A non-catholic marrying a catholic.

[DanteAlighieri]

Never said I had a Catholic source, merely that if provided with evidence I would consider it.

If the sharing of sake was more along the lines of a toast, then why not. If that sake was blessed in the shinto temple and offered up to their kami, then of course I wouldn’t drink it, and I believe I said as much.

My apologies; I just re-read your previous post and saw that you said “If I am given a Catholic source…” I had read it as “I am given a Catholic source”. You are correct that it would not be appropriate for a Catholic to partake in a ceremony of that nature. As a toast, I see no harm, but if it were part of the ceremony, there is the risk of scandal.

RE: “limited circumstances” in which a Protestant can receive the Eucharist…I am aware of none, though I seem to recall saying that one in danger of death who wishes to convert can receive the Sacraments.

Peace,
Dante

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Yes, thanks. I misread his previous post. All clear now.

Catholics ARE allowed to partake of communion in Catholic Churches under certain circumstances but it’s discouraged as we are encouraged to respect the traditions of those Churches which generally would not allow Catholics to receive.

Did you mean to say “Catholics ARE allowed to partake of communion in non-Catholic churches”?

See here

and here

Catholics may, in certain dire circumstances, receive the sacraments (including the Eucharist) from non-Catholic churches that possess valid sacraments – i.e., the Orthodox, Oriental Churches, and others whose sacraments are acknowledged by Rome. This eliminates all of the Protestant churches.

The very word “communion” implies unity. We cannot receive communion from a Church that is not in Communion with Rome. It suggests approval and assent to the non-Catholic church’s belief about their communion.

Or did you mean “…in certain non-Catholic churches”?

Peace,
Dante

 

[Cheshangle]

My apologies; I just re-read your previous post and saw that you said “If I am given a Catholic source…” I had read it as “I am given a Catholic source”. You are correct that it would not be appropriate for a Catholic to partake in a ceremony of that nature. As a toast, I see no harm, but if it were part of the ceremony, there is the risk of scandal.

RE: “limited circumstances” in which a Protestant can receive the Eucharist…I am aware of none, though I seem to recall saying that one in danger of death who wishes to convert can receive the Sacraments.

Peace,
Dante

I’m still not sure if the rules have changed. This is hearsay, but I know for a fact that about ten years ago on the radio (BBC) I heard that an Anglican can receive RC communion if there was no Anglican church nearby or on special occasions. Now it could be that the RC priest saying that (it might just have been Cardinal Hume) was “wrong”, as, in the eyes of many of you, quite a lot of priests are. Or perhaps the presnt Pope, no friend of the Anglican communion, has tightened up the rules.

On the occasion in Australia when I was told I could receive communion, I did not because I felt that the Spirit didn’t cal me. On the second occasion, on holiday, I’d asked the (Irish) priest, beforehand, for a blessing, so I was a bit thrown when he offered me the scrament and settled for a blessing instead. The Westminster Cathedral wedding was cancelled.

In the present circumstanes I think blessings have to suffice. A RC priest I know says that it’s perfectly in order for a RC to accept a blessing at an Anglican service (or is he “wrong”, too?). If I were on death’s door and a RC priest offered me the eucharist if I had a last minute conversion, i’d still settle for a blessing.

Can I end with a true story which I think is important. I was on holiday in Paphos, Cyprus. In that town the Orthodox Bishop has ceded an historic church for joint use by the local Anglican and RC communities. I was unable to go to the Anglican service so I went to the RC one. I asked the Assistant Priest, an Englishman, if I could attend. “Yes,” he said," but you may not take communion". “Well, can I have a blessing?”. “Can’t you bless yourself?”. I was most put out by his manner, but said that I would be coming forward for a blessing any way…

In the service the collection plate came round. I had a five euro note for this, but put in 20 cents. Then came the communion. I went for a blessing and the (Spanish) Priest-in-Charge gave me a welcoming smile and a full blessing. I had a feeling of joy. After the service he made a point of greeting me and my wife, and saying how pleased he was that we came. I went back into the church and put the five euro note in the collection box.

 

[Cheshangle]

[No message]

 

[rinnie]

As I think I’ve mentioned, my brother’s an agnostic, and he married a RC. Bringing the children up as RCs, which they did more or less, was no great problem to him, and they’re still happily married 42 years on.

But as an Anglican it would have been far more difficult for me. I would have been happy for the boys to be brought up in their father’s faith and the girls in their mother’s, but not for all of them to be RC. That would imply my accepting that my church is somehow inferior, and I couldn’t do that.

I’ve used the expression “give and take”. Without that, a marriage is unlikely to work in any case. Can you imagine how I would have felt if my children had been taught that my faith was somehow “invalid”?

Give and take if always necessary in a marriage. But how can you make a promise to do your BEST to raise your children in the RCC if you know you could not do so.

Do you see what I am saying. You have to be honest. Lets say I was married in the Protestant Church and I for some unknow reason did not get married in the RCC. Now if I was told by the protestant preacher I had to promise to do MY BEST to raise my kids protestant I like you could not DO IT.

SO in the same token how can someone to agree to do thier best to raise a child in another faith if they do not agree with the faith in the first place.

That would be like going before GOD and again promising to LOVE Honor and Obey a person you do not love at all. It would be a big lie. Do you not agree.

But back to the point you do have to AGREE to ALLOW those kids to be raised Catholic. But what is being forgotten is, it is the duty of the other parent who IS Catholic to be the example and the God Parents to teach him.

 

[rinnie]

Hold on, I could be wrong but this is what I have read. A Roman Catholic Priest CAN give them communion BUT only if the person is in GRAVE DANGER, LIke say near death, etc.

SO there are exceptions to the rule but grace danger is all I have ever seen.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

I’m still not sure if the rules have changed. This is hearsay, but I know for a fact that about ten years ago on the radio (BBC) I heard that an Anglican can receive RC communion if there was no Anglican church nearby or on special occasions. Now it could be that the RC priest saying that (it might just have been Cardinal Hume) was “wrong”, as, in the eyes of many of you, quite a lot of priests are. Or perhaps the presnt Pope, no friend of the Anglican communion, has tightened up the rules.

Benedict XVI is “no friend of the Anglican communion”? Need I remind you that it is under Benedict XVI that a system has been created whereby members of the Anglican communion can come into communion with the Catholic Church? Or are you suggesting that a true “friend” would’ve just waved his hand and said Anglicanism is ok as is?

On the occasion in Australia when I was told I could receive communion, I did not because I felt that the Spirit didn’t cal me. On the second occasion, on holiday, I’d asked the (Irish) priest, beforehand, for a blessing, so I was a bit thrown when he offered me the scrament and settled for a blessing instead. The Westminster Cathedral wedding was cancelled.

In the present circumstanes I think blessings have to suffice. A RC priest I know says that it’s perfectly in order for a RC to accept a blessing at an Anglican service (or is he “wrong”, too?). If I were on death’s door and a RC priest offered me the eucharist if I had a last minute conversion, i’d still settle for a blessing.

Just as there are many poorly catechized Catholic laypeople, there are many poorly formed priests. A priest who gives a non-Catholic permission to receive the Eucharist (except in circumstances that only apply to the Orthodox and Eastern Churches) is doing a great disservice to them.

As far as “blessings” go: there is not a portion of the Mass at which it is customary to give blessings. The modern practice of going up in the Eucharist line to be blessed is not allowed for in the rubrics for the Mass. That line is for people who are receiving the Eucharist. During Mass, however, there are multiple instances of the priest giving blessings to the entire congregation; as far as I’m aware, that means everyone. Don’t quote me on that, though.

Can I end with a true story which I think is important. I was on holiday in Paphos, Cyprus. In that town the Orthodox Bishop has ceded an historic church for joint use by the local Anglican and RC communities. I was unable to go to the Anglican service so I went to the RC one. I asked the Assistant Priest, an Englishman, if I could attend. “Yes,” he said," but you may not take communion". “Well, can I have a blessing?”. “Can’t you bless yourself?”. I was most put out by his manner, but said that I would be coming forward for a blessing any way…

In the service the collection plate came round. I had a five euro note for this, but put in 20 cents. Then came the communion. I went for a blessing and the (Spanish) Priest-in-Charge gave me a welcoming smile and a full blessing. I had a feeling of joy. After the service he made a point of greeting me and my wife, and saying how pleased he was that we came. I went back into the church and put the five euro note in the collection box.

I’m not sure what your point is in telling this story. The first priest was (apparently) a little impolite; the second priest was very welcoming and expressed joy that non-Catholics came to Mass. There are rude priests and polite priests; it is not to the priests that one gives money during the collection, however.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Cheshangle]

I have not made any reference to any RC priest allowing Anglicans to receive communion on a continuing basis. At best it would be/have been only occasional. I agree with Cardinal Hume that true dialogue between faiths and churches can only be accomplished where each side respects the other’s regulations and traditions. I try to do this. He succeeded.

 

[Cheshangle]

Benedict XVI is “no friend of the Anglican communion”? Need I remind you that it is under Benedict XVI that a system has been created whereby members of the Anglican communion can come into communion with the Catholic Church? Or are you suggesting that a true “friend” would’ve just waved his hand and said Anglicanism is ok as is?

Just as there are many poorly catechized Catholic laypeople, there are many poorly formed priests. A priest who gives a non-Catholic permission to receive the Eucharist (except in circumstances that only apply to the Orthodox and Eastern Churches) is doing a great disservice to them.

As far as “blessings” go: there is not a portion of the Mass at which it is customary to give blessings. The modern practice of going up in the Eucharist line to be blessed is not allowed for in the rubrics for the Mass. That line is for people who are receiving the Eucharist. During Mass, however, there are multiple instances of the priest giving blessings to the entire congregation; as far as I’m aware, that means everyone. Don’t quote me on that, though.

I’m not sure what your point is in telling this story. The first priest was (apparently) a little impolite; the second priest was very welcoming and expressed joy that non-Catholics came to Mass. There are rude priests and polite priests; it is not to the priests that one gives money during the collection, however.

Peace,
Dante

There is some blame attached to Anglicans with regard to the Ordinariate. They started discussions with the RCC without informing their superiors. But it is felt in Anglican circles that the Pope should have consulted or at least informed the Archbishop of Canterbury a lot earlier than he did. As for saying to dissident Anglicans, “we’ll make it easier for you to join us”, I cannot see that that is being friendly to the Anglican Communion, unless he thinks he’s helping us out by taking in misfits, which is unlikely

Meantime he seems to have gone out of his way to stress that our orders are invalid and that we are not a church at all, and appears to be at least implying that this is an infallible statemt which can never be changed. I don’t expect him to say we’re “OK”, whatever you mean by that. I do expect him to have respect and affection for a sister church. Cardinals Hume* and Murphy-O’Connor (whom I met twice) certainly did. I think the present RC Archbishop of Westminster does too. Do you?

Are you implying that blessings are either invalid or out of order? That’s certainly not the opinion of an RC priest I was discussing this with recently, who felt that they were laudable either way (Anglican-RC and/or RC-Anglican).

• I never met Cardinal Hume, though I heard him preach in an Anglican church (and address an Anglican Bishop as “My Lord Bishop”), read letters of his in The Times and heard him frequently on the radio. In one letter he expressed thanks to Abp Runcie for his help and advice; in another he jumped down hard on someone who felt that he held the CofE in contempt.

 

[LDNCatholic]

There is some blame attached to Anglicans with regard to the Ordinariate. They started discussions with the RCC without informing their superiors. But it is felt in Anglican circles that the Pope should have consulted or at least informed the Archbishop of Canterbury a lot earlier than he did. As for saying to dissident Anglicans, “we’ll make it easier for you to join us”, I cannot see that that is being friendly to the Anglican Communion, unless he thinks he’s helping us out by taking in misfits, which is unlikely

Surely he has helped, if unintentionally. There must be very few left in opposition to priestesses and homosexual unions.

Meantime he seems to have gone out of his way to stress that our orders are invalid and that we are not a church at all, and appears to be at least implying that this is an infallible statemt which can never be changed. I don’t expect him to say we’re “OK”, whatever you mean by that. I do expect him to have respect and affection for a sister church. Cardinals Hume* and Murphy-O’Connor (whom I met twice) certainly did. I think the present RC Archbishop of Westminster does too. Do you?

Respect would involve not lying. Protestants regardless of denomination do not have valid orders, and as far as I’m aware are not considered Churches in the same sense that the Catholic or Orthodox are. I enjoy seeing Catholics and Protestants working together, but not at the expense of the Truth.

 

[nhylan]

Surely he has helped, if unintentionally. There must be very few left in opposition to priestesses and homosexual unions.

Respect would involve not lying. Protestants regardless of denomination do not have valid orders, and as far as I’m aware are not considered Churches in the same sense that the Catholic or Orthodox are. I enjoy seeing Catholics and Protestants working together, but not at the expense of the Truth.

Respect would be having a little tact and not paying lip service to the idea of respect. When the Pope visited Lambeth Palace do you think he refused to call Rowan Cantaur Archbishop? Do you think that when Roman Catholic Church leaders hold dialogue with their Anglican counterparts they immediately and constantly remind them that they don’t have valid orders “according to the Roman understanding?” If not, then why do you and others like you feel the need to do so on this website? If you are at all interested in uniting Christs Church then maybe actual respect is called for, respect also involves having sensitivities for others.

 

[Cheshangle]

Surely he has helped, if unintentionally. There must be very few left in opposition to priestesses and homosexual unions.

Respect would involve not lying. Protestants regardless of denomination do not have valid orders, and as far as I’m aware are not considered Churches in the same sense that the Catholic or Orthodox are. I enjoy seeing Catholics and Protestants working together, but not at the expense of the Truth.

