A question for Roman Catholics ...

by talesin 22 Replies latest jw friends

  • botchtowersociety
    botchtowersociety
    I did not, because I have been told in the past that it would be very disrespectful. She said that it was considered okay for a baptized person (of any faith, as long as you had been baptized by 'someone') to do so, RC or not.

    I've heard it both ways. My deacon says it's OK, which surprised me. I've read elsewhere it's not.

    Regarding baptism, JW baptism doesn't count as a valid baptism for Catholics. Neither does Mormon. Now Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Anglican and so on (or even no denomination, since anyone can baptize), is considered a valid baptism, so long as the intention is considered correct. Generally, non-cult Christian denominations are considered valid.

    When it came time to eat the bread she would not get up and told me not to as well. When I said that I had been baptised as a Catholic as an infant, shortly before my parents became Catholic apostates and joined the Watchtower religion, she then told me it was ok to partake; so I did. What I found somewhat hypocritical was that the priest took the wine alone and would not let anyone else. Apparently Jesus' instructions are not good enough for the Catholic Church to actually follow, and since wine is expensive and may lead to abuse by alcoholics, only the priest follows that part of the ceremony in some Churches.

    Christ is considered to be present in either species, whether bread or wine, so it is not considered necessary to take both to receive him. Wine is sometimes offered for those who want it, and some churches do it always. Lately it seems like fewer churches are doing it. It depends on the church, although many will only have the bread for the congregation. It isn't hypocritical, it is logistical and hygenic. A lot of churches stopped sharing wine during the swine flu scare. It isn't even about expense. Wine is not expensive and they dilute it with water anyway, making it even less expensive. That said, wine must always be a part of the liturgy, even if it is not shared with the congregation. That is why you saw the priest use it during Mass. I've noticed that even when both are offered, many people only take the former. I skip the wine myself.

  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    Lay people never received wine until recently. There is a theological reason for it that I can't recall. It may been one of the changes in Vatican II for the laity to receive communion in both kinds. Descriptions of Catholic masses report that there even physical barriers between the laity and the priests. Times have changed. I've also read that people received communion infrequently in the past.

    Receiving communion in both kinds was one of the first changes in the Anglican Church after the break with the RC.

    Also, did not the priests used to face away from the congregation during segregation. Someday I am going to find a preVatican II splinter Latin Catholic Church to see how things were.

    Recently, I attended Anglo-Catholic services dating from Henry VIII times. No changes from his son on were allowed. It was a shocking experience for me.

  • botchtowersociety
    botchtowersociety
    Also, did not the priests used to face away from the congregation during segregation.

    They faced the altar, rather than the congregation, but I do not know what you mean by "segregation."

    Someday I am going to find a preVatican II splinter Latin Catholic Church to see how things were.

    Band On the Run, the old Latin liturgy, known as the Tridentine Mass, is still celebrated and has not changed. Many churches (not splinter groups) reserve one or more weekly masses for those who prefer the old liturgy. They do so around here, and I am sure it is no different in your part of the country.

  • still thinking
    still thinking

    tal, my response was from experience and from what a friend of my told me a couple of years ago when she went back to the catholic church for a while. She said she was taking communion again, when I asked how she was getting on in the confessional, she said they didn't have to do confession any more and could do communion without that. In fact, confession was no longer manditory.

    I have to say I was shocked because it was always a big deal and you could not receive communion/eucharist unless you went to confession first. So although my friend thought that was great...I couldn't understand it because it was considered a sin to accept communion without confession and doing the said amount of Hail Marys and Our Fathers for repentance.

    Also, as Rocky_girl pointed out, you had to go through the ceremonies of first holy communion/confirmation. This is where the little girls get dressed up like they are getting married to god. A bit like the nuns wear the wedding ring to signify their marriage to god. Without this we were not allowed to take the eucharist/host. It would have been considered a sin.

    The other thing was women who were divorced (I don't know about men but would guess the same). They were not allowed to receive communion. Because divorce was not acceptable.

    So I am quite surprised that they would now allow anyone that is not a catholic to partake....although, from what my friend told me they have relaxed quite a few rules/sins.

    As for the wine, originally we all received the wine, children included. But my understanding was that they stopped it because of hygine issues. Hundrends of people drinking from a cup and the priest just wiping it was not really the greatest. They continued to share the wine at first holy communion/confirmation becasuse of the ceromony involved.

  • talesin
    talesin

    Rocky - yes, I was acting out of respect, 'just because', do unto others, etc.

    BTS -very informative, and once again, there seems to be a bit of confusion. I wonder if it varies from parish to parish, or diocese (sp) to diocese. It's also interesting that on the one hand, 'anyone' can baptize, but specifically excluded would be the 'cult-type' religions. I wonder if it's because cults such as the Mormons and JWS are not considered true worshippers of God the Father, Son & Holy Spirit as trinity?

    BOTR - CofE (Anglican) is very big here, and we have some who practice what I (perhaps mistakenly) would think of as "High Mass"; ie, pre-Edwardian services.

    Oh,, BTS, so that would be "Tridentine Mass"?

    Still - Yes, I knew that confession was no longer required. And I actually got to go to a confirmation once for my friend's niece and nephew. It was quite beautiful, and I really enjoyed it.

    I did not know that divorcee's were exempted from taking Communion. But it makes sense (in the context of the Church's stance on divorce).

    Ever curious am I, and am learning a lot from this thread. Merci!

    tal

  • Chariklo
    Chariklo

    Hi Tal,

    I attended a funeral on the weekend, and my friend asked me to go up with her for the wafer (no disrespect intended, I'm not sure of the correct term to use). She is RC herself, but was shy to walk up alone - it was a large funeral.
    I did not, because I have been told in the past that it would be very disrespectful. She said that it was considered okay for a baptized person (of any faith, as long as you had been baptized by 'someone') to do so, RC or not.

    You were correct.

    The ruling in the Catholic Church is that only communicant (as distinct from baptised) Catholics can take Holy Communion (receive the Blessed Sacrament/bread/wafer). It is a strict ruling, made even stricter since the present Pope became Pope. I think members of the Orthodox Church may also, but that's all, not even Anglicans and Episcopalians.

    However, although that is the strict ruling, and it is very much to be upheld without variation, there are still local variations because there are some parishes where the priests are a bit rebellious. But they are few and far between, again since Pope Benedict became Pope. The ruling has never actually been otherwise, but a few years ago there were more rebellious parish priests. it's all been tightened up though.

    Just to clear up a couple of other points:

    wafer= eucharist or host, as Still Thinking already said.

    In fact, to Catholics, the bread IS the Body of Christ, is Christ himself, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. That is the teaching, believed by all Catholics, and it is different from general Episcopalian/Anglican belief. The latter churches are more likely to be the ones using the term *eucharist", though that term, in the UK at least, more usually refers to an Anglican Communion service. To a Catholic, that "service" is the Mass.

    Lay people never received wine until recently.

    In the UK, that practice came in towards the end of the eighties. It is not referred to as wine. Catholics believe it becomes the Blood of Jesus, and it is more usually referred to as "receiving from the chalice".

    Band On the Run, the old Latin liturgy, known as the Tridentine Mass, is still celebrated and has not changed. Many churches (not splinter groups) reserve one or more weekly masses for those who prefer the old liturgy. They do so around here, and I am sure it is no different in your part of the country.

    Depends where you are, Botchtower. In my area, there are only a very few such Masses available, and only a very few people attend them. However, this Pope offers the practice every encouragement, and the swing is very much in that direction. It tends to be more the older people who like it and only a minority of those, but there is also a growing number of almost militant and fervent young catholics who are trying to revive the old Latin and the former traditions.

    She said she was taking communion again, when I asked how she was getting on in the confessional, she said they didn't have to do confession any more and could do communion without that. In fact, confession was no longer manditory.
    I have to say I was shocked because it was always a big deal and you could not receive communion/eucharist unless you went to confession first. So although my friend thought that was great...I couldn't understand it because it was considered a sin to accept communion without confession and doing the said amount of Hail Marys and Our Fathers for repentance.

    Was that before Vatican 2, still thinking? It isn't quite like that these days.

    The two things are separate. Regular sacramental confession, maybe monthly, is encouraged but no longer widely practised. It is not mandatory to make a sacramental confesion before receiving Holy Communion, but it is mandatory to go to confession at least once a year, particularly, within the Eater season, which lasts from the beginning of Lent to Pentecost.

    However, if a serious, i.e. mortal sin has been committed, one should make a sacramental confession before receiving Holy Communion. People living in a state of serious sin, according to the teachings of the Church, e.g. living together unmarried or divorcees who have remarried without annulment, may not take Holy Communion. However, gain, there are parish priests who turn a blind eye, so you may find a parish where the practice is less strict. However, in such a parish, the priest will be disobeying the rule of the Church.

    If anyone wants to know an absolutely up to date fact about the RC church please feel free to ask me in a PM if you want or PM me and draw my attention to a thread on the forum. I haven't been back to church yet but I am very up to date and in touch with recent changes and developments there.

  • jwfacts
    jwfacts

    Lay people never received wine until recently.

    In the UK, that practice came in towards the end of the eighties. It is not referred to as wine. Catholics believe it becomes the Blood of Jesus, and it is more usually referred to as "receiving from the chalice".

    Since it is such an important practice, and is not even considered wine but blood, how can they possibly justify forbidding the lay person partaking.

  • poppers
    poppers

    poppers - are you a Catholic, and if so, are you saying this is correct?

    talesin, I was raised Catholic, but no longer attend any church. Yes, all who receive communion in RC churches around here have the option of having wine as well as communion host. Those who take wine just take a small sip rather than big gulps. I've never heard of a RC church that didn't offer wine as part of the communion service, but I suppose there are some out there. Why that would be I don't know.

  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    I asked an Episcopalian priest about the Anglican view of the Eucharist. The wording was very important to me. Too legalistic. I was told that Christ was present. I asked him in a Catholic transubstantiation way? He said, "Christ is present." "Christ is present in what sense?" It is a broad community. Christ is present. Oh. Anglo-Catholics can believe the traditional Catholic formula and Low Church can believe a more Protestant view. The terms are elastic.

    I try so hard to define Anglicanism by my Witness experience. There are the rules and required beliefs. I have not succeeded one iota. Sometimes I wonder if it is really a religion. Maybe more of a tradition.

    What happens if a church mouse grabs the bread/wafer after it is consecrated? A seminary class was devoted to this question. I can't recall the answer.

  • GLTirebiter
    GLTirebiter
    She said that it was considered okay for a baptized person (of any faith, as long as you had been baptized by 'someone') to do so, RC or not.

    While some Catholics (including some heterodox priests) consider it OK, that is not the official position. Because the Church considers Eastern (Orthodox) churchs to have valid sacraments, their members can partake of Catholic sacraments if acceptable to both sects. Protestants, however, are not considered to have valid sacraments, so their members cannot participate in Catholic communion. The official Church policy is in Articles 1399-1400 of the Catechism:

    The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. "These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy." A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, "given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged."

    Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, "have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders. It is for this reason that Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible for the Catholic Church. However these ecclesial communities, "when they commemorate the Lord's death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory."

    since wine is expensive and may lead to abuse by alcoholics, only the priest follows that part of the ceremony in some Churches.

    Laity receiving consecrated unleavened bread alone was the practice for a long time, but you jump to conclusions about the reason for that. It was mostly a matter of practicality: how much wine would be needed, how many priests and deacons were available to distribute communion, and how long it would take. Depending on the diocese and parish, lay persons would receive consecrated wine on special occassions, such as the bride and groom at their nuptial mass. Most churches today are not standing-room-only, but that was the case until a few decades ago. Since 1969, the Church also apponts lay "Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist" to assist the priest and deacon with communion when necessary (with the present-day shortage of clergy, that means most of the time).

    Under Catholic doctrine, it makes no difference: the complete Eucharist is present in the Host as well as the chalice.

    The other thing was women who were divorced (I don't know about men but would guess the same). They were not allowed to receive communion. Because divorce was not acceptable.

    It applies equally to man and woman alike, but the statement above is too general and requires clarification. Those who have been in a valid marriage, then divorce, and then marry another are not eligible to receive communion. Marriage to another is the main issue. From Catechism Article 1650 [emphasis added]:

    Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ - "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery" The Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God's law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists.

    And from Articles 2382-2384 [emphasis added]:

    Between the baptized, "a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death."

    The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law. If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.

    ... Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit