Why are non-Catholics sometimes allowed to receive communion?

[FrDavid96]

…

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.

The bishop cannot give that permission. The Holy See has been very clear on that point.

See R.S. #85. All of the conditions must be met, and “no dispensation can be given” means that the bishop cannot give such permission.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

Also
46…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.
vatican.va/holy_father/special_features/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_20030417_ecclesia_eucharistia_en.html

 

[FrDavid96]

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.

There is another requirement, though, they must believe in the necessity of a validly ordained priest to consecrate the Eucharist (or absolve, or anoint).

See #46 vatican.va/holy_father/special_features/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_20030417_ecclesia_eucharistia_en.html

So it isn’t enough for someone to say “I believe in the Real Presence” but must also believe in the Sacrament of Holy Orders and that only a validly ordained priest can consecrate.

So, it is not “belief in the Real Presence” that matters; but one must likewise believe everything else the Church believes with regard to the Eucharist—it’s a higher standard than is often mentioned.

 

[Gorgias]

The bishop cannot give that permission. The Holy See has been very clear on that point.

The bishop can give that permission – that’s the whole point of c. 844 §4: “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”

See R.S. #85. All of the conditions must be met, and “no dispensation can be given” means that the bishop cannot give such permission.

I’m not talking about dispensation from the provisions of c. 844 §4; I’m talking about administration of the sacraments in accord with that canon. “No dispensation” doesn’t mean “a bishop cannot give permission according to the canon”; it means “a bishop cannot give permission outside of the provisions of the canon.”

We’re working from the presumption that Pope John Paul II acted within the provisions of canon law when he distributed communion to Br. Roger… aren’t we?

 

[Gorgias]

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.

Thanks for the reference! Sadly, I do not have a copy of the book, and none seem to be available online.

However, I did find this online – could this be the story you’re referencing?

Dr. Francesco Ricciardi from San Giovanni Rotondo, outspoken atheist and supporter of attacks on Padre Pio, in the fall of 1928 was diagnosed with advanced stomach cancer. His condition was deemed hopeless, and by December he was near death. Padre Pio went to visit him, and spent some time alone with him. No one knows what occurred between the two men, except that Ricciardi confessed and received Holy Communion. When the family was readmitted in the room, Padre Pio told the doctor: “Your soul is healed, and soon your body will be healed as well.” Within three days all signs of cancer had disappeared. Dr. Ricciardi lived nearly four more years, and died a practicing catholic.

Is this the story you’re thinking of? There’s a footnote to this account on that web page: “Ruf91, 224-5”. If you have the time or energy to turn to p224 of Ruffin’s book, perhaps you might be able to verify whether that’s the story you’re citing to us?

If it is, then you’re mischaracterizing it as a story of St Pio “giving communion to an atheist.” In this story, Ricciardi confesses and (then, apparently) receives communion. In other words, he has converted, and Pio has accepted him into the Church. At this point – as a Catholic – and only this point, can he licitly receive communion. When Ricciardi receives the Eucharist, he is already Catholic and no longer an atheist.

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

Agreed. However, part of the story of Pio is that he was always obedient to the Church. Do you really think that a priest who would not celebrate the Mass, because his superiors commanded him not to, would knowingly and willingly violate other Church law? :nope:

So yes you are alleging that these priests were???

I am saying that, unless their bishops gave them permission, then yeah… they were not following the provisions of canon law.

I am shocked.

Why?

There are other posts here that confirm that what they did IS allowed.

:nope:

And I am totally at peace with that and sincerely wish thee peace too

Peace to you, too.

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

You may be surprised at the veracity of that which you ‘know’.

 

[e_c]

The bishop can give that permission – that’s the whole point of c. 844 §4: “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”

I’m not talking about dispensation from the provisions of c. 844 §4; I’m talking about administration of the sacraments in accord with that canon. “No dispensation” doesn’t mean “a bishop cannot give permission according to the canon”; it means “a bishop cannot give permission outside of the provisions of the canon.”

We’re working from the presumption that Pope John Paul II acted within the provisions of canon law when he distributed communion to Br. Roger… aren’t we?

Yes. It is very peculiar.

 

[SyroMalankara]

The bishop can give that permission – that’s the whole point of c. 844 §4: “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”

Actually the Holy See has repeatedly sided with Fr. David on this. “Other Christians” means those with Apostolic Succession, etc like the Orthodox, Assyrians, PNCC, and the like NOT Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, et al.

I’m not talking about dispensation from the provisions of c. 844 §4; I’m talking about administration of the sacraments in accord with that canon. “No dispensation” doesn’t mean “a bishop cannot give permission according to the canon”; it means “a bishop cannot give permission outside of the provisions of the canon.”

none of the sub provisions can be dispensed, all must apply.

We’re working from the presumption that Pope John Paul II acted within the provisions of canon law when he distributed communion to Br. Roger… aren’t we?

maybe, but the Pope can dispense or change the law so its a moot point. There was even a rumor that Br. Roger died a Catholic

 

[Gorgias]

none of the sub provisions can be dispensed, all must apply.

Again, I’m not talking about ‘dispensing’ with any of the provisions.

maybe, but the Pope can dispense or change the law so its a moot point.

Right. But, in this case, it doesn’t seem that we have to go that far to make sense of the Br Roger issue.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Actually the Holy See has repeatedly sided with Fr. David on this. “Other Christians” means those with Apostolic Succession, etc like the Orthodox, Assyrians, PNCC, and the like NOT Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, et al.

This is not correct at all.

There was even a rumor that Br. Roger died a Catholic

This also is not true. Brother Roger did not become Catholic.

 

[Rosebud77]

This is not correct at all.

This also is not true. Brother Roger did not become Catholic.

Father; thank you. So very much.

 

[SyroMalankara]

This is not correct at all.

what is correct?

This also is not true. Brother Roger did not become Catholic.

Br. Roger’s own language seems to imply he did to what extent I cannot say

 

[Gorgias]

Don Ruggero:

This also is not true. Brother Roger did not become Catholic.

Father; thank you. So very much.

Before you get all excited, Rosebud, keep in mind that in this situation, a bishop (i.e., the pope, the bishop of Rome) was the one who, as allowed by canon law, decided that this case was an example of a ‘grave necessity’ sufficient to allow distribution of the Eucharist to a non-Catholic.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

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.

This has been my experience also over a course of 40+ years.

 

[e_c]

This has been my experience also over a course of 40+ years.

I see you are from San Francisco. That would make sense, unfortunately.

The law is very clear. It is also very clear that plenty of priests don’t care or don’t know about this law or many others. This is what anecdotes can tell us… Anecdotes can’t tell us what the law is.

If you are an Anglican, you may not receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church. Just enter the Ordinariate already!

A bishop, or bishop’s conference, can declare a “state of emergency” of sorts that would allow for such a categorical exception, provided Catholic faith is expressed with regard to the sacrament being received and the recipients are otherwise well disposed, but this would be after (“at least”) proper consultation with the legitimate representative of whatever church or communion is getting the exception. I am confident that there is no such provision in the USA or in Ireland - or perhaps even anywhere in the world at the moment.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

I see you are from San Francisco. That would make sense, unfortunately.

The law is very clear. It is also very clear that plenty of priests don’t care or don’t know about this law or many others. This is what anecdotes can tell us… Anecdotes can’t tell us what the law is.

If you are an Anglican, you may not receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church. Just enter the Ordinariate already!

.

I often travel outside of San Francisco, so if I am with Roman Catholics, I always have a discussion beforehand with the priest celebrating the Mass and there has never been a problem receiving communion. This happens in San Francisco and across the country.

And thank you for the invitation to join the Ordinariate, but I am extremely happy to be where God put me - in the Anglican Church.

 

[DeniseNY]

Exactly!

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

:sad_yes:

 

[MtnDwellar]

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.

How can we, as laity, know which priests are right or wrong? Our salvation may well depend on it.

 

[e_c]

I often travel outside of San Francisco, so if I am with Roman Catholics, I always have a discussion beforehand with the priest celebrating the Mass and there has never been a problem receiving communion. This happens in San Francisco and across the country.

And thank you for the invitation to join the Ordinariate, but I am extremely happy to be where God put me - in the Anglican Church.

If you refuse the spiritual Communion, the sacramental Communion is refused to you. I’m sorry, but you have had a bad stroke of luck, if what you say is true and I am understanding you correctly. You are absolutely not permitted to receive Holy Communion at a Catholic Mass, without prejudice to the aforementioned exceptions, which are not applicable. There are often inserts or pages in the back of hymnals which explain this.

Please trust the clear reference to the law that has been provided, rather than Fr. So-and-so.

Maybe you are in this discussion at all because God wants you in the Ordinariate!

Peace to you…

 

[SyroMalankara]

I often travel outside of San Francisco, so if I am with Roman Catholics, I always have a discussion beforehand with the priest celebrating the Mass and there has never been a problem receiving communion. This happens in San Francisco and across the country.

And thank you for the invitation to join the Ordinariate, but I am extremely happy to be where God put me - in the Anglican Church.

are there that many locations in the US where access to the Anglican Communion and all its partners are limited or impossible to attend?

 

[wild_thing]

I’m getting very confused. There are two sides bring presented here- one side says that Anglicans, Lutherns, etc. cannot receive communion except under very, very special circumstances, and one side that says they can even under ordinary circumstances. I’m more curious about everyday Johnny and Linda who are Episcopalian and show up for a Catholic wedding or funeral and receive communion along with practicing Catholics, even if the priest knows they are not of the Faith. This happens far, far more often than the deathbed wish of a Methodist or sudden pious desire and ability of a Lutheran to see the true Presence of God in the Eucharist. Or do both sides agree that isn’t allowed?

 

[DeniseNY]

I’m getting very confused. There are two sides bring presented here- one side says that Anglicans, Lutherns, etc. cannot receive communion except under very, very special circumstances, and one side that says they can even under ordinary circumstances. I’m more curious about everyday Johnny and Linda who are Episcopalian and show up for a Catholic wedding or funeral and receive communion along with practicing Catholics, even if the priest knows they are not of the Faith. This happens far, far more often than the deathbed wish of a Methodist or sudden pious desire and ability of a Lutheran to see the true Presence of God in the Eucharist. Or do both sides agree that isn’t allowed?

I’m confused too. I’m also confused as to why a non Catholic would want to receive, but yet they don’t have want to be Catholic.