Philip Melvin / Jerome Lavigne
Sacraments of Initiation
Fr. Al Momney
The Question of Intercommunion
The following presentation is on the question of intercommunion. The first section of this presentation will include a definition of intercommunion. It will also entail an examination of unity from human and divine perspectives. How we approach the meaning of unity will influence how we approach the question of intercommunion. The second part of this presentation will examine the canonical regulations and implications surrounding the question of intercommunion.
In the Catholic Encyclopedia we find this definition for Intercommunion: “a term to express a relationship between churches in which each accepts members of the other for Holy Communion. It also refers to the permission granted to one’s own members to receive Communion from another Christian body” (Stravinskas CD-ROM). For “the ultimate essence of catholicity lies in the transcendence of all divisions in Christ” (Zizioulas 162). The Code of Canon Law has listed a number of circumstances in which non-Catholics can receive the Holy Eucharist in a Catholic Church. Jerome in the second part of this presentation will address these conditions or circumstances.
We all know what its like to fill out a resume and the purpose of doing such. In writing a resume a person tries to sell them self. If such a person is to be taken seriously and considered for a specific task they usually need a few references who are capable of testifying to the authenticity of that person’s claims about them self and their resume. The more important the reference the greater the chances they have of selling them self. The Holy Spirit is the Church’s reference and the Gospel is her resume. The Spirit testifies that who the Church claims herself to be in the Gospel is in fact authentically accurate. This testimony is seen most clearly in the unity that exists among Christians. As we all know “division among Christians is a serious reality which impedes the very work of Christ”: a work that seeks to gather all people into one body with one head. (Paul VI, 337) The truth of Christian unity is that it is a divine work involving human cooperation. Such unity does not require uniformity for its success. True unity finds reflected in diversity a complementarity capable of testifying to the creative genius of the Almighty who is three distinct persons yet One God. The unity that is pertinent to the Church’s mission is that willed by Christ and not that willed by human beings no matter how noble it may be because it will ultimately fall short of the divine plan.
Because the history of humanity is the history of sin and salvation most attempts at unity have shown themselves to be flawed. It’s not hard to find many failed attempts at such unity. Human attempts at unity are seen to fall into two basic categories. One is by uniformity. This kind of uniformity seeks to eliminate any and all differences even sometimes going so far as to eliminate people who will not comply with the required uniformity. When speaking about the Eucharist this approach to unity diminishes human freedom, there is no longer any openness to dialogue. This has taken a political shape throughout history and it is usually a totalitarian form of insisting that ‘here’ is what will make the nation one. Here is what will make the people one.
The opposite tendency on the sociological scale is to try and achieve unity too simply or too naively by means of friendliness or liberal expansiveness, liberal in the sense of philosophy- whereby real differences don't matter. What is needed in this tendency is be open to one another and to let the differences stand. This is the approach that says: ‘well if everyone could just be nice there would be unity’. This human approach to unity exalts subjectivity over and above objectivity. When speaking about unity regarding the Eucharist this human approach will not allow for the objective dimension of the Eucharist as a Sacrament divinely instituted by Christ. The human effort in achieving unity is therefore an effort to be nice. People seem to be constantly astonished that this never seems to work. Both of these attempts at unity are destined not to last. Diversity when it is crushed will never achieve unity. You cannot crush people and you cannot crush differences. The history of the world tells us that this never lasts. On the other hand, there are plenty of examples in history that show us when diversity is raised to an absolute value that no real human community can be achieved in that way either because what happens is that eventually diversities begin to war against each other. Against this approach to unity Pope Benedict says: “Violence must be answered with love like that of Christ, that reaches unto death. This is God’s humble way of winning, not with a stronger empire but with love that endures to the very end. Jesus’ reconciliation and sacrifice are not in vain. There is a network of Eucharistic communion that overcomes cultural differences. This is the force for peace in the world.” (Taken from Zenit)
The unity willed by “Christ himself, revealed in what the Church announces to the world, is that the triune God invites all peoples to share in the communion of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and by this sharing to live in a new communion with one another” (Driscoll 20). In other words, this type of union and communion has a form and a shape which we come to experience in “the kind of oneness which is achieved in the celebration of the Eucharist: revealing to the world a new kind of oneness, different from all human attempts at oneness or togetherness” (Driscoll 189).
Thus, Christ is the only sure way to unity and it is founded upon the Sacrament of baptism, which is “the gateway to life in the spirit.” (CCC 342) The divine concept of unity involves the truth of the whole human person with an emphasis on their capacity for welcoming the Transcendent within them. Seen in this light, the Catholic Church understands this divinely willed unity as being achieved in the Eucharist. So the official “Catholic position is that sharing in the Eucharist is a sign of a real unity achieved and is not to be a means toward that unity.” (3Huels 114)
Having given an overview of the two different approaches to unity, namely, the human and the divine, I would like to point out the urgency of working toward full communion. Pope Paul VI in his encyclical Evangelii Nuntiandi says the following: “It is often said nowadays that the present century thirsts for authenticity. Especially in regard to young people it is said that they have a horror of the artificial or false and that they are searching above all for truth and honesty. These ‘signs of the times’ should find us vigilant. Either tacitly or aloud-but always forcefully-we are being asked: Do you really believe what you are proclaiming? Do you live what you believe? Do you really preach what you live? The witness of life has become more than ever an essential condition for real effectiveness in preaching. Precisely because of this we are, to a certain extent, responsible for the progress of the Gospel that we proclaim. We are all responsible for the answers that could be given to those questions. The world which, paradoxically, despite innumerable signs of the denial of God, is nevertheless searching for him in unexpected ways and painfully experiencing the need of him-the world is calling for evangelizers to speak to it of a God whom the evangelizers themselves should know and be familiar with as if they could see the invisible. The world calls for and expects from us simplicity of life, the spirit of prayer, charity toward all, especially toward the lowly and the poor, obedience and humility, detachment and self-sacrifice. Without this mark of holiness, our word will have difficulty in touching the heart of modern man. It risks being vain and sterile.” (Paul VI, Article 76)
It is in this context that we find ourselves struggling with the question of Intercommunion. We realize that unity must come from our cooperation with the divine and as such it must follow the parameters set out for us by God himself. It is the Church’s mandate to prayerfully reflect upon these parameters and work within them to achieve full communion with all Christians. While seeking to achieve this divinely willed full communion we still find ourselves struggling with the present reality of the divisions that exist among Christians. In the search for unity among Christians we must be faithful to the blueprint given us by Christ. This blueprint informs how we view unity and how we answer the question of intercommunion. In the words of Cardinal Walter Kasper: “The path of ecumenism is not lit up from start to finish like an airport runway. It is more like the path taken by a wanderer guided by his lantern, which provides light as we actually move forward” (Kasper 80). In her Code of Canon Law the Church has set out the following circumstances by which intercommunion can occur. The lantern guiding the Church’s implementation of these circumstances is canon 1752, which upholds the salvation of all souls as the greatest of all her laws.
Jerome will now help us to understand the actual canons pertinent to the question of intercommunion.
The in’s and out’s of Intercommunion and Canon Law
Nuanced Church Statements:
On the surface level, thousands of people tend to get excited whenever they read or hear a particular statement that sounds like this:
“it is a source of joy to note that Catholic ministers are able, in certain particular cases, to administer the Sacraments of the Eucharist… to Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church” (US 46) , taken from John Paul II’s encyclical entitled: “That They May Be One”.
When words such as these are heard, people automatically assume that we can share the Eucharist with whoever wants to come to Mass. For what often goes unnoticed are what I like to refer to as; “sleeper words” contained within such statements issued by the Church.
Those sleeper words being: “in certain particular cases”. For amazingly enough, within the context of four short words, we find ourselves be immersed in the existence of a world that average Catholic Christians are completely oblivious to its existence.
And that is the Application of Church Law.
But before we can apply the law, there are certain basic rules would need to understand about interpreting it correctly.
Understanding the basics of Canon law and terminology:
Before analyzing some of the canons themselves and the restrictions imposed on Catholics and non-Catholics concerning the activity of intercommunion, it’s important to understand who is bound by the law and who is not. In A nutshell: “ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church; and possess sufficient use of reason” (cc11).
It must also be pointed out that church law is not optional with regard to choosing whether or not it applies to us. The bottom line is this: “Laws and general administrative norms are binding on those for whom they are made. THEY MUST BE INTERPRETED CORRECTLY” (1Huels 102).
Therefore, it’s important to get a grasp of how we are to understand the types of words used in the formulation of the canons.
For the words themselves reveal a certain hierarchy of importance:
Language Used For Correct Application Of The Law:
To be understood as carved in stone:
Prohibitions- absolutely prohibited, forbidden, must not, unlawful.
Strong positive commands- is required, must, is necessary, obliged.
To be understood as the most appropriate measure while holding fast to the possibility
of leeway according to circumstances: more room for judgments on particular cases)
Mild commands and exhortations- should.
(Five other forms of interpreting law follow)
That having been said, we now have the groundwork laid down which will enable us to clearly make our way through what can become a messy situation. The following information can be found under “Canon 844-a lengthy and complicated canon consisting of five paragraphs” (3Huels 116). As it turns out, the Canon itself is fairly nuanced and so in order to get the heart of the following information: quite a bit of research had to be done.
In order to logically make sense out of this complicated topic, we are going to begin by looking at the best case scenario (meaning the situation where it is most easily applicable) and working our way down towards a situation where intercommunion is absolutely forbidden as interpreted through the language used in canon law.
Most welcomed scenario by Rome:
Vatican II allows for Intercommunion between Catholic and Orthodox Christians so long as the following criteria are used in each case. The following conditions are to be applied not individually, but altogether held as one:
1. Out of necessity or spiritual advantage
2. There is no danger of error: (who cares attitude, indifferent)
3. The moral impossibility to approach a Catholic minister
4. Must be a valid church recognized as holding communion with Rome. Ie. Eastern Orthodox churches.
Holding communion means: a community that has “preserved the substance of the Eucharistic teaching, the sacrament of orders, and apostolic succession” (3Huels 117).
Worth mentioning: even though we acknowledge the validity of intercommunion between ourselves and the Eastern Orthodox Church, we should remember that not all of them see it the same way. “Eastern churches frequently do not permit sacramental sharing” (3Huels 125). There is the possibility that they might not welcome us to their communion table.
Most probable/more difficult scenario for Catholic priests in the Western world:
Concerning Christians who have been baptized outside of the Catholic Church and who’s baptism that we recognize. All summed up in one sentence, Cardinal Walter Kasper says it nicely:
“Church law envisages that in specific, extraordinary circumstances, a non-Catholic Christian may be admitted to communion, provided he shares our Eucharistic faith and bears witness to it in his life” (Kasper 72).
The bottom line is that there exists, like in the case of intercommunion between Catholic and Orthodox Christians: a certain recipe of ingredients, if you will, which are “quite restrictive in the case of those baptized Christians who belong to other ecclesial communities” (3Huels 118), and which must also be held together as one state of being for someone to receive the Eucharist who is a baptized non-Catholic:
1. Are in danger of death or due to some grave necessity; which is a matter judged by the diocesan Bishop or conference of Bishops.
2. Must spontaneously seek: (self-explanatory)
3. Their notable minister cannot be approached:
4. Disposition of being in a state of grace: PROBLEM HERE: “Who is to make the judgment that this disposition is lacking? “By DIVINE LAW, they must be in a state of grace to receive the Eucharist, The Apostle Paul says (1 Corinthians 11:29): "He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself."
