P
Peter_J
Guest
I don’t believe that’s entirely accurate – although I can certainly see how you’d think that, since we do consider them dogmas. (See also the OP of the Cardinal Newman vindicated (re Vatican I)? thread.)
- Status
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
Arguing that we MUST all agree about things which we clearly MUSTN’T all agree, other than being the perfect description of a inherent contradiction
, is rather like saying that Adam and Eve MUST have been convinced not to futz with the fruit! That didn’t happen, and is therefore not the truth.Reality is truth, and the reality is that free will has allowed us to disagree about things that SHOULD be universally agreed to
We all SHOULD agree with the truth of God as told to us BY God, but God has “arranged” it such that we don’t actually have to, which means only “we haven’t”, being the actuality, but when God says we SHOULD do something we can’t very well not TRY to do what we should, now should we?
That would be to be blatantly self-contradictory, which ain’t very “Godlike” is it?
A
a_mirror_dimly
Guest
Interesting, that brings up as many questions as answers for me. First of all, how does this square with the fact that non-Catholic Christians in general are asked not to partake of the Eucharist? If it is possible to receive the Eucharist without accepting all teachings of the Catholic Church, how can one know whether that is acceptable?
I ask that second question not from the frame of mind of “how much can I get away with?”, but rather to try and understand how this all fits together. While I desire unity, I would not deceive others in order to partake of the Eucharist is a Catholic Church: better to be refused fellowship than to lie to receive it.
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
That’s your job. Good for you. Keep it up!
But, I personally think that striving for doctrinal unity WITHIN ONE’S SELF is more important, and certainly more difficult, than the (largely) losing battle of convincing others to conform to the Church’s desires for us.
It’s REALLY easy, comparatively, to spout off (like I do!) in these fori (forums) about the wisdom of being in doctrinal unity with the Church, than it is to REALLY reconcile my own internal inconsistencies (which I KNOW are there and smack me in the face constantly) between what I say and what I actually do!
Darned freakin’ annoying!
It’s HARD work. I HATE doing it!
I know I’ve GOTTA do it, but I just despise doing it! Gahhhhhhhhhhh…!…which explains the rosary that I made such that I can fasten it around my neck so I can keep it with me all the time. It’s a really good reminder. I apparently need something physical to remind me why it’s better to HATE doing something and still do it, than HATE doing something and not do it, when doing it is the right thing to do.
Blithering on about “holy stuff” is SO much easier than “living holy”!!
…why is that both surprising and not surprising?
T
tGette
Guest
Well said! I can see this reality inside you being expressed! I felt it!That’s your job. Good for you. Keep it up!
But, I personally think that striving for doctrinal unity WITHIN ONE’S SELF is more important, and certainly more difficult, than the (largely) losing battle of convincing others to conform to the Church’s desires for us.
It’s REALLY easy, comparatively, to spout off (like I do!) in these fori (forums) about the wisdom of being in doctrinal unity with the Church, than it is to REALLY reconcile my own internal inconsistencies (which I KNOW are there and smack me in the face constantly) between what I say and what I actually do!
Darned freakin’ annoying!
It’s HARD work. I HATE doing it!
…which explains the rosary that I made such that I can fasten it around my neck so I can keep it with me all the time. It’s a really good reminder. I apparently need something physical to remind me why it’s better to HATE doing something and still do it, than HATE doing something and not do it, when doing it is the right thing to do.
Blithering on about “holy stuff” is SO much easier than “living holy”!!
…why is that both surprising and not surprising?
The internal struggle is more important! You are so right!
Wonderful point! Thank you!
P
Peter_J
Guest
The answer to that has an easy part and a not-so-easy part.
The easy part: When you look at which non-Catholics (non-RCs, I mean) are admitted to communion in the Catholic Church, and which are not, one very clear difference is that the former (the Orthodox, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the PNCC) have valid sacraments, and the latter generally do not (except for the sacraments of baptism and matrimony).
The not-so-easy part: That’s not to say that doctrinal agreement is unimportant. Roughly speaking, I would say that the Orthodox, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the PNCC, all agree with the Catholic Church on everything that was agree on in the early Church, even if they disagree with us on some points that the Catholic Church has dogmatically defined in later times (like, during the second millennium).
A
a_mirror_dimly
Guest
Another follow up question: from what I understand, one of the major justifications I’ve seen for excluding non-Catholics from the Eucharist is the if they do not fully accept the teaching of the Church, they are eating and drinking judgment upon themselves. Thus, the argument goes, denial of the Eucharist is done out of love. If this is the case, then why are Orthodox allowed to receive the Eucharist. Does the Catholic Church simply not care if they are puring out judgment upon themselves?
If on the other hand, they are not judging themselves in taking the Eucharist by some dispensation from the Church, why couldn’t the Church grant a similar dispensation to other non-Catholics?
If on the other hand, they are not judging themselves in taking the Eucharist by some dispensation from the Church, why couldn’t the Church grant a similar dispensation to other non-Catholics?
T
tGette
Guest
Great response!
I cannot offer an adequate response right now, but what you say is right on.
My friend and I discuss this once in a while. Your question is asked by Catholics a lot! It is a tough one. One which would require a thread of its own! (hint, hint…hehe!)
Though, if there were a dispensation, the persons receiving would still have to go to the Sacrament of Reconciliation before hand; no ifs, ands, or buts.
P
Peter_J
Guest
The argument I’m familiar with is that to receive the Eucharist without believing that it is the body and blood of Christ is to bring condemnation on oneself.
I don’t doubt that there are many Catholics out there who have extended this argument to anyone who receives the Eucharist in a Catholic parish without believing all the Catholic dogmas – but I would want to see their full argument before commenting on it.
A
a_mirror_dimly
Guest
Ok, if so that makes sense in terms of consistency, but in that case what would be the reasoning behind denying the Eucharist to non-Catholics who did believe in the Real Presence?
P
Peter_J
Guest
Hi mirror,
Sorry I didn’t respond earlier …
An individual Anglican may agree with the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist, and is of course validly baptized, but the thing is that he/she does not belong to (what Catholics recognized as) a Church.
Sorry I didn’t respond earlier …
Well then I would go back to the other part of the answer. The Catholic Church recognizes the Orthodox and the PNCC, etc, as true Churches, having valid Apostolic Succession.
An individual Anglican may agree with the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist, and is of course validly baptized, but the thing is that he/she does not belong to (what Catholics recognized as) a Church.
A
a_mirror_dimly
Guest
Hi Peter,
No worries on the response time, presumably we all have lives outside of these forums
Ok, so I feel this doesn’t really answer my question. If someone is a Christian and acknowledges the Real Presence, why not allow them to partake of the Eucharist. Put another way, what harm is being done by joining them in that fellowship than is caused by the division inherent in that refusal. Keep in mind that the origin of this discussion was the general opinion that disagreement over Marian doctrines is not worth dividing the body over.
T
tGette
Guest
This is it! As I have said, prior Confession would be mandatory. The thing is, the Church teaches of the wonderful graces we receive from Communion so should we not then want others to benefit from those graces if they truly believe in the Real Presence?Hi Peter,
No worries on the response time, presumably we all have lives outside of these forums
Ok, so I feel this doesn’t really answer my question. If someone is a Christian and acknowledges the Real Presence, why not allow them to partake of the Eucharist. Put another way, what harm is being done by joining them in that fellowship than is caused by the division inherent in that refusal. Keep in mind that the origin of this discussion was the general opinion that disagreement over Marian doctrines is not worth dividing the body over.
This becomes a tough issue!
Here is another thing. If someone truly believes, there is a more likely chance they agree with other Church teachings…though not a certainty. If a person believes in the Real Presence, it being such a profound belief, should be also concerned with the other things the Church teaches. And out of respect for what the Church teaches, to abide by those rules.
For me, I enjoyed the waiting to receive Communion for the first time. Obviously I am not everybody.
I will wait for a response, because I am not explaining myself perfectly.
A
a_mirror_dimly
Guest
Well of course ideally we would all agree on all matters of faith, but realistically that’s not going to happen until Christ returns, even within the Catholic Church (as you’re well aware, there are many matters on which the Church does not bind Catholics’ conscience).
