10andBOUNCE said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

T dizl televizl said:

---

Hello friends.

I've been contemplating on posting this topic as I don't want to flare tempers, but it is something that has been on my mind as of late, and was hoping some of our resident Catholics could help me out. My intention is to keep things civil, as best we can.

I was born and raised in a non denominational church. As i got older I was baptized in a baptist church (in my teenage years) and as an adult joined into a Methodist church.

I recently married a catholic woman and have since been attending a lot of events in the Catholic Church (weddings, funerals, etc.)

Non Catholics are not allowed to take part in communion in the Catholic Church. Whenever I am going to attend one of these events, I'm aware that communion will be taking place and try to prepare myself mentally for the fact that I will not be allowed to take part but for whatever reason it always rubs me the wrong way that my choices are to either remain in the pew or go to the front of the church with my arms crossed and receive a blessing instead of taking communion.

I think my frustration centers around if Catholics believe that Protestants for the most part don't go to heaven. I've tried to research online and found that the commonly stated belief is that Jesus has the power to save anyone, including Protestants, but there is never a strongly given statement on if people outside the Catholic Church are in general saved. The general implication as far as I can tell is that they aren't.

My thought process is that Catholics believe (I think) that in order to be saved (for the most part) one must take part of the sacraments of the Catholic Church. Therefore if someone isn't able to take part in these sacraments (ie not take communion) then the probability of being saved and taken is into heaven is low, saving Jesus making an "exception" and calling you home.

Without getting into my personal biases, I'm just hoping our friends here can shine a little light for me on this. It's a difficult exercise for me to think through as I was raised outside the Catholic Church, but would like to understand their beliefs.

Thanks for the help.

---

Taking communion in the Catholic Church is partly stating that you believe that the Eucharist is the actual body of Christ

---

So, can you explain this to my protestant brain? I have heard this before, but never dug into it, so I apologize in advance for my extreme ignorance. What does this even mean? I am genuinely curious. You walk up and take the wine and bread, but they aren't actually wine and bread?

---

At one word God brought everything into existence.
Jesus commanded water to turn into wine.
Even Satan tempted him to turn a stone into bread.
The creator of all matter and substance can transform anything into anything that he wishes.
When he took the bread and the cup he said this IS my body and this IS my blood we believed him, also that is what the Apostles and all of their successors taught he meant. The mystery of remaining under the appearance of bread and wine is honestly a mercy, but if you look up Eucharistic miracles sometimes the veil is lifted.

---

Appreciate the feedback. I agree with your first few thoughts - God does speak things into existence and Jesus did in fact turn that water into wine at Cana. I'll have to disagree with the rest. I can definitely understand why OP would interpret that the taking of the Eucharist is essential for eternal life, since John 6:51 and 6:54 both plainly state. I'm not sure how you explain that away.

---

I don't explain that away. Our Lord clearly states unless you eat his body or drink his blood you do not have life, in fact eternal life, within you.

---

So just to be clear, in your judgement and interpretation based on the dual authority of scripture and church tradition, because I have not taken of the holy catholic communion, I am likely not saved and will be separated from God for eternity?

---

The church teaches that one can be forgiven of a mortal sin (1) by an act of perfect contrition

---

Appreciate your time to chime in. There is too much here for my brain to handle; I don't want to hijack the intent of the thread to pepper out a bunch of my questions!

I'll just go with one for now...does the RCC believe that "perfect contrition" is possible from a sinful man? What does that look like?

---

That's a good question, and one I've never looked into. Looking forward to others answers.

My guess is that it's the willingness to confess those sins publicly that would meet the contrition standards. The first confessions were done in front of the congregation. More privacy was granted as time went on. The fact that you are willing to tell a priest (and possibly others) shows that you are actively trying to turn from the sin, even if you fall again. But again, I don't say that having researched the Church's position.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

T dizl televizl said:

---

Hello friends.

I've been contemplating on posting this topic as I don't want to flare tempers, but it is something that has been on my mind as of late, and was hoping some of our resident Catholics could help me out. My intention is to keep things civil, as best we can.

I was born and raised in a non denominational church. As i got older I was baptized in a baptist church (in my teenage years) and as an adult joined into a Methodist church.

I recently married a catholic woman and have since been attending a lot of events in the Catholic Church (weddings, funerals, etc.)

Non Catholics are not allowed to take part in communion in the Catholic Church. Whenever I am going to attend one of these events, I'm aware that communion will be taking place and try to prepare myself mentally for the fact that I will not be allowed to take part but for whatever reason it always rubs me the wrong way that my choices are to either remain in the pew or go to the front of the church with my arms crossed and receive a blessing instead of taking communion.

