Rep. Patrick Kennedy Denied Communion

[Darron Steele]

...
So, are you in sympathy with Roman Catholic doctrine?

It depends on what you mean "Roman Catholic doctrine": I have heard Catholic preaching that is very similar to what I hear in other church groups. If it accords with Scripture, yeah it is Catholic doctrine I am in sympathy with. If you mean distinctive Roman Catholic precepts, no.

I am in sympathy with those who speak up for Catholic people when persons are trying to promote bad feelings against them. It does not matter whether a group of people is wrong or not; it is wrong to try to get bad feelings stirred up against those people.

However, as far as the distinctive precepts of Roman Catholicism, I cannot think of any that I agree with or would be in sympathy with.

 

[Matt Black]

Getting back to the OP, there are some things I still don't understand.

If the sacraments are salvific by definition, then why does the denial of them to someone not deny them salvation? If one may be denied them and still be saved, then there seems to be some inconsistency here.

I say this because from my childhood, the RCC claimed that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Now, that seems not to be the teaching.

It means that the writings of Cardinal Ratzenberger (Now Pope Benedict) don't mean exactly what he wrote.



I don't understand why Cardinal Ratzenberger would write that without taking the Eucharist, there is "no life within us," yet Rep. Kennedy may be denied the Eucharist and retain that life.

Maybe somebody can explain this for me.

Cardinal Ratzinger. The Catholic Church has backed itself into something of a corner here; that said, I'll try to untangle the soteriological mess they've made. Firstly, the Catholic Church accepts that millions of Protestants don't receive what the CC regards as a valid Eucharist, yet the CC acknowledges that they are or at least may be (in so far as anyone can judge the salvation of another) saved...so the CC does not regard the Eucharist as essential for salvation per se. ++Ratzinger's (as he then was) words appear to contradict this, yet they are lifted (so he would say) directly from Jesus' words to the crowd in the Bread of Life Discourse in John 6; ++Ratzinger would say also that the primary addressees of his statement are Catholics, not non-Catholics, and that implicit in the statement is a warning to Catholics not to apostasise or become excommunicate. Thus the thrust of his message is pastoral rather than soteriolgical (unusual for him as he is a good theologian but not a great pastor and has found the adjustment he has had to make there as Pope difficult - as he himself would admit).

 

[Tom Butler]

Cardinal Ratzinger. The Catholic Church has backed itself into something of a corner here; that said, I'll try to untangle the soteriological mess they've made. Firstly, the Catholic Church accepts that millions of Protestants don't receive what the CC regards as a valid Eucharist, yet the CC acknowledges that they are or at least may be (in so far as anyone can judge the salvation of another) saved...so the CC does not regard the Eucharist as essential for salvation per se. ++Ratzinger's (as he then was) words appear to contradict this, yet they are lifted (so he would say) directly from Jesus' words to the crowd in the Bread of Life Discourse in John 6; ++Ratzinger would say also that the primary addressees of his statement are Catholics, not non-Catholics, and that implicit in the statement is a warning to Catholics not to apostasise or become excommunicate. Thus the thrust of his message is pastoral rather than soteriolgical (unusual for him as he is a good theologian but not a great pastor and has found the adjustment he has had to make there as Pope difficult - as he himself would admit).

Matt, thanks for correcting my spelling of Cardinal Ratzinger. My mind was somewhere else when my fingers were typing. I understand the context of his writing. Just having difficulty accepting that he was speaking only to Catholics.

 

[Marcia]

It depends on what you mean "Roman Catholic doctrine": I have heard Catholic preaching that is very similar to what I hear in other church groups. If it accords with Scripture, yeah it is Catholic doctrine I am in sympathy with. If you mean distinctive Roman Catholic precepts, no.

I am in sympathy with those who speak up for Catholic people when persons are trying to promote bad feelings against them. It does not matter whether a group of people is wrong or not; it is wrong to try to get bad feelings stirred up against those people.

However, as far as the distinctive precepts of Roman Catholicism, I cannot think of any that I agree with or would be in sympathy with.

I am also against attacking people; however, I think it is very important to confront problematic RC doctrine and speak out, especially when it's being promoted here. It's not a matter of the people; it's a matter of the teaching (which is what doctrine means). There is way too much coziness with the Catholic church going on now with some evangelicals. They seem to be forgetting or overlooking some significant points of difference.

What really counts is what the Roman Catholic church teaches. You should order the official latest Catechism of the Catholic Church from Amazon. It's handy to have as a reference and helps in discussing these theological points.

 

[Marcia]

Cardinal Ratzinger. The Catholic Church has backed itself into something of a corner here; that said, I'll try to untangle the soteriological mess they've made. Firstly, the Catholic Church accepts that millions of Protestants don't receive what the CC regards as a valid Eucharist, yet the CC acknowledges that they are or at least may be (in so far as anyone can judge the salvation of another) saved...so the CC does not regard the Eucharist as essential for salvation per se. ++Ratzinger's (as he then was) words appear to contradict this, yet they are lifted (so he would say) directly from Jesus' words to the crowd in the Bread of Life Discourse in John 6; ++Ratzinger would say also that the primary addressees of his statement are Catholics, not non-Catholics, and that implicit in the statement is a warning to Catholics not to apostasise or become excommunicate. Thus the thrust of his message is pastoral rather than soteriolgical (unusual for him as he is a good theologian but not a great pastor and has found the adjustment he has had to make there as Pope difficult - as he himself would admit).

It does seem to be contradictory. If they are using John 6 they way they (mis)interpret it, then they would have to believe one has to partake of the Eucharist as practiced by them to be saved.

 

[Zenas]

I'm going to muddy the waters a little more on Tom Butler's query. If the Eucharist is necessary for salvation, how often must you receive it? Or to put it another way, how long can you go without receiving the Eucharist without endangering your soul? Normally Catholics are required to go to mass and receive the Eucharist on Sundays (including Saturday evening) and holy days of obligation (Christmas, etc.). Failure to so is considered a mortal sin. So is it a mortal sin to skip the Eucharist if your bishop told you not to receive it? How does it all pan out? Or have I sort of answered my own question?

 

[Tom Butler]

I'm going to muddy the waters a little more on Tom Butler's query. If the Eucharist is necessary for salvation, how often must you receive it? Or to put it another way, how long can you go without receiving the Eucharist without endangering your soul? Normally Catholics are required to go to mass and receive the Eucharist on Sundays (including Saturday evening) and holy days of obligation (Christmas, etc.). Failure to so is considered a mortal sin. So is it a mortal sin to skip the Eucharist if your bishop told you not to receive it? How does it all pan out? Or have I sort of answered my own question?

The same questions crossed my mind, as well. Maybe Lori can shed some light on the subject. Matt Black seems well-versed, too.

 

[lori4dogs]

The same questions crossed my mind, as well. Maybe Lori can shed some light on the subject. Matt Black seems well-versed, too.

Jesus doesn't say how often. Because of this the Church decided that the minimum would be once a year during Easter season.

 

[lori4dogs]

The same questions crossed my mind, as well. Maybe Lori can shed some light on the subject. Matt Black seems well-versed, too.

Well, you are right about attending mass. However, we are not required to receive Holy Communion when we do. (See above post)

In fact, we are told we are not to receive communion if we have un-confessed sin in our lives.

 

[lori4dogs]

I am also against attacking people; however, I think it is very important to confront problematic RC doctrine and speak out, especially when it's being promoted here. It's not a matter of the people; it's a matter of the teaching (which is what doctrine means). There is way too much coziness with the Catholic church going on now with some evangelicals. They seem to be forgetting or overlooking some significant points of difference.

What really counts is what the Roman Catholic church teaches. You should order the official latest Catechism of the Catholic Church from Amazon. It's handy to have as a reference and helps in discussing these theological points.

I don't know about others, but it is not my objective to promote Catholic doctrine but rather explain, as best I can, why I believe it. I agree with you completely that having a copy of the Catechism helps greatly when discussing theological points.

I must say, the evangelical churches (including the Baptist) in my neck of the world are very cozy with us Catholics. Quite a bit of joint ministry
(rescue mission, soup kitchen, etc.) happens around here.

I'm not suggesting we all sit around singing 'cum by ya' and ignore all differences in doctrine. We do share the same Lord and Savior Jesus Christ
and we should be desiring to work together for Him in ways without compromising our beliefs.

 

[lori4dogs]

Totally, off-topic

I just read on 'Stand Firm' (Anglican Blog) that the Episcopalians in Los Angeles just elected the first non-celibate lesbian bishop. Another nail in that coffin!

 

[Marcia]

I don't know about others, but it is not my objective to promote Catholic doctrine but rather explain, as best I can, why I believe it. I agree with you completely that having a copy of the Catechism helps greatly when discussing theological points.

I must say, the evangelical churches (including the Baptist) in my neck of the world are very cozy with us Catholics. Quite a bit of joint ministry
(rescue mission, soup kitchen, etc.) happens around here.

I'm not suggesting we all sit around singing 'cum by ya' and ignore all differences in doctrine. We do share the same Lord and Savior Jesus Christ
and we should be desiring to work together for Him in ways without compromising our beliefs.

By "cozying up" I didn't mean working in soup kitchens together or stuff like that. I am talking more theologically or practices, but that's another thread for another day.

 

[Marcia]

Totally, off-topic

I just read on 'Stand Firm' (Anglican Blog) that the Episcopalians in Los Angeles just elected the first non-celibate lesbian bishop. Another nail in that coffin!

Lori, I started a thread on this in News/Current Events.

 

[Darron Steele]

It depends on what you mean "Roman Catholic doctrine": I have heard Catholic preaching that is very similar to what I hear in other church groups. If it accords with Scripture, yeah it is Catholic doctrine I am in sympathy with. If you mean distinctive Roman Catholic precepts, no.

I am in sympathy with those who speak up for Catholic people when persons are trying to promote bad feelings against them. It does not matter whether a group of people is wrong or not; it is wrong to try to get bad feelings stirred up against those people.

However, as far as the distinctive precepts of Roman Catholicism, I cannot think of any that I agree with or would be in sympathy with.

I am also against attacking people; however, I think it is very important to confront problematic RC doctrine and speak out, especially when it's being promoted here. It's not a matter of the people; it's a matter of the teaching (which is what doctrine means). There is way too much coziness with the Catholic church going on now with some evangelicals. They seem to be forgetting or overlooking some significant points of difference.

What really counts is what the Roman Catholic church teaches. You should order the official latest Catechism of the Catholic Church from Amazon. It's handy to have as a reference and helps in discussing these theological points.

First, I have the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I have it in two languages.

I disagree that "What really counts is what the Roman Catholic church teaches." To me, what really counts is whether or not we are following Jesus Christ's teachings, and that takes priority.

I agree with you that there is merit to opposing erroneous Roman Catholic precepts. However, I do not adopt the viewpoint so common here that `anything goes' in doing that.

Criticism of Catholicism should be limited to those people who
a) give a darn for Jesus Christ's teachings on how we treat people, and
b) are willing to criticize Catholicism for its real precepts and those only, and
c) are willing to make the effort to learn what Catholics really believe and practice, and
d) do not hate Catholics for holding Catholic precepts.

Some people, not necessarily you, want to excuse vitriol against Catholics because `We need to expose Catholicism's errors.' Nonsense. Venting hateful feelings and trying to provoke hate against people is contrary to everything Jesus Christ is recorded teaching. How Jesus Christ told us to deal with our neighbors has no exemptions.

I noticed that you encouraged me to get a copy of the Catechism. That was unnecessary, as I have multiple copies in two languages. Still, you refer to the Catechism. That implies that you actually care what Catholicism really teaches. That is great. There are a lot of people who want to criticize Roman Catholicism but do not want to do so responsibly or in harmony with Jesus Christ's standards. You step up and try to do it right; good for you.

There is to be a balance. We should teach the truth and oppose error -- but we must do so in harmony with Jesus Christ's explicit teachings. Many people want to do the former but not the latter. If we are to attempt the former, we have to do both.

 

[Matt Black]

I'm going to muddy the waters a little more on Tom Butler's query. If the Eucharist is necessary for salvation, how often must you receive it? Or to put it another way, how long can you go without receiving the Eucharist without endangering your soul? Normally Catholics are required to go to mass and receive the Eucharist on Sundays (including Saturday evening) and holy days of obligation (Christmas, etc.). Failure to so is considered a mortal sin. So is it a mortal sin to skip the Eucharist if your bishop told you not to receive it? How does it all pan out? Or have I sort of answered my own question?

IIRC, the minimum requirement for the Eucharist - acc to the CC - is twice a year: Christmas and Easter.

 

[lori4dogs]

IIRC, the minimum requirement for the Eucharist - acc to the CC - is twice a year: Christmas and Easter.

This is where I got my information. Could be wrong.

"What Is the Easter Duty in Roman Catholicism?

By Scott P. Richert, About.com Guide
See More About:

* holy communion
* easter sunday
* catholic calendar
* confession
* pentecost sunday

Question: What Is the Easter Duty in Roman Catholicism?
Answer: Because of the central importance of Easter to the Christian faith, the Catholic Church requires that all Catholics who have made their First Communion receive the Holy Eucharist sometime during the Easter season, which lasts through Pentecost Sunday, 50 days after Easter. (They should also take part in the Sacrament of Penance before receiving this Easter communion.) This reception of the Eucharist is a visible sign of our faith and our participation in the Kingdom of God. Of course, we should receive Communion as frequently as possible; this "Easter Duty" is simply the minimum requirement set by the Church."

Never have been too concerned about 'minimum duty' when it comes to receiving Holy Communion. It is my desire to commune with my Lord in this wonderful way as often as I can.

 

[Johnv]

If you think it is, then why don't you convert to Catholicism?

The Baptist Dictrinctive of liberty doesn't require a person do so.

 

[Melanie]

for the Kennedy who was denied Communion would be because he/she has been deemed to be heretical....to support abortion is in contradiction to the Commandment "Thalt shoult not kill" and being a scandal to the Faith:flower:.

I would expect being a member of such a prominant family and a Catholic family in the USA....the bishop would have interviewed the person about their stance in public life on such an important issue.

 

[Marcia]

The Baptist Dictrinctive of liberty doesn't require a person do so.

Let him speak for himself. Can you read his mind? Let him answer.

 

[Matt Black]

On the whole "does it damn Catholics to not receive communion" issue, there are plenty of practising Catholics who don't and can't receive. Who are they? Those who are divorced and remarried. At no stage have I ever heard the Catholic Church call their salvation into question because of that.