Non-Catholic Exclusion of the Eucharist

[Memaw]

I must admit I am seeing an attitude from memaw also. And I haven’t been the first. If we can’t fellowship with patients and kindness, we should step out of the discussion.

I don’t have an “attitude,” I am just stating the facts. Why would that be an “attitude”?? I honestly don’t think anyone has the right to tell someone to “step out” of a discussion. Let’s let it go at that! God Bless, Memaw

 

[TC3033]

**I don’t believe the Church states that some Christians are not “full Christians” **One is either Christian or not. And that is for God alone to judge. The issue is whether Christians are assenting to the full deposit of faith or not. And dissention is evident when rejecting Her Teaching or Sacraments. Communion in His Body and Blood demands unity of faith, one mind, one judgment and one leadership. Full Communion is accepting what said Communion leaders Teach fully.

True, but I think (much like some other teachings) some twist those teachings and really do see anyone who isn’t Catholic as…close, but not quite.

I’m not agreeing, disagreeing, ect… with the practice and as to why some Evangelicals do get upset when denied (especially when they aren’t prepared prior to) because this denial basically gives them the view that the Catholic Church believes they aren’t “true” Christians, right or wrong and to nobody’s fault. Just a difference in beliefs that it’s extremely difficult to get over for some people.

Really no more, and no less.

 

[rcwitness]

I know what you said, but that is not correct. Even if he does believe what the Catholic Church teaches pertaining to the Eucharist, he is still NOT able to receive until he becomes a Catholic. Only Catholics are able to receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church and then only if the Catholic is in the State of Grace. Not all Christians are Catholic Christians. You should talk to a priest about this. God Bless, Memaw

I am not in disagreement over this Memaw. You are assuming I am implying something different. I am saying, if someone believes what the Church Teaches (which is the Deposit of Faith, and there is no competing faiths, only faith or something not from faith), they obviously would go through RCIA, and become Baptised (unless already done) and then Confirmed in the Catholic Faith before receiving Communion.

 

[Memaw]

Do I detect a slightly condescending tone here?

To me this says, “Your not very old fake church”.

Those are your words not mine. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Memaw]

I am not in disagreement over this Memaw. You are assuming I am implying something different. I am saying, if someone believes what the Church Teaches (which is the Deposit of Faith, and there is no competing faiths, only faith or something not from faith), they obviously would go through RCIA, and become Baptised (unless already done) and then Confirmed in the Catholic Faith before receiving Communion.

I wasn’t sure what you were implying, thanks for clearing it up. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Padres1969]

I don’t believe the Church states that some Christians are not “full Christians” One is either Christian or not. And that is for God alone to judge. The issue is whether Christians are assenting to the full deposit of faith or not. And dissention is evident when rejecting Her Teaching or Sacraments. Communion in His Body and Blood demands unity of faith, one mind, one judgment and one leadership. Full Communion is accepting what said Communion leaders Teach fully.

Actually I don’t have time to access the Vatican website right now, but I do remember reading a decree from the Vatican that expressed the idea that other Christians are brothers who are “lacking the fullness of truth”. Which to an outsider’s view is them saying exactly that, that we’re not full Christians (since Christ is the truth). Now I have no issue with the RCC saying that as I reject that notion and am certain in the wrongness of that position. But at the same time I understand the RCC logic in making that statement and can at least understand it even if I don’t agree with it. .

 

[CarolNoel]

I don’t have an “attitude,” I am just stating the facts. Why would that be an “attitude”?? I honestly don’t think anyone has the right to tell someone to “step out” of a discussion. Let’s let it go at that! God Bless, Memaw

Hey Memaw! I like your “attitude”.

 

[rcwitness]

Actually I don’t have time to access the Vatican website right now, but I do remember reading a decree from the Vatican that expressed the idea that other Christians are brothers who are “lacking the fullness of truth”. Which to an outsider’s view is them saying exactly that, that we’re not full Christians (since Christ is the truth). Now I have no issue with the RCC saying that as I reject that notion and am certain in the wrongness of that position. But at the same time I understand the RCC logic in making that statement and can at least understand it even if I don’t agree with it. .

I don’t know. The bottom line is, that the Church seems to specifically not refuse anyone who believes unto Baptism the right to be called Christian. Yet within Christianity (all those Baptized and believe) there are many levels of accepting/rejecting the faith. The Catholic Bishops have a very solid base for possessing authority to confirm Apostolic faith and so professing and defining the deposit of faith.

I appreciate your attitude. But I don’t choose that because I don’t believe He left us without a leadership able to strengthen and Confirm the faithful with assurance (Infallibility) under specific conditions. Thats, after all, how I can be confident we have a divinely confirmed canon of Scripture.

And so, I believe we likewise, have a divinely confirmed Eucharist celebration.

 

[MT1926]

There may be nothing that you can tell someone where their feelz aren’t going to get hurt. You did the same thing to me in this thread. I’ve tried to explain it from a role reversal standpoint already in the thread, a couple time. I gave an explanation and used the Thanksgiving dinner and an example. You didn’t accept that explanation and tried to spin it from a different angle, when my first explanation was exactly how the Evangelical sees it.

Sorry but you are addressing the wrong person here. I never responded to your example of the Thanksgiving diner. Therefore I didn’t do the same thing to you in this thread.

You’re 100% correct. I’ve never said it’s the Catholics problem. I’ve just said that a little compassion and understanding your friend’s, spouse’s, loved one’s, etc… background and beliefs goes a long way. Just because someone doesn’t accept the premise of a practice, doesn’t mean they won’t respect it.

Thanks, glad to see we agree on something.

Sorry to hear about what happened with your son. I wasn’t aware this forum was here for Catholics to defend anything. I came here to learn a little, and maybe bring another perspective and enjoy good discussion.

Thank you it has been difficult. If you look in the upper left hand corner it says “Catholic Answers - To Explain & Defend the Faith”. But yes this website is also here so we can all learn a little and enjoy a good discussion. Even when it gets a little heated from time to time. I always try to come with an open mind. I can say I learned something from your posts, takes me a while to understand some times but I think we are getting there.

IDK if there will ever really be much of solution, overall, as the situation is extremely personal. The blessing in lieu has probably helped with some, but IDK. I never asked when I went to Mass either, but that’s because at a young age once I was told I couldn’t ONLY because I wasn’t Catholic and that basically that’s because we don’t count.

I had a pretty rough introduction with the Catholic Church on multiple occasions (much like it sounds as though you had a pretty tough introduction to Evangelical/Non-Denom), so really I think I understand where you’re coming from overall…

Yep it can be tough that’s why I just keep pushing through. There are a lot of feelings that get in the way when I am dealing with my son.That is why I try to put my feelings on the back burner and address certain things with right and wrong and not how it makes me feel. I think there is too much relativism in this country and people tend to focus on how it makes someone feel as being more important than that fact of it being right or wrong.

 

[rcwitness]

I don’t have an “attitude,” I am just stating the facts. Why would that be an “attitude”?? I honestly don’t think anyone has the right to tell someone to “step out” of a discussion. Let’s let it go at that! God Bless, Memaw

I said that because I believe you jump to conclusions in frustration, rather than working through with people over what they intend and are saying. There are posters that throw a lot of “big authority” at people and it doesn’t help. Authority is as strong as an individual is willing to give it.

And I didn’t tell you to “step away” but that sometimes it “builds up” and edifies people in the faith to approach with patient words and demeanor.

I am not saying I don’t like you and many of your good posts! I do.

 

[GKC]

Actually I don’t have time to access the Vatican website right now, but I do remember reading a decree from the Vatican that expressed the idea that other Christians are brothers who are “lacking the fullness of truth”. Which to an outsider’s view is them saying exactly that, that we’re not full Christians (since Christ is the truth). Now I have no issue with the RCC saying that as I reject that notion and am certain in the wrongness of that position. But at the same time I understand the RCC logic in making that statement and can at least understand it even if I don’t agree with it. .

Might be thinking of DOMINUS IESUS.

 

[TC3033]

Sorry but you are addressing the wrong person here. I never responded to your example of the Thanksgiving diner. Therefore I didn’t do the same thing to you in this thread.

Thanks, glad to see we agree on something.

Thank you it has been difficult. If you look in the upper left hand corner it says “Catholic Answers - To Explain & Defend the Faith”. But yes this website is also here so we can all learn a little and enjoy a good discussion. Even when it gets a little heated from time to time. I always try to come with an open mind. I can say I learned something from your posts, takes me a while to understand some times but I think we are getting there.

Yep it can be tough that’s why I just keep pushing through. There are a lot of feelings that get in the way when I am dealing with my son.That is why I try to put my feelings on the back burner and address certain things with right and wrong and not how it makes me feel. I think there is too much relativism in this country and people tend to focus on how it makes someone feel as being more important than that fact of it being right or wrong.

Yep, my bad…

Two conversations going on at once…

 

[Kliska]

Actually I don’t have time to access the Vatican website right now, but I do remember reading a decree from the Vatican that expressed the idea that other Christians are brothers who are “lacking the fullness of truth”. Which to an outsider’s view is them saying exactly that, that we’re not full Christians (since Christ is the truth). Now I have no issue with the RCC saying that as I reject that notion and am certain in the wrongness of that position. But at the same time I understand the RCC logic in making that statement and can at least understand it even if I don’t agree with it. .

Dominus Iesus

“On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.63”

I’m more of a fan of the clarity of Lumen Gentium

“15. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ’s disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. (17*) Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.”

 

[JonNC]

=Memaw;13757358]Believing in something and making it true is not the same thing. You do not believe the same way we do in the TRUE Presence, as we believe that Apostolic Succession and the Sacrament of Holy Orders is absolutely necessary for Transubstantiation to take place. There have been many Eucharistic Miracles in the Sacred Hosts. If you ever get to Italy you might go see the Miracle of Lanciano. God Bless, Memaw.

Interesting, because here is what Catholic theologians, not apologists, have said about our expressions of the real presence.

Catholic and Lutheran Christians together confess the real and true presence of the Lord in the Eucharist. There are differences, however, in theological statements on the mode and therefore duration of the real presence.

In order to confess the reality of the eucharistic presence without reserve the Catholic Church teaches that "Christ whole and entire"34 becomes present through the transformation of the whole substance of the bread and the wine into the substance of the body and blood of Christ while the empirically accessible appearances of bread and wine (accidentia) continue to exist unchanged. This “wonderful and singular change” is “most aptly” called transsubstantiation by the Catholic Church.35 This terminology has widely been considered by Lutherans as an attempt rationalistically to explain the mystery of Christ’s presence in the sacrament; further, many suppose also that in this approach the present Lord is not seen as a person and naturalistic misunderstandings become easy.

The Lutherans have given expression to the reality of the Eucharistic presence by speaking of presence of Christ’s body and blood in, with and under bread and wine�but not of transsubstantiation. Here they see real analogy to the Lord’s incarnation: as God and man become one in Jesus Christ, Christ’s body and blood, on the one hand, and the bread and wine, on the other, give rise to a sacramental unity. Catholics, in turn, find that this does not do sufficient justice to this very unity and to the force of Christ’s word “This is my body”.

**The ecumenical discussion has shown that these two positions must no longer be regarded as opposed in a way that leads to separation. **The Lutheran tradition agrees with the Catholic tradition that the consecrated elements do not simply remain bread and wine but by the power of the creative Word are bestowed as the body and blood of Christ. In this sense it also could occasionally speak, as does the Greek tradition of a “change”.36 The concept of transsubstantiation for its part is intended as a confession and preservation of the mystery character of the Eucharistic presence; it is not intended as an explanation of how this change occurs37 (see the appendices on “Real Presence” and “Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist”).

Note that the bolding is mine.

Jon

 

[Gorgias]

the faith is not mere belief. I never implied it is. The faith is Baptism, Confirmation, and Eucharitst with assented faith and in a state of grace.

OK – so, since you put it that way, then what you’re really saying is that “[the OP’s] Evangelical boyfriend can receive the Eucharist if he joins the Catholic Church and participates in its sacramental life”… right? Yeah, that’s what we’re saying, too…

 

[rcwitness]

OK – so, since you put it that way, then what you’re really saying is that “[the OP’s] Evangelical boyfriend can receive the Eucharist if he joins the Catholic Church and participates in its sacramental life”… right? Yeah, that’s what we’re saying, too…

I was looking at the openness of our Communion. It is like the consumation of a marriage… there are no mixing communions. It’s not like dating around, or swingers.

 

[Memaw]

I said that because I believe you jump to conclusions in frustration, rather than working through with people over what they intend and are saying. There are posters that throw a lot of “big authority” at people and it doesn’t help. Authority is as strong as an individual is willing to give it.

And I didn’t tell you to “step away” but that sometimes it “builds up” and edifies people in the faith to approach with patient words and demeanor.

I am not saying I don’t like you and many of your good posts! I do.

The “big authority” as you call it, comes from the Catholic Church. I’m not jumping to conclusions, nor am I frustrated either. I am going by what they say in their posts. That’s all one can do. I am not good at mind reading. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Memaw]

Interesting, because here is what Catholic theologians, not apologists, have said about our expressions of the real presence.

Note that the bolding is mine.

Jon

They said the very same thing I did only more eloquently. God Bless, Memaw

 

[rcwitness]

The “big authority” as you call it, comes from the Catholic Church. I’m not jumping to conclusions, nor am I frustrated either. I am going by what they say in their posts. That’s all one can do. I am not good at mind reading. God Bless, Memaw

The Bible is from God, and yet some people thump others over the head with it. It makes the message sound like a clanging cymbal.

 

[TC3033]

OK – so, since you put it that way, then what you’re really saying is that “[the OP’s] Evangelical boyfriend can receive the Eucharist if he joins the Catholic Church and participates in its sacramental life”… right? Yeah, that’s what we’re saying, too…

OK, and no body disagreed with you.

I think everyone in this thread realizes that if they were to convert then they would be able to partake. I’m not sure what this has to do with the thread honestly.