In theCatholic Church,communicatio in sacris ("communion in sacred [things]"; also translated as "worship in common"[1]: n.8 ), also calledcommunicatio in divinis ("communion in divine [things]") orcommunicatio in ritibus ("communion in rites"), designates the regulations for the partaking of a Catholic person to a non-Catholicsacrament orliturgical celebration, or for the partaking of a non-Catholic person to a Catholicsacrament orliturgical celebration.[2] The expression is also used to refer to said acts of partaking themselves.[3]
Thomas Condon wrote that this canon "empowers thebishop to regulate sacramental sharing for Catholics who might need to approach a non-Catholic minister; [...] the canon enjoins the bishop to prevent a spirit ofindifferentism from emerging because of sacramental sharing".[6]: 248 Condon wrote thatFrederick R. McManus "noted that 'the intent of the canon is clear, namely to define the outer limits of permissible sharing of sacraments, aside from any question ofvalidity or invalidity'".[6]: 251 TheSecond Vatican Council's decree onecumenism,Unitatis Redintegratio (UR), states that "worship in common (communicatio in sacris) is not to be considered as a means to be used indiscriminately for the restoration of Christian unity".[1]: n.8 In that context, John Beal et al.'sNew commentary on the Code of Canon Law notes that this canon does not address the specific question of "the seriousness of the need" on occasions of worship in common such as a marriage or funeral or similar ecumenical activities,[7] though individual Catholic theologians, such as Kevin Considine, have interpreted canon 844 as allowing for intercommunion in these cases.[8]
The structure of canon 844 is that the "general principle is established" first, then this canon "considers three situations of facts" which are exceptions, and finally this canon "regulates the lawful exercise of the normative activity in a particular area".[9]
The principle found in section one of canon 844 is that "Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone".[4]: can.844§1 "Paragraph one governs the licit, rather than the valid administration of sacraments to Catholics", according to Condon.[6]: 251 This principle covers all sacraments of the Catholic Church. "The general principle is clear" as Caparros et al. describes that "Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments to Catholic faithful, who in their turn may only receive them lawfully from Catholic ministers".[9]
The first exception is cited in section one.Baptism, according to the1983CIC, "is necessary forsalvation" and is "the gateway to the sacraments"; through it, the recipient is "configured to Christ" by asacramental character and "incorporated into the Church".[4]: can.849 [13]: n123 The first exception to canon 844 is that if "an ordinary minister is absent or impeded, acatechist or another person designated for this function by the local ordinary, or in a case of necessity any person with the right intention, confers baptism licitly".[4]: can.844§1, can.861§2 [d] So, for the §1 exception all of these conditions must be present together for licitness:
The second exception is found in section two. "Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments arevalid".[4]: can.844§2 [f]
"The most important document that clarifies the mind and intention of the legislator", wrote Vere, is thePontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity's (PCPCU)Directory for the application of principles and norms on ecumenism (1993ED) which contains "parallel laws" that "clarify the intention of the legislator with regards to" this canon.[13] So, for the §2 exception all of these conditions must be present together for licitness:
A case of necessity,[g] or a case of true spiritual advantage. Caparros et al. quoting fromIn quibus rerum circumstantiis remarked that, "It must be remembered that the sacraments 'are not mere instruments for satisfying individual desires only'".[9][h]
The recipient is Catholic for whom access to a Catholic minister is physically or morally impossible.[13]: n131 Beal et al. recognized this to include a limitation "such as serious inconvenience".[7]
Within the prescribed limits regulated by the diocesan bishop andconference of bishops.[4]: can.844§5 [13]: n.130 So to licitly apply the provisions of canon 844 § 2, a Catholic recipient must, if possible, contact the Catholic diocese in which the sacrament might potentially be received, to understand the established norms and prohibitions of the diocesan bishop as well as about specific heretical or schismatic groups and ministers that may be operating in the area. If there is a prohibition, a Catholic recipient engaged in it could be "guilty of prohibited participation in sacred rites (communicatio in sacris)".[4]: can.1365
Practiced according to the norm that a recipient "who legitimately wishes to communicate with Eastern Christians must respect the Eastern discipline as much as possible and refrain from communicating if that Church restricts sacramental communion to its own members to the exclusion of others".[13]: n.124
The third exception is found in section three. "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]: can.844§3 [i] So, for the §3 exception all of these conditions must be present together for licitness:
A case when the sacrament is requested. Caparros et al. comments that, "any prior pressure by the Catholic minister is clearly forbidden".[9]
The recipient is a baptized properly disposed Eastern non-Catholic. Caparros et al. elucidates that, because "the wordOriental is very general, it is advisable to verify in each case that the subject fulfills the faith requirements laid down by ecclesiastical authority. This applies with equal strictness to members of other Churches that, in the opinion of the" Apostolic See, "are in a similar situation to the Oriental ones".[9] In the United States, this includes Christians of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, theAssyrian Church of the East, and thePolish National Catholic Church.[16]
Only for reception of three sacraments: penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick.[4]: can.844§3
Within the prescribed limits regulated by the diocesan bishop and conference of bishops.[4]: can.844§5
Practiced according to the norm that "due consideration should be given to the discipline of the Eastern Churches for their own faithful".[13]: n.125
Practiced according to the norm that "any suggestion of proselytism should be avoided".[13]: n.125
The fourth exception is found in section four. "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".[4]: can.844§4 [j] So, for the §4 exception all of these conditions must be present together for licitness:
A case of a danger of death, or
a case of a grave necessity, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops.
