G
GKC
Guest
Yep. Tabernacle on the altar, centered. Not off in a separate place. Where the consecrated Body is reserved. And which we honor, in passing, by bowing or genuflecting.
- Status
R
rcwitness
Guest
It’s not me you need to convince
How do you know what will help the OP’s boyfriend? I am discussing the topic of this thread for the benefit of the OP first and foremost. The fact that Jesus established a visible Church is quite apparent, and that He gave the keys of the kingdom to Peter is likewise. As for the Catholic Church “being that Church”, you are right, that is what we believe also.
I grew up in a non-denominational church, which became Evangelical Free.
Yes, or maybe the least he can do.
R
rcwitness
Guest
I kinda liked my analogy…
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
From the EFC site:The EFCA only ordains men to be pastors. Baptism is generally not required for communion or membership into the church. Although the EFCA supports many ministries, they do not emphasize secular political involvement. Personal responsibility and holiness are stressed over adherence to strict behavioral guidelines. The church is inclusive; that is, salvation is through faith in Christ alone, and church membership is not dependent on acceptance of minor issues. The association takes no stance on Calvinism vs. Arminianism, worship style, or spiritual gifts. Music styles vary from full choir and orchestra to guitar-based worship teams. Preaching varies from verse-by-verse exegesis to topical messages with illustrations—sometimes in the same church.
So… why do they “exclude” women from clergy? Why exclude those who don’t believe in Christ? Seems like they are tolerant of all the beliefs that created the merger of two denominations, but intolerant of some other beliefs.
So… why do they “exclude” women from clergy? Why exclude those who don’t believe in Christ? Seems like they are tolerant of all the beliefs that created the merger of two denominations, but intolerant of some other beliefs.
M
Memaw
Guest
Just another example of the confusion the division among Christians has caused us. Christ prayed for ONE Faith, ONE Church, ALL be ONE in HIM. We need to set aside pride and acquire a LOT of humility to seek the unity and TRUTH, Jesus gave us. Instead, it seems the divisions are growing bigger and bigger all the time. We need to get on our knees and beg the Holy Spirit to lead us to the fullness of TRUTH and UNITY. God Bless, Memaw
T
TC3033
Guest
^^Yep, this is how Evangelical, non-denom, etc… CAN view denial, especially when they don’t/can’t understand.
I made this same comparison 5 or 6 pages ago.
That’s still different. To the Evangelical they have already don’t their chores and washed their hands. You’re trying to project the beliefs of the Catholic Church onto what an Evangelical believes. SanFran has the belief right.
The same way We need to understand we’re just trying to explain why some Evangels, etc… can get offended but it seems that many can’t just say “oh, I see” they need to spin it another way.
C
ComplineSanFran
Guest
But the Holy Eucharist WAS a family meal for many generations, probably centuries. The Last Supper was a family meal. The Agape Feast was a family meal. The Didache describes the Eucharist as a meal, with prayers before and after it, in the Jewish tradition.
Histories of the Eucharist are all over the place. One can read Dom Gregory Dix. Bruce Chilton, Paul Bradshaw, and of course Dom Gregory Dix.
I think that sometimes people believe that what we have now was instituted by the Apostles and it has been the same, and will be the same, for ever and ever (amen). Not at all. Things have developed and changed through the centuries.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Ask him if he’s willing to bear false witness because in order to take Catholic communion one must (among other things) accept and believe that it is the body and blood, soul and divinity, of Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ, and not just a participation is some symbolic act, but an actual miracle that takes place each Mass.
I have something that you can print out and give him which may help him understand though don’t be surprised if he wants to break up with you for being an idolater for adoring the Eucharistic Real Presence. Best case scenario is that he enters RCIA and ultimately converts.
The Eucharist IS Scriptural
I will next post the relevant parts of Encyclical Letter Ecclesia de Eucaristia which you might also offer him and which spell things out gently and concisely.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
"43. 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.
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.
- 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
- While it is never legitimate to concelebrate in the absence of full communion, the same is not true with respect to the administration of the Eucharist* under special circumstances, to individual persons *belonging to Churches or Ecclesial Communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church. In this case, in fact, the intention is to meet a grave spiritual need for the eternal salvation of an individual believer, not to bring about an *intercommunion *which remains impossible until the visible bonds of ecclesial communion are fully re-established.
- In my Encyclical* Ut Unum Sint* I expressed my own appreciation of these norms, which make it possible to provide for the salvation of souls with proper discernment: “It is a source of joy to note that Catholic ministers are able, in certain particular cases, to administer the sacraments of the Eucharist, Penance and Anointing of the Sick to Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church but who greatly desire to receive these sacraments, freely request them and manifest the faith which the Catholic Church professes with regard to these sacraments. Conversely, in specific cases and in particular circumstances, Catholics too can request these same sacraments from ministers of Churches in which these sacraments are valid”.97
These conditions, from which no dispensation can be given, must be carefully respected, even though they deal with specific individual cases, because the denial of one or more truths of the faith regarding these sacraments and, among these, the truth regarding the need of the ministerial priesthood for their validity, renders the person asking improperly disposed to legitimately receiving them. And the opposite is also true: Catholics may not receive communion in those communities which lack a valid sacrament of Orders.98
C
Church_Militant
Guest
“The faithful observance of the body of norms established in this area 99 is a manifestation and, at the same time, a guarantee of our love for Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, for our brothers and sisters of different Christian confessions – who have a right to our witness to the truth – and for the cause itself of the promotion of unity.”
R
rcwitness
Guest
No TC, the “chores and washings” in the Catholic House are the Sacraments of initiation: Baptism (repentance and profession of faith in Jesus the Son of God), Confirmation (laying on of hands), and Reconciliation (for serious sins after Baptism) for all Catholics.
No. This isn’t about Catholics going into an Evangelical service and making demands and projections. This is about an Evangelical coming to Catholic Mass and not understanding the Tradition of the Faith is ordered differently than what Evangelicals decided 100 or so years ago.
I know why some Evangelicals are offended. They do not believe what we Teach. They do not like the Church having an office of parental authority (rule) over the faithful. I have not spun anything. I am providing, as best I know and in ways I hope will help, an understanding of our belief in the Lord’s Supper, and what is a proper and worthy approach to its reception according to Her Teachings.
If the Evangelical is offended at Baptism, Confirmation and Confessions of serious sin before partaking, then that is their choice. I believe our faith is not reactionary to the Evangelical position, but handed down through the ages from the Apostles themselves (long before Evangelical doctrines came on the scene).
R
rcwitness
Guest
good points. And interesting to bring up the Didche. Evangelicals don’t consider Baptism even necessary to receive communion. Even quoted Jesus, “Don’t give what is Holy to dogs.”
And if we are going to take one thing out of the Didache, shouldn’t we take all? In that case, it also requires confession “in Church” before receiving, right?
T
TC3033
Guest
See, you’re totally missing the point again, nobody is arguing about what Catholics believe. There’s a handful of us that are trying, apparently in vain, to explain why the Evangelical feels what they do.
You’re 100% right. What I mean is when I take my explination of how or why an Evangelical, non-denom, etc feels the way they do and change it…you’re trying to change my explination of WHY someone they feels the way they do to fit your beliefs. That is projecting one on another, right?
I don’t think anyone has argued against on line here? I know that I haven’t. I have just tried to explain the other side of the table to help the OP understand with the loved one is coming from.
You spun SanFran’s explination of denying a child at the table to fit your belief, when all he was trying to do what explain their’s and never once disagreed with yours.
I had it happen to me in this thread too. Not arguing against, but trying to help the OP understand her boyfried. That’s not very fair, is it?
R
rcwitness
Guest
Maybe you didn’t see, but I have stated that I, myself, was raised Evangelical. My parents still are Evangelical.
BTW, I have asked my dad if he would break bread with a group of Christians (ya know, as in just friends and he or another layman believer would lead?). He felt very uncomfortable and opposed to the idea. So has most that I have asked.
R
rcwitness
Guest
If you look back to those posts, I began the analogy of the family meal, then he “spun” it to fit his own perspective, then I defined my own analogy (which I conceived) with the child refusing to accept a rule of the house. I was not disagreeing that his perspective isn’t his perspective. I understand the Evangelical perspective. There are also many other denominated perspectives out there. Catholic Communion is not about many ideas. It’s about receiving Jesus’ body and blood through sacramental faith. We aren’t open to opposing views and heterodox opinions. We all must be open to one faith.
M
Memaw
Guest
The Last Supper, I think it came after the meal. A Sacred Meal, it is sometimes called. but it is still not the same as ordinary food. Yes, your right, the Eucharist is all over the place and the Catholic Church knows exactly where that is. What the Catholic Church has now, was instituted by Jesus Christ and has been passed on by the Apostles, the original ones and also those here now, thru His Catholic Church. God Bless, Memaw
R
rcwitness
Guest
And St Paul separated an ordinary meal for our bellies from His Eucharist meal:
So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another—34if any one is hungry, let him eat at home—lest you come together to be condemned.*
K
Kliska
Guest
Some do, some don’t, it depends on the Congregation and/or the denomination.
The Didache is another writing were there are definite interpretation differences. I do confess the Church, and the creeds, as do other believers. It is just interesting that baptism was indeed the deciding factor of whether or not participation in the Eucharist was allowed. If one were Baptized as a believer, they could participate.
R
rcwitness
Guest
Of course.
Remember, there were not separate communions at this time either. We are talking around 70 AD. The Apostles were living (John at least) and Confirmation was given at the time of Baptism. So, in other words, there weren’t Baptisms outside one unified church, and all who were Baptized received the Laying on of Hands.
K
Kliska
Guest
I’m not so sure it was as monolithic as that, as we can see very early on that different churches/households wrestled with very different teachings and happenings even at that early time (we see this through Acts, Paul’s writings, and Revelation). But regardless, I think that it is an interesting point on Baptism since that is what the RCC has pointed out unites believers, and it was important enough for the writer(s) of the Didache to say; this is how we draw the line at who does or does not commune together. That would mean if a member of one community traveled to the next, even if they were not personally known, baptism was the litmus test. I don’t think it is an airtight rule book for exactly what we should do in today’s world, but I do think it is something to ponder.
- Status