1983 Canon 844

[goldenchild17]

I was wondering if someone could help me understand it a little bit better. I can see that it explicitly states that one is allowed to receive communion from a valid non-Catholic source when necessary, provided the error of indifferentism is avoided. This is good, but I'm wondering what the point of it is, in comparison with the 1917 code 731 §2. This is the only english translation of code 731 §2 that I could find, if anyone can translate the Latin correctly please do so:

"It is forbidden to administer the sacraments of the Church to heretics or schismatics, even though they err in good faith and ask for them, unless they have first renounced their errors and been reconciled with the Church.

I understand it may be an issue either of translation or context, but since I don't know Latin and the Latin version of the 1917 Code of Canon Law is the only one available online, I'm a little stuck. I also quoted the relevant 1983 code below. If someone could help me understand this that would be great. thanks:


Can. 844 §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.

§2. 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 are valid.

§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.

§5. For the cases mentioned in §§2, 3, and 4, the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops is not to issue general norms except after consultation at least with the local competent authority of the interested non-Catholic Church or community.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

The following is my understanding and involves some conjecture:

I'm honestly not sure what you mean. The 1917 Code was written pre-Vatican II, while Vatican II clarified some of our understandings of the nature of those who are separated brethren, i.e. that they are imperfectly joined to the Church, while the wholeness of Christianity subsists in the Catholic Church. That understanding would make it possible for non-Catholic Orthodox Christians to receive the Eucharist because in respect to the sacraments, they share the Catholic faith and are therefore to some degree and in that specific way bound to the Catholic Church. It would also make it possible for other non-Catholics to receive the Eucharist if they share in that belief, but this is not to be the licit norm, lest there be scandal and false unity. As a further safeguard, this is only to be done if the non-Catholic approaches the Catholic Church (i.e. priests couldn't say to their denominations, "hey, anybody here who believes in the Eucharist can receive...doesn't matter if you think the pope is the anti-Christ, come on down!").

I suppose that the reason they have made these changes to the law is the hope that it would lead to greater unity and, ultimately, the conversion of non-Catholics. Whether this is the best way to do it seems to me to be debatable among competent theologians (to avoid scandal, those who are not trained to debate these things are usually discouraged from it).

I hope this helps.

God bless,

Micah