(Any Catholics) Come as you are.

[Unveiled Artist]

I didnt know if this was a debate topic or something I could have addressed in the DIR.

Before Christians take the Eucharist, they should at least have gone to confession especially for mortal sins. To go to Jesus clean in body, mind, and spirit.

On the other hand, that is why Jesus wanted Christians to come to Him because they are sinners, have mortal and venial sins.

I see two things here:

1. Christians go to confession first as to have a clear mind, body, and heart when they take the Eucharist. They dont want Jesus to see them in filthy robes.

AND

2. Christians should go to Jesus because they have filthy robes.

Basically, the Eucharist is baptism and confession in one.

Question: I am curious if you all thought about why christians go to confession when they have the Eucharist.

Question: It makes sense both ways. Without saying "because the bible says so," can you explain why the former is right and the latter wrong?

 

[chlotilde]

I'd say 1 and 2 are both true statements. The Eucharist does cleanse us of venial sins, but not of mortal sins. Mortal sins destroy the charity of our hearts, venial sins just damage. I often think it is clearest if we look at it from the vantage point of the mortal sin apostacy. Unless you reunite your self with God in confession, what use is the Eucharist?

 

[JustCallMeNick]

This doesn't directly answer your question, although I have pondered this issue myself.

Specifically I've wondered why confession before partaking is necessary, not because of anything in the Bible per se, but because of the content of the liturgy. The liturgy of the Mass is permeated with confessions of our sinfulness and need for God's mercy.

The "Penitential Act" - where we literally say "I confess to almighty God...that I have greatly sinned, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done and in what I have failed to do, through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault..." (which is followed by an absolution of the whole congregation by the priest)

The Kyrie Eleison - literally, "Lord, have mercy"

Later, during the Liturgy of the Eucharist the whole congregation again prays, "Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed."

It has struck me in the past that all this should, I would think, cover it. I have also heard (though I don't know the history well) that auricular confession to a priest was not required in the early Church the way it is today.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I dont know if the two could go toether if confession was an option for one to one talk with the priest rather than a requirement if in one will go to full Mass. I know daily Mass, sometimes we dont say "I confess" unless its holidays and sunday mass.

This doesn't directly answer your question, although I have pondered this issue myself.

Specifically I've wondered why confession before partaking is necessary, not because of anything in the Bible per se, but because of the content of the liturgy. The liturgy of the Mass is permeated with confessions of our sinfulness and need for God's mercy.

The "Penitential Act" - where we literally say "I confess to almighty God...that I have greatly sinned, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done and in what I have failed to do, through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault..." (which is followed by an absolution of the whole congregation by the priest)

The Kyrie Eleison - literally, "Lord, have mercy"

Later, during the Liturgy of the Eucharist the whole congregation again prays, "Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed."

It has struck me in the past that all this should, I would think, cover it. I have also heard (though I don't know the history well) that auricular confession to a priest was not required in the early Church the way it is today.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'd say 1 and 2 are both true statements. The Eucharist does cleanse us of venial sins, but not of mortal sins. Mortal sins destroy the charity of our hearts, venial sins just damage. I often think it is clearest if we look at it from the vantage point of the mortal sin apostacy. Unless you reunite your self with God in confession, what use is the Eucharist?

Not going to confession shouldnt devalue or how you say make Christ not save you through the Eucharist. That would be why a christian would partake.

Its a good idea to go to confession. The Eucharist does the job regardless..kinda limiting what Jesus can do.

EDIT
In other words, reuniting oneself with God "is" partaking the Eucharist.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I have also heard (though I don't know the history well) that auricular confession to a priest was not required in the early Church the way it is today.

I agree with your post. That is odd that it would be changed from the early Church. I knkw the levites were told to clean themselves in body and mind before going into the tebanacle to handle the sacrafice. Yet scripture says Jesus saves all who sined. So partaking the Eucharist would complete that salvation

 

[sojourner]

Confession "puts one right" with the community again, so that one can fully participate in the very communal act of participating in the Eucharist.

 

[kepha31]

I didnt know if this was a debate topic or something I could have addressed in the DIR.

Before Christians take the Eucharist, they should at least have gone to confession especially for mortal sins. To go to Jesus clean in body, mind, and spirit.

