Lutheran intercommunion

[peter26]

So if someone is baptised into the Catholic Church (even illicitly), the Church could say that they are allowed to receive Communion, since they are (albeit imperfectly) members of the Church.

 

[SyroMalankara]

So if someone is baptised into the Catholic Church (even illicitly), the Church could say that they are allowed to receive Communion, since they are (albeit imperfectly) members of the Church.

The Church could say that a baptized person may receive in a state of Grace - meaning after confession and normally after confirmation. Yes.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

They are baptized into the Catholic Church (if it’s a real baptism), but imperfectly joined since it was done illicitly. It does, just as every heretic that is baptized, is baptized into the Church (if the baptism is real) - Arius, Nestorius, etc, etc. - their opinion on doctrine or theology or teachings are still wrong and should be avoided.

Such language is not used today for non-Catholics.

Pope Saint John Paul II made that abundantly clear.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

The Church could say that a baptized person may receive in a state of Grace - meaning after confession and normally after confirmation. Yes.

This also is not correct. Since it is not necessary for one to be confirmed in order to be admitted to Eucharist, in fact, it is still normal in the West that one is admitted to Eucharist even years before being confirmed.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

The Church could say that a baptized person may receive in a state of Grace - meaning after confession and normally after confirmation. Yes.

These answers give entirely the wrong sense of what is given clearly in the CIC.

First, one who is validly baptised is part of the Body of Christ…as Pope John Paul II said, we all belong to Christ. Period.

However, because of the historical and canonical divisions, states of impaired communion with each other exist among those who “all belong to Christ.”

Can 844 delineates what must be present for a non-Catholic Christian to receive the sacraments of Eucharist, Reconciliation and Anointing of the Sick. The vary according to their canonical status and what the determination of the Holy See is regarding each of their communities.

Do they need to be confirmed? No. Most assuredly not.
Do they need to have a Catholic faith in the sacrament they are asking to receive? Yes.
Are they conformed to the norms that are established for admitting them to the sacrament? For it to be licit, they must be. That is a determination made first by law, which may then subsequently be augmented by either the diocesan bishop or the conference of bishops.

One who was baptised in a non Catholic Church/Ecclesial Community has to be admitted to full communion by a formal act in order to overcome the canonical division.

 

[SyroMalankara]

This also is not correct. Since it is not necessary for one to be confirmed in order to be admitted to Eucharist, in fact, it is still normal in the West that one is admitted to Eucharist even years before being confirmed.

Ok, but these persons admitted to Eucharist are normally Catholics not non-Catholic of non-Apostolic Churches.

From Archdiocese of St. Paul
NORMS FOR THE CELERBATION OF CONFIRMATION
Priests who receive non-Catholic Christians above the age of seven into full communion with the Catholic Church are also to confirm them. Unless a grave reason prevents it, the sacrament of Confirmation must be conferred immediately following baptism or at the reception of a baptized adult christian into full communion with the Church.

If Confirmation is delayed, the pastor is to refer the matter to the Archbishop for an individual priest does not then possess the faculty to confirm outside of the provisions outlined below. Priests with the faculties of the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, and who have pastoral care of a group of the faithful by means of a parish assignment, are granted the delegation to confirm Catholics aged eighteen or older who have been in the RCIA program at their parish. This faculty may be used only if the Catholic seeking Confirmation is properly disposed, not bound by any canonical impediments, and has had an extensive course of preparation through RCIA or another approved program. such catholics may be confirmed at a ceremony distinct from the Easter Vigil.

Priests with the faculties of the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, and who have pastoral care of a group of the faithfut by means of a parish assignment, are granted the delegation to confirm Catholics preparing for marriage, provided that the instruction is properly and fully completed and the sacrament of Confirmation is administered prior to the wedding taking place.

