What to do?

[benedictgal]

Benedictgal,

What you have written from St Paul and other statements about the reception of Communion being for those Catholics who are in a state of grace is absolutely true.
As I posted earlier, though, the 1983 Code of Canon Law promulgated by JPII and presently being used by Benedict XVI contradict this teaching(1917 Code concurs with St Paul). The Church cannot be the source of error. This is direct evidence that the 1983 Code, just based on this one canon, 844.4, is not Catholic and one cannot follow it. Furthur conclusions should be drawn from this. Don’t just listen to me. Do your own unbiased research. What I mean by that is used pre-VII sources to do comparisons. In doctrine(faith and morals) as well as disciplines in certain areas(example: in no way could the Church promote a law that does intentional harm to the Blessed Sacrament-say-I don’t like even saying it-having the priest step on one host intentionally at every Mass he says) the Church cannot err. After you do this research(encyclicals, doctrine manuals-I can suggest some reading), one will have to come to the conclusion that drastic changes have been made since VII that cannot be reconciled to what the Church has always taught.
Please pray on this and look into it.

In JMJ,

Joe

Joe, Redemptionis Sacramentum, the authoritative document of the Holy See regarding liturgical abuse, does a pretty good job of noting just who can and cannot receive Our Lord.

The revision of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II is not a radical departure of the Church’s teaching. It specifically states that non-Catholics can be admitted to Communion only under grave circumstances. I take it to mean war-time, the danger of death due to conflict, natural disaster, persecution (often with fatal consequences) and a horrific incident such as a ship sinking (as has happened both comercially and in the Navy). This is not a wholesale open call to receiving Holy Communion. To interpret the Canon in that manner is, in my opinion, to completely misunderstand the intent of the law.

 

[Joe17]

Benedictgal,
Unfortunately, this will have to be brief. The computers are about to shut down. You are reading your ideas into what it says. It also mentions discretion of the ordinary. Read the 1917 Code. You won’t find pre-VII canonists conceding your point. And Rome cannot go against an apostolic, doctrinal teaching that has been practiced for 20 centuries, no matter the pastoral situation.

Joe

 

[Cavaille-Coll]

Side note: there are some non-denominationals that believe in the true presence, just how this comes about, they (the non-denominationals) have no real theology behind their belief other than we said so, so just believe…

[edited]

If I were in the OP’s shoes I would deny my mother the Sacrament of the Eucharist.and I would do so without any guilt.

(edited for legibility)

There are many groups of literalist Evangelicals who have come to believe that the sixth chapter of John should be interpreted literally, since they try to interpret everything else in the Bible literally. Many of these groups take particular pride in their rejection of theological education, and some would reject higher education altogether because the Bible is the only book worth reading. When this is the case, they rarely expand their theological understanding of the Eucharist far enough to know whether they are transubstantialists, consubstantialists, or any other kind of substantialists. This may sound a little cynical but I have some friends whose churches espouse these beliefs.

 

[Petrologist]

(edited for legibility)

There are many groups of literalist Evangelicals who have come to believe that the sixth chapter of John should be interpreted literally, since they try to interpret everything else in the Bible literally. Many of these groups take particular pride in their rejection of theological education, and some would reject higher education altogether because the Bible is the only book worth reading. When this is the case, they rarely expand their theological understanding of the Eucharist far enough to know whether they are transubstantialists, consubstantialists, or any other kind of substantialists. This may sound a little cynical but I have some friends whose churches espouse these beliefs.

Now that you mention it - my step dad said to me recently while we were discussing the rapture and interpretation of Revelation “You have to believe everything that the Bible says and take it literally [meaning that are no figures of speech/metaphors used in the Bible] or else you just believe that the Bible is a book written by men.” He said this because I was trying to explain to him the genre of apocalyptic writing and his reply was, “Well I only know Revelation.” Very narrow minded and hard to reason with. I told him that the idea of the rapture was invented roughly 200 years ago and that no one taught it the first 1800 years of Christianity… he was silent for a moment, but then went on to say “Even though it wasn’t taught for 1800 years doesn’t mean it wasn’t in the Bible.” :: sighs :: He’s a very smart man, but when it comes to the Bible, he seems to lose all sense of reason.

While I’m off on this tangent - does it bother anyone else when people say “The Bible says…”?

For example, some people may say…

“The Bible says/teaches for by grace you have been saved through faith.”

but others may says…

“St. Paul teaches/According to St. Paul, by grace you have been saved through faith.”

Personally I very much prefer the 2nd option because it presents the idea that Christianity IS historical and not just some do-it-yourself religion learned solely from a book as many of the atheists/outsiders/sola scriptura-ers seemingly believe these days. Hope that makes sense.

By the way everyone, I’m a dude, so if y’all kindly stop referring to me as a she, that would be greatly appreciated. Hahahaha.

 

[fbl9]

Now that you mention it - my step dad said to me recently while we were discussing the rapture and interpretation of Revelation “You have to believe everything that the Bible says and take it literally [meaning that are no figures of speech/metaphors used in the Bible] or else you just believe that the Bible is a book written by men.” He said this because I was trying to explain to him the genre of apocalyptic writing and his reply was, “Well I only know Revelation.” Very narrow minded and hard to reason with. I told him that the idea of the rapture was invented roughly 200 years ago and that no one taught it the first 1800 years of Christianity… he was silent for a moment, but then went on to say “Even though it wasn’t taught for 1800 years doesn’t mean it wasn’t in the Bible.” :: sighs :: He’s a very smart man, but when it comes to the Bible, he seems to lose all sense of reason.

What they are really saying is that this is what i think the bible says.

Myself i would have to agree with the second option as well.