Why can't non-Catholics who believe in the Real Presence receive the Eucharist?

[1Lord1Faith]

As for not allowing non-Catholic who are Christians, who have been baptized in the name of The Father the Son and the Holy Spirit, who have lived a good Christian holy life, who followed God’s will, to receive The Eucharist aren’t you denying them something Jesus wants them to have,

It does seem like it. But then again, if someone wants the Eucharist, they can become Catholic. Of course, converting doesn’t guarantee that a convert is a believer.

All these practices and laws regarding the Eucharist seem to be the Church’s way of being pragmatic about it. So, the laws and practices will inevitably come up short for some people. I suppose that’s why pastors are given some wiggle room in these matters.

 

[annad347]

It does seem like it. But then again, if someone wants the Eucharist, they can become Catholic. Of course, converting doesn’t guarantee that a convert is a believer.

then why force it upon them if all they want to do is receive the Body and Blood of Christ.

I suppose that’s why pastors are given some wiggle room in these matters.

its not wiggle room, it allowing someone to receive the truth of what God offers.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

then why force it upon them if all they want to do is receive the Body and Blood of Christ.

I think there are two elements to that, and I’m not sure which element is the more important one. Again, this is just my understanding, it’s not necessarily correct theology. But it’s my understanding that one element is just pragmatic, that is to say, it’s largely just a practical way to keep order. The second element is a spiritual one. The Church wants to make sure that people are receiving the Eucharist in a worthy manner. St. Paul said something to the effect that people would eat and drink condemnation on themselves by receiving unworthily.

its not wiggle room, it allowing someone to receive the truth of what God offers.

Wiggle room to allow someone to receive the Eucharist outside of ordinary circumstances. I’m not sure if that’s different than what you are saying?

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Lutherans believe in consubstantiation (i.e. the substance of the bread and wine coexist with the Body and Blood of Christ, which is false) vs the Catholic teaching of transubstantiation (i.e. the entire substance of the bread and the entire substance of the wine cease to exist and the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ are really, truly and substantially present under the appearances of Bread and Wine).

 

[annad347]

The Church wants to make sure that people are receiving the Eucharist in a worthy manner. St. Paul said something to the effect that people would eat and drink condemnation on themselves by receiving unworthily.

Wouldn’t their faith in The Lord give them the knowledge that all who are receiving the Eucharist from them are doing so in a worthy manner… same faith that allows them to forgive people in their confession, the same faith that allows them to believe in their sermon and path to lead their congregation to God’s will… the same faith that gives them the belief that bread and wine becomes the Body and Blood of Christ… remember they are not mind readers, faith in what God will is all they have to go by.

I’m one who believes, no one who knows and understands what The Eucharist is should be denied The Eucharist no matter what church they were baptized in… but that’s just me.

 

[Hume]

Disagree…Our Church is present in this world and we are not to judge who is saved or not , God is only to judge.

He didn’t ask whether non-Catholics go to heaven. He asked why they can’t share your communion.

We permit certain orthodox Catholics (eastern) to receive under certain conditions.

Sure. There’s been some long-standing ambiguity as to whether they’re actually separate from your Church.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Wouldn’t their faith in The Lord give them the knowledge that all who are receiving the Eucharist from them are doing so in a worthy manner…

I think that some priests do feel somewhat this way. But the those priests are also obligated to follow ecclesial law.

remember they are not mind readers, faith in what God will is all they have to go by.

Well, priests do give the Eucharist to everyone who comes up to Communion. So, yeah they aren’t mind readers. They need to have faith that the people to whom they are distributing to are receiving ‘worthily’.

 

[Canvas]

We permit certain orthodox Catholics (eastern) to receive under certain conditions.

Eastern Rite Catholics are in full Communion with Rome and may licitly Recieve in a Latin Rite Church. However, Eastern Orthodox Christians are not in full Communion. Big distinction.

 

[Maelstrom1]

It’s just rules…and you know what Jesus thought about rules and religious rulers…

 

[Fuerza]

Careful. “No salvation outside the Church” is a doctrine of the faith that must be believed by all. There are some nuances in how it applies however, which is what I think you were getting at. Also, Eastern Catholics are always permitted to receive if they’re properly disposed because they are fully Catholic. Eastern Orthodox Christians (as well as Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian/Ancient Church of the East, PNCC and a few others) can also receive if they are in a state of grace and are authorized under the rules of their own churches.

 

[thistle]

We permit certain orthodox Catholics (eastern) to receive under certain conditions.

This is not correct. Eastern Catholics are fully in communion with Rome and can receive Communion just as we western Catholics can.

 

[Dlee]

Careful. “No salvation outside the Church”

Please read CCC 847
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

If you search Catholic Answers site, you will find many explanations on this topic.

 

[Fuerza]

Which is exactly what I said. This is part of the doctrine. What’s the issue?

 

[Dlee]

I thought you were saying only those within the Catholic Church could achieve salvation.

 

[Catholic361]

I’m glad that I followed Christ’s call to come home believe me I didn’t fully understand why I couldn’t participate in the Eucharist at the time I was going through RCIA at the end of my first year but I understood why I couldn’t while going through my 2nd year and believe me my first Eucharist was an amazing and eye opening experience for me.

 

[poche]

From the Code of Canon Law 844;

§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.

§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.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2T.HTM

 

[HomeschoolDad]

This has been a very good discussion, and due to some pressing obligations offline, I wasn’t able to reply to the various answers and comments. I’d just like to offer the following observations:

• I was not asking for myself. I have been in the Catholic world for 45 years now, and was received into the Church almost 44 years ago. Much of that time, I have been worthy to receive Holy Communion.
• From the sum total of the comments, as well as just using common sense, it appears that there is no intrinsic reason that a baptized Christian, who believes everything that the Catholic Church believes about the Real Presence, and is in the state of grace, could not receive the Catholic Eucharist.
• The reasons they cannot ordinarily receive the Eucharist are, then, primarily disciplinary and jurisdictional, as one poster pointed out, to maintain a certain order.
• I do note that one poster also referred to extra ecclesiam nulla salus — according to the older, more traditional interpretation, anyone outside the Church is just assumed to be in mortal sin, and therefore could not receive. The doctrine of EENS has developed and become more nuanced and elaborated in recent years — while it remains true that there is no salvation outside the Church, the definition of “outside the Church” has become more subjective. We recognize that a person can have at least an imperfect communion with the Church, without being “on the books” of a canonical Catholic parish.
• Is belief in the scholastic definition of transubstantiation essential to believing that the Eucharist is truly the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ? That would come as news to Eastern Christians. Many Christians believe in the Real Presence in the Catholic Eucharist (as well as in their own Eucharists), but do not try to define it.
• Non-Catholics are not bound by the canon law of the Catholic Church which (in the Latin Rite) requires at least annual confession of mortal sins. There are other ways to repent of mortal sin, such as perfect contrition.

What the Catholic Church cannot allow is for people to receive the Eucharist while holding a myriad of beliefs as to what It is — merely a symbol, blessed bread, memorial, sacred meal, ordinance, and so on, but not necessarily the true Body and Blood of Our Lord.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Is belief in the scholastic definition of transubstantiation essential to believing that the Eucharist is truly the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ? That would come as news to Eastern Christians. Many Christians believe in the Real Presence in the Catholic Eucharist (as well as in their own Eucharists), but do not try to define it.

Just to clarify, Eastern Orthodox have held a synod about this during reformation IIRC, and have basically defined transubstantiation in their own terms, but fully and authentically stating it. They do not use term, but believe in what it states. While searching through this doctrine several years ago when I was not sure whether I should be Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox, this fact has been able to make up my mind about transubstantiation as being truly Apostolic doctrine.

Non-Catholics are not bound by the canon law of the Catholic Church which (in the Latin Rite) requires at least annual confession of mortal sins. There are other ways to repent of mortal sin, such as perfect contrition.

While that is true, perfect contrition would apply to Catholics too and for sake of being sure they would not “drink and eat their damnation” from unworthy reception of Eucharist, they are expected to go to Confession too. It is also important to protect non-Catholics from unworthily receiving Eucharist.

Also, according to one post in other thread, it seems that believing Eucharist can only be consecrated by a Priest ordained validly according to Apostolic succession is also in doctrine of Eucharist and those who reject this would be unable to receive in Catholic Church. I have nothing binding to support this statement, though.

 

[halogirl]

I had the same question as you OP and in the end I just went ‘if you can’t beat em join them’ so here I am

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Just to clarify, Eastern Orthodox have held a synod about this during reformation IIRC, and have basically defined transubstantiation in their own terms, but fully and authentically stating it. They do not use term, but believe in what it states.

I did not know that, but I was aware that Orthodox believe that the sacrament is the true Body and Blood of Christ, without necessarily using scholastic reasoning or terminology.

While that is true, perfect contrition would apply to Catholics too and for sake of being sure they would not “drink and eat their damnation” from unworthy reception of Eucharist, they are expected to go to Confession too. It is also important to protect non-Catholics from unworthily receiving Eucharist.

For that matter, just as there is no intrinsic reason for a non-Catholic (who, as I noted above, believes the exact same things about the Real Presence as we do) not to receive communion — that is, it is not intrinsically evil or forbidden — is there any intrinsic reason that a non-Catholic baptized Christian, who believes in the power of an apostolically ordained priest to forgive sins in persona Christi, could not also receive the sacrament of penance?

There would be the issue of committing certain acts that the Catholic Church teaches are gravely sinful, but that the non-Catholic penitent does not believe are sinful. Would the priest respect the conscience of the penitent, or withhold absolution? For instance, if an Eastern Orthodox, Assyrian Orthodox, or PNCC penitent were to approach a Catholic priest for absolution, yet did not believe that Sin X is a sin, would the Catholic priest leave them at peace about Sin X, and administer absolution anyway?