Eucharist for Non-Catholics

Ones denominition does not guarantee salvation, you can be a Lutheran and go to heaven and a Catholic and go to hell. Religious observances are important, but the heart is more important.

My previous comment was written because it appeared that you where trying to say that ONLY Roman Catholics (defined as those in communion with the Pope) can be saved.

As for who started the 30 years war, both sides did. The Reformation was as much about politics as it was about theology.

The proper term is "Extra-ordinary Ministers of the Eucharist." Therefore, it would be synonymous to say, "Extra-ordinary Eucharistic Ministrers." I think the inclusion of the word, "extra-ordinary" is an important reminder that the role should not be allowed to become ordinary, as it often has. (Sometimes, I think some EMEs think they're just doing an extra-ordinary job!) But an "extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist," is, nonetheless, a kind of minister of the Eucharist.

>>Ones denominition does not guarantee salvation, you can be a Lutheran and go to heaven and a Catholic and go to hell. Religious observances are important, but the heart is more important. <<

I don't thnk we're disagreeing. I would just clarify that I meant when I referred to a "denomination" not guaranteeing salvation, what I meant was "the religious practices of a denomination." BTW, the Catholic Church rejects the notion that faith and sacramental works can be isolated; faith *is* a required element of the sacraments.

"Many cold-hearted traditionalists despise the phrasing "separated brethren" because they understand the Council of Trent to mean that no Protestants ever go to Heaven."

This is weak. Here's why:

First, the spin put on traditional Catholics as being cold hearted is subjective and groundless. It's an opinion. It's wrong.

Secondly, it is an undisputable fact that it is infallible Catholic doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. This infallible doctrine explicity states that all those who are outside the Church must be joined to Her before death. This cannot be denied.

Thirdly, the above doctrine did not originate from the Council of Trent, as it has been held to be Catholic Truth since the inception of the Universal Church.

So in true charity and honest warm-heartenedness, let's invited those outside the Catholic Church into the Catholic Church. Let's not play the liberal where the truth is concerned.

>> Thirdly, the above doctrine did not originate from the Council of Trent, as it has been held to be Catholic Truth since the inception of the Universal Church. <<

The notion that people who wilfully reject the Body of Christ, which is the church, are condemned has certainly been held as truth since the inception of the Universal Church. The assertion that "Protestants" are in this condition was first stated by the Council of Trent. No later true teaching has, or could, ever find the council to be in error. However, there is *doctrine* stated by the second Vatican Council which is in apparent contradiction to this. A resolution of this apparent contradiction is that the connotation of "protestant" in modern times is not identical to the Tridentine connotation of "protestant." The distinction I did explain.

>> Secondly, it is an undisputable fact that it is infallible Catholic doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. This infallible doctrine explicity states that all those who are outside the Church must be joined to Her before death. This cannot be denied. <<

It is the means of that juncture which is at issue. The doctrine of "invinceable ignorance" is well established. Again, I recommend that rather than saying "this is true, so this must be false," you seek to reconcile authoritative statements which appear to you to be in conflict.

>> First, the spin put on traditional Catholics as being cold hearted is subjective and groundless.<<

The modifier "cold-hearted" is deliberate and functional. It relates to the verb "despise." If it were subjective and an opinion, it could not be "wrong." I use it to reference the glee and lack of charity with which some traditionalists take in condemning the Pope, the Vatican Council, the Synod of Bishops, the "Amchurch", and, of course, Protestants. Please also note the delimiting word, "Many," and, of course, the fact that "cold-hearted" is a modifier, and as such, does not universally describe traditionalists.

However, you're bounding in to declare everyone condemned IN DIRECT DEFIANCE of the Church, and with no concern to exacerbating the invinceability of your audience's ignorance is precisely what I meant by cold-hearted.

"The doctrine of "invinceable ignorance" is well established."

A doctrine of invincible ignorance? There's no doctrine of invincible ignorance. There may be something called invincible ignorance, but to call it a doctrine would be to mis-identify it.

"Again, I recommend that rather than saying "this is true, so this must be false," you seek to reconcile authoritative statements which appear to you to be in conflict."

I see no conflicts.

"I use it to reference the glee and lack of charity with which some traditionalists take in condemning the Pope, the Vatican Council, the Synod of Bishops, the "Amchurch", and, of course, Protestants. Please also note the delimiting word, "Many," and, of course, the fact that "cold-hearted" is a modifier, and as such, does not universally describe traditionalists."

If someone is guilty of sin, they either repent and to penance for it, or they don't repent. Let God sort them out.

But back to the matter of doctrine:

"However, you're bounding in to declare everyone condemned IN DIRECT DEFIANCE of the Church, and with no concern to exacerbating the invinceability of your audience's ignorance is precisely what I meant by cold-hearted."

Nah. Just restating doctrine, that's all.

"Any Protestant who does not know of the truths of the Catholic or faith, or who is steeled against them through invincible ignorance, but who has devoted his life to doing God's will, may be saved."

Do you know if the Church teaches one who is truly invincibly ignorant will be saved with certainty? I ask because you said "may be saved" in this quote. I think it is an important distinction. A Catholic who dies in a state of grace will be saved for sure, but the Church teaches that it is possible for the invincibly ignorant to be saved, but I have not read that they absolutely will be saved. In other words, God is merciful, but we can't say that those not in full communion will be saved with the same degree of certainty as those in full communion in a state of grace.

If this is not an important distinction, then we should not bother with evangelizing non Catholics and all those martyrs gave their lives in vain.

There is quite definitely the need to evangelize Protestants! I said, "may" because I meant "may"! I also specifically mentionned, "extra-ordinary," using the hyphenated spelling of that word to emphasize that it is not the ordinary saving graces by which a Protestant may be saved!

For instance, TEACHINGS DO MATTER! If a Protestant church teaches that divorce is acceptable, the person who has a divorce is still committing adultery, a mortal sin. (And yes, if a Catholic is less than candid about his marital failures and obtains an annulment when he should not, he too commits adultery, and bears the guilt of his wife's adultery. But at least he knows he has separated himself from Christ.)

For another instance, CONFESSION DOES MATTER! The bible requires those who have committed mortal sin to confess their sin to the assembly. SOMETIMES Protestants do this ("I have sinned against God, and against Man"--J. Falwell). But what constitutes confession? Sharing in an open discussion group? Talking openly about sins? Or do you have to proclaim the sins in front of the entire church? (this is rarely done.) And who in the assembly has the authority to forgive sins? And what if someone in the assembly holds those sins bound?

Again, OPPOSITION TO THE BODY OF CHRIST matters. How many FReepers attack the unity of the Church, slander the saints, teach false doctrine, steele others' minds against Catholicism?

And then there's COMMITMENT TO A BODY, through which we learn great spiritual lessons. How is humility taught, or really any lesson which requires mortification, when people believe that they can reject any congregation/denomination just because THEY don't agree with what their CHURCH teaches?

And these are just to touch apon the less mystical things that even a Protestant can see the profundity of the problem of, to say nothing of far more singificant issues: The supernatural intervention of saints and angels, the outpouring of grace from the host, the direct operation of the Holy Spirit within those who are in grace... These things protect a person from sin in ways a Protestant is completely vulnerable. How sad that so many of our priesthood have exposed themselves by failure to stay in grace.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.