Can Non-Catholics Receive Catholic Sacraments?

A reflection on canon 844 §§3–4

Debate between Catholics and Eastern Christians in the 13th century, Acre 1290.

Among certain Catholic inquirers, canon 844, §§3–4 of the Latin Code of Canon Law presents a serious obstacle to their embrace of the faith:

Can. 844 §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.

§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.

Code of Canon Law.

To anyone who’s well read in church history, and looks to the patristic age as a source of Christian truth and wisdom, this canon is quite scandalous. How can “members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church,” i.e. non-Catholics, “licitly” receive “the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick” in the Catholic Church? Aren’t the sacraments of the Church only supposed to be for the members of the Church? If we were to transport this canon back to the first millennium, would this not entail permitting the followers of condemned sects like the Novationists, Arians, and Donatists to receive Holy Communion—something that, as a matter of historical fact, was unthinkable to the Seven Ecumenical Councils as well as the Roman pontiffs who confirmed them?¹

Although this may not be a “dogmatic contradiction” per se, the modern canonical legislation of the Latin Catholic Church certainly appears to present a sharp departure from much of the disciplinary history of the Church that preceded it. Unfortunately, this is a fact that Catholic officials often pass over in silence. For example, the decree from the Second Vatican Council that first set forth the logic of canon 844 §§3–4, Orientalium Ecclesiarum, doesn’t even acknowledge, much less explain, the prior disciplinary history of the Church on this point.

However, with that said, I don’t believe that canon 844 §§3–4 is an illegitimate or sacrilegious law of the Church (God forbid). To understand why, it must first be recognized that although the canonical legislation of the Church has always implied that non-Catholics are forbidden from receiving Catholic sacraments, as far as I can tell, it never explicitly stated this in an unqualified way. Indeed, while the ordinary discipline of the Church has been to forbid Christians not visibly united to her from the sacraments, in actual practice this has almost always been nuanced.

Historical Reflection

Since the modern Code’s position on communicatio in sacris highlights “members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church,” it’s important that we look at how the Church has historically related to these Christians when considering the matter at hand. Wilhelm De Vries, S.J., explains that the question of communicatio in sacris with separated Eastern Christians first became prominent during the Middle Ages, “primarily in those regions that were under Latin rule: the crusade cities, the Latin Empire of Constantinople, the Venetian possessions, the Island of Cyprus,”² and so on. Somewhat surprisingly, De Vries describes the disposition of the Church at this time as “flexible.” While pontiffs such as Innocent IV (1243-1254), John XXII (1316-1334), and Urban V (1362-1370) condemned full on intercommunion with the Greek Orthodox, these same popes also allowed for Catholics and non-Catholics to engage in liturgical worship together whenever this served missionary purposes.³

Perhaps the most striking example of “medieval flexibility” on communicatio in sacris is the case of Pope Clement VI (1342-1352). De Vires states that this pontiff “gave a very general permission to Armenian priests who had returned to the Catholic Church: these he permitted to administer the sacraments among the schismatics, not in approval of their schism, - this is stated - but to lead them back to obedience to the true Church.”⁴ Although it’s hard for me to verify this claim (I don’t have access to the Codificazione Canonica Orientale), I haven’t found any reputable sources that contradict it. As such, this appears to be the first “canonical precedent” for allowing non-Catholics to receive sacraments in the Catholic Church.

Pope Clement VI.

However, it’s in the era of the Counter-Reformation that De Vires believes the Church began to adopt a more “rigorous” attitude towards communicatio in sacris. After the establishment of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith in 1622, there was an increasing number of separated Eastern Christians who returned to full communion with the Church. The question naturally arose of whether or not these Catholics were permitted to continue receiving the sacraments from their (former) non-Catholic ministers. This was especially pertinent in nations such as the Ottoman Empire where non-Catholic churches were the only ones legally allowed to operate.

