500 Years of Protestantism: 38 Things Martin Luther Wrote

  • Thread starter Thread starter yosephdaviyd
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
steido01 said:
Every Sunday, I confess that I am part of the One, Holy, catholic and Apostolic Church. What’s screwy about that? 🤷 **The word “catholic” **does not belong solely to the church in Rome.
Click to expand...
As in Acts 9:31? 😃
 
Randy_Carson said:
Lutherans are NOT permitted to receive the Eucharist consecrated by a Catholic priest except under extraordinary circumstances (think near death here)…
Click to expand...
If I remember steido01’s story, was was extraordinary - not quite to the point of death, but it was extraordinary.

Without trying to cause too much scandal - I’ll point out that there’s hardly any Lutherans in France, and some very devout Catholics there have been quite kind to me there.
 
Randy_Carson said:
Unfortunately, this was a mistake on the part of the priest or usher who gave you bad advice.

Lutherans are NOT permitted to receive the Eucharist consecrated by a Catholic priest except under extraordinary circumstances (think near death here).

I suspect that none of the occasions you describe were extraordinary.
Click to expand...
Well, what you may understand and what is practiced are two very different things. Since we have many Roman Catholic relatives [including 2 daughter-in-laws], my family fully participate in the Mass on special occasions [baptisms, marriage, etc.]. Not only are we personally invited to take holy communion by the Catholic priest but also encouraged to be God parents. And, of-course, all my Catholic relatives are strongly invited to take holy communion in Lutheran churches, and do, just that.

You will find over time that your position of what is acceptable Eucharistic hospitality has very little semblance to reality.
 
steve_b said:
Not in so many words but we’re also talking about extraordinary circumstances. The 1st being proximity of death. Not much chance of a crash course in Catholicism there.

As an aside, That link can’t go against canon law.

The canons are specific (all emphasis mine)

Can. 844
§1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone, without prejudice to the prescripts of §2, 3, and 4 of this canon

§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid. (Refers to E Orthodox. and eliminates all protestant groups from consideration regardless of stripe)

§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches. (i.e. valid sacraments. eliminates Protestant groups regardless of stripe)

§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.

Re: §4 talks about that extraordinary circumstance. Danger of death provided they manifest the Catholic faith with the sacraments and are properly disposed.

So what’s that mean? For me a Catholic what does Catholic faith and proper disposition require for me receiving the sacraments?

As a Catholic I must hold to the Catholic faith…all of it, or I’m not in union with the Church. That’s dangerous for me and my soul. And then I can’t be guilty of any mortal sin. Also hugely dangerous. If I’m guilty of any ot them I need to go to confession 1st, before receiving the Eucharist.

As the canons show even when we’re talking extraordinary circumstances, that’s meant for a Protestant appealing to the extraordinary circumstance. Things in conversation get rather screwie when for example, a Protestant who asks for the Eucharist when most or all don’t even believe in mortal sin, and are possibly up to their eyeballs in mortal sin.

Maybe this will help make my point clearer. Even If a baptised protestant is in RCIA, this indicates their belief and disposition is already to be Catholic, yet even with this belief and disposition, they are not invited **yet **to receive the Eucharist **until **they have been brought fully into the Church.

Now consider a protestant who has no intention of being Catholic. Should he be invited to receive the Eucharist in the CC? The answer is they aren’t.

Enter the extraordianry circumstance. Dieing or possibly in danger of death.

Can you and I point to examples of illicit behavior in this? Sure. But just being transparent, no one gets away with that illicit stuff anyway…right? We all have to be aware of eternal consequences to our souls for our belief and behavior.
Click to expand...
What rules the RCC sets for non-RCs to receive is up to the Church, to be sure. As I say above, I wouldn’t think to instruct on how that might work out. And I have no doubt that the most problematic condition would be near death. Or, as stated above, " if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord". Not limited to near death, I read that.

Seems that’s what it says. If it’s poorly worded, someone has suggested you point it out, up the line. Not my place. If it’s truly is intended to be limited to the Orthodox, or similarly situated folk, ok by me.

GKC
 
EvangelCatholic said:
Well, what you may understand and what is practiced are two very different things. Since we have many Roman Catholic relatives [including 2 daughter-in-laws], my family fully participate in the Mass on special occasions [baptisms, marriage, etc.]. Not only are we personally invited to take holy communion by the Catholic priest but also encouraged to be God parents. And, of-course, all my Catholic relatives are strongly invited to take holy communion in Lutheran churches, and do, just that.

You will find over time that your position of what is acceptable Eucharistic hospitality has very little semblance to reality.
Click to expand...
I can’t vouch for your interpretation, or say that what you have experienced is in line with the rules listed here. But i can say that once I was asked to be a substitute god-parent, in the absence of the actual god-parent. No idea whether that was proper.

GKC
 
EvangelCatholic said:
Well, what you may understand and what is practiced are two very different things. Since we have many Roman Catholic relatives [including 2 daughter-in-laws], my family fully participate in the Mass on special occasions [baptisms, marriage, etc.]. Not only are we personally invited to take holy communion by the Catholic priest but also encouraged to be God parents. And, of-course, all my Catholic relatives are strongly invited to take holy communion in Lutheran churches, and do, just that.

You will find over time that your position of what is acceptable Eucharistic hospitality has very little semblance to reality.
Click to expand...
You will find after reading the following that your position is flat dead wrong. :mad:

It is not my position; it is the position of the Catholic Church, and the priest involved is in error. This has nothing to do with “hospitality”.

Here is the passage found in the front of the missal in the pew of my parish (no mention of Lutherans or Anglicans included):

Guidelines for the Reception of Communion

We welcome our fellow Christians to this celebration of the Eucharist as our brothers and sisters. We pray that our common baptism and the action of the Holy Spirit in this Eucharist will draw us closer to one another and begin to dispel the sad divisions which separate us. We pray that these will lessen and finally disappear, in keeping with Christ’s prayer for us “that they may all be one” (John 17:21).

Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Holy Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of canon law (canon 844.4). Members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Churches of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of communion by Christians of these Churches (canon 844.3)

From Breaking Bread 2006, a missalette published by Oregon Catholic Press
 
steido01 said:
Precisely. As I’ve posted before, I can personally attest to that. I had/have zero plans to enter the RCC, and I’ve been permitted to receive.
Click to expand...
Our elderly priest used to say all who ask to receive in a Catholic Church in their heart long to be Catholic…so Don…there ya go
Mary.
I agree with him because why would you ask to receive in a Catholic Church when you believe the office of the Papacy is AntiChrist, we believe in transubstantiation, we reject the sola teachings?
Why?
 
Randy_Carson said:
It is not my position; it is the position of the Catholic Church, and the priest involved is in error.

This has nothing to do with “hospitality”.
Click to expand...
I agree; this has nothing at all to do with hospitality. Please don’t get me wrong – I do not favor any sort of Open Communion. If anyone reads my posts, he will see that it was an extraordinary, one-time happening. I don’t foresee myself needing to ask for the Eucharist from my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters again. I happily live in a town with several LCMS churches.

However, every Roman Catholic priest that I have talked with, every source I have read, and -least of all- my personal experience has shown that ‘imminent death’ is not the only factor in considering whether a given situation qualifies as “extraordinary.” Then again, I try not to tell people what they believe. Maybe the priests I have spoken to are in error, maybe I misinterpreted the sources I read, and maybe the priest who would have allowed me to partake was in error for doing so. Then again, he did have the express permission of his bishop. 🤷

For those who are unfamiliar: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11041973&postcount=75
 
steido01 said:
I agree; this has nothing at all to do with hospitality. Please don’t get me wrong – I do not favor any sort of Open Communion. If anyone reads my posts, he will see that it was an extraordinary, one-time happening. I don’t foresee myself needing to ask for the Eucharist from my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters again. I happily live in a town with several LCMS churches.

However, every Roman Catholic priest that I have talked with, every source I have read, and -least of all- my personal experience has shown that ‘imminent death’ is not the only factor in considering whether a given situation qualifies as “extraordinary.” Then again, I try not to tell people what they believe. Maybe the priests I have spoken to are in error, maybe I misinterpreted the sources I read, and maybe the priest who would have allowed me to partake was in error for doing so. Then again, he did have the express permission of his bishop. 🤷
Click to expand...
It is ironic to me that a Lutheran, such as yourself, who believes in ‘close communion’ also communes in Roman Catholic churches. But my experience going back to when I was a LCMS seminarian [many years ago] that Catholics and Lutherans worshipped and communed together, this is especially true at retreat houses. I know in the military that Lutherans take holy Communion from Roman Catholic priests.
 
EvangelCatholic said:
It is ironic to me that a Lutheran, such as yourself, who believes in ‘close communion’ also communes in Roman Catholic churches. But my experience going back to when I was a LCMS seminarian [many years ago] that Catholics and Lutherans worshipped and communed together, this is especially true at retreat houses. I know in the military that Lutherans take holy Communion from Roman Catholic priests.
Click to expand...
Hmmm…
 
GKC said:
What rules the RCC sets for non-RCs to receive is up to the Church, to be sure. As I say above, I wouldn’t think to instruct on how that might work out. And I have no doubt that the most problematic condition would be near death. Or, as stated above, " if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord". Not limited to near death, I read that.
Click to expand...
I think you’ll note, those are Christians in the EO and OO groups
G:
Seems that’s what it says. If it’s poorly worded, someone has suggested you point it out, up the line. Not my place. If it’s truly is intended to be limited to the Orthodox, or similarly situated folk, ok by me.

GKC
Click to expand...
When these docs use “church:” for other Christians, that usually refers to EO and OO. As you know, the CC in law and encyclicals, and other writings, usually refer to Protestants regardless of name, as ecclesial communities, not churches.

I don’t pretend to be the gate keeper on any of this, & I sure don’t captain this ship. All I can say with assurance, it’s important to be in the barque of Peter. That’s something one can’t pretend to be in when they’re not.
 
steve_b said:
I think you’ll note, those are Christians in the EO and OO groups

When these docs use “church:” for other Christians, that usually refers to EO and OO. As you know, the CC in law and encyclicals, and other writings, usually refer to Protestants regardless of name, as ecclesial communities, not churches.

I don’t pretend to be the gate keeper on any of this, & I sure don’t captain this ship. All I can say with assurance, it’s important to be in the barque of Peter. That’s something one can’t pretend to be in when they’re not.
Click to expand...
I’m neither the gatekeeper, nor a gatecrasher. And I can accept your interpretation as possible, if not clear. But I am fairly well convinced that a statement of the circumstances and requirements for allowing Christians (per para .4) to receive, who are not in full communion with Rome, is unlikely to include, as one requirement, that they be fully in communion with Rome.

GKC
 
EvangelCatholic said:
It is ironic to me that a Lutheran, such as yourself, who believes in ‘close communion’ also communes in Roman Catholic churches. But my experience going back to when I was a LCMS seminarian [many years ago] that Catholics and Lutherans worshipped and communed together, this is especially true at retreat houses. I know in the military that Lutherans take holy Communion from Roman Catholic priests.
Click to expand...
I’ve seen it too. Canon law prohibits open communion.
 
EvangelCatholic said:
It is ironic to me that a Lutheran, such as yourself, who believes in ‘close communion’ also communes in Roman Catholic churches. But my experience going back to when I was a LCMS seminarian [many years ago] that Catholics and Lutherans worshipped and communed together, this is especially true at retreat houses. I know in the military that Lutherans take holy Communion from Roman Catholic priests.
Click to expand...
I don’t think you did it intentionally, but please do not misrepresent me. I was permitted to take part in communion at a Roman Catholic church the one and only time I asked, under extraordinary circumstances.
 
pablope said:
Well…from your account, I cannot tell if the priest did ask for permission from his bishop?

It looks like he exercised his own judgement to allow you to receive.
Click to expand...
Ah, I see. I wrote that account to speak toward a separate issue and didn’t bother with details. I landed on a Friday, talked with the parish pastor on Saturday. He respectfully explained that it was not normal practice (and I agreed). He said he’d consult his bishop about my circumstances. I arrived early on Sunday, and he told me I could commune.
 
GKC said:
I’m neither the gatekeeper, nor a gatecrasher. And I can accept your interpretation as possible, if not clear. But I am fairly well convinced that a statement of the circumstances and requirements for allowing Christians (per para .4) to receive, who are not in full communion with Rome, is unlikely to include, as one requirement, that they be fully in communion with Rome.

GKC
Click to expand...
Maybe I should have said it as follows

Since the licit extraordinary circumstance for a protestant to receive the Eucharist is in the proximity of death, providing the approval of the bishop, then to me that means all the other protestants who aren’t in proximity of death, for them to receive the Eucharist, they need to be Catholic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top