Why Can’t Catechumens Receive Communion?

Peace in our Lord Jesus Christ! The Catechism, no. 1398, teaches: The Eucharist and the unity of Christians. Before the greatness of this mystery St. Augustine exclaims, 'O sacrament of devotion! O sign of unity! O bond of charity!' The more painful the experience of the divisions in the Church which break the common participation in the table of the Lord, the more urgent are our prayers to the Lord that the time of complete unity among all who believe in him may return emphasis original; footnotes omitted).

As Catholic Christians, we understand ourselves to be more than merely a loose grouping of like-minded individuals. We are the People of God, joined in the bonds of ecclesial communion, which include the unity of the Pope and bishops as well as the sacraments (cf. Catechism, no. 37). Hence, though receiving Holy Communion benefits us as individuals, it also signifies the unity Christ bestowed upon His Church.

Holy Communion is both a sign of an already existing unity and a means to strengthen that unity (cf. Catechism, no. 1396). If Holy Communion were distributed to those as yet not in full communion with the Church, we would give an appearance of something that does not exist and, in doing so, remove from our sight any need to work and pray for unity. Further, the effect of strengthening the bond of unity would be non-existent as well.

Lastly, one can look at the catechumenate as analogous perhaps to engagement, especially if we see Holy Communion as a sign of unity with the People of God and not merely a private benefit. No one who understands the marriage bond asks why he must wait for the wedding day to experience the act that both signifies and strengthens marital unity. Everyone knows that the marital act is proper to the unity that already exists by virtue of the marriage bond. Similarly, reception of Holy Communion is possible because of the bond of unity with the Church. If one can participate in the fruits of the bond without the commitment of the bond, then the importance of the bond is obscured.

There are places, of course, where the analogy breaks down. There are certain instances in which reception of Communion is permissible due to a pastoral necessity. These are only possible because of the bond all Christians share due to Baptism. No such analogous situation exists with regard to marriage.

May all those who desire the Eucharist in the Church, but cannot yet receive, make that desire a prayer for the reunion of all who call upon the name of Christ with the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

I hope this answers your question. If you have further questions on this or any other subject, or would like more information about Catholics United for the Faith, please feel free to call us at

1-800-MY-FAITH (800-693-2484). May God bless your day.

United in the Faith,

Peace in Christ! In interpreting Scripture, one must examine the literary genre and intention of the author to arrive at the literal meaning of the sacred text (Vatican II, Dei Verbum (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation), no. 12). With the gospel, we are clearly dealing with historical accounts, the actual life events of an historical Person, Jesus Christ, regarding Whom there is much evidence, biblical and non-biblical, to substantiate His existence. In addition, while Jesus taught lessons through parables like the Rich Fool and the Good Samaritan, the multiplication of the loaves and fishes is presented in the context of an actual life event. Indeed, both “miracle” and “sharing” proponents view the account as an actual, historical event.

Given that consensus, we then examine the passage itself. The disciples tell Jesus that He should send the crowd away to buy food for themselves (Mt. 14:15). When Jesus tells His disciples to instead give the crowd something to eat, the disciples reply that they only have five loaves and two fish (14:15-17), a woefully inadequate meal for a crowd that numbered about 5,000 men, not including women and children (14:21). The disciples have somehow determined that the crowd is without food, not unwilling to share, and that the crowd is indeed a very large one.

Christ then asks the disciples to bring the loaves and fish to Him, orders the crowd to sit down, and then blesses and distributes the bread 14:18-19). No mention is made of other loaves before Christ's blessing, nor of additional loaves acquired after the blessing. All such analysis is eisegesis, reading something into the text, as opposed to exegesis, drawing something logically from the text. Such eisegesis stems from a skepticism toward miracles.

Finally, the enormous crowd ate to satisfaction and there were 12 baskets remaining (Mt. 14:20-21). Because Jesus is God, and therefore the creator of all things, including us, we should not be surprised that He performed miracles: extraordinary events that involve God's direct intervention, i.e., a supernatural cause, and which therefore defy natural, scientific explanation. Examples would include resurrecting someone from the dead or healing a blind person completely and instantaneously.

Given the evidence from the text and Jesus' divine identity, we should not be surprised to see the Church speak matter-of-factly on the miraculous nature of this and similar events: “The miracles of the multiplication of the loaves, when the Lord says the blessing, breaks and distributes the loaves through his disciples to feed the multitude, prefigure the superabundance of this unique bread of his Eucharist (Catechism of the Catholic Church (Catechism), no. 1335).

As Vatican II affirmed, the Magisterium, i.e., the Pope and the bishops teaching in union with him, has the final word on Scripture: For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgment of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God (Dei Verbum, no. 12).

The Church clearly teaches that miracles are indeed miraculous: extraordinary events that involve God's direct intervention, i.e., a supernatural cause, and which therefore defy natural, scientific explanation. These events include Moses' parting of the Red Sea and Jesus' changing of water into wine at the wedding at Cana. Here we confine ourselves to miracles discernible by our senses, as distinguished from those that are non-discernible, such as the regeneration of our souls at Baptism.

The First Vatican Council reaffirmed the Church's teaching on miracles, and the authenticity of biblical miracles in particular, in the Dogmatic Constitution concerning the Catholic Faith (Dei Filius), which covers doctrinal matters including faith and reason. In chapter two of Dei Filius, which deals with Revelation, the Church reaffirms that faith is harmonious with reason: However, in order that the “obedience” of our faith should be “consonant with reason” [cf. Rom. 12:1], God has willed that to the internal aids of the Holy Spirit there should be joined external proofs of His revelation, namely: divine facts, especially miracles and prophecies which, because they clearly show forth the omnipotence and infinite knowledge of God, are most certain signs of a divine revelation, and are suited to the intelligence of all. Wherefore, not only Moses and the prophets, but especially Christ the Lord Himself, produced many genuine miracles and prophecies; and we read concerning the apostles: “But they going forth preached everywhere: the Lord working with them and confirming the word with signs that followed” [Mk. 16:20]. And again it is written: “And we have the more firm prophetic words: Whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place” [2 Pet. 1:19].

In addition, in Canon Four of Vatican I, the Church makes a bold proclamation regarding the demonstrability of Revelation: If anyone shall have said that the miracles are not possible, and hence that all accounts of them, even those contained in Sacred Scripture, are to be banished among the fables and myths; or, that miracles can never be known with certitude, and that the divine origin of the Christian religion cannot be correctly proved by them: let him be anathema.

Skepticism toward miracles is reflective of some modern biblical scholarship. It represents a certain level of discomfort with anything that cannot be explained in terms of the physical cosmos and the laws that govern it. This “closed-system” attitude prevents one from truly encountering a God who is wholly Other. Such biblical scholarship promotes the skepticism that leads to a doubting or, possibly, outright rejection of the supernatural, i.e., God's intervention into human history and His ongoing guidance of and care for the Church. God is our loving Father who will not leave us orphaned; His Son Jesus is the bridegroom who laid down His life for His bride, the Church (Eph. 5:25); and the Father and the Son sent the Holy Spirit who guides us into all truth (Jn. 16:13).

I hope this is helpful. If you have further questions or would like more information about Catholics United for the Faith, please call us at 1-800-MY-FAITH (693-2484). May God bless your day with peace.

United in the Faith,