Confused about CCC and Eucharist

[jmcrae]

So if I was using the CCC to support why even a nondenominational Christian professing the belief of transubstantiation (and a deep understanding and seriously WAY better than the majority of Catholics understand transubstantiation) should abstain from receiving…is there any direct mention of this case in the CCC?

I don’t consider it likely, since this isn’t a matter of Doctrine, but rather, of discipline. Matters of discipline are dealt with in Canon Law, rather than in the Catechism.

At my Newman center, this issue hits 3 types of non-Catholic Christians:

1. The roommates or casual friends of a Catholic. They usually come to Mass once…maybe twice a semester.
2. The Christian who attends Mass simply because the Newman Center/chapel is the only physical chapel on campus. This type will usually attend maybe once a month.
3. The non-Catholic Christian who attend Mass every week.

Believe it or not, this is a wonderful problem to have. It’s certainly tricky from a logistical point of view, but you have a wonderful opportunity for evangelism here. Is there any thought of offering an adaptive RCIA process for them?

Let’s consider the best case scenerio: I and a few friends discuss this with the priest and he realizes he needs to start teaching according to the Church. Any good suggestions on how to go about implimenting this new accordance of the teachings of the CCC?

He’s a priest; he isn’t required to give a reason for changing his mind about something, or implementing something new. He can simply say that from here on in, those non-Catholics who come to Mass can make a spiritual communion (or whatever he chooses to have them do) and that instruction for becoming a Catholic is available at such and such parish for those who want to receive Holy Communion but who are not yet Catholic - or he can do an RCIA process on campus if that would work better for the participants.

Personally, I do not think the priest will change his ways. He has made it very clear concerning his beliefs in the past. I still want to talk to him prior to contacting anyone though. I plan to do so ideally this week.

Good luck.

 

[nicolakirwan]

There was no ambiguity. None. You brought this up out of the blue. Then I questioned why and you said people might think that was the only reason. I have seen no reason for this at all. Could you please cite some examples from the thread where people were saying that the only criteria for reception is that all non Catholics don’t believe in the Real Presence?

If you didn’t see the point of what I said, what difference does it make? You are free to contradict what I said with your own pov, as you’ve done, or move on.

There are some problematic themes in your posts. Just like you were sensitive to point out that some others believe in the Real Presence I am a tad sensitive when people start pointing things like that out to blur the lines between Catholic and non Catholics. There are many differences and it should be pointed out that even if some agreed with the idea of real presence the consecration of such hosts has to be valid. There are many differences and it should be pointed out that even if some agreed with the idea of real presence the consecration of such hosts has to be valid. A Presbyterian minister can say any words he wants to but the end it is just bread.

We are speaking of non-Catholics taking communion in a Catholic context, not communion other places. So the validity of the consecration is not what is in question.

As for your depiction of denominations melting away I can’t see how that is possible or even happening. In fact in a lot of denominations there are denominations of the denominations. Further fractioning does not make something more whole.
But you are correct about one thing. In the future we all will be one.

I did not say that such would make Christendom unified. The loosening grip of denominational affiliation on the American Christian conscience is actually a well studied phenomenon. But more can be read about that here:

christianpost.com/news/survey-pastors-say-identifying-with-denomination-will-become-less-vital-55543/

christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/january/22.14.html

huffingtonpost.com/david-lose/christian-denominations-over_b_1616233.html

 

[Moore11]

If you didn’t see the point of what I said, what difference does it make? You are free to contradict what I said with your own pov, as you’ve done, or move on.
I can contradict it with facts but that is for another thread.

We are speaking of non-Catholics taking communion in a Catholic context, not communion other places. So the validity of the consecration is not what is in question.

The two are absolutely linked. A non Catholics understanding of the Eucharist is indeed shaped by his own Church.:

I did not say that such would make Christendom unified. The loosening grip of denominational affiliation on the American Christian conscience is actually a well studied phenomenon. But more can be read about that here:

None of those articles are really on point from the perspective of a Catholic. You are really arguing the semantics of the word “Denominations” not the divide and separation of the Catholic Church to the rest of the Christian world. In fact, the further we get from the reformation the further away the denomination of “non demoniational” becomes from the Truth. The only thing that shows is that the denomination of “non denominational” is becoming a large denomination.

christianpost.com/news/survey-pastors-say-identifying-with-denomination-will-become-less-vital-55543/

christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/january/22.14.html

huffingtonpost.com/david-lose/christian-denominations-over_b_1616233.html

Do you have some theological sources to cite? Where do we see in the modern world ecumenism in the form of the Eucharist and the understanding thereof?
Your bias is evident as is mine.

I guess from the start of your posting on this thread I just do not understand your agenda or points. You stated that some Christians can believe in “transubstantiation”
It really has no bearing on the Catholic teaching of this matter.
Again, it does not matter what someone who cannot confect the Eucharist believes they are doing. I can believe in Transubstantiation, I can say the words of consecration with intent to transform and sincere belief. If you ingest the host I did that with you are still only eating bread. My alignment and misunderstanding with the Catholic Church does not create something just because I believe it. So I submit that those Christians who do not have the ability to consecrate the host do not have an understanding of the Eucharist. No matter what words (like transubstantiation) they use.

An immediate parallel would be a Mormon who baptizes in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit but has a fundamentally different understanding of what those things are. Therefore, Mormon baptism is invalid in the Catholic Church.
Same with the Eucharist and some Christians who believe in their form of the Real Presence.