I think my frustration centers around if Catholics believe that Protestants for the most part don't go to heaven. I've tried to research online and found that the commonly stated belief is that Jesus has the power to save anyone, including Protestants, but there is never a strongly given statement on if people outside the Catholic Church are in general saved. The general implication as far as I can tell is that they aren't.

My thought process is that Catholics believe (I think) that in order to be saved (for the most part) one must take part of the sacraments of the Catholic Church. Therefore if someone isn't able to take part in these sacraments (ie not take communion) then the probability of being saved and taken is into heaven is low, saving Jesus making an "exception" and calling you home.

Without getting into my personal biases, I'm just hoping our friends here can shine a little light for me on this. It's a difficult exercise for me to think through as I was raised outside the Catholic Church, but would like to understand their beliefs.

Thanks for the help.

---

Taking communion in the Catholic Church is partly stating that you believe that the Eucharist is the actual body of Christ

---

So, can you explain this to my protestant brain? I have heard this before, but never dug into it, so I apologize in advance for my extreme ignorance. What does this even mean? I am genuinely curious. You walk up and take the wine and bread, but they aren't actually wine and bread?

---

At one word God brought everything into existence.
Jesus commanded water to turn into wine.
Even Satan tempted him to turn a stone into bread.
The creator of all matter and substance can transform anything into anything that he wishes.
When he took the bread and the cup he said this IS my body and this IS my blood we believed him, also that is what the Apostles and all of their successors taught he meant. The mystery of remaining under the appearance of bread and wine is honestly a mercy, but if you look up Eucharistic miracles sometimes the veil is lifted.

---

Appreciate the feedback. I agree with your first few thoughts - God does speak things into existence and Jesus did in fact turn that water into wine at Cana. I'll have to disagree with the rest. I can definitely understand why OP would interpret that the taking of the Eucharist is essential for eternal life, since John 6:51 and 6:54 both plainly state. I'm not sure how you explain that away.

---

I don't explain that away. Our Lord clearly states unless you eat his body or drink his blood you do not have life, in fact eternal life, within you.

---

So just to be clear, in your judgement and interpretation based on the dual authority of scripture and church tradition, because I have not taken of the holy catholic communion, I am likely not saved and will be separated from God for eternity?

---

The church teaches that one can be forgiven of a mortal sin (1) by an act of perfect contrition

---

Appreciate your time to chime in. There is too much here for my brain to handle; I don't want to hijack the intent of the thread to pepper out a bunch of my questions!

I'll just go with one for now...does the RCC believe that "perfect contrition" is possible from a sinful man? What does that look like?

---

By perfect contrition do you mean a state of permanent contrition or being perfectly reconciled with God?

I would say that Catholics believe that we can be perfectly reconciled to God, by being what we refer to as a state of grace. Basically in a state without any mortal sin. One would reach that by being either newly baptized or by not mortally sinning sin their last confession. Once we commit a mortal sin then we have separated ourselves from God. At that point we would need to confess our sins and then we make a renewed act of contrition along with the intention of sinning no more.

I'm not catholic, so I have no idea. Just asking since it doesn't register with me.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I'm not catholic, so I have no idea. Just asking since it doesn't register with me.

---

No worries I thought it was a good question

10andBOUNCE said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

T dizl televizl said:

---

Hello friends.

I've been contemplating on posting this topic as I don't want to flare tempers, but it is something that has been on my mind as of late, and was hoping some of our resident Catholics could help me out. My intention is to keep things civil, as best we can.

I was born and raised in a non denominational church. As i got older I was baptized in a baptist church (in my teenage years) and as an adult joined into a Methodist church.

I recently married a catholic woman and have since been attending a lot of events in the Catholic Church (weddings, funerals, etc.)

Non Catholics are not allowed to take part in communion in the Catholic Church. Whenever I am going to attend one of these events, I'm aware that communion will be taking place and try to prepare myself mentally for the fact that I will not be allowed to take part but for whatever reason it always rubs me the wrong way that my choices are to either remain in the pew or go to the front of the church with my arms crossed and receive a blessing instead of taking communion.

I think my frustration centers around if Catholics believe that Protestants for the most part don't go to heaven. I've tried to research online and found that the commonly stated belief is that Jesus has the power to save anyone, including Protestants, but there is never a strongly given statement on if people outside the Catholic Church are in general saved. The general implication as far as I can tell is that they aren't.

My thought process is that Catholics believe (I think) that in order to be saved (for the most part) one must take part of the sacraments of the Catholic Church. Therefore if someone isn't able to take part in these sacraments (ie not take communion) then the probability of being saved and taken is into heaven is low, saving Jesus making an "exception" and calling you home.

