Question on Catholic beliefs and practices for non-Catholics

[Gabriel_of_12]

The document is dated 1302–a time when all Christians in the West were Catholics and long before Luther and the other Reformers lived. It was a specific document for a specific time. It’s purpose was to affirm the pope’s primacy among his fellow bishops. It wasn’t directed at Protestants because there were no Protestants at the time. It was an internal Church statement meant to settle the matter of papal primacy, and that’s all. Please don’t take statements out of context, both their documental context or historical context because doing so only seems to confuse things for you. :tiphat:

Unam Sanctam = (One Holy). A Papal Bull, written by Pope Bonafice VIII (when all the secular Western Kingdoms were all Catholic and at war with each other). The Pope, who continued the struggle of the Church, when the Church Militant resist’s and protects the apostolic faith from secular powers that try to infect, remove and or influence the Keys to the Kingdom of heaven, which Jesus Christ gave to Peter.

Protestants who come on the scene another 200± years later, should understand and agree with the Pope’s papal bull, when the Protestant King Henry of England mixed his secular powers with his new Church of England, which influenced the pilgrimage to the new world.

I agree with your well done post Della, that non-Catholic Christians and or Protestants should take care into reading Church documents.

1. Which ones are binding upon the whole Christian faith
2. Which ones are addressing only the faithful Magisterium
3. Which ones are binding and loosing upon apostolic faith
4. Which ones are addressing the disciplines of the faithful
5. Which ones do not and cannot change the apostolic faith

In respect to the OP, in the 2000 year old Apostolic Catholic Church, we have the Nicene Creed which professes what we Catholics believe, by divine revelation. Secondly, we have to understand the differences between Church disciplines and practices which are subject to change, from Apostolic divine revelation (doctrine) which cannot and will not change.

Peace be with you

 

[Kliska]

As some of my Catholic brothers and sister have already pointed out elsewhere; If one doesn’t believe in the Real Presence, then it would be considered idolatry to treat the communion wafer(s), which would be bread, as Jesus. I do think that’s a big hurdle. Obviously it wouldn’t be willful deliberate idolatry, as it is believed in faith.

I’ve talked openly before on the boards about the idea of the acceptance of the Marian dogmas as being necessary for Catholic Church membership, and how that could potentially be seen as contradictory with “there is no other name under Heaven by which you must be saved.” This isn’t an argument on whether or not the Marian dogmas are true, we can even hypothesize they are, but rather the necessity of confessing them as being tied to entering the CC, which is tied to salvation.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

As some of my Catholic brothers and sister have already pointed out elsewhere; If one doesn’t believe in the Real Presence, then it would be considered idolatry to treat the communion wafer(s), which would be bread, as Jesus. I do think that’s a big hurdle. Obviously it wouldn’t be willful deliberate idolatry, as it is believed in faith.

I’ve talked openly before on the boards about the idea of the acceptance of the Marian dogmas as being necessary for Catholic Church membership, and how that could potentially be seen as contradictory with “there is no other name under Heaven by which you must be saved.” This isn’t an argument on whether or not the Marian dogmas are true, we can even hypothesize they are, but rather the necessity of confessing them as being tied to entering the CC, which is tied to salvation.

Faith in Jesus Christ Eucharist and His Mother Blessed Mary, depends on ones learned disposition and understanding. These are not a matter of entering into salvation, and have nothing to do with becoming a member of Jesus Christ body.

For these divine revelations (Eucharist, Theotokos) are for the already saved, born anothen Christians. They are not for one to enter into salvation or “must be saved” according to your disposition.

I believe what you are referencing in regards to the Eucharist and Theotokos is a full communion status, who remain in good standing with the body of Christ.

The Eucharist is not for the lost to enter into salvation. Theotokos is hope and a welcome for those who are outside of the body of Christ. Theotokos is the example for all Christians “saved” to follow.

Thus it is incorrect to label the Eucharist and Theotokos as being the subjects for one to enter into salvation, when these are for the Christians in full communion with the body of Christ both in heaven and on earth, who celebrate God’s Love and Life in Eucharist with Theotokos and the Angels in heaven, as one body in Christ.

Peace be with you

 

[wmscott]

So, there are several non-Catholics that have posted so far. Up to this point there has been personal opinions on what is objectionable with the Catholic Church, personal opinions (out of context) on several practices or beliefs of the Catholic Church, or even one who listed out “Sinful” practices. With regards to the first two; nothing is cited as “Sinful”, just objections to the beliefs and practices which I can understand and appreciate the candor.
With regards to the last one there was a list of six that were cited as “Sinful”. When pressed for citations/documentation the poster went dark. So, I have to assume it was the usual Anti-Catholic rhetoric.

In the end I find it to be a surprisingly positive exchange in that those who are non-Catholic are actually understand that the Catholic Church and Her practices are not “Sinful”. So that what really separates us is personal beliefs/interpretations of their faith traditions to which many are born and raised into, however still Christian and a brother or sister in Christ.
Thanks all who responded.

 

[Kliska]

So, there are several non-Catholics that have posted so far. Up to this point there has been personal opinions on what is objectionable with the Catholic Church, personal opinions (out of context) on several practices or beliefs of the Catholic Church, or even one who listed out “Sinful” practices. With regards to the first two; nothing is cited as “Sinful”, just objections to the beliefs and practices which I can understand and appreciate the candor.
With regards to the last one there was a list of six that were cited as “Sinful”. When pressed for citations/documentation the poster went dark. So, I have to assume it was the usual Anti-Catholic rhetoric.

In the end I find it to be a surprisingly positive exchange in that those who are non-Catholic are actually understand that the Catholic Church and Her practices are not “Sinful”. So that what really separates us is personal beliefs/interpretations of their faith traditions to which many are born and raised into, however still Christian and a brother or sister in Christ.
Thanks all who responded.

You have to remember that those of us who like dialoguing here realize we are in your house, so to speak. There are rules about what can be posted, so there is a disadvantage if you want Non-Catholics to post non-Catholic teaching that is against the CC.

I think the up thread exchange of what was listed as “sinful” was confusing. What were you wanting citations of; the actual teaching of the CC such as the content of the CCC? Or, were you wanting to know if those things listed are actually sinful according to Non-Catholics according to scripture (for example)?

My other question is about what I posted; so, you wouldn’t see a problem with worshiping something that wasn’t actually God? Meaning, I’ve seen many a Catholic on here admit that if the doctrine of the Real Presence/Transubstantiation is wrong then it would be idolatry… is that not a huge issue to discuss regardless of which “side” we are on because the truth of it is beyond opinion?

 

[wmscott]

You have to remember that those of us who like dialoguing here realize we are in your house, so to speak. There are rules about what can be posted, so there is a disadvantage if you want Non-Catholics to post non-Catholic teaching that is against the CC.

I think the up thread exchange of what was listed as “sinful” was confusing. What were you wanting citations of; the actual teaching of the CC such as the content of the CCC? Or, were you wanting to know if those things listed are actually sinful according to Non-Catholics according to scripture (for example)?

My other question is about what I posted; so, you wouldn’t see a problem with worshiping something that wasn’t actually God? Meaning, I’ve seen many a Catholic on here admit that if the doctrine of the Real Presence/Transubstantiation is wrong then it would be idolatry… is that not a huge issue to discuss regardless of which “side” we are on because the truth of it is beyond opinion?

So to answer your first question…. Worship is for God alone. I do not know how to put it any simpler. Do you believe that Catholics worship someone other than God alone?

With regards to the Real Presence, Christ is present Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the most Holy Eucharist. If a Catholic is saying something other than Christs full presence in the most Holy Eucharist, then they are not Catholic.

 

[Kliska]

So to answer your first question…. Worship is for God alone. I do not know how to put it any simpler. Do you believe that Catholics worship someone other than God alone?

With regards to the Real Presence, Christ is present Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the most Holy Eucharist. If a Catholic is saying something other than Christs full presence in the most Holy Eucharist, then they are not Catholic.

