G
GodHeals
Guest
Thank you so much for the Canon law quotes! God Bless You!
- Status
G
GodHeals
Guest
OK – so, would it be fair to say that when asked whether Eucharist is for Catholics only, the presenter heard your answer as a black-and-white “other than the Orthodox – no, never, no way”? And therefore, answered in a way that mentioned these other exceptions? In other words, she wasn’t attempting to say that “Eucharist is for all Protestants at all times, too”, but rather, that “there are also exceptional cases in which non-Catholic Christians may also receive”?
It is Possible that the person answered quickly and or didn’t know what to say, but also what you said may be true. But it just seems the way the person talks doesn’t make it so much an exception, but more for all Protestants at all times if the conditions are met. Like the teachers didn’t want to say don’t receive communion for such and such reason.
Right – whereas, the more complete answer would say that only Catholics have the right to receive communion (when properly disposed), but there are limited exceptions for Orthodox and non-Catholic Christians in which they might receive the Eucharist in the Catholic Church.
Yes, I like the way you put it above here… LIMITED EXCEPTIONS, not the norm go to communion every week, right?
No problems!
G
GodHeals
Guest
Hi, I searched the web and found the article: telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1487421/Revealed-Tony-Blairs-Catholic-secret.html
God Bless You!
Brian
G
Gorgias
Guest
Yep, exactly – for a Protestant! If they wanted to receive every week… well then, that’s what RCIA is for!
(An Orthodox person could, if he so wished; but we recognize that from their perspective, they likely wouldn’t want to share in Eucharist in the Catholic Church.)
G
GodHeals
Guest
The teacher also mentioned that the blessing a Priest would give when a person comes with their arms crossed means nothing, basically saying not worth doing. They seemed against going up for a blessing. Not sure if they therefore are more for having non-Catholics go up to receive communion, but it seems that way.Yep, exactly – for a Protestant! If they wanted to receive every week… well then, that’s what RCIA is for!
(An Orthodox person could, if he so wished; but we recognize that from their perspective, they likely wouldn’t want to share in Eucharist in the Catholic Church.)
The person said something like what is a blessing going to do? This is the same blessing the Priest gives when we leave Mass and are sent out, right? So a blessing would be a good thing. Maybe he mentioned if only coming from a Priest it would be a good thing. I think i heard him say that before, maybe just not in the class setting.
Maybe i am just to analytic and perceptive when it comes to things since i take everything to heart that i am learning…
Why wouldn’t the Orthodox not want to receive in the Catholic Church, if not other choice? What do they have against it? I read that some believe in transubstantiation and others don’t, but all believe it is Jesus’ Body and Blood… and not consubstantiation, otherwise they would be Lutheran… so not sure what they would call it. Any ideas?
God Bless You!
Brian
G
GodHeals
Guest
Hi John, what is AFAIK? I thought all? Lutherans practice consubstantiation?
I know there are three synods, at least in the USA right? Missouri (middle ground), Wisconsin (most conservative, and ECLA (liberal). Is that correct?
I think i tried awhile back, but don’t think there is any one group that is actually from Luther himself, and that would make his point of one Church hierarchy devoid in the first place, which is what i think he was against… i am learning, thank you for your patients with my choice of words. Thank you for your help, Brian
As Far As I Know.
The problem is two- fold. First, consubstantiation predates Luther. What I’ve read is it has its roots in John Duns Scotus, a Catholic in the latter 1300’s. It teaches a mingling of the body and blood with the bread and wine, a con-substantial arrangement. The Formula of Concord rejects this.
The other issue is the metaphysical nature of consubstantiation. Luther rejected this Greek philosophical approach in general, and Transubstantiation in particular. So, its the metaphisical construct in Transubstantiation Lutheran have a problem with.
We simply don’t talk about substance and accidents in this way. what we do say is that Christ tells us, “this [bread] is my body”, and so it is.
I
We’re not often accused of being middle ground (LOL), but generally true.
Luther’s belief was that there is but one Church, but not one named after him. The confessions define the Church as the congregation of aints (believers) where the word is preached and the sacraments administered. The polity of Lutheranism has never been hierarchical, if that’s what you mean. When you say “from Luther himself”, I guess one could say that he was the central Lutheran reformer, so all Lutherans have some roots in his teachings, though not all of his teachings are accepted among Lutherans. More central to Lutheranism is the Lutheran Confessions, most particularly the three ancient Creeds, Augsburg Confession, its Apology, and the Small Catechism.
My pleasure, Brian. Catholics here are exceedingly patient with me, so…
Jon
G
GodHeals
Guest
Thank you for sharing. I saw online the Eucharist is referred to “sacramental union” for Lutherans, not consubstantiation so much…
Check out this link on 5 views:
Another question, if you don’t mind. Does the Church of England mean the same as Anglican? And where does Episcopalian fit in the mix as far as it origins?
God Bless You, Jon!
Brian
The use of the term consubstantiation against us, from what I remember, was startedby the Calvinists. A Lutheran should never refer to it as such.
The definition isn’t exactly right, but I’ve seen worse. The key to remember is that Sacrament Union wasn’t intended so much to be a doctrine - the real presence is the doctrine - but more an expression of that doctrine, frankly, as opposed to Transubstantiation. I think the Orthodox have it quite right in referring to it as a mystery.
GKC, a poster here, would be better equipped to answer this, but the C of E is just that, and while all members of the C of E are Anglican, not all Anglicans are members of the C of E. There are Anglicans who are part of the Anglican Communion, Archbishop of Canterbery, and there are Anglicans who are not, often referred to continuing Anglicans.
I probably messed that up to some degree. Hopefully, an Anglican can fix it.
The Episcopal Church is the Anglican Church in America that is in the Anglican Communion.His blessings also with you.
Jon
G
GodHeals
Guest
Let’s see if i understand this correctly…GKC, a poster here, would be better equipped to answer this, but the C of E is just that, and while all members of the C of E are Anglican, not all Anglicans are members of the C of E. There are Anglicans who are part of the Anglican Communion, Archbishop of Canterbery, and there are Anglicans who are not, often referred to continuing Anglicans.
I probably messed that up to some degree. Hopefully, an Anglican can fix it.
So Church of England is the Anglican Communion and has the Archbishop of Canterbury?
And some Anglicans are called Continuing Anglicans, who aren’t under the Church of England / Anglican Communion (Archbishop of Canterbury)?
Thank you and Merry Christ-mas, Jon!
Brian
Hi Brian, and a blessed Christ-mas to you.
That is, essentially, my understanding.
Jon
H
harlen
Guest
The Church of England (as the legally established church of an emperial power) got spread through the British Empire and this is the basis of the Anglican Communion.
The Church in Wales and The Church of Ireland are parts.
The Church of Scotland is however Presbyterian but the Scottish Episcopal Church is part of that Communion.
They are Erastian Churches.
Concerning the epithets “Liberal” & “Conservative” which people love to use to labels others.
Jesus was sometimes “liberal” sometimes “conservative”, but he upset the legalistic most. He was always loving (except with the notable exception of traders in the Temple).
Perhaps it is better to accept that, as a grouping, some of us will always be more or less rule and/or law oriented than others. (Those whoses life circumstances enable them to be or stay on the right side of the rules are perhaps more likely to favour strict observances)
But Jesus was always getting into trouble for breaking religious rules & observances whilst still calling us to ever greater perfection.
Rules and Laws are valuable touchstones against drift. And they provide essential targets and ideals for our lives. But there function is not to judge others, nor to start picking motes out of the eyes of others. Christ was always against this.
The Church in Wales and The Church of Ireland are parts.
The Church of Scotland is however Presbyterian but the Scottish Episcopal Church is part of that Communion.
They are Erastian Churches.
Concerning the epithets “Liberal” & “Conservative” which people love to use to labels others.
Jesus was sometimes “liberal” sometimes “conservative”, but he upset the legalistic most. He was always loving (except with the notable exception of traders in the Temple).
Perhaps it is better to accept that, as a grouping, some of us will always be more or less rule and/or law oriented than others. (Those whoses life circumstances enable them to be or stay on the right side of the rules are perhaps more likely to favour strict observances)
But Jesus was always getting into trouble for breaking religious rules & observances whilst still calling us to ever greater perfection.
Rules and Laws are valuable touchstones against drift. And they provide essential targets and ideals for our lives. But there function is not to judge others, nor to start picking motes out of the eyes of others. Christ was always against this.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Generally speaking, other than in cases of dire emergency (time of war, for example) non-Catholics may not receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church, and indeed may not receive any Sacrament from a Catholic priest, since he has no authority over them, either to tell them what to do, or to give them anything - including the Sacraments.
A priest who gives Holy Communion to a non-Catholic is acting outside of his authority, under normal circumstances.
If a baptized Protestant wants a priest to have the authority over him to give him the Sacraments, then he needs to first make his Profession of Faith in the Catholic Church; then he needs to make a good Confession, and then he needs to stand before the congregation and say, “I believe and profess all that the Catholic Church proclaims and teaches to be true.” Followed by his Sacrament of Confirmation, and then his First Holy Communion.
A priest who gives Holy Communion to a non-Catholic is acting outside of his authority, under normal circumstances.
If a baptized Protestant wants a priest to have the authority over him to give him the Sacraments, then he needs to first make his Profession of Faith in the Catholic Church; then he needs to make a good Confession, and then he needs to stand before the congregation and say, “I believe and profess all that the Catholic Church proclaims and teaches to be true.” Followed by his Sacrament of Confirmation, and then his First Holy Communion.
- Status