G
GKC
Guest
Pax tecum
- Status
D
Duane1966
Guest
And if you reject some aspect of what Jesus teaches? When there is an explicit rejection of what His Church teaches, can there be faith in Christ? Or is it faith in what the person rejecting the Church wants Christ to be?
You have trusted your soul to men, as did Jesus. He sent them out to shepherd you, giving them Divine Authority. You believe in Jesus because the early Christians trusted them, and in trusting them, they were trusting the Church. And it has been passed on generation after generation. You cannot have Jesus, without His Church.
Thank you.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
I fully support and agree with your post here as it pertains to those in full communion with the Church.
My previous post addresses the OP’s question of the lord’s supper and a communion. More specifically I am addressing a faith in the real presence (Lord’s Supper) and in the Eucharist a full Communion.
To use some of St. Paul’s biblical words here; that deals with infant Christians who are still on the milk of faith, compared to those mature Christians who are able to eat the meat of faith. I pray not to offend any readers or posters with what I am going to relate here as an example.
These infants “by no fault of their own”, as the Catechism states. Some possess and display a faith in Jesus real presence that may equal or surpass some “infant” cradle Catholics. Yet, “by no fault of their own” remain separated brethren.
Jesus gives many teachings on how we are to treat such infants, “for their’s is the Kingdom of heaven”, “do not despise one of these little ones”, lets’ not forget the warning from three gospel recordings; to those who keep these little ones from Jesus or cause a little one to stumble, “it is better to tie a millstone around his neck and cast into the sea”.
Faith in the real presence, as an infant can be a profound faith, like the Roman Centurion. That same faith we as Catholics profess in the Eucharistic Liturgy of the Mass, “Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the Word and my soul shall be healed.”
It was St. Paul’s prayer that all Christians should eat the meat of faith. Here I will conclude my opinion to the meat of faith is full communion in the seven sacraments. Some infants may have only one or two sacraments, I pray with St. Paul , how I pray that we all be mature and eat the meat of faith in full communion at the Lords Table.
Peace be with you
E
Eric_Hyom
Guest
We all sin, so do we all reject some of what Jesus taught us?
Jesus said, I have chosen you, you have not chosen me. How does that sit with people who follow Jesus through another denomination? Did Jesus choose them also? I have met non - Catholics, who I consider have a great faith in our Lord.
G
GKC
Guest
And that faith you profess in the Eucharistic Liturgy of the Mass is the faith some of us profess, thrice repeated, in our Eucharistic Liturgy of the Mass.I fully support and agree with your post here as it pertains to those in full communion with the Church.
My previous post addresses the OP’s question of the lord’s supper and a communion. More specifically I am addressing a faith in the real presence (Lord’s Supper) and in the Eucharist a full Communion.
To use some of St. Paul’s biblical words here; that deals with infant Christians who are still on the milk of faith, compared to those mature Christians who are able to eat the meat of faith. I pray not to offend any readers or posters with what I am going to relate here as an example.
These infants “by no fault of their own”, as the Catechism states. Some possess and display a faith in Jesus real presence that may equal or surpass some “infant” cradle Catholics. Yet, “by no fault of their own” remain separated brethren.
Jesus gives many teachings on how we are to treat such infants, “for their’s is the Kingdom of heaven”, “do not despise one of these little ones”, lets’ not forget the warning from three gospel recordings; to those who keep these little ones from Jesus or cause a little one to stumble, “it is better to tie a millstone around his neck and cast into the sea”.
Faith in the real presence, as an infant can be a profound faith, like the Roman Centurion. That same faith we as Catholics profess in the Eucharistic Liturgy of the Mass, “Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the Word and my soul shall be healed.”
It was St. Paul’s prayer that all Christians should eat the meat of faith. Here I will conclude my opinion to the meat of faith is full communion in the seven sacraments. Some infants may have only one or two sacraments, I pray with St. Paul , how I pray that we all be mature and eat the meat of faith in full communion at the Lords Table.
Peace be with you
Thank you.
D
Duane1966
Guest
In the moment we sin? Of course! But that is what the Sacrament of Confession is for. After gravely sinning, do you receive Holy Communion without availing yourself of the Sacrament of Confession first? If yes, then you are performing a lie. Your actions say I am in communion with this Church, which specifically believes they are the Church that Christ founded, whilst you reject what His Church teaches.
Hopefully they are following Him to the best of their abilities with the graces that God sends them, but they do not have the fulness of truth.
Maybe. They still have to cooperate with the graces sent them. One would find it hard to believe that Christ would send graces to them, without also nudging them towards fulness with the Church that He founded. He also chose Judas.
They may have great faith in Jesus. But clearly, they do not believe what we as Catholics believe about Jesus.
D
Duane1966
Guest
Even though it is through no fault of their own, they are still separated. For them to receive communion, would still be a lie. It would be saying, we are not separated when we are. Every time you receive communion and say “Amen”, you are saying I believe everything this Church, i.e. Catholic, teaches about salvation. No separated brethren can say that, because, even if it is not their fault, objectively they are not an official member of the Catholic Church. Communion is the sign of our oneness with each other. Objectively, if we are separated, we are not one. I too pray for unity.I fully support and agree with your post here as it pertains to those in full communion with the Church.
My previous post addresses the OP’s question of the lord’s supper and a communion. More specifically I am addressing a faith in the real presence (Lord’s Supper) and in the Eucharist a full Communion.
To use some of St. Paul’s biblical words here; that deals with infant Christians who are still on the milk of faith, compared to those mature Christians who are able to eat the meat of faith. I pray not to offend any readers or posters with what I am going to relate here as an example.
These infants “by no fault of their own”, as the Catechism states. Some possess and display a faith in Jesus real presence that may equal or surpass some “infant” cradle Catholics. Yet, “by no fault of their own” remain separated brethren.
Jesus gives many teachings on how we are to treat such infants, “for their’s is the Kingdom of heaven”, “do not despise one of these little ones”, lets’ not forget the warning from three gospel recordings; to those who keep these little ones from Jesus or cause a little one to stumble, “it is better to tie a millstone around his neck and cast into the sea”.
Faith in the real presence, as an infant can be a profound faith, like the Roman Centurion. That same faith we as Catholics profess in the Eucharistic Liturgy of the Mass, “Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the Word and my soul shall be healed.”
It was St. Paul’s prayer that all Christians should eat the meat of faith. Here I will conclude my opinion to the meat of faith is full communion in the seven sacraments. Some infants may have only one or two sacraments, I pray with St. Paul , how I pray that we all be mature and eat the meat of faith in full communion at the Lords Table.
Peace be with you
G
GKC
Guest
If Gabriel was suggesting that RC Eucharist be open to those not in communion with Rome, based on their belief in the Real Presence, I missed it.
D
Duane1966
Guest
Gabriel fully agreed with my post, **as it pertained to people in full communion with the Church, **i.e. Catholics. Which means Gabriel did not agree with the parts that pertained to non-Catholics.
There seems to be a tremendous amount of comments (many from Catholics) over the years, expressing a desire that non-Catholics who have faith in the Real Presence should be able to receive in the Catholic Church (I know this is not your position), as if that should be enough.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Define a “lie”. A Catholic who know’s full well he/she is in mortal sin and has not celebrated the ministry of reconciliation (Confession), yet still goes to communion?
A non-Catholic Christian who goes up for communion in his/her own community faith Church, who believe’s and trust Jesus in His the real presence.
The disciplines you mentioned about “believing” everything the Catholic Church teaches is not for non-Catholics. Such disciplines are recorded in the CCC for Catholics.
My previous post did not address the disciplines for Catholics. I hope I did not mislead from my post that I was supporting an interfaith reception of Holy Communion in any Church community.
