Dear Josee ... Dear Protasius ... if you will make your email addresses available to me, I will explain to you why your (very different!) comments have not been enabled, and what changes in them would make me feel able to do so. I beg you to forgive me in the circumstances in which "Enable" and "Delete" are the only options I have.
Dear Mike: everyone is welcome in an Ordinariate congregation. If you are a Catholic ... of Latin or Byzantine or Maronite or whatever rite ... you are welcome to take the very fullest part in the sacramental life of an Ordinariate community. We would simply love to have you. If you can serve or sing, your ministry would be invaluable!! If you are a cradle Catholic, we can't actually put you on the books as a canonical member of the Ordinariate ... unless a member of your family has Anglican Previous, in which case you can squeeze in with them!
But not being on the canonical books would make no difference to your daily life as member of an Ordinariate community. It would only impinge if things like Marriage or Ordination were in mind.
When I say everyone, of course I mean also those who are still Anglicans. In normal circumstances, you would not be allowed to receive the Sacraments (although the rules of the Catholic Church in this respect are not actually as strict as some people think, as long as you share fully the whole Catholic belief about the Eucharist). But if you are attracted by Catholic worship in the Anglican tradition, you could be very happy with us.
20 December 2016
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
"In normal circumstances, you would not be allowed to receive the Sacraments (although the rules of the Catholic Church in this respect are not actually as strict as some people think, as long as you share fully the whole Catholic belief about the Eucharist)."
I do not know to what you are referring (except if it is to the spurious "ecumenical directive" regarding giving Protestants in nursing homes who have no access to their clergyman and who believe in the Catholic faith in the Eucharist). Most orthodox Catholic priests refuse to do this. Such potential communicants have not been given access to the Sacrament of Penance. Why would you even consider giving them the Eucharist?
This is very disappointing.
what if I was a ordained serbian orthodox priest who loves the Old Sarum rite
what you are basically doing is, you take what Fr Hunwicke said, interpret it one way, and then criticize this interpretation. I call that sloppy at best, dishonest at worst. Who is talking about Protestants? The Orthodox churches share fully the whole Catholic belief about the Eucharist; consequently, the faithful of these churches can be and are being admitted to Holy Communion when they lack the means to attend a Sunday mass of their own church. This is a practise expressly allowed by several Papal documents. You are, if I may permitted the pun, more Catholic than the Pope...
Maybe the Orthodox are being admitted under the circumstances you describe; that does not mean they "should" be. What is the criteria? How is that different than certain Lutherans who believe in the Eucharist (there exist Lutheran churches with tabernacles). Should they be admitted to the Eucharist? The Orthodox, like those Lutherans, do not possess the Faith that is Catholic. Period. It's uncharitable to say otherwise; it's uncharitable to do otherwise (regarding keeping the ban on reception of the Eucharist).
If we've learned nothing else in the past 50 years, we've learned exceptions have become a slippery slope to metamorphosing into the norm.
it is you who is uncharitable. If someone wishes to receive their Lord and Saviour, they believe what the Catholic Church believes, but for some reason are barred from attending service of their confession, then yes, they SHOULD be admitted to Catholic Eucharist. In any case it is not for you to decide. This has been settled by Rome, and not by the current pope but by St John Paul II. Don't try to have dominion over their faith, but be helpers of their joy! (cf. 2 Cor 1,24)
Are we talking past each other here? Are you really saying to admit the Lutheran or the Orthodox to the Sacrament of the Eucharist, while they can remain heretics on other vital issues? Many Lutherans and increasingly the Orthodox accept contraception within marriage. Should these be given Holy Communion in the Catholic Church? Are you seriously arguing that as long as they share our faith in the Eucharist, nothing else matters?
Prolly few know that it was at the International Eucharistic Congress. in Bogota, Columbia in 1968 (addressed personally by Pope Blessed Paul VI) that the Church approved the petition of five protestants to receive Holy Communion during the Congress.
We can be sure that act blowed-up the Catholic mind of most men in Latin America with the result being that thought that if protestants are allowed to receive Holy Communion then there really isn't a difference between Catholicism and Protestantism and so the poor Latin American Catholic found his own self ceaselessly proselytised by protestants and it is fairly well know what has happen to Latin American Catholicism since that, un, ecumenical gesture.
This is interesting to consider in light of putative "new" ideas to dispense Holy Communion to protestants
@Sean: I hesitate to intervene in a dispute between others, lest I get a black eye from both; but it seems from my observation that a very much higher proportion of Orthodox (and probably not much lower a proportion of Lutherans) hold the full Catholic faith in the Eucharist than you will find among most Catholics. Are you seriously arguing that that does not matter?
