My Catholic Friend Receiving Anglican Eucharist

[Wannano]

And yet neither possibility infringes one iota on what I posted. Even if it were originally written in Aramaic, or if John had help compiling his gospel, the translation into the Greek is clear in John 6. To argue Jesus is being symbolic in John 6, you must ignore the use of the word trogo. If you say you are not sure of the translation, remember, anyone can say that about any part of the Bible, as there are no originals.

You have not answered questions that I asked you earlier. I will ask again. Since Jesus gave the authority to bind and loose to His Church:

1.) Who wields the power to bind and loose you?

2.) Will you submit to this authority even if you disagree with it?

3.) If you answer no to question 2, have you not appropriated to yourself the power of binding and loosing that Jesus gave His Church?

I think I told you I want some time.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Even as I write this, it is bound in Heaven, for Catholics not to receive other non-Catholic Eucharists.

This statement is wrong. It is not correct to write that Catholics can not receive sacraments from non-Catholic ministers. The Church is clear:
Canon 844 §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.
The Holy See makes this determination of whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

The correct formulation, therefore, is: a Catholic may only receive the sacraments of Eucharist, penance and anointing of the sick from those non-Catholic ministers whom the law has determined these sacraments may be received from – and then when those Catholics are in circumstances in which the law permits according to the norms and prescriptions of universal law and particular law.

 

[Church_Militant]

I think one of the most informative things that needs to be brought into this discussion is Pope St. John Paul the Great’s wonderful encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia and I’ll post sections that are specifically relevant.

1. In considering the Eucharist as the sacrament of ecclesial communion, there is one subject which, due to its importance, must not be overlooked: I am referring to the relationship of the Eucharist to ecumenical activity. We should all give thanks to the Blessed Trinity for the many members of the faithful throughout the world who in recent decades have felt an ardent desire for unity among all Christians. The Second Vatican Council, at the beginning of its Decree on Ecumenism, sees this as a special gift of God.89 It was an efficacious grace which inspired us, the sons and daughters of the Catholic Church and our brothers and sisters from other Churches and Ecclesial Communities, to set forth on the path of ecumenism.

Our longing for the goal of unity prompts us to turn to the Eucharist, which is the supreme sacrament of the unity of the People of God, in as much as it is the apt expression and the unsurpassable source of that unity.90 In the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice the Church prays that God, the Father of mercies, will grant his children the fullness of the Holy Spirit so that they may become one body and one spirit in Christ.91 In raising this prayer to the Father of lights, from whom comes every good endowment and every perfect gift (cf. *Jas *1:17), the Church believes that she will be heard, for she prays in union with Christ her Head and Spouse, who takes up this plea of his Bride and joins it to that of his own redemptive sacrifice.

1. Precisely because the Church’s unity, which the Eucharist brings about through the Lord’s sacrifice and by communion in his body and blood, absolutely requires full communion in the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments and ecclesiastical governance, it is not possible to celebrate together the same Eucharistic liturgy until those bonds are fully re-established. Any such concelebration would not be a valid means, and might well prove instead to be an obstacle, to the attainment of full communion, by weakening the sense of how far we remain from this goal and by introducing or exacerbating ambiguities with regard to one or another truth of the faith. The path towards full unity can only be undertaken in truth. In this area, the prohibitions of Church law leave no room for uncertainty,92 in fidelity to the moral norm laid down by the Second Vatican Council.93

I would like nonetheless to reaffirm what I said in my Encyclical Letter Ut Unum Sint after having acknowledged the impossibility of Eucharistic sharing: “And yet we do have a burning desire to join in celebrating the one Eucharist of the Lord, and this desire itself is already a common prayer of praise, a single supplication. Together we speak to the Father and increasingly we do so ‘with one heart’”.94

 

[Church_Militant]

1. In considering the Eucharist as the sacrament of ecclesial communion, there is one subject which, due to its importance, must not be overlooked: I am referring to the relationship of the Eucharist to ecumenical activity. We should all give thanks to the Blessed Trinity for the many members of the faithful throughout the world who in recent decades have felt an ardent desire for unity among all Christians. The Second Vatican Council, at the beginning of its Decree on Ecumenism, sees this as a special gift of God.89 It was an efficacious grace which inspired us, the sons and daughters of the Catholic Church and our brothers and sisters from other Churches and Ecclesial Communities, to set forth on the path of ecumenism.

Our longing for the goal of unity prompts us to turn to the Eucharist, which is the supreme sacrament of the unity of the People of God, in as much as it is the apt expression and the unsurpassable source of that unity.90 In the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice the Church prays that God, the Father of mercies, will grant his children the fullness of the Holy Spirit so that they may become one body and one spirit in Christ.91 In raising this prayer to the Father of lights, from whom comes every good endowment and every perfect gift (cf. *Jas *1:17), the Church believes that she will be heard, for she prays in union with Christ her Head and Spouse, who takes up this plea of his Bride and joins it to that of his own redemptive sacrifice.

1. Precisely because the Church’s unity, which the Eucharist brings about through the Lord’s sacrifice and by communion in his body and blood, absolutely requires full communion in the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments and ecclesiastical governance, it is not possible to celebrate together the same Eucharistic liturgy until those bonds are fully re-established. Any such concelebration would not be a valid means, and might well prove instead to be an obstacle, to the attainment of full communion, by weakening the sense of how far we remain from this goal and by introducing or exacerbating ambiguities with regard to one or another truth of the faith. The path towards full unity can only be undertaken in truth. In this area, the prohibitions of Church law leave no room for uncertainty,92 in fidelity to the moral norm laid down by the Second Vatican Council.93

I would like nonetheless to reaffirm what I said in my Encyclical Letter Ut Unum Sint after having acknowledged the impossibility of Eucharistic sharing: “And yet we do have a burning desire to join in celebrating the one Eucharist of the Lord, and this desire itself is already a common prayer of praise, a single supplication. Together we speak to the Father and increasingly we do so ‘with one heart’”.94

Most of this section applies directly to the OP’s case and might well all be printed out and given to the lady and perhaps her priest. I would also point out that there are some Anglican use parishes that are in communion with us and that if the parish in question is one of those then all is actually well. If not, then there is an issue.

If she feels fellowship is lacking in her parish the answer is not to go elsewhere but to work with them to help create something as good (or even better perhaps…) for their sake…and hers. I would really like to talk to that priest because it’s possible that she has not accurately relayed his statement.

As for those of you n-Cs who do not understand or deny the Eucharistic Real Presence I would offer my own Bible study on it in my blog article, The Eucharist IS Scriptural

 

[Don_Ruggero]

What do you mean by “branch of the Church?” There is only one true Church, and the Anglican Communion is not it. The Anglican Communion cannot even be rightly called a Church since it lacks apostolic succession

The Eucharist is the central theme of the Church, It is where we experience full unity of faith. I sometimes don’t even see how you can do that with Anglicanism due to the lack of any formal doctrine. It seems like people can believe anything they want in the Anglican Communion. Heck, I bet if you search really hard you can find those who hold to Arian theology! Honestly, I would not be surprised if that were the case

I’m at a loss to understand how the tone of this post, in the aspect underlined, with its blatantly false statement that Anglicans lack any formal doctrine or accusing members of the Communion of actually being Arian – can be reconciled with the forum rule:
*Members are not allowed to be disrespectful of anyone’s faith or religion, whether it is Catholicism or not

Members are free to discuss, dialogue, question, disagree with, and debate the doctrines and dogmas of both Catholicism and non-Catholic religions. However, all discourse must be civil and charitable*
As for the legitimacy of Catholics using the title “Church,” from many possible selections of texts, I choose to use what Pope Benedict said during his apostolic visit to England, specifically his address to the Archbishop of Canterbury when he spoke of Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman’s years of ordained in *the Church of England
Your Grace,

It is a pleasure for me to be able to return the courtesy of the visits you have made to me in Rome by a fraternal visit to you here in your official residence. I thank you for your invitation and for the hospitality that you have so generously provided. I greet too the Anglican Bishops gathered here from different parts of the United Kingdom, my brother Bishops from the Catholic Dioceses of England, Wales and Scotland, and the ecumenical advisers who are present

You have spoken, Your Grace, of the historic meeting that took place, almost thirty years ago, between two of our predecessors – Pope John Paul the Second and Archbishop Robert Runcie – in Canterbury Cathedral. There, in the very place where Saint Thomas of Canterbury bore witness to Christ by the shedding of his blood, they prayed together for the gift of unity among the followers of Christ. We continue today to pray for that gift, knowing that the unity Christ willed for his disciples will only come about in answer to prayer, through the action of the Holy Spirit, who ceaselessly renews the Church and guides her into the fullness of truth

It is not my intention today to speak of the difficulties that the ecumenical path has encountered and continues to encounter. Those difficulties are well known to everyone here. Rather, I wish to join you in giving thanks for the deep friendship that has grown between us and for the remarkable progress that has been made in so many areas of dialogue during the forty years that have elapsed since the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission began its work. Let us entrust the fruits of that work to the Lord of the harvest, confident that he will bless our friendship with further significant growth.

The context in which dialogue takes place between the Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church has evolved in dramatic ways since the private meeting between Pope John XXIII and Archbishop Geoffrey Fisher in 1960. On the one hand, the surrounding culture is growing ever more distant from its Christian roots, despite a deep and widespread hunger for spiritual nourishment. On the other hand, the increasingly multicultural dimension of society, particularly marked in this country, brings with it the opportunity to encounter other religions. For us Christians this opens up the possibility of exploring, together with members of other religious traditions, ways of bearing witness to the transcendent dimension of the human person and the universal call to holiness, leading to the practice of virtue in our personal and social lives. Ecumenical cooperation in this task remains essential, and will surely bear fruit in promoting peace and harmony in a world that so often seems at risk of fragmentation

At the same time, we Christians must never hesitate to proclaim our faith in the uniqueness of the salvation won for us by Christ, and to explore together a deeper understanding of the means he has placed at our disposal for attaining that salvation. God “wants all to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:4), and that truth is nothing other than Jesus Christ, eternal Son of the Father, who has reconciled all things in himself by the power of his Cross. In fidelity to the Lord’s will, as expressed in that passage from Saint Paul’s First Letter to Timothy, we recognize that the Church is called to be inclusive, yet never at the expense of Christian truth. Herein lies the dilemma facing all who are genuinely committed to the ecumenical journey

In the figure of John Henry Newman, who is to be beatified on Sunday, we celebrate a churchman whose ecclesial vision was nurtured by his Anglican background and matured during his many years of ordained ministry in the Church of England. He can teach us the virtues that ecumenism demands: on the one hand, he was moved to follow his conscience, even at great personal cost; and on the other hand, the warmth of his continued friendship with his former colleagues, led him to explore with them, in a truly eirenical spirit, the questions on which they differed, driven by a deep longing for unity in faith. Your Grace, in that same spirit of friendship, let us renew our determination to pursue the goal of unity in faith, hope, and love, in accordance with the will of our one Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ*

 

[Church_Militant]

This statement is wrong. It is not correct to write that Catholics can not receive sacraments from non-Catholic ministers. The Church is clear:
Canon 844 §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.
The Holy See makes this determination of whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

The correct formulation, therefore, is: a Catholic may only receive the sacraments of Eucharist, penance and anointing of the sick from those non-Catholic ministers whom the law has determined these sacraments may be received from – and then when those Catholics are in circumstances in which the law permits according to the norms and prescriptions of universal law and particular law.

Thanks Padre! You are a very handy person to have around here.

 

[Duane1966]

This statement is wrong. It is not correct to write that Catholics can not receive sacraments from non-Catholic ministers. The Church is clear:
Canon 844 §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.
The Holy See makes this determination of whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

The correct formulation, therefore, is: a Catholic may only receive the sacraments of Eucharist, penance and anointing of the sick from those non-Catholic ministers whom the law has determined these sacraments may be received from – and then when those Catholics are in circumstances in which the law permits according to the norms and prescriptions of universal law and particular law.

My apologies, for not being 100% clear. I knew in such cases as you raise, we could receive from others where the Church has determined their Eucharist to be valid. Since this thread has mainly been about non-valid Eucharists, I did not think the particular point you raise was part of the topic, nor needed to be addressed in my reply.

 

[Church_Militant]

I think I told you I want some time.

Take some time my friend. We’ve been here for 2,000 years and we’ll be here whenever you are ready.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Anglicans don’t have valid Holy Orders, which means they can’t confect the Eucharist. Since they can’t confect the Eucharist, they don’t have the Real Presence.