Without getting into my personal biases, I'm just hoping our friends here can shine a little light for me on this. It's a difficult exercise for me to think through as I was raised outside the Catholic Church, but would like to understand their beliefs.

Thanks for the help.

---

Taking communion in the Catholic Church is partly stating that you believe that the Eucharist is the actual body of Christ

---

So, can you explain this to my protestant brain? I have heard this before, but never dug into it, so I apologize in advance for my extreme ignorance. What does this even mean? I am genuinely curious. You walk up and take the wine and bread, but they aren't actually wine and bread?

---

I will probably butcher this explanation but here goes...at least how I think I understand it. Our senses still perceive it as bread/wine, these are considered the accidents or appearances. But the substance is transformed as the body and blood of Christ. We cannot touch, see, taste, feel, measure, analyze, smell, or otherwise directly experience substance. We experience them as accidents. So before they are consecrated the accidents and substance are the same. Once they are, then the accidents remain but the substance has changed. I think technically the Catholic Church doesn't have specific language on how it happens and how we still experience it, and others might explain it somewhat differently. The early Church believed in the real presence but there ability to communicate how it happens did come for a while. The early fathers, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Justin Martyr, and St. Irenaeus all believed in the presence. The just had faith that it was what Jesus taught it was/is

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

T dizl televizl said:

---

Hello friends.

I've been contemplating on posting this topic as I don't want to flare tempers, but it is something that has been on my mind as of late, and was hoping some of our resident Catholics could help me out. My intention is to keep things civil, as best we can.

I was born and raised in a non denominational church. As i got older I was baptized in a baptist church (in my teenage years) and as an adult joined into a Methodist church.

I recently married a catholic woman and have since been attending a lot of events in the Catholic Church (weddings, funerals, etc.)

Non Catholics are not allowed to take part in communion in the Catholic Church. Whenever I am going to attend one of these events, I'm aware that communion will be taking place and try to prepare myself mentally for the fact that I will not be allowed to take part but for whatever reason it always rubs me the wrong way that my choices are to either remain in the pew or go to the front of the church with my arms crossed and receive a blessing instead of taking communion.

I think my frustration centers around if Catholics believe that Protestants for the most part don't go to heaven. I've tried to research online and found that the commonly stated belief is that Jesus has the power to save anyone, including Protestants, but there is never a strongly given statement on if people outside the Catholic Church are in general saved. The general implication as far as I can tell is that they aren't.

My thought process is that Catholics believe (I think) that in order to be saved (for the most part) one must take part of the sacraments of the Catholic Church. Therefore if someone isn't able to take part in these sacraments (ie not take communion) then the probability of being saved and taken is into heaven is low, saving Jesus making an "exception" and calling you home.

Without getting into my personal biases, I'm just hoping our friends here can shine a little light for me on this. It's a difficult exercise for me to think through as I was raised outside the Catholic Church, but would like to understand their beliefs.

Thanks for the help.

---

Taking communion in the Catholic Church is partly stating that you believe that the Eucharist is the actual body of Christ

---

So, can you explain this to my protestant brain? I have heard this before, but never dug into it, so I apologize in advance for my extreme ignorance. What does this even mean? I am genuinely curious. You walk up and take the wine and bread, but they aren't actually wine and bread?

---

At one word God brought everything into existence.
Jesus commanded water to turn into wine.
Even Satan tempted him to turn a stone into bread.
The creator of all matter and substance can transform anything into anything that he wishes.
When he took the bread and the cup he said this IS my body and this IS my blood we believed him, also that is what the Apostles and all of their successors taught he meant. The mystery of remaining under the appearance of bread and wine is honestly a mercy, but if you look up Eucharistic miracles sometimes the veil is lifted.

---

Appreciate the feedback. I agree with your first few thoughts - God does speak things into existence and Jesus did in fact turn that water into wine at Cana. I'll have to disagree with the rest. I can definitely understand why OP would interpret that the taking of the Eucharist is essential for eternal life, since John 6:51 and 6:54 both plainly state. I'm not sure how you explain that away.

---

I don't explain that away. Our Lord clearly states unless you eat his body or drink his blood you do not have life, in fact eternal life, within you.

---

So just to be clear, in your judgement and interpretation based on the dual authority of scripture and church tradition, because I have not taken of the holy catholic communion, I am likely not saved and will be separated from God for eternity?

---

The Catholic belief is that you are responsible for what you truly understand. If you had that view in the 1500s, you'd likely be in trouble. 500 years later and all of the differing denominations muddying the waters would put you much, much less at fault for holding that view.