What exactly do you want to discuss here? Yes, if a Lutheran or Orthodox shares the faith of the Church concerning the Eucharist, and he has no recourse to a pastor of his own church on a sunday, and he desires to receive Our Lord and Saviour, then he may and should be admitted to Holy Communion. I think I am expressing myself quite clearly. If you disagree with me, you disagree with the Church. That is ok, but I am not sure why we should continue this discussion.
As to your last sentence, I am really tired of the strawmen you put up. This is to be understood as a case-by-case decision, not a general rule, and you know that well. Many other things matter, but at this given moment, the desire to receive Jesus and Jesus' will to be received by this very person trump anything else.
"Many other things matter, but at this given moment, the desire to receive Jesus and Jesus' will to be received by this very person trump anything else."
Thank you for your clarity.
This position is not any more Catholic than "Amoris Laetitia." And no Ecumenical Directive from a Modernist infected Roman Dicastery can make it so. It is just one more contradiction among dozens of the post-conciliar Revolution.
This so-called ecumenical policy would have been condemned by every Pope up to Pius XII, as well as every saint. I'll stand with with 19 and a half centuries. You're welcome to the rest.
The Cranmer policies led Catholics in the 16th century to awaken and "suddenly" find themselves Protestants. They didn't consider themselves so, but that is what they were and remain. History has repeated itself.
Victor. Doesn't one have to be in a state of grace to receive Holy Communion?
How can a Lutheran be in a state of grace when he has not obeyed the Commandment to keep Holy the Lord's Day?
A Lutheran is one who belongs to the Lutheran community and that community does not have Apostolic Secession, Holy Orders, or Eucharist and so, despite his desire to receive Holy Communion, he can't until he converts to Catholicism.
Now, it could be argued that the worst thing a Catholic could do is encourage a Lutheran to receive Holy Communion because he would be encouraging another to drink judgment unto himself, thus increasing the torment he will experience in Hell, and he would then be guilty of being an accomplice in the sin of another.
IF a Lutheran (who has a natural faith not a divine faith) shared the Catholic Faith as regards the Eucharist, he would convert, right?
I think you must be a fairly new reader. May I deferentially suggest that you read my previous posts on this subject? Briefly: as late as the seventeen hundreds, intercommunion was common in the Aegean; in the twentieth century, S Pius X allowed it between Catholic Ukrainians and Russian Orthodox throughout Russia; to this day, it has not ceased being customary in the Patriarchates of Antioch, Melkite and Orthodox. So these 'modernism infected dicasteries' represent long standing and tolerated custom.
I think there are sound reasons for discouraging Protestants, together with modern Catholics who do not believe in the reality of the Presence and of the Sacrifice, from receiving the Most Holy. Practising Orthodox, we can presume, are better instructed.
Thank you for taking the time to address this issue. I am a fairly new reader. I am truly surprised that Pius X would have permitted inter-communion with schismatics. But I will take your word for it and and at the same time do some research, especially as to context.
Permit me to opine, however, that the Orthodox of both the Greek and Russian varieties have been increasingly tolerant of contraception, and of course their attitude toward the Sacrament of Matrimony is obvious (pretty much at home with "Amoris Laetitia," n'est ce pas?). We are in a very different historical situation.
God bless you and a Blessed and Merry Christmas to you and yours.
As promised, I said I would do my homework regarding St. Pius X and "communicatio in sacris." Reading the supposed letter (it is by no means an historical certainty that the letter was authentic; we have only an unsigned copy of a letter which seems to have come from the personal pen of Pius X because it has no protocol number which would indicate it was published in the Acta), it is apparent that the Catholic Metropolitan Andrew Szeptycki was asking permission for Catholics to assist at Divine Liturgy and receive Holy Communion in Russian Orthodox churches "as many times as they will judge it in conscience to be opportune." There is nothing said about Russian Orthodox being given permission to receive Holy Communion in a Catholic church. I think this is not an unimportant distinction.
Unless you can offer further clarification, I reconfirm the position I held in the discussion thread under the topic, "Private Messages." Thank you, Father, for this opportunity to make me dig a bit. I still would maintain, however, (with all due respect) that your statement regarding the possibility of a non-Catholic receiving Holy Communion in the Catholic Church should be publicly modified.
You do not need to publish this comment because the thread is almost ancient history on your web site. But, I would appreciate a response at firstname.lastname@example.org.
God bless; Our Lady keep.
Post a Comment