S
- Status
S
steve_b
Guest
Salika:
Salika:
When there was a section of this forum for the E. Orthodox, under the non-Catholic section which if I remember correctly was changed to Eastern Christianity, this subject came up multiple times. The moderators ruled they (those Not in union with Rome) were NOT to call themselves Catholic. I haven’t seen a new ruling on that. If there is I’ll be happy to retract my statement
S
Sailka
Guest
The 21 Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church sects Are in Union with the Vatican. They participate Fully in all Catholic Church functions, especially at Bishop or higher level, and are fully respected. We Catholics are fully entitled to meet our Sunday Mass obligation at an Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy. . The Moderators may not have been aware
And we can receive Eastern Orthodox Commumnion as our Eucharist, unless we disrespect it, which would be sacrilege if knowing, deliberate.
S
steve_b
Guest
As I’ve said, those in union with the pope are Catholic.
S
Sailka
Guest
Amen! Now, if we can convince our esteemed overworked Moderators…:byzsoc:
3
389670
Guest
What does it mean to be in communion with the pope? Do you have to be in communion wit the pope to go to heaven?
J
jfhh
Guest
I know but that’s not what I’m talking about. The United States bishops AND the Vatican AND Pope John Paul II have all refered to the Polish National Catholic Church as well the “Polish National Catholic Church”
First let’s get the Vatican website and Pope in the picture
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/homilies/1987/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_19870911_servizio-ecumenico_en.html
“Pope John Paul II” said:
Did you know by the way that members of the Polish National Catholic Church as well as the Orthodox are allowed to receive Communion in Roman Catholic churches? (Some Orthodox churches do not let their members do it though). Polish National Catholic Church is what’s called an “Old Catholic” Church IIRC and the Vatican refers to the Old Catholic Churches as “Old Catholic.” That’s on the Vatican website too and that’s not a name of a particular church but a description of a whole bunch of churches.
And check this out too from the official US bishops website
usccb.org/comm/backgrounders/questions.shtml
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:
IIRC, Pope John Paul II worked hard to try to concelebrate Mass with Orthodox bishops. I don’t get what the big deal is … Orthodox are closer in belief to official church teaching than the First Lady of California, probably, yet she is called Catholic or cafeteria Catholic but people get hung up over how the Orthodox sometimes call themselves Orthodox Catholics.
It’s not an either or thing IMO. You can be cafeteria a lot or just a little or anywhere in between. You can have the attitude of “I’ll treat the church’s opinion just like that of anyone else’s opinion” which would be one extreme of the cafeteria spectrum or the attitude of “I’ll have the heart of a listener when the church speaks, knowing that even should I end up disagreeing, I’ll still probably learn something spiritual” and that’s more where I’m at today.
I’m glad the First Lady of Cali has spoken out on her cafeteria Catholicism. I don’t know which part of the spectrum she would be on, but it’s nice to see it all going mainstream. We need open dialogue within all quarters of the church from extreme liberal to extreme orthodox and everything in the middle.
S
Sailka
Guest
In communion with the Pope is not the same for Churches and individuals. For Church Sects, it means Each has Agreed, recognized all the Conditions of the other, Like Consecration, etc, etc. The Anglican Church decades ago applied for full recognition by the Vatican. The Vatican ruled against that on several grounds, including Anglican priests not having Apostolic Power to Consecrate.
A key element for Full Union with the Vatican is Recognizing the technical Papal Appointing of each Bishop, equivalent. The Eastern Churches do the consideration of Who. The Vatican routinelly approves, unless there is sigbificant question. The Pope approves the Nominee, and the Ordination/Installation of the new Bishop is usually by the Orthodox ‘Cardinal/Archbishop equivalent’.
I’ve learned that that our Eastern brothers and Churches do Not want to be named Latin or Roman, Because they have own fully approved Eastern/Orthodox Rites. The Church agrees that Communion to Infants isTotally Proper. I’ve Witnessed same. Leaves some in tears.
My understanding of Individual Catholic ‘communion with the Pope’ is accepting Papal and Church Authority and Dogma.
“The Pope” signifies the Catholic Church. One of 2 ways to Choose Hell is to know the Catholic Church, its authority (The Pope, Magesterium) but Reject It, and Or the Lord with sound mind.
S
steve_b
Guest
accept all the essentials that the Church teaches
3:
The popes of Rome from the beginning have always been regarded as the successors to St Peter…
Therefore, When Jesus said to Peter,
feed and rule my Church, and again said those who hear you hear me, and those who don’t hear you don’t hear me or the one who sent me, and again, Jesus prayed that ALL would be one as He and His Father are one
I’m thinking, if someone knows scripture, and wants to please Jesus, and do things HIS way, they can’t choose to be out of communion with the Pope. It seems to me a slippery sloap for anyone choosing to be seperated from the pope to think it’s okay with Jesus.
S
SSTeacher
Guest
The three things at the top of my list would be the Catholic understanding of salvation, the Catholic teaching about purgatory, and the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
For Catholics, salvation is an ongoing process, which takes place gradually over the span of each Catholic’s life. Salvation is contingent upon the performance of the individual in that it depends upon the individual Catholic’s willingness to frequent the sacraments and his or her ability to avoid falling into mortal sin with the final outcome being an unknown factor in this life. Catholicism, in fact, proposes that people can earn their salvation by the good that they do and that they can forfeit their salvation by the bad that they do and/or the good that they fail to do. In my view, that amounts to salvation by works.
But for anybody who accepts that salvation comes by works, there arises a tricky question:
Exactly how good does one have to be to merit heaven and exactly how bad does one have to be to deserve hell?
Who could say?
But if one remains with the assumption that salvation is indeed by works it may reasonably be supposed that most people who reach the end of their lives on earth would find, when the scales are balanced, that they aren’t good enough to go straight to heaven but neither are they bad enough to go to hell.
If justice prohibits them from being directly dispatched to either heaven or hell, what’s to be done with them?
The Catholic answer to this dilemma is purgatory. Purgatory is perhaps best described as a “temporary hell.” It hurts like hell but it won’t last forever, some might say. In Catholic thought, purgatory is a place where people are purged – that is, they are punished for the bad things that they did while they lived on earth. When they’re completely purged, they can progress into heaven. It follows that the best a Catholic can hope for after death – assuming he or she doesn’t get martyred, which (as I understand it) is the only route by which a sane adult Catholic may gain direct entry into heaven at the point of his or her death – is to be sent away by God to suffer for an indeterminate but presumably lengthy time in a temporary hell.
The Orthodox Christian Church, which most informed observers would agree has just as much right to call itself the “one true church” as anybody else, dismisses the doctrine of purgatory as a modern innovation. Still, for the Orthodox, anything that occurred after the Great Schism of 1054 is modern. Nevertheless, I think the Orthodox judgment in this case is probably correct.
Apropos the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, the proposition is that God granted one human person immunity from sin in order to achieve His plan of saving the whole human race from sin.
It seems to me that there are at least two solid objections.
Firstly, if the doctrine is true, it means that God can grant complete immunity from sin to human beings yet grants it to only one. So why not just grant immunity to everybody and save everybody that way?
Secondly, the doctrine directly contradicts what both Catholic and Protestant versions of the Bible declare i.e. that all have sinned.
Nevertheless I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the Catholic Church is unequivocally wrong about these matters. Catholics have no problems with them so my difficulties can probably be traced to my Evangelical Protestant presuppositions.
I wish you well on your spiritual journey.
Grace and peace,
Mick
S
steve_b
Guest
You’re missing my point. People can call themselves whatever they want. It doesn’t mean they are Catholic, or are the Catholic Church. If they were I could go to the PNCC with no problems. But that’s not the case
Referring to your quote of JPII when he said
“'different Ecclesial Communions: Orthodox, Anglicans, Methodists, Baptists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, members of the United Church of Christ and of other Reformed Churches, Disciples of Christ, members of the Peace Churches, Pentecostals, members of the Polish National Catholic Church .”
JPII called them as they want to be called.
Referring to the link you’ve posted
usccb.org/comm/backgrounders/questions.shtml
In general, It’s highlighting rules for papal mass. As you know there are 1000’s of people at papal masses. But generally, the bishops were using Canon law. in the borad case For Catholics seeking the sacraments in an Eastern Church and the Eastern Christian seeking the sacraments in the Catholic Church. Here are the rules they referenced.
.
canons (emphasis mine)
Can. 844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone, without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon,
§2. Whenever
- necessity requires it or
- true spiritual advantage suggests it,
- and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided,
- the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister
are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.
- Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and
- are properly disposed.
This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.
Note:
Re: canon 844.2 and 844.3
844.3 doesn’t undo the requirements in 844.2 for Eastern Chistians NOT in communion with Rome that Catholics must follow in 844.2. .
i.e. for EO and PNCC etc to receive in the Catholic Church,
- necessity requires it,
- true spiritual advantage is sought,
- it’s impossible for them to approach their own ministers.
Needless to say they must also be in the state of grace meaning not in mortal sin just like Catholics when they receive the Eucharist.
J
jfhh
Guest
I disagree with your interpretation of canon law there. We had a canon law student give an authoritative opinion in the thread about someone marrying their stepdaughter. Maybe that canon law student can tells us more. Maybe you could PM that canon law student and have him shed some light; he/she may be busy though. Here’s his post in that thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4444754#post4444754
It seems to me that you are confusing a lot of things there. You say that 844.3 doesn’t undo 844.2 which is true, but 844.2 is requirements for CATHOLICS receiving from NON-CATHOLIC ministers. 844.3 is about NON-CATHOLICS receiving from CATHOLIC ministers. See what I mean? And 844.4 is speaking of other Christians, i.e. Christians OTHER than the ones accounted for in 844.3
C
Cinette
Guest
Catholics have no need to criticise Protestants. In fact the Catholic Church is very tolerant and charitable towards Protestants.
Protestants do a sterling job of demonstrating uncharitableness and hatred. In fact certain Protestants diminish themselves with their pronouncements and utterances about the Catholic Church. I find it very painful to read their postings.
Sometimes I have warm feelings when I think of Protestants because I remember that they are also Christians and that they believe in the Trinity, in Jesus (not all about Jesus but something is better than nothing). I believe they can also achieve salvation despite the flaws in their beliefs. I know there are many who are good and charitable. I am thankful for them. I wish we could all be united just as Jesus promised we would be one day and I pray for that.
B
benedictus2
Guest
I’ve done a quick look through the posts and I thought that while you’re at it you might want to check out Catholicism and Fundamentalism by Karl Keating.
Excellent book and discusses much of the cons that protestants in this thread have brought up.
Also, Rome Sweet Home by Scott & Kimberly Hahn. Kimberley talks about contraception and how the Catholic position is the only position faithful to the Bible. This issue actually started their journey into the Catholic Church.
David McDonald’s (Catholic Bridge) website is excellent and so is Dave armstrongs.
C
Cinette
Guest
Yes, you will see in Karl Keating’s book the extent to which Protestants go to rubbish and attack the Catholic Church. All this goes to prove that since the CC is the main target of attack that it is the Church Jesus founded. The devil knows exactly where to aim.
C
Cinette
Guest
So even though Ag_Not said everyone EXCEPT Catholics we couldn’t resist defending the Church of the lies and misconceptions.
However, have the Protestants declared the 3 terrible things about the Catholics which would make anyone run a mile?
However, have the Protestants declared the 3 terrible things about the Catholics which would make anyone run a mile?
J
jblake
Guest
steve b;:
jonathon
At least five different denominations trace their history back to the first century. At least three other groups were exterminated, courtesy of the Roman Church, prior to the end of the third century.
At least two of those denominations would not only disagree with you, but cite scripture that demonstrates that your statement is flat out wrong.
jonathon
B
benedictus2
Guest
What’s stopping you from naming these denominations?
Why don’t you start citing denomination and scripture passages now?
Sorry Ag_Not. I know I am not suppose to be in this thread but couldn’t help myself
C
Cinette
Guest
C
cascherman
Guest
I’de like to hear the “denominations” as well.
- Status