Yet the law requiring sacramental confession of grave sin before reception of Communion is a merely ECCLESIASTICAL LAW. Thus, the non-Catholic Christian who is conscious of grave sin and seeks to receive holy Communion should be left the option of either first receiving absolution in the sacrament of penance or confessing privately to God and making an act of perfect contrition” (1Huels 98).
KEY: The minister must presume that a person who approaches the sacrament has the proper disposition unless there is contrary evidence based on public knowledge” (3Huels 118).
5. They manifest Catholic beliefs – (minimal requirement is necessary) “it would usually suffice to receive an affirmative answer to questions like: do you believe that what the Catholic Church teaches about the Eucharist is true? Do you believe that the consecrated bread and wine is the body and blood of the Lord? The person need not know about specific theories are doctrines such as transubstantiation” (3Huels 122). Concerning manifesting the Catholic faith: it does not mean that they need detailed knowledge about theology, but that the recipient believes the essential meaning of the sacrament. It suffices for the Eucharist “that the recipient believes the consecrated bread and wine is spiritual food, the body and blood of the Lord” (4Huels 338). Use broad interpretation…
Making it even more difficult:
In interpreting ecclesiastical laws, we are to make use of a broad or a strict interpretation. “A long-standing canonical axiom holds that FAVORS ARE TO BE MULTIPLIED, BURDENS ARE TO BE RESTRICTED. In other words:
Favorable laws may be interpreted broadly, but laws which restrict rights must be strictly interpreted” (3Huels 121).
“A strict interpretation limits the application of the law only to what the law says exactly-no more, no less” (1Huels 106).
Since the rule of thumb is such that the laws that are favorable are to be interpreted broadly. Than we are to be generous when analyzing the disposition of a baptized non-Catholic person seeking intercommunion.
(Skip this section if there is no time)
All that having been said, it is worth listing the conditions under which any person (Catholics and or baptize non-Catholics) might be denied communion. There is an amazing interconnectedness present between the requirements necessary for those who are baptized Catholics and or those who are baptized in another Christian faith community.
The following ingredients for someone to receive communion is to be evaluated on a purely individual basis.
A person may be denied communion if their situation falls under one of the three following conditions:
1. Asked for at an inappropriate time / 2. Not properly disposed / 3. Prohibited by law from receiving. In these cases, refusal is to be understood as a delay in receiving. One can receive communion once the conditions have been met.
2. The most important canonical issues to remember in the case of someone being not properly disposed is that certain conditions must be applied simultaneously before a person can be refused the Eucharist. “That person must (1) obstinately (2) persist in (3) manifest (4) grave sin” (Cuneo 239).
3. The reason for such requirements is because, “any baptized person who is not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to Holy Communion” 912cc. In other words, to refuse someone communion who does not objectively meet the criteria is to deny them of their fundamental right.
- So serious a matter is this that if someone were to be banned from the sacrament, it ought to be understood as a penalty that has been imposed upon them. As it stands, penalties can only be imposed “legitimately by observing a canonical penal process” (Cuneo 238). A priest therefore, should never deny the sacrament of communion to someone based off a rumor or hunch.
Looking at the other side of the coin, given that laws which restrict rights are to be strictly interpreted, let us see what the law says concerning baptized Catholics seeking to join other faith communities in the breaking of their bread and how they understand it.
In this case, a strict interpretation must be taken of the law because our rights are being restricted when it comes to this particular idea.
Most easily to discern scenarios:
Concerning Catholics receiving communion from non-Catholic churches which are not recognized as being in communion with Rome.
The bottom line
“Catholics may only receive and those churches which have a valid Eucharist; thus Catholics are limited for the most part to receiving communion in the Eastern churches, which frequently do not permit sacramental sharing anyway” (3Huels 125).
If Catholics should choose to take part in an ecumenical services on Sunday, in which they cannot partake of their communion service: “it must be remembered that the obligation of participating at Mass on these days remains” (4Huels 338).
