Pope Francis on Intercommunion with Lutherans [Akin]

[runningdude]

I see there’s been a miscommunication.

When I said I am not Catholic, I mean as a Catechumen, I have not been baptized or confirmed in the Catholic Church. I am making steps to remedy this by going through RCIA, and I have participated in the Rite of Welcoming (where I announced to the Church my intentions of receiving the Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and First Comminion, and in turn was welcomed and acknowledged by the Church), but I am still not quite considered Catholic. This is not a matter of lack of belief–I simply can’t participate under normal circumstances. But in extreme ones, where I am dying, and have told the Church long before hand of my intention to convert, I doubt a Priest would deny me Communion. Why would he?

In order to receive communion, you must be baptized in a Christian manner. The vast majority of Protestant Church’s have valid baptism, so reception of communion under emergency conditions would not be impeded by lack of baptism for a Protestant convert.

If you were a catechumen who was not yet baptized, you could be baptized on an emergency basis. Any person may baptize; a fellow Christian, a devout Jew, Muslim, Hindi, or even Atheist could perform the ceremony on your behalf if you ask them. If a priest were present, he would certainly baptize you, and perhaps offer communion if you requested it.

 

[pax85]

Why is it even allowed for non-Catholics to receive the Eucharist from the Catholic Church, albeit in rare circumstances? Wouldn’t it first be necessary for them to at least anticipate becoming Catholic? I think that’s what the rare circumstances assume, since for instance the CCC says they must hold the Catholic faith concerning the sacraments (and Lumen Fidei 48 says “Precisely because all the articles of faith are interconnected, to deny one of them, even of those that seem least important, is tantamount to distorting the whole.”).

So can someone tell me if my understanding is correct?

I think this tract from Catholic Answers explains it pretty well, almost all the way down, under “Possible Exceptions”:

Who can receive communion?

 

[TimothyH]

I may not be Catholic, but in this instance, I don’t think a Priest would refuse giving me communion (probably along with the other sacraments, but you get the point).

Only the Pope has authority give the Eucharist to a non-Catholic. An ordinary priest has no authority to do so.

The unbaptized cannot receive the other sacraments. There is no authority within the Church to allow the unbaptized to receive the other sacraments. God is not bound by the sacraments but the effect of giving them to the unbaptized is questionable.

My experience is that the priest would hear your confession and pray that God forgives you but will not grant sacramental absolution. They would then anoint you with water and pray that you be raised up but would not give the actual sacrament of anointing of the sick.

-Tim-

 

[Vaseljen]

Only the Pope has authority give the Eucharist to a non-Catholic. An ordinary priest has no authority to do so.

The unbaptized cannot receive the other sacraments. There is no authority within the Church to allow the unbaptized to receive the other sacraments. God is not bound by the sacraments but the effect of giving them to the unbaptized is questionable.

My experience is that the priest would hear your confession and pray that God forgives you but will not grant sacramental absolution. They would then anoint you with water and pray that you be raised up but would not give the actual sacrament of anointing of the sick.

-Tim-

Why only pope? Is he some super bishop or the bishop of Rome?

 

[CrossofChrist]

The Eucharist was not established with a divided Church in mind. At the altar of every Catholic and Orthodox Church is the same Christ.

Agreed.

Thus, it is not a matter of the Catholic Church allowing “non-Catholics” into communion; it is about the Universal Church welcoming all members, even those in an imperfect union with her earthly head, the Pope, to the table.

But this I don’t understand…if someone is in an imperfect union with the Church (i.e not in full communion) why would they be able to receive the Eucharist? Why not make other exceptions to people who are also objectively in a situation that precludes them from receiving?

Now, if someone is in RCIA or has a desire to become Catholic, and death is imminent (plane is going to crash, for instance), then I can understand.

 

[Tomyris]

The profanation part and the eating condemnation part are two sides of the same coin. To receive unworthily leads to condemnation because it is a sacrilege, which the Church defines as “profaning” the sacraments.

CCC 2120 Sacrilege consists in profaning or treating unworthily the sacraments and other liturgical actions, as well as persons, things, or places consecrated to God. Sacrilege is a grave sin especially when committed against the Eucharist, for in this sacrament the true Body of Christ is made substantially present for us.52

So why is the same not true of baptism? The Catholic Church recognizes Trinitarian baptisms even from those who deny Catholic doctrine on what it means.

 

[pax85]

My experience is that the priest would hear your confession and pray that God forgives you but will not grant sacramental absolution. They would then anoint you with water and pray that you be raised up but would not give the actual sacrament of anointing of the sick.

-Tim-

Actually in th this case, since the poster is in RCIA, the priest would most likely just baptise him if he was nearing death. Especially since he has already gone through the Rite of Election/Welcome, there is clearly a desire for baptism. In fact, even if he weren’t in RCIA and he was in danger of death, if someone expressed desire for the Eucharist and Faith, most priests would probably perform an emergency baptism. Then they could receive the sacraments.

 

[Michael_Francis]

3rd thread on this topic merged here.

 

[runningdude]

Agreed.

But this I don’t understand…if someone is in an imperfect union with the Church (i.e not in full communion) why would they be able to receive the Eucharist? Why not make other exceptions to people who are also objectively in a situation that precludes them from receiving?

The reason is that Orthodox Christians are lawfully permitted to celebrate the sacraments. Orthodox Christians are fully initiated; they receive baptism, confirmation, and communion soon after birth, and lawfully receive ongoing communion and confession from their priests. They lawfully marry before an orthodox priest as witness, and orthodox bishops lawfully ordain and endow with ministry their priests.

The Orthodox are simply not in a situation that “objectively” precludes their reception of the sacraments that they lawfully receive in an Orthodox Church from a Catholic Church.

The pope could, if he though it for the betterment of the church, bar the Orthodox from receiving in a Catholic Church, but that would a matter of subjective discretion, not of objective necessity. Indeed, the only objective impediment to reception of the Eucharist is having not yet been baptized.

 

[CrossofChrist]

The reason is that Orthodox Christians are lawfully permitted to celebrate the sacraments. Orthodox Christians are fully initiated; they receive baptism, confirmation, and communion soon after birth, and lawfully receive ongoing communion and confession from their priests. They lawfully marry before an orthodox priest as witness, and orthodox bishops lawfully ordain and endow with ministry their priests.

The Orthodox are simply not in a situation that “objectively” precludes their reception of the sacraments that they lawfully receive in an Orthodox Church from a Catholic Church.

The pope could, if he though it for the betterment of the church, bar the Orthodox from receiving in a Catholic Church, but that would a matter of subjective discretion, not of objective necessity. Indeed, the only objective impediment to reception of the Eucharist is having not yet been baptized.

From CCC 1395:

The Eucharist is properly the sacrament of those who are in full communion with the Church.

So isn’t that something that objectively would hinder something from reception of the Eucharist? How can there objectively be the “proper dispositions” without full communion with the Catholic Church?

 

[SAVINGRACE]

From CCC 1395:

The Eucharist is properly the sacrament of those who are in full communion with the Church.

So isn’t that something that objectively would hinder something from reception of the Eucharist? How can there objectively be the “proper dispositions” without full communion with the Catholic Church?

I have witnessed Orthodoxians in my town celebrating Mass with us at the Cathedral and receiving the Eucharist from our Bishops hands . I believe our Priest also hears their confessions. Is my Bishop wrong? I don’t think so. The nearest Orthodox church is a 3hour drive away in the city.

 

[pax85]

From CCC 1395:

The Eucharist is properly the sacrament of those who are in full communion with the Church.

So isn’t that something that objectively would hinder something from reception of the Eucharist? How can there objectively be the “proper dispositions” without full communion with the Catholic Church?

The key word here is “properly” rather than “only.” In other words, there are situations in which non-Catholics can receive the Eucharist, although they are very few and far between. As others have mentioned, Orthodox believers can receive the Eucharist in exceptional circumstances (such as being a long way away from their nearest parish). Likewise, if, as a Catholic, I found that I was hundreds of miles away from the nearest Catholic parish, I could go to an Orthodox parish to fulfill my Sunday obligation and receive the Eucharist, since we believe that in the Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox churches Christ is truly present.

The key in all these situations (which are, as I said, very rare) is that the person receiving the Eucharist must believe the same thing that the Catholic Church teaches, namely, that Christ is truly present, body, blood, soul, and divinity, after the action of transubstantiation takes place.

Now keep in mind I am NOT saying that the word “properly” leaves it wide open for any Christians to come up and receive; certainly not. But it does leave open the remote possibility that a non-Catholic might receive the sacrament under particularly unique circumstances. We see this sort of use of language in other places as well, such as in the Rite of Baptism for Adults. While the preferred and proper place and time for adults to receive baptism is in conjunction with the other sacraments of initiation at Easter Vigil, exceptions can, and do, occur. A somewhat loose example, as the exceptions to adult baptism are much more common compared to reception of the Eucharist, but I think the connection is clear.

 

[runningdude]

From CCC 1395:

The Eucharist is properly the sacrament of those who are in full communion with the Church.

So isn’t that something that objectively would hinder something from reception of the Eucharist? How can there objectively be the “proper dispositions” without full communion with the Catholic Church?

The orthodox are baptized, and initiated into the church. There is only one Church; Christ is its head, and the Pope, his Vicar.

The Pope is the lawful head of all baptized Christians. Baptism links one to the true and eternal church on heaven an earth. By right, all Christians are called to receive communion.

It is a matter of church discipline to limit those who may receive. It is a matter of education and protection. The Church is given this authority in sacred trust by God.

It is simply a matter of prudent judgment that Protestants are not to receive. This is human law, not divine law. It is similarly a matter of human law to allow the Orthodox to receive in a Catholic Church.

CCC 1395: By the same charity that it enkindles in us, the Eucharist preserves us from future mortal sins. The more we share the life of Christ and progress in his friendship, the more difficult it is to break away from him by mortal sin. The Eucharist is not ordered to the forgiveness of mortal sins - that is proper to the sacrament of Reconciliation. The Eucharist is properly the sacrament of those who are in full communion with the Church.

The context here is that the Eucharist heals imperfect blemishes in communion, venial sin, but not breaches of communion, mortal sin. The catechism then begins a lesson on the meaning of communion.

CCC 1396 The unity of the Mystical Body: the Eucharist makes the Church. Those who receive the Eucharist are united more closely to Christ. Through it Christ unites them to all the faithful in one body - the Church. Communion renews, strengthens, and deepens this incorporation into the Church, already achieved by Baptism. In Baptism we have been called to form but one body.233 The Eucharist fulfills this call: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread:"234

The lesson continues, eventually addressing the issue of the Orthodox churches:

CCC 1399 The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. “These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy.” A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, “given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged.”

It is the communion in the sacraments that allows the Catholic church to recognize the Orthodox as lawful daughter churches.

The lesson continues, by discussing protestants:

CCC 1400 Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, "have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders."239 It is for this reason that, for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible. However these ecclesial communities, "when they commemorate the Lord’s death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory."240

The objective reality of the lack of orders prevents the Church from recognizing Protestant churches as valid.

CCC 1401 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.241

However, subjectively, individual Protestants may have sufficient understanding to be admitted to communion.

“Subjectively” means that a something is subject to discretion. The local bishop has discretion to admit Protestants who exhibit an understanding of the faith he finds sufficient. The Pope has discretion to all Orthodox Christian who wish to receive, because the Pope has decided they exhibit sufficient understanding.

Even individual Catholic are *subject *to their own conscience to decide if they are in a state of grace permitting reception of communion.

“Objectively” means that there is a fundamental bar to reception. Mortal sin is a bar, but what constitutes mortal sin is based on numerous subjective factors. The Pope and fellow bishops discerned that merely being Orthodox is not a mortal sin baring reception.

Similarly, non-baptized individuals are *objectively *incapable of receiving communion. Their soul is not equipped to receive its grace because it was not prepared by sacramentally washing it, baptizing it, of sin. Muslims and Jews may never be admitted, for example, because the sacrament would be of no benefit to them.

Baptism makes one objectively a Christian, and thus permitted to receive communion. This is subject to various laws, customs, and individual acts of conscience designed to protect and educate, lest unworthy individuals “eat and drink judgment upon themselves.”

 

[CrossofChrist]

It is simply a matter of prudent judgment that Protestants are not to receive. This is human law, not divine law. It is similarly a matter of human law to allow the Orthodox to receive in a Catholic Church.

I disagree. There could never be a blanket acceptance of Protestants or Orthodox to receive Communion since that would indicate they have full communion with the Catholic Church, which just isn’t true.

