Protestants receiving the Holy Eucharist

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Hi, all

Are people allowed to recieve the holy Eucharist that don't believe in Purgatory?

I am looking for a document of some sort.[I think they should stay away, but I am looking for something in writing.]

Thanks in advance.

-- - (David@excite.com), November 19, 2003

Answers

()

-- - (.@.....), November 19, 2003.

David, I am not sure what the nature of your question is. I assume that you are not referring to Protestants receiving Communion in their own churches, because, as a rule they do not believe in Purgatory to begin with.

This leads me to believe that the question is whether or not a Protestant can receive the Eucharist in a Catholic church if he does not believe in Purgatory. If that is the case then this opens up a whole set of issues that needs to be addressed. Therefore it would probably be best if you clarified your question further.

God bless, -Eric F.

-- Eric Filmer (erfilmer@hotmail.com), November 19, 2003.


Faith,

"Dear DAVID--then you ask a stupid question.You asked......."

I know what my question was Faith.

"PROTESTANTS WOULDN'T WANT TO RECEIVE THE EUCHARIST--GET IT??"

Nope! Thats why I was asking my question Faith. Rember what I said about God giving you two ears[to listen more than you speak?] And one mouth to speak half as much as you should list[en]?

"And if they did, they wouldn't be Protestants-would they?" No they wouldn't"[see how you are answering your own question[s] to me?]

Well than how can David B.not believe in Purgatory[like he mentioned in a earlier thread], and be allowed to receive the Risen Lord in holy Communion?

Its seems like a pretty simple question?[Besides from someone like you, Faith]

-- - (David@excite.com), November 20, 2003.


Perhaps I was being unclear in the previous thread. What I was trying to say was that I was wrestling with the concept of purgatory, meaning while I previously rejected it, I'm now trying to understand it to see if it is something I should accept. So I guess it's accurate to say I don't yet believe in purgatory, but it's also true that I'm opening my heart to learn.

From another angle, the Orthodox church rejects the concept of purgatory, yet they all receive the Real Presence of Christ in their Eucharist.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), November 20, 2003.


I'm afraid your question still isn't completely clear. I see two possible questions here ...

(1) Can a Catholic who is wrestling to understand a particular doctrine of the Church still receive the Eucharist? Yes! And hopefully the abundant graces of the Eucharist will help him to fully understand, appreciate, and accept the fullness of truth.

(2) Can a non-Catholic who is wrestling to understand a particular doctrine of the Catholic Church receive the Eucharist? No. But his struggle with doctrine is not the reason. Non-Catholics may not receive the Eucharist at all, except in a few unusual cases requiring a special dispensation from the bishop.

While the Orthodox do not have such a well defined doctrine of Purgatory as the Catholic Church, they do believe in reparation for sin after death, and they do pray for the repose of the souls of the dead.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 20, 2003.



"except in a few unusual cases requiring a special dispensation from the bishop"

I guess our letter from the Catholic Cardinal specifically stating that members of my denomination are allowed to receive Eucharist in his diosese (sp?) would qualify as a special dispensation.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), November 20, 2003.


"I guess our letter from the Catholic Cardinal specifically stating that members of my denomination are allowed to receive Eucharist in his diosese (sp?) would qualify as a special dispensation"

A: Yes, it would. However, if your denomination is a Protestant denomination this bishop has far exceeded his authority in granting such a blanket dispensation. Such a dispensation is at the very least illicit, and quite probably invalid.

.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 20, 2003.


My denomination is the Charismatic Episcopal Church (CEC). They call themselves "catholic", and do not use the term "protestant". They received what they beleive/refer to as a valid line of Apostolic succession from the Catholic Church of Brazil. I realize that "valid" is a point of debate and depends on which side of the fence you sit on considering the Catholic Church of Brazil is viewed as schismatic.

I'm not sure if you'd view us as protestant or schismatic or whether that even makes a difference.

I believe they (the CEC) would ultimately like to be viewed like the Orthodox or the National Catholic Church of Poland (I think I got the name right) insomuch as they want to be recognized by the Vatican as a valid church with valid sacraments. The CEC always speaks highly of the Roman Catholic Church and prays for her leadership constantly.

Our bishop and the Catholic Cardinal have been close friends for decades and I believe the Cardinals actions in issuing the letter were in the spirit of the relationship the Catholic Church has with denominations such as the Orthodox.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), November 20, 2003.


Paul,

I guess it would be #2 because he identifys himself as a"non-Catholic Christian." Dave doesn't believe in praying to saints, and Dave doesn't believe in the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mother, and he doesn't(struggling) believe in Purgatory.

Is Christ realy present the Eucharist that Dave partakes in? And if so, how can anyone be given permission that doesn't believe in infalliable teachings of the Holy Catholic Church?

What Bishop has the power to tell these peope that they can receive the holy Eucharist?

God bless you

-- - (David@excite.com), November 20, 2003.


David,

The Roman Catholic Church has officially recognized the sacraments of the Orthodox Church as being valid, yet the Orthodox do not agree with all of the teachings of the Catholic Church - most, but not all.

So the precedent is already established, it's just a matter of who's included in this type of category. The National Catholic Church of Poland is also in this category. My guess is that denominations such as the CEC will not gain such recognition anytime soon, if ever (officially). How long did it take the Catholic and Orthodox Churches to reach such an agreement? Personally, while I think a dialogue between the CEC and Rome is important to maintain, I don't care one way or the other whether or not such official recognition is ever given.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), November 20, 2003.



Correction, the name of the church is the Polish National Catholic Church. Here's a link that provides information regarding their relationship with Rome. http://www.rcab.org/eandi/guidelines.html

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), November 20, 2003.


Jmj

The ecclesial community that calls itself the "Charismatic Episcopal Church" has not been recognized by the Holy See as a true church with apostolic succession (like the Eastern Orthodox churchs and the PNCC). Therefore, with regard to Catholic sacraments, there is no way that "CEC" members could routinely take part in their their celebration.

As can be seen in the governing canon of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, not even the Orthodox are permitted routinely to have intercommunion with Catholics. Far less often (i.e., almost never) does the canon permit those who are assumed to be non-apostolic (Protestant) Christians, like "CEC" members, to receive Holy Communion. No American bishop (not even a cardinal) can override the Holy See's prerogative and define a denomination (such as the "CEC") as an apostolic church; nor can a bishop override the provisions of the governing canon.

Here is that canon, with the key passages highlighted:

"Canon 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 canon 861 §2 [which pertains only to Baptism].

"§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 [i.e., like the Orthodox and PNCC (JFG)].

"§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. [Again, like the Orthodox, PNCC. (JFG)]

"§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. [This section would pertain to "CEC" members.]

"§5 In respect of the cases dealt with in §2, 3 and 4, the diocesan Bishop or the Episcopal Conference is not to issue general norms except after consultation with the competent authority, at least at the local level, of the non-Catholic Church or community concerned."


Reviewing ...
Under what conditions can a "CEC" member (a Protestant) receive Catholic Holy Communion?
BOTH #1. If he is in 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 ...
AND #2. If he cannot approach a minister of his own community ...
AND #3. If he spontaneously asks the Catholic priest for permission before Mass ...
AND #4. If he demonstrates the Catholic faith concerning the Eucharist [i.e., Transubstantiation] ...
AND #5. If he is properly disposed [i.e., is not burdened by mortal sin].

In my opinion, the above would hardly ever allow the average "CEC" member to receive the Body and Blood of Jesus, especially because of point #2. One could also wonder how an individual bishop could find a "grave and pressing need" for "CEC" members to receive the Eucharist -- and yet remain non-Catholics.

Next, one could reasonably wonder if any "CEC" member is "properly disposed," since nearly all of them are likely to have committed mortal sins (contraception, etc.) and would not seek absolution before the Eucharist. Finally, my opinion is that any "CEC" member who previously defected from the Catholic Church is a "formal heretic" (self-excommunicated) and cannot possibly be "properly disposed" to receive Communion without first being absolved of this grave sin. But the only way to be absolved of defection is to return to the Catholic Church -- in which case the person can no longer be a "CEC" member. In my opinion, then, it follows logically that, if David B insists on remaining in the "CEC," he is forbidden to receive Catholic Holy Communion.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 20, 2003.


[POSTING AGAIN, WITH CORRECTION (I hope):]


Jmj

The ecclesial community that calls itself the "Charismatic Episcopal Church" has not been recognized by the Holy See as a true church with apostolic succession (like the Eastern Orthodox churchs and the PNCC). Therefore, with regard to Catholic sacraments, there is no way that "CEC" members could routinely take part in their their celebration.

As can be seen in the governing canon of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, not even the Orthodox are permitted routinely to have intercommunion with Catholics. Far less often (i.e., almost never) does the canon permit those who are assumed to be non-apostolic (Protestant) Christians, like "CEC" members, to receive Holy Communion. No American bishop (not even a cardinal) can override the Holy See's prerogative and define a denomination (such as the "CEC") as an apostolic church; nor can a bishop override the provisions of the governing canon.

Here is that canon, with the key passages highlighted:

"Canon 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 canon 861 §2 [which pertains only to Baptism].

"§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 [i.e., like the Orthodox and PNCC (JFG)].

"§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. [Again, like the Orthodox, PNCC. (JFG)]

"§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. [This section would pertain to "CEC" members.]

"§5 In respect of the cases dealt with in §2, 3 and 4, the diocesan Bishop or the Episcopal Conference is not to issue general norms except after consultation with the competent authority, at least at the local level, of the non-Catholic Church or community concerned."


Reviewing ...
Under what conditions can a "CEC" member (a Protestant) receive Catholic Holy Communion?
BOTH #1. If he is in 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 ...
AND #2. If he cannot approach a minister of his own community ...
AND #3. If he spontaneously asks the Catholic priest for permission before Mass ...
AND #4. If he demonstrates the Catholic faith concerning the Eucharist [i.e., Transubstantiation] ...
AND #5. If he is properly disposed [i.e., is not burdened by mortal sin].

In my opinion, the above would hardly ever allow the average "CEC" member to receive the Body and Blood of Jesus, especially because of point #2. One could also wonder how an individual bishop could find a "grave and pressing need" for "CEC" members to receive the Eucharist -- and yet remain non-Catholics.

Next, one could reasonably wonder if any "CEC" member is "properly disposed," since nearly all of them are likely to have committed mortal sins (contraception, etc.) and would not seek absolution before the Eucharist. Finally, my opinion is that any "CEC" member who previously defected from the Catholic Church is a "formal heretic" (self-excommunicated) and cannot possibly be "properly disposed" to receive Communion without first being absolved of this grave sin. But the only way to be absolved of defection is to return to the Catholic Church -- in which case the person can no longer be a "CEC" member. In my opinion, then, it follows logically that, if David B insists on remaining in the "CEC," he is forbidden to receive Catholic Holy Communion.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 20, 2003.


Orthodox also use contraception and receive the Eucharist, yet the Holy See sees no problem with that.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), November 20, 2003.


If your "Communion" is not the Eucharist, it is a mere human tradition with no resemblance whatsoever to the Eucharist Christ instituted at the Last Supper, which has been celebrated by Christians throughout the world ever since that event. Your "Communion" was instituted by men during the past few hundred years, and is no more than a faint shadow of the genuine Eucharist, in which we share in the actual flesh and blood of the risen Savior. But then you don't consider your "Communion" any more than a symbolic gesture anyway, so on that point you are correct.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 20, 2003.


Actually, we celebrate the Eucharist believing in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist - real Body, real Blood. We don't believe in a symbolic communion.

Our priests obtained their Apostolic authority from the Catholic Church of Brazil who's lineage extends back to the apostles.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), November 20, 2003.


Faith,

"Its very simple realy and your question is moot because a Protestant has no desire in a Mass of your kind."

Rember what I told you about listening with your two ears instead of listening with your mouth? If you read Dave's posts he says he believes in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist right?

So my question isn't moot. It was over your head because you listen with your mouth, and not your ears! Your answer was proven to be moot because Dave is a Protestant that has some form of desire in a Mass.

Than you said," Once was enough.."

You are mixed up AGAIN! The celebration of Mass is a partiipation in the one eternal sacrifice of Jesus, was was crucified, died, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven. That which is always present to the Father, who does not know time, is made present in time and space for us.

Catholics don't make it twice or three times etc....... The crucifixition is always present to God. He doesn't go by a clock.

You left the Catholic Church before you even understood what she teaches. This is so sad.

Didn't you say you were leaving the forum a few weeks ago?

Hi, Dave

Thanks for that link. I will read it later and probably have more questions.

John,

Thanks for your post. I don't understand how one can receive the Eucharist with out Confessing there sins to a Catholic Priest. And not believing in infalliable teaching of the Church. I will have to read the link and maybe it will be more clear. It just doesn't make sense to me . I see red flags all over this.

-- - (David@excite.com), November 20, 2003.


David, I think the most important part of John's post was this:

"§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. [This section would pertain to "CEC" members.]

What this says is that, even if the person is close to death, they may only recieve Holy Communion "provided that they demonstrate the Catholc faith in respect of these sacraments and are properly disposed." Meaning, they are in effect and belief, Catholic; and they are not in a state of mortal sin, meaning they've probably gone to Confession first, meaning they believe in the Catholic Sacrament of Confession, showing further that they are really Catholic.

All of this is just a round-about way of saying "Only Catholics who are in the state of grace may recieve Holy Communion."

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), November 21, 2003.


Faith,

You haven't allowed David's words to pierce through your bias. Catholic's don't re-sacrifice Christ in the Mass. They/we enter into the one-time sacrifice that Christ made before the foundations of the world. Do you realize that Jesus was first crucified before the world was founded/created?

Doesn't Rev 13:8 tell us that Christ was "slain from the beginning of the world"? How could that be when we know that he was slain some 1,929 years ago on Calvary? Because Jesus exists outside of time, unlike us. The sacrifice of the cross is a single event that is outside of time. It exists before the world was created, it existed when the Word became flesh on Calvary, and it continues to exist for all eternity. One sacifice for ALL time and ALL people.

So when Jesus taught to celebrate the Lord's supper, he did this during the Jewish Passover. This is significant because when he told them to "do this in remembrance of me" [Luke 29:19], he used a term, ajnavmnhsiß, which has far more meaning to the Jews than it conveys to us through translation. To us it's just "remembrance". To the Jews, it's speaking about a kind of remembering that places one back in time at the original event as if you personally were there and now joining in with the event which happened once but is eternal. The Jews did this when celebrating Passover, in their minds/hearts, they step out of time and join Moses who eternally obeyed God and in the Passover meal foreshadowed the TRUE Passover Lamb, Jesus Christ.

I'm probably not describing this well. It's really a concept that one grasps spiritually as one steps out of time to receive the Eucharist joining with the disciples at the Passover meal with Jesus and joining with Jesus hanging on the cross which is one eternal event that occurred once, yet began before the Earth was created and will continue without end.

So there is no re-sacrifice. Just a joining of one's self into the eternal sacrifice which has already occurred.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), November 21, 2003.


Jmj

Dave B, you wrote: "Orthodox also use contraception and receive the Eucharist, yet the Holy See sees no problem with that."

It's not true to say that "the Holy See sees no problem with that." Your words wrongly make it seem as though a pope has said that only Catholics commit sins when they contracept. The Holy See condemns each and every use of contraception by anyone of any religion (or irreligion) on the Earth, past, present, and future. (Pope Paul VI addressed "Humanae vitae," in which contraception was rejected anew, to "All Men of Good Will.") However, the Church does not assume that any given Orthodox Christian is in a state of sin, but rather leaves it up to each Orthodox sinner to acknowledge and confess his/her sins of contraception (avoiding the Eucharist until that is done). You are mistaken if you think that there could be a reunion of Orthodox and Catholics -- or "CEC" and Catholics -- if the Orthodox (or "CEC") insist on calling contraception an act that is not mortally sinful.

You also wrote: "Actually, we celebrate the Eucharist believing in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist -- real Body, real Blood. We don't believe in a symbolic communion."

I believe that Paul M's comment was directed to "Faith," rather than to you. However, I'm glad you responded to it because it gives me an opening to mention something else. As I stated above, a Protestant (e.g., "CEC" member) cannot receive Catholic Communion unless he "demonstrate[s] the Catholic faith" concerning the Eucharist. It is not enough for the "CEC" member to believe in the "Real Presence ... real Body, real Blood," because these last are believed by many Lutherans and members of the Anglican Communion (and perhaps some other Protestants). To have "the Catholic faith" is to go beyond believing in the "Real Presence" -- to believing in the "Real Substantial Presence" effected by Transubstantiation. I know of no Protestant denomination that acknowledges Transubstantiation -- whereby nothing but the appearances of bread and wine remain after the consecrations. Only a "CEC" member who meets all the other (nearly-impossible-to-meet) criteria AND professes, to the priest, his faith in Transubstantiation is permitted to receive Catholic Communion.

You also wrote: "Our priests obtained their Apostolic authority from the Catholic Church of Brazil [whose] lineage extends back to the apostles."

First, only bishops (not priests) have "apostolic authority." However, your intended meaning -- that your "priests" have valid Holy Orders -- is clear. With all due respect, though, you are not qualified to tell us such a thing. It is only for the pope to determine whether or not it is true and to inform the world according to his findings. Now if the Holy See some day recognizes the ordinations of "CEC priests," it would mean that they have the power to confect a valid Eucharist. But that would be a day of great sadness because, as an ex-Catholic who defected from the true Church at about age twenty and who approves of contraception, you would not be properly disposed to receive a valid "CEC" Communion. [As things stand now, I have to presume that what you are receiving now in the "CEC" is just bread and wine, and therefore your reception of it is not sacrilegious.]

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 21, 2003.


John, you said, "With all due respect, though, you are not qualified to tell us such a thing."

And neither are you.

"It is only for the pope to determine whether or not it is true and to inform the world according to his findings. Now if the Holy See some day recognizes the ordinations of "CEC priests," it would mean that they have the power to confect a valid Eucharist."

Not true. It's up to GOD to anoint the CEC priesthood. If the Pope one day acknowledges what God has already done, then great. But if he doesn't, it does not affect the validity one iota. They are either real priests or not, in God's eyes and no man can add to it or take away from it.

Using a similar illustration, the Pope doesn't allow a saint entry into Heaven. He can't influence the individual's state one way or the other. The best the Pope can hope for is to establish a set of criteria to use in order to ascertain whether or not someone has, in fact, made it to Heaven and is capable of intercession. But there are far more saints in Heaven than what are officially recognized by the Church . . . and the Church acknowledges that.

When Mother Theresa was going through the process here on earth, someone might be tempted to say that prior to it's completion, she wasn't a saint. But in fact, if she went directly into Heaven upon her death, then in fact, she was a saint far before the Pope recognized it.

You also said, "You are mistaken if you think that there could be a reunion of Orthodox and Catholics -- or "CEC" and Catholics -- if the Orthodox (or "CEC") insist on calling contraception an act that is not mortally sinful."

A reunion? No. I don't see that EVER happening. The Orthodox refused to submit to a form of church government they do not believe the Lord intended and they will not accept the concept of doctrinal development along with the resulting doctrinal changes implemented by the Catholic Church since and just prior to the schism.

But here's the point, John, the Vatican already recognizes the validity of the Orthodox sacraments, yet they have doctrines that the Vatican views as mortal sin. Institutionally, based on your arguments, this can not be. But it is. So either your wrong or the Vatican is wrong - guess where my money lies :-)

Also, with respect to transubstantiation, again, the Orthodox do not accept the doctrine of transubstantiation, yet the Vatican considers their Eucharist as valid. So your argument is not correct. The Orthodox, as well as the CEC, believe in the Real Presence. They remain open to the concept of transubstantiation, but believe that the Catholic Church went beyond the deposit of faith by defining something as doctrine which was not definable by scripture or tradition.

And finally, you said, "But that would be a day of great sadness because, as an ex-Catholic who defected from the true Church at about age twenty and who approves of contraception, you would not be properly disposed to receive a valid "CEC" Communion".

We've already discussed why believing in contraception is NOT a prohibition to receiving the Eucharist (based on the Vatican existing position with respect to the Orthodox). But the entire concept of "defect[ing] from the true Church" is a matter of perspective, since the aforementioned Orthodox would view me as having NEVER belonged to the "true Church" since they also lay claim to being the "true Church" with all of the requisite lineage.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), November 21, 2003.


Faith, a few important points:

Catholics do confess directly to God. The priest is not a mediator; the priest gives over his human nature to Christ while in the sacrament and so we are confessing directly to Christ.

The same is true for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The priest gives over his human nature, his body, to Christ, and actually becomes what is called the "Alter-Christus", a species of being who is Christ in the man's body as the man(priest) utters the words of the Mass, especially those of the Consecration. So Christ as the Alter-Christus is actually offering Himself in sacrifice as Communion, to His Father while also sacrificing Himself in a way to be in the priest's body. The man (priest) must work in union with the will of Christ in order for this to be accomplished, i.e., he must actually be saying the Mass and not something else, etc.

Also, what others have told you before about the Sacrifice of the Mass is true. At Holy Mass, time is actually overcome - transcended - and we (Alter-Christus, alcolytes, congregation)are at the actual foot of the actual cross, present while Jesus sacrifices Himself for us at Calvary, at the same time as sacrificing himself in the Mass as the Eucharist, through himself as the Alter- Christus. So He actually sacrifices Himself three ways at the same time: as Alter-Christus, as Eucharist, and as on the Cross; which is a symbol of the Trinity.

Yes, it's lot more complicated that the protestant idea of "remembering" Christ, but it's also blindingly simple. A paradox within a paradox within a paradox; a mystery within a mystery within a mystery. As befits God.

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), November 21, 2003.


Faith,

Have you ever considered 1COr 11:27 in light of your belief that the Communio is just synbolic?

It says, "Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep."

If it's just a synbol, how can someone who participates in an unworthy manner be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord? What does that mean to you? And if it's just a symbol, why are people weak and sick and dying from failing to acknowledge that it's truly the Lord's Body that's being eaten? There is far more to the Communion than what your symbol allows based just on these scriptures.

According to several veru early letters of the church, the Eucharist was celebrated very early on. While it took a number of years for the formal priesthood to evolve from the primitive church, the concept of the bread and wine becoming the Body and Blood was apparently known from the beginning.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), November 21, 2003.


"Nowhere do we read that Jesus needs human bodies to enter into to accomplish anything of the sort."

Jesus doesn't need ANYTHING. But He knows perfectly what WE need, and provides for our needs. Our most important need is spiritual life which leads to salvation. Which is why Jesus provided us with the Eucharist. "So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you". (John 6:53)

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 22, 2003.


Jmj

JG, last time: "... your intended meaning -- that your 'priests' have valid Holy Orders -- is clear. With all due respect, though, you are not qualified to tell us such a thing."
DB replies: "And neither are you."

Dave B, your reply seems a senseless throwaway, sort of a little boy's "Nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah." I never claimed to be "qualified" to say whether or not your "'priests' have valid Holy Orders. By contrast, you did claim it by flat-out saying that they have "apostolic authority." You made a claim without being "qualified" to make it. Think before you write, please -- both something original and a reply.

JG, last time: "It is only for the pope to determine whether or not it is true and to inform the world according to his findings. Now if the Holy See some day recognizes the ordinations of 'CEC priests,' it would mean that they have the power to confect a valid Eucharist."
DB replies: "Not true. It's up to GOD to anoint the CEC priesthood."

Again, a failure to think manifests itself. I never said that the pope "anoints" any priesthood. I said that, as the one and only Vicar of Christ on Earth -- the supreme head of the only Church that Jesus founded -- he has the power and the duty to discern whether or not the "CEC" is an church with apostolicity (and hence valid orders). If you don't accept that, it's your loss."

DB, continuning reply: "If the Pope one day acknowledges what God has already done, then great. But if he doesn't, it does not affect the validity one iota. They are either real priests or not, in God's eyes and no man can add to it or take away from it."

Again, read my words. I never said that the pope "can add to it or take away from it." I said that he must recognize it or reject it (as several of his predecessors rejected Anglican "orders" as invalid). I am sure that the Holy Spirit guides the popes' discernment of this. It could not be otherwise.

DB replying on a later topic: "A reunion [of Orthodox churches and/or "CEC" with Catholic Church]? No. I don't see that EVER happening. The Orthodox refused to submit to a form of church government they do not believe the Lord intended and they will not accept the concept of doctrinal development along with the resulting doctrinal changes implemented by the Catholic Church since and just prior to the schism."

Your pessimism (disbelieving in eventual unity) is sinful, because it rejects the efficaciousness of the prayer of Jesus ("I pray that they may be one ...).
Also, your history is wrong, because the Eastern churches DID submit to the primacy of the successors of St. Peter for hundreds of years. It was a group of rebels at a later date who decided to be disobedient (contrary to God's will) and break away -- sort of like when you broke away (contrary to God's will).
Next, your theology is wrong, because there have never been any "doctrinal changes implemented by the Catholic Church," which continues to preserve the apostolic "deposit of the faith." God will some day lead the Eastern churches either to dissolve or to realize that there is nothing improper in the development of doctrine approved by the popes in the last millennium. This should surprise no one, since the East realized that there was nothing improper in the development of doctrine througout the first Christian millennium.

DB, turning to another subject: "... the Vatican already recognizes the validity of the Orthodox sacraments, yet they have doctrines that the Vatican views as mortal sin. Institutionally, based on your arguments, this can not be. But it is. So either your wrong or the Vatican is wrong - guess where my money lies :-)"

That's easy. Neither I am wrong nor is the Vatican wrong. You are wrong. (That's always the case!) There is no way for the Catholic Church to "un-recognize" the validity of Orthodox sacraments, because their validity is based on apostolicity. Their validity has nothing to do with whether or not some Orthodox people have gone heretical or dissenting in certain areas of morality. Even a Jew or atheist can validly baptize a baby who is in danger of death.

DB, continuing: "Also, with respect to transubstantiation, again, the Orthodox do not accept the doctrine of transubstantiation, yet the Vatican considers their Eucharist as valid. So your argument is not correct."

If it were not correct, I would not have given it to you. Actually it is not an "argument," but a fact. You just don't understand it, or you choose to reject it. The Orthodox don't use the term "Transubstantiation," but they don't outrightly reject it. If I recall correctly, they don't see a need to try to explain the Eucharist to the extent that the West desired to explain it. But if you ask an Orthodox Christian whether he believes as certain Protestants do (consubstantiation or impanation) or as Catholics do (nothing but the appearances of bread and wine remain), I am confident that he will say, "as Catholics do." DB, a bit later: "The Orthodox, as well as the CEC, believe in the Real Presence. They remain open to the concept of transubstantiation, but believe that the Catholic Church went beyond the deposit of faith by defining something as doctrine which was not definable by scripture or tradition."

Not "doctrine," but infallible dogma. In the final analysis, it doesn't matter if the Orthodox churches [and far less the "CEC"] "believe that the [Church Jesus founded] went beyond the deposit of faith." It is not the place of the Orthodox churches [and far less the "CEC"] to judge the decisions of popes.

JG, last time (concerning a potential day of Catholic recognition of the apostolicity of the "CEC"): "But that would be a day of great sadness because, as an ex-Catholic who defected from the true Church at about age twenty and who approves of contraception, you would not be properly disposed to receive a valid 'CEC' Communion".
DB, replying: "We've already discussed why believing in contraception is NOT a prohibition to receiving the Eucharist (based on the Vatican existing position with respect to the Orthodox).

You got this wrong too. You must have not read carefully enough. I corrected your improprer idea about this when I pointed out out that use of contraception or the commission of any other mortal sin -- by anybody -- disqualifies him/her from receiving any valid Eucharist (Catholic, Orthodox, PNCC, and [potentially] "CEC").

DB, concluding: "... the entire concept of 'defect[ing] from the true Church' is a matter of perspective, since the aforementioned Orthodox would view me as having NEVER belonged to the 'true Church' since they also lay claim to being the 'true Church' with all of the requisite lineage."

But the only "perspective" that matters is the perspective of the Vicar of Christ, because Jesus founded only the Catholic Church. The Orthodox have "true churches" (local churches/dioceses headed by bishops), but they do not comprise the "true Church." They do not have the duty, right, or capability of judging whether or not the "CEC" is has apostolicity. Only the Catholic pope can do that.

In closing, I'd just like to ask you -- to keep you from further staining your soul by sacrilege -- to please not to gravely dishonor the Body and Blood of Our Lord by approaching to receive Him in a Catholic or Orthodox church. If you have reached the point, in your "journey" within Christianity, of recognizing the Catholic Church as having been founded by Jesus, then you have no choice but to humbly return to her. (This seems to be the case, since you want recognition of the "CEC" as apostolic.)

You need to realize that there is something "fishy" -- something rotten in the state of Denmark -- when it comes to the "CEC" (or as David/excite mentioned, "red flags"). Why? The Catholic Church goes all the way back to Jesus. The Orthodox churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, the PNCC, and maybe the Old Catholic Church, go back all the way, as direct schismatic breakaways from the Catholic Church. But the "CEC"? They are a horse of a different color. They are a "concoction" -- sort of a mishmash masquerading as a spinoff of a breakaway (Brazilian schismatics). Nevertheless, if the Vatican recognizes the "CEC," I will accept it with as much respect as I accord the Orthodox.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 22, 2003.


John,

I'm sorry, but despite your detailed attempt to respond to my post, you fail to understand and haven't addressed my posts at all.

You say things like "since you want recognition of the "CEC" as apostolic" even after I've written "I don't care one way or the other whether or not such official recognition is ever given".

You try to refute my explanation of the Orthodox and CEC view of transubstantitation by then repeating my explanation using slightly different words. Perhaps you're anal-compulsive nature can't bear the lack of precision in my explanations, but you're intelligence should at least be able to grasp my point even if I can't elevate my discussion to your standards. Alas, no matter how you slice it, the Orthodox and CEC do not doctrinally/dogmatically acknowledge transubstantiation, which according to YOU bars one from receiving a true Eucharist, yet that disagrees with the Vatican's assessment.

I'd go on with the other points (which are similarly flawed), but the argument gets rather circular. You've been backed into a corner by logic, and you're trying to weasel you're way out of it. Sorry, but even my simple mind isn't buying it.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), November 23, 2003.


Dear "Jesus will save your soul today",

Thank you for your concern for my soul, but I understand and receive the assurance of salvation. I walk in salvation knowing that Jesus has saved me a done deal providing I don't reject Him in the future and maintain myself "in Christ".

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), November 23, 2003.


"Perhaps you're anal compulsive nature...."

Dave, that was pretty crude! Thats not like you sir. :-(

-- - (David@excite.com), November 23, 2003.


You're mistaken, David/excite. It is the real Dave B showing through.

He is not an honorable man (yet), though at least he is moving in the right direction. We need to pray for him, because the last hump (returning to the Church) is proving to be so very tough for him to make.

Dave B. is even having problems with honesty, because being honest means yielding too much.
He says: "[John, y]ou say things like, 'since you want recognition of the "CEC" as apostolic,' even after I've written 'I don't care one way or the other whether or not such official recognition is ever given.'"

Well, the reason I said that is because I didn't believe his claim that he doesn't "care one way or the other whether or not ... recognition is ever given" to the "CEC" by the pope.
And the reason I didn't believe it is that, for months he has been trumpeting the alleged apostolicity (and thus allegedly valid sacraments) of his "church" -- and he has twice brought up the supposed recognition given to the "CEC" by the local Catholic cardinal.

David/e, I think that Dave B is dying to see his "CEC" recognized by the pope! Why? Because he thinks that he can then practice "Catholicism Lite" -- getting all the benefits of the sacraments, liturgy, etc., but without having to follow papal disciplines and Catholic morality. Basically, he wants to receive Holy Communion despite doing what we know are mortal sins.

I have no doubt at all that this was the very reason that some guys decided to found the "CEC" several years ago. Their thinking was:
1. To be true Christians, we must have valid Holy Orders.
2. To get Holy Orders, we ordinarily must be Catholic or Orthodox.
3. But we don't like Catholic Canon Law and morality (because we like contraception, "remarriage," etc.)
4. And we don't like the Orthodox liturgy, because it too much confines our Pentecostal exhuberance.
5. So let's invent a new "apostolic" Church, getting some schismatic bishop to lend us his valid Holy Orders! Yeah, that's the ticket!

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 23, 2003.


I've tried maintain a proper attitude during this discussion. I found it productive and interesting. At least it was until now. So, John, you admit to lying before or just failing to discuss this in an honest manner. Instead, you insist on once again putting on his pseudo-psychological hat claiming to represent not only my inner thoughts and motives but also those of the leadership of the CEC. And using your perceptions of our inner motives, you've judged us and announced your verdict. Sir, your arrogance and foolishness is exceeded only by . . . by . . . OK, nothing exceeds your arrogance and foolishness.

Since you've confessed to your sin of bearing false witness (and slander), I'll let it rest there knowing that your credibility is once again shot and you have your own sin to deal with now. Oh, and let's not forget that the purpose of your ad hominem attacks was to distract from the fact that you couldn't respond to the logic of my argument.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), November 23, 2003.


"Perhaps I was being unclear in the previous thread. What I was trying to say was that I was wrestling with the concept of purgatory, meaning while I previously rejected it, I'm now trying to understand it to see if it is something I should accept. So I guess it's accurate to say I don't yet believe in purgatory, but it's also true that I'm opening my heart to learn."

One of the best guides to understanding I have ever come across, Dave, is St. Catherine of Genoa's writings on the matter.

You can read it here; I don't know who hosts the site and didn't read the introduction (first item on google), but you can skip down to where it says Treatise on Purgatory, Chapter I. From there on I recognize all that as St. Catherine's work that I have here in book form.

I hope that it helps in trying to understand Purgatory.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 23, 2003.


Dave,

Luke 1:26-38. Believing doesn't mean understanding.

Since the days of Abraham, God has given people mysterious messages that defy reason but require faith. When Gabriel told Mary that she would give birth to the Son of God, she couldn't help but wonder how this could happen. The Angel's explanation didn't help. But instead of asking more, she simply said, "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. Be it done according to your word" (Luke 1:38).

Faith is not the same as understanding. In fact, some of God's truths are to deep for our limited intelligence. It's best to accept them with faith, humility, and simplicity. God tells us what we need to know when He thinks we are ready to handle it. Instead of examing all of God's truths, we can concentrate on what we need to live them and gain eternal life. By directing our interests and energy toward finding out what God wants for us, we'll gain the peace of doing His will.

May God give you the Grace to come home to the holy Catholic Church where you belong. Trust and have faith in the Church started by Jesus Christ over 2000 years ago. Look at Mary as the model of simple faith and obedience.

May God bless you and your wife with a healthy baby.

Jesus I trust in you.

-- - (David@excite.com), November 23, 2003.


Thank you Emerald. I will definitely check out that link and pray about what I read. I appreciate you responding to my implied need - the desire to learn more.

David, thank you also. Chris and the baby seem to both be healthy and strong - looking toward a May delivery date. I admire your ability to keep track of such details and maintain your intercessory prayer on our behalf. I'm grateful and solicit your continued prayers. God bless you sir.

John, I think I just need to ignore your posts in the future. They are ill-natured and ultimately target me as an individual rather than the topic of discussion. Since you can't seem to maintain a respectable dialogue without trying to tear me down, I'll just tune you out. Your opening initials to each thread, originally placed by you so that people could skip your posts if desired (yes, I remember that from years ago), will serve their purpose well for me.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), November 23, 2003.


I believe that this arguing betwee Faith and the Catholics, is not necessary. We are not that far apart, and are drawing nearer to each other every day.

BUENOS AIRES, NOV. 19, 2003 (Zenit.org).- The Holy See is preparing a new document on the spiritual dimension of interreligious dialogue.

Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, president of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, revealed that news in Argentina, where he is giving a series of talks this week on ecumenism, Islam and relations with Judaism.

Dialogue with believers of other religions "is not a hobby or an extra activity but a duty within the mission of the Church," he said.

"The problem that arises is how to reconcile dialogue as part of the mission of the Church with Jesus' mandate to go out and preach," the archbishop said when greeting representatives from the communities of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Anglicans, Methodists, evangelical Baptists, Waldensians, and others, at the headquarters of the Argentine Catholic bishops' conference.

"The Church must dialogue and proclaim, two tasks that are different but not opposed," the British archbishop said. "We must discover what the Spirit wants from that dialogue."

The archbishop revealed that the finishing touches are being given to the new document on the spiritual dimension of dialogue. He said the text will address the reasons for engaging in and maintaining dialogue

-- Jimmy Wallace (friend@toall.com), November 23, 2003.


The Lord said to them"Go out and preach the gospel to all men etc" The Holy Ghost at Pentecost , sent them out to baptize 3000, that very day.

Not a word about dialogue! It looks very much like a betrayal.

-- Bubbles (9999@444.com), November 24, 2003.


At that time there were no "separated brethren" with whom to dialogue. The ultimate aim of dialogue is reunification. Reunification was not an issue before the disruptions of the 11th and 16th centuries.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 24, 2003.

Paul; There has always been reasons to dialogue, if one looks for it. Still, Our Lord told them to preach the gospel.. The Church, since V2, has not preachd the gospel. Is it fear? What is the reason. You can only use dialogue as a temporary measure, not as a solution. When has the pope ever uttered one speech to non- Catholics, on evangilization. Never, to my knowledge. Never, in 25 years. "Go out and preach the Gospel/ Our Lord's words have fallen on deaf ears since V2.

-- Bubbles (9999@444.com), November 24, 2003.

Bubbles,

We have 14 catechumens entering the Church this Easter in my parish alone. More than a million American adults converted to the True Church in 2002. How do you suppose this is happening if the Church is not preaching the gospel???

Faith,

You are certainly correct that the True Church of Jesus Christ is not divided. It is His Body, and His Body cannot be divided. However, a great many people, including yourself, have separated themselves from that One True Church, founding their own unauthorized, manmade churches, while still calling themselves "Christian". The True Church recognizes these misguided people as Christian "brethren", because of the measure of Christian truth they have retained from their Catholic heritage - however, they most certainly are separated brethren, by their own choice. Separated from the One True Church, and also separated from the thousands of conflicting denominations their tradition has spawned. Division among earthly institutions is exactly what I am talking about. Only a Church instituted by God and maintained by the Holy Spirit holds the promise of freedom from doctrinal error. 2,000 years of constant, united teaching is the fruit of that promise. 450 years of ongoing disintegration of doctrinal tradition is the result of not having that promise.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 24, 2003.


Paul; you are ducking my question. I stand on what I said. Show where the pope, tries to convert anyone. If your numbers are correct, it is because people are converting in spite of the pope.

-- Bubbles (9999@444.com), November 24, 2003.

Surrrre they are. Maybe they are finding the truth of the gospel by visiting sedevacantist and other pseudotraditionalist sites? Or - maybe they are coming to the True Church by reading their Bibles and interpreting it for themselves! But surely they couldn't be coming to the True Church for the same reason people have been coming for the past 2,000 years - the fullness of truth as preached by the Magisterium of the Holy Catholic Church under the guidance of the holder of the keys, the Vicar of Jesus Christ.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 24, 2003.

Non-Catholic Dave,

You need to stop relying on your "memory," because it let you down several times in your last few posts.

Start with this: "Your opening initials to each thread, originally placed by you so that people could skip your posts if desired (yes, I remember that from years ago), will serve their purpose well for me."

No, you don't "remember that." The initials of the Holy Family are there to give them honor, not to identify a post as mine. What your cloudy memory conjured up was the period of a few weeks in which I put something like the following at the top of my messages, to allow some trouble-maker to bypass them, if he/she wanted to: "[J. F. Gecik posted this on mm/dd/yy.]"

Your next "memory" failure, non-Catholic Dave? You stated:
"I've tried maintain a proper attitude during this discussion."
Yeah, and here is an example of your "proper attitude" (to which I did not respond in kind, yet you have the gall to upbraid me):
"John ... Perhaps you're anal-compulsive nature can't bear the lack of precision in my explanations ..."

Your next "memory" failure? You stated:
"So, John, you admit to lying before or just failing to discuss this in an honest manner."
Scroll back up to the top, and re-read the whole long thread to jog your failing memory. I discussed everything (some things more than one) "in an honest manner." Any clear-thinking person can see that I haven't been "lying."

Your next "memory" failure, non-Catholic Dave? You stated:
"[John, y]ou say things like, 'since you want recognition of the "CEC" as apostolic,' even after I've written 'I don't care one way or the other whether or not such official recognition is ever given.'"

But your "memory" forgot that, early in the thread, you basically said the opposite. I'll quote you:
"My denomination is the Charismatic Episcopal Church (CEC). They call themselves 'catholic,' and do not use the term 'protestant.' ... they want to be recognized by the Vatican as a valid church with valid sacraments."

First you say that "my [your] denomination ... want[s] to be recognized by the Vatican as a valid church with valid sacraments," but then your memory disappears and you say the opposite, claiming, "I don't care one way or the other whether or not such official recognition is ever given [by the Vatican]." Actually this may not be a memory lapse at all though. It could be that you disagree with the CEC's desire for Vatican recognition, because you so deeply hate Catholicism (due to your profound inner guilt over defecting).

Your next "memory" failure? You stated:
"Since you've confessed to your sin of bearing false witness (and slander), I'll let it rest there knowing that your credibility is once again shot and you have your own sin to deal with now."

Is this a memory failure or insanity on your part? I have never "confessed to [a] sin of bearing false witness (and slander)." Why do you stoop so low as to invent things like this? Are you so desperate to convince some lurker here that you have a leg to stand on that you would start writing fiction for us?

Your next "memory" failure, non-Catholic Dave? You stated:
"Oh, and let's not forget that the purpose of your ad hominem attacks was to distract from the fact that you couldn't respond to the logic of my argument."

Your "argument" was riddled with "ILlogic," not logic. Throughout this entire thread, I ripped it to shreds before your very eyes and then deposited the scraps in your lap. Maybe I used too many adult-level words, so you didn't realize I was refuting you. I'll have to dumb it down next time, I guess.

Two final areas to touch upon -- these not being cases of "memory failure" -- but just "failures" on your part, non-Catholic Dave ...

1. You wrote: "I think I just need to ignore your posts in the future. They are ill-natured and ultimately target me as an individual rather than the topic of discussion. Since you can't seem to maintain a respectable dialogue without trying to tear me down, I'll just tune you out."

My messages do not take on the character you just described until you provoke a change in the character of the discussion. You bring on any "ill-natured" words of mine by (a) failing to accept the truth spelled out for you and (b) letting your hatred for the Church leak out. You shouldn't "ignore [my] posts in the future." You should either deal with them like a man (e.g., letting go of the errors I point out), or you should leave the forum completely. If you decide to stay and ignore my messages, you will be the loser in two ways: (a) you will stop learning the Catholic truths I've been teaching you, and (b) you will not see how I am refuting your own errors to benefit other readers.

2. You wrote: "John ... you insist on once again putting on [your] pseudo-psychological hat claiming to represent not only my inner thoughts and motives but also those of the leadership of the CEC. And using your perceptions of our inner motives, you've judged us and announced your verdict. Sir, your arrogance and foolishness is exceeded only by . . . by . . . OK, nothing exceeds your arrogance and foolishness."

The problem is not that I do these things, Non-Catholic Dave, but that I succeed when I do them. It drives you nuts to have your hidden thoughts exposed. And as for the CEC ... heck, it doesn't take much to figure out what brought them into existence. Your anger is not really directed toward me (based on the fact that I chose to expose the CEC). Your anger is really directed to the CEC, because I helped you to see, for the first time, that its founders were phonies who have been pulling the wool over your eyes.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 25, 2003.


Luke 1:26-38. Believing doesn't mean understanding.

Since the days of Abraham, God has given people mysterious messages that defy reason but require faith. When Gabriel told Mary that she would give birth to the Son of God, she couldn't help but wonder how this could happen. The Angel's explanation didn't help. But instead of asking more, she simply said, "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. Be it done according to your word" (Luke 1:38).

Faith is not the same as understanding. In fact, some of God's truths are to deep for our limited intelligence. It's best to accept them with faith, humility, and simplicity. God tells us what we need to know when He thinks we are ready to handle it. Instead of examing all of God's truths, we can concentrate on what we need to live them and gain eternal life. By directing our interests and energy toward finding out what God wants for us, we'll gain the peace of doing His will.

May God give you the Grace to come home to the holy Catholic Church where you belong. Trust and have faith in the Church started by Jesus Christ over 2000 years ago. Look at Mary as the model of simple faith and obedience.

Imho the above was well worth repeating; this is one of the most eloquent invitations to the Catholic Faith I've seen on the forum in quite a while. David, I have to hand it to you, because that was true and beautiful, and I'm sure that the other Dave will take it into consideration as he reflects on all these things in his heart. Patience and perserverence.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 25, 2003.


"The earthly institution that you think is the true church of Jesus Christ has been dividing and re-dividing since the begining."

A: The identity of the True Church founded by Jesus Christ is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of established historical fact. Therefore I do not "think" the Catholic Church is the One True Church. I know it is, because I know the relevant history. And you do not know such facts because you choose to remain ignorant of the relevant history. I probably would too if I were in your position. To know history is to reject Protestantism.

"Even today., your religion is not free from division.(Think Traditional Catholic Church-pre Vatican II) So how can that be, when Jesus said it could not be?"

A: Nonsense. Unity in a Church means unity of doctrine, unity of official teaching, which the Catholic Church has had from Apostolic times, and still has today. It means that at any place on earth and at any time in history you will hear the same truth professed by the same Holy Catholic Church. It doesn't mean that every individual member of the Church is equally capable of understanding and accepting every element of the Church's unified teaching. Such individual attitudes may separate individual persons from the unified Church, but it does not divide the Church. The Body of Christ cannot be divided.

Disunity on the other hand, does not simply mean that different individuals respond differently to official teaching. It means that different churches officially TEACH doctrine that is opposed to the doctrine officially taught by other churches. It means that in any town on earth and at any moment in history since the 16th century, you can hear hundreds of conflicting "gospels" being preached by unauthorized preachers in unauthorized manmade churches, all claiming to be based on the same collection of Catholic writings. That is disunity! And that is the sad history of Protestantism.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 25, 2003.


Faith, you wrote: "Paul.., why are you deleting my responses?"

How can you even ask such a question, sir?

Haven't you noticed that this is a Catholic forum that does not exist as a place for you to insert a daily sermonette? We aren't here to allow you to proselytize us. We couldn't care less about your flawed definition of the "Church" -- variations of which you have now posted about 37 times in the last three months.

Every single one of your messages should now be deleted (or you should simply be banned outright), because you are in constant violation of the forum's rules. You are an ex-Catholic who totally refuses to learn anything from the Catholics who consider this place a sort of "home away from home." You have been a guest here, but guests who intentionally vomit each day on their hosts' living room floor either need to have their vomit removed ASAP [deletion of your messages] or need to be bodily ejected from our domicile [banning]. You should take a third option -- that of voluntarily removing yourself today and until such time as you are ready to return repentantly to Jesus and his Catholic Church.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 26, 2003.


"The church is an organism--a living thing with vital signs of life. The church is not merely an organization or institution. "

A: True.

"The "organized church" has reference to structure and administration of a local church."

A: There is a certain amount of structure specific to a local church, but a local church has no authority, indeed no real identity, except as a component of the Universal Church.

"But Christ's church is made up of people who have been born anew by accepting Christ as personal Savior."

A: Yes - to the extent that they have accepted the TRUTH about Jesus Christ. Simply having accepted SOMETHING about Jesus Christ is not sufficient. And obviously, all who have accepted the TRUTH about Jesus Christ hold the SAME beliefs. There are not multiple conflicting versions of the TRUTH.

"For the first three hundred years after Christ, what he created was called the "ecclesia."

A: It still is called that. "Ecclesiastical" means "pertaining to the Church.

"Ecclesia" means "a called out" assembly.

A: That's right.

"There may be many local churches in the world--including the Catholic church, but there is only One True Church"

A: That is ridiculous. The Catholic Church is not a local Church. It is THE Universal Church, founded by Jesus Christ for all men. The Diocese of Boston is a local church, which derives its identity and authority from its essential nature as a component of the Universal Church. No church which lacks such an intimate connection to the Universal Church has any authority at all.

"It is called many things in the Bible. We read that the ecclesia is the Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ, God's Temple, a peculiar people, a chosen nation, a royal priesthood, a purchased possesion, the light of the world, etc... "

A: Yes, the membership of the Church He founded is called by all of those names, and others.

"There is one body of Christ and it is made-up of true believers regardless of church names or affiliations..."

A: That is a contradiction in terms. Different churches teach conflicting doctrine. Conflicting doctrines cannot represent truth. Therefore, those who hold conflicting doctrines are not "true believers", for they are not believers in the truth, but in untruth. The Body of Christ, as you said, is made up of TRUE believers, whose beliefs are necessarily the SAME. Truth can exist only in the presence of unity. Which is how we know that the Protestant tradition, a tradition of division and fragmentation, is riddles through and through with untruth.

"Peter tells us that Christ is the foundation of this church"

A: Yes indeed! Otherwise it would not have been nearly as significant when Christ, who is THE foundation, told Simon Peter that he would be the earthly foundation upon which Christ would build. THE Rock, Jesus Christ, naming one man to be The Rock in His absence, His personal Vicar, presiding over the Church of which He Himself was the eternal Foundation.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 26, 2003.


"The Bible tells us that Christ is the head of the church--and since he is alive and well and living within us--we don't need a pope."

A: Thanks for your opinion, but if Christ agreed with you He would not have appointed a Pope, given him the keys to the kingdom, and desiganted him as the foundation upon which the Church would be built. Fruit of Christianity under the keeper of the keys: 2,000 years of unity and fullness of truth. Fruit of Christianity removed from authority - 450 years of fragmentation, confusion, and doctrinal chaos. Go figure.

"Christ is the ultimate priest, and he stands before God pleading our case for us--defending any accusations that the devil makes against us!"

A: Amen! If he were not our High Priest, He could not have ordained other priests under him, or delegated the power to continue that sacramental ordination until the end of time.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 29, 2003.


Jesus to Simon the Apostle: "I say to you that YOU are Peter [Rock], and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it." (Matthew 16:18)

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 29, 2003.

Too bad that got deleted; that could have really gotten somewhere. Do you want to try it again or just let it go, moderator?

An honest inquiry.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 29, 2003.


Gee Faith,

You are sounding more Catholic all the time. :-)

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 29, 2003.


The difference between "the works of the law", which are frequently condemned in scripture, and Christian works of charity, which scripture repeatedly says are necessary for salvation, has been explained to you more than once. You obviously are not open to truth, not even to truth as simple and clearcut as this. Therefore there is little reason to keep reading your same tired old Protestant traditions.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 29, 2003.

I was wondering Paul why my post to Faith was deleted. Is it possible to get a small explanation? I'm not upset, but I'm curious what it was I said.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 30, 2003.

Emerald,

It wasn't anything you said. It was what Faith said. Once I deleted her post attacking the Catholic Church, your post, which was a response to her post, was just sort of "hanging there", offering commentary on something that no longer existed. In such cases I usually delete the responsive post along with the offensive post, unless the second post can stand on its own.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 30, 2003.


no offense, Paul M, but could you leave those quotes hanging...? i know more than once ive written some really good responses which have been deleted, and it sometimes feels like a waste of work and time. at least let us know before you delete the post so we could, say, save it to word an post it next time someone has the same objection...

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 30, 2003.

That's what I thought, Paul; just wanted to be sure.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 30, 2003.

Ok folks, as you wish. I do think it makes for confusion though when someone reads a post that says "I really think your interpretation of that passage is wrong", and then scrolls up to find out what passage is being referred to - and finds nothing. But I'll try to be more conservative in deleting such things.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 30, 2003.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