What about priests receiving Communion from non-Catholic churches outside of holding communion with Rome?
Here we are dealing with a law that restricts rights: therefore it must be strictly interpreted:
“Catholic priests are forbidden to concelebrate the Eucharist with priests or ministers of churches or ecclesial communities which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church” (cc 908).
The reason for this being is that when we celebrate the Eucharist, it becomes a visible manifestation of the full communion of our faith. To express this action in other Christian churches would be a countersign.
Priests as ambassadors of reconciliation
We must always seek to tend the Lord's flock with pastoral charity for we ourselves are but simple, humble servants of the Lord and of his Church. As has already been mentioned, the raison d’être of the Church is for the salvation of souls.
“there is an ancient text, called The Didache, discovered only in 1873, which reflects the life of an early Christian community in Syria around the year 100, and which gives us some striking evidence” (McPartlan 5). Evidence concerning the desire of the early church celebrating the Eucharist and its direct intentions for the world.
“As this broken bread, once dispersed over the hills, was brought together and became one loaf, so may thy Church be brought together from the ends of the earth into thy kingdom” (IX:5).
This is a direct reflection of our Lord’s intimate prayer to the Father has expressed in the Gospel of John:“May they all be one, just as, Father, you are in me and I am in you, that they also may be in us” (John 17:21).
As we all know, Vatican II stressed the importance of the pastoral nature of the Church and its salvific mission. Clear communication skills are crucial in the application of the law in a pastoral manner, especially when dealing with people's private lives and the guidance of their souls. I draw this point to mind in order to emphasize the interconnectedness and dependency that we have and must seek to maintain with the broad interpretation with which we are to welcome non-Catholic baptized Christians to the table of the Lord.
For in a very real way, through their coming forward: an opportunity for future catechesis and evangelization presents itself in an intimate manner…
Closing prayer:
Lord Jesus Christ, you prayed that all might be one. We pray for the unity of Christians, as you will it and in the manner in which you will it. May your Spirit permit us to suffer the pain of division, to recognize our guilt, and to hope beyond all hope…
Amen. (Written by Father Couturier)
Works cited
Catechism of the Catholic Church. Vaticana: Libreria Editrice, 1997.
Cuneo, James. CLSA Advisory Opinions 1984-1993.
Washington DC: Catholic University of America, 1995.
Driscoll, Jeremy, O.S.B. Theology at the Eucharistic Table.
Roma: Gracewing Publishing, 2003.
Huels1, J. Liturgy and Law: Liturgical Law in the System of Roman Catholic Canon Law.
Montréal, Canada: Wilson & Lafleur Ltd., 2006.
Huels2, J. “Preparation for the Sacraments: Faith, Rights, Law,” In Studia canonical, 28 (1994), pp.33-58.
Huels3, J. More Disputed Questions in the Liturgy. Chicago: Liturgy Training Publications, 1996.
Huels4, J. The Pastoral Companion. A Canon Law Handbook for Catholic Ministry.
Third Edition, Revised and Updated. Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 2002.
Kasper, Walter. Sacrament of Unity - The Eucharist and the Church.
New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 2004.
McPartlan, Paul. Sacrament of Salvation An Introduction to Eucharistic Ecclesiology.
Edinburgh, Scotland: T&T Clark Ltd., 1995.
Pope John Paul II. That They May Be One, “Ut Unum Sint”, May 25, 1995.
Pope Paul VI. On Evangelization in the Modern World. Evangelii Nuntiandi,
December 8,1975.
Stravinskas, Reverend Peter M. J. Ph.D., S.T.L. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA (Revised)
Our Sunday Visitor’s. CD Rom. Huntington, Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, 1998.
The New American Bible. Wichita, Kansas: Catholic Bible Publishers, 2002.
The Sixteen Documents of Vatican II. Boston: Pauline Books and Media, 1999.
Zizioulas, John D. Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church.
New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary press, 1993.
No comments:
Post a Comment