J
joeybaggz
Guest
I have several good, practicing Catholic friends (men) whose wives are observant members of other Christian denominations. (including two minister’s daughters). One of the constant complaints I hear from them is that, while they don’t have too much of a problem with the differences in tenets of the faith, they really get their dander up at the inability to receive communion in the Catholic Church with their husbands. Surely their husbands are welcome in their denomination at their communion service. It seems arrogant to them that the CC would take such a position.
Offering the standard lines of reasoning - the denominations not being in communion with the CC, and that the meaning of the Eucharist is much different in our (CC) faith - I am generally met with that look women get on their faith when they think a man’s logic is still at a three year old’s level. And out of nowhere, I offered this reason that I have not read anywhere (although it’s not to say it isn’t written somewhere - possibly the catechism). My reasoning went like this.
"The Catholic Church believes it is responsible to spread the truth, and in doing so, it must look out for the spiritual welfare of all. Therefore, when a person approaches communion in the CC, the bread and wine has, become the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. The words, “the Body of Christ” or “The Blood of Christ” are spoken by the minister of communion, and the recepient, answers “Amen”. Thus the recepient is affirming their belief in the nature and the truth of the Catholic understanding the Eucharist. And therefore, a protestant or non-believer of any denomination, by their adherence to that denomination, does, before those assembled at Mass, bear false witness to a truth Catholics hold. In saying “Amen” they are saying that they believe in something that they obviously do not. False witness, one of the Ten big no-no’s.
That reasoning seems to “satisfy” the objections at the time. It seemed too easy. So, I wonder if my reasoning is, in some way, faulty? And if you have read that particular logic somewhere, I’d appreciate citing the source.
Thoughts?
Offering the standard lines of reasoning - the denominations not being in communion with the CC, and that the meaning of the Eucharist is much different in our (CC) faith - I am generally met with that look women get on their faith when they think a man’s logic is still at a three year old’s level. And out of nowhere, I offered this reason that I have not read anywhere (although it’s not to say it isn’t written somewhere - possibly the catechism). My reasoning went like this.
"The Catholic Church believes it is responsible to spread the truth, and in doing so, it must look out for the spiritual welfare of all. Therefore, when a person approaches communion in the CC, the bread and wine has, become the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. The words, “the Body of Christ” or “The Blood of Christ” are spoken by the minister of communion, and the recepient, answers “Amen”. Thus the recepient is affirming their belief in the nature and the truth of the Catholic understanding the Eucharist. And therefore, a protestant or non-believer of any denomination, by their adherence to that denomination, does, before those assembled at Mass, bear false witness to a truth Catholics hold. In saying “Amen” they are saying that they believe in something that they obviously do not. False witness, one of the Ten big no-no’s.
That reasoning seems to “satisfy” the objections at the time. It seemed too easy. So, I wonder if my reasoning is, in some way, faulty? And if you have read that particular logic somewhere, I’d appreciate citing the source.
Thoughts?