Communion for non-Catholics

[CrossofChrist]

Communion can given to non-Catholic Christians according to Canon 844. Granted this is in rare and grave circumstances as judged by the bishop(s), and with the following qualifications: they “cannot approach a minister of their own community”, they “seek such on their own accord” and finally “they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed”.

Now I have 2 questions:

1. “Since faith is one, it must be professed in all its purity and integrity. Precisely because all the articles of faith are interconnected, to deny one of them, even of those that seem least important, is tantamount to distorting the whole,” (Lumen Fidei 48). So does this mean that those non-Catholics who can receive from Catholic ministers (in extreme circumstances) must profess the faith that the Catholic Church holds? If so, then this seems to be saying that only those who desire to become Catholic but haven’t (for a serious reason like being in RCIA, otherwise how is “properly disposed” explained?) can receive Communion. But if non-Catholics don’t need to profess the whole Catholic faith, then I have another question…
2. "Every celebration of the Eucharist is performed in union not only with the proper Bishop, but also with the Pope, with the episcopal order, with all the clergy, and with the entire people. Every valid celebration of the Eucharist expresses this universal communion with Peter and with the whole Church, or objectively calls for it, as in the case of the Christian Churches separated from Rome”. 83 (Ecclesia de Eucharistia 39). So if non-Catholics aren’t required to profess the whole Catholic faith, then why can’t other groups of people receive Communion in “grave circumstances” (as determined by the bishop or bishops) even if objectively they are in a situation that in normal circumstances would prevent them from receiving? Like the whole divorced/remarried issue, why is that a problem if it is undertaken on a case-by-case basis, when non-Catholics who don’t intend to convert can receive under certain circumstances (since both would be in an objectively wrong situation)? I can understand why there would be an issue as far as whether or not it was a prudent thing to do, but still, in that case IMO the huge outcry on the internet is in large part unwarranted.

 

[1ke]

So does this mean that those non-Catholics who can receive from Catholic ministers (in extreme circumstances) must profess the faith that the Catholic Church holds?

No.

It states they must manifest Catholic faith “with respect to the sacraments” meaning that they believe in the real presence.

So if non-Catholics aren’t required to profess the whole Catholic faith, then why can’t other groups of people receive Communion in “grave circumstances” (as determined by the bishop or bishops) even if objectively they are in a situation that in normal circumstances would prevent them from receiving?

Because they must also be properly disposed.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Because they must also be properly disposed.

But if a person isn’t in full communion with the Church, then aren’t they objectively (of course I can’t pass judgment on the state of their soul) in a situation that wouldn’t make them properly disposed?

 

[FrDavid96]

St John Paul the Great clarified this question in his Encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia
vatican.va/holy_father/special_features/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_20030417_ecclesia_eucharistia_en.html

These conditions, from which no dispensation can be given, must be carefully respected, even though they deal with specific individual cases, because the denial of one or more truths of the faith regarding these sacraments and, among these, the truth regarding the need of the ministerial priesthood for their validity, renders the person asking improperly disposed to legitimately receiving them. And the opposite is also true: Catholics may not receive communion in those communities which lack a valid sacrament of Orders.

It is “the faith regarding these sacraments” and not the entirety of the Catholic faith which they must first manifest.

 

[FrDavid96]

But if a person isn’t in full communion with the Church, then aren’t they objectively (of course I can’t pass judgment on the state of their soul) in a situation that wouldn’t make them properly disposed?

Yes.

However…the Church (essentially) dispenses from this requirement.

 

[FrDavid96]

The whole thing is rather difficult to understand. Personally, I cannot imagine how anyone could actually be in such a situation. I can see it in theory, but not in reality.

If a person is in such a situation that there is a genuine need and does manifest Catholic faith in the sacrament(s) being requested, then such a person would necessarily have a desire to become Catholic.

As I see it, it’s a canon that has no real practical application. It’s nice theory, but I just cannot see how it could happen in real life.

I know many people are going to say “it happens…here and here” but every time I’ve seen it described, one or more of the conditions (which cannot be dispensed) is not met.

The requirement that one must believe in the necessity of a validly ordained priest to consecrate effectively eliminates anyone who believes that one who is not-validly-ordained does consecrate—since the same person cannot believe both at the same time.

Again, as I see it, I can see no practical application of the canon.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Yes.

However…the Church (essentially) dispenses from this requirement.

The whole thing is rather difficult to understand. Personally, I cannot imagine how anyone could actually be in such a situation. I can see it in theory, but not in reality.

If a person is in such a situation that there is a genuine need and does manifest Catholic faith in the sacrament(s) being requested, then such a person would necessarily have a desire to become Catholic.

As I see it, it’s a canon that has no real practical application. It’s nice theory, but I just cannot see how it could happen in real life.

I know many people are going to say “it happens…here and here” but every time I’ve seen it described, one or more of the conditions (which cannot be dispensed) is not met.

The requirement that one must believe in the necessity of a validly ordained priest to consecrate effectively eliminates anyone who believes that one who is not-validly-ordained does consecrate—since the same person cannot believe both at the same time.

Again, as I see it, I can see no practical application of the canon.

