I'd like to hear what many of you think about this link I found. I've been looking for a good Catholic newsgroup or forum, and it looks like I've found one at long last.

http://rmbowman.com/catholic/

I have a lot of questions and a lot of unresolved problems with the Catholic church.

Specifically, I am a non-denominational christian that follows the beliefs put forward by the United Catholic Church. I don't believe I should follow a specific denomination. I believe in "mere christianity" and that we should be guided by the words and actions of our Lord. I believe that through faith, we are saved (in this category, Jesus died for us, we should obey and follow God, and be filled with His grace, lead our lives through His grace, and love ourselves and each other) My new husband is a pure Roman Catholic, his father is a deacon in the church, and his mother is quite active as well.

I'm just worried about the potential for disunity that lies within our differences in belief. Particularly about the Eucharist. I believe that yes, the Eucharist IS the body and blood of Jesus, and that it plays a very important part in uniting the community but I don't believe it should be denied to those who HONESTLY SEEK IT. I think the RCC's teachings on the Eucharist are too strict.

What is the RCC's definition of community? If you're not a Catholic, but a christian with the same beliefs (sacraments, etc) (you just haven't been through RCIAA, nor do you want to call yourself a member of the Catholic community, but a member of the community of the Lord's people.) Should Eucharist be denied?

What about when Jesus actively seeks sinners - dines with them, lives with them, and talks with them... yes, he loved the sinners and not the sins, but would he have denied himself to those who were gentiles or Pharisees? Truly, if people saught him and saught truth...

I ramble, it is now approaching 3 AM, I have been in the scripture for about 3 hours now and my thoughts are getting jumbled.

I look forward to your responses! I have read through a lot of posts here, and I am quite delighted to find such a diverse and intelligent group.

-- Leah Huete (littleleah_@hotmail.com), May 28, 2003

Answers

If you are not in full communion with the Roman Catholic church then no you cannot receive communion. Who Can Receive Communion? The Holy Eucharist is the most important of the seven sacraments because, in this and in no other sacrament, we receive the very body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. Innumerable, precious graces come to us through the reception of Holy Communion.

Communion is an intimate encounter with Christ, in which we sacramentally receive Christ into our bodies, that we may be more completely assimilated into his. "The Eucharist builds the Church," as Pope John Paul II said (Redemptor Hominis 20). It deepens unity with the Church, more fully assimilating us into Christ (1 Cor. 12:13; CCC 1396).

The Eucharist also strengthens the individual because in it Jesus himself, the Word made flesh, forgives our venial sins and gives us the strength to resist mortal sin. It is also the very channel of eternal life: Jesus himself.

In John’s gospel, Jesus summarized the reasons for receiving Communion when he said:

"Truly, 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; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food, and my blood is real drink. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever" (John 6:53–58).

Because of the gravity of Jesus’ teaching on receiving the Eucharist, the Church encourages Catholics to receive frequent Communion, even daily Communion if possible, and mandates reception of the Eucharist at least once a year during the Easter season. Before going to Communion, however, there are several things one needs to know.

Catholics and Communion

The Church sets out specific guidelines regarding how we should prepare ourselves to receive the Lord’s body and blood in Communion. To receive Communion worthily, you must be in a state of grace, have made a good confession since your last mortal sin, believe in transubstantiation, observe the Eucharistic fast, and, finally, not be under an ecclesiastical censure such as excommunication.

First, you must be in a state of grace. "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup" (1 Cor. 11:27–28). This is an absolute requirement which can never be dispensed. To receive the Eucharist without sanctifying grace in your soul profanes the Eucharist in the most grievous manner.

A mortal sin is any sin whose matter is grave and which has been committed willfully and with knowledge of its seriousness. Grave matter includes, but is not limited to, murder, receiving or participating in an abortion, homosexual acts, having sexual intercourse outside of marriage or in an invalid marriage, and deliberately engaging in impure thoughts (Matt. 5:28–29). Scripture contains lists of mortal sins (for example, 1 Cor. 6:9–10 and Gal. 5:19–21). For further information on what constitutes a mortal sin, see the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Out of habit and out of fear of what those around them will think if they do not receive Communion, some Catholics, in a state of mortal sin, choose to go forward and offend God rather than stay in the pew while others receive the Eucharist. The Church’s ancient teaching on this particular matter is expressed in the Didache, an early Christian document written around A.D. 70, which states: "Whosoever is holy [i.e., in a state of sanctifying grace], let him approach. Whosoever is not, let him repent" (Didache 10).

Second, you must have been to confession since your last mortal sin. The Didache witnesses to this practice of the early Church. "But first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one" (Didache 14).

The 1983 Code of Canon Law indicates that the same requirement applies today. "A person who is conscious of a grave sin is not to . . . receive the body of the Lord without prior sacramental confession unless a grave reason is present and there is no opportunity of confessing; in this case the person is to be mindful of the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition, including the intention of confessing as soon as possible" (CIC 916).

The requirement for sacramental confession can be dispensed if four conditions are fulfilled: (1) there must be a grave reason to receive Communion (for example, danger of death), (2) it must be physically or morally impossible to go to confession first, (3) the person must already be in a state of grace through perfect contrition, and (4) he must resolve to go to confession as soon as possible.

Third, you must believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation. "For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself" (1 Cor. 11:29). Transubstantiation means more than the Real Presence. According to transubstantiation, the bread and wine are actually transformed into the actual body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ, with only the appearances of bread and wine remaining. This is why, at the Last Supper, Jesus held what appeared to be bread and wine, yet said: "This is my body. . . . This is my blood" (Mark 14:22-24, cf. Luke 22:14-20). If Christ were merely present along side bread and wine, he would have said "This contains my body. . . . This contains my blood," which he did not say.

Fourth, you must observe the Eucharistic fast. Canon law states, "One who is to receive the most Holy Eucharist is to abstain from any food or drink, with the exception only of water and medicine, for at least the period of one hour before Holy Communion" (CIC 919 §1). Elderly people, those who are ill, and their caretakers are excused from the Eucharistic fast (CIC 191 §3). Priests and deacons may not dispense one obligated by the Eucharistic fast unless the bishop has expressly granted such power to them (cf. CIC 89).

