Posted on 08/02/2018 11:06:09 AM PDT by ebb tide
Intercommunion and the particular case of communion granted to a non-Catholic spouse must come to terms with “a delicate problem, that of wisely balancing two principles: the principle of the need to confer grace through the administration of the sacraments should always take into consideration the principle of the need to not contradict ecclesial communion”. Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, president emeritus of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, states this in his interview with Vatican Insider.
On 20 February 2018 the German Bishops’ Conference published a document on Eucharistic intercommunion in which they take into consideration the case of a married couple, one of whom is Catholic and the other non-Catholic, who participate in a Mass celebrated in a Catholic Church. And they examine the possibility that the Catholic priest might administer communion to the non-Catholic spouse. You have been studying the complex problem of intercommunion for some decades (starting from the doctoral thesis at the Pontifical Gregorian University published with the title “The participation of non-Catholics in the worship of the Catholic Church”, 1968). What do you think of the document of the German episcopal conference?
“It is certainly an important and very interesting document, written with great care by individuals who are very competent regarding the problem of intercommunion, especially involving the sacraments. However, I do not intend to express my opinion on the merits of this document which is still being examined by the competent ecclesial authorities. I believe, however, that this interview can be a useful occasion to talk about the problem of intercommunion, especially involving the sacraments, in order to clarify some complex aspect of this delicate topic”.
In this case, can we begin by recalling exactly what is provided for by the Code of Canon Law?
“Since you ask me for an exact answer, I would like to provide an articulated answer. I can provide it in four points by making an exegesis of canon 844 §§ 3-4.
1. The text takes into consideration two categories of believers, that is of non-Catholic Christians, namely the “members of the Eastern Churches” (§ 3) and “other Christians”, i.e. the members of the Western Christian Denominations, in the sense of existing in the West from the time of the Reformation (§ 4).
2. For both categories of Christians the text states that “Catholic ministers licitly administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist and of the anointing of the sick” (§§ 3-3. Of the two categories of Christians the canon states that “they do not have full communion with the Catholic Church” (§§ 3-4). Which means, said in a positive way, that these Christians are in true but not full communion with the Catholic Church (see especially the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, no. 15; the conciliar decree Unitatis redintegratio, no. 3.1; 22.2).
4. To licitly administer the three abovementioned sacraments to non-Catholic Christians, the Catholic Church establishes some conditions:
a) for the members of the Eastern Churches, the conditions are two: they spontaneously request the sacraments and have the right intention, that is, they are repentant to request the sacrament of penance and are in a state of sanctifying grace in order to access the sacrament of the Eucharist;
b) for Christians belonging to the western denominations the conditions are many: that they ask for the sacraments spontaneously; they have the right intention; they cannot access a minister of their denomination; they can show that they have the same faith of the Catholic Church in the requested sacraments; they are in danger of death or in another grave and pressing need, to be judged as such by the diocesan bishop or by the Episcopal Conference”.
You recalled that canon 844, § 4 requires a grave and pressing need for the administration of the sacraments by the Catholic Church to non-Catholic Christians belonging to Western denominations. On the other hand, in the encyclical Ut unum sint by John Paul II, number 46 mentions “special cases”. And in another encyclical by the same Pope, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, number 45 mentions “special circumstances”. Taking into account these significant variations, what exactly does “grave and pressing need” mean?
“The Code of Canon Law depends on the Second Vatican Council in a very essential way. Therefore, the answer to the question of what exactly grave and pressing need means must be sought in the Council texts and in the documents of the post-conciliar period, documents that more closely reflect the Council itself and undertake to translate it into canonical legislation. Unfortunately, in an interview we must limit ourselves to hints. So I want to consider what, in my opinion, is the most important text on our subject, namely Unitatis redintegratio, n. 8.4 which states as follows: ‘There are two main principles governing the practice of such common worship: first, the bearing witness to the unity of the Church, and second, the sharing in the means of grace. Witness to the unity of the Church very generally forbids common worship to Christians, but the grace to be had from it sometimes commends this practice’”.
A clear and at the same time complex text. Can you explain the two principles and their importance to better understand what we are talking about?
“The first principle is the need to express with faithfulness and for this reason to not contradict ecclesial communion. Let’s try to make this clear. If the Catholic Church administers sacraments to non-Catholic Christians, that is, to those who are in true but not full communion with the Catholic Church, it ends up dealing with non-Catholic Christians in the same way as Catholics, that is, those who are in full communion. There are two dangers from this: that of ecclesiological indifferentism and that of the consequent scandal. Ecclesiological indifferentism is the erroneous assertion that there is no difference between being or not being in full communion with the Catholic Church. The consequent scandal is the erroneous conviction that is formed in the community, or even outside it, because of the aforesaid statement”.
It is understandable that the need to not contradict ecclesial communion prohibits intercommunion in the sacraments. And the second principle?
“The second principle is the need for the Catholic Church to confer grace not in any way, but specifically through the administration of the sacraments. And this applies not only to Catholic Christians, but to all those who are baptized, even for non-Catholics. This is the great teaching affirmed with clarity and conviction by the great text of the Second Vatican Council. Let us be clear: non-Catholic Christians have the spiritual need to receive the conferral of grace through the administration of the sacraments. They therefore have the spiritual need to receive the sacraments. We can also say that non-Catholic Christians have the right to receive the sacraments. And the Catholic Church has the duty to administer the sacraments to these Christians. All this can be considered as a simple determination of the principle of “gratia procuranda” (where the gerund is to be seen as a sign of necessity)”.
What consequences are derived from these two principles in terms of canonical law?
“On the level of canonical legislation there is a delicate problem, that of wisely balancing two principles: the principle of the need to confer grace through the administration of the sacraments should always take into consideration the principle of the need to not contradict ecclesial communion. Other texts of the Second Vatican Council and various post-conciliar documents are responsible for offering valuable indications of canonical legislation. Here too we must limit ourselves to simple hints. In order to guarantee the principle of the need to not contradict ecclesial communion with affirmations of indifferentism and motives for scandal, the canonical legislation provides for the limitation of the administration of the sacraments to those cases which present an exceptional character, also establishing the distinction between non-Catholic Christians who are members of the Eastern Churches and those belonging to the Western Denominations (starting from Orientalium Ecclesiarum, no. 26-27; Unitatis redintegratio, no. 15,3; Ecumenical Directory Ad totam Ecclesiam, n. 55 to canon 844, §§ 3-4). In order to guarantee and at the same time better understand the principle of the need to confer grace through the administration of the sacraments, the ecclesial documents intend to underline some aspects of the delicate problem. I mention two. The first aspect is that those who are baptized cannot remain for a long period of time without receiving the sacraments and especially without receiving the Eucharist (see the important statements in a little known, but very valuable, document, that is the Instruction titled In quibus rerum circumstantiis by the Secretariat for Christian Unity, dated 1 June 1972). The other aspect is that the ministers of the Catholic Church must give lively pastoral attention to non-Catholic Christians who at times have a serious need or strong desire to receive the sacraments and therefore ask for them with particular intensity (see, for example, Ut unum sint, no. 46: ‘[...] to administer the Sacraments of the Eucharist, Penance and Anointing of the Sick to Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church but who greatly desire to receive these sacraments’). We can easily see that administering the sacraments as a response to the spiritual necessity of conferring grace through the sacraments, especially in cases of grave need or strong desire, immediately removes per se the danger of indifferentism and scandal. In this case, the two principles are guaranteed. In any case, the delicate balance between the two principles is very appropriately entrusted by the canonical regulation to the wise evaluation of diocesan bishops or Episcopal Conferences (starting from Unitatis redintegratio, n. 8.4 to canon 844 §4)”.
Let’s talk about the specific case connected to the document by the German bishops: two spouses, one Catholic and the other non-Catholic, who participate together in a Mass celebrated in a Catholic Church and wish, understandably, to receive the Eucharist together. Can the Catholic priest licitly administer the communion to the non-Catholic spouse? And could this happen every time that the two aforementioned spouses participate together in a Mass?
“To answer this very intriguing question, it is necessary to ask another and give it an answer that is not easy: does the hypothesis of the two spouses, as specified above, present a character of exceptionality? Is it a response to a spiritual necessity?”
What is your answer to this question?
“We can honestly answer that it is an exceptional case. And the exceptionality consists in the fact that these poor spouses are unfortunately forced to make a painful choice: either one goes to receive holy communion while the other abstains (but this would divide a couple united in marriage and affection) or they both abstain (but this would in itself be in contrast with the natural behaviour of a faithful person who participates in Mass and who, being in a state of sanctifying grace, completes their participation by approaching the Eucharistic table)”.
So, in your opinion, the exceptionality of which we speak would ensure that the hypothesis of the two spouses is an example of a case in which there is no danger of indifferentism and scandal?
“I think so. And, indeed, if the Catholic minister were to administer holy communion to the non-Catholic spouse, everyone could reasonably believe that such a concession is determined by the just need to not separate a married couple, especially in such a special moment like the participation in the sacrament of the Eucharist. All this can, however, be explained through a catechesis given to the community of the faithful possibly even in a recurrent manner”.
I insist: according to you, the concession of the Eucharist could take place every time the two spouses participate together in a Mass?
“I should answer yes, because the character of exceptionality that we have noted above occurs every time the two spouses participate together in Holy Mass. The exceptionality of the case, each time, logically determines the exceptionality of the concession, each time. However, if we wanted, with an exquisitely pastoral intent, to make more evident and therefore more convincing that this is an exceptional case and therefore an exceptional concession, it might be appropriate to limit the aforementioned concession only to certain occasions. And the two spouses can offer this sacrifice to obtain from the Lord the grace to hasten the achievement of full communion among all the Churches”.
Thank you for the explanations. However, those who think differently still have fundamental objections or some starting obstacles which seem to nullify what you said. And go so far as to criticize the canonical legislation. The first fundamental objection or the first starting obstacle is that one of the conditions required of current non-Catholic Christians to receive the sacraments is that they have the same faith as the Catholic Church in the sacraments to be received. This is explicitly required for the Eucharist. It seems, however, at least to some, that the Catholic faith in the Eucharist does not easily occur in some non-Catholic Christians. How do you respond?
“It is quite evident that non-Catholic Christians who request access to the Eucharist must have the same faith of the Catholic Church in this sacrament. But, we ask ourselves, what is necessary and what is sufficient to have the faith of the Church? And the answer is simple. It is necessary and sufficient to believe that the bread and wine consecrated in the Holy Mass are those realities that Jesus indicated in the words of the Last Supper: ‘This is my body, this is my blood’. It is therefore necessary and sufficient to believe that the bread and the wine are in the sacrament of the Eucharist the body and the blood of Jesus. Believing in theological explanations, even ones with the highest value such as the doctrine of transubstantiation, is not a necessary condition. Now, we must recognize that having faith in the Eucharist as just indicated should occur easily in those who approach the table of the Lord: what sense would there be for them to ask for Eucharistic communion if they did not believe that that bread is the body of Jesus and that wine is the blood of Jesus? Would they really simply be hoping to receive just common bread and wine and not the body and blood of Jesus?”.
The second objection or the second obstacle is found in the position of someone who says something like this: the Catholic Church administers the sacraments to non-Catholics. The latter, however, intentionally continue to reject the integrity of Catholic truths and hierarchical communion. What do you think of this view?
“With all due respect to those who profess these convictions, I must however declare that I disagree. Of course, if a non-Catholic Christian refuses a truth of faith professed by the Catholic Church and is fully aware that it is a truth of faith, they could not receive the sacraments. But the Catholic Church, especially since Second Vatican Council, has the full conviction that current non-Catholic Christians, if they do not profess the same truths as the Catholic Church, they do so without fault, are in good faith and are therefore in the grace of God. This is, I want to repeat it, the firm conviction of the Catholic Church. And how could it be otherwise if we only think of the countless Holy members of non-Catholic Churches? But, at this point, it may seem strange, I too have a difficulty, which I would like to present candidly”.
Tell us about it.
“I’ll try to be brief and I hope to be clear. On the one hand, the faithful who receives the Eucharist must be in full or normal communion with the Catholic Church. On the other hand, current non-Catholic Christians are in true, but not full, communion with the Catholic Church. In this situation, the law of the Church, especially in canon 844, §§ 3-4, states that such Christians may be admitted by the Catholic Church to receive the Eucharist. There are two scenarios: either the legislation of the Catholic Church contradicts the ontology of ecclesial communion and that of the sacraments (which, of course, should be excluded) or we should hypothesize that non-Catholic Christians are in some way in full communion with the Catholic Church (but this would immediately sound incredible, at least as generally believed). Hence my difficulty or, perhaps better, an extraordinary challenge to courageously carry out further reflection. Anyone wishing to know more could, I think usefully, see my contribution to Periodica 107 (2018) 1-35”.
My wife and I sometimes take communion at home.
Simple, Jesus said, at the Last Supper, “this is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many.” He didn’t say “poured out for Catholics only”.
Against the clear teaching of the Church.
It is NOT possible for a non-Catholic to validly receive Holy Communion. Not EVER.
Honestly, I can’t for the life of me understand why someone would want to receive Communion knowing it is for Catholics only in the state of grace. My Jewish brother-in-law sits tight during the endless Communion Masses, Confirmations, etc. while his Catholic family march up to receive.
But he knows who he is unlike a lot of people.
13:And if a woman has an unbelieving husband and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him.
14:For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his believing wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.
I don't know if this applies...
It was also about Jewish Passover.
Hmmm. That's odd, because last time I checked, Eastern Orthodox Christians have ALWAYS been welcomed to receive communion at ANY Catholic Church. In fact, THEY'RE the ones who refuse to partake in it, since THEIR church teaches that Orthodox cannot receive communion at a non-Orthodox Church. The reverse is not true. Catholicism teaches that as long another Christian denomination believes they are truly receiving Christ, they may have communion at a Catholic Church. If they believe Holy Communion is "merely a symbol" and deny the Real Presence of Christ, they cannot.
I don't know where you're getting your "facts" from.
Your statement is objectively incorrect. See Code of Canon Law 844 §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."
In point of fact, we were in that position. We were Ultramontane Episcopalians when that denomination ran off the rails at GC 2003. After determining that the Catholic Church was to be our destination, we requested an exception under that section on the ground of grave necessity and the unavailability of a sane Episcopalian minister. It was granted. We were shortly thereafter received into the Church, since the only points of doctrine on which we differed were the validity of Anglican orders and the supremacy of the Pope. The first had disproved itself; with respect to the second, we agreed that Adult Leadership was clearly needed.
Some Catholics would rather the Catholic Church be an exclusive club, in which they are one of the privileged few who have the secret password and decoder ring, instead of an apostolic evangelization outreach.
Another Catholic bashing post
Eastern Orthodox ARE Catholics, just like Roman Catholics. Thet may unite again, after 1,000 years. I have NEVER heard that Protestants, Baptists, Evangelicals, Jews, etc., can EVER receive Holy Communion.
Well, that is NEWS to me. Accordingly, I stand CORRECTED. Thanks!
It is distributed through the website www.VaticanInsider.com, as well as other digital platforms and the main social networks on the Internet. It boasts a staff of qualified Vatican correspondents, flanked by some of the most prestigious international names in the field of religious and Vatican-based information.
It provides free news and in-depth reports seven days a week and offers its partners exclusive journalistic services, inquiries, interviews and information packages.
I think it's more of a "circle the wagons" feeling on account of pretty constant and relentless attacks - not only from (usually ignorant or misinformed, not necessarily malicious) out-there Protestants, but also from 'cafeteria Catholics' who want to remake the Church into a liberal social club. The Episcopalians did it, hopefully the gates of hell will not prevail . . .
The general teaching is that receiving in the Catholic Church is also an acknowledgement that you agree with the Church's teachings and are in good standing and (most importantly) NOT in a state of mortal sin.
And Catholics are not the only body with "closed communion" - quite a number of Baptists and some other Protestant denominations (e.g. LCMS) have the same practice.
No problem. If I hadn’t personally experienced it, I wouldn’t have known. I don’t think there are very many lay people who sit around reading the Code of Canon Law. Shoot, sometimes it seems that some priests aren’t reading it either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.