can catholics receive communion in a non-catholic church and can non- catholics receive communion in a catholic church? Are catholics held accountable for participating in communion when they know they shouldn't? Is this a tradition that has always been followed? If a catholic does not follow this tradition are they still considered catholic? Does the catholic doctrine consider tradition and scripture to be equal?

-- christina araujo (picapau@mediaone.net), December 28, 2001

Answers

Jmj

Hello, Christina.

The answers to your questions are mainly found in the following excerpts from the Catholic Church's Code of Canon Law. Please ask further, if you find these canons confusing.

-----------------------------------
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 can. 861 §2 [which pertains to Baptism].

§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. [That is, Catholics may receive in churches that preserve apostolic succession since the first century -- for example Eastern Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, Coptic]

§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. [I believe that this would include certain non-Eastern bodies, such as the schismatic Polish National Catholic Church, which exists within the U.S..]

§4 If there is a danger of death or if, in the judgment 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 [i.e., Protestants], 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.

§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.
-----------------------------------------

In further response to your questions, Christina ...

-- Catholics are "held accountable [by God] for participating in communion when they know they shouldn't?" For a Catholic knowingly to participate in a Protestant "communion" service (accepting the bread and wine) would be a mortal sin against the First Commandment, and it must be confessed. The act would be, at best, symbolic of a belief in an ecclesial communion that does not exist -- or, at worst, an erroneous expression of belief in the Real Presence of Jesus in mere bread and wine.

-- You asked, "Is this a tradition that has always been followed?" Not "always," because invalid communion services have existed only since the founding of Protestant denominations in the 1500s. Since then, though, Catholics have followed these laws against "intercommunion."

-- A Catholic who breaks a law against "intercommunion" is not excommunicated. She is still a Catholic, but is endangering her faith (and her soul) if she commits this sin repeatedly.

-- When you ask about "tradition," I assume that you are not speaking about "human traditions" (customs), but about that part of God's revelation that has been handed down orally and in authoritative non-Scriptural writings since the first century. [We call the latter "Sacred Tradition" or "Apostolic Tradition," using a capital "T."] About Scripture and Sacred Tradition, the Second Vatican told us, in 1965 (Dei Verbum):

"9. ... [T]here exists a close connection and communication between Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while Sacred Tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.

"10. Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2:42), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed. It is clear, therefore, that Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls."

St. James, pray for us.
God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 28, 2001.

Jesus does not exist in bread or wine. The bread and the wine are symbols!

"And when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: DO THIS IN REMEMBERANCE OF ME"

From Corinthians 11

-- Andrew (ajs_78@hotmail.com), January 23, 2002.

Sacred Tradition...this is so sad, you have been decieved by the word of men over many hundreds of years, who in turn were decieved by the devil.

-- Andrew (ajs_78@hotmail.com), January 23, 2002.

Andrew,

Do you not take Jesus at His word? You just quoted Him saying "This is My Body." When He said "Do this in rememberance of Me", Jesus was saying "Do this (eating His body) to remember me."

-- Glenn (glenn@excite.com), January 23, 2002.

Andrew,

Sacred Tradition are those teachings that the Holy Spirit directed the Church to hold. Jesus promised that He would send the Holy Spirit to help guide the Church. Please do not call Jesus a liar.

-- Glenn (glenn@excite.com), January 23, 2002.

It is a S Y M B O L !!! You may as well be sacrificing our Lord again! He Death was the perfect sacrifice!

The "scared tradition" you talk about is folly. Its not in the Bible, that's that. End of Story

-- Andrew (ajs_78@hotmail.com), January 23, 2002.

Andrew,

It is not a symbol. Please show me in the Bible where Jesus said it is a symbol.

Second, Sacred Tradition is mentioned in the Bible. If you recall, Sacred Tradition is the official teaching of the Catholic Church. Paul mentions it in 1 Corinthians 11:2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.

and in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

Hope that helps.

-- Glenn (glenn@excite.com), January 24, 2002.

All I want to know is where in holy scripture does it say a Catholic cannot receive communion at a non-Catholic ceremony? And don't give me the quoting business. You would be just skirting around the issue. Who made all these rules in the church anyway? Some of them are pretty ridiculous.

-- Carol Pince (cpince@afscme14.org), March 14, 2002.

These Traditions that are in the Church are not RULES but Laws given to us By Scripture and the Holy Spirit. Anyone who denies them is guilty of mortal sin. I have to abide by them just as much as anyone else. It is so by the Holy Spirit that we follow the Sacred Word and the Commands of the Church and the Holy Trinity. At least we have something to guide us. The other Churches have nothing.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), March 14, 2002.

Catholic is supposed to mean Universal. We have been fettered by centuries of prohibitions, rules, canon laws and donations to defend our clergy's pedophilia lawsuits. This makes us so much like the Pharisees Jesus drove out of the temple. I am disgusted that these princes of the church, who protected these rogue clergy, want us to pay for their defense, instead of selling their great possessions and defending their own priests. Why are we suddenly included in the clergies' business? When are we going to stop these prohibitions on receiving the sacraments where they are revered as such, and open our arms to all believing brethren??

-- Alf Omega (alfomega@pacbell.net), October 06, 2002.