The minister is Catholic who "will judge individual cases and administer these sacraments only in accord with [...] established norms, where they exist" or "the norms of"1993ED.[13]: n.130
The recipient is a baptized properly disposed Western non-Catholic with "manifest Catholic faith in this sacrament".[13]: n.131
Only for reception of three sacraments: penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick.[4]: can.844§4
Within the prescribed limits regulated by the diocesan bishop and conference of bishops.[4]: can.844§5
Practiced according to the norm that the recipient is "unable to have recourse for the sacrament desired to a minister of his or her own Church or ecclesial Community".[13]: n.131
Practiced according to the norm that the recipient "ask for the sacrament of his or her own initiative".[13]: n.131
^In case of "danger of death" specifically, other canons state that, an infant recipient "of Catholic parents or even of non-Catholic parents is baptized licitly [...] even against the will of the parents" and "without delay;"[4]: can.868§2, 867§2 while an adult recipient in such a case "can be baptized if, having some knowledge of the principal truths of the faith, the person has manifested in any way at all the intention to receive baptism and promises to observe the commandments of the Christian religion."[4]: can.865§2
^The Caparros et al. commentary is an English language translation of a Spanish language edition. The published English language translation of the quoted excerpt is "far from being simply a means of satisfying exclusively personal aspirations"[14]
^abcCatholic Church. Second Vatican Council; Pope Paul VI (1964-11-21).Unitatis Redintegratio (Conciliar decree) – via Vatican.va.
^Santus, Cesare (2019)."Introduzione generale".Trasgressioni necessarie : Communicatio in sacris, coesistenza e conflitti tra le comunità cristiane orientali. Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome (in Italian). Rome: Publications de l’École française de Rome. pp. 1–27.doi:10.4000/books.efr.31792.ISBN978-2-7283-1369-3.S2CID247150419. Retrieved2023-02-23.Communicatio in sacris (oin divinis o anchein ritibus) è il termine con cui la Chiesa di Roma ha inteso definire e contestualmente limitare o vietare qualunque genere di partecipazione di un cattolico alle celebrazioni liturgiche e ai sacramenti di un culto non cattolico. Lo stesso termine è usato, meno frequentemente, anche per il fenomeno inverso. Nel suo Dictionnaire de droit canonique Raoul Naz definisce il primo caso come communicatio in sacris «positiva» e il secondo come «negativa», distinguendo inoltre tra una pratica «attiva e formale», svolta cioè con l'intenzione di rendere un reale culto a Dio, ed una invece puramente «passiva e materiale», fatta solamente per ragioni di convenienza sociale o come manifestazione di buoni costumi tra le due parti13.
^abcBeal, John P; Coriden, James A; Green, Thomas J, eds. (2000)."Canon 844".New commentary on the Code of Canon Law (study ed.). New York: Paulist Press. pp. 1024–1027.ISBN0809105020.
^abcdefCaparros, Ernest; Thériault, Michel; Thorn, Jean, eds. (1993)."Canon 844".Code of Canon Law annotated: Latin-English edition of the Code of Canon Law and English-language translation of the 5th Spanish-language edition of the commentary prepared under the responsibility of the Instituto Martín de Azpilcueta. Montréal: Wilson & Lafleur. pp. 555–557.ISBN2891272323.
Sheehy, Gerard; Brown, Ralph, eds. (1999). "Canon 844".The Canon Law Letter and Spirit: A Practical Guide to the Code of Canon Law. London: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.ISBN0225668815.
Gerosa, Libero (2002).Canon law. AMATECA, handbooks of Catholic theology. Vol. 3. London; New York: Bloomsbury Academic.ISBN0826413919.
The Roman Catholic-Polish National Catholic Dialogue (2006-05-17)."Joint Declaration on Unity".United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs. Archived fromthe original on 2007-08-08. Retrieved2014-01-23.
