Real Presence outside of RC Church

[Br.Rich_SFO]

johnshelby:

it doesn’t profane the host? then why are non-catholics not supposed to take communion ?

Because to do this intentionally would be sacrilige. We would not want to encourage or even suggest that someone intentionally do this. That does not change the fact that they still receive the True Presence of Christ.

 

[vern_humphrey]

johnshelby:

no, it doesn’t astonish me, but if they are Christians, they aren’t
Hindus… they are Indians, but not Hindus…

They are not Christians (Hint: Ask yourself how a person becomes a Christian.)

johnshelby:

and believing Jesus was a prophet doesn’t make them Christians
either… they are still Muslims, unless they believe Jesus is God,
then they aren’t Muslims anymore, they are Christians…

Again, ask yourself how a person becomes a Christian (and it isn’t by believing in Christ.)

A Hindu might well consider Christ a part of the Hindu pantheon, and a Muslim might consider Him a mighty prophet.

Yet neither of them can perform the Miracle of the Mass – no matter how much he believes he can.

 

[jimmy]

Contarini:

I thought I said that. A rightly ordered Eucharist would be a gathering of all the Christians in a given place, presided over by a duly elected bishop in apostolic succession in communion with the Universal Church, most especially with the See of Rome. You guys are a lot closer to that than most of the rest of us. My point is precisely that your Eucharist is far more rightly ordered than ours, but that doesn’t mean that Jesus is not present with us as well.

Oh, sorry about that, I completely missed what you were trying to say.

 

[johnshelby]

vern humphrey:

They are not Christians (Hint: Ask yourself how a person becomes a Christian.)

Again, ask yourself how a person becomes a Christian (and it isn’t by believing in Christ.)

A Hindu might well consider Christ a part of the Hindu pantheon, and a Muslim might consider Him a mighty prophet.

Yet neither of them can perform the Miracle of the Mass – no matter how much he believes he can.

you become a Christian by practicing the Christian faith, which neither Arab Muslims, or Indian Hindus do…

being Muslim, means they can’t be a Christian… …

i realize there are a lot of Arab Christians, but they aren’t
Muslims…

i can see this is a circle… lol

thanks for your time…

 

[vern_humphrey]

johnshelby:

you become a Christian by practicing the Christian faith, which neither Arab Muslims, or Indian Hindus do…

Wrong. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

**

1213

Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua),4 and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word."5 **

johnshelby:

being Muslim, means they can’t be a Christian… …

But you base your argument not on what they ARE (viz, a muslim or a bishop) but on what they BELIEVE. And a Muslim or a Hindu could BELIEVE that he could perform the Miracle of the Mass.

 

[johnshelby]

vern humphrey:

Wrong. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

**

But you base your argument not on what they ARE (viz, a muslim or a bishop) but on what they BELIEVE. And a Muslim or a Hindu could BELIEVE that he could perform the Miracle of the Mass.**

lol… see, it’s a circle… practicing Christian faith, INCLUDES
Baptism… it’s part and parcel… so, you are a Christian, by
practicing the Christian faith…

it’s not an argument… but, no, a Muslim can’t believe that… by it’s very definition…

Mus·lim Pronunciation Key (mzlm, mz-, ms-, ms-)
n.

1. also Mos·lem (mzlm, ms-) A believer in or adherent of Islam.
2. A member of the Nation of Islam; a Black Muslim.

a beliver or adherent of Islam, can’t be a Christian, just as a
Christian can’t be a Muslim.

so, of course, a Muslim can’t because there is no belief…

if what you are saying is a Protestant can’t, because he isn’t
an ordained Catholic priest, then that’s what you should say… lol

but, to include Muslims and Protestants in agreement to this
argument, makes no sense at all, unless you don’t believe
Protestants are christians…

well, that’s the way it seems to me…

anyway…

too much typing making the same points over and over… lol

thanks

 

[jimmy]

Contarini:

By what authority did Gregory VII trump the Church and essentially invent a brand new canon law to support his claims? Luther claimed to be (in part) rolling back mistaken “reforms” of the high and late Middle Ages.

At any rate, I’m not claiming that Luther was right. I’m claiming that we Protestants are still Christians, however mistaken we may be.

I am not exactly sure what you mean with Gregory VII. I know you mean something with the East West schism but I am not sure what exactly.

I am not saying that you are not a Christian. Catholics recognize that. It is the teaching that all those who have been baptized in the name of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit are Christian, and consequently a member of the Church to a degree. But we truely come into union with the Church through agreement of faith and through the sacraments.

Now, protestants may recieve a spiritual communion as someone would who is Catholic but abstains from recieving the Eucharist for some reason. But they can not recieve the actual physical sacrament because because they have no preists and the faith has been drastically changed.

 

[jimmy]

vern humphrey:

The Church has specifically said that acceptance of the filoque is not a requirement for re-union with the Orthodox Churches.

The Orthodox maintain the Apostilic Succession, and there is no doctrinal or dogmatic barrier to them re-joining the Catholic Church.

Whether the Church requires the filioque is not the point. The point was that the Eastern Orthodox view is not the same as ours.

 

[vern_humphrey]

jimmy:

Whether the Church requires the filioque is not the point. The point was that the Eastern Orthodox view is not the same as ours.

No, the point is there are no dogmatic obstacles to full communion with the Orthodox.

 

[vern_humphrey]

johnshelby:

lol… see, it’s a circle… practicing Christian faith, INCLUDES
Baptism… it’s part and parcel… so, you are a Christian, by
practicing the Christian faith…

The point is, a Muslim may believe he can perform the Miracle of the Mass. But he can’t. And no more can a protestant minister.

johnshelby:

if what you are saying is a Protestant can’t, because he isn’t
an ordained Catholic priest, then that’s what you should say… lol

What do you think I’ve been saying. No one but a Catholic or Orthodox priest or bishop can perform the Miracle of the Mass.

johnshelby:

but, to include Muslims and Protestants in agreement to this
argument, makes no sense at all, unless you don’t believe
Protestants are christians…

To the extent they are both separated from the Catholic Church, they are similar. They do not have the Real Presence and a Protestant minister has no more power than a Muslim iman.

 

[USMC]

vern humphrey:

The Orthodox do not hold any heretical positions and maintain the Apostolic Succession. Their only difference with the Catholic Church is their refusal to accept the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

If they refuse to accept the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, which was defined as a dogma of the faith at Vatican I, then they hold a heretical position.

What you wrote does not make sense. If they reject a dogma they are heretics.

 

[vern_humphrey]

USMC:

If they refuse to accept the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, which was defined as a dogma of the faith at Vatican I, then they hold a heretical position.

What you wrote does not make sense. If they reject a dogma they are heretics.

Tell that to the Pope, not me. Orthodox Christians are able to take comminion in any Catholic Church – look at the inside front cover of your missal.

 

[USMC]

USMC:

If they refuse to accept the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, which was defined as a dogma of the faith at Vatican I, then they hold a heretical position.

What you wrote does not make sense. If they reject a dogma they are heretics.

vern humphrey:

Tell that to the Pope, not me. Orthodox Christians are able to take comminion in any Catholic Church – look at the inside front cover of your missal.

I go to the Old Mass. My missal was published many years ago, and I can assure you that it does not say heretics can receive communion.

But I am asking you what you think. Are those who reject what Vatican I defined as a dogma of the faith regarding the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome heretics? The answer is obvious.

 

[vern_humphrey]

USMC:

I go to the Old Mass. My missal was published many years ago, and I can assure you that it does not say heretics can receive communion.

But I am asking you what you think. Are those who reject what Vatican I defined as a dogma of the faith regarding the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome heretics? The answer is obvious.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324

Do you reject this? If

 

[USMC]

vern humphrey:

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324

Do you reject this? If

Those who are “honored by the name Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety” are called heretics.

If there are any who do profess the Catholic faith in its entiredy, but “have not preserved unity or commusion under the successor of Peter”, they are called schismatics.

The Church is not united supernaturally with schismatics, nor with heretics. There may indeed be some kind of natural union, or agreement, between us and them, but there is no supernatural union at all.

Supernatural union is the only kind of union that matters. Without the state of grace no one will be saved. No one who rejects a point of faith (a heretic) is united to the Church on that level. No one who rejects the authority of the Pope is united to the Church on that level. Sure, there may be some kind of agreement between them and us, but that does not profit them.

When the catechsims says: "With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist”, it shows us two things:

Firstly it shows what we should already know: that when it comes to supernatural unity it is all or nothing. There is no middle ground. Just as a person is either in the state of grace, or in mortal sin; so there is either supernatural unity or there is not. No middle ground.

When we are speaking of a mere natural unity there can indeed be things that unite people without there being a perfect unity, but not so on the supernatural level. It is all or nothing. Either they possess the state of grace, or they don’t.

The other thing the catechism confirms, although it does it in a strange way, is that the Orthodox cannot receive communion in the Catholic Church (which is what I originally said). Why? Because there is something lacking that would permit it. This something is supernatural unity.

On the natural level, there may be some kind of unity between them and us, but to receive communion at a Catholic Church, there must be more than merely a natural unity: there must be a supernatural unity.

So, since the Orthodox Church “lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist”, it means that something IS lacking, an therefore there is no supernatural unity. And that is why they cannot receive communion at a Catholic Church.

When you are reading the new Catechism, you have to read it very closely. Often times the surface meaning is actually different that what it says. This is because everything is written in an overly positive light. For example, instead of saying that the Orthodox could receive communion in a Catholic Church if they would only renounce the few heresies that divide them from us; it instead says that they “lack little to attain the fullness that would permit” them to receive communion.

But remember, when we are dealing with supernatural unity, it is either all or nothing. To use the words of the Catechism, either there is a “fullness” of unity, or there is no unity at all on the supernatural level.

Just a related point: One of the errors that Pope Pius XII condemned just before Vatican II was the error of mixing, or not distinguishing, the natural and supernatural orders.

 

[vern_humphrey]

USMC:

Those who are “honored by the name Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety” are called heretics.

Precisely what paragraph of the CCC says that?

USMC:

If there are any who do profess the Catholic faith in its entiredy, but “have not preserved unity or commusion under the successor of Peter”, they are called schismatics.

Actually they are not – that term is reserved to those who actually participated in the schism, not to those born into the Orthodox Church.

USMC:

The Church is not united supernaturally with schismatics, nor with heretics. There may indeed be some kind of natural union, or agreement, between us and them, but there is no supernatural union at all.

Supernatural union is the only kind of union that matters. Without the state of grace no one will be saved. No one who rejects a point of faith (a heretic) is united to the Church on that level. No one who rejects the authority of the Pope is united to the Church on that level. Sure, there may be some kind of agreement between them and us, but that does not profit them.

When the catechsims says: "With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist", it shows us two things:

The issue is between the Churches and the members. An individual member of any Orthodox Church may be admitted to communion in the Catholic Church. The indivdual members are not heretics, nor does the Catholic Church condemn the Orthodox Church as heretical.

USMC:

The other thing the catechism confirms, although it does it in a strange way, is that the Orthodox cannot receive communion in the Catholic Church (which is what I originally said). Why? Because there is something lacking that would permit it. This something is supernatural unity.

Except that that’s wrong. Members of any Orthodox Church and a couple of others may receive communion in the Catholic Church.

USMC:

On the natural level, there may be some kind of unity between them and us, but to receive communion at a Catholic Church, there must be more than merely a natural unity: there must be a supernatural unity.

Then since the members of these Churches are permitted to take communion in the Catholic Church, there must be a supernatural unity.

QED

USMC:

So, since the Orthodox Church “lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist”, it means that something IS lacking, an therefore there is no supernatural unity. And that is why they cannot receive communion at a Catholic Church.

Except that they can receive communion in Catholic churches.

 

[USMC]

Let’s do this one at a time.

USMC:

Those who are “honored by the name Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety” are called heretics.

VernHumphrey:

Precisely what paragraph of the CCC says that?

Paragraph number 205 (b): “Heresy is the refusal of baptized persons, retaining the name Christian, to accept one or more of the truths revealed by God, and taught by the Catholic Church. If this refusal is voluntary and obstinate it is formal heresy; if it is involuntary, it is material heresy” (Baltimore Catechsim, No. 3, page 124).

See how clear the older catechisms are? The following quote from Pope Leo XIII is just as clear, as it expounds the unchanging Catholic faith:

Pope Leo XIII: “But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honor God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith. “In many things they are with me, in a few things not with me; but in those few things in which they are not with me the many things in which they are will not profit them” (S. Augustinus in Psal. liv., n. 19). And this indeed most deservedly; for they, who take from Christian doctrine what they please, lean on their own judgments, not on faith; and not “bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. x., 5), they more truly obey themselves than God. “You, who believe what you like, believe yourselves rather than the gospel” (S. Augustinus, lib. xvii., Contra Faustum Manichaeum, cap. 3). (Satis Cogtinum)

 

[vern_humphrey]

USMC:

Paragraph number 205 (b): “Heresy is the refusal of baptized persons, retaining the name Christian, to accept one or more of the truths revealed by God, and taught by the Catholic Church. If this refusal is voluntary and obstinate it is formal heresy; if it is involuntary, it is material heresy” (Baltimore Catechsim, No. 3, page 124).

See how clear the older catechisms are? The following quote from Pope Leo XIII is just as clear, as it expounds the unchanging Catholic faith:

Pope Leo XIII: “But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honor God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith. “In many things they are with me, in a few things not with me; but in those few things in which they are not with me the many things in which they are will not profit them” (S. Augustinus in Psal. liv., n. 19). And this indeed most deservedly; for they, who take from Christian doctrine what they please, lean on their own judgments, not on faith; and not “bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. x., 5), they more truly obey themselves than God. “You, who believe what you like, believe yourselves rather than the gospel” (S. Augustinus, lib. xvii., Contra Faustum Manichaeum, cap. 3). (Satis Cogtinum)

You ignore a simple fact – Orthodox Christians are welcome to receive communion in Catholic churches – so all the fishing and cafeteria shopping to prove they aren’t welcome is simply a rejection of the Magisterium.

 

[USMC]

vern humphrey:

You ignore a simple fact – Orthodox Christians are welcome to receive communion in Catholic churches – so all the fishing and cafeteria shopping to prove they aren’t welcome is simply a rejection of the Magisterium.

Let’s take this one point at a time. Do you agree with the Catechism when it says “Heresy is the refusal of baptized persons, retaining the name Christian, to accept one or more of the truths revealed by God…".

Do you accept that teaching? Do you believe that a person who rejects one point of divinely revealed faith is a heretic?

 

[vern_humphrey]

USMC:

Let’s take this one point at a time. Do you agree with the Catechism when it says “Heresy is the refusal of baptized persons, retaining the name Christian, to accept one or more of the truths revealed by God…".

Do you accept that teaching? Do you believe that a person who rejects one point of divinely revealed faith is a heretic?

No, let’s do it this way.

Do you agree with the Magisterium which welcomes Orthodox Christians to communion at Mass?

Do you accept that teaching? Do you believe that a person who rejects one point of the Magesterium is a heretic?