attending a non-catholic church for convienance?

[jmcrae]

With respect, sir (or ma’am), kindly peruse the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the topic of the Eucharist, as well as the relevant Canon Law, so that you understand that it is not a question of simply ‘sharing a supper’ with people. And God bless you too.

Really, we understand where you are coming from. You believe that your Eucharist is ‘valid’ and so you invite ‘all’; that is your prerogative and your ‘recognition’. Now we Catholics invite the Orthodox (whose sacraments we recognize as valid) to our Eucharist but they, in all but a very few cases, decline to accept. Do we INSIST that they’ve ‘gotta come’ just becase we ask them? I don’t think so. We recognize that even though we would ‘allow’ them, they may not ‘choose’ to come. That is perfectly respectful. You would ‘allow us’ – we choose not to come, with thanks, but no thank you.

The Orthodox (whose sacraments as I said we recognize as valid) do not as a rule extend an invitation to us Catholics (or you Protestants) to partake of such. Again, do we ‘demand’ that we be ‘allowed’ to have what we accept as valid? NO WE DO NOT.

I think that may be why we find it so perplexing that we are accused of being rude and of ‘denying’ others — when we actually offer the Eucharist to the Orthodox and they do NOT offer it to us (or you). We feel that a group has the RIGHT to determine its ‘rules’ and not to be badgered or ‘hated on’, so we accept in perfect amity the decision of the Orthodox with regard to us. . .and we cannot understand why so many of the Protestants who come to harrangue us about ‘meanness’ not only don’t seem to realize that other groups ‘deny’ them as well (without them seeming to even CARE, it’s just Catholics who get screamed at), but also don’t seem to realize that the Catholics they call ‘mean’ are getting the very same ‘denial’ of what to them is a valid Eucharist from the Orthodox, and yet WE are not stomping and stamping and name-calling and playing the victim/martyr cards (NOT that I am accusing anybody of having done so–not yet anyway–on this particular thread).

This is very well stated.

 

[twopekinguys]

Why? I know they believe their Communion is the Body and Blood too and you don’t. But TEC Communion is open to all baptized in the manner of the Trinity. No one is going to be holding a gun to anyone’s head if they receive even if they don’t believe TEC Communion is the Body and Blood. If you feel so called to receive, so be it. That is one of the Christ-like aspects of TEC. Christ said He turns no one away.

You have received numerous responses on this, so I’m not going to add to them, other than to say…You should have already known the answer to that question, as a Catholic.

 

[CMatt25]

All of the Apostles were Catholics in full communion with both Jesus Christ and with Peter.

I think you meant to say Christian. I thought the Capital C Catholic Church came a little after the Last Supper. Missed the Last Supper by about 70 yrs.

The combination “the Catholic Church” (hē katholikē ekklēsia) is found for the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnisans, written about the year 110.

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Catholic

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Now really, Matt. Are you going to tell us that ‘just Christians’ existed for the first 70 years of Christianity, to be ‘replaced’ by “Catholics” then, and then ‘re-emerged’ with "just Christians’ after AD 1500?

Are you going to tell us the DIFFERENCE between the ‘just Christian’ of the Last Supper and the “Catholic Christians” of St. Ignatius?

 

[jmcrae]

I think you meant to say Christian. I thought the Capital C Catholic Church came a little after the Last Supper. Missed the Last Supper by about 70 yrs.

Sorry, no. Jesus established the Catholic Church when He said to Peter, “Feed my lambs. Tend my sheep. Feed my sheep” thus making Peter to be our first Pope (Chief Shepherd of the Church) and then immediately after that He said, “go out into the whole world (Katholikos = the whole world) baptizing them and teaching them everything that I have told you.” Thus, the Church that Christ founded had for its head Peter, and He made it Catholic, which means, “world-wide.” You find all of this in the last chapters of the Gospels of John and Matthew.

The combination “the Catholic Church” (hē katholikē ekklēsia) is found for the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnisans, written about the year 110.

Yes, that’s the first time it’s found in writing. Notice that he provides no definition of the term, which means that his audience is already familiar with the term. This is how we know that they were already referring to themselves as “the Catholic Church” long before then.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

i expected to attend a 6:30pm Catholic mass today.
i did remember untill after the morning masses were over that I need to be at a school event by 7 to set up.
the 6:30pm is the only catholic mass left that i am in walking distance of (no car).
i think i am going to attend a 5:30 mass at the episcopal church;
does this fullfill my sunday obligation?
should i confess not attending catholic mass before i recieve again?

