June 28, 200719 yr From the Vatican's website again: Cannon Law This passage confuses me, so I'll keep going.... Can. 923 The Christian faithful can participate in the eucharistic sacrifice and receive holy communion in any Catholic rite, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 844.
June 28, 200719 yr Hearsay, I'm still trying to fully answer your question regarding the exclusionary nature of our Celebration of the Eucharist. This passage in the Catholic Catechism, (taken from the Vatican website) is a part of my explanation: The only part I struggle with is that part of the Catechism that requires that I, a fellow Christian and servant of our Lord, cannot partake of the sacrament with you unless I believe "what the Church teaches is true." I guess I would require some clarification, is what I have to believe solely the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, or is it the entire litany of doctrines espoused by the Catholic Church? Your original posts contained language regarding this that discussed that the Catholic Church allows baptised Christians whom belong to a church in "unity" with the Catholic Church, and I understand that includes one or two denominations of the Anglican tradition. Presumably, then, the Catholic Church does not consider itself "unified" with other Christian denominations, such as mine. If we are not "unified," then we are "disunified," at least as it pertains to this issue, and the only thing that prevents us from being "unified" is the Catholic Doctrine of Transubstantiation, and the Catholic practice of refusing communion to baptised Christians whom do not believe in that Doctrine. The Doctrine is not scripturally based, it is a Doctrine steeped in Catholic tradition only. Would you come to my Baptist Church (and I concede here that there are a minority of Baptist churches that practice closed communion)as a baptised Christian, of any denomination, you and I could take the bread and the wine together in fellowship and common servanthood under Christ.
June 28, 200719 yr The only part I struggle with is that part of the Catechism that requires that I, a fellow Christian and servant of our Lord, cannot partake of the sacrament with you unless I believe "what the Church teaches is true." I guess I would require some clarification, is what I have to believe solely the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, or is it the entire litany of doctrines espoused by the Catholic Church? Your original posts contained language regarding this that discussed that the Catholic Church allows baptised Christians whom belong to a church in "unity" with the Catholic Church, and I understand that includes one or two denominations of the Anglican tradition. Presumably, then, the Catholic Church does not consider itself "unified" with other Christian denominations, such as mine. If we are not "unified," then we are "disunified," at least as it pertains to this issue, and the only thing that prevents us from being "unified" is the Catholic Doctrine of Transubstantiation, and the Catholic practice of refusing communion to baptised Christians whom do not believe in that Doctrine. The Doctrine is not scripturally based, it is a Doctrine steeped in Catholic tradition only. Would you come to my Baptist Church (and I concede here that there are a minority of Baptist churches that practice closed communion)as a baptised Christian, of any denomination, you and I could take the bread and the wine together in fellowship and common servanthood under Christ. I understand what you're saying, which is why I'm striving to clarify the Church's teachings. For the record, I cannot (as a Catholic) partake in the bread and wine in another faith service.
June 28, 200719 yr From the Vatican's website again: Cannon Law This passage confuses me, so I'll keep going.... I'm not sure what that means, either. If it means any Christian, then the practice of closed communion is erroneous. If, on the other hand, it means that the only Christians are Catholics, then we have other issues . . .
June 28, 200719 yr Re: Communion In the church where I am a member, we participate in open communion, and we take communion every Sunday, it is the central focus for Christians who have gathered to Worship. It is a communion with God to remember Christ's sacrifice, as He directed "do this in remembrance of me". Being that it is a communion between the Christian and God, and we are not communing with one another, then we do not attempt to close the opportunity to anyone. It is the Lord's Supper and it is not our place to send out the invitations, so to speak. We do explain that it is for Christian believers, and that a man ought to examine himself before partaking, so that he can be sure he is not communing in an unworthy manner. Meaning if he has a sin in his life he hasn't repented of, he should do so before taking communion. If he has hate in his heart for a brother, for example, he should first go to that brother and make it right. If someone does partake, and they are not partaking as directed, then they bring judgment upon themselves, it is a personal thing between them and God. A funny story: When my oldest was about 4, he had lots of questions about the communion and about why only certain people could take it and he couldn't. We explained that the "cracker" was a special and pure type of bread that was tasteless, but it wasn't taken as food, but rather to remember Jesus and what he did for us. And likewise the "juice" was representative of Jesus' blood that he shed for us. He made a funny face and he said, very matter of factly in his 4 year old way, that they could probably get more people to take it if they would use Cheezits and Juicy Juice. :lol:
June 28, 200719 yr I understand what you're saying, which is why I'm striving to clarify the Church's teachings. For the record, I cannot (as a Catholic) partake in the bread and wine in another faith service. I would presume that the reason for that is that the bread and the wine would not have been sufficiently consecrated by a non-Catholic minister. I'm actually O.K. with that, that part of tradition does not bother me. By the way, I am trying not to point the finger, though I am sure it is probably coming off like that. My brother converted to Catholicism several years ago and was baptised at a very nice ceremony at St. Margaret Mary. Rev. John Judy performed the service. My mother, father, and sister (Episcopal) took communion, and my wife and I could not. My slight irritation was fleeting. The funniest part of the whole service was when a reader said "A reading from the Book of Baruk," and I turned to my wife and said a little to loudly under my breath "Who in the He-- is Baruk?" That got some chuckles. We are all in this together.
June 28, 200719 yr Re: Communion In the church where I am a member, we participate in open communion, and we take communion every Sunday, it is the central focus for Christians who have gathered to Worship. It is a communion with God to remember Christ's sacrifice, as He directed "do this in remembrance of me". Being that it is a communion between the Christian and God, and we are not communing with one another, then we do not attempt to close the opportunity to anyone. It is the Lord's Supper and it is not our place to send out the invitations, so to speak. We do explain that it is for Christian believers, and that a man ought to examine himself before partaking, so that he can be sure he is not communing in an unworthy manner. Meaning if he has a sin in his life he hasn't repented of, he should do so before taking communion. If he has hate in his heart for a brother, for example, he should first go to that brother and make it right. If someone does partake, and they are not partaking as directed, then they bring judgment upon themselves, it is a personal thing between them and God. A funny story: When my oldest was about 4, he had lots of questions about the communion and about why only certain people could take it and he couldn't. We explained that the "cracker" was a special and pure type of bread that was tasteless, but it wasn't taken as food, but rather to remember Jesus and what he did for us. And likewise the "juice" was representative of Jesus' blood that he shed for us. He made a funny face and he said, very matter of factly in his 4 year old way, that they could probably get more people to take it if they would use Cheezits and Juicy Juice. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: From the mouths of babes, that's hilarious.
June 28, 200719 yr I would presume that the reason for that is that the bread and the wine would not have been sufficiently consecrated by a non-Catholic minister. I'm actually O.K. with that, that part of tradition does not bother me. By the way, I am trying not to point the finger, though I am sure it is probably coming off like that. My brother converted to Catholicism several years ago and was baptised at a very nice ceremony at St. Margaret Mary. Rev. John Judy performed the service. My mother, father, and sister (Episcopal) took communion, and my wife and I could not. My slight irritation was fleeting. The funniest part of the whole service was when a reader said "A reading from the Book of Baruk," and I turned to my wife and said a little to loudly under my breath "Who in the He-- is Baruk?" That got some chuckles. We are all in this together. Ah, Fr. Judy... a man of passionate faith, if a bit too reformist for my taste.
June 28, 200719 yr I would presume that the reason for that is that the bread and the wine would not have been sufficiently consecrated by a non-Catholic minister. I'm actually O.K. with that, that part of tradition does not bother me. By the way, I am trying not to point the finger, though I am sure it is probably coming off like that. My brother converted to Catholicism several years ago and was baptised at a very nice ceremony at St. Margaret Mary. Rev. John Judy performed the service. My mother, father, and sister (Episcopal) took communion, and my wife and I could not. My slight irritation was fleeting. The funniest part of the whole service was when a reader said "A reading from the Book of Baruk," and I turned to my wife and said a little to loudly under my breath "Who in the He-- is Baruk?" That got some chuckles. We are all in this together. I don't take it as finger pointing at all. I realize that 1) I've lived my whole life as a Catholic. I hope that I've gained some ability to tell others why I've chosen to do so. 2) I spent 12 years of my life being instructed each school day in religious instruction, whether it be catechism, bible study, or application of the Catholic faith in daily life. Again, I hope I've some ability to explain what is misunderstood.
June 28, 200719 yr Ah, Fr. Judy... a man of passionate faith, if a bit too reformist for my taste. He was wonderful. Gave a Catholic homily like a Baptist preacher. It was the PERFECT mix of service for me.:lol:
June 28, 200719 yr He was wonderful. Gave a Catholic homily like a Baptist preacher. It was the PERFECT mix of service for me.:lol: Maybe we should use him as a missionary to convert people. Kind of an Intro to Catholicism.
June 28, 200719 yr I don't take it as finger pointing at all. I realize that 1) I've lived my whole life as a Catholic. I hope that I've gained some ability to tell others why I've chosen to do so. 2) I spent 12 years of my life being instructed each school day in religious instruction, whether it be catechism, bible study, or application of the Catholic faith in daily life. Again, I hope I've some ability to explain what is misunderstood. You're doing very well. Maybe you could help me with the Canon desrciptions of the Doctrine of Transsubstantiation. This is what I understand: 1. The Doctrine holds that once the wafer (or wine) is placed into the monstrance and the priest has performed the ritual and stated that "this is my body (blood)," that the wafer and wine ACTUALLY physically transform into the flesh and blood of Christ. 2. This is known as the "totality of real presence," and has as its real purpose the belief that for Atonement, the believer must accept the sacrifice of Christ over and over, so that there is continual grace. 3. That the practice derives from John 6:45-63. 4. That the practice did not enter into Catholic dogma until the 9th century. 5. That the Catholic Church teaches that belief in this doctrine is a pre-requisite to salvation. Am I getting warm?
June 28, 200719 yr You're doing very well. Maybe you could help me with the Canon desrciptions of the Doctrine of Transsubstantiation. This is what I understand: 1. The Doctrine holds that once the wafer (or wine) is placed into the monstrance and the priest has performed the ritual and stated that "this is my body (blood)," that the wafer and wine ACTUALLY physically transform into the flesh and blood of Christ. 2. This is known as the "totality of real presence," and has as its real purpose the belief that for Atonement, the believer must accept the sacrifice of Christ over and over, so that there is continual grace. 3. That the practice derives from John 6:45-63. 4. That the practice did not enter into Catholic dogma until the 9th century. 5. That the Catholic Church teaches that belief in this doctrine is a pre-requisite to salvation. Am I getting warm? With the exception of #4, I can heartily state "Yes!" While I've been spending time over the years learning the history of the Church, I'm woefully uninformed as to the exact timelines of certain dogmas. I admire those people like Bert and PepRock who seem to have an unnatural ability to remember hisotrical facts. I'm more the person who remembers the sociological aspects of the consequences of facts in history, and not the facts/dates of occurance themselves. Sad, isn't it? :creepy:
June 28, 200719 yr With the exception of #4, I can heartily state "Yes!" While I've been spending time over the years learning the history of the Church, I'm woefully uninformed as to the exact timelines of certain dogmas. I admire those people like Bert and PepRock who seem to have an unnatural ability to remember hisotrical facts. I'm more the person who remembers the sociological aspects of the consequences of facts in history, and not the facts/dates of occurance themselves. Sad, isn't it? :creepy: So, since I do not accept the Doctrine of Transsubstantiation, I am doomed to eternal heckfire?:cry: Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.