Much to the dismay of certain missionaries, Rome’s judgment was decidedly negative. Even when it was morally impossible to regularly receive the sacraments from a Catholic minister, the Congregation of Propaganda, with the authority of Pope Urban VIII, forbade Catholics from receiving the sacraments from non-Catholic ministers. Missionaries such as the martyr Bl. Agathangelus of Vendome believed this policy was pastorally irresponsible.⁵ Nonetheless, this “rigorous” policy would culminate in a decree from Propaganda in 1729 that forbade “even merely passive participation” in non-Catholic liturgical services. However, later pontiffs such as Benedict XIV (1740-1758) did clarify that this ban on communicatio in sacris wasn’t absolute.⁶

What’s important to note about Rome’s “rigorous” judgments against communicatio in sacris during this time is that they all appear to be with respect to Catholics participating in non-Catholic worship. This is largely because there was suspicion about the particular rites that non-Catholics used and whether or not Catholics could participate in such rites without causing scandal or confirming schismatics in their schism (consider the Armenians who were known for liturgically denouncing the Council of Chalcedon and St. Leo the Great on certain feast days). However, the inverse, i.e. non-Catholics participating in Catholic worship, which is the primary subject of this article, was more nuanced even during this era of increased “rigorism.”

Less than a decade ago, the late Metropolitan Kallistos Ware wrote a fascinating article entitled, “Orthodox and Catholics in the Seventeenth Century: Schism or Intercommunion?.” Ware notes that, even though the Catholic Church considered the 17th century Greek Church to be schismatic, relations between actual Latins and actual Greeks on the ground were much less black and white:

There were not only mixed marriages between Greeks and Latins: in many Greek islands there were also mixed churches, with parallel naves and two adjacent sanctuaries, one for the Greek and the other for the Latin rite. Roman Catholics were accepted as godparents at orthodox baptisms, and vice-versa.

Latin missionaries from the west, in the absence of a bishop of their own Church, behaved towards the local orthodox hierarch as if they recognised him for their ordinary, seeking faculties from him, asking formally for permission to work in his diocese. The orthodox authorities on their side welcomed the Jesuits and other religious orders as friends and allies, and even took the initiative in summoning them to undertake pastoral duties among their flocks.

With the blessing of the Greek bishops, catholic priests preached in orthodox churches, heard the confessions of orthodox faithful, and gave them holy communion.

When Greeks wished to embrace Roman Catholicism, the Latin missionaries usually rested content with a secret act of submission, and instructed their converts to receive the sacraments as before at orthodox altars. In the light of all this, the question can scarcely be avoided: How far is it legitimate to speak of a definitive schism or irrevocable breach between Orthodoxy and Rome in the seventeenth century?

Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, “Orthodox and Catholics in the Seventeenth Century: Schism or Intercommunion?.”

Commenting further on the reception of the Jesuits by Greek Orthodox authorities in the 17th century, Ware documents a somewhat surprising historical reality:

The western missionaries were in demand not only as preachers but as confessors. A Jesuit priest on Santorini claimed to have heard the confessions of some 400 Greeks in the space of four years;18 another in Naxos spoke of confessing 600 Greeks in a much shorter period.19 One reason for their popularity – or so the Jesuits themselves claimed – was that, unlike the Greek clergy, they did not demand money from their penitents!20

Now the hearing of confessions is manifestly a more delicate matter than the preaching of sermons: it is one thing to deliver a sermon to schismatics, but quite another to pronounce absolution on someone who chooses to remain formally in schism. Yet the Jesuits adopted an exceedingly lenient view.

As a general rule they put no questions to their Greek penitents concerning the Church of Rome; still less did they demand of them any explicit abjuration of schism or act of submission to the Holy See. So long as they detected no evidence of active personal hostility against the papacy, they prudently refrained from inquiring into the dogmatic convictions of the Greeks who came to them for absolution.

Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, “Orthodox and Catholics in the Seventeenth Century: Schism or Intercommunion?.”

