A reader writes:
I just had a friend of mine inform me of something that I found troublesome. He is a Lutheran and married a Catholic woman. He told me that they are registered parishioners of a Catholic church and that he receives Communion there. He claims that his wife explained the situation to the pastor and he said it would be alright for him to receive communion. Of course I asked if there was any way that this could have been misinterpreted by his wife to which he claims not. In a brief questioning of my friend he does not have a full Catholic undertanding of the Eucharist is and that this is “no big deal”, and that this priest is “very liberal” and accommodating.
I have e-mailed this priest to see if there was a misunderstanding. I am all for my friend to receive the wonderful gift of the Holy Eucharist but he must go through the Church procedures for all the sacraments. Please give me information to help with this situation. It seems to me if this is indeed correct that this priest is handing Communion out like crackers…..
If the priest’s attitude is as reported then there is indeed a problem.
The Church’s law regarding this matter is found in Canon 844 §4 of the Code of Canon Law, which provides:
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 [Communion, confession, anointing of the sick] licitly
also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church [e.g., Protestants],
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 [SOURCE].
This law is given pastoral expression by the bishops of the United States in their document on the reception of Communion, which states:
For our fellow Christians
We welcome our fellow Christians to this celebration of the Eucharist as our brothers and sisters. We pray that our common baptism and the action of the Holy Spirit in this Eucharist will draw us closer to one another and begin to dispel the sad divisions which separate us. We pray that these will lessen and finally disappear, in keeping with Christ’s prayer for us “that they may all be one” (Jn 17:21).
Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Holy Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law (canon 844 § 4). . . .
For those not receiving Holy Communion
All who are not receiving Holy Communion are encouraged to express in their hearts a prayerful desire for unity with the Lord Jesus and with one another [SOURCE].
Given the above, if your Lutheran friend wishes to receive Communion on a regular basis in a Catholic church then he will need to embrace the Catholic faith and become a Catholic. (Which he should do anyway, for the sake of his soul.) Otherwise, he will need to abide by Church law and practice, as compassionately set out above.
Hope this helps!
During the time my wife and I were converting, I came to have a much deeper appreciation of the Eucharist, largely because we could not receive it.
It helped to drive home the message: THIS IS IMPORTANT.
We went to Mass for a year, every week anticipating the day that we could finally partake of the Blessed Sacrament.
Being denied the Eucharist does not have to be looked at so negatively. If we refrain from receiving until it is licit for us to do so, we will only profit by the experience.
The same goes for receiving when we are aware of mortal sin.
Why do these liberal priests (who are merely stewards of the bishops authority, and not authorities in and of themselves) think that they can just re-write any rule that they think might get them 1 or 2 more parishoners? If they are hoping that by doing this, they will increase the size of their congregations (and thereby increase the weekly collection), I have a Bible verse for them: 1 Timothy 6:10.
Here’s another that they should check out, to see how God judges his priests: Malachi 1:6b-8a
That priest has problems. We should pray for him.
Once when I was at mass, a few non-Catholics near me were obviously discussing if they should receive the Eucharist. They asked me, and, not wanting to create more noise, I opened the missal and pointed to:
_______________
For our fellow Christians
We welcome our fellow Christians to this celebration of the Eucharist as our brothers and sisters…..
________________
Which is about all the lady read or comprehended, as she put it down and confidently decided to receive communion. DOH! *sigh*
I wish they’d re-word it.
I remember as a protestant teenager reading that “For our fellow christians” statement at a Catholic Wedding. I think I had to read it 3 times before I figured out the answer was No.
The reception of Holy Communion by non Catholics happens all the time here in Melbourne Australia at weddings and funerals. A priest in my parish, not the parish priest, has given permission for a non Catholic member of the choir to receive Holy Communion.
I am aware of what Canon Law and Redemptionis Sacramentum say about the matter but I have been informed that it is a pastoral decision of the bishop who deputates the decision to the priest.
The then Cardinal Ratzinger gave Holy Communion to a non Catholic very publically at Pope John Paul II’s funeral.
“The then Cardinal Ratzinger gave Holy Communion to a non Catholic very publically at Pope John Paul II’s funeral.” Who was this non-Catholic, and what is the source of your information?
Here’s what I found in a brief search…
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0504883.htm
This sounds identical to a situation within my my own extended family. The family members came to visit us in our parish in another state and my husband and I explained all this to the husband and he insisted on receiving the Eucharist anyway. I continue to pray for his conversion, which I fear may never happen now, as he is convinced he can do whatever he pleases because the priest approved it.
“The then Cardinal Ratzinger gave Holy Communion to a non Catholic very publically at Pope John Paul II’s funeral.”
Actually, no. This never happened, but was a misinterpretation of events by ignorant members of the press. What was received by non-Catholics was not the Blessed Sacrament.
Check out this article titled “An Unnecessary Controversy” by George Weigel.
He explains where the press got it wrong. He knows a thing or two about the Vatican, I’m told.
http://catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=76&art_id=30392
And Sharon, even a Bishop does not have the authority to dispense from defined doctrine.
It seems that the Weigel article does not mention the funeral of JP2, but rather “Brother Roger’s” funeral.
There are a number of other articles that speak of an incident at JP2’s funeral. Certainly enough to make me question that it “never happened”.
A Look Back at World Youth Day 2005
Fr. Sebastian Vazhakala, M.C.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/retroWYD05.HTM
“Though he was 90 years old, Bro. Roger loved the young people up to the moment he was killed. He always tried to lead them from the unreal to the real, from pessimism to optimism, from darkness to light, from division to unity, from man to God and vice-versa. Many might have seen him seated on a wheelchair at John Paul II’s funeral Mass when the present Pope Benedict XVI, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, gave him Holy Communion.”
Well, the priest answered in a very abrupt e-mail that he doesn’t remember the conversation ( I sense he is mad). My friend is mad at me for contacting the priest. I still feel I needed to address the situation but am having doubts. Wouldn’t it have been sinful to ignore this??
Oh. Sorry, Mike. You are correct. My mind leaped to Brother Roger’s funeral, probably because the incidents sound so similar.
My Bad.
I watched the Requiem Mass for Pope John Paul II on my computer via EWTN. I saw the then Cardinal Ratzinger give Holy Communion, from the ciborium he was holding, to a man in a wheelchair who was identified as a non Catholic by the person doing the commentary.
My source is my own eyes.
Christ Jesus never intended for anyone to literally eat HIS body or Drink HIS blood.. Salvation and redemption occured when Christ Jesus was Crucified dead, buried and Resurrected. He was Kinsmen redeemer of HIS people.
Jesus is what paid for Sin past, present and future.. Christ Jesus the only one that could, would and did fulfill ALL law and brought Liberty and Freedom to the BORN AGAIN Christian. YOU Must be Born Again to enter Heaven.
In Rememberance of Me means exactly what HE said.. eat the Bread and Remember my flesh body was given in sacrifice for your sins. Drink the Wine and Remember what HE did for you That HIS blood was shed for the shedding of innocent blood is required..Remember when HE chose to die and willingly laid down HIS body .. no man took it, HE laid it down.. dont forget those men in Garden.. fell backwards . Dont forget he put the ear that was whacked off back on the man and healed it..also you are to judge yourself and actions. for the word says Judge yourself and you need not bejudged That is Scripture!.. This remembrance of me was initiated BEFORE he had paid the price by being crucified.. He had taught and instructed up to that moment and could initiate being remembered by those with him parttaking .. fast forward and it embraces after HE fulfulled which are HIS as drawn by the Holy Spirit into Salvation and Born Again. …This is how awesome Christ JESUS is to accomplish multitudes of things past present and future ..I am always awed by this. Spiritual is spiritual .. flesh is flesh.. when you read what in remembrance of me says you will find not ONCE did Christ Jesus say Eat this bread it is my literal body eat.. NEVER .. nor Drink this wine it is now my blood Drink.. NEVER.. not even remotely did HE do this (that is Flesh!!!) .. when you read it the way it is writen instead of the way you are influenced to believe it is written ..all the difference in the world..HE is relating spiritual in physical terms physical that supports flesh life (which is the last thing to be changed at the resurrection at the last trump) But spiritual requires first being SAVED.. SAVED for what? Saved to be BORN AGAIN.. this required process is the process which called in Greek is Metamorphosis and means from glory to glory..which is required to be BORN AGAIN which means you are Spiritually reactivated reconnected to the Holy Spirit (that which was disconnected form Adam and Eve due to curse in Garden of Eden) One must surrender their self will to the Will of GOD the FATHER who Is the Only Spiritual FATHER GOD to HIS children TO HIS Family for HE is never ever a Religion but a relationship and HE is the FATHER GOD.Who is Creator. who imaged Himself, extended Himself brought into being HIS family of which Christ Jesus is HIS only Begotten Son.. to whom HE GOD assigns all of his children , Christ Jesus Brothers and Sisters too and Jesus will not lose one.He is our Kinsmen redeemer not one will He lose . FATHER GOD fills the vessel. Esau I hate, Jacob I love some vessels crafted for destruction . Foreknown GOD is in control. Christ Jesus, HE is the Head of HIS body (no man holds that title or honor) and HE will not lose one not one Body part.. IT is Christ Jesus that baptises into the HOly Spirit and makes that connection to eternal life .. no man, no church, no one but Christ Jesus can do this. GOD is not a church or denomination. HE is a family when Born Again the Kingdom of GOD is within every child of His and they are direct Ambassadors for that Kingdom..which is within them there is no manifestation of this Kingdom anywhere else on earth.. Wherever A Born Again child or the Living FATHER GOD CREATOR of all is the Kingdom of GOD/Heaven is nigh. That world ruleship is what Christ Jesus will bring into being when HE returns to rule upon the THRONE of HIS Father David (spiritual rule on physical earth throne) over the HOUSE OF JACOB (that is all of Jacob ..House of Judah and House of Israel which is the true Church)
that is clear and precise scripture.. He will rule for 1000 years . the first resurrection those Dead ‘in’ Christ Jesus (that is kingdom of GOD within them ..will resurrect first and those alive and remain will meet HIM in the Air which is AER in Greek and means LOCAL ATmosphere.. some will be raised incorruptible that is resurrected like Christ others will be awaken corruptible that is resuscitated like Lazarus and the 500 that awoke when Christ was crucified.. they do not have glorified bodies and have only awoken…..read what is said about Remembrance of me .. you will be shocked when you don’t see what you think it says.. Chirst would never put into effect what is a Pagan practice.. eating and drinking blook was required of Moleck and tons of false GODS GOD punished Israel for even allowing it . DAN was punished for even allowing Idol worship in his territory.. GOD is not a Religion NEVER . HE is a RElationship.. A FAmily HE says in the Word JESUS said this in big red letters CALL no man FATHER because GOD is the FATHER of HIS children. Our FATHER which art in HEaven (that is within the Born Again CHRISTian annointed in CHRIST.) Hallow be they name .. WHat is that name.. Just said it at the beginning of the Prayer FATHER who art in Heaven.. When JESUS CHRIST says unequivically call no man (spiritually ) FATHER connect NO MAN
spiritually with the name FATHER .. HE means it!
Who we are to follow is Christ Jesus .. HIS words
who we are to learn Spiritual is from Holy Spirit guiding thru the word and Paul who was taught one on one by Christ Jesus because Spiritual is what matters and the condition one is in when Born Again Romans 8.. NO church, No man Nothing but Christ Jesus can Save.. No one but Christ Jesus HE is the only way.. NO man is to be glorified, to be lifted up to Christ Jesus office . CHRIST JESUS has SERVANT leaders .. HE washed the feet of HIS disciples they did not wash HIS feet.It was the Pharisees that wanted best seats and be carried around. LOVE is LOVE/ GODS children are known by their love for the Brethren ..they are their Brothers Keeper.. There is nothing or no one that has authority on earth or represents GOD or Christ JESUS but the Holy Spirit who comforts, guides, directs, teaches and speaks only of Christ. .. GODS children go DIRECTLY to HIM thru Christ Jesus .. right to the throne.. one on one.. There is no sacred object, no sacred person, no sacred ritual other than doing an act because of what happened inside spiritually..Soul/Spirit is unique Identity no individual is like another and GOD loves each Of HIS children Knows who they are and where they are and Christ Jesus is reponsible for them and they are responsible for each other in love in and in being spiritually in one accord. GOD knows who each and every one of HIS children are .. only one sin is unforgiveable and that is to blaspheme the HOLY SPIRIT. all else can be forgiven by going directly to GOD thru Christ Jesus in repentance..
Blessings……………BootZ
John 6: People understood Jesus to be speaking literally when He told them they had to eat His Body and drink His Blood, and walked away from Him, the only time in the Gospels that anyone left Him for doctrinal reasons. If they misunderstood Him, as you believe, He, who declared Himself the Truth, would have been morally obligated to explain to them their misunderstanding. Instead, he let them go. They must have understood Him correctly.
I also saw Brother Roger receive communion with my own eyes as well. I knew who he was and knew he was a non-Catholic. I was wondering about that. I didn’t question the then Cardinal Ratzinger’s right to do this, I just wondered about the circumstances under which the decision could be made.
as for this statement:
I point you to these passages which present a different view. I am reluctant to presume that I know what moral obligations to impose on Jesus:
And Paul seems to support the idea that Jesus did not always feel it necessary or right to explain what he meant even if listeners did not understand him. Indeed, these passages suggest that Jesus sometimes did not want particular people to understand what he meant or know the truths of the kingdom:
John 18:36
We are not to attack those who attack Jesus using earthly means. We testify to the truth and we must forgive. Seeking earthly discipline of others for spiritual offenses arises from the earthly lust for revenge and the human desire to replace the final judgment of Our Lord with our own judgment in spiritual matters.