Would Synod document open path for Protestants to receive Communion regularly? [CC]

[benjamindt]

Perhaps, but what if you show up the day after Easter. Tough luck see you in September. Not cool, a lot can happen in that amount of time.

Show up after Easter? You don’t get to just show up and join the Church. It’s a program called RCIA.

 

[Mystrx]

Show up after Easter? You don’t get to just show up and join the Church. It’s a program called RCIA.

Yes I’m aware of this. I just meant most RCIA programs seem to start around September. That’s a long time to wait just to begin “officially” studying the faith. Which also means its a very long time to wait for the most essential Sacrament you need… Baptism.

Either way you see it, the church knows best. I follow their lead, as always.

 

[outremer]

well if you’re point is that non-catholics who wish to receive communion should undergo a few years of catechism and then receive a sacrament of initiation like first communion before they’re allowed to receive communion, then i guess what you’re saying is that first they must become a full member of the church.

Sounds fine to me.

Once the Church opened the door to Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and PNCC adherents to receive Communion under grave circumstances, it is a hard door to close. More likely, it will further open.

It is a door unlikely to close in the modern Church. It isn’t merciful to deny communion. Remember, we are a church of Mercy now

 

[ChaosGamma]

Once the Church opened the door to Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and PNCC adherents to receive Communion under grave circumstances, it is a hard door to close. More likely, it will further open.

It is a door unlikely to close in the modern Church. It isn’t merciful to deny communion. Remember, we are a church of Mercy now

I don’t really see what the big deal is here. Members of those Churches still may only receive the sacraments if they are in danger of death and cannot reach a priest from their own church. And unless I’m mistaken they are only allowed to do so because these Churches have the same teaching as Rome concerning the Real Presence and the Sacraments. Which is the problem with giving Communion to other Christians.

I can’t really see, say, a Southern Baptist on his deathbed finding it so urgent to receive something he doesn’t believe to be a Sacrament that he has to call in the local Catholic priest.

 

[GKC]

I don’t really see what the big deal is here. Members of those Churches still may only receive the sacraments if they are in danger of death and cannot reach a priest from their own church. And unless I’m mistaken they are only allowed to do so because these Churches have the same teaching as Rome concerning the Real Presence and the Sacraments. Which is the problem with giving Communion to other Christians.

I can’t really see, say, a Southern Baptist on his deathbed finding it so urgent to receive something he doesn’t believe to be a Sacrament that he has to call in the local Catholic priest.

See 1983 Code of Canon Law, Canon 844, subpara 3, with requirements and limits as noted, for such particular cases. For other cases, see subpara 4.

 

[FrDavid96]

Part of the reason why there is so much confusion about RCIA is that in the majority of parishes in the U.S., the RCIA programs are not being properly followed (note the plural—there are different forms of RCIA, not just one).

There is RCIA for the unbaptized. That form culminates in the reception of Baptism, Confirmation, and First Communion at the Easter Vigil Mass.

Another form of RCIA is for those already baptized outside the Catholic Church. This is a different form, and is not directly related to the Easter Vigil Mass.

The problem comes in when the 2 forms are combined into a single group of people. Now, there are practical reasons for doing this, no doubt. There are positive values to doing it this way (often people in both groups share the same questions and need the same catechesis.)

With that in mind, when we get back to the original topic, it’s only natural that questions and comments like:
“why must non-Catholic Christians wait until the Easter Vigil?”
or
“non-Catholics don’t always have to wait until the Easter Vigil, therefore if we can make an exception sometimes, we can broaden those exceptions”

These miss the point.

The requirements for an adult who is already baptized, but non-Catholic to receive Confession, Confirmation, and Communion are all the same requirements (taking into account, naturally, that Confession must come first). That means that an adult who is properly prepared and eligible to receive Communion is likewise eligible to be Confirmed.

The only issue here is whether or not the parish pastor has been given faculties by the bishop to confirm adult converts. The person is eligible, but the pastor might or might-not have faculties.

While I recognize that there can be some positive values in combining two forms of RCIA into a single group (the non-baptized and the baptized), this practice opens up a wealth of other problems, and a great deal of confusion and misunderstandings. Precisely the kind of misunderstandings that arise when we discuss the topic of this thread.

 

[hn160]

Even if a synod did open up communion to Protestants, I would not participate, because it would mean that I agree with Catholic doctrine. In the LC-MS, only Lutherans that are in fellowship with Missouri Synod may take communion and then only after talking to the pastor. This is how it is practiced in my church. Missouri Synod official practice is closed communion.

 

[phil19034]

Part of the reason why there is so much confusion about RCIA is that in the majority of parishes in the U.S., the RCIA programs are not being properly followed (note the plural—there are different forms of RCIA, not just one).

There is RCIA for the unbaptized. That form culminates in the reception of Baptism, Confirmation, and First Communion at the Easter Vigil Mass.

Another form of RCIA is for those already baptized outside the Catholic Church. This is a different form, and is not directly related to the Easter Vigil Mass.

The problem comes in when the 2 forms are combined into a single group of people. Now, there are practical reasons for doing this, no doubt. There are positive values to doing it this way (often people in both groups share the same questions and need the same catechesis.)

With that in mind, when we get back to the original topic, it’s only natural that questions and comments like:
“why must non-Catholic Christians wait until the Easter Vigil?”
or
“non-Catholics don’t always have to wait until the Easter Vigil, therefore if we can make an exception sometimes, we can broaden those exceptions”

These miss the point.

The requirements for an adult who is already baptized, but non-Catholic to receive Confession, Confirmation, and Communion are all the same requirements (taking into account, naturally, that Confession must come first). That means that an adult who is properly prepared and eligible to receive Communion is likewise eligible to be Confirmed.

The only issue here is whether or not the parish pastor has been given faculties by the bishop to confirm adult converts. The person is eligible, but the pastor might or might-not have faculties.

While I recognize that there can be some positive values in combining two forms of RCIA into a single group (the non-baptized and the baptized), this practice opens up a wealth of other problems, and a great deal of confusion and misunderstandings. Precisely the kind of misunderstandings that arise when we discuss the topic of this thread.

Thank you Father!

This is the best answer I’ve see regarding this.

 

[FrDavid96]

Thank you Father!

This is the best answer I’ve see regarding this.

Actually, looking back on it, I should have said “not-yet Catholics” rather than “non-Catholics.” Of course, RCIA is about welcoming non-Catholics into the fullness of the Church. When the moment arrives for them to receive First Communion, they are Catholics.

 

[Kliska]

Part of the reason why there is so much confusion about RCIA is that in the majority of parishes in the U.S., the RCIA programs are not being properly followed (note the plural—there are different forms of RCIA, not just one).

There is RCIA for the unbaptized. That form culminates in the reception of Baptism, Confirmation, and First Communion at the Easter Vigil Mass.

Another form of RCIA is for those already baptized outside the Catholic Church. This is a different form, and is not directly related to the Easter Vigil Mass.

The problem comes in when the 2 forms are combined into a single group of people. Now, there are practical reasons for doing this, no doubt. There are positive values to doing it this way (often people in both groups share the same questions and need the same catechesis.)

With that in mind, when we get back to the original topic, it’s only natural that questions and comments like:
“why must non-Catholic Christians wait until the Easter Vigil?”
or
“non-Catholics don’t always have to wait until the Easter Vigil, therefore if we can make an exception sometimes, we can broaden those exceptions”

These miss the point.

The requirements for an adult who is already baptized, but non-Catholic to receive Confession, Confirmation, and Communion are all the same requirements (taking into account, naturally, that Confession must come first). That means that an adult who is properly prepared and eligible to receive Communion is likewise eligible to be Confirmed.

The only issue here is whether or not the parish pastor has been given faculties by the bishop to confirm adult converts. The person is eligible, but the pastor might or might-not have faculties.

While I recognize that there can be some positive values in combining two forms of RCIA into a single group (the non-baptized and the baptized), this practice opens up a wealth of other problems, and a great deal of confusion and misunderstandings. Precisely the kind of misunderstandings that arise when we discuss the topic of this thread.

I have to say that as a Protestant who has studied theology and Catholicism for many years, this is something I don’t understand either. If I were to discover and be convicted that Catholicism was the truth, as a validly baptized Christian, I’d still be put in RCIA alongside atheists, agnostics, non validly baptized individuals and those without full knowledge of the RCC. And, I’d have to wait up to a year to be confirmed. It is one of the things I don’t see reflected in the early church.

I’m watching the synod with great interest.

 

[adf417]

I have to say that as a Protestant who has studied theology and Catholicism for many years, this is something I don’t understand either. If I were to discover and be convicted that Catholicism was the truth, as a validly baptized Christian, I’d still be put in RCIA alongside atheists, agnostics, non validly baptized individuals and those without full knowledge of the RCC. And, I’d have to wait up to a year to be confirmed. It is one of the things I don’t see reflected in the early church.

I’m watching the synod with great interest.

Bolded above not necessarily the case. FrDavid96’s post was a summary of pastoral options.

Peace!!!

 

[Kliska]

Bolded above not necessarily the case. FrDavid96’s post was a summary of pastoral options.

Peace!!!

I should have said, “In the parishes around me.”

 

[Dave_Noonan]

In the latest in a series of Letters from the Synod, “Xavier Rynne” calls attention to a passage of the instrumentum laboris, or working document, that open the way for allowing …

More…

“It is possible that a baptised person who is not in full communion with the Catholic Church, yet shares the Church’s faith in the Eucharist, be allowed to receive the Eucharist.”

This already seems to be the general practice in this area, which I know is not in strict accordance with Canon Law. Are the bishops just trying to regularize something that Catholics are doing anyway?

 

[phil19034]

“It is possible that a baptised person who is not in full communion with the Catholic Church, yet shares the Church’s faith in the Eucharist, be allowed to receive the Eucharist.”

This already seems to be the general practice in this area, which I know is not in strict accordance with Canon Law. Are the bishops just trying to regularize something that Catholics are doing anyway?

This applies to all the Orthodox Churches, the Church of the East, Old Catholics, and other Apostolic Christian sects with orthodox teachings regarding the Seven Sacraments.

The problem is that Protestants typically do not believe everything we (Catholics, Orthodox, etc) believe in regards to the Seven Sacraments.

Or at bare minimum, they do not have the same understanding of the Sacrament of Holy Orders like the Catholic Church and other Orthodox Churches.

If anything - I think the Bishops MIGHT be leaving the door open for a Protestant sect which returns to orthodoxy in regards to the Sacraments (i.e. a new, high church Anglican or Lutheran sect which restores orthodoxy)

BTW- in regards to the “Old Catholics,” some of them are losing their apostolic lineage due to ordaining women.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

This applies to all the Orthodox Churches, the Church of the East, Old Catholics, and other Apostolic Christian sects with orthodox teachings regarding the Seven Sacraments.

The problem is that Protestants typically do not believe everything we (Catholics, Orthodox, etc) believe in regards to the Seven Sacraments.

Or at bare minimum, they do not have the same understanding of the Sacrament of Holy Orders like the Catholic Church and other Orthodox Churches.

If anything - I think the Bishops MIGHT be leaving the door open for a Protestant sect which returns to orthodoxy in regards to the Sacraments (i.e. a new, high church Anglican or Lutheran sect which restores orthodoxy)

BTW- in regards to the “Old Catholics,” some of them are losing their apostolic lineage due to ordaining women.

I’m just saying that in general practice (not in law) if you’re baptized, married to a Catholic, attend Mass regularly, and come from another liturgical tradition (Lutheran or Episcopal or Orthodox) you are already allowed to receive communion, in practice. At least that’s how things already work around here–I don’t know about elsewhere in the U.S.

That’s why I think the bishops are perhaps trying to regularize an already-existing practice.

 

[Padres1969]

I’m just saying that in general practice (not in law) if you’re baptized, married to a Catholic, attend Mass regularly, and come from another liturgical tradition (Lutheran or Episcopal or Orthodox) you are already allowed to receive communion, in practice. At least that’s how things already work around here–I don’t know about elsewhere in the U.S.

That’s why I think the bishops are perhaps trying to regularize an already-existing practice.

Doesn’t that mean in practice that around where you are the priests or whomever is inviting non-Catholics to take communion is allowing or inviting a liturgical abuse?

 

[PJM]

=Catholic Press;13343883]In the latest in a series of Letters from the Synod, “Xavier Rynne” calls attention to a passage of the instrumentum laboris, or working document, that open the way for allowing …

More…

What you ask is a Moral and a theological impossibility

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Doesn’t that mean in practice that around where you are the priests or whomever is inviting non-Catholics to take communion is allowing or inviting a liturgical abuse?

I guess not if it’s ultimately approved?

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by Dave Noonan View Post
I’m just saying that in general practice (not in law) if you’re baptized, married to a Catholic, attend Mass regularly, and come from another liturgical tradition (Lutheran or Episcopal or Orthodox) you are already allowed to receive communion, in practice. At least that’s how things already work around here–I don’t know about elsewhere in the U.S.

That’s why I think the bishops are perhaps trying to regularize an already-existing practice

=Padres1969;13415401]
Doesn’t that mean in practice that around where you are

the priests or whomever is inviting non-Catholics to take communion is allowing or inviting a liturgical abuse?

Dave, my friend,

If YOU aree permitting or encouraging a non-Catholic to receive Holy Communion it is a GRAVE abuse, and must be stopped.

Being married to a Catholic is FAR from actually Being a Catholic. Your priest likely assumes that both bride and groom are Catholics.

The non-Catholic is not receiving any grace from receiving Christ without being a fully believing Catholic; and now that you are aware of this; the Grace you normally would be offered will also be reduced or ommitted…

This is a serious and grave abuse my friend!

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[KathleenGee]

Appreciate your post.

Cannot see any Protestant receiving Holy Communion and then contradict it by not believing in the teachings of the Catholic Church.