What happens when a non-Catholic, or Catholic in sin, takes communion

[Fauken]

unless you had constraints that prevented you from going to confession and resolved to go to confession as soon as you are able.

What? No. It’s still a mortal sin. You’re supposed to go to confession to be absolved of any mortal sin before receiving communion, full stop.

He might have given a different kind of Eucharist, which is called Eucharistic Hospitality. It is different from the Eucharistic Communion that binds all Catholics together.

What? I’ve never heard of “Eucharistic Hospitality”. There is only one Eucharist.

Do you think what he did was immoral to him? Or only immoral to you and the Church.

I’m pretty sure it’s at the bare minimum very rude. Our pew missal state that only Catholics are to go up and receive communion. Morality is not relative, however. If you don’t believe in the Christian God, then why consume Him after being told that the bread is Him (“Behold the Lamb of God, behold Him that takes away the sins of the world… Lord, I am not worthy to share under thy roof…”)?

 

[rightness]

What? No. It’s still a mortal sin. You’re supposed to go to confession to be absolved of any mortal sin before receiving communion, full stop.

I do agree with you that I would rather not take communion if I haven’t confessed a mortal sin, but the canon law allows it.

Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.

Just imagine a scenario where you’re in a long lineup for confession and the Priest didn’t have enough time to hear confessions before Mass started, and it’s the last Mass of the day, but there’s more confession after Mass. I think, in this case, it’s alright to receive communion if the person is absolutely resolved to do so after. Moreover, in following the rule of Grave Reason, if the person has had plenty of opportunity to confess, like they were busy partying and hanging out with friends, they shouldn’t receive the Eucharist. If the person was truly busy taking care of the family and just causes when confession was available, then the person can receive the Eucharist.

Grave Reasons do become broad, but God’s infinite mercy wants us to commune with Him as long as we really discern ourselves before taking it.

What? I’ve never heard of “Eucharistic Hospitality”. There is only one Eucharist.

You can read about it here. It’s not the same Eucharist, which is to say, it’s not actually the Eucharist we celebrate in Sunday Mass. I’m still finding more about it, so I won’t say too much more. All I know is that Eucharistic Hospitality is very limited and requires permission from your Bishop.

https://catholicherald.co.uk/news/2...dinal-explains-limits-of-eucharistic-sharing/

 

[Tis_Bearself]

But to the non-Catholic Christian, or non Christian, the Eucharist is sincerely believed to be ranged from consubstatiated to a simply crispy bread wafer. Regardless of whether a Catholic priest consecrated it.

Would that sincerely held belief be acknowledged by God? It seems pretty mean of Him to count that as a sin.

It’s still a sin if the non-Catholic Christian or other non-Catholic had some knowledge he should not receive, and did it anyway.
If a person just walked in off the street and received thinking he was getting a cracker or that it was “symbolic” or that he as an Anglican had walked into an Anglican Church, then his culpability for the sin would be mitigated by lack of knowledge of what he was doing.

However, if the Anglican for example knew this was a Catholic Church and not his own, but decided he had every right as an Anglican to receive there for whatever reason, and did so, that would be a sin, committed with knowledge. Likewise, if the priest announced that only Catholics in a state of grace should receive, and the non-Catholic went up anyway, that would be a sin because the person is deliberately disobeying the priest’s instruction.

God does not somehow okay heretical beliefs just because they are “sincerely held”, and unfortunately the beliefs of Protestants about the Catholic Eucharist are usually way off base. The only exception for Communion purposes would be in the case of a Protestant who specifically was permitted by the priest, who knows he’s a Protestant, to receive Catholic Communion in a particular circumstance. This happens sometimes at weddings and in other very limited circumstances. It is not a normal occurrence and the priest will talk to the Protestant person ahead of time.

 

[Episcopalian]

makes sense!

 

[Mary888]

What does that mean though? Guilty of the body and the blood?

The Eucharist is an actualization of our life with our King. Christ is received and He enters our life. Our soul is from Christ upon Baptism. So He enters it and what does.He find? He finds us in grave sin. So He commands our soul to ask for compensation of that sin, because He is Judge. We face more struggle in our life because our soul under the King’s command wants and seeks correction. Under the extended struggle sometimes we fall in bitterness,.we may even lose our faith. It is a dangerous road but not necessarily a lost one, depending on our response to.it.
This is my gathered thought on it, I am not sure if I break any Church view on it with these thoughts.
God bless.

 

[Sbee0]

I went to a funeral in a Catholic church a few years ago. The Priest did offer the Eucharist to everyone - including non-Catholics. Very surprising.

The priest was very much wrong to do this.

 

[Fauken]

Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.

That is hardly a reason to present one’s self for Holy Communion. The fact the line is too long does not constitute grave reason as required by the canon, as you aren’t required to receive communion at Mass. Especially since, as you said, confession is being offered after Mass. Canon 916 would be, for example, a priest alone in the middle of the woods guilty of mortal sin but needing to satisfy his Sunday obligation for Mass.

You can read about it here. It’s not the same Eucharist, which is to say, it’s not actually the Eucharist we celebrate in Sunday Mass. I’m still finding more about it, so I won’t say too much more. All I know is that Eucharistic Hospitality is very limited and requires permission from your Bishop.

I want to see a document from the Vatican approving this. Because this sounds, to be Frank, ludicrous. “Sharing the sacrament of Communion continues to be a sign that Christian churches have reconciled fully with one another, although in some pastoral situations, guests may be invited to the Eucharist, said Cardinal Kurt Koch.” What? The picture on the article shows the Cardinal with a woman who claims to be an ordained bishop. The Church holds her ordination to be invalid and her authority unrecognized. But this is “fully reconciled”? People can receive communion whilst denying the very authority that gave the priest who is distributing communion his Holy Orders? I think not.

If a non-Catholic wants to receive communion, then they can become Catholic.

 

[awesomecatholic]

It is extremely disrespectful towards God. Those who receive communion illicitly and those who take it in the state of mortal sin commit a sacrilege.

 

[Sbee0]

It’s basically attempting to receive Jesus when the devil is already present in your soul because of mortal sin. It’s a sacrilege.

 

[rightness]

That is hardly a reason to present one’s self for Holy Communion. The fact the line is too long does not constitute grave reason as required by the canon, as you aren’t required to receive communion at Mass. Especially since, as you said, confession is being offered after Mass. Canon 916 would be, for example, a priest alone in the middle of the woods guilty of mortal sin but needing to satisfy his Sunday obligation for Mass.

I think you missed the other part “and there is no opportunity to confess” when it comes to long lineups. Grave Reasons are that you have greater obligations in welfare to yourself, if you are sick, or to others, taking care of the family and such, which would even include working to support the family.

If a pious Catholic simply was not able to go to confession through no fault of their own, then Canon Law 916 will apply. Paul’s warning calls to discern ourselves in our minds whether we are worthy or not. If the person truly will go to confession as soon as possible, then it’s alright.

I think it’s better not to judge those harshly if they tried their best. For example, if someone prays “Our Father, who art in Heaven, Give us day our daily bread” and skips an entire part of the Our Father, do you think Jesus, in Heaven, would go “you screwed up the prayer, you’re a bad Catholic!” Absolutely not. Jesus doesn’t expect absolute perfection. That’s what led Martin Luther to come up with heretical teachings because he thought God expects much more than he could do. Jesus knows our intentions, and as long as we are trying our best as Catholics and go to confession as soon as possible in accordance to Canon 916, then it’s okay.

If a Catholic was so ashamed of themselves that they didn’t want to go to confession, but went to Mass. If that Mass, the homily, changed their life and made them desire Jesus and their desire to confess, right before we stand and receive, I would tell them “Go, receive the Eucharist. Go to confession right after. Welcome home.”

 

[rightness]

I want to see a document from the Vatican approving this. Because this sounds, to be Frank, ludicrous. “Sharing the sacrament of Communion continues to be a sign that Christian churches have reconciled fully with one another, although in some pastoral situations, guests may be invited to the Eucharist, said Cardinal Kurt Koch.” What? The picture on the article shows the Cardinal with a woman who claims to be an ordained bishop. The Church holds her ordination to be invalid and her authority unrecognized. But this is “fully reconciled”? People can receive communion whilst denying the very authority that gave the priest who is distributing communion his Holy Orders? I think not.

If a non-Catholic wants to receive communion, then they can become Catholic.

Like I said, I’m still thoroughly researching the topic. There’s too much noise and terms thrown out that it’s hard to tell the difference between Eucharistic Hospitality and Eucharistic Communion because there is Eucharistic Hospitality, that is happening now, and I know this because my parish priest confirmed it as a participant of an Ecumenical Mass with Anglicans presided by the Archbishop. For the Vatican, they’re looking into Eucharistic Hospitality in terms of the actual Eucharistic Communion with non-Catholics, but they are still figuring it out at this moment since Pope Francis rejected the last proposal last year.

In terms of the former Eucharistic Hospitality that I had mentioned, I only have this:

§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.

Please read the entire Canon Law 844 as it’s quite lengthy to be pasted here.

Note, “the judgement of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops”. As far as I know, the bishop can discern ecumenical unity as a grave reason. The thing is, my priest had told me that this Eucharist is not the same Eucharist that Catholics exclusively celebrate, as I pointed out in that article, therefore, I don’t know if it is transubstantiation. Regardless, I urge you not to challenge ecumenism and to be open to welcome other Christian faiths while maintaining trust that our clergy has our Lord’s best interest in keeping the Church free from error. Do as much research into that until it satisfies you, but don’t deny the possibility because our Lord prayed that we may be one in John 17.

 

[Fauken]

I think you missed the other part “and there is no opportunity to confess” when it comes to long lineups. Grave Reasons are that you have greater obligations in welfare to yourself, if you are sick, or to others, taking care of the family and such, which would even include working to support the family.

If a pious Catholic simply was not able to go to confession through no fault of their own, then Canon Law 916 will apply. Paul’s warning calls to discern ourselves in our minds whether we are worthy or not. If the person truly will go to confession as soon as possible, then it’s alright.

And I think you missed the “and”. There must be both grave reason and no opportunity to confess. Not one or the other. Both conditions must be met.

If a pious Catholic simply was not able to go to confession through no fault of their own, then Canon Law 916 will apply. Paul’s warning calls to discern ourselves in our minds whether we are worthy or not. If the person truly will go to confession as soon as possible, then it’s alright.

No it’s not. There is no grave reason in your scenario for a Catholic to partake in Holy Communion. I may not be a canon lawyer, but I’d be willing to bet your interpretation of canon law is incorrect.

Jesus doesn’t expect absolute perfection. That’s what led Martin Luther to come up with heretical teachings because he thought God expects much more than he could do. Jesus knows our intentions, and as long as we are trying our best as Catholics and go to confession as soon as possible in accordance to Canon 916, then it’s okay.

This isn’t a matter of messing up a prayer. This is about being guilty of mortal sin, of killing one’s relationship with Jesus, and presenting one’s self for communion. St. Paul was quite clear when he said that those who unworthily receive are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord (i.e. sacrilege).

If that Mass, the homily, changed their life and made them desire Jesus and their desire to confess, right before we stand and receive, I would tell them “Go, receive the Eucharist. Go to confession right after. Welcome home.”

That is not your call to make. While it’s a great first step that they want to be in a state of grace, at that moment, they’re not. They have to wait.

If your interpretation was correct, then Catechumens would be receiving Communion before they even get baptized. And they don’t.

(cont.)

 

[Fauken]

This is why canon lawyers are so important. The interpretation of canon law is not trivial. To start, from a theologian:

https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/intercommunion.htm

" Under what conditions, therefore, may non-Catholics from the Reformation churches receive? Paragraph 4 addresses this matter and sets stricter conditions than for non-Catholics who belong to Churches which have a valid Eucharist, true Eucharistic faith and valid Penance. These conditions are:

a. danger of death, or, other grave necessity,
b. the norms of the diocesan bishop, or, the conference of bishops are
complied with
c. cannot approach a minister of his or her own community
d. asks on his or her own for it,
e. manifests Catholic faith in the sacraments
f. properly disposed."

http://m.ncregister.com/daily-news/seven-german-bishops-ask-vatican-to-block-intercommunion-proposal

This is about mixed faith marriages, but has a pertinent quote from Dr. Edward Peters JCD:

“He said a “key interpretative flaw” lies behind the German bishop’s application of this canon, and it is the same one that led to recent attacks on Canon 915, which forbids administering Holy Communion to divorced-and-remarried Catholics, “namely, the idea that an individual’s conscience is the ultimate criterion of one’s eligibility for the sacrament.”
Such a view, Peters added, demands that Church ministers “abandon their responsibility” to assess objective canonical criteria to judge whether a Catholic is eligible to receive certain sacraments. But when Church leaders “abandon those duties,” he added, “it is the faithful who suffer, some by being confirmed in their errors or sins, others by being led to wonder whether such errors or sins are really so erroneous or sinful after all.””

