Communion of other faiths

[goodcatholicman]

Originally Posted by goodcatholicman
My point isn’t that we need to protect God from anything. My point is we are protecting the truth regarding God and the Eucharist as much as we can as feeble humans.

What is the difference?

I can read to you sacred scripture from the NAB and we can discuss it as such. Or I can make up my own bible and declare it sacred scripture and offer it to you. Protestants removed many books from the Catholic Bible, compiled it into their own book and declared it to be the “fullness of the gospel.” Upon who’s authority? Protestants then pout and whine when we disagree with their take or things. The same is true with the Eucharist. You cannot take away from the Eucharist; sometimes a symbol and sometimes not; anyone can perform a valid Eucharist on most occasions but not always,etc.then turn around and complain that WE don’t recognize your way as valid.

PEACE

 

[apologist]

Jmcrae,

Your answers are so on the money! You explain our faith so beautifully. I thought “I” understood it well, now I understand it even better and I’m a cradle Catholic.
THANKS!

 

[Randy_Carson]

You’re a zealot and you do a disservice to your faith. The Pope has more a civil outlook on MAINSTREAM Protestantism than you do.

Really?

Here is a document he signed before he became pope…let’s see what it says about Protestant “churches”…

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

DECLARATION
"DOMINUS IESUS"
ON THE UNICITY AND SALVIFIC UNIVERSALITY
OF JESUS CHRIST AND THE CHURCH

1. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.63

“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”.64 In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”.65

“Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.66

**
Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, August 6, 2000, the Feast of the Transfiguration of the Lord.

**Joseph **Card. Ratzinger
*Prefect *

This may come as a shock, but we don’t even consider your “ecclesial communities” to be true “churches”.

I know…I’m a “zealot”. Is the Pope a zealot, too?

 

[O.S.Luke]

Yet…

“Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”

So the Church doesn’t recognize us as valid churches, but they have not been deprived of the mystery of salvation; indeed, Christ has USED them as a means of salvation.

That sounds very sacramental to me. Wanna try again?

O+

 

[O.S.Luke]

No, actually pantheism says that all the flowers, birds, trees, people, stars, planets, comets etc. are God. If one were to say that God can show up in a grapefruit, that would not be the same as saying the grapefruit (along with everything else in the universe) is God.

Oh goodness gracious me. Are you going to stick by that?

 

[O.S.Luke]

There is a fundamental difference between the Real Presence of Jesus under the species of bread and wine and the general “presence” in the “community”. The Real Presense in the Blessed Sacrament in truly and really the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

Degrees of Christ’s presence? Hmmmm.

 

[O.S.Luke]

I can read to you sacred scripture from the NAB and we can discuss it as such. Or I can make up my own bible and declare it sacred scripture and offer it to you. Protestants removed many books from the Catholic Bible, compiled it into their own book and declared it to be the “fullness of the gospel.” Upon who’s authority? Protestants then pout and whine when we disagree with their take or things.

Save your polemic; God’s truth doesn’t need defending anymore than God does. Truth is truth. Pouting and whining is for those who find comfort in it. I have nothing to whine about; I’ve been blessed by God’s grace.

The same is true with the Eucharist. You cannot take away from the Eucharist; sometimes a symbol and sometimes not; anyone can perform a valid Eucharist on most occasions but not always,etc.then turn around and complain that WE don’t recognize your way as valid.

You misread: the Eucharist IS the Real Presence of Christ AND a symbol. I didn’t say that anyone can perform a valid Eucharist. And while I could care less what you think as valid, the fact of the matter is that the Eucharist is Christ’s, and that it is the communal meal of the baptized.

If you want to cogently discuss the matter, don’t put words into my mouth, please. I’m ok with disagreeing, but not with dishonest tactics.

O+

 

[goodcatholicman]

“Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.66

The efficacy gained is what is gained from the fullness and grace entrusted to the Catholic Church. Some communities are closer to the Catholic Church than others and thereby are considered to have more efficacy in terms of salvation. The further away from the Church these communities are in their teaching, the more they lack efficacy.

 

[goodcatholicman]

You misread: the Eucharist IS the Real Presence of Christ AND a symbol. I didn’t say that anyone can perform a valid Eucharist. And while I could care less what you think as valid, the fact of the matter is that the Eucharist is Christ’s, and that it is the communal meal of the baptized.

If you want to cogently discuss the matter, don’t put words into my mouth, please. I’m ok with disagreeing, but not with dishonest tactics.

O+

---

I am certainly not being dishonest in my debate. I stick by my statement. Here is a question for you. Who can perform a valid Eucharist and what standards are you using?

 

[goodcatholicman]

Save your polemic; God’s truth doesn’t need defending anymore than God does. Truth is truth. Pouting and whining is for those who find comfort in it. I have nothing to whine about; I’ve been blessed by God’s grace.

Stating that Truth is Truth is more than a little disingenuous to the debate as it suggests that Truth can be found where one looks as long as he has God’s grace. In one sense you are correct but when discussing matters of the fullness of the gospel, correct readings regarding Jesus, you miss the mark (as well you know). I read my daughter a good night book this evening about Curious George. There I found some truth. Am I to assume by God’s grace, this is all I need? Of course not! Again, God and his Truth need no help from men. Men only contribute to the demise of both. We need His blessing and His presence in our lives. That presence can be found in the blessed sacrament in a way that cannot possibly be described. The one place I know that sacrament is properly presented is the Catholic Church. His Church. The one entrusted to Peter and lives on through Apostolic succession. This I know. Join me there?

 

[O.S.Luke]

Stating that Truth is Truth is more than a little disingenuous to the debate as it suggests that Truth can be found where one looks as long as he has God’s grace.

I suggested no such thing. Ultimate truth is in Jesus the Christ, He is the logos, at one with the Father.

 

[Peregrino]

There is a fundamental difference between the Real Presence of Jesus under the species of bread and wine and the general “presence” in the “community”. The Real Presense in the Blessed Sacrament in truly and really the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. This is the reason why the Sacred Species are to be adored with the worship of latria and the people are not to be.

Since the “presense” is fundamentally different, no it is not a “moot point”.

This is kind of fuzzy to me. Can you please show me how they are different rather than telling me how they are different? For some reason I am having trouble with your distinction between the “presences” of Christ. The people look to be more flesh and blood to me than the host…

Its a general explanation, I don’t see why you put so much weight into it. You cannot say that just because the Didache doesn’t specifically outline the Roman Mass that everything goes. It would be like taking a good, orthodox sermon on the Mass (given by a Catholic to Catholics, much like the Didache) and then say that since it doesn’t go into explicit details about certain matters of doctrine that they were not believed.

I am not putting any emphasis beyond it being a perspective that has been shunted aside in light of modern doctrine. You cannot say that just because the Didache doesn’t specifically outline the Roman Mass and its elements that they are being assumed by the writers and that certain doctrines were believed. The language used in the Didache seems to be directed at normal people and does not appear to be a guide to a priestly class. That is all I am saying.

 

[O.S.Luke]

I am certainly not being dishonest in my debate. I stick by my statement. Here is a question for you. Who can perform a valid Eucharist and what standards are you using?

You are being dishonest, as you have put words into my mouth and now act like you haven’t - I won’t give you any more satisfaction.

I take making the sign of the cross seriously. If you want to use that to “bless” your argument, you are really taking liberties with the sign of the cross - in my opinion.

Peace be with you.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

Kitty, I understand what you are saying. IMHO, obedience to God is much more a matter of the heart than of form or ritual. You analogy of the two drawings is a good one. So many of the standards we place on how we practice religion seem to be man made limits and quickly seem to miss the spirit of the “law”. Wasn’t this one of Jesus’ “gripes” with the Pharisees? Observing the form but totally missing the spirit?

Having been a former atheist, raised as an atheist, the gift of faith is unbelievably precious to me. I can’t explain why I have faith but I do. I have a knee jerk reaction when someone says “your faith is wrong.” How the heck would someone know? It is faith for crying out loud. It is fundamentally insubstantial and therefore requires trust in God, a loving father who is perfect and will give “what is good to those who ask”.

“Well the Bible says you are wrong because the scriptures say that Jesus established the Church.” IMHO, the Church “established”, canonized, the Bible, a Church that was keenly interested in unity, conformity, authority and a singular place in a Roman empire which had persecuted Christians for hundreds of years. This does not mean that the Bible isn’t inspired, nor that the Church is a valid path to holiness, it merely indicates that certain scriptural perspectives were selected over others. That has occurred on the part of Protestants since. The Bishops at the council were also operating on faith. How could they be sure they were right and chose the right scriptures? Faith and trust.

Given that we can’t prove we are right, we must have faith and trust in God that God can sort it all out and that God appreciates the weakness and failings of human understanding. We shouldn’t be so quick to condemn and judge others as inferior or incorrect. God has it under control.

Thanks for explaining that and the rest, Im really starting to think there is a sort of perspective one has depending on back ground or journey, I suffer from the same knee jerk reaction, what you said, I could have said. It is reassuring to know there is others who share thoughts and like I said earlier, one feels less alone.

And you are so right, in regards to faith and trust in God (He will sort us out, I totally agree) He is in control and it is precious. I think thats what bothers me most about this faith wrong as faith is the thing that brought me to God, not doctrines, churches, rules etc. The question was, is He who He is, or not? And if Jesus is who He says He is, are you going to acknowledge it? I answered, yes, He is the Son of God. He is there, youre right I am not alone like I thought, there really is more to it all than I thought, and no matter what He will be with me.

There simply is no proof, it is faith as you say.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

There is a very, very large difference between Real Presence and Transubstantiaion. Real Presence embraces the Mystery of Faith, Transubstantiation is a Thomistic and Aristotelian philosophical explanation that became dogma in the 11th century. I’ve never said I believe in Transubstantiation. Moreover, the Eastern churches (incl. the Orthodox) don’t embrace the concept, either (ask your local Orthodox priest about transubstantiation, metousiosis, metabole, metastoicheiosis, and metarrhythmisis (ah, the problem of all the Early Church Fathers who wrote in Greek, Latin, and 2-3 other languages)). It seems folly to me to use rationalism and Aristotelian philosophy to try to explain a mystery. Anyway, the Church made it for over 1000 years without having to explain it. The West being the West just had to try, tho.

It’s the body and blood of Christ. Period. It’s not a metaphor. Sacraments are the reality and point to the reality of God’s grace and Christ’s presence. They become, by the power of the Holy Spirit, outward and visible signs of an inward and spiritual grace. That, my friend, is a miracle. And you can’t use rationalism or Thomistic/Aristotelian philosophy to “explain” a miracle. Nor can you use science. I’m sorry, but the dogma of transubstantiation explains the mystery too neatly. Mysteries are not explainable.

And you best be careful with symbol, my friend. Sacraments are real AND symbols; it’s a both/and, not an either/or - they point toward the realities of Christ, and they ARE Christ! If you get caught running a stop sign and tell the cop, “Ah, it’s just a symbol of the law, it’s not the law itself”, I suspect you will still get a ticket.

Perhaps two.

O+

Thank you, this clears up a lot.

I probably will end up with more questions, but my head doesnt hurt anymore.

btw I did print the book on post 48 too!

 

[Grace_Seeker]

I am quite certain that the Pope does not think that Protestants have a valid Eucharist, in the sense meant by the Catholic Church.

I am sure you are correct in this assertion. And there is no reason for me to suggest that anyone in the Catholic church disagree with the leadership of their church. And I am quite aware that the Catholic church asserts for itself and for its teaching magestrium infallibilty. But that does not mean that it is so.

The idea comes from a Catholic interpretation of scripture, an interpretation that, to the best of my knowledge, is not shared outside the Catholic church. The Catholic church produces a circular argument to say that it is true and supported by scripture and then turn to their own interpretations of scripture, that they know are correct because they come from the traditions of the Catholic church to substantiate this idea. Non-catholic Christians would claim a different interpretation of those same passages and ultimately assert the validity of their sacraments. But in truth, such claims, no matter the quality of logic behind the argument, are grounded in the idea that my interpretation of scripture is better than yours and little more than that. They may be right. They may be wrong.

Who are you going to trust, your own interpretation or someone elses? (No one has to answer that rhetorical question.)

The one interesting fly in the ointment, as I see it, is that the Catholic church recognizes the validity of other Christian, but non-Catholic, baptisms. But as the sacrament of baptism is not rooted in the priestly office in Catholic theology, I don’t suppose it really speaks to the issue of the validity of a non-Catholic eucharist.

In the end, I tend to think that God looks kindly on all who come to the altar (or sit in the pew) to receive the elements of Christ’s body and blood in Anglican, Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Baptist and other non-Catholic churches and the ritual is indeed efficacious. Whether it is “valid” or not, let’s let him decide.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

This is kind of fuzzy to me. Can you please show me how they are different rather than telling me how they are different? For some reason I am having trouble with your distinction between the “presences” of Christ. The people look to be more flesh and blood to me than the host…

As I was not being clear, I’ll let the Sovereign Pontiff’s speak-

"Along with the Church, therefore, her Divine Founder is present at every liturgical function: Christ is present at the august sacrifice of the altar both in the person of His minister and above all under the eucharistic species. He is present in the sacraments, infusing into them the power which makes them ready instruments of sanctification. He is present, finally, in prayer of praise and petition we direct to God, as it is written: “Where there are two or three gathered together in My Name, there am I in the midst of them.”-Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei

"This presence is called “real” – by which it is not intended to exclude all 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, the God-Man, is wholly and entirely present. It would therefore be wrong to explain this presence by having recourse to the “spiritual” nature, as it is called, of the glorified Body of Christ, which is present everywhere, or by reducing it to a kind of symbolism, as if this most august Sacrament consisted of nothing else than an efficacious sign, “of the spiritual presence of Christ and of His intimate union with the faithful, members of His Mystical Body.”-Pope Paul VI, Mysterium Fidei

The same teaching is reiterated by Vatican II and is taught by Trent. Christ is most perfectly present in the Most Blessed Sacrament but that does not bar other ways of presence which are not as full. Pope Paul VI’s encyclical especially was written in response to the kind of heresies that popped up after Vatican II in which some bright clerics thought that “Eucharist happens” in the people and everything else at Mass and devalues the actual True Presence to either a sort of symbol (which is obviously heretical) or Modernist bait-n-switch “real presence” that doesn’t mean what it had always meant.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

Oh goodness gracious me. Are you going to stick by that?

Then explain how this sort of view (as you see it) would be pantheistic.

 

[jmcrae]

This is kind of fuzzy to me. Can you please show me how they are different rather than telling me how they are different? For some reason I am having trouble with your distinction between the “presences” of Christ. The people look to be more flesh and blood to me than the host.

To give an analogy - I wear a wedding ring. My husband is spiritually present with me where ever I go, as long as I am wearing my wedding ring. Men look at me, and they can “see” my husband with me, because of my wedding ring. This is “spiritual presence.”

This is the kind of presence that Jesus has with any two or three people who are gathered in His name.

However, there is also a real presence, which is the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.

I experience the “real presence” of my husband when we are at home together, or travelling together.

This is the kind of Real Presence of Jesus Christ that we Catholics have when we kneel before the Tabernacle or attend Adoration.

When my husband and I are experiencing intimacy, I experience my husband’s presence in a deeply personal way.

It is this same kind of deeply personal Real Presence of Jesus Christ that we Catholics experience when we receive Holy Communion at Mass. (This is what is meant by the term “Transubstantiation” - the bread and wine are no longer there, and Jesus is physically present, alive.)

 

[Kitty_Chan]

As I was not being clear, I’ll let the Sovereign Pontiff’s speak-.

so he starts off saying that God is where 2 or more gather. THen there is statements that the catholic church has the best of Christ the perfect and He only gives second best to the rest and not perfect or as full as can be.

So I guess Dad does love the catholic brother more, cause he gives seconds to the other siblings.

The older brother gets the nice stereo and the younger gets a radio. They both play music, just one is stereo and one not.

Didnt know Dad was that way never thought that was like Him.