Kiwi-family
{Rachael, the Mama of the family}
- Time of past OR future Camino
- walking every day for the rest of my life
For 2024 Pilgrims: €50,- donation = 1 year with no ads on the forum + 90% off any 2024 Guide. More here. (Discount code sent to you by Private Message after your donation) |
---|
Yes. The rule is that only baptized and confirmed Catholics may take communion.Does the Catholic church have rules about who may or may not take communion...
Yes. This is the doctrine of Transubstantiation....does the belief that it really is the body and blood if Christ persist?
Well, that would be the logical conclusion. Not necessarily correct, but logical....(and if so, do you think you are being seen to agree with this if you take the elements, even as a non-Catholic?)
A Catholic does not need to be confirmed to take communion.Yes. The rule is that only baptized and confirmed Catholics may take communion.
Tonya I agree with your observation on courtesy. It seems from Stephens post above at least one Catholic Church does offer holy communion to Non-Catholics. Perhaps this is a local decision ?Non-Catholics are not offered holy communion in Catholic Churches, and whether you agree with that "rule" or not, it's disrespectful to dismiss it. Non-Catholics are welcome guests in our churches, but guests should behave with common courtesy and respect for their hosts and the "rules" of the house.
We are keeping an eye on this thread, as Kiwi say topics like these can go the wrong way. Please play nicely boys and girls!
This doctrine if followed strictly will see long queues at the Catholic confession boxes and a fraction walking to receive the Communion, the rest remaining in the pews as unworthy to receive the communion in the doctrine's present form. Hopefully the new Francis will look at changes in this doctrine, there are precedents as I used to faint at church due to lack of food because of the previous requirement of fasting for 24 hours before receiving communion. Now it has changed to one hour of fast.This spells out the doctrine of the church pretty clearly. http://www.catholic.com/tracts/who-can-receive-communion.
is mostly true but, as a practicing Catholic, I have seen the acute embarrassment of would be communicants being turned away by the priest in full view of the congregation after he/she walked along the aisle to stand in front of him with outstretched hands seeking the host.It is mostly don't ask, don't tell. While some priests welcome all to communion, the official rule is "no." But no one seems to care.
the numbers of non-Catholics on the Camino must surely out number the Catholics (both practicing and non-practicing). Buen Camino
The crossing of arms/receiving a blessing gesture is NOT uniformly practiced in Catholic churches in Spain. It has only made an appearance this Spring in the Santiago cathedral, and even then some of the priests involved found it distastefully innovative.
Thank you for the advice Rebekah ,I didn't realise that I may have caused offence to anyone. Would it probably be better not to go forward if you are non Romam Catholic ?
You'd think that someone who has already walked to Santiago and who lived for a couple of years in Poland would know a thing or two about Catholicism. But there is still a lot I don't know. It is only recently that I discovered it is a real-life modern-day convention that nuns be called "Sister" (I thought that was just in the old books I read!)
My primary question is about mass. Does the Catholic church have rules about who may or may not take communion, and does the belief that it really is the body and blood if Christ persist? (and if so, do you think you are being seen to agree with this if you take the elements, even as a non-Catholic?)
I'd say that if you're invited to go up by all means do so (if you wish). There's certainly nothing that would offend Catholics about fellow Christians receiving a blessing that I can think of. You'll see Catholic children receive a blessing if they're too young to receive Communion. I suspect the only issue would be that that part of the mass is principally for Communion, and it's probably up to the priest whether or not it's opened up for blessings as well. It may appear presumptuous just to assume. In a situation where a large number of non-Catholics are likely to be present (at weddings for example) the priest will often make clear that blessings are available to be inclusive and welcoming and to prevent embarrassment. Buen Camino!
As a long lapsed Catholic, I have never been embarrassed by not participating in communion, although I did appreciate the offer to receive a blessing without taking the sacrament when that option was offered.In a situation where a large number of non-Catholics are likely to be present (at weddings for example) the priest will often make clear that blessings are available to be inclusive and welcoming and to prevent embarrassment. Buen Camino!
You'd think that someone who has already walked to Santiago and who lived for a couple of years in Poland would know a thing or two about Catholicism. But there is still a lot I don't know. It is only recently that I discovered it is a real-life modern-day convention that nuns be called "Sister" (I thought that was just in the old books I read!)
My primary question is about mass. Does the Catholic church have rules about who may or may not take communion, and does the belief that it really is the body and blood if Christ persist? (and if so, do you think you are being seen to agree with this if you take the elements, even as a non-Catholic?)
I am happy to be blessed, participate in a smoking ceremony to cleanse myself on arrival at an indigenous community, bathe in a river. For me, its not necessarily about Christianity - I reckon I need all the help I can get and I'm happy when it is offeredI think that if you went forward to receive a blessing then you are expressing a desire to be part of the wider Christian community without going beyond a level that you do not think appropriate. Hope this helps
You'd think that someone who has already walked to Santiago and who lived for a couple of years in Poland would know a thing or two about Catholicism. But there is still a lot I don't know. It is only recently that I discovered it is a real-life modern-day convention that nuns be called "Sister" (I thought that was just in the old books I read!)
My primary question is about mass. Does the Catholic church have rules about who may or may not take communion, and does the belief that it really is the body and blood if Christ persist? (and if so, do you think you are being seen to agree with this if you take the elements, even as a non-Catholic?)
Yes. The rule is that only baptized and confirmed Catholics may take communion.
As an Anglican, I asked my local RC church [in Spain] if I could take Communion with the rest of the congregation. The priest held up his two first fingers and moved them together.
"Anglican" he said, indicating one.
"Catholic" he said, indicating the other.
"Mismo!" ["The same"]
I was welcomed with open arms. I thank God for that friendship and understanding, and still continue taking Communion when on pilgrimage. And whatever the rules, if one attends Mass in a state of loving God, I am quite sure He doesn't mind!
Vaya con Dios!
This is incorrect -- Confirmation is not a requirement to take Holy Communion ; in the Catholic Initiation Rites, for both infants and adults, the order is 1) Baptism 2) Communion 3) Confirmation (even though in the adult initiation, Confirmation is very frequently provided immediately after the Baptism).
Not necessarily. The order differs depending on what the Bishop has decided. Theologically it should be Baptism, Confirmation, Communion, but for pastoral reasons this order can change to what JabbaPapa has listed. Non-Christian Adults who have gone through RCIA receive all three sacraments at the same time, usually at the Easter Vigil. In the Eastern Churches these sacraments are also conferred together, in babies.
No, Communion is the celebration of Baptism and Confirmation. I'm not going into it, too long, I've not enough time and I don't think it's relevant to the OP. I encourage you to do some more reading on the matter though, it's interesting stuffThe Australian bishop of Paramatta, Bishop Anthony Fisher, wrote a letter to his diocese in recent years which would be worth looking up and reading. The CTS booklets on the sacraments are also a great wee resource into explaining the sacraments. Happy reading!
No, Communion is the celebration of Baptism and Confirmation.
What is a heretical Christian creed?
And who makes the decision on what is divine and transcendental? Humans?That's the $64M question ...
A heretical creed is a teaching that is both man-made and contrary to the Divine Revelation as it exists transcendentally from God.
An interesting thread. There is no such thing as "an ordinary mass" no matter who the presiding priest is who is saying mass. It is not more sacred because a Bishop or a Pope is saying mass. It is the most sacred of all celebrations for Catholics because we do believe that Christ is really present at the Eucharist. For non Catholics who do not believe this, then why would you want to receive communion?
I think we need a member of this large family which is the forum who is a Roman Catholic priest to step forward and answer the "protocol question" mentioned in the original post and any other doubts mentioned above.
Buen Camino!
A priest is no more qualified to answer this question than someone with a degree in Theology, or indeed a person well educated in Catholicsm! They can get it wrong too...
Please let´s be serious.
A priest SHOULD know his business.
Buen Camino!
With all due respect, I believe brawblether was being completely serious. I have been discussing this issue a little with her privately and I cannot imagine her response would have been in any way a joke or tongue-in-cheek or even merely non-serious. She takes this matter very seriously.
Because you're talking to me, I think I should answer, but I don't want to be drawn into an argument of any type. I would just say that from my perspective I have not seen brawblether say anything in the slightest bit offensive or disrespectful and if anything she chooses her words very carefully. I appreciate the thoughtful answer she gave at the beginning of this thread, and I'm a bit uncomfortable with her being dissed for no apparent reason.Frankly speaking , I don´t think so.
Buen Camino!
I do completely believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament of the Mass. My understanding is that if you are on the pilgrimage and believe in the Real Presence and do not have recourse to your own church then you are welcome to receive Communion while on the Camino.
And who makes the decision on what is divine and transcendental? Humans?
Does the Catholic church have rules about who may or may not take communion, and does the belief that it really is the body and blood if Christ persist? (and if so, do you think you are being seen to agree with this if you take the elements, even as a non-Catholic?)
@MendiWalker the three questions that were asked and the answers:I think we need a member of this large family which is the forum who is a Roman Catholic priest to step forward and answer the "protocol question" mentioned in the original post and any other doubts mentioned above.
So how are heretical beliefs identified? Do humans do that?The Divine and the transcendental simply are -- no decision-making is needed ; but understanding them can sometimes be very difficult for us.
Our shared understanding of these things, howsoever partial and limited, and our shared worship of God, is called the Church.
I clearly come at this from a different view. The OPs questions were about the existence of a rule and a belief, not about their content or interpretation. If they had raised these latter issues, I would have been inclined to agree with you. They weren't, I don't.By no means am I looking for an argument a discussion yes but never an argument. I just stated that we needed someone who know the Roman Catholic Church rules. All in life , everything has rules.
I think its more complex than this. A very similar argument to yours was raised in this thread. The views I expressed there apply equally here.People can express their opinions regarding things about likes & dislikes or I would do this or that. That´s what a forum is for. But when as in this case some it´s related to Church Protocol I believe it would be easier & faster to get it "straight from the horse´s mouth" .
If you have a medical issue you consult a doctor. If your car is causing you problems you consult a mechanic. Same goes for Church Protocol.
So how are heretical beliefs identified? Do humans do that?
If this is the real question, then it simply cannot be answered as a matter of church protocol.
Another line of reasoning might be to start by observing that if someone who is not a Catholic goes to Mass, they are a guest of the Catholics present, or the parish, or perhaps the Catholic Church generally. As a matter of practice, the priest might make a simple statement sometime before the sacrament of the Eucharist about how non-Catholics might participate. I have been at Masses celebrated in both Catholic and Norse Churches where the celebrant offered the option of coming forward and receiving a blessing as an alternative to taking communion. If there has been an explicit statement like this of what is expected of non-Catholics, my view would be that, as good guests, we observe the 'rules' established by our hosts.So Doug I think you are saying that to answer the OP has two parts -
1)what is the RC "Protocol"
there is the published norms from the RC church, there are the differing views of Catholics , other Christians , non Christians, atheists et al
2) What is the current practice and norm
Again evidenced by past and current pilgrims
I think we have now probably given much of 1 & 2 above and had some fun along the way, enough I'd say for the OP to know if they can make a personal decision to go forward and receive or not , or where to go to get further clarification if they are still unsure
That said; no reason to stop the thread and the other interesting thoughts and experiences which have been fascinating - though I wonder sometimes if the Mod's finger comes close to the abort button from time to time ;-)
Jesus loves me
this I know.
The rest is noise.
I am now confused. It would appear to me that the Catholic Church is the people in it, and you say they decide what is a heresy. But you earlier said that a heresy was a teaching contrary to divine revelation, which somehow exists and isn't determined by humans. The conundrum for me is that these appear to be be two sides of the same coin. One side - divine revelation, other side - not divine revelation so heretical. If people determine what is heretical, they have equally decided what is divine revelation. Is there a way of resolving this that might make sense?The Church does it.
My recollection of my childhood Catholic education is that comparative religious studies wasn't high on the agenda. At its simplest it was 'we're right, they're not. They are heretics, but if they convert they can be saved.' I recall my parents grumbling about the restrictions there were at the time preventing attending the church services of other Christian faiths. My mother had converted to Catholicism to marry my father. Attending her family's weddings required some special permission, and I never remember this being given when non-Catholic neighbours were being married in a church ceremony.In the past it could be expected that a reasonable awareness of the various Christian traditions and their particular stances, or sensitivities would be widely known ( at least in the west) and respected but with the general increase in a secular viewpoint that has not persisted.
I am now confused. It would appear to me that the Catholic Church is the people in it, and you say they decide what is a heresy. But you earlier said that a heresy was a teaching contrary to divine revelation, which somehow exists and isn't determined by humans. The conundrum for me is that these appear to be be two sides of the same coin. One side - divine revelation, other side - not divine revelation so heretical. If people determine what is heretical, they have equally decided what is divine revelation. Is there a way of resolving this that might make sense?
I can but try, but these aren't exactly the easiest questions you're asking ...
First, the Revelation is actually transcendental, and it resides with God.
It has simply been transmitted to mankind, through the Prophets, the Apostles, and some of the Saints, and through Christ, and the guardianship of this Revelation has been placed with the Church, by Christ. et al...
Creating a consistent theology does not, in my mind, guarantee its correctness.
After trying to read through JabbPapa "thorough explanation" I as a practising Catholic am even more confused.
I gave a technical response to a difficult technical question.
...
Being minutely concerned about such arcana is unnecessary to the Faith ; it is instead quite peripheral.
... a guest of the Catholics present, or the parish, or perhaps the Catholic Church generally. ...
Kitsamber, you may not realise how many agree with you, myself included, and how times will change with a new captain on board.Personally, I tend to think of the congregation as guests of the Divine; the institutional church is just a butler, no matter how impressive the livery or the intimidating mien. I realize quite a few have a different opinion.
... and why many more millions have been driven away from the Catholic Church by the man (gender specific) standing on the altar in front of the crucifix. With such wise council and absolute perception of the situation available it is no wonder that the Catholic Church fears the installation of women into a more responsible role in running of the church.
are you following Francis interview or were you prompting him on his return from the World youth Day?
JabbaPost, seriously, your answer has given me even more reason to respect you. You have observed both sides of the fence and can see that you have kept up the faith for the past twenty years. I would have liked to comment on your previous post about my remark about allowing women to play a more prominent role in the Catholic Church but it would be out of topic. Also do not forget that during Benedict's reign I would be excommunicated for any suggestion that women be made priests in the Catholic Church, which I did not do if you read my post written in my second language, English is not my first if you translate my forum name.If I'm on the "same wavelength" as the Pope, which is a kind remark, this would be because of the shared Catholicity.
But I suppose, given the nature of this forum, I should answer the question -- I am following a personal revelation on the Camino de Santiago in 1994 that led to my conversion and my Baptism into the Faith in 2005.
Also do not forget that during Benedict's reign I would be excommunicated for any suggestion that women be made priests in the Catholic Church
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?