Giving Mass to Non-catholics?

[jesusandyou]

Is it against the Catholic constitution if a Catholic Priest give mass to Non-catholics? For example, to a protestant Church attending Christian believer. I am non-Catholic. Can I go to Rev.Eric to get mass?

[secretman]

Non Catholics may go to the Holy Mass, but can't not take part in the Communion. Perhaps U have heart about all those non-catholics that went to Mass and then get Converted to Catholic faith. I can even mention a famous conversion: André Frossard, "a perfect atheist" (according to himself), He went to a Catholic Church (not even to the holy Mass), he entered "atheist" an went out a"believer". U can search about Him on the web.

God Bless U All!

[Melody]

You already asked this question here and I already answered

Blessings,

Melody

[jesusandyou]

If I know a Catholic Priest who has given Communion to non-Catholics, where should I inform that? To Rome or the local Bishop's house? Will the Priest be expelled from the Church and his priesthood if he has done so. Does it make a difference if the Priest is a Charismatic Healing Priest and have thousands of followers.

  I am not gonna do that to destroy the livelihood of that Priest or the entertaintment that his followers receive. BYW, I am a True Christian   .

I hardly doubt I can come out as a Catholic Believer. I don't want to come out as Atheist either   .

[Matthias]

Anyone may attend a Catholic Mass, but reception of the Eucharist is limited to Catholics in good standing (not in a state of mortal sin).  If a priest is knowingly administering Communion to non-Catholics this is a very serious matter. It SHOULD be reported to his bishop. It is unlikely that the priest will loose his job, but the Bishop should instruct him to stop this.

It is NOT an act of love or charity to give the Eucharist to non-Catholics. It could be HARMFUL to them! St. Paul warns:

A person should examine himself and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the Body, eats and drinks damnation upon himself. This is why many of you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying [1Cor 11:27]

One of the reasons the Church withholds Eucharist from non-Catholics is to PROTECT them! Some people might think it is kind or loving to give Eucharist to non-Catholics - but it's really the other way around! It is an act of charity to withhold it, but reckless and misguided to give them the Sacrament.

Furthermore, if the priest is making a habit of this, it indicates he does not have a proper and clear understanding of the nature of the Sacrament. It is called "Communion" because it is shared among those who are "in communion" with one another. Non-Catholics are not "in communion" with the Catholic Church. If the priest's understanding of Sacramental theology is sufficiently clouded, it could possibly call the validity of the Sacrament itself into question, since "intent" is one of the five required components of a Sacrament ('intent' means that the priest intends to conduct the Eucharistic Rite in a manner consistent with Catholic teaching - not his own personal ideas and opinions). If the priest is confused about what the Church teaches (or is deliberately ignoring it), it is reasonable to ask if he might not have the proper intent when conducting the Rite. This has the possibility of invalidating the whole Mass!  This denies the Grace of the Eucharist even to the Catholics who receive in good conscience!

This is from an apologetical news group (I cannot be saying the name of it here, yes?) where there was MUCH argument about this same thing. But my question is this - why is it that a person that is not a Catholic would want to be going to the Catholic church and eating the Catholic communion? Why is he not going to his own church and doing the communion there? jesusandyou, are you also doing this? Why are you not going to your own church?

I have never eaten the Catholic communion and would never want to. I am not a Catholic! I am not understanding why this would ever be a problem for any one. Why are people in argument about this? Go to your own church and eat your communion there!

I also ask this - This news group message - it is true or false? If it is true then how is the Catholic knowing if the priest have the right intent? Even if he say he have the right intent, it matter only what is in his heart, yes? So how are the Catholics knowing if their communion is really OK?

[jesusandyou]

I go to my Church for Communion. I don't go to a Catholic Church for that.

The primary reason why so many people go to Catholic Priests for the communion (May not be the Church) is because they want miracles and healings. Thats what some of the Catholic Priests are promising the public.

[Seeker]

Matthias,

I also ask this - This news group message - it is true or false? If it is true then how is the Catholic knowing if the priest have the right intent? Even if he say he have the right intent, it matter only what is in his heart, yes? So how are the Catholics knowing if their communion is really OK?

To my understanding this is correct.  

Catholics put a lot of trust in their priest.  God will hold the priest accountable for any abuses they perform.  

There are usually indications to the Catholic faithful that their priest does not have the right intent.  One indication is gross liturgical abuses.  Another is what he might say during his homilies.

If a Catholic has any suspicions their priest doesn't have the right intent, they should talk with him to clear up any doubts.  That is the only way I know of to be sure that their priest does have the right intent and that the bread and wine they receive really is the Body and Blood of Christ (as Catholics believe it to be).

[jesusandyou]

Why God should make the Priest accountable for giving his son's communion to the non-catholics? Does God not like non-catholics?

Who wrote the constitution that there should be no communion to the non-catholics by the priest?

[DavidFilmer]

I’ve been to Masses where the priest was aware that many non-Catholics might be in attendance (such as a wedding). It is customary for the priest to make a brief announcement in such situations regarding reception.

A priest is not required to do this, but it is wise. If a priest does NOT do this and a non-Catholic comes forward and the priest unknowingly gives him the Host then this is unfortunate (because it could be spiritually harmful to the person) but the priest is not guilty of anything except, maybe, imprudence.

If a person comes forward whom the priest KNOWS is non-Catholic and he gives him the Host anyway, this is a serious breach of conduct for the priest. However, it doesn’t necessarily call the validity of his intent into question. Perhaps he doesn’t know how to handle the situation, or doesn’t want to have confusion or a disturbance at a very solemn point in the Mass.

However, if the priest specifically INVITES non-Catholics to receive, THIS would be a VERY serious matter. It is very likely that the priest’s intent is, indeed, flawed and this is NOT a valid Catholic Mass (the exception would be if the priest were somehow unaware of the prohibition – which seems highly unlikely). At that point, every faithful Catholic in the room should get up and leave (better to leave than participate in a farce of a Mass). But under no circumstances should any Catholic come forward to receive the “host” at such a “Mass.”

By the way, people sometimes make a big deal out of Catholics prohibiting reception by non-Catholics. But, by the same token, Catholics visiting churches of other denominations are also prohibited from receiving non-Catholic communion. As a Catholic, I could not receive communion in an Episcopal church (for example), even though the Episcopal church allows reception by non-Episcopalians.

FWIW, I recall a news story when Bill Clinton was the US President – he attended a Catholic Mass (somewhere in Africa, I believe). The Host was being distributed by a bishop. Clinton went forward and held out his hand, eyes downcast. The bishop hesitated for a moment (surely he knew that Clinton was not Catholic), his brow creased, and then he pressed a Host into Clinton’s hand. There were, of course, reporters and TV news crews also in attendance, and the incident proved to be yet another (minor) scandal in Clinton’s troubled presidency, because he flippantly disregarded Catholic liturgical norms, whereas he would have never thought to do so in, say, a Jewish synagogue. Some pundits claimed that Clinton didn’t know about the prohibition (though Clinton never said that), but I think that Clinton was very familiar with Catholic practices. The man went to GEORGETOWN, for goodness sakes, a Catholic University!

I think the Bishop in this case was unwise, but I can understand what he might have been thinking. The President of the United States (arguably the most powerful man in the world) visits your country, comes to your church, and holds out his hand (while the cameras roll and the world watches). If you refuse, you would probably humiliate him. It’s not a comfortable situation. Of course, the really guilty person here was Clinton, who had no business putting the bishop in that situation to begin with.

[jesusandyou]

I grew up in an Indian Protestant Church. It's in their constitution that the young people who are above 18 must go through a 3 months training to accept the communion. That is practiced even now. You should have taken communion in that Church to get married even. Yes, I got married in that Church. The reverends of that Church won't do communion for any other purpose other than for the believers gathering. I mean they won't do it for the sake of a "An Evening with Internationally Popularly known Healing preacher Rev.so and so" where the non-believers comes for a healing to be free from their headache.

[DavidFilmer]

Unlike many protestant churches which may have communion only once a month, or maybe a few times a year, the celebration of the Eucharist is the central focus of all Catholic worship. Most Catholic churches celebrate Mass every day (unlike protestant churches - at least in the US - which have only Sunday and maybe a Wednesday service). A Catholic wedding usually will be done in the context of the Mass, as will a funeral, a baptism, etc. Many Catholic universities include Mass as part of graduation ceremonies. Mass is televised or aired on the radio in many areas so that the homebound may feel some level of participation.

And, unlike most protestant churches, the Mass is not simply a ceremonial reenactment of a long-ago event. Catholics believe it imparts actual Grace for the nourishment of our spirits.  The #1 job of any priest is to say Mass for the faithful - all Catholic worship flows from the Mass, and it has been this way for nearly 2000 years.

Anyone is welcome to come to a Catholic worship service, but if the service is being presided over by an ordained priest, you should expect a Mass to be included. This is how Catholics worship. If someone attends a Catholic gathering, they should not be surprized or offended that it is conducted according to the norms of Catholic worship.

By the way, Catholics admit children to the Eucharist as young as seven or eight, after instruction (which usually takes a year). Adult converts may also be admitted after instruction (which usually takes one or two years - sometimes longer).

[jesusandyou]

Read this real incident.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5762478/?GT1=4529

I think the system of communion is more complicated than what all of us know. I can't believe a girl was denied her communion is because she can't eat wheat!

[DavidFilmer]

My oldest son has celiac disease (the same disorder mentioned in this article), so I am VERY familiar with this whole situation.  In some cases, my son receives only the Cup (which is perfectly valid). But I do know that the woman is either misinformed about the nature of the disease, or she is just trying to cause trouble.

Celiac disease is an inherited immune system disorder for which there is no cure (it is not an allergy, as it is commonly thought).  It is NOT true that a very small amount of gluten can be very harmful to a celiac, as she claims. It would be possible for the child to safely consume a small amount of a low gluten wafer. At our home parish, our priest is aware of our son's condition and knows to break off a small piece (the size of the Host does not matter). This has never caused problems.

But if she wants to totally refrain from the Host, there is nothing wrong with receiving only the Cup. Jesus is fully present under both forms (you can't receive half of Jesus). The whole argument is completely bogus because there's no requirement to ever receive the Host.

[Rev. Eric]

David is correct in what he says concerning the reception of communion.  As I read this article, I kept asking myself, "Why can't this girl simply receive from the cup?" but this was never addressed.  The diocese has informed the mother that her daughter can receive only from the cup and that would be a valid reception of the Eucharist.  By the reader is not told why this is not being done.  This was a very big oversight and has made me suspicious of the whole article.  The article seems to be designed in a way to unfairly criticize the Church.  The title says, "Girl with Digestive Disease Denied Communion."  The Church is not denying her communion.  As David pointed out, her condition does not prevent her from receiving the Host, and she is free to pass up the Host and receive from the cup.  If her mother is forbidding her to receive these things then it is her mother, not the Church, who is denying her communion.

Furthermore, in reference to the use of wheat bread for communion wafers, the mother stated that it was a church rule and not God's will, and that it could be easily adjusted to meet the needs of the people.  So not only does she present herself as a sacramental theologian, but also as one who seems to know what is and isn't God's will.  I think, rather, that she has her own personal opinion about the nature of the Eucharist and is criticizing the Church for not adhereing to her personal opinion.  What is at stake if her personal opinion is wrong?  In that case her daughter will go through a lifetime of receiving rice cakes instead of the true Eucharistic Presence of Christ.

The "rule" that this mother is criticizing is that the "valid matter" of the communion wafer is wheat bread.  Canon 924.2 of the Code of Canon Law states, "The bread must be only wheat and recently made."  The Law states "only wheat."  In other words, not rice or any other grain.  

As I stated, this is what the Church believes and has always believed to be the "valid matter" of communion bread.  "Valid matter" means what the elements for communion must be made of in order for the sacrament to be valid.  So even if a priest uses rice wafers while celebrating the Mass, those rice wafers will not become the Eucharist, they will remain rice wafers.  So from the Church's veiwpoint, this mother is asking priests to give her daughter plain ordinary rice wafers when she comes to receive communion.  But the Church does not want her daughter to receive plain ordinary rice cakes, the Church wants her to receive Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.

Furthermore, this "rule" could not be "easily adjusted" as the mother claims.  It is Canon Law based upon Apostolic Tradition.  I am not a canon lawyer, but I can tell you that Apostlic Tradition does not change.  But I am glad to hear that this mother is interested in easy solutions to her daughter's problem.  The easiest solution is to simply let her daughter receive from the cup (or receive a portion of the Host as David has described).

And now let me "change gears" and address the idea of priests giving communion to non-Catholics.  The general rule is that the reception of communion in the Catholic Church is reserved for Catholics who have received proper instructions concerning the sacrament and who are in a state of grace.  There are exceptions to this rule:

Exception #1:  The members of the various Orthodox Churches may receive communion in a Catholic Church so long as such people seek this of their own accord and are properly disposed (Canon 844.3).

