I am Going to My First Roman Catholic Mass Tomorrow

[saylo]

For any interested, a conscise and simple explanation of the term “herding instinct” here
I am not proposing it as Catholic Doctrine or teaching. It is an interesting concept. Another interesting concept is Pope Paul VI’s interpretation of the word “dialogue” which can be found in this article: here

St. Paul said, (paraphrasing) …“he who receives the Body and Blood of Christ unworthily is guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ…”

“Unworthily” is defined by Canon Law and that cannot be challenged no matter how, as individuals, would like to be more tolerant and humane. It is NOT a “social” gesture. How did we ever get to that point?

The Eucharist is NOT a meal, per se, it is a bonding of the flesh and blood of Jesus with our own as individuals. WE ALL have to come to Him in total belief, appreciation, humility, and a love for Him that transcends anyone else on this earth.

There must be a total belief in His Presence. This is not a “social” thing…it is personal and yet it is a community as well.

Receiving unworthily can result in eternal condemnation. The opposite is true when we receive with gratitude: eternal life.

“He who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood shall never die…”

We are talking about the Eucharist here and NOT about being “judgmental.”

 

[totustuus2345]

St. Paul said, (paraphrasing) …“he who receives the Body and Blood of Christ unworthily is guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ…”

“Unworthily” is defined by Canon Law and that cannot be challenged no matter how, as individuals, would like to be more tolerant and humane. It is NOT a “social” gesture. How did we ever get to that point?

The Eucharist is NOT a meal, per se, it is a bonding of the flesh and blood of Jesus with our own as individuals. WE ALL have to come to Him in total belief, appreciation, humility, and a love for Him that transcends anyone else on this earth.

There must be a total belief in His Presence. This is not a “social” thing…it is personal and yet it is a community as well.

Receiving unworthily can result in eternal condemnation. The opposite is true when we receive with gratitude: eternal life.

“He who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood shall never die…”

We are talking about the Eucharist here and NOT about being “judgmental.”

At least someone agrees with the Church on this issue…

XC
Pat

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Receiving the Eucharist sacreligiously is not loving Christ as he commanded, it is an act ob disobediance…
Love is the empting of oneself into another, and this includes obediance.

Blessings upon you all

Pat

To receive sacraligiously means to not believe in the true presence of Jesus Christ, or to receive in the state of mortal sin, no of which apply to the OP in this thread.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

saylo

St. Paul said, (paraphrasing) …“he who receives the Body and Blood of Christ unworthily is guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ…”

The context in which St. Paul wrote this was that there were Christians receiving, who did not believe in the real preasence of Christ, and they were treating the Eucharist Celebration, as a meal and party. People were getting drunk and partying.

None of this has anything to do with the OP’s situation.

Jim

 

[saylo]

To receive sacraligiously means to not believe in the true presence of Jesus Christ, or to receive in the state of mortal sin, no of which apply to the OP in this thread.

Jim

Wrong, Jim. Don’t want to be overbearing but there is a format laid out by the Church to receive the Eucharist. If an outsider wants to receive and believes in the dogma of the Church he/she can ask to be received into the Faith and become a catachumen and have his/her name written in the Book of Life.

One who is not a member of the Church does not have his/her name written in the Book of Life and does NOT have the identity of being a true member of the Church that is founded by the Son of God Himself.

Receiving the Eucharist by an outsider is like a party crasher who helps himself to the spread of hors d’oeuvres and punch without knowing the invitees and what the occasion for the party. He/she can make a toast with the rest but it is meaningless insofar as the tribute by the interloper.

Get a hold, Jim. Try to fathom what the Eucharist is…there has to be a journey. It is not difficult, taxing, and forceful. All that is required is a willing spirit, mind and heart. Is that too much, Jim?

 

[saylo]

saylo

The context in which St. Paul wrote this was that there were Christians receiving, who did not believe in the real preasence of Christ, and they were treating the Eucharist Celebration, as a meal and party. People were getting drunk and partying

None of this has anything to do with the OP’s situation.

Jim

Do you have a link on this, Jim? I never heard of this and no one I know ever did either. Have we all been missing something?

A link about the “…getting drunk and partying…” would have all of us give pause. Thanking you in advance, Jim.

 

[jmcrae]

Do you have a link on this, Jim? I never heard of this and no one I know ever did either. Have we all been missing something?

A link about the “…getting drunk and partying…” would have all of us give pause. Thanking you in advance, Jim.

When we read I Corinthians 11, we see some grave abuses at Mass, including drunkeness and gluttony. (Obviously, early Eucharistic meals consisted of more than just a small wafer of bread and sip of wine for each of the communicants - it seems to have been a much more substantial undertaking, at that time. St. Paul’s admonition to “eat at home before you come, if you are hungry” also seems to indicate that the Eucharistic fast was not yet in place.)

