Replies

Non-Catholics and Catholics who have not yet gone through the process of formally receiving the sacrament of reconciliation and their first communion, but who wish to “participate” in that part of the Mass are invited to process to the minister dispensing the Holy Eucharist with their hands crossed upon their chest (not a humiliation, but a practical measure, so that there may be no confusion on the priest’s part that they are NOT receiving the Eucharist), whereupon the priest will simply touch his hand to their head and ask God’s blessing upon them.

This is so wrong on so many levels it makes me angry at the person who published it because they are leaving a lot of FACTS out of their article.

"In order to safeguard the sacrament, and to ensure that Christ is received with the proper dispositions (something very important for the authentic good of the person receiving Him), the Church has enacted certain norms for determining those occasions when intercommunion is legitimate. In the 1983 Code of Canon Law the following is prescribed:"

Canon 844 (c.671 in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches)

1. Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments to Catholic members of the Christian faithful only and, likewise, the latter may licitly receive the sacraments only from Catholic ministers with due regard for parts 2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and can. 861, part 2.

2. Whenever necessity requires or genuine spiritual advantage suggests, and provided that the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, it is lawful for the faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, 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 may licitly administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the oriental churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, if they ask on their own for the sacraments and are properly disposed. This holds also for members of other churches, which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition as the oriental churches as far as these sacraments are concerned.

4. If the danger of death is present or other grave necessity, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or the conference of bishops, Catholic ministers may licitly administer these sacraments to other Christians who do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and on their own ask for it, provided they manifest Catholic faith in these sacraments and are properly disposed.

5. For the cases in parts 2, 3, and 4, neither the diocesan bishop nor the conference of bishops is to enact general norms except after consultation with at least the local competent authority of the interested non- Catholic Church or community.

EWTN

As much respect as I have for President and First Lady Bush, they were not in danger of death nor do they believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. Giving Clinton Holy Communion was outrageous because of his unrepentant adultery. We can not nilly willy go around giving Holy Communion to people just because they are political figures. It cheapens the sacrament.

FJ, I don't understand your concern. Pres. and Mrs. Bush did not receive Eucharist. Are you saying that going up with arms crossed to receive a blessing is not acceptable?

When my family and I were receiving instruction before being received into the Church, we remained in the pew. Our parish does not observe the practice of people going up with crossed arms. Please elucidate. Thanks

the Bushes didn't receive Communion - they had the grace to act better and the sense know better. They only went up for a blessing from the priest. Clinton however,

I think you are mistaken. President Bush only received a blessing.