Communion on the tongue while kneeling

[Like]

Ioannes Paulus PP. II
Ut unum sintOn commitment to Ecumenism

46. In this context, it is a source of joy to note that Catholic ministers are able, in certain particular cases, to administer the Sacraments of the Eucharist, Penance and Anointing of the Sick to Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church but who greatly desire to receive these sacraments, freely request them and manifest the faith which the Catholic Church professes with regard to these sacraments. Conversely, in specific cases and in particular circumstances, Catholics too can request these same sacraments from ministers of Churches in which these sacraments are valid. The conditions for such reciprocal reception have been laid down in specific norms; for the sake of furthering ecumenism these norms must be respected.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint_en.html

Code of Canon Law

Can. 844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone, without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and ⇒ can. 861, §2.

.
§3.** Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist,** **and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.
**
§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.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2T.HTM

On the inside of your Novus Ordo Mass booklet you will find directives that state that non-Catholics can receive communion after getting permission from the local Bishop
**
Here is a press conference given by Bill Clinton after he returned from Africa where he received
communion**

Q: Mike, a couple things – as you know, Cardinal O’Connor had some very strong things to say yesterday about the President’s taking of communion. In that light, I wanted to ask you three things. One, the Cardinal suggested that no one should take communion who’s not in a state of grace. Did the President feel he was in a state of grace, one? Two, does he regret taking communion? And three, the White House suggested it had contact with officials at the church who thought it appropriate but the pastor has said he was not one of them. Can you give us some names of who said it was okay?

MCCURRY: My understanding when we were there, as I indicated on Friday, I think – Thursday last week – was that our team on the ground indicated that the **conference of bishops in South Africa had a more ecumenical view of the holy eucharist and had advised members of the traveling party it was appropriate for baptized Christians to share in communion. And the President acted on that guidance. **

Q: And on the other two points -

MCCURRY: And that includes the priest, and I thought also the bishop who officiated as well, is my understanding, but we can double check that.

Q: And in hindsight, does the President regret taking communion, and does he feel –

MCCURRY: No, the President was happy to receive the invitation to participate and was glad that he did.

Q: But, Mike, she asked a serious question because what the Cardinal said was that if you’re in a state of grave sin, which seemed to be a reference to the President, that you ought not take communion.

MCCURRY: I think that’s an argumentative question. I think that the President was pleased to receive the invitation from the bishop and thought it was appropriate and took communion.

canberra.usembassy.gov/hyper/1998/WF980406/epf101.htm

Photo of Clinton receiving Communion
traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A056rcClintonCommunion.htm

How about reading in full context!
As for Clinton, I can not tell you on this board what I think of or his party!

 

[Like]

Does anyone have a photo of him standing in a confession line?

Oh, that’s right, I’m not supposed to judge him or the bad example he appeared to have given.

Re-read what I wrote about him in the post you are (under your breath) referencing.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please stay focused on the OP’s topic. Thank you.

 

[Walking_Home]

Re-read what I wrote about him in the post you are (under your breath) referencing.

---

I must have missed something here. Where are going with this. That the bishop was responsible for allowing protestants to receive Holy Communion with the authority given by canon law–promugated by JPII.

 

[North_Coast]

Thank you, North Coast. Glad those paragraphs were meaningful to you. I think its important that we put things in perspective here. How can we honor the Eucharist and think derisively of those who have received it (in accordance with current Church practices)? There seems a fundamental disconnect there. If we believe it is as real as Saint Augustine wrote, then we’re all being changed more into or like Christ when we partake of the Sacrament. As I put it in an article recently, it “unearths who we are, men and women created in the image of God”. The judgemental tone of some of the posts seems to betray an attitude other than true or deep reverence, since it fails to show kindness to those fellow Catholics who have received–with whom Christ is residing in both a spiritual and physical sense. Thanks again for your thoughts!

Exactly…so passing severe personal judgement on those who have taken the Eucharist in the hand would be akin to ignoring the fundamental nature or existence of the Real Presence in the first place? It’s interesting that this perspective seems to strip away other confusing apsects of the debate and go straight to the core of the issue. There is a fundamental difference between a concern raised on a particular issue of personal importance and the kind of “judgement passing” comments made by some of the posters here. It really does seem to be legalism for the sake of legalism and legalism which ignores that which it claims it is fighting for in the first place.

I guess what’s been hard to get my mind around is the difference between judging and discerning. That is, we really should remember that God is the judge and that we should remember to take the board out of our own eye before we complain about the piece of dust in our brother’s eye.

 

[Walking_Home]

The problem here is with the act. An act which by our own late Pope has brought----

"However, cases of a deplorable lack of respect towards the eucharistic species have been reported, cases which are imputable not only to the individuals guilty of such behavior but also to the pastors of the church who have not been vigilant enough regarding the attitude of the faithful towards the Eucharist. It also happens, on occasion, that the free choice of those who prefer to continue the practice of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue is not taken into account in those places where the distribution of Communion in the hand has been authorized. It is therefore difficult in the context of this present letter not to mention the sad phenomena previously referred to. "

 

[palmas85]

I do recognize that Jesus was our Lord, but I also recognize that he became man and died for us. I got the impression that high Christology didn’t allow for his being a man who walked the earth and went among sinners.

No, High Christology does allow for the fact that Christ as a man walked the earth among sinners and died as a man for us.

It just remembers that even so, He was then and still is still divine, was then and still is God and was then and still is deserving of our total respect, honor and dignity to the highest degree possible.

 

[BobP123]

I guess what’s been hard to get my mind around is the difference between judging and discerning.

You’re getting there. It has to be ok to judge whether a person is giving you a good example or not. After all, scandal was one of the worst sins Christ spoke of, was it not? However, if he seems to be having sinful thoughts, for example, though we are to admonish the sinner, we nevertheless should give him the benefit of the doubt. Unless, of course, we see a pattern of evil activity from this person, whom then we simply avoid, and let society deal with him.

Likewise, if I see a sizeable number of professed cohabitating individuals receiving communion, I will stop attending Mass at that parish. It’s the bad example and occasion of sin that’s the issue, not whether the Mass is valid or that the bishop says it’s ok to attend there or receive the Host standing upside down.

There, I hope that’s not heresy.

 

[Cat]

How do you even KNOW that someone is co-habiting?

I only know about two dozen people from my parish. (7000in the parish). I have NO IDEA what sins these people are entangled with outside of Mass.

Golly. I guess I need to get out more.

 

[BobP123]

How do you even KNOW that someone is co-habiting?

I did use the word “professed,” didn’t I? Geesh!

In the 70’s I used to attend Church with a “buddy” who flaunted his accomplishments the night before. He no longer believed that fornication was a sin. What would you do if you saw him going to receive? What if you saw a bunch of your friends doing that? Wouldn’t you feel just a little sad? Or are you going to give me another spiel on just how more loving toward Christ I should be?

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is closed. Thank you all who participated.