Should Protestants be barred absolutely from the Sacraments?

[TarkanAttila]

Except, of course, in cases of grave need.

I’ve been doing some thinking the past few days, and some talking and asking. I’ll try to keep my thoughts brief.

I think we can all agree that the Sacraments would not do a Protestant who hates them any good. OPEN COMMUNION IS A BAD IDEA - if that means letting any and everyone partake of the Sacraments without question.

But - and especially in America, where there’s no shortage of Lutheran and Episcopalian clergy and churches - ***what are we to make of a Protestant who comes to a Catholic church instead of his own? ***

Not merely one, but now two priests have told me that if someone they knew was Protestant, and they came to receive the sacrament, they’d give it so as not to cause a ruckus, and afterwords they’d seek them out and explain what the Eucharist was. And they would continue to give the Sacrament if they continued to come for it.

Their reason?** It’s on the conscience of the person receiving, they say. Maybe it’s a stepping stone to becoming a Catholic. Maybe they’re finding something in our Church that is lacking in theirs** (and rightly so). And since Jesus is in that Sacrament Most Holy, perhaps Our Lord is working in them in some way, bringing them to a fuller unity than even many Catholics.

**Does that mean we should not respect the unity this Sacrament symbolises? Certainly not, and both priests are certain of that. ** But they wonder, and I’m wondering, too: could the Blessed Sacrament be a way to bring some Christians closer to the Church?

 

[RaphaelJ]

Hmm… I’m not sure but I’ll throw my two cents in. This idea is very… Protestant. In the ancient churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Miaphysite), Communion was seen more as a sign of unity than a means towards unity. Indeed, so important is the Eucharist to them (and us) that this Sacrament is guarded from even catechumens who believed. That said, our tradition is to give the Eucharist to those who are willing to be in full communion with us although we make concessions to those who come from churches that are not in full communion but have the same beliefs (Orthodox or Miaphysite) and I do not see a reason to depart from it at this time.

 

[GEddie]

If they want to receive, they should go all the way and become Catholic, excepting of course those exceptions the Church has already made.

IMNAAHO.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Neofight]

Protestants ate not barred from all sacraments…my mother who is in hospice and probably going to be with Jesus within hours was anointed about an hour an a half ago by a RC priest.

 

[FrDavid96]

Except, of course, in cases of grave need.

That’s the only time this is possible. That’s the very first criteria. If there is no grave necessity, then nothing else matters. It cannot be done.

I’ve been doing some thinking the past few days, and some talking and asking. I’ll try to keep my thoughts brief.

I think we can all agree that the Sacraments would not do a Protestant who hates them any good. OPEN COMMUNION IS A BAD IDEA - if that means letting any and everyone partake of the Sacraments without question.

Exactly. The Church has thought long and hard about this idea. There’s no question about it, so-called “open Communion” is simply wrong on so many levels.

But - and especially in America, where there’s no shortage of Lutheran and Episcopalian clergy and churches - ***what are we to make of a Protestant who comes to a Catholic church instead of his own? ***

It’s an opportunity. It’s a chance to extend an invitation. We should be thankful when we have such opportunities and should act appropriately by inviting them to become members of the Church.

Not merely one, but now two priests have told me that if someone they knew was Protestant, and they came to receive the sacrament, they’d give it so as not to cause a ruckus, and afterwords they’d seek them out and explain what the Eucharist was. And they would continue to give the Sacrament if they continued to come for it.

Both priests are in the wrong. That’s an objective observation. They are flat out wrong. The Church has established criteria for when it might be possible to administer Holy Communion to non-Catholics. The standard of “so as not to cause a ruckus” is not even close to the what the Church requires. This is not (repeat not) something left to the discretion of individual priests (not even bishops). All priests have a responsibility as the Church’s stewards of the Sacraments to obey the Church. Unless the criteria defined by the Church as been met, any priest who does this is, quite frankly, disobeying the Church. That might sound a bit harsh, but it is what it is.

Not even the bishop can dispense from the requirements of the Church in this regard. It could not be more clear, yet we still see examples of this kind of disobedience. It’s troubling.

Their reason?** It’s on the conscience of the person receiving, they say. Maybe it’s a stepping stone to becoming a Catholic. Maybe they’re finding something in our Church that is lacking in theirs** (and rightly so). And since Jesus is in that Sacrament Most Holy, perhaps Our Lord is working in them in some way, bringing them to a fuller unity than even many Catholics.

