Take communion only if

[crazzeto]

@Lilym

We can even disagree with eachother with regards to matter of faith and scripture interpretation. What holds us together is loyalty to Rome, and our doctrinal beliefs. Out side of that, with the greatest of charity we’re free to debate openly the nature of God. The Church doesn’t go through the bible line for line defining what you have to believe.

 

[LilyM]

@Lilym

We can even disagree with eachother with regards to matter of faith and scripture interpretation. What holds us together is loyalty to Rome, and our doctrinal beliefs. Out side of that, with the greatest of charity we’re free to debate openly the nature of God. The Church doesn’t go through the bible line for line defining what you have to believe.

How many hundreds of thousands of pages of Catechisms and Papal Encyclicals and Council teachings are out there expounding the many doctrines that Catholics are obliged to adhere to? And citing and interpreting scripture in reference to those required beliefs? And moreover often doing so in such a way that doesn’t admit of alternative interpretations of the cited scriptures?

Some parts of scripture we’re free to interpret as we wish, sure, but many we can’t.

We can’t start saying that the verse about Joseph not knowing Mary until Jesus was born means that they DID have sexual relations afterwards, for example. It can’t mean anything other than that they never had sex.

Or that references to Jesus’ ‘brothers’ meant biological siblings begotten by Mary. It can’t mean anything other than that these were other relatives of Jesus of a more remote connection.

Or that Jesus’ reference to the Father and He being one was only metaphorical and didn’t mean that He was really and truly God. It can have only one meaning - the literal one.

Or that His references to the Eucharist being His body and blood are to be taken as meaning anything other than that transubstantiation. They too must be interpreted literally.

Outside of doctrine we can perhaps disagree, yes, on some points. Closed communion is a matter of doctrine - to do with what the Church teaches us that communion is and means and signifies and so a longstanding teaching on a matter of faith to be definitively held by all the faithful. Just as much so as the doctrine of transubstantiation.

And while we can disagree with certain disciplines, we certainly cannot disobey them nor advise others to do so.

 

[Lutheranteach]

The word catholic means UNIVERSAL so the catholic church is for everybody. A lot of people do not except the teachings of the real presents of the body and blood of Christ so it is there own fault for not taking it. The forgiveness of sins and the body and blood of Christ are for every one. It is just up to them to find the truth.

I think it’s pretty much accepted that:

catholic= universal
Catholic= Roman Catholic Church

 

[crazzeto]

How many hundreds of thousands of pages of Catechisms and Papal Encyclicals and Council teachings are out there expounding the many doctrines that Catholics are obliged to adhere to? And citing and interpreting scripture in reference to those required beliefs? And moreover often doing so in such a way that doesn’t admit of alternative interpretations of the cited scriptures?

Some parts of scripture we’re free to interpret as we wish, sure, but many we can’t.

We can’t start saying that the verse about Joseph not knowing Mary until Jesus was born means that they DID have sexual relations afterwards, for example. It can’t mean anything other than that they never had sex.

Or that references to Jesus’ ‘brothers’ meant biological siblings begotten by Mary. It can’t mean anything other than that these were other relatives of Jesus of a more remote connection.

Or that Jesus’ reference to the Father and He being one was only metaphorical and didn’t mean that He was really and truly God. It can have only one meaning - the literal one.

Or that His references to the Eucharist being His body and blood are to be taken as meaning anything other than that transubstantiation. They too must be interpreted literally.

Outside of doctrine we can perhaps disagree, yes, on some points. Closed communion is a matter of doctrine - to do with what the Church teaches us that communion is and means and signifies and so a longstanding teaching on a matter of faith to be definitively held by all the faithful. Just as much so as the doctrine of transubstantiation.

And while we can disagree with certain disciplines, we certainly cannot disobey them nor advise others to do so.

Lilym,

I think your confusing anything ever written as doctrinal teaching. Not aboslutly everything ever written is a doctrinal teaching, and even when there are doctrinal teachings the Church doesn’t disallow you from believing that a particular scripture used in proving a doctrinal teaching can’t possibly have more meanings. Some times a scripture verse can have a meaning particular to you, and the Church isn’t going to tell you you’re wrong for feeling that way. Point in fact, the church encourages this belief and exhorts us as Christians to discover these meanings through Lectio-divina.

I think we Catholics are quite a bit freer with the scriptures than you seem to believe we are. Again, we are one in our loyalty to Rome, our fiat to Christ and our adherance to doctrine.

 

[crazzeto]

I think it’s pretty much accepted that:

catholic= universal
Catholic= Roman Catholic Church

I’m sure Byzantine Catholics take offence to what you just posted.

 

[jmcrae]

I think it’s pretty much accepted that:

catholic= universal
Catholic= Roman Catholic Church

The Universal Church has its headquarters in Rome, and is led here on earth by Peter’s successor, known popularly as the Pope.

 

[CMatt25]

The Universal Church has its headquarters in Rome, and is led here on earth by Peter’s successor, known popularly as the Pope.

Except in a sense it’s not quite universal when you have bishops in one country saying you must attend Mass on Nov 1 to be in obedience and avoid mortal sin but in another country no, it’s fine not to attend Mass on that day.

 

[jmcrae]

Except in a sense it’s not quite universal when you have bishops in one country saying you must attend Mass on Nov 1 to be in obedience and avoid mortal sin but in another country no, fine to not attend Mass on that day.

You seem very hung up on this. If the circumstances in one country are such that it is more difficult for people to get the day off to come to Mass, then why shouldn’t the Bishops of that country take their own situation into account, when deciding on the Holy Days of Obligation for that country? It is the obedience to our Bishops that is required, and it is for disobedience to our Bishops that we would go to Hell; not for going or not going to the particular Mass on that particular day.

If your Bishop tells you, as a matter of discipline, to stand on your head and count to five, and you refuse to do it because some other guy was not told to do that, you would also go to Hell - not for not standing on your head, specifically, but for the disobedience.

 

[RobBahoura]

Hi,
The word Catholic means Universal. The Catholic Church is for everyone and it is up to them to find that Jesus is in the bread and blood. And they need come and learn and take the body and blood of Christ. The Catholic church turns away from no ONE and it is up to them to find the true home.

John 6:35,41,48,51 - Jesus says four times “I AM the bread from heaven.” It is He, Himself, the eternal bread from heaven.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Except in a sense it’s not quite universal when you have bishops in one country saying you must attend Mass on Nov 1 to be in obedience and avoid the mortal sin but in another country no, fine to not attend Mass on that day.

Hon, with respect, you are completely missing the whole point of what a holy day of obligation is, and what exactly the ‘mortal sin’ involved is.

Different countries, and indeed different bishops in a country, can ‘choose’ from the list of holy days that is held as the ‘norm’ by the church–just as, in the U.S., the bishops can give us an indult from the NORM of the Church–which is to abstain from meat on every Friday, in and out of Lent. An indult is a permission to make a specific ‘change’ for good reasons as PASTORALLY DETERMINED by the bishops.

So for example in my former diocese (Burlington VT) the holy day of obligation is Ascension THURSDAY. And in my current diocese (Richmond VA) the holy day has been transferred by the bishop to the following SUNDAY.

If I were in Vermont, I would have to go to Mass on Thursday of next week. Here–I do not. I may go on the Sunday and meet the "Thursday obligation’.

But the whole POINT of the holy day is not so much the day itself. Come on, we do not KNOW that Jesus was born on December 25 or that Mary was assumed on August 15. It is not the DAY which is important per se (the ‘exact’ day) but the Mass or the intention thereof, AND not every single country has the ‘intention’ for every single ‘normative’ holy day. The bishops have the POWER as PASTORS to choose what their ‘flock’ can and should focus on, and Rome gives them that power because Rome trusts the bishops to be, well, bishops. Leaders.

The point is, what your bishops decide you are ‘bound to’. It is the DISOBEDIENCE TO LAWFUL AUTHORITY which is the problem, not the LOCATION OF THE PERSON.

I simply don’t know how to make clearer what seems absolutely crystal to me-- that bishops have a lawful authority to make pastoral decisions for their flock, and that if you are a member of that flock, you are under the authority.

Now, you’ll say, But Tantum, what if you go visit your poor auld mither next week in Vermont? Won’t you have to go to Mass on Thursday up there even if you wouldn’t down in old Virginny? Well, yes, I would. Because as a GUEST in the diocese I am bound by that bishop’s rule. So again, it is not the place per se, it is the authority of the bishop where I happen to be at the time. It is not mortal sin because of PLACE but because of the AUTHORITY OF THE BISHOP which should not be defied.

 

[CMatt25]

I am very hung up on this. Not because I do not understand the obedience factor. But because it just seems obvious bishops worldwide in a church claiming to be the ONE should be on the same page when it comes to the works we must do **to **obey. I honestly Tantum, did not know it can even vary state by state, let alone country to country. I find that even more astonishing.

Jmcrae, so a bishop determines it is easier for Americans to get off work on Nov 1 than it is for Canadians?

God bless you both and peace.

 

[crazzeto]

I am very hung up on this. Not because I do not understand the obedience factor. But because it just seems obvious bishops worldwide in a church claiming to be the ONE should be on the same page when it comes to the works we must do **to **obey. I honestly Tantum, did not know it can even vary state by state, let alone country to country. I find that even more astonishing.

Jmcrae, so a bishop determines it is easier for Americans to get off work on Nov 1 than it is for Canadians?

God bless you both and peace.

What you’re talking about is micromanaging an entire church out of the vatican… That doesn’t work in real life, you can see how effective this kind of policy is in the form of communist russia.

The Church is wise enough to know that local diocese need a certain amount of flexability to better serve the needs of the lay faithful. As a Catholic who grew up traveling long distances and going to mass in different nations I can honestly say, this wisdom is much appriciated.

 

[jmcrae]

Jmcrae, so a bishop determines it is easier for Americans to get off work on Nov 1 than it is for Canadians?

Because Canadians already get a day off to remember the dead on November 11th. As far as I know, Americans don’t take November 11th as a national holiday - also, they don’t see it as a day to remember the dead - I think they call it “Veteran’s Day” and consider it a day to say “Thank you” to those who survived the war, so even if it’s a holiday, there isn’t any duplication.

 

[CMatt25]

Because Canadians already get a day off to remember the dead on November 11th. As far as I know, Americans don’t take November 11th as a national holiday - also, they don’t see it as a day to remember the dead - I think they call it “Veteran’s Day” and consider it a day to say “Thank you” to those who survived the war, so even if it’s a holiday, there isn’t any duplication.

Jmcrae, maybe then the bishops should order Canadians to go to Mass on Nov 11 to obey. Peace.

 

[jmcrae]

Jmcrae, maybe then the bishops should order Canadians to go to Mass on Nov 11 to obey. Peace.

That would be up to them, of course - if they did, I’d go to Mass instead of to the Remembrance Day observances.