Confused about CCC and Eucharist

[llenadegracia]

Hmmmm. Interesting information, thanks everyone.

To elaborate more on the situation…the Newman center is the only Christian service on campus on Sundays. There are other Christian churches nearby that will bus kids to their services (which I think is awesome that they’re inviting students free-of-charge to come worship with them and busing them there and providing them lunch…pretty cool Christian, though not Catholic, outreach going on)…however, many non-Catholic students opt to attend Mass simply because it is on campus and not a huge time commitment because they’re not leaving campus. So I completely understand why non-Catholic students attend Mass and I think that it’s absolutely GREAT! What an awesome opportunity to share the Catholic faith!

But it just is really really really tricky at this point because the priest isn’t exactly following the Catholic faith…I know everone has their troubles understanding the teachings of the CC…but to bluntly encourage such behavior just rubs me the wrong way. I would understand more if a non-Catholic student approached and it was just a really awkward rushed moment and they ended up receiving…but to encourage it to habitually happen just doesn’t seem ok… Furthermore, we’re trying to build a Catholic identity…and well…we can’t build a Catholic identity if we’re not going to be Catholic.

At any rate, I think it’s safe to say that the priest should not be encouraging this behavior (he teaches any baptized Christian may receive)?

I really just wanted to make sure I wasn’t missing maybe some exception…?

When other Christians who believe what the Catholic church teaches concerning the Holy Eucharist are deprived of access to a church of their own denomination for a significant period of time, they too may be admitted to Communion in the Catholic Church in exceptional circumstances (cf. Canon 844 §4). These exceptional circumstances are also described by the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

When, in the Ordinary’s judgment, a grave necessity arises, Catholic ministers may give the sacraments of Eucharist, Penance, and Anointing of the Sick to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church, who ask for them of their own will, provided they give evidence of holding the Catholic faith regarding these sacraments and possess the required dispositions. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, number 1401)

The above quote is from here:
old.usccb.org/liturgy/q&a/mass/communion.shtml

Could anyone help explain that? Especially the first paragraph…

I’m just not sure if I fully grasp what it’s trying to express. For instance, if someone accepted the CC’s view on the Sacrament…then wouldn’t that be affirming the Catholic Church/Holy Orders…? Hmm. Not sure, I’m still trying to process what it says and I’m feeling like it’s primarily refering to Orthodox and Eastern churches? I really have no idea.

I do want to approach the priest soon concerning this matter, I think. Please pray it goes well. If anyone has any suggestions concerning the matter, please share…I could greatly use ideas and suggestions.

 

[Vico]

Hmmmm. Interesting information, thanks everyone.

To elaborate more on the situation…the Newman center is the only Christian service on campus on Sundays. There are other Christian churches nearby that will bus kids to their services (which I think is awesome that they’re inviting students free-of-charge to come worship with them and busing them there and providing them lunch…pretty cool Christian, though not Catholic, outreach going on)…however, many non-Catholic students opt to attend Mass simply because it is on campus and not a huge time commitment because they’re not leaving campus. So I completely understand why non-Catholic students attend Mass and I think that it’s absolutely GREAT! What an awesome opportunity to share the Catholic faith!

But it just is really really really tricky at this point because the priest isn’t exactly following the Catholic faith…I know everone has their troubles understanding the teachings of the CC…but to bluntly encourage such behavior just rubs me the wrong way. I would understand more if a non-Catholic student approached and it was just a really awkward rushed moment and they ended up receiving…but to encourage it to habitually happen just doesn’t seem ok… Furthermore, we’re trying to build a Catholic identity…and well…we can’t build a Catholic identity if we’re not going to be Catholic.

At any rate, I think it’s safe to say that the priest should not be encouraging this behavior (he teaches any baptized Christian may receive)?

I really just wanted to make sure I wasn’t missing maybe some exception…?

The above quote is from here:
old.usccb.org/liturgy/q&a/mass/communion.shtml

Could anyone help explain that? Especially the first paragraph…

I’m just not sure if I fully grasp what it’s trying to express. For instance, if someone accepted the CC’s view on the Sacrament…then wouldn’t that be affirming the Catholic Church/Holy Orders…? Hmm. Not sure, I’m still trying to process what it says and I’m feeling like it’s primarily refering to Orthodox and Eastern churches? I really have no idea.

I do want to approach the priest soon concerning this matter, I think. Please pray it goes well. If anyone has any suggestions concerning the matter, please share…I could greatly use ideas and suggestions.

Part 844 §4 and §5 is the only one practically applicable to the non-Apostolic churches and has several conditions that must all be met simultaneously:

1. danger of death, or grave and pressing need determined by the diocesan Bishop or Episcopal Conference
2. they cannot approach a minister of their own community
3. sponteneously ask for them
4. demonstrate catholic faith in respect of these sacraments
5. properly disposed.

So if these conditions were met in a case, then sacramental confession would proceed communion, is there was serious sin, as is the Catholic practice.Can. 844 §4 If there is a danger of death or if, in the judgement of the diocesan Bishop or of the Episcopal Conference, there is some other grave and pressing need, catholic ministers may lawfully administer these same sacraments to other christians not in full communion with the catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who spontaneously ask for them, provided that they demonstrate the catholic faith in respect of these sacraments and are properly disposed.
§5 In respect of the cases dealt with in §§2, 3 and 4, the diocesan Bishop or the Episcopal Conference is not to issue general norms except after consultation with the competent authority, at least at the local level, of the non-catholic Church or community concerned.

 

[Brendan_64]

I am no expert on legal exceptions, but it’s sacreligious for someone to receive Holy Communion who doesn’t believe in transubstantiation. They will treat Our Lord like a piece of bread, a mere thing, which offends Him. Offending Him is a sin. So you are incorrect on both counts.

I urge you to think twice about what you’ve written here.

I agree. The Blessed Eucharist isn’t just something that is to be given out ‘wily-nily’ to anyone who lines up to recieve it. The reciever must be aware of the enormity of the gift that he is recieving, the real presence of Christ in His actual body and blood. Non-Catholic Christians belonging to denominations not regarded by the Holy See as being in full communion with Rome on this matter CANNOT be allowed to take Communion with us. The only exception is out lined in (CIC 844 4).

It will not “do them good”, in fact anyone who recieves the Eucharist, without the belief in transubstantiation, puts himself in grave danger. “For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.” (1 Cor. 11:29).

There is also the issue of unity. The recieving of the Eucharist by the faithful is an expression of the highest form of spiritual unity. To allow other Christians (with the exception of Orthodox Christians) to recieve Communion with us is to declare a level of Christian unity which does not exist.

The only exception to his is “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” (CIC 844 4).

 

[thistle]

I mean infants per CIC 97 and 99. So per the Latin Church sacramental discipline infants do not receive but per the eastern Catholic sacramental discipline they do receive.

Thanks.

 

[Brendan_64]

it would put the non-Catholic in a difficult position if it is ever explained to him that his “Amen” when receiving the Catholic Eucharist means (in part) that he agrees to believe the Pope in all of his teachings (including “outside the Church there is no salvation”).

Regarding “outside the Church there is no salvation” I would add the following quote from the 2000 declaration Dominus Iesus from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith:

“for those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation.”

 

[Genesis315]

Regarding “outside the Church there is no salvation” I would add the following quote from the 2000 declaration Dominus Iesus from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith:

“for those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation.”

I believe the point is by saying “Amen” the person who does not actually believe these things (or at least want to) would be lying.

 

[Brendan_64]

I believe the point is by saying “Amen” the person who does not actually believe these things (or at least want to) would be lying.

I’d agree with that.

I’d also like those who are advocating that somehow for a non-Catholic to recieve Communion with us would do them no harm and would help them, that the Eucharist isn’t simply some sort of ‘good medicine for the soul’ to be given to all. Holy Communion is a sacrament, a meeting of the divine and the human, we are part of what is going on and are required to enter into it with an understanding and belief in what is happening. Our fellow Christians who consider what is happening to be simply a symbolic memorial service cannot take part in it. They can be there, they can listen, they can pray with us, but they cannot actively take part in Holy Communion. It makes no difference what any individual priest, or even bishop thinks, non-Catholics cannot take part by recieving the Eucharist.

 

[Phemie]

Sadly, there are priests who refuse to deny anyone Communion. Our former pastor used to regularly give Communion non-Catholics, even the ministers of the various non-Catholic churches if they were in the line - he knew full well who they were since he was regularly in meetings with them. I also saw him go up to kneel at the rail and receive ‘communion’ at the Anglican church. This just causes confusion.

Just last week a couple was in my office and the topic turned to Communion – even though I no longer work at the parish and my work has nothing to do with the Church.
He’s Catholic, she’s Moravian. She asked me if she could receive in our Church and I replied that no, since we didn’t have the same understanding of Communion, she couldn’t receive. She turned to her husband and said, “See, I knew I couldn’t receive when we went to Mass.” He looked at me and said, “How come when we go to Mass in Holyrood (a parish where he grew up) the priest invites everyone to come and receive whether they are Catholic or not.” I wanted to say, “Because he’s so open-minded that his brain fell out,” but I limited myself to, “Unfortunately, he’s issuing an invitation he has no right to issue.”

 

[zz912]

Paul often uses “body” to mean the assembly or the church. If you read a little further, you’ll see that the sin is in showing no concern for others who have come to worship and share the feast. Hunger could result in sickness and even death. Perhaps that can shed a little light on the main question of this thread: how to treat those who have come to worship with us.

Well let’s take a look and see if that is the use he is referring to. Just a couple verses earlier, he makes reference to the “body” that he is discussing.

*I Cor 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, 24 and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.

27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying. 31 If we discerned ourselves, we would not be under judgment; 32 but since we are judged by [the] Lord, we are being disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world. 33 Therefore, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34 If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that your meetings may not result in judgment. The other matters I shall set in order when I come.*

Now which is even plausible? Could Paul be meaning the “assembly” when he is mentioning the “body”? Obviously the answer is no. There is no need to create a whole convoluted rationale over this. Exactly how would one go about “discerning” that some are eating too much of the Eucharist while others do not? Simply does not work to explain what Paul is referring to.

 

[llenadegracia]

Ok…so I think we can all (at least the majority) agree that the priest should not be encouraging all baptized Christians to receive, correct?

I’m still digesting everything posted…

So where to take it from here?

 

[jwinch2]

Ok…so I think we can all (at least the majority) agree that the priest should not be encouraging all baptized Christians to receive, correct?

I’m still digesting everything posted…

So where to take it from here?

I suggest asking to meet with the priest. Do not ambush him after Mass, set up a meeting with him at another time. At the meeting, explain your concerns clearly and directly, but also respectfully and politely. Listen to his explanation if he decides to offer one, and if you are satisfied with his response, leave it there. If not, the next step would be to speak with your diocese about the situation. I would suggest it is polite to let priest know if you are planning to take it to the diocese, but it isn’t exactly necessary. He is going to know it is you either way if you do, and may have more respect for you if you are upfront about it.

Peace,

 

[llenadegracia]

I suggest asking to meet with the priest. Do not ambush him after Mass, set up a meeting with him at another time. At the meeting, explain your concerns clearly and directly, but also respectfully and politely. Listen to his explanation if he decides to offer one, and if you are satisfied with his response, leave it there. If not, the next step would be to speak with your diocese about the situation. I would suggest it is polite to let priest know if you are planning to take it to the diocese, but it isn’t exactly necessary. He is going to know it is you either way if you do, and may have more respect for you if you are upfront about it.

Peace,

Thank you.

I suppose now I’m just weighing the pros and cons. I don’t want to brush it off for the sake of allowing harmony and everyone to participate…but at the same time, I don’t want to end up in a disagreement with the priest and end up with a huge mess.

I should also mention there are other students who feel the same way…definitely good to know I am not alone with these concerns. We are all just at a loss of what to do. Some of my friends have asked him before…not necessarily in a “hey, that’s probably not a good idea” kind of way, more just asking him why he is allowing all baptized Christians to receive. His response in the past is that he wants to promote harmony and community and denying to anyone wouldn’t be very inviting.

 

[Vico]

The question to ask, per type of non-catholic church or ecclesial community attending is:Has the diocesan Bishop or the Episcopal Conference issued a general norm after consultation with the competent authority of the non-catholic Church or communiy?
And also:
Has the the diocesan Bishop or Episcopal Conference determined that there is a grave and pressing need at the center?

 

[TimothyH]

I am no expert on legal exceptions, but it’s sacreligious for someone to receive Holy Communion who doesn’t believe in transubstantiation. They will treat Our Lord like a piece of bread, a mere thing, which offends Him. Offending Him is a sin. So you are incorrect on both counts.

I urge you to think twice about what you’ve written here.

Sacrilege has to be intentional. Someone has to do it knowingly, on purpose and with the intent to profane the sacred. If someone recieves the Eucharist without knowing that they are not supposed to, even if they don’t believe in the real presence, then it is not sacrilege.

-Tim-

 

[Vico]

“For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died” (1 Cor. 11:29–30)."

 

[Brendan_64]

His response in the past is that he wants to promote harmony and community and denying to anyone wouldn’t be very inviting.

The Eucharist should not be used as a tool to promote harmony.

We all have a duty to strive for Christian unity, but using the Eucharist as something to enable everyone to feel included certainly does not seem right. Despite our Christian fellowship, there are still deep divisions amongst Christians concerning the nature of the Eucahrist and these divisions cannot be ignored.

Best to speak to your priest in the spirit of charity, but if it doesn’t get resolved bear in mind that this is the Eucharist we’re talking about There is nothing more sacred to us than the Eucharist, and in my mind that is far more important than the wishes of a priest to promote an appearance of Christian unity (which doesn’t exist when it come to the view of the Eucharist).

 

[jwinch2]

Sacrilege has to be intentional. Someone has to do it knowingly, on purpose and with the intent to profane the sacred. If someone recieves the Eucharist without knowing that they are not supposed to, even if they don’t believe in the real presence, then it is not sacrilege.

-Tim-

By that rationale, the priest who is deliberately allowing non-Catholics or non-Christians to receive Holy Communion would be heading in the direction of sacrilege if not all the way there. The recipients might not be aware, but he certainly is.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Ok…so I think we can all (at least the majority) agree that the priest should not be encouraging all baptized Christians to receive, correct?

I’m still digesting everything posted…

So where to take it from here?

If it were me, I’d go to the Diocese next.

And I’d do it sooner than later.

 

[jmcrae]

Thank you.

I suppose now I’m just weighing the pros and cons. I don’t want to brush it off for the sake of allowing harmony and everyone to participate…but at the same time, I don’t want to end up in a disagreement with the priest and end up with a huge mess.

I should also mention there are other students who feel the same way…definitely good to know I am not alone with these concerns. We are all just at a loss of what to do. Some of my friends have asked him before…not necessarily in a “hey, that’s probably not a good idea” kind of way, more just asking him why he is allowing all baptized Christians to receive. His response in the past is that he wants to promote harmony and community and denying to anyone wouldn’t be very inviting.

That’s what pot-luck suppers are for.

 

[Moore11]

I once heard an Archbishop say re: non-Catholics receiving who wished to: “Can’t hurt 'em, might help 'em.” This priest may have permission from his Bishop. But, besides the the violation of Canon law which doesn’t deal with theology but with legality, it does not harm our Lord, it cannot harm the recipient and it may be a huge benefit to them.

I see no reason for you to be concerned at all.

??? Who said that?

That is just absolutely wrong. I’d sure like to see the context of that quote!

fact is that the priest should be asked about this situation and if he is in error the Bishop should be notified.

This is our Lord. To have the response you indicated shows a concerning misunderstanding of just what the Eucharist is and what a Catholic is.

Sad.