Opening the Sacrament of the Eucharist to more?

[Sy_Noe]

I’ve read Pope Francis in his recent “Evangelii Gaudium” said “everyone can be part of the community, nor should the doors of the sacraments be closed for simply any reason. The Eucharist, although it is the fullness of sacramental life, is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.”

Now I’ve seen progressives this wk try to suggest this means the Pontiff might be considering lifting the ban on pro choice politicians. This seems quite a stretch to me because if I’m not mistaken, Pope Francis is already on record from earlier in the year affirming denying the Eucharist to them.

But can the Holy Father make changes to allow people to receive Jesus in the Eucharist in other cases where the Sacrament is currently closed to them? And if so, what might some of these cases be where persons are currently not to receive, but which could be changed?

 

[GangGreen]

At the end of the day a person must be the following in order to receive the Eucharist:

1. Catholic
2. In good standing with the Church (not excommunicated)
3. In a state of sanctifying grace (having confessed all mortal sins to a priest)
4. Fast for one hour.

If a person does not meet these requirements they cannot receive Communion. So if we think about people who openly advocate for things which are against Church teachings, then they cannot fulfill #3 until they repent for their sins and have a true desire to amend their lives.

 

[DarkLight]

It should be noted that #3 is NOT changeable. It comes directly from St. Paul’s directions in scripture.

Actually, I’m pretty sure the only one of those that is changeable is #4.

 

[L_Marshall]

It’s easy to open the Sacrament of the Eucharist to more people. Every parish across the world is supposed to help with it, at least weekly. It’s called contrition, and then approaching the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

 

[eamonnroma]

It should be noted that #3 is NOT changeable. It comes directly from St. Paul’s directions in scripture.

Actually, I’m pretty sure the only one of those that is changeable is #4.

There are occasions when non-Catholics can receive the Euharist, such as Orthodox Christians if they freely ask for the sacrament.

 

[DarkLight]

There are occasions when non-Catholics can receive the Euharist, such as Orthodox Christians if they freely ask for the sacrament.

That is true. I believe the proper criterion regarding #2 is that the individual manifest “Catholic faith” in the sacrament - believing it to be the Body and Blood. The normal channel is through conversion to the Catholic church, but there are certain circumstances where a non-Catholic, manifesting the proper faith and disposition, can be admitted to the sacrament.

The necessity of sanctifying grace, however, is not negotiable.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Thank you everyone for your responses. What then do you think the Holy Father meant by his words? I understand reconciliation prior to receiving is always available But I remain confused why he would speak about not denying Jesus for simply any reason if he can not change or is not contemplating changing at least some of the reasons.

 

[Elizium23]

There are many pastors who have denied baptism to the children of unwed mothers. That is something that could be changed. There are many parishes, at least in my area of the USA, which place strictures on the sacraments such that a person must be registered and using donation envelopes for a number of months before they can even be considered for baptism or a wedding, etc. Some have observed that this is a violation of Canon Law rights, so this could be changed. Sometimes people are made to go through a long period of RCIA when all that may be necessary is a few preparatory meetings with the priest.

There are many instances where people are denied the sacrament that could be changed. I seriously doubt that the Holy Father was speaking of denial of the Eucharist to obstinate sinners under Canon 915. In my view, and that of many others around here, Canon 915 is most often honored in the breach, so lifting it would both have little effect and be a seriously bad move. What’s more is that at least around my area, the Eucharist is probably received unworthily quite frequently, by people who do not understand the necessity of sacramental confession, or by those whose pastors have minimized access to it so that it is not possible to make a good frequent confession by those who need it (that would be all of us.) In fact this very lack of frequent confession times may be something that falls under the Holy Father’s statement.

So, yes, we need to improve access to many of the sacraments other than the Eucharist. Nobody should be deprived of the graces that are their right as Catholic faithful.

 

[ProVobis]

At the end of the day a person must be the following in order to receive the Eucharist:

1. Catholic
2. In good standing with the Church (not excommunicated)
3. In a state of sanctifying grace (having confessed all mortal sins to a priest)
4. Fast for one hour.

If a person does not meet these requirements they cannot receive Communion. So if we think about people who openly advocate for things which are against Church teachings, then they cannot fulfill #3 until they repent for their sins and have a true desire to amend their lives.

I was taught that there is a requirement that the person receiving must believe that what he’s receiving is the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.

 

[Sy_Noe]

There are many pastors who have denied baptism to the children of unwed mothers. That is something that could be changed. There are many parishes, at least in my area of the USA, which place strictures on the sacraments such that a person must be registered and using donation envelopes for a number of months before they can even be considered for baptism or a wedding, etc. Some have observed that this is a violation of Canon Law rights, so this could be changed. Sometimes people are made to go through a long period of RCIA when all that may be necessary is a few preparatory meetings with the priest.

