If you are a Christian, what is the real reason for you not being a Catholic? - 2

[mnicklin]

Even I can shoot down this, and I’m no “romanist”.

There is a WORLD of difference between denying someone who is hungry or thirsty food and drink (if one has the ressources to provide them with such), and not allow heretics or pagans to take Holy Communion.

Christians are an absolute minority in the Western World today, but you would grant not only all believers, but also all WHO ARE BAPTIZED (which are at least tens of millions) to take part in Holy Communion?
That is “mishandling” (don’t know the proper English term) the Sacrament, and it borders on blasphemy.

The Sacrament should only be for believers who acknowledge the Sacrament for what it is: The body and blood of the Lord. Christians of other beliefs should be welcomed at the service/High Mass, but gently told to stay away from Communion.

Refusing to let someone take Communion because they are either heretics, unrepentant, unbelievers, or some other reason is not “pride” - it is simply the opposite of saying:

“Holy Communion is not really that important”

I am sure that you have taken part in Holy Communion. Do you not confess your sins before recieving the Host? How can you claim someone is a non believer when they come from a Christian Church? Do you honestly believe that you are more worthy of recieving Holy Communion because you are a Luthern?

Just curious, in what way would you see fit for determining if someone is worthy of recieving communion or not?

 

[LutheranDK]

Lutheran DK:you pose some good questions and as a previous poster stated you should ask about this on the Apologetics Forum for some answers, and no we won,t pick on you for no good reason.

It’s just that experience I’ve had over and over again when discussing with people from the Roman church. Especially on this forum. If I don’t immediately accept all claims, then I want to “bash catholics”, and “hate the church”, and what not, and I’m growing rather tired of it.
All posts in here sems to end with

“And you should accept the “Catholic” * church” - either with no argument whatsoever, or “supported” by the same kind of circular reasoning that I have described in a previous post.

It just seems to me like the old “censeo Carthaginam esse delendam”-limeric over and over again, and I doubt if anyone sees how annoying it is.

sighs And I won’t be surprised if people read this post and once again claim that I hate the Roman church…

But I might just pay a visit to that apologetics-forum - maybe there I can get some answers I can use.*

 

[LutheranDK]

I am sure that you have taken part in Holy Communion. Do you not confess your sins before recieving the Host? How can you claim someone is a non believer when they come from a Christian Church? Do you honestly believe that you are more worthy of recieving Holy Communion because you are a Luthern?

Just curious, in what way would you see fit for determining if someone is worthy of recieving communion or not?

How I can claim someone is a non-believer when they “come from” a Christian church?

That’s easily answered:
Here in Denmark, some 85% are members of the state church. In most countries, it is much lower, but still absurdly high numbers when taking the state of European Christianity into account. There are maybe 5% actual Christians in Denmark, lower in some countries, higher in others. Are you telling me that you consider all 85% believers? You can’t be!

Do I believe that I am more worthy of recieving the Sacrament because I am Lutheran?
Not because of that, no. But because I believe that the Sacrament is what Jesus says it is. And not because of something in ME, as if I achieved anything on my own, but because of the faith I have been given.
I hope to become a pastor one day, and should that happen, I would NEVER give someone I knew was an unrepentant sinner or an unbeliever, or a Christian who did not recognize the Sacrament for what it is, the Sacrament. Because I would then be “mishandling” the Sacrament - and say that it’s not really that important.

 

[mnicklin]

How I can claim someone is a non-believer when they “come from” a Christian church?

That’s easily answered:
Here in Denmark, some 85% are members of the state church. In most countries, it is much lower, but still absurdly high numbers when taking the state of European Christianity into account. There are maybe 5% actual Christians in Denmark, lower in some countries, higher in others. Are you telling me that you consider all 85% believers? You can’t be!

Do I believe that I am more worthy of recieving the Sacrament because I am Lutheran?
Not because of that, no. But because I believe that the Sacrament is what Jesus says it is. And not because of something in ME, as if I achieved anything on my own, but because of the faith I have been given.
I hope to become a pastor one day, and should that happen, I would NEVER give someone I knew was an unrepentant sinner or an unbeliever, or a Christian who did not recognize the Sacrament for what it is, the Sacrament. Because I would then be “mishandling” the Sacrament - and say that it’s not really that important.

Hold on, Hold on, you are getting away from my original argument. Just because someone belongs to a different denomination, for instance Roman Catholic vs. Anglican, that is not a valid reason to deny the Eucharist.

Do we agree or not?

 

[LutheranDK]

Hold on, Hold on, you are getting away from my original argument. Just because someone belongs to a different denomination, for instance Roman Catholic vs. Anglican, that is not a valid reason to deny the Eucharist.

Do we agree or not?

If I understand the Anglican position correctly (I might be wrong on this…), its view on Holy Communion is almost calvinist - that it is merely symbolic.

And I will not make a mockery of the Sacrament by consecrating it, then giving it to one who denies what it is.

So when you put it like that: We do not agree.

 

[trustinyou]

It’s just that experience I’ve had over and over again when discussing with people from the Roman church. Especially on this forum. If I don’t immediately accept all claims, then I want to “bash catholics”, and “hate the church”, and what not, and I’m growing rather tired of it.
All posts in here sems to end with

“And you should accept the “Catholic” * church” - either with no argument whatsoever, or “supported” by the same kind of circular reasoning that I have described in a previous post.

It just seems to me like the old “censeo Carthaginam esse delendam”-limeric over and over again, and I doubt if anyone sees how annoying it is.

sighs And I won’t be surprised if people read this post and once again claim that I hate the Roman church…

But I might just pay a visit to that apologetics-forum - maybe there I can get some answers I can use.*

one of the answers you might get is,how can you conscrete the bread and wine if you have no apostalic procession…This is my take on it all,since were allowed to voice our opinions on these threads…Jesus considers his church his bride,wants us to be one…lutherans,the king henrys and the rest divorced thereselves from the momma church(main)…were all living in a form of adultry until we become one again…(this…really isnt anyones fault today,were just born into this mess that God has to fix…)

 

[Memaw]

No, the pope does not refer to the Council any more - not since the dogma of papal infalibility in 1870. But the Council of Konstanz did agree that the Council was the supreme authority - and not the pope. That is why Luther initially called for an ecumenical Council, and persisted in wanting to have such a council convened.

I am not trying to bash catholics. I was asked what kind of unbiblical dogmas I was talking about, and I answered that question.
Oh, it’s 40.000 protestant denominations now? Just a couple of weeks ago, someone said 30.000. Gee… Or are these numbers simply taken out of thin air, to bash those who are not in the Roman church?
Yes, there are many protestant denominations. That is not a way to defend your own denomination, though.
There is no contradiction between speaking out against the Roman church where it is in error, and against the various protestant churches where THEY are in error.

The reason why the Council of Trent defined the dogma of infallibility was because after the protestant reformation it was denied by protestants. She was making it clear to the Catholic Faithful that it is still a part of Catholic teaching.
There was no council of Konstanz, at least NOT by the Catholic Church, There are 21 Ecumenical Councils in the Catholic and not one of them named Konstanz. Luther didn’t have the authority to call a Council for the Catholic Church.

 

[qui_est_ce]

It’s just that experience I’ve had over and over again when discussing with people from the Roman church. Especially on this forum. If I don’t immediately accept all claims, then I want to “bash catholics”, and “hate the church”, and what not, and I’m growing rather tired of it.
“And you should accept the “Catholic” * church” - either with no argument whatsoever, or “supported” by the same kind of circular reasoning that I have described in a previous post.

sighs And I won’t be surprised if people read this post and once again claim that I hate the Roman church…
*sigh tell me something new about this resentment.

DK, you see, we Americans are not stupid. We know when people come here and start using the term “Roman” Catholic, or “Romanists,” they are already using insulting terms. Besides the fact that the term is incorrect and therefore you are showing a certain lack of education and etiquette.

In Germany, Luther omitted the word Catholic from the Creed (perhaps he wanted to distance himself from the “Catholic Church”). But in England, the Reformers insisted on the right to call themselves Catholics and considered themeselves as the only true Catholic Church. Hence the term “Romish Catholic” or “Roman Catholic” used by some Protestants who shared this feeling and who were unwilling to concede the name Catholic.

As the United States was founded on anti-Catholicism, the term “Roman” is perhaps more popularly used here than in Europe. In Continental Europe, the antaganism between Protestants and Catholics is not nearly as pronounced as it is in the United States, and for different reasons, Northern Ireland.

Given the above, please advise how you would address Maronite Catholics, Chaldean Catholics, Byzantine Catholics, and Celtic Rite Catholics, among others, who look to the Vatican and Apostolic Succession for Truth?

Further, I would like your reasons for your resentment on the “Romish” highjacking of the term Catholic. What was the name of the Christian Church before Martin Luther?

 

[GraceDK]

I hope to become a pastor one day, and should that happen, I would NEVER give someone I knew was an unrepentant sinner or an unbeliever, or a Christian who did not recognize the Sacrament for what it is, the Sacrament. Because I would then be “mishandling” the Sacrament - and say that it’s not really that important.

Hehe… good luck finding employment in the Danish Lutheran Church. I think you have to make your own free church … is that your plan?
Besides… how are you going to know if people are unrepentant or not…? you dont have private confession or even a tradition of spiritual direction in the lutheran church… so tell me, what will you do?
Dont get me wrong… I am not out to bash you. I find you statement and your hope reasonable… I am just saying that your idealism, however noble, is far away from Danish Lutheran reality… in fact… if you carry out your words they would probably have you fired on the spot. You know I am speaking the truth. They want to make room for everyone and everyone can come to receive the last supper without any kind of control of who and what they believe or how they carry on with their life…

But… its an interesting thought…
may your noble ideas in this area influence your surroundings…

 

[GraceDK]

Dear LDK

I know that the Roman church thinks that the Apocrypha is canonical, but that is the same as saying that the Word of God is erronous - because Apocrypha is filled with anachronisms and other errors - and that’s only one of the many reasons that those writings are not actually part of canon. You may call them canonical till your head turns blue, but that won’t alter facts.

In fact not… all of Scriture is inspired by the Holy Spirit… it does not mean that every sentence in it is to be understood litterally… indeed there are verses in your own canon that advocate that the sun is moving around the earth… and there are apparent contradictions in the Hebrew text concerning specific things… However …it does not mean that its not inspired writings/ sacred Scripture. All this we can discuss in further depth in the apologetic section. However I must correct you… The Canon that you deny has been the historical canon and continues to be to this day both in the Orthodox Church and in the Catholic Church. The truth of the matter is that Luther decided to deduct from Sacred Scripture because he thought himself above the wisdom of the Holy Spirit leading the Church from the beginning. He then chose to favour the canon of rabbis as it was gathered at a early rabbinical gathering where Jesus was also scorned as a false messiah… Its crucial to understand that there were strong messiah-prophesies in the deuterocanonical writings… the Jews could want to get rid of these… but Luther… he just had a BAD day, to say the least, when he took away books from Scripture… of all the things Luther did… this one is most dispicable in my eyes…

The view that something is true only because “the church” says so is utter nonsense, and the circular reasoning behind that argument is obvious. And I haven’t even begun to rub your face in all the self-contradictions of the Roman church throughout the centuries.

Before we continue any debate I have to ask you if you actually read my posts…? See I tried to argue that the Scripture Alone position is wholly illogical… but I wonder if you read my post. One thing for your mind though: Where in Scripture do you actually find the words “Sola Scriptura”??? As for your superficial claims that the Church contradicts it self against its own principles… do start a new thread on that in the apologetic section… this thread is enough off topic… But you really should pursue the question. We are more than willing to offer eplanations to help you deal with your misconceptions…

Finally, the claim that the Roman church wrote Scripture is “a truth with modifications” (don’t know if that’s an expression in English - but it is in Danish, and I assume that you gather what I mean by it)

Maybe then you’d care to enlighten us as to whom wrote it… ? There was only one church until the great scism…(However our Othodox brother’s still share our sacramental view) I know that lutheran theology teaches different… namely about a church that was spread out and with had not clear authority and unity in the first few centuries… but that is both illogical and historically incorrect… Have you seriously studied the apostolic fathers? I take it you are a student at a Lutheran faculty.

