Catholic Exchange

Non-Catholics in the Communion Line

There are usually a few Masses per year at which there can be expected to be a large number of non-Catholics present. Christmas and Easter Masses are popular with non-Catholics, mainly because they are visiting Catholic family and friends. Nuptial Masses, especially when one of the parties to be married is a non-Catholic Christian, will have large turnouts of non-Catholics (sometimes up to half the congregation). Non-Catholics can also be expected at Masses offered for other sacramental firsts and life-cycle events, such as confirmations and funerals.

This reality raises a common question for the apologists here at Catholic Answers: What should happen at Communion time? Here’s a recent question I received on the issue.

At my granddaughter’s First Communion, the priest announced that if there were any Episcopalians present they could receive Communion because they believe in the Real Presence. Other Protestants could come forward for a blessing. When did the teaching change on receiving Communion? I thought you had to be in full union with Rome. My son-in-law is Protestant and this caused real confusion for us.

In this case, both the priest and the inquirer were mistaken, to some extent, in their respective understandings of the Church’s sacramental discipline.

The priest was incorrect that Episcopalians ordinarily may receive Communion at a Catholic Mass. Since Episcopalians do not have valid holy orders, they do not have a valid Communion. The fact that they believe that Jesus is in some way present in the Eucharist does not mean that they fully share Catholic faith in the nature of the Real Presence.

The inquirer also was not entirely correct that those who receive Communion must be “in full union with Rome.” Orthodox Christians, and members of a few other Christian churches with valid holy orders and a valid Eucharist, are allowed to receive Communion when attending Catholic Masses. The Guidelines for the Reception of Communion state:

Members of the Orthodox churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of Communion by Christians of these churches (canon 844 §3).

Occasionally, under special circumstances, a baptized non-Catholic Christian may receive the Eucharist if there is grave need, the Christian “spontaneously asks” for the sacraments, and if he cannot approach his own minister:

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) [Guidelines].

These guidelines, which are based on canon law, are rather complex and shot through with exceptions to the general principles. That can make it difficult for clergy and laity alike to offer blanket guidelines for reception of Communion when non-Catholics are present at a Catholic Mass.

And, all too often, off-the-cuff announcements made by the presider at Mass, usually right before Communion is distributed, do not accurately reflect the Church’s discipline on reception of the Eucharist. It may be more common these days to hear a variant of the announcement quoted earlier, inviting “all who believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist” to receive Communion, but the less-common announcement that “Communion is reserved to practicing Catholics in a state of grace” also is problematic.

What can be done? Here are a few suggestions for clergy and laity alike.

Learn the guidelines. I trust that clergy are fully instructed in the guidelines for reception of the sacraments while in seminary. But because the guidelines are not easily boiled down to either “Come one, come all” or “Practicing Catholics only!” then I can only suggest regular reading of the USCCB’s Guidelines and the relevant section from canon law (canon 844). We have looked at the USCCB’s summary; here is canon 844:

§1 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments only to Catholic members of Christ’s faithful, who equally may lawfully receive them only from Catholic ministers, except as provided in §2, 3, and 4 of this canon and in canon 861 §2.

§2 Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ’s faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose churches these sacraments are valid [emphasis added].

§3 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist, and anointing of the sick to members of the Eastern churches not in full communion with the Catholic Church, if they spontaneously ask for them and are properly disposed. The same applies to members of other churches which the Apostolic See judges to be in the same position as the aforesaid Eastern churches so far as the sacraments are concerned.

§4 If there is a danger of death or if, in the judgement of the diocesan bishop or of the episcopal conference, there is some other grave and pressing need, Catholic ministers may lawfully administer these same sacraments to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who spontaneously ask for them, provided that they demonstrate the Catholic faith in respect of these sacraments and are properly disposed [emphasis added].

§5 In respect of the cases dealt with in §2, 3, and 4, the diocesan bishop or the episcopal conference is not to issue general norms except after consultation with the competent authority, at least at the local level, of the non-Catholic church or community concerned.

Given the importance of access to the sacraments by all those duly permitted and properly disposed to receive them, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, I do not think it is unreasonable to recommend that priests and deacons memorize this canon and the USCCB’s Guidelines. Or, if memorization is impossible, clergy can print out both the canon and the Guidelines on the front and back of a laminated card and keep it on their person at all times, as police officers do with The Miranda Warning.

Publish the guidelines. The missalettes used in many American Catholic parishes often print the USCCB’s Guidelines, usually on the inside front cover. If a parish uses a missalette that has the USCCB’s Guidelines available, great. If not, then contact the USCCB and request permission to reprint the Guidelines onto card stock to create a sturdy insert that can be placed inside all of the parish’s missalettes. Extras can be placed in the parish’s literature racks.