This might be quite shocking to those who aren’t familiar with the history. Although the 17th century Greeks and Latins technically were “in schism” as a result of the former rejecting the councils of Lyons II and Florence, the clergy and the faithful of both churches didn’t always treat each other as schismatics.

Two 17th century Catholic missionaries, Angelo Maria Verricelli and Leo Allatius, even wrote treatises in defense of the communicatio in sacris that was going on with the Greek Orthodox during this time. They justified it in much the same way that theologians of the 20th century would go on to:

Because certain individual Greeks have endeavoured to spread some ancient or freshly invented heresy, and have inveighed against the papacy in their published writings, it does not therefore follow that the Greek Church is separated from the Church of Rome.

Leo Allatius, loannes Henricus Hottingerus Fraudis, & Imposturae Manifestae Convictus (Rome 1661) pp 6-7, qtd. in Ware, “Orthodox and Catholics in the Seventeenth Century: Schism or Intercommunion?.”

Just because there were many schismatics and heretics in the 17th century Greek Church, it didn’t follow that every single Greek Orthodox Christian was a schismatic or a heretic. It thus seemed natural to conclude that, among those Greeks who weren’t formally schismatics or heretics, they could receive sacraments in the Catholic Church. Not only were neither of these men condemned by Rome for their positions, but Leo Allatius was financially supported by Pope Gregory XV and was even appointed as the custodian of the Vatican library by Pope Alexander VII in 1661.

Leo Allatius, portrait in the Collegio Greco of Rome, Italy.

In his 1948 work, The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Fr. Ignatius Szal affirms that even St. Robert Bellarmine (d. 1621) reluctantly supported the practice of admitting schismatics to confession. The saintly cardinal wrote, “If the penitents say that they know nothing (about the controversies between the Greeks and Latins), and if they really appear to be totally uneducated, then perhaps one can hear their confession and leave them in their ignorance.”⁷ This practice of granting absolution to Orthodox Christians who were separated from the Church “in good faith” was further supported by the judgments of Pope Pius IV in 1561 and Propaganda in 1643. Both of these required only some general profession of faith from schismatics in order for them to be absolved. De Vires outlines what this looked like in practice:

If the penitents were simple people, many Jesuits would ask in confession only if they believed all that the holy Fathers had taught. Naturally the people would say that they did without difficulty, and thereupon the fathers gave them absolution.

Wilhelm De Vries, S.J., Communicatio in Sacris: An Historical Study of the Problem of Liturgical Services in Common with Eastern Christians Separated from Rome.

However, this did eventually cease. Already by 1665, the Holy Office began to require schismatic penitents to recite the profession of faith of Urban VIII publicly, outside of confession, before absolution. Coupled with the strong stance against communicatio in sacris taken by Propaganda in 1729 (and again in 1753), the Jesuits’ lenience towards non-Catholics partaking in Catholic sacraments greatly eroded.

But not completely. It is true that, according to the 1917 Code of Canon Law issued by Pope St. Pius X, “It is forbidden that the Sacraments of the Church be ministered to heretics and schismatics, even if they ask for them and are in good faith, unless beforehand, rejecting their errors, they are reconciled with the Church.”⁸ However, Fr. Szal clarifies that while the “prohibition of canon 731, §2, is general,” it only admits of no exceptions “when a schismatic is not in danger of death.” The pre-conciliar canonist continues, “When a schismatic is in danger of death, the situation is somewhat altered. In these circumstances the Church, in its efforts to save all men, allows some exceptions to its general prohibition.”⁹ Citing judgments from the Holy Office in 1898, 1916, and 1941, Fr. Szal concludes:

[I]t is evident that the Holy See requires an abjuration of error and a profession of faith from a schismatic even in danger of death when he is in the possession of his senses. These acts must be express, but they need not be explicit. The abjuration of error and the profession of faith are contained implicitly in acts of the penitent by which he manifests at least attrition for sin and shows himself prepared to do all things necessary for salvation. This opinion is sustained by weighty authors.

