Euacharist for all?

  • Thread starter Thread starter coco2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Brendan said:
What Catholics present in this matter is called an argument from authority, which is not a fallacy in and of its self,

Examples of that would be declaring the capital of the peoples republic of China as Beijing and citing the Rand McNally Atlas as the authority.
Click to expand...
Yes, the argument from authority …
In science, we never accept that one. It would be a fallacy.

In theology you can use it - but with caution. It shouldn’t stop us from thinking and questioning. I wouldn’t use the argument of authority as the only possible source for an answer to the question “Eucharist for all?”, without putting in a lot of thinking, looking at the way we live in the 21st century and all the implications it will bring to Catholics of all stripes.

Beijing is the capital of China by declaration or definition, not based on the authority of an atlas.
 
Hans_W said:
I hope you didn’t single out this quote because it originated in New Zealand. That will be pretty much the view of Catholics worldwide.

I am thinking of the millions of Catholics who’s beliefs are lukewarm and who only get into a Church on days like Christmas and Easter. Does it any good to tell them how bad they are? Do you want to exclude them from communion? How many would come back again?
Click to expand...
Well, I excluded myself from communion when my beliefs were lukewarm. I knew and understood the rules of the Church and I accepted them. Quite frankly, I needed to do an examination of my conscience and take a good, hard look at my life and the choices I had been making. So yes, it can do a tremendous amount of good. And when I was ready, I came back to the Church and the sacraments.
 
DeniseNY said:
Well, I excluded myself from communion when my beliefs were lukewarm. I knew and understood the rules of the Church and I accepted them. Quite frankly, I needed to do an examination of my conscience and take a good, hard look at my life and the choices I had been making. So yes, it can do a tremendous amount of good. And when I was ready, I came back to the Church and the sacraments.
Click to expand...
A very honourable viewpoint. But how many of the 1.2 billion Catholics would follow this path?
That’s why Pope Francis’ outreach to the unchurched is so important. And telling them that the Eucharist is closed to them is probably not a good starting point.
 
Hans_W said:
At least we agree that things have changed in the Church. And things will change again.
Click to expand...
Problem is, some think they have changed because so many Catholics are ignorant of their faith or just downright disobedient. They follow their own “truth” and are indifferent to the mind of the Church and the movement of God.
 
Hans_W said:
I am thinking of the millions of Catholics who’s beliefs are lukewarm and who only get into a Church on days like Christmas and Easter. Does it any good to tell them how bad they are? Do you want to exclude them from communion? How many would come back again?
Click to expand...
Here is the attitude that is so destructive to the spiritual life: God, our Source, offers us everything but man in his arrogance cannot be bothered to go to church more than twice a year, yet believes it his right to receive from God the greatest gift of all, certainly not on God’s terms, but on his own and whenever he chooses, without further thought to the Almighty and Loving God nor the condition of his own soul. What hubris is this!
 
Hans_W said:
Yes, the argument from authority …
In science, we never accept that one. It would be a fallacy…
Click to expand...
Interesting, because that is EXACTLY how most science classes are taught. If you want to know the atomic number for silicon, for example, you look it up in the periodic table in the back of the chem book.

Now your point is certainly valid for advanced science courses, generally post-grad. But for grade school through at least early undergrad, science IS taught by argument from authority. This is the formula for computing the center of mass for a given body, or for the resistance of a strand of copper of a particular diameter and length. Certainly, there is probably some explanation given, but even then, the expectation in class is that you would accept the authority of the prof eacher for the validity of the explanation. All of that is argument by authority.

And the same is true for theology, the reasons WHY those in grave sin are held back from Holy Communion are generally discussed at later undergrad study,. The known facts for theology are published in the Catechism, much like the atomic weight of silicon is published in the periodic table, or how the capital of the PRC is published in an atlas.
 
Hans_W said:
A very honourable viewpoint. But how many of the 1.2 billion Catholics would follow this path?
That’s why Pope Francis’ outreach to the unchurched is so important. And telling them that the Eucharist is closed to them is probably not a good starting point.
Click to expand...
So you’re suggesting that he tell everyone to receive communion, but it’s okay not to go to Mass? :confused:
 
Hans_W said:
A very honourable viewpoint. But how many of the 1.2 billion Catholics would follow this path?
That’s why Pope Francis’ outreach to the unchurched is so important. And telling them that the Eucharist is closed to them is probably not a good starting point.
Click to expand...
This viewpoint is very damaging to the faithful who are trying to live God’s commandments and refrain from communion or go to confession, when they are aware of mortal sin. Why should they strive and suffer to live these commands, if those in objectively sinful situations, protestants, atheists, and satanists are allowed to receive? Not that they do receive, (because there will probably always be people who receive improperly) but that people are calling for a change in the rule and the theology behind the rule.
 
In many visions, such as with St Faustina, Jesus speaks of his mercy being unable to enter a soul - not unwilling - whenever that soul deliberately blocks him out. That is the mystery of a rational, moral creature: it places in some sense limits upon an limitless God. God - the King of the Universe - cannot transform a soul that does not wish it without removing their rational faculties, in which case the act of transformation becomes utterly meaningless anyway.

The question of receiving communion in an unworthy state isn’t about what the Church can or can’t do. A person without absolution can’t actually become a tabernacle for Christ, which is why receiving the Eucharist in that instance is just sacrilege and nothing else. The wonders of the Eucharist, as you experience it, would be as different as night is to day for a person that hasn’t been made ready by the grace of God.
 
Brendan said:
Interesting, because that is EXACTLY how most science classes are taught. If you want to know the atomic number for silicon, for example, you look it up in the periodic table in the back of the chem book.

Now your point is certainly valid for advanced science courses, generally post-grad. But for grade school through at least early undergrad, science IS taught by argument from authority. This is the formula for computing the center of mass for a given body, or for the resistance of a strand of copper of a particular diameter and length. Certainly, there is probably some explanation given, but even then, the expectation in class is that you would accept the authority of the prof eacher for the validity of the explanation. All of that is argument by authority.

And the same is true for theology, the reasons WHY those in grave sin are held back from Holy Communion are generally discussed at later undergrad study,. The known facts for theology are published in the Catechism, much like the atomic weight of silicon is published in the periodic table, or how the capital of the PRC is published in an atlas.
Click to expand...
When we talk about “science” in the current context then we mean science as our intrinsic understanding of nature. And that is NOT based on authority, but is challenged all the time by people practising science. Space is not a featureless container, but is affected by what’s inside that space. This statement is not true because Einstein said so, but because it has been proven so over and over again. Everybody is welcome to challenge this theory.

In school you are taught that Newton said this and that and Darwin postulated this and that. That’s because you are learning the basics of science. These kids are not doing science yet. As you said correctly, once you move into postgraduate level you start DOING real science and then you question things and you confirm or disprove entrenched theories. You are welcome - and encouraged - to disregard authority.

In Christian theology you need to accept that Jesus was born of a virgin and that He rose from the dead. You have to accept these facts given through authority. You can’t question them as you would in science. If you don’t accept those basic tenants of our faith, you are not a Christian anymore, at least not in the Catholic sense.
 
coco2 said:
Does anyone know when the Church made rules about receiving the Eucharist? I know all of the rules, and the reasoning behind it, but I am praying for the day we have open Communion. It is hard for me to think that Christ would not want to come to someone through the Eucharist. I have occasionally not received for various reasons and it makes a difference in my week. I can literally tell when I haven’t received Christ in the Eucharist that week. I think my life is transformed because of the Eucharist, and I think that is why Christ gave it to us. Why on earth are we keeping others from receiving? Once again, I know the reasons. They have separated themselves from the truth, from the Church either by leaving the Church or through mortal sin. I guess these reasons frustrate me, and it always hits me hard during Holy Week, particularly Holy Thursday. We used to belong to a parish that had shared the first half of the Holy Thursday Mass with the Episcopal and Lutheran church. Right before liturgy of the Eucharist they would all file out and go to their respective churches for communion. I would always try to hold back tears because it seemed so wrong to me, deep in my soul. No one else ever seemed bothered by it, but it brought me great sadness and still does.
Click to expand...
It’s very sad, indeed, but we can’t force others to believe what we believe, nor to become reconciled to the Church, and it would not be very wise to simply pretend that unity exists where in reality it doesn’t.

Jesus prayed that “all may be one” and I know that some day, the Father will grant His prayer, but in the meantime, we have this sad situation that we have to live with.

Do what you can to share the joy of your Catholic faith with others, and perhaps a few more will get to experience the glory of union with Him, as we get to do, when they join the Church. 🙂
 
Hans_W said:
A very honourable viewpoint. But how many of the 1.2 billion Catholics would follow this path?
That’s why Pope Francis’ outreach to the unchurched is so important. And telling them that the Eucharist is closed to them is probably not a good starting point.
Click to expand...
From someone baptized and confirmed in the CC but not practicing, may I just be allowed to say no for me it’s not a good starting point. Closed communion, though granted is just 1 of many reasons why I don’t practice, it is nevertheless one reason. I believe Jesus’s words that he would turn no one away who is called to come by his Father. I simply don’t believe I am more unworthy than the next person when I discern the Body on the cross was given up for all of our sins. I don’t desire to practice a faith that believes I am unworthy of being received by Jesus in my present state. With my human warts and all. Anyway I know the faithful disagree but thanks for allowing a perspective from someone not practicing the faith.
 
Sy_Noe said:
From someone baptized and confirmed in the CC but not practicing, may I just be allowed to say no for me it’s not a good starting point. Closed communion, though granted is just 1 of many reasons why I don’t practice, it is nevertheless one reason. I believe Jesus’s words that he would turn no one away who is called to come by his Father. I simply don’t believe I am more unworthy than the next person when I discern the Body on the cross was given up for all of our sins. I don’t desire to practice a faith that believes I am unworthy of being received by Jesus in my present state. With my human warts and all. Anyway I know the faithful disagree but thanks for allowing a perspective from someone not practicing the faith.
Click to expand...
Im technically a Catholic too
Baptises and confirmed, but I dont recieve holy communion. That is because I have heretical views. The others are correct in pointing out that it is very disrespectful ( recieving communion while not in a state of grace). Right now im just seeing where God leads me. But until then I will not commit blasphemy by recieving something so sacred while i live my lifestyle which is unfortunately against church teaching.
I think you should stop receiving communion too. Its no excuse that " others do it too". You shouldnt even be judging people like that.
Just because you don’t receive communion doesnt mean you cant be saved. Just trust in Gods mercy and ask for his direction in your life. But its definitely not a good thing to make matters worse by taking communion unworthily.
In the bible God says:" I give you fire or water" that means we have to choose between the world and the spirit. I choose the world. You can’t be lukewarm.
 
Hans_W said:
A very honourable viewpoint. But how many of the 1.2 billion Catholics would follow this path?
That’s why Pope Francis’ outreach to the unchurched is so important. And telling them that the Eucharist is closed to them is probably not a good starting point.
Click to expand...
The Church cannot ignore the faithful teaching of St. Paul 1 Cor 11:
27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. **29 **For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 30 Therefore are there many inform and weak among you, and many sleep. **31 **But if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. 32 But whilst we are judged, we are chastised by the Lord, that we be not condemned with this world.
 
someperson555 said:
Im technically a Catholic too
Baptises and confirmed, but I dont recieve holy communion. That is because I have heretical views. The others are correct in pointing out that it is very disrespectful. Right now im just seeing where God leads me. But until then I will not commit blasphemy by recieving something so sacred while i live my lifestyle which is unfortunately against church teaching.
I think you should stop receiving communion too. Its no excuse that " others do it too". You shouldnt even be judging people like that.
Just because you don’t receive communion doesnt mean you cant be saved. Just trust in Gods mercy and ask for his direction in your life. But its definitely not a good thing to make matters worse by taking communion unworthily.
In the bible God says:" I give you fire or water" that means we have to choose between the world and the spirit. I choose the world. You can’t be lukewarm.
Click to expand...
Who said I receive communion in the CC? I have in the past but I haven’t been to Mass in a yr. Hence non practicing. Yes I believe I can be saved and trust in His mercy and I pray often for direction. I believe in God and in Christ as my Savior. But you’ll have to excuse me. As you don’t know my heart to judge whether it is on fire for Him or whether it is lukewarm. I trust in God alone to know my heart in this world and to judge me. But thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut. Peace and God bless.
 
Sy_Noe said:
Who said I receive communion in the CC? I have in the past but I haven’t been to Mass in a yr. Hence non practicing. Yes I believe I can be saved and trust in His mercy and I pray often for direction. I believe in God and in Christ as my Savior. But you’ll have to excuse me. As you don’t know my heart to judge whether it is on fire for Him or whether it is lukewarm. I trust in God alone to know my heart in this world and to judge me. But thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut. Peace and God bless.
Click to expand...
My apologies. I did NOT mean to call you lukewarm. I meant that towards people who who are in a state of mortal sin but recieve anyway.
I feel like you do in some ways. There are some teachings of the church which I find very hard to accept. Which is why I dont recieve communion. But in my humble opinion maybe it would be a good thing if youd start going to church again. I realize im in no position to preach but you might find that youll get closer to God. Right now I have my beliefs but I am staying open to Gods direction which is why I still go to church. Even if we cant recieve him its probably a good thing to be in his presence at least once a week. But we are all on our own path. So I wish you good luck. 👍
 
someperson555 said:
Just because you don’t receive communion doesnt mean you cant be saved. Just trust in Gods mercy and ask for his direction in your life. But its definitely not a good thing to make matters worse by taking communion unworthily.
Click to expand...
Thank you.

And there is always spiritual communion if not properly disposed for sacramental communion.
 
PaulfromIowa said:
Closed Communion is the rule from God, as mentioned by the St. Paul in Corinthians. The Church cannot change this.
Click to expand...
Yes, the Holy Eucharist is THE CENTRAL and most solemn part of the Mass, and that includes the core belief as to Its nature.

Christ in the Eucharist is not ‘all things to all men’ - He is but one thing, offered to those who choose to believe.
 
Mount_Carmel said:
Yes, the Holy Eucharist is THE CENTRAL and most solemn part of the Mass, and that includes the core belief as to Its nature.

Christ in the Eucharist is not ‘all things to all men’ - He is but one thing, offered to those who choose to believe.
Click to expand...
This is beautiful!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top