Exception #2:  In danger of death or in the event of "some other grave necessity" other Christians may receive communion from Catholics.  This is to be done according to the directions laid down by the diocesan bishop or the local conference of bishops.  Plus, this should be a situation in which the Christian in question is not able to receive communion from a minister of his own community.  Futhermore, such a person should seek this of his own accord, be properly disposed and "manifest Catholic faith" regarding the Eucharist.  This is found in Canon 844.4.  The same is true for the sacraments of Penance and Anointing the Sick.  "Manifest Catholic faith" means believing what the Catholic Church believes about these sacraments.  In other words, such a person should not receive  communion if he does not believe that it is the Real Presence of Christ.

God bless,
-Rev. Eric

[DavidFilmer]

I wish to expand on RevEric's points.

We KNOW that Jesus used wheat bread when he said the Last Supper and told us to "do this." This woman claims that rice is OK to use rice cakes instead. HOW DOES SHE KNOW THAT? That is her OPINION. Rice was completely unknown to the Middle East in Our Lord's day (as it requires prodigious acreage of fresh water bogs to cultivate). Can we use pasta? Tofu? Tortilla chips? Soy cakes? Chocolate chip cookies?

BUT NOBODY, NOBODY, NOBODY IS EVER, EVER, EVER REQUIRED TO CONSUME THE HOST (just to REALLY emphasize this point). The whole "controversy" is ABSOLUTELY BOGUS. The woman is a TROUBLEMAKER bringing up a BOGUS "problem" to get media attention (which the ignorant media willingly give her).

[Seeker]

David and Father Eric, thank you for presenting the whole truth behind this story.  

I especially appreciate David's viewpoint from a parent who's child is in the same situation.  

This story is another example of why we can't take stories in the news at face value.  Critical thinking and a thirst for the truth is a gift from God.

[jesusandyou]

Thanks for the insight. I am trying to understand this. What is the theology behind just receive the cup? Do you mean there is no need to take the bread at all? If so, why the Church can't give just wine?

[DavidFilmer]

The Church could administer only the Cup, and sometimes does. My own Parish is in the midst of a nursing home, and some parishoners suffer severe physical handicap - such that they cannot eat normally. The priest administers Communion to them from the Cup only, using a special "eye dropper." And, as I say, my own son (a Celiac) sometimes receives only from the Cup (especially when visiting other Parishes where the priest does not know to break off a small piece of the Host for him).

The Church teaches a doctrine called Concomitance which means that the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ are fully present under both forms. In fact, the Church regards as heresy the idea that both forms are necessary.

If someone is to receive Communion under only one form, it would typically be the Host. This is not unusual (and was the longstanding ordinary practice until Vatican II). Not all Parishes offer the Cup at every Mass (and some do not offer it at all). It would be unusual to find the Cup offered at a small weekday Mass, unless the priest had someone available to assist him (called a "Eucharistic Minister'), and most sick-calls involve providing the Host only.

Even when the Cup is offered, reception by the laity is optional, and it's not unusual to see Catholics receive the Host but pass by the Cup. In my Parish, only about half the people avail themselves of the Cup (which is fine).

So Catholics are very familiar with the practice of receiving under only one form, though it is far more common to receive the Host in such situations. However, reception of the Cup alone is equally valid, though much less common.

You would never see a Mass where only the Cup was offered to the laity. The reason is not theological or dogmatic, but practical. Administering the Host has fewer complications, so if only one is to be offered, it is more practical to offer the Host. But it would be perfectly valid to administer only the Cup to the laity.

The underlying theology is that Christ cannot be divided. You cannot receive "half of Jesus" by receiving only the Host (or only the Cup). If you receive Him, you get the whole Presence, regardless of whether you receive the Body, the Blood, or both.

Of course, you could argue that it is preferable to receive both (and I wouldn't disagree) but that's not the same thing as claiming that it is necessary.

[Rev. Eric]

I'll just make a couple of side comments.  

Although the congregation may receive the Eucharist under one species, the priest must receive both.

Another aspect that makes the Host more practical than the Precious Blood is that the Host can be reserved in the tabernacle so that priests and ministers can use it for communion calls throughout the week.  The Precious Blood, however, is not to be reserved.  At the end of each Mass, any left over portion of the Precious Blood should be consumed.  This is the general rule.  The situation that David described (in which the priest takes the Precious Blood to nursing home residents) is permissible, as would taking the Precious Blood to a dying person as part of Viaticum.  But due to the risk of spills, it is perhaps best if communion calls involve just the Host unless there is a clear need for the person to receive the Precious Blood.

God bless,
-Rev. Eric