|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: RCC to open up Sacraments to all Trinitarian believers.....what would happen?
|
BalddudePeekskill
Shipmate
# 12152
|
Posted
Based on the "I don't want to go to Hell" Thread, what do y'all think would happen if the RCC said that they were now an inclusive church and that all baptised trinitarian Christians could enjoy full inclusion in Sacramental life, without necessarily being confirmed/received....
Conversely, current RC's could also freely partake in any other church's sacraments....I'm guessing that the RC's would notice more of an increase in their rank.....
--------------------
Christos Aneste
Posts: 308 | From: Peekskill, NY | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Why?
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BalddudeCrompond:
Based on the "I don't want to go to Hell" Thread, what do y'all think would happen if the RCC said that they were now an inclusive church and that all baptised trinitarian Christians could enjoy full inclusion in Sacramental life, without necessarily being confirmed/received...
I think I would lose all respect for the Catholic church as an institution with any sort of integrity of belief and practice, and therefore consider it entirely untrustworthy.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
BalddudePeekskill
Shipmate
# 12152
|
Posted
Well it is a hypothetical question, but why not? Say the pope had a spiritual revelation....
--------------------
Christos Aneste
Posts: 308 | From: Peekskill, NY | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
There would be a massive schism and a "continuing" Catholic Church would appear continuing the existing policy. It might even be bigger than the church which had opened up the sacraments.
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
20-50 years of discussion
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
There would be a massive schism and a "continuing" Catholic Church would appear continuing the existing policy. It might even be bigger than the church which had opened up the sacraments.
If they didn't get the Vatican, I don't think they would be that large.
I'm not sure the immediate opening of sacraments in any meaningful way would be possible. At heart, the RCC changes incrementally. I'm fairly certain that in five centuries they will be ordaining women and sanctifying gay marriages, unless they have ceased to exist. They will also have a well-developed apologetic showing why they have believed these things to be possible since their founding in the first century.
I'm quite sure most Catholics are equally convinced such things could never happen. Some are undoubtedly insulted that an outsider could even think it possible. Only time will tell and none of us will be alive to see it.
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
While I know of a couple RC churches where this is the defacto policy...to allow open Communion would mean that Rome was recognizing the validity of other expressions of Christianity, and minimizing its self-understanding as the One True Church, in a way that I don't see it ever doing.
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
I think issues such as clerical celibacy, fasting rules, dress codes, even liturgical style are about how the Chruch DOES things. MOst of the rules around these thigns were addee over time, as part of the "development of docterine" (or are not doctrinal at all)
I think the closed communion (and all the stuff that goes with it) are more about what the Chruch IS. I thik that altering this would have a huge impact. I'm not catholic, so to ME it wouldn't make one whit of difference, but I think that it would pretty much remove the whole point of the RCC as a Church (as opposed to it being one "brand" of church).
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
I believe there are certain agreements in place which allow particular Anglican Benedictine communities to share communion with certain Catholic Benedictine communities as well. These aren't exactly "secret", but they aren't well-known either. It probably falls under a "local practice" that won't be squelched as long as no one makes a big fuss about it.
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
shameless
Apprentice
# 9918
|
Posted
But WHY.
The RCC doesn't withhold the sacraments now it is just that a person must commit to be a member of the RCC.
Otherwise, to open the sacraments to everyone would be to say to the world that we change our beliefs in that the Eucharist is not the true body of Christ and the consecrated wine is not his blood. While yes open it up to similiar faiths butthe RCC should not abandon its' foundation.
--------------------
shameless
Posts: 26 | From: somewhere over the rainbow | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
There would be a massive schism and a "continuing" Catholic Church would appear continuing the existing policy. It might even be bigger than the church which had opened up the sacraments.
If they didn't get the Vatican, I don't think they would be that large.
It depends, I think, on where the revelation came from, methinks. If it's just the Pope who has a Road to Damascus moment, I'd suspect that they'd soon be electing a new Pope in the Sistine Chapel with a whole bunch of liberal sedevacantists created.
If it started to become a movement throughout the church, led independently by folks in all levels of the hierarchy, I expect a Pope who was sympathetic to the cause would be elected--- about 200 years after it started. And then in another 200 years, the Pope in charge at that point would implement it.
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Speaking strictly for myself, and in admitted ignorance of vast amounts of RC documents that may well be dealing with this very issue, I'm much more confident that say the Real Presence is an infallible dogma of the RCC than that closed communion is. I have at least a sneaking suspicion that the latter is more a judicial, disciplinary and even pastoral issue, and as such in principle changeable in spite of a venerable history of one particular practice. One should not forget that we already have the following:
quote:
Code of Canon Law, 1983
844 ... §3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.
§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.
Clearly then, the refusal of communion is not absolute but relative to the situation. How much more is theoretically possible (though currently forbidden) I do not pretend to know...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
I think what would happen is that a Host would move this thread to Dead Horses, on the grounds that "closed communion" is identified in the DH guidelines as a topic for that board.
Enjoy your ride and please continue the discussion in your new home.
Trudy, Scrumptious Purgatory Host
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
Ingo, I would tend to believe that at least a part of the reason for 'Closed Communion' is to protect non-Catholics from the 'eating judgement' upon ourselves by taking the Sacraments whilst not properly prepared. Thus, if circumstances are urgent enough for this risk to be the 'least worst' option, alternative rules come into play as you have said.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shameless:
Otherwise, to open the sacraments to everyone would be to say to the world that we change our beliefs in that the Eucharist is not the true body of Christ and the consecrated wine is not his blood.
Though it seems to me you could open up the sacrament to everyone who believes in the real presence without compromising your belief that the Eucharist is the true body and blood.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BalddudeCrompond:
Well it is a hypothetical question, but why not? Say the pope had a spiritual revelation....
Why do you think it would increase the numbers in their rank?
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by BalddudeCrompond:
Well it is a hypothetical question, but why not? Say the pope had a spiritual revelation....
Why do you think it would increase the numbers in their rank?
People might, hypothetically, be more attracted to an organisation that seemed more open to change and a greater emphasis on welcome. Contrariwise, there might be others - such as Michael Astley - who would simply consider them fickle or untrue to their heritage. Still others would approve but actually use it as a reason NOT to convert - why bother when you can have the benefits without doing so?
Overall I doubt it would make much difference as, globally, I don't think most Roman Catholics want to take Communion in other churches except on an occasional basis (which quite a few already do), and and most members of other churches don't want to take Communion from Roman Catholics (except on an occasional basis).
So, I could receive when I'm on holiday in Italy. Very nice and all that (not that I would, even if I was invited). But other than that the observable effects would be pretty small, it seems to me.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
So, I could receive when I'm on holiday in Italy.
Of course, you could already receive on that holiday, practically speaking. It's not like anyone actually checks strangers for their RCicity...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
I suppose it would mean that at the funeral of my Catholic friend a few months ago, I could have done what I did anyway, but without feeling the waves of guilt and wondering if anyone was judging me. I've always been scrupulous about NOT taking Communion at RC funerals, because even though *I* believe the Lord's table is open to everyone, I think it's disrespectful to partake of it where I'm not wanted. On this particular occasion something just snapped inside and I did it anyway, but have continued to feel uneasy about it. I'd like not to feel that, but I'm pretty sure my feelings are pretty low on the Pope's priority list.
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
What would happen is that I would be dancing in the street. (Though not as flamboyantly as when they *finally* let girls be priests! ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif) )
My bottom line is basically:
--Jesus told us to "do this in remembrance" of him--not make silly-assed rules about it, nor shut each other out;
--If Christians can't share communion/Eucharist with each other, despite all our differences, then maybe we should just give up--because what's the point??? Why in the world should anyone pay any attention to what we have to say????
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
I don't think alot would happen except you'd get alot of disgruntled Catholics.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
So, I could receive when I'm on holiday in Italy.
Of course, you could already receive on that holiday, practically speaking. It's not like anyone actually checks strangers for their RCicity...
As an Anglican, I wouldn't dare. It's just too obvious
But actually I think it's more about respect. If someone doesn't want me to do something....I'll pass.
[ 26. May 2011, 06:24: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
But (and I think Triple Tiara confirmed this some time back) Anglicans and others who believe in the Real Presence are already invited to receive communion in the RCC when unable to attend a church of their own denomination. The French bishops have issued a statement to that effect. So it's not a question of discourtesy.
The difficulty comes I suppose in defining what you mean by 'unable'. If there is an Anglican church an hour's drive away in the nearest city, it could be argued that it was possible to worship there. But other priests or bishops would not be so rigorous. There are Catholic religious houses in this country that would argue, 'you are our guest, there is no Anglican eucharist celebrated here, therefore please receive.' I won't name names for obvious reasons, but it happens.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
But (and I think Triple Tiara confirmed this some time back) Anglicans and others who believe in the Real Presence are already invited to receive communion in the RCC when unable to attend a church of their own denomination. The French bishops have issued a statement to that effect. So it's not a question of discourtesy.
They have? ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif) I'd love to see what "grave necessity [that] urges it" (CIC 844 §4) they came up with there... Anyway, this won't do anything for Anglo-Catholics in the UK. Not only is the UK obviously outside of the jurisdiction of the French bishops, but a relevant condition is that non-RCs "cannot approach a minister of their own community" (CIC 844 §4 again). That's hardly the case for Anglicans in the UK.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
I don't want to be disrespectful of those who follow their own consciences on the matter of whether they take RC communion or not when they're not RC themselves - but how often does anyone actually get called out for it?
If you're a complete stranger and you are visiting a church for the first time, no-one's going to know whether you're RC or not; so, chances are, no-one will say anything. You're only likely to be called out over it if you have already made yourself known - and that's only likely to happen if you are already at least semi-regular.
I respect the RC church for wanting to put people through proper initiation. To issue communion to those who have not been initiated would devalue the initiation. No-one at all is barred from the initiation to the best of my knowledge.
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
quote:
If you're a complete stranger and you are visiting a church for the first time, no-one's going to know whether you're RC or not; so, chances are, no-one will say anything
Quite true. When I was a teen, I used to take communion at an RC church, before I had any idea what such things meant or that there were rules regarding same. No one ever batted an eyelash.
Even among denominations that practice close communion, no one really 'fences the table anymore'; not like they did in the days of the old reformed churches, where everyone got a little communion token to show that they were allowed to receive. Only churches I know of that still does it are the Missouri and Wisconsin Lutherans, where they will ask you if you are a member of their denomination, and will 'suggest' that you not commune if you answer in the negative.
[ 26. May 2011, 16:48: Message edited by: Jon in the Nati ]
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
But (and I think Triple Tiara confirmed this some time back) Anglicans and others who believe in the Real Presence are already invited to receive communion in the RCC when unable to attend a church of their own denomination. The French bishops have issued a statement to that effect. So it's not a question of discourtesy.
They have? I'd love to see what "grave necessity [that] urges it" (CIC 844 §4) they came up with there... Anyway, this won't do anything for Anglo-Catholics in the UK. Not only is the UK obviously outside of the jurisdiction of the French bishops, but a relevant condition is that non-RCs "cannot approach a minister of their own community" (CIC 844 §4 again). That's hardly the case for Anglicans in the UK.
The statement was on the Diocese of Europe (C of E) website at one time but I can't now find it. I doubt if it has been rescinded though in the present climate it is possible.
Bearing in mind that many Catholics in France face anything up to a 30km drive to get to mass on Sundays, it is extremely likely that many British tourists and residents find it practically impossible to visit a church of their own communion. If you believe that it is important for your spiritual health to receive the Blessed Sacrament regularly, then 'grave necessity' if you are otherwise deprived of it seems about right.
