Would Synod document open path for Protestants to receive Communion regularly? [CC]

In the latest in a series of Letters from the Synod, “Xavier Rynne” calls attention to a passage of the instrumentum laboris, or working document, that open the way for allowing …


This won’t happen. They need to go to Confession first.

HOWEVER, one thing I can see is allowing baptized protestants who are married to Catholics and enrolled in RCIA to receive first confession and first communion before Confirmation if they don’t want to wait.

While this is technically already allowed, many parishes will not allow converts to to receive confession and first communion (or even confirmation) before the Easter Vigil.

NOW, obviously, I 100% agree that receiving it on Easter Vigil is worth the wait, but sometimes we need to allow them the converts to begin receiving the sacraments earlier (provided they are ready for first communion)

Finally, I’m not suggesting that this be the norm. But, I do think it may need to happen more than it does – especially for converts married (or getting married) to a Catholic.

God Bless!

I can agree with this. I attended RCIA for nine months when I was thirteen. Now I’m finding my way back into Catholicism and I suppose I have to wait until next Easter. That said, you make some good friends in the initiation and it’s fun to learn church history. :slight_smile:

Welcome to CAF!

Welcome back to the Church!

It couldn’t happen. In taking communion, you are professing the faith of the Catholic Church. If a protestant would take communion but does not in his conscience and heart profess the faith of the Church, he is taking communion under false pretenses and taking communion would only be heaping further mortal sin on their selves.

Nothing close to being official yet. It appears the Speech is moving in a direction to solving difficult interfaith marriages within the Catholic community. I don’t believe it is directing at all protestants to receive Holy Communion on the whim.

If? this interfaith marriage reception of Holy Communion can be resolved by the Church without infecting the pure sacraments. There remains hope towards a reconciliation with our separated brethren.

The status quo of protestant diverse views of the real presence and the biblical Eucharistic teaching’s by Jesus and the apostles, prevent those without discernment of the real presence of receiving the Eucharist today.

In fact the Church protects these protestants and unbelievers from performing St. Pauls curse of sacrilege (1Cor.11), by not administering the blessed sacrament to them.

It’s a negative practice of the Church since apostolic times, that proves a positive.

Alex FYI -

If you received Baptism or First Confession, plus First Holy Communion, then you simply need to go to Confession.

God Bless

Non-Catholics, such as Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Polish National Catholics, among others, can receive Holy Communion on limited circumstances. It states as much right inside the missal in every Catholic parish’s pew.

Why not Episcopalians, Lutherans, and other mainline Protestant churches? Once you open the door to “grave exceptions,” I don’t see the necessity of prohibiting weekly reception of Communion to them.

Taking communion is equal to confessing the creed of the Church. If you reject the Church and take its communion you are lying about your unity with the Church.

outremer;13354477]Non-Catholics, such as Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Polish National Catholics, among others, can receive Holy Communion on limited circumstances. It states as much right inside the missal in every Catholic parish’s pew.

I keep seeing the above Church’s are non-Catholics in recent threads.:shrug: Those Church’s possessing valid apostolic succession, valid sacraments and valid holy orders are all Catholic. Some may not be in full communion with the bishop of Rome or remain heterodox, never the less they are all Catholic.

Why not Episcopalians, Lutherans, and other mainline Protestant churches? Once you open the door to “grave exceptions,” I don’t see the necessity of prohibiting weekly reception of Communion to them.

Because they are not Catholic, they removed themselves from valid holy orders, valid sacraments and no Apostolic succession to the apostles. Besides many of these reject the real presence in the Eucharist sacrifice and or reject the teachings of the One holy Catholic and apostolic Church communion.

1983 Code of Canon Law, Canon 844, exp. 4, with requirements and limits as noted.

I respect your opinion and thoughts on this issue. However, it was their forefathers, i.e., great, great grandparents and grandparents that rejected the real presence in the Eucharist. Speaking from the US perspective, I doubt the majority of members of the various current religious denominations even know the difference between the real presence in the Eucharist sacrifice based upon the religion they were born into.

In addition, it would not surprise me that a majority of Catholics, especially non-going and occasional Church attendees even know the difference.

What Paragraph #128 of the instrumentum laboris appears to be suggesting is that non-Catholics who received the sacrament of marriage in the Church and currently respect and live in accordance with their spouse’s Catholic teachings be able to receive Holy Communion.

I’m not predicting whether this is possible or not. I as the rest of us can only pray that the Holy Spirit guides Pope Francis and the synod Cardinals in making the right call on this and the other issues under discussion to strengthen the family.

God Bless and Peace to all.

Validly baptized Christians are part of the Mystical Body of Christ and the Catholic Church, albeit in an imperfect manner.

A couple things. We all understand that the current members of protestantism didn’t cause the division, but they do continue it.

I reject this idea that I’ve seen that somehow being born into a certain religion is a worthy excuse to continue denying the Truth and rejecting the Church. I understand in some circumstances a person may never know anything OTHER than what they were born into and perhaps there is some invincible ignorance there.

It is a COMPLETELY different situation to be born a protestant, have the CC presented to you and to reject it for what you’re more comfortable with. Obviously there still may be an instance of invincible ignorance, but I don’t think that’s what the Church means when she talks about the possibility of God saving those outside the Church.

Luke 10:13-16 deals with this well I think.

That being said, catechizing and bringing the Truth to non-catholics is extremely important. And obviously in loving and charitable way. However, how many non-catholics who visit this site can say they don’t know enough about the CC? Idk, but God does, and I don’t think “I"m more comfortable with bashing Mary, denying the Trinity, denying the dual nature of Christ, or denying the authority of the Church because I was raised in it.” will hold up. (or whatever other heresy you would like to consider)

My two children are validly and licitly baptized in the Catholic Church but they can’t receive communion since they haven’t had their first communion.

Baptism is a pre-requisite but not the only need to be able to take communion.

Another way to look at this, and a more accurate way, is because they haven’t been catechized. The Church requires Faith formation before 6 of the 7 sacraments (Anointment of the Sick being the only one that doesn’t require some training first).

Even when babies are baptized, the parents attend pre-Jordan training

well if you’re point is that non-catholics who wish to receive communion should undergo a few years of catechism and then receive a sacrament of initiation like first communion before they’re allowed to receive communion, then i guess what you’re saying is that first they must become a full member of the church.

Sounds fine to me.

I agree totally. :thumbsup:

Though I’m not a big fan of the Easter Vigil wait. I think when the priest comes to the conclusion you’ve learned an believe what you need to know. Then the individual should just go ahead and be brought completely into the church. I think every parish should operate this way. Why wait for it? It seems totally unnecessary to withhold the Sacraments from someone who is ready, willing, and able to receive them; all so they can have it done at Easter. Any day is the perfect day to receive the Lord.

Peace all.

Probably cause the Church has thought about it for a long time and deemed that you should take the class and wait til Easter Vigil. It’s not even a year. You’re telling me people can’t learn about the Church for several months before they commit to it?

I think it’s dangerous for the person to enter the church if they don’t understand it. What if they enter, realize they don’t want to be part of it? Too late. I’ve always been told that it’s much more dangerous for the soul to be a Catholic who leaves the Church than to be someone who doesn’t come in right away.

Perhaps, but what if you show up the day after Easter. Tough luck see you in September. Not cool, a lot can happen in that amount of time.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.