### The Background A baptized and confirmed Catholic married a Protestant in a Protestant church without permission. About the marriage: - The marriage covenant was made with the full understanding of what a Christian marriage meant in the eyes of God (*cf*. CCC 1601-1620): a solemn covenant between two baptized Christians, with full consent (*cf*. CCC 1625-1632), for life, for the purpose of procreation, etc. - The celebration of marriage was similar to CCC 1621-1624 and similar to the canonical form, except: - officiated by a valid Protestant minister instead of a Catholic priest/deacon - CCC 1621: instead of in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, it's made in the presence of Christ in the Protestant ceremony - CCC 1622: instead of receiving the sacrament of penance, the couple confess sin to one another in Christ - The couple has lived honoring the marriage bond and obligations like a Catholic marriage should be (even without contraception), thus realizing The Effects of the Sacrament of Matrimony (*cf*. CCC 1638-1642), The Goods and Requirements of Conjugal Love (*cf*. CCC 1643-1654), and The Domestic Church (*cf*. CCC 1655-1658). - The couple is raising the kids as Protestants although in a denomination that is not hostile to the Catholic Church. The couple is also attending a conservative Protestant church regularly and bring up their kids there as good Christians who love the Lord. Let's say it's [ACNA](https://anglicanchurch.net/) , a more conservative Anglican denomination than the Church of England. **Now the Catholic has second thoughts** and wants to go back to being in a state of grace and receive the Catholic sacraments. But the spouse wants to remain in the Protestant church and does not allow the kids to attend the Catholic church, although the spouse gives full freedom for the Catholic to practice the faith EXCEPT to teach the kids one or two Catholic doctrines that the spouse doesn't agree, such as praying to Mary. **THIS IS TRULY A TESTAMENT TO THE WARNING GIVEN IN [CCC 1634](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1634.htm).** Therefore, although the spouse is more ecumenical than a typical Protestant, the Catholic cannot fully discharge the obligation spelled out in Can. 1125 §1 but made the best effort: > the Catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power so that all offspring are baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church; For sure, the Catholic has to receive absolutions for the following: - Have been away from the Catholic church - Have contracted a mixed marriage outside the church without exemption But I was taken aback at [Geremia's answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/90364/10672) that **fornication** needs to be repented. Is this true when the marriage is lived as described above? ### The Question Given the limitation that the spouse is not willing to convert and to raise the kids fully within the Catholic church (although she is not hostile to most of the teachings), **according to the Catholic Church**, what else does this Catholic need to do beyond confessing the two sins above and continue raising the kids in the Lord as Catholic as possible? Three related questions: 1. [CCC 1623](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1623.htm) says that > According to Latin tradition, the spouses as ministers of Christ's grace **mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony** by expressing their consent before the Church. ... Although the "Church" here is a [Protestant ecclesial community](https://www.irishtimes.com/news/pope-says-other-churches-not-churches-in-proper-sense-1.949220) , it appears that this Catholic can remain in this Protestant marriage (as described above) without committing fornication, or is this not true? 2. It DOES appear that the [marriage has to be convalidated](https://archden.org/marriage/marriage-convalidation/) since the Catholic married in a non-Catholic ceremony without an exemption from the Catholic church. But is the Protestant spouse consent / presence needed for the convalidation? A [*Catholic Answers* article](https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-can-i-do-about-my-invalid-marriage) suggests that this require radical sanation (Can. 1161 § 1) and in some cases the non-Catholic does not need to know (although it's preferable that the non-Catholic knows). But can radical sanation still be obtained even though the Catholic cannot perform Can. 1125 §1 to the full extent because of the spouse's opposition? 3. Modifying the case study a little, let's say the case is between a Protestant couple in which one wants to become Catholic but the other wants to remain Protestant and the kids need to be raised in the Protestant church. Is it an impediment for the would-be-Catholic to receive communion? Is marriage convalidation necessary / possible in this case? Is fornication committed without convalidation? ### Motivation for this question I believe there are many who are in this situation: who through Catholic evangelization effort now want to go back practicing Catholic but have a difficulty introduced by the Protestant spouse. Ultimately, this is an ecumenical question as all mainline denominations try to reconcile as much as they can without losing their distinctiveness.

[Thomas More](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More) , whose birthday it is today (7 February), was a strong defender of Catholic eucharistic theology. In his *Answer to a poisoned book* (1533), a reply to a [Zwinglian](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology_of_Huldrych_Zwingli#Eucharist) tract probably written by [George Joye](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Joye) , he wrote: > I shall, beside all such spiritual expositions as this man useth therein by way of allegories or parables, declare you the very literal sense of those words, "My flesh is verily meat, and my blood verily drink": so that that ye may see thereby that our saviour verily spake and meant, not only such a spiritual eating as Master Masker saith he only meant, but also the very bodily eating and drinking of his very flesh and blood indeed. 1 The basic dispute [depends upon what the meaning of the word "is" is](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0) , in the words of institution, and in other passages like the one quoted ([John 6:55](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:55&version=NRSVACE)) . Zwingli and Joye thought it meant "signifies". More asserts (among other arguments) that since Jesus had a body of flesh and blood, "This is my body" admits a literal reading, unlike when Jesus elsewhere says that he "is" a vine, a door, and so on. He says that although there are also symbolic meanings, a literal one cannot be wholly dismissed, since that would mean ignoring the plain words. Moreover, although one has to go to some effort to explain how it's possible (how Christ's body can be present in the Eucharist, at many places and times, appear as bread, etc.), it's more acceptable to believe in miracles than to remove all literal meaning from "is". At first glance this seems to be the same kind of argument made by Biblical literalists today about many other passages. Does More's reasoning - that it is necessary to find *some* plain reading if at all possible - count as a "literal" argument, according to a modern understanding about what that means? What rules or safeguards are present in the modern approach, whereby self-described literalists today are generally not led to consider transubstantiation a viable option in this case, when supernatural explanations are accepted in other cases? 1. [*The answer to the first part of the poysoned booke whych a nameles heretike hath named the supper of the Lord*](http://www.thomasmorestudies.org/1557Workes/Answer_poysoned_booke1.pdf) , 1.3. In *The workes of Sir Thomas More ... in the Englysh tonge* (London, 1557), p1042. Spelling and punctuation modernised by me.

I have seen several Old Catholic (Union of Scranton) clergy or affiliates claim that their churches (the Polish National Catholic Church and Nordic Catholic Church) enjoy “limited intercommunion” with the Roman Catholic Church (see X posting by Fr Calvin Robinson ) From a Roman Catholic perspective, is this claim true? Does the Roman Catholic Church under canon law regard itself as in limited intercommunion with the PNCC and NCC, or is this a one-sided view from the Old Catholics?

Irenaeus, in a letter addressed to Victor, the Bishop of Rome, pleads with him to him to not cut off unity on the Asian dioceses that celebrated Easter with a different tradition: > For the controversy is not merely as regards the day, but also as > regards the form itself of the fast. For some consider themselves > bound to fast one day, others two days, others still more, while > others [do so during] forty: the diurnal and the nocturnal hours they > measure out together as their [fasting] day. And this variety among > the observers [of the fasts] had not its origin in our time, but long > before in that of our predecessors, some of whom probably, being not > very accurate in their observance of it, handed down to posterity the > custom as it had, through simplicity or private fancy, been > [introduced among them]. And yet nevertheless all these lived in peace > one with another, and we also keep peace together. Thus, in fact, the > difference [in observing] the fast establishes the harmony of [our > common] faith. And the presbyters preceding Soter in the government of > the Church which you now rule — I mean, Anicetus and Pius, Hyginus and > Telesphorus, and Sixtus — did neither themselves observe it [after > that fashion], nor permit those with them to do so. Notwithstanding > this, those who did not keep [the feast in this way] were peacefully > disposed towards those who came to them from other dioceses in which > it was [so] observed although such observance was [felt] in more > decided contrariety [as presented] to those who did not fall in with > it; and none were ever cast out [of the Church] for this matter. On > the contrary, those presbyters who preceded you, and who did not > observe [this custom], sent the Eucharist to those of other dioceses > who did observe it. And when the blessed Polycarp was sojourning in > Rome in the time of Anicetus, although a slight controversy had arisen > among them as to certain other points, they were at once well inclined > towards each other [with regard to the matter in hand], not willing > that any quarrel should arise between them upon this head. For neither > could Anicetus persuade Polycarp to forego the observance [in his own > way], inasmuch as these things had been always [so] observed by John > the disciple of our Lord, and by other apostles with whom he had been > conversant; nor, on the other hand, could Polycarp succeed in > persuading Anicetus to keep [the observance in his way], for he > maintained that he was bound to adhere to the usage of the presbyters > who preceded him. And in this state of affairs they held fellowship > with each other; and Anicetus conceded to Polycarp in the Church the > celebration of the Eucharist, by way of showing him respect; so that > they parted in peace one from the other, maintaining peace with the > whole Church, both those who did observe [this custom] and those who > did not. Contained within the previous quote, there is a statement mentioning earlier presbyters that had diverse customs that remained in communion and shared in the Eucharist despite these differences. In 1964 the Second Vatican Council published the Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio , where this statement is made: > Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose > certain rifts,(19) which the Apostle strongly condemned.(20) But in > subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their > appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full > communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of > both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these > Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of > the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces > upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe > in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the > Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The > differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the > Catholic Church - whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or > concerning the structure of the Church - do indeed create many > obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. > The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But > even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified > by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body,(21) and have a right > to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by > the children of the Catholic Church.(22) The Magisterium admits that there are "brothers" in the faith, as they share in the essentials of the faith. Despite this admission, the Catholic church practices closed communion where they do not offer the Eucharist to these fellow "brothers". How does the Catholic church interpret Irenaeus' more ecumenical approach to sharing in the Eucharist? I am aware that there are many other denominations that practice closed communion, but I'd like to narrow this down to a Catholic response.

My understanding is that while it is permissible for a Catholic to attend Church services at a Lutheran church (assuming they're still meeting their Catholic obligations to attend Mass at a Catholic church on Sundays and holy days of obligations), a Catholic should not participate in the actual receiving of communion at the Lutheran church. Is this actually accurate, and is it documented somewhere (e.g. in canon law or other official teachings of the Catholic church)? And what are the stated reasons for this practice, assuming I'm correct in my understanding? As a concrete example, if a Catholic is married to a Christian of a denomination not in full communion with the Catholic church, what explanation might they give to their extended family as to why they abstain from Communion at their spouse's church? Or to their children, given the Catholic parent's responsibility to bring up their children in the Catholic Church (per [Can. 1125](https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib4-cann998-1165_en.html#CHAPTER_VI.)) .

Why do some denominations require parishoners to go get the bread and wine while others serve the congregation? I read bread broken and prayed for, given, then eaten. After this was done wine was prayed for and given then they drank. Would seem to me the items were passed.

From the Wikipedia article on [Eucharistic miracles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_miracle) : > In Christianity, a Eucharistic miracle is any miracle involving the Eucharist. In the Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Eastern Orthodox, Methodist, Anglican and Oriental Orthodox Churches, the fact that Christ is really made manifest in the Eucharist is deemed a Eucharistic miracle; however, this is to be distinguished from other manifestations of God. The Catholic Church distinguishes between divine revelation, such as the Eucharist, and private revelation, such as Eucharistic miracles. **In general, reported Eucharistic miracles usually consist of unexplainable phenomena such as consecrated Hosts visibly transforming into myocardium tissue, being preserved for extremely long stretches of time, surviving being thrown into fire, bleeding, or even sustaining people for decades**. The same article includes a list of [extraordinary Eucharistic miracles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_miracle#Extraordinary_Eucharistic_miracles) . What is the Protestant view on these miracles? _______ Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/22765/50422

What is the biblical basis for in the catholic theology of a priest being "*in persona christi*"? The idea that only a Priest can conduct the New Testament Passover meal that Christ told us to "do in remembrance of Him" was for all believers surely? Why is it that in Catholicism the Priest is essentially "*in persona Christi*" and is therefore the only way for a "valid" communion meal? Where in the Bible is the justification for a Priest being *in persona Christi*? (an emphasis especially on the Eucharistic sacrament please, but also interested in the theology as a whole). Thank you.

