Take communion only if

[CDNowak]

CDNowak; Victorious, Adrift,

So even if after informing oneself thru Scripture, the guidance of Church authorities, and prayerful reflection on one’s experience, someone 's conscience is still led to dissent on something, you appear to be saying one is forced to think and do things not in accordance with their conscience in order to be considered to have an informed good conscience.

The question is how do we reconcile seemingly conflicting statements on the matter after all, my post was also a quote from the Catechism?

The answer lies in that we must follow our conscience and it must be properly formed (in accord with Church teaching, if we are to call ourselves Catholics). It would be intellectually dishonest to say “I am a Catholic, but…”.

Based on your responses through the course of the thread I am not sure that you understand Church teaching as well as you think you do (according to your link, either an erroneous or uninformed conscience, according to moral theology this could well be considered a doubtful conscience on which one cannot act). The conscience that dissents from Church teaching, ought to require a response based on that fact (either re-examination of itself and Church teaching, or re-identifying self). That a conscience finds no contradiction between dissent and claiming to be Catholic is a sign of defect in the conscience.

Now before you get worked up, if consider ourselves moral objectivists and not relativists in any meaningful sense then there must be a standard for a well formed (or correct) conscience. If we consider ourselves Catholics than that includes the matters of faith (ie the necessity of the Sacraments, the requirements for them) and of submission to the discipline of our Particular Church (Latin, presumably).

I would heartily urge you to discuss your issues with the Sacraments with your priest, to read the Catechism, the Church Fathers, the Summa, the precepts of the Church, in other words everything that you can to explain the Church teaching on these matters (including conscience), and then act accordingly. If your conscience still disagrees with the Church teaching on Penance, in particular, you need to seriously reconsider your self-identification.

 

[CMatt25]

The question is how do we reconcile seemingly conflicting statements on the matter after all, my post was also a quote from the Catechism?

The answer lies in that we must follow our conscience and it must be properly formed (in accord with Church teaching, if we are to call ourselves Catholics). It would be intellectually dishonest to say “I am a Catholic, but…”.

(according to your link, either an erroneous or uninformed conscience, according to moral theology this could well be considered a doubtful conscience on which one cannot act). The conscience that dissents from Church teaching, ought to require a response based on that fact (either re-examination of itself and Church teaching, or re-identifying self). That a conscience finds no contradiction between dissent and claiming to be Catholic is a sign of defect in the conscience.

Now before you get worked up, if consider ourselves moral objectivists and not relativists in any meaningful sense then there must be a standard for a well formed (or correct) conscience. If we consider ourselves Catholics than that includes the matters of faith (ie the necessity of the Sacraments, the requirements for them) and of submission to the discipline of our Particular Church (Latin, presumably).

If your conscience still disagrees with the Church teaching on Penance, in particular, you need to seriously reconsider your self-identification.

You are correct regarding conflicts. As also from the earlier link…

Should We Always Follow our Conscience?
The answer is ‘yes’ if we are speaking about an informed or educated conscience. For a Catholic, conscience is formed by scripture, the Church’s magesterium and prayerful reflection on one’s experience.

What if we make a moral decision that is in conflict with church teaching?
Sometimes a good and sincere Catholic may find him/herself in conflict with some moral teaching of the church… We can probably safely say that dissent is responsible if: We generally respect the magesterium (the official teaching of the church.) If we have made a reasonable effort to inform our conscience on a particular issue by checking to see what scripture and the church’s magesterium has to say about a particular issue.If we brought the issue before God in prayer and sought the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

I am not worked up. Nor does the Church say I need to reconsider my identification…

1. **It remains clear, in any event, that the sacramental bond of belonging to the Body of Christ that is the Church, conferred by the baptismal character, is an ontological and permanent bond which is not lost by reason of any act **or fact of defection.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20060313_actus-formalis_en.html

God bless and peace.

 

[LilyM]

You are correct regarding conflicts. As also from the earlier link…

Should We Always Follow our Conscience?
The answer is ‘yes’ if we are speaking about an informed or educated conscience. For a Catholic, conscience is formed by scripture, the Church’s magesterium and prayerful reflection on one’s experience.

What if we make a moral decision that is in conflict with church teaching?
Sometimes a good and sincere Catholic may find him/herself in conflict with some moral teaching of the church… We can probably safely say that dissent is responsible if: We generally respect the magesterium (the official teaching of the church.) If we have made a reasonable effort to inform our conscience on a particular issue by checking to see what scripture and the church’s magesterium has to say about a particular issue.If we brought the issue before God in prayer and sought the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

I am not worked up. Nor does the Church say I need to reconsider my identification…

1. **It remains clear, in any event, that the sacramental bond of belonging to the Body of Christ that is the Church, conferred by the baptismal character, is an ontological and permanent bond which is not lost by reason of any act **or fact of defection.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20060313_actus-formalis_en.html

God bless and peace.

You fail to take into account that a ‘good and sincere’ Catholic or Christian can be good and sincerely wrong and in deep deep error. Many are, hence the many disagreements we have with each other.

Church teaching on the matter of autonomy of conscience from the CCC:

1792 Ignor,ance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

So, firstly it is a mistake to assert that conscience is autonomous (ie independent of external authority, including the authority of the Church).

Secondly - rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching can be at the source of errors in judgement and moral conduct?

Interesting - certainly sounds like the Church is advocating the opposite of your idea that the individual conscience is king. On the contrary, I’d love you to show me where the CCC says GOOD - of any kind - can possibly spring from rejection of the Church’s authority or her teaching!

 

[Anneymay]

Why is it that the Catholic church makes a difference of the severity of sin such as mortal v. venial? Jesus teaches that all sin is the same and there there is not sin greater than another.

If “something” is impeding you from receiving Holy Communion, then that “something” has to (and can be) confessed in the Confessional, if you are a Catholic. That was my meaning. Obviously, God forgives us of our venial sins every time we come to Mass and every time we pray.

Is it your ambition to be less than devout?

 

[Victorious]

Why is it that the Catholic church makes a difference of the severity of sin such as mortal v. venial? Jesus teaches that all sin is the same and there there is not sin greater than another.

1 John 5:16-17:

If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Why is it that the Catholic church makes a difference of the severity of sin such as mortal v. venial? Jesus teaches that all sin is the same and there there is not sin greater than another.

Where? And how do you reconcile your unsubstantiated claim with St. John who teaches that “there is a sin which is mortal, and a sin which is not mortal”? St. John seems to be pretty clear that there are mortal and not-mortal (i.e. venial) sins, and that is Scripture.

And I don’t recall Jesus saying to go out and baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Spirit, and be sure you have your KJV because that is the ‘only’ teaching of His and it’s ‘self-interpreting’. Quite the contrary!

Why gee, hon, even your fellow Protestants don’t agree on the “Scripture alone” that they profess.

Some say infant baptism is scriptural, others not.
Some say baptism is salvific, others not.
Some say the Eucharist is symbolic, others not.
Some say women may be ministers, others not.
Some say the Bible is ‘literal’, others not.

If “Scripture” is sufficient, why do no two Protestant faiths agree on Scripture 100%? Shouldn’t they if it is inerrant and capable of being understood without any ‘authority’ to interpret? Does the Holy Spirit teach AGAINST Himself if two groups can hold absolutely opposite positions on a subject with both claiming that their interpretation is SCRIPTURAL???

 

[Anneymay]

Tradition when used in its proper place is a good thing and tends to give us roots of stability. However, to use tradition instead of or partly from the scripture only leads to confusion. I really have learned that the only stable thing on this earth is our Lord and what He says. Traditions change in order to fit the times. God’s word stays solid.

 

[Anneymay]

Matt,
It isn’t that I don’t like what I am being told. Your reference to Peter being head of the church I get that. What I don’t get is that Peter et all including all the followers of Christ in the public were Jewish calling themselves Christian as followers of Jesus’ teaching and their belief that He was the messiah.
What I don’t get is that the Christian church wasn’t given the name until Constantine named it Catholic (meaning universal) and that it was the religion of his empire because in those days the kings picked like a 'state" religion and expected everyone to follow it. In those days was the roman empire was the world and so the renamed Christian church was the “only” true religion in Constanine’s world. He kept some of the Jewish traditions, the robes, and so on, so as to not upset the Jewish high priests and they in turn would keep the jewish public in check.
There weren’t any Catholics at the last supper either, there were christians there. Constantine didn’t come along until the third century to rename the church to fit his thoughts. So you see, it is not that I don’t like the answers. It is that there hasn’t been one.

It isn’t that your question isn’t answered. You don’t like the answer. Jesus gave the Keys to heaven to Peter and his successors. Jesus gave this power because there wouldn’t be a book big enough to cover all the a human can think of doing or not doing. That is what there needs to be an infallible source. That source that Jesus established was the Church. It is the authority of the Church granted by Jesus that allows the Church to say who is to receive the Eucharist. The Church basis it on scripture.

The Church gives us guidelines that help us know who is worthy.
You must be in the state of grace
You must be in union with the Church hence the name “Communion”.
Sad is rejecting the authority that Jesus gave the Church.

 

[crazzeto]

Tradition when used in its proper place is a good thing and tends to give us roots of stability. However, to use tradition instead of or partly from the scripture only leads to confusion. I really have learned that the only stable thing on this earth is our Lord and what He says. Traditions change in order to fit the times. God’s word stays solid.

Anney,

Not Apistolic Traditions, like the Bible for instance… At least in the Orthodox World it hasn’t changed at all anyway.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Anney, Constantine was not the first to call the Church Catholic. Where did you ever read or hear that? The Church was first called Catholic at the very beginning of the 2nd century AD, that is, at least 200 years before Constantine. It was called that in a letter of St. Ignatius. You can Google it. If you’re looking at the Church from a false historical perspective to begin with by imagining that it only got called (or taken over) by ‘Catholics’ with Constantine you’re already barking up the wrong tree.

 

[ProVobis]

The Church was first called Catholic at the very beginning of the 2nd century AD, that is, at least 200 years before Constantine.

There was no modern English in the 2nd century, so it must have been called something else.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Katholicos. The Greek word means Catholic, i.e. universal.

Heck, Constantine spoke Latin so even HE didn’t say Catholic Church, right? It would have been something like “ecclesia catholica.”

Here is something for Anney.

Back in say 1765, there were a lot of people living in places like Massachusetts, Virginia, Georgia, and even some out in places whose names have now ceased to exist. These people were called colonists. Some were citizens of Great Brittain, some were citizens of Spain, some of France, some of Germany (or since Germany would not be unified until 1871 or so, from German city-states like the Palatine), etc. So you would be perhaps a 2nd or 3rd generation descendant from your ancestor who moved to Pennsylvania from Liverpool. Or perhaps you were a newly arrived immigrant from the Netherlands.

10 years later, the country was in revolt (although some Loyalists remained, later fleeing to Canada or other parts). The people declared themselves to be citizens of the United States. Of course, to King George III, they were ‘rebellious colonists.’

10 years LATER, the country had successful declared and won independence.

Now, Anney, would you say that the people living in 1765 were somehow completely DIFFERENT from the people living in 1785? Heck, many of them had ‘lived through’ the conflict.

Was Thomas Jefferson in 1785 a completely different person from the Jefferson he was in 1765, simply because an EXTERNAL NAME CHANGE was imposed upon the place where he LIVED? Because he changed from simply being a citizen of the King of Britain in the commonwealth of Virginia to a citizen of the United States in the commonwealth of Virginia? The name changed, but the people living in 1785 were the same as they were in 1765 when they were all living under King George III.

So what does it matter if a group of persons were called one name (the way) in AD 40, but the SAME PEOPLE and their descendents, teaching the SAME THINGS, decided to change the name of their group 60 years later?

Or are you trying to tell me that the ‘original Christians’ from Christ’s time and their descendents died out? Or were ‘supplanted’ by Catholics? Better have some proof of that. . .I have never seen any such. . .

 

[jmcrae]

Why is it that the Catholic church makes a difference of the severity of sin such as mortal v. venial? Jesus teaches that all sin is the same and there there is not sin greater than another.

Where does Jesus teach this? I find in the Sermon on the Mount that Jesus categorizes different sins according to kind and severity, and takes several pages to do so.

 

[CMatt25]

Matt,
It isn’t that I don’t like what I am being told. Your reference to Peter being head of the church I get that. What I don’t get is that Peter et all including all the followers of Christ in the public were Jewish calling themselves Christian as followers of Jesus’ teaching and their belief that He was the messiah.
What I don’t get is that the Christian church wasn’t given the name until Constantine named it Catholic (meaning universal) and that it was the religion of his empire because in those days the kings picked like a 'state" religion and expected everyone to follow it. In those days was the roman empire was the world and so the renamed Christian church was the “only” true religion in Constanine’s world. He kept some of the Jewish traditions, the robes, and so on, so as to not upset the Jewish high priests and they in turn would keep the jewish public in check.
There weren’t any Catholics at the last supper either, there were christians there. Constantine didn’t come along until the third century to rename the church to fit his thoughts. So you see, it is not that I don’t like the answers. It is that there hasn’t been one.

Anney I don’t think you meant to address this to me. Adrift I’m sure is a wonderful person but I still doubt he or she wants to be called Matt.

 

[jmcrae]

It isn’t that I don’t like what I am being told. Your reference to Peter being head of the church I get that. What I don’t get is that Peter et all including all the followers of Christ in the public were Jewish calling themselves Christian as followers of Jesus’ teaching and their belief that He was the messiah.

The Disciples were the first Catholics, with Peter being the first Pope of the Catholic Church. The name “Catholic” comes from Jesus’ commandment to Peter and the others, to “go forth into* all the world* (that is to say, into the “katholikos” which is the word from which we get the word “Catholic”) baptizing them and teaching them everything that I have told you.”

 

[CMatt25]

You fail to take into account that a ‘good and sincere’ Catholic or Christian can be good and sincerely wrong and in deep deep error. Many are, hence the many disagreements we have with each other.

Church teaching on the matter of autonomy of conscience from the CCC:

1792 Ignor,ance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

So, firstly it is a mistake to assert that conscience is autonomous (ie independent of external authority, including the authority of the Church).

Secondly - rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching can be at the source of errors in judgement and moral conduct?

Interesting - certainly sounds like the Church is advocating the opposite of your idea that the individual conscience is king. On the contrary, I’d love you to show me where the CCC says GOOD - of any kind - can possibly spring from rejection of the Church’s authority or her teaching!

CAN be but perhaps not always is. If it sounds like the Church is advocating the opposite to you, then the many quotes I earlier presented from CCC 1790 and other Church authorities sound to me like they advocate the opposite of what in your view the Church is advocating. Everything appears not to be black and white. God bless and peace.

 

[ProVobis]

Katholicos. The Greek word means Catholic, i.e. universal.

That’s better.

Now, Anney, would you say that the people living in 1765 were somehow completely DIFFERENT from the people living in 1785? Heck, many of them had ‘lived through’ the conflict.

Was Thomas Jefferson in 1785 a completely different person from the Jefferson he was in 1765, simply because an EXTERNAL NAME CHANGE was imposed upon the place where he LIVED? Because he changed from simply being a citizen of the King of Britain in the commonwealth of Virginia to a citizen of the United States in the commonwealth of Virginia? The name changed, but the people living in 1785 were the same as they were in 1765 when they were all living under King George III.

So what does it matter if a group of persons were called one name (the way) in AD 40, but the SAME PEOPLE and their descendents, teaching the SAME THINGS, decided to change the name of their group 60 years later?

Good analogy.

 

[LilyM]

CAN be but perhaps not always is. If it sounds like the Church is advocating the opposite to you, then the many quotes I earlier presented from CCC 1790 and other Church authorities sound to me like they advocate the opposite of what in your view the Church is advocating. Everything appears not to be black and white. God bless and peace.

Point is you were saying, in essence, that it was impossible for the individual conscience to be in error if one studied and prayed sufficiently, yet nonetheless disagreed with Church teaching.

The CCC is saying that that persistence in disagreement with Church teaching ITSELF can lead to error - in other words the disagreement isn’t automatically justified or OK based upon the fact that you prayed and studied first, no matter how long or how deeply you may have done so.

Again, the Catechism says that good Catholics might disagree with Church teaching. It neither says that they are justified in doing so nor that they remain free from error if they persist in doing so.

 

[CMatt25]

Point is you were saying, in essence, that it was impossible for the individual conscience to be in error if one studied and prayed sufficiently, yet nonetheless disagreed with Church teaching.

The CCC is saying that that persistence in disagreement with Church teaching ITSELF can lead to error - in other words the disagreement isn’t automatically justified or OK based upon the fact that you prayed and studied first, no matter how long or how deeply you may have done so.

Again, the Catechism says that good Catholics might disagree with Church teaching. It neither says that they are justified in doing so nor that they remain free from error if they persist in doing so.

Lily, in essence we seem to agree. Good Catholics can disagree and can be justified. And from the words of catechism I posted to the 4th Lateran Council to a saint, cardinals, bishops, a pope and future pope, they seemed to agree. And even go further in pleading for us to follow our consciences. You can have the last word if you wish. But God bless you abundantly my Catholic sister in Christ and in your walk with Him may His peace and Spirit guide and be with you always.

 

[LilyM]

Lily, in essence we seem to agree. Good Catholics can disagree and can be justified. And from the words of catechism I posted to the 4th Lateran Council to a saint, cardinals, bishops, a pope and future pope, they seemed to agree. And even go further in pleading for us to follow our consciences. You can have the last word if you wish. But God bless you abundantly my Catholic sister in Christ and in your walk with Him may His peace and Spirit guide and be with you always.

Good Catholics can certainly disagree with each other - on where to live, what football team to support. They can even disagree with each other to an extent on matters of discipline - whether they like the OF better than the TLM or the like. Or on matters where Church teaching is unclear.What they canNOT do is disobey Church discipline or canon without specific dispensation. Nor can they dissent in any particular from settled and authoritative Church teaching. Since you are doing one or the other (depending on whether you view closed communion as a discipline of the Church or a teaching), then I am afraid you have deeply misunderstood me if you think we agree.

Good Catholics cannot disagree with the Magisterium of the Church on Church teaching any more than they can disagree with Christ on any of HIS teachings, for Christ teaches us THROUGH the Church.

Church teaching (which is Christ’s teaching - the Church is His body and a body cannot teach against its head!) is and has been patently clear that communion can only be received by those who have worthily prepared themselves (ie are in a state of grace). AND who properly discern the body and blood. Meaning that they are members of the Church in good standing and do not dissent.

One who properly discerns the Body and Blood will discern that the Church itself IS Christ’s body, and that dissent from its teachings is dissent from HIS teachings. Find me any official Church teaching that states that non-Catholic Christians or non-Christians may receive Communion in the Catholic church, excepting some very limited circumstances if they were in danger of death. This has long been very settled teaching, pronounced from the highest and most authoritative levels of the Church, with no option for dissent from it.

Good Catholics cannot disobey a discipline nor dissent from a Church teaching and not seriously jeopardise their souls. And they certainly cannot do either and remain good Catholics, assuming they were so before they disagreed. Read the Catechism sections on the Magisterium and its authority and you’ll see what I mean. Even in matters of discipline we are to assent and obey!

For one who rejects the authority of the Church in any particular, rejects the authority and teaching of the Apostles whose successors our Popes and Bishops. And what did Christ say to the Apostles (and through them their successors)? ‘Who rejects you rejects Me’.