I have never met a member of the Church of England, Church of Ireland or Anglican Church of Australia who is in favour of homosexual unions. Certainly I am not.

Does the fact that I regard Anglican orders as valid make me “a liar”? Perhaps you should rephrase “as far as I’m aware are not considered Churches” to “as far as I’m concerned are not Churches”. You are perfectly entitled to hold your own opinion. As indeed I am. And as far as I, and eighty million Anglicans are concerned, not to mention millions of other Christians, the Churches of the Anglican communion are Churches. As of course is your Church.

 

[Cheshangle]

I have never partaken of the eucharist in a RC church. I have been invited to, but have not done so. Many Anglicans in my position would merely have taken communion in the church in Paphos. I merely asked for (and received) a blessing.

 

[Cheshangle]

Is calling me a liar, as LDN has done, respectful?

 

[nhylan]

I don’t really see how my direct response to the comment could be viewed as a non-sequitir. Someone wrote something about respect, I made a direct response to his view of respect. If you could possibly equate one misbehaving priest with lack of respect you imply when you infer that our Church not only isn’t a church, but you think it doesn’t have valid orders, and that, as some here put it, our Eucharist is only wine and crackers, you can’t be serious. Catholic bring up stories about misbehaving priests on this website all the time, it happens everywhere and all the time. its a run of the mill thing on this website.

 

[LDNCatholic]

I have never met a member of the Church of England, Church of Ireland or Anglican Church of Australia who is in favour of homosexual unions. Certainly I am not.

That is good.

Does the fact that I regard Anglican orders as valid make me “a liar”?

Nope…It’d make you an Anglican.

As for the other person wading in and accusing me of showing a lack of respect and constantly reminding Anglicans that their orders are not valid: this thread is one long list of cheshangle reminiscing fondly about Catholics in a state of mortal sin and priests who are content to break Church law. Respect absolutely works both ways.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

There is some blame attached to Anglicans with regard to the Ordinariate. They started discussions with the RCC without informing their superiors. But it is felt in Anglican circles that the Pope should have consulted or at least informed the Archbishop of Canterbury a lot earlier than he did. As for saying to dissident Anglicans, “we’ll make it easier for you to join us”, I cannot see that that is being friendly to the Anglican Communion, unless he thinks he’s helping us out by taking in misfits, which is unlikely

Meantime he seems to have gone out of his way to stress that our orders are invalid and that we are not a church at all, and appears to be at least implying that this is an infallible statemt which can never be changed. I don’t expect him to say we’re “OK”, whatever you mean by that. I do expect him to have respect and affection for a sister church. Cardinals Hume* and Murphy-O’Connor (whom I met twice) certainly did. I think the present RC Archbishop of Westminster does too. Do you?

I respect you enough to tell you that my Church does not acknowledge Anglican sacraments, because Anglican bishops and priests do not have valid ordinations and therefore are incapable of performing valid sacraments. This stems from the fact that the Anglican church split off from the Catholic church, and regardless of the devotion and sincerity of its current members, this fact is unchanged. Unless and until an Anglican priest is in communion with Rome, his ordination cannot be valid, and thus neither can the sacraments he celebrates. This is not a judgement of his worthiness; it is a simple fact stemming from his ordination by another man whose ordination was invalid, who was ordained by another man whose ordination was invalid, etc. right on back to Henry VIII.

Are you implying that blessings are either invalid or out of order? That’s certainly not the opinion of an RC priest I was discussing this with recently, who felt that they were laudable either way (Anglican-RC and/or RC-Anglican).

I’m saying that it’s improper for anyone – Catholic or not – to go up in the communion line at Mass to receive a blessing. It’s not allowed for in the GIRM (General Instruction for the Roman Missal), the rubric for how Mass is to be celebrated, so it is not appropriate at that time. You can always ask a Catholic priest to bless you, but that is not what communion is for in a Catholic Mass – it’s for receiving the Eucharist. You wouldn’t knock on the confessional door, interrupting someone’s reception of the Sacrament of Reconciliation, in order to ask for a blessing, would you?

Now, as I’ve pointed out, there are plenty of priests out there who are, to one degree or another, ignorant of or (God forbid) ambivalent toward the GIRM, and this manifests itself in many different abuses, minor or otherwise, of the liturgy. Nonetheless, the rubric exists and exists for a reason, and it’s not in our or a priest’s authority to change it.

Peace,
Dante

edit: I also remind you that many Catholics – myself included – view the abbreviation “RC” as somewhat of a pejorative. I assume that was not your intent, but I felt it appropriate to let you know.