Personal Eucharist


Although I am fully invested in Christ, I am not a regular participant in organized religious services, and am wondering if organized religious services are the only accepted vehicle for the Eucharist?

Could a small group (2 or more) engage in this sacrament and, if yes, what would need be included in the ceremony?

Thank you.


One of the people would need to be a priest and the “ceremony” would be the Mass.

Hello James,
For Lutherans, it would take an ordained pastor to be part of the small group. But there is also an aspect of the Eucharist that is “communion”, including the entirety of the Church Universal. So, ISTM, the idea of “Personal Eucharist” is an oxymoron.


The Eucharist may be distributed to the sick, and to those who CAN NOT attend Mass for valid reasons. This is done with appropriate prayers…

There is no approved circumstance where persons that just don’t want to go to Mass may validly receive the Eucharist.

Were a Priest to provide the Eucharist for such purposes, he would be in violation of church rules, and would be subject to disciplinary action by his Bishop or his religious superiors.

And I suspect that any persons engaging in such a perversion of the Eucharist would be endangering their souls.

If you choose not to participate in “organized religious services”, then you are cutting yourself off from the church. That is sad.

But not from Christ I believe.

“For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

I think there was no church anticipated in what Christ spoke above, nor do I infer that Jesus said to first build a church and THEN do this in remembrance of me.

And, I am really talking about Communion, so please excuse if I used the wrong term. Why, then, will this not be recognized by Jesus? I am only trying to understand with my mind as well as with my heart.


Well Jesus DID found His church upon Peter the Rock first, and only then celebrate His Eucharist.

Mind, He celebrated it in the context of the very formal communal Jewish liturgical celebration of Passover. With all the appropriate formal prayers, blessings and psalms, visits to the Temple etc etc. Not just, as you seem to think, at any ol’ ordinary weekday meal with no ceremony and no significant community participation or anything.

I would consider the Protestants making a spiritual communion with Christ as Catholics do. I find alot of the same sentiment and fruit of Christ in experience when sharing personal faith with Protestants.

What is different, though, is the reception of the Eucharist. The Eucharist has been the centrality of faith and worship since the beginning of Christianity. The great heresy was those who did not believe we are truly receiving the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ.

Afterall, the Lord knew the difficulty people would have in the Eucharist. So after feeding the 5,000, the Lord spoke to His apostles, disciples and followers about eating His flesh and blood. Many who heard this were repulsed and left Him. But the apostles did not. And Peter admitted where would they go…and that Jesus promised He would bring them eternal life.

Then in so many days, the apostles saw the entire context of Christ’s words at the Last Supper. And we are to ‘do’ Eucharist…‘Do this in memory of Me.’

So the implications of this is that we do not believe merely in words. The use of words has different meanings and responses to different people. Faith requires certitude.

Subsequently, the sacraments are non-arbitrary, non-issues of things of faith we do not continue discussing and arguing and debating. The Eucharist is the fulfillment of the Manna of Heaven in the desert, the image of Christ placed in a manager – an animal feeder.

Christ said He would always remain with us. He said He would give us His Comforter after He is gone, to teach us many things. So the Bible in itself is not the last source to find out more about Christ.

We find more about Christ through His Church, with the Apostles as the founders of churches. Christ is the cornerstone…a living Person, not just a word on a page in a book.

Scripture and Tradition – how we understand Christ from the Apostles and their practices, is how we define the Word of God. And the Word of God is the history of people…and when we become believers, our lives unite with all the people of faith in the Old Testament who lived way before us.

The Church and its history – the good and the bad, the virtues and the scandals – no different than the Jewish believers before us – have our history now as Christian…as John Paul II called us, we have our history now as fulfilled Jews. Our Vatican library reflects the final words of the Apostles that not enough books could ever be written about Him.

The Eucharist is the same part of God. We don’t debate. When we receive, we say ‘Amen’. The Eucharist is the key to living the celibate life, to enduring in the Cross, and accepting sufferings as redemptive.

It is also important to note chapter 6 of John’s gospel as Jesus’ definition of Eucharist. He clearly spells out that the Eucharist is truly His body and blood, soul and divinity. If the Eucharist were merely a symbolic sign of our union with Christ (the Protestant belief), Jesus would have clarified Himself then and there because many of his disciples left Him over the teaching of Transubstantiation.

If you want communion with fellow Christians than that means worshipping with them. If you want Communion with all Christians past, present, and future, that means the Eucharist, which means having an ordained priest and accepting Christianity as it was taught by Christians of the past.

Otherwise might I suggest grape juice and crackers, as many do.

No that is not “what I seem to think”, read the OP more carefully. The “any ol’ ordinary weekday meal” is insulting and unworthy of this discussion.


Yes, agree. But, in effect then, he was celebrating the Seder, which I believe is always celebrated in the home with family and close friends, but does not require a representative of the Church or Synagogue.



If there was no Church anticipated in what Christ spoke, why was it only spoken to men He chose and appointed?

Mat 18:17 And if he will also not hear them, tell [it] to the church. And if he will also not hear the church, let him be to thee as a publican and a heathen.
Mat 18:18 Verily I say to you, That whatever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven: and whatever ye shall unbind on earth, shall be unbound in heaven.
Mat 18:19 Again I say to you, That if two of you shall agree on earth concerning any thing that they shall ask, it shall be to them from my Father who is in heaven.
Mat 18:20 For where two or three [are] assembled in my name, there [am] I in the midst of them.

Jesus spoke of building His Church before He taught the disciples the ‘Lord’s Supper’.

It appears you’re taking verses individually to understand. Verses are part of a passage and a passage is part of a chapter and a chapter is part of a book/letter/epistle and a book/letter/epistle is a part of the New Testament.

This quote my help here for the discussion;

Quote by 1st. century, St. Ignatius of Antioch; (Shun schisms, as the source of troubles.)** "Let all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ did the Father, and the priests, as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacon as you would the command of God.** Apart for the bishop, let no one perform any of the functions that pertain to the Church. Let that Eucharist be held valid which is offered by the bishop or by one to whom the bishop has committed this charge. Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be: as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid.

Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Chap. 8

One should be careful to discern the body and blood of Christ before celebrating the communion. Here is St.Paul applying a curse to those who don’t discern the true body, blood of the Eucharist;

1Corinthians 11:23
11 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread,
and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. 12
A person should examine himself, 13 and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
**For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment 14 on himself. **

Peace be with you

When my pastor was at a church in West Virginia, there was a television evangelist who would tell those watching to get something to drink and a piece of bread and then put their hands on the television to pray. He then instructed them to eat and drink. This struck my pastor as a parody, at best, of Eucharist.

I have struggled with this image. It in no way would fit in the Catholic or Orthodox understanding of Eucharist, and it rings very strangely to Lutheran ears. To reject such a thing, however would be to limit the power of God. If we can imagine Jacob’s Ladder, it might be the twitching of the toes before putting the foot on the first rung. In other words, it may not be the wrong direction, but it is a long way from Heaven.

My thoughts exactly - one shouldn’t squelch that first ‘twitching of the toes’, of course, but in charity one needs to point out that it’s not the same thing as actually getting on and climbing that ladder!

I truly didn’t mean to insult, but you were the one who made the reference to ‘wherever two or three are gathered in my name’.

In what sense, then, is the ordinary weekday home meal (presuming it includes bread and wine) precluded from becoming the Eucharist in the right circumstances?

Not the seder itself, no. Then again, the seder is but one part of the proper celebration of Passover - which proper celebration DOES include communal liturgical worship in synagogue or Temple. Unless my understanding is way off.

It appears that the author of this thread doesn’t want to hear anything but what he wants to hear.

Sorry but the Church can not, and will not, yield to your personal vision of what the Eucharist should be.

You are of course free to begin your own church, and do whatever you want to do. If however you want the Roman Catholic Church to bend to your will, that will not happen. You can twist scripture to your hearts content, use only those passages that you think support YOUR position, and that will never convince the church to do it your way.

Only through the Church and with proper Apostolic authority and succession. Read Numbers 27,where Moses, on God’s instructions, transfer his authority to Joshua. This is the mode of tansfer of authority from the Apostles to their successors, and still followed today.

Second, ask your self this question: By what authority do you wish to do this? Were you sent? And who sent you?

Consider St. Paul, he had a direct revelation from Christ, yet before he went out establishing churches, he submitted himself humbly to Peter and church authorities and gained their approval. He was ordained (laid hands on) prior to his first missionary journey.
Did he establish seperatate Churches? No, he establish churches but were in communion with Peter and his successors, same with other Apostles. That is why, you do not see a separate Church of St. Paul, do you?

Consider reading the Didache. The earliest know written instructions from the Apostles to the first christians.

Agree with my Brother David. :thumbsup:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit