Nuptial Mass & Non-Catholic bride

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

My fiance (Roman Catholic) and I (Episcopalian) are planning our Roman Catholic wedding. He would like to have a mass but I cannot receive communion. I do not want to deny him this important rite however, I would feel terrible to be excluded from receiving Holy Communion at my own wedding while over half of the congregation is receiving it. It would make me feel like a 5th wheel, a tourist, at my own wedding. I understand perfectly well Catholic teaching on the subject. But it would spoil the ceremony for me, just as it would spoil it for my fiance if he were denied. I was wonder whether it would be possible for my fiance to receive Communion BEFORE the ceremony, perhaps in the sacristy, and then we forgo the marriage mass...just have a simple ceremony. I can't imagine that the priest would allow an Episcopal minister to give me and my guests communion at the same time everyone else is receiving. What do you think?

-- Frances Laughton (falaughton@earthlink.net), February 12, 2003

Answers

Response to Nuptial Mass & Non-catholic bride

Your best option, if you don't want to feel "left out" of receiving Communion, is to have the marriage rite without the Mass. You won't be "cheating" your future husband out of anything. You'll be just as married.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), February 12, 2003.

Response to Nuptial Mass & Non-catholic bride

If you are a practising Christian, and you understand, believe in and respect why Catholics have Communion, there is no reason that you cannot have it too, although this may depend on the priest who is marrying you.

-- Louise Alderman (louise_alderman@hotmail.com), February 19, 2003.

Response to Nuptial Mass & Non-catholic bride

Louise, that may be the doctrine of your church, but it is most definitely NOT the doctrine of the Catholic Church. :-)

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), February 19, 2003.

Response to Nuptial Mass & Non-catholic bride

Hi Frances, Congratulations on your upcoming Nuptials! Louise is,indeed, very wrong in saying that a non-Catholic may receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church. This is strictly forbidden, no matter how sincere the non-Catholic may be. Reception of Holy Communion is for those who are in full communion with the Church; ie baptized Catholics, in a state of grace, who have observed at least a one hour fast. But you already say you are well aware of the Church's teachings on this, so the above was more for Louise's information. I am always impressed by the number of non-Catholics who visit this forum with questions on behalf of their future spouse, who is Catholic. It shows such a genuine desire to understand and be respectful of your fiance's beliefs and feelings. There are the two choices you've already faced: a wedding ceremony without the Nuptial Mass, or a Nuptial Mass where you refrain from receiving Holy Communion. I'm not sure what the Episcopalian belief is regarding what happens when one receives Holy Communion, but Catholics believe that we receive graces by receiving Our Lord's Body and Blood. Whenever attending a Nuptial Mass, I offer my Holy Communion for the happy, holy marriage of the couple being united. Therefore, I feel the couple is receiving the graces of my Holy Communion. Even if you do not receive Holy Communion on your wedding day, do you think you could be happier knowing that your husband and many guests are receiving many graces on your behalf? If not, then I suppose you would prefer to forego the Mass. So many, many decisions in planning a wedding...But this is perhaps the biggest decision! Glad to see that you are giving it much thought and careful consideration. God's blessings to both of you. Pax Christi. <><

-- Anna <>< (Flower@youknow.com), February 20, 2003.

Response to Nuptial Mass & Non-catholic bride

As a cantor, soloist, music planner who was non-Catholic and became Catholic through RCIA, let me elaborate on what is possible, not possible.

You can participate in Rite of Catholic Initiation of Adults RCIA. Once you finish this instruction and are confirmed,typically at Easter Vigil, you can participate fully in the Sacraments of the Church, including Communion. If you finish RCIA prior to your wedding, then you have no conflict or problem.

If you chose not to go through RCIA, then you can have a wedding mass where communion is served and you can receive a special blessing rather than communion from the priest during the communion rite. This special blessing is given Unconfirmed Adults and Children.

If you still want communion without going through RCIA, then it would be asking for some sort of special dispensation probably from the Bishop or Cardinal. You would absolutely have to talk to your priest about any details.

The last option is to have the wedding ceremony without full mass. I recognize that your intended husband wants communion as this will be the only time both the Sacrament of Marriage and the Sacrament of Communion can be shared at the same time if bride and groom are Catholic.

The reason non-Catholics cannot take communion is because they do not share the same beliefs. The communion is the outward sign of the spiritual communion and sharing of belief. The host is the actual presence of God Incarnate. Most non-Catholics view the communion as a symbol rather than the actual presence. That is the rift dividing whether or not to have communion. It is also a serious one to consider in your marriage and how you want to rear children and what you want to teach them.

-- Karen (minidiva@yahoo.com), March 04, 2003.



Response to Nuptial Mass & Non-catholic bride

Frances -- I went through the same thing. I am an Episcopal and my husband is Catholic. We did not have the "full mass" and so therefore there was no communion. Simple as that. He did not have an issue with it, nor did his family. While I am sure many of the people that post her have issues with it and have ALL sort of opinions -- it is a personal decision and whatever you & your fiancee decide is what is the best solution for you. To me I am glad it was not in our ceremony because that "left out" feeling was not included. I don't believe in closed communion and that is why I am not Catholic.

-- V. Smith (prontoro@msn.com), March 04, 2003.

Response to Nuptial Mass & Non-catholic bride

--well that is not the only reason I am not Catholic but that is one of the major ones.

-- V. Smith (prontoro@msn.com), March 04, 2003.

Response to Nuptial Mass & Non-catholic bride

I don't believe in closed communion and that is why I am not Catholic. [V. Smith]

Well, Mrs. Smith, I'm sorry that you therefore opt for no Communion at all.
Your ecclesial community, the Episcopalian denomination, does not have a valid Eucharist. When you take/receive "communion," you are eating nothing other than bread and wine.

So you may have your "open communion" ("intercommunion") of mere foodstuffs, if you wish.
We Catholics, though, will have our "closed Communion" of the Real Presence of Jesus (Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity). I invite you to partake of Him after your conversion.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 06, 2003.


Response to Nuptial Mass & Non-catholic bride

To each his own. I don't agree with you -- (as you already know) and I don't want to waste too time or database space . I will "have" my communion and thank you very much for underlining my points about Catholicism -- you have made it very clear (with the helps of others) about any question I had about Catholicism -- and my heart and mind are at ease with my decision and I have you (as well as a few others) to thank -- I am grateful for that.

-- V.Smith (prontoro@msn.com), March 07, 2003.

Response to Nuptial Mass & Non-catholic bride

Jmj

Hello, Mrs. Smith.
You say that your "heart and mind are at ease with [your] decision." That feeling of being "at ease" is just a temporary deception, based on the emotions that are linked with anti-Catholicism.
But God, says poet Francis Thompson, is the "Hound of Heaven." He (and your Guardian Angel) will keep after you until you are no longer "at ease with [your] decision."

After all, how could you be at ease with something that is less than the best available? You are even settling for something far less than second-best, I would have to honestly tell you.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 07, 2003.



Response to Nuptial Mass & Non-catholic bride

I am sure Frances is getting a kick out of these posts -- her mind is probably swimming in what she should do for her wedding and I think this thread is now way off -- if she is even still reading this. I hope she finds her way.

John: Honestly - I don't know where you are coming from and you need not explain it to me.

-- V.Smith (prontoro@msn.com), March 07, 2003.


Response to Nuptial Mass & Non-catholic bride

From the Rites book Roman Catholic Church... Pg. 721 pg 8 "In a marriage between a Cahtolic and a baptized person who is not Catholic, the rite of marriage outside Mass shall be used. If the situation warrants and if the local Ordinary gives permission, the rite for celebrating marriage within Mass may be used, except that communion is not given to the non-Catholic, since the general law does not allow it." Acceptance of Eucharist within the Catholic Church signifies: acceptance of the Bishop of Rome as your pastor, all the teachings of the Catholic Church, acceptance of the Nicaean-Constantinopolitan Creed. Most important of all is our belief, as Catholics in the real presence of Christ's Body and Blood. Anyway, the issue here that we are concerned with is marriage, just marriage as a sacrament. Whether there is mass or not, the couple is the sacramental ministers. The couple confers the sacrament of marriage upon one another. For the sake of the couple, what is most important to your marriage, is that you freely enter into a covenant with one another and God...Marriage (married Christians) signify and share in the mystery of the unity and the fruitful love that exist between Christ and his Church. Married Christians thus help each other to attain holiness in their married life and in welcoming and rearing children; they have their own special place and gift among the people of God. This is by no means an encompassment this issue, but I hope it sheds some light... You are the ministers as a couple, the vows and consent are what is most important so that you may express the love that you have for one another in a covenant. Talk to one another --COMMUNICATE! There is no better remedy to misunderstanding. Your future spouse may have no hang ups about having the sacrament in a context outside of Mass.

-- patrick farley (pfarley@saintmeinrad.edu), March 09, 2003.

Response to Nuptial Mass & Non-catholic bride

During the Eucharist, a non-Catholic may go up to the priest and recieve a blessing. The way to do this during a regular mass is to cross your arms on your chest so one hand is on each shoulder; then the priest knows not to give you the Eucharist and to give you a blessing instead. Talk to your priest about the possibility of receiving a blessing during the Eucharist. I guarantee this will eliminate those "left-out" feelings! Congratulations and good luck.

-- Michelle Buckellew (mbuckellew@ivillage.com), March 12, 2003.

Response to Nuptial Mass & Non-catholic bride

Addendum to what Michelle said - going up for such blessings is not an officially approved liturgical practice, but many churches do it under the approval of the pastor, and in my humble opinion it does no harm and probably does some people some good. However, if you are going up for such a blessing, you should approach a priest or deacon, not a lay eucharistic minister. While the giving of blessings in lieu of the Eucharist is not expressly forbidden as a liturgical norm, the coveyance of blessings by non-ordained persons within the context of a liturgy IS forbidden, as it blurs the distinction between clergy and laity. Therefore if you approach a lay minister, you put them in the uncomfortable position of either doing something that are not authorized by the Church to do, or refusing to give you a blessing. Either way the minister is placed in a tough position. Also, before you go up for such a blessing at a church you are unfamiliar with, you should either ask if it is allowed, or at least observe whether other people are doing it, because not all pastors allow the practice.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 12, 2003.

Response to Nuptial Mass & Non-catholic bride

I don't normally post to lists such as these, but there are a few things that need to be clarified here, at least as they refer to the Episcopalian understanding of the Eucharist. I speak as a former Roman Catholic who has joined the Episcopal Church over this and other issues. I know many who will read this will consider this decision to be invalid, but it is made. The notion that the Eucharist is only valid in the Roman Catholic church (or Eastern Orthodox churches) is decidedly a Roman Catholic doctrine, and is not shared by Episcopalians. This stems from the Roman Catholic teaching on the validity of the Sacrament of Holy Orders in the Anglican Communion (of which the Episcopal Church is a member.) The Roman Catholic church teaches that the Sacrament (Holy Orders) as it is practiced in the Anglican Communion is invalid due to a deficiency of rite. I understand and respect, but do not agree with this teaching. The teaching of the Anglican Communion is that Holy Orders are valid because the preservation of Apostolic Succession is kept intact (though the Roman Catholic church teaches that the Apostolic Succession is NOT kept in the Anglican Communion.) As one can see, there is a certain degree of head-butting going on here, and a mutual understanding between the two groups is not likely, at least not now. This all leads to my main point: the Roman Catholic Church teaches that Christ is Present in the Eucharist through transsubstantiation. The Anglican Communion teaches that Christ is Present in the Eucharist as well (not recognized by the Roman Catholic Church) but the mode of presence is not specified. Therefore, transsubstantiation is neither affirmed nor denied. The important point to Episcopalians is that the Eucharist was instituted by Christ, and through this He is with us in the Eucharist. Some posts to this list have stated that Catholic Church has a valid Eucharist while the Episcopal Church does not. While this may be the Roman Catholic understanding of the matter, it is not right to imply that Episcopalians don't believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It is naive and insensitive to accuse Episcopalians of anti-Catholicism because of this belief.

That the Holy Catholic Church may be One.

Michael Duffy

-- Michael Duffy (duphy@excite.com), April 23, 2003.



Response to Nuptial Mass & Non-catholic bride

I really enjoyed reading your post, Michael. Thank you for posting even though you don't normally -- I was wondering if another Episcopalian/fellow Christian would visit this message thread and bring forth some reason to the table specifically about the remarks of communion and this strange "anti-Catholicism" term that appears to be thrown about so easily and wrongly.

-- V.Smith (prontoro@msn.com), April 23, 2003.

Response to Nuptial Mass & Non-catholic bride

Jmj
Hello, Michael D and Mrs. Smith.

Mrs. S, because of your reference to "anti-Catholicism," I reviewed the things you said in your previous messages. Now I want to withdraw my prior statement that your position seemed to be based on anti-Catholicism. That is a word that I want to reserve for bigoted people -- and you are not one of those. (Nevertheless, I still disagree with your beliefs on some matters.)


Michael, I'd like to comment on several things that you stated.

QUOTE: I speak as a former Roman Catholic who has joined the Episcopal Church over this [understanding of the Eucharist] and other issues.

COMMENT: I'm sad to read this. Was it mainly about "other issues?"

QUOTE: The notion that the Eucharist is only valid in the Roman Catholic church (or Eastern Orthodox churches) is decidedly a Roman Catholic doctrine, and is not shared by Episcopalians.

COMMENT: It's not a "notion." This is a forum about the Catholic Church [upper-case "c"}, not about a non-existent entity called the "Roman Catholic Church." That term was invented in 16th-century England as a term of extreme prejudice and hatred. That term indeed is "anti-Catholic." (Admittedly some Catholics [and you, I'm sure] were unaware of these things until just now, so I don't hold the misuse of the words against them or you.)

QUOTE: This stems from the ... Catholic teaching on the validity of the Sacrament of Holy Orders in the Anglican Communion (of which the Episcopal Church is a member.) The Roman Catholic church teaches that the Sacrament (Holy Orders) as it is practiced in the Anglican Communion is invalid due to a deficiency of rite. I understand and respect, but do not agree with this teaching.

COMMUNION: It is not really a teaching, but an unchangeable judgment, based on a 19th-century study (confirmed in the 20th century) of the rites of Anglican ordination and eucharist -- which were found to be fatally flawed. You say that you "do not agree with this," but as a Catholic, you had no choice but to submit to it. In humility, God called upon you to acknowledge that the Church (and not you) had the right and ability to judge the Anglican rites -- and then to make a definitive judgment. You failed and committed a grave sin of formal heresy, falling away from the true Church founded by Jesus. It's never too late to return, though.

By the way, Michael, I noticed that you referred to "the Sacrament (Holy Orders) as it is practiced in the Anglican Communion." You must not be aware of the fact that Article XXV of Anglicanism's 39 "Articles of Religion" ["Agreed upon by the Archbishops, Bishops, and the whole clergy of the Provinces of Canterbury and York, London, 1562"] wrongly states that there are only two sacraments instituted by Jesus in the gospels (Baptism and "Supper of the Lord"). Only these two are then expanded upon in later Articles. This is contrary to ancient, authentic Catholic teaching, which has always said that Orders was instituted by Jesus on Holy Thursday.

QUOTE: [T]he ... Catholic Church teaches that Christ is Present in the Eucharist through transubstantiation. The Anglican Communion teaches that Christ is Present in the Eucharist as well (not recognized by the ... Catholic Church) but the mode of presence is not specified. Therefore, transubstantiation is neither affirmed nor denied.

COMMENT: Again, your words are contradicted by Anglicanism's Articles of Religion, wherein "transubstantiation is [indeed] ... denied." The following words are from Article XXVIII:
"Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper of the Lord is Faith."

Clearly, Michael, you must not have been taught real Anglicanism if you were unaware of this article. It seems then that you need (1) to reject the foundational Articles of your Protestant denomination and feign membership -- or you need (2) to return to the fullness of the truth in the Catholic Church of your youth (which really does teach correctly about Ordination [a sacrament instituted by Jesus] and the Eucharist [transubstantiation].

QUOTE: Some posts to this list have stated that Catholic Church has a valid Eucharist while the Episcopal Church does not. While this may be the ... Catholic understanding of the matter, it is not right to imply that Episcopalians don't believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

COMMENT: I do acknowledge that most people in the Anglican Communion believe in a so-called "Real" Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. However, because Anglicanism/Episcopalianism is so tolerant of dissent, there is a mixture of theologies permitted (at least high/low/broad), resulting in radical disunity of belief about just what that "real presence" is. Some (a minority) believe just as the Catholic Church teaches (even though that conflicts with Article XXVIII). But, tragically, neither they nor any who believe somewhat (or very) differently really have Jesus's Body and Blood present in the Eucharist anyway. Anglican priests and bishops lack the power to confect the Holy Eucharist, because it was lost centuries ago. The ordination ceremony was too radically changed, and the concept of a truly sacrificial Mass was discarded.

QUOTE: That the Holy Catholic Church may be One.

COMMENT: The Holy Catholic Church already is "One" (and also Apostolic). You are now among our separated brethren outside the Church, so I invite you to return to the ancient unity.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 24, 2003.


Response to Nuptial Mass & Non-catholic bride

Thank you for your response, John.

I don't think I should be surprised that you are throwing quotes from the Articles of Religion at me. I am very well aware of what they contain and also I am aware of the origin of the term "Roman Catholic." Before defending my use of the term and my previous post, I would like to say that Anglican Church does derive some of its past from the influence of John Calvin. This is reflected very strongly in the Articles of Religion. I don't know very many Episcopalians who advocate a literal interpretation of the Articles of Religion, especially with respect to Eucharistic teaching. You may or may not be aware, but there are many Episcopal parishes that practice Eucharistic processions and Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament. Both of these practices are forbidden by the Articles of Religion. The Articles of Religion are listed in the section of the Book of Common Prayer entitled "Historical Documents." The term "Roman Catholic," though it may offend you, is frequently used by many members of the Church (whom I know personally) that is in communion with Bishop of Rome. I merely was using the term to distinguish between members of the Catholic Church that are in communion with the Bishop of Rome and those who are not. There is no need to tell me that I am wrong on this matter, I am aware of your point of view, and I respect it. (I also am aware that you believe that there are no members of the Church that are separated from communion with the Bishop of Rome.) You are entitled to it. I also mean no offense. I long for the day when ALL may be in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

The term "anti-Catholic" is a loaded term and is frequently used to dismiss the teachings of Anglicans and Protestants. I know that you believe that these teachings are false where they differ from the teachings of the portion of the Church that is in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

The point of my original post was to merely to illustrate that many Episcopalians do believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist and that there is not likely to be mutual understanding between Christians who are in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury and Christians who are in communion with the Pope.

Episcopalians, though they fall outside of your definition of Catholic, hold a variety of beliefs because our faith is based on Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. We believe in the Apostle's and Nicene Creeds. We do not restrict any of those who have been baptized in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit from participating fully in the Eucharist. I harbor no resentment toward members of the Church that is in communion with the Bishop of Rome. I certainly do not believe that they are heretics. I am sorry that you find the need to call me a heretic. I forgive you. It is unfortunate that we have difficulty walking in love as Christ loved us.

The Eucharistic divisions imposed by the Church that is in Communion with the Bishop of Rome are sad indeed. Some could say that the reformers imposed those divisions, and they may be correct. I think that it is unfortunate that after almost 500 years the Diciples of Christ cannot be reconciled to each other. I think that the Lord must be weeping over these divisions. These divisions are ESPECIALLY painful when they are imposed between a husband and a wife. Christ gave himself as a gift to his followers in the Eucharist and it is shameful for our time that we cannot even agree on that.

God Bless You, John.

Michael Duffy

-- Michael Duffy (duphy@excite.com), April 25, 2003.


Response to Nuptial Mass & Non-catholic bride

I have forgotten to add one thing about the term "Roman Catholic." John, you are correct that the original use of the term was based in hatred and prejudice. That is inexcusable, and I meant neither hatred nor prejudice when I used it. England (and Northern Ireland to this day) was a place of extreme hatred and prejudice towards both Catholics and Protestants (returning to common terminology) during the 16th century, depending on who was ruling. I hope that we can move beyond that. Mutual forebearance and respect are necessary. I am convinced that any violence or hatred committed against people of faith by other people of faith is a form of blasphemy.

God Bless us All.

Michael Duffy

-- Michael Duffy (duphy@excite.com), April 25, 2003.


Response to Nuptial Mass & Non-catholic bride

I would invite all who are curious to read a conversation between a Catholic and an Anglican on the topic of the Eucharist. Try this link: http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ310.HTM

-- Michael Duffy (duphy@excite.com), April 25, 2003.

Response to Nuptial Mass & Non-catholic bride

Jmj
Thank you, Michael. I'd like to respond to several of the things you wrote to me.

QUOTE: I am very well aware of what [the Anglican Articles of Religion] contain ... [The] Anglican Church does derive some of its past from the influence of John Calvin. This is reflected very strongly in the Articles of Religion. I don't know very many Episcopalians who advocate a literal interpretation of the Articles of Religion, especially with respect to Eucharistic teaching.

COMMENT: I knew that this was the case. And to me, this is a very clear argument for no one ever to convert to Anglicanism. The Articles make numerous clear, dogmatic statements. I haven't read them all lately, but the ones I quoted to you don't even need any "interpretation," "literal" or otherwise. Their meaning is obvious.

Now, if the 16th-century Anglicans formally defined their doctrines (their Creed) in the Articles, and if there is still a desire for the religion to be taken seriously (as containing the true teaching of Jesus), it follows that it is impossible for Anglicans later to change those doctrines.

The fact that the Articles reject transubstantiation and say that Jesus did not institute Holy Orders -- while you say that Anglican no longer teaches either of those things -- tells me that Anglicanism cannot be taken seriously.
It tells me that the doctrines shift according to the will of the majority (or according to some other such unreliable influence).
It tells me that, perhaps fifty years from now, Anglicanism may suddenly begin to teach transubstantiation as the truth -- or, conversely, that it may suddenly begin to teach there is no "real presence" of Jesus in the Eucharist at all (but only a symbolic presence).

And we have seen this kind of thing in our own lifetime. I began to take an interest in the Anglican Communion around 1984. For several years, I had high hopes for a reconciliation between Anglicanism and Catholicism. Those were dashed, though, as I began to learn how Anglicanism had changed, and continued to change, its doctrines. It was the first Christian body (1930) to stop condemning the use of contraception as a deadly sin. It began to approve of divorce and remarriage. (Compare that to the Edward VII/Wallis Simpson scandal.) And it eventually began to approve of many cases of abortion. Various branches of the Anglican Communion began to accept the ordination of female priests. The two straws that broke the camel's back of my hopefulness of reconciliation were (1) the "ordination" of a female bishop in the U.S. and (2) the "ordination" of female priests in Great Britain.

Now, Michael, look at all those radical changes in doctrine in the 20th century -- and there were probably several others. Even someone as sinful as Henry VIII is probably spinning in his grave to know what is masquerading now for Anglicanism, not to mention the pious Anglicans of the 16th century. I would bet that NOT ONE of the virtuous "reformation" Anglicans would be willing to be an Anglican today. And we even have seen, in the last 15 years, at least one Anglican bishop, at least one hundred Anglican priests, and many thousands of Anglican laity leaving their "church" to enter Catholicism or to abandon religion altogether.

All of these things (the changes, the gradual melting away in numbers of Anglicans, etc.) should have told you, as a Catholic and serious human being, that it would be totally improper [I would even say "ridiculous"] for you to become Episcopalian. The only way that a Catholic could choose to do such a thing would be in a moment of extreme moral weakness or lack of faith. For example, a person may want to continue to attend services that resemble the Catholic Mass, but (1) wants to live according to a lax moral code -- wherein various mortal sins are not even labeled as venial sins -- or (2) disbelieves in the Church's ability to teach infallibly about male-only ordination!

QUOTE: The term "Roman Catholic," though it may offend you, is frequently used by many members of the Church (whom I know personally) that is in communion with Bishop of Rome.

COMMENT: It only "offend[s]" me when it is used intentionally as a slur. I know that some Catholics use it, because they have heard it all their lives. I tried to indicate this in my previous message to you, whereing I stated: "(Admittedly some Catholics [and you, I'm sure] were unaware of these things until just now, so I don't hold the misuse of the words against them or you.)" You must have overlooked my saying this.

QUOTE: I merely was using the term to distinguish between members of the Catholic Church that are in communion with the Bishop of Rome and those who are not. There is no need to tell me that I am wrong on this matter, I am aware of your point of view, and I respect it. (I also am aware that you believe that there are no members of the Church that are separated from communion with the Bishop of Rome.) You are entitled to it. I also mean no offense. I long for the day when ALL may be in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

COMMENT: You "mean no offense"? You "respect" my "point of view"? How can that be true?
Since you were already aware of the negative historical origin of "Roman Catholic," and ... since you know that Catholics believe that there are no "Catholics" other than those Christians who are in communion with the pope, and ...
since you were aware of the fact that this site is called the "Catholic" discussion forum [i.e., pertaining to Christians in communion with Rome], then ...
it follows that you were either intentionally offensive or very careless in using the term "Roman Catholic" instead of simply "Catholic." I want to think that you did not intend to offend, but just got careless. That calls for an apology, not a defense of what you did. What militates against my desire to believe that you did not intend to offend, though, is the fact that, in your relatively short message, you referred to the pope seven times as "the Bishop of Rome." Maybe you need to determine if you have an (at least subconscious) hatred of the papacy. Even Fundamentalists refer to "the pope" when speaking of the Vicar of Christ.

QUOTE: The term "anti-Catholic" is a loaded term and is frequently used to dismiss the teachings of Anglicans and Protestants.

COMENT: That is not correct. It is not used with reference to "the teachings," but to the bigoted behavior of certain Protestants (Anglicanism being part of Protestantism, as the monarch states when he/she takes the oath). I made this distinction myself when I apologized to Mrs. Smith (in my last post) for too quickly calling her anti-Catholic. Didn't you notice that? The reason I used the term in my reply to you was because I was referring to the origin of the term "Roman Catholic."

QUOTE: I know that you believe that these teachings are false where they differ from the teachings of the portion of the Church that is in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

COMMENT: If, by "the Church" you mean, "the Catholic Church," then by definition all of "the Church ... is in communion with" the pope. It follows then that Anglicanism is not a "portion of the Church." Nor is any other denomination in Protestantism. Nor is Eastern Orthodoxy. The "branch theory" is a modern idea, an attempt to legitimize the illegitimate, that has no basis in reality.

QUOTE: The point of my original post was to merely to illustrate that many Episcopalians do believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist ...

COMMENTS: These words of yours, as well as others that I came across in reading yesterday, reminded me that we mean different things by "Real Presence." And this is clear in the Dave Armstrong colloquy that you linked for us. I remember reading long ago that, because Anglicans also refer to "real presence," we Catholics ought to use the "Real and Substantial Presence" to distinguish our beliefs. Anglicans, depending on which "wing" of their denomination they belong to, seem to believe in a "real but inexplicable presence" or a "real but INsubstantial presence." We Catholics have the whole Substance of Jesus in the Eucharist. And it doesn't really matter how an individual Anglican thinks of his "Real Presence," the fact is that it is actually the "Real Absence" -- since Anglican clergy are not capable of bringing the Presence of Jesus to an altar. They are not validly ordained. And that is a major reason for which you, Michael, ought to head back home. You are not actually receiving Jesus -- but only bread and wine.

QUOTE: We do not restrict any of those who have been baptized in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit from participating fully in the Eucharist.

COMMENT: It would be inhospitable for Anglicans to deny non-Anglicans a share in their mere bread and wine. But it would be highly improper for Anglicans to allow non-Anglicans to share in a valid sacrament, if they had one.

QUOTE: I certainly do not believe that [Catholics] are heretics. I am sorry that you find the need to call me a heretic. I forgive you.

COMMENT: One can only "forgive" a person who has committed a sin or made a mistake. I haven't done either of these. I suggest you re-read my messages, noting the fact that I did not call you a "heretic." I wrote: "You are now among our separated brethren outside the Church". But if you want me to call you a heretic, I think that I can do that, because the new Catechism says: "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same...". Michael, you have denied at least one such truth -- transubstantiation -- making you a heretic. [Note, however, that nowadays this emotional term is ordinarily used only (and only when necessary) about Catholics, like you, who fall away from the Church.]

QUOTE: It is unfortunate that we have difficulty walking in love as Christ loved us.

COMMENT: I don't have "difficulty walking in love" with you. It's just that it is a "tough love" that doesn't feel like love to you right now. With time and prayer and grace, I hope that will change.

QUOTE: The Eucharistic divisions imposed by the Church that is in Communion with the Bishop of Rome are sad indeed. Some could say that the reformers imposed those divisions, and they may be correct.

COMMENT: Well, first we have to say that the true "reformers" were those men who remained Catholics are corrected the problems from within (mainly between 1520 and 1600). Those who broke away were rebels or "deformers," not "reformers." And it was obviously they who "imposed those [Eucharistic] divisions," because before they came along, no divisions existed.

QUOTE: I think that it is unfortunate that after almost 500 years the Diciples of Christ cannot be reconciled to each other. I think that the Lord must be weeping over these divisions. These divisions are ESPECIALLY painful when they are imposed between a husband and a wife. Christ gave himself as a gift to his followers in the Eucharist and it is shameful for our time that we cannot even agree on that. COMMENT: I am glad that you closed your main message with something on which we can agree.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 27, 2003.


Response to Nuptial Mass & Non-catholic bride

Well, John, it looks like we are going to have to agree to disagree.

Peace be with you.

-- Michael Duffy (duphy@excite.com), April 28, 2003.


Response to Nuptial Mass & Non-catholic bride

Just to clear up a few things:

I do not bear any hatred toward the Pope. Is he or is he not the Bishop of Rome? Is there another prelate who bears the title of "Bishop of Rome?" I do not think I was being inaccurate or disresptectful.

For that matter, I do not hate anybody.

-- Michael Duffy (duphy@excite.com), April 28, 2003.


Response to Nuptial Mass & Non-catholic bride

Jmj

Michael, you have defended using "Bishop of Rome" seven times. I suggest that there may be something wrong (at least subconsciously) in that you either experienced a compulsion or you consciously decided to enter 98 [14 x 7] keystrokes instead of just 28 [4 x 7].
Perhaps deep inside you, the word "pope" is highly charged -- associated with too much authority and control (or your own father?). So, to avoid facing these things, perhaps you skirt around them by using a term (Bishop of Rome) that refers only to his authority over a specific diocese. Well, that's for you to think about. I can't read your mind.

Michael, you protested that you do not hate the pope. But I didn't suggest that you hated the man, Pope John Paul II.
Here is what I actually wrote [adding emphasis now]:
"Maybe you need to determine if you have an (at least subconscious) hatred of the papacy."
In other words, perhaps you hate the institution founded by Jesus in the person of St. Peter and his successors, because it is related to the "religious submission of mind and will" that you are fleeing.

Michael, you stated: "... it looks like we are going to have to agree to disagree."
Well, I have never believed in "agreeing to disagree," because it is so dissatisfying! I desire a more clear-cut conclusion.
Ah, well. I will hope for the best, then. I have tried to make many logical points for you, and to almost all of these you have not replied -- so I hope that this means that you will be ruminating on what I have written as you move along on your journey home.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 28, 2003.


QUOTE: We do not restrict any of those who have been baptized in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit from participating fully in the Eucharist.

COMMENT: It would be inhospitable for Anglicans to deny non- Anglicans a share in their mere bread and wine. But it would be highly improper for Anglicans to allow non-Anglicans to share in a valid sacrament, if they had one.

*********************************

Why is it improper for Anglicans to allow non-Anglicans to share in a valid sacrament? For reference, if it matters, I am Mormon.

-tabby

-- Tabby (tabbcat@yahoo.com), December 30, 2003.


Hello, Tabby.
The reason it would be "improper for Anglicans to allow non-Anglicans to share in a valid sacrament, if they had one" is that a valid sacrament is more than the Body and Blood of Christ, in the belief of Catholics. To us, the valid Blessed Sacrament is also a testimony that those participating are united in faith and obedient to the Church.

If, hypothetically, the Anglicans had a valid sacrament along with their various heretical beliefs, I could never receive that sacrament, because I would be assenting to their false doctrines at the same time.

Though you are a Mormon, are you becoming interested in Catholicism? I hope so.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 30, 2003.


Thanks John. Actually I'm "exploring" religion right now... I agree with the Mormon teachings but my parents haven't gone to church since I was 5, and I haven't made the effort yet to go on my own.

I'm not really leaning towards Catholicism- no offense meant, but it seems very elitist to me, especially after reading this entire thread. My boyfriend is Catholic, though, so I want to keep an open mind.

Actually my question when I originally came to this site was the same as Frances'. I attended a Catholic wedding of a friend, and, without knowledge of what the "biscuits" really were or meant, went up to get one during the Mass portion with the rest of the attendees. Someone created a scene after they found out I had eaten one and wasn't Catholic (in effect, ruining the wedding). The funniest part of the story was that the priest didn't notice that I said "thanks" when he gave me the biscuit...you'd think that might have tipped him off that I wasn't meant to receive it? My boyfriend or friends didn't stop me from going up or tell me not to, either. I feel bad about the whole thing, but I find it difficult to consider becoming Catholic if the Church teaches people that it's necessary to cause a scene/ostracize someone about an action that wasn't meant to be blasphemous, whether or not it was.

I've pretty much come to the conclusion that I don't want to feel excluded at my own wedding, either...so my options seem to be 1) become Catholic, or 2) make him take Mass beforehand if he needs it.

-- Tabby (dingogal@usa.net), January 04, 2004.


Jmj
Hello again, Tabby.

Don't worry. Real Catholics are not "elitist." We are just trying to be honest and seriously careful about matters that are truly sacred (such as the very Body and Blood of the Son of God, which we receive in Holy Communion).

Some quickie responses to words of yours:

1. "My boyfriend or friends didn't stop me from going up or tell me not to, either."
Please tell them from me that they had a duty to stop you. They should have told you, even before Mass, what Holy Communion is. If there were little Mass booklets in your pew, you might have found an explanation in them about who may or may not receive Jesus. (Even many Catholics may not receive Him.)

2. "I feel bad about the whole thing ..."
Please don't feel bad about it at all. Nothing about it was your fault!

3. "... but I find it difficult to consider becoming Catholic if the Church teaches people that it's necessary to cause a scene/ostracize someone about an action that wasn't meant to be blasphemous, whether or not it was."
The Catholic Church does not teach such a thing. It was completely wrong for any Catholic to "cause a scene" or "ostracize" you, since your action was completely innocent. You were uninformed and meant no harm. Your action did not desecrate the Body of Christ. God was not offended by you. Unfortunately, many Catholic people are terribly ignorant. Please forgive them.

4. "I've pretty much come to the conclusion that I don't want to feel excluded at my own wedding, either...so my options seem to be 1) become Catholic, or 2) make him take Mass beforehand if he needs it."
Well, it takes quite a long while for a Mormon to prepare to become a Catholic (between six months and a year), so you may not have that much preparatory time if you will be marrying in 2004. Also, you cannot become a Catholic just to be able to receive Communion. Your decision to convert must be based on a sincere conviction that Jesus is the Son of God who died for our sins and founded the Catholic Church as his instrument of imparting salvation to the world until the end of time. Before converting, you will get help from the Church to learn and give your assent to her teachings.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), January 04, 2004.


Thank you for your responses... I will definitely look into it further :)

-- Tabby (dingogal@usa.net), January 04, 2004.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