An important week for Eucharistic discipline–or lack thereof

Three items on the discipline of holy Communion round out the week. Two are simple but diametrically opposed, a third is licit but ill-advised. 1. This is simply right. Bp. Thomas Paprocki of Sprin…

canonlawblog.wordpress.com

(cont.)

 

[Fauken]

Another post from Dr. Edward Peters:

“Canon 844 § 4 allows baptized non-Catholics to receive holy Communion if “grave necessity urges” the local bishop or (here) the conference of bishops to allow such reception, provided further only that those seeking holy Communion claim (as most can) to satisfy some practical and minimal credal criteria. Effectively, then, the canon expects the “grave necessity” requirement to keep the Communion rite at Mass from turning into a free samples line.
The problem, obviously, is about when (besides, one might concede, at the time of death, an option already allowed under a different part of the canon) is it ever gravely necessary for non-Catholics to receive holy Communion? Not, when might it be helpful or decorous or embarrassment-squelching to receive holy Communion, but when is it necessary for them to receive, and gravely necessary to boot?
I suggest, Never. Even Catholics are required to receive holy Communion only once a year (c. 920).
But, unless the canon is establishing a criterion that can never be satisfied, what does the clause “grave necessity” mean? Apparently, pretty much whatever a bishop or (here) conference of bishops decides it means, including, as the Germans have decided, non-Catholic spouses who assert “serious spiritual distress” and a “longing to satisfy hunger for the Eucharist”—albeit, exactly the kind of healthy spiritual ferment that has occasioned countless baptized persons over the centuries to seek full communion with the Catholic Church. So much for that motivation.”

The thing is, my priest had told me that this Eucharist is not the same Eucharist that Catholics exclusively celebrate, as I pointed out in that article, therefore, I don’t know if it is transubstantiation.

I hate to say something so contradictory to what your priest said, but he’s wrong. If it’s the Eucharist, then the bread and wine have been transubstantiated. Jesus is Jesus. There is no “special Eucharist” that can be confected for non-Catholics. There is zero basis for such an idea in Catholic theology.

Regardless, I urge you not to challenge ecumenism and to be open to welcome other Christian faiths while maintaining trust that our clergy has our Lord’s best interest in keeping the Church free from error. Do as much research into that until it satisfies you, but don’t deny the possibility because our Lord prayed that we may be one in John 17.

I’m fine with Ecumenism, but Ecumenism aims to resolve our differences and bring all back to Catholicism. Not acknowledge their lack of the fullness of truth as equally acceptable.

 

[rightness]

That is not your call to make. While it’s a great first step that they want to be in a state of grace, at that moment, they’re not. They have to wait.

If your interpretation was correct, then Catechumens would be receiving Communion before they even get baptized. And they don’t.

(cont.)

Now, I’m just going to respond to this because the crux of the argument is really this: the Canon Law 916 allows dispensation of the timing of confession before Mass as long as the Catholic intends to go to confession right away. It is allowed. It is as simple as that. You have to admit it exists.

When Jesus taught the Parable of the Prodigal Son, did the Father say to the Son, “I don’t know you and won’t accept you until you’re contrite.” No, that didn’t happen. He accepted the Son with open arms and established his family bonds before he can say sorry, and Canon Law 916 is a reflection of this, the allowance of contrite hearts to receive our Lord before they confess. I urge you to think more charitably because you’re going beyond the legal strictness that even the Canon Laws determined.

As for the ecumenical Eucharist, it’s getting off topic, so let’s just end it here. If you want to argue with my Archbishop and the conference of Bishops in my country, I’m Canadian. Go ask them because I’m not a priest or a bishop with several decades of being a clergymen, but I have to say they probably know better than the both of us about what they are doing, and they certainly aren’t getting their resources from Google searches.

 

[Fauken]

Now, I’m just going to respond to this because the crux of the argument is really this: the Canon Law 916 allows dispensation of the timing of confession before Mass as long as the Catholic intends to go to confession right away. It is allowed. It is as simple as that. You have to admit it exists.

Says who? You? Why should your interpretation be taken as correct? I cited the opinion of a theologian and the preeminent canon lawyer of the United States that supports what I’ve been saying. You’re interpreting a meaning that’s not there, and quite frankly, spiritually dangerous.

When Jesus taught the Parable of the Prodigal Son, did the Father say to the Son, “I don’t know you and won’t accept you until you’re contrite.” No, that didn’t happen. He accepted the Son with open arms and established his family bonds before he can say sorry

You realize that the Son coming back was contrition and the Father didn’t start calling for the feast and robes until the Son actually said he sinned, right?

“15:21 And the son said to him: Father: I have sinned against heaven and before thee I am not now worthy to be called thy son.”

I urge you to think more charitably because you’re going beyond the legal strictness that even the Canon Laws determined.

I am not. I have produced the expert opinions of people who say that your interpretation is false. You’re the one going beyond what canon law was meant to allow.

Go ask them because I’m not a priest or a bishop with several decades of being a clergymen, but I have to say they probably know better than the both of us about what they are doing, and they certainly aren’t getting their resources from Google searches.

Speaking of Canadian bishops!

http://www.canonlaw.info/2009/07/canadian-communion-blunder.html

"Canon 844 specifies the conditions under which a Catholic minister may licitly administer Communion to baptized non-Catholics and none of its five sections, including the most relevant section 4, seem satisfied in this case. I see, for example, no “grave necessity” for Harper to have taken holy Communion in the first place, it is doubtful that he approached on his own accord, and there is no evidence whatsoever that Harper “manifest[ed] Catholic faith in respect to [this] sacrament”. Any one of these points, not to mention others, stand in the way of Harper licitly receiving the Eucharist.
For this grave blunder, however, I do not tend to hold Harper responsible, though he might have been poorly advised by his protocol staff. Rather, I look to the archbishop who, as the chief presider over the Eucharist in his local Church (1983 CIC 389) and as the one charged with upholding ecclesiastical laws and sacramental discipline (1983 CIC 392), should have known better.

(cont.)

 

[Fauken]

“In any case, I hope his Excellency’s office isvigorously pursuing the question as to what happened to the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord last seen headed toward a politician’s pocket.”

That same canonist opined that the bishop erred. That he misapplied the very canon you’re using to support your claims to do exactly what was done here. Bishops are not experts on canon law (unless of course they have a JCL or JCD). Canonists are. That’s why bishops hire them.

 

[rightness]

Alright, if you want to continue to believe in a merciless semantics of the Canon Law and Bible, peace be with you.

It appears no one will be able to convince you otherwise if you think yourself better than priests and bishops.

 

[Anicette]

Thank you. If he later claimed that eating the Eucharist gave him a feeling that he should delve into Catholicism further, would you still claim he did not obtain any grace from it or would you insist that his feelings were on obtained via something else? Perhaps just being in the Church?

good question!

some people converted to Catholicism after attending mass and received communion, when they didn’t know it was something irregular…
We can take the exemple of novelist Julien Green’s father.

Mimetism and emotion certainely play a role. On how the onversion and grace operate, I don’t know. God can brings people to him through a lot of roads!

 

[Fauken]

Alright, if you want to continue to believe in a merciless semantics of the Canon Law and Bible, peace be with you.

Canon law is merciless? That interpretation is merciless? You have no evidence to support your claim, but I’m the merciless one because I cite an actual canon lawyer?

That interpretation is merciful. Letting people commit sacrilege by unworthily receiving the Eucharist is not.

It appears no one will be able to convince you otherwise if you think yourself better than priests and bishops.

I quoted a canon lawyer who is an expert on canon law and is on the body of the highest body of canon lawyers in the entire Church. You quoted one bishop who is not a canonist. Priests and bishops are educated on canon law, but they are not experts. Canon lawyers are. They are the ones who advice the bishops, teach the priests, and interpret the canons. The fact you’d ignore someone like Dr. Edward Peters over someone who is not an actual canon lawyer only shows you don’t know what you’re talking about regarding the subject of canon law.