On the other hand, that is why Jesus wanted Christians to come to Him because they are sinners, have mortal and venial sins.

Mortal sin is a state where one has completely severed their relationship with God, a spiritual death. These sins must be confessed to a priest. The Eucharist alone cannot make such a restoration otherwise it would be magic. Venial sins do not cause spiritual death, but can lead to spiritual death if left unchecked. Stealing a pen from work is a venial sin, that will not severe the relationship with God. Stealing food from a hungry family will, it is a mortal sin, spiritual death.

I see two things here:

1. Christians go to confession first as to have a clear mind, body, and heart when they take the Eucharist. They dont want Jesus to see them in filthy robes.

Yes but this is slightly misleading. A person can commit a venial sin in thought 5 minutes after leaving the confessional. We will have our pure white robes:
1) if we die in a state of sanctifying grace (which excludes most of us)
2) fulfill the necessary purification because "hay and straw" cannot enter heaven, just pure gold.

AND

2. Christians should go to Jesus because they have filthy robes.

How can a person who has "0" communion with God receive Holy Communion? Isn't that hypocritical?

Basically, the Eucharist is baptism and confession in one.

They are sacraments of initiation but they are not wrapped up in the Eucharist alone. Baptism can only be received once, and first confession occurs when children attain the age of reason, or for adults who convert.

Question:

I am curious if you all thought about why christians go to confession when they have the Eucharist.

Question: It makes sense both ways. Without saying "because the bible says so," can you explain why the former is right and the latter wrong?

1 Cor. 11:27-29 - in these verses, Paul says that eating or drinking in an unworthy manner is the equivalent of profaning (literally, murdering) the body and blood of the Lord. If this is just a symbol, we cannot be guilty of actually profaning (murdering) it. We cannot murder a symbol. Either Paul, the divinely inspired apostle of God, is imposing an unjust penalty, or the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ.

1 Cor. 11:30 - this verse alludes to the consequences of receiving the Eucharist unworthily. Receiving the actual body and blood of Jesus in mortal sin results in actual physical consequences to our bodies. This means that those in a state of mortal sin should refrain, NOT AS A PUNISHMENT, BUT AS PROTECTION.

1 Cor. 11:27-30 - thus, if we partake of the Eucharist unworthily, we are guilty of literally murdering the body of Christ, and risking physical consequences to our bodies. This is overwhelming evidence for the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. These are unjust penalties if the Eucharist is just a symbol.

Besides, if a Catholic feels they are in a state of mortal sin, they can still go up at communion time, fold their arms across their chest and receive a blessing from the priest. Even non-Catholics can do this. The charge that sinners are prevented from "going to Jesus" is just plain wrong.

 

[Thief]

I didnt know if this was a debate topic or something I could have addressed in the DIR.

Before Christians take the Eucharist, they should at least have gone to confession especially for mortal sins. To go to Jesus clean in body, mind, and spirit.

On the other hand, that is why Jesus wanted Christians to come to Him because they are sinners, have mortal and venial sins.

I see two things here:

1. Christians go to confession first as to have a clear mind, body, and heart when they take the Eucharist. They dont want Jesus to see them in filthy robes.

AND

2. Christians should go to Jesus because they have filthy robes.

Basically, the Eucharist is baptism and confession in one.

Question: I am curious if you all thought about why christians go to confession when they have the Eucharist.

Question: It makes sense both ways. Without saying "because the bible says so," can you explain why the former is right and the latter wrong?

Almost became a priest.
Two positions at the seminary....twelve applicants....
and two of them were holier than me.

Rats!...but no hard feelings....really.

The Last Supper event became the ritual now delivered.
It has a topic length unto it's own.

Catholics take the words literally...."This is My Body.....This is My Blood"
They insist the bread and wine transform and the communion is physical.

The ritual of confession is similar to the washing before entering the Temple.
You do not enter therein.....unless clean.

Over the centuries, the one precedes the other....as a developed custom.
You do not approach the Lord's Table ....not properly dressed.
I refer to the parable of the Wedding Feast.

You might want to check it out.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Im not saying, dont, confess. I just see that Jesus Christ Himself has forgiven mortalnand vienial sins. Confession brings one One with the community, Church as Sourjerner says. In my opinion, since the Echarist Is Jesus, He brings us into communion too.

So confesson should be a preference to rid oneself of sins. Why would it be a requirement when Jesus did it all mortal or not?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I understood everything but this:

How can a person who has "0" communion with God receive Holy Communion? Isn't that hypocritical?

All christians have a full communion with God at baptism. I agree that all the sacraments should be recieved before communion and I "also" see that Jesus forgiven christians of their sins. So, partaking of the Eucharist, if a Christian has been confirmed by God (saying Yes, I want Jesus as Lord and Savior), repentence (to God which is confession the only diference is the priest not who is the one forgiving the person, God not the priest), baptism (which the Church accepts many Churches baptisms if done 'right'). Basically, they fulfilled all sacraments by direct rather than Church administration of the sacraments.

I understand the Church wants Christians to believe Jesus is in the Eucharist And He is whether the believe in the concecration or not. The point is they believe in Christ.

Why, in theory, should they Not recieve the Eucharist having gone through all sacraments but without Church blessings?

Mortal sin is a state where one has completely severed their relationship with God, a spiritual death. These sins must be confessed to a priest. The Eucharist alone cannot make such a restoration otherwise it would be magic. Venial sins do not cause spiritual death, but can lead to spiritual death if left unchecked. Stealing a pen from work is a venial sin, that will not severe the relationship with God. Stealing food from a hungry family will, it is a mortal sin, spiritual death.

Yes but this is slightly misleading. A person can commit a venial sin in thought 5 minutes after leaving the confessional. We will have our pure white robes:
1) if we die in a state of sanctifying grace (which excludes most of us)
2) fulfill the necessary purification because "hay and straw" cannot enter heaven, just pure gold.


How can a person who has "0" communion with God receive Holy Communion? Isn't that hypocritical?

They are sacraments of initiation but they are not wrapped up in the Eucharist alone. Baptism can only be received once, and first confession occurs when children attain the age of reason, or for adults who convert.


1 Cor. 11:27-29 - in these verses, Paul says that eating or drinking in an unworthy manner is the equivalent of profaning (literally, murdering) the body and blood of the Lord. If this is just a symbol, we cannot be guilty of actually profaning (murdering) it. We cannot murder a symbol. Either Paul, the divinely inspired apostle of God, is imposing an unjust penalty, or the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ.

1 Cor. 11:30 - this verse alludes to the consequences of receiving the Eucharist unworthily. Receiving the actual body and blood of Jesus in mortal sin results in actual physical consequences to our bodies. This means that those in a state of mortal sin should refrain, NOT AS A PUNISHMENT, BUT AS PROTECTION.

1 Cor. 11:27-30 - thus, if we partake of the Eucharist unworthily, we are guilty of literally murdering the body of Christ, and risking physical consequences to our bodies. This is overwhelming evidence for the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. These are unjust penalties if the Eucharist is just a symbol.

Besides, if a Catholic feels they are in a state of mortal sin, they can still go up at communion time, fold their arms across their chest and receive a blessing from the priest. Even non-Catholics can do this. The charge that sinners are prevented from "going to Jesus" is just plain wrong.

 

[kepha31]

I understood everything but this:

kepha31 said: ↑
How can a person who has "0" communion with God receive Holy Communion? Isn't that hypocritical?

All christians have a full communion with God at baptism. I agree that all the sacraments should be recieved before communion and I "also" see that Jesus forgiven christians of their sins. So, partaking of the Eucharist, if a Christian has been confirmed by God (saying Yes, I want Jesus as Lord and Savior), repentence (to God which is confession the only diference is the priest not who is the one forgiving the person, God not the priest), baptism (which the Church accepts many Churches baptisms if done 'right'). Basically, they fulfilled all sacraments by direct rather than Church administration of the sacraments.

When I said "...a person..." I was referring to Catholics in a state of spiritual death who need to go to confession before receiving Holy Communion. It's for Catholics, so why should non-Catholic Christians who have no regard for our teachings or rules partake in the One Bread?

I understand the Church wants Christians to believe Jesus is in the Eucharist And He is whether the believe in the concecration or not. The point is they believe in Christ.

It saddens any family when they sit down to eat dinner and some of the members choose not to be present.

Why, in theory, should they Not recieve the Eucharist having gone through all sacraments but without Church blessings?

Because they (non-Catholic Christians) are not in full communion with the Church., and have abolished the validly consecrated sacrificial New Testament priesthood. Holy Communion implies doctrinal communion, and one cannot force-fit doctrinal error to be in communion with the Church. That is an aspect of "Holy COMMUNION". The Catholic Church didn't separate from anyone. Non-Catholic Christians are not in full communion with the Catholic Church because they don't want to be.

Exodus 29:38-39 – God commands the Israelites to “offer” (poieseis) the lambs upon the altar. The word “offer” is the same verb Jesus would use to institute the Eucharistic offering of Himself. God never commanded the Israelites to “offer” a metaphorical or symbolic lamb.

Lev. 19:22 – the priests of the old covenant would make atonement for sins with the guilt offering of an animal which had to be consumed. Jesus, the High Priest of the New Covenant, has atoned for our sins by His one sacrifice, and He also must be consumed.

Jer. 33:18 - God promises that His earthly kingdom will consist of a sacrificial priesthood forever. This promise has been fulfilled by the priests of the Catholic Church, who sacramentally offer the sacrifice of Christ from the rising of the sun to its setting in every Mass around the world.

Zech. 9:15-16 - this is a prophecy that the sons of Zion, which is the site of the establishment of the Eucharistic sacrifice, shall drink blood like wine and be saved. This prophecy is fulfilled only by the priests of the Catholic Church.

2 Chron. 26:18 - only validly consecrated priests will be able to offer the sacrifice to God. The Catholic priests of the New Covenant trace their sacrificial priesthood to Christ.​

Scripture Catholic - THE EUCHARIST
The sacrificial priesthood cannot be separate from the Eucharistic sacrifice, so non-Catholic Christians, as good as Christians as they may be, cannot receive the Eucharist until they have had 1 year of instruction and become Catholic. It takes that long to begin to understand all this stuff.

 

[Thief]

Im not saying, dont, confess. I just see that Jesus Christ Himself has forgiven mortalnand vienial sins. Confession brings one One with the community, Church as Sourjerner says. In my opinion, since the Echarist Is Jesus, He brings us into communion too.

So confesson should be a preference to rid oneself of sins. Why would it be a requirement when Jesus did it all mortal or not?

The confession is not for His glory...
it is intended as relief for what troubles you...that stone you carry.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

When I said "...a person..." I was referring to Catholics in a state of spiritual death who need to go to confession before receiving Holy Communion. It's for Catholics, so why should non-Catholic Christians who have no regard for our teachings or rules partake in the One Bread?

Maybe there are a few that do believe in the in the teachings of the Church and the Eucharist but find ceremonial worship not helpfum in their spiritual growth. Maybe they rather have "confirmation" by the laying of the hands and priest prayer when they come to th front of the congrgation. Confession to God. Baptism in the Holy Spirit (its good to have water "and" faith saves a Christian), and communion which is fellowship as a Church not. Tqking the Eucharist, stricty speaking, doesnt make one in communion because if ALL christians took it they would be in communion with Christ whether they believe it or not.

It saddens any family when they sit down to eat dinner and some of the members choose not to be present.

True. Some Christians sit in fellowship rather than ceremonial fellowship and worship. Its not that they dont, its the way its done and how they associate a Catholic communuon as non christian that makes Catholic communion not being with Jesus. So, there is good reason to notnbe part of it IF looked at as paganism.

Because they (non-Catholic Christians) are not in full communion with the Church., and have abolished the validly consecrated sacrificial New Testament priesthood. Holy Communion implies doctrinal communion, and one cannot force-fit doctrinal error to be in communion with the Church. That is an aspect of "Holy COMMUNION". The Catholic Church didn't separate from anyone. Non-Catholic Christians are not in full communion with the Catholic Church because they don't want to be.

They are. The Church is the body of Christians. When more than one person is present, Christ says, He is there. Fellowship is the Church. They take the sacraments just not "administered 'through'" the physical Church but from God.

From a Catholic view, how can the Church call anyone non catholic christian given they havnt taken the sacraments of the Church? Calling them christian and denying them the Euchurist is a contradiction.

have had 1 year of instruction and become Catholic. It takes that long to begin to understand all this stuff

Yeah. I actually taught myself and have gone to mass for six years before confirmed. In the RCIA I didnt learn anymore than what I knew. Also, the Church doesnt make one believe or cant teach one that the Eucharist is Christ. I knew it in theory and knowledge "until I rceived it."

 

[kepha31]

Maybe there are a few that do believe in the in the teachings of the Church and the Eucharist but find ceremonial worship not helpfum in their spiritual growth. Maybe they rather have "confirmation" by the laying of the hands and priest prayer when they come to th front of the congrgation. Confession to God. Baptism in the Holy Spirit (its good to have water "and" faith saves a Christian), and communion which is fellowship as a Church not. Tqking the Eucharist, stricty speaking, doesnt make one in communion because if ALL christians took it they would be in communion with Christ whether they believe it or not.


True. Some Christians sit in fellowship rather than ceremonial fellowship and worship. Its not that they dont, its the way its done and how they associate a Catholic communuon as non christian that makes Catholic communion not being with Jesus. So, there is good reason to notnbe part of it IF looked at as paganism.

They are. The Church is the body of Christians. When more than one person is present, Christ says, He is there. Fellowship is the Church. They take the sacraments just not "administered 'through'" the physical Church but from God.

From a Catholic view, how can the Church call anyone non catholic christian given they havnt taken the sacraments of the Church? Calling them christian and denying them the Euchurist is a contradiction.


Yeah. I actually taught myself and have gone to mass for six years before confirmed. In the RCIA I didnt learn anymore than what I knew. Also, the Church doesnt make one believe or cant teach one that the Eucharist is Christ. I knew it in theory and knowledge "until I rceived it."

814 From the beginning, this one Church has been marked by a great diversity which comes from both the variety of God's gifts and the diversity of those who receive them. Within the unity of the People of God, a multiplicity of peoples and cultures is gathered together. Among the Church's members, there are different gifts, offices, conditions, and ways of life. "Holding a rightful place in the communion of the Church there are also particular Churches that retain their own traditions."263 The great richness of such diversity is not opposed to the Church's unity. Yet sin and the burden of its consequences constantly threaten the gift of unity. And so the Apostle has to exhort Christians to "maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."264

815 What are these bonds of unity? Above all, charity "binds everything together in perfect harmony."265 But the unity of the pilgrim Church is also assured by visible bonds of communion:

- profession of one faith received from the Apostles;

-common celebration of divine worship, especially of the sacraments;

- apostolic succession through the sacrament of Holy Orders, maintaining the fraternal concord of God's family.266

816 "The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it. . . . This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him."267
The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism explains: "For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God."268
Wounds to unity

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

264 Eph 4:3.
265 Col 3:14.
266 Cf. UR 2; LG 14; CIC, can. 205.
267 LG 8 § 2.
268 UR 3 § 5.
269 UR 3 § 1.
270 Cf. CIC, can. 751.
271 Origen, Hom. in Ezech. 9,1G 13,732.
272 UR 3 § 1.
273 LG 8 § 2.
274 UR 3 § 2; cf. LG 15.
275 Cf. UR 3.
276 Cf. LG 8.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Please wrap your quotes with your comment as well. Normally when people quote, the reader can make many assumptions to the writers post unless the poster says what the quote is specifically related to and why said.

Thanks.

Also, unless its the comptuer, please normal size the quotes. I have bad vision so tiny print on a smart phone is near impossible to read when enlarged.

I cant read the first half. The second is hard to read and I cant find how that relates to my post.