I agree that it isn't relevant to the UK. (and it's not just 'anglo-catholics' who might be concerned). But as an example of the practical working of the official Catholic position it is worth knowing about.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
But (and I think Triple Tiara confirmed this some time back) Anglicans and others who believe in the Real Presence are already invited to receive communion in the RCC when unable to attend a church of their own denomination. The French bishops have issued a statement to that effect. So it's not a question of discourtesy.
They have? I'd love to see what "grave necessity [that] urges it" (CIC 844 §4) they came up with there... Anyway, this won't do anything for Anglo-Catholics in the UK. Not only is the UK obviously outside of the jurisdiction of the French bishops, but a relevant condition is that non-RCs "cannot approach a minister of their own community" (CIC 844 §4 again). That's hardly the case for Anglicans in the UK.
IIRC, when Tony Blair visited Rome while still Anglican he was given permission to receive communion in an RC church, on the grounds that All Saints was too far from where he was staying or something.
Also IIRC, it works the other way as well. RC's in this country, who live in rural areas and cannot get to Mass easily, can attend their local CofE church and it counts as an RC mass (or whatever the technical phrase is).
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I lived in a tiny Dorset village and the nearest RC church was 20 odd twisty un-gritted miles away. In bad weather conditions the RC lady in the village had dispensation to receive in the CofE village church.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
We have often attended Mass in villages in rural Europe, where there's no Anglican church for 100 km or more; a chat with the local priest beforehand, a few gentle references to our belief in the Mass and we have been most welcome. Perfectly in accordance with canon law.
Incidentally, I understand that the members of ARCIC III recently attended a joint Eucharist with the sisters and brothers of the Monastery of Bose. If that were so, given the numbers of Anglican clergy present to conduct a service, this is a real advance.
[ 27. May 2011, 10:19: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BalddudeCrompond:
Based on the "I don't want to go to Hell" Thread, what do y'all think would happen if the RCC said that they were now an inclusive church and that all baptised trinitarian Christians could enjoy full inclusion in Sacramental life, without necessarily being confirmed/received....
Conversely, current RC's could also freely partake in any other church's sacraments....I'm guessing that the RC's would notice more of an increase in their rank.....
I would start paying serious attention to Harold Camping, and would be very nervous of horsemen going round in groups of four.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
Also IIRC, it works the other way as well. RC's in this country, who live in rural areas and cannot get to Mass easily, can attend their local CofE church and it counts as an RC mass (or whatever the technical phrase is).
This absolutely isn't true. The RCC doesn't recognise the sacraments of the CoE (bar baptism and marriage) so attending an Anglican service couldn't possibly fulfill the Sabbath obligation.
[ 27. May 2011, 12:37: Message edited by: CL ]
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
We have often attended Mass in villages in rural Europe, where there's no Anglican church for 100 km or more; a chat with the local priest beforehand, a few gentle references to our belief in the Mass and we have been most welcome. Perfectly in accordance with canon law.
Incidentally, I understand that the members of ARCIC III recently attended a joint Eucharist with the sisters and brothers of the Monastery of Bose. If that were so, given the numbers of Anglican clergy present to conduct a service, this is a real advance.
It wasn't a joint Eucharist, it was a joint service. All communication was separate for the respective groups. Opening the first session of ARCIC III with scandal in the current ecumenical climate (Rome has now essentially given up on the Reformation churches) would be insanely counterproductive.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
My parents have found the same in rural France. They have been going to the same place for about 35 years and have got to know the priest very well - they're almost treated like one of the regular congregation.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
Also IIRC, it works the other way as well. RC's in this country, who live in rural areas and cannot get to Mass easily, can attend their local CofE church and it counts as an RC mass (or whatever the technical phrase is).
This absolutely isn't true. The RCC doesn't recognise the sacraments of the CoE (bar baptism and marriage) so attending an Anglican service couldn't possibly fulfill the Sabbath obligation.
I do know of circumstances from RC medical and RCMP friends in Arctic settlements with only Anglican and Pentecostal franchises where their priests indicated that they could fulfill their Christmas and Easter obligations by attendance at Anglican services. One devout mountie was told by her confessor that she should take spiritual communion and was given various exercises around this, but I know of medical staff who were told by their priests that they should attend and communicate when there was no other option (a 2-hour flight in a Twin Otter when flying was possible).
A clerical friend of mine who had served in the Arctic for many years told me that it was common for RCs posted in hamlets to resort to Anglican altars, but generally only at Xmas and Easter. Most single Anglicans posted in RC-majority hamlets, he told me, generally did not attend church at all if there was only an RC outlet, but the married often did and became operational RCs during their 1-2 year stretch.
However, the high Arctic is not where most of us live. In rural Québec, there are few non-RC churches (and the number shrinking every year) and I know of some Anglicans who are regular attenders at Notre Dame de Whatever in smaller centres. One friend's uncle attended RC services for 5 years before he decided to make the commitment formal-- the priest was a little astonished at the step as they had so loved having him as a guest.
The RC policy is entirely logical. Communion is based on an explicit agreement of common belief; without that, there's really no point in communion. They also provide for being realistic in necessity (I know of a retired TEC woman priest living in a Spanish pueblo who attends Mass regularly and was once welcomed by the RC bishop, who greeted her with "Mi pastora!").
I once read that the difficulty of dealing with anglophone canon lawyers was that they interpreted the rules as they do civil law, to be enforced in the detail, while continental canon lawyers knew them to be guidelines intended to serve people and protect them.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
We have often attended Mass in villages in rural Europe, where there's no Anglican church for 100 km or more; a chat with the local priest beforehand, a few gentle references to our belief in the Mass and we have been most welcome. Perfectly in accordance with canon law.
This is not in perfect accordance with canon law as quoted above, unless your "local priest" actually was the diocesan bishop. Or, of course, unless that country's bishops conference had ruled similarly to what supposedly has been declared in France. A regular priest simply does not have the authority to make this decision on his own.
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
This absolutely isn't true. The RCC doesn't recognise the sacraments of the CoE (bar baptism and marriage) so attending an Anglican service couldn't possibly fulfill the Sabbath obligation.
Not quite. While it is true that the CofE Eucharist is not recognized as a sacrament by the RCC, there is an explicit statement about what to do when no RC mass can be found
quote:
Code of Canon Law, 1983
Can. 1248 ... §2. If participation in the eucharistic celebration becomes impossible because of the absence of a sacred minister or for another grave cause, it is strongly recommended that the faithful take part in a liturgy of the word if such a liturgy is celebrated in a parish church or other sacred place according to the prescripts of the diocesan bishop or that they devote themselves to prayer for a suitable time alone, as a family, or, as the occasion permits, in groups of families.
There actually is no Sunday obligation then, and as far as the recommendation goes, one can likely argue that Anglican mass does provides an acceptable "liturgy of the word". And if one denies even that, then certainly Anglican mass provides opportunity for a suitable prayer. Furthermore, to remove the slightest doubt in the matter, a RC can have recourse to
quote:
Code of Canon Law, 1983
Can. 1245 Without prejudice to the right of diocesan bishops mentioned in ⇒ can. 87, for a just cause and according to the prescripts of the diocesan bishop, a pastor can grant in individual cases a dispensation from the obligation of observing a feast day or a day of penance or can grant a commutation of the obligation into other pious works. A superior of a religious institute or society of apostolic life, if they are clerical and of pontifical right, can also do this in regard to his own subjects and others living in the house day and night.
Surely, attending Anglican mass can count as "other pious work". Therefore, a RC can have his Sunday obligation explicitly commuted to attending Anglican mass for just cause (like a large distance to the next RC mass) even by a regular RC priest.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
I don't want to be disrespectful of those who follow their own consciences on the matter of whether they take RC communion or not when they're not RC themselves - but how often does anyone actually get called out for it?
(...)
I know a man questioned and refused.
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
I can't see why an RC would be given dispensation for a CofE service, as it's a service rather than the Mass.
I'd have assumed that the response in more cases would involve careful guidance in Spiritual Communion.
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I had a discussion about this several years ago with a Catholic of my acquaintance; a "Vatican 2" man who I once heard give a very good address following a Brethren "Breaking of Bread" service (in which he did not participate).
(Come to think of it, that's an interesting opening line).
He thought the issue in the mind of the laity would be confession prior to Mass. I didn't understand his point and asked him to explain. As far as I remember, he observed that confession was necessary and very humbling, but kept an essential link in Catholicism between sincere repentance and receiving Christ. Breaking that link would cause lots of confusion and distress; the implication would be that practising Catholics had endured the humiliation of confession for years "in order to receive" and now the church was saying "not really necessary". BTW, if that was not Catholic doctrine and practice, the fault is probably in my memory, rather than in what he actually said. But the conversation made me think.
As best I recall, I observed that the Protestant position was that it was possible to eat and drink judgment on ourselves, making participation in the end a matter of personal responsibility (each should examine himself). That opened up a wider discussion about pastoral responsibilities and individual freedoms, which is not relevant here. But it made me realise that opening up the table has major ramifications within Catholicism.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
There would be a massive schism and a "continuing" Catholic Church would appear continuing the existing policy. It might even be bigger than the church which had opened up the sacraments.
I do think that there would be a Lefebvristesque intentional excommunication/schism, but if the leadership received the revelation to make an "infallible" declaration, I don't think it would be a large crowd.
---
As for the Pauline warnings, most Protestants would point out that it is not only the Body of Christ in the eucharistic host that must be perceived, but also in the faithful--the Body of Christ. In a way, by acknowledging "[Those] who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church," the Catholic Church has really opened up the discussion in terms of who is part of the Body of Christ.
Perhaps a way to address this issue would be to set forth the same requirements for any baptized Trinitarian believers as for any Roman Catholics to receive Holy Communion (including the confessional requirement), and to allow the baptized faithful of Trinitarian churches to skip the RCIA process. Just show up for Confession and Communion. At the same time, it would behoove the church to remind Roman Catholics who have likewise placed themselves in "imperfect" communion with the church by holding beliefs converse to church doctrine that they may not receive as well until such time as they have returned through the standard procedures. (And from what I've seen, there are many RCs who blatantly ignore some of the less popular social teachings.)
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
He thought the issue in the mind of the laity would be confession prior to Mass. I didn't understand his point and asked him to explain. As far as I remember, he observed that confession was necessary and very humbling, but kept an essential link in Catholicism between sincere repentance and receiving Christ. Breaking that link would cause lots of confusion and distress; the implication would be that practising Catholics had endured the humiliation of confession for years "in order to receive" and now the church was saying "not really necessary".
Clarification please from some Catholic shipmates. Are you implying that Catholics are expected to make sacramental confession before every act of communion? I can't believe that this in fact happens: at every Catholic mass I have been to well over half the congregation has received, yet we hear from many priests the lament that 'virtually no-one comes to confession these days'. I can understand that it is the ideal; I can understand that it may once have been imposed as a rule; but I can't believe it is any more practised regularly except by rigidly old-school priests and laity.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
He thought the issue in the mind of the laity would be confession prior to Mass. I didn't understand his point and asked him to explain. As far as I remember, he observed that confession was necessary and very humbling, but kept an essential link in Catholicism between sincere repentance and receiving Christ. Breaking that link would cause lots of confusion and distress; the implication would be that practising Catholics had endured the humiliation of confession for years "in order to receive" and now the church was saying "not really necessary".
Clarification please from some Catholic shipmates. Are you implying that Catholics are expected to make sacramental confession before every act of communion? I can't believe that this in fact happens: at every Catholic mass I have been to well over half the congregation has received, yet we hear from many priests the lament that 'virtually no-one comes to confession these days'. I can understand that it is the ideal; I can understand that it may once have been imposed as a rule; but I can't believe it is any more practised regularly except by rigidly old-school priests and laity.
Yes, rarely happens these days though, indeed those who do not receive are often looked at somewhat askance. The reason for this state of affairs - 40+ years of piss poor catechesis. I myself am personally utterly rigid on the point nowadays. I will not receive if I have not confessed.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Clarification please from some Catholic shipmates. Are you implying that Catholics are expected to make sacramental confession before every act of communion?
No, that is not the case. Rather:
quote:
Code of Canon Law, 1983
Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.
Thus in a state of moral sin one may not receive the Lord, in a state of venial sin one may. Whether most Catholics receiving the Lord are in fact free of mortal sin at the time is a different discussion. In my experience, up to a quarter of Catholics attending mass remain seated at communion (myself often enough included, unfortunately). Whether that means that the other three quarters are more holy I do not know. (Seriously, I just do not know. I'm not being ironic here.)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Thus in a state of moral sin one may not receive the Lord
Funny, innit? Because I'd say that being in a state of mortal sin is when one most needs to receive the Lord.
After all, if you're already sinless then the Lord already dwells within you.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'd say that being in a state of mortal sin is when one most needs to receive the Lord. After all, if you're already sinless then the Lord already dwells within you.
If you really wish the Lord to come under your dirty roof, then perhaps you should allow Him to cleanse the place with hyssop first?
quote:
Didache, ca. 70 A.D.
But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one who is at odds with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: "In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations."
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
...in a state of venial sin one may.
Sorry for the brief tangent, but IngoB probably can confirm quickly whether this is correct or not:
If I recall correctly, there are several instances during the Mass at which one receives the forgiveness of venial sin: the absolution (Misereatur) after the corporate confession; or conversely the rite of sprinkling; or the reception of Holy Communion.
Am I correct, or perhaps a bit muddy? It's been a while since I studied this.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
Sorry for the brief tangent, but IngoB probably can confirm quickly whether this is correct or not: If I recall correctly, there are several instances during the Mass at which one receives the forgiveness of venial sin: the absolution (Misereatur) after the corporate confession; or conversely the rite of sprinkling; or the reception of Holy Communion. Am I correct, or perhaps a bit muddy? It's been a while since I studied this.
For the liturgical detail, please consult the good folks at Eccles. I'm not particularly into liturgy...
The proper sacrament for reconciliation with God is confession and that is true also for venial sins. However, for Catholics venial sin can be dealt with as Protestants claim all sin can be dealt with, i.e. "internally" between you and God. (Because, the Catholic argument goes, you are then spiritually sick, not dead.) Now, the mass certainly provides lots of external opportunities for this internal conversion. If you strike your breast in sorrow for your sins following the liturgy, and you mean it, then therein your venial sins will attain forgiveness. Etc. And this does not need to be so terribly intellectual and conscious. In particular, receiving the Body of the Lord is - literally and metaphorically - a visceral moment of grace, that may well cure you of your spiritual illness beyond any bookkeeping.
Thus I guess in a practical sense, you could say that mass deals with venial sin, and confession with mortal sin. I don't think that that is a particularly inspiring way to think about sin, it's IKEA spirituality. But God remains merciful all the same and provides an infinite supply of Allen wrenches...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But God remains merciful all the same and provides an infinite supply of Allen wrenches...
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Interesting, IngoB. The conversation I had pre-dated 1983 by a few years and I noted that the version of Canon Law you cited had a 1983 date. Has there been some clarification and has it led to some relaxation of previous customary practice? CL seems to think so. On pragmatic grounds, if I were Catholic, I reckon I'd confess too. However well catechised I was on venial or mortal sin. After all, why take a chance?
(I did have a vague memory that there had been some change in the guidance on the matter, but no obvious way of checking that out.)
In my particular part of nonconformism, there used to be a strong encouragement towards self-examination and confession to God before coming to Breaking of Bread. (Personally, I always thought that was a good thing.) Things are more relaxed these days, which bothers me. Grace is freely offered, but we do well not to cheapen it.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