There are many instances where people are denied the sacrament that could be changed. I seriously doubt that the Holy Father was speaking of denial of the Eucharist to obstinate sinners under Canon 915. In my view, and that of many others around here, Canon 915 is most often honored in the breach, so lifting it would both have little effect and be a seriously bad move. What’s more is that at least around my area, the Eucharist is probably received unworthily quite frequently, by people who do not understand the necessity of sacramental confession, or by those whose pastors have minimized access to it so that it is not possible to make a good frequent confession by those who need it (that would be all of us.) In fact this very lack of frequent confession times may be something that falls under the Holy Father’s statement.

So, yes, we need to improve access to many of the sacraments other than the Eucharist. Nobody should be deprived of the graces that are their right as Catholic faithful.

Okay this makes more sense to me now. One must be baptized to receive and I’ve heard of priests who won’t baptize children of unwed mothers or who won’t baptize unless parents are registered and using envelopes. Though it’s my understanding such restrictions are meant to ensure they are practicing the faith. Or priests who put in place similar requirements for weddings. I can see too where increased confession times might make denying of the Eucharist less frequent if it led persons to take advantage of the more frequent confession times to repent and reconcile. Thanks.

 

[m134e5]

I’ve read Pope Francis in his recent “Evangelii Gaudium” said “everyone can be part of the community, nor should the doors of the sacraments be closed for simply any reason. The Eucharist, although it is the fullness of sacramental life, is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.”

Now I’ve seen progressives this wk try to suggest this means the Pontiff might be considering lifting the ban on pro choice politicians. This seems quite a stretch to me because if I’m not mistaken, Pope Francis is already on record from earlier in the year affirming denying the Eucharist to them.

But can the Holy Father make changes to allow people to receive Jesus in the Eucharist in other cases where the Sacrament is currently closed to them? And if so, what might some of these cases be where persons are currently not to receive, but which could be changed?

I don’t think he wants to, but even if he did, Pope Francis does not have the authority to allow pro-choice politicians or pro-choice anybody to receive communion. Abortion goes against the natural law and no one in the Church has the authority to approve of it- or to support it. Supporting such a grave offense is grave matter in itself. Anyone who has an abortion, performs or assists in an abortion, pays for an abortion, counsels others to have, pay for, perform, or assist in an abortion, supports public policy or those who support public policy that favors abortion rights must not go to communion without first making a sacramental confession.

 

[DarkLight]

Incidentally, I hate the envelope system. It does no favors to those of us who may be faithful Catholics but don’t have the money to donate to church regularly. Finding out last-minute that someone’s tracking envelopes is not fun.

 

[L_Marshall]

Recently, I’ve disovered the Italian way of donating money is much more fun. Weekly collections do not turn up much (maybe a few euros per person; 5,00-10,00€ is considered a lot), but things get interesting on feast days related to different altars and churches. I visited the Archbasilica of St. John Lateran on the feast of its dedication, and as soon as you entered, you could here clicking. When I walked closer to the front, I realized that the noise was coming from dozens of people throwing coins and bills into the confessio in front of the Papal Altar. I imagine this is one of the few collections of the year which must be collected using a broom.

 

[thistle]

At the end of the day a person must be the following in order to receive the Eucharist:

1. Catholic
2. In good standing with the Church (not excommunicated)
3. In a state of sanctifying grace (having confessed all mortal sins to a priest)
4. Fast for one hour.

If a person does not meet these requirements they cannot receive Communion. So if we think about people who openly advocate for things which are against Church teachings, then they cannot fulfill #3 until they repent for their sins and have a true desire to amend their lives.

I would also add that the person must be properly disposed to receive. You can be in a state of grace but not be properly disposed to receive.

 

[fastenatingguy]

I would also add that the person must be properly disposed to receive. You can be in a state of grace but not be properly disposed to receive./QUOTE]

Please elaborate on your comment, thanks

 

[razor69]

I’ve read Pope Francis in his recent “Evangelii Gaudium” said “everyone can be part of the community, nor should the doors of the sacraments be closed for simply any reason. The Eucharist, although it is the fullness of sacramental life, is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.”

Now I’ve seen progressives this wk try to suggest this means the Pontiff might be considering lifting the ban on pro choice politicians. This seems quite a stretch to me because if I’m not mistaken, Pope Francis is already on record from earlier in the year affirming denying the Eucharist to them.

But can the Holy Father make changes to allow people to receive Jesus in the Eucharist in other cases where the Sacrament is currently closed to them? And if so, what might some of these cases be where persons are currently not to receive, but which could be changed?

 

[razor69]

razor69:
The catholics and witches do the same ceremonies. No wonder God said, He hated our ceremonies. Both eat blood, drink blood out of chalice(cup), as a sacrifice. Bible says, do not eat blood. Witches, bring demon or demons to alter. Catholics bring Jesus to alter for a sacrificed over and over again in every mass, through transubstantiation, (changing Christ body from Spiritual, to physical) pulling Him out of heaven and sacrificing Him at the altar. This was started by a pope.
Both do it through incantations, usually in Latin. Whereas ,He was lifted up on the cross only once and for all , Heb.:7:22-27. The same thing witches do with animals and human sacrifices. Both use candles, bells, wands, incense, holy water,(water with salt added, (both made the same way), Most pagan religion have a divine mother and son in heaven, in which the Bible says, there is not a queen in heaven, Jer. 44:25…Jer.7:18. This was the very same thing the Israelites were doing, that was an abomination to God. Even the witches, have their most secret meetings in ceremonies in Latin language. Wands, are used by both on special blessing for members. Both priest, waves the incense around to rid impurities. The I H S on the wafer stands for I=Iris (Egyptian goddess), H=Horus god, S=Semiramis (goddess). This round wafer was started by the Egyptians to their sun god Ra…Paul stated, I BEAR THEM WITNESS THEY HAVE A CERTAIN ZEAL AND ENTHUSIASIAM FOR GOD,BUT IT IS NOT ENLIGHTNED AND ACCORDING FOR CORRECTION OF VITAL KNOWLEDGE. The false teaching and dogmas goes on and on.

 

[Zekariya]

Maybe the Holy Father will reopen the Sacrament of the Eucharist to all baptized children like it used to be in the West.

“Those who say that infancy has nothing in it for Jesus to save, are denying that Christ is Jesus for all believing infants. Those, I repeat, who say that infancy has nothing in it for Jesus to save, are saying nothing else than that for believing infants, infants that is who have been baptized in Christ, Christ the Lord is not Jesus. After all, what is Jesus? Jesus means Savior. Jesus is the Savior. Those whom he doesn’t save, having nothing to save in them, well for them he isn’t Jesus. Well now, if you can tolerate the idea that Christ is not Jesus for some persons who have been baptized, then I’m not sure your faith can be recognized as according with the sound rule. Yes, they’re infants, but they are his members. They’re infants, but they receive his sacraments. They are infants, but they share in his table, in order to have life in themselves.” - St Augustine of Hippo, Sermon 174

“And what else do they say who call the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper life, than that which is written: “I am the living bread which came down from heaven;” and “The bread that I shall give is my flesh, for the life of the world;” and “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye shall have no life in you?” If, therefore, as so many and such divine witnesses agree, neither salvation nor eternal life can be hoped for by any man without baptism and the Lord’s body and blood, it is vain to promise these blessings to infants without them. Moreover, if it be only sins that separate man from salvation and eternal life, there is nothing else in infants which these sacraments can be the means of removing, but the guilt of sin…” - St Augustine of Hippo, On the Forgiveness of Sins and the Baptism of Infants, Book 1, Ch 33

"Question XVII [to Pope St Leo the Great]. Concerning those who have been captured by the enemy and are not aware whether they have been baptized but know they were several times taken to church by their parents, whether they can or ought to be baptized when they come back to Roman territory?
“[Pope St Leo of Rome’s] Reply. Those who can remember that they used to go to church with their parents can remember whether they received what used to be given to their parents. But if this also has escaped their memory, it seems that that must be bestowed on them which is not known to have been bestowed because there can be no presumptuous rashness where the most loyal carefulness has been exercised.” - Pope St Leo of Rome, Letter CLXVII, Ch 3

 

[thistle]

thistle;11449532:

I would also add that the person must be properly disposed to receive. You can be in a state of grace but not be properly disposed to receive.

/QUOTE]

Please elaborate on your comment, thanks

By the way I meant to type should and not must be properly disposed. It could be lots of things. For example, heated argument with your wife on the way to Mass, got out of bed on the wrong side and in a bad mood etc. Things like that.These don’t ruin your state of grace but it would be hard to argue that you are properly disposed to receive Communion.

 

[theistgal]

fastenatingguy;11449936:

By the way I meant to type should and not must be properly disposed. It could be lots of things. For example, heated argument with your wife on the way to Mass, got out of bed on the wrong side and in a bad mood etc. Things like that.These don’t ruin your state of grace but it would be hard to argue that you are properly disposed to receive Communion.

Since having an argument or being in a bad mood are not mortal sins, I would argue (in a friendly way ) that these are precisely the times when you should receive the “medicine” of the Eucharist!