Would Synod document open path for Protestants to receive Communion regularly? [CC]

[Padres1969]

Appreciate your post.

Cannot see any Protestant receiving Holy Communion and then contradict it by not believing in the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Honestly even if the Catholic Church did open up communion to Protestants I doubt I’d partake. As you say communion implies exactly that… Communion. Between recipient and church. If the Protestant church in question isn’t in communion…

 

[KathleenGee]

Right Padres…I would like to go to an Orthodox church nearby…called the church for permission to attend, but I cannot receive communion in their church and so oblige.

 

[PJM]

=Padres1969;13418709]Honestly even if the Catholic Church did open up communion to Protestants I doubt I’d partake. As you say communion implies exactly that… Communion. Between recipient and church. If the Protestant church in question isn’t in communion…

No dear friend;

Not “the Chruch” but Jesus Christ Himself

Mt. 26: 26-28
Mk, 14: 21-24
Lk, 22:17-20
John All of Chpt 6: but especially 45-58
St Paul 1st Cor. 11: 23-30
And opf Course Jesus Himself

All verified by the Early Church acceptance and immediate after Death and Resurrection practice “Breaking of the Bread” & Eucharistic Miracles even in our day:thumbsup:

Acts 2: 42 & 46; Lk. 24:35

Faith dear friend; it takes faith!

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[KathleenGee]

Understood…looking over my shoulder at a local Orthodox church…but then after calling and asking for permission to come, and no call back…I see other issues as well…stay put…but see myself more as a member of the He Ekkeslia Katholika…the Universal Church prior the Schism…but am a Latin at heart.

However, have no fear…70% of the bishops, if I understood correctly, are holding ground. I would think it very difficult to further administrate…each case most be looked at with compassion for its own and not compare them to others.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

If YOU aree permitting or encouraging a non-Catholic to receive Holy Communion it is a GRAVE abuse, and must be stopped.

Being married to a Catholic is FAR from actually Being a Catholic. Your priest likely assumes that both bride and groom are Catholics.

The non-Catholic is not receiving any grace from receiving Christ without being a fully believing Catholic; and now that you are aware of this; the Grace you normally would be offered will also be reduced or ommitted…

This is a serious and grave abuse my friend!
*
Please be acquainted with the norms of Canon 844, especially the latter paragraphs. As but one of many examples, non-Catholics who are Eastern Orthodox assuredly may always approach a Catholic minister spontaneously to receive the Eucharist…and we, in turn, should not refuse them the sacraments. Some cases are determined simply by the law itself while other situations are delineated either by the local bishop or by the conference of bishops. Emphases added are mine.

Can. 844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone, without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and ⇒ can. 861, §2.

§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

§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.

§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.

 

[Zeldarocks2]

My God…

Is this what the Synod has ushered? A theological free-for-all where anybody is free to read whatever the heck they want into the documents?

 

[GKC]

If YOU aree permitting or encouraging a non-Catholic to receive Holy Communion it is a GRAVE abuse, and must be stopped.

Being married to a Catholic is FAR from actually Being a Catholic. Your priest likely assumes that both bride and groom are Catholics.

The non-Catholic is not receiving any grace from receiving Christ without being a fully believing Catholic; and now that you are aware of this; the Grace you normally would be offered will also be reduced or ommitted…

This is a serious and grave abuse my friend!
*
Please be acquainted with the norms of Canon 844, especially the latter paragraphs. As but one of many examples, non-Catholics who are Eastern Orthodox assuredly may always approach a Catholic minister spontaneously to receive the Eucharist…and we, in turn, should not refuse them the sacraments. Some cases are determined simply by the law itself while other situations are delineated either by the local bishop or by the conference of bishops. Emphases added are mine.

Can. 844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone, without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and ⇒ can. 861, §2.

§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

§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.

§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.

Mentioned Canon 844 myself, a couple of times, (supra). Esp. subpara 4.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Mentioned Canon 844 myself, a couple of times, (supra). Esp. subpara 4.

Yes, I saw.

I have to assume that those people commenting on this thread who seem not to know Canon Law did not take your counsel to go and find this canon. I thought the most useful contribution I could make was to simply import the actual text.

