Why are non-Catholics sometimes allowed to receive communion?

[FrDavid96]

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”

No, your understanding of the canon is simply wrong.

The “judgement of the diocesan bishop” is only one of several requirements that must be met. The bishop cannot give such permission unless all of those other requirements are likewise in place; and he cannot dispense from those other requirements.

The phrase “judgement of the bishop” is an alternative for “grave necessity” or “judgement of the conference.” It is not, however, an alternative for the rest of the canon.

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.”

I know full well what is meant by the term “dispensation.”

Yes, the situation must be in accord with canon 844. The bishop cannot dispense from the other requirements, nor can he give permission if those other prerequisites have not been met, including the belief in the necessity of a validly ordained priest to consecrate or absolve.

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?

I don’t know who you mean by “we.”

As for me, I do not address anecdotal stories. I’m addressing what the law says.

The problem with your interpretation is that you are presenting the situation as if the only requirement to be met is “the judgement of the bishop.” That’s a fairly common misunderstanding, unfortunately.

That criteria is merely the starting-point. Once someone (ie a priest) decides that the first criteria has been met (to address your post) “the judgement of the bishop” then the priest must still be satisfied that all other requirements are met. Another requirement is that it is impossible to approach a minister of the person’s own community—so if the person is Anglican and there’s an Anglican minister in town, then that provision of canon 844 has not been met, and Communion cannot be given.

The Church has been quite clear on this in recent years. This is not a situation of “either or.” It is a situation that all requirements must be be present together.

 

[FrDavid96]

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.

Actually no. That’s not what I said—I hope not, as it would have been wrong.

Catholics may receive the sacraments from priests who are members of churches with valid orders (in some circumstances). But that’s not the topic here.

This is about a Catholic priest administering the Sacraments to non-Catholics such as Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, etc. (to use your examples).

This can be done (at least in theory) if all the requirements of canon 844 have been met.

As far as admitting non-Catholics of true churches (such as Orthodox) the standard is a bit lower because the presumption is that the person has the faith of that church, and therefore already believes in the Eucharist and confession in total—so there’s no need to “verify” that belief.

none of the sub provisions can be dispensed, all must apply.
maybe, but the Pope can dispense or change the law so its a moot point. …

Yes, correct. All of the requirements must be met, and none can be dispensed.

I’m not going to get into an academic exercise debating whether or not the pope can dispense himself—I just don’t see the point in discussing that topic.

 

[FrDavid96]

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,

That “side” is the Code of Canon Law. It’s quite clear; even though often misunderstood and misrepresented.

and one side that says they can even under ordinary circumstances.

Anyone who says that is simply wrong, and easily proven wrong by simply reading canon 844.

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.

Then that priest is in the wrong–assuming that he truly does know. There have been times when I have unknowingly administered Communion to non-Catholics precisely because I thought they were Catholics. So I want to caution a certain benefit of the doubt here. I am saying that a priest is in the wrong if he does this knowingly.

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?

The Laws of the Church don’t work that way (2 sides disagreeing). The law is clear. Only one ‘side’ can be in the right. However, that doesn’t exclude the possibility of someone else misunderstanding that other side or misunderstanding the situation.

 

[e_c]

No, your understanding of the canon is simply wrong.

The “judgement of the diocesan bishop” is only one of several requirements that must be met. The bishop cannot give such permission unless all of those other requirements are likewise in place; and he cannot dispense from those other requirements.

The phrase “judgement of the bishop” is an alternative for “grave necessity” or “judgement of the conference.” It is not, however, an alternative for the rest of the canon.

It’s not clear that Gorgias is excluding the other parts of section 4 as necessary for the use of this privilege.

It does seem clear that the judgment of the bishop or bishops’ conference is contingent on having a “grave necessity” to form such a judgment.

This Canon is not that confusing. Here is the text of Sections 4 and 5:

§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.

§5. For the cases mentioned in §§2, 3, and 4, the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops is not to issue general norms except after consultation at least with the local competent authority of the interested non-Catholic Church or community.

Fr. Parish Priest can make the decision (or even Mr. Lay Man, in the case of baptism or Viaticum, 2/3 of “these same sacraments,” which also includes Extreme Unction) if there is danger of death, together with the other parts (can’t approach their own ministers, manifest Catholic Faith with regard to the sacrament offered, seek the sacrament from that minister on their own accord, and are otherwise properly disposed, i.e. not drunk, wearing political propaganda, etc.), and if “some other grave necessity urges it” then the bishop or the bishops conference can make a general norm - but to do that they must first AT LEAST consult the proper authority within the non-Catholic communion to whom this privilege is offered.

 

[FrDavid96]

It’s not clear that Gorgias is excluding the other parts of section 4 as necessary for the use of this privilege.

When I read what was posted in #19 & especially #31 where the criteria that was posted was “bishop had given permission for the distribution of Eucharist to Anglicans in his diocese who believed in the Real Presence.”

That is not what the canon says. It’s not enough that the bishop gives his permission to those who “believe in the Real Presence.” That does not satisfy the conditions of the canon.

—the requirement that it’s impossible to approach an (in this example) Anglican isn’t addressed. The only way a bishop can give permission under canon 844 is if it is also a situation of an Anglican minister not being available. We could also say that it is the only way such permission could ever be applied.

–the requirement is to manifest Catholic faith in the Eucharist—not just some kind of faith. Belief in the Real Presence is a good start, but does not quite meet the standard. For example, someone might believe in the Real Presence but also believe that once the community disperses, the Real Presence ceases. That would be a problem here.

The other requirement is not given in the canon itself, but is articulated by the lawgiver and by the Holy See in complementary documents explaining, with authority, how the canon is to be interpreted. The recipient must believe in the necessity of a validly ordained priest. Again, that raises problems.

It does seem clear that the judgment of the bishop or bishops’ conference is contingent on having a “grave necessity” to form such a judgment.

Yes. Exactly.
That must come first. Arguably, it must come before anything else is even considered.

Also grave necessity is the highest standard expressed in Canon Law. It’s not a standard to be taken lightly or applied casually.

This Canon is not that confusing. Here is the text of Sections 4 and 5:

§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.

§5. For the cases mentioned in §§2, 3, and 4, the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops is not to issue general norms except after consultation at least with the local competent authority of the interested non-Catholic Church or community.

Fr. Parish Priest can make the decision (or even Mr. Lay Man, in the case of baptism or Viaticum, 2/3 of “these same sacraments,” which also includes Extreme Unction) if there is danger of death, together with the other parts (can’t approach their own ministers, manifest Catholic Faith with regard to the sacrament offered, seek the sacrament from that minister on their own accord, and are otherwise properly disposed, i.e. not drunk, wearing political propaganda, etc.), and if “some other grave necessity urges it” then the bishop or the bishops conference can make a general norm - but to do that they must first AT LEAST consult the proper authority within the non-Catholic communion to whom this privilege is offered.

Yes, I made a typing mistake in the earlier post.

It must be “grave necessity.” That’s always true.

The judgement of the bishop can substitute for “danger of death”* or the “judgement of the bishops conference.”

Danger of death is always “grave necessity” anyway.

---

Earlier, I typed “grave necessity” instead of “danger of death.” While danger of death is always grave necessity; it’s not the case that grave necessity is always danger of death.

 

[FrDavid96]

I
Fr. Parish Priest can make the decision (or even Mr. Lay Man, in the case of baptism or Viaticum, 2/3 of “these same sacraments,” which also includes Extreme Unction) …

The 3 Sacraments are penance, Eucharist and Anointing. Baptism isn’t relevant here (it is elsewhere).

2 of the 3 certainly require a priest (penance & anointing).

With regard to the Eucharist, I would disagree that a layperson can make that decision. Remember that a layperson is not a minister of Communion. A layperson can only be deputed as an extraordinary minister by a priest (sacerdos). It’s one thing to depute someone to assist the priest in the actual distribution of Communion; it’s something else to depute someone to actually have the authority to act on ones own under canon 844.4

So as I see it, a layperson cannot act under 844.4 unless specifically deputed to do so by a priest (again, sacerdos).

 

[e_c]

The 3 Sacraments are penance, Eucharist and Anointing. Baptism isn’t relevant here (it is elsewhere).