Your OP stated, “what are the Catholic beliefs and practices that a non-Catholic can cite as being inherently sinful.” And one major belief and practice that is problematic to a non-Catholic is the bowing down to and worshiping a piece of bread as God IF the doctrine of the Real Presence/transubstantiation isn’t true. In other words the non-Catholics that don’t believe in the Real Presence would argue that kind of action is idolatry. As I said, many Catholics on here readily admit that; IF transubstantiation/The Real Presence isn’t true, then holding up a piece of bread as God could be considered idolatry.

You’re asking non-Catholics for non-Catholic views, and then expecting them to answer like a Catholic would. From a specific non-Catholic view the bread at mass remains bread. That then creates many problems* that you asked about specifically in the OP*. Objectively either the bread is bread or it is God. If it is God, there’s no problem, if it is bread and remains bread, obviously there’s an issue. Non-Catholics that I know realize that from the Catholic position the bread is God; hence no idolatry, but if the Catholic position on transubstantiation is wrong, then the bread remains bread, and then comes the issues.

 

[rcwitness]

Your OP stated, “what are the Catholic beliefs and practices that a non-Catholic can cite as being inherently sinful.” And one major belief and practice that is problematic to a non-Catholic is the bowing down to and worshiping a piece of bread as God IF the doctrine of the Real Presence/transubstantiation isn’t true. In other words the non-Catholics that don’t believe in the Real Presence would argue that kind of action is idolatry. As I said, many Catholics on here readily admit that; IF transubstantiation/The Real Presence isn’t true, then holding up a piece of bread as God could be considered idolatry.

You’re asking non-Catholics for non-Catholic views, and then expecting them to answer like a Catholic would. From a specific non-Catholic view the bread at mass remains bread. That then creates many problems* that you asked about specifically in the OP*. Objectively either the bread is bread or it is God. If it is God, there’s no problem, if it is bread and remains bread, obviously there’s an issue. Non-Catholics that I know realize that from the Catholic position the bread is God; hence no idolatry, but if the Catholic position on transubstantiation is wrong, then the bread remains bread, and then comes the issues.

I think I hear your point of this post. On a side note, however, I have suggested that the actual “eating” in the act of Communion is a form of worship! So whoever takes Communion, regardless of how they view the bread and wine, is actually worshiping God through that image. In this case, I still think it’s possible not to view the Eucharist as God (technically) but definitely the sacrifice of God. So the next question is, what is the sacrifice of God? It is Jesus Christ, in the flesh. And we both (Catholics and protestants) know He is God.

 

[Wannano]

I think I hear your point of this post. On a side note, however, I have suggested that the actual “eating” in the act of Communion is a form of worship! So whoever takes Communion, regardless of how they view the bread and wine, is actually worshiping God through that image. In this case, I still think it’s possible not to view the Eucharist as God (technically) but definitely the sacrifice of God. So the next question is, what is the sacrifice of God? It is Jesus Christ, in the flesh. And we both (Catholics and protestants) know He is God.

I hesitate to jump in here, hopefully Kliska will respond too as I see her post as very important.
She is properly using the premise “if” as a qualifier and arriving at logical conclusions without stepping on toes. I agree with your first sentence completely and I am glad that you as a Catholic have pointed out that those of us who understand the bread and wine to be symbolic of Christ’s body and blood do feel that the deliberate action of eating as Jesus instructed is a deliberate and conscious action of worship and obedience. (I take the liberty of changing your word “image” to “action” in your second sentence.) That is why I resent anyone saying our communion is “merely” or “just” symbolic, no, it is a solemn act of worship. Thank you.

Unless i am wrong, the next point is where we differ. Both Catholics and Protestants know Jesus is God. TO Catholics the sacrifice of God is Jesus Christ in the flesh. To “symbolic” Protestants God’s sacrifice “was” Jesus Christ in the flesh. A one time, once and for all happening that changed everything. To me, the act now of “eating” is a solemn worshipful experience of submersion into the fact and realization that Jesus died for me. He would have done that for even just me if I was the only human being on earth. To eat worthilly one is to examine himself and only in clear conscience before God AND fellowman then partake. Then to partake is a participation in His sacrifice as we in thanksgiving and humbleness attribute the reality of His willingness and completed action to our own spiritual life.

As I understand Mass, it is the receiving of Jesus into ones life. A non- eucharistic Christian has received Jesus when he asked Jesus to come into his life as Lord and Master. Jesus promised He would never leave us and be with us to the end of the world. Yet, He has gone to prepare a place for us so that where He is we can be also. The Holy Spirit resides in the heart and life of the believer.

 

[rcwitness]

I hesitate to jump in here, hopefully Kliska will respond too as I see her post as very important.
She is properly using the premise “if” as a qualifier and arriving at logical conclusions without stepping on toes. I agree with your first sentence completely and I am glad that you as a Catholic have pointed out that those of us who understand the bread and wine to be symbolic of Christ’s body and blood do feel that the deliberate action of eating as Jesus instructed is a deliberate and conscious action of worship and obedience. (I take the liberty of changing your word “image” to “action” in your second sentence.) That is why I resent anyone saying our communion is “merely” or “just” symbolic, no, it is a solemn act of worship. Thank you.

The action of eating bread is not the image I’m referring to. The bread is the image. It is the image (or representation) of what Jesus gave (and poured out) for the life of the world.

Unless i am wrong, the next point is where we differ. Both Catholics and Protestants know Jesus is God. TO Catholics the sacrifice of God is Jesus Christ in the flesh. To “symbolic” Protestants God’s sacrifice “was” Jesus Christ in the flesh. A one time, once and for all happening that changed everything. To me, the act now of “eating” is a solemn worshipful experience of submersion into the fact and realization that Jesus died for me. He would have done that for even just me if I was the only human being on earth. To eat worthilly one is to examine himself and only in clear conscience before God AND fellowman then partake. Then to partake is a participation in His sacrifice as we in thanksgiving and humbleness attribute the reality of His willingness and completed action to our own spiritual life.

We believe, Based on Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and Magisterial Interpretation, that the Once For All Sacrifice is made present in the Eucharist meal. This has both real and symbolic meaning. The symbolic isn’t so much as only a symbol, but what the real flesh of Jesus accomplished for us. We receive the Spirit through Him (We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son). Jesus gave His body and blood because He wanted to give us His Spirit. This is why we must receive His body, if we want to receive His Spirit, because we regard them as one and the same, through the cross.

As I understand Mass, it is the receiving of Jesus into ones life. A non- eucharistic Christian has received Jesus when he asked Jesus to come into his life as Lord and Master. Jesus promised He would never leave us and be with us to the end of the world. Yet, He has gone to prepare a place for us so that where He is we can be also. The Holy Spirit resides in the heart and life of the believer.

Yes, and His body and blood is our Pascal Lamb, Who resides in the Church and Her members who accept His Spirit.

It is the mystery of Christ. We no longer regard Him in the flesh, even though He still has flesh! Receiving His flesh is our Spiritual worship, food, deliverance, etc.

It takes faith in His Word, and Spirit to believe in the Eucharist. How else could bread become a participation in His sacrifice? I don’t demonize your practice. It has its genuine aspect. But I believe with all my mind and heart that it is inferior to the Catholic Eucharist. Evangelicals are stymied over this mystery because it is hard to understand. But I see the ineffable nature of God hidden in the Eucharist. There is a treasure of wisdom here, which His Spirit convicts and gives understanding. I see by believing.

If you say you see, by His Spirit, that your practice is more accurately understanding the Gospel of His Supper, then that is your conviction.

 

[Wannano]

The action of eating bread is not the image I’m referring to. The bread is the image. It is the image (or representation) of what Jesus gave (and poured out) for the life of the world.

We believe, Based on Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and Magisterial Interpretation, that the Once For All Sacrifice is made present in the Eucharist meal. This has both real and symbolic meaning. The symbolic isn’t so much as only a symbol, but what the real flesh of Jesus accomplished for us. We receive the Spirit through Him (We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son). Jesus gave His body and blood because He wanted to give us His Spirit. This is why we must receive His body, if we want to receive His Spirit, because we regard them as one and the same, through the cross.

Yes, and His body and blood is our Pascal Lamb, Who resides in the Church and Her members who accept His Spirit.

It is the mystery of Christ. We no longer regard Him in the flesh, even though He still has flesh! Receiving His flesh is our Spiritual worship, food, deliverance, etc.

It takes faith in His Word, and Spirit to believe in the Eucharist. How else could bread become a participation in His sacrifice? I don’t demonize your practice. It has its genuine aspect. But I believe with all my mind and heart that it is inferior to the Catholic Eucharist. Evangelicals are stymied over this mystery because it is hard to understand. But I see the ineffable nature of God hidden in the Eucharist. There is a treasure of wisdom here, which His Spirit convicts and gives understanding. I see by believing.

If you say you see, by His Spirit, that your practice is more accurately understanding the Gospel of His Supper, then that is your conviction.

Thank you, I hope I am not seeming to knock your conviction either, it is just completely foreign to me.

Acts 17: 24 - 31.

 

[Wannano]

It takes faith in His Word, and Spirit to believe in the Eucharist. How else could bread become a participation in His sacrifice?

Jesus is the Bread of Life that came down from heaven. To eat this bread and never hunger again is to open our eyes an ears to what He teaches and believe in His message. Believing in His message and appropriatIng it to our lives gives us new life. The old is gone. His sacrifice is central to His message. To take bread and eat it as a symbol of His flesh is participating in the remembrance of His sacrifice for us.

Others can explain it better than I have I am sure.

 

[rcwitness]

Thank you, I hope I am not seeming to knock your conviction either, it is just completely foreign to me.

Acts 17: 24 - 31.

I honestly don’t believe it is foreign to you. The faith is that Communion is a participation in the flesh and blood that brought the Spirit to us. Flesh and blood does not give this understanding, but the Father of the Son, through personal conviction. He beckons us to this table, as believers who are committed to being led by Him.

 

[rcwitness]

Jesus is the Bread of Life that came down from heaven. To eat this bread and never hunger again is to open our eyes an ears to what He teaches and believe in His message. Believing in His message and appropriatIng it to our lives gives us new life. The old is gone. His sacrifice is central to His message. To take bread and eat it as a symbol of His flesh is participating in the remembrance of His sacrifice for us.

Others can explain it better than I have I am sure.

I have heard and read explanations. I believe that practice is not accurately following the Way. It’s obviously not against Him, but not perfectly following Him.

But also know that this obedience I’m talking about does not guarantee doing so in a worthy manner. I have refrained from receiving for periods of time. I’m not happy about that, because my heart was not right before Him. I struggled to overcome my trials and temptations. I believed by receiving, while struggling against my Lord, I would have a treacherous heart. It was not easy to refrain. I have a wife and children. They see me remain in my seat. My friends saw me remain in my seat. But it’s not them I fear, but the Truth. So, to love Him, I refrained in order to Reconcile first.

I’m not trying to prove something. I don’t think His Eucharistic Communion can or should be proven. I should only share how my relationship with Him is bound to this celebration. I say we should strive and make every effort to receive Him in a clean conscience and in a worthy manner.

 

[Wannano]

I honestly don’t believe it is foreign to you. The faith is that Communion is a participation in the flesh and blood that brought the Spirit to us. Flesh and blood does not give this understanding, but the Father of the Son, through personal conviction. He beckons us to this table, as believers who are committed to being led by Him.

At first I thought you were calling me a liar. But I think written speech is easily misunderstood. True, I have been to numerous Masses and I think I understand it from your point of view. What is foreign to me is transubstantiation and the idea of unused host being adored. To think that Christ is present is not foreign to me as I have always believed He is present no matter where we go. He is constantly present in us, no? I know you will say that is not the kind of presence you talk of in the Eucharist, but it is the kind of presence that is not foreign to my understanding.

 

[Wannano]

I have heard and read explanations. I believe that practice is not accurately following the Way. It’s obviously not against Him, but not perfectly following Him.

But also know that this obedience I’m talking about does not guarantee doing so in a worthy manner. I have refrained from receiving for periods of time. I’m not happy about that, because my heart was not right before Him. I struggled to overcome my trials and temptations. I believed by receiving, while struggling against my Lord, I would have a treacherous heart. It was not easy to refrain. I have a wife and children. They see me remain in my seat. My friends saw me remain in my seat. But it’s not them I fear, but the Truth. So, to love Him, I refrained in order to Reconcile first.

I’m not trying to prove something. I don’t think His Eucharistic Communion can or should be proven. I should only share how my relationship with Him is bound to this celebration. I say we should strive and make every effort to receive Him in a clean conscience and in a worthy manner.

So interesting to me that you say that practice is not accurately following the Way. That blows me away because I truly feel that was the practice of the Way.

I also believe you are sincere in your convictions and belief.

 

[rcwitness]

At first I thought you were calling me a liar. But I think written speech is easily misunderstood. True, I have been to numerous Masses and I think I understand it from your point of view. What is foreign to me is transubstantiation and the idea of unused host being adored. To think that Christ is present is not foreign to me as I have always believed He is present no matter where we go. He is constantly present in us, no? I know you will say that is not the kind of presence you talk of in the Eucharist, but it is the kind of presence that is not foreign to my understanding.

You are right, that is what I’m gonna say.

His Supper is not the same as His omnipresence. There is a tangible, real presence in an edible manner. It’s not like how He sees our deeds, or like how He is listening to our prayers, or like how He is in our hearts. Those are all true, but this is a particular manifestation of Himself to us.

Trust me, I am all for building up the faith in His Spiritual presence , , in and near us all the time, to Catholics (myself included). It is not opposed to the Supper we partake. But this supper is very significant to keeping His Spirit within us. He did not live and die and resurrect in the flesh to destroy the flesh, but to raise the flesh to eternal life. We who believe, give thanks for this sacrificial achievement, through this meal of both real faith and real food. It is the great miracle that we don’t need to see to believe. Our faith is not strengthened by seeing proof, but by partaking with gladness and with lives that are changed because we are living by the same Spirit that gave us the body and blood of Jesus Christ!

 

[rcwitness]

So interesting to me that you say that practice is not accurately following the Way. That blows me away because I truly feel that was the practice of the Way.

Why is this interesting? It should be no surprise that I believe their is a lack of accuracy to an Evangelical Communion. I don’t say this prideful! I told you I struggle to partake worthily! But by His grace I am welcome. And by His grace, I can be clean. We all can.

I also believe you are sincere in your convictions and belief.

Thank you. I think we have to be careful of relativism, but respect each other too. I don’t mind sharing, because I have peace and joy in sharing. And I don’t need to convert others. Would I like all Christians to be at one table? Of course. But I know the reasons why we are not varies tremendously. Some think they are all the same table, while others hate other’s tables. I think the former is much better off, but neither is the goal.

I compare these tables to rooms on the Ark. Jesus is the Ark, and all Christians are on it. But some are devils among us. And then, some have stopped sharing meal at the dining hall, where the Captain has prepared the meal. They form their own groups in separate rooms because they saw abuse in the dining hall, or their parents taught them to eat there. The food is from the Ark, but it is not what the Captain prepared, nor is it where He invited all.

That’s a little bit of how I see it.

 

[drac16]

The biggest problem I have with the Catholic Church is the doctrine of the Trinity.

 

[rcwitness]

Wannano, here is another question:

If we receive Jesus in our hearts, and we know Him in Spirit, why do we need to “remember” Him through eating bread and wine?

If bread and wine are perishable elements, that do not give life, why do we use them as a symbol of receiving the Spirit and Life? It seems counter productive for Jesus to use what doesn’t give life (mere bread and wine) to symbolize what does give life.

I am not “anti-symbolic” but stress the greater practice of the symbols actually becoming (in Truth) what they symbolize. What they symbolize is the sacrificed body and blood of Jesus. Therefore, when they become the objects of our worship, they are not worshiped as bread and wine, but both the flesh and blood of Jesus AND His Spirit and Life. For we did not receive the latter without the former.