"Are You Holy Enough To Receive Communion?"

  • Thread starter Thread starter CleverUserName
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Apart from the fact that the word holy is not appropriate (nobodybis holy enough to receive Communion, in fact, we proclaim to God: you alone are the holy one) the page was nice indeed. I am sure a few people would be surprised at the answers 😉
 
Huh! I’m not impressed. Being opposed to the death penalty means I might not be eligible to receive Communion. We don’t have the death penalty in this country but if we did I would still be opposed to it.
 
A very misleading quiz. The title doesn’t match the quiz to start with…of course, it’s only meant to be a bit of fun.
 
Ugh, some of the wording on the parts I looked at was terrible and/or misleading. 😛
 
Ha ha, they got Grumpy Cat in there (#20). 😃

#2 does seem confusing for converts. Maybe they could have added a “convert clause” to the question.
Huh! I’m not impressed. Being opposed to the death penalty means I might not be eligible to receive Communion. We don’t have the death penalty in this country but if we did I would still be opposed to it.
Beneath this question, before you get it “wrong” or “right”, the quiz says that “My stance on the death penalty does not affect my ability to receive communion.” 👍
 
I already know I’m not in a state of grace (have not yet had my First Confession and Communion; hopefully this Mother’s Day will be the day! :)), but it was fun taking the quiz nevertheless.
 
From the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (Byzantine Rite): “Holy Gifts to Holy People.”

Catechism of the Catholic Church 1988 Through the power of the Holy Spirit we take part in Christ’s Passion by dying to sin, and in his Resurrection by being born to a new life; we are members of his Body which is the Church, branches grafted onto the vine which is himself:36
[God] gave himself to us through his Spirit. By the participation of the Spirit, we become communicants in the divine nature. . . . For this reason, those in whom the Spirit dwells are divinized.37

36 Cf. 1 Cor 12; Jn 15:1-4.
37 St. Athanasius, Ep. Serap. 1,24:PG 26,585 and 588.
 
From the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (Byzantine Rite): “Holy Gifts to Holy People.”
After the priest says the above, the people reply: “One is Holy, one is Lord, Jesus Christ, to the glory of God the Father. Amen.” 😃
 
You folks are a tough bunch. It’s interesting those who object to it, but can’t say why or what is wrong with it. The catechism is cited to support every point. The test is not really meant for “fun”. It’s a legitimate test meant to inform, which was posted by my friend, a priest, on twitter. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

God bless 🙂
 
Question 2 is not really accurate: “Have you been baptized in the Catholic Church?” My answer to that is no, because I was baptized as an infant in a Lutheran church by my father (a Lutheran pastor). But I was later received into the Catholic Church as an adult, which means I can receive communion (or at least, my having been baptized outside of the Catholic Church doesn’t prohibit me from doing so).

I also have problems with Question 3. It describes transubstantiation as a “physical transformation” but if it were thus, the accidents of bread and wine would no longer be present. The substance is changed into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ, but it is a transubstantiation, not a transformation.
 
Question 2 is not really accurate: “Have you been baptized in the Catholic Church?” My answer to that is no, because I was baptized as an infant in a Lutheran church by my father (a Lutheran pastor). But I was later received into the Catholic Church as an adult, which means I can receive communion (or at least, my having been baptized outside of the Catholic Church doesn’t prohibit me from doing so).

I also have problems with Question 3. It describes transubstantiation as a “physical transformation” but if it were thus, the accidents of bread and wine would no longer be present. The substance is changed into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ, but it is a transubstantiation, not a transformation.
With the reception of the Holy Spirit in baptism comes incorporation into the one body (Rom 8:1f, 9f; I Cor 12:12f). Per the CDF:It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.[9] Nevertheless, the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe… in the “one” Church); and this “one” Church subsists in the Catholic Church.[10]

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

From the survey:3. Do you believe that the bread and wine of the Eucharist disappear at the moment of consecration during Mass and LITERALLY become the body and blood of Jesus Christ?
The substance is what it really is, the accidents, the appearance. It is a real change.

See Modern Catholic Dictionary on Transubstantiation: After transubstantiation, the accidents of bread and wine do not inhere in any subject or substance whatever. Yet they are not make-believe; they are sustained in existence by divine power. (Etym. Latin trans-, so as to change + substantia, substance: transubstantiatio, change of substance.)
 
The appearances, exactly. The word “disappear” is misleading. The bread and wine don’t “disappear”; their appearance remains.

And the title of the quiz reminds me of a class for Eucharistic ministers about 30 years ago, and one of the questions we were asked was “Have you ever received Communion unworthily?”

“Every time,” responded one of the new Eucharistic ministers, without hesitation. Of course she didn’t mean that she was always in a state of mortal sin, she meant that she and the rest of us are not worthy of the Eucharist. There is even a hymn about that.
 
It’s interesting those who object to it, but can’t say why or what is wrong with it.
That I “cannot say” does not follow from the fact that I did not say. 🙂
Question 2 is not really accurate
Correct. For the reasons smh1978 mentioned above, nearly everything the quiz said here is wrong.
I also have problems with Question 3. It describes transubstantiation as a “physical transformation” but if it were thus, the accidents of bread and wine would no longer be present. The substance is changed into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ, but it is a transubstantiation, not a transformation.
I agree. What was said in Question 3 was awful.

The question is itself already somewhat problematic: It would be far better to say I believe the bread and wine are substantially changed into the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

But the content below is worse:
Quiz:
If you don’t believe in the literal, physical transformation of bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ…
The use of the terms “literal, physical” is ambiguous and therefore misleading and/or confusing (see the numerous discussions on CAF and elsewhere regarding why), which is one of the reasons the Church uses others. The Church uses words such as these:
Catechism:
1374 The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as “the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend.” In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist “the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.” “This presence is called ‘real’ - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.”

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.”

1380 It is highly fitting that Christ should have wanted to remain present to his Church in this unique way. Since Christ was about to take his departure from his own in his visible form, he wanted to give us his sacramental presence; since he was about to offer himself on the cross to save us, he wanted us to have the memorial of the love with which he loved us “to the end,” even to the giving of his life. In his Eucharistic presence he remains mysteriously in our midst as the one who loved us and gave himself up for us, and he remains under signs that express and communicate this love.

1381 “That in this sacrament are the true Body of Christ and his true Blood is something that ‘cannot be apprehended by the senses,’ says St. Thomas, ‘but only by faith, which relies on divine authority.’ For this reason, in a commentary on Luke 22:19 (‘This is my body which is given for you.’), St. Cyril says: ‘Do not doubt whether this is true, but rather receive the words of the Savior in faith, for since he is the truth, he cannot lie.’”

1390 Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But “the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly.” This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.
I’m sure that the Quiz intended what was said to be understood in an entirely orthodox manner, so I have no beef there, but I don’t think the use of ambiguous terminology was particularly helpful.

Much worse is this element:
Quiz:
If you don’t believe… you’re either not a Catholic, or you’re a Catholic committing a mortal sin and possibly committing heresy.
Failure to believe what the Church teaches regarding the Eucharist is grave matter. Whether it is a mortal sin, however, depends on two more conditions: full knowledge and deliberate consent. We are not usually in a position to say whether these conditions obtain in another person. It would hardly be just, for example, to assume full knowledge in a person who has not been catechized or who has been badly catechized.

The charge of heresy is similarly problematic. As the Catechism teaches, “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same.” Whether another Catholic is obstinately denying or doubting the Church’s teaching is, again, something we may not be in a position to know. At least the Quiz managed to qualify this one with “possibly.”
 
The charge of heresy is similarly problematic. As the Catechism teaches, “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same.” Whether another Catholic is obstinately denying or doubting the Church’s teaching is, again, something we may not be in a position to know. At least the Quiz managed to qualify this one with “possibly.”
And what does obstinate entail?
 
And what does obstinate entail?
It is used in the context of incredulity, so obstinate here means the willful refusal to assent to the revealed truth; (obstinātus, past participle of obstināre to persist in, from ob- (intensive) + stin-, variant of stare to stand).2089 *Incredulity *is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "*Heresy *is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; *apostasy *is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; *schism *is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."11
Assent is acceptance.
 
I agree with others about the parts that were misleading, and will go on record that I believe I found a couple pictures and the question on transubstantiation to be offensive. I just think that could have been done better.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top