Communion open?

[opop]

Some say that the only condition for receiving communion (apart from being in state of grace) is to believe in the reality of the sacrament (i.e. that the body and blood of Christ are really present). But sometimes I hear also that another condition is to be in communion with the one true Church (i.e. the Catholic Church).
I also know that we let Orthodox receive communion with us, but we don’t let high church Anglicans and Lutherans do the same.
My question is therefore this: If being in communion with the one true Church is a condition to take communion, why do we let Orthodox take communion? On the other side, if it is enough to believe in the sacrament, why don’t we let high church Anglicans and Lutherans take communion, even though they believe in the real presence?
Also I know that, at least before Vatican II, being in communion with the one true Church was the facto considered a necessary condition. So my other question would be: Why did it change?

 

[Vico]

Indifferentism should be avoided and also only those having the same correct doctrinal belief about the Real Substance, and reasonably certain of being in a state of grace, should receive. The USCCB site states the following about it, with a reference to the 1983 canon law:

Members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of Communion by Christians of these Churches (canon 844 §3).

 

[Genesis315]

The main architect of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, Cardinal Gasparri, in a work on Eucharistic discipline (cited in the preparatory documents of Vatican II on this point) says: “Baptized wayfarers in virtue of the divine law are capable of receiving Holy Communion. But…the Church…forbids that Holy Communion be given to some people, even though capable of it by divine law.” So it’s not per se wrong for a separated Christian in good faith, otherwise in the state of grace, to receive.

The reason we generally forbid it even for those in good faith with a common faith in the sacrament, is to avoid the scandal of indifferentism.

My guess is since the EOs themselves have a strict discipline against intercommunion, no one is going to do so casually. It would likely only be in such a special case as provided by canon law. Obviously, the scandal of indifferentism would still need to be avoided and the individual would need to properly disposed otherwise.

Likewise, the EO doctrine on the Real Presence is more clear and consistent, whereas officially the Lutheran and Anglican doctrines are not.

 

[runningdude]

Belief in the sacramental reality is the main condition for admission of non-Catholics. This requires belief in all the sacraments, and thus the sacrament priesthood and hierarchical nature of the church.

For Lutherans, they reject the hierarchy of priests and bishops. This is a fundamental tenant of the of what Martin Luther called the Evangelical faith, from which all branches of modern Lutheranism are derived. This rejection of the priesthood creates a flawed belief in Eucharist that would generally disqualify Lutherans from approaching Catholic Communion. Some High Church Lutherans are in talks of joining the Catholic Church in a corporal manner, but this is rare. Among this group, admission to Catholic Communion might be permitted, but this is not generally applicable.

Anglican/Episcopal have an imperfect understanding of the sacramental priesthood, which as a result has extinguished the sacramental nature of that church. Admitting Anglicans in general would suggest a parity of communion service practiced by the Anglican Church, and the Holy Mass. In limited instances, Anglicans are admitted; in France, Anglicans have been invited by the bishops there to receive at a Catholic Mass, because access to Anglican services are extremely limited.

The Orthodox have a substantially compatible belief in the sacraments and priesthood as the Catholic Church. They are permitted to receive, as long as they personally believe the sacrament to be fruitful, and that they such reception would not jeopardize their standing in their home church. There are smaller other splinter “Catholic” and “Orthodox” churches that maintain their sacramental priesthoods, and are also permitted to receive in the Catholic Church. This includes the Polish National Catholic Church (an independent church in the US).

 

[opop]

This requires belief in all the sacraments, and thus the sacrament priesthood and hierarchical nature of the church.

Can you provide a source for that? Why would belief in one sacrament imply the belief in all the other sacraments? That’s not what I generally read.

 

[runningdude]

The theology of the Eucharist requires that it consecrated by an ordained priest. The theology of the priesthood requires that a consecrated bishop ordain a man deacon then priest. The theology of the bishopric requires that Jesus himself consecrated the first bishops (his apostles) thus founding the Catholic Church. Ultimately, Jesus through the graces of his own sacraments, makes himself present in the Eucharist.

Being properly disposed to receive the Eucharist requires understanding what it is, the Body of Christ. Receiving communion is an outward profession of the faith of the Catholic Church. If one’s beliefs deny the fundamental the nature of the church and her priesthood, one cannot be properly disposed to receive communion in the Catholic Church.

All of this can be read in the appropriate chapters of the Catechism.

 

[Gorgias]

Some say that the only condition for receiving communion (apart from being in state of grace) is to believe in the reality of the sacrament (i.e. that the body and blood of Christ are really present).

‘Some’ would be mistaken, then.

If being in communion with the one true Church is a condition to take communion, why do we let Orthodox take communion?

Because the Orthodox Churches are true Churches. Protestant ecclesial communities are not.

Also I know that, at least before Vatican II, being in communion with the one true Church was the facto considered a necessary condition. So my other question would be: Why did it change?

It didn’t.

 

[opop]

Baptized wayfarers

What does “wayfarers” mean? When I look in the dictionary it says " someone who travels on foot".

 

[opop]

Because the Orthodox Churches are true Churches. Protestant ecclesial communities are not.

Orthodox churches are true ecclesial bodies but we should specify they are not part of the one true Church.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Because the Orthodox Churches are true Churches. Protestant ecclesial communities are not.

Orthodox churches are true ecclesial bodies but we should specify they are not part of the one true Church.

I think you’re mistaken. From the CDF’s document Dominus Iesus, promulgated in 2000:

there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church

 

[YADA]

So there used to be conditions as noted above … especially the being properly disposed and in union with the Church …

However, our Bishops and priests publicly appear to have multiple standards that apply … especially between those who are not able - rich politically connected public fixtures and the average Catholic in the pews.

I have witnessed this through the decades and the multiplicity of standards is increasing. As we know double standards leads to no standards.

So in my opinion, I would say we have reached a point of open Communion …and I would not tell anyone with a desire to receive to refrain…for any reason.

To quote our Pope …“Who am I to judge”…

And since the Bishops are neither uniform nor following the dictates of the Church’s own documents, I don’t see how they can either …

I have never been more disheartened as Catholic and one who followed the Church’s teaching regarding reception of the Holy Eucharist.

 

[opop]

I think you’re mistaken. From the CDF’s document Dominus Iesus , promulgated in 2000:

there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church

Yes, they are true particular Churches, But since they are not in communion with Rome, they are not part of the one true Church. The word “church” is an analogical term, not an univocal one.

 

[opop]

If one’s beliefs deny the fundamental the nature of the church and her priesthood, one cannot be properly disposed to receive communion in the Catholic Church.

All of this can be read in the appropriate chapters of the Catechism.

I looked into the Catechism and into the canon law. Now perhaps I missed something, but nowhere do I find it said that believing in ordained priesthood is necessary for being properly disposed. I only find that believing in the Real Presence is necessary. But someone could believe in the Real Presence without believing in ordained priesthood. In fact, canon 844 no 4 (when read together with no 3) seems to imply that even Protestants can receive the Eucharist, in case of a danger of death.

 

[Gorgias]

Yes, they are true particular Churches , But since they are not in communion with Rome, they are not part of the one true Church .

I guess “the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches” doesn’t mean anything to you, then?

But someone could believe in the Real Presence without believing in ordained priesthood.

That’s kinda like saying that I believe that I have a dinosaur steak on my plate, even though I don’t believe that dinosaurs exist.

In fact, canon 844 no 4 (when read together with no 3) seems to imply that even Protestants can receive the Eucharist, in case of a danger of death.

They can! But… “provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.” Guess what “Catholic faith in respect to” the Eucharist means? It means that it requires a validly ordained priest to consecrate it!

 

[opop]

I guess “the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches” doesn’t mean anything to you, then?

As the Church always taught, what is true and good in other ecclesial communities and other religions rightly pertains to the one true Church of Christ. As saint Justin Martyr said: “Whatever things were rightly said among all men, are the property of us Christians.” (2 Apol, ch. 13 ) This is the sense in which we can say that the Church of Christ is present and active in communities that are not in communion with the Church. And of course, the Church is therefore more present and active in those communities that have more in common with the Church. But that doesn’t negate nor contradict the fact that those communities are not in the Church. And it is to signify that they are not in the Church that we say that they are not part of the Church. If they were in the Church it would mean by definition that they are in communion with the Church, which they are not.

That’s kinda like saying that I believe that I have a dinosaur steak on my plate, even though I don’t believe that dinosaurs exist.

Well you should tell that to the Lutherans who believe in the Real Presence without believing in the ordained priesthood. Of course that the belief in the Real Presence and the belief in the ordained priesthood should come together. All I’m saying is that it’s possible, and even a fact, that some people believe in one and not the other.

 

[opop]

They can! But… “provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.” Guess what “Catholic faith in respect to” the Eucharist means? It means that it requires a validly ordained priest to consecrate it!

According to the Catholic faith, the Real Pesence can indeed only occur by the consecration of an ordained priest. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t possible to erroneously believe in the Real Presence without the ordained priesthood. As I said, some Lutherans believe just that. And when this canon 844 says that people should “manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments”, it only means, regarding the Eucharist, that people should have belief in the Real Presence. A Protestant can recieve the Eucharist in case of a danger of death, as long as he believes in the Real Presence. It is not absolutely necessary for him to believe in the ordained priesthood. If you say that he should also believe in the ordained priesthood simply because, in Catholic teaching, Real Presence implies ordained priesthood, then you could also say that the Ptotestant should also believe in the papacy, because ordained priesthood implies jurisdiction, which implies the bishops and their head the pope. So the so-called Protestant should believe all that, which would make him a Catholic. But this is not the intention of this canon. In practice, we see that the Church gives communion to some non-anglican Protestants (Benedict XVI and JP II did it). But no Protestant believes in ordained priesthood (except the Anglicans). So we see that the only thing necessary is the belief in the Real Presence, not the belief in the ordained priesthood.

 

[runningdude]

There are two issues that have to be parsed:

• By virtue of baptism, all Christians are spiritually able to receive the sacraments.
• However, Jesus gave the church the power to bind and loose, and thus can set reasonable restrictions to ensure the integrity of the sacraments.

Canons 840-847 establish norms for lawful administration of the sacraments. They are ordinarily restricted to Catholics in good standing, as they are a Catholic’s right by baptism (843). By extraordinary permission, Christians of valid sacramental churches are also permitted to receive confession, communion, and anointing of the sick with limited restrictions (844-3). Protestants, by virtue of their baptism, are permitted to receive only in danger of death, “provided the they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments” (844-4). They must believe the sacraments provide saving grace, but perfect understanding isn’t necessary.

It is normative that only Catholics in full communion can receive the sacraments with proper preparation, as they are the most properly disposed. Exceptions are made for Christians that share compatible beliefs to receive confession, penance, and communion and with limited restriction. Finally, all baptized Christians may receive confession, anointing, and communion in danger of death.

The church’s mission is the salvation of souls. Any rule that hinders salvation maybe dispensed, especially when someone is in danger in death.

 

[Gorgias]

But that doesn’t mean it isn’t possible to erroneously believe in the Real Presence

Ahh… now that’s a different story! Emphasis on “erroneously”!

If you say that he should also believe in the ordained priesthood simply because, in Catholic teaching, Real Presence implies ordained priesthood, then you could also say that the Ptotestant should also believe in the papacy, because ordained priesthood implies jurisdiction, which implies the bishops and their head the pope.

Nope, although it’s a nice attempt.

And when this canon 844 says that people should “manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments”, it only means, regarding the Eucharist, that people should have belief in the Real Presence.

Please see Coriden & Beal’s analysis of the canon, which asserts that there’s more here than a mere belief in the real presence.

 

[Toolmaker]

And yet the Archbishop of Washington DC says its ok for Biden to take Communion. What a joke.
IMO all these rules except one, belief that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ are just legalisms to maintain control.

 

[runningdude]

You’re not contradicting anything. The church sets restrictions to ensure the integrity of the sacraments, including ensuring the faithful are properly disposed. Binding and loosing applies specifically to the church church’s authority to set disciplines to protect the faithful from eating and drinking judgement unto themselves by receiving unworthily.