs when you are unsure if they are aware of them, especially if they are expected to partcipate in a service in which the information may be necessary. Asking someone not to recieve is not the same thing as yelling your beliefs until others agree.