I am Going to My First Roman Catholic Mass Tomorrow

  • Thread starter Thread starter nsper7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jmcrae said:
Has any Satanist ever tried to steal the Eucharist from an Anglican or Lutheran church? 🤷
Click to expand...
I don’t know, but remember a lot of people don’t know that Anglicans and Lutherans claim/have the Real Presence. Before I found Anglicanism, I did not even know what the Real Presence was (I came to faith in a non-denom/‘fundagelical’ kind of tradition).
 
jmcrae said:
Has any Satanist ever tried to steal the Eucharist from an Anglican or Lutheran church? 🤷
Click to expand...
Those who steal the Eucharist, steal it from the Catholic Church. This is because they know the Eucharist of the Catholic Church is the Real Presence of Christ. The Anglicans do not have valid Holy Orders and thus do not confect the Eucharist. Satanists, therefore, would have little interest in the Anglican Eucharist and certainly not in the Protestant bread used for communion.
saint-mike.org/apologetics/qa/Answers/Spiritual_Warfare/s0401130002.html

I had always heard that it was not anything like worshipping an image of Satan or singing hymns, but by having a so-called “Black Mass.” In other words, their entire service is a mockery of the Catholic Mass. Was this true, I asked him? Not a Protestant preaching service, not a Buddhist temple ritual, but an explicit mockery of our Mass? “Yes,” Nicolas told us, “that is true.”
saintfactory.com/Reflection_7_Eng.html
 
nsper7 said:
Definitely agreed. Prior to receiving Communion at my Episcopal Church, I always confess any sins I know of (not usually to the Priest, but to God, often praying in the Chapel/at the Altar). When I receiving Communion at the Catholic Mass, I not only prayed/confessed to God, but I also received Absolution/Reconciliation.

And this is the whole point. You do not have confession, according to what you are saying. Confessing to God does not take away the sins as it were. He gave that commission to the anointed priests. And there is very good reason that that is so, the least being psychological. The sacraments of the church are there to those who are in unity with Rome. The anglican church is not in unity with the Pope.

I have never denied that Roman Catholic Eucharist possesses the Real Presence. Thus, who are you trying to convince?

Churches who have split from the catholic church do not possess the real presence because their sacraments are invalid. The only sacrament we have in common is baptism.

In terms of the Satanists/Atheists, remember that Roman Catholicism is the largest “denomination” (for lack of a better word) that believes in the Real Presence and they are very public about.

The Catholic church is not a denomination…Only those who have fractioned themselves from Rome may have a common denominator…only because the catholic church has been around for 2,000 years. All others have varying periods of time they were instituted…they keep what they like from Catholic church and discard what they don’t like. Mainly the Lutheran/Anglican churches…

Again, I do not deny that Roman Catholicism possesses valid Sacraments and the Real Presence.

You are right…we do. Why do you not enter into the beatific banquet?

That question is for the Roman Catholic Church to answer. Anglicanism does recognize Roman Catholic Holy Orders as valid (which is why we do not ‘Confirm’ Roman Catholics since they are already validly Confirmed, but instead they are Received).

The only sacrament we accept as valid is baptism…

And just because a Roman Catholic does not believe in our (Anglican) Real Presence does not make it so either.

I do not make the rules.Holy Mother church has been around for a very long time. Her wisdom is beyond compare. We are not allowed to have communion in your church…and the reverse is true. The priest misled you and is not in accordance with Rome. Many priests take liberties, at the risk of their own souls.

Participation by Christians who are not Catholic
56. The subject of participation in the Eucharist inevitably raises the question of Christians belonging to Churches or Ecclesial Communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church. In this regard, it must be said that the intrinsic link between the Eucharist and the Church’s unity inspires us to long for the day when we will be able to celebrate the Holy Eucharist together with all believers in Christ, and in this way to express visibly the fullness of unity that Christ willed for his disciples (cf.* Jn* 17:21). On the other hand, the respect we owe to the sacrament of Christ’s Body and Blood prevents us from making it a mere “means” to be used indiscriminately in order to attain that unity. (172) The Eucharist in fact not only manifests our personal communion with Jesus Christ, but also implies full communio with the Church. This is the reason why, sadly albeit not without hope, we ask Christians who are not Catholic to understand and respect our conviction, which is grounded in the Bible and Tradition. We hold that eucharistic communion and ecclesial communion are so linked as to make it generally impossible for non-Catholic Christians to receive the former without enjoying the latter. There would be even less sense in actually concelebrating with ministers of Churches or ecclesial communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church. Yet it remains true that, for the sake of their eternal salvation, individual non-Catholic Christians can be admitted to the Eucharist, the sacrament of Reconciliation and the Anointing of the Sick. But this is possible only in specific, exceptional situations and requires that certain precisely defined conditions be met (173). These are clearly indicated in the* Catechism of the Catholic Church* (174) and in its* Compendium* (175). Everyone is obliged to observe these norms faithfully.

Amen.
Click to expand...
Code:
 
As far as I understand it, the only normative situation in which Holy Communion will be given to our protestant brethren is at the hour of death. There have been a few notable cases where bishops have made exceptions, but I have never read of a priest licitly making such an exception himself.

My :twocents: are thus: Call the local bishop and ask if your situation would permit you to receive Our Lord while your church is closed for the summer. You are unlikely to receive a favorable response, given that you do not assent to the teachings of the Catholic Faith in regards to Holy Orders, Transubstantiation, The Sacrament of Penance, and the Sacrificial Nature of the Mass.

I don’t know what else to say, except that perhaps this desire of yours is indicative of a deeper desire to enter into full union with Christ and His Body, the Church. Your own Ecclesial Communion is now irrevocably shattered.

My advice to you would be to find the nearest Anglican Use Parish to where you live. The Book of Divine Worship adapted for Catholic Use is now online and free until the next batch of printed copies becomes available. Perhaps it would help you. atonementonline.com/bodw.php
 
I will be in the main otherwise occupied over the next couple of days I think. But I did want to answer your Post, Saylo, as I said that I would do so.

**Originally Posted by BarbaraTherese **
Reply by Saylo
***Barbara ***
Totally agree. Interesting that we pray in The Mass before Holy Communion “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed”…is this an unnecessary appeal to The Lord? I am not disputing St. Paul…rather I am wondering what biblical exegesis has to say about your quote from St. Paul and I think we understand it as receiving The Blessed Eucharist in the state of mortal sin?..

Saylo*: It is obvious that is what is meant. The Church also sets the conditions for reception of the Eucharist. Jesus gave that authority when He said, “Whatever you bind on earth…whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven.” It comes under Canon Law.*

Barb replies:
If one receives the Body and Blood of The Lord in the state of mortal sin, one is committing another mortal sin and a serious one. Yet as the prayer above from the Mass indicates, though we are in the state of Grace, we remain unworthy to receive The Blessed Eucharist. I agree totally that the words of Scripture stand of The Church that “whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth it is abound also in Heaven.**

Canon Law is certainly binding on Catholics…as I previously posted
Click to expand...
**
Saylo: Certainly is…to the point that a non-Catholic has to be dissuaded from receiving Communion. That is the Catholic’s obligation. The OP here is a perfect example.

Barb - As I said in my previous post we can and must point out to others if necessary the Laws of The Church and our understanding of those laws be they Catholic or non Catholic.
When I accuse any other of not being worthy or not having the right morally to receive The Lord in Holy Communion and that they are in serious culpable moral error if they do, then I think I am judgemental and of his/her conscience and its status morally. Our Catholic Laws cannot be binding morally on anyone else but Catholics…without of course becoming ridiculous. If a person does not uphold the Catholic Faith, then how can our canonical laws be binding on that person?
Click to expand...
Saylo - This sounds a lot like “relativism” and what the Holy Father continues to stress against. Very dangerous.