Here’s St. JPII’s Encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia:

1. Precisely because the Church’s unity, which the Eucharist brings about through the Lord’s sacrifice and by communion in his body and blood, absolutely requires full communion in the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments and ecclesiastical governance, it is not possible to celebrate together the same Eucharistic liturgy until those bonds are fully re-established. Any such concelebration would not be a valid means, and might well prove instead to be an obstacle, to the attainment of full communion, by weakening the sense of how far we remain from this goal and by introducing or exacerbating ambiguities with regard to one or another truth of the faith. The path towards full unity can only be undertaken in truth. In this area, the prohibitions of Church law leave no room for uncertainty,92 in fidelity to the moral norm laid down by the Second Vatican Council.93

I would like nonetheless to reaffirm what I said in my Encyclical Letter Ut Unum Sint after having acknowledged the impossibility of Eucharistic sharing: “And yet we do have a burning desire to join in celebrating the one Eucharist of the Lord, and this desire itself is already a common prayer of praise, a single supplication. Together we speak to the Father and increasingly we do so ‘with one heart’”.94

1. While it is never legitimate to concelebrate in the absence of full communion, the same is not true with respect to the administration of the Eucharist under special circumstances, to individual persons belonging to Churches or Ecclesial Communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church. In this case, in fact, the intention is to meet a grave spiritual need for the eternal salvation of an individual believer, not to bring about an intercommunion which remains impossible until the visible bonds of ecclesial communion are fully re-established.

This was the approach taken by the Second Vatican Council when it gave guidelines for responding to Eastern Christians separated in good faith from the Catholic Church, who spontaneously ask to receive the Eucharist from a Catholic minister and are properly disposed.95 This approach was then ratified by both Codes, which also consider – with necessary modifications – the case of other non-Eastern Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church.96

“Objectively” means that there is a fundamental bar to reception. Mortal sin is a bar, but what constitutes mortal sin is based on numerous subjective factors. The Pope and fellow bishops discerned that merely being Orthodox is not a mortal sin baring reception.

While certainly we can’t say to any individual whether or not they are in a state of mortal sin, the fact that some aren’t fully united with the Catholic Church IS objectively wrong. Being an Orthodox is objectively wrong, being Anglican is objectively wrong, etc. even if we assume they are of good will and might subjectively be without grave sin. To use an analogy to describe what I’m trying to say, heresy is objectively wrong, but an individual may be 100% sincere in their false belief and so be subjectively not in a state of sin (material vs formal heresy). Similar thing to the divorced/remarried issue going around–we don’t know the state of their souls but the situation is objectively wrong, which is why they are barred from reception.

But clearly there are individual cases where those not fully in communion with the Church may receive…I just don’t understand why there then couldn’t be a whole host of other instances where in rare circumstances–under the discretion of a legitimate authority–people may receive without being fully in union with the Catholic Church. Take the divorced/remarried issue, a member of a gang, someone who is in any situation that from the outside is gravely wrong; what’s to say that any of these people can’t receive Communion, albeit under extreme circumstances, if only the Church said so? Or is it that the Church could say so? If that’s a yes then I’m very confused about the huge uproar concerning the divorced/remarried to be able–on a case by case basis–to receive Communion; if the Church can allow that then I understand people might come to different conclusions about the prudence of the matter, but I don’t know why it would then have received the attention it has.

God Bless!

 

[runningdude]

I disagree. There could never be a blanket acceptance of Protestants or Orthodox to receive Communion since that would indicate they have full communion with the Catholic Church, which just isn’t true.

Here’s St. JPII’s Encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia:

1. Precisely because the Church’s unity, which the Eucharist brings about through the Lord’s sacrifice and by communion in his body and blood, absolutely requires full communion in the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments and ecclesiastical governance, it is not possible to celebrate together the same Eucharistic liturgy until those bonds are fully re-established. Any such concelebration would not be a valid means, and might well prove instead to be an obstacle, to the attainment of full communion, by weakening the sense of how far we remain from this goal and by introducing or exacerbating ambiguities with regard to one or another truth of the faith. The path towards full unity can only be undertaken in truth. In this area, the prohibitions of Church law leave no room for uncertainty,92 in fidelity to the moral norm laid down by the Second Vatican Council.93

I would like nonetheless to reaffirm what I said in my Encyclical Letter Ut Unum Sint after having acknowledged the impossibility of Eucharistic sharing: “And yet we do have a burning desire to join in celebrating the one Eucharist of the Lord, and this desire itself is already a common prayer of praise, a single supplication. Together we speak to the Father and increasingly we do so ‘with one heart’”.94

1. While it is never legitimate to concelebrate in the absence of full communion, the same is not true with respect to the administration of the Eucharist under special circumstances, to individual persons belonging to Churches or Ecclesial Communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church. In this case, in fact, the intention is to meet a grave spiritual need for the eternal salvation of an individual believer, not to bring about an intercommunion which remains impossible until the visible bonds of ecclesial communion are fully re-established.