Now if you do the deep dive and realize that the historical church all believed this and the oldest faiths (Catholicism, EO, Lutherans, Anglicans) all believe is some form of real presence, but maintained that it has to be symbolic based on your personal understanding, I'd say you may be in trouble. Ultimately the Catholic Church teaches we know of no other way to salvation than the path we've laid out, but God can do whatever He likes so we can not say definitively what happens to those outside the Church.

---

Good post. In the same way the RCC accepts baptisms for those previously protestant that were baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy spirit, instead of having to be baptized again, it sees other protestants as Christians that are just not in full communion with the Church. And as Banned said below, only if you know the truth and then reject them, then you risk your relationship with God. Just like someone who doesn't believe they never need to repent after their initial expression of faith...they might have a problem

10andBOUNCE said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

T dizl televizl said:

---

Hello friends.

I've been contemplating on posting this topic as I don't want to flare tempers, but it is something that has been on my mind as of late, and was hoping some of our resident Catholics could help me out. My intention is to keep things civil, as best we can.

I was born and raised in a non denominational church. As i got older I was baptized in a baptist church (in my teenage years) and as an adult joined into a Methodist church.

I recently married a catholic woman and have since been attending a lot of events in the Catholic Church (weddings, funerals, etc.)

Non Catholics are not allowed to take part in communion in the Catholic Church. Whenever I am going to attend one of these events, I'm aware that communion will be taking place and try to prepare myself mentally for the fact that I will not be allowed to take part but for whatever reason it always rubs me the wrong way that my choices are to either remain in the pew or go to the front of the church with my arms crossed and receive a blessing instead of taking communion.

I think my frustration centers around if Catholics believe that Protestants for the most part don't go to heaven. I've tried to research online and found that the commonly stated belief is that Jesus has the power to save anyone, including Protestants, but there is never a strongly given statement on if people outside the Catholic Church are in general saved. The general implication as far as I can tell is that they aren't.

My thought process is that Catholics believe (I think) that in order to be saved (for the most part) one must take part of the sacraments of the Catholic Church. Therefore if someone isn't able to take part in these sacraments (ie not take communion) then the probability of being saved and taken is into heaven is low, saving Jesus making an "exception" and calling you home.

Without getting into my personal biases, I'm just hoping our friends here can shine a little light for me on this. It's a difficult exercise for me to think through as I was raised outside the Catholic Church, but would like to understand their beliefs.

Thanks for the help.

---

Taking communion in the Catholic Church is partly stating that you believe that the Eucharist is the actual body of Christ

---

So, can you explain this to my protestant brain? I have heard this before, but never dug into it, so I apologize in advance for my extreme ignorance. What does this even mean? I am genuinely curious. You walk up and take the wine and bread, but they aren't actually wine and bread?

---

At one word God brought everything into existence.
Jesus commanded water to turn into wine.
Even Satan tempted him to turn a stone into bread.
The creator of all matter and substance can transform anything into anything that he wishes.
When he took the bread and the cup he said this IS my body and this IS my blood we believed him, also that is what the Apostles and all of their successors taught he meant. The mystery of remaining under the appearance of bread and wine is honestly a mercy, but if you look up Eucharistic miracles sometimes the veil is lifted.

---

Appreciate the feedback. I agree with your first few thoughts - God does speak things into existence and Jesus did in fact turn that water into wine at Cana. I'll have to disagree with the rest. I can definitely understand why OP would interpret that the taking of the Eucharist is essential for eternal life, since John 6:51 and 6:54 both plainly state. I'm not sure how you explain that away.

---

I don't explain that away. Our Lord clearly states unless you eat his body or drink his blood you do not have life, in fact eternal life, within you.

---

So just to be clear, in your judgement and interpretation based on the dual authority of scripture and church tradition, because I have not taken of the holy catholic communion, I am likely not saved and will be separated from God for eternity?

---

The church teaches that one can be forgiven of a mortal sin (1) by an act of perfect contrition

---

Appreciate your time to chime in. There is too much here for my brain to handle; I don't want to hijack the intent of the thread to pepper out a bunch of my questions!

I'll just go with one for now...does the RCC believe that "perfect contrition" is possible from a sinful man? What does that look like?

---

The answer to the question must be "yes" because the Catechism and the Code of Canon Law clearly contemplate a person guilty of mortal sin making an act of perfect contrition.

Having said that, I need to correct and clarify my previous comment regarding an act of perfect contrition. I apologize for any confusion I may have caused.

If a person who has committed a mortal sin and not confessed it in sacramental confession and received absolution, is sitting in the pew at Sunday morning Mass, and makes an act of perfect contrition, can he/she receive the Eucharist at that Mass?

Answer:

The Catechism speaks of "perfect contrition," not a "perfect act" of contrition. This is an important distinction because it is not a perfect act (e.g., reciting an act of contrition prayer perfectly) that obtains the forgiveness of grave sins; it is the contrition itself that must be perfect.

Contrition is defined as "sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again" (CCC 1451). Contrition may be imperfect or perfect.

Imperfect contrition, which does not obtain forgiveness of grave (mortal) sins, "is born of the consideration of sin's ugliness or the fear of eternal damnation and the other penalties threatening the sinner" (CCC 1453).

Perfect contrition, on the other hand, "arises from a love by which God is loved above all else" (CCC 1452). Only this form of contrition obtains the forgiveness of grave sins before going to confession.

Since perfect contrition obtains the forgiveness of grave sins, one who makes an act of perfect contrition may receive the Eucharist under certain conditions. The Code of Canon Law states:

A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition, which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible. (CIC 916)

Note that there are four conditions that must be fulfilled before going to Communion:

There must be a grave reason to receive Communion (e.g., danger of death).

It must be physically or morally impossible to go to confession first.

The person must already be in a state of grace through perfect contrition.

The person must resolve to go to confession as soon as possible.

To the OP - Congratulations on your marriage. As a protestant, I have been very happily married to a catholic woman for almost a decade and would not have it any other way. We have a great marriage, she's a wonderful wife and mother. That said, it's fairly easy when it's just the two of you, I've sat through many masses and she has sat through many of my services. Completely unsolicited advice: I would certainly have a plan when it comes to kids. Trust me when I say it gets harder when you haven't really game planned out where to raise your kids. They can really reprioritize your life for you, things you thought wouldn't bother you do, things you didn't care about before are suddenly very important. If you've already done so, and are confident in those plans, good for you; you're a step ahead of where I was at this stage.

Secondly, thanks for asking this question. It's something that I've been curious to get some clarity on, and never really have. Like you, I have my own personal beliefs, but it's never bothered me to step aside and let others go receive communion. Guess I've always just been willing to take it at face value, even at its most basic level a rule/tradition that I need to abide by while a visitor in the Catholic Church.

Lastly, I appreciate the honest discussion and information spelled out in this thread. Primarily jumping in on this thread for any further conversation on the topic. If nothing else, being married to a Catholic has encouraged me to learn a lot about Catholicism as well as other faiths/denominations. Even if it hasn't inherently changed anything about what I believe, it's provided a lot of clarity and forced me to ask questions about my own beliefs. Too many of us are grounded in our faith and beliefs simply because that's the way we were raised.

FIDO95 said:

---

I often wonder why there is a such a fever to convince fellow Christians about why your side is right and they are wrong. I find it such misplaced energy.

---

I see this thread completely different. This thread has mostly all been about clarifying each others views. I think it has been very productive. Maybe you're speaking more generally though?

As a side note, I did a quick search and apparently the idea of evangelism to protestants is a real thing. Similar to how protestants feel they need to evangelize to catholics.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

FIDO95 said:

---

I often wonder why there is a such a fever to convince fellow Christians about why your side is right and they are wrong. I find it such misplaced energy.

---

I see this thread completely different. This thread has mostly all been about clarifying each others views. I think it has been very productive. Maybe you're speaking more generally though?

As a side note, I did a quick search and apparently the idea of evangelism to protestants is a real thing. Similar to how protestants feel they need to evangelize to catholics.

---

In the spirit of this discussion, you might find this talk useful. Peace.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

FIDO95 said:

---

I often wonder why there is a such a fever to convince fellow Christians about why your side is right and they are wrong. I find it such misplaced energy.

---

I see this thread completely different. This thread has mostly all been about clarifying each others views. I think it has been very productive. Maybe you're speaking more generally though?

As a side note, I did a quick search and apparently the idea of evangelism to protestants is a real thing. Similar to how protestants feel they need to evangelize to catholics.

---

Sorry for the continued follow up, but one of your questions above raised a question in my mind about how it is that someone who has committed a mortal sin (as properly defined) can ever actually find their way into a confessional if mortal sin destroys sanctifying grace in the soul. It seemed like a really good question because if the "guilty party" can by their own efforts come to realize that they are in a state of mortal sin and understand that they need to be absolved by a duly ordained priest, they still must overcome the potential of knowing that to actually walking into the confessional, confessing and receiving absolution, which itself would seem to be Pelagian if the "guilty party" did all that on their own; i.e., without the intervening grace of God. But, since sanctifying grace is annihilated by a mortal sin, how could it be that God's grace is the efficient cause of the guitly party being moved to confess to a priest?

So, I did what we should all do, I consulted a Professor of Systematic Theology at Seton Hall University who my daughter, a student at SHU, introduced me to in the spring. The good Reverend Doctor educated me as to the concept of actual grace. The Church teaches that there is a difference in actual grace and sanctifying grace. An easy way to understand the difference is that actual grace enables us to ACT according to God's will. Sanctifying grace is a state in which God allows us to share in his divine life and love (2 Peter 1:4). When we speak in terms of being in a state of grace, we are speaking of sanctifying grace so that we are devoid of mortal sin. This grace comes to us intially in baptism, and then through the other sacraments and is restored to us in the sacrament of confession when we confess mortal sins and receive absolution.

The person guilty of a mortal sin is drawn into the confessional by actual grace, where sanctifying grace can be restored. The point being that even after we are baptized, if we rupture our relationship with God so that we have destroyed the sanctifying grace he gave us through no merit of our own, it is still God's freely given actual grace that draws us back into relationship with him, which causes us to turn back and seek reconcilliation and a healing of the rupture of our relationship so that the sanctifying grace we were given freely by baptism is restored in us and we once again have a share in his divine life; i.e., we are given the gift of sharing in his life and love.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

FIDO95 said:

---

I often wonder why there is a such a fever to convince fellow Christians about why your side is right and they are wrong. I find it such misplaced energy.

---

I see this thread completely different. This thread has mostly all been about clarifying each others views. I think it has been very productive. Maybe you're speaking more generally though?

As a side note, I did a quick search and apparently the idea of evangelism to protestants is a real thing. Similar to how protestants feel they need to evangelize to catholics.

---

I suspect I didn't articulate the statement you quoted very well so I will attempt to clarify. I don't find much use in "feverishly" trying to put down other Christian demoninations. However, I do enjoy a conversion with by fellow Christian brethren that is made in good faith.

The OP made the observation that, "I think my frustration centers around if Catholics believe that Protestants for the most part don't go to heaven". If the Catholics he is socializing with have given him that impression, then they are poorly formed in the religious teachings of the Catholic church. While I am not embarrased about proper Catholic teaching, I am embarrased when someone misrepresents the teachings of the church and makes someone feel unwelcomed. As such, I was responding to the perception the OP had been given that "Protestants don't go to heaven" as a "feverish" arguement. Perhaps that is my own bias and perhaps the OP feels that way due to his own bias and perception. Jesus warned:

"In the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you" (Matthew 7:2)

Hence, I make it a priority to spend my energy keeping my own room clean and not judging others who are doing the best to do the same. If I have a cleaning technique that works well for me, I am happy to share it but I'm not going to be critical of what is working for you.

To the OP, non-Catholics are encouraged to participate in Communion. However, they should cross their arms to recieve a blessing. It is important to point out that when the priest offers the Eucharist, he makes this statement, "The body of Christ". To this statement, the recipient is to respond, "Amen". Saying "Amen", which means "So be it" or "It is true", would be an inappropriate response for someone to make if they do not believe the Eucharist is in fact the physical body of Christ. One shouldn't look at not recieving the Eucharist as "not getting to participate" but rather a respect the church has for your view and not wanting to put you into a position to make a claim you feel to be false.

When it comes to an exchange of views, I love a good conversation that is made in good faith with the ultimate goal of reaching a better understanding. I recall when I was in high school, I attended CCD (Confraternity of Christian Doctrine) or perhaps better explained as continued Catholic education in preperation for Confirmation into the Catholic church. I had a dear friend at the time that was Southern Baptist and we had so many wonderful converstions. In those conversations, I realized how poorly my CCD education had been. I was impressed with my friends ability to quote scripture and it exposed a gapping hole in my own formation. That led me to study any book I could find on Catholic apologetics and teachings. As a consequence, those conversions led me to become a better Christian and someone more capable of explaining my own views and faith. That was all made possible not because we were trying to "feverishely" convert each other but rather because we were having an exchange of ideas in good faith, with mutual respect for each other.

Thanks again to the last two posters for taking the time and effort to reply and share.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Thanks again to the last two posters for taking the time and effort to reply and share.

---

Agree. Very interesting information.

Felt like we have had some good solid discussion on this thread, so wanted to piggy back on it.

Based on some of the back and forth on this thread I went ahead and ordered two books that I found recommendations for.

1) Rome Sweet Home
2) Crossing the Tiber

I picked up Rome Sweet Home and finished it in two days, which is abnormally quick for me. I enjoyed it, but don't think it was quite what I was looking for. It is a conversion story of a man and wife who are fierce Presbyterians, who eventually become Catholics.

I liked some of the discussions on different Catholic beliefs, and how he began to believe them. Salvation not by faith alone, not only believing in sola scriptura (sp?), and the Marian doctrine.