The only thing I can think of for this working practically is a person in RCIA is about to be killed or is on their deathbed or something…

 

[peter26]

How about an Anglo-Catholic (for instance high church CofE), believes in the real presence, believes in the need for a validly ordained priest, but maybe they have never heard that that would only be a Catholic priest.

 

[peter26]

Okay what I was getting as was someone who sees priests of his own church and Catholic priests as both being validly ordained priests because he doesn’t know any better.

 

[peter26]

It depends. Say he was on holiday in a Catholic country and couldn’t find a priest of his own church.

 

[peter26]

Suppose the same person moved to a predominantly Catholic country because he’d got a job there. What is his supposed to do then?

 

[peter26]

I’m not saying he should just go up and receive, more that if he did ask the priest, this might be a case where Canon 844 applies.

 

[FrDavid96]

Okay what I was getting as was someone who sees priests of his own church and Catholic priests as both being validly ordained priests because he doesn’t know any better.

I see what you’re getting at…however…the words “doesn’t know any better” contradict the requirement that one manifest Catholic faith in the Sacrament. One cannot be in both positions at the same time—knowing and not-knowing.

 

[FrDavid96]

I’m not saying he should just go up and receive, more that if he did ask the priest, this might be a case where Canon 844 applies.

-]People often post about canon 844/-]. The thing is, that the canon only applies if (and only if) every single requirement of the canon has been met.

There is no possible dispensation from the requirements of the canon. There is no “mostly” or “close enough.”

 

[CrossofChrist]

The only thing I can think of to make sense of this is that those born in a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with the Catholic Church are no longer considered to be “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin”, and a way I can think of to make sense of that is Unitatis Redintegratio 3 says those 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.”

Thoughts? Concerns? Am I on to something or am I wrong?

 

[Ron_Conte]

Unfortunately, many Catholics do not have orthodox belief in the real presence, and have strayed from Catholic teaching on many other important doctrines, and most do not go to Confession at all. Yet they receive Communion. This is a serious problem that is mostly being ignored.

 

[thistle]

Unfortunately, many Catholics do not have orthodox belief in the real presence, and have strayed from Catholic teaching on many other important doctrines, and most do not go to Confession at all. Yet they receive Communion. This is a serious problem that is mostly being ignored.

From time to time our priest mentions during homilies about the short Confession lines but the long Communion lines, and he tells people that they should not receive if they are in a state of mortal sin. Sadly, most people are so poorly catechised that their ignorance of what the Church teaches means that many have committed sins of grave matter but don’t know that.

 

[steve_b]

The whole thing is rather difficult to understand. Personally, I cannot imagine how anyone could actually be in such a situation. I can see it in theory, but not in reality.

If a person is in such a situation that there is a genuine need and does manifest Catholic faith in the sacrament(s) being requested, ***then such a person would necessarily have a desire to become Catholic. ***

Makes sense to me
"Fr:

As I see it, it’s a canon that has no real practical application. It’s nice theory, but I just cannot see how it could happen in real life.

I think what you’re saying, people see things in the canon that aren’t there. They turn the canon on its ear to make it fit too many squishy what if’s.
Fr:

I know many people are going to say “it happens…here and here” but every time I’ve seen it described, one or more of the conditions (which cannot be dispensed) is not met.

The requirement that one must believe in the necessity of a validly ordained priest to consecrate effectively eliminates anyone who believes that one who is not-validly-ordained does consecrate—since the same person cannot believe both at the same time.

Again, as I see it, I can see no practical application of the canon.

I’m with you. It seems people want to take the canon off into the weeds

-]People often post about canon 844/-]. The thing is, that the canon only applies if (and only if) every single requirement of the canon has been met.

There is no possible dispensation from the requirements of the canon. There is no “mostly” or “close enough.”

Well said

 

[Mintaka]

If I recall correctly, this particular regulation was written so that, say, a Greek Orthodox person on a little island with no resident Greek Orthodox priests could receive Communion from a Catholic priest when on his deathbed or in a similar situation.

There’s a lot of canon law that is supposed to be used for emergencies. This is one of those laws.

 

[FrDavid96]

If I recall correctly, this particular regulation was written so that, say, a Greek Orthodox person on a little island with no resident Greek Orthodox priests could receive Communion from a Catholic priest when on his deathbed or in a similar situation.

There’s a lot of canon law that is supposed to be used for emergencies. This is one of those laws.

Actually, it wasn’t meant for the Orthodox. Greek Orthodox have valid Sacraments, and the standard for administering the sacraments to them is very much easier.

You’re on the right track, though. It was meant for times of war, persecution, natural disaster—which is how the canon itself phrases it (that’s what grave necessity means—it is the highest standard below only "danger of death.). It was meant for Catholic military chaplains on a battlefield, or Catholic priests in Communist countries, or similar situations. Or yes, your example of stranded on a desert island (what theologians call the “Gilligans Island scenario”)

It was never meant for the kinds of situations today where Holy Communion is being distributed to non-Catholics (almost) without any criteria at all.

You’re absolutely right: it was meant for emergencies. The problem we have now is that it is being wrongly applied and expanded.