I am Going to My First Roman Catholic Mass Tomorrow

[BarbaraTherese]

saylo http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/statusicon_cad/user_offline.gif vbmenu_register(“postmenu_4051696”, true);
Senior Member
Join Date: March 15, 2008
Posts: 590

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon1.gif Re: I am Going to My First Roman Catholic Mass Tomorrow
Quote:
Originally Posted by BarbaraTherese forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cab/viewpost.gif
*It is my personal opinion only that we do need to hear homilies which clearly spell out exactly Who The Blessed Eucharist is in the Sacred Body and Blood of Christ and that if we do receive The Blessed Eucharist and we consider ourselves in mortal sin and are unrepented and mortal sin(s) unconfessed in The Sacrament of Reconciliation that our souls are destined for Hell in all probability. I also think as my personal opinion that this directive to give such homilies should come from diocesan authority and not as optional recommendation. *

*This is realativism. It is a dangerous path. One reason is being unable to distinguish sin from virtue; holiness from worldliness. *
Hi Saylo…How can asking that The Real Presence of Jesus in The Blessed Eucharist be proclaimed, and the most serious and mortal sin committed if one receives the Blessed Eucharist in the state of mortal sin, proclaimed and stated in homilies be “relativism”?
How can the concept that the diocesan authority should mandate that such homilies be given be “relativism”?
*My personal opinion and assessment and as such is valid. We each are entitled to experience reality from our own ground of being.

Certainly The Lord will not commit to Hell those who do not fully understand their moral postion etc. etc.and the realities of our Faith…not them anyway.

More of the same. It is dangerous.*
*Perhaps you have misunderstood me. My first statement above simply means that every person has the right to their own opinion and to their own feelings and thoughts - to their conscience (or as I stated “experience reality from their own ground of being”. This is what The Church teaches. We cannot tell each other how to feel and think, nor contravene their conscience - church teaching. Certainly a Catholic is bound to believe and as a mandate and not an option in all that The Church teaches on Faith and Morals. This again is Church teaching. *
I am a faithful though imperfect daughter of The Church, always have been and with God’s Grace ardently hope to be so until death parts me from the complexity of human nature until Jesus returns in Glory, which He will. At this time His faithful will be glorified in Him.

My second statement is also in line with Church teaching…that to commit mortal sin [which as The Church teaches condemns one to Hell if unrepented (as The Church instrucst) up to the time of death] three clear conditions must be present at one and the same time:

1. 
   *]There must be grave matter
   *]Full knowledge that it is indeed grave matter and hence mortal sin in clear potential
   *]To commit that grave matter anyway in complete freedom and free will.
   While I did not state the above in the words using the above, it was clearly implied in what I did say.
   **
   It may well be that we have a different understanding of the word “relativism”.
   **
   *God’s Blessings on you and yours this day and always with His Enduring Peace…regards…Barb *
   “From the rising of the sun to its setting, great is My Name amongst the gentiles, said The Lord of Hosts”

 

[swariffin]

Hey everyone,

I am an Anglican/Episcopalian, but tomorrow I will be attending a Roman Catholic Mass since my Episcopal Chapel House that I attend is closed for the semester break. I spoke to the Catholic Priest there and he said it would be okay for me to take Communion (as long as my conscience consents to paraphrase him) since this is an odd situation, I am validly Baptized, believe in the Real Presence, will be in a state of grace (by Anglican standards as if I were going to an Anglican Eucharist service…which is what he says matters) and will adhere to local customs (i.e. fast one hour before Mass).

EDIT: As an Anglican I have no problem with this since we recognize Roman Catholic Holy Orders. When I told a Protestant friend of mine (he is Anti-Roman Catholic so I always rib him whenever I do anything he might define as ‘Catholic’), he was not pleased.

Dear nsper7,

Welcome to the Catholic Church. I hope your first experience with the RCC is a memorable one. Take your family too, if they want. God bless you and your family.

 

[RC_Matt]

Since Roman Catholicism demands complete acceptance of all dogma, etc., this leaves many in an odd position. After all, the fact that I may agree with a majority of Roman Catholic teachings, but disagree with certain parts, means I cannot become Roman Catholic unless I am willing to lie and publicly proclaim that I agree with all Roman Catholic teaching.

You need to fully accept all CORE dogma, some teachings do not fall into that category and following one’s conscience in those areas is not an obstacle to being in full Communion with the Church (and you have LOTS of company). It sounds like you have pretty good rapport with your Priest and, if you have not already done so, you should discuss your specific issues with him and you may WELL find that they are not issues after all. Lots of people, including many normally devout Catholics, have serious misconceptions about some points.

As far as receiving Communion is concerned, you have discussed your specific personal situation with the Priest, you have met the conditions he stipulated, and have therefore received his explicit permission to receive Communion. You may, therefore, receive Communion, DUH!

You sound like a very decent sort, your Priest has obviously recognized that as well, and I don’t think it would be major undertaking for you to be received into the Church – if that is what you desire. Again, I would seriously encourage you to discuss matters with your Priest.

 

[Shoshana]

As far as receiving Communion is concerned, you have discussed your specific personal situation with the Priest, you have met the conditions he stipulated, and have therefore received his explicit permission to receive Communion. You may, therefore, receive Communion, DUH!

We know that there are many priests who make their own rules…and this seems to be the case. It is a fact that one cannot receive Comunion if one is not in communio. What you state is false ecunamism…an ecunamism that has caused some in the Catholic Church to act more like their protestant brethren than the protestant brethren to become more like catholics.

 

[emeraldcoast]

Have you ever been to a ‘Protestant’ service (other than Lutheran)? The Communion is merely symbolic and is not the focal point of the service.

My reasons for wanting to attend a Roman Catholic Mass and receive the Eucharist:

1. I (as an Anglican) recognize the Holy Orders, Apostolic Succession and Sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church as being valid
2. The liturgy at a Roman Catholic Mass is very similar to at an Anglican Eucharist (after all, the Anglican Book of Common Prayer is based on the Pre-Reformation Latin/Sarum Rite)
3. I believe in the Real Presece in the Eucharist and that such a Real Presence exists in the Roman Catholic Sacrament
4. I believe in the Nicene Creed’s ‘One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’ and believe that the Roman Catholic Church is a valid expression of the OHCAC

Prior to the Mass, I made sure I was in a state of grace by Roman Catholic standards (I actually received Reconciliation minutes prior to the beginning of the Mass); also, I am validly Baptized and believe in the Real Presence.

I agree with all your points. I am sure that the majority of Roman Catholics that attend Sunday Mass do not jump through as many hoops as you have to receive the Eucharist.
God Bless!

 

[Shoshana]

I agree with all your points. I am sure that the majority of Roman Catholics that attend Sunday Mass do not jump through as many hoops as you have to receive the Eucharist.
God Bless!

I do honor her sincerety…I wish more catholics were as sincere. But that does not take away the fact that she is not in communio.

 

[BarbaraTherese]

You need to fully accept all CORE dogma, some teachings do not fall into that category and following one’s conscience in those areas is not an obstacle to being in full Communion with the Church (and you have LOTS of company). It sounds like you have pretty good rapport with your Priest and, if you have not already done so, you should discuss your specific issues with him and you may WELL find that they are not issues after all. Lots of people, including many normally devout Catholics, have serious misconceptions about some points.

As far as receiving Communion is concerned, you have discussed your specific personal situation with the Priest, you have met the conditions he stipulated, and have therefore received his explicit permission to receive Communion. You may, therefore, receive Communion, DUH!

You sound like a very decent sort, your Priest has obviously recognized that as well, and I don’t think it would be major undertaking for you to be received into the Church – if that is what you desire. Again, I would seriously encourage you to discuss matters with your Priest.

Excellent post and I agree on all points! …

 

[BarbaraTherese]

RC_Matt makes an important point:

Again, I would seriously encourage you to discuss matters with your Priest.

I agree. If I received advice from a Catholic priest and later for any reason had cause to doubt that advice, I would further discuss the matter and my confusions (and source of) with that original priest…rather than hold to the discussions on even a Catholic website - and discussions that presented disagreements. Catholic laws can be complex … and we do need a point that presents for us the deciding factor and statement, advice - clarification.
If one is in doubt, and even one’s priest cannot settle the matter for one, as I said in a previous post, one can always approach diocesan offices and present a brief outline of the quandry and they will either put one through to an authority who can answer the questions from an educated viewpoint, or give on the phone number of someone who can. Of course this is not to state that discussion and debate, even vigorous debate should not take place re Church Law and other matters…with Charity.

 

[BarbaraTherese]

Simply to cast one’s eye over Canons 7 -22 can indicate just how complex interpreting Canon Law can be.

http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P2.HTM

TITLE I: ECCLESIASTICALLAWS (Cann. 7 - 22)

One matter I find difficult to insight, is that if Canon Law only is binding on Catholics, how can a non Catholic said to be at fault morally under any Canon Law…………unless of course there is a Canon Law paragraph somewhere that qualifies Canon 11……and this is a possibility. I am of course taking it that Canon Law is an “ecclesiastical law” as I understand that it is from the above.

Can. 11

Merelyecclesiasticallawsbind those who were baptised in the catholicChurch or receivedinto it, and who have a sufficientuse of reasonand, unless the lawexpresslyprovides otherwise, who have completed their seventhyear of age.

The priest could*** perhaps*** be at fault since he is Catholic bound by Canon Law, but not the non Catholic. It could be in the instance that is the subject of this thread that the priest’s Bishop has pre instructed him what to do under the circumstances that a non Catholic could present to him which happen to be those circumstances presented as subject of this thread. In this connection, I understand that another poster has quoted Canon Law which states that a Bishop may give a priest permission to allow a non Catholic ***under certain conditions ***to receive Holy Communion – I am unsure on this point. But the possibility does remain that another Canon Law para. may make things not as simple as that - for one Canon Law para. can well qualify another Canon Law para.
The above does present a quandry: Are we sufficiently aware of all the actual facts re the OP and the priest and his Bishop to actually take judgemental stances of advice given to the OP? Can we state, not knowing all the facts, that the priest is categorically at moral fault in advice give to the OP under Canon Law?

If the person seeking advice seeks to stay within Catholic Canon Law though a non Catholic, this is a personal choice and hence, I should think, would strive to discern what exactly is his/her position under Catholic Canon Law.
Canon Law is very complex, which is why we have trained Canon Lawyers. If it were not complex, then why Canon Lawyers in the first place.
I am taking it for granted too that the source I am quoting from above re Canon Law above is a reliable Catholic source: Catholic Pages.com
catholic-pages.com/dir/canon_law.asp

 

[BarbaraTherese]

I am presenting purely speculative points of view. As I sit here, I am aware that while I am convinced I am right and in line with Catholic teaching, I am alert to anything I should come across or read that indicates a rethink and that I may well be wrong and need to change my opinion(s).

Taken from Vatican Canon Law website:
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2T.HTM

Can. 844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone, without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and ⇒ can. 861, §2.
§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-
Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.
§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it

, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed./quote]
§5. For the cases mentioned in §§2, 3, and 4, the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops is not to issue general norms except after consultation at least with the local competent authority of the interested non-Catholic Church or community.

RE #5 above. As I read it, this is the central point in relationship to this thread and its subject: " who cannot approach a minister of their own community" This does seem to qualify this extract from #5 “or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it”
In other words, the diocesan or conference authorities can only give the permission if the person cannot approach a minister of their own Faith expression - and yet it does remain vague since what exactly qualifies as “cannot approach etc.” for one only…and this may be stated and clarified elsewhere in Canon Law and probably is. Also there is the Concordance attached to Canon Law. I just don’t have the time to go into it all.

This leads me in certain areas to change my understanding somewhat. Nevertheless, Canon Law remains complex and if it were me and my personal quandry, I would be ringing diocesan offices seeking education and informed advice from a diocesan recognized Catholic source - but then it is not my personal quandry, needing to settle the question personally - I am only speculating in a thead that has evolved into a speculating and discussion thread on Catholic Church Law in a “Non Catholic Forum”.

 

[jmcrae]

I agree with all your points. I am sure that the majority of Roman Catholics that attend Sunday Mass do not jump through as many hoops as you have to receive the Eucharist.
God Bless!

They did their “hoops” in childhood - seven to twelve years of Sacramental Preparation. (And some people say that RCIA is too long!)

Contrary to popular belief, the majority of practicing Catholics are careful to approach Holy Communion in a state of grace.

 

[emeraldcoast]

They did their “hoops” in childhood - seven to twelve years of Sacramental Preparation. (And some people say that RCIA is too long!)

Contrary to popular belief, the majority of practicing Catholics are careful to approach Holy Communion in a state of grace.

Confession each week before the Eucharist?

 

[jmcrae]

Confession each week before the Eucharist?

We are required to go to Confession when we have mortal sins to confess.

This is not necessarily every day or every week, and in fact, if a person is living the Catholic lifestyle in an ordinary way, it should actually be quite rare, since to mortally sin means to choose ahead of time, deliberately, to sin.

Someone who is attempting to live a faithful life would not normally choose deliberately to sin - it would require a certain degree of double-mindedness to do this, which might indicate a mental illness of some kind - and then we are back to the question of deliberate consent.

That having been said, it is a good and holy thing to confess one’s venial sins on a regular basis - our Bishop here recommends that we do that about once a month or so, and I have noticed in my travels that most people seem to do something like that. I know teenagers who go every two weeks whether they need to or not.

There are also some older people who only go three or four times a year - Advent, Lent, after Pentecost and on or around their birthday - and that’s fine, too.

 

[nsper7]

This past Sunday was my second and, for the moment (until Christmas when my Episcopal Chapel House closes for the winter holidays…almost sounds like the punchline to a joke, eh?), last receiving of Communion at a Roman Catholic Mass. Again, as I have mentioned before, I felt truly honored to have been given this privilege.

On Monday of this week, I met with one of the Priests at the Catholic Student Center (he is the Parochial Vicar there) and we talked about various things, including my Christian testimony and how I came to be Anglican. I also described the various concerns I have for the Anglican Communion (such as the theological liberalism that seems to dominate certain areas and such). I will probably meet with the Priest again next week and stuff just to hang out. Also, a friend of mind has invited me to get involved in the Student Center’s Newmans’ Club. Thus, I will maintain a little bit of involvement in Roman Catholicism even as my Episcopal parish re-opens (tomorrow will be the first Eucharist of the new semester actually).

Perhaps some might view me as freakish: I know certain Protestant friends of mine will not be thrilled with my love for Roman Catholicism. It seems I grow more and more Anglo-Catholic everyday.

I may swim the Thames, but perhaps I take a dip in the Tiber.

 

[why_me]

Protestantism does not trace itself back to Scripture. (If it did, it would be Roman Catholic.)

The earliest Protestant was Martin Luther. Within ten years, Simons Mennos, John Calvin, and several others had followed in his footsteps and created religions of their own - shortly after that, King Henry VIII, seeing the overnight success of Lutheranism in Germany and Calvinism in Switzerland, decided to have a go at creating his own church, as well (being as he was already excommunicated, and had nothing to lose), and started up the Anglican Church.

These are the earliest roots of Protestantism - they do not extend any further back than that.

Which is a good argument for catholicism. These days, however, people seem to be more interest in what feels good and not in what makes sense. Having King Henry, who was known to kill a wife or two, as a founder is not good. But for anglicans, it can feel good to be anglican. In africa, the anglican is growing because of a charismatic conservative church leader in Nigeria. He makes people feel good.

 

[chris_molter]

Perhaps some might view me as freakish: I know certain Protestant friends of mine will not be thrilled with my love for Roman Catholicism. It seems I grow more and more Anglo-Catholic everyday.

I may swim the Thames, but perhaps I take a dip in the Tiber.

I always say it was my love for my Anglican heritage that led me to seek full communion with Rome. After all, St Thomas Becket, St Edward Confessor, St Augustine of Canterbury (and many, many more!) were all ‘Papists’ themselves!

I’m still an Anglican… just an OLD SCHOOL Anglican!