Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Catholic Apologetics: Non-Catholics in the Communion Line
Catholic Answers ^ | April 15, 2015 | Michelle Arnold

Posted on 04/15/2015 1:38:52 PM PDT by NYer

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-151 next last
To: metmom
So who knew that a priest who ex-communicated himself with a sodomite lifestyle is still worthy to disperse communion all the while standing in a place of being able to decide that someone else isn't worthy

Could you cite the Canon law that states that sodomites are ex-communicated?

101 posted on 04/16/2015 9:07:48 AM PDT by verga (I might as well be playing chess with pigeons,.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: metmom

So we get back to the teaching that there is no obedience outside the Catholic Church, which makes laxity contingent on rebellion.


102 posted on 04/16/2015 9:43:03 AM PDT by RitaOK ( VIVA CRISTO REY / Public education is the farm team for more Marxists coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: RitaOK

The farther that protestantism has moved from the Catholic Church the more it has become the church of Que Sera Sera.


103 posted on 04/16/2015 10:40:14 AM PDT by verga (I might as well be playing chess with pigeons,.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: verga

Protestants prove the Goldie Locks version of church, in order to avoid the Church. You know the story, just pick a bowl and consume, and your self-qualified to go preach the virtues of whatever flavor was in your bowl, in some laughable attempt to bring down what Christ Jesus built and protestants rejected. \0/ just go figure?

Que Sera Sera.


104 posted on 04/16/2015 11:15:49 AM PDT by RitaOK ( VIVA CRISTO REY / Public education is the farm team for more Marxists coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: verga

Oh, so sodomites do NOT automatically ex-communicate themselves.

You need to tell your fellow Catholics, with whom you are supposed to be in unity under the teaching authority of the Catholic church.

Then perhaps you could also answer the question as to WHY they haven’t been ex-communicated by the church. Doesn’t it have the ....um.... backbone to do it any more?


105 posted on 04/16/2015 12:23:34 PM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Salvation; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; caww; CynicalBear; daniel1212; Gamecock; ...

Why does it seem that there is always the underlying assumption that someone is not Catholic because they have unanswered questions that a priest could answer and if they were answered, they’d come back to the church?

Not a chance.

I don’t have any unanswered questions about it. I know all I need to know.

And it wasn’t because of unanswered questions that I left in the first place or the second place.


106 posted on 04/16/2015 12:28:53 PM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Third or fourth?


107 posted on 04/16/2015 12:29:33 PM PDT by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Nope. I left it twice, the second time with eyes wide open thanks to the illumination from the Holy Spirit to the Scripture I was reading.


108 posted on 04/16/2015 12:38:45 PM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: metmom
>>Why does it seem that there is always the underlying assumption<<

They put their faith in men and human nature is such that if others follow them they feel they are right. They always send us to something or someone other than scripture.

109 posted on 04/16/2015 12:39:52 PM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone

Faith groups which practice closed communion are guided by Paul’s letter to the Church at Corinth.


110 posted on 04/16/2015 12:57:21 PM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

I don’t use the term “Roman Catholic” (it is a holdover from WASP hostility - we are Latin Rite Catholics), but if the Orthodox referred to their Churches as “Orthodox Catholic Churches” then I would include them under “Catholic”. They don’t, so I don’t.


111 posted on 04/16/2015 1:33:07 PM PDT by kearnyirish2 (Affirmative action is economic warfare against white males (and therefore white families).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: xone
Looks like a contradiction. Only if Scripture isn't looked at in its totality. Luke typically didn't record events chronologically.

Without high-jacking the thread, let me say that this explanation is certainly plausible. Others have pointed out that the other Gospel accounts can be viewed in a way to reconcile them to Luke's account. This is an apparent contradiction whose resolution isn't universally accepted. I think that there is enough uncertainty that dogmatism about Judas' presence or absence should be avoided.

It has no effect on my view of the Lord's Supper. There will be people who will improperly take the Lord's Supper and who will be punished for doing so as Paul instructed in 1 Corinthians 11. It is possible that Judas was the first.

112 posted on 04/16/2015 2:05:01 PM PDT by CommerceComet (Ignore the GOP-e. Cruz to victory in 2016.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer

I like that post a lot. It sounds like you and I have traveled similar paths.


113 posted on 04/16/2015 2:09:36 PM PDT by CommerceComet (Ignore the GOP-e. Cruz to victory in 2016.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: metmom
But God still doesn’t differentiate between “mortal” sins and “venial” sins.

[1 John 5:16] If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
[17] All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

My quotation isn't to agree with any particular interpretation of what a "sin unto death" and "a sin not unto death" are. I'm just noticing that unless there's considerable error in the Bibles that most Christians use, the Bible makes a distinction between the two, even though I've never seen a scriptural delineation of which sins fall in which category. Accordingly, Scripture itself seems to disprove the insistence that all sin is sin without any sort of distinction soever: "all unrighteousness is sin," but not all sin is the same, or else the surrounding words wouldn't make sense. (I don't view James 2:10-11 and similar passages as a contradiction, and for deeper reasons than some a priori belief that Scripture contains no contradictions.)

114 posted on 04/16/2015 3:02:57 PM PDT by Lonely Bull
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: metmom
I don’t have any unanswered questions about it. I know all I need to know.

Correctamundo MM. I got all my questions answered, so I hit the fix outbound (a little air traffic control lingo there) 😀😄😇 I found out all I needed to know as well. It's not difficult to figure out.

115 posted on 04/16/2015 3:11:00 PM PDT by Mark17 (Beyond the sunset, O blissful morning, when with our Savior, Heaven is begun. Earth's toiling ended)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Your claim post 80:So who knew that a priest who ex-communicated himself with a sodomite lifestyle is still worthy to disperse communion all the while standing in a place of being able to decide that someone else isn't worthy

In debate you hold what is called the positive or the affirmative position. The "Burden of Proof" is on you. Can you show from Canon Law that sodomites are automatically excommunicated. Here is a link to the 1983 Code of Canon Law: Code of Canon Law

Anxiously awaiting your reply.

116 posted on 04/16/2015 3:28:20 PM PDT by verga (I might as well be playing chess with pigeons,.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: CommerceComet; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; ...
I found it odd that 1 Corinthians 11 is cited for support of the elders fencing the table by those who hold to closed communion. Paul chastises the Corinthian Church for creating divisions with the meal that is supposed to build unity. Yet when elders temporarily determine the sheep and the goats, aren't they doing the same thing? I

Yes, but not necessarily contrary to 1Cor. 11, in which the disunity was not ignoring others by eating independently, so that some were full and others satiated, and were thus shaming them that have not,.

And were thus effectually not recognizing/discerning others as being members of the body of Christ for whom Christ died, and whose death got the body is what they were sppsd to be mindful of and showing by taking part in the Lord's communual meal.

Thus the remedy was not a lesson on transubstantiation, but to eat at home if hungry so as to not act out of real hunger, and to tarry for one another. As detailed here more.

If known believers walking in fellowship with Christ and brethren was excluded from the Lord's table then it would be wrong, but if we do not know whether someone is a believer or not, and as it would be wrong to have fellowship with the impenitent disobedient or devils (remember Akin, and Judas), then unless such persons guilt would be upon their own heads, then leadership would be right in restricting it to those whose testimony is known.

But i think to be consistent, if we are to exclude all but those of the local body from the Table of the Lord then we could also exclude members with having any fellowship with anyone from outside, based upon the same principal of separation and precepts commanding it. (1Cor. 6:14-18)

And to me this unreasonable, and upon examination i would say that unless we know a one is an impenitent disobedient soul, and who has not been restored to fellowship with the body he was part of, then we are to allow all to take part in the Lord's table, after teaching them of what i basically said on 1Cor. 11, and warning them one could die for being a hypocrite while presuming to show the Lord's death by how they treat His body.

117 posted on 04/16/2015 4:03:03 PM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
And to me this unreasonable, and upon examination i would say that unless we know a one is an impenitent disobedient soul, and who has not been restored to fellowship with the body he was part of, then we are to allow all to take part in the Lord's table, after teaching them of what i basically said on 1Cor. 11, and warning them one could die for being a hypocrite while presuming to show the Lord's death by how they treat His body.

That would be my position as well. I believe that there are times when someone should be turned away from the Table - public, unrepented sin. Partakers should be warned about the consequences of wrongly taking but ultimately, Paul does call for a man "to examine himself."

While it is clear that Paul tells us of potential serious consequences for improperly taking, I don't believe that the warnings should keep a qualified person away from the Table to be on the safe side. I have a hard time believing that God would punish someone who improperly partook due to an honest mistake. In my mind that seems inconsistent with a Sacrament of grace.

118 posted on 04/16/2015 4:33:59 PM PDT by CommerceComet (Ignore the GOP-e. Cruz to victory in 2016.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: verga; metmom; NYer
A “baby-killer” or sodomite, if they claim to be Catholic, could have went to confession and confessed this sin and told God they would never again partake in this sin, they are absolved of this sin. That is the reason they would receive communion. Now if this baby-killer or sodomite is practicing this sin, or if these same persons are politicians that believe in these sins and promote these sins, THEY HAVE EXCOMMUNICATED THEMSELVES and if they present themselves for communion GOD KNOWS they are committing a mortal sin by partaking in Holy Communion.

28 posted on ‎4‎/‎15‎/‎2015‎ ‎6‎:‎12‎:‎33‎ ‎PM by NKP_Vet

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

Actually this was originally posted by a catholic.

I guess chess with pigeons is the only competition some can compete with and have a chance.

In debate you hold what is called the positive or the affirmative position.

Not sure what position your holding now, but it's not a pretty one.

119 posted on 04/16/2015 5:38:46 PM PDT by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Lonely Bull

So where in Scripture is a list of the sins that lead to death and the ones that don’t?

Where did the Catholic church get its list of *mortal* and *venial* sin?

You were aware, weren’t you, that the penalty for ALL sin is death?


120 posted on 04/16/2015 6:18:13 PM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-151 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson