Communion after perfect contrition

[Vico]

“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

The phrase “objectively contravenes God’s law” means Divine law, does it not?

 

[Vico]

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

Yes, giving scandal is uncharitable to the weak. This could occur by the one receiving a sacrament being unworthy or receiving worthily but thought to be unworthy, or through a priest administering a sacrament in those same two situations.

There is grave sin and there is mortal sin, where the sin involves a grave matter it may be mortal or venial.

There should not be evil deeds (objectively). An evil deed is objectively evil. Culpability, however, requires that there be subjective sin.

These may help you, from Modern Catholic Dictionary:

OBJECTIVE. What belongs to a thing or is grounded in reality, prior to and independent of the mind’s consideration of something. Also called ontological, in contrast with the mental or psychological. Opposite of subjective. Thus objective certitude is founded on reality, and objective morality is based on divinely established standards. (Etym. Latin obiectio, something thrown before or presented to [the mind], from obicere, to throw in the way, present.)

EVIL. The privation of a good that should be present. It is the lack of a good that essentially belongs to a nature; the absence of a good that is natural and due to a being. Evil is therefore the absence of what ought to be there.

SUBJECTIVE MORALITY. Responsible human conduct, where a person knowingly and willingly performs an action that either conforms or does not conform to the moral standard.

SCANDAL OF THE WEAK. Disedifying morally weak persons by permissible conduct. Circumstances determine the duty in charity to avoid giving scandal to the weak. The existence of such a duty is clear from the teaching of St. Paul, who would not eat meat that had been offered to idols lest he scandalize the weaker brethren. He warned the early Christians not to rationalize their conduct but to follow his example, lest “by sinning in this way against our brothers and injuring their weak consciences, it would be Christ against whom you sinned” (I Corinthians 8:12). This obligation in charity is such that one may licitly refrain from fulfilling even a grave positive precept that is not necessary for salvation in order to prevent serious scandal to the weak. Behind the obligation is the mandate of selfless love that seeks not only to help another in obvious need but also by self-restraint to protect another from spiritual harm.

 

[ProVobis]

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.

It is quite possible the scandal wasn’t intentional or that the sinner was only aware perhaps of committing the sin of adultery, for example. But the bishop may ask the person to refrain from receiving as he saw the scandal, for example, a pro-abortion politician. This has happened and the would-be recipients have complied, though in many cases they are not excluded from confession (I think).

 

[Don_Ruggero]

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.

1. It is not correct to make a declarative statement that non-Catholics may not receive the sacraments from a Catholic minister. This issue is treated in Canon 844.
2. It is not correct to say that the only exception is in favor of the Orthodox.
3. The provision of Canon 844, paragraph 3 is that any member of the venerable Churches of the East – which extends beyond the Orthodox – may receive Eucharist, Penance, and Anointing from a Catholic minister. All they have to do is spontaneously seek the sacrament.
4. Canon 844, paragraph 3 also extends this provision to all churches deemed by the Apostolic See to be in the same situation as the Oriental Churches. This is explicit. Again, all the members of these Churches have to do is also spontaneously seek the sacraments. ALL of these Christians are non-Catholic.
5. Those Christians not in the circumstance of those in paragraph 3 are to be admitted to the sacraments of Penance, Eucharist, and Anointing according to the provision of paragraph 4, provided they meet the threshold requirements. If not in danger of death, then it has to be in conformity with the guidance and instruction promulgated by either the diocesan bishop or the national conference of bishops.

This is certainly not normally a daily occurrence – although paragraph 3 assuredly could be daily – but I have personally applied both of these paragraphs of Canon 844, as a priest, more times than I could ever count. The provisions have been in place after all for decades.

 

[LongingSoul]

1. It is not correct to make a declarative statement that non-Catholics may not receive the sacraments from a Catholic minister. This issue is treated in Canon 844.
2. It is not correct to say that the only exception is in favor of the Orthodox.
3. The provision of Canon 844, paragraph 3 is that any member of the venerable Churches of the East – which extends beyond the Orthodox – may receive Eucharist, Penance, and Anointing from a Catholic minister. All they have to do is spontaneously seek the sacrament.
4. Canon 844, paragraph 3 also extends this provision to all churches deemed by the Apostolic See to be in the same situation as the Oriental Churches. This is explicit. Again, all the members of these Churches have to do is also spontaneously seek the sacraments. ALL of these Christians are non-Catholic.
5. Those Christians not in the circumstance of those in paragraph 3 are to be admitted to the sacraments of Penance, Eucharist, and Anointing according to the provision of paragraph 4, provided they meet the threshold requirements. If not in danger of death, then it has to be in conformity with the guidance and instruction promulgated by either the diocesan bishop or the national conference of bishops.

This is certainly not normally a daily occurrence – although paragraph 3 assuredly could be daily – but I have personally applied both of these paragraphs of Canon 844, as a priest, more times than I could ever count. The provisions have been in place after all for decades.

Very handy having a Priest in our presence for correction of these things. We ‘armchair pastors’ must get the wrong end of the stick on these threads more than is admitted.

 

[Brendan_64]

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

The Catechism is not simply Church Law, the Catechism is doctrine.

And the only non-Catholics who can receive Communion (except in extremely grave and limited circumstances) are members of Churches that the Holy See have deemed to be in the same situation as the Orthodox Church, because they have a valid priesthood (which Protestant denominations do not) and believe the same as we do regarding the nature of the Eucharist (which Protestants do not). That is Church teaching, this is doctrine, not discipline. The Catechism represents doctrine that all Catholics are obliged to assent to.

The bottom line is that Protestants are NOT permitted to take Communion with us. This is explicitly stated in the Catechism and that is what our Church teaches. If you choose to reject that then you are rejecting the authority of the Church, the authority that Christ Himself gave to the Church.

 

[Brendan_64]

1. It is not correct to make a declarative statement that non-Catholics may not receive the sacraments from a Catholic minister. This issue is treated in Canon 844.
2. It is not correct to say that the only exception is in favor of the Orthodox.
3. The provision of Canon 844, paragraph 3 is that any member of the venerable Churches of the East – which extends beyond the Orthodox – may receive Eucharist, Penance, and Anointing from a Catholic minister. All they have to do is spontaneously seek the sacrament.
4. Canon 844, paragraph 3 also extends this provision to all churches deemed by the Apostolic See to be in the same situation as the Oriental Churches. This is explicit. Again, all the members of these Churches have to do is also spontaneously seek the sacraments. ALL of these Christians are non-Catholic.
5. Those Christians not in the circumstance of those in paragraph 3 are to be admitted to the sacraments of Penance, Eucharist, and Anointing according to the provision of paragraph 4, provided they meet the threshold requirements. If not in danger of death, then it has to be in conformity with the guidance and instruction promulgated by either the diocesan bishop or the national conference of bishops.

This is certainly not normally a daily occurrence – although paragraph 3 assuredly could be daily – but I have personally applied both of these paragraphs of Canon 844, as a priest, more times than I could ever count. The provisions have been in place after all for decades.

Thank you for that. Yes, indeed Churches deemed by the Holy See to be in the same situation as the Orthodox Church can be admitted to receive Communion, but we need to be clear that this does not extend to the ecclesial communities arising as a result of the Protestant Reformation. These communities do not have valid Holy Orders and do not believe as we do regarding the nature of the Eucharist. Protestants (unless under very exceptional and grave circumstances) cannot receive Communion in a Catholic Church. The implication of what has been posted by ‘thinkandmull’ is that Protestants may be admitted to Communion with us in circumstances other than those which are grave and exceptional. CCC 1400 is clear on this.

 

[ProVobis]

Very handy having a Priest in our presence for correction of these things. We ‘armchair pastors’ must get the wrong end of the stick on these threads more than is admitted.

Yes, we’re all victims of "Gotcha"s here.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Thank you for that. Yes, indeed Churches deemed by the Holy See to be in the same situation as the Orthodox Church can be admitted to receive Communion, but we need to be clear that this does not extend to the ecclesial communities arising as a result of the Protestant Reformation [1]. These communities do not have valid Holy Orders and do not believe as we do regarding the nature of the Eucharist [2]. Protestants (unless under very exceptional and grave circumstances) cannot receive Communion in a Catholic Church. The implication of what has been posted by ‘thinkandmull’ is that Protestants may be admitted to Communion with us in circumstances other than those which are grave and exceptional. CCC 1400 is clear on this.

