Posted on 10/18/2011 2:09:05 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
You obviously ride without a helmet.
Who has hijacked Catholicism? This has been the historic teaching of the Catholic Church for 1000 years.. Also,do you know when you take communion at a Catholic church, you are professing what they preach from pulpit is true? So if you take communion, you are professing that you are taking the actual body and blood of Jesus, that you believe Priest should not marry and be celilbant, that you believe in praying to the Saints?
Do this in remembrance of me. Simple.
The rest - all the rules and restrictions - belong to man, not God. And thank God for that.
**I’d never heard such personally divisive hateful language at any Catholic funeral prior to, or since that one.**
I’m sorry you had such a bad time in hearing the truth.
Our priest usually says something like this, “If you are not Catholic, you can come forward for a blessing at Communion time using this gesture (crosses arms over chest). Otherwise you are welcome to be seated.”
I find the part about being seated in the presence of Christ offensive, but I have not been able to talk to our priest and ask him why he changed his language. He used to just stop it with the previous sentence.
I do not think the priest was being rude or singling yu out. I think perhaps he lacked a bit of tact. But other than that, he told the truth.
Why hold it against the entire Catholic Church.
You are welcome to return anytime. Just find a priest you can sit down with and talk and get your questions answered.
My perspective — you will return to the Catholic Church.
And committed spiritual suicide in the process.
Based on my reading and understanding of Scripture (even while remembering my own Catholic upbringing)
Better brush up on John 6 and 1 Corinthians. It sounds like you were poorly catechized during your upbringing. You obviously have no comprehension of what saying "Amen" in response to "The Body of Christ" means despite your "Catholic upbringing".
I have to think Jesus would be pretty upset that any of his believers would be denied Communion.
Jesus is upset that you turned your back on His bride because of the actions of some sinners. Yet you still want to receive that which you do not believe in. You'll be able to explain why during your particular judgment.
Not quite, kid.
"And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us." 2 Thessalonians 3:6
I know what Christ thought about holy men’s laws.
Some Oriental Orthodox jurisdictions like the Syriacs and Armenians allow Catholics to take communion. The Ukrainian Orthodox in the US used to, but I don’t know if that’s still the case since their former bishop died.
They are probably Catholic Churches.
Did you know there are 22 different Catholic Rites. I’ll send you the link.
**I know what Christ thought**
Christ’s words,
“Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you shall not have life within you.”
So why don’t you believe those words of Christ?
You are painting with too wide a brush. Lutherans believe in the True Presence. Like Catholics, we do practice closed communion, not because we are "holier than thou" but to protect those who may not understand what accepting the sacrament means.
Only a Catholic priest can consecrate the Eucharist and preside over the transubstantiation. "Communion" is therefore not possible at a Protestant church service.
1) ttfergu
Mr. Considine is engaging in a bit of duplicity here by not giving his readers the full benefit of the text of canon 844, which task I would encourage all readers to take upon themselves.
Particularly, the second paragraph of canon 844 states, "Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ's faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid."
All of this is important, but germane to this conversation, is that last little phrase "in whose Churches these sacraments are valid." Protestant ecclesial communities, lacking valid ordination, are simply not capable of valid Eucharist. The canon is speaking about our Eastern Orthodox brethren, the Polish National Catholic Church, and the pre-Calcedonian Churches - these are the Churches (fully and properly so-called) that have valid Eucharist. Under the stringent conditions laid out in the first part of paragraph two, it is morally and canonically proper for a Catholic to receive the Eucharist from (and to confess to and be anointed by) a priest, deacon of bishop of one of these Churches. Not from a Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Anglican or whatnot - that is not permitted by the law or by logical consistency.
Mr. Considine makes a valiant attempt at raising the flag of antinomianism and claiming it to be the flag of Christ - we must "break the religious law of the day" to "fulfil the 'spirit' of the law." Here he discards twenty centuries of Catholic theology and a legal system that is both accomodating and submissive to the teachings of Christ - one must disobey Christ's Church in order to obey Christ? Absurd!
His statement that intercommunion "could be a 'yes' to God by witnessing to God's presence in the marriage and committing to God's work of salvation in their lives," demonstrates little more than a woefully inadequate understanding of the Mystery of the Eucharist, and what happens in the reception of Holy Communion.
2) Michelle Romani
Mr. Cosidene should also avail himself of the document Dominus Iesus, authored by no less than the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.
As tfergu explains in his comment, the Canon that Mr. Considine incompletely references applies to those Churches not in communion with the Church such as the Greek Orthodox. The Church recognizes these as "sister Churches", again, per Dominus Iesus, while she regards those that are Anglican, Baptist and other Protestant denominations as "ecclesial communities."
Dominus Iesus makes it perfectly clear what constitutes a Church. Unfortunately, the article presented by Mr. Considine does not take this important document into account.
As someone who holds a Journalism Degree from the University of Texas, I believe in reporting thinga fairly and accurately. By leaving out an important section of Canon 844, I believe that the article in question may very well be misleading the faithful into thinking that receiving "communion" in a Protestant ecclesial community is okay when, in reality, it is not.
3) Habemus
I see no reference here to the Pope John Paul II's encyclical "Ecclesia de Eucharistia" which was written in 2003.
In this document, he says, with regard to receiving "communion" in Protestant churches:
“The Catholic faithful, therefore, while respecting the religious convictions of these separated brethren, must refrain from receiving the communion distributed in their celebrations, so as not to condone an ambiguity about the nature of the Eucharist and, consequently, to fail in their duty to bear clear witness to the truth. This would result in slowing the progress being made toward full visible unity” (30).
“Catholics may not receive communion in those communities that lack a valid sacrament of orders” (46).
If it was to a Baptist community where this is just a mere symbol, it is a different question, as compared to a Lutheran Church to whom this is not a mere representation but the Body and Blood of Christ.
If it was to a Baptist community where this is just a mere symbol, it is a different question, as compared to a Lutheran Church to whom this is not a mere representation but the Body and Blood of Christ.
That means we can all, Lutherans, Baptist, orthodoxy etc. share in our prayers to our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ, but on other matters, we need to respect each other as brethren in Christ with whom we disagree.
To us this is a holy object being Christ's body and blood. If to a person this is only bread, only wine, nothing else, to us it is sacrilege.
That is the reason why we can AND should share our prayers with our Christian brethren who share the same beliefs as in the Nicene Creed, but on this matter since we disagree on the divine nature, we cannot share this eucharist.
We share a lot else -- as you pointed out in our common belief in what is detailed in the Nicene Creed.
But they may join you in your services and pray together? Thank you for that explanatory post 38
your pastor and you would be correct to not grant this — unfortunately we do not share a common belief on this so it would be hypocrisy. We may share in other matters, in prayer
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.