2 of the 3 certainly require a priest (penance & anointing).

With regard to the Eucharist, I would disagree that a layperson can make that decision. Remember that a layperson is not a minister of Communion. A layperson can only be deputed as an extraordinary minister by a priest (sacerdos). It’s one thing to depute someone to assist the priest in the actual distribution of Communion; it’s something else to depute someone to actually have the authority to act on ones own under canon 844.4

So as I see it, a layperson cannot act under 844.4 unless specifically deputed to do so by a priest (again, sacerdos).

Ah yes, my mistake. Baptism is under another provision.

Why would confirmation not be permitted? Because it is not essential to salvation?

That’s a good argument. But suppose Mr. Lay Man is a duly appointed EMHC. Or even an acolyte. Would that change the matter?

 

[FrDavid96]

Ah yes, my mistake. Baptism is under another provision.

Why would confirmation not be permitted? Because it is not essential to salvation?

Because it’s a sacrament of initiation.

If someone were to want/request to be confirmed as a Catholic, then such a person would likewise want to become a Catholic. With regard to priests who are presbyters (not bishops) the priest himself is an extraordinary minister of confirmation in the first place. With regard to Confirmation, there are several other conditions that must first be met. Those other conditions make this kind of scenario beyond what is intended by canon 844.4.

Just like baptism, this is already addressed elsewhere in the law. In such a scenario, the priest would receive the person as a Catholic, and immediately Confirm. Just not by virtue of canon 844.4.

That’s a good argument. But suppose Mr. Lay Man is a duly appointed EMHC. Or even an acolyte. Would that change the matter?

Only a priest can make such an appointment of an extraordinary minister. Remember that there’s no such thing as a permanent EMHC (despite how the provision is often characterized); even an acolyte is still just a potential EMHC.

My point is that in order for canon 844.4 to be invoked, a priest must be directly involved in that process. An extraordinary minister might assist the priest—I’m not excluding that.

Also, the Eucharist itself must come from a priest. So even if the one distributing Communion is a deacon, he still has to start by getting the Eucharist from some priest somewhere. I’m merely saying that there’s always a priest (sacerdos) directly involved in the process.

 

[wild_thing]

Thank you so much for the clarification, FrDavid96.

 

[e_c]

Because it’s a sacrament of initiation.

If someone were to want/request to be confirmed as a Catholic, then such a person would likewise want to become a Catholic. With regard to priests who are presbyters (not bishops) the priest himself is an extraordinary minister of confirmation in the first place. With regard to Confirmation, there are several other conditions that must first be met. Those other conditions make this kind of scenario beyond what is intended by canon 844.4.

Just like baptism, this is already addressed elsewhere in the law. In such a scenario, the priest would receive the person as a Catholic, and immediately Confirm. Just not by virtue of canon 844.4.

Only a priest can make such an appointment of an extraordinary minister. Remember that there’s no such thing as a permanent EMHC (despite how the provision is often characterized); even an acolyte is still just a potential EMHC.

My point is that in order for canon 844.4 to be invoked, a priest must be directly involved in that process. An extraordinary minister might assist the priest—I’m not excluding that.

Also, the Eucharist itself must come from a priest. So even if the one distributing Communion is a deacon, he still has to start by getting the Eucharist from some priest somewhere. I’m merely saying that there’s always a priest (sacerdos) directly involved in the process.

This is very interesting.

Baptism and the Eucharist are also Sacraments of Initiation… Would it not then have to be something about the nature of the character being imprinted, supposing it is a matter of grave urgency due to imminent death?

The issue of perpetual EMHC’s is indeed odd - seeing as one be deputized for an extended period of time by the bishop (!), couldn’t that person then be able to make the call on their own? It is not clear either from this canon or from the proper instruction (On Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of Non-Ordained Faithful in the Ministry of Priest, article 8): “A non-ordained member of the faithful, in cases of true necessity, may be deputed by the diocesan bishop, using the appropriate form of blessing for these situation, to act as an extraordinary minister to distribute Holy Communion outside of liturgical celebrations ad actum vel ad tempus or for a more stable period. In exceptional cases or in unforeseen circumstances, the priest presiding at the liturgy may authorize such ad actum.”

