38

I think the title sums it up. I'm a protestant Christian, and have many Catholic friends. When I visit their churches, is it permissible for me to participate in the Eucharist/Communion ceremony by partaking of the bread and wine?

curiousdannii
  • 20,140
  • 14
  • 58
  • 126
Flimzy
  • 22,191
  • 20
  • 105
  • 212

13 Answers13

37

The answer is: "more than likely not".

Catholics do allow others to take part in the Holy Communion, but they maintain tight restrictions on this.

Guidelines for the Reception of Communion

For Other Christians

... Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Holy Communion.

...Members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of communion by Christians of these Churches.

For Non-Christians

...While we cannot admit them to Holy Communion, we ask them to offer their prayers for the peace and the unity of the human family.

Link to article

So, when they say "not fully united", Protestants generally fall into this category. (I'm not sure where those other churches fall in the "Protestant-Catholic" spectrum, so I'm leaving this a bit generic.) So, therefore, Protestants are not admitted to Holy Communion.

Richard
  • 24,368
  • 30
  • 116
  • 222
  • So, according to this, my not being a member of an Othodox Church (being Batized in a Baptist church and currently attending a Methodist church), I am considered a non-Christian to the Catholic Church? – Patrick Aug 26 '11 at 15:39
  • No, no. That was an excerpt. I'll add more to clarify. – Richard Aug 26 '11 at 17:10
  • ah, I missed that part of your link. Thanks for the clarification. – Patrick Aug 27 '11 at 04:59
  • 2
    As far as I understand it, the important issue is in the belief of transubstantiation. The Churches listed which the Roman Catholic Church does not object to receiving communion I believe hold the same faith regarding the Eucharist. That is, they also believe that the substance of the bread and wine have changed to the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ. Churches which do not share this belief are not ordinarily admitted to communion. (A Bishop can allow it for extraordinary circumstances.) – cledoux Aug 31 '11 at 15:47
  • @karategeek6 I believe you're absolutely right about that. But, I didn't want to post that on my own authority and I didn't want take the time to research it. ;) Thanks for this. – Richard Aug 31 '11 at 15:50
  • 1
    @karataegeek6 Not really. The important issue is that it's a symbol of unity. – DJClayworth Sep 07 '11 at 19:51
  • 4
    I'm an Orthodox, and even though in theory I could take communion in a Roman Catholic church, my own church would tell me not to. Receiving the Eucharist in a Roman Catholic church, as an Orthodox, would imply a unity which does not in fact exist. – Kyralessa Oct 04 '11 at 01:21
  • @Patrick No, it means that you are not in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, and you are in the same general state as any Catholic (at that same service) who is under the burden of mortal sin - a grave sin that is not yet confessed and reconciled. Those Catholics also are not allowed to receive communion. – KorvinStarmast Feb 23 '17 at 13:28
18

The only safe thing to do is to ask the priest beforehand. To willingly participate in someone else's communion when they would say "no" if they knew your story is offensive. As a result, the only option I see is to ask them.

If you explain your position, and that you are [insert denomination here], but visiting their congregation with your friends, is it OK if I participate in Communion. The biggest sticking point is likely to be transubstantiation, and it's a biggie.

If they say no, they will most likely still permit you to receive a blessing, which everyone is entitled to.

Sorry, I don't mean to say that you have offended them, but that is a risk you run when you don't ask

Mark Henderson
  • 1,231
  • 13
  • 16
16

tldr version: It is not normally permissible by canon law for you to participate in the Eucharist. However, you can still join the communion line and indicate you would like a blessing by placing your index finger over your lips (similar to shhing someone) or by crossing your arms over your chest in the shape of an 'X' when you approach the minister.

The Canon law regarding reception of Holy Communion is given below.

Can. 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

§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.

§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.

§4 If there is a danger of death or if, in the judgement 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, 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.

§1 States that only Catholics may receive communion, with a few exceptions.

§2 deals with Catholics receiving sacraments from a non-catholic minister.

§3 Allows members of certain specifically named Churches to receive.

§4 Allows any non-Catholic Christian to receive Holy Communion under extraordinary circumstances, "provided that they demonstrate the catholic faith in respect of these sacraments". In respect to Holy Communion, the Catholic faith is that of transubstantiation, that is, the substance of the bread and wine is changed into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ.

Thus, it appears that Christians who do not hold the belief of transubstantiation as the Catholic Faith teaches are not admitted to Holy Communion.

This, however, does not mean you cannot join in the worship and community of the Mass. At communion time, you can participate in the community by requesting a blessing rather than reception of the Eucharist. This is done either by placing your index finger over your lips or by crossing your arms over your chest when you approach the Eucharistic Minister.