814 From the beginning, this one Church has been marked by a great diversity which comes from both the variety of God's gifts and the diversity of those who receive them. Within the unity of the People of God, a multiplicity of peoples and cultures is gathered together. Among the Church's members, there are different gifts, offices, conditions, and ways of life. "Holding a rightful place in the communion of the Church there are also particular Churches that retain their own traditions."263 The great richness of such diversity is not opposed to the Church's unity. Yet sin and the burden of its consequences constantly threaten the gift of unity. And so the Apostle has to exhort Christians to "maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."264

815 What are these bonds of unity? Above all, charity "binds everything together in perfect harmony."265 But the unity of the pilgrim Church is also assured by visible bonds of communion:

- profession of one faith received from the Apostles;

-common celebration of divine worship, especially of the sacraments;

- apostolic succession through the sacrament of Holy Orders, maintaining the fraternal concord of God's family.266

816 "The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it. . . . This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him."267
The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism explains: "For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God."268
Wounds to unity

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

264 Eph 4:3.
265 Col 3:14.
266 Cf. UR 2; LG 14; CIC, can. 205.
267 LG 8 § 2.
268 UR 3 § 5.
269 UR 3 § 1.
270 Cf. CIC, can. 751.
271 Origen, Hom. in Ezech. 9,1G 13,732.
272 UR 3 § 1.
273 LG 8 § 2.
274 UR 3 § 2; cf. LG 15.
275 Cf. UR 3.
276 Cf. LG 8.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm

EDIT

Oh, also, every sacrament is administered by God not the apostles. So if one person wants confirmation in fellowship with Christ by the laying of the hands and personal prayer while the bishops put their hand on their shoulder (I did that once), God, not the apostles, will bless them the same as if they were to have confirmation through the Church "aministered" through the Church "given" by God.

It is also a contradiction that the Church accepts baptisms from other Churches yet not the other sacraments. The important part in BOTH Catholic and protestant Churches is that the sacements both take, the penentents know, they are recoeving From God. If Catholics believe thr priests bless them, they miss the point of confession. If protestants believe communion is just a symbol, they miss the point of communion.

One church cant deny the other by How they worship. One half does it by the apostles the other straight from God. I see nothing wrong.

Just my preference if I practiced is through the Church. Not everyone has that growth in Christ the same as others. Why deny they are full christians? That is an insult just the same as protestants calling catholics pagans.

 

[kepha31]

Please wrap your quotes with your comment as well. Normally when people quote, the reader can make many assumptions to the writers post unless the poster says what the quote is specifically related to and why said.

Thanks.

Also, unless its the comptuer, please normal size the quotes. I have bad vision so tiny print on a smart phone is near impossible to read when enlarged.

I cant read the first half. The second is hard to read and I cant find how that relates to my post.

The first half that you could not read is just background context. You can find it in the catechism if you want. The whole catechism is available on line.

EDIT

Oh, also, every sacrament is administered by God not the apostles.
So if one person wants confirmation in fellowship with Christ by the laying of the hands and personal prayer while the bishops put their hand on their shoulder (I did that once), God, not the apostles, will bless them the same as if they were to have confirmation through the Church "aministered" through the Church "given" by God.

It is also a contradiction that the Church accepts baptisms from other Churches yet not the other sacraments.

It is not a contradiction for the Church to accept baptism from other (not all) churches because the baptism in other churches is a Catholic act.

The Latin word sacramentum means "a sign of the sacred." The seven sacraments are ceremonies that point to what is sacred, significant and important for Christians. They are special occasions for experiencing God's saving presence. That's what theologians mean when they say that sacraments are at the same time signs and instruments of God's grace.

The important part in BOTH Catholic and protestant Churches is that the sacements both take, the penentents know, they are recoeving From God. If Catholics believe thr priests bless them, they miss the point of confession. If protestants believe communion is just a symbol, they miss the point of communion.

One church cant deny the other by How they worship. One half does it by the apostles the other straight from God. I see nothing wrong.

Just my preference if I practiced is through the Church. Not everyone has that growth in Christ the same as others. Why deny they are full christians? That is an insult just the same as protestants calling catholics pagans.

I made no such denial. Please scroll up, or read paragraph 818 where it says "...All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church does not deny they (of other churches) are full Christians.

Please scroll up, or read paragraph 819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation..."

The Catholic Church does not deny they (of other churches) are full Christians. An honest examination will reveal that the Catholic Church is the most inclusive of any other church. Ut Unam Sint is an important document on Christian unity, for anyone who wishes to find out more about the Church's dedication to true ecumenism.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Id have to refer to my catcheism.. Id have to enlarge it when I am at desktop. Im on my smart phone. I got the impression at Church that the Church doesnt consider Christians full christians.

Since, one, they havent recieved the sacraments through the Church and two,

They say it here in the easter vigil calender

"We welcome our fellow Christians to this celebration of the Eucharist as our brothers and sisters. We pray that our common baptism and the action of the Holy Spirit in this Eucharist will draw us closer to one another and begin to dispel the sad divisions which separate us. We pray that these will lessen and finally disappear, in keeping with Christ's prayer for us 'that they may all be one'. Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law..."
-
Without partaking of the Eucharist, how can one say a Christian is a full christian? That would mean no one needs to be Catholic. The church doesnt teach that.

790 Believers who respond to God's word and become members of Christ's Body, become intimately united with him: "In that body the life of Christ is communicated to those who believe, and who, through the sacraments, are united in a hidden and real way to Christ in his Passion and glorification."220 This is especially true of Baptism, which unites us to Christ's death and Resurrection, and the Eucharist, by which "really sharing in the body of the Lord, . . . we are taken up into communion with him and with one another."221
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p2.htm
--
Implied or explicidly stated, the Church is not calling other christians christian until they take the sacraments and become in union with the Church.

Its not bad, in itself. I just disagree that "only" through the Church one can obtain these sacraments sense they are from God.

As long as there is a division on which "christian" can take the sacraments one side will always say they arent fully christian until they take the Eucharist while the other side will say Catholics are not fully christian until they break from physical ritual means of worship in favor for only spiritual means, there will be a gap.
--
With baptism, if that is the only thing that makes one christian, why take the other sacraments (rhetorical question)

Basically, I believe that scripture says the sacraments come from God not the apostles. So, if one christian wants to God directly to confess and recieve absolution how is that different than going to a priest who is asking God to do the same as the christian did for himself? Both Catholic and protestant are recieving the sacraments from God.

The Church is the body of Christ:

790 Believers who respond to God's word and become members of Christ's Body, become intimately united with him
--
I agree that any christian should take the sacraments through the Church. I also believe that the sacraments are recieved by God. So if they wish not to go through the "physical" Church they are still united in Christ in spirit.

Who has the right to deny them this based on who administors the sacraments?

The first half that you could not read is just background context. You can find it in the catechism if you want. The whole catechism is available on line.

It is not a contradiction for the Church to accept baptism from other (not all) churches because the baptism in other churches is a Catholic act.

The Latin word sacramentum means "a sign of the sacred." The seven sacraments are ceremonies that point to what is sacred, significant and important for Christians. They are special occasions for experiencing God's saving presence. That's what theologians mean when they say that sacraments are at the same time signs and instruments of God's grace.



I made no such denial. Please scroll up, or read paragraph 818 where it says "...All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church does not deny they (of other churches) are full Christians.

Please scroll up, or read paragraph 819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation..."

The Catholic Church does not deny they (of other churches) are full Christians. An honest examination will reveal that the Catholic Church is the most inclusive of any other church. Ut Unam Sint is an important document on Christian unity, for anyone who wishes to find out more about the Church's dedication to true ecumenism.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Jesus said to " do this in memory of Me" He did not say you must confess or be free of sin or anything else. just do it to remember Him. all this other stuff was added later by someone other than Jesus and has nomeaning in regard to what Jesus wanted.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Jesus said to " do this in memory of Me" He did not say you must confess or be free of sin or anything else. just do it to remember Him. all this other stuff was added later by someone other than Jesus and has nomeaning in regard to what Jesus wanted.

The point of the sacraments that all denominations have is to say I want Jesus to be Lord and Savior (romans 10:9) confirmation, baptism (markn1:8), confession (james 5:16;1 john 1:9), eucharist (1 Corinthians 11:2;John 6:51 there are too many scriptures that support communion and Jesus being the Bread of life)

All churches have these sacraments. Whether one calls it a symbol or literal, they (hopefully) are still partaking in the Eucharist (holy communion).

Just some Churches say literal because they believe their salvation in Christ is a literal not symbolic event. Holy communion is salvation. Where there is more than one person, Jesus is there.

If Jesus didnt want people to be baptized in the Holy spirit, ask Him for forgiveness for sins commited, take part in His body and blood, and not say He is Lord and Savior, why wouls He bother to die for anyone?