It’s not a stepping stone to becoming a Catholic. Again, the Church has already determined that such an approach is simply wrong.

Might Christ be working in them in some way? Of course, yes! There is a right response to this, and a wrong one. Some choose the wrong one.

**Does that mean we should not respect the unity this Sacrament symbolises? Certainly not, and both priests are certain of that. ** But they wonder, and I’m wondering, too: could the Blessed Sacrament be a way to bring some Christians closer to the Church?

Yes, but not in that way (the way of administering Communion to non-Catholics).

I could give a long list of all the times the Church has addressed this issue. It is not something to be decided by the local priest (or even bishop). As far as the Church is concerned, this question has been answered and the matter is settled.

Sometimes, on the surface, it might seem as if this could be a good approach. That’s very true. Yet, there’s no escaping that the Church has already considered the question and already answered it.

Here’s one brief quote to illustrate the point:
35. The celebration of the Eucharist, however, cannot be the starting-point for communion; it presupposes that communion already exists, a communion which it seeks to consolidate and bring to perfection. The sacrament is an expression of this bond of communion both in its invisible dimension, which, in Christ and through the working of the Holy Spirit, unites us to the Father and among ourselves, and in its visible dimension, which entails communion in the teaching of the Apostles, in the sacraments and in the Church’s hierarchical order. The profound relationship between the invisible and the visible elements of ecclesial communion is constitutive of the Church as the sacrament of salvation. Only in this context can there be a legitimate celebration of the Eucharist and true participation in it. Consequently it is an intrinsic requirement of the Eucharist that it should be celebrated in communion, and specifically maintaining the various bonds of that communion intact.
–St John Paul the Great
vatican.va/holy_father/special_features/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_20030417_ecclesia_eucharistia_en.html

 

[TarkanAttila]

That’s the only time this is possible. That’s the very first criteria. If there is no grave necessity, then nothing else matters. It cannot be done…

snip

…vatican.va/holy_father/special_features/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_20030417_ecclesia_eucharistia_en.html

Thank you for the information, Fr. David. Very helpful.

So is this a big-T Tradition that cannot be changed, or a small-t tradition of the Church, like priestly celibacy, or using unleavened bread for the Eucharist? Because I understand a lot of our customs are longstanding and unlikely to change, although nothing says they cannot.

Where, Father, do you think such ideas come from? One of the priests, who was in the process of converting from Anglicanism to Catholicism (through the Ordinariate, so he was also an Anglican priest) said that’s what he was taught to do by those in charge of that sort of thing. Do you know if priestly formation might be to blame for that?

Also, Father, what do you figure I ought to do? I go regularly to the Catholic Anglican Use parish, and even serve there. It is in many ways by far superior to other churches. It is very “traditional”. It just seems to me that one thing is done wrong. I’ve already contacted the Ordinary, Msgr. Steenson, who didn’t see anything wrong.

 

[FrDavid96]

Thank you for the information, Fr. David. Very helpful.

So is this a big-T Tradition that cannot be changed, or a small-t tradition of the Church, like priestly celibacy, or using unleavened bread for the Eucharist? Because I understand a lot of our customs are longstanding and unlikely to change, although nothing says they cannot.

The idea that non-Catholics might be admitted to Communion (under some circumstances) is the change from the existing Tradition. All the way back to Apostolic times, only those who were within the visible Communion of the Church could be admitted to Eucharist. The permission that now exists is really a novelty.

We have to see the true reason for this rule. It’s not about keeping someone away from Communion as a sort of penalty for being non-Catholic. It’s not about Catholics being somehow exclusive or elitist. It is about the fact that a person who is not within the visible Communion of the Church (membership sense) cannot be part of the visible Communion of the Church (Eucharistic sense). It’s also about the belief of the individual person. More about that later in my post.

Where, Father, do you think such ideas come from? One of the priests, who was in the process of converting from Anglicanism to Catholicism (through the Ordinariate, so he was also an Anglican priest) said that’s what he was taught to do by those in charge of that sort of thing. Do you know if priestly formation might be to blame for that?

I can be absolutely certain what is not the source. The source is not the Catholic Church. Time and again, the Church has reaffirmed that certain conditions must be met before it’s possible to admit a non-Catholic (here I mean also non-Orthodox) to Holy Communion.

I can only speculate as to why someone was told that he could do this sort of thing. While at the same time, there’s no doubt as to what the Church holds and teaches. There really is no room for doubt. If the conditions have not been met, then a non-Catholic cannot be admitted to Eucharistic Communion (not intentionally). It really is that simple. The absence of even one of the required conditions means that a priest is prohibited from administering Holy Communion.

Also, Father, what do you figure I ought to do? I go regularly to the Catholic Anglican Use parish, and even serve there. It is in many ways by far superior to other churches. It is very “traditional”. It just seems to me that one thing is done wrong. I’ve already contacted the Ordinary, Msgr. Steenson, who didn’t see anything wrong.

I think I should stay mostly silent on that point. If you can do so in a non-confrontational way, maybe you can show the encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia (#46) to your priest and ask him how to reconcile what you read there with what he is doing. Maybe that’s not a good idea. It depends on whether or not you can do this without actually confronting him.

Here is the Church’s position on the matter, emphasis added:

1. In my Encyclical Ut Unum Sint I expressed my own appreciation of these norms, which make it possible to provide for the salvation of souls with proper discernment: “It is a source of joy to note that Catholic ministers are able, in certain particular cases, to administer the sacraments of the Eucharist, Penance and Anointing of the Sick to Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church but who greatly desire to receive these sacraments, freely request them and manifest the faith which the Catholic Church professes with regard to these sacraments. Conversely, in specific cases and in particular circumstances, Catholics too can request these same sacraments from ministers of Churches in which these sacraments are valid”.

These conditions, from which no dispensation can be given, must be carefully respected, even though they deal with specific individual cases, because the denial of one or more truths of the faith regarding these sacraments and, among these, the truth regarding the need of the ministerial priesthood for their validity, renders the person asking improperly disposed to legitimately receiving them. And the opposite is also true: Catholics may not receive communion in those communities which lack a valid sacrament of Orders.
–St John Paul the Great
Encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia vatican.va/holy_father/special_features/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_20030417_ecclesia_eucharistia_en.html

Some key phrases: “from which no dispensation can be given.” Bishops can dispense from merely ecclesiastical laws. Therefore, we know that these conditions are not “merely ecclesiastical laws” but go much further than that. It’s not merely a discipline that can be dispensed. Also, the absence of these conditions “renders the person asking improperly disposed to legitimately receiving [Communion]” This is something that cannot be overlooked. The individual person is not properly disposed to receive the Eucharist.

Personally, I cannot imagine how these conditions could ever be met. Honestly, I cannot imagine it, and this is something I’ve been thinking about for literally decades. In my mind, if a person truly has the faith of the Church, including the belief in the necessity of a validly ordained priest (yes, a validly ordained priest, not just someone wearing vestments) then such a person would necessarily desire to become Catholic. The absence of a desire to become Catholic (or the rejection of an invitation) means that the individual does not share the faith of the Church. Again, I just cannot imagine how, in a concrete situation, this could ever be possible. I can see it in theory, I just cannot see how it could ever actually happen.

 

[InThePew]

St JPII put it well when he said that receiving communion presupposes being in communion which non-catholics aren’t.

One of the difficulties (and also perhaps sources of confusion) is that in other denominations anyone can receive Holy Communion - something which is intended to reflect their individuality. However, their idea of what they are receiving and our idea may not be the same thing - so whereas we believe the Christ is truly present in the Eucharist with the bread and wine changed into his Body and Blood - others might see it as being only a symbol of Christ and the Eucharist only a memorial service. Given this, it’s difficult (if not impossible) to see how they could share in the Eucharist if they don’t even agree about what it is that they’re receiving.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Fr. David, would you recommend my leaving this parish?

 

[Neofight]

Fr. David, would you recommend my leaving this parish?

Personally, I would follow Fr. D’s advice about the discussion with church documents and encyclicals with your Pastor, rather than abandon the parish. Giving an opportunity for remedy will benefit the entire parish, and is really showing love for others.

Also, recall the words to Saint Francis. “Rebuild my Church” was what he heard. In a way, you may have just been called to rebuild your parish.

Good Luck!

 

[FrDavid96]

Fr. David, would you recommend my leaving this parish?

NO!

I would never do such a thing: recommend that one leave a parish based on a few internet posts. There are so many different reasons why I would never recommend such a thing.

What I will recommend is that you talk to your priest(s). These internet forums should never be obstacles to pastoral life. I can assure you that if a parishioner of mine had a question about something that I do (or not do) I would want that person to bring the question to me. That’s what I recommend you do. Talk to your priest.

 

[TarkanAttila]

:frighten: Phew! I don’t know what I would have done if you’d said yes. Probably ignored you, or asked around, as St. Barnabas is otherwise one of the best parishes in our archdiocese.

If it weren’t for that one thing, which seems very grave to me, I would never have asked that.

I have ordered a copy of the encyclical you mentioned, Father. I will enjoy reading it myself, as it looks like a very interesting encyclical all around. “Ecclesia de Eucharista” - Church of the Eucharist. And then I will quietly leave it on a table at St. Barnabas, or simply make a donation to the parish library.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Except, of course, in cases of grave need.

I’ve been doing some thinking the past few days, and some talking and asking. I’ll try to keep my thoughts brief.

I think we can all agree that the Sacraments would not do a Protestant who hates them any good. OPEN COMMUNION IS A BAD IDEA - if that means letting any and everyone partake of the Sacraments without question.

But - and especially in America, where there’s no shortage of Lutheran and Episcopalian clergy and churches - ***what are we to make of a Protestant who comes to a Catholic church instead of his own? ***

Not merely one, but now two priests have told me that if someone they knew was Protestant, and they came to receive the sacrament, they’d give it so as not to cause a ruckus, and afterwords they’d seek them out and explain what the Eucharist was. And they would continue to give the Sacrament if they continued to come for it.

Their reason?** It’s on the conscience of the person receiving, they say. Maybe it’s a stepping stone to becoming a Catholic. Maybe they’re finding something in our Church that is lacking in theirs** (and rightly so). And since Jesus is in that Sacrament Most Holy, perhaps Our Lord is working in them in some way, bringing them to a fuller unity than even many Catholics.

**Does that mean we should not respect the unity this Sacrament symbolises? Certainly not, and both priests are certain of that. ** But they wonder, and I’m wondering, too: could the Blessed Sacrament be a way to bring some Christians closer to the Church?

Why Just communion? Why not allow them to be ordained?

 

[wynd]

Hmm… I’m not sure but I’ll throw my two cents in. This idea is very… Protestant. In the ancient churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Miaphysite), Communion was seen more as a sign of unity than a means towards unity. Indeed, so important is the Eucharist to them (and us) that this Sacrament is guarded from even catechumens who believed.

This is correct. If you approach the chalice at an Orthodox liturgy and the priest doesn’t know you, you can expect to be asked the following: Are you Orthodox? What’s your home parish? Who’s your priest? Have you been to confession recently? Have you kept the communion fast? If the priest doesn’t think you’re an Orthodox Christian in good standing with the church, he can’t give you Communion. They aren’t rude about it and will explain the situation, but the priest is responsible for guarding the sacrament and preventing people from eating and drinking condemnation onto themselves.

 

[TarkanAttila]

This is correct. If you approach the chalice at an Orthodox liturgy and the priest doesn’t know you, you can expect to be asked the following: Are you Orthodox? What’s your home parish? Who’s your priest? Have you been to confession recently? Have you kept the communion fast? If the priest doesn’t think you’re an Orthodox Christian in good standing with the church, he can’t give you Communion. They aren’t rude about it and will explain the situation, but the priest is responsible for guarding the sacrament and preventing people from eating and drinking condemnation onto themselves.

I concur with the preventing people from bringing condemnation upon themselves. :yup:

But what are we guarding the Blessed Sacrament from…? I’m in earnest.

 

[tafan]

Certainly for the reasons stated, Protestants should not receive communion.

However , I do not understand why a Protestant, who believes that the Church has the power to absolve us of our sins, should not be allowed to go to confession at anytime. In particular: if a validly valid Christian is attending RCIA and has fully accepted this aspect of the Catholic faith, fully intends to enter the Church, I do not understand why they should be told to wait until an arbitrary 2-3 weeks before Easter Vigil to go to their first confession. They should be encouraged to go to confession often and much sooner, IMO. I have been told this is permitted, but that seems to be in theory only. Every RCIA program I have been exposed to does not allow it.

 

[KendraDZ1902]

This is correct. If you approach the chalice at an Orthodox liturgy and the priest doesn’t know you, you can expect to be asked the following: Are you Orthodox? What’s your home parish? Who’s your priest? Have you been to confession recently? Have you kept the communion fast? If the priest doesn’t think you’re an Orthodox Christian in good standing with the church, he can’t give you Communion. They aren’t rude about it and will explain the situation, but the priest is responsible for guarding the sacrament and preventing people from eating and drinking condemnation onto themselves.

Wow. My parish is large. We have 4 priests. I’m not close to any of the priests. One was active in CRHP when I was apart of it. He knows my face, probably, but he has never called me by my name. I would be drilled weekly. Heck, most would be drilled weekly. That, because of my panic and agoraphobia problems, would keep me in my pew.

 

[FrDavid96]

Certainly for the reasons stated, Protestants should not receive communion.

However , I do not understand why a Protestant, who believes that the Church has the power to absolve us of our sins, should not be allowed to go to confession at anytime. In particular: if a validly valid Christian is attending RCIA and has fully accepted this aspect of the Catholic faith, fully intends to enter the Church, I do not understand why they should be told to wait until an arbitrary 2-3 weeks before Easter Vigil to go to their first confession. They should be encouraged to go to confession often and much sooner, IMO. I have been told this is permitted, but that seems to be in theory only. Every RCIA program I have been exposed to does not allow it.

Think about it this way:

When we go to confession, we are absolved and we are reconciled to God and the Church. Sin separates us from God and the Church, absolution restores us. Think about what it means to be reconciled to the Church. In order to be restored to a right relationship with the Church, one must first have had that right relationship. Only after one has been received into the Church can one later be restored after sinning.

One way to explain this is to imagine a person who is a member of the Raccoon Lodge. If he lets his membership lapse, he can later have that membership restored if he follows a certain procedure. On the other hand, one who was never a member of the Lodge in the first place cannot have that membership restored. Instead, he must first become a member.

One who is truly ready to go to Confession is likewise truly ready to be fully received into the Church (reception, Confirmation and First Communion). The practice of receiving the already-baptised into the Church at the Easter Vigil is actually not the way the RCIA program was designed to happen; despite the fact that this schedule has become typical practice for the U.S.

This is not so much that Confession should be happening earlier. Instead the entire reception into the Church should be happening earlier, rather than be delayed until the Easter Vigil.

 

[tafan]

Think about it this way:

When we go to confession, we are absolved and we are reconciled to God and the Church. Sin separates us from God and the Church, absolution restores us. Think about what it means to be reconciled to the Church. In order to be restored to a right relationship with the Church, one must first have had that right relationship. Only after one has been received into the Church can one later be restored after sinning.

That helps a lot. Thanks for that explanation. Should have been clear to me, but I am often not that smart

One who is truly ready to go to Confession is likewise truly ready to be fully received into the Church (reception, Confirmation and First Communion). The practice of receiving the already-baptised into the Church at the Easter Vigil is actually not the way the RCIA program was designed to happen; despite the fact that this schedule has become typical practice for the U.S.

This is not so much that Confession should be happening earlier. Instead the entire reception into the Church should be happening earlier, rather than be delayed until the Easter Vigil

Again, thanks a lot. I see I have been complaining about the wrong thing. I have stated that problem with RCIA (which I have seen first hand with a friend of mine, BTW) on this forum more than once, and no one ever told me what the real problem was. Perhaps it should have been obvious (see above).

 

[TarkanAttila]

Think about it this way:

When we go to confession, we are absolved and we are reconciled to God and the Church. Sin separates us from God and the Church, absolution restores us. Think about what it means to be reconciled to the Church. In order to be restored to a right relationship with the Church, one must first have had that right relationship. Only after one has been received into the Church can one later be restored after sinning.

One way to explain this is to imagine a person who is a member of the Raccoon Lodge. If he lets his membership lapse, he can later have that membership restored if he follows a certain procedure. On the other hand, one who was never a member of the Lodge in the first place cannot have that membership restored. Instead, he must first become a member.

One who is truly ready to go to Confession is likewise truly ready to be fully received into the Church (reception, Confirmation and First Communion). The practice of receiving the already-baptised into the Church at the Easter Vigil is actually not the way the RCIA program was designed to happen; despite the fact that this schedule has become typical practice for the U.S.

This is not so much that Confession should be happening earlier. Instead the entire reception into the Church should be happening earlier, rather than be delayed until the Easter Vigil.

That makes good sense. And, baptism wipes away all of your sins, mortal and venial, anyway, doesn’t it?