This was the approach taken by the Second Vatican Council when it gave guidelines for responding to Eastern Christians separated in good faith from the Catholic Church, who spontaneously ask to receive the Eucharist from a Catholic minister and are properly disposed.95 This approach was then ratified by both Codes, which also consider – with necessary modifications – the case of other non-Eastern Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church.96

Pope John Paul II is addressing a separate but related issue, whether Catholic ministers may concelebrate along with non-Catholic ministers. The answer is no, because non-Catholic ministers are not in full communion.

This statement does not address or limit how Catholic priests may minister to non-Catholics. That is discussed elsewhere.

I may have time to address the rest later.

 

[runningdude]

To me, this seems like very poor reporting. From at least one translation, it appears to me that the Lutheran woman did not ask if she could receive Communion when she attends Mass but rather how she and her Catholic husband could achieve Communion with each other. When the pope said she would have to see for herself, it was in the context of asking her to pray to Jesus to solve her issue – the issue not being “Can a Lutheran receive Communion at Mass” but rather “How can a Lutheran and a Catholic achieve Communion with each other?”

Here is a working translation of the context of the remarks: … This sounds much better than the article made it sound. If that translation is accurate, the Holy Father did not say to decide for yourself whether or not to receive Communion as a non-Catholic. On the contrary, he said he cannot allow it, and he said that to share Communion means having the same doctrine. The question itself was how a Lutheran and a Catholic could achieve Communion with each other, not how a Lutheran could receive Communion at Mass, and the Holy Father’s words were in the context of telling someone how to become united in faith with a Catholic when he spoke about praying to the Lord and going forward, and seeing for yourself. That is very different from saying we should just ask Jesus what to do if we want to receive Communion and then do that.

Spot on! Particularly, the Pope gave an example of an Episcopalian bishop who attended mass, but did not receive Communion. The pope called this a “step” towards communion. The pope appears to have only meant to encourage her to find similar “steps” towards communion.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

Umm, I’m not saying the Pope called for inter-communion (and, obviously, he did not), but IF he did, where does this presumption come from that it would be a Bad Thing?

Baptized protestants have sacramental capacity to receive Eucharist (which is what Catholics usually call it). It is within the Church’s ability to pour this Grace upon protestants. Why is it a Good Thing that the Church withholds God’s Grace from those who desire to receive it (and are able to receive it), even if they don’t desire to be formally joined to the Church?

Why is it a Good Thing for the Church to be stingy with the ministry of Grace that Jesus has entrusted to Her? What is the basis for thinking that sharing this Grace more freely is a Bad Thing?

Highlighted…wrong, very wrong. Protestants do not have the sacramental capacity to receive the Eucharist. It would be dangerous to the spiritual welfare of the receiver and irresponsible on the part of the Priest to knowingly give Holy Communion to a non-Catholic (excl Orthodoxians).

 

[SAVINGRACE]

To me, this seems like very poor reporting. From at least one translation, it appears to me that the Lutheran woman did not ask if she could receive Communion when she attends Mass but rather how she and her Catholic husband could achieve Communion with each other. When the pope said she would have to see for herself, it was in the context of asking her to pray to Jesus to solve her issue – the issue not being “Can a Lutheran receive Communion at Mass” but rather “How can a Lutheran and a Catholic achieve Communion with each other?”

Here is a working translation of the context of the remarks: Question: My name is Anke de Bernardinis and, like many people in our community, I’m married to an Italian, who is a Roman Catholic Christian. We’ve lived happily together for many years, sharing joys and sorrows. And so we greatly regret being divided in faith and not being able to participate in the Lord’s Supper together. What can we do to achieve, finally, communion on this point?

Pope Francis: The question on sharing the Lord’s Supper isn’t easy for me to respond to, above all in front of a theologian like Cardinal Kasper! I’m scared!

I think of how the Lord told us when he gave us this command to “do this in memory of me,” and when we share the Lord’s Supper, we recall and we imitate the same as the Lord. And there will be the Lord’s Supper, there will be the eternal banquet in the new Jerusalem, but that will be the last one. In the meantime, I ask myself — and don’t know how to respond — what you’re asking me, I ask myself the question. To share the Lord’s banquet: is it the goal of the path or is it the viaticum [provisions] for walking together? I leave that question to the theologians and those who understand.

It’s true that in a certain sense, to share means there aren’t differences between us, that we have the same doctrine – underscoring that word, a difficult word to understand — but I ask myself: but don’t we have the same Baptism? If we have the same Baptism, shouldn’t we be walking together? You’re a witness also of a profound journey, a journey of marriage: a journey really of the family and human love and of a shared faith, no? We have the same Baptism.

When you feel yourself to be a sinner – and I feel more of a sinner – when your husband feels a sinner, you go to the Lord and ask forgiveness; your husband does the same and also goes to the priest and asks absolution. I’m healed to keep alive the Baptism. When you pray together, that Baptism grows, becomes stronger. When you teach your kids who Jesus is, why Jesus came, what Jesus did for us, you’re doing the same thing, whether in the Lutheran language or the Catholic one, but it’s the same. The question: and the [Lord’s] Supper? There are questions that, only if one is sincere with oneself and with the little theological light one has, must be responded to on one’s own. See for yourself. This is my body. This is my blood. Do it in remembrance of me – this is a viaticum that helps us to journey on.

I once had a great friendship with an Episcopalian bishop who went a little wrong – he was 48 years old, married, two children. This was a discomfort to him – a Catholic wife, Catholic children, him a bishop. He accompanied his wife and children to Mass on Sunday, and then went to worship with his community. It was a step of participation in the Lord’s Supper. Then he went forward, the Lord called him, a just man. To your question, I can only respond with a question: what can I do with my husband, because the Lord’s Supper accompanies me on my path?

It’s a problem each must answer, but a pastor-friend once told me: “We believe that the Lord is present there, he is present. You all believe that the Lord is present. And so what’s the difference?” — “Eh, there are explanations, interpretations.” Life is bigger than explanations and interpretations. Always refer back to your baptism. “One faith, one baptism, one Lord.” This is what Paul tells us, and then take the consequences from there. I wouldn’t ever dare to allow this, because it’s not my competence. One baptism, one Lord, one faith. Talk to the Lord and then go forward. I don’t dare to say anything more. source This sounds much better than the article made it sound. If that translation is accurate, the Holy Father did not say to decide for yourself whether or not to receive Communion as a non-Catholic. On the contrary, he said he cannot allow it, and he said that to share Communion means having the same doctrine. The question itself was how a Lutheran and a Catholic could achieve Communion with each other, not how a Lutheran could receive Communion at Mass, and the Holy Father’s words were in the context of telling someone how to become united in faith with a Catholic when he spoke about praying to the Lord and going forward, and seeing for yourself. That is very different from saying we should just ask Jesus what to do if we want to receive Communion and then do that.

 

[CrossofChrist]

I may have time to address the rest later.

Did you have time to address the rest, or should I start a new thread where more people could be involved?

 

[JonNC]

=runningdude;13487992]The orthodox are baptized, and initiated into the church. There is only one Church; Christ is its head, and the Pope, his Vicar.

Not speaking for them, but I think they would agree with the first part, but not the second.

The Pope is the lawful head of all baptized Christians. Baptism links one to the true and eternal church on heaven an earth. By right, all Christians are called to receive communion.

Disagree with the first part, unless you are speaking of a primacy of honor, of servanthood, not authority. I agree with the rest.

It is a matter of church discipline to limit those who may receive. It is a matter of education and protection. The Church is given this authority in sacred trust by God.

It is simply a matter of prudent judgment that Protestants are not to receive. This is human law, not divine law. It is similarly a matter of human law to allow the Orthodox to receive in a Catholic Church.

Putting aside the inconsistency of the position, as has been pointed out, I think this is a reasonable POV. In fact, my communion practices “close” communion for similar reasons.

Jon