Fr. Ignatius Szal, The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 158.

In other words, all that was needed to administer the sacrament of reconciliation to a physically endangered schismatic was that he showed himself to be properly disposed in some way. It didn’t require an “explicit” renunciation of the schismatic’s errors, nor did it require his formal reception into the Catholic Church. According to Fr. Szal’s interpretation of the Holy Office’s rulings, a non-Catholic who was separated from the Church in good faith could partake of Catholic sacraments if he was in danger of death, sought them of his own accord, and was properly disposed.

Nor was Fr. Szal alone in his understanding of canon 731 of the 1917 Code. He further cites the instructions that Bp. Neveu, Administrator Apostolic of Moscow, gave in 1939 to Catholic army chaplains who were ministering to Russian Orthodox Christians on the front lines of World War II:

Dear soldier priests, you have only to deal with a man who has recourse to your ministry as you would deal with a Catholic and brother in the faith. If he is wounded or gravely ill, make sure of his good faith, which you may anyhow presume. Make him make an act of faith as explicitly as possible in the authority of the visible head of the Church, and hear his confession as well as you can. A decree of the Holy Office of July 20, 1898, allows the absolution of material schismatics in good faith, provided there be no scandal. All the more may we absolve a Christian who declares that he wants to live and die in communion with the Universal Church and the Vicar of Christ. You may then content yourselves with the general and ordinary formula of absolution... Then give him extreme unction and the Viaticum, if there is time, and have no hesitation in giving him the honor of a Catholic funeral.

The Tablet, November 11, 1939, pp. 548-549, qtd. in Fr. Szal, 159.

As Fr. Szal explains, “This instruction is of interest both because of the official source from which it comes and inasmuch as it seems to encourage the priest to take a broad view of the phrase ‘as explicitly as possible.’”¹⁰ That is to say, like Fr. Szal, Bp. Neveu interpreted the Holy Office as allowing for schismatics in danger of death to partake of the sacraments even if they didn’t “explicitly” renounce their errors. Of course, the more explicit the schismatic’s profession of faith, the better. However, similar to the 17th century Jesuits, Bp. Neveu took a rather “broad view” of what counted as a profession of faith from a physically endangered “material schismatic.”

The Most Reverend Pie Eugène Neveu.

With this historical context in mind, one can see that the modern Code’s canon 844 §§3–4 is not actually as out of step with the historic practice of the Church as it first appears. In fact, the only practical difference between canon 844 of the 1983 Code and canon 731 of the 1917 Code (in light of the Holy Office’s judgments) seems to be that the former allows more circumstances under which non-Catholics may partake of Catholic sacraments than just “the danger of death.” This modern discipline itself can be seen as continuous with the practice of the 17th century Church, and the thought of men such as Verricelli, Allatius, and even Bellarmine.

Canonical Reflection

According to Canon 844, §§3–4 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, there are (generally) four conditions that must be met in order for a non-Catholic to “licitly” receive sacraments in the Catholic Church:

1. He must be a baptized Christian who belongs to a church or an ecclesial community that’s in some way recognized by the proper Catholic authorities.¹¹

2. He must seek these sacraments of his own accord.

3. He must manifest Catholic faith with respect to the sacraments he’s receiving (e.g. believe in transubstantiation if he’s receiving the Eucharist).¹²

4. He must be “properly disposed,” i.e. in the state of grace.

The most notable of these requirements is the last one. In order for a non-Catholic to licitly receive sacraments in the Catholic Church, he must be just as “properly disposed” as a Catholic who partakes of the sacraments. This makes good sense. It would be an act of sacrilege for a Catholic minister to knowingly administer the sacraments to someone who’s in a state of manifest grave sin, regardless of their personal ecclesial standing. Indeed, because the non-Catholic is partaking of sacraments within the jurisdiction of the Church, they appear to be subject to the laws that this same Church has established surrounding those sacraments.

