Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
A bit confused!
-
30-08-2012 6:55pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
BrianCalgary wrote: »Bonnie, no disrespect intended here, but is this current law?
My experience in the RC church certainly doesn't reflect this view.
At this time last year I was working for an evangelical organisation, attending what would be classified as a protestant church and my 'assignment' was in a Catholic High School leading a group of students in their spiritual development and participating fully in the weekly mass.
All with the blessing of the school principal, chaplain and assorted priests.
What i've given is current law, yes. But i'm not sure what you are reading into it with regard to you situation?
Let me take a few guesses at it, i might be misinterpreting your post, , so you can correct me.:)
'participating fully in the weekly mass.' if this means attending, joining in the prayers, and so on, there is no problem there. Anyone, of any religious faith andnone, of any christian denomination and none, is welcome at any time to do this.
however if by 'participating fully in the weekly mass.' you mean also receiving Holy Communion, there are a number of issues with this.
You say you were working for an evangelical organisation, but you don't say if you are a catholic or not.
If you are a catholic, there is not problem receiving Holy Communion at Mass, within the normal limits placed on any Catholic, which is to have fasted for 1 hour (unless ill) and not to be in a state of serious sin.
If you are a protestant, you should not be receiving Communion at a Catholic Mass, unless given particular permission by your local Catholic Parish Priest or Bishop.- This permission is sometimes given to those who fully believe all that the Catholic church teaches about Holy Communion, it is a very exceptional permission.
- It would never be given casually, a feel free to join in ' sort of statementm it might be given after a careful examination on points of doctrine and understanding.
- More normally, a protestant who has come to accept the Catholic church teaching would be entering the church, and would not receive Communion until that has happened - you weoulkd first receive conditional baptism, sacrament of Confession, Confirmation and then Holy Communion.
1 Corinthians 11: 23-30
B]23[/B For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,
B]24[/B and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
B]25[/B In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."
B]26[/B For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
B]27[/B Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
B]28[/B Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
B]29[/B For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
B]30[/B That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
The Catholic church has always understood from this that it is very dangerous, spiritually and physically, to allow someone to receive communion unless they understand and agree with what Jesus taught us about what holy Communion really is.
I am sure you know that for Catholics, holy Communion is understood to be the actual body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus, it is not a symbol or memorial of any sort.
If you were raised a catholic and you are 'working for an evangelical organisation, attending what would be classified as a protestant church' you might be thinking from reading the canon law I posted that you are excommunicate. The key points here would be if this working and attending constituted a formal act of apostasy, heresy or schism. In the other posters case, he had received the sacrament of confirmation in a protestant church, this would be considered a formal act, and so might have incurred excommunication, though given his age and upbringing it might not have.
Simply attending a protestant church is definitely not such an act, I do it myself, and love to pray woth other Christians. Just being there praying does not mean I have abandoned my catholic faith, far from it, i am trying to live it - it teaches me that protestants are Christians too and we are all part of the body of Christ.:)
however if you were raised Catholic (baptised and confirmed) and now no longer practise your catholic faith you would need to go back to the Sacrament of Confession before receiving Holy Communion. AS you know Christians have serious obligation to keep the Sabbath Holy (ten commandments). For a Catholic this means going to Mass on a Sunday once you have reached the age of discretion (about 7 years old), with the normal sorts of exceptions for things like being ill, looking after children not living within distance fo a Mass and so on. If someone who is raised a Catholic is not going to mass they would be considered to be objectively in serious sin and so need to be reconciled (sacrament of confession or reconciliation) before receivng Communion again.
Please note I said objectively - meaning it is a wrong act to miss mass on a Sunday; This is not the same as subjectively which is the question of the culpablility of the individual and depends on other factors too, like how much you knew and understood, or were taught, what your motivation was etc.
The following document ' One bread, One Body' of the Bishops of Ireland and Britain was written in response to widespread confusion over the teaching of the Church on the Eucharaist (Holy Communion) and on sharing Holy Communion with others, and also on Catholics taking part in the services of other churchrs.
http://www.catholicbishops.ie/wp-content/uploads/images/docs/onebread.pdf
you could also check out canon law on line, or the Catholic Catechism online.
Eucharist. THere are a number of recent papal documents on the Eucharist - Pope John Paul wrote a very interesting one call Ecclesia de Eucharistia or the The Church of the Eucharist which taljk about how it is from receiving Holy Communion that we are formed into one body in Christ.
http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0821/_INDEX.HTM
And Pope Benedict has written an apostolic letter on the Eucharist here
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20070222_sacramentum-caritatis_en.html
Finally a word about being told by various people that is okay to participate - they may be right, I don't know enough of your circumstances. However they may also be wrong, there is widespread ignorance, and also rejection of Catholic Church teaching among those who would be considered practicing Catholics and even among the clergy. So if in doubt try to check it out from the actual teaching documents of the Church.
Delighted to hear you are encouraging the young to love Jesus and grow in the Holy spirit - I work at that myself. I am sure god is very pleased with you for trying to bring them closer to him.:)0 -
-
Hey Bonnie
I don't want to hijack this thread, but wanted to respond.
Full participation in the mass. Doing the readings and taking communion.
I became a Catholic about 1984 yet hadn't been since about 1994.
I didn't leave the RC denomination for any other reason than a nudge from God to go elsewhere, now the nudge is back to RC.
In having said all that no priest that I know is getting too excited about the Canon law that you have quoted. I find the priests to be quite refreshing in their attitude of welcoming anyone who is interested in getting closer to Christ through the Mass. (Now mind you, this is only an impression based on their actions and attitudes, not based on an interview to ask them their actually feelings).
As for my own personal view on the eucharist, I sit somewhere between the host having the presence of Christ and being the body and blood of Christ. So, having this view, would that disqualify me from taking communion?
Thanks
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
Thanks notsobusy.
Thanks also for your responses Bonnie, all very interesting.
Funnily enough back in '84 when I became a catholic my fiancee and I had been attending church together (she born and raised RC in N. Ireland). I had known this priest for years through my aunt and uncle who attended that parish.
I was taking communion every Saturday without any fuss ( I had been baptised and confirmed in the Anglican church). One Saturday I went to Fr. Joe and told him I would like to become a Catholic. He said with a big smile on his face, 'it is about time, come a little early for mass next week'.
We went early, Fr. Joe had me read the apostles creed, he then asked me if I agreed with everything in there. I said, 'yes'. He then blessed me, made me a Catholic and then had me confess. He didn't like classes, he said he knew my heart and commitment towards and to God and that was good enough for him.
On the Eucharist question.
There are three basic views in Christendom on the Eucharist.
1) symbolic
2) presence of Christ
3) transubstantiation
Over my life I have held all three views as I read and study. Symbolic just doesn't cut it as every essay I have ever read defending this position says that Jesus really meant 'this is symbolic of my body and blood'. If Jesus meant it He would have said it.
I have difficulty wrapping my head around transubstantiation because when He said 'this is my body', well He was holding the cup and He was standing there.
In having said that I can't discount transubstantiation because Jesus said 'this is my body'. A pretty emphatic statement which is difficult to discount especially based on my comment re: symbolic. (I do try to be consistent )
Which leaves me at #2? But it seems incomplete when coupled with Jesus' statements at the last supper in light of His statement in John 6:53-58
Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”
Thanks for the clarification on legalism and that you are trying to clear up misconceptions, I honour that approach and find me doing that as well. I don't know how many times I have asked some people, 'have you even read the mass or looked at the catechism?':D0 -
BrianCalgary wrote: »Thanks notsobusy.
Thanks also for your responses Bonnie, all very interesting.
Funnily enough back in '84 when I became a catholic my fiancee and I had been attending church together (she born and raised RC in N. Ireland). I had known this priest for years through my aunt and uncle who attended that parish.
I was taking communion every Saturday without any fuss ( I had been baptised and confirmed in the Anglican church). One Saturday I went to Fr. Joe and told him I would like to become a Catholic. He said with a big smile on his face, 'it is about time, come a little early for mass next week'.
We went early, Fr. Joe had me read the apostles creed, he then asked me if I agreed with everything in there. I said, 'yes'. He then blessed me, made me a Catholic and then had me confess. He didn't like classes, he said he knew my heart and commitment towards and to God and that was good enough for him.
On the Eucharist question.
There are three basic views in Christendom on the Eucharist.
1) symbolic
2) presence of Christ
3) transubstantiation
Over my life I have held all three views as I read and study. Symbolic just doesn't cut it as every essay I have ever read defending this position says that Jesus really meant 'this is symbolic of my body and blood'. If Jesus meant it He would have said it.
I have difficulty wrapping my head around transubstantiation because when He said 'this is my body', well He was holding the cup and He was standing there.
In having said that I can't discount transubstantiation because Jesus said 'this is my body'. A pretty emphatic statement which is difficult to discount especially based on my comment re: symbolic. (I do try to be consistent )
Which leaves me at #2? But it seems incomplete when coupled with Jesus' statements at the last supper in light of His statement in John 6:53-58
Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”
Thanks for the clarification on legalism and that you are trying to clear up misconceptions, I honour that approach and find me doing that as well. I don't know how many times I have asked some people, 'have you even read the mass or looked at the catechism?':D
Did you get to make your confirmation as a Catholic? Sounds like a nice low key approach, this priest, and if he knew you well enough to know what would work best for you, fair enough.
I know what you mean about symbolic not being enough. The way Jesus emphasises the word eat, in the passage in John 6, as well as Johns deliberate positioning of this teaching directly after the niracle of feeding the crowd are significant.
Its as if he wants to emphasise the difference between the Eucharist as heavenly food, and ordinary earthly food, even when that is given miraculously and in superabundance.
one reflection that helped me was linking jesus's words with the creation account in Genesis. When god said 'let there be light' and so forth. You can be sure no created thing sat around wondering if it would comply.:) Similarly, when jesus says 'this is my body, this is my blood', he is the same god speaking his word or creative, authoritative power. Don't think the bread and wine are putting up much of a fight there.
I have difficulty wrapping my head around transubstantiation because when He said 'this is my body', well He was holding the cup and He was standing there.
Not quite sure what you are getting at here, could you elucidate?0 -
-
-
-
bonniebede wrote: »
I have difficulty wrapping my head around transubstantiation because when He said 'this is my body', well He was holding the cup and He was standing there.
Not quite sure what you are getting at here, could you elucidate?
On your first question. No my confirmation was made in the Anglican church.
Sure on the elucidation:
He is standing in his place at the table or sitting handing out the bread and wine saying 'this is my body'. Yet His body was actually standing (or sitting) at the table.
His body had to be in two places at once.
I have trouble reconciling that.
Blessings
Brian0 -
BrianCalgary wrote: »On your first question. No my confirmation was made in the Anglican church.
Sure on the elucidation:
He is standing in his place at the table or sitting handing out the bread and wine saying 'this is my body'. Yet His body was actually standing (or sitting) at the table.
His body had to be in two places at once. I have trouble reconciling that.
Blessings
Brian
So you figure that would be the one thing God would be unable to do?:)
Though he had no trouble creating Time, the world we live in, all the biblical miracles etc.
A book that would dispel any doubts is http://www.catholicfamilycatalog.com/fatima-the-great-sign-softcover-book-francis-johnston.htm
It's a short read with guaranteed results!0 -
-
Advertisement
-
BrianCalgary wrote: »On your first question. No my confirmation was made in the Anglican church.
Sure on the elucidation:
He is standing in his place at the table or sitting handing out the bread and wine saying 'this is my body'. Yet His body was actually standing (or sitting) at the table.
His body had to be in two places at once. I have trouble reconciling that.
