Non-Catholics receiving communion

[CatholicAtHeart]

Okay, I'm a little confused.
As far as I know, non-Catholics aren't allowed to receive communion unless in extreme circumstances, yet how come at JPII's funeral, Brother Roger of the Taize community received communion from Cardinal Ratzinger when Ratzinger had full knowledge that he was a protestant?
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40702000/jpg/_40702300_roger.jpg

 

[Anhelyna]

Putting it bluntly - there is always the exception to a rule

BUT having made an exception once on very good grounds it should not become a generally permitted exception

 

[Virgil the Roman]

One must be in a state of grace and believe that the Holy Eucharist is the True Body and Blood of Christ under the forms of Bread and Wine, to receive.

Therefore, in order to receive, one must be a Catholic; although under the New Canon Law, an exception may be made to Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, or those of the 'Assyrian Church of the East' who profess the same as Catholics do regarding the Holy Eucharist; provided of course, they receive the permission of their own Churches as well and are in a state of grace (and it would be assumed, believe in the concept of being in a state of grace).

Hence, this would probably only be applicable or even exceptionally possible in rare cases by some Oriental and Eastern Orthodox, some of the Assyrian Church of the East; and only very High-Church Lutheran, Episcopalian, Anglican, and Protestants.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Do we know that he didn't put Cardinal Ratzinger on the spot unexpectedly?

 

[Virgil the Roman]

thereselittleflower: Do we know that he didn't put Cardinal Ratzinger on the spot unexpectedly?​

We do not.

 

[Dark Radiance]

I think Canon 844:4 would allow it:
"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 mine)

 

[Virgil the Roman]

That helped to clarify the matter. Thank you, Dark Radiance.

 

[thereselittleflower]

I think Canon 844:4 would allow it:
"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 mine)

This is a heavily qualified statement - the conditions are:

If there is a danger of death OR
there is some other grave and pressing need
and cannot approach a minister of their own community

IF one spontaneously asks for the eucharist, but does not meet those conditions, it is not permitted.

 

[Dark Radiance]

This is a heavily qualified statement - the conditions are:

If there is a danger of death OR
there is some other grave and pressing need
and cannot approach a minister of their own community

IF one spontaneously asks for the eucharist, but does not meet those conditions, it is not permitted.

It is a qualified statement. Please note that the law, which I placed in bold face states that it is the judgement of the diocesan Bishop or of the Episcopal Conference to determine what that grave and pressing need is. The pope is, at a bare minimum the Bishop of the diocese of Rome and the de facto head of the Episcopal Conference of Italy. Which means that he has the jurisdiction to determine that their was a grave and pressing need. Brother Roger's getting into the line for communion would also indicate to me that it was an act of spontaneity and a deep desire to partake of the Eucharist, which would also fulfill this law.

 

[Dylan Michael]

Are you sure he's receiving communion? It looks to me as if he could've been receiving a blessing.

 

[thereselittleflower]

It is a qualified statement. Please note that the law, which I placed in bold face states that it is the judgement of the diocesan Bishop or of the Episcopal Conference to determine what that grave and pressing need is. The pope is, at a bare minimum the Bishop of the diocese of Rome and the de facto head of the Episcopal Conference of Italy. Which means that he has the jurisdiction to determine that their was a grave and pressing need. Brother Roger's getting into the line for communion would also indicate to me that it was an act of spontaneity and a deep desire to partake of the Eucharist, which would also fulfill this law.

Spontaneity is not a condition of this canon apart from one of other two. It must be in conjunction with one of other two conditions. It does not stand alone, itself, as a condition to be met.

It seemed to me this could easily be misunderstood and so I clarified.


A non Catholic cannot simply spontaneously get up to receive communion and be rightly given it according to this canon. Spontaneity, by itself, does not fulfill the requirements.

There must also be:

danger of death

OR​

some other grave and pressing need
​

for the requirements of this canon to be met.

 

[drstevej]

greetings TLF!

 

[thereselittleflower]

greetings TLF!

hi there

 

[Gwendolyn]

I don't feel comfortable with this.

 

[Dark Radiance]

TLF, according to the Canon, as I noted, it is for the bishop to make that judgement on what is a pressing need and whether to allow that. As I stated, the pope is also well within his caconical rights to allow Brother Roger to receive, particularly in the context of the funereal of a pope famous for his interfaith dialogue.

 

[thereselittleflower]

TLF, according to the Canon, as I noted, it is for the bishop to make that judgement on what is a pressing need and whether to allow that. As I stated, the pope is also well within his caconical rights to allow Brother Roger to receive, particularly in the context of the funereal of a pope famous for his interfaith dialogue.

It is for the bishop to make that judgment. No one is disagreeing with you on that point.

However, a funeral of a Pope does not make it anymore contextually right one way or another. A funeral of a pope is not a grave reason to give someone who is not Catholic communion.

We do not know the context of this act, or if he even actually received communion, or if Cardinal Ratzinger was put on the spot unexpectedly, so we should refrain from judgment.

 

[Dark Radiance]

Sigh..Ratzinger was well aware of who Schutz was and saw no problem with him partaking in the Eucharist. Perhaps we should turn to the future pope's own words:

For more than a decade, Taize has been, without a doubt, the leading example of an ecumenical inspiration, emanating from a local center inspired by a particular ‘charism’. Similar communities of faith and of shared living should be formed elsewhere in which the foregoing of a communal reception of the Eucharist would, without ceasing to be a hardship, become comprehensible and in which its necessity would be understood by a prayer community that cannot answer its own prayer but is, nevertheless, calmly certain it will be answered.

Principles of Catholic Theology

 

[thereselittleflower]

Sigh..Ratzinger was well aware of who Schutz was and saw no problem with him partaking in the Eucharist. Perhaps we should turn to the future pope's own words:
Principles of Catholic Theology

As per your quote:

For more than a decade, Taize has been, without a doubt, the leading example of an ecumenical inspiration, emanating from a local center inspired by a particular ‘charism’. Similar communities of faith and of shared living should be formed elsewhere in which the foregoing of a communal reception of the Eucharist would, without ceasing to be a hardship, become comprehensible and in which its necessity would be understood by a prayer community that cannot answer its own prayer but is, nevertheless, calmly certain it will be answered.​

We should look at the applicable definition of a word used above:

FOREGO:

waive: do without or cease to hold or adhere to; "We are dispensing with formalities"; "relinquish the old ideas"

forfeit: lose (s.th.) or lose the right to (s.th.) by some error, offense, or crime; "you've forfeited your right to name your successor"; "forfeited property"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn​

Notice he said:

the foregoing of a communal reception of the Eucharist​

which means communal reception of the eucharist in that context, that of mixed faith communities, is not to occur.

 

[Dark Radiance]

The Cardinal stated FOREGOING as in

previously stated, written, or occurring; preceding.

(Random House Dictionary)
As in read the earlier statements in the book about the matter.

 

[Dark Radiance]

Perhaps this will put the matter to rest, before we descend into the minutiae of Catholic Constructionism:

Interview with Cardinal Kasper Three Years After the Death of Brother Roger