Null
  • 1,131
  • 1
  • 8
  • 22
cledoux
  • 879
  • 6
  • 9
  • RE: Finger over lips. Where do you do that? Is that a different sign than crossing your arms across your chest? – Peter Turner Aug 31 '11 at 17:44
  • @Peter They both mean the exact same thing, I just thought finger over lips was quicker to explain. I'm from Louisiana and I thought both the crossed arms and fingers over lips were universally recognized. I've edited the answer to include both. – cledoux Aug 31 '11 at 19:06
  • 1
    The "blessing" of people not receiving communion is an innovation and generally not supported by Church Law. – eques Aug 03 '16 at 17:55
  • 1
    @eques Good point. The origins of this custom are unclear and I couldn't find an authoritative source. One source claims it started in the US in the 80s with another source more generally claiming it began in English speaking countries. No official decree has been made by Rome, but the Congregation for Divine Worship has stated that the practice should be discouraged. – cledoux Aug 04 '16 at 21:37
  • also, in proper terminology "Eucharistic Minister" can only refer to a priest or bishop (the one who consecrates). A lay minister who distributes communion is an "Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion" – eques Aug 04 '16 at 22:14
  • I don't think the term "Eucharistic Minister" is actually defined by cannon law. I believe the correct terms are ordinary minister (priest, bishop, deacon) and extraordinary minister (everyone else, as you've already stated). The section in cannon law I found on "Minister of the Eucharist", Can. 900 - 911, talks about all forms of ministers. – cledoux Aug 05 '16 at 05:05
  • 1
    Your answer begins incorrectly: It is not normally permissible by Cannon{sic} law for you to partake of the bread and wine. It is not permissible for you to receive the body and blood of Jesus Christ. By the time communion is received, in the Latin Rite, it is no longer simply bread and wine. – KorvinStarmast Feb 23 '17 at 13:32
  • @KorvinStarmast That’s true not just according to the Latin Rite, but according to any Catholic/Orthodox Rite. – Greta Hoostal May 18 '19 at 19:24
  • @cledoux According to the Byzantine Rite though you always go to communion w/ arms crossed just like that: https://youtu.be/WPj7z72VgT0?t=120 . But since ‘the one who is receiving Holy Communion is not receiving Bread & Wine, but the real Body & Blood of Lord Jesus Christ,’ the priest says, ‘If you do not believe this or you [doubt], do not dare to approach Holy Communion until you rebuilt the faith [or, get rid of unbelief].’ https://youtu.be/WPj7z72VgT0?t=25 So everyone who believes (& has been baptized, chrismated, & shriven) approaches w/ crossed arms & receives. Everyone else stays back. – Greta Hoostal May 18 '19 at 19:49
  • @cledoux P.S. Normally our hands are at our sides in church. We don’t fold them for prayer, or ever anywhere. I think the hands are kept up & against oneself where the priest can see them at Communion, so there is less likely to be any accident from moving hands bumping the Chalice. And b/c it’s cruciform. Also, anybody of any faith can ask the priest for a blessing, anytime OUTSIDE of the Liturgy: 1. Make the Sign of the Cross. 2. Bow/metania. 3. Hold out hands crossed palms up. 4. Ask, ‘Father, bless.’ (‘Master’ if a bishop.) 5. Receive blessing. 6. He puts his hand in yours & you kiss it. – Greta Hoostal May 18 '19 at 20:47
14

According to Catholic teachings on this topic? Generally no (as others have referenced).

Would a particular priest be stupid and allow it? Maybe - some didn't have the best priestly formation.

Would it be good for you spiritually? No.

The most compassionate explanation I've heard is this:

When you go up to receive communion the priest says "Body of Christ" and you reply with "Amen". This "AMEN" is an agreement that what the Catholic Church teaches about transubstantiation is TRUE and that the Church has the AUTHORITY to DO this. You are agreeing that the Catholic Church has the authority to make Christ physically present - body, soul, and divinity - in the blessed sacrament.

  • If you do believe this - why aren't you Catholic?
  • If you don't believe this then the Church is either crazy or idolatrous. Why do you want to receive something that so fundamentally conflicts with what you hold to be true?

To say "yes I believe" when you in fact don't, is a lie. To speak a lie like this, about such a crucial topic, will tear at you spiritually and can damage your relationship with the Lord. Out of concern for your spiritual well-being the Church asks non-Catholics to refrain from receiving:

For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. (1 Corr 11)

LadyCygnus
  • 240
  • 2
  • 6
  • 1
    Best answer by far, since I understand the question as it's been asked, is to be answered from the Protestant point of view, while other answers here present the Catholic perspective. Also, some specific protestant denominations (I belong to one) consider sinful to participate in nearly any Catholic ritual. – nbloqs Feb 25 '17 at 02:43
  • 3
    @nbloqs - indeed. Much like Jesus believing he is God - that is either evil, crazy, or true in a profound and life-changing way; so with the Eucharist. As Catholics we believe we are eating God - that is either evil, crazy, or true - in a profound and life-changing way. – LadyCygnus Feb 28 '17 at 21:45
  • Cross-projection is required here. If 1 Corr 11 is the passage from which "Body of Christ" originates, than a detached (non-denominational) Protestant may indeed receive it. What a particular Protestant denomination would say I know not. – Joshua Oct 23 '18 at 17:20
  • 1
    @Joshua - A detached Protestant is still not fully attached to the Catholic Church. They still do not hold that the Catholic Church has the authority to do this. The "body of Christ" in this passage could mean the church (which would be the Catholic Church with all non-Catholic Christians imperfectly joined to it), or the physical body of Christ made present in the Eucharist. Either way, anyone who is not Catholic would be running into problems according to this passage, for they would not be discerning the true meaning of the "Body of Christ". – LadyCygnus Oct 23 '18 at 18:40
  • @Joshua The Body originated in the Incarnation, & expanded w/ the institution of the Eucharist & the est. of the Church. The Bible only reflects pre-existing reality. The Bible is based on the Church, not v.v. Any Protestant who wants to partake is welcome to become a catechumen. Then after receiving the Faith & Confirmation/Chrismation, & having gone to Confession, the person is admitted to Communion! (Non-Christians & non-Trinitarians: the same + baptism. Orthodox: only Confession & a recitation of Faith.) The rules will never change. We don’t have communion w/ anyone w/ a different Faith. – Greta Hoostal May 18 '19 at 21:23
  • @GretaHoostal: Is it not the same Jesus for Catholics and Protestants? – Joshua May 19 '19 at 01:29
  • @Joshua depends on the Protestant. Each group believes different things, some are closer to the fullness of Truth than others. Either way, a Protestant can't honestly answer "Amen, I believe the Catholic Church has the authority to make Jesus present in the Eucharist." – LadyCygnus May 19 '19 at 01:36
9

The answer is basically “no,” there is no Protestant denomination whose members would be admitted to Communion.

The Church admits to Communion Catholics (evidently) and all those Christians who belong to a fully apostolic Church: that is, to a Church that has maintained apostolic succession and has the Catholic Faith regarding the Eucharist. This includes all Orthodox Churches, the Oriental Orthodox, the Armenian Orthodox, and the Assyrian Church of the East. (There may be some smaller chuches that I am omitting.)

(For the benefit of readers, the Catholic Church, and all the churches mentioned above, teach that in the celebration of the Eucharist, the bread and wine are fully converted into Jesus Christ. Once the Consecration has taken place, no bread or wine remain, but only Christ. Or else, in more technical terms, the substance of the bread and wine is changed to the substance of Jesus. The appearances, or accidents, remain those of bread of wine. This doctrine, which is based on the institution narratives in the Bible—that is, Mt. 26:26-29, Mk. 14:22-25, Lk 22:19-20, as well as John 6 and St. Paul’s instructions on the Lord’s supper in 1 Corinthians—was given the technical term transubstantiation in the late Middle Ages.)

The reason that Protestants are not admitted to Communion in the Catholic Church is that the vast majority do not accept this understanding of the Eucharist. Moreover, the ministers in Protestant churches do not have the ability to confect the Eucharist; indeed the vast majority of Protestants do not accept the concept of apostolic succession (and those denominations that have preserved some aspect of it—such as the Anglicans—in fact, lost their apostolic succession at the time of the Reformation; see Apostolicae curae by Pope Leo XIII).

The Code of Canon Law Can. 844 goes into the specifics, including certain exceptional circumstances under which Protestants might receive the Eucharist:

§1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone, without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and can. 861, §2.

Hence, in general, only Catholics should receive Communion from the Catholic Church.

Canon Law says, regarding non-Catholics receiving Communion:

§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

Members of Eastern Churches (and any church in a similar circumstance) may approach Communion in a Catholic Church; however, they are urged to follow the disciplines of their own churches. (See below.)

§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.

Hence, Protestants could receive Communion when in danger of death or in some other grave necessity, provided they professed the Catholic faith.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in 1996 issued a set of guidelines for receiving communion that summarizes the Church’s position very well. The relevant passage says,

Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Holy Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law (canon 844 §4). Members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of Communion by Christians of these Churches (canon 844 §3).

