Rep. Patrick Kennedy Denied Communion

[Agnus_Dei]

And hence we come to the crux of the problem with Catholics.

They don't believe in "sola scriptura." They believe that authority comes from Scripture plus church teachings.

WHen that step is made, then you have...

I like that...too funny...:laugh:

And really, who are we kidding, do Baptist REALLY believe in Sola Scriptura, with all their Bibles w/ footnote commentaries and all the commentaries from the likes of John R. Rice telling them what to believe in regard to Holy Scripture...even the Independent Fundamental Baptist Church I was raised in didn't allow for "roundtable" discussion during Adult Sunday school...Our Associate Pastor that led our Sunday school told us what to believe regarding Holy Scripture.

Even Martin Luther, the father of Sola Scriptura was terrified to allow the Bible to be in the hands of the common man...he's fear was that all kinds of misinterpretations would arise, so Luther, when he converted the Bible into German or English (can't remember), he included Footnotes to help the common man "understand" Holy Scripture.

In XC
-

 

[Tom Butler]

I believe the Catholic church thinks the elements of communion to actually become the body and blood of Christ and thus view them as salvivic (sp?). Thus, to deny a catholic communion is to deny him/her salvation.

Yes and no - see here. Note that the excommunicate is deemed to remain a Christian.

Matt, Dr. Grace's comment seems consistent with what I quoted in post #22. But the link you posted re: excommunication seems consistent with what you said. However, the two writings seem inconsistent with each other. I know you are not Catholic, but seem knowledgeable. Can you (or maybe Lori) speak to those inconsistencies?

 

[Matt Black]

As I understand it, for Catholics an inability to receive the sacraments (particularly the Eucharist) for whatever reason (eg: illness, excommunication, being shipwrecked on a desert island) does not automatically remove salvation; communion, for example, is seen as 'bread for the journey' rather than the ability to complete the journey per se; Catholics would I think allow that someone's faith and devotion to the Lord would be sufficient - although far from ideal - to complete the journey. However, in the case of Rep Kennedy, his faith and devotion to the Lord are also being called into question by the Catholic Church (through his Bishop) because of his rebellious stance against the Lord on the issue of abortion and therefore also his completion of the journey is put in doubt; indeed, one would question whether he is even heading in the right direction...!

 

[rbell]

however, AD, Catholics put church teachings on par w/Scripture. I find that troubling, to say the least.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Matt, Dr. Grace's comment seems consistent with what I quoted in post #22. But the link you posted re: excommunication seems consistent with what you said. However, the two writings seem inconsistent with each other. I know you are not Catholic, but seem knowledgeable. Can you (or maybe Lori) speak to those inconsistencies?

Not to disagree with Matt but as I understand it first you need to re-define Salvation to understand the Catholic Position. Salvation is more than a one time aquencense to Faith given by God. That's just it's starting point. The fullness of life that comes with faith in the Catholic Church is considered to be part of salvation as well a (living salvation). The Sacraments are means by which God grants grace to the believer equiping them to further their faith prevent backsliding into apostacy and ultimately atain the goal. In this way it is Salvific. If you do not participate in the Sacrament you've missed out on grace to accomplish this but it does not equate to immediate apostacy it just means it more difficult for the believer to maintian and run the race. A believer may still attain eternal life if his faith is maintained even without participating in the sacrament. That is how I understand the Catholic to view it.

 

[Matt Black]

That's my understanding also.

however, AD, Catholics put church teachings on par w/Scripture. I find that troubling, to say the least.

Explain why.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

however, AD, Catholics put church teachings on par w/Scripture. I find that troubling, to say the least.

Then you need to ask yourself just how did the Church function in the Apostolic and Post Apostolic Periods?...there was no Bible as we know it today, but just a few copies of letters and Gospels scattered around...what one Church had in let's say Antioch, another Church may not have had...there was no printing press, no email , UPS, USPS or FedEx...so how did the Apostolic Church period function?

In XC
-

 

[rbell]

Then you need to ask yourself just how did the Church function in the Apostolic and Post Apostolic Periods?...there was no Bible as we know it today, but just a few copies of letters and Gospels scattered around...what one Church had in let's say Antioch, another Church may not have had...there was no printing press, no email , UPS, USPS or FedEx...so how did the Apostolic Church period function?

In XC
-

Sorry, but this is where I fall back on God's promise to preserve His word. He doesn't need help from the church supplanting the authority of Scripture.

 

[BobRyan]

Even Martin Luther, the father of Sola Scriptura was terrified to allow the Bible to be in the hands of the common man...he's fear was that all kinds of misinterpretations would arise, so Luther, when he converted the Bible into German or English (can't remember), he included Footnotes to help the common man "understand" Holy Scripture.

In XC
-

Luther worked pretty hard getting the Bible translated into German -- it is difficult to imagine just how "anxious" he was to NOT have Germans READ it.

I suspect he knew that getting the Bible into the hands of the people was the only way to stop the all-tradition-all-the-time form of dark ages superstition that was enabling the RCC to wreak havoc in those "dark ages" over which they supremely presided.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Then you need to ask yourself just how did the Church function in the Apostolic and Post Apostolic Periods?...there was no Bible as we know it today, but just a few copies of letters and Gospels scattered around...what one Church had in let's say Antioch, another Church may not have had...there was no printing press, no email , UPS, USPS or FedEx...so how did the Apostolic Church period function?

In XC
-

That's easy.

"They studied the SCRIPTURES DAILY to SEE IF those things told to them by Paul WERE SO" Acts 17:11.

So -- basically that's "no change" from the sola scriptura model of today.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Agnus_Dei]

A believer may still attain eternal life if his faith is maintained even without participating in the sacrament. That is how I understand the Catholic to view it.

So I take it from a Roman Catholic view, as long as it's the Church that's keeping a Catholic from the Sacrament, it's not considered a "mortal sin"?

To add from an Orthodox view, if I feel I'm not worthy to approach the chalice during communion, I can abstain from taking the elements on my own and it not be a mortal sin (not that we have mortal or venial categories of sin). As a matter of fact, there are some Orthodox Christians that only take Communion once a year or only during certain feasts...the Nativity, the Dormition and Pascha.

In XC
-

 

[Matt Black]

Sorry, but this is where I fall back on God's promise to preserve His word. He doesn't need help from the church supplanting the authority of Scripture.

And you need to consider the possibility that the method God used to preserve His Word was the Church - and in particular the men Jesus picked to carry on His teaching.

 

[BobRyan]

As I understand it, for Catholics an inability to receive the sacraments (particularly the Eucharist) for whatever reason (eg: illness, excommunication, being shipwrecked on a desert island) does not automatically remove salvation; communion, for example, is seen as 'bread for the journey' rather than the ability to complete the journey per se; Catholics would I think allow that someone's faith and devotion to the Lord would be sufficient - although far from ideal - to complete the journey. However, in the case of Rep Kennedy, his faith and devotion to the Lord are also being called into question by the Catholic Church (through his Bishop) because of his rebellious stance against the Lord on the issue of abortion and therefore also his completion of the journey is put in doubt; indeed, one would question whether he is even heading in the right direction...!

1. If one does not "qualify" for communion -- then do they "qualify" for last rites in RC parlance?

2. There needs to be some kind of "plenary indulgence" in there some place or they are going to get "max time" in purgatory (at the very least).

3. But the bigger question is whether someone who does not even "qualify for communion" even GETS to go to purgatory much less getting that in-purgatory time "shortened"! (Of course -- no Bible for any of this -- but all fun games.)

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Matt Black]

That's easy.

"They studied the SCRIPTURES DAILY to SEE IF those things told to them by Paul WERE SO" Acts 17:11.

So -- basically that's "no change" from the sola scriptura model of today.

in Christ,

Bob

Except the 'Scriptures' at that time were just the Old Testament.

 

[BobRyan]

And you need to consider the possibility that the method God used to preserve His Word was the Church - and in particular the men Jesus picked to carry on His teaching.

Peter said "Holy Men of Old moved by the Holy Spirit - Spoke from God" -- that is why "sola scriptura" worked.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Except the 'Scriptures' at that time were just the Old Testament.

The principle is "unchanged".

It is still a practice of "testing Paul AGAINST the scriptures".

And today that would include (at the very least) "testing Pope Paul" the same way.

Given both a NT and an OT text for scripture today as vs Acts 17:11 time frame - we have even LESS excuse for not following the Bible model of "sola scriptura".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I ran across this while researching the OP question:


Catechism of the Catholic Church (Libreria Editrice Vaticana -- In the USA, Liguori Publications, 1994), Imprimi Potest Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. Bold emphasis not in original.

"There is no surer pledge or clearer sign of this great hope in the new heavens and new earth 'in which righteousness dwells,' than the Eucharist. Every time this mystery is celebrated, 'the work of our redemption is carried on' and we 'break the one bread that provides the medicine of immortality, the antidote for death, and the food that makes us live for ever in Jesus Christ'" (p.354).
​

"Taken literally (epi-ousios: 'super-essential'), it refers directly to the Bread of Life, the Body of Christ, the 'medicine of immortality,' without which we have no life within us" (p.681).
​

"The Lord addresses an invitation to us, urging us to receive him in the sacrament of the Eucharist: 'Truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you' " (p.349).
​

"In addition to the Anointing of the Sick, the Church offers those who are about to leave this life the Eucharist as viaticum. Communion in the body and blood of Christ, received at this moment of 'passing over' to the Father, has a particular significance and importance. It is the seed of eternal life and the power of resurrection, according to the words of the Lord: 'He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day' " (p.381).

I would appreciate an explanation why, if these statements accurately represent the position of the RCC, that denying communion does not cut the communicant off from eternal life.

​

well that appears to answer my question about last rites and communion being linked to salvation.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

So I take it from a Roman Catholic view, as long as it's the Church that's keeping a Catholic from the Sacrament, it's not considered a "mortal sin"?

To add from an Orthodox view, if I feel I'm not worthy to approach the chalice during communion, I can abstain from taking the elements on my own and it not be a mortal sin (not that we have mortal or venial categories of sin). As a matter of fact, there are some Orthodox Christians that only take Communion once a year or only during certain feasts...the Nativity, the Dormition and Pascha.

In XC
-

I don't think the Catholic Church keeps people from the Sacrament its people. Yet its a Mortal Sin in that it is a sin that Can lead to death not necissarily will. Mortal sin has to do with motivation and intention. If the motivation is to purposely miss the sacrament in strict disobediance rather than life situation it becomes mortal. If its missed due to lapses caused by situation it will not lead to death but should be confessed. Which is why my family is always in the confessional booth.

 

[lori4dogs]

"Catholics recognize as valid the marriage of a baptized noncatholic man and woman if it is done under the auspices of their noncatholic church. The don't recognize the marriage of a Catholic to a noncatholic, or of two Catholics to each other, unless it is in the Catholic church or they get a dispensation from the bishop."


Yup! SN: This comes from someone other than myself and a non-Catholic. Why don't you check out your 'facts' before you post how 'wrong' I am.

 

[BobRyan]

This post -
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1483304&postcount=11

And the question asked after it about Kennedy -- are not answerable?
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1483304#post1483304

in Christ,

Bob