**It is safe to say that the beginnings of the Roman church (as that is usually defined) did not exist until a very late stage in ancient church history.

• Rome was the last congregation to adopt the monarchical episcopate!
• The primacy of the Bishop of Rome was not generally accepted until the fall of the Western Roman Empire - when central administration crumbled, and there was no Emperor.
  Sure, the bishops of Rome had claimed it since the 2nd century, but that proves nothing.**

I have no problem with the fact that the high middle ages was a time where the Pope in Rome gained a more marked role as Peter, head of the Apostles… However, you fail to understand that there has never been a papal one man show. The bishops and the pope stood together and there were numerous councils throughout history to testify also to this truth… however, your historical analysis testifies to lutheran over-simplification most of all…
I must say when I read your short summary of history I have to ask you the question and expect you to answer honestly before God: have you studied any serious works of theology in the area of Church history that was not written through a protestant lense? I talk about Catholic scolarly works. Please … honesty: Its not to be expected… and I know that in Catholic and Lutheran schools alike there is a lack of willingness to go to the sources of the other groups… but, you come here talking as if you know things at a highly learned level so some actual knowlege can only be expected…
However… I do question your education in this area.

And I could keep going.

There is no need. Lets deal with the issues you have already risen as they seem steeped in misconceptions… Again, I urge you to join us at the apologetics forum…

If I have your word that I will be treated fairly, as defined earlier, then I might pay a visit to that apologetics forum. If not, then I’m not going to waste my time.

I will tell you what… I cannot gurantee you that some of my fellow Catholics will not be rather biased towards you and say unreasonable things… HOWEVER… you are much responsible for it your self in the manner how you introduce your self: If you use words such as “romanist” or “papist” or other expressions that we all know are biased against Catholicism then you cannot expect not to get some anti-sentiment stirred… leave your pride outside the board and then you may actually have a decent dialog.
Ask your questions in a diplomatic way… be willing to listen to the answers… ´Then you will do just fine.
Catholics and Protestants, Evangelicals and Jews get along well on these boards accoding to their own curtesy…
One last thing to ask your self - and I’d be interested in knowing your answer too - is: why are you here? In which fascion are you here in order to honour Christ? Thats one for your own reflection, and for your Christian sensitivity.

One last thing you should know before you enter “the lion’s nest” is that many of the people there are former Protestants and Evangelicals… they are people who have gone though a long process of serious studies and prayer and who are well aquainted with both sides…

Shalom to you. <><

 

[mikew262]

I didn’t!! The question is, “If you are a Christian what is the real reason for you not being a Catholic.?” That is an honest question and does not give anyone the right to slam the Catholic Faith. To express your reasons in a respectful way is one thing but some use this as a means to express their anti-Catholic views, and I think that is whats wrong with this thread. And I believe we as Catholics on a Catholic Forum have every right to defend our Faith.

To be honest, the question is an indirect slam to non-Catholics.

 

[Memaw]

Hold on, Hold on, you are getting away from my original argument. Just because someone belongs to a different denomination, for instance Roman Catholic vs. Anglican, that is not a valid reason to deny the Eucharist.

Do we agree or not?

We do not agree. In the Catholic Church one must belong to the Catholic Church, believe in the True Presence of our Lord in the Eucharist, Be in the “State of Grace” before receiving the TRUE, Body, Blood,Soul and Divinity of our Lord in Holy Communion. To be in the state of Grace, one must be sorry for all sin and have confessed all Mortal, (serious) sins to a priest and received absolution in the Sacrament of Confession.
To receive Holy Communion in the state of serious sin is a sacrilege.
To receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church is an awesome gift as well as a serious responsibility. We are not playing around with a piece of bread. It truly becomes the Body, and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ , just as it did at the Last Supper. Read up on the Eucharistic Miracles within the Catholic Church. Where else do you find such Miracles? That is why we treasure the Apostolic Succession so dearly,
It is because the Catholic Church treasures the TRUE Presence of Our Lord in the Holy Eucharist and the souls of her faithful that she has such guidelines for receiving Holy Communion within the Mass. You simply DO NOT understand the Catholic Faith and you are only willing to believe what you want about Her.

There used to be an old protestant joke going something like this, ‘You better tip toe into heaven because the few Catholics that are here think they are the only ones here’ Well I’ve got news for you, whoever gets to Heaven, will be a Catholic when they do, because they will then know and understand the True Catholic Faith that Jesus Christ gave us. Catholics are NOT arrogant when we say the Catholic Church is the ONE, TRUE Church, founded by Jesus Christ on the Apostles, and it has the fullness of truth, Apostolic Succession, valid Eucharist, the promise of Our Lord to be with the Catholic Church until the end of time, HIS promise that HIS Church would be free of error, (infallibility) and that the Gates of Hell will NOT prevail against HIS Church. We are only saying what HE said and proving HE ment what HE said for 2,000 years.

 

[Memaw]

To be honest, the question is an indirect slam to non-Catholics.

No it isn’t, go back and read some of my posts. If you would spend time trying to understand the Catholic Church and what she teaches, instead of bashing her with false accusations, you would see that the Catholic Church has the FULLNESS of TRUTH, taught by Jesus Christ. I would truly want that for everyone, just as Jesus Christ does, (HE prayed for all to be one Faith, one baptism. one Church,) to come into the fullness of Christ;'s true Church…To settle for anything less is cheating yourself, even if you don’t realize it.

 

[mnicklin]

We do not agree. In the Catholic Church one must belong to the Catholic Church, believe in the True Presence of our Lord in the Eucharist, Be in the “State of Grace” before receiving the TRUE, Body, Blood,Soul and Divinity of our Lord in Holy Communion. To be in the state of Grace, one must be sorry for all sin and have confessed all Mortal, (serious) sins to a priest and received absolution in the Sacrament of Confession.
To receive Holy Communion in the state of serious sin is a sacrilege.
To receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church is an awesome gift as well as a serious responsibility. We are not playing around with a piece of bread. It truly becomes the Body, and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ , just as it did at the Last Supper. Read up on the Eucharistic Miracles within the Catholic Church. Where else do you find such Miracles? That is why we treasure the Apostolic Succession so dearly,
It is because the Catholic Church treasures the TRUE Presence of Our Lord in the Holy Eucharist and the souls of her faithful that she has such guidelines for receiving Holy Communion within the Mass. You simply DO NOT understand the Catholic Faith and you are only willing to believe what you want about Her.

There used to be an old protestant joke going something like this, ‘You better tip toe into heaven because the few Catholics that are here think they are the only ones here’ Well I’ve got news for you, whoever gets to Heaven, will be a Catholic when they do, because they will then know and understand the True Catholic Faith that Jesus Christ gave us. Catholics are NOT arrogant when we say the Catholic Church is the ONE, TRUE Church, founded by Jesus Christ on the Apostles, and it has the fullness of truth, Apostolic Succession, valid Eucharist, the promise of Our Lord to be with the Catholic Church until the end of time, HIS promise that HIS Church would be free of error, (infallibility) and that the Gates of Hell will NOT prevail against HIS Church. We are only saying what HE said and proving HE ment what HE said for 2,000 years.

Anglicans do not deny the true presence of Jesus in the host. You do not understand Anglicanism. You claim to be the only true church, but Roman Catholics themseleves know the church was founded 33A.D. Did people just not go to church for 33 years?

Yes we do have apostolic succession. After all at one time we where part of the Roman Catholic Church. I notice that everyone on here likes to talk about other denominations when they do not understand them themselves. I never claimed in my earlier posts to know anything about the Luthern church because I have not studied it. I know two denominations that I have been a part of. Those are Anglican and Roman Catholic. Yes, I do believe that the Roman Catholic Church is extremely arogant.

Back to my original question. Why are Eastern Orthodox allowed to the Roman Catholic Communion and the Anglicans aren’t?

 

[LutheranDK]

Hehe… good luck finding employment in the Danish Lutheran Church. I think you have to make your own free church … is that your plan?
Besides… how are you going to know if people are unrepentant or not…? you dont have private confession or even a tradition of spiritual direction in the lutheran church… so tell me, what will you do?
Dont get me wrong… I am not out to bash you. I find you statement and your hope reasonable… I am just saying that your idealism, however noble, is far away from Danish Lutheran reality… in fact… if you carry out your words they would probably have you fired on the spot. You know I am speaking the truth. They want to make room for everyone and everyone can come to receive the last supper without any kind of control of who and what they believe or how they carry on with their life…

But… its an interesting thought…
may your noble ideas in this area influence your surroundings…

I know the sad state of the Danish state church only all too well.
I have not yet discovered if my calling is to the state church, or one of the Lutheran Free Churches (not neccessarily in Denmark), but God will show me.

Having said that: There is to my knowledge no current law that says that a pastor IS OBLIGATED to give Communion to anyone. Yes, it has become the “praksis”, but no one can be fired from praksis.
Actually, it is very hard to fire a pastor. And should that happen - well then I’ll tell the high and mighty “bishops” what Luther told the high and mighty at the Diet of Worms:

“Unless I shall be convinced by the testimonies of the Scriptures or by clear reason … I neither can nor will make any retraction, since it is neither safe nor honourable to act against conscience. Here I stand, I can do no other. God help you”

(my bolding and underlining)

One must obey God more than man…

 

[GraceDK]

I know the sad state of the Danish state church only all too well.
I have not yet discovered if my calling is to the state church, or one of the Lutheran Free Churches (not neccessarily in Denmark), but God will show me.

Having said that: There is to my knowledge no current law that says that a pastor IS OBLIGATED to give Communion to anyone. Yes, it has become the “praksis”, but no one can be fired from praksis.
Actually, it is very hard to fire a pastor. And should that happen - well then I’ll tell the high and mighty “bishops” what Luther told the high and mighty at the Diet of Worms:

One must obey God more than man…

To my knowlege Danish Lutheranism is quite far from Luther’s own ideas… If he was here today he would probably beg the Catholic Church to take him back because the areas that were first taken in with protestantism are today infected with protestant liberalism and self-proclaimed popes that look more up to Bultmann than to Luther… even the serious minded are not heard today but are removed to little towns where they hide away…
And whereas you might not be afraid of your bishop (Indeed you should join a church where you would and could obey the Bishop… as one of the early fathers wrote:" The Church is where the Bishop is"… you will see if your bishops are at all faithful to the Word they claim to preach… If they make up their own truth then you really should not work for them…
Already Luther saw the huge weakness of his new founded belief system when he saw the chaos that started prevailing where no one really had authority or tradition backing up their statements… According to what I have heard Luther was very afflicted in his last days seeing that what had started out well intended had become a movement of chaos… the staff had been broken into splinters and already his own contemporaries made other ideas to rival his own.
Anyway… You might stand up and play Luther to your bishop… but I dont need to be a prophet in order to tell you that your congregation council will make your life miserable for you if you start telling them they cant receive the eucharist… They wont fire you… they will make you miserable to the point where you have to leave. Think about that… you are young… dont go ruining your life because of your tendency to be an uncontrolled whirlwind. You know I am saying the truth.

Shalom from Grace

 

[qui_est_ce]

Dear LDK you are much responsible for it your self in the manner how you introduce your self: If you use words such as “romanist” or “papist” or other expressions that we all know are biased against Catholicism then you cannot expect not to get some anti-sentiment stirred… leave your pride outside the board and then you may actually have a decent dialog.
Ask your questions in a diplomatic way… be willing to listen to the answers… ´Then you will do just fine.
Catholics and Protestants, Evangelicals and Jews get along well on these boards accoding to their own curtesy…

Shalom to you. <><

Well put. The motives of the poster who uses “Romanist” are transparent. One has only to look over the boards, it’s always those who come to evangelize or attack Catholics. Thinly veiled insults are not conducive to respectful discussion.

The purpose of these boards is for engaging in honest discussion. Disagreement does not equal attack.

 

[mikew262]

No it isn’t, go back and read some of my posts. If you would spend time trying to understand the Catholic Church and what she teaches, instead of bashing her with false accusations, you would see that the Catholic Church has the FULLNESS of TRUTH, taught by Jesus Christ. I would truly want that for everyone, just as Jesus Christ does, (HE prayed for all to be one Faith, one baptism. one Church,) to come into the fullness of Christ;'s true Church…To settle for anything less is cheating yourself, even if you don’t realize it.

Yes, it is an indirect slam against non-Catholics (I’m talking about the OP’s question, the thread topic). It infers that non-Catholic Christians are somehow less worthy than Catholics. If I were a Protestant, I would certainly take offense.

BTW, I’m a Church going cradle Catholic and have been for over 50 years, was an altar boy and attended a Catholic school full of nuns for 7 years. While I don’t claim to know everything there is to know about the Church, I feel I’m fairly knowledgeable, so spare me the lecture.

If and when you arrive in Heaven someday (and I hope you do), I think you’ll be very surprised how many non-Catholics are there. Plenty, I suspect.

 

[Madaglan]

Anglicans do not deny the true presence of Jesus in the host. You do not understand Anglicanism. You claim to be the only true church, but Roman Catholics themseleves know the church was founded 33A.D. Did people just not go to church for 33 years?

Yes we do have apostolic succession. After all at one time we where part of the Roman Catholic Church. I notice that everyone on here likes to talk about other denominations when they do not understand them themselves. I never claimed in my earlier posts to know anything about the Luthern church because I have not studied it. I know two denominations that I have been a part of. Those are Anglican and Roman Catholic. Yes, I do believe that the Roman Catholic Church is extremely arogant.

Back to my original question. Why are Eastern Orthodox allowed to the Roman Catholic Communion and the Anglicans aren’t?

Eastern Orthodox are allowed to receive Roman Catholic Communion because the Eastern Orthodox have true orders in the eyes of the Catholic Church, whereas the Anglicans do not have true orders.

 

[Memaw]

Yes, it is an indirect slam against non-Catholics (I’m talking about the OP’s question, the thread topic). It infers that non-Catholic Christians are somehow less worthy than Catholics. If I were a Protestant, I would certainly take offense.

BTW, I’m a Church going cradle Catholic and have been for over 50 years, was an altar boy and attended a Catholic school full of nuns for 7 years. While I don’t claim to know everything there is to know about the Church, I feel I’m fairly knowledgeable, so spare me the lecture.

If and when you arrive in Heaven someday (and I hope you do), I think you’ll be very surprised how many non-Catholics are there. Plenty, I suspect.

It is not a slam against anybody to ask them why they don’t come into the fullness of Truth. And if you know your Catholic Faith as well as you think you do , then you would know that and you would be willing to help others see it too. Why settle for less if you can have the fullness. That is what Jesus Christ wants for EVERYONE. The fullness of TRUTH. The protestants that have discovered the truths of the Catholic Faith will testify to that as so many do. Especially today when many protestant ministers are becoming Catholic after study and prayer. Watch the Journey Home program on EWTN, Monday at 7PM, CST. and hear their stories yourself. They DO NOT slam their past faith, but joyfully, after a very difficult journey for some, enter into the fullness of the Catholic Faith…
I do not judge the worthiness of anyone, thats up to GOD. But the TRUTH is the TRUTH no matter what!.
Also, go back and read my posts, I did NOT say that there would NOT be any non-catholics in Heaven. I did say that all who get there will be Catholic ‘once they do’. There will be NO divisions in Heaven. If we don’t know and understand the TRUTH here, for whatever reason, we sure will in Heaven, Jesus said, “I am the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE.” Nothing untrue can enter Heaven. Why not seek the fullness of TRUTH while we are here and can participate in its fullness, such as having our sins forgiven in the Sacrament of Reconciliation and the Sanctifying Grace that goes with it, and receiving Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the valid Eucharist. There is nothing greater on the face of this earth. That is as close to Heaven as we can get while here on earth… To pray for that for my fellow Christians is NOT slamming them. That is LOVE.