It was a little shocking to me to see how much of an issue the conversion was for their marriage, and also how extremely "anti-Catholic" they were at the beginning. As a person raised in Protestant churches, I have never once had a thought of Catholics going to Hell. Maybe this was a more common thought (both ways) back in the 80's when the events were taking place.

I would say the book helped me to understand some of the Catholic viewpoints/beliefs, which I appreciate. I do find a lot of the traditions of the Catholic church beautiful, and fascinating that they have been able to keep them the same (similar?) over all these years. It is also impressive to me that the church has remained pretty much united, while all of the Protestant denominations seem to split over and over again. Splitting in particular has been on my mind as I attend a Methodist church and they have been going through the ringer lately about gay rights as it relates to the church.

I still have a couple of conflicting thoughts about the Catholic beliefs.

I think it is hard for me believe that this giant church system hasn't been corrupted by men and their sinful nature. Which makes me hesitant to believe that Catholic traditions couldn't have been corrupted at some point along the way. Maybe that is based on some of the recent scandals, or some older corruption. I don't think Protestants are immune from this, but I am a believer that the larger or more powerful corporations, churches, etc. get, the more prone they are to abuse and corruption.

Other conflicting thought I have is based on the Pope. I think that is a hard concept for Protestants to understand. At the end of Rome Sweet Home, the author gets to meet the Pope and he fan boys pretty hard. I can certainly see why he would, based off of Catholic beliefs, but it reinforced a feeling to me of getting to close to idolizing a man.

I mean both of those points sincerely, and not trying to stir anything up. Just some honest reflection on how I felt about the book and am feeling currently. Wanted to share my thoughts in case either side was interested.

I briefly started "Crossing the Tiber", but will probably put it on hold for a bit. Going on vacation this week with my Catholic in-laws and don't want to give them any ideas about possibly converting me!

As an aside, I have done some reading in the last couple of days about the reformation, and all of the chaos that ensued, specifically Catholic vs. Protestant violence throughout Europe (was focused primarily on Scotland as I recently visited). Crazy to think that these two groups of people would have such hatred against each other and pick up arms, when the two groups are similar in a lot of ways. Could probably have an entire discussion on another thread about all that went into that, but thought it was an interesting sidebar to my research on this topic.

T dizl televizl said:

---

I think it is hard for me believe that this giant church system hasn't been corrupted by men and their sinful nature. Which makes me hesitant to believe that Catholic traditions couldn't have been corrupted at some point along the way. Maybe that is based on some of the recent scandals, or some older corruption. I don't think Protestants are immune from this, but I am a believer that the larger or more powerful corporations, churches, etc. get, the more prone they are to abuse and corruption.

---

Love your post sending prayers for you in your search.



When I entered the Church in 2003 a waive of scandal was hitting the church with the abuse allegations, so I have had to address this issue personally. I am not saying there is a full proof answer but maybe I can offer some consolation.
First, there has never been a time when the Church was scandal free, even when Jesus was on earth. You have Judas stealing and scheming behind his back. Think of the parable of the wheat and weeds. The Lord isn't going to clear out the weeds until the harvest, so we will always have the corrupt amongst us. The Church calls all sinners to join, some fall back into sin, some came in with a evil agenda. Unfortunately this is true of any other human institution as you alluded to. I approach this in a unorthodox way. When Napoleon kidnapped a Cardinal he boasted he would destroy the church. The Cardinal laughed at him and said that if the Cardinals and Bishops couldn't do it there is no way he could. This highlights that it is not a human institution. It was created by the Lord and if it were a man made institution it would have destroyed itself several times over by now. All we ultimately have is the promise of Christ that the gates of Hell will never prevail against the Church, but that doesn't mean that we don't have a fight on our hands until the Lord returns.

Question for Catholics concerning Communion:

The parish my wife and I have attended in the past did not serve wine to everyone anymore, only the bread. Only some are able to go receive the wine near the altar at the beginning of communion. I believe this began during COVID but seems to have stuck.

Is this normal now? Or is it parish-by-parish? We haven't visited any other Catholic Churches in some time, so I don't have any other reference points. When we were first dating and visiting multiple Churches (pre covid for the most part) there was certainly always bread and wine offered at communion.

Regardless, what are your thoughts on strictly being offered the bread for communion? Is this at all controversial at all within the church? Are there any perceived consequences?

Probably a dumb question but it wouldn't be the first.

Do catholic churches source their communion bread and wine from someplace in particular? Or do they go to Costco and get a case of wine for the year?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Probably a dumb question but it wouldn't be the first.

Do catholic churches source their communion bread and wine from someplace in particular? Or do they go to Costco and get a case of wine for the year?