Finally, one must not be under an ecclesiastical censure. Canon law mandates, "Those who are excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion" (CIC 915).

Provided they are in a state of grace and have met the above requirements, Catholics should receive the Eucharist frequently (cic 898).

Other Christians and Communion

The guidelines for receiving Communion, which are issued by the U.S. bishops and published in many missalettes, explain, "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’ (John 17:21).

"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. . . . "

Scripture is clear that partaking of the Eucharist is among the highest signs of Christian unity: "Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread" (1 Cor. 10:17). For this reason, it is normally impossible for non- Catholic Christians to receive Holy Communion, for to do so would be to proclaim a unity to exist that, regrettably, does not.

Another reason that many non-Catholics may not ordinarily receive Communion is for their own protection, since many reject the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Scripture warns that it is very dangerous for one not believing in the Real Presence to receive Communion: "For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died" (1 Cor. 11:29–30).

Possible exceptions

However, there are circumstances when non-Catholics may receive Communion from a Catholic priest. This is especially the case when it comes to Eastern Orthodox Christians, who share the same faith concerning the nature of the sacraments:

"Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the oriental churches which do not have full Communion with the Catholic Church, if they ask on their own for the sacraments and are properly disposed. This holds also for members of other churches, which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition as the oriental churches as far as these sacraments are concerned" (CIC 844 § 3).

Christians in these churches should, of course, respect their own church’s guidelines regarding when it would be permissible for them to receive Communion in a Catholic church.

The circumstances in which Protestants are permitted to receive Communion are more limited, though it is still possible for them to do so under certain specifically defined circumstances.

Canon law explains the parameters: "If the danger of death is present or other grave necessity, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or the conference of bishops, Catholic ministers may licitly administer these sacraments to other Christians who do not have full Communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and on their own ask for it, provided they manifest Catholic faith in these sacraments and are properly disposed" (CIC 844 § 4).

It is important to remember that, under the rubrics specified above, even in those rare circumstances when non-Catholics are able to receive Communion, the same requirements apply to them as to Catholics.

Non-Christians and Communion

The U.S. bishops’ guidelines for receiving Communion state, "We also welcome to this celebration those who do not share our faith in Jesus Christ. While we cannot admit them to Communion, we ask them to offer their prayers for the peace and the unity of the human family."

Because they have not received baptism, the gateway to the other sacraments, non-Christians cannot receive Communion. However, in emergency situations, they can be received into the Church via baptism, even if no priest is present, and an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may bring them Communion as Viaticum.

How to receive Communion

Communicants may receive Communion either standing or kneeling. "With regard to the manner of going to Communion the faithful can receive it either kneeling or standing, in accordance with the norms laid down by the episcopal conference: ‘When the faithful communicate kneeling, no other sign of reverence towards the Blessed Sacrament is required, since kneeling is itself a sign of adoration. When they receive Communion standing, it is strongly recommended that, coming up in procession, they should make a sign of reverence before receiving the Sacrament" (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Inaestimabile Donum 11).

Communion may be received either in the hand or on the tongue. Around the year A.D. 390, Cyril of Jerusalem indicated that the early Church practiced Communion in the hand when he instructed his audience: "Approaching, therefore, come not with thy wrists extended, or thy fingers open; but make thy left hand as if a throne for thy right, which is on the eve of receiving the King. And having hallowed thy palm, receive the body of Christ, saying after it, ‘Amen.’ Then after thou hast with carefulness hallowed thine eyes by the touch of the holy body, partake thereof; giving heed lest thou lose any of it; for what thou losest is a loss to thee as it were from one of thine own members. For tell me, if anyone gave thee gold dust, wouldst thou not with all precaution keep it fast, being on thy guard against losing any of it, and suffering loss?" (Catechetical Lectures 23:22).

The Congregation of the Sacraments and Divine Worship permitted the U.S. Bishops’ Conference to authorize reception of Communion in the hand on July 25, 1977, provided the local bishop implements the practice in his diocese. Once implemented, the option to receive Communion either in the hand or on the tongue always remains with the communicant. No priest, deacon, acolyte, or extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may refuse a communicant Communion on the tongue. Likewise, once the local bishop has introduced Communion in the hand, none may refuse a communicant Communion in the hand (except when Communion is being given by intinction, in which case it must be given on the tongue).

Finally, after you have received Communion, it is appropriate to stay after Mass and thank Jesus for coming to you in the Holy Eucharist. The Church mandates that: "The faithful are to be recommended not to omit to make a proper thanksgiving after Communion. They may do this during the celebration with a period of silence, with a hymn, psalm or other song of praise, or also after the celebration, if possible by staying behind to pray for a suitable time" (Inaestimabile Donum 17).

After receiving Jesus into one’s own body and being drawn more closely into his, how could one do any less? hope this helps .....

-- Andrew (drewmeister7@aol.com), May 28, 2003.

Hi ANdrew, Thought Id post an acknowledgement to your excellent answer as it is a great online resource. Im sure you werent trying to pass it off as your own just thought Id clarrify for Leah. Cheers :-)

http://www.catholic.com/library/Who_Can_Receive_Communion.asp

Hi Leah and welcome to the Catholic forum!I would say that sadly there is more than the "potential for disunity" in the Christian faith, it is the most splintered and divided religious faith on the planet. This is a cause of great pain to all true Christians and while Christ intended ALL Christians to be united in the Catholic Church it is not all doom and gloom.

Remeber we can not see Gods plan for us or even attempot to even begin to understnad him. Here is Pope John Paul II on the issue of disunity,

"The more positive answer is inspired by trust in the One who is capable of bringing forth good even from evil, from human weakness. Could it not be that these divisions have also been a path continually leading the Church to discover the untold wealth contained in Christ's Gospel and in the redemption accomplished by Christ? Perhaps all this wealth would not have come to light otherwise."

Ive got to run but here are a few more thoughts from Pope John PAul on the problem of disunity

"The time must come for the love that unites us to be manifested!... Mutual respect is a prerequisite for authentic ecumenism... I entrust to you as your responsibility the truth, the great truth of God, meant for man's salvation, but this truth cannot be preached or put into practice except by loving." Veritatem facere in caritate (To live the truth in love; cf. Eph 4:15); this is what is always necessary."

God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), May 28, 2003.

In this lies my very problem.

Do catholics believe that they are the only christians who are getting into heaven?

I'll leave it at that, and we'll see what comes up. I'm sure you realize where I'm going with this.

-- Leah Huete (littleleah_@hotmail.com), May 28, 2003.

Dear Leah:
You bring up a question of immense importance. A few months back, this forum discussed the matter of worthily receiving Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. I think I recall saying then, unconfessed Catholics and/or non-Catholic attendees were all forbidden to take Holy Communion. --You see, it's not only somebody from a different faith who may not. A Catholic may not; if he/she isn't receiving in a state of sanctifying grace.

Sanctifying grace is not discussed adequately today. This is the grace which makes us saints. You are a saint, immediately after your baptism; since baptism removes all stain of sin, however slight, and also Original Sin. If you die right after baptism, your soul is raised up to heaven immediately.

Sanctifiying grace is necessary for the communicant, not because he's Catholic, per se; but because he/she is in sanctifying grace, cleansed of ALL SIN, the very condition spiritually as a newly baptised soul. No one else is free to receive the Body and Blood of the Lord.

Saint Paul clearly teaches that in 1 Cor: 11-:27 --

To be in this grace, you must be free of all sin. That means, having confessed all mortal sin to the proper minister of the Church, a priest. Venial, or minor sins, are forgiven you upon making an act of contrition privately and being deeply sorry for all sins.

So, unless one is Catholic, how is he/she to confess in the sacrament of Reconciliation? He can't. He might make an act of contrition; only not just this, in case of mortal sins.

Without sanctifying grace, we offend Jesus coming to receive Him. Please, Leah; don't make the mistake of thinking this is purely Catholic judgmentalism. It isn't. If a Catholic receives communion in a state of sin, he is damned. No one else may do it either, if this is the case. It's Our Lord's own Body and Blood. Not a ticket to ''feel good''.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 28, 2003.

So in effect, all other churches out there are not a part of the church of Christ. ONLY the catholic church. Therefore all other churches who preach part of the truth are not worthy to recieve Jesus and therefore not worthy to enter the kingdom of heaven. Fascinating.

Yet I find it interesting that in Jesus's lifetime, he wasn't a part of any of the presiding groups of Jews at the time (not the Pharisees, nor Sadducees, Herodians, or Esseres). Each group presented part of the truth, yet not the whole truth - but their own version of what they thought it took to enter the kingdom of heaven. How can I be sure that the Catholic church is not just another "group". I'm aware that man is not justifid by works of law but only faith in Jesus, and yes, spiritual laws are different - but how can one know the difference between spiritual law and law made by man? Well, the bible says something about coming to truth through prayer, fasting, and the grace of God. I have done these. I try to live my life as a simple churchgoer, yet time and time again, this subject returns to me full force.

The term church - ecclesia - means "the called out", and based on the original church of Christ established in 33AD, I am a member of the church of christ. Yet, I am denied communion, a very essential part of spiritual life as others here have proven, because I am not a Catholic. (Because Catholics claim to be THE churh of Christ). Yes, Christ unites Eph 2:14. The blood of Christ unites Eph 2:13 - the descision to deny the healing and uniting power of Christ seems like an important division to me. Jesus did not deny himself to sinners. He healed sinners. They were sinners before they came to Him.

The Eucharist is such an important part of Christian life, that I don't believe it should be denied to other Christians. "It would imply a unity that wasn't there?" I think there is indeed unity, but on that point, there is a lot of "human law" that gets in the way of TRUE Christian unity.

-- Leah Huete (littleleah_@hotmail.com), May 28, 2003.

Leah;
Let's just say you are allowing a personal view to presume some kind of authority. No-- No one can keep you away, if you truly wish to be ONE with Jesus Christ. Good people are all eligible for His love.

All good people are not in the True Church, however. The Church is set out in Christ's parables as a sheepfold. That is her life while in the world. The Head Shepherd is Christ.

Her earthly Shepherd is Christ's holy apostle Saint Peter. You see this very well stated in John's gospel; chapter 21, :15.

This is a Church from the very first days. No rival churches. One flock only, with her shepherds, the sheep (her faithful) inside that fold, kept out of danger.

Jesus called Himself a Good Shepherd. He described one of his most loving roles, going out to the wilderness, to find his lost sheep. He returns with it draped over His shoulders after being rescued. Where does Jesus return with His lost sheep? To the One fold, where all his sheep live.

You are a sheep and all protestants are; who belongs to Jesus. You are baptised, I presume. But you've been taken out of the sheepfold. You have drifted away. He wants you to return. Until you do, you will not benefit from all His grace; and this you only find entire WITHIN the fold. The sacraments, by which Christ channels into His Church all the grace He merited for us on the cross. We need the grace to live as true Christians. It is NOT to be found in any other church in the world, Leah. There can only be one fold. He said so; and He's the Shepherd.

What you can do is start investigating your religious background. You are already with us here; all you need is to start learning true doctrines left to the Church by the apostles. They are absolutely genuine. We have the Holy Spirit to count on for that. It's for sure your ancestors were in the Church centuries before you.

Re-enter Christ's fold. Here is your call to conversion.

You are not the first to convert to the true faith, Leah. Many brilliant men and women before you have made the journey home. Your happiest times are ahead of you. Just let His grace bring you where He wanted you all along.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 28, 2003.

I'm afraid that I couldn't, in good conscience, convert to a group that I believe is doing something contrary to what Christ wanted. Particurlarly out of peer pressure.

I should ask the same of you. Why don't you re-examine the traditions and doctrines that make up your faith. Look at the original church - how it was conducted, what they did, how they did it. Look at the life of Jesus. How do you know that I was not brought here to do God's work? What if we both are? I hope you are not so stuck in your laws and traditions so that if God was indeed calling - you could hear Him. I'm not asking you to convert. Merely to think about it.

-- Leah Bloomfield (littleleah_@hotmail.com), May 29, 2003.

You've answered honestly. Yet you wouldn't let all your preconceived ideas about the Church keep you out, if you knew all the truth.

I wouldn't stay in a church I thought was contrary to what Jesus Christ wanted, me neither!

There are sadly, many Catholics who remain such because the Church simply pleases them; they give her lip service, and don't investigate her doctrines & Tradition. Or, some disregard our basis for Catholicism and place a child-like faith in Jesus without committing to any knowledge of it. In this forum, you will not find those Catholics. We know the Church intimately.

You have to underestimate us (me) to say: ''Why don't you re-examine the traditions and doctrines that make up your faith. Look at the original Church - How it was conducted, what they did, how they did it. Look at the life of Jesus.''

Leah; doctrine, apostolic Tradition, apologetics, prayer and worship, suffering for love of Jesus Christ, real suffering-- meditation, reading of many, many books-- I myself have read the life of Christ with immense concentration and love.

All these are present and at hand to support our faith against all challenges.

It is the newcomer to Catholicism who must try harder. Most of all if this soul is motivated by love for God. Because, if she is, the Church will become her long-lost mother. She'll be the one you expected in your quest, a refuge from the world and always steady as a rock. Your love for Him, and her love and comfort for your soul will dovetail in perfect, unshakeable faith. How do I know?

I've experienced it. It fits all ocassions, breaks down all barriers, confounds the devil and his false prophets. Remember; I stated you are to be completely motivated by love for God. Not love for past studies, your denominations, old interpretations of scripture, or knowledge gained in another church. Only the love which brings us to Jesus. Approach Him first; and pray for His grace and his inspiration. That's my advice as a brother.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 29, 2003.

Leah

if i sin leading to lack of sanctifying grace (see post above), i must confess or abstain from the (Consecrated) Body and Blood of Christ. ditto the Pope. ditto every Pope before that. this rule applies to everyone. you are a heretic. and therefore you must reconcile with the Church before you can receive Eucharist at our Mass. you might not like it. but this is an objective truth. our personal opinions are irrelevant. they always have been and always will be. in fact, it is when personal interpretation of Scripture (or guessing as to what Jesus might have liked or not) get in the way that disunity arises. that is why there are 25,000+ protestant denomintions: some allow divorce, some permit homosexuality, some will regard abortion as OK in certain circumstances,....... the Catholic Church is the guardian of Christian morality. protestantism, if you like, represents the slow regression of humanity back to Roman immorality. project far enough out and we will be back to a world of gladiator fights and buggering young boys - and some protestant denomination somewhere or other will say that its all OK - and many people will think it Christian because it "feels OK to them". at that same point in time our Church will be preaching what it preaches today and what it began preaching 2,000 years ago. objective, inviolable, steady Truth.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 29, 2003.

This is mainly for Eugene.

What is the foundation of your truth? How is it you claim your truth is the truth of God? What makes your church the one true church of God? How firmly is your church intertwined with her members?

Inevitably, we must all make choices that lead us to where we are. How is it you all came to make the choices that led you to Roman Catholicism? I myself have seen God work His work in many lives, Roman Catholic and non. It seems to me that God is just as present within protestant groups. I have seen God's powerful work done in non- RC groups. That it is not merely a "ray of truth" in a group in "imperfect communion" with God. The original meaning of catholic is "universal". "According to the whole" Not according to the SOME.

My concerns lie here. http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_hirc.htm

It seems to me that the early history of the church was not a simple line of apostolic succession, but a mishmash of this group and that group - I suppose all of them proclaiming their version of the truth - Such were the differences in the first century, throughout the passing of time to the present. Such were the differences in the first century, and throughout the passing of time. What happened to simplicity of heart?

However, I admit - I am young, I still have much to learn, and hopefully in my journey I will not close my mind to change. I have not made my mind up yet. My heart is open. So show me your way. What is required of me to be a Roman Catholic?

-- Leah Huete (littleleah_@hotmail.com), May 29, 2003.

Good post, Ian;
Here's a clip I see eye to eye with, ''. . .therefore you must reconcile with the Church before you can receive Eucharist at Mass. you might not like it. but this is an objective truth. our personal opinions are irrelevant. they always have been and always will be. in fact, it is when personal interpretation of Scripture (or guessing as to what Jesus might have liked or not) get in the way that disunity arises.''

I like to add to your thought the reason we have unity in the one Church. It's not because we submit to iron rule; not for the love of long traditions necessarily.

It is mainly because in the Church we encounter Our Glorious Saviour in Person. The holy tabernacle is no less than the ''tent'' amidst His people under which God the Son chooses to live! Emmanuel; God with us--

It's in faith we perceive this truth; and how is one to be a Catholic without total, unshakeable faith? Ian is quite right. We have our guardian of Christian truth & morality. Never-changing. We have also the holy Bride of Christ; a mother to us; His Church. In our souls she gives Him children; the numberless Catholic family of believers. Generation after new generation, the souls she gains in this world for Christ. That is why He loves her and that's why He founded His Church. That's why He abides in her forever.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 29, 2003.

Dear Leah,
Did you have a chance to see Ian's post; and afterward the last one I sent; and my emphasis on faith? Let me give you some time to meditate on these last posts. I want them to have some effect before travelling on to what you asked this last time. But I WILL answer you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 29, 2003.

I feel as though some of Leah's questions aren't being directly answered. The first guy was pretty complete (yes, I realize he got it from a website), but I feel like some of the other posts are going straight to conversion.

Here's an application of the first question and the first answer: Can non-Catholics who share the core Catholic beliefs receive communion? Can someone who's been baptized in the Church, who doesn't have mortal sins on her soul, and who does honestly believe in transubstantiation, but does NOT attend services at one of the oriental churches receive communion? If not, why not? She shares the core beliefs, but has her own reasons for not labelling herself as Catholic, so what's wrong?

She meets all of the criteria set out, so what's stopping her? Not being part of the One Church is not a valid answer, because no where does it say she has to be part of said church. She simply has to share their beliefs.

The second point is some of the statements I see do not seem totally grounded. I agree that faith and prayer should be one of the primary tools for finding Truth, however logical arguments are critical as well. The Catholic Church recognizes this in primacy of conscience, which takes precedent over *ANYTHING ELSE* the Church preaches. So while some answers are certainly complete (not always with the point clearly stated, but complete), perhaps more concrete backing should be added.

