Thread: RCC to open up Sacraments to all Trinitarian believers.....what would happen? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028586
Posted by BalddudeCrompond (# 12152) on
:
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.....
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Why?
Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on
:
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.
Posted by BalddudeCrompond (# 12152) on
:
Well it is a hypothetical question, but why not? Say the pope had a spiritual revelation....
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
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.
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on
:
20-50 years of discussion
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on
:
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.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
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.
Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on
:
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).
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on
:
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.
Posted by shameless (# 9918) on
:
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.
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on
:
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.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
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...
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
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
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
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.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
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.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
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?
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
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.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
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...
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
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.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
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????
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
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.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
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.
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
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.
Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
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.
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on
:
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).
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
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.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
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.
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
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 ]
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
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.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
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.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
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.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
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.
Posted by Invictus_88 (# 15352) on
:
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.
Posted by Invictus_88 (# 15352) on
:
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.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
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.
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on
:
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.)
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
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.
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on
:
Here is the relevant Canon Law. See 916. I guess if the person is ignorant to what a grave sin is, then perhaps...
919 §1 also is probably something frequently forgotten by many.
Here is the Canon Law concerning penance. See 989, especially.
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
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.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
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.)
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
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.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
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."
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on
:
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.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
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...
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But God remains merciful all the same and provides an infinite supply of Allen wrenches...
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
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.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
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?
For Him to clean a place, He must first enter it.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
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?
Well, here's the
quote:
Code of Canon Law, 1917
Can 856. Nemo quem conscientia peccati mortalis gravat, quantumcunque etiam se contritum existimet, sine praemissa sacramentali confessione ad sacram communionem accedat; quod si urgeat necessitas ac copia confessarii illi desit, actum perfectae contritionis prius eliciat.
emphasis mine. This very roughly translates to
"Can 856. No one whose conscience is weighted down by mortal sin, no matter how contrite they consider themselves, should approach holy communion without having made their sacramental confession, except if urgent necessity and lack of confessors elicits an act of perfect contrition before that."
So unless you are older than 94 years of age, I think we can safely say that actual canon law has always said the same in your and CL's lifetime. And I would be rather surprised if this one couldn't be tracked back quite a few centuries more.
I think it is both a commendable practice to sacramentally confess all sin every week prior to communion and a very, very bad idea to require it of all people. Firstly, sacramental confession is to many, myself very much included, just about the least pleasant aspect of (ordinary) Christian life. To me it relates to spiritual life much like the dentist relates to teeth. To bind confession to the Eucharist without strict necessity to me would be like dripping cod liver oil into a a glorious glass of expensive wine, reasoning that cod liver oil is good for you. Secondly, making sacramental confession of all sin a requirement prior to communion de facto denies the power of mass itself to cure the faithful of venial sin - which it can, as just discussed. If you ask a priest "Can a deacon give this blessing?" and the priest answers "Of course he can. But if you actually want this blessing, please always first get it from me, and only then go to the deacon." - then what would you think of the power of the deacon?
So, I'm happy for CL to have found a path to holiness that works for him. A lot of Catholics take perfectly valid and viable steps on this path, that appear strange or even distasteful to me. Horses for courses, Catholicism is actually very accommodating (just not arbitrary). But I'm not so happy for CL to dictate where I shall walk. And that's another thing I really like about Catholicism. In case of doubt, I do not have to worry whether CL's holiness outranks mine. I can look at the actual rules and ask the proper authorities, and that is that.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
For Him to clean a place, He must first enter it.
OK, fine then, let's chase metaphors about...
The Lord will indeed come under your roof and clean your place for you. If you are at home. If instead you sit on a heap of toxic waste in the garbage dump and proudly proclaim this to be your new home, then He will not. He will - if you ask Him to - take you by the hand and lead you back to your real home. But if you keep inviting Him out to the garbage dump without wanting to leave the toxic waste behind, then it is not His fault if you eventually fall sick and die.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
So unless you are older than 94 years of age, I think we can safely say that actual canon law has always said the same in your and CL's lifetime. And I would be rather surprised if this one couldn't be tracked back quite a few centuries more.
I think it is both a commendable practice to sacramentally confess all sin every week prior to communion and a very, very bad idea to require it of all people.
Thanks IngoB for the clarification. I can confirm that I'm getting on, but not that ancient. And your last para seems spot on to me.
(Wonder what my old friend was going on about? He moved out of the area almost 30 years ago and we lost touch. Ah well. Memory plays tricks, sometimes)
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
Those who like nothing more than to lament the current state of affairs concerning confession, and place themselves virtually perpetually in a state of grave sin because of their judgement of others ("Look at them, going to communion without going to confession! How shocking!") need to be catechised rather more comprehensively. Their catechesis has clearly been woefully inadequate, even if it did take place in the halcyon days when everything was just perfect.
Thus says the Council on this matter:
quote:
Venial sins, on the other hand, by which we are not excluded from the grace of God and into which we fall more frequently, though they may be rightly and profitably and without any presumption declared in confession, as the practice of pious people evinces, may, nevertheless, be omitted without guilt and can be expiated by many other remedies.
And no, I don't mean the Second Vatican Council, I mean the Council of Trent (Session XIV, Ch. 5)
I once had the same argument given to me by a pious woman who always bristled with anger at the sins of the world (meaning everyone else's faults - not her own). It was at a meeting of the Legion of Mary in the 1990s and there was controversy in the air as Cardinal Hume had ticked off Tony Blair for regularly receiving Holy Communion in a Catholic Church. This woman made the statement that Blair was "unworthy" to receive Communion. I rolled my eyeballs and said his personal worthiness had nothing to do with it - it was the fact that our Churches are divided and communion, inter alia, is about being in union with one another.
No, I was told, he was unworthy. He was an Anglican and therefore he did not go to Confession so was unworthy. Again I exerted utmost patience and did some catechising (not woefully inadequate and piss-poor in our parish at least). It was not necessary to go to confession in order to receive communion etc etc.
No, it was! I just did not understand! So I trotted out the Council of Trent and the Code of Canon Law to show I was not wrong on this matter. However, she was not going to back down and trumped all my calm and collected reasoning by saying "None of that matters. Our Lady told us at Fatima that we have to go to Confession on the first Saturday". At which point I gave up and said "Well, I can't argue with a vision".
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
However, she was not going to back down and trumped all my calm and collected reasoning by saying "None of that matters. Our Lady told us at Fatima that we have to go to Confession on the first Saturday". At which point I gave up and said "Well, I can't argue with a vision".
Well, you could have argued with her version of the vision... The original vision was: "I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of reparation on the First Saturdays. If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church." That's a clear case of "been there, didn't do that" for the Church then, isn't it? Anyhow, it's no about personal salvation but about helping the Church. And as for the later vision, it's not particularly different from other promises for devotions and actually limited in temporal scope: "I promise to assist at the hour of death, with the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, for five consecutive months, shall confess, receive Holy communion, recite five decades of the Rosary, and keep me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary, with the intention of making reparation to me." Notably, this doesn't say that one cannot be saved if one does not do this. (Nor, actually, that one will be saved if one does do this.)
I know that I wouldn't be cut out for a priest, for I would have told her that ironically she and Blair had a decent chance to meet in the afterlife - in Malebolge, Bolgia Ten, to be precise. ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
(*) By the way, Cardinal Ratzinger's analysis of the status of private revelations at the first link is apposite, not that she would have listened to him...
(*) "Bolgia" is not Italian for "Downing Street", in case anybody is wondering... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
Forgive me, but my organs of skepticism are aroused by the thought of a prophecy about Russia that was given in July 1917 but not written down till August 1941.
But at least it was genuinely locked up in the Secret Archives of the Vatican. You can't get much cooler than that ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
For Him to clean a place, He must first enter it.
OK, fine then, let's chase metaphors about...
The Lord will indeed come under your roof and clean your place for you. If you are at home. If instead you sit on a heap of toxic waste in the garbage dump and proudly proclaim this to be your new home, then He will not. He will - if you ask Him to - take you by the hand and lead you back to your real home. But if you keep inviting Him out to the garbage dump without wanting to leave the toxic waste behind, then it is not His fault if you eventually fall sick and die.
You're not chasing the metaphor, you're completely changing it.
Your original metaphor was saying "before you are allowed to receive the Lord, you must first clean your house". The metaphor is clear - before the Lord can be received through the eucharist your body/spirit must be cleansed through confession, as the Lord will presumably not take kindly to being welcomed in to you if you are impure or tainted*. The idea presumably being that only the pure/sinless can receive.
To that, I replied "only the Lord can perform such a cleansing, and in order to do that He must first enter the house". Again, this meaning is clear - sin can only be absolved by the Lord, and the eucharist (being a significant** conduit for Grace) is one of the best means by which that can be effected. The idea being that the eucharist is one of the ways God acts on (and changes) us, and not simply a reward for The Holy™.
Rather than respond to that counter, you've chosen to completely change the metaphor such that your original meaning is completely ignored. Sin is changed from being something that messes up your "house" to the degree that the Lord will not enter within to being something that causes you to leave your "house" behind and take up residence elsewhere. Since the "house" in the original metaphor was the body/spirit, this is a bizarre development indeed!
.
*= This is, in itself, an argument that is plainly contradicted by the Gospel accounts. But I'm not arguing that line right now.
**= deliberate understatement.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
Marvin... I used a dirt/sin metaphor that was less than clear, and you promptly made it argue for your opinion that participation in the Eucharist will forgive mortal sin. That's not a belief that I share. So then I tried to state my own belief in terms of a less ambiguous dirt/sin metaphor. That's all.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
...your opinion that participation in the Eucharist will forgive mortal sin.
Not "will", "can".
Or "can help with", anyway.
I mean, we're talking about ingesting the Body and Blood of Christ here, not some scooby snack for the faithful. And as we all know, you are what you eat - quite literally. So what could be better for someone who desperately needs to become more Christlike than to ingest, digest and finally renew part of their own body with that of Christ Himself?
To me, that has to be a fundamental part of spiritual healing. What better way to become more like Christ than to literally become more like Him? To say that that's something that's only available to those who are sufficiently Christlike already is bizarre to me - it should be something we offer to all who request it, however idle or passing their desire and however uninformed their knowledge of the faith may be. Surely it cannot fail but to help them!
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
mmmmm Marvin, all you say is true. The problem here is the idea that one has to be holy and Christlike in order to receive Communion. That is fundamentally not what is being said. In that case no-one, ever, would dare to receive Communion. But you are also potentially reducing the action of Christ to the Eucharist alone. The thing is we have another sacrament to deal with grave sin, just as we have another sacrament for the sick, and another for the grace of the Holy Spirit for living the Christian life. The grace of the Sacrament of Penance is at least discernible in the Scriptures and was very soon the practice of the Church - though the practice has changed down the centuries.
One can begin with "If when you are bringing your gift to the altar you remember that your brother has a grievance against you, go first and make peace with your brother and then bring your gift" (quickly quoting from memory).
I don't see what the big hang-up about Confession is. It's one of the means of grace given to us, freely. It just takes the necessary act of the will to take responsibility for one's actions and admit them. And that's the part we find difficult. If we say we can do that in our own hearts, it isn't a big step to then articulate that in Confession. It really isn't.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
it should be something we offer to all who request it, however idle or passing their desire and however uninformed their knowledge of the faith may be. Surely it cannot fail but to help them!
You do realize that St Paul is of different opinion?
quote:
1 Cor 11:27-30 (RSV):
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
And please also note the first statement there. There's a bit more going on at the Eucharist than just spiritual healing. Actually, the Greek word means thanksgiving, not "receiving healing". It seems rather reasonable to say that proper thanks cannot be given when one is at the same time seriously rejecting the gift.
