A reader writes:
Hello!
I was baptized at an Armenian Apostolic Church in Michigan. Can I take Communion in the Catholic Church? Thanks!
Here is what the Code of Canon Law says about the matter:
Canon 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.
So, as a baptized member of an Eastern Church (Armenian Apostolic), if you seek Communion on your own accord and are properly disposed (for example, you have been to confession since your last mortal sin, you have fasted for an hour before Communion time), canon law permits you to receive Communion in the Catholic Church.
I should note that the above quotation is from the Code of Canon Law, which governs churches belonging to the Latin rite of the Catholic Church. The Eastern Catholic churches (e.g., Maronites, Melkites, Chaldeans) are governed by a different work, called the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (CCEO). Its provisions on this matter are identical-down-to-the-word to the Code of Canon Law (the canon number is CCEO 671 §3). Therefore, the same rules would apply to your receiving Communion in an Eastern Catholic parish or a Latin rite Catholic parish.
Forgive me, Jimmy. But it seems that the rad-trads have a point when they point out that this canon is in contradiction, not only to the previous law, but even th Church dogma and Tradition.
How on earth can we offer a schismatic Holy Communion? On what basis?
I had understood however that most non-Catholic Eastern Churches frown on (even prohibit) their members from recieving at a Catholic mass. I thought I also read that from the Catholic side, the Church asks the individual in question to be mindful of their own Church’s take on the issue despite the Catholic Church being OK with it. Did I misunderstand?
Here’s the official statement and explanation from the USCCB. It shows the Steve is correct that is says separated Eastern Christians should respect the disciplines of their own churches
http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/q%26a/mass/communion.shtml
Eric,
1) I wouldn’t pay too much attention to what self professed “Traditionalists” think is and is not in accord with Church dogma. The Church formally permits the practice. That is sufficient to establish its validity. Roma Locuta est, as they say.
2) A formal schismatic is a Catholic who refuses obedience to the Bishop of Rome. Most Eastern Orthodox Christians were never Catholic, and never departed from the Catholic Church by refusing submission to the Bishop of Rome. They have been born into a Church that, while out of full communion with the Catholic Church, is acknowledged as a valid, Apostolic Church nonetheless. For this reason, they are permitted to receive communion in a Catholic Church. The key is that they belong to a valid, apostolic Church. Protestants do not, and thus are only permitted the Sacraments in when grave circumstances exist (death).
Jason:
Rather than just dismiss the rad-trad arguments, in light of the source, why not address them intelligently?
What does the Eastern Churches’ membership in a sacramental church have to do with anything? That’s *never* been the principle by which even material heretics and schismatics been denied the Eucharist. The Eucharist is the most profund sign (and cause) of unity that we have as Catholics; heretics and schismatics, no matter how innocent, do not (heare on earth) have full communion in the Church, and so therefore they cannot possibly take Communion.
The Church’s law seems to me to be inconsistent with what she teaches. Which opens up many other cans of worms.
I have faith that there is a logical answer somewhere, and that the Church has it. I’ve just never seen it.
>>>”Rather than just dismiss the rad-trad arguments, in light of the source, why not address them intelligently?”
Why? A group wants to hold itself as the doctrinal enforcer of the Bishop of Rome, and I’m supposed to take them seriously? If they were Protestants, it would be one thing. But they don’t claim to be Protestants, they claim to be Catholics. When a Catholic wants to stand in judgement of the Vicar of Christ in his formal capacity as the guarantor of orthodoxy, they have no hope for legitimacy.
>>>”What does the Eastern Churches’ membership in a sacramental church have to do with anything?”
It has everything to do with it. They are living within a true apostolic Church, with all the ordinary means of salvation. Through ignorance, they are estranged from the See of St. Peter. St. Peter, through his succesor, has deemed it licit to administer to these Christians the Most Holy Eucharist, because they are so closely united with the Catholic Church, though imperfectly.
>>>”I have faith that there is a logical answer somewhere, and that the Church has it. I’ve just never seen it.”
If you have faith that the practice is fine, why frame the question in a way that suggests “rad-trads” may be right? Why not just say, “I have no problem with this practice, just curious if you can explain it for me”?
downloads engine free mp3 search
Eastern Non-Catholics …
Search at blog directory using our blog search
RSS search engine, providing full-text search, as well as metadata search on RSS information. It has link search funtionality, as well as searching by date…