- This topic has 1 reply, 8 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
[quote:dvimdyoq]It DOES say you need to believe in it. Now how can you believe in the Catholic position without believing in Catholicism? You can’t. It is simply impossible.[/quote:dvimdyoq]
You seem to know more than the Cardinals and Bishops who wrote the Ecumenical Directory….…. or did they add #’s 130 and 131 for an IMPOSSIBLE situation as a joke?
[quote:dvimdyoq]And if one DOES, one obviously does not really know WHAT you are believing in because no one who has actually taken time to look at these things could believe in the Church’s claims of the Eucharist, and yet disbelieve in the Church’s claims elsewhere.[/quote:dvimdyoq]
Not at all…. the Eastern Orthodox Church has valid Sacraments but do not support Petrine primacy…. reject the Immaculate Conception etc… they quite clearly “disbelieve in the Church’s claims elsewhere” and yet have a correct knowledge of the Eucharist.Father Richard McBrien, a professor at Notre Dame, remarks that :
[color=blue:dvimdyoq]With regard to the real presence…. consultations between Catholics and other faiths shows some measure of basic agreement on the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, e.g., with the Lutherans, Presbyterians and Reformed, Disciples of Christ, Anglicans, and Orthodox. The Lutherans, for example, do not even reject everything implied in the medieval term transubstantiation, but they shy away from it because it is “misleading.”[/color:dvimdyoq]
[quote:zf5z8c2q]Not at all…. the Eastern Orthodox Church has valid Sacraments but do not support Petrine primacy…. reject the Immaculate Conception etc… they quite clearly “disbelieve in the Church’s claims elsewhere” and yet have a correct knowledge of the Eucharist.[/quote:zf5z8c2q]
Good point.
Scott, at first I was unsure where you were heading with this and where you stood on the issue at hand. But after observing I understand.
I do want to clarify the salvation outside the Church topic you guys touched on. To say:
1. It makes no difference what church one belongs to and that salvation can be attained through any of them.
2. Unless one is a full-fledged, baptized member of the Catholic Church, one will be damned.Both of these are incorrect. Catholic Answers says it best:
“[b:zf5z8c2q]The following quotations from the Church Fathers give the straight story. They show that the early Church held the same position on this as does the contemporary Church-that while it is normatively necessary to be a Catholic to be saved (see CCC 846; Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 14), there are exceptions, and it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church (CCC 847).[/b:zf5z8c2q]”But it is correct absolutely correct to say, “there is no salvation outside the Body of Christ”. This statement holds no exceptions.
~Victor
[quote:88soayv5]Scott, at first I was unsure where you were heading with this and where you stood on the issue at hand. But after observing I understand.[/quote:88soayv5]
Understandable…. I confuse a lot of people. I am 100% (in my humble opinion) loyal to the Catholic Church and all that that statement implies…. but I am a student of theology and a Catechism teacher for adult RCIA members.Sometimes I ask “controversial” questions because I like getting other Catholics to think for a change.
The Apologetics 101 arrogance of “Rome has spoken, case closed!”… (however correct) is quite ineffective for evangelization…. it actually turns a lot of people AWAY from the Catholic faith.
I wish more were like you, Victor…. people who seem to actually enjoy thinking about WHY we believe, instead of apologetics which serves only to “prove” WHAT we believe. I find very little theology in lay-apologetics today…. it’s more about winning a debate than conversion of sinners…. what a waste of God given grace.
[quote:88soayv5] Catholic Answers says it best:[/quote:88soayv5]
No…. the Church says it best.
” title=”Very Happy” />Peace in Christ,
Scott
Well I was under the impression that Orthodox could recieve Communion if there were no Orthodox Churches nearby? Maybe I was confusing that with the opposite (Catholics recieving at Orthodox chruches) so if I was, then I will admit, that is a scenario where one believes in the real PResence and yet cannot recieve it.
But still, I do not see WHY you want non-Catholics to be able to recieve Communion. It just makes no sense.
[quote:9oo4hred]Well I was under the impression that Orthodox could recieve Communion if there were no Orthodox Churches nearby? Maybe I was confusing that with the opposite (Catholics recieving at Orthodox chruches) so if I was, then I will admit, that is a scenario where one believes in the real PResence and yet cannot recieve it.[/quote:9oo4hred]
God bless you.
[quote:9oo4hred]But still, I do not see WHY you want non-Catholics to be able to recieve Communion. It just makes no sense.[/quote:9oo4hred]
I don’t.I wanted to discuss it…. there is a difference.
” title=”Wink” />
Oh, okay. Out of curiosity, can Orthodox recieve Communion if there are not other Orthodox churches nearby? I am assuming not?
[quote:khr3je9t]No…. the Church says it best[/quote:khr3je9t]
Agreed….
” title=”Wink” />[quote:khr3je9t]Sometimes I ask “controversial” questions because I like getting other Catholics to think for a change.
The Apologetics 101 arrogance of “Rome has spoken, case closed!”… (however correct) is quite ineffective for evangelization…. it actually turns a lot of people AWAY from the Catholic faith.[/quote:khr3je9t]
This is where I am a bit confused. I do agree we should raise controverial questions for the sake of having people think and grow. But I am still a bit confused why you or anybody would challenge the an infallible Church teaching. Unless this is not what you are saying. This is how I understood it. Imagine the following scenerio:
Rome says: “We proclaim that one does not have to get circumcised to become a Christian”
Objector: “Well I disagree, because…….”Is this a fair scenerio of what you were trying to say about dissenting?
You can answer in the other thread.~Victor
[quote:3qbn2uje] But I am still a bit confused why you or anybody would challenge the an infallible Church teaching.[/quote:3qbn2uje]
No one (no Catholic) should…. I don’t believe I ever discussed this topic or in the dissent thread [b:3qbn2uje]in the context of [/b:3qbn2uje]an infallible Church teaching.
[quote:3qbn2uje]Is this a fair scenerio of what you were trying to say about dissenting?[/quote:3qbn2uje]
Not at all…. and quite of the topic of this thread….. sorry, I’m a Moderator at another board and I can’t bring myself to drift this thread….” title=”Very Happy” /> …. I’ll get to the dissent thread eventually.
Ok. Then I will await your clarification and sorry for the misunderstanding.
~Victor
[quote:1gf6m3u1]Oh, okay. Out of curiosity, can Orthodox recieve Communion if there are not other Orthodox churches nearby? I am assuming not?[/quote:1gf6m3u1]
To be clear…. most Orthodox members will tell you that they are not in Communion with the Roman Catholic Church and will NEVER permit intercommunion…. at least the ones I have spoken too… I’m not sure if this is Orthodox doctrine, but heck, without a Pope, who knows what they believe!” title=”Razz” />To answer your question:
[color=blue:1gf6m3u1]125. Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist and the anointing of the sick to members of the Eastern Churches, who ask for these sacraments of their own free will and are properly disposed. In these particular cases also, due consideration should be given to the discipline of the Eastern Churches for their own faithful and any suggestion of proselytism should be avoided.[129][/color:1gf6m3u1]Here’s a link so you can read the entire document if you wish:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUECU.HTM#4Peace,
Scott
Well than it seems to me that you are just picking bones to pick bones. o offense, of course.
Either way, I certainly think no HERETICS should be able to recieve Communion, schismatics are quite a bit different, and even THEN I just do NOT see a likely scenario in which the case would even arise.
[quote:2ba7vlp3]Well than it seems to me that you are just picking bones to pick bones. o offense, of course.[/quote:2ba7vlp3]
Sorry, I don’t get the “bones” reference…..????
[quote:2ba7vlp3]Either way, I certainly think no HERETICS should be able to recieve Communion, schismatics are quite a bit different, and even THEN I just do NOT see a likely scenario in which the case would even arise.[/quote:2ba7vlp3]
I didn’t expect you to say anything different.Thanks again,
Scott
Umm… bone to pick, picking bones.
I guess this would have been better:
“You are just nitpicking to nitpick”
Or something like that… not sure…
Anyway, are you saying non-Catholics should be able to recieve Communion? What is next? Non Catholics should be able to become priests?
[quote:34hb69qe]Umm… bone to pick, picking bones.
I guess this would have been better:
“You are just nitpicking to nitpick”
Or something like that… not sure…[/quote:34hb69qe]
I get ya now…..
[quote:34hb69qe]Anyway, are you saying non-Catholics should be able to recieve Communion? What is next? Non Catholics should be able to become priests?[/quote:34hb69qe]
I guess you haven’t paid much attention to my posts earlier in this thread…..For the sake of clarity:
Non-Catholics should not be able to receive Communion except in those rare circumstances set forth by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.
Wow. It seems that our discussions are just bound to get confusing…
I have no problem with the statement that non-Catholics should not recieve Communion except in the extreme circumstances set out by the Church.
Uncertaindrummer, that’s kinda how I understood it since his first time he posted it. I don’t mean to be a broken record or mean but we need to try to post as clear as possible and read posts closely. Nevertheless, one of the awesome things about being Catholic is we have a system that CAN have us all come to an agreement. I can’t express in words how big of a difference and importance this makes to me personally coming from a Protestant background.
~Victor
Well, I tried to read his posts carefully… maybe I just get confused easily.
Uncertaindrummer, sorry it wasn’t just directed at you. This is for everyone including myself.
” title=”Wink” />~Victor
Can I just make a short clarification? Except in really serious circumstances, when [i:3k77bh4q]economia[/i:3k77bh4q] may be applied (like the person is on the point of death and cannot get to an appropriate priest), Roman Catholics may not partake of the Orthodox Eucharist and vice versa. If we were to allow this we would effectively be saying that we are in communion with Rome when we are not. In Orthodox ecclesiology unity is only ever Eucharistic unity.
I, personally, totally agree with this position (as Scott knows – we’ve debated it elsewhere) and would not change it. I can’t see why Roman Catholics would wish to change their position either as, Papal primacy aside, our two churches’ ecclesiologies are not that different. I hope that my non-RC views are not unwelcome here.
James
Yes, I thought it was only in extreme circumstances.
Anyway, I compeltely am agaisnt non-Catholics recieving Communion. “Whoever partakes of the Body and Blood of the Lord unworthilty will have to answer for the Body and Blood of the Lord”
” title=”Very Happy” />
” title=”Wink” />
” title=”Razz” />
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.