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
I don't see what the big hang-up about Confession is. It's one of the means of grace given to us, freely. It just takes the necessary act of the will to take responsibility for one's actions and admit them. And that's the part we find difficult. If we say we can do that in our own hearts, it isn't a big step to then articulate that in Confession. It really isn't.
Curious that you would say that. In my experience, it is exactly the other way around. I find the former not hard at all, the latter all the more. And frankly, I've always considered that to be a very good rationale for sacramental confession. (Not that God needs my reasons.) For if you were right, then the Protestants have a good case. If doing it in our heart is the difficult bit, then sacramental confession seems rather pointlessly cumbersome. But if that is often all too quick and easy, then the Protestants have something to worry about. For sin is not so easy to get rid off, really. Sacramental confession then may be forcing us to go an extra mile, perhaps without us really knowing why and how and where to, but with God knowing that we should...
And no, I don't think sin is a quick and easy thing for all Protestants, far from it. However, I think in some way they have to generate within themselves that which sacramental confession imposes on Catholics externally, if they want to remain "serious" about it all. And that can actually mean that they end up being way too hard on themselves for way too long.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
sacramental confession is to many, myself very much included, just about the least pleasant aspect of (ordinary) Christian life.
It's wonderful - a celebration of God's love and acceptance - a joyous sacrament.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
IngoB, what I am pointing to is the move to contrition, which leads to the point of doing something about the sin.
It does of course work the other way as well. I know that when it's time for Confession and I do an examination of conscience, I am moved to contrition about things I might not necessarily think about sufficiently otherwise. It's why I find the sacrament such an essential element of the spiritual life.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
I don't see what the big hang-up about Confession is. It's one of the means of grace given to us, freely. It just takes the necessary act of the will to take responsibility for one's actions and admit them. And that's the part we find difficult.
No, the part I find difficult is telling another person about my actions.
quote:
If we say we can do that in our own hearts, it isn't a big step to then articulate that in Confession. It really isn't.
It is, because it brings another person into it, with all the attendant trust issues, responsibilites, dangers and balances of power.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
it should be something we offer to all who request it, however idle or passing their desire and however uninformed their knowledge of the faith may be. Surely it cannot fail but to help them!
You do realize that St Paul is of different opinion?
quote:
1 Cor 11:27-30 (RSV):
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
A different opinion? No. You and I having different interpretations of what "an unworthy manner" means? Yes.
quote:
And please also note the first statement there. There's a bit more going on at the Eucharist than just spiritual healing.
No, really?
Sorry, that was a tad sarky. But seriously, you think I don't appreciate that?
quote:
Actually, the Greek word means thanksgiving, not "receiving healing". It seems rather reasonable to say that proper thanks cannot be given when one is at the same time seriously rejecting the gift.
I tend to the view that anyone who puts themselves forward to receive the gift cannot be "seriously rejecting" it. Misunderstanding, maybe, but not rejecting.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
A different opinion? No. You and I having different interpretations of what "an unworthy manner" means? Yes.
Uhh, no, that's a misunderstanding based on me lazily not separating my quote from the bible into two parts. My first comment was based on everything but the first sentence I quoted from St Paul, key being "without discerning the body".
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But seriously, you think I don't appreciate that?
I don't know. You seem to put great stock into the sin-healing ability of the Eucharist, whereas for me that's more of a side effect. Clearly, what is proper to the Eucharist depends on what it is primarily about.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I tend to the view that anyone who puts themselves forward to receive the gift cannot be "seriously rejecting" it. Misunderstanding, maybe, but not rejecting.
Well, if somebody waits in line to receive a free Porsche, but what is actually on offer is a free tricycle, then I am not in favour of letting him move up to the front, handing him the tricycle and saying "Here's your Porsche." In particular so, actually, if he may indeed believe that the tricycle is a Porsche.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
A different opinion? No. You and I having different interpretations of what "an unworthy manner" means? Yes.
Uhh, no, that's a misunderstanding based on me lazily not separating my quote from the bible into two parts. My first comment was based on everything but the first sentence I quoted from St Paul, key being "without discerning the body".
...which you think means?
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But seriously, you think I don't appreciate that?
I don't know. You seem to put great stock into the sin-healing ability of the Eucharist, whereas for me that's more of a side effect. Clearly, what is proper to the Eucharist depends on what it is primarily about.
It's primarily about obeying Christ's request to "do this in remembrance of Me". But as it is His body and blood it will naturally have greater effects upon us than a simple memorial.
quote:
Well, if somebody waits in line to receive a free Porsche, but what is actually on offer is a free tricycle, then I am not in favour of letting him move up to the front, handing him the tricycle and saying "Here's your Porsche." In particular so, actually, if he may indeed believe that the tricycle is a Porsche.
What a curious analogy. Why would the person handing out tricycles say "here's your Porsche"?
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
...which you think means?
Well, I think it means that those who do not believe in the real presence of Christ in the consecrated host should not consume it. But that's not my main point here. My point was that your "it should be something we offer to all who request it, however idle or passing their desire and however uninformed their knowledge of the faith may be" is not appropriate if some kind of discernment is required to avoid ill effects.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's primarily about obeying Christ's request to "do this in remembrance of Me".
Then the conditions of participation in the Eucharist are primarily about what is appropriate for such a memorial, not about the spiritual health of the participants. I'm not saying that the latter is unimportant, of course. But it does have its own associated sacrament, confession, which is primarily about that.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Why would the person handing out tricycles say "here's your Porsche"?
Indeed. Why would he not say something like "Sorry, this is a line for free tricycles. I'm not sure if and where one may get free Porsches. But unless you want a free tricycle, I'm afraid I cannot do anything for you here." By analogy then, we should make very clear to people what they are getting at communion, and what not, and make sure that they understand and accept this sufficiently and still want it for themselves. It may be true that the tricycles are given free of charge, but neither does one want to disappoint people (or worse, leave them in delusion about the difference between a tricycle and a Porsche) nor does one want to see those tricycles land in a trash bin when they do disappoint the Porsche seekers...
[ 02. June 2011, 13:32: Message edited by: IngoB ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
My point was that your "it should be something we offer to all who request it, however idle or passing their desire and however uninformed their knowledge of the faith may be" is not appropriate if some kind of discernment is required to avoid ill effects.
And my point was that any desire to receive the Lord should not be denied. What if it is a fleeting desire? Then all the more reason why that person should receive the Lord before it passes, possibly never to return! What if it is uninformed? Then by receiving that person can proceed down the road to wisdom!
We don't refuse to give people food unless they perfectly understand what it is and why they need it - we just make sure they get the nourishment they need. If we do that for physical nourishment, why would we not do so for spiritual nourishment as well? If we will happily feed someone who has a pang of physical hunger, why not someone who feels the proddings of spiritual hunger?
quote:
Then the conditions of participation in the Eucharist are primarily about what is appropriate for such a memorial,
I am not aware of Jesus turning away any who sought Him out (though some certainly had to work hard at it!). That is what informs my position on the matter.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Why would the person handing out tricycles say "here's your Porsche"?
Indeed. Why would he not say something like "Sorry, this is a line for free tricycles. I'm not sure if and where one may get free Porsches. But unless you want a free tricycle, I'm afraid I cannot do anything for you here."
Perfectly right. And if the person says "yes, I want it", they should be given it, wouldn't you say?
quote:
By analogy then, we should make very clear to people what they are getting at communion, and what not, and make sure that they understand and accept this sufficiently and still want it for themselves.
I've not been to a communion service yet that didn't clearly state what it was that was being given.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
Well,yes in fact, there were many who turned away from Jesus when they knew the full deal. Hence in John 6 fter discoursing precisely on this matter, he can say to his closest disciples "Are you also going to turn away?" andPeter says "Lord, to whom would we go?" Then there is the rich young man who turned away and Jesus did not stop him.
The idea that Jesus was a sort of cosmic guru on pot saying "hey man! whatever floats your boat! Lets sit down n smoke this peace pipe n chill!" is not adequateat all.
Likewise the Catholi Church isn't turning anyone away with a mark of Cain disqualifier. It's simple really - "Come, Follow me". If you don't want to do that then you are turning yourself away.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
Sorry about the many mistakes above - my keyboard is playing up at the moment.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Well,yes in fact, there were many who turned away from Jesus when they knew the full deal. Hence in John 6 fter discoursing precisely on this matter, he can say to his closest disciples "Are you also going to turn away?" andPeter says "Lord, to whom would we go?" Then there is the rich young man who turned away and Jesus did not stop him.
People turning away from Jesus is not the same as Jesus turning people away.
quote:
The idea that Jesus was a sort of cosmic guru on pot saying "hey man! whatever floats your boat! Lets sit down n smoke this peace pipe n chill!" is not adequateat all.
It's a good job I haven't said that then.
quote:
Likewise the Catholic Church isn't turning anyone away with a mark of Cain disqualifier. It's simple really - "Come, Follow me".
Following Jesus is not the same as following the church.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And my point was that any desire to receive the Lord should not be denied.
An immoral proposition, if St Paul is correct. Just like it would be immoral for a bartender to serve alcohol to everybody who desires it, even if we say - at least for the sake of argument - that drinking alcohol in a pub is generally a good thing. Yet it is not a good idea to serve alcohol to children, the very drunk, people in a combative mood, etc. Because they may be worse off for it. Your idea here is that only positive consequences can ever follow receiving the Lord, and that at worst nothing happens. This is neither St Paul's opinion, nor is it mine.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If we will happily feed someone who has a pang of physical hunger, why not someone who feels the proddings of spiritual hunger?
One does not feed steak to a baby that is hungry. The Eucharist is the source and summit of Christian life, not its entry point. If we cannot feed the spiritual hungry by anything but the handing out of the Eucharist, then our religion has become a mere caricature of itself. Furthermore, we have already established what in your opinion the Eucharist is primarily about, and while this memorial comes in the form of a meal and certainly sustains the faithful, it cannot be reduced to a meal that happens to have some memorial aspect. It is not appropriate for people to actively participate in a memorial if they do not have the faintest clue what people are going on about, or worse, if they are opposed to it.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I am not aware of Jesus turning away any who sought Him out (though some certainly had to work hard at it!). That is what informs my position on the matter.
And I'm not aware that seeking out Jesus ever consisted merely in saying "Yeah, I will have some of that, too. Thanks."
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And if the person says "yes, I want it", they should be given it, wouldn't you say?
Sure. But not if they say "Yes, I want to race it on the Nürnburg ring."
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I've not been to a communion service yet that didn't clearly state what it was that was being given.
Interesting. I've never been at one where that was stated at all. It was always assumed that the people coming forward were informed sufficiently. But anyway, this is not merely about being properly informed, as in the analogy. It's about being properly disposed to receive our Lord.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
People turning away from Jesus is not the same as Jesus turning people away.
Indeed not. But as I said, no-one is being turned away: they are invited to be part of the communion of the faithful - all that is required is a profession of faith. If they want to walk alone, or walk with another crowd, that's their choice.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Following Jesus is not the same as following the church.
The two go hand in hand - but that, as I often say, is the essential difference between Catholics and Protestants. The Church makes the Eucharist and the Eucharist makes the Church. You came close to this when you waxed eloquent about "you are what you eat" above. But you left it as an individual matter. Actually, it's the whole People of God who are made into the Body of Christ, not just individuals.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
The idea that Jesus was a sort of cosmic guru on pot saying "hey man! whatever floats your boat! Lets sit down n smoke this peace pipe n chill!" is not adequateat all.
It's a good job I haven't said that then.
No, I said it. Heheh stop taking it so personally! The thing is, that's where one ends up with this "Jesus who has no barriers" idea. He wasn't some undemanding bloke - he had some pretty stringent requirements of his followers. Very few of us manage to live up to them, but that's where that other Sacrament comes in, Penance.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
No, the part I find difficult is telling another person about my actions.
.....
It is, because it brings another person into it, with all the attendant trust issues, responsibilites, dangers and balances of power.
A fair enough difficulty - which is why the Sacrament of Penance, at least in the Catholic Church, is hedged around with very watertight seals and regulations. I know of no Catholic who has the same fears, because one just does not encounter breaches of that seal, (with the caveat of course that there is always the rare and shocking exception).St John Nepomucene is an example of the inviolability of the seal. Catholics tend to have other issues with the sacrament, but trust in the priest is not one of them. Of course, one gets good confessors and bad ones, and of course I can tell my own stories of priests I have not found in any way helpful in the Confessional (especially at St Peter's in Rome!!!!) But are you speaking after having experienced making your Confession?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Your idea here is that only positive consequences can ever follow receiving the Lord, and that at worst nothing happens. This is neither St Paul's opinion, nor is it mine.
Indeed - we disagree on this point.
quote:
The Eucharist is the source and summit of Christian life, not its entry point.
The source and summit of Christian life is it's eternal reward. The Eucharist is what refreshes and sustains us on the journey.
quote:
If we cannot feed the spiritual hungry by anything but the handing out of the Eucharist, then our religion has become a mere caricature of itself.
It's not the only thing, but it's the most potent. The most effective.
quote:
Furthermore, we have already established what in your opinion the Eucharist is primarily about, and while this memorial comes in the form of a meal and certainly sustains the faithful, it cannot be reduced to a meal that happens to have some memorial aspect. It is not appropriate for people to actively participate in a memorial if they do not have the faintest clue what people are going on about, or worse, if they are opposed to it.
I disagree about people who don't know what's going on - sometimes the best way for them to learn is to do. As for those who are actively opposed - why would they be there in the first place?
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I am not aware of Jesus turning away any who sought Him out (though some certainly had to work hard at it!). That is what informs my position on the matter.
And I'm not aware that seeking out Jesus ever consisted merely in saying "Yeah, I will have some of that, too. Thanks."
As the sum total of what it entails? Of course not. As the first step on the journey? Why not?
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And if the person says "yes, I want it", they should be given it, wouldn't you say?
Sure. But not if they say "Yes, I want to race it on the Nürnburg ring."
All analogies eventually go too far. I think this one just reached that point!
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I've not been to a communion service yet that didn't clearly state what it was that was being given.
Interesting. I've never been at one where that was stated at all. It was always assumed that the people coming forward were informed sufficiently.
Really? Your services don't have any retelling of the story of the Last Supper? No "this is the Body (and Blood) of Christ"?
Our eucharistic prayers go on at length about what's going on.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
People turning away from Jesus is not the same as Jesus turning people away.
Indeed not. But as I said, no-one is being turned away: they are invited to be part of the communion of the faithful - all that is required is a profession of faith. If they want to walk alone, or walk with another crowd, that's their choice.
This is all a bit "chicken-and-egg". What comes first - membership of the group or doctrinal adherence? Belonging or belief?
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Following Jesus is not the same as following the church.
The two go hand in hand - but that, as I often say, is the essential difference between Catholics and Protestants. The Church makes the Eucharist and the Eucharist makes the Church. You came close to this when you waxed eloquent about "you are what you eat" above. But you left it as an individual matter. Actually, it's the whole People of God who are made into the Body of Christ, not just individuals.
I heartily agree about the whole people of God being what it's about. The difference is between The Church and any given denomination thereof - I guess my original quote should have said "any given church" rather than "the church"...
quote:
The thing is, that's where one ends up with this "Jesus who has no barriers" idea. He wasn't some undemanding bloke - he had some pretty stringent requirements of his followers. Very few of us manage to live up to them, but that's where that other Sacrament comes in, Penance.
Again though, the issue is which comes first. I agree about Jesus' demands on His followers - but they were already His followers when He made those demands. There being no barriers to church membership in no way implies that church membership requires nothing of a person. It merely shifts those requirements from being essential prerequisites to being desired outcomes.
quote:
Catholics tend to have other issues with the sacrament, but trust in the priest is not one of them.
Well it's mine. And not so much in the sense that what I confess might get spread around, but in the sense that someone else would know about it. Even if the priest never mentioned it again, I still wouldn't want him to know in the first place.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
MtM, I don't suppose you'd be up for psychotherapy either, then.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The source and summit of Christian life is it's eternal reward. The Eucharist is what refreshes and sustains us on the journey.
What's the purpose of such cheap point scoring? We were and I was talking about this life.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's not the only thing, but it's the most potent. The most effective.
Perhaps. Let's just say that my professional training as objective observer slightly dampens my theological enthusiasm in this regard. Be that as it may, the most potent and effective anything typically should be handled with care and provided only to the qualified. So here.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I disagree about people who don't know what's going on - sometimes the best way for them to learn is to do. As for those who are actively opposed - why would they be there in the first place?
I've spent well over a year attending Catholic mass, without receiving, before I decided to begin with the formal process of joining the Church. I think I had a fair idea of what was going on. As for being actively opposed: I believe there are objective standards for that, which people however do not always subjectively agree with or perhaps do not have the strength to follow. Somebody remaining unrepentant in mortal sin is actively opposed to Christ in an objective sense, yet may very well attempt to receive the Lord nevertheless.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
As the sum total of what it entails? Of course not. As the first step on the journey? Why not?
Because values are not independent of actions. It is a very bad idea to present the Most Holy in an action void of value, because that association will be hard to overcome down the track.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Really? Your services don't have any retelling of the story of the Last Supper? No "this is the Body (and Blood) of Christ"?
Yet Christians have come to rather different conclusions about what that means and leads to.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And not so much in the sense that what I confess might get spread around, but in the sense that someone else would know about it. Even if the priest never mentioned it again, I still wouldn't want him to know in the first place.
Exactly, Marvin, exactly. Now perhaps re-read my last two paragraphs here?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Be that as it may, the most potent and effective anything typically should be handled with care and provided only to the qualified.
The most potent medicines can be provided to someone who doesn't even know what illness is, and still be effective in curing them.
quote:
As for being actively opposed: I believe there are objective standards for that, which people however do not always subjectively agree with or perhaps do not have the strength to follow.
The only standard for whether someone is actively opposed to God is if they openly and freely want to be opposed to God. Being ignorant isn't the same thing. Being weak isn't the same thing. Being just plain wrong isn't the same thing.
quote:
It is a very bad idea to present the Most Holy in an action void of value, because that association will be hard to overcome down the track.
I don't equate a lack of barriers with a lack of value. If I have a gift of immense value that I want everyone to have, I will give it to them. It is precisely because the gift has such value (and because I care enough about others to want them to have it) that I don't set up barriers or demand that people meet a certain standard of acceptability before they can have it.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Really? Your services don't have any retelling of the story of the Last Supper? No "this is the Body (and Blood) of Christ"?
Yet Christians have come to rather different conclusions about what that means and leads to.
I don't see that as a problem.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
MtM, I don't suppose you'd be up for psychotherapy either, then.
No, not really. I don't trust other people enough to open up to them to such a degree.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And not so much in the sense that what I confess might get spread around, but in the sense that someone else would know about it. Even if the priest never mentioned it again, I still wouldn't want him to know in the first place.
Exactly, Marvin, exactly. Now perhaps re-read my last two paragraphs here?
It's not that it's hard to do, it's that I don't want the priest to know what I've been doing. If I could give a confession to some variety of listening/absolving machine which was programmed to completely delete the conversation as soon as it finished that would be a different matter.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
MtM, I don't suppose you'd be up for psychotherapy either, then.
No, not really. I don't trust other people enough to open up to them to such a degree.
But doesn't this suggest that the problem isn't intrinsically with the practice of sacramental auricular confession, but that rather the challenge for someone in your position would be to establish a trusting relationship with a regular spiritual director and confessor?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I don't want the priest to know what I've been doing
What makes you think that your sins are unique?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I don't want the priest to know what I've been doing
What makes you think that your sins are unique?
They don't have to be unique for me to not want the priest to know about them. They just have to be mine.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The most potent medicines can be provided to someone who doesn't even know what illness is, and still be effective in curing them.
Such medicine is however not available over the counter for self-administration, and for good reason.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The only standard for whether someone is actively opposed to God is if they openly and freely want to be opposed to God. Being ignorant isn't the same thing. Being weak isn't the same thing. Being just plain wrong isn't the same thing.
True, and of course without grave matter, full knowledge and complete consent there is no mortal sin, and hence no impediment to participation. However, I feel one has to be very careful here to avoid "Platonic overkill". If we end up saying that mortal sin only exists in a direct rejection of God for no other reason than rejecting God, with perfect clarity of mind free from all impulses, habits and prejudices - well, then we have defined mortal sin out of existence, at least for humans (angels may be able to pull this off). The other oversimplification is "legalism": If the Church says it is mortal sin, and you know that, then you have full knowledge. If you then do it without being forced under serious duress, you have given complete consent to this grave matter. Therefore you sin mortally. This also ignores the human condition in all its frailty. I expect God will judge somewhere between these extremes. But this will leave us with some who are in mortal sin but still wish to receive the Lord.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If I have a gift of immense value that I want everyone to have, I will give it to them.
Yes, but this whole exercise is not really about receiving the gift as such (as you have admitted, but somehow keep forgetting). It is about participating in a memorial and offering thanksgiving. Thus, the really important thing here is to impart an appreciation of the immense value of what is happening, because that is what actually powers this thankful memorial. Now, if you hand out diamonds like M&Ms to people who have no idea about diamonds, will they come to think of them as valuable? Likely not. If you then later tell them that diamonds are actually immensely valuable, while still handing them out like M&Ms to everybody, will they find it easy to really believe you? Likely not. If your goal is to make people appreciate just how valuable diamonds are, is this the best strategy? Likely not. Basic human psychology is not the only consideration here, but you cannot simply ignore it either.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I don't see that as a problem.
That's a serious problem.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's not that it's hard to do, it's that I don't want the priest to know what I've been doing. If I could give a confession to some variety of listening/absolving machine which was programmed to completely delete the conversation as soon as it finished that would be a different matter.
I understand that perfectly well, Marvin. It is more or less what I feel, and why confession essentially disappears once discipline and peer pressure is relaxed (very much unlike the other lay sacraments). Not that I believe that it has to be like that forever: one can build up a habit to overcome these inhibitions and I can see how at some point it may even become something one appreciates as much as leo apparently does. But anyway, my point was that this reluctance to tell these things to someone else is not an arbitrary stumbling block. Getting over this is rather an essential part of getting over the sin. And yes, in principle telling this to God should be no different. In practice however it typically is, and this means in my eyes that sacramental confession supplies in an external way to us something we often lack in our internal spiritual life. God is not a listening/absolving machine, and we are rather uncomfortably reminded of that when we encounter him through the office of a priest.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
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.
Au contraire. Doesn't the RCC maintain that one becomes a Christian through valid Trinitarian baptism? "One can be baptized into the Catholic Church without being baptized in a Catholic church." Given this, a policy whereby Communion belongs to members of any smaller local community is actually curiously Protestant. The justification, perhaps, is the understanding that going to Communion is harmful when in a state of mortal sin which can be absolved only by auricular confession. It seems that this caveat is increasinly ignored nowadays by Catholics themselves.
Approving of Catholics' receiving Communion in groups considered valid would not follow as far as I can see. This would be like not only cheerfully accepting a glass of powdered milk in a restaurant when you've been promised whole milk, but trying to convince your fellow diners that there is no difference.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
Sorry, missed the edit windows. That should read, "...groups considered invalid..."
Posted by St.Silas the carter (# 12867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
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.
As would I. It'd be my proof that it's time to ship out.
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by St.Silas the carter:
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
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.
As would I. It'd be my proof that it's time to ship out.
I'd have more faith in Catholic church if they opened communion to all that are baptised trinitarian Christians.
Posted by St.Silas the carter (# 12867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
quote:
Originally posted by St.Silas the carter:
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
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.
As would I. It'd be my proof that it's time to ship out.
I'd have more faith in Catholic church if they opened communion to all that are baptised trinitarian Christians.
If they did, it'd prove that their whole theology on the sacraments was bunk. Communion of the Eucharist and communion with the church have always been integrally related. If they can change that, it makes the whole theology of the Eucharist and also of the other sacraments suspect. (Because all the sacraments have a Eucharistic character.) It means they've never really been serious about all those claims of doctrinal infallibility, it ruins the whole system of the hierarchy of clerics.
Doing so ruins their credibility because they'll either have a series of contradicting policies (e.g., excommunication and communion, divorce and remarriage, etc.) Or they'll have to completely turn out the whole system. Can a system be said to have any integrity when it throws out any or all of it's beliefs on a subject to for others, regardless of whether such a change is consonant with other claims that they have made in the past and are still making?
I don't think so.
If they won't even follow their own doctrines when it comes to something they claim is the source of all their life, why should I bother with them?
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by St.Silas the carter:
If they did, it'd prove that their whole theology on the sacraments was bunk. Communion of the Eucharist and communion with the church have always been integrally related. If they can change that, it makes the whole theology of the Eucharist and also of the other sacraments suspect. (Because all the sacraments have a Eucharistic character.) It means they've never really been serious about all those claims of doctrinal infallibility, it ruins the whole system of the hierarchy of clerics.
Doing so ruins their credibility because they'll either have a series of contradicting policies (e.g., excommunication and communion, divorce and remarriage, etc.) Or they'll have to completely turn out the whole system. Can a system be said to have any integrity when it throws out any or all of it's beliefs on a subject to for others, regardless of whether such a change is consonant with other claims that they have made in the past and are still making?
I don't think so.
If they won't even follow their own doctrines when it comes to something they claim is the source of all their life, why should I bother with them?
Throughout history into the present day the RCC, from some of the Popes down, has done plenty of other things that mean they don't follow their own doctrine - things that have destroyed the lives of it's own congregants as well as those outside the Church.
To me, the priest strongly stating the doctrine on the Eucharist and the consequences of taking it with unresolved sin before allowing Christians to partake keeps the Sacrament sacred while allowing fellowship with other believers.
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on
:
Meant to add on the last post that confession doesn't mean there has been true repentance. I know many who go to confession weekly yet continue in the same sins they confessed. True repentance is a changed life. None of us ever knows what goes on in the heart of another human being or in their relationship with God. Not even a parish priest - unless you have a really small congregation and keep on top of what's going on in each life.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
We have to take some things on trust.Indeed it is possible for a confession to have been made without true repentance and in that case no true absolution is given.It is much the same as when one goes through the form of a marriage and there is some impediment invalidating the marriage even if all the form of words were gone through.
We live,however, in an imperfect society and will only achieve perfection if and when we get to Heaven. There is no point in being overscrupulous and worrying too much about just how genuine our repentance might have been.
From my childhood I (sort of )remember the Act of perfect contrition :
Oh my God,I am truly sorry for all my sins and detest them above all things because they deserve thy dreadful punishments,because they have crucified my loving Saviour Jesus Christ,but most of all because they offend thy infinite goodness.I am determined to do better and to avoid the occasions of sin.
Even if one knew that one would probably not always avoid occasions of sin,it was at least an attempt to do better and I do not think that our loving Father will cast us out into outer darkness for not yet having achieved perfection.
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on
:
I'm surprised by the number of Catholics who would so readily depart a less exclusive church. Why not simply rejoice that the leadership has received revelation to open up the gates? If there is no possibility for continued revelation, then there is no need for talk of infallibility.
Essentially, the Catholic Church has placed Order above all else. Unity in belief--unity in accord with what the bishops have received in revelation--is the litmus test and invitation to the table to the baptized faithful who have been duly and truly shriven. If the bishops are so moved to open up the table, and one believes that their orders are validly in succession with the apostles, then how can a Catholic possibly contradict this?
Matters of doctrinal revelation are not matters of credibility. It is clear that the bishops would not of their own accord give into any public support to open up communion. If they were to do a complete 180 on this, we would be seeing more than just the machine at work here. On the other hand, if they made the decision not to change on image alone, then that would certainly expose the matter as one of exclusion alone.
It certainly would not be the first time that a major policy change has taken place. Indeed, for at least the first couple centuries of Christendom, teachings essentially varied from city to city. It would be pure hubris to assume that the church has attained full and total doctrinal perfection in the year 2011. To accept the holy orders of the church is to accept that those leaders can be moved to change church teaching. If that means admitting a misunderstanding in the past, then so be it. Would it cast doubt on all other past decisions? Perhaps, but this can already happen. One hundred years ago, "Western" Catholics would never have believed their church could be served by a married priest.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
I'm surprised by the number of Catholics who would so readily depart a less exclusive church. Why not simply rejoice that the leadership has received revelation to open up the gates? If there is no possibility for continued revelation, then there is no need for talk of infallibility.
That's a typical mistake to make, but nevertheless, a deep error. The RCC does not recognize any revelation in the proper sense since the death of Christ. In a derived sense it recognizes the canonical scriptures as an inspired and still "proper revelatory witness", in spite of their historical distance to Christ. Likewise, some practices of "proper revelatory witness" weren't written down but handed on faithfully and can be carefully discerned in "what the Church has always done and believed". But that's it then. End of revelation. Recent prophetic events like Fatima are considered a "private revelation": Catholics may believe in it if they find that useful to their spiritual life, but it is not at all compulsory. (And the hierarchy's job is to check private revelation against the proper one to make sure that it is reasonable "safe", not only not false, but also not too misleading.)
Doctrinal decisions of the hierarchy are not new revelation. They are instead normative decisions for the faithful and work rather like the Church Fathers writings do: they expound on the proper revelation given, they must not and cannot be "new" other than in the depth of understanding of what is already given. Where that is "infallible", it is not necessarily profound or helpful or even particularly comprehensible. Just guaranteed not to be wrong by the Holy Spirit. Again, this works rather like the Church Fathers, namely where they are found to be in agreement in the vast majority, there they are considered to be teaching infallibly (though in practice it may be quite hard to articulate their vague consensus unambiguously).
Anyway, the RCC considers it of utmost importance that nothing "new" ever enters the system of Catholic teaching. Every doctrine and normative practice must stand in direct relationship to the finished proper revelation. The only change that is allowed to happen is a "better interpretation" or on rare occasions a "novel insight into the old". Whether closed communion is in fact a normative practice of the RCC, rather than say a discipline or pastoral measure, is a different question. As is whether it is infallible, even if normative.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
Unity in belief--unity in accord with what the bishops have received in revelation--is the litmus test and invitation to the table to the baptized faithful who have been duly and truly shriven.
There's no doctrinal check-up of Catholics for mass attendance, and if there ever were one, then most Churches would remain empty on Sunday (and in a considerable fraction I mean empty including the absence of the parish priest). It's not unity in actual belief, it's unity in assigning authority of teaching. It's not a question of how good a sheep you are, or whether you are running with the others, but a question of which shepherd you recognize as your own, however reluctantly.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
If the bishops are so moved to open up the table, and one believes that their orders are validly in succession with the apostles, then how can a Catholic possibly contradict this?
In general, this is correct. However, the bishops would have to labor to show how this is not a breach of the continued apostolic teaching of the Church. There have been large scale heresies in the Church before, that even swayed a majority of bishops (think Arians). The faithful do have a duty to be discerning about their shepherds. It is near certain that such an announcement would result in schisms by considerable numbers of conservative Christians. In particular, since quite a few of them are suspicious of the post-Vatican II laxness in dealing with the Eucharist anyway. It could well be a "last straw" for many.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
It certainly would not be the first time that a major policy change has taken place.
It very much depends on what you mean here. If you mean this at a "dogmatic" level, then no, there never has been any major policy change ever. If that could be shown, I would instantly cease being a RC, and probably take a closer look at the Orthodox. Of course, there's plenty that is "movable" in the RCC, and it may not always be intelligible to outsiders - or even insiders - what change means what.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
To accept the holy orders of the church is to accept that those leaders can be moved to change church teaching.
To accept the holy orders of the church is to accept that those leaders will never be moved to truly change any church teaching whatsoever, but only to expound it more fully and adapt it to the times.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
One hundred years ago, "Western" Catholics would never have believed their church could be served by a married priest.
It may well be that people in the pews were ignorant that this is a discipline of the Latin church, rather than a doctrine of the whole Church. However, the question here is whether the closed communion is merely a discipline or pastoral measure, or actually a doctrine and perhaps even an infallible one by tradition. That is a serious concern for many RCs, or it will become one as soon as a major change of this practice is getting introduced. The arguments for the former better be very good at that point in time.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But anyway, my point was that this reluctance to tell these things to someone else is not an arbitrary stumbling block. Getting over this is rather an essential part of getting over the sin. And yes, in principle telling this to God should be no different.
Telling it to God is different for one very important reason: God already knows.
Posted by Invictus_88 (# 15352) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Meant to add on the last post that confession doesn't mean there has been true repentance. I know many who go to confession weekly yet continue in the same sins they confessed. True repentance is a changed life. None of us ever knows what goes on in the heart of another human being or in their relationship with God. Not even a parish priest - unless you have a really small congregation and keep on top of what's going on in each life.
Nein. It's the deep and sincere commitment to a changed life.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But anyway, my point was that this reluctance to tell these things to someone else is not an arbitrary stumbling block. Getting over this is rather an essential part of getting over the sin. And yes, in principle telling this to God should be no different.
Telling it to God is different for one very important reason: God already knows.
No kidding!
The difference between confessing to the Infinite Almighty and confessing to another flawed member of the human race seems huge to me.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Yes... the Infinite Almighty can be perceived as a vague comfort-blanket that it's safe to tell all our sins to. Telling them to another human being is much more difficult. Confession to a priest is hard, and hence more likely to be in earnest. Yet the priest can pronounce the very comforting (comfortable) words of absolution.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
You may see God that way. My experience has been very different. Either way, the priest might be short-sighted, ill-informed, or a complete jerk -- things I don't worry about with God.
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Meant to add on the last post that confession doesn't mean there has been true repentance. I know many who go to confession weekly yet continue in the same sins they confessed. True repentance is a changed life. None of us ever knows what goes on in the heart of another human being or in their relationship with God. Not even a parish priest - unless you have a really small congregation and keep on top of what's going on in each life.
Nein. It's the deep and sincere commitment to a changed life.
That was pretty much my point. Going to confession means nothing as far as true repentance goes,
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
Of course it is true that the simple fact of going to confession does not necessarily indicate true repentance,no more than going to church necessarily indicates a love of God and neighbour,no more than reading the Bible guarantees an interest in and a love of the Word of God.
We live in an imperfect world where we ourselves may be less than perfect.It is clear to a Catholic that without true repentance there is no absolution - although in this imperfect world a confession may be at least an attempt to express contrition and the Good Lord will reward us for this.
One of the advantages of confession to a priest is that we can have a discussion with someone who has some sort of knowledge of what the Church has taught over the centuries, who can give ,if asked, an opinion on the seriousness of our faults,comforting those who take things too seriously and encouraging those who take things too easily.
Posted by Invictus_88 (# 15352) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Meant to add on the last post that confession doesn't mean there has been true repentance. I know many who go to confession weekly yet continue in the same sins they confessed. True repentance is a changed life. None of us ever knows what goes on in the heart of another human being or in their relationship with God. Not even a parish priest - unless you have a really small congregation and keep on top of what's going on in each life.
Nein. It's the deep and sincere commitment to a changed life.
That was pretty much my point. Going to confession means nothing as far as true repentance goes,
I've swapped my bold to italics, and italicised my response, to emphasis my actual point.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0