I am trying to understand the Lutheran doctrine of Communion. Lutherans believe that Christ "gives us his true body and blood in, with, and under the consecrated bread and wine" (*Small Catechism with explanation* Concordia Publishing House, 352). They believe that Christ's real presence is there whether the communicant believes it or not (353), because the presence of Christ is established by the words of Jesus that are read during the ceremony. While my Small Catechism doesn't say this, I am also of the understanding that the real presence is also not dependent on the faith of the pastor leading the ceremony. In this way, a communicant does not need to worry about whether the pastor or the congregation is faithful; Christ's word is sufficient for him to be sure that he is in fact receiving Christ's body and blood for his forgiveness. However, Lutherans apparently believe that, at churches (such as Baptists) who do not affirm the real presence, Christ is *not* present in the communion elements, even if the words of institution are read. This appears to also be the case even if the communicant believes that Christ is present in the elements at such a church. I don't understand how those ideas can be reconciled. **If it is Christ's words, not the faith of the recipient nor the faith of the minister, that effectuates the real presence of Christ in Communion, how is it that that word is ineffective if the sacrament is administered in a church of the wrong denomination?** Perhaps one might say that if most or almost all of the congregation doesn't believe in real presence, then Christ's body will not be really present. But then we lose that assurance solely in Christ's Word that he is really present and we must also trust the congregation that we are with. Is there something that I am missing here? How do Lutherans reconcile these beliefs? *Note:* I am not asking whether or not Lutherans are correct on this issue. I am asking asking whether the Lutheran beliefs about Communion are internally consistent. If I have misunderstood any part of the Lutheran doctrines here, please let me know what I got wrong.

Lk 22:19 describes the institution of the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist: > And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”. Evidently, the pieces of bread that Jesus made,weren't uniform in shape or size. Over a period of time, making of hosts for Holy Communion , got standardised . The Catholic Church now uses perfectly round- shaped hosts. As a practice small hosts are cut out of wafer of larger size, entailing rejection of the pieces between circles. Nature gives a lead to minimising waste when a large surface is divided into smaller unit, the best example being of the beehive. It has hexangular columns that promote both strength and economy of space. My question is : Does the Catholic Church have a standard protocol for preparation of hosts ? If it does, did it ever consider redesigning the hosts in production, for the purpose of minimising left-over ? PS: I did post the question on ingredients and shape of hosts at https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/71046/what-are-the-church-laws-governing-ingredients-and-shapes-of-altar-bread-in-the , but have to been able to get conclusive answers on the shape. Hence this attempt.

Lutherans believe in a real, physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist, similar to Catholics. However they also believe that the bread and wine remain as bread and wine even after consecration. Does this belief that the bread is still bread (despite also being God) prevent Lutherans from engaging in eucharistic adoration/worship out of fear of idolatry? If not, can you please provide some examples of situations in which Lutherans engage in such adoration? Does it happen during the liturgy? Does it happen outside the liturgy?

Mark 14:20 >And he said unto them, [It is] one of the twelve, he that dippeth with me in the dish. Luke 22:21 >But behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. He doesn't single Judas out at all here. Matthew 26:25 >And Judas, who betrayed him, answered and said, Is it I, Rabbi? He saith unto him, Thou hast said. Plenty of others asked in turn if they would be the one, and when Judas asks, Jesus seems to reply affirmatively. Did he do so quietly? Was no one else paying attention? John 13:26 >Jesus therefore answereth, He it is, for whom I shall dip the sop, and give it him. So when he had dipped the sop, he taketh and giveth it to Judas, [the son] of Simon Iscariot. Again, why wasn't this noticed or remarked upon, or acted upon by anyone? Did they not believe what he was telling them? Did they not find Judas' subsequent hasty departure suspicious? John extends the incident a bit further: John 13:27-30 >And after the sop, then entered Satan into him. Jesus therefore saith unto him, What thou doest, do quickly. **Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake this unto him.** For some thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus said unto him, Buy what things we have need of for the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor. He then having received the sop went out straightway: and it was night. [bold mine] How could they not have known, when he straight out told them what was going to happen and who was going to do it? How could any of them think "Hey the guy that Jesus just said is going to betray him is probably just running off to the shops to get some more food, probably for the poor."

The accepted answer on https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/248/how-long-was-jesus-in-the-tomb/3107#3107 would only have been possible if the Last Supper was not the Passover meal, which I had always thought it was. Was the Last Supper in fact not the Passover meal?

For those that believe in transubstantiation, that the bread and wine of the Eucharist literally become the flesh and blood of Christ, why were there no schisms concerning this within the Early Church IF this is what they believed and taught? The Noahide Covenant and the Mosaic Law not only both expressly forbid the consumption of blood - with the penalty of being cut off from Israel - but it is one of the few commands deemed essential for Gentile converts to follow as well, despite not being under the Mosaic Law. It is thus not simply a matter of ceremonial cleanliness at stake; but an ex-communicable offense. The early church itself was composed of Jewish converts who carried with them their previous beliefs. This led to controversies like demanding that Gentiles get circumcised and to those who claimed within the church that there was no resurrection (like the Sadducees) as well as to controversies over what food they were permitted to eat amongst Gentiles. Such concerns are clearly reflective of Jewish religious life back when. Now, if the disciples and apostles had gone around preaching that the Eucharist literally was flesh and BLOOD - do you not think that this would have caused not a little controversy amongst the Jewish Christians? Would not Paul have to defend why he was not cut off from Israel - let alone how Gentiles are grafted onto Israel - if they routinely committed an excommunicatable offense? And even if fellow Christians could be convinced of the matter - it surely would have been a point of objection from those Jewish authorities that sought to persecute the Church; like Paul prior to his conversion. Yet the biblical testimony is absolutely silent on such a controversy. Nor, again, do the Church Fathers record such a controversy; even in their lengthy volumes recording actual or fictional conversations with Jews. The closest we get are apologies against those who assert that Christians were cannibals - a valid claim IF the Eucharist is literal flesh and blood.

If whenever communion occurs the bread and wine literally become Christ's body and blood then how is there enough of Christ's body to last for undoubtedly thousands of communion events every day for the past 2000 years? That would be millions of pounds of bread and wine over time. How is this explained in the transubstantiation belief system? I assume somebody has had to have wondered this before. Is it explained away by saying that the bread isn't *really* the body, but it *really* is? Does God just perform a miracle and allow Christ's body to become theoretically infinite in mass?

According to the book "The Latin Mass Explained ", all of the ancient Christian churches that exist today celebrate the mass as a literal sacrifice of Christ, indicating this was the core ritual that they all shared, even though they went their separate theological ways. The Catholic mass itself is based on the situation of the early church in Rome, since the name is from the dismissal of non-Catholics before the sacrifice of the Eucharist, so this indicates the Catholic mass has been unchanged in its essential function as a sacrifice since the earliest days of the Christians in Rome. Here is a good article showing this is what the Catholic church believes, and a run down of evidence from church fathers that this was the early belief as well. Protestantism often claims to be true to proto-Christianity, what the earliest Christians believed, and in doing so has rejected all the man made rituals built up around this essential seed of the Christian life. Yet, Protestantism, as a whole, seems to have rejected the core function of the mass (as evidenced by this question ), which seems to be consistent with our best evidence as to the early purpose of the mass. So, this is confusing to me, since this suggests that Protestantism is not holding to the core ritual of the earliest form of Christianity. How do Protestants address this apparent discrepancy between the stated intent of Protestantism vs. what the evidence seems to suggest? UPDATE: Many see this question as similar to other questions asking about the Protestant take on transubstantiatio/real presence. This question is different, since while some Protestant groups (Lutheran, Calvinist, Anglican) accept a doctrine similar to transubstantiation, no Protestant groups think the eucharist/communion is a literal sacrifice. However, based on the two lines of evidence above, that all ancient churches we know of viewed the eucharist as a literal sacrifice of Christ, and there are many writings of the early church fathers saying the same thing, then it is quite unexpected that no Protestant groups hold a similar view. Since the basis of Protestantism is rejecting man made rituals to return to original Christianity, it is surprising that all Protestants reject what appears to be a doctrine that all ancient churches considered the central purpose of their religious liturgy. I'm curious how Protestants deal with this discrepancy, since I've never heard anyone address it (I've heard many address the transubstantiation question). CLARIFICATION: This question isn't about the Catholic church. I just cite it as a source of evidence I'm most familiar with. However, the issue is broader than the Catholic church. It includes churches that think the Catholic church is heretical, and visa versa. It includes churches that respect the Catholic church, and churches that don't. The weird thing, which my question is about, is that all these ancient churches have the same thing in common, which is the eucharist as a literal sacrifice of Christ, suggesting this aspect is central to original Christianity.

