Conversion by default?

[puzzleannie]

Is it possible that, by having lived in the church for years after getting married, and having received the Eucharist, the Protestant spouse might have been de facto converted “by default?” Or is there still the necessity to convert formally in order to fully receive the benefits of the Eucharist and other Catholic Sacraments?

no there is no formal conversion by “default”. But this is a validly baptized Christian, presumably, who has long since become convinced of the truth of the Catholic faith, particularly with regards to the Eucharist. He has been badly taught, which is not his fault, that he cannot receive yet, but that hardly constitutes sin on his part (unless he was at some point instructed not to receive and chose to disobey wilfully).

Someone who knows the family should take steps to act as a sponsor and mentor and suggest he complete the journey through sacramental confession, profession of faith and confirmation, and facilitate that contact with the pastor to prepare for this. Quite likely he does not need full blown RCIA but some remedial instruction (as does the spouse).

 

[bamaster47]

I spoke to my mother about this today…she said that basically, what happened was when she married my father in our Catholic parish, somehow her name managed to get into the records, and so she was listed as a member of the parish, even though she never went through the formal conversion process. Because of this, no one ever questioned her when she received Communion. Apparently though, they (my parents) happened to read some sort of “fine print” about Communion in a bulletin or some other publication, and interpreted it as meaning that as long as a person was in good standing within their own Christian faith (Catholic or otherwise), they could receive Communion at a Mass. I was skeptical when I heard this, so I came back to CAF and found this article, which seems to disagree with that notion:

catholic.com/library/Who_Can_Receive_Communion.asp

She even mentioned that her Lutheran pastor at the time, who also participated in the wedding ceremony, received Catholic Communion at the wedding. This leads me to believe that the Catholic priest who performed the wedding must have agreed with this “fine print” notion, otherwise he would not have administered Communion to a man who was obviously not Catholic.

Has anyone else heard of such “fine print” regarding who can and cannot receive Communion? I’m pretty sure the article I linked above is clear, but who knows, maybe there is something weird going on here…

 

[jmcrae]

Has anyone else heard of such “fine print” regarding who can and cannot receive Communion? I’m pretty sure the article I linked above is clear, but who knows, maybe there is something weird going on here…

Just thinking hypothetically, here, but maybe it says something like “Communion is forbidden to those who are not Catholic or not in good standing with the Church” which they took to mean, a person who is not a Catholic and not in good standing with their own church should not receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church - but since they were in good standing with their own Church, they thought it was okay (since they only fail one of the criteria; not both, in their understanding of it, not realizing that “Church” refers to the Catholic Church; not their own, and thinking that the “or” is referring to both criteria being present at the same time, and not realizing that it was separating two different categories of people - non-Catholics, and Catholics not in good standing with the Catholic Church) - and if they witnessed someone who is obviously a good Lutheran receiving Holy Communion at their wedding, they would assume, oh, okay - it means, if you are a good Lutheran, you can receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church.

Or, she just decided that the rules don’t apply to her, because she’s not Catholic, anyway - after all, what are they going to do - excommunicate her?

 

[jmcrae]

I spoke to my mother about this today…she said that basically, what happened was when she married my father in our Catholic parish, somehow her name managed to get into the records, and so she was listed as a member of the parish, even though she never went through the formal conversion process.

Actually, non-Catholics can, in fact, be registered in a parish - people in RCIA do it all the time.

I was registered at my local Catholic parish for years before I became Catholic, because I was attending Mass there, I occasionally donated money, and I wanted to receive tax receipts and newsletters.

I’m also sure that no one would have questioned it if I went up for Holy Communion, since a lot of people just assumed I was Catholic, but I knew that I would be lying to God if I did so, and He knows and sees all.

 

[bamaster47]

Just thinking hypothetically, here, but maybe it says something like “Communion is forbidden to those who are not Catholic or not in good standing with the Church” which they took to mean, a person who is not a Catholic and not in good standing with their own church should not receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church - but since they were in good standing with their own Church, they thought it was okay (since they only fail one of the criteria; not both, in their understanding of it, not realizing that “Church” refers to the Catholic Church; not their own, and thinking that the “or” is referring to both criteria being present at the same time, and not realizing that it was separating two different categories of people - non-Catholics, and Catholics not in good standing with the Catholic Church) - and if they witnessed someone who is obviously a good Lutheran receiving Holy Communion at their wedding, they would assume, oh, okay - it means, if you are a good Lutheran, you can receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church.

I suppose this is possible. What escapes me, then, is why they would administer Communion to a man who is very obviously not Catholic (the Lutheran pastor)? It seems to me that they should have mentioned it to him (and by extension, anyone else who was not Catholic, including my mother) beforehand that he was not to take Communion. Or does the Church leave it up to the conscience of the individual to decide whether or not to comply with Communion rule?

 

[interpolator]

What if the Protestant spouse was baptized under the RCIA, however his parents converted to Protestantism two years after he was baptized. However, he married a Catholic wife and is already attending in an RCIA church and receives communion and does not want to go back to Protestantism again.

What is the implication on this one?

 

[Vincent1984]

What if the Protestant spouse was baptized under the RCIA, however his parents converted to Protestantism two years after he was baptized. However, he married a Catholic wife and is already attending in an RCIA church and receives communion and does not want to go back to Protestantism again.

What is the implication on this one?

Strictly speaking, RCIA is only for non-baptised adults. However, for convenience many parishes lump RCIA together with catechesis for converts, and just use the name “RCIA” for both.

In my opinion, if someone were baptised as a Catholic baby but later went through a Protestant upbringing, he would need to be received back into the Church by confession (for leaving the Church), and ideally confirmation and Eucharist too. However, RCIA would not be the correct name for it, and he should not receive communion until then.

 

[Vincent1984]

What if the Protestant spouse was baptized under the RCIA, however his parents converted to Protestantism two years after he was baptized. However, he married a Catholic wife and is already attending in an RCIA church and receives communion and does not want to go back to Protestantism again.

Reading through your post again, it seems you are using RCIA to mean Roman Catholic, when it stands for Rite of Christian Initiation in Adults, by which non-baptised adults are received into the Church through baptism, confirmation and Eucharist on a single occasion, usually the Easter Vigil By extention, people use it to mean the catechesis process that often precedes the Rite of Initiation, and in many places it’s lumped together with the reception of adult converts who were baptised previously as non-Catholics.

 

[Aramis]

I spoke to my mother about this today…she said that basically, what happened was when she married my father in our Catholic parish, somehow her name managed to get into the records, and so she was listed as a member of the parish, even though she never went through the formal conversion process. Because of this, no one ever questioned her when she received Communion. Apparently though, they (my parents) happened to read some sort of “fine print” about Communion in a bulletin or some other publication, and interpreted it as meaning that as long as a person was in good standing within their own Christian faith (Catholic or otherwise), they could receive Communion at a Mass. I was skeptical when I heard this, so I came back to CAF and found this article, which seems to disagree with that notion:

catholic.com/library/Who_Can_Receive_Communion.asp

She even mentioned that her Lutheran pastor at the time, who also participated in the wedding ceremony, received Catholic Communion at the wedding. This leads me to believe that the Catholic priest who performed the wedding must have agreed with this “fine print” notion, otherwise he would not have administered Communion to a man who was obviously not Catholic.

Has anyone else heard of such “fine print” regarding who can and cannot receive Communion? I’m pretty sure the article I linked above is clear, but who knows, maybe there is something weird going on here…

The fine print is in Canon Law. Eucharistic Protestants CAN be admitted in certain circumstances.

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.

§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-

Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

§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.

§5. For the cases mentioned in §§2, 3, and 4, the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops is not to issue general norms except after consultation at least with the local competent authority of the interested non-Catholic Church or community. vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2T.HTM

Note §4. If at some point, the pastor asked her if she believes the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ… he could in theory have called the bishop and gotten permission. It’s actually not that uncommon in the case of Lutherans to believe in the Real Presence.

Likewise, My wife, baptized a lutheran, has been listed as a parishioner in each parish I’ve been in since. The thing is, the pastors note she’s non-catholic.

 

[Vincent1984]

The fine print is in Canon Law. Eucharistic Protestants CAN be admitted in certain circumstances.
§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.

I don’t think this applies ot most of the circumstances we’re talking about. There must be an inability to find their own minister, as well as an urgent cause at that time.

 

[interpolator]

Strictly speaking, RCIA is only for non-baptised adults. However, for convenience many parishes lump RCIA together with catechesis for converts, and just use the name “RCIA” for both.

In my opinion, if someone were baptised as a Catholic baby but later went through a Protestant upbringing, he would need to be received back into the Church by confession (for leaving the Church), and ideally confirmation and Eucharist too. However, RCIA would not be the correct name for it, and he should not receive communion until then.

Sorry, RCIA should be RC in my last post.

Going back, did that person really left the Church, since he has no choice (as an infant) back then than to go to church where his parents were attending.

 

[jmcrae]

I suppose this is possible. What escapes me, then, is why they would administer Communion to a man who is very obviously not Catholic (the Lutheran pastor)? It seems to me that they should have mentioned it to him (and by extension, anyone else who was not Catholic, including my mother) beforehand that he was not to take Communion.

Someone was probably trying to be “welcoming” and “inclusive.” It was wrong of them to do this, but they probably had honest intentions.

Or does the Church leave it up to the conscience of the individual to decide whether or not to comply with Communion rule?

Normally it’s up to individuals to do what they know to be the right thing - there’s no way a priest can identify everyone who shouldn’t be receiving Holy Communion. But in this instance, since the person was quite obviously not Catholic, something should have been said to him before the ceremony began, that, we welcome you to the Mass, and we’re glad you’re here - unfortunately, we don’t have the authority to admit you to our Communion at this time, due to historical circumstances that have not yet been resolved. We invite you to remain in your pew and pray for Christian Unity, so that one day we can all receive Holy Communion from the same Altar again.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

Not only would the “Protestant” spouse not be “converted by default”, he/she would also have committed many grave sins by receiving the Eucharist illicitly.

You say this person knows the rules, so he/she would know that they are not allowed to receive. But, they went ahead and did it anyway. I would strongly suspect that the Catholic spouse would also be in a state of grave sin, because they did not stop their spouse from receiving what they were not allowed to receive.

The Catholic Church acknowledges only two “unusual” forms of Baptism (not involving the proper ritual). Both require the death of the person involved. The first is “Baptism of Desire”, where a person wants, and has asked to be baptized, but dies before this can happen. That was my sole comfort, during the 4 years between when I asked to be baptized into the church, and when they finally allowed it to happen (age 9 request, age 13 baptism).

The second in “Baptism by Blood”. This applies to a person who is killed because of their beliefs in the teachings of the Catholic Church. A number of martyrs have been “baptized by blood”. I prayed that if this was ever to be my situation, that I would be able to stand up for my church. Thankfully, I never had to find out if my faith was that strong.

 

[kitkatty]

I agree with the Old Medic, the parents of the OP both had to know it was wrong for his Mom to be receiving and even if for some reason it was permitted at their wedding ceremony the OP also said their current priest doesnt even know that his Mom isnt actually Catholic, so it doesn`t look like they have an out since this has continued over a long period of time.

 

[Phemie]

I have to wonder in this case,the Catholic spouse certainly knows better and should have instructed their spouse not to take Communion and why. If the Catholic spouse didn`t do this, to me this is a grave sin for the Catholic spouse.

The spouse’s culpability would depend on where they live and what their pastor says. My present pastor gives communion to the non-Catholic pastors who happen to attend funerals and weddings and any non-Catholic who presents. My former bishop did the same. Can’t blame the PIP for not knowing better.