Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language.
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Praying in churches of other denominations; Split from the Ordinariate topic
Topic Started: Monday, 28. November 2011, 14:28 (1,547 Views)
Gerard

Patrick
Sunday, 4. December 2011, 18:20


You have some funny ideas.

Thanks, Patrick, I will take that as a compliment.

This idea ocurred to me a couple of years ago.

And last year I happened to be reading about an imposter priest who had been celebrating Sunday mass for a while in a catholic parish. Some catholic document was quoted (I dont remember which, dont remember the level of authority, and would be hard pressed to find it or the article again) which speculated that for the ordinary parishoners Our Lord may have consecrated the bread and wine individually.

So, my idea was not new, and if Our Lord would do this for catholics He might do so for anglicans who believe.

"Everything is possible for those who believe"

Gerry
Edited by Gerard, Sunday, 4. December 2011, 20:00.
"The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
saundthorp

Quote:
 
Gerry - in theological and actual terms Saundthorpe is correct in what he has stated.

However I do recognise sincerely that your post above was made in charity and for me would indicate your acceptance of a form of spiritual communion (as Saundthorpe has already alluded to). I agree that sometimes it might be imprudent to use the phrase 'just bread and wine' - depends upon the circumstances - but sometimes one is forced to make that reminder.

God Bless,
PJD


You make a good point there PJD. If I had been having this discussion on an Anglican discussion board I may well have chosen different wording, but we are on a Catholic board discussing the topic among Catholics (I presume) Therefore there shouldn't be a problem with saying things as they are.
There is a hint in Gerry's remark that I lack respect for our separated bretheren. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Truth is still the truth even if no one believes it. Error is still error even if everyone believes it.
(Archbishop Fulton Sheen)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

The only thing I dislike about this Forum is the tendency to copy large chunks of preceding posts. I realise it makes it clear what we are referring to in our replies but I still find it irritating. However, just to disprove my own point--and with apologies to Saundthorp who might think I am getting at him/her personally let me break my own rule
"With the exception of Baptism the spiritual reality of sacraments within the Anglican Communion was settled in 1896 when Pope Leo XIII declared in his Apostolicae Curae, that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite were absolutely null and utterly void."

Really? 1896? One man can declare this? In my view, all nonsense and it is time we approached the rest of the world in the Christian humility that Jesus urged upon us.

John
Quote Post Goto Top
 
saundthorp

John Sweeney
Monday, 5. December 2011, 00:44
The only thing I dislike about this Forum is the tendency to copy large chunks of preceding posts. I realise it makes it clear what we are referring to in our replies but I still find it irritating. However, just to disprove my own point--and with apologies to Saundthorp who might think I am getting at him/her personally let me break my own rule
"With the exception of Baptism the spiritual reality of sacraments within the Anglican Communion was settled in 1896 when Pope Leo XIII declared in his Apostolicae Curae, that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite were absolutely null and utterly void."

Really? 1896? One man can declare this? In my view, all nonsense and it is time we approached the rest of the world in the Christian humility that Jesus urged upon us.

John
Sorry John, Pope Leo's statement in 1896 wasn't nonsense. It just shows how forward thinking the Holy Spirit was when he inspired the Pope to write in such emphatic terms. The Holy Spirit knew it was going to be very much needed in our time.
Truth is still the truth even if no one believes it. Error is still error even if everyone believes it.
(Archbishop Fulton Sheen)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

saundthorp
Saturday, 3. December 2011, 18:20
Yes, I'm aware we should show respect to our separated brethren but that should not extend to us denying the Real Presence, which is what it means for a Catholic to take a non-Catholic communion.
I have attended weddings in the Church of Ireland where, on the invitation of the minister, I have taken part in their communion. I have a passionate belief in the Real Presence, it is the very bedrock of my Faith, participating in non-Catholic communion had no relevance whatsoever to that for me and I really wish you would stop tossing out such arrogant accusations about other people's commitment to the Faith.

saundthorp
 
Joint celebration of the Eucharist is the final aim of all ecumenical endeavours, but to anticipate the union without having established the reality of the Body and Blood of Christ in one Church and one faith is a form of dishonesty and causes a grave scandal.

Are you accusing me of being dishonest? What grave scandal did I cause.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

Patrick
Sunday, 4. December 2011, 14:33
There are four conditions required for a valid Consecration resulting in the miracle of transubstantiation. All of these conditions must be present for a valid Consecration. This is dogma. Therefore, anyone who denies these requirements is liable to heresy:

Matter, Form, Intention and a validly ordained priest.
The first Christian communities did not restrict celebration of the Eucharist and the Consecration to ordained priests, does that mean their Consecration was invalid and that they were committing heresy?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gerard

Do you have any evidence for that mairtin?

Gerry
"The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gerard

I have been finding it a touch amusing that for a while now this thread has been using the word communion but concentrating on the real presence in the host and pretty much ignoring the communion.

Gerry
"The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
KatyA

Quote:
 
(Canon 844 (c.671 in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches) ) then addresses the question of Catholics receiving the sacraments from non-Catholics. It sets the following strict conditions:

a. necessity or genuine spiritual advantage
b. when the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided
c. it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister
d. a church which has valid sacraments

This last condition is the key one, since it eliminates ALL the Reformation churches (Anglican, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist etc.), none of whom have valid sacred orders, and therefore, a valid Eucharist. The possibility of a Catholic receiving from the minister of another church, when the first three conditions are fulfilled, is limited to the Orthodox Churches, other Oriental Churches, Old Catholics, Polish National and others whose sacraments are recognized by the Holy See. As paragraph 3 notes, the members of those churches may likewise receive from a Catholic minister, when they ask and are disposed.

EWTN
Receiving communion is a sign of visible communion, and a statement of full agreement with others present in a shared faith. Scripture is clear that partaking of the Eucharist is among the highest signs of Christian unity: "Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread" (1 Cor. 10:17). To share communion with non-Catholic Christians would be a false attempt at ecumenical unity.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Angus Toanimo
Member Avatar
Administrator
Mairtin
Tuesday, 6. December 2011, 10:16
saundthorp
Saturday, 3. December 2011, 18:20
Yes, I'm aware we should show respect to our separated brethren but that should not extend to us denying the Real Presence, which is what it means for a Catholic to take a non-Catholic communion.
I have attended weddings in the Church of Ireland where, on the invitation of the minister, I have taken part in their communion. I have a passionate belief in the Real Presence, it is the very bedrock of my Faith, participating in non-Catholic communion had no relevance whatsoever to that for me and I really wish you would stop tossing out such arrogant accusations about other people's commitment to the Faith.

saundthorp
 
Joint celebration of the Eucharist is the final aim of all ecumenical endeavours, but to anticipate the union without having established the reality of the Body and Blood of Christ in one Church and one faith is a form of dishonesty and causes a grave scandal.

Are you accusing me of being dishonest? What grave scandal did I cause.
By taking Communion in the Church of Ireland, you as a Catholic have publicly stated that you are in Communion with them, share their beliefs and their teachings. To participate in their Communion is to reject the Real Presence and belief in Transubstantiation.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Emee
Member Avatar

Harsh words Patrick.

Mairtin has just told us: "I have a passionate belief in the Real Presence, it is the very bedrock of my Faith..."

Conversely my Greek Orthodox friend who went to our RC Secondary school, after RC Primary school, and was Confirmed after being Baptised as a baby, was always told she could not receive the Eucharist in our Church. It seems now that she was wrongly advised. Small wonder, after spending years being the only one sitting out of going up for Holy Communion at school Masses, that she cut her ties with Catholicism at the first opportunity after leaving school.

A tragedy - all due to misinformation.

Makes me livid to be honest...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Patrick
Tuesday, 6. December 2011, 21:42
Mairtin
Tuesday, 6. December 2011, 10:16
I have attended weddings in the Church of Ireland where, on the invitation of the minister, I have taken part in their communion. I have a passionate belief in the Real Presence, it is the very bedrock of my Faith, participating in non-Catholic communion had no relevance whatsoever to that for me and I really wish you would stop tossing out such arrogant accusations about other people's commitment to the Faith.
By taking Communion in the Church of Ireland, you as a Catholic have publicly stated that you are in Communion with them, share their beliefs and their teachings. To participate in their Communion is to reject the Real Presence and belief in Transubstantiation.
Patrick are you able to provide a link to authoritative teaching that participation in the Communion of a denomination that lacks validity of priesthood and Eucharist is to reject the Real Presence and belief in Transubstantiation?