Geremia
  • 39,167
  • 4
  • 47
  • 103
AthanasiusOfAlex
  • 13,229
  • 43
  • 65
  • Gave you a ↑. Also, all the Eastern Catholic Churches have a different set of laws, CCEO. Incl. C.671,§1: Catholic ministers licitly administer the sacraments only to Catholic Christian faithful… & C.713, §2: Concerning the preparation for participation in the Divine Eucharist through fast, prayers and other works, the Christian faithful are to observe faithfully the norms of the Church sui iuris in which they are enrolled… & §4: If there is a danger of death or another matter of serious necessity in the judgment of the eparchial bishop, the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church or…
  • – Greta Hoostal May 18 '19 at 22:29
  • …the council of hierarchs, Catholic ministers licitly administer the same sacraments also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach the ministers of their own ecclesial communities and who request them on their own, provided they manifest a faith consonant with that of the Catholic Church concerning these sacraments and are rightly disposed. (All the qualifications would make that super-rare, e.g. a Protestant imprisoned in the gulag or about to march into battle, but suddenly has a revelation about the Real Presence. And Protestants are…
  • – Greta Hoostal May 18 '19 at 22:29
  • 3. …not members of any Church sui iuris, so if they do this is, they tempt the priest to, & possibly lead him into, sin! He might make a mistake in remembering all who are communicants, & thus not recognize that someone is not, or in a moment of weakness, commune someone whom he knows should not be. The solution for these Protestants: become Catholic. – Greta Hoostal May 18 '19 at 22:32
  • "The Church admits to Communion Catholics (evidently) and all those Christians who belong to a fully apostolic Church: that is, to a Church that has maintained apostolic succession and has the Catholic Faith regarding the Eucharist."

    The Lutheran Church, especially through its Scandinavian branch can easily trace apostolic succession through its clergy. Technically speaking, the theology of "transubstantiation" is not held by the Orthodox Churches. However, along with the Lutherans, they do affirm the real presence of Christ's body & blood in the sacrament.

    – Jess Oct 21 '21 at 18:16
  • As I understand it, the current view of the Roman Church is that the apostolic succession in the Lutheran & Anglican communities is valid, but illegitimate.

    At any rate, my critique of "closed" communion is that in most forms it is based upon institutional loyalty. As a result, it appears to be a works righteous approach that makes receiving the benefits of the sacrament a reward for correct doctrine and good works.

    – Jess Oct 21 '21 at 18:25
  • @Jess , “apostolic succession in the Lutheran & Anglican communities is valid, but illegitimate” that is not quite accurate. From the point of view of Catholics (and Orthodox), only bishops can confer Holy Orders. Thus, Catholics fully recognize the Holy Orders of the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox. Due to various interruptions in the succession, however, it is not possible, as a rule, to recognize the validity of Anglican or Lutheran orders. – AthanasiusOfAlex Oct 21 '21 at 19:17
  • It's a debatable subject, for sure. However, from the reflections of the Roman Catholic participants in the national Lutheran-Catholic dialogue, one can read: "We see no persuasive reason to deny the possibility of the Roman Catholic Church recognizing the validity of this Ministry...and, correspondingly the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharistic celebrations of the Lutheran Churches." (Lutherans & Catholics in Dialogue IV (1970), 32. – Jess Oct 21 '21 at 21:18
  • @Jess, it’s possible that a group of Catholics might have said something like that, but I don’t think you will find anything like it in authoritative sources (the Catechism, documents of Vatican II, etc.). Church teaching is quite clear: only a bishop can ordain other bishops, presbyters, or deacons (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church 1576). If the ecclesial community in question has no bishops, it cannot confer Holy Orders on anyone. There is no wish, here, to denigrate the good work that Protestant clergy do; this is simply how Holy Orders “works.” – AthanasiusOfAlex Oct 22 '21 at 15:40
  • That quote was in the report by the official delegation from the Roman Catholic participants and not the Lutheran participants. As such, that judgment would have represented an aspect of the highest level of the teaching magisterium. As far as I can tell, their interpretation of the "authoritative sources" you mention has never been condemned by any of the Popes or Cardinals during the last 50 years since the Dialogue publication took place. – Jess Oct 22 '21 at 19:27
  • Since you are a priest in Rome, why don't you ask somebody higher up what is the current status of the various conclusions of the Lutheran & Catholics in Dialogue? Have times changed? I'd be interested to know. – Jess Oct 22 '21 at 19:31
  • @Jess, that is not how the Catholic Church understands authoritative teaching. By that I mean: dogmatic definitions in ecumenical councils, dogmatic definitions by a Pope, and what has been taught unanimously by the bishops in communion with the Pope. If the Catholic delegation affirmed what you said, they were mistaken, and I can point to the decrees in the Council of Trent and the Catechism that show that they were mistaken. (Look at the number I mentioned in the Catechism and the Decree on Holy Orders from the Council of Trent.) – AthanasiusOfAlex Oct 22 '21 at 19:33
  • That's an interesting perspective. In the Lutheran church, the Confessions of the 16th century are interpreted by theologians who are recognized as ecclesiastical leaders in a type of teaching magisterium. When the Dialogue on Justification took place, some Lutherans made a big deal about publicly rejecting the outcome. Did a similar rejection take place in some Roman Catholic circles after the "Eucharist & Ministry" publication back in 1970? – Jess Oct 22 '21 at 19:41