Non-Catholics in communion line

  • Thread starter Thread starter USAFwife
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That is a good one from the priest - a spiritual Communion.

Anyway, nobody can stop you from coming during Communion. in fact it shows you desire to receive Communion but unable to because you are not Catholic.

In a place where people go up for blessing during Communion, it is absolutely not a problem for the priest that you go up.

God bless.
 
Like I said, spiritual Communion is fine when it’s a Catholic in an “irregular situation” or perhaps someone of a Protestant faith who is fine with the idea of coming up and bowing before the Eucharist, in other words acknowledging the Real Presence. I would further presume that the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales may be thinking of Anglicans, whose views on Communion are not that far off from Catholic views, and about whom there is some controversy over them not being permitted Communion just like there is some controversy with Lutherans.

I have been to Mass with Protestant people and non-Catholics who, according to their faith, did not believe in the Real Presence or see the Eucharist as anything more than a symbolic sharing of some bread and wine (if that), and would not be bowing or genuflecting before the Eucharist. These people might be fine with the idea of receiving God’s blessing, but the idea of “spiritual communion” would not be on their radar screen at all, and in fact they might be put off by the thought.

Edited to add, By the way, I read the entire EWTN article you linked - Not just the selective sections of the very long article you cut out and posted as supporting your point - and noticed that there are significant parts where the writer on EWTN is questioning several aspects of this idea of the “blessing” being “spiritual communion”, one basis being that it “weakens the awareness” of what Communion actually is.
 
Last edited:
Gorgias said:
“5. In a similar way, for others who are not to be admitted to Holy Communion in accord with the norm of law, the Church’s discipline has already made clear that they should not approach Holy Communion nor receive a blessing. This would include non-Catholics and those envisaged in can. 915 (i.e., those under the penalty of excommunication or interdict, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin).”
Click to expand...
mrsdizzyd said:
Come on Gorgias! If a decision has not yet been made it is not yet cut and dry.
Click to expand...
While the letter per se may not be legally binding it contains issues which are.
Look at point 5. below, for example.
It clearly states that there are existing Church laws and disciplines which state non-Catholics and Catholics in a state of mortal sin should not join the Communion line either to receive Communion or receive a blessing.
The letter is not the authority but it refers to the already existing laws and disciplines.

“5. In a similar way, for others who are not to be admitted to Holy Communion in accord with the norm of law, the Church’s discipline has already made clear that they should not approach Holy Communion nor receive a blessing. This would include non-Catholics and those envisaged in can. 915 (i.e., those under the penalty of excommunication or interdict, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin).”
 
Last edited:
There is no citation available for that section which would suggest that this mention of a blessing is not in any document.

Without such a citation I point you back to this section of the reply:
As a private reply the letter is not yet a norm with legal force and, as it makes clear, is not a definitive reply.
Click to expand...
So, still, it is not cut and dry.
 
mrsdizzyd said:
There is no citation available for that section which would suggest that this mention of a blessing is not in any document.

Without such a citation
Click to expand...
Not quite sure what you’re trying to say. Are you saying that unless a document says “no blessings at Communion time”, you think it’s ok?
 
It seems like every church does it different. When I was a young child my parents would bring me up and the people giving the Body or Blood would just say something like “God bless you” to me. However, I also know of cases where a non-Catholic who attends with family will just stay in the pew.
 
pnewton said:
The article does not refer to this specifically. There is nothing that specifies this is not allowed
Click to expand...
True, but there is the spirit of the law. Saying something isn’t specifically covered is how we end up with books of laws no reasonable person could ever know and how we end up with fifty page contracts. People blame the attorneys but it is really man’s nature to find justifications to do whatever it is he wants to do. The same has been going on in the Church since the beginning.
 
exnihilo said:
True, but there is the spirit of the law. Saying something isn’t specifically covered is how we end up with books of laws no reasonable person could ever know and how we end up with fifty page contracts.
Click to expand...
There is a simple law here that covers all facets though. Canon Law states the bishop is the one who is responsible of implementing the liturgy. Unless there is an actual liturgical abuse, the buck ends there.
 
thistle said:
In a similar way, for others who are not to be admitted to Holy Communion in accord with the norm of law, the Church’s discipline has already made clear that they should not approach Holy Communion nor receive a blessing. This would include non-Catholics and those envisaged in can. 915 (i.e., those under the penalty of excommunication or interdict, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin).
Click to expand...
No. I’m saying that the letter says that it does not have the force of law. It also says a decision is forthcoming. That was 10 years ago. The issue was not then and is not now a settled issue. The best course of action remains to ask your priest!
 
I don’t think we’re really in big disagreement here. The only reason I’m making the point is because there are some serious issues with the idea of one and all people being invited to “spiritual Communion” with Catholics when they may not believe in the concept of Jesus being present in Communion and may not even believe in the divinity of Jesus. It is perfectly fine for you and for anybody else who actually espouses the idea of Jesus as God joining with us in Communion to make a “spiritual Communion” either in the Communion line or in the pew.

I think many times the priests and bishops make statements based on the realities they are confronted wth in their own parishes, which may focus on Catholics who cannot receive actual Communion, or on Anglicans, Lutherans, spouses of Catholics, etc. who really want to join in Communion and have an understanding of what it is. They are not stopping to think about and clarify a different situation of somebody bringing their Muslim friend or agnostic relative to Mass.

Communion’s a really special thing and I along with other Catholics feel kind of protective of the concept. But you’re not one of the people we would be concerned about.
 
What exactly is a liturgical abuse? The law doesn’t seem so simple to me. I experience frequently changed or added words. I am quite sure that isn’t right and yet it persists. The fact that something happens and is even common doesn’t mean it is in accord with the law.
 
exnihilo said:
What exactly is a liturgical abuse? The law doesn’t seem so simple to me.
Click to expand...
Easy. Something that is enough of a violation to have the papal nuncio address the issue, or the pope or Congregation for Divine Liturgy, to address the issue. Abuse is defined by the authority of the Church in action.

Another reason this behavior, or others, may persist is that you and others are wrong about it being an abuse. Even liturgical police have to submit to the liturgical court system.
 
Last edited:
Hereiam said:
It is both a hot button and a silly issue.
Click to expand...
I get what you’re saying. In the grand scheme of things, a blessing isn’t a huge issue.

What is a huge issue is the notion that a priest feels like he has the right to insert something into the Mass that isn’t part of the Mass. One of the negative side effects, then, is that people argue for invalid changes to the Mass – or worse, they castigate priests who refuse to do so!

I don’t have any problems with blessings, per se – if they’re explicitly provided for in the liturgical norms of the Church!
 
pnewton said:
Easy. Something that is enough of a violation to have the papal nuncio address the issue, or the pope or Congregation for Divine Liturgy, to address the issue. Abuse is defined by the authority of the Church in action.
Click to expand...
No – what you’re describing isn’t the definition of ‘abuse’, it’s “choosing a hill to die on.” They might decide, for practical reasons, to not address it. That doesn’t mean it’s not an issue – just one that they choose not to correct.
 
I will choose to disagree. I was a Baptist most my life and knows that there are as many opinions as people. The authority of the Church as the final arbiter really makes life more simple. It is the only objective authority I recognize, present company included.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top