Why are non-Catholics sometimes allowed to receive communion?

[Rosebud77]

Oh sorry, I didn’t see your post until now. As far as comparisons go, I don’t know what comparison you’re referring to because I did not intend to make any. I’m thoroughly confused what you mean by this

Your examples sound good and I never claimed to deny them. Examples are all well and good, but my question doesn’t really focus on examples. All I’m trying to find out is what the Church teaches and why. I honestly mean no rudeness by this at all. I just don’t get it. I’m just confused- that’s all.

Rather than calling what I said “examples” , see them as the way the teaching of the Church is lived out in reality in ministering to people in everyday situations?

Does that make sense to you?

The practice and not “just” the theory? Theory is cut and dried; life in a parish etc often is not . Priests have discernment.

The phrase I heard most re non catholics being welcomed for communion was “properly disposed.” Does that make sense to you?

The flesh and blood rather than a biological diagram ?
And the spiritual reality also.

 

[HollyDolly]

Well I think at the front of the missal it says that somethingf about eastern rite catholics, orthodox, and members of the Polish National Catholic church can recieve communion in a catholic church, others are excluded… Been a while since i’ve been to mass, since I work a part time job, and usually work weekends as well, so Sunday mass is out for me.

 

[DeniseNY]

Well I think at the front of the missal it says that somethingf about eastern rite catholics, orthodox, and members of the Polish National Catholic church can recieve communion in a catholic church, others are excluded… Been a while since i’ve been to mass, since I work a part time job, and usually work weekends as well, so Sunday mass is out for me.

Well, of course Eastern Rite Catholics can receive, because we are Catholic!

 

[otjm]

I know priests are not allowed to decide to let any non-Catholic receive communion without the bishop’s permission so I know there are a lot of abuses when it comes to non-Catholics going to Catholic weddings and such.

I think you mant to say that you suspect, or you assume. I serioously doubt you have any facts concerning marriages between a Catholic and a non-Catholic, particularly in light of the general practice that a marriage between two such people is not at a Mass.

But what I don’t get is why the person isn’t required to desire to become fully Catholic.

The short answer is because the Church, in its wisdom, has seen fit to do so under limited circumstances.

Why wouldn’t giving communion to them when they simultaneously reject the Catholic faith in all other matters, make them think it’s okay for them to have their cake and eat it too?

you are making a gross assumption. The quote of Section 4: “§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.” My bold and underline.

Also, my Sedevacantist friend claims that JPII once gave communion to a Zen Budhist. I’m not sure if this is actually true but if he did, I’m sure it must have been in accord to §4 right? It seems so absurd to think anyone would think of St. JP the Great as being a heretic

The short answer to a sedevacantist is that they are just another form of cafeteria Catholic, picking and choosing what they will or will not believe. To wit: Christ made a promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church; they reject implicitly, if not explicitly, what the Church teaches about the method, process and results of how the Pope is selected. Most of the ones I have come across are conspiratorialists, and there is no rational discussion with them, as they are not rational. You certainly con continue to discuss issues with this individual if you think there is a reason to do so; but I would advise against it.

 

[Gorgias]

Rosebud77:

So why do you think Padre Pio often gave communion to those he knew were not Catholic? And to an atheist?

Oh and Pope John Paul 2 also gave Br Roger, the Lutheran non-ordained founder of Taize, communion

Your examples sound good

MtnDweller:

I have never read that Padre Pio knowingly gave communion to non-Catholics and also an atheist. What were the circumstances? Can you provide a reference?

Engineer,

I’m not so sure I’d call the examples “good”: we’re still waiting for a citation or reference for the claim that Pio gave communion to non-Catholics and atheists. At this point, it’s just an anecdote.

Your friend also made a claim – that Pope John Paul II gave communion to a Zen Buddhist. Again, just an anecdotal claim. (In fact, I think it’s an inaccurate conflation of claims: JP II did give communion to a non-Catholic (Br Roger), just as Rosebud says; but, he only prayed with non-Christians (including the Dalai Lama).)

So… if the diocesan bishop has the right, under canon law, to decide what situations warrant the distribution of communion to a non-Catholic (outside the situation of “danger of death”), then it’s pretty clear that the pope could distribute to a Lutheran if he wished. What we don’t know is the tenor of conversations the two men had. Perhaps Br Roger believed with Catholic belief, but there were circumstances that made it difficult for him to share his belief publicly? We’ll never know.

 

[otjm]

Engineer,

I’m not so sure I’d call the examples “good”: we’re still waiting for a citation or reference for the claim that Pio gave communion to non-Catholics and atheists. At this point, it’s just an anecdote.

Your friend also made a claim – that Pope John Paul II gave communion to a Zen Buddhist. Again, just an anecdotal claim. (In fact, I think it’s an inaccurate conflation of claims: JP II did give communion to a non-Catholic (Br Roger), just as Rosebud says; but, he only prayed with non-Christians (including the Dalai Lama).)

So… if the diocesan bishop has the right, under canon law, to decide what situations warrant the distribution of communion to a non-Catholic (outside the situation of “danger of death”), then it’s pretty clear that the pope could distribute to a Lutheran if he wished. What we don’t know is the tenor of conversations the two men had. Perhaps Br Roger believed with Catholic belief, but there were circumstances that made it difficult for him to share his belief publicly? We’ll never know.

It is not necessary that the individual be somehow unable to share his belief publicly.

“§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.”

The requirements:

1. if danger of death is present, or
2. some other grave necessity urges it
3. cannot approach a minister of their own community
4. seek of their own accord
5. manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments
6. are properly disposed

There is no requirement that they manifest faith in respect to the Church (i.e., they be the equivalent of a candidate entering the Church). They could have issues with the papacy; or with some other aspect of the Faith, but still believe that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist.

There is no issue of “sharing belief publicly” (that is, remaining a “closet” Catholic. What is necessary is belief in the true presence, and 1 through 4 and 6 apply.

 

[JRS_88]

Well, of course Eastern Rite Catholics can receive, because we are Catholic!

Exactly!

It’s kind of sad that this has to be said.

 

[otjm]

Exactly!

It’s kind of sad that this has to be said.

I miss Abouna Deckeer.

 

[Rosebud77]

Engineer,

I’m not so sure I’d call the examples “good”: we’re still waiting for a citation or reference for the claim that Pio gave communion to non-Catholics and atheists. At this point, it’s just an anecdote.

Your friend also made a claim – that Pope John Paul II gave communion to a Zen Buddhist. Again, just an anecdotal claim. (In fact, I think it’s an inaccurate conflation of claims: JP II did give communion to a non-Catholic (Br Roger), just as Rosebud says; but, he only prayed with non-Christians (including the Dalai Lama).)

So… if the diocesan bishop has the right, under canon law, to decide what situations warrant the distribution of communion to a non-Catholic (outside the situation of “danger of death”), then it’s pretty clear that the pope could distribute to a Lutheran if he wished. What we don’t know is the tenor of conversations the two men had. Perhaps Br Roger believed with Catholic belief, but there were circumstances that made it difficult for him to share his belief publicly? We’ll never know.

But we do know re Br Roger. He was deeply respected by all the leading clergy, a holy man of God, Mother teresa loved him too; made him a new habit and told him to wear it all the time.
These are all documented on pages re Taize.
Br Roget did not have Catholic beliefs and his one deep regret was that in his ecumenical community, the Catholic monks had to have Mass separately from their Bother Monks

You do know that Taize is a mixed Order? The current Prior is Catholic but the order is not under the control of Rome. They are autocephalous.

 

[Rosebud77]

It is not necessary that the individual be somehow unable to share his belief publicly.

“§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.”

The requirements:

1. if danger of death is present, or
2. some other grave necessity urges it
3. cannot approach a minister of their own community
4. seek of their own accord
5. manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments
6. are properly disposed

There is no requirement that they manifest faith in respect to the Church (i.e., they be the equivalent of a candidate entering the Church). They could have issues with the papacy; or with some other aspect of the Faith, but still believe that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist.

There is no issue of “sharing belief publicly” (that is, remaining a “closet” Catholic. What is necessary is belief in the true presence, and 1 through 4 and 6 apply.

Thanks for this full post.

 

[Rosebud77]

Apologies. Missed a point that was made.

About Padre Pio knowingly giving communion to non -catholics and an atheist?

The authoritative bio of Padre Pio was written by a journalist called Ruffin. Who set out to disprove his holiness and his stigmata and set about it in great detail. Then ? He was converted.

Just found the book online.

thehealingproject.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/RUFFIN-Bernard.-Padre-Pio.-The-True-Story.pdf

Op what concerns me is that you seem to be seeking to discredit what is being done for non Catholics ? Attacking the practice that is more widespread than most of us will ever know. It seems to unsettle you?

When I was invited, although then openly Anglican, it was to welcome me into the:family" and thereby to the Church with no ceremony etc. I was living as a very dedicated hermit in the Anglican tradition and this was respected.

As one poster has detailled, there is far more leeway than most see. And tot he discretion also of experienced and perceptive priests.

I was a long way from any Anglican church but this was not even mooted. Just… welcome! Come in! Be in our family!

Also they asked me to teach the children’s rosary class.

 

[Gorgias]

There is no requirement that they manifest faith in respect to the Church (i.e., they be the equivalent of a candidate entering the Church). They could have issues with the papacy; or with some other aspect of the Faith, but still believe that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist.

Agreed. However, the question being asked is “why is he not a Catholic, then?”

 

[Rosebud77]

Agreed. However, the question being asked is “why is he not a Catholic, then?”

MYOB time? Why are you judging and at base accusing a priest of doing what? Breaking rules? What does it really matter to you?

 

[e_c]

Apologies. Missed a point that was made.

About Padre Pio knowingly giving communion to non -catholics and an atheist?

The authoritative bio of Padre Pio was written by a journalist called Ruffin. Who set out to disprove his holiness and his stigmata and set about it in great detail. Then ? He was converted.

Just found the book online.

thehealingproject.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/RUFFIN-Bernard.-Padre-Pio.-The-True-Story.pdf

I don’t believe Padre Pio knowingly chose to distribute Our Lord in such a way. Nor does the source you have provided claim such a thing.

JPII was the pope. He was the authoritative interpreter of Canon Law. He could distribute Our Lord to a non-Catholic if he judged it in accord with the law, which he did on one occasion.

Non-Catholics presenting themselves for Communion during a normal Mass under normal circumstances may not be admitted to the Sacrament. Of course it happens. That it happens is a separate issue from what the law actually provides for.

Here are some more resources:

archive.org/stream/newcanonlaw00woywuoft/newcanonlaw00woywuoft_djvu.txt (search for c. 844)

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/general-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930325_directory_en.html (see especially #130-131)

 

[Rosebud77]

e_c;14819393**:

I don’t believe Padre Pio knowingly chose to distribute Our Lord in such a way. Nor does the source you have provided claim such a thing.

JPII was the pope. He was the authoritative interpreter of Canon Law. He could distribute Our Lord to a non-Catholic if he judged it in accord with the law, which he did on one occasion.

**Non-Catholics presenting themselves for Communion during a normal Mass under normal circumstances may not be admitted to the Sacrament. Of course it happens. That it happens is a separate issue from what the law actually provides for.
**
Here are some more resources:

archive.org/stream/newcanonlaw00woywuoft/newcanonlaw00woywuoft_djvu.txt (search for c. 844)

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/general-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930325_directory_en.html (see especially #130-131)

Ah but you are wrong re Padre Pio. The revealing this is that in each case, the recipient converted and entered the Church.
As did the journalist who set out to expose Padre Pio as a fraud

And each priest at every Mass, I asked and the reply was that I was very welcome to take communion and that it "did not matter "that I was Anglican.

So all these priests were??

 

[Gorgias]

MYOB time? Why are you judging and at base accusing a priest of doing what? Breaking rules? What does it really matter to you?

Wasn’t my question.

Yet, it is an important question, though, deserving a better answer than “MYOB”. After all, that’s the whole definition of the sin of scandal, isn’t it? (See the catechism at 2285 and 2287.)

And therefore, that’s why I think the proper answer is, “yes, it’s acceptable. Here are the applicable canons, and the pope has the appropriate authority to do this.”

 

[Gorgias]

Ah but you are wrong re Padre Pio. The revealing this is that in each case, the recipient converted and entered the Church.
As did the journalist who set out to expose Padre Pio as a fraud

And… all we’re asking for is more than a passing reference to an anecdotal tale. Do you have anything else to go on? Some citation or reference?

And each priest at every Mass, I asked and the reply was that I was very welcome to take communion and that it "did not matter "that I was Anglican.

So all these priests were??

Objectively in error, unless their bishop had given permission for the distribution of Eucharist to Anglicans in his diocese who believed in the Real Presence.

 

[Rosebud77]

And… all we’re asking for is more than a passing reference to an anecdotal tale. Do you have anything else to go on? Some citation or reference?

Objectively in error, unless their bishop had given permission for the distribution of Eucharist to Anglicans in his diocese who believed in the Real Presence.

A witness who saw it. I do nto have time or strength to search the book The Ruffin bio is accepted as the authoritative source for Padre Pio and this is witnessed in that.

And remember please that as other have said that Padre Pio had a spiritual perception way beyond any human rules.

So yes you are alleging that these priests were??? I am shocked.

And I have no problem with it in the lives Padre Pio touched in this way, in the way Br Roger, happily and totally non Catholic was honoured, or indeed in the way my won small life was touched and affected.

There are other posts here that confirm that what they did IS allowed. And I am totally at peace with that and sincerely wish thee peace too and an acceptance

Sleep time here so please excuse this old lady now.

And thank you. A year ago your words would have disturbed me. I know differently now. Bless you! And peace on this.

 

[e_c]

Ah but you are wrong re Padre Pio. The revealing this is that in each case, the recipient converted and entered the Church.
As did the journalist who set out to expose Padre Pio as a fraud

And each priest at every Mass, I asked and the reply was that I was very welcome to take communion and that it "did not matter "that I was Anglican.

So all these priests were??

Hi Rosebud77,

I don’t doubt that you heard this story about St. Pio of Petrelcina. I do doubt its authenticity. The saint was notoriously scrupulous about the laws and rubrics of the Church.

As for the priests who told you what they did, I am sure they were well-meaning, but they were ill-informed. It is squarely at odds with the clear meaning of the law. FWIW, Ireland has seen enormous problems in the past few decades in formation houses and in liturgical practice. I’m sure the Irish seminarians I know would agree.

 

[FrDavid96]

Ah but you are wrong re Padre Pio. The revealing this is that in each case, the recipient converted and entered the Church.
As did the journalist who set out to expose Padre Pio as a fraud

And each priest at every Mass, I asked and the reply was that I was very welcome to take communion and that it "did not matter "that I was Anglican.

So all these priests were??

The answer is that they were wrong. They should not have said or done that.

It does indeed matter.

Priests can be wrong. Examples of priests disregarding the law does not change what the law says—nor does it make them right.