My personal hunch, not based on any formal document, is that reception of Communion host or wine offered as a symbol and taken as a symbol does not deny the Real Presence at a valid Mass, or the doctrine of transubstantation.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Angus Toanimo
Member Avatar
Administrator
Rose of York
Tuesday, 6. December 2011, 23:56
Patrick
Tuesday, 6. December 2011, 21:42
Mairtin
Tuesday, 6. December 2011, 10:16
I have attended weddings in the Church of Ireland where, on the invitation of the minister, I have taken part in their communion. I have a passionate belief in the Real Presence, it is the very bedrock of my Faith, participating in non-Catholic communion had no relevance whatsoever to that for me and I really wish you would stop tossing out such arrogant accusations about other people's commitment to the Faith.
By taking Communion in the Church of Ireland, you as a Catholic have publicly stated that you are in Communion with them, share their beliefs and their teachings. To participate in their Communion is to reject the Real Presence and belief in Transubstantiation.
Patrick are you able to provide a link to authoritative teaching that participation in the Communion of a denomination that lacks validity of priesthood and Eucharist is to reject the Real Presence and belief in Transubstantiation?

My personal hunch, not based on any formal document, is that reception of Communion host or wine offered as a symbol and taken as a symbol does not deny the Real Presence at a valid Mass, or the doctrine of transubstantation.
For the love of God, is it really rocket science?

When Protestantism was formed one of the first things they did was to deny Transubstantiation and replaced it with some symbolic rubbish. They denied the Real Presence. It was Catholic hocus pocus. What on God's earth do you think that his participation in a protestant communion would tell the people around him, and other Catholics? By participating in what is an ultimate rejection of the Holy Mass he is complicit in that rejection.

Please let me know if I'm the only Catholic that sees it like that? No wonder some outside the Church think that it isn't worth becoming a Catholic when Catholics themselves are quite happy to participate in their heretical and/or schismatic worship services.
Edited by Angus Toanimo, Wednesday, 7. December 2011, 00:20.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Patrick
Wednesday, 7. December 2011, 00:16
Rose of York
Tuesday, 6. December 2011, 23:56
Patrick
Tuesday, 6. December 2011, 21:42
Mairtin
Tuesday, 6. December 2011, 10:16
I have attended weddings in the Church of Ireland where, on the invitation of the minister, I have taken part in their communion. I have a passionate belief in the Real Presence, it is the very bedrock of my Faith, participating in non-Catholic communion had no relevance whatsoever to that for me and I really wish you would stop tossing out such arrogant accusations about other people's commitment to the Faith.
By taking Communion in the Church of Ireland, you as a Catholic have publicly stated that you are in Communion with them, share their beliefs and their teachings. To participate in their Communion is to reject the Real Presence and belief in Transubstantiation.
Patrick are you able to provide a link to authoritative teaching that participation in the Communion of a denomination that lacks validity of priesthood and Eucharist is to reject the Real Presence and belief in Transubstantiation?

My personal hunch, not based on any formal document, is that reception of Communion host or wine offered as a symbol and taken as a symbol does not deny the Real Presence at a valid Mass, or the doctrine of transubstantation.
For the love of God, is it really rocket science?

When Protestantism was formed one of the first things they did was to deny Transubstantiation and replaced it with some symbolic rubbish. They denied the Real Presence. It was Catholic hocus pocus. What on God's earth do you think that his participation in a protestant communion would tell the people around him, and other Catholics? By participating in what is an ultimate rejection of the Holy Mass he is complicit in that rejection.

Please let me know if I'm the only Catholic that sees it like that? No wonder some outside the Church think that it isn't worth becoming a Catholic when Catholics themselves are quite happy to participate in their heretical and/or schismatic worship services.
It is arguably also idolatry to take communion in a denomination which neither has, nor claims to have, the Real Presence.

It is placing bread on the same level as the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ.
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Why is it not possible to take Communion regularly at Mass as a Catholic acknowledging the Real Presence and on another occasion at another Christian act of worship take Communion with them on their own terms ie it as an act of commemoration? Why should the latter be seen as denying the former?

John
Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Catholic Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply