Receiving Eucharist

[Carmelite4ever]

Is there anyone that can tell me where in the Bible, Catechism of the Catholic Church, a Catholic web site or any place I can find that . . . It is not alright for someone that has been Baptised as a Catholic, but marries outside of the Catholic Church to receive the Holy Eucharist?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Catholics are obliged to observe the laws of the Church regarding marriage. Unless dispensed from the “Catholic form of marriage” by a bishop, a Catholic who married otherwise than before a priest and two witnesses entered a marriage which is illicit and invalid in the eyes of God and of His Church. It is no marriage at all. A Catholic in such a situation may not receive Holy Communion and were she to do so, the heinous sin of sacrilege would be added to the other mortal sins committed. Such a Catholic, however, would still have the obligation of attending Mass on Sundays and holy days. Any Catholic in an illicit and invalid union should consult with a priest to see if the union could be convalidated by the Church. If there is no canonical obstacle for the marriage, this can be done.

In Canon Law:

Canon 1118.1 A marriage between catholics, or between a catholic party and a baptised non-catholic, is to be celebrated in the parish church. By permission of the local Ordinary or of the parish priest, it may be celebrated in another church or oratory.

The Ordinary may ‘dispense’ Catholics from the obligation for good and serious reason.

But if a Catholic --even somebody who was ‘just baptized’ (and who has not made a formal defection from the Catholic faith–and if this Catholic is going to church and wanting to receive the Eucharist it appears the Catholic has certainly intended to keep on ‘being Catholic’, correct?)–has not married ‘in the Catholic Church’–that person may not receive the Eucharist because they have ‘broken’ the law and thus their marriage is not valid.

 

[LilyM]

Is there anyone that can tell me where in the Bible, Catechism of the Catholic Church, a Catholic web site or any place I can find that . . . It is not alright for someone that has been Baptised as a Catholic, but marries outside of the Catholic Church to receive the Holy Eucharist?

The Code of Canon Law is really the place to go for this question. It is online at scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Here is what the Canon has to say about the effect of baptism:

“Can. 849 … Through baptism men and women are freed from sin, are reborn as children of God, and, configured to Christ by an indelible character, are incorporated into the Church.”

INDELIBLY incorporated into the Church - being capital C, of course that means the Catholic Church. Once a Catholic, always a Catholic. And by continuing (or thinking you can continue) to receive Communion you acknowledge that you are still Catholic, really - what else is Communion about except expressing communion with the Church through its head, Christ?

Having been baptised Catholic, you MUST have the sacraments, including marriage, adminstered BY a Catholic priest or other minister (deacon for example). The exception, in subparagraph 2, is that sometimes the Eucharist, confession and anointing of the Sick (but not marriage) may be administered by ministers of some other denominations.

Paragraph 844 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law puts it this way:

“Can. 844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone …”

If the baptised Catholic marries someone of another Christian denomination it gets even more interesting:

“Can. 1124 Without express permission of the competent authority, a marriage is prohibited between two baptized persons of whom one is baptized in the Catholic Church … and the other of whom is enrolled in a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with the Catholic Church.”

So altogether the marriage your friend has contracted is probably invalid.

The Catechism can be helpful as well - try this:

"1623 According to Latin tradition, the spouses as ministers of Christ’s grace mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony by expressing their consent before the Church. In the tradition of the Eastern Churches, the priests (bishops or presbyters) are witnesses to the mutual consent given by the spouses,124 but for ***the validity of the sacrament their blessing is also necessary.***125 "

My emphases. Again, the ‘marriage’ is invalid, lacking the sacramental blessing of a (Catholic, naturally) priest.

So what is the effect, do you think, of a couple living together and having sex with each other when they are NOT in fact married? That’s what an ‘invalid’ marriage is - no marriage at all. The relationship becomes one of fornication, extra-marital or pre-marital sex. All of which are gravely sinful, that shouldn’t need further explanation.

As for reception of Communion - Canon Law says the following:

"Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted … and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to … receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession …"

So having been made aware that the ‘marriage’ is in fact a gravely sinful relationship, a person in this situation now has the duty to both refrain from Communion for the time being, and to repair the situation by getting the marriage VALIDLY blessed. Which can be as simple as twenty minutes in the sacristy with the deacon and one or two other witnesses on a weekday.

There is even an option called ‘radical sanation’ which can be done in the absence of the non-Catholic party to the marriage if they object to even the small effort a validation of the marriage would take.

A long and boring explanation, I know - but I’m soon to be a lawyer (secular, not canon law) so it’s what I’ll be doing for a crust

 

[Seatuck]

Can you read a PDF? If not search for it on the web, it’s all over the place in html.The Document is called Happy are Those Who are Called to His Supper. From the US Bishop’s website.

usccb.org/dpp/Eucharist.pdf

 

[Seatuck]

From Ecclesia De Eucharistia

1. Invisible communion, though by its nature always growing, presupposes the life of grace, by which we become “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet 1:4), and the practice of the virtues of faith, hope and love. Only in this way do we have true communion with the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Nor is faith sufficient; we must persevere in sanctifying grace and love, remaining within the Church “bodily” as well as “in our heart”; 72 what is required, in the words of Saint Paul, is “faith working through love” (Gal 5:6).
   Keeping these invisible bonds intact is a specific moral duty incumbent upon Christians who wish to participate fully in the Eucharist by receiving the body and blood of Christ. The Apostle Paul appeals to this duty when he warns: “Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup” (1 Cor 11:28). Saint John Chrysostom, with his stirring eloquence, exhorted the faithful: “I too raise my voice, I beseech, beg and implore that no one draw near to this sacred table with a sullied and corrupt conscience. Such an act, in fact, can never be called ‘communion’, not even were we to touch the Lord’s body a thousand times over, but ‘condemnation’, ‘torment’ and ‘increase of punishment’”.73
   Along these same lines, the* Catechism of the Catholic Church* rightly stipulates that “anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion”.74 I therefore desire to reaffirm that in the Church there remains in force, now and in the future, the rule by which the Council of Trent gave concrete expression to the Apostle Paul’s stern warning when it affirmed that, in order to receive the Eucharist in a worthy manner, “one must first confess one’s sins, when one is aware of mortal sin”.75
2. The two sacraments of the Eucharist and Penance are very closely connected. Because the Eucharist makes present the redeeming sacrifice of the Cross, perpetuating it sacramentally, it naturally gives rise to a continuous need for conversion, for a personal response to the appeal made by Saint Paul to the Christians of Corinth: “We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God” (2 Cor 5:20). If a Christian’s conscience is burdened by serious sin, then the path of penance through the sacrament of Reconciliation becomes necessary for full participation in the Eucharistic Sacrifice.
   The judgment of one’s state of grace obviously belongs only to the person involved, since it is a question of examining one’s conscience. However, in cases of outward conduct which is seriously, clearly and steadfastly contrary to the moral norm, the Church, in her pastoral concern for the good order of the community and out of respect for the sacrament, cannot fail to feel directly involved. The Code of Canon Law refers to this situation of a manifest lack of proper moral disposition when it states that those who “obstinately persist in manifest grave sin” are not to be admitted to Eucharistic communion.76