 

[ProVobis]

Right Padres…I would like to go to an Orthodox church nearby…called the church for permission to attend, but I cannot receive communion in their church and so oblige.

That would be interesting situation in a Lutheran church as well. Sure we might agree on a shared communion but first we ensure it’s valid, no?

In my experiences at Lutheran churches (funerals, recitals, etc.) I found their churches to be very warm, even without the communion.

 

[GKC]

Yes, I saw.

I have to assume that those people commenting on this thread who seem not to know Canon Law did not take your counsel to go and find this canon. I thought the most useful contribution I could make was to simply import the actual text.

I often tend toward the cryptic/elliptic, myself.

 

[KathleenGee]

The Lutheran church I went to did request that those in communion may receive but those outside of Lutheran communion can still go up to receive a blessing…which I eventually did…very small congregation, personable. Went with my client. When he died, a number of them talked to me, very kind people. Miss being with him and going to church with him there.

 

[pnewton]

My God…

Is this what the Synod has ushered? A theological free-for-all where anybody is free to read whatever the heck they want into the documents?

The synod neither started or welcomed this. Those who want to add to the final document their own words at twist do so of their own initiative.

 

[PJM]

=Don Ruggero;13420729]*
If YOU aree permitting or encouraging a non-Catholic to receive Holy Communion it is a GRAVE abuse, and must be stopped.

Being married to a Catholic is FAR from actually Being a Catholic. Your priest likely assumes that both bride and groom are Catholics.

The non-Catholic is not receiving any grace from receiving Christ without being a fully believing Catholic; and now that you are aware of this; the Grace you normally would be offered will also be reduced or ommitted…

This is a serious and grave abuse my friend!
*
Please be acquainted with the norms of Canon 844, especially the latter paragraphs. As but one of many examples, non-Catholics who are Eastern Orthodox assuredly may always approach a Catholic minister spontaneously to receive the Eucharist…and we, in turn, should not refuse them the sacraments. Some cases are determined simply by the law itself while other situations are delineated either by the local bishop or by the conference of bishops. Emphases added are mine.

Can. 844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone, without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and ⇒ can. 861, §2.

§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

§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.

§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.

Very nicely done Don

Thank you,

Patrick

 

[KathleenGee]

From what I have heard on the grapevine, 70% of the bishops are not in favor of any change.

 

[outremer]

The American Catholic bishops would certainly like to see this occur:

A U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops committee on ecumenical and interreligious affairs plans to send the Vatican a bold suggestion for “expansion of opportunities for Catholics and Lutherans to receive Holy Communion together.” The 118-page text of “Declaration on the Way: Church, Ministry, and Eucharist [PDF],” unanimously affirmed by the committee in October, will be submitted to Cardinal Kurt Koch, the President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity at the Vatican.

Regardless of how this proposal is received, it is nonetheless a shocking development. This never would have been considered or proposed by Roman Catholic bishops prior to Vatican II. This truly was the Council that changed everything Church related.

 

[outremer]

Perhaps the topic of shared communion with Protestants would be the source of a different synod?

 

[benjohnson]

The American Catholic bishops would certainly like to see this occur:

Regardless of how this proposal is received, it is nonetheless a shocking development. This never would have been considered or proposed by Roman Catholic bishops prior to Vatican II. This truly was the Council that changed everything Church related.

I respect Catholic closed communion more that I would respect a (in my opinion) false hospitality that overshadows Christ’s intentions. I pray that they act with caution and pursue this with much deliberation.

 

[PJM]

=outremer;13425971]Perhaps the topic of shared communion with Protestants would be the source of a different synod?

No, because the Sacraments are ALL instituted by Jesus Christ.

Who may and who can receive Catholic Holy Communion is practicing Catholics w/o mortal sins. And under certain conditions also some of the Eastern Churches.

One has to know and believe in the Real Presence and and the fact that non-Catholic-Christians ministers do not have the necessary direct apostolic succession to actually make Christ present to them… And if they are Blessed to get to this point they ought to join the Catholic Church.

God Bless you,

Partick

 

[Don_Ruggero]

No, because the Sacraments are ALL instituted by Jesus Christ.

Who may and who can receive Catholic Holy Communion is practicing Catholics w/o mortal sins. And under certain conditions also some of the Eastern Churches.

One has to know and believe in the Real Presence and and the fact that non-Catholic-Christians ministers do not have the necessary direct apostolic succession to actually make Christ present to them… And if they are Blessed to get to this point they ought to join the Catholic Church.

God Bless you,

Partick

No, It is not “some of the Eastern Churches.” It is ALL of the Eastern Churches not in communion with Rome AND ALL THE CHURCHES JUDGED BY THE HOLY SEE TO BE IN EQUIVALENT CIRCUMSTANCE.

Your reading of the canon is too narrow…

ANY communicant of one of the venerable Churches of the East not in communion with Rome, and those who are judged equivalent to them by the Holy See, may ALWAYS AND FOR ANY REASON OR OCCASION licitly receive the Eucharist, Penance and Anointing of the Sick administered by a Catholic minister., if properly disposed

Said another way: For the East not in communion with Rome and those equivalent, there are NO special conditions required, aside from being properly disposed and asking it of their own volition. It does not have to be a special occasion. ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS APPROACH THE MINISTER for the sacraments and we are to give the sacrament to them. Please do not make the norms stricter than they are Again, the plain language of the canon is perfectly straight forward:

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.

Now, the following paragraph of the canon treats those who do not fall under this rubric (such as the Anglicans, the Lutherans and other Christians who believe in the real presence, absolution of sins and anointing for the sick but are judged to lack apostolic succession). Then there are special provisions – but even then, Penance, Eucharist and the Sacrament of the Sick may licitly and rightly be given to these non Catholics when those conditions are met. I have done this on many occasions across the decades – when those asking fulfill what the canon requires: that they believe what a Catholic believes about the respective sacrament, are properly disposed and provided the situation accords with what the bishop has directed in compliance with the canon.

Here the guidance of the bishop, either the diocesan bishop, or at least the conference of bishops, is essential – apart from the circumstance of the danger of death when it may always be done, provided there is a Catholic faith in the sacrament being requested. Once the guidance is issued, it is to be faithfully implemented by the clergy. The Canon says.

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.

 

[GKC]

No, It is not “some of the Eastern Churches.” It is ALL of the Eastern Churches not in communion with Rome AND ALL THE CHURCHES JUDGED BY THE HOLY SEE TO BE IN EQUIVALENT CIRCUMSTANCE.

Your reading of the canon is too narrow…

ANY communicant of one of the venerable Churches of the East not in communion with Rome, and those who are judged equivalent to them by the Holy See, may ALWAYS AND FOR ANY REASON OR OCCASION licitly receive the Eucharist, Penance and Anointing of the Sick administered by a Catholic minister., if properly disposed

Said another way: For the East not in communion with Rome and those equivalent, there are NO special conditions required, aside from being properly disposed and asking it of their own volition. It does not have to be a special occasion. ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS APPROACH THE MINISTER for the sacraments and we are to give the sacrament to them. Please do not make the norms stricter than they are Again, the plain language of the canon is perfectly straight forward:

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.

Now, the following paragraph of the canon treats those who do not fall under this rubric (such as the Anglicans, the Lutherans and other Christians who believe in the real presence, absolution of sins and anointing for the sick but are judged to lack apostolic succession). Then there are special provisions – but even then, Penance, Eucharist and the Sacrament of the Sick may licitly and rightly be given to these non Catholics when those conditions are met. I have done this on many occasions across the decades – when those asking fulfill what the canon requires: that they believe what a Catholic believes about the respective sacrament, are properly disposed and provided the situation accords with what the bishop has directed in compliance with the canon.

Here the guidance of the bishop, either the diocesan bishop, or at least the conference of bishops, is essential – apart from the circumstance of the danger of death when it may always be done, provided there is a Catholic faith in the sacrament being requested. Once the guidance is issued, it is to be faithfully implemented by the clergy. The Canon says.

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.

Well said.