Promote the guidelines. Once a parish has determined where its copies of the Guidelines are—whether they are already printed in the parish missalettes or are printed by the parish on card stock and placed in the missalettes—the parish can create a plan of action for promoting the Guidelines at liturgies where non-Catholics are expected to be present. For example, a regular announcement before Masses offered at Christmas, Easter, and for weddings and funerals can be to direct the congregation’s attention to the Guidelines and ask the congregation to read the Guidelines before the liturgy begins. For example:

Before we begin, we would like to direct your attention to the Guidelines for Reception of Communion, which can be found on the inside front-cover of the missalettes placed in the pew pockets in front of you. Please take a moment to read the Guidelines so that you may properly discern whether or not you are able to receive Communion during this liturgy. We welcome all who are unable to receive Communion to offer silent prayer or personal reflection during the Rite of Communion.

Nota bene: The announcement suggested here (my own wording, which may be revised appropriately at the discretion of clergy) is not an open call to receive Communion, nor does it make assumptions about who is properly disposed to receive. It simply directs all present to read the Church’s guidelines for receiving Communion and to discern their own preparedness for reception. No assumptions are made about the personal religious convictions of those visiting, some of whom may either not be comfortable praying in common with Christians or may not even be theists (which is why the invitation to “personal reflection” is extended).

When the Church’s guidelines are not heeded

Despite all of these precautions, there may be times when someone who in not properly disposed to receive Communion receives Communion anyway. It is more likely that a layperson will notice this than will a member of the clergy.

Clergy have the authority to counsel people not to receive Communion; laypersons have the authority to make the guidelines for receiving Communion known. In a previous blog post, I offered these suggestions to laity concerned about the proper reception of Communion by non-practicing Catholics or non-Catholics:

  • A non-Catholic friend is coming to Mass with me. What do I do to prepare her for Communion? This is the easiest [question] to answer, and the one form of the question in which [a layperson] needs to take action. Suggestion: Before Mass, not right before Communion when the people are standing to enter the line, show the non-Catholic friend the Communion guidelines that are printed on the inside front cover of most parish missalettes and allow her to read the guidelines for herself.
  • My Catholic relative has not been to confession in decades. How do I tell him he can’t receive Communion? There is no way you can know that this person has not gone to confession in decades. For all you know, he could have gone to confession just last week and never told you about it. People do not always choose to announce that they have returned to the sacraments. Recent case in point: Famed movie director, Alfred Hitchcock, who we only recently learned returned to the sacraments not long before his death. Suggestion: After Mass, say, “I didn’t know you returned to the sacraments! How wonderful! When did this happen?” If this prompts discussion that reveals that the relative actually has not been to confession in 30 years, you can gently explain that Catholics are expected to confess their mortal sins at least once per year. If not, you may have given him something to think about. Or, best-case scenario, your relative might smile shyly and say he returned to confession just last week.
  • I know this Catholic is leading an immoral life and should not be receiving Communion. How do I stop him from doing so? Again, be careful about deciding what you do and do not know. You may be wrong. Or, it may be that the person is going to confession on a regular basis and is struggling with the sin. Suggestion: If the sin is particularly scandalous, this is the time to talk privately with the pastor. Give him the information. Then trust him to handle it in an appropriate manner. It is unlikely that the pastor will be able to tell you anything about how he handles the matter. Give it over to him and then do your best to put the whole thing out of your mind.

Bottom line: We must accept that human persons have free will, and may freely choose to use it either positively or negatively. We can offer information. When we have the authority to do so, we can counsel accordingly. In a few individual cases, it may be that ecclesial authorities can take more drastic steps to protect the Blessed Sacrament from unworthy reception.

But there is only so much we can do to inform, counsel, and instruct. In the end, ultimate responsibility for worthy reception of Communion belongs to the individual communicant. We can trust that God knows that communicant’s mind and heart, and that he will respond to that person accordingly.

In order that this judgment [by the Lord] be favorable or rather that I be not judged at all, I want to be charitable in my thoughts toward others at all times, for Jesus has said, “Judge not, and you shall not be judged” (St. Therese of Lisieux).

Comments

5 responses to “Non-Catholics in the Communion Line”

  1. ManofHonor Avatar
    ManofHonor

    Beautiful and very important to those of us in this situation of having a friend or knowing someone who is a non-Catholic at a mass. Thanks for this! 🙂

  2. Rodion Raskolnikov Avatar
    Rodion Raskolnikov

    I want first to say that I am an Anglican with Catholic sympathies. I am currently a
    graduate student of theology at a Catholic university. I chose a Catholic university because I generally much prefer Catholic theology to the mainline protestant
    theology—particularly Reformed theology—that I was raised on and learned during my undergraduate studies.

    What is striking to me is the way the Catholic Church postures itself with regards
    to non-Catholics—not non-believers, mind you. For example, where the author
    writes, “The priest was incorrect that Episcopalians ordinarily may receive
    Communion at a Catholic Mass. Since Episcopalians do not have valid holy
    orders, they do not have a valid Communion.” This strikes me as oddly antithetical
    to the early church and its view of the catholicity of confessing believers,
    and it even seems to sound like the exclusivism of the Donatists with regards to their treatment of the Catholic Church in North Africa.

    It baffles me that Catholics (and some protestants) are opposed to an
    ecumenical practice of sharing together in the mystery and grace present in
    communion. I find the Catholic approach absurd insofar as by relegating the
    permissibility of partaking of the sacrament to an epistemic assent to various
    doctrines, the church weakens its notion of the sacrament itself. What do I
    mean? It seems to be a more powerful testament to God’s goodness and grace and
    the kenosis of Christ if the church were to view the Eucharist as a sacrament
    with a power to affect those who partake of it even in the absence of their own
    understanding of the sacrament. That is to say, if Christ’s presence is truly
    present, far be it for my ignorance to stand in the way of the power it has
    over me. But even more still, the church should view the administering of Eucharist
    as the event in the faith that bridges differences, bringing all confessing
    brothers and sisters together at the foot of the cross. All the more gracious
    and loving is God in that while we were in error, Christ draws us to himself in
    the most holy of sacraments.

    Again, sometimes I wonder whether or not the Catholic Church might turn away
    Christ if he were to show up as a non-Catholic at mass. Would the church deny
    the body and blood from the very one who gave up his body and poured out his
    blood so that we may be united to God? By adhering to and promoting the
    church’s guidelines about the Eucharist, would priests bar the perfect high priest
    from his own table and chalice? Would Jesus take the Eucharist from the priest and out of the sanctuary onto the street to administer it to non-Catholics, to the divorced, the homeless, to the LGBT community, the prisoners, the immigrants, to those on the fringes of society, and so on. No one can say for sure, but we should be careful in determining who qualifies for the sacrament, not because he would give it to them, but because Christ always welcomed to himself those who his religious community denied. The church should be careful to avoid the same legalism and exclusivism Christ himself criticized.

    The primary reason motivating me to remain Anglican rather than to convert to
    Catholicism is a communal one, namely, my relationships to friends and
    acquaintances who are Anglican. I have attended the same Anglican Church since
    I returned to the faith. Why on earth would I leave the church that welcomed me
    into their communion, cared for me, cultivated godliness within me, and married
    my wife and me? I have lived in communion with them—partaking of the body and
    blood with them—every week for over six years. Sometimes I ask myself, “What
    would Jesus do?” “Would Jesus call me to the RCC?” I think not. Jesus, his
    disciples, and the apostle Paul each appear to be opposed to these sorts of
    sectarian divisions amongst believers.

    One other reason for my decision to remain Anglican for the time being is due
    to the Anglican Church’s view on communion. This being one of the most important
    practices of the church, in my opinion, it is important for me that the church
    I attend practices communion in a way that models Christ’s life and ministry. I
    believe that Christ would have welcomed many to the table in love, recognizing
    the power that lies therein.

    I don’t know, but at the very least, I want to caution all to reflect on these
    and other similar practices that, at times, seem to do more to promote division
    rather than overcome it.

  3. markuz226 Avatar
    markuz226

    “I like Catholic teachings for the most part, and was educated in a Catholic school. However, I am part of a mainline Protestant denomination established by an English king. However still, I do not like other mainline Protestant teachings and somewhat kinda sorta prefer the Catholic teachings.

    This is how I treat my belief about the matter of the Eucharist. Although I somewhat believe in some sort of a presence, I prefer the easy-peasy way of welcoming all to the table. This is my own interpretation of scriptures that is buttressed by Protestant theologians as they interpret scriptures (this, of course, besides the fact that I have major difficulties with the teachings of these same theologians).

    I want to stay in my English-King-established denomination because most of my friends and family are members of that community. Why would I leave a denomination that introduced me to Christ (whose recognition was developed in a denomination that left the Catholic teachings because of politics and, of course, sacramental teachings)? Consistent teaching on the Eucharist, including Paul’s admonitions about its unworthy reception, you say? True presence of the body, blood, soul and Divinity of Christ, you say? Pfft! I’d rather be with my friends and family!

    Christ and Paul are against the sectarian divisions among believers. That’s why I will remain in a sectarian division of a set of believers that believe that their head is whoever sits at the royal throne of England.

    Another reason is that they view communion as, again, an all-are-welcome-in-spite-of-your-open-objection-to-sacramental-teachings. There is power in this thing – might as well distribute it to all who will take it.

    Please consider my thoughts on these.“

  4. Joseph Lukowski Avatar
    Joseph Lukowski

    I grew up at a time when those who were not catholic and/or not receiving Holy Communion stayed in the pew during communion. No one seems to do this anymore. Some go up to the priest to receive a blessing. Then what is the final blessing at dismissal?

  5. Rodion Raskolnikov Avatar
    Rodion Raskolnikov

    You write, “How can someone who is not in communion with you share in communion with you? It’s a contradiction.”

    No, it is not a contradiction. It only appears that way to you because you presume that communion amongst believers is qualified according to their beliefs about the nature of the Eucharist. But scripture and the teachings of the early church seem to suggest otherwise. It is in the participation of all professing Christians in receiving the Eucharist together that qualifies the notion of communion. It is the Eucharist that unites the members of the universal church. What is a contradiction is that the very sacrament that is meant to unify the body—through the breaking of His body—is cause of division. It was to this that Paul rebuked the church in Corinth.

    You write, “It’s not enough to invoke a vague notion of ‘the catholicity of
    confessing believers’ if, by their own admission, different communities hold
    contradictory views on issues of faith. Both cannot be right”

    Then why invoke a vague notion of catholicity amongst members of the RCC when there are just as many incompatible and incommensurable beliefs held by them? In many instances (maybe even most), members of the Catholic are in agreement by name only. Though two antithetical propositions cannot both be right at the same time, both can certainly be wrong, or even just partially right. You err in assuming that one is in fact wholly right.

    More problematic still is your tendency to reduce the heart of the faith to the
    epistemic assent to propositional truths. In so doing, as I suggested in my
    previous post, you eliminate the real power of present in the Christian faith.
    Why is it not the case that the unity occurs beyond the human institutions and the workings of our cognitive faculties, to rest in the work of Christ. Why
    can’t it be the case that it is Christ who does the unifying, rather than claiming that the unity occurs in proportion to the formal agreements had amongst people playing language games? It seems to me that what you and the RCC formally agree to is a truly superficial notion of Christian communion. It seems that your view of communion is less real than the real unity that I argue is found in Christ.

    You write, “In fact, you spend most of the comment highlighting those very differences and why you would never join the Catholic Church, thus highlighting the very sectarian differences you claim to decry.”

    First, I never wrote that I would NEVER join the Catholic Church. In fact, I
    explicitly wrote that, “my decision to remain Anglican FOR THE TIME
    BEING is due to the Anglican Church’s view on communion.” But what I did write was that I have communal reasons to remain what I am, but I remain Anglican because the church practices an open communion, which is precisely what I have here advocated for.

    And I don’t see how highlighting the sectarian differences is somehow a criticism against my position. People tend to highlight those things that need to be addressed. By highlighting the sectarian difference, I am not claiming to condone them. If anything, I am ashamed by them. I find them to be gratuitous. What I am doing is merely pointing out the differences that need not perpetuate schismatic tendencies.

    You write, “You’re right – there’s no earthly reason to do so. But then one does not belong to a church (simply) for human reasons.”

    Where is Christ if not among us? Where is He is not in my Anglican brothers and sisters? They are my earthly reasons for belonging to my current community. Christ is present there. You should not draw such harsh lines between the Kingdom of God and the world, for some reason believing that one must forsake some image bearers for others. You may choose to be like Peter—or the religious elite who would not eat with sinners—who refrained from eating with the gentiles for fear of the Jews if you wish, but I will remain among the gentiles, communing with them in the knowledge that Christ’s body was broken and given up for all people, knowing “that there is no Jew or Greek, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.” So, yes, I have no more an earthly reason than I do a heavenly one to remain with my community, but it is not by nature an exclusive action, severing me from all professing Christian from other formal church divisions. I desire to share in communion with all who believe that we are redeemed and washed by the blood of Christ, no matter their doctrinal/metaphysical beliefs about the elements. I believe that, despite our ignorance, the grace present in the Eucharist can affect unity and spiritual growth—thanks be to God.

    You write, “Paul would disagree with you. He states very clearly that ‘those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.’ If they do not recognize the true presence of Christ they ‘eat and drink judgment upon themselves.’”

    And you so naively believe that by body here Paul means the Eucharist. Perhaps he meant Christ’s body, the Church. What Paul meant, which should be obvious in the context of this epistle, is that those who practice communion without being in real communion, eat and drink judgment on themselves. Paul is concerned with the unity of the church, not the real presence of Christ in the elements—though perhaps he is concerned with the real presence of Christ in the Body, that is the Church.

    It’s difficult to discern the meaning of scripture when the formal principles of RCC custom replaces Christ as the guiding hermeneutic principle.

    In short, I think your comment has come nowhere close to addressing the thrust of my concern.

Leave a Reply