Last week’s post examined the prohibition from participating in communicatio in sacris. Today’s post focuses on the second part of canon 1381, namely, the prohibition of priests to concelebrate the Eucharist with ministers of other Churches not in full communion.
Canon 908 states: “Catholic priests are forbidden to concelebrate the Eucharist with priests or ministers of Churches or ecclesial communities which are not in full communion with the Catholic Church.” Consequently, there is also a delict of “the concelebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice prohibited according to the norm of can. 908 CIC and can. 702 CCEO, as mentioned in can. 1381 CIC and in can. 1440 CCEO, with ministers of ecclesial communities which do not have apostolic succession and do not acknowledge the sacramental dignity of priestly ordination” (SST, art 3 §1, 4°). It is one of the more grave delicts against the Eucharist reserved to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith for judgment.
This delict exists because the “Eucharistic communion is inseparably linked to full ecclesial communion and its visible expression” Pope John Paul II affirms:
“Precisely because the Church’s unity, which the Eucharist brings about through the Lord’s sacrifice and by communion in his body and blood, absolutely requires full communion in the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments and ecclesiastical governance, it is not possible to celebrate together the same Eucharistic liturgy until those bonds are fully re-established. Any such concelebration would not be a valid means, and might well prove instead to be an obstacle, to the attainment of full communion, by weakening the sense of how far we remain from this goal and by introducing or exacerbating ambiguities with regard to one or another truth of the faith. The path towards full unity can only be undertaken in truth. In this area, the prohibitions of Church law leave no room for uncertainty, in fidelity to the moral norm laid down by the Second Vatican Council” (Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 44).
In ascertaining the delict, there must be an attempt to concelebrate and not the mere desire to do so. The delict can happen in a Catholic church or a non-Catholic church. Given the increase in ceremonies with non-Catholic family members and friends, such as weddings and funerals, one must distinguish between merely being at the sanctuary and concelebration.
If a non-Catholic minister is present at such ceremonies held in the Catholic Church, the Catholic priest may, if necessary and opportune, offer him a seat in the sanctuary as recognition. The non-Catholic minister should not wear a liturgical vestment and must remain ministerially inactive throughout the ceremony. Bringing the non-Catholic minister to the altar, even without liturgical vestments, amounts to attempted concelebration of the mass.
The same happens when a Catholic priest attends such ceremonies at a non-Catholic church. If invited and opportune, the priest can sit at the sanctuary. The priest is not to put on liturgical vestments. The soutane or roman-collar shirt suffices. However, given that some churches do not distinguish between the sanctuary and the altar, the expediency is very relative. For churches that celebrate the Eucharist, the priest should not go to the altar and must ensure that he does not put up any gesture suggesting he is participating in that consecration.
Canon 933 states: “For a good reason, with the express permission of the local Ordinary and provided scandal has been eliminated, a priest may celebrate the Eucharist in a place of worship of any Church or ecclesial community which is not in full communion with the Catholic Church.” This canon refers to celebrating in the place of worship of any non-Catholic Christian Church. However, it excludes Eucharistic concelebration because “it is a visible manifestation of full communion in faith, worship and community life of the Catholic Church, expressed by ministers of that Church”. Such inter-Church concelebration of the Eucharist would also lead to confusion among the faithful of the various Churches.
One may wonder why the delict focused only on Eucharistic concelebration. Apart from the intrinsic relationship between the Eucharist and communion, concelebration, in the strict sense, is only possible when celebrating the sacraments of the Eucharist and Holy Orders. Concerning holy orders, concelebration is allowed only in episcopal and priestly ordinations. At episcopal ordination, the law requires that at least two other consecrating bishops must assist the principal consecrator. The purpose is to show the collegiality between bishops as shepherds of the Church and in communion with the Pope. At priestly ordinations, priests lay their hands on the candidates before the ordaining bishop says the prayer of consecration. Priests lay their hands as a sign of their communion in the priesthood of Christ. The other five sacraments do not allow concelebration as only one minister pronounces the words and completes the required rites. Even if liturgically vested, all others present are participants, even if they help the minister with some rites due to the large number of recipients.
The norms for reserved delicts to the DDF prescribe just penalty, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state (SST, art 7). Hence, in determining the penalty to be imposed for prohibited Eucharistic concelebration, the judge considers the gravity and frequency of the offence, the nature of the scandal caused, the norms of the Catholic Bishop’s Conference of Nigeria, and the impact of the penalty on ecumenical dialogue in the area.
In light of the controversy concerning the presence of priests and religious at Ebuka Obi’s ministry, some argue that such priests should be punished for participating in prohibited religious rites according to the norms of canon 1381. However, the “principle of legality” states that nullum crimen et nulla poena sine lege praevia. In other words, for an act to be a canonical delict and for one to be punished for it, there must have been a law or precept established by a competent ecclesiastical authority designating that action or inaction as an offence.
I may be wrong, but I understand that only the Archdiocese of Lagos has expressly prohibited participation in Ebuka Obi’s ministry. Regarding private ministries, the CBCN communique following the August 2024 plenary reads:
“As pastors vested with the oversight function over the pastoral life of the Church, we call on all who want to use their charisms for the Church and not against her, to submit themselves to the competent authority, abiding by the rules and regulations established by the Church and Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Nigeria in this regard. The faithful are further advised to be wary of those who while claiming to be Catholics set up “ministries” that are not under the pastoral or spiritual guidance of any competent ecclesiastical authority. In fact no ministry, association or institution can bear the name Catholic without the express permission of the competent authority (Cf Can 216).”
Although strongly worded, the above statement is exhortative rather than disciplinary, which is required before penalties can be imposed (cf. Can. 455). Hence, in dioceses where participation has not been expressly prohibited, priests attending such gatherings can be invited by the Ordinary. However, calling for their immediate punishment is an invitation to abuse of ecclesiastical power and infringement of the canonical rights of the priests. Penal canonical law must always be “applied with canonical equity and having in mind the restoration of justice, the reform of the offender, and the repair of scandal” (Can. 1311 §2). Pope Paul VI defines canonical equity using the words of the great medieval canonist Hostiensis as “justice tempered with the sweetness of mercy”.
May God continue to help us🙏🏾
K’ọdị🙋🏾♂️
