T
thinkandmull
Guest
It has never been Church discipline until recently that non-Catholics can receive communion. Where has the Church taught as doctrine that this can only be done in very grace situations?
- Status
P
ProVobis
Guest
Are we now glorifying the state of divorce and remarriage?
T
thinkandmull
Guest
Not at all, but people can’t always help how they feel and act. Even St. Paul said people can get married because they can’t help themselves in fornicating. We shouldn’t feel envious of those who are remarried, but love them and wish them the best
B
Bookcat
Guest
"However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. "
~ Pope Saint John Paul II
APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION
FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO
w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio.html
B
Bookcat
Guest
Catechism:
"1650 Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ - "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery"160 the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence. "
scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c3a7.htm#IV
"1650 Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ - "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery"160 the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence. "
scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c3a7.htm#IV
B
Brendan_64
Guest
Only members of the Orthodox Church may receive Communion (other than in very grave situations).
Canon 844.1 “Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments only to Catholic members of Christ’s faithful, who equally may lawfully receive them only from Catholic ministers”
The only exceptions to this in Church law are:
Canon 844.3 “Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the oriental churches which do not have full Communion with the Catholic Church, if they ask on their own for the sacraments and are properly disposed. This holds also for members of other churches, which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition as the oriental churches as far as these sacraments are concerned”
Non-Catholics (with the exception of members of the Orthodox Church) can only receive Communion in extremely rare situations.
Canon 844.4 “If the danger of death is present or other grave necessity, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or the conference of bishops, Catholic ministers may licitly administer these sacraments to other Christians who do not have full Communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and on their own ask for it, provided they manifest Catholic faith in these sacraments and are properly disposed”
So no, Church law has not changed and it is only in very grave and limited circumstances (as outlined in Canon 844.4) that a non-Catholic (with the exception of members of the Orthodox Church) can receive Communion.
Communion is not a symbol of welcome and inclusion, it is the actual Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. The Eucharist is God, not a symbol of God, not something that God is present in, but God Himself.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
That is speaking of a “practice”, a discipline. According to some Cardinals and Bishops, it is based on Scripture merely in the sense that the truth is to be state and scandal avoided. If these conditions are may, these Cardinals believe they can be admitted to communion
T
thinkandmull
Guest
Those are very new rules for the Catholic Church. And again, those are laws, not doctrine. Canon 844.1 “Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments **ONLY **to Catholic members of Christ’s faithful, who equally may lawfully receive them only from Catholic ministers”. Then it states the exceptions. So exceptions are possible. The CCC even says “The predicament of a man who, desiring to convert to the Gospel, is obliged to repudiate one or more wives with whom he has shared years of conjugal life, is understandable.” Paul VI’s decree on sexuality says that sexual sins are more often than not fully consented mortal sins. That is doctrine
B
Brendan_64
Guest
That is Canon Law, all Catholics are bound by Canon Law. Your assertion that non-Catholics can receive Communion other than in grave circumstances is wrong.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
Just to clarify: it is not just the Orthodox to whom paragraph 3 applies and it would be wholly incorrect to use Orthodox in this instance; the provision is broader. Not everyone in an Eastern Church that is not in communion with Rome is in fact part of an Orthodox Church. There is a reason why the law is precisely written in the language that it is, which is rendered in English translation as: “members of the oriental churches which do not have full Communion with the Catholic Church”
Also, there is the important addition: “This holds also for members of other churches, which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition as the oriental churches as far as these sacraments are concerned.” That is a crucial addition and brings us into circumstances beyond the East…
Similarly, for paragraph 4, I would never use the qualifiers “very grave” when the law itself is content to say “grave necessity” or even to use the term “extremely rare”. The diocesan bishop or the conference of bishops provides guidelines to priests with the cura animarum on the pastoral application of paragraph 4 of Canon 844.
Imprecision is very dangerous when it comes to the proper reading and application of Canon Law. For this same reason, however, one cannot apply this Canon in favour of the divorced and remarried, as some in this thread seem intent to do. That is wrong. One must read the law as it is written – neither reading it over-broadly or over-strictly – while using the aides at hand to priests and deacons for interpreting Canon Law and applying it relative to those to whom they minister.
B
Bookcat
Guest
T
thinkandmull
Guest
Church Law can change is my point. I know another good priest who gives communion to Feenyites. He shouldn’t according to Church law, but that law can change
T
thinkandmull
Guest
“If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they** cannot** receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists.” Why “cannot”. Church law. Divine law is different
P
ProVobis
Guest
But open and persistent scandal is against Divine law, with or without communion, is it not? Why should this be encouraged in ANY way?
B
Brendan
Guest
To the first point, Famiaris Consortio, 84
To the second point, that is docrtrinal, For Confession to be valid, the penitent must have at least an intent of never commiting the sin again.
This is true for those in irregular marriages who vow to live together as brother and sister
Familaris Consortio)
But for those whose intent is to continue to commit the sin of adultery in the future, Sacramental Absolution cannot be offered, and if it is, the Absolution in invalid.
Without the contrition, the ‘matter’ of the Sacrament is not present. It would be like a priest trying to consecrate the Eucharist with no bread or wine. It just would not happen
Council of Trent Sess. XIV, c. 3
In other words, if a person has no intent of ceasing having sex with someone who is not their valid spouse, the sin cannot be absolved. And that is infallible teaching
T
thinkandmull
Guest
You are still not making the distinction between objective sin and subjective sin, and Church law presently and divine law. “Grave reason” is a grey area.
Even the risk of scandal is not about people saying “how dare they!”. It’s about risking others turning to subjective sin
Even the risk of scandal is not about people saying “how dare they!”. It’s about risking others turning to subjective sin
P
ProVobis
Guest
“It would be better to be thrown into the sea with a millstone hung around your neck than to cause one of these little ones to fall into sin.” - Luke 17:2
P
pnewton
Guest
The verse before says, "“Things that cause sin will inevitably occur, but woe to the person through whom they occur. " We cannot actually cause another to sin, in the sense that we make them sin. Likewise, we are all likely to play some part in another’s excuse to sin many times in our life. Every time we sin, we can make it possible that another might choose to emulate us. The sentence prior to verse two sheds some light on the meaning, namely the person is also the one* through *whom the sin occurs; the causation is direct.
I do not know why I am going off on this. I guess sometimes I like to take a step back from oft used quotes and see what they really mean. The Church still teaches we need to avoid scandal in this matter, though as it was said above, this is a gray area, though I prefer to think of it as a black and white matter that we simply cannot determine whether if falls black or white. It certainly is a matter of degree.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
The Catechism of the Church states
CCC 1400 “Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, “have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders.”** It is for this reason that, for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible.**”
That is what our Church teaches. Eucharistic intercommunion with Protestants is not possible. That is Church doctrine
Your assertion that non-Catholics can receive Communion in a Catholic Church is simply wrong. They cannot (with the exception of members of the Orthodox Church). That is Church teaching. To reject Church teaching is to reject the authority of the Church and replace it with an authority emanating from yourself. To do that is to reject what Christ said when he established the Church and gave the Church His authority.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
Such is only Church law, so it is possible it can change, just as Church law has been changed to allow non-Catholics sometimes to receive
- Status