Blessings
Brian
Hmm, i wondered. From a Catholic perspective, confirmation in the C of I is not a sacrament. Baptism is, because anyone can baptise; similarly with marriage, it is the couple who confer the sacrament on each other, where there is a priest present he is only there as an official witness for the church, not as mninister of the sacrament. For confirmation you need to have a bishop, or a priest delegated by a Bishop. As (from a Catholic perspective) there is no valid priesthood in the C of I, your c of i confirmation would not be considered a true sacrament, and you should have received this when you entered the Church. You could approach your local pp about it if you were interested.
Okay, lets try this on for size.
When wereceive the Eucharist are we receiving Jesus body as it was before theresurrection or are we receiving his glorified resurrected body?
Surely it isobvious that it must be the latter? So how can he give them his resurrectedbody before the resurrection?
Orsimilarly, isn’t the Mass a participation in the sacrifice of Calvary? So howcan the Last Supper be a Mass if Calvary and the Crucifixion are still in thefuture?
I wouldsuggest that you can think of it this way.
The Mass isa participation in the whole sequence of events from the Last supper throughthe Passion, through the Resurrection and to the Ascension.
In thissequence of events Jesus first (at the last supper) brings to its height theincarnation, his participation in our humanity and our participation in hishumanity, hence he shares his body and blood with the Apostles.
Then,carrying with him all of us in our sinful humanity , he embarks on the Passion,living out the consequences of our sin, because he has joined himself to us as sinners.
Once sin isdealt with on the Cross, he continues to carry us with him to the Resurrection.Now for the first time, in Jesus, humanity can become what it was created tobe, not just free from sin but glorious in the power of God.
Finally,Jesus takes this glorified human nature into heaven in the Ascension, back intothe presence of the Father where he pours himself out into the Fathers arms, asa perfect gift of himself in praise and thanksgiving.
So then,when we come to participate in Mass, we are first caught up into Christ (thisactually happens in baptism which is why that sacrament comes first).
We see thisis liturgically symbolised during the Mass, when at the preparation of thegifts the priest puts a tiny drop of water into the wine, and prays "Bythe mystery of this water and wine, may we come to share in the divinity ofChrist, who humbled Himself to share in our humanity."
Then thesacrifice of Calvary re-presented (not represented as in symbolically, butpresented again to the Father,) . Now the Mass is not a re-sacrificing ofJesus, because Jesus died once, for all
(Rom.6:10 The death he died he died to sin,once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God;
Heb.7:27 Hehas no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for hisown sins and then for those of the people; he did this once for all when heoffered up himself.)
Jesus, aftermaking himself (through the words of the Consecration) present on the altar,allows us to again participate in his self-offering to the father
(Heb9:24 ForChrist has entered, not into a sanctuary made with hands, a copy of the trueone, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on ourbehalf.)
Why then dowe receive him in Holy Communion? It is precisely so that we ‘abide’ in him,and become part of this same process of death to sin, life in resurrectionpower, and self-offering to the Father.
John.6:56 Hewho eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
Lastly,consider this. In Jewish thinking, life is in the blood. So sacrifice wasalways done by draining the blood from the animal. This separation of the bodyand blood at the last supper is a symbolic foreshadowing of the actualseparation of the body and blood of Jesus on the cross in death. But in theresurrection, Jesus is reunited, his spirit which had gone down to the realmsof the dead is reunited with his body, which is once again intact in terms ofbody and blood.
So when wereceive in Communion his resurrected body and blood, it does not matter if wereceive from the chalice or the host, for his body and blood are reunited and sowe receive his body and blood under both species (under the appearance of wineor bread). Cool, huh?
0 -
-
-
-
-
... so you are still confused.
Just go and get Saved ... and marry in whatever church you choose to get married in !!!:)
BTW congratulations ... and may all of your troubles be little ones!!!:)
Thank you JC! We have a meeting with my Reverend next week to discuss all......my other half is still adamant that he will not do the marriage course and adamant that he is not writing to the bishop for permission.
Apparently when he got married before he had to do all those things and all the priest did was say that being a protestant was terrible and catholicism was the way to go.....:rolleyes:
He is now considering coverting or we just do a non religious ceremony 0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement