According to the Catholic Church is it offensive to dress as a Catholic priest and perform “communion”?

According to the Catholic Church is it offensive to dress as a Catholic priest and perform “communion”?

Context plays a major part here.

If a person who not a priest and is genuinely deceiving the faithful and is pretending to say Mass is be excommunicated. Rome takes this very seriously.

Can. 1378 §1 A priest who acts against the prescription of Can. 977 incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.

§2 The following incur a latae sententiae interdict or, if a cleric, a latae sententiae suspension:

1° a person who, not being an ordained priest, attempts to celebrate Mass

2° a person who, apart from the case mentioned in §1, thoughunable to give valid sacramental absolution, attempts to do so, or hears a sacramental confession.

§3 In the cases mentioned in §2, other penalties, not excluding excommunication, can be added, according to the gravity of the offence.

Once again circumstances mean everything:

Playing the part of a priest in a movie and celebrating a mass is simply role playing the part of what the actor is destined out to perform his role in a particular movie or theatrical piece.

Now it happens that Bishop Basil Meeking, played the part of Pope Leo XIII in the 2004 movie Thérèse: The Story of Saint Thérèse of Lisieux

I highly doubt that anyone would be offended with Bishop Meeking portraying Pope Leo XIII in a movie as such.

Another movie called titled Catholics has several actors playing the role of priests, monks and Vatican officials. It is quite entertaining to watch if the subject matter interests you:

A young American priest (Martin Sheen), is sent to the island to persuade the Abbot (Trevor Howard) that the Abbey should desist in the old ways. For by continuing to practice the Latin Mass, the priests of Muck Abbey have cast a shadow upon the Roman Catholic Church's ecumenical effort to merge with Buddhism! Large crowds of tourists from all parts of the world and TV coverage of their services by the BBC make it imperative that the intransigent Irish Monks be brought into line before their practices are interpreted as a Catholic counter-revolution. The Abbot is the man-in-the-middle, torn between the sincere beliefs of his fellows and his feelings of obedience to the wishes of his superiors. The confrontation of Kinsella's liberal and progressively streamlined vision of the Church and the hard-line conservatism of the monks forms the central tension in "Catholics."

Impersonating a priest or bishop, in real life is quite another matter.

Erwin Mena did this vary thing for for many years and even said Masses which for obviously reasons not valid. He fooled almost everyone.

It is obviously immoral and highly offensive to Catholics to pretend to be a priest and attempt to fool the faithful that one as one is saying a valid mass, when the truth is the very opposite.

We can see that already with the Second Lateran Council (1139) that ”women who are not following the rule of Benedict, Basil or Augustine, and pose as nuns and receive guests and secular persons in violation of good morals” are to be excommunicated. If women who pose a nuns are to be excommunicated, would not the same hold to men who posed as priests and tried to say mass.

Years ago, Archbishop James Carney of Vancouver insisted that visiting priests from other dioceses, desiring to say Mass and celebrate other sacraments within the Archdiocese of Vancouver had to get permission from himself. At the time he was almost the only bishop to do so. But then again, Canon Law was on his side.

Can. 903 A priest is to be permitted to celebrate the Eucharist, even if he is not known to the rector of the church, provided either that he presents commendatory letters, not more than a year old, from his own Ordinary or Superior, or that it can be prudently judged that he is not debarred from celebrating.

Not every time a man pretends to dress up as a priest and say Mass is an action that would be considered offensive, as context means everything. But if one was out to deceive the faithful and pretend to say an actual Mass, then yes it would be highly offensive to the faithful, as well as an excommunicable offence.

A little unverifiable trivia: A close friend of mine from the Vatican once told my that depending on circumstances, the personal bodyguards of the Holy Father will don cassocks, in order to protect the pope. Do not know how true it is, but I can see it happening.

This is how Japanese Tea Ceremony started, as a way of hiding Christians from persecution.

In medieval Japan, after the shogunate banned Western visitors, they also banned the Christian religion after a bit of religiously-fueled social turmoil, with Christians being violently executed when found.

This lead to a notable Japanese man whose wife was secretly a Christian to invent Japanese tea ceremony, which was very directly modeled after the Catholic Mass - and in so doing, allowed Japanese Christians to meet in secret to perform Communion while claiming to be performing tea ceremonies.

So no, I don't think that there's anything particularly offensive about a non-Christian performing the actions of the Communion, as long as they're not deliberately mocking Christians.

Of course, if you actually say the words, it's entirely possible that God will hold you to the terms of the Covenant you just agreed to take part in; however, He'll also be able to see your heart, so if you don't actually mean it, He probably won't.

That said, as a Christian, I would naturally refuse to mimic a non-Christian religious ceremony, and I don't think that anyone should be forced to take part in a religious ceremony against their conscience.

It depends on a lot of things:

• Not Catholic Christians would mostly not find it offensive, since they do not participate in this ritual (could even have huge theological problems with how communion is performed, look up e.g. Reformation - one of the main arguments was over this question).
• Context is everything: is it for educational purposes, part of an e.g act or mockery. I would be fine with the first two (being Christian), but as mockery, I do not see mocking ANY ritual of ANY religion okay. So it would not be about a particular Christian ritual, but a general common courtesy and respect.
• Does it use actual (sacred) objects or only replicas? I would find the first distasteful and ignorant.
• Is it accurate or recontextualized, showing something different but not describe the difference, therefore leaving a wrong impression on the people who see it?

etc.

One the other hand, I have one very huge problem with the assignment: out of own beliefs, I would not want to mimick an other religion's rituals. I hope that the teacher took into account that nobody can be forced to participating (force also containing getting worse grades if not participating) in an other religion's rituals or acting out their rituals.

I don't think Alec Guinness, Mark Williams, Tom Bosley, or Christopher Reeve were ordained priests.

I've never heard of any criticism from the religious community being applied to actors playing priests even to the point of performing sacraments and representing the common duties of someone in that profession. If anything, they like having a show featuring a Catholic priest in a starring role.

Demonstrating religious rituals is not "cultural appropriation".

Would this be regarded as blasphemy

How is that relevant? Other groups have no jurisdiction over how people outside of their group behaves with respect to that group's rules.

Don't take offence on behalf of other people. That's a major problem with the whole SJW movement. If you want to know if something you might do would bother someone else, then asking is the right move. I understand that's the nature of your post.

As a (traditional) Catholic, I would be offended if someone mimicked a Mass (or any other Catholic practice) for ridicule. I would be even more offended if someone pretended to celebrate a Mass with the intention of deceiving me (or anyone else) into thinking it's an actual Mass. But under other circumstances, like an actor portraying a priest in a movie, I would see no problem.

I agree with the last part of aqua's answer, about requiring people to participate in (pretend) rituals of other religions. I would not publicly say prayers that are generally associated with non-Catholic religions, even if there's nothing intrinsically wrong with the prayers themselves (and I might even say such a prayer privately, when there's no danger of scandal).

I am answering as a non-denominational Christian with Catholic relatives.

It is not the business of Christians to judge non-believers (1 Corinthians 5:12), but I would find the imitation of Communion uncomfortable. If unbelievers were not permitted in the temple (Ezekiel 44:9), would unbelievers performing religious ceremonies be any better? There are many traditions I would not be concerned about, but the physical act of Communion in particular is not intended to be partaken of by those who are not spiritually in communion with God.

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.

-- 1 Corinthians 11:27-29, ESV

My impression is that Catholics are especially strict on who takes Communion, so some of them may indeed find it offensive. The intention of the assignment is clearly not to perform a real Communion, yet I would certainly still prefer that Christian rituals such as this be performed by those who actually believe in what they do, even in an educational demonstration. As an additional benefit, they would be less likely to misrepresent the theology behind it.

I also oppose the other side of the situation in your question - students of one religion should not be required to imitate rituals from another. I imagine Christianity is not the only religion where that would be potentially problematic.

As a Catholic dad, I can tell you that it's not the worst thing in the world to let your kids "play Mass". It can help older siblings who serve at Mass know their parts better, it can help younger siblings to understand what's going on at the altar when they can't quite see over the pews. Valid hockers of Catholic merch sell these kits and we gobble 'em up like the best toys in the world.

However, doing it at a secular university setting probably isn't the same positive experience, but if it's done:

1. Without the intention to turn the host into the Body and Blood of Jesus
2. As reverently as college students are capable.

Then it's a positive learning experience.

The only other example of "playing Mass" and distributing communion I can think of is in preparation for first communion. I'm not entirely sure it's the best idea in the world (or even remotely necessary), but in preparation some religious education coordinators will practice the First Communion rite with unblessed wafers. So there's some precedent to go off.

On a college campus, as respectful as people have to be of every other religion and idea people come up with, it would be fantastic for non-Christians to treat the Mass the kind of dignity they'd treat a ritual of another culture.

Context is everything.

It's going to depend. A Catholic might be offended if someone dressed as a priest and acted out communion just for fun, or to ridicule the church. But doing it as part of education is very different (as long as I didn't claim to be actually celebrating mass, rather than just demonstrating it, which would be offensive.)

Having said that, people are different. One might take offence when another doesn't.

You asked this person and they said no. That's really the end of it as far as they are concerned.