Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
The recipient's beliefs... ...do affect whether or not that recipient is worthy to receive.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
Anselmina,

If you think Kenwritez's definition is sufficient, then that's simply further evidence of the chasm that exists between us and the sham that intercommunion would constitute.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
The recipient's beliefs... ...do affect whether or not that recipient is worthy to receive.

---

I'm sure that's not right, taken as a proposition in everyday language.

First, none of us are worthy to (i.e. deserve to)receive God. As all Catholics acknowledge in the words of the Mass.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
Any progress yet on my question?

---

Posted                      

Many apologies, JL, I must have been speaking too softly again! I'm often accused of that, though rarely during worship!

Let me repeat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:

quote:

---

Originally posted by kenwritez:
Communion, as I understand it, is the rememberance of the Passion of Christ, a rememberance of His life and His death, His sufferings and His resurrection afterward. Am I incorrect in this definition?

---

Ok, well, for a Catholic such a definition is woefully deficient, for starters.

---

'Deficient' according to whom? The RCC, JL or God? It's possible that for Christians, including Catholic Christians, who have read Luke 22, Kenwritez's description might be more than sufficient as a definition of what's going on in the Eucharist.

If a Catholic were not able to give the definition JL does for the Eucharist, to whom is the 'deficit' in knowledge and understanding owed? Who is being shortchanged? Certainly not Christ, if the passage from Luke is anything to go by.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
I reccall a survey Mr. Gallup conducted a few years ago among American Roman Catholics. I cannot provide a citation, but my memory is holding up fairly well during my golden years.

The question involved the nature of the Mass. A bare plurality of respondents professed belief in transubstantiation. This group was followed by approximately one third of those surveryed, who subscribed to a response that basically boiled down to the doctrine of the real presence. More than one quarter felt that the Mass is a memorial only and that the bread and wine are purely symbolic.

Greta

---

quote:

---

ONLY 30% OF NOVUS ORDO CATHOLICS BELIEVE THE DE-FIDE DOGMA ABOUT
THE SACRAMENT OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST

namely, that at Communion they are really and truly receivng the Body and Blood,
Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, under the appearance of bread and
wine, which is known as the Real Presence.

70% OF NOVUS ORDO CATHOLICS NOW HOLD AN HERETICAL BELIEF IN
THE HOLY EUCHARIST.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:
actually, it sounded sort of Missouri Synod-ish

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
Anselmina,

It's woefully deficient because it doesn't fully describe the situation. It's deficient according to God, whom the Catholic Church serves. Not all Catholics could give a full description of eucharistic dogma - but they'd assent to Church teaching on the matter, unlike Anglicans or anti-sacramental Protestants.

---

Thank you for your answer. I understand what you're saying from the point of view of the Catholic Church (I think!), but IMHO I can't imagine God being overly concerned with how full an understanding - Catholic or otherwise - communicants have of the Sacrament in which they are participating. I would suggest that we're all in trouble, if that were the case .

I've always thought it was more about what was going on within the heart that mattered most to God. So, I wonder how it really could be 'deficient' in God's eyes, to have a heart devoutly concentrating on receiving the sacrament, but yet a mind happily ignorant of the intellectual implications?

Though I entirely take your point that the RCC has very clear teaching on the Eucharist and Catholics wishing to respond obediently and faithfully to their Church's teaching would make themselves aware of it.

quote:

---

As for who is being short-changed - well, I'd say it's the people who settle for less than the fullness of Truth.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad

But Catholics don't see themselves as part of denomination in a bigger church. We are the Church.

---

quote:

---

As Newman's Own intimated, we do believe non-Catholics to be Christian. Mistaken on certain issues, yes, but Christian nonetheless!

---

quote:

---

It is still a dogma of the Catholic Church that outside of the Catholic Church there is no salvation.

---

So, there are many Christians who cannot be saved???

And I go back to my original point. I am a Christian, I am accepted as being a Christian. But I am a Christian outside the Church (there being only one). Can this be? Surely not. To be a Christian is to be joined to Christ; to be joined to Christ is to be a part of His Body; and is not the Church the Body of Christ? I am not a part of the Church (there being only one) so I cannot be part of His Body; so I am not joined to Him; so I am not a Christian?

Something does not seem to be right.

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
As for salvation - yes, there probably are Christians who will not be saved, Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox. The fewness of the saved seems to be a difficult-to-avoid feature of Jesus' teaching. The dogma that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation is nowadays generally understood to mean that if any non-Catholics are saved, it is through the Catholic Church.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
Maybe if the way in which certain dogmas were expressed by the Roman Church, people like me would not be so totally repelled... The Orthodox seem to making similar claims, but look at the way they express it. It is much less in-your-face. Much more "winning". And I respect them enormously for this.

---

Maybe. I tend to lose patience when people brag about receiving communion in Catholic churches when they know they shouldn't. But thanks for your advice - I shall strive to sound more charitable in future..

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
Please understand what I meant in terms of disposition, rather than status.

---

quote:

---

The dogma that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation is nowadays generally understood to mean that if any non-Catholics are saved, it is through the Catholic Church.

---

quote:

---

Then those who don't believe shouldn't be receiving either.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

PS to Father Gregory - everything trivially symbolizes itself. To say that X is Y is to say more than X symbolizes Y, not to deny that X symbolizes Y.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
What about those who don't care and have never thought about it, who go up to communion because this is just what you do ? What about those who answer "don't know" ?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

While the Scriptures are the inerrant source and norm of all doctrine and while God's Truth is one, sinful human beings can and do err. Hence, division occurs in visible Christendom.

The same can be said for modern denominationalism. While there are historical, cultural and sociological factors involved in the formation of denominations, disagreement regarding the understanding and application of biblical doctrine remains the fundamental reason for division between and among them. We hold that there can be only one Truth, and that denominations exist because some Christians have departed from what is faithful to biblical doctrine.

---

So, if you disagree with the Missouri Synod, you are sinning?

--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
What about those who don't care and have never thought about it, who go up to communion because this is just what you do ? What about those who answer "don't know" ?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Upon each anointing the priest exclaims: "The seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit!" and the people respond: "Sealed!"

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
One area in which the LCMS was not "strict" was with regard to consumption of alcohol.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

He sometimes attended a church near Cape Canaveral where the preacher, remembering him on Sunday, made a point of saying that Rick was going to heaven, but "I don't know about the others."

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob - ID crisis InDiE KiD:
Hate to be a pedant (no actually I don't, I love it), but surely the original question is a contradiction in terms?

Surely the John Wesley thing about not knowing whether you're saved or not is for one obvious reason - that only God knows who are Christians.

---

Posted                       

• quote:

  ---

  originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
  

  quote:

  ---

  Can. 844 §1 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments only to catholic members of Christ's faithful, who equally may lawfully receive them only from catholic ministers, except as provided in §2, 3 and 4 of this canon and in can. 861 §2.
  §2 Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ's faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.
  
  §3 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the eastern Churches not in full communion with the catholic Church, if they spontaneously ask for them and are properly disposed. The same applies to members of other Churches which the Apostolic See judges to be in the same position as the aforesaid eastern Churches so far as the sacraments are concerned.
  
  §4 If there is a danger of death or if, in the judgment of the diocesan Bishop or of the Episcopal Conference, there is some other grave and pressing need, catholic ministers may lawfully administer these same sacraments to other Christians not in full communion with the catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who spontaneously ask for them, provided that they demonstrate the catholic faith in respect of these sacraments and are properly disposed.

  ---

  
  
  That's from the Code of Canon Law.

  ---

• quote:

  ---

  Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
  I do think receiving communion when not in a state of grace and not a member of the Catholic Church is profoundly foolish and dangerous....

  ---

• quote:

  ---

  Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
  It's the duty of Catholics to - politely - inform visitors that they should not be receiving communion unless they fulfil the conditions in Canon Law.

  ---

• quote:

  ---

  Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
  Some have asked here concerning the Orthodox position. I see it as no different than the Catholic position as described by JL with two small caveats ... the first interesting, the second amusing ...
  (1) I think we can have the same eucharistic doctrine as pertaining to sacrifice and presence without the Aristotelian formulation of St. Thomas Aquinas.
  
  (2) 1054 AD .... who split from whom? That's funny. Same story ... inverted participants. I hear the sound of God banging our heads together.

  ---

• quote:

  ---

  Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
  But if you reject the Church that Christ founded, wanting to receive communion there strikes me as slightly incoherent. Second, it doesn't bring unity if by receiving you are actually going against our understanding of Church, the Eucharist and who can receive in our churches. It's antagonistic. It's also, in our view, blasphemous since you don't worship the Sacrament and instead treat it as just a piece of bread or a drink of wine. You also, I'm guessing, wouldn't accept that the Mass is a re-presentation of Christ's sacrifice on the Cross.
  The recipient's beliefs don't affect the dogmas about the Mass, nor do they affect the status of the sacrament. But they do affect whether or not that recipient is worthy to receive.
  
  It is still a dogma of the Catholic Church that outside of the Catholic Church there is no salvation.

  ---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
From the RC's I know,I would say that JL is not representative of them at all, and is representative of its very conservative wing. Owing to the current Papacy, that is in official ascendance, but it doesn't mean that is the case at parish level.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
I'd love to understand what you mean, but "disposition" isn't in my vocabulary. I understand "disposed to" in the sense of "feeling inclined to" (which is something that only the person themselves can judge) but that doesn't immediately make any sense to me. Unless you're saying that Catholics don't feel inclined to share their sacraments with outsiders ? Any chance you could explain ?

---

quote:

---

Am I right to think that you believe that God may choose to save some non-Catholic Christians ?

---

quote:

---

And that He may choose not to save some Catholic Christians (such as those unrepentant of mortal sin?)

---

quote:

---

If that's so, maybe we're not so very far apart. That implies that whether or not a Christian is a member of the Catholic Church is not a salvation issue - not something we have to defend to the last because of its cosmic significance.

---

quote:

---

Do you believe that what unites us (Christians) is more important than what divides us ?

---

quote:

---

What about those who don't care and have never thought about it, who go up to communion because this is just what you do ? What about those who answer "don't know" ?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
Thus far, this has been one of the most interesting threads (if a bit heated from time to time) that I have ever seen on SOF.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Ross:
Am I right to think that you believe that God may choose to save some non-Catholic Christians?

---

quote:

---

Jesuitical Lad:
He may choose to. It depends how one interprets the dogma that outside of the Church there is no salvation. I'd probably choose to say that they were implicit/anonymous Catholics if they were saved.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Catholics don't see themselves as part of denomination in a bigger church. We are the Church.

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Jl, you have been misinformed. MY church (Methodist) is the Church.

The one true Christian Church (now called Methodist) began with the Apostles and went along fine until Henry VIII's time when the then Bishop of Rome got angry at Henry and branched off in a huff starting his own denomination and calling it "Roman" Catholic. Meanwhile the true Church carried on in England in a perfectly straight upward line (I picture it like a difenbachia plant) until John Wesley made some reforms centered around a perfected "method" of lifestyle designed to afford a greater chance at salvation. At that time another stubborn denomination branched off like a great big leaf and called itself the church of "England" but through it all we remained the one true Church rooted in the rock of Peter. I picture us as a sober little star on top of the straight line of the plant.