I grieve, that we have separated brethren who are not in full communion. Unity we all have as baptized Christians. It is the fullness of communion, I yearn and pray for one day.
Peace be with you
D
Duane1966
Guest
If said Catholic knows what the Church teaches about reception and mortal sin, then yes.
Yup. And I was talking about reception by non-Catholics of the Catholic sacrament.
The OP’s post is about interfaith reception.
Yes.
And you.
T
Tommy999
Guest
In the Methodist Church where I attend, all who *profess love for Christ and earnestly repent of their sin and seek to live in peace with one another *are invited to participate in holy communion, according to Methodist liturgy, which is further described in the URL below at the bottom of this post.
When I attended a Catholic Mass a couple of years ago (and liked it, by the way), I did not go up for communion because I understood it was only for Catholics, so I remained seated in the pew and prayed silently for the welfare of those who went up, for the few who didn’t, for my family and friends, and for whomever and whatever the Lord put on my heart at the time.
At the Methodist Church where I attend, just before communion, the pastor states these words:
“*Pour out your Holy Spirit on us gathered here,
and on these gifts of bread and wine.
Make them be for us the body and blood of Christ,
that we may be for the world the body of Christ,
redeemed by his blood.” *
The whole communion proceedings can be found here, if anyone is interested.
umcdiscipleship.org/resources/a-service-of-word-and-table-i-and-introductions-to-the-other-forms
May the Lord richly bless all who seek to grow closer to Him.
D
Duane1966
Guest
If you think about it, those disciplines for Catholics, really do apply for anyone who receives communion in a church that has doctrinal differences than their own. Since communion is the sign of one’s unity with the community they are receiving it in, for anyone that receives whilst not agreeing with that communities doctrine (if they are aware of the differences), is lying. By their actions they are saying I believe what you believe, when they don’t. Open communion cannot change the nature of what communion is. But that is what it tries to do.
G
GKC
Guest
Nope. Not my position, as you say. That any Church/ecclesial community (just to be all encompassing), may set its own standards for communicating, and that such can logically be that communicants must be in full communion, doctrinally, and/or with any exceptions that might be made to that stricture, seems perfectly logical.
G
gnosisofthomas
Guest
I’m not Anglican, I’m Gnostic, but… I wouldn’t feel comfortable participating in communion at a church service where (A) they have no Apostolic Succession, and (B) communion is viewed as merely symbolic. The Sacrament is too holy for that, and participation would mean me basically silently agreeing with them. Heck, there’s a priest at the Catholic university here who has outright said that “absolutely nothing happens at the altar.” I wouldn’t feel comfortable receiving communion from him either – in fact, I don’t even understand why he’s a priest at all with that attitude!
That said, I wouldn’t have a problem giving the Eucharist to anyone who genuinely desired to received it, regardless of what they believed (I’m a deacon, so I do distribute Communion at Mass).
That said, I wouldn’t have a problem giving the Eucharist to anyone who genuinely desired to received it, regardless of what they believed (I’m a deacon, so I do distribute Communion at Mass).
A
Augustine3
Guest
Wow! My Gnostic friend, you’re not far from the Kingdom of Heaven
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
The nature of what communion is, as per the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Faith cannot change and is not subject to an “Open communion” to those who do not discern the True body, blood of Jesus Christ (1Cor.11:23-29) can place themselves in judgement (unknowingly) for the body and blood of Christ.
An “open communion” can place one in a lax position to “unworthil” receive the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
What I call into question here applies to faith. Which I gave an example of the greatest faith in all of Israel by a Roman Centurion.
Do you think the Catholic Church calls into question one of these little ones, who possesses a faith in the real true presence of Jesus body and blood? Although this faith understanding, may not be in full communion with the CC due to “no fault of their own”.
I understand the OP’s interfaith communion question. What I am suggesting to look first at the faith of ones communicate. Which is diverse in symbolism or real presence.
- Status