I suppose it is a trickier canon than I thought.

What do you think?

 

[FrDavid96]

This is very interesting.

Baptism and the Eucharist are also Sacraments of Initiation… Would it not then have to be something about the nature of the character being imprinted, supposing it is a matter of grave urgency due to imminent death?

Yes, it’s about the character being imprinted (at least for Baptism and Confirmation—perhaps we could philosophize about First Communion imprinting a character). At least that’s one of the reasons why Baptism isn’t addressed in canon 844.4

It’s like I’ve posted a few times now: I am not saying that these Sacraments cannot be done (for non-Catholics). Instead, I am saying that the canons that address their administration are elsewhere in the Code, and not canon 844.4

In an emergency, a non-Catholic can be baptized in danger–of-death (of course, anyone non-baptized is always non-Catholic). Yet that’s clearly not the topic of the thread. The thread is about the circumstances when non-Catholics might be admitted to Communion. The specific circumstances of 844.4 imply (indeed require) that someone is already baptized.

The issue of perpetual EMHC’s is indeed odd - seeing as one be deputized for an extended period of time by the bishop (!), couldn’t that person then be able to make the call on their own? It is not clear either from this canon or from the proper instruction (On Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of Non-Ordained Faithful in the Ministry of Priest, article 8): “A non-ordained member of the faithful, in cases of true necessity, may be deputed by the diocesan bishop, using the appropriate form of blessing for these situation, to act as an extraordinary minister to distribute Holy Communion outside of liturgical celebrations ad actum vel ad tempus or for a more stable period. In exceptional cases or in unforeseen circumstances, the priest presiding at the liturgy may authorize such ad actum.”

I suppose it is a trickier canon than I thought.

What do you think?

I don’t want to get too far off topic, so I’ll try to be brief.

An Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion is not an office in the Church. It’s always a temporary appointment that applies only while that person is actually distributing Communion.

Even though a bishop can appoint someone for “a more stable time” there are still 2 points to be made:

1. Stable is not the same as permanent.
2. Even though the time might be extended, the appointee is still only a potential EMHC and does not actually become one until the person is engaged in distributing Communion. Once that moment is over, the person is no longer an EMHC, but is once again only a potential EMHC should there be once again a genuine need.

Contrast this to a priest and deacon who are always ministers of Holy Communion from the moment of ordination.

Back to the topic at hand:
This is obvious, but perhaps so obvious that people aren’t considering it: the Eucharist must still come from a priest, because only a priest can consecrate. And regardless of anything else, a priest (ie some priest) is always the custodian of the Eucharist. If the Eucharist is reserved in the tabernacle of a parish, then the pastor is responsible for custody of the Eucharist. In other situations, there is always a priest who is the custodian. There is just no such thing as EMHCs who act on their own; instead, this is always done under the supervision of a priest in some way.

My original point was that in order for canon 844.4 to be applied in a real-life situation, there is always a priest involved in the process; and not just remotely. That’s another way of saying that laypersons should not be (indeed cannot licitly be) applying canon 844.4 entirely on their own. Instead, it is always some priest who applies the canon, and that priest might or might not be assisted in different ways by laypersons.

 

[PrayPsalm51]

I’m going to venture back toward the original post here.
We ran into this at a recent Catholic wedding. Several of our friends (mixed marriages, all of the Catholic partners are lapsed) were very offended and felt unwelcome when the priest gave a little instruction at the beginning about who could receive communion. He DID invite everyone forward for a blessing so no one was “excluded.” We had a short conversation at dinner but it was going nowhere as these other Catholics have teen TOLD by other priests that all could receive at weddings and funerals. I doubt they all misunderstood. It was a shame because the good and holy priest at this wedding did a nice job of explaining it and these people were all just angry and thought he was wrong and we looked like zealots for trying to explain it.

 

[Vico]

I’m going to venture back toward the original post here.
We ran into this at a recent Catholic wedding. Several of our friends (mixed marriages, all of the Catholic partners are lapsed) were very offended and felt unwelcome when the priest gave a little instruction at the beginning about who could receive communion. He DID invite everyone forward for a blessing so no one was “excluded.” We had a short conversation at dinner but it was going nowhere as these other Catholics have teen TOLD by other priests that all could receive at weddings and funerals. I doubt they all misunderstood. It was a shame because the good and holy priest at this wedding did a nice job of explaining it and these people were all just angry and thought he was wrong and we looked like zealots for trying to explain it.

Those offended people maybe have not considered that it is important duty of Catholics to exclude, because it is a sacrilege to receive the Most Holy Eucharist without belief. I like to remember the Byzantine Catholic Communion Prayer:O Lord, I believe and profess that you are truly Christ, the Son of the living God, who came into the world to save sinners of whom I am the first.
Accept me today as a partaker of your mystical supper, O Son of God, for I will not reveal your mystery to your enemies, nor will I give you a kiss as did Judas, but like the thief I profess you:

Remember me, O Lord, when you come in your kingdom.
Remember me, O Master, when you come in your kingdom.
Remember me, O Holy One, when you come in your kingdom.
May the partaking of your holy mysteries, O Lord, be not for my judgment or condemnation but for the healing of soul and body. O Lord, I also believe and profess that this, which I am about to receive, is truly your most precious body and your life-giving blood, which, I pray, make me worthy to receive for the remission of all my sins and for life everlasting. Amen.

O God, be merciful to me, a sinner.
O God, cleanse me of my sins and have mercy on me.
O Lord, forgive me for I have sinned without number.
​

 

[otjm]

I’m going to venture back toward the original post here.
We ran into this at a recent Catholic wedding. Several of our friends (mixed marriages, all of the Catholic partners are lapsed) were very offended and felt unwelcome when the priest gave a little instruction at the beginning about who could receive communion. He DID invite everyone forward for a blessing so no one was “excluded.” We had a short conversation at dinner but it was going nowhere as these other Catholics have teen TOLD by other priests that all could receive at weddings and funerals. I doubt they all misunderstood. It was a shame because the good and holy priest at this wedding did a nice job of explaining it and these people were all just angry and thought he was wrong and we looked like zealots for trying to explain it.

Other than psychopathology and sociopathology, it is nearly universal that people experience guilt for choices such as your friends appear to have experienced.

And likewise, it is an extremely common reaction, when their misbehavior/wrong choices/status is pointed out, to become angry with those pointing it out rather than looking internally and repenting.

People don’t want to be told they are wrong. The reaction is most often as you describe. In a one-on-one situation, it may be possible through asking questions to get them to look “inside”. But in a social setting, that is nearly impossible. And further instruction in such a situation usually drives them further away.

Keep them in prayer; be open to anyone who may hint at the matter (as opposed to exploding at the matter) and do nothing to drive them farther away.

Catholic weddings are not generally the place where the issue of a non-Catholic Christian is seeking out the Eucharist such that it would come within the appropriate sections of the rule. Far more likely, they may be circumstances where the rule is violated, and that is not likely to change.

 

[PrayPsalm51]

Other than psychopathology and sociopathology, it is nearly universal that people experience guilt for choices such as your friends appear to have experienced.

And likewise, it is an extremely common reaction, when their misbehavior/wrong choices/status is pointed out, to become angry with those pointing it out rather than looking internally and repenting.

People don’t want to be told they are wrong. The reaction is most often as you describe. In a one-on-one situation, it may be possible through asking questions to get them to look “inside”. But in a social setting, that is nearly impossible. And further instruction in such a situation usually drives them further away.

Keep them in prayer; be open to anyone who may hint at the matter (as opposed to exploding at the matter) and do nothing to drive them farther away.

Catholic weddings are not generally the place where the issue of a non-Catholic Christian is seeking out the Eucharist such that it would come within the appropriate sections of the rule. Far more likely, they may be circumstances where the rule is violated, and that is not likely to change.

Thank you and you’re right. These are good friends of ours and we started to have a discussion and it quickly went bad. I had to pinch my husband under the table and we agreed (later) that we might have more success talking individually to some of them. It’s surprising though, that they sincerely believed they were “ok” and the priest was wrong!
I’m glad this question came up. Clearly by the responses other Catholics were unaware.