Religion can be very difficult. My husband is Jewish and I was raised Catholic but not confirmed (by choice, I told the priest quite honestly that I didn't believe in some of the encyclicals and he, very nicely, agreed that I ought not confirm my faith in the Church).
I've found a home in our congregation that speaks to my core values and gives us the community and one-ness of which you write. Tikkun olam, or the value of healing the world, speaks to my heart.
Because we've chosen to raise our (hypothetical) kids Jewish, I can only imagine what sort of questions will arise in the future! I think you handled it well.
Sorry to be commenting so frequently...
De-lurking just to say: Beautiful, beautiful! Thank you so much for this. You've echoed so many things that I've felt and thought and occasionally said about the church. I was raised Methodist and felt out of step with the fact that most of the people doing the talking seemed more concerned with hating the sin than with loving the "sinner." I married a non-denominationally spiritual man whose parents are devout Catholics and are very unhappy with the fact that Dan and I haven't found a church here that we're both comfortable enough with to have our son, Max, baptised in. I want our Max to know and understand and love his grandma and grandpa, and part of that is understanding that their faith is very, very important to them, but I'm not sure how that translates to the fact that we aren't and won't ever be included in a lot of ways in their church, and I'm not sure how I'll explain that to him. Your church sounds like a wonderful one--you're lucky to have it.
Oh, and I love that you're local too. We moved to the Alexandria area two and a half years ago, and your post about CityZen last week was heaven for foodies like the hub and I. 
I just had to comment. I, too, was raised SBC. Even went to and graduated Baptist College and Seminary.
Then I discovered the *gasp* Catholic Church.
Long story short....making the move cost me many of whom I considered to be life long friends. It was not a decision easily undertaken nor lightly made, and I am STILL convinced that it was the right decision.
It's a paradox, isn't it, that God and Faith, what should bring people together, is often what seperates them?
Thanks for the post.
Rick
Why Is Communion for Catholics Only?"
This is one of the best posts I have ever read. Catholicism can be such a hard one to swallow. As a teen I used to ask my mother why oh why did we have to be Catholics. She said part of it was a faith and part of it, for her, was the comfort of knowing that so many across the world were going through the exact same ritual as we were every Sunday.
A reciprocity would be a lovely thing. I hope it happens.
But the Catholic thing sits deep in one's soul. A few years ago I was at a wedding in Mexico City and my girlfriend, who had was not Catholic and had of course never received First Communion, took Communion at the wedding mass. I thought the church just might burn to the ground right there and then!
hi, it may be providential (ha, ha) that i read this as i wait for the last pie to finish baking...found you through sweet juniper and always enjoy your comments there so here i am.
first, just wanted to say that this is one of the best things i've read about religion on the blogosphere. your pov is so in line with ours (and we are catholics, liberal ones at that) in what the true purpose of being a christian is, and why we are what we are. second, just so you know, i have been to many, many catholic parishes/services etc. where the celebrant invites all who believe in the table of the lord to enjoy his communion. just b/c it's not official doesn't mean that the voice of the faithful and the spirit doesn't exist in a very real way. i have also attended services where the officiant will make it very clear who is and whois not welcome, usually at weddings which is why out of respect to the couple i don't storm out in protest. i used to be offended by people who would receive communion who weren't catholic, i thought it was disrespectful but now i see it as just another way to unite us in a common goal for the kingdom. jesus never turned anyone away, even non-Jews, so why on earth would we? it no longer bothers me if a sincere non-catholic receives the Eucharist (vs. a non xian woman I know who decided to try it and see what all the magic was about, that to me was offensive.) for the purpose of communion.
however, the theology major in me would like to point out that the basic reason why the catholic church restricts who may receive comes down to the fact that we believe the bread and wine literally changes into jesus' own body and blood (vs. a symbol/representation, etc) and unless you've gone through RCIA or similar prep as a child, you might not be able to fully appreciate what all receipt of the Eucharist requires in it's partakers. as in, when we choose to receive, what it calls us to do as disciples, that being in communion with each other and our mission as baptised members of the church is as required to fully receive as parts of christ's body/the church. i know it seems like semantics, and i certainly don't think one is better than the other, just that parsing theology and the differences between catholicism and others is an interest of mine. i'm sorry if that sounded condescending, i get a little full of my own wind sometimes. but there are real reasons as to why the Eucharist is protected and given to those who believe specifically what we believe.
anyway just wanted to say you have such a refreshing attitude- one that the world needs for reconciliation with each other. ecumenism has a long way to go before the average believer will be able to look at sincere members of other faiths and say "you're ok and so am i." thanks for this piece/peace.
ps love your name for your girl- my mom nicknamed me petunia when i was "knee-high to a gnat" we call the pnut sweet-pea sometimes to pay it forward. happy thanksgiving!
Just FWI, Lutherans and Episcopalians share a common understanding with Roman Catholics (and Eastern Orthodox) of the sacrament of Holy Communion -- that those who partake receive the real body and blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
The relevant issue is that raised in the link to www.catholic.com
"The Church holds that to receive the Eucharist we must believe all that the Catholic Church officially teaches as coming from Christ. To take two examples, it is necessary for Catholics to believe that the pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth and that the Virgin Mary was immaculately conceived in her mother’s womb. Do you believe these things? ... The Catholic Church follows ancient Christian practice on this matter. Ancient Christians believed that we cannot partake of the Eucharist unless we believe the Christian faith. You see this idea in Justin Martyr’s First Apology (1:66), which is quoted in our current Catechism in section 1355: "Because this bread and wine have been made Eucharist, we call this food Eucharist, and no one may partake in it unless he believes that what we teach is true, has received baptism for the forgiveness of sins and new birth, and lives in keeping with what Christ taught." In other words, to receive the Eucharist you must believe that these teachings are from Christ."
The Roman Catholic Church believes that it is the one true repository of the Christian Faith. To not believe in all Catholic teachings is to not be truly a Christian. And only true Christians are welcome at the altar to receive the Eucharistic meal.
One of the reasons why I am a Lutherand and not a Catholic is precisely because I do not believe that the Catholic Church in Rome is the sole inheritor of the Word of Christ. And so the Catholic Church respectfully requests that I refrain from partaking in the Eucharist, which they understand (as Merseydotes points out, in her reference to RCIA) as a meal shared only with those who have a common understanding of Christ's teachings.
Other churches share this concept of the Eucharist as a meal available only to those already part of the Christian church in which it is celebrated. Missouri Synod Lutherans explicitly request that only members celebrate the Eucharist in their churches -- although their emphasis is on Biblical words about fellowship, and their belief that the early church restricted its fellowship to those who were in full agreement on all tenets of the faith. (There's an allusion to this in the Catholic teaching above, too.)
Either you understand the Eucharist in this way or you do not. I (and Merseydotes, it seems) do not understand the Eucharist in this way. As a Lutheran, I believe that Christ comes to us through God's Grace, and not through anything that I by my own will can do. So restricting the Eucharist only to those who profess a right understanding of its sacramental qualities, to my Lutheran understanding (keeping in mind it's not the ONLY Lutheran
[Did this get cut off? Goodness I went on and on here.]
Either you understand the Eucharist in this way or you do not. I (and Merseydotes, it seems) do not understand the Eucharist in this way. As a Lutheran, I believe that Christ comes to us through God's Grace, and not through anything that I by my own will can do. So restricting the Eucharist only to those who profess a right understanding of its sacramental qualities, to my Lutheran understanding (keeping in mind it's not the ONLY Lutheran understanding), casts aside the role of God's grace in coming to God's people in the body and blood of Jesus, regardless of what they might or might not believe about the elements in the Eucharist. Moroever, restricting Communion only to those willing to avow certain beliefs belies the example of Jesus, who shared his life and his salvation with all people.
We can be in dialogue about these issues, appreciating the witness that different people have of Jesus' teaching and message. But ultimately, different churches disagree about whether Communion should be open to all or not. I'm inspired by Merseydotes' story that this issue was one that led her to her current church home. I know people who couldn't tell you one basic teaching of their church, and who joined because they liked the minister or the dress code. (Hmmm, that sounds pretty judgemental there. Oops.)
Merseydotes, I'm so sorry that you were excluded from the Eucharist at your father's funeral. I attended a Catholic University which prided itself on its Ecumenism, and at my sophomore year convocation, the presiding minister referred to the Eucharist as the meal on which our community -- the community of students, faculty, and staff in that place -- was built. And yet I was excluded, because my Christianity was found lacking. It was a painful period for me -- it just hurts to be told, "this meal is the definition of our life together in Christ, and you can't come." Especially on a day when you're celebrating the earthly life of your father-in-law and looking forward with hope to the resurrection.
I'm glad you found a church family where the Eucharistic understanding better fits your understanding of Jesus' message. I hope your former priest is right, and the body of the church which is universal is able to heal these divions within itself soon.
pnutsmom, Thanks for your very thoughtful comments, but I'd disagree a little about the preparation. The Catholic church requires more than preparation (through RCIA or first communion readiness) - it requires absolute commitment to the church from its members. Otherwise, my formerly-faithful-Catholic husband would still be allowed to receive.
But it is great to know that there are parishes out there that welcome all to the altar. Those priests are probably risking excommunication by doing so, and they are very brave to promote their own view of the Church of God in defiance of the Catholic church's position on this issue.
Jody, the passage you quoted from the www.catholic.com article really bothers me. The quote from the Catechism says, "...no one may partake in it unless he believes that what we teach is true, has received baptism for the forgiveness of sins and new birth, and lives in keeping with what Christ taught..." but the Catholic church clearly places more value on the belief of truth than in the "lives keeping with what Christ taught." If the church truly valued all those things equally, then anyone whose life disagrees with church teachings (eg, anyone who uses birth control - a position very recently reaffirmed by U.S. bishops) would be denied communion as well. But somehow, belief (proven through membership in the Catholic church) is the sole litmus test for receiving communion.
Also, Jody, one of the things that bothered me most about RCIA is that it is called the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults - not the Rite of CATHOLIC Initiation for Adults. I am and have been a Christian my whole life. If I had chosen to become a member of the Catholic church, I would not need to be initiated as a Christian - only as a Catholic.
Merseydotes, those things bother me enormously too. It's why I'm not Catholic.
I apologize for going on and on in your comments, I was responding to a few of the commentators (including the one who just left the link to the Catholic.com piece I quoted and departed) who seemed to think that if you (or I) just understood the Catholic position better, we would accept it.
I personally don't accept the Catholic understanding of what it means to be The Church, and to be Christian. My understanding of their teachings is just fine, thanks.
I hope it's clear that I'm in complete agreement with you on this, and sympathize with your dilemmas.
Jody, I don't think FS was implying that if we understood better, we'd accept. I know him personally very well and know that he doesn't have a position at all on the Catholic church's position on communion. I think he was just trying to show what the church's response would be in their own words, in the sense of trying to inform the discussion - not to try and align himself with the content of that link. (FS, jump in if I'm wrong here.)
Chalk it up to the imprecision of the blogosphere, especially when friends in real life (me and FS) have a certain rapport that doesn't necessarily come across online...
This is a very interesting and well-thought-out post. I loved reading it. I won’t go into my opinions about the Catholic Church, but I did want to write to say that I have pondered, on so many occasions, about how I will ever explain religious differences to my son. My husband’s entire family is devout Catholics, but my husband was excommunicated from the church. When/where I grew up, religion was a nonexistent issue. Religion and communism did not mix, and so religion was not at all part of my early upbringing. Eastern Orthodoxy did make a strong comeback starting in the early 90s, and my family back home now celebrates major Christian holidays--on Eastern Orthodox calendar. At nearly 3 years old, my son is pretty excited about having two Christmases (Dec. 25 and Jan. 7) and two Easters (two weeks apart). But I know at some point he will begin questioning why baby Jesus has two birthdays; why one set of his grandparents goes to church every week and the other set of grandparents never goes; why his aunt and uncle are offered communion in their church and his parents aren’t; why his cousins tell him that he will never go to heaven because he is not Catholic; etc. I guess my main concern is not about how to explain to him that different people do different things--but how to explain why some religions/denominations are so self-exclusive.
Yes, I think I can safely say that, as an atheist, I have no position on whether open or closed communion is correct. The link just struck me as a fairly clear statement of the Catholic church's position on the subject.
Merseydotes, I imagine you're well familiar with the fact that, growing up Baha'i, I had my fair share of Petunia-like experiences. My dad's parents are Lutheran and if I stayed over at their place, I'd go to church with my grandmother. As a child, I was indeed hurt that I didn't get the "cracker and Kool-Aid" that the others got. And it wasn't really explained to me why, either (all I knew was that I was hungry!). However, as I got older, and understood more about different denominations (my mother was raised Catholic, too), I did come to understand why I wasn't included. My mother, although no longer Catholic, holds it close in her heart and has conveyed to me the meaning that it has for Catholics.
On the other hand, it did probably play a part in keeping me Baha'i - exclusivity is, as it is for you, something I just can't abide by.
Sorry about the mis-understanding.
To answer the actual question about kids and religious difference, we try to stick to facts: "Catholics believe only other Catholics should receive communion in their churches" should work just fine for now. A variation on the our-house, our-rules reality.
As for the crucifix, I think you handled it great. Later, you can try the old Lutheran line (old because it's gone out of style theologically as Lutherans have gotten more comfortable with crucifixes again): Protestants emphasize the empty cross and the resurrection. Catholics empthasize Jesus suffering on the cross for our redemption. They're both important parts of the story.
Again, sorry for the misunderstanding.
I just hopped over from Finslippy. This was a very powerful post. It seems like I'm reading a lot of posts about faith and religion lately: you, Finslippy, Amalah...and I wonder if it's God's way of telling me that I'm not the only one hurting right now for things lost. I grew up in a Lutheran church and my husband grew up Presbyterian and lately he told me he no longer believes Jesus was the divine son of God. This has shaken me and neither of us can find a church where we feel we belong. Anyway - it seems you've found what you needed...I pray I do, too.
Commenting by HaloScan
