T
ThundersnowIV
Guest
Thank you!!!
- Status
O
OraLabora
Guest
The OP mentioned it was a monastic community. This may not be possible due to the restrictions of the enclosure and the control of contact with the outside; the celebrant may not be the monk who is designated by the superior to have contact with the public.
You would instead have to mention it to the superior of the community, if he agrees to see you, and if he does even then he may not intervene, leaving it up to conscience. A monastic community is not a parish, and if it is a community of Pontifical Right, is not under the jurisdiction of the local bishop. So your next stop, if the superior wonāt hear you, is the Pope (or more likely the āCongregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Lifeā to whom he delegates the oversight of the religious). Remember that a conventual Mass is NOT for the public, but for the community even if by courtesy and a desire to share their spirituality they allow the public to attend their Mass and Offices.
In other words, letting it go and praying is about the wisest course. The world is never going to conform to oneās idea of perfection. Jesus has had to suffer a lot worseā¦
O
OraLabora
Guest
It sounds like the Monastic Fraternities of Jerusalem. They are a valid Catholic community with a valid Eucharist. They use the Roman Rite Office and Mass, but incorporate Eastern Rite elements in their music, gestures, iconography, incense, etc.
They have a foundation relatively near to me in Montreal, and also in Firenze (Florence) among others. Iāve never been but others have told me their liturgy is very beautiful. Nothing flaky about these communities. It is a fairly new order, but is fully approved as an institution of diocesan right, so under the authority of the bishop (unlike Benedictines or Cistercians).
Frankly, to the OP, I donāt know how the monks are supposed to recognize a Protestant in the communion line. Do they wear a scarlet P on their breast?
W
WilliamE
Guest
Agreed!
It would certainly be much less āinterestingā around here, thatās for sure.What would become of CAF if everyone went around minding their own business? 80 percent of the traffic would disappear!
T
TaylorDonBarret
Guest
I think that in every day in every large Parish all throughout the world there are non-Catholics receiving the Eucharist. There is virtually no way to stop this. We basically use the honor system when it comes to visitors and guests so any stranger can just show up and act like a Catholic and not be questioned. Personally, the fact that a Jesus-loving, Holy Spirit-filled Protestant receives it does not bother me in the slightest. God already lives inside that person. It bothers me, not when a non-Catholic receives, but when a non-Christian receives. But, honestly, even in that case, I am not sure our Lord is going to be too bothered by it as long as the person does so with good intentions. He was not bothered by touching unbelievers, sinners, and the ritually unclean - as long as they were sincere and good intentioned. What bothers our Lord is those who are wilfully, woefully, bad intentioned. And those are the only people that I would really be bothered by when it comes to receiving the Eucharist. But that is my own personal, private opinion. And I would not have it become a universal maxim or Catholic doctrine.
S
steve_b
Guest
If someone is not Catholic because they donāt believe what the Church teaches, so wonāt become Catholic, or they are in mortal sin, by taking the Eucharist, THEY are then receiving Jesus unworthily.
And what did Paul say about those who do that?
1 Corinthians 11:27
THAT should bother you.
F
Faith1960
Guest
Thatās unkind.
F
Faith1960
Guest
Haha!What would become of CAF if everyone went around minding their own business? 80 percent of the traffic would disappear!
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
It most certainly is not. Itās short prudent advice. What is your advice?
Itās unkind to call me unkindā¦
F
Faith1960
Guest
Iād probably mention it to the priest.It most certainly is not. Itās short prudent advice. What is your advice?
Itās unkind to call me unkindā¦
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
Mention what? Speculation?
O
OraLabora
Guest
I probably wouldnāt. As I mentioned above, itās an enclosed monastic community and the odds of you being able to get to speak to the priest, or the superior, on that matter are slim to none as they all go back into the cloister after Mass. They have no way of knowing who is or isnāt worthy to receive, and the next time that persons shows up at Mass it will likely be a different celebrant anyway.
Moreover if you were to succeed in speaking to someone, better make sure that you are 100% darned certain that the person is a Protestant. And if he is, donāt be surprised if the monk says that they wonāt do anything about it. One is not to cause scandal in the communion line, and by the time the celebrant is done with the Mass, the person may not be there anymore to speak with.
So itās not just a question of minding oneās own business, but thereās the practical reality of the limits of what one can do with the information in this particular setting.
T
TaylorDonBarret
Guest
A person in a state of mortal sin would not be be able to have sincerely good intentions in taking the Eucharist, nor would they have the indwelling of The Holy Spirit. But all non-Catholic Christians who love Jesus do have The Holy Spirit inside them, and if The Holy Spirit already lives inside them, then Jesus obviously would have no problem being there too. Remember, sin requires full knowledge and voluntary consent. If a Christian is not Catholic because they do not believe the Catholic Church is true, then they are not culpable for their actions, and they are indeed members of the Church, implicitly, invisiblyā¦ they are Catholic.
S
steve_b
Guest
True
Just a few comments
(links are operational)
using the CCC
Yes
1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent.
however,
taking 1859 , in sections
many people donāt follow that point up with
"It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to Godās law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. "
For example
if one is told not to take the Eucharist, because they are not Catholic, and they take it anyway, then by a personal choice, they consented to disobey.
It also turns out
in spite of definitions given by the Church, many Catholics, will put mortal sin in their own mind, in a category of almost being impossible to commit, by playing with what āfull knowledgeā means to them, or what āfull consentā means to them, such that in their mind, mortal sin is almost impossible to commit, when in reality, itās a cinch to commit.
Then there is
āFeigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.ā
Obviously we know why that sentence is put in there. MANY people fall into that condition
I would just say, we canāt be too quick to excuse culpability.
Why?
If they are validly baptized, ( a sacrament meant to bring one into the Catholic Church) THEN if they deny the Catholic Church and what the Church teaches ( as part of being a Protestant of some variety) they are objectively a heretic. catholic.com/tract/the-great-heresies ]
Definitionally then,
**2089 ***Incredulity *is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. ā*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.ā
All those sins, are mortal sin.,
AND
Baptism is a huge sacrament ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=baptism&xsubmit=Search&s=SS ]. It puts all new requirements on us.
We have an obligation as Catholics to inform the world of those realities, and particularly our own Catholics and ānon Catholic Christiansā
ALSO, back to ignorance
again From the CCC
1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal
responsibility. This is the case when a man ātakes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.ā In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.
1801 Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt.
That is why I said
we canāt be too quick to offer ignorance as an automatic excuse for any person. Ignorance might NOT be innocent. One might be fully culpable because they might have put little effort to fix their ignorance on something they needed to know, or by habit of committing sin their conscience is dull and blind.
Letās face it, Itās never been easier in all of history, to access information and knowledge than it is todayā¦ Information is almost at everyoneās fingertips NOW. By 2020 itās estimated that 7 billion people will have smart phones.
T
TaylorDonBarret
Guest
The teachings of the Church must be interpreted. And the lens through which your interpreting the teachings of the Church is an extremely rigid, legalistic lens. Such a lens is directly opposed to the message of the gospel, which is of the Spirit and not of the letter.
āFor judgment will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgmentā James 2:13
"At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the sabbath; his disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. When the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, āLook, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the sabbath.ā He said to them, āHave you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him or his companions to eat, but only for the priests. Or have you not read in the law that on the sabbath the priests in the temple break the sabbath and yet are guiltless? I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. But if you had known what this means, āI desire mercy and not sacrifice,ā you would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of Man is lord of the sabbath.ā Matthew 12:1-8
S
steve_b
Guest
Not so fast.
Just because you disagree, doesnāt mean my explanation is too rigid or contrary to the Church or the Gospel.
Example:
Hereās what Jesus says is going to happen in the end. He ought to know since He is the one who will judge ALL. And obviously He canāt lie, nor mislead. He is showing here, that He is a tough judge.
in extension, we canāt be sloppy, or discount, what Jesus teaches, especially in passing on information to others, or THAT sloppiness from us, comes back on US if as a result we caused another to fallā¦
For context to that see Ez 3:17-21
Matthew 7:13-14 ,
13 āEnter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy,[a] that leads to destruction, į¼ĻĻĪ»ĪµĪ¹Ī±, ] and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
Note: į¼ĻĻĪ»ĪµĪ¹Ī±, apĆ³leia: = destruction, eternal ruin.
Luke 13:23-28 ,
23 And some one said to him, āLord, will those who are saved be few?ā And he said to them, 24 āStrive to enter by the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. 25 When once the householder has risen up and shut the door, you will begin to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, āLord, open to us.ā He will answer you, āI do not know where you come from.ā 26 Then you will begin to say, āWe ate and drank in your presence, and you taught in our streets.ā 27 But he will say, āI tell you, I do not know where you come from; depart from me, all you workers of iniquity!ā 28 There you will weep and gnash your teeth,
Jesus knowing in advance what He is going to go through, and all that humanity will go through, answers that question directly.
- Jesus didnāt deny the questionerās point. He didnāt correct him or say that he was wrong to say only a few are saved.
- Jesus actually validated the point, and expanded on it.
- If only a few are saved in the end, that means everyone else isnāt.
To stress a few points,
Titus 3:10
āAs for a man who is factious ( Ī±į¼±ĻĪµĻĪ¹Īŗį½øĪ½ heretic ), after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.ā
Is Paul being too rigid ?
To the point of the thread and non Catholics receiving the Eucharist.
For their own protection, they arenāt invited to receive the Eucharist. Nowhere in Church documents does the Church say a Protestant can walk off the street and receive the Eucharist.
contex context context
Faith without Works Is Dead
James 2:
10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.**(āJas2 RSVCE - Warning against Partiality - My - Bible Gatewayā)] 11 For he who said, āDo not commit adultery,ā said also, āDo not kill.ā If you do not commit adultery but do kill, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. 13 For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy; yet mercy triumphs over judgment.14 What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?c] 15 If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, āGo in peace, be warmed and filled,ā without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead."
Are you equating the Eucharist with just everyday general food?
Those priests couldnāt change that bread into anything other than
bread
O
OraLabora
Guest
The Church disagrees with you, at least on the issue of culpability. From the CCC:
My bold.
The CCC bears reading in its entirety, not proof-read to suit oneās particular world-view.
S
steve_b
Guest
**Untill **one has been educated on their error. THEN they have to make a decision.
Ignorance isnāt judged to be permanent.
Make sure before you lecture me on context, that you are correct.
S
steve_b
Guest
Culpability is NOT something difficult to be guilty of.
**
WHEN **one has been educated on their error THEN they Know, they are no longer ignorant, they have to make a decision.
Ignorance isnāt judged to be permanent. Nor is it presumed to be innocent.
As I posted earlier
1791 ignorance can often be imputed to personal
responsibility. This is the case when a man ātakes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.ā In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.
1801 Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt.
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.33
Like everything, education matters.
Y
YADA
Guest
Here is an observation of many years working with RCIA ā¦
I have met several people who have partaken of the Eucharist as non Catholics - because they did not know they should not, did not understand why the Church did not allow them to and many other reasons ā¦ And after this they had a strong desire to learn more about the faith - the Catholic faith ā¦ some even though they fought the desire mightily - could not quench that nagging hunger ā¦
At a very upscale area I lived all the ministers got together every month - to discuss their flocks, their struggles, what their churches were doing ā¦ One priest Fr JM reported he disliked the December meeting - it was one he always wanted to skip [all the Protestant Churches were in full Christmas mode - decorated to the nines, singing Christmas hymns, while we were in the penitential Advent mode - sparse and bare - no hymns yet
they always wanted to do a tour and see every ones Churches ] ā¦ but this priest and the one before him [Fr RS] always spoke about regularly finding one of those ministers praying during the day in our Church. Fr RS got the courage to ask him one day - why he came there to pray - the minister answered him that after his first visit he felt drawn to pray there because he felt close to our Lord ā¦ Fr said of course he did - Jesus was present there in the Tabernacle - but he knew the minister would probably not think so ā¦ I have wondered whether he has made his way to Christās Church yet - I am pretty sure he will
I have no doubt your friend will too - if he is not already Catholic - which like some posters have noted - you are not sure is the case - they very well may be Catholic ā¦
Perhaps you can share your experience and then ask your friend where they were Baptized and Confirmed - what their best first Holy Communion memory is ā¦ then you will know ā¦ and if they truly arent Catholic yet - encourage them to join RCIA and discuss what receiving our Lord signifies as far as unity of belief ā¦
Good loving communication is not to be feared buy embraced
I have met several people who have partaken of the Eucharist as non Catholics - because they did not know they should not, did not understand why the Church did not allow them to and many other reasons ā¦ And after this they had a strong desire to learn more about the faith - the Catholic faith ā¦ some even though they fought the desire mightily - could not quench that nagging hunger ā¦
At a very upscale area I lived all the ministers got together every month - to discuss their flocks, their struggles, what their churches were doing ā¦ One priest Fr JM reported he disliked the December meeting - it was one he always wanted to skip [all the Protestant Churches were in full Christmas mode - decorated to the nines, singing Christmas hymns, while we were in the penitential Advent mode - sparse and bare - no hymns yet
they always wanted to do a tour and see every ones Churches ] ā¦ but this priest and the one before him [Fr RS] always spoke about regularly finding one of those ministers praying during the day in our Church. Fr RS got the courage to ask him one day - why he came there to pray - the minister answered him that after his first visit he felt drawn to pray there because he felt close to our Lord ā¦ Fr said of course he did - Jesus was present there in the Tabernacle - but he knew the minister would probably not think so ā¦ I have wondered whether he has made his way to Christās Church yet - I am pretty sure he will I have no doubt your friend will too - if he is not already Catholic - which like some posters have noted - you are not sure is the case - they very well may be Catholic ā¦
Perhaps you can share your experience and then ask your friend where they were Baptized and Confirmed - what their best first Holy Communion memory is ā¦ then you will know ā¦ and if they truly arent Catholic yet - encourage them to join RCIA and discuss what receiving our Lord signifies as far as unity of belief ā¦
Good loving communication is not to be feared buy embraced
- Status