 

[saylo]

When we read I Corinthians 11, we see some grave abuses at Mass, including drunkeness and gluttony. (Obviously, early Eucharistic meals consisted of more than just a small wafer of bread and sip of wine for each of the communicants - it seems to have been a much more substantial undertaking, at that time. St. Paul’s admonition to “eat at home before you come, if you are hungry” also seems to indicate that the Eucharistic fast was not yet in place.)

Jim, thank you for the effort to clear up what “unworthy reception” of the Body and Blood of Christ. Your link of St. Paul Corinthians 11 mentions nothing about reception of the Eucharist whatsoever. Maybe you indvertantly made a typo on the link.

I am still in a quandary as to how a non-Catholic can receive the Eucharist on a whim by a priest who says “it’s OK.”

The priest is in grave error and he has compromised his service to the Eucharist. He cannot have had “permission” by his bishop because the bishop does not have the authority to circumvent Canon Law. I’m sure the good bishop is being misquoted and misunderstood.

My guess is that if this has reachd the bishop the priest in question will be admonished; and he should be.

Thanks again for the link of Corinthians 11. I read that chapter in its entirety; in fact I even read Chapter 1 in case you may have double-punched the key.

Where did all this “drunkedness” and carryings-on occur? How was the Eucharist a part of that scenario?

All the same, Jim, thanks for your effort. The OP certainly does not intend to go to a Catholic Mass in an inebriated state; that is not a factor at all. It is the reception of Holy Communion as a non-Catholic that is the problem.

It is no great burden to call a rectory and say, “Father, I would like to convert to Catholicism and be part of the Mystical Body of Christ.”

His journey will then begin and he will find joy in the Sacrament; not to mention eternal life.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Wrong, Jim. Don’t want to be overbearing but there is a format laid out by the Church to receive the Eucharist. If an outsider wants to receive and believes in the dogma of the Church he/she can ask to be received into the Faith and become a catachumen and have his/her name written in the Book of Life.

One who is not a member of the Church does not have his/her name written in the Book of Life and does NOT have the identity of being a true member of the Church that is founded by the Son of God Himself.

Receiving the Eucharist by an outsider is like a party crasher who helps himself to the spread of hors d’oeuvres and punch without knowing the invitees and what the occasion for the party. He/she can make a toast with the rest but it is meaningless insofar as the tribute by the interloper.

Get a hold, Jim. Try to fathom what the Eucharist is…there has to be a journey. It is not difficult, taxing, and forceful. All that is required is a willing spirit, mind and heart. Is that too much, Jim?

This is not what the Church teaches and the documents supporting the OP’s priest have been presented in this forum all ready.

Just because you don’t accept the authority of the USCCB, doesn’t mean they are wrong.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

saylo

I am still in a quandary as to how a non-Catholic can receive the Eucharist on a whim by a priest who says “it’s OK.”

Here it is again, from the USCCB website;

When other Christians who believe what the Catholic church teaches concerning the Holy Eucharist are deprived of access to a church of their own denomination for a significant period of time, they too may be admitted to Communion in the Catholic Church in exceptional circumstances (cf. Canon 844 §4). These exceptional circumstances are also described by the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

When, in the Ordinary’s judgment, a grave necessity arises, Catholic ministers may give the sacraments of Eucharist, Penance, and Anointing of the Sick to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church, who ask for them of their own will, provided they give evidence of holding the Catholic faith regarding these sacraments and possess the required dispositions. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, number 1401)

usccb.org/liturgy/q%26a/mass/communion.shtml

Hope this helps.

Jim

 

[jmcrae]

Jim, thank you for the effort to clear up what “unworthy reception” of the Body and Blood of Christ. Your link of St. Paul Corinthians 11 mentions nothing about reception of the Eucharist whatsoever. Maybe you indvertantly made a typo on the link.

I am looking at First Corinthians, chapter eleven. (Does it help if I spell it out?)

This is the chapter on the Mass.

The first section, from verse one until verse sixteen, speaks of preparing for Mass and dressing for Mass, and also explains why there are differences in the way that men dress for Mass versus how women dress for Mass.

Verses seventeen to twenty two are where we see the people being drunk and gluttonous with regard to the Eucharist.

From verse twenty three to verse twenty six, we see the words that the priest must use when effecting the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.

From verse twenty seven until the end of the chapter, he reminds them of what a grave sin it is, to receive the Eucharist in an unworthy manner.

I am still in a quandary as to how a non-Catholic can receive the Eucharist on a whim by a priest who says “it’s OK.”

It is not the non-Catholic who is at fault here, since he has the right to assume that the priest knows what he is talking about.

All the same, Jim, thanks for your effort. The OP certainly does not intend to go to a Catholic Mass in an inebriated state; that is not a factor at all. It is the reception of Holy Communion as a non-Catholic that is the problem.

I agree.

It is no great burden to call a rectory and say, “Father, I would like to convert to Catholicism and be part of the Mystical Body of Christ.”

His journey will then begin and he will find joy in the Sacrament; not to mention eternal life.

It’s interesting to me that he chose to go to a Catholic parish, rather than to a different Anglican parish, while his regular parish is closed down. Perhaps the Holy Spirit is working in some unseen way.

 

[saylo]

saylo

Here it is again, from the USCCB website;

Hope this helps.

Jim

Sorry, Jim, none of the above apply to the OP’s presentation. The priest is STILL in grave error.

Thank you, just the same…

 

[totustuus2345]

Te Deum Laudamus!

I think that this situation is getting too complex:

A) is the OP Catholic? No

B) Will the OP continue to attend a Catholic Mass when it is possible to return to their own church? No

C) Emergency situation? No!

Therefore, the OP CANNOT receive the Eucharist!

The Eucharist is being reduced to a backup in this!

This is not the Faith about which the USCCB is talking!

XC
Pat

 

[nsper7]

It’s interesting to me that he chose to go to a Catholic parish, rather than to a different Anglican parish, while his regular parish is closed down. Perhaps the Holy Spirit is working in some unseen way.

Remember that from the Anglican point-of-view, this is not that a big deal (in fact, it’s not a big deal at all…my Chaplain/Priest was the one who suggested I consider going to the Roman Catholic Mass since it was the most convenient and she knows the main Priest there and has a lot of respect for him).

Anglicanism, in general (although there maybe individual Anti-Roman Catholics within our ranks), recognizes Roman Catholic Holy Orders, Apostolic Succession and Sacraments as being valid. Anglicanism also sees itself and, hopefully, Roman Catholicism as both valid expressions of the ‘One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’ of the Nicene Creed and we both trace theology back to these foundational Early Church Creeds.

I suppose I personally view the Roman Catholic Church as the ‘elder brother’ in the faith so I have no personal qualms with receiving Communion at a Roman Catholic Mass. For Anglicanism, it would be no big deal if a Roman Catholic chose to receive the Eucharist at one of our services.

A) is the OP Catholic? No

If you mean by ‘Catholic’, am I Roman Catholic? Then the answer is ‘no’. But I do sincerely hope that I am a part of that ‘One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’ of the Nicene Creed.

B) Will the OP continue to attend a Catholic Mass when it is possible to return to their own church? No

Obviously. Although, at other times when my parish is closed, I will probably consider this arrangement again.

C) Emergency situation? No!

I suppose it is not technically an ‘emergency situation’, but receiving the Eucharist regularly (weekly at least) is extremely important to both orthodox (little ‘o’) Anglican and Roman Catholic spirituality. While many Roman Catholics and Anglicans are lax on their attendance at services and receiving the Eucharist, the goal of all should be to rightly receive Communion at least weekly (I admit this is my personal view). And the same could be said of Reconciliation too. In fact, my original reason for meeting the Priest at the Roman Catholic Church/Student Center was to see if I could receive Reconciliation there since, although it is permissible within Anglicanism, it would be easier to receive such at the Student Center (more ordained clergy, more scheduled times for Reconciliation).

The Eucharist is being reduced to a backup in this!

Perhaps one could say my receiving the Eucharist at the Roman Catholic Church is a ‘backup’ plan (my normal plan would be to receive at my home parish), but receiving the Eucharist in general is NEVER a backup plan. I see equal validity in both the RC and Anglican Eucharist/Mass (although, and I hope this does not offend anyone, I prefer the Anglican BCP liturgy ). Receiving the Body and Blood of Christ is NEVER a backup plan, regardless of which Rite I receive it under/through.

 

[jmcrae]

Anglicanism also sees itself and, hopefully, Roman Catholicism as both valid expressions of the ‘One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’ of the Nicene Creed and we both trace theology back to these foundational Early Church Creeds.

There cannot be two One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Churches - there can only be one. Hence, the term “One” in “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.”

When I look at the same things that you are looking at, especially that the Catholic Church headed by the Bishop of Rome is the one that goes back to Apostolic times, I know which one is “the One” that is being referred to in that phrase.

 

[nsper7]

There cannot be two One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Churches - there can only be one. Hence, the term “One” in “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.”

When I look at the same things that you are looking at, especially that the Catholic Church headed by the Bishop of Rome is the one that goes back to Apostolic times, I know which one is “the One” that is being referred to in that phrase.

I did not say there are two 'OHCAC’s. What I said was both Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism are, hopefully (in the end, it is all up to God), two valid expressions of the OHCAC. There is One ‘One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’, but many expressions of the OHCAC.

EDIT: Also, historically speaking, I would probably agree that, prior to the Great Schism, the Roman Catholic Church was the primary (if not singular) expression of the OHCAC. Also, the Anglican Communion can trace itself quite far back as well. The first Archbishop of Canterbury, St. Augustine of Canterbury, was consecrated by Pope the Gregory I in circa 597 AD. Prior to that, there was a Christian presence in England and there were representative from this English Christian group present at both the Councils of Arles and Nicea. We still say that +Cantuar sits on the Chair of St. Augustine.

 

[totustuus2345]

Remember that from the Anglican point-of-view, this is not that a big deal (in fact, it’s not a big deal at all…my Chaplain/Priest was the one who suggested I consider going to the Roman Catholic Mass since it was the most convenient and she knows the main Priest there and has a lot of respect for him).

Anglicanism, in general (although there maybe individual Anti-Roman Catholics within our ranks), recognizes Roman Catholic Holy Orders, Apostolic Succession and Sacraments as being valid. Anglicanism also sees itself and, hopefully, Roman Catholicism as both valid expressions of the ‘One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’ of the Nicene Creed and we both trace theology back to these foundational Early Church Creeds.

I suppose I personally view the Roman Catholic Church as the ‘elder brother’ in the faith so I have no personal qualms with receiving Communion at a Roman Catholic Mass. For Anglicanism, it would be no big deal if a Roman Catholic chose to receive the Eucharist at one of our services.

If you mean by ‘Catholic’, am I Roman Catholic? Then the answer is ‘no’. But I do sincerely hope that I am a part of that ‘One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’ of the Nicene Creed.

Obviously. Although, at other times when my parish is closed, I will probably consider this arrangement again.

I suppose it is not technically an ‘emergency situation’, but receiving the Eucharist regularly (weekly at least) is extremely important to both orthodox (little ‘o’) Anglican and Roman Catholic spirituality. While many Roman Catholics and Anglicans are lax on their attendance at services and receiving the Eucharist, the goal of all should be to rightly receive Communion at least weekly (I admit this is my personal view). And the same could be said of Reconciliation too. In fact, my original reason for meeting the Priest at the Roman Catholic Church/Student Center was to see if I could receive Reconciliation there since, although it is permissible within Anglicanism, it would be easier to receive such at the Student Center (more ordained clergy, more scheduled times for Reconciliation).

Perhaps one could say my receiving the Eucharist at the Roman Catholic Church is a ‘backup’ plan (my normal plan would be to receive at my home parish), but receiving the Eucharist in general is NEVER a backup plan. I see equal validity in both the RC and Anglican Eucharist/Mass (although, and I hope this does not offend anyone, I prefer the Anglican BCP liturgy ). Receiving the Body and Blood of Christ is NEVER a backup plan, regardless of which Rite I receive it under/through./QUOTE

But we do not share the same faith

 

[nsper7]

But we do not share the same faith

I would disagree. We both believe in Christ and the ‘One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’ that He founded; however, we believe in different expressions of that truly Catholic (Universal) Church.

EDIT: I would add that, at the Roman Catholic Mass, there was no liturgy that I disagreed with or felt troubled by my conscience in agreeing to.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I would disagree. We both believe in Christ and the ‘One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’ that He founded; however, we believe in different expressions of that truly Catholic (Universal) Church.

EDIT: I would add that, at the Roman Catholic Mass, there was no liturgy that I disagreed with or felt troubled by my conscience in agreeing to.

nsper7,

I have no doubt that God is drawing you towards the Catholic Church, and that you are responding very well to the graces you are receiving. Unfortunately, some of the information you have been given has been a little misleading.

Your not supposed to receive communion until you fully enter the Church. The only time that it is permitted for a non-Catholic to receive is when they are in danger of death, and then only if they profess the true faith.

I realize that you are just doing what the Priest said, so it is understandable that you would receive since in your heart to desire to; but you should not do so at this time. I also converted from the Episcopal Church and if anyone would have told me I could have received prior to converting, I would not have hesitated. At the time, I would not have understood the reason for my not being able to, and therefore would have, if given the chance.

We all want to you participate in the Sacraments as much as you want to, but you need to be in communion with the Church to do so.

I don’t mean to discourage you by what I am saying. Like I said, I think God is really drawing you toward the Catholic Church and you are doing a great job responding to the graces He is sending you; but receiving communion is not appropriate at this time.

Maybe you can go to the “ask an apologist” section and ask Fr. Serpa what he things.

I’ll be praying for you and look forward to the day when you enter the Church. When that day arrives, I know you will be as joyous as I was the day I entered.

God Bless.

 

[saylo]

God drawing him to the Catholic church?

Is the Holy Spirit nudging an errant priest into giving Communion to a non-Catholic knowingly?

How absurd is that?