Questions Regarding Communion

[pprimeau1976]

Hi Folks:

I had a practical question about Holy Communion as far as who is allowed to attend. Some say that if you are not Catholic, you should not be given Holy Communion as Sacramentum Caritatis seems to point out:

We hold that eucharistic communion and ecclesial communion are so linked as to make it generally impossible for non-Catholic Christians to receive the former without enjoying the latter. There would be even less sense in actually concelebrating with ministers of Churches or ecclesial communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church. Yet it remains true that, for the sake of their eternal salvation, individual non-Catholic Christians can be admitted to the Eucharist, the sacrament of Reconciliation and the Anointing of the Sick. But this is possible only in specific, exceptional situations and requires that certain precisely defined conditions be met (173). These are clearly indicated in the* Catechism of the Catholic Church* (174) and in its* Compendium* (175). Everyone is obliged to observe these norms faithfully.

However, the referring documents that Benedict XVI uses are vague and can be interpreted widely. For example, the Catechism:

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.

An example of vagueness here is what is a “grave” necessity. Is it physically grave or spiritually grave? Also, what does “giving evidence of holding the Catholic faith regarding these sacraments” truly mean? Also, how does one find out whether the required dispositions are possessed or not?

 

[John_Lilburne]

Sacramentum Caritatis n. 56 includes footnote 173, referring to documents with more on this. The footnote, with space added between references:
"Cf. Propositio 41;

Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio, 8, 15;

John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Ut Unum Sint (25 May 1995), 46: AAS 87 (1995), 948;

Encyclical Letter Ecclesia de Eucharistia (17 April 2003), 45-46: AAS 95 (2003), 463-464;

Code of Canon Law, can. 844 §§ 3-4;

Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, can. 671 §§ 3-4;

Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Directoire pour l’application des principes et des normes sur l’œcuménisme (25 March 1993), 125, 129-131: AAS 85 (1993), 1087, 1088-1089."

I think the most helpful would be Code of Canon Law, canon 844, which is available at vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM .

 

[Dandelion_Wine]

I think that generally speaking the “grave” necessity would be in danger of death - someone who may be on the road to catholicism and asks for it and there isn’t time for proper teaching/preparation, etc.

 

[John_Lilburne]

I think that generally speaking the “grave” necessity would be in danger of death - someone who may be on the road to catholicism and asks for it and there isn’t time for proper teaching/preparation, etc.

Clearly the reasons can be other than danger of death, from the Code of Canon Law, Canon 844 §4: “If there is a danger of death or if, in the judgement of the diocesan Bishop or of the Bishops’ Conference, there is some other grave or pressing need, catholic ministers may lawfully adminster the same sacraments to other christians not in full communion with the catholic Church …”.
(The Code of Canon Law: New revised English Translation, HarperCollins Liturgical, 1997, ISBN 000599375X.).

 

[pprimeau1976]

Sacramentum Caritatis n. 56 includes footnote 173, referring to documents with more on this. The footnote, with space added between references:
"Cf. Propositio 41;

Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio, 8, 15;

John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Ut Unum Sint (25 May 1995), 46: AAS 87 (1995), 948;

Encyclical Letter Ecclesia de Eucharistia (17 April 2003), 45-46: AAS 95 (2003), 463-464;

Code of Canon Law, can. 844 §§ 3-4;

Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, can. 671 §§ 3-4;

Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Directoire pour l’application des principes et des normes sur l’œcuménisme (25 March 1993), 125, 129-131: AAS 85 (1993), 1087, 1088-1089."

I think the most helpful would be Code of Canon Law, canon 844, which is available at vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM .

Thanks for the post. That clears alot up. The one thing I don’t understand is why the leaders of the Church assume that just because a person is a member of the Eastern Churches that they will have a belief in the real presence as opposed to members of other Christian Churches. There are Catholics who don’t believe in the real presence! It just doesn’t seem right to me.

 

[Corki]

For me, the key word is “Ordinary”. That is the Bishop or Archbishop. A priest is not making this determinatin on his own. It would have to be a pretty serious reason for the person to make and present a case to the Bishop and even more serious for the Bishop to grant permission.

 

[John_Lilburne]

Thanks for the post. That clears alot up. The one thing I don’t understand is why the leaders of the Church assume that just because a person is a member of the Eastern Churches that they will have a belief in the real presence as opposed to members of other Christian Churches. There are Catholics who don’t believe in the real presence! It just doesn’t seem right to me.

A general assessment is made of the church’s teaching.

The Pope referred to the 1993 DIRECTORY FOR THE APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES AND NORMS ON ECUMENISM. It includes:
“Sharing in Sacramental Life, especially the Eucharist
a) Sharing in Sacramental Life with members of the various Eastern Churches
122. Between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Churches not in full communion with it, there is still a very close communion in matters of faith.
[footnote 125]: Moreover, “through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows in stature” and “although separated from us, these Churches still possess true sacraments, above all—by apostolic succession—the priesthood and the Eucharist…”.[footnote 126] This offers ecclesiological and sacramental grounds, according to the understanding of the Catholic Church, for allowing and even encouraging some sharing in liturgical worship, even of the Eucharist, with these Churches, “given suitable circumstances and the approval of church authorities”.[footnote 127] It is recognized, however, that Eastern Churches, on the basis of their own ecclesiological understanding, may have more restrictive disciplines in this matter, which others should respect. Pastors should carefully instruct the faithful so that they will be clearly aware of the proper reasons for this kind of sharing in liturgical worship and of the variety of discipline which may exist in this connection.”
Footnotes:
125 Cf. Conciliar Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio (UR), n. 14.
126 Ibidem, n. 15.
127 Ibidem."
The full Directory is at vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_25031993_principles-and-norms-on-ecumenism_en.html .

 

[pprimeau1976]

A general assessment is made of the church’s teaching.

The Pope referred to the 1993 DIRECTORY FOR THE APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES AND NORMS ON ECUMENISM. It includes:
“Sharing in Sacramental Life, especially the Eucharist
a) Sharing in Sacramental Life with members of the various Eastern Churches
122. Between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Churches not in full communion with it, there is still a very close communion in matters of faith.
[footnote 125]: Moreover, “through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows in stature” and “although separated from us, these Churches still possess true sacraments, above all—by apostolic succession—the priesthood and the Eucharist…”.[footnote 126] This offers ecclesiological and sacramental grounds, according to the understanding of the Catholic Church, for allowing and even encouraging some sharing in liturgical worship, even of the Eucharist, with these Churches, “given suitable circumstances and the approval of church authorities”.[footnote 127] It is recognized, however, that Eastern Churches, on the basis of their own ecclesiological understanding, may have more restrictive disciplines in this matter, which others should respect. Pastors should carefully instruct the faithful so that they will be clearly aware of the proper reasons for this kind of sharing in liturgical worship and of the variety of discipline which may exist in this connection.”
Footnotes:
125 Cf. Conciliar Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio (UR), n. 14.
126 Ibidem, n. 15.
127 Ibidem."
The full Directory is at vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_25031993_principles-and-norms-on-ecumenism_en.html .

I understand the need for recognizing the similarities between a separated Church and the Catholic Church. However, entire Churches do not seek to receive communion, individuals do.

Assuming that you have a Catholic who does not believe in the Real Presence, an Orthodox who does not believe in the R.P., and a Baptist who does believe in the R.P., who is more worthy to receive the Eucharist? Also assume that the Baptist is “properly disposed”.

 

[pprimeau1976]

Bump - Don;t mean to be a pest. Just would like someone’s opinion.

 

[promethius95945]

Assuming that you have a Catholic who does not believe in the Real Presence, an Orthodox who does not believe in the R.P., and a Baptist who does believe in the R.P., who is more worthy to receive the Eucharist? Also assume that the Baptist is “properly disposed”.

A catholic or an orthodox who does not believe in the Real Presence are not properly disposed to take communion anyway, and as such should refrain in the same manner expected of the Baptist. Your example doesn’t work because NONE of them would be elligable to receive the Eucharist.

 

[blackrobe]

I understand the need for recognizing the similarities between a separated Church and the Catholic Church. However, entire Churches do not seek to receive communion, individuals do.

Assuming that you have a Catholic who does not believe in the Real Presence, an Orthodox who does not believe in the R.P., and a Baptist who does believe in the R.P., who is more worthy to receive the Eucharist? Also assume that the Baptist is “properly disposed”.

Assuming the grave necessity condition is met, it is a matter of evidence. What disposition does the proposed communicant give evidence of and how does the minister interpret that evidence? I would add that if the Baptist were “properly disposed” he would be Catholic. This would be especially true if you are positing a situation that doesn’t involve grave necessity.

JSA