This is a rather facile statement to make a blanket conclusion that needs to be nuanced theologically…even accounting for just one variable.

We speak of Anglican priests who have chosen to enter into full communion with the Church of Rome and of the pastoral provision that was provided for them in a process that was first broached with Rome at the end of the 1970s.

Of course, this has not been a one way reality. There are those who are now Anglican priests but who were ordained validly in Churches with uncontested apostolic succession.

To demonstrate how convoluted this can become but without giving away too many details, I remember a conversation that occurred many years ago about the implications, from our perspective as Catholic theologians, concerning use of a non-Catholic anaphora by priests who had been ordained by Catholic bishops but who had subsequently passed over into ministry in the Anglican Communion. The query was predicated on those countries that used some form of an Anglican liturgy. However, one of the Catholic theologians noted that the situation being queried actually concerned a country where what was frequently employed by the Anglicans was the Roman Sacramentary – and so what was being used then as anaphora were, of course, our own Eucharistic prayers.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I would caution my friend that it is not a valid Eucharist. If they understand this, then what is wrong sharing a snack and a shot of grape juice?

To describe the commemoration of the Lord’s Supper by any assembly of Christians as “a snack” and “a shot of grape juice” is so profoundly offensive and wanting in respect that, as a Catholic priest who worked in ecumenical dialogue for all the years I have, I am horrified beyond words.

Whether it is a Catholic speaking of non-Catholic worship or non-Catholics speaking of Catholic liturgy, I can find no other expression than “this is utterly beyond the pale.”

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Actually, Christ is speaking through His Church. And His Church, which He gave the power to bind and loose, has bound the Anglican Eucharist. Now you may not believe the Catholic Church has this power, but then who does wield that power? You? Or has the power been lost? Right now, as I posted on the 33,000 denomination thread, probably over a billion Christians, though they will never say it, by their actions, believe that they themselves wield that power.

He may not honor or appreciate that desire. He may say to them: Why did you not listen to the ones I gave the authority to bind and loose? Then He may this:

For you did not hear those that I sent, so you did not hear ME.

What? What do you mean “His Church” “bound” the “Anglican Eucharist?”

There is not an issue about the power of the keys being employed to invalidate a Eucharist being celebrated in a circumstance where there is a lack of “communion of governance.”

The analysis in the 19th century was actually regarding the question “if valid apostolic succession had been lost historically” and I am not going to rehearse those details as I would presume the moderator would think such a thing off topic.

As for the phrase “Anglican Eucharist,” such an expression of formulation fails on fundamentals of both theology and ecclesiology.

 

[Michael68]

To describe the commemoration of the Lord’s Supper by any assembly of Christians as “a snack” and “a shot of grape juice” is so profoundly offensive and wanting in respect that, as a Catholic priest who worked in ecumenical dialogue for all the years I have, I am horrified beyond words.

Whether it is a Catholic speaking of non-Catholic worship or non-Catholics speaking of Catholic liturgy, I can find no other expression than “this is utterly beyond the pale.”

I have apologised for this statement

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Thanks Padre! You are a very handy person to have around here.

Thank you.

Frankly, at this point as I am looking at the posts, I can’t make head or tail of what a forum moderator would deem a legitimate continuation of the original post and what a moderator would think is contributing to taking the thread even further afield.

The original post concerns one narrow canonical question and one relatively narrow ecclesiological question.

It has gone to:

1. Theology of Eucharist and the Doctrine of the Real Presence
2. Apostolic succession
3. Apostolicae Curae
4. Metaphor as a literary device in the New Testament
5. The Bread of Life discourse
6. The Living Water discourse
7. Symbol
8. An effort to compare and contrast (with varying success or accuracy) the ecclesiological visions of various bodies

At the point at which I encountered the “33,000 denominations” in a post on one Roman Catholic woman receiving communion in an Anglican celebration of the Eucharist…as a priest, rather than contribute to a thread which seems to be completely derailed…not to say perhaps in flames…prudence would seem to prefer to await advice from a Moderator as to what in this thread…if anything…I could/should attempt to further comment upon.



Rather than anything more, I will just make my comment to the original poster and say au revoir until someone in authority says what it is legitimate now to post about. Thank you.

 

[susanlo]

You have read the same verses as me and come to a conclusion different than mine.
We can’t beat each other with scripture,for we see the same words differently. Only one of us can fall back on history.

Which history are you referring to? History has many authors.

 

[Reuben_J]

Hi I would just like to research some things on my friends behalf, i personally would feel uncomfartable myself receiving the eucharist at any church other than the Roman Catholic but she says that even though the eucharist is not the real presence what matters is what she believes and if she believes it be the real presence that it is ok.

She attends because she says she prefers the fellowship.

I’ve talked to her about this, saying well is the eucharised consecrated by a priest ordained to do so ie: believing in the full truth that we accept as RC. I said why not go just for the fellowship and abstain from the eucharist. But she says she has been told by a RC priest that its ok, of course the anglican church is happy for her to receive since their rules are different.

OK so i bring up the idea of apostolic succession and the pope, i she says they dont believe in the pope but Roman Catholics believe that Anglican bishops are recognised as valid bishops in her words the bishops have valid apostolic succession, as i am not anglican i wuld like to check this out for her.

Note: She says anglican priests have been allowed to become Roman Catholic priests because of the apostolic suvvession of the bishops so their ordination within anglican as seen as valid by RC, but i thought they had to be re-ordained so would like to check this out too.

Note she still goes to the Roman Catholic church on SUndays and believes fully in the faith.

Thanks

I am sure this has been fully answered. I just want to state here that it is certainly not ok to receive ‘the eucharist at any church other than the Roman Catholic’. There are exception to that of course.

And even by definition (of the Catholic Church), they are not even eucharist.

I would go even further to say it is definitely a sin to do so if a Catholic willfully partakes in some kind of ‘eucharist’ in the forbidden non-Catholic churches. I don’t have to say how grave the implication to do so.

So you can tell your friend that she would be committing sin to do so just like she would be committing a sin if she participates in any non-Christian religious ritual.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

And yet neither possibility infringes one iota on what I posted. Even if it were originally written in Aramaic, or if John had help compiling his gospel, the translation into the Greek is clear in John 6. To argue Jesus is being symbolic in John 6, you must ignore the use of the word trogo. If you say you are not sure of the translation, remember, anyone can say that about any part of the Bible, as there are no originals.

You have not answered questions that I asked you earlier. I will ask again. Since Jesus gave the authority to bind and loose to His Church:

1.) Who wields the power to bind and loose you?

2.) Will you submit to this authority even if you disagree with it?

3.) If you answer no to question 2, have you not appropriated to yourself the power of binding and loosing that Jesus gave His Church?

Wannano is not a subject of the Church of Rome. As the Code of Canon Law stipulates:
Can. 11 Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age.
Having done dialogue for many years, we do NOT assert jurisdiction over non-Catholic communities or faithful. In fact, when our legislation impacts these entities, the Holy See requires a respectful consultation with the comparable authority in the other body. Communion of governance…along with the other elements of the triptych: communion of faith and communion of sacraments…no longer exists with these bodies and hence we are in varying states of “impaired communion” ecclesiologically.

I also particularly note one of the phrases by a moderator in a “moderator warning post” in a recent thread:
*You may not make disparaging remarks about:

• Another poster or his/her ideas. You can disagree. You cannot attack, insult, ridicule or dismiss as unimportant. His opinion is as important to him as your opinion is to you.
• Other religions – if you’re unsure how to speak in public about other faiths, look at the Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI and Pope Francis. They are fraternal, polite, and intellectual in discussing religious differences.

I have greatly enjoyed my exchanges with Wannano, who actually has more of a gift at actual dialogue than a variety of Catholics I have seen miserably fail to carry out even the fundamental directives of the Holy See in its dispositive documents on how to engage ecumenically with those of other confessions.

 

[Duane1966]

What? What do you mean “His Church” “bound” the “Anglican Eucharist?”

There is not an issue about the power of the keys being employed to invalidate a Eucharist being celebrated in a circumstance where there is a lack of “communion of governance.”

The analysis in the 19th century was actually regarding the question “if valid apostolic succession had been lost historically” and I am not going to rehearse those details as I would presume the moderator would think such a thing off topic.

As for the phrase “Anglican Eucharist,” such an expression of formulation fails on fundamentals of both theology and ecclesiology.

If you have read all my responses, you would have seen in my first post, that I clearly stated “had bound Catholics not to receive what the Anglicans call the Eucharist.” It was in that context, that while posting in a hurry, I shortened in a latter post to “Bound the Anglican Eucharist.” While you were confused by what I meant, I am sure that most of the posters and readers on this thread, knew exactly what I meant.

 

[Duane1966]

Wannano is not a subject of the Church of Rome. As the Code of Canon Law stipulates:
Can. 11 Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age.
Having done dialogue for many years, we do NOT assert jurisdiction over non-Catholic communities or faithful. In fact, when our legislation impacts these entities, the Holy See requires a respectful consultation with the comparable authority in the other body. Communion of governance…along with the other elements of the triptych: communion of faith and communion of sacraments…no longer exists with these bodies and hence we are in varying states of “impaired communion” ecclesiologically.

I also particularly note one of the phrases by a moderator in a “moderator warning post” in a recent thread:
*You may not make disparaging remarks about:

• Another poster or his/her ideas. You can disagree. You cannot attack, insult, ridicule or dismiss as unimportant. His opinion is as important to him as your opinion is to you.
• Other religions – if you’re unsure how to speak in public about other faiths, look at the Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI and Pope Francis. They are fraternal, polite, and intellectual in discussing religious differences.

I have greatly enjoyed my exchanges with Wannano, who actually has more of a gift at actual dialogue than a variety of Catholics I have seen miserably fail to carry out even the fundamental directives of the Holy See in its dispositive documents on how to engage ecumenically with those of other confessions.

Father, I simply asked him, who he feels wields the authority to bind and loose him. I never said it was the Catholic Church that wields that authority, nor implied that He is subject to Rome. Nor have I disparaged his opinion. He does not seem to mind that question, why should you?

I try to be charitable in my posts, though sometimes I employ sarcasm when sarcasm has been employed towards my posts. I try to love others as I love myself. I do sense a real lack of charity in your responses to many Catholics who posts on these forums when you disagree with, or are correcting them.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

If you have read all my responses, you would have seen in my first post, that I clearly stated “had bound Catholics not to receive what the Anglicans call the Eucharist.” It was in that context, that while posting in a hurry, I shortened in a latter post to “Bound the Anglican Eucharist.” While you were confused by what I meant, I am sure that most of the posters and readers on this thread, knew exactly what I meant.

I have read all the responses.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano is not a subject of the Church of Rome. As the Code of Canon Law stipulates:
Can. 11 Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age.
Having done dialogue for many years, we do NOT assert jurisdiction over non-Catholic communities or faithful. In fact, when our legislation impacts these entities, the Holy See requires a respectful consultation with the comparable authority in the other body. Communion of governance…along with the other elements of the triptych: communion of faith and communion of sacraments…no longer exists with these bodies and hence we are in varying states of “impaired communion” ecclesiologically.

I also particularly note one of the phrases by a moderator in a “moderator warning post” in a recent thread:
*You may not make disparaging remarks about:

• Another poster or his/her ideas. You can disagree. You cannot attack, insult, ridicule or dismiss as unimportant. His opinion is as important to him as your opinion is to you.
• Other religions – if you’re unsure how to speak in public about other faiths, look at the Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI and Pope Francis. They are fraternal, polite, and intellectual in discussing religious differences.

I have greatly enjoyed my exchanges with Wannano, who actually has more of a gift at actual dialogue than a variety of Catholics I have seen miserably fail to carry out even the fundamental directives of the Holy See in its dispositive documents on how to engage ecumenically with those of other confessions.

I am sitting here at 6 am overwhelmed with the love I feel genuinely resides within you. I have mentioned before that I have a special bond with a Catholic priest with whom I have had the privilege of working with on numerous occasions. When we meet we are drawn to give a full embrace and when that happens centuries of unexplainable emotion melt within me like butter. I don’t know how to describe it with words. His eyes and his mannerisms convey to me that he also is receiving from me something unexplainable. The conversation we have entered into simply and clearly shows each of us that there is more to Christ and us as His followers than religion presents.

When I read in the Bible of the encounters people had with Christ for example, the woman who touched the hem of His garment and many of those who were healed I cannot help but feel that to look into His eyes with our individual searching must have been a life changing experience. The look of love.

The message of Christ seems simple. Why has man made it so complicated?

I am probably the one who has derailed this thread!

Thank you for your contributions and kind words.