Real Presence outside of RC Church

[USMC]

vern humphrey:

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?

You won’t even answer that simple question? All I asked is if you agree with the clear teaching from the catechsim, and you wouldn’t answer it. But that doesn’t surprise me. If you agreed with the clear teaching from the Catechism, you would thereby refute yourself.

The clear teachings of the past leave no room for confusion. The modern Catechisms are written just ambiguously enough so that they can be interpreted according to the truth, or in a liberal (heretical) way.

The Orthodox do not accept the office of the Pope. No one who rejects the office of the Pope can receive communion in the Catholic Church, because their rejection of that dogma constitutes heresy.

What John Paul II said is that in individual circumstances, an Orthodox may receive communion in the Catholic Church if they are in good faith.

But to be in good faith a person has to believe what the Church teaches (or, if they don’t believe it, they must be “invincibly ignorant” of the teaches); but if they believe what the Church teaches, why aren’t they Catholic?

And maybe you can explain to me how a priest can judge interiorly a person’s heart to know if they are in good faith. If they are in good faith, and wish to receive communion in a Catholic Church, simply let them convert.

But, whether you realize it or not, what is being pushed now by the modernist wolves within, is that the Orthodox should be allowed to receive communion without renouncing their errors. Is that what you believe?

 

[vern_humphrey]

USMC:

You won’t even answer that simple question? All I asked is if you agree with the clear teaching from the catechsim, and you wouldn’t answer it. But that doesn’t surprise me. If you agreed with the clear teaching from the Catechism, you would thereby refute yourself.

In a much earlier post, I quoted Paragraph 838 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and asked:

Do you reject this?

You won’t even answer that simple question? All I asked is if you agree with the clear teaching from the catechsim, and you wouldn’t answer it. But that doesn’t surprise me. If you agreed with the clear teaching from the Catechism, you would thereby refute yourself.

 

[USMC]

vern humphrey:

In a much earlier post, I quoted Paragraph 838 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and asked: Do you reject this?

You won’t even answer that simple question? All I asked is if you agree with the clear teaching from the catechsim, and you wouldn’t answer it. But that doesn’t surprise me. If you agreed with the clear teaching from the Catechism, you would thereby refute yourself.

I responded in great detail to that question. I broke out each statement from the Catechism that you quote, and responded to them. I then distinquished between a merely “natural unity”, and a supernatural unity.

On the natural level, the quote you provided is accurate. The passage would not be true if it was speaking of a supernatural unity, but it isn’t. It was clear that it was not speaking of a supernatural unity since it specifically says the unity with the Orthodox as “lacking” something, “that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist”. That shows that there is no supernatural unity.

The problem is, about 99% of the people who read that quote will fail to distinguish between a merely natural vs. supernatural unity, and they will become confused.

The unity of the Church is a supernatural unity, and not merely a natural unity. Therefore, the natural “bonds” between the Catholic Church and heretics, schismatics, and those of other religions, will not profit them for salvation.

Now how about answering my simple question?

 

[vern_humphrey]

USMC:

I responded in great detail to that question.

Where did you answer yes or no to my question – which was direct and simple – do you or do you not accept the authority of the Magisterium when the Catholic Church welcomes Orthodox Christians to the Eucharist?

 

[USMC]

vern humphrey:

Where did you answer yes or no to my question – which was direct and simple – do you or do you not accept the authority of the Magisterium when the Catholic Church welcomes Orthodox Christians to the Eucharist?

USMC:

On the natural level, the quote you provided is accurate.

For the context, read my entire post.

Now how about answering my question.

 

[vern_humphrey]

USMC:

For the context, read my entire post.

Now how about answering my question.

Because you haven’t answered mine.

Orthodox Christians are welcome to take communion in Catholic Churches.

Now, if you accept this, the argument is over.

If you reject it, you are rejecting the Magisterium.

If you reject the Magisterium, you have no authority to say the Church is in error, and to advance arguments tending to show that it is is heresy.

 

[USMC]

vern humphrey:

Because you haven’t answered mine.

Orthodox Christians are welcome to take communion in Catholic Churches.

Now, if you accept this, the argument is over.

If you reject it, you are rejecting the Magisterium.

If you reject the Magisterium, you have no authority to say the Church is in error, and to advance arguments tending to show that it is heresy.

I have already answer that question both objectively and subjectively. I will again post the objective answer:

USMC:

The Orthodox do not accept the office of the Pope. No one who rejects the office of the Pope can receive communion in the Catholic Church, because their rejection of that dogma constitutes heresy.

Maybe I realize your hesitancy. You see the contradiction between the truth (that the Orthodox are heretics, and no heretic can receive communion in the Catholic Church) and what is being promoted today (that some Orthodox are allowed to receive communion), and you fear to have to address this contradiction.

Therefore, you refuse to say one way or the other if you agree with the Catechism quote I quoted. You realize that if you agree with that very clear quote, you will be forced into a conclusion that is contrary to what many today are saying (even at high levels in the Church).

There are even those today (and I think you may know who I am referring to) who claim that the Orthodox do not need to accept the dogmas of Vatican I. That’s right! Certain churchmen today are saying that the Orthodox are not required to accept a truth that has been revealed by God.

Do you know who is teaching that? If you don’t the answer may surprise you.

 

[vern_humphrey]

USMC:

I have already answer that question both objectively and subjectively. I will again post the objective answer:

You reject the Magisterium and call them heretics?

USMC:

Maybe I realize your hesitancy. You see the contradiction between the truth (that the Orthodox are heretics, and no heretic can receive communion in the Catholic Church) and what is being promoted today (that some Orthodox are allowed to receive communion), and you fear to have to address this contradiction.

No. What I see is a guy who’s set himself up as above the Church and insists his interpretation is superior to the Magisterium.

That’s Protestantism by definition.

 

[USMC]

vern humphrey:

You reject the Magisterium and call them heretics?

Who is the “them” you are referring to. Do you deny that certain high-level churchmen are heretics? Surely not.

I reject nothing of the magesterium. In fact, I have quoted magesterial documents to make my point. When I did, you claimed that I was “fishing” for documentation.

Just curious, what do you think about this statement?

"It is forbidden that the Sacraments of the Church be ministered to heretics and schismatics, even if they ask for them and are in good faith, unless beforehand, rejecting their errors, they are reconciled with the Church".

What do you think about that quote?

 

[vern_humphrey]

USMC:

Who is the “them” you are referring to. Do you deny that certain high-level churchmen are heretics? Surely not.

The “them” in this statement was the Orthodox.

I deny that you have the authority to declare anyone a heretic.

USMC:

I reject nothing of the magesterium. In fact, I have quoted magesterial documents to make my point. When I did, you claimed that I was “fishing” for documentation.

That’s exactly what your’e doing. The Church welcomes the Orthodox to communion. You seek to refute the magisterium by coming up with “proof texts” that you say proves the Church is wrong.

USMC:

Just curious, what do you think about this statement?

"It is forbidden that the Sacraments of the Church be ministered to heretics and schismatics, even if they ask for them and are in good faith, unless beforehand, rejecting their errors, they are reconciled with the Church".

What do you think about that quote?

I think you’re not a bishop, and that the Church welcomes Orthodox Christians to communion.

 

[USMC]

vern humphrey:

The “them” in this statement was the Orthodox.

Very interesting. You were offended that I called a heretic a heretic. The Orthodox reject the Primacy of the Pope. That makes them heretics.

And my saying that is not based on my “opinion”, or my authority, but on the teaching authority of the Church.

Baltimore Catechism: 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).

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). (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cogtinum).

Those are two magesterial text I have quoted. And it is not as though I had to search to find them. They are both on my bookshelf. I could probably quote dozens more that say the same thing, since this is what the Church has always taught.

I also quoted this magesterial document: “It is forbidden that the Sacraments of the Church be ministered to heretics and schismatics, even if they ask for them and are in good faith, unless beforehand, rejecting their errors, they are reconciled with the Church”.

Here’s one more. This one comes from an infallible council:

*Fourth Lateran Council (1215), Constitution #3, on Heretics: Clerics should not, of course, give the sacraments of the Church to such pestilent people ** nor give them a Christian burial nor accept alms or offerings from them; if they do, let them be deprived of their office and not restored to it without a special indult of the apostolic see.

Orthodox Catholics are, objectively speaking, heretics, since they deny at least one dogma of the faith (Papal Primacy); and no heretic can receive communion, because heresy, being a mortal sin against the 1st commandment, cuts them off from the life of grace. Just as a person who commits a mortal sin against the 6th commandment is forbidden to receive communion (without first repenting), so too one who commits a mortal sin against the 1st commandment (such as denying the Papal Primacy) is forbidden from receiving communion without first repenting of their sin. That should be extremely obvious.*

 

[vern_humphrey]

USMC:

Very interesting. You were offended that I called a heretic a heretic.

No, I was pointing out the irony of someone who rejects the Magisterium calling someone else a heretic.

USMC:

The Orthodox reject the Primacy of the Pope. That makes them heretics.

The Catholic Church welcomes Orthodox Christians to communion.

You don’t like it, but that’s the way it is.

 

[USMC]

This will be the last post.
vern humphrey:

No, I was pointing out the irony of someone who rejects the Magisterium calling someone else a heretic.

I have quoted magesterial text after magesterial text to support what I m saying. What I have said is based on what those texts say; that is, they are based on the teaching of the magesterium.
Vern Humphrey:

The Catholic Church welcomes Orthodox Christians to communion.

You don’t like it, but that’s the way it is.

Actually, the Church does not welcome Orthodox to communion. Orthodox are heretics. What certain recent documents have said is that the Orthodox who are in good faith and properly disposed can receive communion. But an Orthodox who is in good faith is only an Orthodox outwardly. In other words, if there are any such people alive today (and there very well may be some), they are united to the soul of the Catholic Church, and therefore are actually Catholic, and not Orthodox.

About 10 posts ago, I was wanting to discuss this, as well as what those texts actually say, because they can easily be misunderstood; but that is not the direction our conversation went.

So, just so you know, Orthodox who believe what the Orthodox believe (i.e. those who reject the Primacy of the Pope or any other dogma), cannot receive communion in a Catholic Church. If there are any Orthodox who are in good faith and properly disposed (and who besides God could ever know that?) they are allowed - by these new texts - to receive communion in a Catholic Church. That is what is meant by the new texts.

 

[vern_humphrey]

USMC:

I have quoted magesterial text after magesterial text to support what I m saying. What I have said is based on what those texts say; that is, they are based on the teaching of the magesterium.

That’s an argument you don’t have the authroity to make. The Catholic Church welcomes Orthodox Christians to take communion, and that’s all there is to it.

 

[USMC]

USMC:

I have quoted magesterial text after magesterial text to support what I m saying. What I have said is based on what those texts say; that is, they are based on the teaching of the magesterium.

Vern Humphrey:

That’s an argument you don’t have the authroity to make. The Catholic Church welcomes Orthodox Christians to take communion, and that’s all there is to it.

First, you have provided absolutely no documentation from the magisterium to support what you are saying. You mentioned that a missal you once read said the Orthodox can receive communion, but that is all. And the Catechism quote you provided does not support what you are saying. In fact, it refutes it. The Catechism states that the Orthodox “lack” something that would “permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist”.

CCC:

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.

So the quote you provided actually supports what have been saying.

You have provided no supporting documentation to back up your claims. I have provided magisterial document after magisterial document to support what I am saying. Your only response to these magisterial documents is to say that I am disagreeing with the magisteriium. But how am I am disagreeing with the magisterium when I am quoting magisterial documents as my authority?

The magisterium is not limited to the current Pope and Bishops in union with him. The magesterium has existed for over 1900 years, and consists of every Church council and every encyclical written by every Pope.

A magisterial document does not become null and void 5 minutes after it is released; it does not become null and void 1 year after it is released; neither does it become null and void when the Pope who wrote it dies. The documents produced by the magisterium of the Church remain part of the magisterium for ever.

You have ignored the magisterial documents I provided, claiming that I am rejecting the magisterium. I think the reason you have done this is because you mistakenly believe that documents produced by previous Popes are no longer part of the magisterium. But if that was the case, the documents of John Paul II would now be null and void, since we now have a new Pope.

All you have done is said “the magesterium says this” but have backed up that statement with nothing except for one quote from the Catechism that contradicted what you are claiming. I have not pressed your for documentation, because I am aware of the documents you are referring to (but you have misunderstood them). The documents that were produced under a previous Pope, do not give a blanket authorization for the Orthodox to receive communion. Rather, they forbid them from receiving communion except in particular circumstances.

The following is the most recent document I am aware of that addresses the subject of intercommunion with the Orthodox.

John Paul II Ecclesia De Eucharista (45): While it is never legitimate to concelebrate in the absence of full communion, the same is not true with respect to the administration of the Eucharist under special circumstances, to individual persons belonging to Churches or Ecclesial Communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church. In this case, in fact, the intention is to meet a grave spiritual need for the eternal salvation of an individual believer, not to bring about an intercommunion which remains impossible until the visible bonds of ecclesial communion are fully re-established.. This was the approach taken by the Second Vatican Council when it gave guidelines for responding to Eastern Christians separated in good faith from the Catholic Church, who spontaneously ask to receive the Eucharist from a Catholic minister and are properly disposed”.

Notice that what John Paul II wrote is precisely what I wrote in my posts. There is no blanket authority for Orthodox to receive communion. Rather, an exception to the rule is allowed when “a grave spiritual need” is present, and when the particular person “is in good faith”. Exactly what I said.

continue…

 

[USMC]

continuation

Let me give an example of when this exception would apply: Let’s say that an Orthodox was dying and a Catholic priest went to see him. The Catholic priest explained to him that the Catholic Church is the true Church and that the Pope is the leader of that Church. The Orthodox – who was dying – was given the grace to see that what the priest said was true, and asked to receive the last Rites. Such a person would be in a “grave spiritual need” and “in good faith”. Thus, they would be allowed to receive the sacraments.

But, as John Paul II said in the above quote, this exception is only intended *“to meet a grave spiritual need for the eternal salvation of an individual believer, not to bring about an intercommunion which remains impossible until the visible bonds of ecclesial communion are fully re-established…

So, your repeated blanket statement that “The Catholic Church welcomes Orthodox Christians to take communion, and that’s all there is to it” is false. What you have been saying is precisely what John Paul II said was not the intenction.

“The intention", said John Paul II, "is to meet a grave spiritual need for the eternal salvation of an individual believer, not to bring about an intercommunion which remains impossible until the visible bonds of ecclesial communion are fully re-established..

There you have it. The Church does not give a blanket approval for Orthodox to receive communion. It only allows for it “under special circumstances, to individual persons” who are in “good faith”, and “meet a grave spiritual need”.*

 

[vern_humphrey]

USMC:

First, you have provided absolutely no documentation from the magisterium to support what you are saying. You mentioned that a missal you once read said the Orthodox can receive communion, but that is all. …

Go into any Catholic Church and pick up the missal. Look inside the front cover.

Now those missals are there by the authority of the Bishop. In every diocese. That’s the Magisterium in action.

Orthodox Christians are welcome to take communion in Catholic Churches.

 

[USMC]

vern humphrey:

Go into any Catholic Church and pick up the missal. Look inside the front cover.

Now those missals are there by the authority of the Bishop. In every diocese. That’s the Magisterium in action.

Orthodox Christians are welcome to take communion in Catholic Churches.

So, you reject all the magesterial quotes I have provided - even one from John Paul II written just 1 year ago - in favor of what is written inside of a missal? Surely you are not serious.

Whoever published the missal is one who is rejecting the magesterium of the Church. I have shown you what the Church teaches regarding intercommunion. If you wish to follow the wolves who teach otherwise, go right ahead. But now you are without excuse.

 

[vern_humphrey]

USMC:

So, you reject all the magesterial quotes I have provided - even one from John Paul II written just 1 year ago - in favor of what is written inside of a missal? Surely you are not serious.

No, I reject you. You are not a person with the authority to gainsay what the Church has decided.

USMC:

Whoever published the missal is one who is rejecting the magesterium of the Church. I have shown you what the Church teaches regarding intercommunion. If you wish to follow the wolves who teach otherwise, go right ahead. But now you are without excuse.

“Whoever published the missal” is the bishop of this diocese – they are there under his authority. The missal properly bears the appropriate imprimatuer, and appears in every other diocese I know of.

That’s the Magisterium in action.

 

[USMC]

vern humphrey:

No, I reject you. You are not a person with the authority to gainsay what the Church has decided.

“Whoever published the missal” is the bishop of this diocese – they are there under his authority. The missal properly bears the appropriate imprimatuer, and appears in every other diocese I know of.

That’s the Magisterium in action.

So, let me make sure I understand how the “magisterium in action” works. The Pope issues a document to correct abuses - such as the one where some were giving a blanket authorization for the Orthodox to receive communion. This magisterial document issued by the Pope is then ignored by the local Bishop and the abuse continues… with the wolfe-of-a-Bishop going so far in his dosobedience as to give his (worthless) imprimatur to a missal that is in direct contradiction to what the Church teaches, and what the Pope wrote.

It is then the laity’s duty to disobey the Pope and obey their disobedient Bishop. Interesting way for the magisterium to function.

But, of course, this is not the way the magisterium functions. A Bishop who disobeys the Pope has no authority on that matter, because authority descends from the top down. If he teaches contrary to a lawful descision of the Pope, his “teaching” on that matter is null, and should not be obeyed. Those who obey such a one are the “blind following the blind” that Our Lord spoke of.

In the good old days, such Bishops would be deprived of their office. Today, however, they are usually awarded by being promoted to Cardinal. So much for the “great renewal” of today.

And the truly sad part is not that these Bishops will be tormented for all eternity in hell, for they rightly deserve such a punishment. The sad part is the innocent victims: the Catholics who have to suffer the actions of these wolves, who become confused and end up loosing the faith. That is really the sad part.