When confronted with a pastoral situation in which a priest does not have the faculty to confirm by the law or grant of faculties, the priest has the option of applying directly to the Archbishop for the delegated faculty to confirm in that particular instance. Only after discussion with the individual and with a serious reason interfering with the person’s ability to be confirmed by the Archbishop may a pastor request delegation from the Archbishop to confirm a baptized Catholic.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

They are baptized into the Catholic Church (if it’s a real baptism), but imperfectly joined since it was done illicitly…

This is employing an ecclesiology which has been superceded, thankfully.

Canon 11 states that merely ecclesiastical law bind only those who are Catholic. Thus, there is nothing illicit about an Anglican priest baptising one seeking baptism from him or her.

One who thinks with the mind of the Church today assents to what the Council Fathers declared:
*The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.

It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.*
Thus we are called to acknowledge and praise the work of God, which is also occurring outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church, and thus we are called to rejoice with and for those who have come to know the Lord through those means of salvation which the Spirit of Christ has been pleased to use to touch him or her.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Here’s what an STL “expert” states on the first matter:
ewtn.com/expert/answers/intercommunion.htm
Canon 844 (c.671 in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches)

1. Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments to Catholic members of the Christian faithful only and, likewise, the latter may licitly receive the sacraments only from Catholic ministers with due regard for parts 2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and can. 861, part 2.
2. Whenever necessity requires or genuine spiritual advantage suggests, and provided that the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, it is lawful for the faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, 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 may licitly administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the oriental churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, if they ask on their own for the sacraments and are properly disposed. This holds also for members of other churches, which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition as the oriental churches as far as these sacraments are concerned.
4. 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.
5. For the cases in parts 2, 3, and 4, neither the diocesan bishop nor the conference of bishops is to enact general norms except after consultation with at least the local competent authority of the interested non- Catholic Church or community.

In keeping with the sacramental meaning of the Eucharist this canon reserves the sacraments to Catholics, that is, those who are in communion with the Church. It then addresses the question of Catholics receiving the sacraments from non-Catholics. It sets the following strict conditions:

a. necessity or genuine spiritual advantage
b. when the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided
c. it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister
d. a church which has valid sacraments

This last condition is the key one, since it eliminates ALL the Reformation churches (Anglican, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist etc.), none of whom have valid sacred orders, and therefore, a valid Eucharist. The possibility of a Catholic receiving from the minister of another church, when the first three conditions are fulfilled, is limited to the Orthodox Churches, other Oriental Churches, Old Catholics, Polish National and others whose sacraments are recognized by the Holy See. As paragraph 3 notes, the members of those churches may likewise receive from a Catholic minister, when they ask and are disposed.

Under what conditions, therefore, may non-Catholics from the Reformation churches receive? Paragraph 4 addresses this matter and sets stricter conditions than for non-Catholics who belong to Churches which have a valid Eucharist, true Eucharistic faith and valid Penance. These conditions are:
a. danger of death, or, other grave necessity,
b. the norms of the diocesan bishop, or, the conference of bishops are
complied with
c. cannot approach a minister of his or her own community
d. asks on his or her own for it,
e. manifests Catholic faith in the sacraments
f. properly disposed.

These last two conditions are very important. When Catholics and Orthodox present themselves for Communion, either to their own minister or that of another Church with valid sacraments, Eucharistic faith and proper disposition is assumed, given the introduction to both Penance and the Eucharist at an early age in Churches which have a Catholic Eucharistic faith. However, when a non-Catholic presents himself the norms presume an investigation to determine the person’s faith, and to determine the necessary moral conditions for a proper reception of the Eucharist. That all these conditions are met, especially the last two, cannot be determined by a minister of Communion, ordinary or extraordinary, in the Communion line. This is why the USCCB guidelines, which are published in the back of every missalette, exclude weddings, funerals and other such occasions as appropriate for intercommunion. The occasions would be individual, normally determined by a pastor after consultation with the bishop, or, in accordance with norms drawn up on the basis of this canon (paragraph 5).

