R
Reuben_J
Guest
Non-Catholics are eligible for Holy Communion if they fall under the provision of canon 844 #3. So there is hope yet for the husband but it’s good for the priest to talk to him to ascertain this.
What to do about non Catholic husband insisting on receiving communion?
- Status
R
Rosebud77
Guest
Reuben J;14189852**:
Thank you.
So there is hope yet for the husband but it’s good for the priest to talk to him to ascertain this.
Thank you.
P
pianistclare
Guest
3° in respect of those in danger of death, the parish priest or indeed any priest.
I find it hard to believe that all these people are constantly in danger of death.
That is an abuse of the exception.
P
pianistclare
Guest
This is the code he is referring to:
§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.
Which is a different scenario altogether.
§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.
Which is a different scenario altogether.
G
Gorgias
Guest
In the case of the OP’s husband, can. 844 §3 doesn’t apply, since he’s not a “member of [an] Eastern Church” or a “member of other Churches.” Rather, can. 844 §4 applies to him:
“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.”
The OP’s husband is a “Christian not having full communion with the Catholic Church”. So, he might licitly receive communion if all of the following conditions are met:
- he’s “in danger of death” or the Catholic bishop explicitly identifies there’s a “grave necessity” for the OP’s husband to receive the sacraments
- the OP’s husband is unable to approach his own minister for communion
- the OP’s husband believes what the Catholic Church believes about the Eucharist (True Presence of Christ, etc, etc)
- he’s properly disposed to receive the Eucharist.
I
Irishmom2
Guest
The parish priest that may not know her husband is not Catholic can hardly be compared to 2 now sainted men.
And the priests that gave communion and the Franciscan Friars that do so are **wrong **and not following Church law.
And before anyone jumps all over me, no, I do not think this applied to Padre Pio and John Paul II, as they were both **extraordinary ** men of faith, gifted with more insight and wisdom than most.
G
Graceful_Lamb
Guest
This. If the OP’s husband really believes in The Real Presence, then I think he would want to join RCIA and become Catholic.
Also, does the OP’s husband understand that one must be in a state of grace to receive Communion?
O
otjm
Guest
Considering that Cardinal Ratzinger, at the funeral of John Pual 2, gave Communion to an internationally known Protestant, that is a bit over the top.He might. And, if he did so, then he’d be objectively in error.
O
otjm
Guest
The matter should be vetted through the bishop, but that is up to the priest to do, not the wife.
C
ComplineSanFran
Guest
My guess is that if the husband has not felt the need to convert throughout the marriage, he is probably quite content in his own church.
E
Erich
Guest
Maybe he thinks sex outside of marriage is ok?
From this link: …In the Catholic Church, we believe the reception of Communion is the sign and symbol of union - union between Christ and those who receive Him, and union between all those who receive Christ in this sacrament.
In a marriage, the physical joining of husband and wife is the sign and the symbol of union between the two. If there is no union - no lifelong commitment - then the sign of union should not take place. Which means sex outside of marriage is a lie - you are saying with your bodies that a union exists, that a commitment has been made, when no such union actually exists.
Just so, it is a lie for someone who is not Catholic to receive Communion in the Catholic Church, when there is first no union with the Catholic Church. When you receive Communion in the Catholic Church, you are saying with your body that you are in union with the Church and that you believe as we believe. And not just in regard to the Real Presence, but also in regard to the Pope, to Mary, to the other Sacraments, to the Communion of Saints, the priesthood, salvation, and so on. If there is no union, there should be no Communion.
The same holds when you receive communion in a non-Catholic faith tradition. You are saying, with your body, that you believe as they believe. You are telling everyone present that there is essentially no difference between what they believe about communion and what you, as a Catholic, believe about Communion. You are telling a lie with your body. That is why Catholics should not receive communion, or the Lord’s Supper, outside the bounds of the Catholic Church.
And, if he disagrees strongly with any (or many) teachings of the Catholic church, isn’t it understandable that he would be excluded from certain parts of our corporate worship? If he doesn’t believe what Catholics believe, then why would he want comm-union in the Church if he is not in union with the Church? That has never made any sense to me.
From this link: …In the Catholic Church, we believe the reception of Communion is the sign and symbol of union - union between Christ and those who receive Him, and union between all those who receive Christ in this sacrament.
In a marriage, the physical joining of husband and wife is the sign and the symbol of union between the two. If there is no union - no lifelong commitment - then the sign of union should not take place. Which means sex outside of marriage is a lie - you are saying with your bodies that a union exists, that a commitment has been made, when no such union actually exists.
Just so, it is a lie for someone who is not Catholic to receive Communion in the Catholic Church, when there is first no union with the Catholic Church. When you receive Communion in the Catholic Church, you are saying with your body that you are in union with the Church and that you believe as we believe. And not just in regard to the Real Presence, but also in regard to the Pope, to Mary, to the other Sacraments, to the Communion of Saints, the priesthood, salvation, and so on. If there is no union, there should be no Communion.
The same holds when you receive communion in a non-Catholic faith tradition. You are saying, with your body, that you believe as they believe. You are telling everyone present that there is essentially no difference between what they believe about communion and what you, as a Catholic, believe about Communion. You are telling a lie with your body. That is why Catholics should not receive communion, or the Lord’s Supper, outside the bounds of the Catholic Church.
And, if he disagrees strongly with any (or many) teachings of the Catholic church, isn’t it understandable that he would be excluded from certain parts of our corporate worship? If he doesn’t believe what Catholics believe, then why would he want comm-union in the Church if he is not in union with the Church? That has never made any sense to me.
P
pianistclare
Guest
I recall someone upthread saying something that gets to the heart of it for me:
I would never attend the services, rites, or ceremonies of another faith and impose my logic or my practices on that community.
For example, would a person go to a Baptist church and kneel every time someone broke out in prayer? Would a person just stand up in the middle of the congregation if the pastor of said church were to be reading a Gospel passage?
Would a visitor to a Methodist church genuflect?
Never mind all the reasons why of course a person wouldn’t do those things theologically speaking…but seriously. From a position of mutual respect
This makes no sense to me.
I don’t see how he thinks this is permissible.
And I’m not really sure his own pastor would think this would be appropriate.
I would never attend the services, rites, or ceremonies of another faith and impose my logic or my practices on that community.
For example, would a person go to a Baptist church and kneel every time someone broke out in prayer? Would a person just stand up in the middle of the congregation if the pastor of said church were to be reading a Gospel passage?
Would a visitor to a Methodist church genuflect?
Never mind all the reasons why of course a person wouldn’t do those things theologically speaking…but seriously. From a position of mutual respect
This makes no sense to me.
I don’t see how he thinks this is permissible.
And I’m not really sure his own pastor would think this would be appropriate.
C
ComplineSanFran
Guest
That is one way of looking at this situation. Perhaps one can look at it from another perspective.
When a Christian goes to another church, it is assumed that the prayers they pray together as Christians are efficacious. There may be vast differences in beliefs or practices, but praying to God is the common bond we all share. Why would you exclude anyone in worship, regardless of what they feel in their heart? Good grief, do a survey of good Catholic people sitting in your pews and see the huge range of beliefs - in doctrine and even in God.
If a Christian wants to receive the Sacrament - Christ himself - then I have no doubt that Christ himself would say, ‘Come, eat. All are welcome at the Table.’
So perhaps people (many people) who receive the Body and Blood in Catholic churches around the world, and are not Catholic, hear Christ’s invitation to ‘take and eat.’
C
ComplineSanFran
Guest
These things are all just etiquette. There are some very helpful books on how to act in an unfamiliar religious service, ‘How to be a Perfect Stranger: the essential religious etiquette handbook.’
amazon.com/How-Perfect-Stranger-Essential-Religious/dp/1594731403
I
Irishmom2
Guest
Are you saying there are rules that need to be followed? I would think how to act might cover respecting the beliefs of the religious service you are attending. And if you are attending a Catholic church and you are not Catholic, you are not free to receive communion, no matter what one “feels” or “thinks.”
C
ComplineSanFran
Guest
No, etiquette is polite behavior. It has very little to do with rules or doctrine.
The Mormons know how to worship with non-Mormons. They open their stake meetings to the general public, but their Temple worship is closed to anyone who is not a Worthy Mormon. One is not allowed in the sacred space at all. Catholic and Mormons have a lot in common, so it might be worth considering going that route.
When I attend public events such as funerals or weddings in a Catholic church, the priests have always prefaced the Anaphora by saying something to the effect of, ‘The official position of the Catholic Church is that you are to receive Communion if you are a Catholic in a state of grace. However, if you are not, please use your conscience if you are considering taking Communion.’
O
otjm
Guest
That is absolutely uncalled for.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
In our diocese, during wedding or funeral mass where there may be large number of non-Catholics present, the commentator would make an announcement before Communion such as, “Communion is for practicing Catholics only. Non-Catholics may be seated.”
This seems to work very well. The instruction is clear. There were no untoward or perhaps embarrassing situations that could arise for everybody.
I remember a while back in a mixed marriage between one of our parishioners to an Anglican groom who came from an Anglican family. The groom side insisted the wedding blessing service (which was held at our cathedral) would be without Holy Communion because they did not want to be seen being excluded from receiving.
D
DeniseNY
Guest
:clapping:
P
pianistclare
Guest
Oh please.
If that’s all it is, then he’s being VERY rude to his wife.
It’s not etiquette.
Its about respect.
- Status