Catholic Church & Jesus Christ-Why No One Should Be A Catholic

Apostolic Messianic Fellowship ^ | August 30, 2005 | Why No One Should Be A Catholic

[Mad Dawg]

Thanks. However I do not consider Newsweek any more reliable than Time or any other offscouring of the MSM, esp when it comes to the Roaming Calflick Church

[Kolokotronis]

MD: "My impression is that, at least as far as Communicating in non-Catholic services it's a matter of not having sacramental unity unless there's some other kind of organic structural unity as well."

S: "If I'm not mistaken a Roman Catholic can receive Communion at an Orthodox Church. But as far as I know the Orthodox members do not receive Communion and a Roman Rite Church."

Why no member of The Church can receive the bread and wine (or grape juice) of an ecclesial assembly's "communion" is quite simple. There is no Church where there is no bishop, and there is no bishop where there is no succession of bishops from the Apostles; and there can be no succession from the bishops without the faith of the Apostles; and there can be no Eucharist without the bishop or priests ordained by him.

There can be no Church without the Eucharist, the Sacrament of unity, because the Church is formed through it and centered on it. The Body and Blood of Christ unites the Faithful to God: This fellowship or koinonia is the whole purpose of Christianity. At the same time, there can be no Eucharist - and no other Mysteria - without a bishop who teaches the true faith to the baptized.

For us Orthodox and Latins, as a general rule, reception of "communion" in a Protestant service is both a lie and a profanation of the Eucharist. Though Protestants do not generally pretend that their bread and wine are truly the Body and Blood, most do look upon it as a symbol of unity among Christians. As you point out, MD, the present day Episcopalians are a prime example of this, but "unity" in what? Clearly not the Apostolic Faith. So far as I can see, at best it is a unity of belief that in some way, or better said, in various ways, Christ is somehow "related" to God the Father. This isn't the Apostolic Faith, the unity of which is expressed by the Eucharist.

The only Protestant group where this idea may fall apart is in some Lutheran dioceses where the Apostolic Succession is intact and which profess a belief in the Real Presence.

When it comes to why Orthodox and Latins (and maybe those Lutherans)don't inter-commune, or shouldn't, the question revolves around what the Eucharist symbolizes rather than whether or not it is "real". The sacramental validity of the Eucharist in an Orthodox or Latin Church is beyond question. The bishops of the churches are in the Apostolic Succession and the priests are validly ordained. The problem lies in the fact that we do not believe the exact same things on a number of both dogmatic (very limited) and ecclesiological points. The dogmatic points, aside from those touching on the Papacy, are likely resolvable. For all intents and purposes we have resolved a major dogmatic issue with the Monophysites; there's little reason to believe we can't resolve those issues centered on, for example, the IC and that theology which gave rise to it. The ecclesiological issues are more intractable and yet in those areas where these questions of the Petrine Ministry have no real impact, for example in Lebanon among the non-Latin Churches and Orthodoxy, we see de facto if not de jure communion. At any rate, it is the fact of the schism between Orthodoxy and Rome which prevents us from inter communing. We do not have "unity" for the most part because we do not believe the same things with regard to the structure of The Church. There is really very little to it beyond that anymore. The Eucharist , contrary to Protestant opinion, is, among other things of course, a perfect symbol of unity not a means to an end of unity. It strengthens unity but does not create it. Adherence to the Apostolic Faith creates that unity.

It is for this reason that Latins and Orthodox do not and most assuredly should not, the USCB to the contrary notwithstanding, intercommune. It profanes the Eucharist to use it to pretend to a unity which does not exist.

[Kolokotronis]

Ping to #1682

[Mad Dawg]

So the Lord just couldn't get the apostles to understand him.

That surprises you?

Seriously though, I think the "fun" part of your contention is the phrase "in the name of" and what meaning or meanings it has. And I think even in English the phrase has at least two meanings.

We need to turn Diego and UC loose on it since they are the recondite research kings of the thread.

Of course, as far as I'm concerned, I think a resolution of the question is impossible Sola Scriptura.

[Mad Dawg]

Thank you.

It is for this reason that Latins and Orthodox do not and most assuredly should not, the USCB to the contrary notwithstanding, intercommune. It profanes the Eucharist to use it to pretend to a unity which does not exist.

Well, that's clear and persuasive to me. It is reminiscent of or analagous to the whole trial marriage/intercourse before marriage matter. We profane intercourse by, inter alia, engaging in the intimate union of bodies without the antecedent covenantal union of wills. (Of course, you WILL have to burn for it, but at least you can die knowing you were clear. Which is more than Cranmer could do.)

Seriously though, what about in moments of great pastoral need?

It's interesting to me that the famously rigid and legalistic RC church would be more, ah, flexible, in this matter than, well any other body. But in the 70's when I was a Chaplain Resident at a hospital the RC guys, who were definitely NOT Vatican II wussies, said I most definitely could not receive EXCEPT if something really big was going on. Since I was under authority, I was rarely free to attend their Masses anyway, or I would have gone just to adore.

But my point is that they would sort of hand the mattter over to God in extreme circumstances.

My other question has to do with plene esse and bene esse matters, to wit:

MY understanding is that we hold that where there is valid baptism there the church subsists, though in a compromised way. Where are you all on that notion?

[Uncle Chip]

I think they got the group rate for that sepulchre.

[markomalley]

To continue on,let's take a look at the accounts described by St. Luke in the Acts of the Apostles:

Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 8:16 For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days. (Note: the Stephens Text says "in the name of the Lord")

Acts 19:5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

So which is it? Baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, or baptized in the name of the Lord?

Now if I understand correctly, you are a Oneness Pentacostal? If that is the case, we really would have to have a discussion that precedes a discussion of baptism...that is, the nature of the Godhead. If I am correct, I would fully understand why you wouldn't use a Trinitarian baptism formula.

The point is that the difference in our respective views of God would likely explain the disconnect in the views of baptism.

[markomalley]

Not that it matters but I'm fairly confident that you're mistaken about the Lutherans and I know you're mistaken about the Anglicans.

OK. As I said earlier, I don't pretend to be an expert on protestant theology.

[Mad Dawg]

For kicks, and to introduce a question, I thought I'd quote part of the Didache here:

Didache 9:1
But as touching the Eucharistic thanksgiving give ye thanks thus.

Didache 9:2
First, as regards the cup:
We give Thee thanks, O our Father,
for the holy vine of Thy son David,
which Thou madest known unto us
through Thy Son Jesus;
Thine is the glory for ever and ever.

Didache 9:3
Then as regarding the broken bread:
We give Thee thanks, O our Father,
for the life and knowledge
which Thou didst make known unto us
through Thy Son Jesus;
Thine is the glory for ever and ever.

Didache 9:4
As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains
and being gathered together became one,
so may Thy Church be gathered together
from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom;
for Thine is the glory and the power
through Jesus Christ for ever and ever.

Didache 9:5
But let no one eat or drink of this Eucharistic thanksgiving, but they that have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord hath said: Give not that which is holy to the dogs.

Didache 10:1
And after ye are satisfied thus give ye thanks:

Didache 10:2
We give Thee thanks, Holy Father,
for Thy holy name,
which Thou hast made to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality,
which Thou hast made known unto us
through Thy Son Jesus;
Thine is the glory for ever and ever.

Didache 10:3
Thou, Almighty Master,
didst create all things for Thy name's sake,
and didst give food and drink unto men for enjoyment, that they might render thanks to Thee;
but didst bestow upon us spiritual food and drink and eternal life through Thy Son.

Didache 10:4
Before all things we give Thee thanks
that Thou art powerful;
Thine is the glory for ever and ever.

Didache 10:5
Remember, Lord, Thy Church
to deliver it from all evil
and to perfect it in Thy love;
and gather it together from the four winds - even the Church which has been sanctified -
into Thy kingdom which Thou hast prepared for it; for Thine is the power and the glory for ever and ever.

Didache 10:6
May grace come and may this world pass away.
Hosanna to the God of David.
If any man is holy, let him come;
if any man is not, let him repent.
Maran Atha. Amen.

So here's the question: I would say that while the Eucharist symbolizes koinonia, we also pray that it will increase or even perfect it. This is just an extremely minor quibble, but a point I thought worth noting.

[Mad Dawg]

Oh yes. I wasn't strutting my stuff or lifting my immense learning (You, in the back. Yes, YOU! Stop laughing!) up at your expense. I just figured you'd be interested.

You know what orthodox belief is like? It's like jumping in at the deep end before you know you can swim. As I look now, it seems like all these other guys are just afraid to claim the miracle. I know there self-concept differs, it's just what it looks like to me.

[Kolokotronis]

"Seriously though, what about in moments of great pastoral need?

It's interesting to me that the famously rigid and legalistic RC church would be more, ah, flexible, in this matter than, well any other body. But in the 70's when I was a Chaplain Resident at a hospital the RC guys, who were definitely NOT Vatican II wussies, said I most definitely could not receive EXCEPT if something really big was going on. Since I was under authority, I was rarely free to attend their Masses anyway, or I would have gone just to adore.

But my point is that they would sort of hand the mattter over to God in extreme circumstances."

So far as I know, there are no circumstances under which, de jure, Orthodoxy would tell me it is OK to receive communion from a Latin Rite priest. But let me tell you, I would go to confession, receive communion and get annointed by a Latin Rite priest without hesitation if I reasonably believed I was facing the end and no Orthodox priest was available. I suspect that most Orthodox priests would do the same in reverse. I would ask for the prayers of a Protestant minister in such circumstances (and of course of a rabbi) failing the presence of an Orthodox or Latin priest, but I would never receive communion from one. In so doing I would likely be violating the canons, but under such circumstances I'd take my chances! :)

"MY understanding is that we hold that where there is valid baptism there the church subsists, though in a compromised way. Where are you all on that notion?"

Except with some Lutherans, so far as I know, Orthodoxy does not know if the baptisms of Protestants are truly baptisms. In my experience, Protestant converts are usually baptised into Orthodoxy. My personal opinion is that accepting Protestant baptisms is innappropriate in conversion situations. This is something of a different question of where The Church is. We know The Church is where the bishop, his clergy, monastics and laity centered on the Eucharist are because Christ is there. We don't know where He isn't. I don't think Orthodoxy subscribes to the notion that there are varying degrees of "Church". The fullness, the plene esse, of The Church is found right where +Ignatius of Antioch said it is found. Where else Christ is we don't know. He may well be in those ecclesial assemblies and if He is, then they are in some fashion connected to us, but those assemblies are not The Church.

[Kolokotronis]

"I would say that while the Eucharist symbolizes koinonia, we also pray that it will increase or even perfect it."

I agree but I suppose the quibble lies in where we start. For Orthodoxy, koinonia must exist before it can be perfected. The Eucharist cannot represent a unity which does not exist nor create koinonia where none exists for that matter. But once that kononia does exist, it can and hopefully does strengthen it.

You know, in the early Church, there was not even the slightest tendency to intercommune with those who did not hold the same beliefs as those in The Church, even with those whom the canons allowed us to receive merely by a profession of faith.

[faithplusnothing1]

God is not going to force us to love him. He wants us to love him unconditionally. Only when I accepted his give of salvation by faith, did I really truly feel the love of God and really understood what Jesus as my savior really meant. He was beaten, his flesh ripped off,mocked,spit upon, and crucified. He went through that for us!! Sinners that we are. All of us have a choice. We can come to the foot of the cross and accept him or we can reject it. That's what free will is. You either believe God or you don't.

[Salvation]

**So, then, the communion wafer itself, no matter whether it is administered in Catholic, Episcopalian, Lutheran, any church or denomination is not the ticket to eternal life, is it?**

By receiving a valid Holy Communion, however, graces are imparted to us to help us meet the challenges we meet that day as well as life in general.

[Salvation]

** except for in the case of the occasional miracle)**

Just as a point of interest in these Eucharistic miracles; the host and are wine become REAL flesh, REAL blood,

Eucharistic Miracle: Lanciano,Italy-8th Century A.D.

BLOOD TYPE FOUND IN ICONS IS SAME AS IN SHROUD OF TURIN AND 'LANCIANO MIRACLE'

Physician Tells of Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano -Verifies Authenticity of the Phenomenon

Eucharistic Miracle - Bolsena-Orvieto, Italy

Vatican display exhibits eucharistic miracles

The Eucharistic Miracles(Catholic Caucus)

[Salvation]

**ITIS! (I think I'm saved)**

So you can go out and get drunk or kill someone and you are still saved? Somehow, I don't think God's justice works that way.

The Pharisees and Saduccees thought they were saved, too, because they obeyed the law.

But Christ thought and told them otherwiae.

[Salvation]

**The Catholic church is the Mother church of Christianity. Without the anchor of this church, the entire Christian faith falls. FYI, this will never happen, for Jesus assured us so.**

Thanks, Gumdrop!

[Salvation]

Hope you are feeling better.

[Salvation]

Never heard all this nonsense before. LOL!

[Salvation]

But wait -- most of Rome was in the grips of pagans at that time. Your statement just might make sense.

So since you have one history source, when did the people of God retake the city?

I'll see if I can find others.