Like this??
Posted on 04/18/2003 6:51:16 AM PDT by Dog Gone
In the first act of his busy Easter season, Pope John Paul II yesterday warned Catholics against taking holy communion delivered by ministers of other denominations.
The strongly worded encyclical, sent to bishops around the world, raised fears that the pontiff may be hardening his line on inter-faith communion.
This is of particular concern to mixed-marriage couples in Britain and Ireland, and those wishing to see the church reunited one day.
However, theologians rushing to interpret the encyclical, the 14th of the Pope's 25-year pontificate, pointed out that he also underlined his earlier view that Catholics and non-Catholics could take communion together in special circumstances.
This was reassuring for those in Britain campaigning for more liberal interpretations of Catholic theology, at a time when the number of priests, as well as practising Christians, is in steep decline.
An important part of the ceremony of communion, or eucharist, is the blood and flesh of Christ being distributed to the confirmed in the form of wine and unleavened bread.
Catholics believe the bread and wine really does become the body of Christ when blessed by a priest, while for non-Catholics, the ceremony is merely symbolic.
The Pope said that Catholics "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, fail in their duty to bear clear witness to the truth."
Many Anglican priests in Britain administer communion to Catholics, and vice versa, if a priest of the right denomination is not available or when couples of different denominations celebrate mass together.
While the Pope said it was not possible for Catholics and non-Catholics to celebrate communion together, he said he had "a burning desire" that one day this might change.
In a sympathetic response to the Pope's encyclical, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, issued a statement saying: "I welcome the affirmation of the eucharist as a place of God's presence and action, and also welcome the Pope's reaffirmation of his 'burning desire' for common eucharistic celebration.
"This is an area of work which continues to be important for relations between Anglicans and Roman Catholics, and we continue to work theologically on this together."
Tony Blair, while still a member of the Church of England, regularly attends mass with his family, who are all practising Catholics.
In 1996, however, he was warned off receiving communion in a letter by the late Cardinal Basil Hume.
Saying that he had not realised his behaviour might cause offence, Mr Blair promised not to do so again, nevertheless adding: "I wonder what Jesus would have made of it?"
The prime minister and his family met the Pope at the Vatican during an official visit to Rome last month, and although he received a blessing - the first British prime minister to do so - he did not receive communion.
The Pope, who is 83 next month, also ruled out as "unthinkable" the practice of Catholics swapping Sunday mass for celebrations of prayer with Christians of other faiths.
But kissing the Koran as a sign of respect is okay.
Yeah, right.
This will be addressed in the future by the Vatican.
From the document:
45. While it is never legitimate to concelebrate in the absence of full communion, the same is not true with respect to the administration of the Eucharist under special circumstances, to individual persons belonging to Churches or Ecclesial Communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church. In this case, in fact, the intention is to meet a grave spiritual need for the eternal salvation of an individual believer, not to bring about an intercommunion which remains impossible until the visible bonds of ecclesial communion are fully re-established.
Basically, "Holy Communion" is not meant as a means of establishing "intercommunion", but rather exceptions are allowed for souls in "grave spiritual danger".
Other aspects of the reform are:
13. By virtue of its close relationship to the sacrifice of Golgotha, the Eucharist is a sacrifice in the strict sense, and not only in a general way, as if it were simply a matter of Christ's offering himself to the faithful as their spiritual food. The gift of his love and obedience to the point of giving his life (cf. Jn 10:17-18) is in the first place a gift to his Father. Certainly it is a gift given for our sake, and indeed that of all humanity (cf. Mt 26:28; Mk 14:24; Lk 22:20; Jn 10:15), yet it is first and foremost a gift to the Father: “a sacrifice that the Father accepted, giving, in return for this total self-giving by his Son, who 'became obedient unto death' (Phil 2:8), his own paternal gift, that is to say the grant of new immortal life in the resurrection”.18
In giving his sacrifice to the Church, Christ has also made his own the spiritual sacrifice of the Church, which is called to offer herself in union with the sacrifice of Christ. This is the teaching of the Second Vatican Council concerning all the faithful: “Taking part in the Eucharistic Sacrifice, which is the source and summit of the whole Christian life, they offer the divine victim to God, and offer themselves along with it”.19
This is one abuse that has entered into the Mass since Vatican II -- ignoring the true sacrafice the Eucharist is, and only proclaiming it as a "joyous event".
Finally, here is the paragraph about abuses, and the fact that Pope John Paul is having another document prepared (from paragraph 52 of the Encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharista:
52. All of this makes clear the great responsibility which belongs to priests in particular for the celebration of the Eucharist. It is their responsibility to preside at the Eucharist in persona Christi and to provide a witness to and a service of communion not only for the community directly taking part in the celebration, but also for the universal Church, which is a part of every Eucharist. It must be lamented that, especially in the years following the post-conciliar liturgical reform, as a result of a misguided sense of creativity and adaptation there have been a number of abuses which have been a source of suffering for many. A certain reaction against “formalism” has led some, especially in certain regions, to consider the “forms” chosen by the Church's great liturgical tradition and her Magisterium as non-binding and to introduce unauthorized innovations which are often completely inappropriate. I consider it my duty, therefore to appeal urgently that the liturgical norms for the celebration of the Eucharist be observed with great fidelity. These norms are a concrete expression of the authentically ecclesial nature of the Eucharist; this is their deepest meaning. Liturgy is never anyone's private property, be it of the celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated. The Apostle Paul had to address fiery words to the community of Corinth because of grave shortcomings in their celebration of the Eucharist resulting in divisions (schismata) and the emergence of factions (haireseis) (cf. 1 Cor 11:17-34). Our time, too, calls for a renewed awareness and appreciation of liturgical norms as a reflection of, and a witness to, the one universal Church made present in every celebration of the Eucharist. Priests who faithfully celebrate Mass according to the liturgical norms, and communities which conform to those norms, quietly but eloquently demonstrate their love for the Church. Precisely to bring out more clearly this deeper meaning of liturgical norms, asked the competent offices of the Roman Curia to prepare a more specific document, including prescriptions of a juridical nature, on this very important subject. No one is permitted to undervalue the mystery entrusted to our hands: it is too great for anyone to feel free to treat it lightly and with disregard for its sacredness and its universality.
More conservative Catholics have complained about the abuses since Vatican II. Pope John Paul II intends to rectify this.
So when believers of the Lord Jesus Christ come together to remember the suffering, death and resurrection of the Lord by sharing in the Lord's Supper, it's "abuse?"
And people wonder why the Catholic church has been in decline.
It's not.
This is just another attempt by an organization to deem itself THE only way to heaven.
Clinton receives Roman Communion
Monday, March 30, 1998
President Clinton took Communion at Mass in a Catholic church in Soweto yesterday and listened as the priest preached a sermon on adultery.
Click the pic for more info.
Every church has the motivation to hold itself out as the exclusive travel agency for trips to heaven. It's about money, power, and control, and not losing passengers to the competition.
Not all churches succumb to that temptation, but it's pretty easy to spot the ones that do.
Communion in the Early Church bore little resemblance to the celebration of the Eucharist as practiced by the Catholic Church today. If you read Corinthians, you see that Paul's "fiery words" were directed to those who viewed communion as an all you can eat banquet. People were taking communion drunk and were scrambling to eat before others.
The divisions that Paul mentioned were those created by people whose attitudes and behaviors were "unchristian". He would not have been addressing those who humbly wished to take part in the Lord's Supper.
My in-laws go to a church like this. If you're not a member of their church you're not considered a "disciple". Their particular church claims to be the only one that really follows the teachings of the Bible. As a whole, this particular church seems to suffer from the sin of pride....
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.