Barb replies
This is what I understand “relativism” to be:
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl

…Quote:…RELATIVISM. In philosophy, the view that there is no absolute truth or certitude. It is claimed that truth depends entirely on variable factors such as person, place, time, and circumstances. Moral relativism holds that there are no unchangeable principles of human behavior, either because all truth is relative or because there are no inherently evil actions, since everything depends on other factors, such as customs, conventions, or social approval.”…End Quote

Certainly I do not subscribe to relativism. I believe that there is indeed absolute truth and certitude………objective absolute truth. Re morality, I do believe that there are truly inherently evil actions. Hence I do not subscribe in any way to “relativism

***All I am actually stating is that we cannot judge another as to clear moral guilt and culpability and as a clear certainty and absolute, which is not at all to state that it may or may not exist. I can state that I “think possibly” but I cannot state the I know for sure. Because mortal sin asks not only grave matter, but full knowledge of that grave matter and also completely free and knowing consent. “Judge not that you may not be judged”. I am also stating that Canon Law can only be morally binding on a Catholic. It is Catholic Canon Law binding on all Catholics. Do we have a right to state it to non Catholics. Of course we do. Do we have a right to say that we think they are contravening our Canon Law. Of course we do. ***
Barb:
Click to expand...
I suspect only that some non Catholics who do believe in the Real Presence and in The Catholic Church could be well far more believing and reverant than perhaps some Catholics even though such Catholics are in the state of Grace? What does this mean or imply, simply what I stated.

***Saylo ***- This is comparing apples to oranges. Children, before their First Holy Communion are schooled and inspired of what will be taking place…it is a PREPARATION. In your view no preparation is necessary for a non-Catholic only to believe in the Real Presence. But, “Real Presence” can mean different things to different people; Catholics and non-Catholics.

Barb replies: I have not stated that no preparation is necessary to receive Holy Communion or to believe in the Real Presence – I never mentioned preparation at all - and I agree possibly perhaps that “Real Presence” could perhaps mean different things to different people - perhaps even to Catholics too, I wouldn’t know on that score. All I am saying is that IF***one knew what transpired in the hearts of others (which was implied), it could be perhaps and possibly that non Catholics may approach their understanding of “Real Presence” in their own Faith Profession with more believing and reverence than a Catholic approaching Holy Communion at Mass – I am not saying that they do, only that it could be so…a possibility, a perhaps etc. etc. ***
Certainly I can point out to others our rules and regulations and this includes a non Catholic or even to a Catholic and as I understand them - and I could be right and I could be wrong in my understandings of these rules and regulations. I can even explain to them what these rules and regulations imply as I understand them etc - even my fears and suspicions re some moral matter and moral culpability in connection with either a Catholic or non Catholic - and I could be right or I could be wrong …beyond that is The Lord’s alone…
Click to expand...
Saylo - This paragraph is void of absolutes. It is nebulous. It sounds that “right” and “wrong” are in the same gray zone. It’s almost like saying, “the 10 Commandments are really only SUGGESTIONS.”
Barb replies :- Firstly, I believe that the 10 Commandments are seriously binding morally in every way on all Christians and certainly Catholics. Some of these commandments also come under the natural law (I think it is called) and are binding on all human beings “thou shalt not kill” for example. Although in the Sermon on The Mount Jesus does ask of His followers more than what the Commandments appear to present. I uphold The Ten Commandments and the Precepts of The Church. I uphold faithfully our Catholic Faith through The Church and Magisterium…albeit imperfectly but to the best of my ability and where I may fail, I sorrowfully attend the Sacrament of Reconciliation with a firm purpose of amendment.

I am not saying that right and wrong are in grey zones as you call it. What I am saying is that humanity is faulted and that we can make mistakes. In many matters and especially in our opinions and understandings perhaps………we may well be right, or we could be wrong. This is not to state that there is not clear and absolute rights and clear and absolute wrongs. Clear moral rights and wrongs. Certainly it takes considerable arrogance and even stupidity to think that one is always correct and right at all times in all things.

Other than the threads I enter posts into daily on a regular basis, I wont be around much at all for an unknown period really I think. And when I say “I think” it means most often that I am not really sure beyond doubt.

***Thanks again Saylo for the response and I hope that it has cleared up your concerns. Basically, to my mind, we are on “the same side of the fence, talking the same talk and trying to walk the same walk” only wearing different garb perhaps.🙂 ***

***Blessings and my regards…Barb:) ***
Click to expand...
 
Please note, I had much trouble in responding to the above due the way Saylo’s post was formatted and I am not being critical, I just found it difficult to work out what was what and my fault entirely…in some places I have inadvertently altered what I had actually said in my previous post to which Saylo responded. These alterations are purely accidental. …also, so no one gets upset …due to pure oversight I did not state the whole quote “Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth it is bound also in Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth it is loosed also in Heaven”
Just stating this so no one gets knickers in a knot and thinks I am trying to be deceptive or heretical or some sort of ism thingo.
 
BarbaraTherese said:
I will be in the main otherwise occupied over the next couple of days I think. But I did want to answer your Post, Saylo, as I said that I would do so.

**Originally Posted by BarbaraTherese **
Reply by Saylo

Saylo*: It is obvious that is what is meant. The Church also sets the conditions for reception of the Eucharist. Jesus gave that authority when He said, “Whatever you bind on earth…whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven.” It comes under Canon Law.*

Barb replies:
If one receives the Body and Blood of The Lord in the state of mortal sin, one is committing another mortal sin and a serious one. Yet as the prayer above from the Mass indicates, though we are in the state of Grace, we remain unworthy to receive The Blessed Eucharist. I agree totally that the words of Scripture stand of The Church that “whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth it is abound also in Heaven…etc.
Saylo: Certainly is…to the point that a non-Catholic has to be dissuaded from receiving Communion. That is the Catholic’s obligation. The OP here is a perfect example.

Barb - As I said in my previous post we can and must point out to others if necessary the Laws of The Church and our understanding of those laws be they Catholic or non Catholic.

Saylo - This sounds a lot like “relativism” and what the Holy Father continues to stress against. Very dangerous.

Barb replies
This is what I understand “relativism” to be:
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl

…Quote:…RELATIVISM. In philosophy, the view that there is no absolute truth or certitude. It is claimed that truth depends entirely on variable factors such as person, place, time, and circumstances. Moral relativism holds that there are no unchangeable principles of human behavior, either because all truth is relative or because there are no inherently evil actions, since everything depends on other factors, such as customs, conventions, or social approval.”…End Quote

Certainly I do not subscribe to relativism. I believe that there is indeed absolute truth and certitude………objective absolute truth. Re morality, I do believe that there are truly inherently evil actions. Hence I do not subscribe in any way to “relativism

***All I am actually stating is that we cannot judge another as to clear moral guilt and culpability and as a clear certainty and absolute, which is not at all to state that it may or may not exist. I can state that I “think possibly” but I cannot state the I know for sure. Because mortal sin asks not only grave matter, but full knowledge of that grave matter and also completely free and knowing consent. “Judge not that you may not be judged”. I am also stating that Canon Law can only be morally binding on a Catholic. It is Catholic Canon Law binding on all Catholics. Do we have a right to state it to non Catholics. Of course we do. Do we have a right to say that we think they are contravening our Canon Law. Of course we do. ***

***Saylo ***- This is comparing apples to oranges. Children, before their First Holy Communion are schooled and inspired of what will be taking place…it is a PREPARATION. In your view no preparation is necessary for a non-Catholic only to believe in the Real Presence. But, “Real Presence” can mean different things to different people; Catholics and non-Catholics.

Barb replies: I have not stated that no preparation is necessary to receive Holy Communion or to believe in the Real Presence – I never mentioned preparation at all - and I agree possibly perhaps that “Real Presence” could perhaps mean different things to different people - perhaps even to Catholics too, I wouldn’t know on that score. All I am saying is that IF***one knew what transpired in the hearts of others (which was implied), it could be perhaps and possibly that non Catholics may approach their understanding of “Real Presence” in their own Faith Profession with more believing and reverence than a Catholic approaching Holy Communion at Mass – I am not saying that they do, only that it could be so…a possibility, a perhaps etc. etc. ***

Saylo - This paragraph is void of absolutes. It is nebulous. It sounds that “right” and “wrong” are in the same gray zone. It’s almost like saying, “the 10 Commandments are really only SUGGESTIONS.”
Barb replies :- Firstly, I believe that the 10 Commandments are seriously binding morally in every way on all Christians and certainly Catholics. Some of these commandments also come under the natural law (I think it is called) and are binding on all human beings “thou shalt not kill” for example. Although in the Sermon on The Mount Jesus does ask of His followers more than what the Commandments appear to present. I uphold The Ten Commandments and the Precepts of The Church. I uphold faithfully our Catholic Faith through The Church and Magisterium…albeit imperfectly but to the best of my ability and where I may fail, I sorrowfully attend the Sacrament of Reconciliation with a firm purpose of amendment.

I am not saying that right and wrong are in grey zones as you call it. What I am saying is that humanity is faulted and that we can make mistakes. In many matters and especially in our opinions and understandings perhaps………we may well be right, or we could be wrong. This is not to state that there is not clear and absolute rights and clear and absolute wrongs. Clear moral rights and wrongs. Certainly it takes considerable arrogance and even stupidity to think that one is always correct and right at all times in all things.

Other than the threads I enter posts into daily on a regular basis, I wont be around much at all for an unknown period really I think. And when I say “I think” it means most often that I am not really sure beyond doubt.

***Thanks again Saylo for the response and I hope that it has cleared up your concerns. Basically, to my mind, we are on “the same side of the fence, talking the same talk and trying to walk the same walk” only wearing different garb perhaps.🙂 ***

***Blessings and my regards…Barb:) ***
Click to expand...
 
Dauphin
They seem to agree with me. While there’s no salvation outside the Church, there are non-normative means of entering the Church, if one is suffering from invincible ignorance.
Click to expand...
“invincible ignorance” is a term you’re using which I have not seen in the documents from the Church.

Ignorance of the Catholic Church being the true Church of Jesus Christ, can be the result of many factors, which only God can know.

However, rigid and narrow interpretation, that there is NO salvation for anyone not Baptized into the institution known as the Roman Catholic Church, after merely being told that the Catholic Church is the true church, is not only flawed, but may be the cause which sets up a road block for a non-Catholic to learn about the Catholic Church and providing him the path to conversion.

Knowledge requires more than just being told, it requires understanding and how we present information can be the fuel for misunderstanding, which we’ll be accountable for.

Jim
 
Barbara Therese;

Given the definition you gave for “relativism” above, would you agree that something cannot be “true for nsper” that is not also true for everyone else, too - including Catholics?

Therefore, is it even remotely possible that, although Jesus through His Church teaches us that Anglican “sacraments” are not valid, they could be “valid for nsper” (though not for anyone else)?
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Dauphin

“invincible ignorance” is a term you’re using which I have not seen in the documents from the Church.

Ignorance of the Catholic Church being the true Church of Jesus Christ, can be the result of many factors, which only God can know.

However, rigid and narrow interpretation, that there is NO salvation for anyone not Baptized into the institution known as the Roman Catholic Church, after merely being told that the Catholic Church is the true church, is not only flawed, but may be the cause which sets up a road block for a non-Catholic to learn about the Catholic Church and providing him the path to conversion.

Knowledge requires more than just being told, it requires understanding and how we present information can be the fuel for misunderstanding, which we’ll be accountable for.

Jim
Click to expand...
You took issue with my words, in which I simply repeated the doctrine of the Church, which is an infallibly defined dogma that no person is saved outside of her. Clearly, you seek to undermine and obscure the church’s doctrine out of some misguided idea of charity by suggesting that schismatics and heretics can be saved, and that is precisely the thing that keeps schismatics and heretics where they are - outside the church and on the path to hell.

Concerning invincible ignorance, innocent ignorance might be a more appropriate term. If the person is not culpable for their ignorance - if they have seeked the truth honestly but were prevented by something beyond their control from reaching it, they can be saved. What you’re suggesting, however, is simply false doctrine. If it is within our means to assent to the Catholic faith, we are bound to. Otherwise, we will be damned.

None of those existing outside of the Church will be saved. The innocently ignorant can be united to the Church without being a formal member, but this is stricly impossible for the culpably ignorant. Ignorance is not a ticket to heaven.
 
Dauphin said:
You took issue with my words, in which I simply repeated the doctrine of the Church, which is an infallibly defined dogma that no person is saved outside of her. Clearly, you seek to undermine and obscure the church’s doctrine out of some misguided idea of charity by suggesting that schismatics and heretics can be saved, and that is precisely the thing that keeps schismatics and heretics where they are - outside the church and on the path to hell.

Concerning invincible ignorance, innocent ignorance might be a more appropriate term. If the person is not culpable for their ignorance - if they have seeked the truth honestly but were prevented by something beyond their control from reaching it, they can be saved. What you’re suggesting, however, is simply false doctrine. If it is within our means to assent to the Catholic faith, we are bound to. Otherwise, we will be damned.

None of those existing outside of the Church will be saved. The innocently ignorant can be united to the Church without being a formal member, but this is stricly impossible for the culpably ignorant. Ignorance is not a ticket to heaven.
Click to expand...
I think the issue at hand is what is defined by invincible ignorance. After all, is mere knowledge of the existence and certain theologies of the Roman Catholic Church enough to make one culpable? After all, I also know of the existence of Islam and Judaism and some of their theologies, but I am not convinced of the totality of their correctness. It is the same with Roman Catholicism.

I admit that there are facets of Roman Catholicism that I agree with and have great respect and admiration for. I go so far as to say that I believe Roman Catholic Holy Orders, Sacraments and Apostolic Succession are valid and that your liturgies are efficacious and valid as well.

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.

To demand that people simply accept Roman Catholic teaching without knowing why they believe it seems to defy logic and explains why there are many poorly catechized Roman Catholics (even occupying positions of authority in the hierarchy). Objectively, non-Roman Catholics have learned very well how to defend their views in Scripture (sometimes they are even able to use Sacred Tradition as well in their arguments). Subjectively, many claim to see God at work in these non-Roman Catholic “denominations”/sects/Rites.

If one looks at the context of say Pope Eugene IV’s statements, it makes sense what he said. At that time (the 14th Century), there were no Protestants in the modern sense of the word. The various heretical groups drew from things other than Scripture, such as gnosticism and paganism. Most Protestants today would probably agree with that Pope’s pronouncement against heresy.

This is why, as I have said before, before a certain period (Pre-Great Schism, Pre-Reformation), the Roman Catholic Church was the primary expression of the ‘One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’. Now, though, it is different because Protestantism traces itself back to Scripture (something the Pre-Reformation schismatic groups would not have done…after all, gnosticism is at odds with Scripture).
 
When joining the Catholic Church, you must come to understanding and to believe in the Church’s doctrines. It is sad to me that you can say that you are receiving the Eucharist which is the Body, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord with out the full understanding what it means to be Catholic.
 
nsper7 said:
I think the issue at hand is what is defined by invincible ignorance. After all, is mere knowledge of the existence and certain theologies of the Roman Catholic Church enough to make one culpable? After all, I also know of the existence of Islam and Judaism and some of their theologies, but I am not convinced of the totality of their correctness. It is the same with Roman Catholicism.

I admit that there are facets of Roman Catholicism that I agree with and have great respect and admiration for. I go so far as to say that I believe Roman Catholic Holy Orders, Sacraments and Apostolic Succession are valid and that your liturgies are efficacious and valid as well.

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 are not in full communion with the Church so, why do you want to receive Holy Communion in the Church in the first place? Is it somekind of lark?
Click to expand...
 
nsper7 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well - the reason it makes it impossible for you to become a Catholic is because it makes it impossible for you to do what we do in Holy Communion - that is, assent to all that the Church teaches us, by our “Amen” to the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

If you have received Holy Communion in the Catholic Church, then you have already proclaimed your “Yes” to all that the Church teaches - joining the Catholic Church wouldn’t actually add anything to what you have already done.

If you see it as “a lie” then you should not receive Holy Communion at all, whether as an Anglican, or otherwise.
 
jmcrae said:
Well - the reason it makes it impossible for you to become a Catholic is because it makes it impossible for you to do what we do in Holy Communion - that is, assent to all that the Church teaches us, by our “Amen” to the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

If you have received Holy Communion in the Catholic Church, then you have already proclaimed your “Yes” to all that the Church teaches - joining the Catholic Church wouldn’t actually add anything to what you have already done.

If you see it as “a lie” then you should not receive Holy Communion at all, whether as an Anglican, or otherwise.
Click to expand...
Blessed be God!

this is the best argument that I have heard so far!!
God Bless,

Pat
 
nsper7 said:
I think the issue at hand is what is defined by invincible ignorance.
Click to expand...
That’s easy; ignorance which is impossible to overcome. That’s the definition.
This is why, as I have said before, before a certain period (Pre-Great Schism, Pre-Reformation), the Roman Catholic Church was the primary expression of the ‘One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’. Now, though, it is different because Protestantism traces itself back to Scripture (something the Pre-Reformation schismatic groups would not have done…after all, gnosticism is at odds with Scripture).
Click to expand...
No, the Roman Catholic Church IS the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, founded upon the rock of St. Peter and governed by his succesor. There is no other.
 
nsper7 said:
This is why, as I have said before, before a certain period (Pre-Great Schism, Pre-Reformation), the Roman Catholic Church was the primary expression of the ‘One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’. Now, though, it is different because Protestantism traces itself back to Scripture (something the Pre-Reformation schismatic groups would not have done…after all, gnosticism is at odds with Scripture).
Click to expand...
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.
 
Quoting jmcrae
Given the definition you gave for “relativism” above, would you agree that something cannot be “true for nsper” that is not also true for everyone else, too - including Catholics?
Click to expand...
It depends on what snper may be stating as truth.
If the truth that snper is proclaiming for example is an absolute truth then it is the truth for all without exmeptions anywhere in any way…i.e. if he states “The Real Presence is contained in all Christian Churches”,he would be wrong because The Church states otherwise. If, however, and another example nsper should state that he ‘finds it difficult to kneel’ this is not an absolute truth binding all, it is a truth that pertains only to nsper, since all do not find it difficult to kneel. An interesting question remains, are all bound to believe that nsper finds it difficult to kneel? And of course, were we to debate this out we would not be dealing with intrinsically an absolute truth (nsper states he finds it difficult to kneel)…while we may wander into absolute truths in discussing the matter.

Truth is truth and of course as an absolute and remains an absolute and a truth whether one believes in it or not.
Human belief or unbelief cannot create or cancel a truth.
Hence should/if anyone at all state what is in fact an absolute truth then it remains an absolute truth for all, simply because it is an absolute truth. Be this as it may, because a human being proclaims something as an absolute truth, does not thereby necessarily make it an absolute truth. Absolute truth stands independant of the whole of humanity as an absolute truth and exists whether humanity is aware of it or not.
Therefore, is it even remotely possible that, although Jesus through His Church teaches us that Anglican “sacraments” are not valid, they could be “valid for nsper” (though not for anyone else)?
Click to expand...
No, the above is not possible. If a sacrament is not valid then as stated in my answer above, it remains invalid (or not valid) whether a person believes in its valid nature or whether one does not. Because I believe it as an absolute truth that what The Catholic Church teaches on Faith and Morals is forever and always an absolute truth.

I do not subscribe to relativism as I understand it anyway. I rather feel like I’m being “examined” and in a Spanish Inquisition:rotfl: and on philosophical and theological questions…gee fellas I’m just a little ol’ Aussie Catholic out in the sticks (the pews)😃 …and of course, the Spanish Inquisition was often very wrong and as (for example) Joan of Arc stood before the whole Church and the world as an officially condemned heretic, she remained a saint in Heaven. Blessed Mary MacKillop was excommunicated, later lifted and the excommunication was stated as wrongful And all I am saying in this statement is that humanity can be wrong. Hence our proclomations and understandings can be wrong - as I have stated belief or unbelief in some matter cannot create a truth, an absolute truth. Be this as it may I uphold and belief without question in The Church and most especially when she speaks on Faith and Morals as unquestionably proclaiming absolute truths that cannot be affected in any way whatsoever by believing in them or not believing.

Writing the above, it became quite clear to me how one can be put into a Catch 22 situation intellectually…and not re absolute truths because they stand independant of all human thought as absolute truths and this is the intrinsic nature of absolute truth - it is, it simply is - and even any Catch 22. Absolute truths are the essence of simplicity and I think simply because they are not governed by human complexity and the complex thought humns exercise existing independantly of all those confusions.

Absolute Truth is where the mind, heart and soul can totally rest and be totally in Peace in all things in the stunning simplicity of the “is” or “am”. Free of the necessity to engage in the complexities we humans can indeed be.

Blessings all … have a great day…Deo Gratius Alleluia Amen…Barb:)
“He will give light to those in darkness
Those who dwell in the shadow of death
And guide us into the way of Peace”
Blessed be God and Blessed be His Holy Name. Alleluia Amen!

Blessings and regards…Barb:)
 
Since this thread has ceased being one of a “Spirituality” issue, I am moving it to Non-Catholic religions so that the discussion may continue. Please remember to post charitably and respectfully.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top