Was everyone allowed to take Holy Communion at the Pope’s funeral? From this site, I thought only Catholics could take communion at a Catholic service.
It’s not like there’s Catho-dar that the 300 priests had, leading them to point and scream at the miscreants like Donald Sutherland at the end of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. No, the non-Catholics were not supposed to take Communion, but no church I’ve seen has ever screened out or separated them in a way so they couldn’t have communion. But they shouldn’t. It’s not a huge deal anyway, and nothing bad attaches to the priest unless he knows that that particular person has an impediment. Which wasn’t the case today.
…and neither are the faithful asked to present their official Catholic in Communion with Rome Card, plus a photo ID, before receiving the Sacrament. It’s on the honor system, unless the priest knows you are not in the list.
Not to minimize the event by any means; but I doubt a non-catholic would have waited in line [that is, even get in the line to begin with]. To a non-catholic the event would not hold that much significance… If they were non-catholic and waited then I’m sure they would have all the plans in line to become catholic. (They would have had enough time to plan it.)
The question of whether everyone was allowed to take communion has been addressed. However, the number who received the host was limited by the number of priests distributing it and the amount of time allowed for distribution. The BBC coverage said about 60,000 received the host, while there were 250,000 to 300,000 people in St. Peter’s Square.
Canon 912 of the Codex Iuris Canonici (CIC, the codification of the Roman Catholic Church’s canon law) states that any baptized human being may receive the communion unless excluded from it by law (for example for reason of excommunication, canon 915). The question is whether a non-Catholic who got the bread handed out to him (because the priest didn’t screen the community for catholicity) would actually, by eating the bread, receive the Holy Communion, or even himself think so; after all, the notions about the nature of the communion vary among different Christian churches.
Good grief.
No. See Can. 844 §1, please.
http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/canon/c0840-1165.htm#par1902
“Can. 915 Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.”
I’m not sure how “grave sin” is defined. However, in this specific case unlikely any of the priests would recognize someone who did “obstinately persist in manifest grave sin”. A priest would need to be personally familiar with the communicant to know this was the case with them.
Or they may belong to a church that holds the Holy Communion in as serious a light, and to be in essence, what the Catholic Church does, have no intention to become Catholic except as part of a someday reunification of Christianity, but earnestly desire the Body and Blood.
There is a story in today’s (London) Daily Telegraph which repeats something that was reported in the Catholic Herald of 21st March 2003 - that British Prime Minister Tony Blair (an Anglican - Catholics are not allowed to be Prime Ministers) received Communion from the Pope himself when he and his family had an audience the previous month.
But it goes on to say that ‘… there was, at that time, a provision that non-Catholics could ask to receive Communion “on a unique occasion for joy or for sorrow in the life of a family”’ and presumes that the Blairs made such a request. Two weeks later, however, the Curia issued what the Telegraph calls “fierce guidelines” imposing a virtual ban on distributing Communion to non-Catholics.
(Bizarrely, the article starts off with a quite strong mocking of the PM’s wife, Cherie Booth, who is a practising Catholic, for wearing a mantilla at both the Pope’s funeral and, the previous day, at a vespers service for the Pope at Westminster Cathedral. For those who are not familiar with The Daily Telegraph, it is a very traditional newspaper, aimed at and read by the upper-middle classes (retired colonels and that sort of thing) and therefore usually quite hostile towards Roman Catholicism.)
I feel quite strongly myself about non-Catholics receiving Communion in a Catholic church: there is the fundamental question of whether the host IS in fact the body (and blood) of Christ - which Catholics believe - or whether it merely represents it. I was absolutely horrified when my mate, a Baptist, went up for Communion in a Catholic church when we were visiting Memphis, even though I had advised him not to.
From www.catholic.com
Quite apart from the Pope’s funeral, while I have occasionally heard priests state at Masses (usually during weddings or funerals) that non-Catholics should not receive Communion, none of those priests ever withheld Communion from anyone who came forward.
Apparently, the priests were content to notify non-Catholics that they shouldn’t take Communion, and saw no need to take further actiuon. Once they said their piece, they figured attendees were on their honor. So, any Protestant, Jew or atheist who felt like getting Communion would have gotten it without a problem.
The Blair issue obviously sprang to mind, but you’re getting the context wrong seosamh.
Unlike with the monarch, there’s actually no such restriction in the UK. Catholics have been leaders of major political parties in recent years without their religion ever having been an issue: Charles Kennedy and Ian Duncan Smith are both Catholics. (For anybody who doesn’t know, that’s the current Liberal Democrat leader and the last Conservative leader.) Now it can be said that neither is nor was ever likely to make it to No.10, but the point is that they were able to become the leaders of major opposition parties without anyone perceiving their religion to be a legal obstacle in those parties seeking to make them PM. Other than the polls, there’s nothing stopping Kennedy becoming Prime Minister within the month.
Whatever may be true of the stereotype of the traditional Daily Telegraph reader, the paper is actually currently edited by a Roman Catholic. Indeed, Martin Newland at one time worked on the Catholic Herald. The previous editor, Charles Moore, was also Catholic.
*Bricker, I stand corrected. Thank you.
For the record, an Eastern Orthodox person may receive Communion from a Catholic priest, under the circumstances outlined in this thread, from the point of view of the Catholic Church. He is, however, forbidden to receive by the rules regarding communion of Orthodoxy.
AFAIK, the canons in question permit Catholics to receive communion from Old Catholic priests and Catholic priests to give communion to Old Catholics who seek communion, again in accord with the provisions of the canons.
I have as an Anglican twice received communion in the Catholic Church, once from a bishop, at his invitation, and once from a priest under the authority of that bishop, in connection with an ecumenical Franciscan gathering hosted at a Catholic church. The bishop and the priest were both aware of Barb’s and my status as Episcopalians who believed in the Real Presence, and apparently his sense was that the nature of the gathering and the proper intent on our parts qualified us under the canons. I would never presume from that to receive under other circumstances, though.
At Easter, our priest asks that “any Catholic who desires to receive the Eucharist and is disposed to do so” come forward to receive. This year he only said it at Vigil, not on Easter Sunday, which is odd because that is the day many non-Catholics and indisposed (by virtue of not having attended all year) Catholics come to church. Of course he says that and leaves it up to everyone’s conscience.
bonzer, I sit corrected. I was always led to believe (by my primary school headmistress, a nun) that the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829, which enabled Catholics to be Members of Parliament again, still retained other restrictions on them, including the right to be Prime Minister - because of that office’s role in appointing certain Church of England posts. I certainly recall hearing that canard when Shirley Williams was a prominent member of the government.
I also appreciate that the Daily Telegraph’s current editor, Charles Moore, is himself a Left-Footer. But having been a regular reader of the paper since as long as I have been able to read (1963-ish) and a regular buyer since I left home to go to University in 1977, I cannot really say I have seen any softening of its attitude towards Papism during his tenure.
Of course, I meant Martin Newland instead of Charles Moore. :smack: