When May We Receive Holy Communion?

We hope you enjoy your visit!
You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Join our community!
Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harasment, and crude or sexually-explicit language.
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Pages:
1
2
…
11

When May We Receive Holy Communion?
Topic Started: Monday, 17. December 2007, 20:41 (1,856 Views)
Joseph	Monday, 17. December 2007, 20:41 Post #1
Posts: 779 Group: Members Member #37 Joined: October 18, 2006	For the record, may I just point out that the title to this thread is not mine but Eve's - devised when the contents below were split from the "Where Are They Now" thread. Coming in late to that thread I made this post, which refers to several items I found most interesting in the thread to that time. It was not my intention to specifically raise (outside of the original thread) the question of conditions for receiving Holy Communion. I'm sure they do have a bearing on the reasons for Catholics leaving the Church, but to what extent? Who can say? Edit by Eve: Eve Dec 19 2007, 12:46 AM The preceding 25 postings have been split from a thread specifically about CASE project for getting people back to Mass. Tomorrow these will be merged with the Contraception thread. On reflection it was deemed better to use them for "When may we receive Communion" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have just discovered and browsed through an entire thread, "where Are They Now?”, The Project - Reaching out" in "Where are They Now?" Section and found most of it quite fascinating. I was especially drawn to the posts on the opening page by Mrs Jamie, and responses by Clare and James. Mrs Jamie ...So what is going to tempt them back??? It's beyond me - not least when 30,000 a year are STILL leaving... ...So what has changed which is going to have these people flocking back to the Church... And that is how I see it too! I’m sure the initiative will have some success in welcoming back those that may have just got out of the habit of going to church, but for the rest I feel the problems are much deeper - more on that later. And then we had the inevitable contribution from John Sweeney, ;-) His forum posts almost always make people sit up and take notice I feel - possibly because they contain some things they would rather not see spelled-out? John Sweeney Mrs Jamie makes many, many valid points especially around the crazy teaching on contraception which has caused so much unnecessary and unjustified harm. While this teaching exists officially while overwhelmingly ignored in practice by both practising and "lapsed" Catholics then any drive to reach out to the latter is fatally compromised. In private, most priests will say something to the effect that this old statute is largely ignored and that it shouldn't be seen as a bar to returning to the Church but this is hardly an honest position and is certainly an unsatisfactory basis for a new relationship with the Church. I don’t know where John gets his statistics from, but he and I have debated this several times in the past. He is always so adamant that his claims are factual, and who can prove they are not? My first reaction to his statement above is that, by definition, the teaching can’t be being ignored by “practising Catholics”. Church-going Catholics maybe, but not “practising” since to meet that definition they would have to accept the teachings of the Church and abide by them to the best of their ability, and would only present themselves for Holy Communion after Confession. Anything less is surely hypocritical. An intriguing intervention from Eve:- Eve Contraception is a stumbling block for a high percentage of Catholics. It would be a shame to have to split this thread into “where Are They Now?” and "Contraception" so shall we explore ways of helping people who use contraception, to come back to the Catholic Church? I was relieved to see that split did not materialise, for sins of the flesh are, I believe, by far the most difficult ones to avoid and are responsible for the vast majority of defectors. How we can possibly help back to the Church those that cannot accept its teaching on this, I have no idea I’m afraid. Some coverage on the CASE project “Where are they Now?” including a link to a Catholic Herald feature on it, that unfortunately went down before most of could access it, a pity that! And finally, a contribution from Ned, who told of leaving his local church because of the way its Club was being run - that really had me puzzled. In my limited experience, in many parishes clubs are almost completely independent these days, and most of the congregations neither know nor care too much about what goes on them. But maybe things were different in Ned’s old parish. So yes, a fascinating thread, thanks for the read :) Edited by Eve to give reference to Where Are They Now Section"
	Joseph


Rose of York	Monday, 17. December 2007, 22:06 Post #2
Administrator Posts: 14,560 Group: Admin Member #2 Joined: September 25, 2006	Joseph Dec 17 2007, 08:41 PM And finally, a contribution from Ned, who told of leaving his local church because of the way its Club was being run - that really had me puzzled. In my limited experience, in many parishes clubs are almost completely independent these days, and most of the congregations neither know nor care too much about what goes on them. But maybe things were different in Ned’s old parish. I see Ned's point. No parish club can function without the approval and support of the parish priest. Club premises belong to the parish, so the parish has a responsibility to ensure they uphold the good name of the parish, indeed of The Church, and foster Christian family and social life. I was in a parish social club in the Midlands, in the early nineties. They had a new parish priest, an Irishman. He walked into the club during a social event, and was furious when he heard the band shouting "Up the IRA". That band was never allowed to play in that club again. There are times when one must protest.
	$Posted Image$ Catholic and proud of it! Talk to God before Mass. Talk to each other afterwards


Gerard	Tuesday, 18. December 2007, 12:18 Post #3
Posts: 3,125 Group: Members Member #12 Joined: September 26, 2006	Joseph, Quote: My first reaction to his statement above is that, by definition, the teaching can’t be being ignored by “practising Catholics”. Church-going Catholics maybe, but not “practising” since to meet that definition they would have to accept the teachings of the Church and abide by them to the best of their ability I suggest a tad more caution here, you wouldn't want to be accused of judging your fellow catholics now. We are a church for sinners. These couples may or may not be sinning. They may or may not accept the teaching on this one narrow issue you have focused upon or they may patially accept it. Given your definition of a practicing catholic but applied to all the "teachings" I wonder what proportion of "church going" catholics would be "practicing catholics". Zero, possibly? Gerry
	"The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998).


Joseph	Tuesday, 18. December 2007, 14:09 Post #4
Posts: 779 Group: Members Member #37 Joined: October 18, 2006	Gerard Dec 18 2007, 01:18 PM Joseph, Quote: My first reaction to his statement above is that, by definition, the teaching can’t be being ignored by “practising Catholics”. Church-going Catholics maybe, but not “practising” since to meet that definition they would have to accept the teachings of the Church and abide by them to the best of their ability I suggest a tad more caution here, you wouldn't want to be accused of judging your fellow catholics now. We are a church for sinners. These couples may or may not be sinning. They may or may not accept the teaching on this one narrow issue you have focused upon or they may patially accept it. Given your definition of a practicing catholic but applied to all the "teachings" I wonder what proportion of "church going" catholics would be "practicing catholics". Zero, possibly? Quite possibly, but one would hope that not to be the case - for if it is then we really are in trouble! Do you not agree? I see no 'judging' involved in my statement, merely an attempt to more accurately define what is meant by the term and the circumstances it was being used. As you rightly point out 'Church-going' and 'Practising' are not necessarily the same thing, and should not be freely interchanged. Anyone can go to church, Catholic or not, and can even present themselves for Holy Communion too. You seem to be suggesting that the Catholic Church’s teaching on sins of the flesh may be open to question and not binding in some way - really? That’s news to me. And if my definition of a Practising Catholic is not acceptable, what is?
	Joseph


Gerard	Tuesday, 18. December 2007, 15:05 Post #5
Posts: 3,125 Group: Members Member #12 Joined: September 26, 2006	Well Joseph, it all looked very judgemental to me. Quote: As you rightly point out 'Church-going' and 'Practising' are not necessarily the same thing, No. I was only using your definitions in order to more clearly engage in discussion. I would more tend to assume that church going went hand in hand with practicing and vice versa. I would tend to assume that the effort of attending was an indication of committment. I leave The Lord to judge the level. If I was to come up with a definition it might be "someone who was trying to follow Jesus Christ". Ooops, would that include protestants? Well well well, whoda thunk it? Gerry
	"The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998).


Joseph	Tuesday, 18. December 2007, 18:55 Post #6
Posts: 779 Group: Members Member #37 Joined: October 18, 2006	What a cop-out! A spade certainly isn't a spade in your book Gerard, is it?
	Joseph


Clare	Tuesday, 18. December 2007, 19:32 Post #7
Wacko Schismatic Traditionalist Woman Posts: 3,093 Group: Members Member #70 Joined: March 27, 2007	Gerard Dec 18 2007, 12:18 PM Joseph, Quote: My first reaction to his statement above is that, by definition, the teaching can’t be being ignored by “practising Catholics”. Church-going Catholics maybe, but not “practising” since to meet that definition they would have to accept the teachings of the Church and abide by them to the best of their ability I suggest a tad more caution here, you wouldn't want to be accused of judging your fellow catholics now. We are a church for sinners. These couples may or may not be sinning. They may or may not accept the teaching on this one narrow issue you have focused upon or they may patially accept it. Given your definition of a practicing catholic but applied to all the "teachings" I wonder what proportion of "church going" catholics would be "practicing catholics". Zero, possibly? Gerry We are a Church for sinners. However, we are not a Church for dissenters. That is the difference. Dissenters are, IMHO, sinners who deny they are capable of sinning, because they are "nice people", and if "nice people" use birth control, then it can't possibly be wrong. Practising Catholics are sinners who know they sin, and don't pretend otherwise. They acknowledge their sins and have recourse to the Sacraments. Dissenters refuse to acknowledge their sins, but still go to Communion. Dissenters want the Church to adapt to suit them. Practising Catholics are sinners who are attempting to adapt to suit the Church. There. How's that for judgemental? It's what I think though. Dissent is worse than being a mere sinner. Dissent is arrogant.
	S.A.G. My attempt at a blog.


Gerard	Tuesday, 18. December 2007, 20:12 Post #8
Posts: 3,125 Group: Members Member #12 Joined: September 26, 2006	Clare I dont know where to begin, your logic(s) your judgements or your definitions? Gerry
	"The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998).


Joseph	Tuesday, 18. December 2007, 20:23 Post #9
Posts: 779 Group: Members Member #37 Joined: October 18, 2006	The most appropriate term, I believe, when using the expression that our Church is for sinners, is "repenting sinners". It is not a home for sinners that have no intention of following its teachings I'm afraid, and those doing that are merely fooling themselves (and others maybe) but certainly not God, so what is the point?
	Joseph


Gerard	Tuesday, 18. December 2007, 20:36 Post #10
Posts: 3,125 Group: Members Member #12 Joined: September 26, 2006	Joseph Dec 18 2007, 06:55 PM What a cop-out! A spade certainly isn't a spade in your book Gerard, is it? Joseph It was only a slight exageration on what I do sincerely believe. The exageration was in response to your approach which seems to me to be dangerously exclusive. Selecting an ever smaller group of "true believers" and excluding an ever larger majority. Exageration though it is, it is closer to catholic teaching than your approach. If they are Christians they are baptised. Its Catholic Baptism is it not? And though the Council documents dont say they are Catholics they do say they are connected to the Catholic Church. Gerry
	"The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998).


KatyA	Tuesday, 18. December 2007, 20:37 Post #11
Administrator Posts: 5,419 Group: Admin Member #6 Joined: September 26, 2006	Joseph Dec 18 2007, 08:23 PM The most appropriate term, I believe, when using the expression that our Church is for sinners, is "repenting sinners". It is not a home for sinners that have no intention of following its teachings I'm afraid, and those doing that are merely fooling themselves (and others maybe) but certainly not God, so what is the point? Didn't Jesus say that He came to call sinners, and that it was those who were sick who needed a physician, not those who were healthy? How on earth are sinners (and that means all of us) to learn about God's Word, and the authoritative teaching of His Church if we shut them out? If we close the doors to sinners there will be nobody left KatyA



KatyA	Tuesday, 18. December 2007, 20:40 Post #12
Administrator Posts: 5,419 Group: Admin Member #6 Joined: September 26, 2006	Joseph Dec 18 2007, 06:55 PM What a cop-out! A spade certainly isn't a spade in your book Gerard, is it? Are we starting a gardening thread :D We do try to be polite to each other here,Joseph - especially as we approach the season of goodwill. KatyA



Lilo	Tuesday, 18. December 2007, 20:45 Post #13
Posts: 743 Group: Members Member #109 Joined: December 3, 2007	Our Church is a "hospital for sinners" and not a "country club for the saved. See: http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/librar..._and_Tares.html
	The root problem in a lot of bad catechesis is ultimately not ignorance, but pride. ~ Mark Shea


Rose of York	Tuesday, 18. December 2007, 21:11 Post #14
Administrator Posts: 14,560 Group: Admin Member #2 Joined: September 25, 2006	Joseph Dec 17 2007, 08:41 PM Church-going Catholics maybe, but not “practising” since to meet that definition they would have to accept the teachings of the Church and abide by them to the best of their ability, and would only present themselves for Holy Communion after Confession. Anything less is surely hypocritical. Quote: for sins of the flesh are, I believe, by far the most difficult ones to avoid and are responsible for the vast majority of defectors. How we can possibly help back to the Church those that cannot accept its teaching on this, I have no idea I’m afraid. You will not get them back by making sweeping statements about who may and who may not "present themselves fo Holy Communion and Confession" and suggesting that people who struggle to believe and abide by some aspects of Church teaching are hypocrites, and calling them defectors. What are we to do, slam the door on these people and tell them they may return to Mass when they have attained as high a standard as those whom we judge to be up to standard? If an unrepentant murderer, who sees nothing wrong with killing people, attends Mass, he or she might gain from being there. They may hear a phrase in the Gospel, or feel moved to pray. That could lead to repentance, conversion, and salvation.
	$Posted Image$ Catholic and proud of it! Talk to God before Mass. Talk to each other afterwards


Rose of York	Tuesday, 18. December 2007, 21:18 Post #15
Administrator Posts: 14,560 Group: Admin Member #2 Joined: September 25, 2006	Lilo Dec 18 2007, 08:45 PM Our Church is a "hospital for sinners" and not a "country club for the saved. See: http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/librar..._and_Tares.html Thank you for this Lilo. I quote a small excerpt. Quote: Excommunication is not snotty Puritanism. When employed, it is intended as a form of shock therapy. The patient is delusional and needs to be woken up to reality. If we don’t act to bring the patient back to his senses, he will likely do himself in and perhaps even take others with him.Grain of Wheat, Wheat and Tares When to employ such therapy is a matter for Pope and bishops to decide. Our responsibility is not to worry about how to separate the evil tares from the wheat of the church, but how to uproot the seeds of wickedness from the field of our own hearts. That task is big enough!
	$Posted Image$ Catholic and proud of it! Talk to God before Mass. Talk to each other afterwards


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Catholic Discussion · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
…
11