I am not going to continue with this dialogue as it is redundant to keep repeating the same thing. Communication is not occurring.

[1] There are two different provisions. One provision, paragraph 3, governs all the venerable Churches of the East that are non-Catholic – be they Orthodox or not – and, simultaneously, all other Churches judged by the Holy See as being in the same circumstance as the Oriental Churches. In other words, this is the provision for those Churches which have valid apostolic succession.

(The construction of paragraph 3 & 4 of Canon 844 makes the last sentence above self-evident to both canonist & theologian. That is what the language of the canon is clearly indicating; that is why it is formulated in the very precise language that it is.)

There is however another provision, Paragraph 4, which governs other circumstances: Christians whose communities have been judged by Rome as not having apostolic succession. Provision is made for them to receive Eucharist, Penance & Anointing.

The question of validity of Order as some sort of determinant is answered by the canon itself. The language in the two paragraphs of the canon instructs the Catholic minister as to what is to be done.

Thus the reason there are two provisions is to make provision for conferring the sacraments on non-Catholic Christians in Churches which have apostolic succession and for conferring the sacraments on non-Catholic Christians in a community without apostolic succession but who find themselves in the delineated circumstances of paragraph 4.

Both of these provisions are from the supreme legislator (i.e. the pope); the latter provision is to be thoughtfully implemented with the appropriate bishop(s) who determine concretely when the named sacraments could be conferred on non Catholics of other ecclesial communities.

[2] What guides the Catholic minister in administering one or all of the three sacraments mentioned in the canon to a person whose circumstances correspond with paragraph 4 is: 1) either danger of death is present or a grave necessity is present. What is to be understood as “grave necessity” is not a matter for idle speculation by anyone who cares to speculate about what they consider its presence or absence; it is determined by the bishop of the diocese or the national conference of bishops. They are competent to issue a directive, with and under the guidance of the Holy See, on what constitutes a “grave necessity.” The prerogative is properly his/theirs, by the norm of law – and not to others, except in the limited circumstances that the law allows.

Thus as a priest, I implement this provision there where I exercise my ministry: (a) according to what the proper ecclesiastical authority for that jurisdiction has determined is a grave necessity (if I judge that to be the activating circumstance) or (b) I myself make the determination, if I reasonably and prudently determine that a danger of death is present. Beyond the latter circumstance, I may make a further determination only in so far as either the bishop or the conference of bishops give me the latitude of discretion to do so by what they have decreed or some norm of particular law allows.

Once there is either danger of death or the presence of grave necessity, as defined by the bishop/conference, the next questions are: 2) Does the person seek the sacrament(s) of his or her own accord? 3) Is the minister of their confession deemed not available? 4) Does the person manifest a Catholic faith in the sacrament s/he requested? 5) Are they properly disposed?

Once those five questions are determined affirmatively, any or all of the three sacraments enumerated in the canon may be administered, according to the need and situation.

I am going to post, for the benefit of those who will read this post, the following since the plain text speaks well for itself.

This is what Canon 844, paragraph 4 says…with my emphases in bold:
*§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.
*
Beyond that: Both the Code of Canon Law and the Catechism of the Catholic Church were promulgated by Pope John Paul II. There is no conflict between the two documents on these points, as if those authoring the code did not know theology. Any reading of conflict is due to a misunderstanding on the part of the reader. The current code is actually remarkable for its rendering points of theology into a distilled and concise canonical language. This is so much the case, I always told my students that if they want to have the most concise formulation for the theology of a given sacrament, for example, they should first turn to the corresponding canons for that sacrament.

 

[Brendan_64]

I am not going to continue with this dialogue as it is redundant to keep repeating the same thing. Communication is not occurring.

A bit of a snide remark to make there Father, don’t you think?

