Questions of inter-communion

The question of who can receive Holy Communion in the Roman Catholic Church has raised much debate and, at times, conflict. The great sacrament of communion, which is the Eucharist, has, in the context of Christian division, been the occasion of exclusion and much suffering, especially, but not exclusively, among family members from different Christian traditions.

The Roman Catholic Church understands itself as the Church in which the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church professed in the Nicene Creed subsists. It does not simply state that it is that Church in an exclusive sense, but rather that the Church of Christ fully ‘subsists in’ the Roman Catholic Church, whose visible head is the Pope, the Bishop of Rome and successor of Saint Peter (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 8).

The Roman Catholic Church recognises the full validity of the Eucharist, priesthood and Holy Orders in the Orthodox Catholic Churches of the East (Greek, Russian and others), even though they are not in full communion with the Roman Church. Eucharistic sharing is therefore, in principle, possible but remains fairly exceptional and is governed by strict conditions: typically, a serious need, proper disposition, and the absence of access to a minister in one’s own church.  No one should presume an automatic right to receive Holy Communion outside of these norms; reception is always subject to the discipline of the Church and the judgment of competent ecclesiastical authority.

A different situation applies to the churches that emerged from the Reformation. In recent decades the Roman Catholic Church has referred to these as “ecclesial communities.” The Catechism of the Catholic Church states (#1400)::

Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, "have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders."  It is for this reason that, for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible. However these ecclesial communities, "when they commemorate the Lord's death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory." 

The position is therefore clear regarding Catholics receiving Communion within these churches, which include Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist and others: sharing in the Eucharist at Reformation-based churches by Roman Catholics is not permitted by their own church even though many such churches practice ‘eucharistic hospitality’ and at least some Roman Catholics have availed of such hospitality and nobody has made a fuss. The Catechism does allow for narrowly defined exceptions in the other direction (Reformed receiving at Roman Catholic Mass):

When, in the Ordinary’s judgment, a grave necessity arises, Catholic ministers may give the sacraments of Eucharist, Penance, and Anointing of the Sick to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church, who ask for them of their own will, provided they give evidence of holding the Catholic faith regarding these sacraments and possess the required dispositions” (CCC #1401).

In other words, the Church provides for limited and carefully regulated exceptions in particular circumstances, especially where individuals manifest 'Catholic faith' in the sacraments and are properly disposed. This suggests that there is wide spectrum of beliefs and practices among Reformation churches and it is possible that at least some Christians from this background share catholic understandings of the Eucharist (how many cradle and church going Roman Catholics understand and assent to the teaching of their church on the Eucharist is quite another matter).

The question of what constitutes the ‘required dispositions’ is especially important. As is well known, a growing number of people today are divorced. The Roman Catholic Church does not exclude divorced persons as such from receiving Holy Communion. However, those who have divorced and entered a new union without a declaration of nullity (annulment) and who live together as husband and wife, are ordinarily not admitted to Communion, because their situation is understood to be at variance with the Church’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage. This has been and still is the official line.

However….…

After considerable discussion and some controversy, Pope Francis issued Amoris Laetitia in 2016. This document does not change the Church’s doctrine on marriage, but it places renewed emphasis on pastoral accompaniment and discernment. In particular, paragraph 305 and its footnote 351 suggest that, in certain cases and after careful discernment with a priest, access to the sacraments may be possible, taking into account personal circumstances and degrees of responsibility. History may yet show that footnote 351 was one of the most consequential footnotes in recent ecclesial history.  Pointedly, the matter seems to have been put to rest and has not, to the best of my knowledge, surfaced as a ‘hot button’ issue at the various meetings as part of the Synodality process (2021to the present time). However, the pastoral application of this footnote seems to vary widely by country and even dioceses within some countries.

My own approach in reflecting on these questions is to keep matters simple and is best summarised in two points:

1. ‘Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof but only the say the word and my soul shall be healed’
2. Let us offer each painful occasion and joyful opportunity to hasten the day when Christians will eat and drink at the same table while respecting legitimate differences in tradition, history and theology.

And there I rest my case and say no more on these particular matters on this personal blog thread.