If the school event was unavoidable, and these things do happen, particularly if other people were waiting for you to unlock so they could get in or something similar, them my own approach would be to either go to the Anglican service and not take their communion, or go to a weekday mass if you felt you needed to, and if one is available.

If you needed to confess afterwards, then do so.

As a former Protestant, I do not hold with someone else’s comment here that merely going to an Anglican service means I give assent to all their teachings. I sometimes to my wife’s Baptist Church, but prefer to do so on those days when they do not have communion. That doesn’t mean I hold with all their teachings. I go for family reasons, and because in common with the people there, I believe in Christ. It is Christ who is preached, not Church rules.

 

[CMatt25]

Because it is wrong, Matt.

Don’t you see that it presents a false message to everyone?

The Catholic receiving is defying canon law and presenting himself/herself as ‘justified’ in taking TEC communion. And whether that Catholic ‘believes’ it is ‘true’ or not, the TEC people seeing the Catholic receive believe it is a communion and they believe that the Catholic accepting it is accepting it for what the TEC believe it is, and that the Catholic is thus ‘validating’ the TEC position and authority.

So the Catholic, and the TEC people, are all making, and receiving, totally FALSE things from and about each other. How is falsehood anything other than an awful thing?

Catholics look differently than TEC ppl so the TEC ppl would know someone was Catholic? And I’m pretty certain TEC ppl hold more than one view on what they believe Communion represents. They are probably not monolithic in their reasoning. So I’m not sure how a TEC person can read a Catholic’s mind on what the Catholic, who they might not even know is Catholic, is thinking about it all Sigh.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Catholics look differently than TEC ppl so the TEC ppl would know someone was Catholic? And I’m pretty certain TEC ppl hold more than one view on what they believe Communion represents. They are probably not monolithic in their reasoning. So I’m not sure how a TEC person can read a Catholic’s mind on what the Catholic, who they might not even know is Catholic, is thinking about it all Sigh.

You’re SURELY not arguing that it is all right to sin provided you aren’t ‘recognized’, are you Matt? It seems to me that you’re saying that provided nobody ‘knows’ that a Catholic is receiving TEC communion that it isn’t wrong. Surely you aren’t saying that. . .

I notice you have not addressed what Canon Law says. Do you not recognize that Canon Law has a binding authority on you as a Catholic?

 

[jmcrae]

Catholics look differently than TEC ppl so the TEC ppl would know someone was Catholic? And I’m pretty certain TEC ppl hold more than one view on what they believe Communion represents. They are probably not monolithic in their reasoning. So I’m not sure how a TEC person can read a Catholic’s mind on what the Catholic, who they might not even know is Catholic, is thinking about it all Sigh.

Simple rule of thumb - if you would need to lie about it if asked, or if it would involve a lot of explaining, then don’t do it.

 

[CMatt25]

If the school event was unavoidable, and these things do happen, particularly if other people were waiting for you to unlock so they could get in or something similar, them my own approach would be to either go to the Anglican service and not take their communion, or go to a weekday mass if you felt you needed to, and if one is available.

If you needed to confess afterwards, then do so.

As a former Protestant, I do not hold with someone else’s comment here that merely going to an Anglican service means I give assent to all their teachings. I sometimes to my wife’s Baptist Church, but prefer to do so on those days when they do not have communion. That doesn’t mean I hold with all their teachings. I go for family reasons, and because in common with the people there, I believe in Christ. It is Christ who is preached, not Church rules.

:clapping: Common sense says these things do happen. Of course it would be silly to say anyone going to an Anglican service or Baptist in your case means you assent to all. To your last 2 sentences,

 

[CMatt25]

Now really, Matt. Are you going to tell us that ‘just Christians’ existed for the first 70 years of Christianity, to be ‘replaced’ by “Catholics” then, and then ‘re-emerged’ with "just Christians’ after AD 1500?

Are you going to tell us the DIFFERENCE between the ‘just Christian’ of the Last Supper and the “Catholic Christians” of St. Ignatius?

I wasn’t there. So it’s all a matter of our interpretation or us accepting someone else’s interpretation. So no I hadn’t really planned to. Peace.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

With respect, Matt. . .not wishing to ‘push’ or to seem like an inquisitor, I simply cannot understand how a person can profess to be Catholic yet ignore Canon Law and publically question at best and deny at worst Church teachings?

It is like saying, “I’m a vegatarian” yet when in the company of vegatarians insisting on being served meat, saying that as a vegetarian eating meat is perfectly acceptable, and insisting that you be accepted as a ‘perfect’ vegetarian and that **all the other vegetarians **accept YOUR actions as legitimate for a **vegetarian. **

You still have not addressed the Canon Law that I was careful to present.

Canon Law is not like the tray at the cafeteria–take some of this, ignore what you don’t like here, and make ‘substitutions’ as you see fit.

Neither is Catholicism a kind of indifferent or relative faith to be seen as 'one of many viable options but only just so ‘much’ or so ‘far’ as the individual chooses. . .

 

[CMatt25]

You’re SURELY not arguing that it is all right to sin provided you aren’t ‘recognized’, are you Matt? It seems to me that you’re saying that provided nobody ‘knows’ that a Catholic is receiving TEC communion that it isn’t wrong. Surely you aren’t saying that. . .

I notice you have not addressed what Canon Law says. Do you not recognize that Canon Law has a binding authority on you as a Catholic?

Tantum, you’re the one who said a TEC person would get all these ideas into their head about what another would be thinking. I was simply responding to that. Yes I know about Canon Law. Now please lets not turn this into CMatt is not a Catholic. Been there done that posting all sorts of law.

 

[jmcrae]

I wasn’t there. So it’s all a matter of our interpretation or us accepting someone else’s interpretation. So know I hadn’t really planned to. Peace.

Matt, it is a historical fact that the Church founded by Jesus Christ was the same Catholic Church that is here today being led by Pope Benedict XVI, who is the 266th Successor of Peter, in a straight and unbroken line of succession.

By contrast, there is no line of succession going from any Apostle to any Bishop of the TEC, not even in a crooked line, because the line of succession that did exist was deliberately broken by King Edward VI - he did this by changing the wording of the Ordination ceremony to leave out any indications of Apostolic Succession, and by changing what it was that the person was being ordained to do.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Tantum, you’re the one who said a TEC person would get all these ideas into their head about what another would be thinking. I was simply responding to that. Yes I know about Canon Law. Now please lets not turn this into CMatt is not a Catholic. Been there done that posting all sorts of law.

I know you KNOW ‘about’ Canon Law, Matt, and I’m not turning this into anything so please don’t play the ‘martyr’ card. I’m saying that you appear not to ACCEPT Canon Law on this subject as Canon Law specifically says that one may NOT receive, and yet you continue to insist that it’s up to the (Catholic) individual. What you are saying, in fact, directly contradicts Canon Law and that (coming from a Catholic) is a problem. . .

 

[CMatt25]

I know you KNOW ‘about’ Canon Law, Matt, and I’m not turning this into anything so please don’t play the ‘martyr’ card. I’m saying that you appear not to ACCEPT Canon Law on this subject as Canon Law specifically says that one may NOT receive, and yet you continue to insist that it’s up to the (Catholic) individual. What you are saying, in fact, directly contradicts Canon Law and that (coming from a Catholic) is a problem. . .

That’s ok Tantum. It’s a bit of a problem to me for someone not to accept the Church’s teaching on who is a Catholic on CAF. But I live with it.

 

[CMatt25]

Matt, it is a historical fact that the Church founded by Jesus Christ was the same Catholic Church that is here today being led by Pope Benedict XVI, who is the 266th Successor of Peter, in a straight and unbroken line of succession.

By contrast, there is no line of succession going from any Apostle to any Bishop of the TEC, not even in a crooked line, because the line of succession that did exist was deliberately broken by King Edward VI - he did this by changing the wording of the Ordination ceremony to leave out any indications of Apostolic Succession, and by changing what it was that the person was being ordained to do.

Yes it is when we place our faith in the writers of that history down through the yrs and the Church’s interpretation of it.

 

[jmcrae]

That’s ok Tantum. It’s a bit of a problem to me for someone not to accept the Church’s teaching on who is a Catholic on CAF. But I live with it.

Red herring. No one is saying that anyone here is “not a Catholic” except for those who self-identify as something else.

Being as how this is the “Catholic Answers Forum” however, it behooves those of us who are actually Catholics to give the Catholic answers to the various questions raised on the Forum, rather than our own personal opinions, so as to avoid confusion.

(In like manner, those representing other religions should give the answers that represent the teachings of their respective religions, if they identify themselves as having one, and again, this helps to avoid confusion.)

 

[jmcrae]

Yes it is when we place our faith in the writers of that history down through the yrs and the Church’s interpretation of it.

Did you accidentally omit some punctuation? I cannot make sense of this statement.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

That’s ok Tantum. It’s a bit of a problem to me for someone not to accept the Church’s teaching on who is a Catholic on CAF. But I live with it.

I haven’t seen anybody here not accept the Church’s teaching on who is a Catholic. . . so I fail to understand why you’re claiming this is something ‘you’ have lived with (since you then say ‘but I live with it. . .’)