Rome and intercommunion

[mardukm]

Dear Picky

but the canon does not suggest that the CC requires to recognise extenuating circumstances in order for its priests to give communion to PNCC members (the situation Kliska was describing) as I understand it.

Here is what Gary quoted (I highlighted the pertinent portion):
§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.
“Properly disposed” is a loaded term. It generally means no sin on one’s conscience. A non-Catholic from an Apostolic Church is expected to follow the rules of their own Church regarding pastoral provisions. I am not aware that any Church permits pastoral provision for its members under any circumstance aside from extenuating ones. If the rule of the other Church is that pastoral provision is allowed only under extenuating circumstances, and its member knowingly tries to receive Catholic Eucharist apart from those conditions, then such a person would be sinning, and therefore should not approach the Catholic Eucharist.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[GKC]

That’s a good point, the PNCC aren’t protestant (unlike Lutherans and Anglicans who are “catholic *and *protestant” … or “catholic and Protestant” ).

Or Catholic and not in communion with the Holy See.

GKC

 

[Peter_J]

Or Catholic and not in communion with the Holy See.

GKC

Canic withs?

 

[Picky_Picky]

Dear Picky

….

“Properly disposed” is a loaded term. It generally means no sin on one’s conscience. A non-Catholic from an Apostolic Church is expected to follow the rules of their own Church regarding pastoral provisions. I am not aware that any Church permits pastoral provision for its members under any circumstance aside from extenuating ones. If the rule of the other Church is that pastoral provision is allowed only under extenuating circumstances, and its member knowingly tries to receive Catholic Eucharist apart from those conditions, then such a person would be sinning, and therefore should not approach the Catholic Eucharist.

Blessings,
Marduk

Right I understand: there is an expectation that there are extenuating circumstances from the point of view of the PNCC, and if there are not then the would-be communicant would not be properly disposed. I see.

 

[GKC]

Canic withs?

I’m having to strain to interpret it. Which is a heck of a burden for an elderly man.

GKC

 

[GKC]

i’m having to strain to interpret it. Which is a heck of a burden for an elderly man.

Gkc

oic.

Gkc

 

[concretecamper]

But that is exactly the point; it isn’t enough to profess faith in Jesus, the gospel, the real presence, Apostolic succession, etc… I still wouldn’t be allowed to join the RCC/ECC:

It is more about walking the walk and just not talking the talk. If you are willing to lay prostrate in front of a consecrated host and adore the One True God you would be walking the walk and if you could do that, nothing could keep you from turning Catholic and receive Him in theEucharist. So,said in the utmost charity, stop complain and acting confused about why Rome prohibits you from receiving the Eucharist.

 

[Kliska]

It is more about walking the walk and just not talking the talk. If you are willing to lay prostrate in front of a consecrated host and adore the One True God you would be walking the walk and if you could do that, nothing could keep you from turning Catholic and receive Him in theEucharist. So,said in the utmost charity, stop complain and acting confused about why Rome prohibits you from receiving the Eucharist.

I think you misunderstand; the confusion doesn’t come in about the Eucharist because that is about Christ and that is the blatant way the RCC/ECC teaches the idea of transubstantiation. Nor am I complaining. What I am doing is attempting to show from a completely outside perspective, aspects of the faith that may impede ecumenism, as well as “conversion” to Catholicism. It’s about the strange situation of someone being denied into communion by one church, welcomed by another, and then welcomed by the first in light of being welcomed by the second.

Do I follow it? Yes. Do I understand it? On some level. Do I agree with it? No. And that’s why it’s an interesting discussion on a discussion board.

 

[Peter_J]

I think you misunderstand; the confusion doesn’t come in about the Eucharist because that is about Christ and that is the blatant way the RCC/ECC teaches the idea of transubstantiation. Nor am I complaining. What I am doing is attempting to show from a completely outside perspective, aspects of the faith that may impede ecumenism, as well as “conversion” to Catholicism. It’s about the strange situation of **someone being denied into communion by one church, welcomed by another, and then welcomed by the first in light of being welcomed by the second.
**

This is what I was talking about earlier: if you put in the verb “welcomed” in all those places, you obscure b/c there’s two completely different verbs that belong there: if someone *joins *the PNCC, then he/she would be admitted to communion by a Catholic priest. (Likewise, if someone *joins *the Roman Communion, then he/she would be admitted to communion by a PNCC priest.)

 

[Kliska]

This is what I was talking about earlier: if you put in the verb “welcomed” in all those places, you obscure b/c there’s two completely different verbs that belong there: if someone *joins *the PNCC, then he/she would be admitted to communion by a Catholic priest. (Likewise, if someone *joins *the Roman Communion, then he/she would be admitted to communion by a PNCC priest.)

Yes, technically true. But, do you see what I’m getting at from a community/Body of Christ perspective? Who do we recognize as being part of the body with which we can commune.