This is a question I've often had, why exactly a non-Catholic is prohibited from taking the eucharist , if they believe the correct things about the eucharist, and are following Jesus teachings. Whenever I've found an answer, normally it is that Protestants and other non-Catholics who are not in communion with the Catholic church (some orthodox excluded) would bring harm upon themselves because they don't recognize Christ's presence in the eucharist, i.e. transubstantiation, even though logic of transubstantiation was not formalized until the 11th century. However, there are a couple of problems with this answer. First, anywhere from 1/3 to 2/3 of US Catholics believe the eucharist is just a symbol . Yet, if 1/3 of the congregation suddenly dropped dead from taking the eucharist unworthily, as Paul warns, I'm sure it'd be noticeable. Nor are any of them holding back. While a Catholic service for other nationalities tends to have many holding back, US Catholics are not shy at all about lining up to receive the eucharist. Nor are the confession rates very high (less than 1/2 just once a year), so odds are very high that a US Catholic is taking the the eucharist both with the wrong understanding and wrong moral disposition. So, there doesn't seem to be a lack of opportunity for US Catholics to keel over en masse from taking the eucharist unworthily. However, as far as I'm aware, there is no evidence this is happening. Thus, taking the eucharist unworthily seems more a theoretical concern than a realistic concern, at least as far as physical well being goes. Perhaps only spiritual well being is the concern, but this is not what Paul warns about in 1 Corinthians 11:29-30, he specifically mentions people becoming physically sick and dying from taking the eucharist unworthily. > For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. Spiritual harm is pretty hard to know evidentially if there is no physical consequences. However, accepting that taking the eucharist unworthily spiritually kills someone, without physical effect, this would only be a problem for those spiritually alive. Yet those outside the Catholic church are either already spiritually dead (how can you kill a dead thing?), or they are an "ecclesiastical community" and spiritually alive. And if they are considered spiritually alive, believe in the real presence, and are morally disposed, then how would taking the eucharist be of spiritual harm? Which brings me to the next point. There are a number of other non-Catholics who do recognize the real presence in one way or another, but are also denied communion: some Orthodox, ancient churches considered heretical by Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Calvinists, some non-denominational Christians, etc. Yet, all of these are barred from taking the eucharist, even though they are observing Paul's warning. Maybe because they don't believe the precise correct thing about the confection of the eucharist, that it has to be done by a priest with a valid ordination coming down from the pope, then that causes some kind of problem. Maybe they have a Protestant priesthood of believers perspective, or don't believe in papal supremacy. But, this makes taking the eucharist worthily dependent on doctrines that weren't officially declared until centuries after Christ came to earth. What happened to everyone before transubstantiation and papal supremacy were defined? Another weird thing about this line of thought is that the priest could be a complete atheist and moral reprobate, and still validly confect the eucharist, yet for someone to take the eucharist worthily requires correct belief about a host of tricky theological subjects and be in a state of grace. Another answer I've heard is that taking the eucharist is a communal activity, and so groups not part of the Catholic community shouldn't take the eucharist. However, there are many non-Catholics that are very dedicated to the cause of Christ. For instance, evangelical Protestants, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses in the US are [much more likely] to follow Catholic moral teachings on abortion than a US Catholic. The orthodox believe in all the same essentials as Catholics, except for papal primacy, although they believe the pope is the "first among equals". Yet only a portion of the orthodox church is allowed to take the eucharist at a Catholic church. Conversely, a significant chunk of US Catholics that take communion don't believe in following church authority, seemingly at all, as mentioned above. Yet, there is never much concern about them taking the eucharist. Very occasionally will a public personality be barred, who has publicly stated they hold to a position clearly at odds with Catholic teaching, such as abortion, but such barring of any Catholic almost never happens. So, it is unclear exactly what being part of the Catholic community means that is relevant for taking the eucharist. A potential aspect to the answer I want to distinguish. There is the canon law aspect, where it is clear that taking the eucharist is prohibited for all non-Catholics unless there is a special declared exception. So, an [answer stating "the canon law says so"] is not quite what I'm looking for. Rather, I'm trying understand a more fundamental aspect, which is the "wherefore". It doesn't appear concern for physical well being is a realistic concern, as explained above from lack of evidence that physical harm is caused. Spiritual well being could be an answer, since there doesn't need to be tangible evidence of harm, but this is an answer that is hard for me to understand the logical consistency. Nor does the communal aspect make a lot of sense, since the Catholic position bars many who are in line with Catholic moral law and Christ's mission, and accepts many who are not. So, if someone knows a "wherefore" that avoids the sorts of answers I have already covered, or at least clears up my misunderstandings, I would be quite interested to hear. UPDATE: I'm wrong about the Orthodox. Looks like they are all allowed , at least by the Catholic church but maybe not from their side, to received eucharist at a Catholic church. UPDATE 2: Another sort of answer that I think misses the mark is one to the effect of "allowing non-Catholics to take the eucharist gives a false impression of unity". The problem with this sort of answer is that it is barring the eucharist based on symbolism, instead of something that actually happens to the people taking the eucharist. If the person is correctly disposed to take the eucharist, i.e. believes it is truly the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus and is in a state of grace after confession, then the eucharist should be efficacious. Jesus says the eucharist is a life saving medicine, i.e. gives people eternal life. So, whatever symbolism of the act that would be secondary to the life saving effect of the eucharist, just like a US field hospital would give life saving treatment to a captured enemy combatant. Ironically, this symbolism based reasoning is similar to the Zwinglian perspective that the eucharist is just a symbol, so it is strange for that to be a Catholic rationale. Conversely, as mentioned, many Catholics take the eucharist who don't recognize church authority or perhaps even Christ, just out of cultural or social conformity, and are thus more out of unity with the church than a true believer who is not Catholic. Yet, there is no effort whatsoever to remedy this actual lack of unity, and only effort to remedy the symbolic lack of unity.

They all have some quotes which seem to support it and others which seem to deny it. Here are just a few. > Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He **made** it His own body, by saying, “This is my body,” that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. This seems like it could be interpreted a number of ways...but if it was solely just a metaphor, why would Jesus "make it" his body? If it's not actually his body, what is he "making it"? > Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, **supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh**, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, “It is the spirit that quickens;” and then added, “The flesh profits nothing,”— meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit The way this is phrased makes it seem like it's not literally Christ's flesh. Iraneus says something similar: > For when the Greeks, having arrested the slaves of Christian catechumens, then used force against them, in order to learn from them some secret thing [practised] among Christians, these slaves, having nothing to say that would meet the wishes of their tormentors, except that they had heard from their masters that the divine communion was the body and blood of Christ, and **imagining that it was actually flesh and blood**, gave their inquisitors answer to that effect. Lost Fragments XIII

As I understand it, the doctrine of transubstantiation maintains that bread and wine *literally*\* become the body and blood of Christ... yet it is impossible to detect this. That is, they do not materially change, so we don't and can't notice, nor can we scientifically show any change. I'm curious: how do Catholics support this view? Especially considering Jesus' statements that the bread and wine were His body and blood could easily be taken as symbolic. --- *In the literal sense of "literally".

The Catholic understanding of the celebration of the eucharist is that it is fundamentally a representation of Christ's sacrifice, and is a fulfillment of the Levitical sacrificial system. Are there Protestant denominations that continue this tradition of sacrificing God to Himself via the eucharist? To give some background as to why Catholics celebrate the eucharist this way, the reasoning is that sacrifice is a universal human expression of the ultimateness of God. It is not only about propitiation for sin. Mankind destructively sacrifices to God what is most materially precious to him to demonstrate that all he owns, including himself, belongs to God, and he is even willing to sacrifice his own life. The first instance of this is the sacrifices of Cain and Abel, which were not sacrifices as propitiation for sin, but rather sacrifices to indicate the supremacy of God above all created things. The Levitical sacrificial system is a continuation and elaboration of Abel's sacrifice, and sin propitiation is only one aspect of this system. That is why after Jesus' bloody sacrifice on the cross for our sins, and non bloody sacrifice during the institution of the Eucharist during the last supper, there is still a need for continual non bloody sacrifice, to still indicate God's supremacy. However, the Levitical system, and all previous sacrifices offered by humans are insufficient, since God is all sufficient and needs nothing from us, therefore nothing we can sacrifice to God is a worthy sacrifice. Jesus fixed this problem by offering God Himself, through Christ transubstantiated in the Eucharist, as a non bloody sacrifice during mass. So, that is why the Catholic church continues to offer the eucharist as a sacrifice of Christ, not because it doesn't believe Christ's death on the cross is all sufficient for forgiveness of sins, but because of the general institution of sacrifice as an expression of God's ultimateness, and only God is an adequate sacrifice for God. As a side note, this is why the Catholic understanding of the eucharistic sacrifice necessitates the doctrine of transubstantiation. If the bread and wine were not truly turned into Christ's divinity, then the eucharist would not truly be a sacrifice of God to Himself, and so we'd still have to be carrying on the Levitical animal sacrifice system, or something even more extreme.