Answered by Colin B. Donovan, STL

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Ok, but these persons admitted to Eucharist are normally Catholics not non-Catholic of non-Apostolic Churches.

From Archdiocese of St. Paul
NORMS FOR THE CELERBATION OF CONFIRMATION
Priests who receive non-Catholic Christians above the age of seven into full communion with the Catholic Church are also to confirm them. Unless a grave reason prevents it, the sacrament of Confirmation must be conferred immediately following baptism or at the reception of a baptized adult christian into full communion with the Church.

If Confirmation is delayed, the pastor is to refer the matter to the Archbishop for an individual priest does not then possess the faculty to confirm outside of the provisions outlined below. Priests with the faculties of the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, and who have pastoral care of a group of the faithful by means of a parish assignment, are granted the delegation to confirm Catholics aged eighteen or older who have been in the RCIA program at their parish. This faculty may be used only if the Catholic seeking Confirmation is properly disposed, not bound by any canonical impediments, and has had an extensive course of preparation through RCIA or another approved program. such catholics may be confirmed at a ceremony distinct from the Easter Vigil.

Priests with the faculties of the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, and who have pastoral care of a group of the faithfut by means of a parish assignment, are granted the delegation to confirm Catholics preparing for marriage, provided that the instruction is properly and fully completed and the sacrament of Confirmation is administered prior to the wedding taking place.

When confronted with a pastoral situation in which a priest does not have the faculty to confirm by the law or grant of faculties, the priest has the option of applying directly to the Archbishop for the delegated faculty to confirm in that particular instance. Only after discussion with the individual and with a serious reason interfering with the person’s ability to be confirmed by the Archbishop may a pastor request delegation from the Archbishop to confirm a baptized Catholic.

I am quite aware aware of the order of administering the sacraments for one who is coming into full communion. I have done it many times.

I am quite aware that there are dioceses which seek to place the order on sacramental initiation beyond the above situation to baptism, confirmation and Eucharist. This is not what the provision of Pope Saint Pius X provided and I am very grateful to be where we staunchly hold to his provision. The order is: Baptism, then Eucharist, with Confirmation at some later date…and personally I think the dioceses altering the sequence will eventually come to regret it and restore the provision of Pope Saint Pius X.

This is, however, an entirely separate discussion from – whether the person articulates it properly and explicitly as such or merely is referring obliquely to the provision made in law – invocation of the provisions of Canon 844, which is the route for non-Catholics participation in our sacraments and the subject of this thread.

That Confirmation is not necessary for admission to the sacraments of Eucharist, Reconciliation and Anointing is a critical point from the perspective of sacramental theology and allows Canon 844’s provision in paragraph 4.

 

[SyroMalankara]

There’s an entire site about the reasoning on restoring the Traditional order, based on Pope Benedict’s 2007 exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis:
archden.org/saints/

 

[Don_Ruggero]

There’s an entire site about the reasoning on restoring the Traditional order

As I wrote above, I am quite familiar with the topic.

I am very grateful that where I am, the provision of Pope Saint Pius X prevails. I vastly prefer that sacramental discipline to the one it superceded.

As I have had occasion to say to younger priests, the priests, deacons and laity should instantly comply with a directive from the hierarchy…that does not set aside the reality of what one has lived for decades. I lived the superiority of the wisdom of Pope Saint Pius X in altering the sacramental discipline. It was a truly wonderful decision.

 

[Peter_J]

Sometimes I ask myself the same question and sometimes I have no good answers.

Well presumably you came into the Ordinariate of your own volition. Pope Benedict opened the door – or, more precisely, opened wider a dorm that was already open – but only you could decide to walk through it. That to me is what it comes down to.

 

[Vico]

I am quite aware aware of the order of administering the sacraments for one who is coming into full communion. I have done it many times.

I am quite aware that there are dioceses which seek to place the order on sacramental initiation beyond the above situation to baptism, confirmation and Eucharist. This is not what the provision of Pope Saint Pius X provided and I am very grateful to be where we staunchly hold to his provision. The order is: Baptism, then Eucharist, with Confirmation at some later date…and personally I think the dioceses altering the sequence will eventually come to regret it and restore the provision of Pope Saint Pius X.

This is, however, an entirely separate discussion from – whether the person articulates it properly and explicitly as such or merely is referring obliquely to the provision made in law – invocation of the provisions of Canon 844, which is the route for non-Catholics participation in our sacraments and the subject of this thread.

That Confirmation is not necessary for admission to the sacraments of Eucharist, Reconciliation and Anointing is a critical point from the perspective of sacramental theology and allows Canon 844’s provision in paragraph 4.

The practice has changed many times:

1. From apostolic times until about the fifth century the Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation were given in one continuous rite of initiation, which culminated in a Christian’s admission to the Eucharist.
2. In the Middle Ages (5th-13th centuries) Baptism and First Eucharist were administered together at infancy, with a later Confirmation by the bishop in very early childhood.
3. During the thirteenth to sixteenth century, infant Baptism was the norm but Confirmation was celebrated at the age of discretion (seven), with First Eucharist between the ages of ten and fourteen.
4. By the sixteenth century until the nineteenth century infant baptism was the norm, Confirmation was between seven and fifteen years, followed by First Eucharist.
5. In modern times infant baptism, First Eucharist at the age of discretion, and Confirmation between seven and eighteen became common.
6. The restored order for children is similar to that of the sixteenth century, but early, and for adults, RCIA, is like apostolic times, so it is not a full restoration to before the fifth century.
7. BCE
8. BE…C
9. B…C…E
10. B…CE
11. B…E…C
12. B…CE

No. 1 is like the Byzantine Catholic Church norm

americancatholicpress.org…ur_Spirit.html

 

[Polycarp1]

Its a position also supported in scripture in several places.

One example “Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.” 1 Corinthians 12:17

He was talking to members of the Church Christ founded, commissioned and authorized at that time and not to sects or factions that later broke away and started their own churches.

 

[Peter_J]

There’s an entire site about the reasoning on restoring the Traditional order, based on Pope Benedict’s 2007 exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis:
archden.org/saints/

I guess time will tell. But for the moment it seems odd to have this on a thread about Lutherans. (Well, I guess we could criticize Lutherans for doing what we also do, but such a criticism might be called “rich”.)

 

[Rosebud77]

I do respect other denominations and their beautiful traditions with all my heart. The problem is not whether you believe in transubstantiation or whether you believe that they are merely symbolic, or maybe some other beliefs that exists out there. The real key point of the holy communion is about remembering the holy sacrifice as Christ is present in the communion. Everyone has their own interpretation and understanding of the scripture and I don’t understand how our own understanding of G-d’s mystery can possibly put our soul in jeopardy. No human can possibly understand G-d’s mystery because it is far too great for a human to comprehend. We only have the Holy Scripture, and it is us humans who sets up interpretation and traditions to somehow reach the understanding and knowledge of G-d almighty, which is not possible. Going to another church of different denomination is a sign or an act of fellowship and re-affirming Christian unity, and it does not make us a hypocrite. It does not show that we are going against our own beliefs or doctrines. A real hypocrite is those who tries to isolate themselves from other Christians and care only for themselves. Pope Francis also emphasized the importance of unity, peaceful dialogue, and one baptism under Christ, and thus re-affirms one L-rd, one faith, one baptism. Everyone has their own belief, their own doctrine, traditions, customs, and etc. Our job here is in this world is to focus on unity as brothers and sisters in Christ, and fight against the world instead of ourselves, and bring sinners to repentance.

For this post, thank you mightily. This is my own thought. and what was extended to me at every Catholic Church when I was first in Ireland, still Anglican .It healed more that I can ever express.

 

[rinnie]

I honestly think that the Catholic Church should allow other non-catholic Christians who were baptized to receive catholic communion. Are we not all Christians? Are we not all children of G-d? Can’t we all just set aside our differences and be one in Christ? Why hatred? Why division? How are we to fight against the world when we are busy fighting ourselves?

“One Lord, one faith, one baptism” -Ephesians 4:5-

“that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” -John 17:21-

We can"t. In the RCC we ourselves cannot go to communion without going to confession if we are in a state of mortal sin.

A Priest cannot let someone who has never confessed their sins to enter into Communion. he is not punishing them he is protecting them from condemning themselves.

1 Cor. 11;28

 

[rinnie]

I do respect other denominations and theirbeautiful traditions with all my heart. The problem is not whether you believe in transubstantiation or whether you believe that they are merely symbolic, or maybe some other beliefs that exists out there. The real key point of the holy communion is about remembering the holy sacrifice as Christ is present in the communion. Everyone has their own interpretation and understanding of the scripture and I don’t understand how our own understanding of G-d’s mystery can possibly put our soul in jeopardy. No human can possibly understand G-d’s mystery because it is far too great for a human to comprehend. We only have the Holy Scripture, and it is us humans who sets up interpretation and traditions to somehow reach the understanding and knowledge of G-d almighty, which is not possible. Going to another church of different denomination is a sign or an act of fellowship and re-affirming Christian unity, and it does not make us a hypocrite. It does not show that we are going against our own beliefs or doctrines. A real hypocrite is those who tries to isolate themselves from other Christians and care only for themselves. Pope Francis also emphasized the importance of unity, peaceful dialogue, and one baptism under Christ, and thus re-affirms one L-rd, one faith, one baptism. Everyone has their own belief, their own doctrine, traditions, customs, and etc. Our job here is in this world is to focus on unity as brothers and sisters in Christ, and fight against the world instead of ourselves, and bring sinners to repentance.

Membership of what? Are you simply saying that while all believers are part of the Body of Christ and are therefore part of the Church, the important thing is belonging to the right club? In that case, the rules of the club can be changed, as it seems will soon happen with respect to the Lutherans.

I was taught that all Christians baptised in the the Trinity are indeed part of Christ and his Church who are one.

But the problem is all Church’s have the truth of Christ. But as the Pope will tell you the RCC has the FULLNESS of truth.

We are taught to Love and respect all of our brothers and sisters in Christ and admire the good they do. But we are also taught only ONE Church has the fullness of truth. It is the Church they was started by Christ and his Apostles. The Church must have 4 marks to be the true Church. It must be ONE HOLY CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Membership of what? Are you simply saying that while all believers are part of the Body of Christ and are therefore part of the Church, the important thing is belonging to the right club? In that case, the rules of the club can be changed, as it seems will soon happen with respect to the Lutherans.

We are indeed all one with Christ. That is to say, the baptised are made part of the Body of Christ and that must be insisted upon.

Those who are part of the one Body of Christ are in an varying states of impaired communion with each other. This is the ecclesiological catastrophe that is our existential reality.

Pope Saint John Paul II well described it when he wrote in Ut Unum Sint:
Again, the very expression separated brethren tends to be replaced today by expressions which more readily evoke the deep communion — linked to the baptismal character — which the Spirit fosters in spite of historical and canonical divisions. Today we speak of “other Christians”, “others who have received Baptism”, and “Christians of other Communities”. The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism refers to the Communities to which these Christians belong as “Churches and Ecclesial Communities that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church”. This broadening of vocabulary is indicative of a significant change in attitudes. There is an increased awareness that we all belong to Christ.
The Spirit is not impeded by the canonical divisions we experience…and that must be uppermost in our minds as we consider contemporary realities. It is the Magisterium that will discern the working of the Spirit, just as they did at Vatican II with the decisions regarding ecumenism and Christian Unity. It was the gift of the Spirit to the Church through the Successors of he Apostles, the shepherds whom every sheep must hear and obediently follow in complete docility.