Eucharist for Non-Catholics

Zenit News Agency ^ | August 17, 2004 | Father Edward McNamara

[NYer]

ROME, AUG. 17, 2004 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.

Q: I have been a Eucharistic minister to the sick for the past 10 years. I have done this in four different dioceses. I have permission from the local bishop to bring daily Communion to a gravely ill relative. This past Sunday, I met several Episcopalians and Lutherans who really wanted to participate in some type of a service too. My heart went out to them. In all our readings Jesus healed based on a person's faith, not their creed. I have not shared Communion, but my heart says this would be good for the faith of those who are suffering. May the Eucharist be shared among non-Catholic if there is faith in the Real Presence? Must I abide by Church law? -- S.C., Little Rock, Arkansas

A: John Paul II has spoken on the relationship between the Eucharist and ecumenism in his encyclical "Ecclesia de Eucharistia":

"The gift of Christ and his Spirit which we receive in Eucharistic communion superabundantly fulfills the yearning for fraternal unity deeply rooted in the human heart; at the same time it elevates the experience of fraternity already present in our common sharing at the same Eucharistic table to a degree which far surpasses that of the simple human experience of sharing a meal. Through her communion with the body of Christ the Church comes to be ever more profoundly 'in Christ in the nature of a sacrament, that is, a sign and instrument of intimate unity with God and of the unity of the whole human race.'

"The seeds of disunity, which daily experience shows to be so deeply rooted in humanity as a result of sin, are countered by the unifying power of the body of Christ. The Eucharist, precisely by building up the Church, creates human community" (No. 24).

Later, in No. 46 of the encyclical, the Pope reminds us of those rare cases, and under what conditions, non-Catholic Christians may be admitted to the sacraments of the Eucharist, reconciliation and anointing of the sick.

This administration is limited to "Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church but who greatly desire to receive these sacraments, freely request them and manifest the faith which the Catholic Church professes with regard to these sacraments. Conversely, in specific cases and in particular circumstances, Catholics too can request these same sacraments from ministers of Churches in which these sacraments are valid."

It adds: "These conditions, from which no dispensation can be given, must be carefully respected, even though they deal with specific individual cases. That is because the denial of one or more truths of the faith regarding these sacraments and, among these, the truth regarding the need of the ministerial priesthood for their validity, renders the person asking improperly disposed to legitimately receiving them. And the opposite is also true: Catholics may not receive 'communion' in those communities which lack a valid sacrament of orders."

The Holy Father refers to several numbers of the Ecumenical Directory which specify these conditions in more detail, in its chapter on "Sharing Spiritual Activities and Resources."

The general principles involved in this sharing must reflect this double fact:

"1) The real communion in the life of the Spirit which already exists among Christians and is expressed in their prayer and liturgical worship;

"2) The incomplete character of this communion because of differences of faith and understanding which are incompatible with an unrestricted mutual sharing of spiritual endowments."

For these reasons the Church recognizes that "in certain circumstances, by way of exception, and under certain conditions, access to these sacraments may be permitted, or even commended, for Christians of other Churches and ecclesial Communities" (No. 130).

Apart from the case of danger of death, the episcopal conference and the local bishop may specify other grave circumstances in which a Protestant may receive these sacraments although always respecting the conditions outlined above in the Holy Father's encyclical: "that the person be unable to have recourse for the sacrament desired to a minister of his or her own Church or ecclesial Community, ask for the sacrament of his or her own initiative, [and] manifest Catholic faith in this sacrament and be properly disposed" (No. 131).

Therefore in general it is not possible for you to give Communion to Protestants. But if you find one who fulfills the above conditions, you should advise the local pastor so that the person may receive reconciliation and anointing of the sick.

This does not mean that you are completely despoiled of all possibilities of giving spiritual comfort while exercising one of the corporal works of mercy.

Apart from words of encouragement and consolation you could also use some of the spiritual treasury of readings, prayers and intercessions found in the ritual for the care of the sick. Thus you could pray for, and with, these souls in a time of need.

[redgolum]

Communion frequency in the LCMS is typically 2-3 times a month. There are some districts which do it every week (mainly east of the Mississippi), but they are not the norm.

It goes back to the days of the circuit pastor. In the 1800's it was rare for every church in the West to have an ordained pastor, and many parishes would share a rotating pastor. Since you didn't have an ordained pastor, you couldn't have communion every week.

There are some districts seriously considering going to weekly communion, but there is a lot of resistance. Some see weekly communion possibly weakening the awe of the Sacrament of the Alter.

[NYer]

See #8

[Religion Moderator]

Thank you all for your replies.

In the instance of imminent death, I can't imagine that anyone outside the situation would ever have much of a complaint about any ordained Priest/Minister offering communion to someone who requested it from his "death bed".

However, and in response to sandyeggo's comment, to wit: I'll look some more out of curiosity, but if I was a Catholic chaplain ministering to a dying soldier, the first sacraments I would think of would be Baptism and Extreme Unction., (my bold) I would think the doctrine of "once baptized, always baptized" could pose a problem for a properly baptized Protestant, especially one who understood the essential tenets of his faith.

And, in fact, I can "see" the dilemma from both sides of the issue. What I have trouble seeing is that doctrine can - and often does - stand in the way of pastoral ministry.

I do know that for the short period of time I served as a hospital chaplain, and which allowed me to be present at some 12 or 13 death bed events, neither I nor the person who was dying or his/her families really gave much thought to who had which "brand" of Christian faith. We all felt ourselves to be in the presence of God and conducted ourselves accordingly.

Hopefully, nothing I've said herein will ignite the fires of a flame war; certainly nothing like that is intended. I just never worried about such things at that final moment of someone's life.

[GirlShortstop]

It all seems more emotional than anything else.

I agree.  At the same time, I wouldn't rule out a true spiritual conversion beginning either.  In that case, it becomes a matter of whether or not our fallen nature's grip is too tight [responsibility lies solely with the individual] to permit one to act, and do what it takes to come to Jesus in the proper way... the way He showed us.  Impatience, sloth surely aren't virtuous, and they come from the opponent in the battle.

[tjwmason]

my mother in law could then claim that since there is no Lutheran Church in our town or in surrounding towns, she is entitled, under Catholic teaching, to receive Communion at a Catholic parish?

First, nobody is entitled to receive Communion. Secondly, it would depend on her perception of the Sacrament (i.e., she would have to agree with the Catholic Church). Thirdly, inter-communion is not supposed as a normal occurence, but rather for special cases (for example, I have heard of mixed marriages where the non-Catholic has been granted permission to recieve on a major wedding anniversary); if a person wanted to receive on an on-going basis then conversion would be necessary.

[Religion Moderator]

As an addendum to my #23, in every instance where it was possible under the time constraints of the situation to both ascertain and summon a chaplain of the same faith of the dying person, that was done. I was speaking of those times when that simply wasn't possible.

[tjwmason]

Isn't this a matter of who reported on the incident? I seem to recall reading the account of 'someone who was there' and TB only received a papal blessing.

The media here (including church media) were unanimous that the Prime Minister had received Communion, and I did not hear of any contradiction from the Vatican; which rather implies that he did receive.

[dangus]

Sharing Eucharistic outside of the Catholic communion is like sex outside of marriage: it may seem like an expression of love, but it denies the proper expression of love its place, and denies the significance of the unity which it is a symbol of.

[tjwmason]

Not sure what exactly I am trying to say here but it's something like, just like everything else, we have gotten to the point where 'no' is taken as a personal insult and an opportunity to be the victim of prejudice of some sort or other (sit on the back of the bus).

As one of those 'nose-bleed High Anglicans', I agree with you. I frequently attend Mass at my local R.C. parish, but do not receive Communion. It is important that the hierarchy ensures that the Sacrament is protected against desecration, and indeed protects the souls of those it considers in mortal dangers; they have chosen to do that by limiting Communion (in normal circumstances to those over whom they claim authority, i.e., Roman Catholics), and I must respect their decision. The Altar is not the place to be standing and shouting about 'my rights' or about 'discrimination' or 'victimisation'.

[GirlShortstop]

FWIW

The Guardian
Friday April 18, 2003
Tony Blair, while still a member of the Church of England, regularly attends mass with his family, who are all practising Catholics.

In 1996, however, he was warned off receiving communion in a letter by the late Cardinal Basil Hume.

Saying that he had not realised his behaviour might cause offence, Mr Blair promised not to do so again, nevertheless adding: "I wonder what Jesus would have made of it?"

The prime minister and his family met the Pope at the Vatican during an official visit to Rome last month, and although he received a blessing - the first British prime minister to do so - he did not receive communion.

FReegards.

[AnAmericanMother]

The Canons make provision for emergencies. And of course the question of just doing the right thing as best you can in an emergency is the guiding principle for everyone.

(There is a "conditional baptism" for when you're not sure if the person is baptized or not.)

[sitetest]

Dear Religion Moderator,

"I would think the doctrine of 'once baptized, always baptized'"

No Catholic priest acting appropriately would "re-baptize" someone, though if he were unsure of the validity of a prior "baptism," he might conditionally baptize someone.

"I do know that for the short period of time I served as a hospital chaplain, and which allowed me to be present at some 12 or 13 death bed events, neither I nor the person who was dying or his/her families really gave much thought to who had which 'brand' of Christian faith. We all felt ourselves to be in the presence of God and conducted ourselves accordingly."

I certainly hope any Catholic priest would conduct himself accordingly. But nonetheless, it would be inappropriate for a Catholic priest to offer specific Catholic rituals - sacraments - which implied adherence to specific Catholic doctrines that a non-Catholic might or might not hold.

I'm not sure that it would usually come up. I have a hard time thinking that a Baptist in his last moments would think to ask for sacramental confession and absolution, annointing with oil, and the Viaticum (the Blessed Sacrament when given near the time of death).

But hey, maybe I might be surprised. ;-)

"Hopefully, nothing I've said herein will ignite the fires of a flame war; certainly nothing like that is intended."

I can't find anything you said as being flameworthy. Nonetheless, there are folks here who have their own agendas to bait and personally insult and anger, so don't be surprised if it manages to start a flame war anyway. :-(

"I just never worried about such things at that final moment of someone's life."

Like I said with the example of the dying Baptist, I'm not sure much of this would enter into the mind of a non-Catholic in these circumstances. So, perhaps it's seldom an issue.


sitetest

[Salvation]

**Not sure if Extreme Unction includes a confession, but I'm assuming it does?**

I have experience here, both in my husband's death and the recent death of our priest.

Yes, the sacrament of The Annointing of the Sick (formerly Extreme Unction) can contain a confession as well as a confession of faith. But the Sacrament can also be simply "the laying on of hands. All spiritual needs of the recipient are met through the mercy of God in this sacrament.

The Annointing of the Sick -- check the "In brief" statements.

[Religion Moderator]

I'm not sure that it would usually come up. I have a hard time thinking that a Baptist in his last moments would think to ask for sacramental confession and absolution, annointing with oil, and the Viaticum (the Blessed Sacrament when given near the time of death).

No, it never did happen like that. :) I wouldn't expect it to happen that way, either.

But it wasn't all that rare for the family of a dying person to ask for communion at the last possible moment, or more often, for the parents of a new born when it became apparant that the baby was dying, to ask for baptism and communion. In the event of a still-birth, of course, there was time to summon a chaplain of the same faith. (And also, of course, no Baptist would ask for an infant baptism under any circumstances that I can think of...)

All I can say is that exigent circumstances make for interesting solutions. The goal, I think, is neither to impinge on the dignity of the person or provide any affront to Christ. And in every case of insurmountable doubt, offer it all to the Lord.

[Dominick]

Now, in the case of imminent danger (war) there may be a soul who does believe in what the Catholic Church teaches and would have converted if he had more time. In that scenerio, of course he would want to receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and confess his sins to an ordained Catholic priest

I know of an individual, personally, who was in the hospital, in grave danger, and asked to be received into the Church. He had maybe gone to two or three RCIA classes. He was received, survived, and still goes to Mass.

I am often alarmed by those who make the conversion process onerous. It isn't required to wait for Easter, but they often force RCIA to end at Easter. If a person was already catechized, and knew the Faith, it often is ignored, they are to attend RCIA. I wish there was a way to expand the processes for conversion, most converts I know are more aware and practice the faith better than many cradle Catholics.

Personally, I don't think the Priest is going to quiz someone in the hospital before last rites, and I hope they are liberal (choke!) with Baptism, Confession and Unction. It is important to have some discretion with the Eucharist, to say the least, however, a Confession before then can take care of a lot of problems in presenting our Lord to a sick person. I think the guidelines are easily applied to a Orthodox, or a High Church Anglican, and harder to a Unitarian.

[dangus]

>> TB only received a papal blessing.<<

Since when do we bless tuberculosis?

[american colleen]

"I certainly hope any Catholic priest would conduct himself accordingly [really gave much thought to who had which 'brand' of Christian faith. We all felt ourselves to be in the presence of God and conducted ourselves accordingly]. But nonetheless, it would be inappropriate for a Catholic priest to offer specific Catholic rituals - sacraments - which implied adherence to specific Catholic doctrines that a non-Catholic might or might not hold."

You always say it so much better than I do!

"Like I said with the example of the dying Baptist, I'm not sure much of this would enter into the mind of a non-Catholic in these circumstances. So, perhaps it's seldom an issue."

I think receiving Communion while a non-Catholic is much more of an "issue" in certain parishes than it is for a non-Catholic dying person or a non-Catholic soldier going off to battle.

A Catholic thinks of the Eucharist as the source and summit of his faith and and I doubt very much that many non-Catholics think of it that way at all since mostly, it is an expression of rememberance more than anything else.

[rogator]

I have seen a Catholic priest at a funeral Mass give Communion to an Episcopalian minister (former Jesuit) in his minister uniform.
The rules are made for traditionalists and conservatives to follow. Others may do as they please with the liturgy and the sacraments.

[sitetest]

Dear Religion Moderator,

I wasn't aware that many non-Catholics would ask for communion on their deathbeds.

Short of the exceptions explained within this thread, a Catholic priest ought not offer the Blessed Sacrament to a non-Catholic on his deathbed.

I don't think any Catholic would have a problem with baptizing a dying baby. From our perspective, absolutely anyone could perform a valid baptism, even an atheist.

I'm unsure whether a priest would give the Blessed Sacrament to a dying CATHOLIC baby. Do parents in this awful circumstance ask for communion for infants? From a Catholic perspective, after baptism, there would be little need for anything else.


sitetest

[Religion Moderator]

FWIW, here are some comments relative to Sacrament and Sacramental Theology from The Westminster Distionary of Christian Theology; Alan Richardson & John Bowden, Eds.; The Westminster Press, Philadelphia; 1983, p. 515, 516. I offer this only as a response to your remark concerning how Protestants think of the Eucharist (and I rather doubt that any one "explanation" would be applicable to all Protestants...).

It was not until the Middle Ages that sholastic theologians came to distinguish between 'sacraments' and 'sacramentals', the former referring to those liturgical rituals which were deemed to have spiritual effects in virtue of their proper performance (ex opere operato), the latter referring to those religious actions and objects (e.g. blessings, holy water) which mediated grace in less specific ways. Partly because of the symbolic significance of the number seven, partly because of apparant scriptural grounds for them, and partly because of the widespread adoption of Peter Lombard's (d. 1160) Sentences as a theological source book, scholastics and ecclesiastics alike enumerated Lombard's seven as the sacraments of the Catholic church by the thirteenth century: baptism, confirmatin, penance, eucharist, holy orders, matrimony and extreme unction (cf. Second Council of Lyons, 1274).

Protestant Reformers in the sixteenth century, reacting to abuses such as superstition and simony, rejecting scholastic explanations of the mediation of grace through ecclesiastical rituals, and applying more stringent scriptural criteria to the claim of dominican institution, eliminated all but baptism and eucharist (also called the Lord's supper, or communion) from their listing of the Christian sacraments. The Council of Trent (1545-1563) reasserted the RC doctrine of seven sacraments, but recognized the need for practical reforms in administering them.

Today most Protestant bodies acknowledge two sacraments, though Baptists refer to them as ordinances, and some (e.g. the Society of Friends and the Salvation Army) do not even admit these as important Christian rituals. Both the Roman and Orthodox churches have retained seven sacraments, as does the Church of England, which, however, distinguishes between baptism and eucharist as instituted by Christ, and the remaining five as 'sacraments of the church'.

[snip]

The efficacy of a sacrament is not due to the holiness of the minister or the faith of the recipient but to the working of the Holy Spirit.

But truth be told, I very much doubt that the average Protestant even thinks about the sacraments until and unless they suddenly become "necessary" to his/her life at a particular moment in time. In that sense, then, I don't have much doubt that Protestants and Catholics understand the eucharist in fundamentally different ways, even aside from the issue of transubstantiation/consubstantiation.