Scriptual statements are nice, logical progressions are better. Because the Church said so is not a valid answer, because that violates the premise behind primacy of conscience.

Lastly, how is personal interpretation of the bible wrong? I was under the impression we threw out the idea that individuals shouldn't read the bible on their own by Vatican I. If we do not allow for our own reason and understanding, gifts God gave us for darn good reason, to guide us, we'll all be stuck in whatever church we were born in (because they all say 'we are right, believe in us', and if that's enough logical reasoning then that's that).

Also, Ian, try to calm down a bit. I don't want to be mean, but you came off as more than a little offensive. Calling people a heretic is usually not the best method to show them love. And I really can't imagine Lutherans taking over the world and buggering young boys (in fact, your mentioning such a possibility seems to point out the egg on our own faces, doesn't it?)

-- Marc Huete (potato_king@hotmail.com), May 29, 2003.

Marc:
Just a single item;
Private interpretation of scriptures is not always wrong. I could interpret a verse in Luke saying, Jesus was a babe in swaddling clothes born in a manger in Bethlehem. So, what's so hard to understand? Nine point five out of ten readers can interpret that.

But it's in biblical accounts, or some passages, or in the misapplication of certain beliefs based on a verse: This is where the Church is our final appeal to truth. Because she relies not on man's wisdom, it's on the Holy Spirit. So, controversy is where private interpretations are insufficient or not acceptable. They rely on an outside authority, somebody's considered opinion. This is what's called sola scriptura, and it's NOT scripturally sound. I want to try to address some of Leah's questions. It will probably take a few hours, since I'm going to be occupied for most of this afternoon. I hope she'll be watching; and you might as well. No need to arm yourself for any quarrels. Just wait & see.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 29, 2003.

Marc

i am very happy to await eugene's response to Leah. i will only say the following, addressed to you:-

"Calling people a heretic is usually not the best method to show them love."

All protestants are heretics. Luther was a heretic, Henry XIII was a heretic, and so on. If the truth offends, maybe you want me to start telling lies? OK, protestants are not heretics. is that correct?

"And I really can't imagine Lutherans taking over the world and buggering young boys"

i can, but i did not actually suggest that. so your follow-up comment comes straight back at you --->>> "in fact, your mentioning such a possibility seems to point out the egg on our own faces, doesn't it?"

as regards the rest of the points you make:-

"Can non-Catholics who share the core Catholic beliefs receive communion?" SEE ABOVE. NOT OUTSIDE OF VERY EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES.

"Can someone who's been baptized in the Church, who doesn't have mortal sins on her soul, and who does honestly believe in transubstantiation, but does NOT attend services at one of the oriental churches receive communion?" THIS QUESTION MAKES NO SENSE.

"If not, why not?" SEE ABOVE.

"She shares the core beliefs, but has her own reasons for not labelling herself as Catholic, so what's wrong?" SEE ABOVE. WHAT ARE "CORE BELIEFS"?!? ANY PROTESTANT COULD CLAIM TO HAVE "CORE BELIEFS".

"She meets all of the criteria set out, so what's stopping her?" SEE ABOVE.

"Not being part of the One Church is not a valid answer, because no where does it say she has to be part of said church." THIS IS PART OF LEAH'S CONFUSION IN THIS THREAD. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WILL REFUSE A PROTESTANT THE EUCHARIST BECAUSE AS A HERETIC HE/SHE IS IN MORTAL SIN -- BUT THE CHURCH DOES NOT DENY THAT A PROTESTANT MIGHT ACHIEVE SALVATION (THROUGH THE SELF-SAME CHURCH). DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS POINT?

"...logical arguments are critical as well. The Catholic Church recognizes this in primacy of conscience, which takes precedent over *ANYTHING ELSE* the Church preaches."

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

"Scriptual statements are nice, logical progressions are better."

DITTO

"Because the Church said so is not a valid answer, because that violates the premise behind primacy of conscience. "

WRONG. "BECAUSE THE CHURCH SAYS SO" IS THE PERFECT ANSWER. WE ARE PROTECTED FROM DOCTRINAL ERROR -- BY THE HOLY SPIRIT. THE CHURCH HAS NOT ERRED, AND NEVER WILL ERR, WHEN IT COMES TO MATTERS OF DOCTRINE. MY CONSCIENCE MAY TELL ME THAT IT IS OK FOR ME TO USE A CONDOM OR TO LET MY WIFE HAVE AN ABORTION; BUT I KNOW THAT IT IS A SIN BECAUSE THE CHURCH HAS SAID THUS.

"Lastly, how is personal interpretation of the bible wrong? I was under the impression we threw out the idea that individuals shouldn't read the bible on their own by Vatican I. If we do not allow for our own reason and understanding, gifts God gave us for darn good reason, to guide us, we'll all be stuck in whatever church we were born in (because they all say 'we are right, believe in us', and if that's enough logical reasoning then that's that). "

SEE THE POSTS ABOVE. CATHOLICS ARE ALLOWED TO, AND SHOULD, READ THE BIBLE -- ON A FREQUENT BASIS; BUT WE SHOULD BE WARY OF ARRIVING AT OUR OWN PERSONAL INTERPRETATION OF THE MEANING OF ITS WORDS. AS HAS BEEN STATED ABOVE, PERSONAL INTERPRETATION EXPLAINS WHY THERE ARE OVER 25,000 SEPARATE PROTESTANT DENOMINATIONS. THERE IS BUT ONE (HOLY,CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC) CHURCH -- BECAUSE AS INDIVIDUALS WE HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THE CHURCH'S TEACHING. YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS ANYWAY. IF YOUR PERSONAL INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE COINCIDES WITH THE CHURCH'S TEACHING, THAT IS FORTUNATE HAPPENSTANCE, NOT A TRIBUTE TO YOUR OWN POWERS OF CONSTRUCTION.

Marc, i mean no harm; but you are sounding like a protestant. correct me if i am wrong; and forgive me if the style of presentation is, per se, an offence.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 29, 2003.

and MArc

the Uppercase was intended to distinguish post from response but now looks like shouting. it is not shouting. apologies

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 29, 2003.

Dear Leah,

Questions ONE--Two--Three: What is the foundation of your truth? --How is it you claim your truth is the truth of God? --What makes your church the one true Church of God?

My truth is not a fair question; I believe a revealed truth, which the holy apostles preached in the Catholic Church (the first Church of all Christian history); and promulgated to the world. Later it was given written form; and also preserved in apostolic Tradition. It is called the Holy Gospel.

As the permanent Word, it is our New Testament. As the Word in Sacred Tradition, it's much more than just the written word, (Holy Bible) & preserved for us in the Catholic Church in material coming from the earliest disciples and fathers. Not all this material is inspired, necessarily; but it is all holy and was learned at the feet of the first disciples of Jesus Christ. In other words, genuine. We acquired the Creeds of the apostles in this form, as well as all Church doctrine and tenets of the apostle's faith. It is God's truth in the world.

The Catholic Church has to be the one, universal, or Catholic Church. Christ founded it on His apostle Peter. No other Church anywhere has been founded by Jesus Christ. No other church even CLAIMS so. Together with this indisputable fact, we have surviving testimonies of hundreds and many more saints and martyrs of heroic virtue. They were all baptised in this Church, and died for their faith. Anyone who has seen the catacombs beneath Rome can learn firthand at the tombs of her martyrs how genuine is the Church's claim to apostolic origin.

The first Pope, Saint Peter; and Saint Paul who evangelised the gentiles, were both martyred in Rome. Their disciples are also resting in Roman tombs and catacombs. Among these are those who succeeded Peter as bishops of Rome, or Popes. This is all historically recorded and verifiable. ''How firmly is your Church intertwined with her members?'' As the One mystical body of Christ, no less. ''How is it you all came to make the choices that led you to Roman Catholicism?'' This answer varies according to every soul. I am baptised in the church as an infant, and faithful all my life. I'm now 65; and, as you can see by this correspondence, entwined. very well.

I myself have seen God work His work in many lives, Roman Catholic and non. It seems to me that God is just as present within protestant groups. I have seen God's powerful work done in non- RC groups. That it is not merely a "ray of truth" in a group in "imperfect communion" with God.

That may be so, Leah. You still owe God the loyalty of any soul who calls herself Christian to return to the true Church. The church of your blessed ancestors and all the saints.

''. . . the early history of the church was not a simple line of apostolic succession, but a mishmash of this group and that group - I suppose all of them proclaiming their version of the truth - Such were the differences in the first century, throughout the passing of time to the present.'' --I must tell you this is simply your opinion. It's not so.

The Church is divinely founded and supported by Christ's own promises. He sent her the holy Spirit; as guarantee of His truths. No error is coming, nor has it come by way of His church. I refer to doctrine, spiritual direction, and evangelization.

''What happened to simplicity of heart?'' We live to serve God. Every other motive in this life is secondary to this one. What could be simpler, if the faithful live the Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 29, 2003.

Yes leah you are correct i wish i could word things as goos as that.Thank you i was not the author just the messenger.Peace be with you.. http://www.catholic.com/library/Who_Can_Receive_Communion.asp

-- Andrew (drewmeister7@aol.com), May 29, 2003.

I simply am amazed at all the pietitious gibberish rattled on about on this site. Can you imagine the Poor Carpenter of Nazareth being so verbose and legalistic? A pox on all of you! Everywhere people are dying, suffering, atarving, longing for the Word. I say give communion to ANYONE, even the unrepentant sinner, if he should so choose. You people make me want to vomit

-- Michael Fulk (strangewarrior@waerglink.net), May 29, 2003.

Everywhere people vomit about gibberish rattled on this site. Everywhere vomityou imagine the Poor tarving, unrepentant sinner Can I simply am amazed at all the pietitious vomit gibberish rattled Carpenter I on about on on this site. Can you vomit the Poor Carpenter of Nazareth being so verbose and Everywhere people ? A pox Carpenter, pietitious if he should Everywhere people peoplepeople You! You Carpenter people make me want to vomit on all of you! Everywhere people are dying, suffering, a tarving, longing for the Word. I say give to ANYONE being so verbose , even the simply unrepentant sinner, if he should so choose communion . You people make Michael Fulk rattled.

--

Look out, he's loose.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 30, 2003.

there are two cases we must now address...

should communion be given to everyone due to the moral condition of the world?

NO. the moral condition of the world is why communion is exclusive. it would be a slap in the face to give the body and blood of our beloved Lord to some sod whos going to sit there and go "oh, this bread has no flavor."

without knowledge and faith in its meaning, someone has no understanding of what it is to take communion. we belittle our own communion, and hence our Lord, to give it to those who dont value it.

should a non-catholic who shares church beliefs such as transubstantiation but does not attend catholic service, nor allow themselves to be called catholic be allowed to take communion?

again, the answer is no. two reasons. first, mass is an integral part of the catholic faith. hence, to intentionally miss mass is a sin. therefore to not attend mass every week, but to want communion is a bit of a paradox.

second, you are in denial of the faith... "and they stood around the forum and someone said, 'arent you leah, a catholic and good follower of God?' and leah said, 'no, i am not she' and then the Cock crowed and leah realized she was denying her Lord"(little paul 14:10).

okay, so that was just some humor, but the truth is you are DENYING your membership to the church of your Lord. if you are denying membership to the church, why should you be allowed to partake of the most sacred tradition? why are you afraid of being called catholic? are you afraid people will ridicule you? Jesus gives us blessing for bearing scorn in his name!!!

you want just the faith, without having to walk to hard road that Jesus told us we would face. there is a narrow path, leah, and your declaring that you arent on it, when you have the beliefs that would allow you to walk down it. if you fully believe in the tenets of the catholic church, pick up the cross and walk with us, although it wont be an easy road.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 30, 2003.

What about people who accept the doctrine of the Church, but not the political statements of the Church? The doctrine has not changed in 2000 years, yet the political position has changed frequently, and has often led to some truly terrible tragedies. Allowing the oriental churches to partake in communion is along those lines, because we share the exact same doctrine, but fall under different heirarchies. However, allowing oriental churches and no one else is a broad generalization. Could someone in good faith join the Church if she feels it is currently supporting something which is sinful, for instance slavery, racism etc (these are historical examples, I know the RCC doesn't own slaves)? And if not, why is she then barred from communion?

Little comments... Eugene, your last comment is garbled, you may want to repost (or just leave it up as an abstract comment for us to understand on our own). I'd also like to add that what you're putting up is very interesting and I'm glad you're contributing.

Ian, the reason I say using the term 'heretic' is unloving is because it may be seen as offensive. I know of a particular word starting with N which does, technically, refer to people of African origin. I, however, refrain from using it out of respect for them. While the 'h' word isn't used often enough to get it's own little place in 'naughty words we don't call people', it still comes across as an angry and unloving term. It degrades people unnecessarily. You don't need to lie, but perhaps use a little more tact.

-- Marc Huete (potato_king@hotmail.com), May 30, 2003.

Yes; I'm so sorry this morning. I couldn't resist.

Lord, be merciful to me, a sinner.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 30, 2003.

Hello, Marc,
You mustn't feel any injury at being excluded from the Sacrament. As Ian very rightly expressed it, even the Popes, every one, were commanded by God to approach the Body and Blood of Our Lord with all humility and in a state of sanctifying grace. That can mean (for Leah) letting every sin of her life be absolved by the Church (in the person of her priest.)

In past ages as great a saint as Augustine was barred from the Eucharist, being at first a Catechumen. The Mass had a short segment at the beginning then, for those initiates. Only after fully coming into the Church were they admitted to receive Him.

Once more, read the words of Saint Paul in 1st Cor 11, :23-29 /

All of your objections are without merit in the present state. But they show a clear willingness to be on the side of Jesus Christ. That's already a very significant grace. It ought to bring Leah & you to make the obvious decision. I understood you were already a Catholic, but not practicing it justly? If so, take this new opportunity by assisting in her conversion. You will be rewarded eternally for that work of spiritual mercy.

If you keep on objecting, as if you mean there's no lacking now in your spirituality, all you insist on is remaining in a heretical Church. This is simply objective fact, as Ian stated; not a slur.

You may recall the wonderful Oscar-winning film, ''A Man For All Seasons''. Sir (Saint) Thomas More confronted his daughter's suitor for his heresy. He plainly stated, ''Everything else-- your career, your honorable family, your personal merits, are just right, for marriage into our family. But my daughter can't marry you as long as you're a heretic.''

In those days, all of Britain was threatened in the faith; and the choice to follow Henry VIII or remain Catholics was great & immediate. Saint Thomas More was martyred in the Tower of London for his refusal to deny his faith. Later, the other man, his son-in-law, realised the danger he'd been in. His sainted father-in-law saved him from reneging; and he died a Catholic too. How? Because he was confronted, informed to his face, of the sin of heresy.

So, all we do here in using the correct term, heretic, is offer to Leah that same grace. To love Our Lord perfectly in the Church He founded for us all.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 30, 2003.

Leah;
You could insist perhaps, that no heretical relations are found in the ''United Catholic Church''. I think you have identified it as your church. You claim to have ''mere Christianity'' as your aim.

I'm not up on this denomination, ''United''. Are the members just united in one assembly of mere Christians? How was it founded? And the Catholic faith; what has caused you to reject a faith like ours, for a mere imitation?

After all. It seems you have no problem accepting a Blessed Sacrament. So it can't be for doctrines. The Sacrament is Christ's doctrine par excellence. Let us in on some basic differences you have with the Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 30, 2003.

Marc

"Ian, the reason I say using the term 'heretic' is unloving is because it may be seen as offensive. I know of a particular word starting with N which does, technically, refer to people of African origin. I, however, refrain from using it out of respect for them. While the 'h' word isn't used often enough to get it's own little place in 'naughty words we don't call people', it still comes across as an angry and unloving term. It degrades people unnecessarily. You don't need to lie, but perhaps use a little more tact"

there can be no comparison between these terms. the n-word is intricately associated with slavery/ apartheid and is rightfully shunned by right thinking members of society. it is a throwback to a shameful part of our history and is to be treated accordingly.

the term "heresy", however, continues to feature in our Catechism where its definition is repeated. it is political correctness gone mad to suggest that it ought to be treated in the same way as the n- word -- unless you see something shameful in the Church's history that places this term on the same footing as the n-word.

please also bear in mind the current context. Leah has appeared on a Catholic website and plied what she describes as her "multi- denominationalism", whatever that may be. she is married into an actively-Catholic family and, as that clearly hasn't worked, it might well be said that gentle ecumenism by strangers is hardly likely to get us anywhere.

when you try to be "nice", sometimes all you end up doing is lend legitimacy. true charity in such cases is to be found in tough love. IMHO.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), June 03, 2003.

Jmj

I just skimmed this whole thread, since I was travelling or away from the forum when it was started and when it was most active. I was surprised to see that it went dormant three days ago. Folks (especially Leah), don't you have anything further to say? I think, for example, that Eugene asked for further information.

I have to correct something a Catholic said earlier -- namely, "The Catholic Church will refuse a Protestant the Eucharist because, as a heretic, he/she is in mortal sin."

We can't make a blanket statement like this. We have to distinguish between people raised as non-Catholics and people raised as Catholics.

----- If a person is raised as a non-Catholic and has never become convinced that Jesus founded the Catholic Church and made it necessary for salvation, then that person is NOT "in mortal sin" (at least not as a result of his/her religious choice). Although it is technically correct to refer to such a person as a "material heretic," the leaders of the Catholic Church, in our age of ecumenism, have ceased to use that term, which has rather inflammatory connotations and really doesn't help the situation.

----- If a person is raised as a Catholic, knows that he/she is in the Church that Jesus founded as necessary for salvation, but still chooses not to remain Catholic [self-excommunication], that person probably becomes an apostate or "formal heretic," and is probably "in mortal sin" (and grave danger of damnation). Even so, the Church does not lash out in anger at these "lapsed" or "fallen-away" Catholics, instead tirelessly inviting them back into the one fold.

----- There is a third kind of person about whom things seem more uncertain. I'm speaking of someone who was raised Catholic (and may or may not have believed that Jesus founded the Church as necessary for salvation) -- but who became convinced by someone that he/she had been taught wrongly. [Perhaps a Fundamentalist preacher on TV or radio terribly misled this person with falsehoods and errors about Church doctrine, the Bible, etc.] When such a Catholic falls away and becomes a Protestant (or even a non-Christian), I don't think that any of us is capable of speaking of the state of that person's soul and whether he/she could be saved without formally returning to the Church. God knows if that person has subjective guilt on his/her conscience.

God bless you.
John
PS: I can't help wondering, Leah ... If your new husband is a Catholic deacon, why are you coming to us with questions? Is he not able to answer you, or did you want to see if we would confirm what he has told you? I'm puzzled! Also, I suspect that you have never been a Catholic. Are you Jewish?

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

I know my contribution to the thread died because a) I was awaiting the promised response from Eugene and b) my boss decided I get paid to do projects at work, not to browse Catholic forums.

To answer your PS on behalf of Leah, Leah was born into a non- Christian family, embraced Christianity on herself in adolescence (correct the age if I'm wrong, Leah) but was not brought into a particular church. She married a man who's father was a deacon and therefore found herself forced into a confrontation of sorts with the Catholic church, specifically in dealing with to what degree she wanted to embrace it. The deacon father, however, knows Church doctrine but doesn't seem anxious to justify or debate it.

She has, of her own initiative, done enough research to put her husband to shame in several theological fields and is currently contemplating RCIA for the second time.

-- Marc Huete (potato_king@hotmail.com), June 06, 2003.

Jmj
Thanks, Marc. Sorry that I read a bit carelessly and thought that you were the deacon.
Well, I hope that Leah does choose to enter into RCIA ... and I hope that this forum and other sites about Catholicism will help her. (There are hundreds of them out there.)

The reason I asked if she is Jewish is that she (apparently accidentally) signed off once (above) as Leah Bloomfield. If she is Jewish and would like to speak to an incredibly lovable Jewish woman who is now a full-time Catholic apologist, she should call Rosalind Moss at "Catholic Answers, Inc.," in San Diego -- 619-387-7200 (Monday–Friday -- 9 AM to 5 PM, Pacific Time [Noon to 8 PM, Eastern Time]).

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), June 08, 2003.

dear JFG

you are absolutely right to censure me on the point about protestants being in mortal sin on account of their protestantism. the CCC expressly provides that it was the original heretics only that were in mortal sin and that we should take into account the fact that people, being "born into" protestantism, are not to be treated in the same vein.

the part of this that really puzzles me, though, is this. suppose a protestant is born into a tradition that condones abortion -- is he not a sinner even though the murder of the baby is within the rules of his church? or the homosexual that is part of a protestant church that says that male to male buggery is OK.

so, if you believe that it is OK, then it is OK?

and, if we, as Catholics, believe that the personal opinions/desires/lifestyles of protestants can prevail over the objective Truth of the Church, are we too not practicing protestantism? can we really say that protestants are not in sin when they commit an act that is within the rules of their own Church but a sin if committed by a Catholic.

aren't we being complicitous?

and by extension, you rightly say that a Catholic that fall sinto apostasy or protestantism is/maybe in big trouble.......but why the let off for non-Catholics? are we really saying that sins can only be committed by Catholics?!?!?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), June 09, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Ian. I'd like to respond to some of your comments.

Ian: "you are absolutely right to censure me on the point about protestants being in mortal sin on account of their protestantism."
JFG: Oh, I definitely didn't intend anything so dramatic as a "censure"!

Ian: "the CCC expressly provides that it was the original heretics only that were in mortal sin and that we should take into account the fact that people, being 'born into' protestantism, are not to be treated in the same vein."
JFG: Well, I intended to show that it is not "only" the "original heretics," but also modern-day, fallen-away Catholics who have no excuse. I'm referring to those, who leave the Church even though they know that they shouldn't (because they know that it is the true Church). I am thinking of those who stop practicing their faith out of laxness (as I once did), as well as those who enter into mixed marriages and stop attending Mass (instead accompanying spouse to some other religious service). People like these are (at least objectively) now in mortal sin.

Ian: "suppose a protestant is born into a tradition that condones abortion -- is he not a sinner even though the murder of the baby is within the rules of his church? or the homosexual that is part of a protestant church that says that male to male buggery is OK."

JFG: Only God knows if the person is "invincibly ignorant," so "brain-washed" from childhood that not even the natural law written on his heart (which would condemn abortion and sodomy) is strong enough to speak to his conscience. I'm just not sure about this. Does every such person really know, "in his heart of hearts," that his denomination is dead wrong, but yet he suppresses that knowledge and will suffer hell for that? I don't know.

Ian: "can we really say that protestants are not in sin when they commit an act that is within the rules of their own Church but a sin if committed by a Catholic."
JFG: They are sinning, "objectively speaking." Their act offends God and throws the balance of nature off kilter. But only God (and sometimes the person committing the act) knows whether the objective sin is accompanied by subjective guilt. Yes, there is grave matter involved, but is the person aware of that and give free consent of the will anyway?

Ian: "aren't we being complicitous?"
JFG: I don't see how. The Church tries to tell everyone what is virtuous and what is sinful. It is up to individuals to make informed choices.

Ian: "you rightly say that a Catholic that falls into apostasy or protestantism is/maybe in big trouble ... but why the let off for non-Catholics? are we really saying that sins can only be committed by Catholics?!?!?"

JFG: No, of course not. Non-Catholic Christians (and Jews) know that they must follow the Ten Commandments too. Protestants see the lists of deadly sins in St. Paul's writings. Yet, they deliberately sin (and plenty). I'm afraid that there will be plenty of Christians (and non-Christians) of all types in Purgatory and Hell at the end of time, Ian.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 10, 2003.

bump -- but always ecumenically - bump

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), June 10, 2003.

PS i didn't say it; but thanks again for your time. i will study what you have said.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), June 11, 2003.

Ian, near the top of my last message, I left an important word out of one sentence. I will put it in bold type here:
"I intended to show that it is not 'only' the 'original heretics,' but also certain modern-day, fallen-away Catholics who have no excuse."
Sorry. JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 11, 2003.