This comes back to the original point of the discussion: for issues like the Marian doctrines, is it worth forcing people’s conscience on these non-salvation critical issues and splitting the Church over it?
This comes back to the original point of the discussion: for issues like the Marian doctrines, is it worth forcing people’s conscience on these non-salvation critical issues and splitting the Church over it?
G
GailMac
Guest
Dear tGette - you ask this:" For all you Christians out there:
Do you think it is important that we unite under one truth, one belief, one faith?
Is knowing about what gets us saved the only important thing and these theological differences merely inconsequential?" to which I reply -----
On the night He was betrayed Jesus prayed that we all be one, etc. Do you feel up to getting your opinions out of His Way? Can you bend your will to His? Do you need to remain away from His Church to what? to make a point from which your poor soul may never recover?
Peace,
Gail
Do you think it is important that we unite under one truth, one belief, one faith?
Is knowing about what gets us saved the only important thing and these theological differences merely inconsequential?" to which I reply -----
On the night He was betrayed Jesus prayed that we all be one, etc. Do you feel up to getting your opinions out of His Way? Can you bend your will to His? Do you need to remain away from His Church to what? to make a point from which your poor soul may never recover?
Peace,
Gail
P
Peter_J
Guest
The internet can be so tiresome, can’t it?
But anyway …
a_mirror_dimly,
That’s very good question, and I’m glad that you asked it; but I don’t really know how to explain it.
I don’t think there’s an easy answer to that question; but maybe this would help: in one situation, you have someone who’s under one bishop’s jurisdiction (an EO bishop) requesting to receive communion from a priest under another bishop’s jurisdiction (a Catholic bishop) who isn’t in full communion with the first bishop. In the other situation you have someone who isn’t under any bishop’s jurisdiction (recall that, from the RC perspective, Anglicans don’t really have bishops) requesting to receive communion.
I hope that helps. Blessings,
But anyway …
a_mirror_dimly,
So as I see it, you’re asking: If someone is validly baptized and believes in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, shouldn’t the Catholic Church admit that person to communion, regardless of whether he/she belongs to a Church (e.g. Eastern Orthodox) or to an “ecclesial community” (e.g. Anglican)?Hi Peter,
No worries on the response time, presumably we all have lives outside of these forums
Ok, so I feel this doesn’t really answer my question. If someone is a Christian and acknowledges the Real Presence, why not allow them to partake of the Eucharist. Put another way, what harm is being done by joining them in that fellowship than is caused by the division inherent in that refusal. Keep in mind that the origin of this discussion was the general opinion that disagreement over Marian doctrines is not worth dividing the body over.
That’s very good question, and I’m glad that you asked it; but I don’t really know how to explain it.
I don’t think there’s an easy answer to that question; but maybe this would help: in one situation, you have someone who’s under one bishop’s jurisdiction (an EO bishop) requesting to receive communion from a priest under another bishop’s jurisdiction (a Catholic bishop) who isn’t in full communion with the first bishop. In the other situation you have someone who isn’t under any bishop’s jurisdiction (recall that, from the RC perspective, Anglicans don’t really have bishops) requesting to receive communion.
I hope that helps. Blessings,
G
GailMac
Guest
Dear Amirrordimly - you state:" Ok, so I feel this doesn’t really answer my question. If someone is a Christian and acknowledges the Real Presence, why not allow them to partake of the Eucharist. Put another way, what harm is being done by joining them in that fellowship than is caused by the division inherent in that refusal. Keep in mind that the origin of this discussion was the general opinion that disagreement over Marian doctrines is not worth dividing the body over. "
The Church is a wise Mother and wants to make sure you don’t receive unworthily. If you are at the point where you can see Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament but are still a little tangled up in your thinking about other parts of our faith, then there is another two Sacraments to help you sort it all out. First there is Confession then there is Confimation. We can’t allow you to just walk up and receive the Blessed Sacrament because that is one of the ways God expresses His love for you through order. If you were brought up with only part of the understanding of our faith, then you need to make a good Confession before you can receive the Eucharist. Trust the Sacrament and time to help you understand what living part of the Truth for a while has left you with. God will heal you, but it takes time and a Sacrament. Then perhaps after you get better, you can present yourself for Confirmation. I suggest you don’t take too long in getting yourself to that point though. God bless you.
Peace,
Gail
The Church is a wise Mother and wants to make sure you don’t receive unworthily. If you are at the point where you can see Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament but are still a little tangled up in your thinking about other parts of our faith, then there is another two Sacraments to help you sort it all out. First there is Confession then there is Confimation. We can’t allow you to just walk up and receive the Blessed Sacrament because that is one of the ways God expresses His love for you through order. If you were brought up with only part of the understanding of our faith, then you need to make a good Confession before you can receive the Eucharist. Trust the Sacrament and time to help you understand what living part of the Truth for a while has left you with. God will heal you, but it takes time and a Sacrament. Then perhaps after you get better, you can present yourself for Confirmation. I suggest you don’t take too long in getting yourself to that point though. God bless you.
Peace,
Gail
H
Hajnalcsillag
Guest
This thread has become a great example of why I’m so anti-denominational.
As the story goes, a man walked into a rabbi’s office and said, “Rabbi, I will convert to Judaism if you can recite all of Jewish law while I stand on one foot.” The rabbi looked at him and said, “Of course. Love the Lord your God with all of your heart, mind, and soul; and love your neighbor as yourself.” And when Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment is, this is also what he replied with.
In the days of the persecuted underground church in Eastern Europe (1945-90), when believers were in constant danger of being summarily executed for their beliefs, there simply was no time devoted to minor issues of doctrine and theology. Usually there would be one person that would have a Bible, and they would read from it and discuss. They would worship and pray, then sneak back into their homes and continue with daily life until the next meeting.
What unites us under the greater umbrella of Christianity are the core beliefs that Jesus Christ is the resurrected son of God, who offered Himself as a sacrifice for the sin of man. What divides us are really non-issues…whether Mary was “virgin eternal”, what realm the dead currently reside in, and so on.
I can imagine the Lord looking at those who went through the underground churches in Eastern Europe and currently in parts of Africa and the Middle East and saying, “Well done! You have lived according to the commandments and were willing to sacrifice all for me.” And I can also see Him looking at the western world and saying, “Really? THESE are what you regarded as ‘important’ enough to divide the flock so many different ways? THESE are what you regarded as ‘major’ issues?”
As the story goes, a man walked into a rabbi’s office and said, “Rabbi, I will convert to Judaism if you can recite all of Jewish law while I stand on one foot.” The rabbi looked at him and said, “Of course. Love the Lord your God with all of your heart, mind, and soul; and love your neighbor as yourself.” And when Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment is, this is also what he replied with.
In the days of the persecuted underground church in Eastern Europe (1945-90), when believers were in constant danger of being summarily executed for their beliefs, there simply was no time devoted to minor issues of doctrine and theology. Usually there would be one person that would have a Bible, and they would read from it and discuss. They would worship and pray, then sneak back into their homes and continue with daily life until the next meeting.
What unites us under the greater umbrella of Christianity are the core beliefs that Jesus Christ is the resurrected son of God, who offered Himself as a sacrifice for the sin of man. What divides us are really non-issues…whether Mary was “virgin eternal”, what realm the dead currently reside in, and so on.
I can imagine the Lord looking at those who went through the underground churches in Eastern Europe and currently in parts of Africa and the Middle East and saying, “Well done! You have lived according to the commandments and were willing to sacrifice all for me.” And I can also see Him looking at the western world and saying, “Really? THESE are what you regarded as ‘important’ enough to divide the flock so many different ways? THESE are what you regarded as ‘major’ issues?”
A
a_mirror_dimly
Guest
So ultimately you would choose division before allowing disagreement on such matters as say Marian doctrine. That saddens me greatly that these differences would trump the much larger areas of agreement, but I continue to pray and anticipate the day when the body of Christ will truly be one.
T
tGette
Guest
I’m sorry…I do not quite see the point your are trying to make. Maybe it is the wording? Are you feeling remorse for my poor soul because of this thread topic?
Again, I apologize for my ignorance. If you could, please clarify!
Peace to you too!
- Status