Intercommunion

I've mentioned my love for the eucharist several times. I am quite protective of the Blessed Sacrament itself, and of the doctrine.

Growing up Protestant, I became aware, very early on, that the Catholic Church does not practice intercommunion. That is, in most normal circumstances, one must be Catholic in order to receive the Holy Eucharist. I didn't understand it as a Protestant youth--after all, anyone who believes in Jesus Christ could receive communion in our church--but I respected it; and later in life, as I prepared to enter into full communion, I longed more and more to receive the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the Lord. I also came to a fuller understanding of why the Catholic Church requests--politely--that if you are not Catholic, you do not receive the eucharist.

First, let me offer my understanding of what the Holy Eucharist is: In the sixth chapter of John's gospel, Jesus taught, "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day." He said the same thing three times, and watched many of his followers walk away. When alone with his apostles, he made no allusion to the teaching being a parable, or any kind of symbolic language. Later, at the Last Supper, in Mark's gospel, he said very plainly, "This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me" (emphasis mine). The Lord's supper is mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament, as practiced by the Christian communities. But nowhere is it referred to as a "symbol" or "representation" of the Body and Blood of the Lord: Indeed, it is always referred to as a reality, using forms of the verb, "to be."

The immediate post-apostolic fathers of the Church, who learned directly from those who followed Christ while He was on earth, were equally clear about the Holy Eucharist being the Body and Blood of the Lord, and a sign of our unity in the faith.

It is also quite clear in scripture that certain men of the Christian communities were appointed as "presbyters"--i.e., priests--to preside over the eucharistic meal, after receiving the laying on of hands by the apostles or their successors. Therefore, as a Catholic, I believe in the necessity of this priesthood in order for the eucharist to be celebrated.

So, the eucharist is the Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is a sign of unity of faith. And it is celebrated by an apostle, one of their successors, or a man duly appointed by either. All three of these are essential elements of the eucharist; one cannot reject one and still believe in the eucharist. These beliefs are also held by the Orthodox Churches, which have maintained unbroken apostolic succession, even though a schism over authority remains between them and the Catholic Church.

Members of other faith groups may say, "We believe in all three of those elements, but we just define them differently." But this could be used as an argument to justify any number of pretenses of unity: "I believe in the importance of the family too; I just define 'family' differently"; "I want peace. I just define 'peace' differently"; "I believe in the sanctity of life. I just define 'life' differently." When people use the same words but ascribe distinctly different meanings to them, there is no communication; and there certainly is no unity.

If we can agree on what the Catholic Church means by these three elemental aspects of the eucharist, it should be fairly clear why the Church does not believe in practicing intercommunion, as a general rule. If one does not believe that it is really the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the Lord, then one borders on sacrelige--insofar as the Catholic Church is concerned--in receiving it. If one does not believe what the Catholic Church teaches as the truth, then one is not in unity of faith with the Catholic Church. And if one does not believe that apostolic succession and a ministerial priesthood are necessary for the celebration of the eucharist, then it is somewhat mysterious why a person would even bother to come to a Catholic Church to receive the eucharist.

All of this comes to the forefront of my mind because of a rather disturbing conversation with a Baptist minister who quite openly told me that he receives the eucharist at mass when he "feels the need," when he can do so anonymously, without causing any disturbance, while fully aware of the Catholic Church's teaching on the non-practice of intercommunion. What he failed to take into consideration was the fact that telling me and others causes a "disturbance." I know that he has no intent of "thumbing his nose" at what the Catholic Church says; but in essence, this is what he has done. His "conscience is clear" because "nobody knows." That is no longer the case.

Let's look at this from a simple common sense standpoint. When you are a guest, and your host makes a simple request of you--a request of which you are completely capable of fulfilling--would your conscience remain clear if you deceptively ignored his request?