---

Usually sourced by specific places like a covenant or monastery. There needs to be specifics and I don't know as far what in regards the ingredients. Usually more simple ingredients, no modern preservatives or sugars.

Gotcha. Was also curious if it was unleavened bread - I would assume so.

For the Latin Rite yes unleavened but many of the Eastern Rites use leavened.

Eastern Rite RCC and the Orthodox use leavened bread and its baked by someone in the parish for each liturgy.

jrico2727 said:

---

Daddy-O5 said:

---

Question for Catholics concerning Communion:

The parish my wife and I have attended in the past did not serve wine to everyone anymore, only the bread. Only some are able to go receive the wine near the altar at the beginning of communion. I believe this began during COVID but seems to have stuck.

Is this normal now? Or is it parish-by-parish? We haven't visited any other Catholic Churches in some time, so I don't have any other reference points. When we were first dating and visiting multiple Churches (pre covid for the most part) there was certainly always bread and wine offered at communion.

Regardless, what are your thoughts on strictly being offered the bread for communion? Is this at all controversial at all within the church? Are there any perceived consequences?

---

Receiving only the Host, bread, was common for most of the past millennium in the Church. In the TLM that is all that is offered to the faithful. The bread contains both the body, blood, soul and divinity of the Lord so only receiving under one species is fine as it is still 100% Jesus.

I would say how the precious blood is distributed is a diocese by diocese decision at least first then on a parish level from there. Many people only choose to receive the host only even if they have the option to receive the precious blood.

---

Piggybacking off jrico's excellent comments, I would also like to remind that there is a difference between what is done by the priest in the holy sacrifice of the Mass and what we do in the sacrament of the Eucharist. The sacrifice offered by the priest always and everywhere includes bread and wine being offered to the Father exactly as Jesus commanded his apostles at the Last Supper. Once the bread and wine is consecrated it is the body, blood, soul and divinity of the glorified Christ. It is separated in the bread and wine to symbolize the sacrificial dying of Christ. Whether we communicants receive it in both kinds or only one, we are fully communing with the risen and glorified Jesus as he is now. He appears in the book of Revelation as a lamb, standing as though he had been slain (Rev. 5:6). He appears in heaven in the state of a victim not because he still needs to suffer but because for all eternity he re-presents himself to God appealing to the work of the cross, interceding for us (Rom 8:34), and bringing the graces of Calvary to us.

The Mass is a participation in this one heavenly offering. The risen Christ becomes present on the altar and offers himself to God as a living sacrifice. Like the Mass, Christ's words at the Last Supper are words of sacrifice, "This is my body . . . this is my blood . . . given up for you." So, the Mass is not repeating the murder of Jesus, but is taking part in what never ends: the offering of Christ to the Father for our sake (Heb 7:25, 9:24).

Hope that is helpful.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Probably a dumb question but it wouldn't be the first.

Do catholic churches source their communion bread and wine from someplace in particular? Or do they go to Costco and get a case of wine for the year?

---

The host (bread) is made specially for use in Mass. The way it is confected reduces the risk of "crumbing." There is also an ingredients requirement that mandates that it be unleavened and made entirely from wheat as that is what would have been used at the Last Supper. Any wine made from grapes can be used in theory, but I suspect most churches source it from a place that caters to the "needs" of a typical church.

According to the Code of Canon Law:

The most holy eucharistic sacrifice must be offered with bread and with wine in which a little water must be mixed.

The bread must be only wheat and recently made so that there is no danger of spoiling.

The wine must be natural from the fruit of the vine and not spoiled (924, 1-3).

-
From catholic.com:

"Fruit of the vine" means grapes, so wines based on other plants (e.g., elderberry wine, strawberry wine, dandelion wine, rice wine) are not allowed.

The elements required for the valid celebration of the Eucharist are based on what Jesus used on Holy Thursday: unleavened bread (see Matt. 26:17) and grape wine (Jesus references "fruit of the vine," e.g., in Matt. 26:29).

However, bread and wine were made multiple different ways in the first century, and no detailed instructions were given about which specific types could be used in the Eucharist.

For example, during the festival of Unleavened Bread, Jews were forbidden to have leaven in their houses, so their bread during this periodwhich would have been made from wheatwas unleavened. But the lack of leaven was not required of Jews at other times of year, and it was not required at all of Gentiles.

Consequently, some early Christians celebrated the Eucharist using leavened bread. The Church determined that this is valid matter, and today, leavened bread is used in many Eastern Catholic churches.

Similarly, you might think that since the wine becomes Christ's blood, the use of red wine might be mandatory at Mass, but it's not. White wine is perfectly valid matter.