With respect to the Holy Eucharist, what it means to be “properly disposed” for partaking of this glorious sacrament is laid out in canons 915 and 916:

Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.

Code of Canon Law.

If someone obstinately persists in manifest grave sin without receiving absolution from a priest in confession (when morally possible), he cannot partake of the Holy Eucharist, or any of the sacraments for that matter. Since these canons help define what it means to be “properly disposed” for the Eucharist, one cannot escape the conclusion that even those non-Catholics who are permitted access to Catholic sacraments in canon 844 §§3–4 are bound by these requirements.

At this point, we must highlight two “manifest grave sins” in which non-Catholics are, unfortunately, very likely to persist. The Code of Canon Law defines heresy and schism in the following manner:

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Code of Canon Law.

Imagine someone who knows that the Catholic Church dogmatically teaches that the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived without original sin, but decides that he disagrees with this teaching. Should such a person be permitted to Holy Communion? According to canon law, and just common sense, the answer is obviously no. Someone who obstinately denies a divinely revealed truth, like the Immaculate Conception of Mary, is considered a heretic by the Church, that is, someone who is in “manifest grave sin.”¹³ Such a person cannot be permitted to the Eucharist.

Of course, it’s possible that someone might just not know that the Catholic Church dogmatically teaches the Immaculate Conception. However, the moment a pastor finds out that someone seeking the sacraments from him does not “profess the true faith,” he is bound to see to it that they are “instructed in the truths of the faith.”¹⁴ After this happens, ignorance is no longer an excuse for denying the truths of the faith, and so if this hypothetical man seeking the sacraments persists in his denial of divinely revealed truths, he is to be considered “obstinate.” That is, he would be canonically considered as a heretic, and therefore not “properly disposed” for the sacraments on account of his “manifest grave sin.” This would be true for a non-Catholic as much as it would be true for a fully initiated Catholic.

Juan Martín Cabezalero, The Communion of Saint Teresa of Avila.

To be sure, in making these canonical determinations, pastors would not be judging people’s souls. The Council of Trent teaches that, apart from special revelation, one cannot even be infallibly certain of the state of his own soul,¹⁵ much less the states of others’ souls. However, pastors need not peer into the hearts of men in order to make judgments about who is and who is not permitted to the Eucharist. Since the sacraments are visible signs of an invisible reality, a pastor must only judge the visible, external signs that flow from an individual’s heart. The obstinate denial of divinely revealed truths like the Trinity, the Immaculate Conception, papal infallibility, the Filioque, etc., would indeed be a visible sign that a pastor could judge as rendering someone not “properly disposed” for the sacraments.

This same line of reasoning would apply equally to those who are, canonically, schismatics. Quite simply, “schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” As such, if a pastor discovers that someone seeking the sacraments from him does not profess obedience to the Roman pontiff, or that he rejects communion with other Catholics and or their hierarchs, that pastor cannot permit such a person to receive the sacraments. Once again, this is because persistence in schism is a “manifest grave sin” that renders one not “properly disposed,” which is a visible state that disqualifies both Catholics and non-Catholics alike from the sacraments.

On top of this, we also have to come to terms with the harsh reality that there are many other grave sins that non-Catholics are not only likely to fall into, but also not confess to a priest because they dissent from Catholic moral teaching. Whether it be an Eastern Orthodox man who contracepts with his wife, or an “Old Catholic” who’s on his second or third “marriage,” these are among the reasons that pastors might judge non-Catholics seeking the sacraments to be not in accord with the conditions laid out by canon 844 §§3–4. This isn’t even to mention non-Catholics from among the Protestant sects that don’t believe in sacramental confession. Unless a pastor has reason to believe that a person who belongs to such a sect has never committed a grave sin since they were baptized, he should under no circumstances permit someone to receive the other sacraments who refuses the sacrament of penance.

Personal Reflection

To whom, then, would canon 844 §§3–4 actually apply? I must admit that I’m not entirely certain. As shown above, there were Catholic pastors in the 17th century who believed that they had found Greek Orthodox Christians who would likely fulfill the criteria laid out by modern canon law. Those who, despite belonging to a canonically questionable sect, nonetheless did not obstinately deny any articles of the Catholic faith, did not refuse submission to Catholic authorities, and did not persevere in any other manifest grave sins. Even into the 19th and 20th centuries there were Catholic pastors who likewise administered the sacraments to such people when they were mortally endangered. Did such people actually exist? Do any such people actually exist today? That’s a question that I’ll leave up to the pastors of the Church. However, it does seem possible in theory, if incredibly rare.

Anecdotally, I can speak for myself as perhaps having met the criteria of canon 844 §3 at one point. Prior to my conversion to Catholicism, I was Eastern Orthodox. And so there was indeed a brief period of time during which (1) I had not yet formally entered the Catholic Church, (2) I was still attending my Orthodox parish (to ensure that everything was in order logistically before my departure), and yet (3) I fully accepted the Catholic faith and had no interior lack of submission to Rome. Could I have lawfully received “the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick” from a Catholic priest during this time? I would think so. I personally know of others who were in similar situations at one time or another. Thus, I don’t think that canon 844 §§3–4 is completely inapplicable. That said, I still do question the prudence of such a canon in the modern day.

Personally, I know of cases where this canon has been abused. It’s often in the context of a wedding between a Catholic and a non-Catholic where relatives from both sides take advantage of canon 844 §3 so they can all receive the Eucharist together. This is done without any regard for whether or not those receiving the Holy Eucharist are properly disposed or even manifest Catholic faith in the sacrament itself. I also know of cases where a Catholic convert to Lutheranism has decided to receive the Eucharist at a Catholic Mass despite not having been to confession in decades, making it almost morally certain that the Body of Christ was received unworthily. Is any of this actually good for the spiritual wellbeing of these people?

Prior to the 20th century, non-Catholics who approached a Catholic minister for the sacraments were always required to make some profession of faith. In our modern era, when schism and heresy are perhaps more rampant than they ever have been, is it truly pastoral to remove this as a prerequisite? I understand that there can be cases where it’s better to “leave them in their ignorance” as Bellarmine would have it, but how frequent are those cases? I’m not a pastor so I can’t say for sure. What I can say for sure is that, when canon 844 §3 probably did apply to me personally, I did not feel spiritually comfortable taking advantage of it.

The Virgin Mary receives Communion from St. John.

When considering matters of canon law, we always have to keep in mind that the law doesn’t exist for its own sake, nor does it exist for us to find loopholes in it that enable us to satisfy our modern idols of “tolerance” and “inclusivity.” Rather, it’s “the salvation of souls” that “must always be the supreme law in the Church.”¹⁶ We are not to be “legalists,” clinging to the letter of the law so we can appease the sensibilities of modern man, rather we are to apply the spirit of the law for the spiritual good of the people who are subject to it. It’s simply not conducive to the spiritual good of non-Catholics if they are given the impression that they can approach a Catholic minister for the sacraments while simultaneously persevering in grave sin, whether that sin be obstinate heresy, schism, or some species of unchastity. I fear that canon 844 §§3–4, while not inherently sacrilegious, nonetheless has the potential to obscure our Lord’s call to repentance and conversion.

At the end of the day, since the Second Vatican Council made it clear that there can be baptized individuals who aren’t visible members of the Catholic Church, who nonetheless might be in the state of grace, we do have to be open to the possibility that such individuals (if they exist) could be welcomed to the Church’s sacraments. After all, if a man is baptized, in the state of grace, and not under any canonical penalties, then he cannot be denied the sacraments. Yet at the same time, we have to be honest with ourselves about the motivations behind certain applications of canon law. The pastor of souls must always ask himself if he truly believes that he’s applying the law to foster the repentance, conversion, and salvation of others, or if he’s just legalistically serving some ulterior motive, however noble it might be.

1. This is implied by virtually all ecumenical anathemas of the first millennium. For example, canon 5 of the First Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381) clearly presupposes that all members of condemned heretical sects, e.g. “Arians, and Macedonians, and Sabbatians, and Novatians, who call themselves Cathari or Aristori, and Quarto-decimans or Tetradites, and Apollinarians,” must be received back into the Church before they can present themselves for the Holy Eucharist. This attitude was not dropped later in the first millennium. Famously, St. Maximus the Confessor (A.D. 579-662) stated that he would refuse to commune even with the pope himself if he dared to commune with the Monothelites, see Maxim Grigorieff, “When the Pope Communes and Colludes with Heretics.”

2. Wilhelm De Vries, S.J., Communicatio in Sacris: An Historical Study of the Problem of Liturgical Services in Common with Eastern Christians Separated from Rome.

3. De Vries writes, “In 1244, for example, Innocent IV allowed the Dominicans whom he was sending to separated Eastern Christians such as the Jacobites and Nestorians to share with them “in verbis, officio et cibo”.10 The next year he gave the same permission to Franciscans.11 It is altogether clear from the context that “in officio” is equivalent to “in sacris”. The passage deals with excommunicated priests who “divina celebrarunt officia”, and who must, because of this, be freed from irregularity. Nicholas IV (1288 ), John XXII (1316-34), and Benedict XII (1334-42) gave the missionaries the same permission.12

However, it was often emphasized that this required special permission, and that the missionaries must not go beyond the limits set by this permission. Urban V (1362-70) permitted the Dominican superiors working in the East to free their subordinates from the excommunications they had unwittingly incurred because they had too freely interpreted the permission granted them earlier by John XXII to share “in officio” with the excommunicated.13 The same pope gave his legate in the East, Peter, Latin Patriarch of Constantinople, permission to share with non-Catholics “in divinis”, with this limitation, that the permission did not extend to those excommunicated by name.14” (Ibid.)

4. Ibid., emphasis mine.

5. De Vires quotes him as saying, “It seems to me that one must leave the decision in this matter to the missionaries, who have long been of the opinion that one ought not to forbid such common services. The opposite view destroys every possibility and all hope of doing any good in this mission, and has many intolerable consequences.” (Ibid.)

6. De Vires writes, “In the February 24, 1752, session of the Holy Office, [Benedict XIV] declared: “Communicationem in divinis cum haereticis non posse nec debere tam facile ac tam generaliter pronuntiari in omni penitus circumstantia de iure vetitam.” As part of the evidence for this, the pope referred to the fact that the Church permitted mixed marriages. In these, one partner administers the sacrament to the other and receives it from him.53” (Ibid.)

7. The original Latin can be found in Fr. Ignatius Szal, The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 159: “Si dicant se nihil scirei (de controversiis graecorum cum latinis) et vere appareant rudes et incapaces, fortasse poterunt audiri et relinqui in ignorantia.”

8. The 1917 Code of Canon Law, canon 731 §2.

9. Fr. Ignatius Szal, The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 152-3.

10. Ibid., 159.

11. Can. 844 §4 also lists “the danger of death” or “some other grave necessity” as providing for members of even more non-Catholic communities to seek Catholic sacraments.

12. This condition is laid out in Can. 844 §4.

13. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that grave sins are “specified by the Ten Commandments” (CCC 1858). It then goes on to list heresy and schism as sins against the First Commandment (see CCC 2087-2089), meaning that these are grave sins. The Catechism even cites Can. 751’s definition of schism and heresy when listing these as grave sins against the First Commandment.

14. Can. 528 §1. This canon states that a pastor “is to make every effort, even with the collaboration of the Christian faithful, so that the message of the gospel comes also to those who have ceased the practice of their religion or do not profess the true faith.” Emphasis mine.

15. See the Council of Trent, Decree on Justification, Chapter IX.

16. Can. 1752.