And the point remains that, except in danger of death or in some other grave need, Protestants may not receive Communion, which is what is being implied by thinkandmull, which is the point I was refuting.

I fail to see what you are getting so narky about.

 

[pnewton]

A bit of a snide remark to make there Father, don’t you think?

And the point remains that, except in danger of death or in some other grave need, Protestants may not receive Communion, which is what is being implied by thinkandmull, which is the point I was refuting.

What constitutes grave need is not going to be universally agreed on. The statement earlier, “it is possible it can change, just as Church law has been changed to allow non-Catholics sometimes to receive,” was accurate. The word “sometimes” means it is possible, yet not always. Now if canon law allows the bishop to make a determination of this level of need, and the Pope did not want to do this for another bishop on the spot, why are we even thinking about doing more than the Pope?

I think it possible that there is more disagreement over words than over substance here. No one is suggestion communion be universal. You are not suggesting it can never happen. I think we all understand the bishop is the one to exercise his judgment in the matter, according to canon law, which we all agree can change.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

[edited] A priestly ministry which happens in real life and real situations to real people…and, relative to this canon and my own experience, often in the most painful of pastoral circumstances – with people away from their homeland and language and culture and faith community, suddenly in frightening and difficult circumstances, alone in a country not their own, and too often involving either a serious illness, a terrible accident, or similar unfortunate and unprovided incident.

[edited] I am grateful that, where I minister, our bishops take their pastoral duty as shepherds for “sheep not of their flock” thoughtfully and expansively with regard to canon 844.

Canon 844 is not, for us, some sort of marker in a tug-of-war, spiritual or cultural, between Catholics and Christians who are non-Catholics. For me, reading this canon, I actually see the many faces of the foreigner I have already applied these paragraphs in favour of, attempting to bring them sacramental comfort and solace – for some, it was the last thing they humanly experienced in this life. I am grateful they had it and that I could offer it to them.

 

[Brendan_64]

In my part of the world, however, the word “narky” is an anglicized variation of a word that is offensive and has quite unsavory meaning…all the more when said to a priest…

All the more when said to a priest? Why is that? Are you suggesting that it is worse to call a priest “narky” than to call a lay-person “narky”? Are suggesting that in discussions that members of the clergy should be given special treatment?

I wasn’t aware that “narky” was such an offensive and unsavoury term anyway. Narky is simply means irritable or easily annoyed. Hardly unsavoury or offensive by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[ProVobis]

What constitutes grave need is not going to be universally agreed on. The statement earlier, “it is possible it can change, just as Church law has been changed to allow non-Catholics sometimes to receive,” was accurate. The word “sometimes” means it is possible, yet not always. Now if canon law allows the bishop to make a determination of this level of need, and the Pope did not want to do this for another bishop on the spot, why are we even thinking about doing more than the Pope?

I think it possible that there is more disagreement over words than over substance here. No one is suggestion communion be universal. You are not suggesting it can never happen. I think we all understand the bishop is the one to exercise his judgment in the matter, according to canon law, which we all agree can change.

As a technical point, this would apply from the Catholics point of view. Canon Law generally isn’t followed nor does it apply to non-Catholics. At least that’s the way I understand things.

 

[pnewton]

[edited][Father,]I found your post [edited] to be enlightening, in the sense that I finally “get” what you were saying. So for at least one person will leave more educated here.

 

[pnewton]

Are you suggesting that it is worse to call a priest “narky” than to call a lay-person “narky”?

Likewise, speaking only for myself again, while any disrespect toward another human being is a violation of charity, showing disrespect toward a priest hurts me deeper, just like violence toward the helpless is more offensive to me than other violence. It is not the priest in this case that is harmed more; it is the one showing disrespect. I understand though you did not (at the time) know the word had such a nasty connotation.

 

[Brendan_64]

I understand though you did not (at the time) know the word had such a nasty connotation.

And what is this nasty connotation? Narky simply means irritable. If people choose to apply other definitions to a word that is defined in both the Oxford and Webster dictionaries, then that isn’t my fault.

It does also bother me that just because someone is a priest then you are expected to treat him very differently than you would a lay-person during a discussion. Maybe it’s a cultural thing?