Provoo Communion Validates Anglican Orders

[EvangelCatholic]

This is all pretty familiar because I have, numerous times, heard Catholics use similar arguments to try to convince Orthodox to intercommune with us. (When that happens, in my experience, the Orthodox generally don’t buy it … and to be honest I don’t think I buy what you’re saying here. )

Who’s asking you to buy anything? You may disagree even with the clergy of your own church at times; I do. But when it comes to the priestly responsibility to offering Christ in the Mass, no lay person will convince me otherwise.

 

[Michael57]

I don’t believe I said anything like that, but if it works for you, then more power to you I guess.

Sorry, I misread your post.

Mea culpa.

Apologies.

Sorry.

:bowdown:

 

[Peter_J]

Who’s asking you to buy anything?

Oh don’t get me started. (We’re talking about telemarketers, right? )

P.S. On a serious note, I’m curious whether this discussion will convince some of my fellow Catholics to complain a little less about Orthodox not admitting us to communion. (Probably never know, but I wonder.)

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Oh don’t get me started. (We’re talking about telemarketers, right? )

aren’t they horrible? Even with a non-listed phone #, I get these calls endlessly.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

My sense is that we all tend to get a bit territorial about the holy Church. Not wanting anyone else to have holy Communion.

Even though I was raised in the LCMS, I never quite understood the effort to somehow guard or protect Christ from others since it is Christ who protects and nourishes us. I do understand and appreciate the need to make sure unbelievers are not using the Sacrament for evil reasons such as AIDS activists taking holy communion in St Patrick’s cathedral and then throwing the host on the ground. Both Lutherans and Catholics know that even unbelievers are actually receiving Christ when they partake. We also know that some Lutherans and Catholics don’t actually believe in anything but go to communion out of family obligation. A poster mentioned how some people take holy Communion in a slovenly way,

But for those who seek our Lord in His most holy Presence, drop to our knees in awe in the knowledge that we can never deserve such a wonderful gift, that person should never be denied by man communion with Body of Christ.

 

[benjohnson]

How do you explain Benedict XVI giving Communion to Brother Roger Schutz, the protestant founder of Taize on April 8, 2005?

In the Catholic church, Bishops have leeway for communing thouse outside the Catholic church.

 

[benjohnson]

Even though I was raised in the LCMS, I never quite understood the effort to somehow guard or protect Christ from others since it is Christ who protects and nourishes us.

I’m afraid you received poor instuction. The LCMS pastor is protecing his flock from eating and drinking judgement upon themselves.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I live in the metro New York/ Long Island area where most of the occasions for intercommunion with Catholics have occurred in my family. In order to better understand eucharistic hospitality, I looked up the policy of the Diocese of Rockville Centre to read the official position of this Roman Catholic diocese. drvc.org/the-chancery/spe…le-centre.html

However, the Directory reminds us that “…in certain circumstances, by way of exception and under certain conditions, access to these sacraments (Eucharist, Reconciliation and Anointing of the Sick) may be permitted or even commended for Christians of other churches and ecclesial communities.” (9) This may always be done if a Christian is in danger of death (cf. section IV, below, and canon 844.4). However, Eucharist may also be given to other Christians if there is, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or episcopal conference, some other “grave necessity” or “grave and pressing need.” (10) Consequently, just as it is inappropriate to issue a general invitation to Christians who are not Catholic to share in Holy Communion, it is equally inappropriate to make a general statement indiscriminately barring all other Christians from sharing in the sacrament. Such a total prohibition would be more limiting than the norms of the Directory and the 1996 statement of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops now published in all participation materials.

However, as mentioned above, there are occasions when sacramental sharing with other Christians is possible. Indeed, Pope John Paul II remarks that “it is a source of joy” that Catholic ministers, in particular cases, can administer sacraments to Christians with whom Catholics do not share full ecclesial communion.

•The person requesting the sacrament must be validly baptized. Baptism is valid when water is poured or the person is immersed and the trinitarian formula is used. For example, valid baptism is presumed for Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians and Methodists. (21)

•The person must manifest the faith which the Catholic Church professes in the sacrament. As a minimum for Eucharistic sharing, the person must believe that in receiving the Eucharist we receive the body and blood of Christ. In some communions this is standard dogma; for example, Episcopalians and Lutherans can be presumed to believe in the real presence. For members of other communions there may be need for some further discussion concerning their belief in the Eucharist.

•The person must ask for the sacrament freely. The request must have been initiated by the person seeking Eucharistic communion.

•The person must be unable to have recourse for the sacrament to a minister of his or her own community. This condition is met when gaining access to one’s own minister poses a reasonable physical, moral or psychological difficulty, or causes serious inconvenience for the minister or recipient.

•The person must be properly disposed to receive the sacrament. As noted above “proper disposition” is the same as required for Catholics, i.e., not conscious of serious sin (see canon 916). “Being properly disposed means being in a good relationship with God, or if not, taking whatever steps are necessary to return to a good relationship with God.” (22)

In light of the above canonical norms and pastoral reflections, the following situations are examples–not an exhaustive list-- of occasions, other than danger of death, when a “grave necessity” may be discerned and Eucharist may be shared with Episcopal or Protestant Christians if all the conditions are met:

Admittedly, the circumstances where a Lutheran is communed in a Catholic Mass are limited per the above document. But the practice of inter-communion is much more common than these special circumstances identify, in my experience.

 

[Michael57]

How do you explain Benedict XVI giving Communion to Brother Roger Schutz, the protestant founder of Taize on April 8, 2005?

Do you always deflect to try to make the exception prove the (non-existent) rule when you’re wrong and losing your argument?

You do realize that this was an exception to the normal practices, right?

Apparently not.

The Pope does what he choses to do as the circumstances and his good judgment dictates. He’s the Pope and has his own authority, he can make exceptions as he sees fit. This was such an exception.

Exceptions do not equate to a new policy decree to be followed by the whole Catholic Church hence forth and forever more. It’s an EXCEPTION, not a NEW RULE.

No matter how much you wish it might be so, it just ain’t so.

Bishops also from time to time grant an exception on a case by case basis, and it is understood by most that it is for that one time only, though you seem to think that this one time permission extends to infinity.

As I said elsewhere, the priests & deacons & religious & laity have no authority under Canon law to grant an exception to Non-Catholics (persons not in communion with Rome).

They simply have no authority to do this. None. They err greatly in doing violating this rule, and it harms them, the persons they allow, and their whole parish. Scripture addresses it thoroughly, as do the Church Fathers. What they do I am sure is out of kindness, but it is still wrong. And those that know better and still do it, well, if that isn’t the definition of evil, then what could take its place?

And that you don’t accept this, seems to indicate that you are unwilling to look at and respect the rules governing the Catholic Church as enumerated in the CCC and Canon Law.

Any reasonable person should be able to understand this concept.

 

[Michael57]

Admittedly, the circumstances where a Lutheran is communed in a Catholic Mass are limited per the above document. But the practice of inter-communion is much more common than these special circumstances identify, in my experience.

**However, the Directory reminds us that “…in certain circumstances, by way of exception and under certain conditions, access to these sacraments (Eucharist, Reconciliation and Anointing of the Sick) may be permitted or even commended for Christians of other churches and ecclesial communities.” (9) This may always be done if a Christian is in danger of death (cf. section IV, below, and canon 844.4). However, Eucharist may also be given to other Christians if there is, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or episcopal conference, some other “grave necessity” or “grave and pressing need.” **

Good, at least you’re reading now.

Don’t parse it. The whole, or none of it. Seems to agree with what you’ve been told by others here, including myself when the CCC and Canon law has been cited. Too bad you apparently did not read that.

It doesn’t support your position. :dts:

Exceptions do not make the rule.

RCIA and reception into the Catholic Church is the norm for those wishing to receive communion at Catholic Mass. The Bishop’s allowance of it for the circumstances you referenced are the exception, not the rule. Understand?

 

[Peter_J]

I live in the metro New York/ Long Island area where most of the occasions for intercommunion with Catholics have occurred in my family. In order to better understand eucharistic hospitality, I looked up the policy of the Diocese of Rockville Centre to read the official position of this Roman Catholic diocese. drvc.org/the-chancery/spe…le-centre.html

However, the Directory reminds us that “…in certain circumstances, by way of exception and under certain conditions, access to these sacraments (Eucharist, Reconciliation and Anointing of the Sick) may be permitted or even commended for Christians of other churches and ecclesial communities.” (9) This may always be done if a Christian is in danger of death (cf. section IV, below, and canon 844.4). However, Eucharist may also be given to other Christians if there is, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or episcopal conference, some other “grave necessity” or “grave and pressing need.” (10) Consequently, just as it is inappropriate to issue a general invitation to Christians who are not Catholic to share in Holy Communion, it is equally inappropriate to make a general statement indiscriminately barring all other Christians from sharing in the sacrament. Such a total prohibition would be more limiting than the norms of the Directory and the 1996 statement of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops now published in all participation materials.

Thank you for posting that, it sums it up nicely.

Edit: I just discovered that you posted this exact same post on another thread.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

However, the Directory reminds us that “…in certain circumstances, by way of exception and under certain conditions, access to these sacraments (Eucharist, Reconciliation and Anointing of the Sick) may be permitted or even commended for Christians of other churches and ecclesial communities.” (9) This may always be done if a Christian is in danger of death (cf. section IV, below, and canon 844.4). However, Eucharist may also be given to other Christians if there is, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or episcopal conference, some other “grave necessity” or “grave and pressing need.”

Good, at least you’re reading now.

Don’t parse it. The whole, or none of it. Seems to agree with what you’ve been told by others here, including myself when the CCC and Canon law has been cited. Too bad you apparently did not read that.

It doesn’t support your position. :dts:

Exceptions do not make the rule.

RCIA and reception into the Catholic Church is the norm for those wishing to receive communion at Catholic Mass. The Bishop’s allowance of it for the circumstances you referenced are the exception, not the rule. Understand?

He is determined to have it and there’s nothing anyone can say about it.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Go do what you want buddy.

One way or another… I’m gonna… getcha getcha getcha getcha getcha

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m not sure what the point of this thread is. It began with the assertion that certain non-Catholic religions have apostolic succession, or at least as to some of its ministers. Now it’s an argument about whether inter-communion is generally acceptable to the Church or is so only under some circumstances.

It struck me as particularly curious that an LCMS pastor notified non-LCMS attendees at a service that they could NOT receive communion.

Is the point here to argue that Lutherans, or at least some of them, are, or ought to be, recognized as a church in union with the Catholic Church; something like the Eastern Catholics or the Anglican Use Catholics, without the Catholic Church ever saying so?

Seems to me that question (as with the Anglican Use) is a matter for the officials of the Church to resolve, not for us to resolve by expressing points of similarity or anecdotal stories. The Church is in dialogue with various protestant sects about all of that, but has not announced an understanding of unity. Failing such a declaration, this is all sort of interesting, but it does not change the fact that there is not unity between the Catholic Church and, e.g., LCMS.

 

[Peter_J]

It struck me as particularly curious that an LCMS pastor notified non-LCMS attendees at a service that they could NOT receive communion.

Curious in what way?

 

[EvangelCatholic]

The reason I posted this document on this thread is because the issue came up as it often does. The directions of the Roman Catholic diocese in which most of my family live * make it abundantly clear that Eucharistic hospitality is extended to Lutherans.

What I find odd is the response of some posters who either condescendingly rebuke me or outright infer that I am a “hater”. Please explain Isaiah45_9 how I am a “hater” for seeking our Lord in the Eucharist?*

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The reason I posted this document on this thread is because the issue came up as it often does. The directions of the Roman Catholic diocese in which most of my family live * make it abundantly clear that Eucharistic hospitality is extended to Lutherans.

What I find odd is the response of some posters who either condescendingly rebuke me or outright infer that I am a “hater”. Please explain Isaiah45_9 how I am a “hater” for seeking our Lord in the Eucharist?*

It was sarcastic, you know that guy is representing you (we are the haters and you are dancing) and you are determined to take Catholic communion and you are going to get it one way or another and all we “insignificant lay people” say does not matter because a “padre” told you that you can have it, so you gonna get it one way or another. So you are just going to justify in whatever manner you can find and whatever loophole in the guidelines you can find because you want it, you want it so bad you can’t help it. It’s like a mosquito to a neon light, you are drawn to it, you desire it, it’s almost a lust that you can’t contain and can’t do anything about it because you want it really really really bad. And you gonna get it, one way or another.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

It was sarcastic, you know that guy is representing you (we are the haters and you are dancing) and you are determined to take Catholic communion and you are going to get it one way or another and all we “insignificant lay people” say does not matter because a “padre” told you that you can have it, so you gonna get it one way or another. So you are just going to justify in whatever manner you can find and whatever loophole in the guidelines you can find because you want it, you want it so bad you can’t help it. It’s like a mosquito to a neon light, you are drawn to it, you desire it, it’s almost a lust that you can’t contain and can’t do anything about it because you want it really really really bad. And you gonna get it, one way or another.

You are personally attributing my love of Christ in the most blessed Sacrament as a selfish desire. How do you know my heart?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

You are personally attributing my love of Christ in the most blessed Sacrament as a selfish desire. How do you know my heart?

Here we go again…

Your posts, your posts, your posts. Your heart doesn’t type.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Closed pending review by moderator Eric Hilbert.