Receiving Communion in a non-Catholic Service

Q.  Can Catholics receive communion in a non-Catholic ceremony?

  

R.     Catholics believe that the Eucharist is a sign of unity.  This is one of the reasons that Protestants can’t ordinarily receive Communion in Catholic churches.  The same holds true in the opposite direction:  For a Catholic to receive Protestant communion would not only give the impression that the Protestant version is valid, but it would also create a false sense of unity.  There is no true unity between us sadly and for us to receive communion in a Protestant church would be lying with our bodies.  Almost as if we would say yes by bobbing our heads up and down in the affirmative but saying no with our words.  We would be giving a mixed message, and a confusing one.  And therefore lend confusion as to what the Catholic Church actually teaches on the matter.

And that, my friend, is the main reason a Catholic Christian shouldn’t receive communion in a non-Catholic church.  The Catholic Church teaches in the True Presence of our Lord in the Eucharist, most other churches do not believe in this change.  For a Catholic to receive communion in a non-Catholic church would be saying to the other Christians of that church that he believes as they do.  The Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith.  Everything revolves around this fact, the fact that Jesus Christ is actually present in the consecrated bread and wine.  We would be doing a great disservice to those Christians by going along with their ideology.  We ought to provoke their thinking instead and to wake them up from their complacency by simply not partaking of communion and keeping to the truth.  In fact, we are not in full communion with each other yet and pretending that we are is not helpful for any member of His Church.

God Bless
Nathan

Mortal Sin

We learned in last week’s leaflet that Jesus instituted a Church with authority (Mat 18:15-18).  Now are we free to ignore this Church, preferring our own particular ideas, our own preferences?  In a strict sense we are free to do as we wish BUT for those of us who are Christians, we are most free when we follow God. 

As Christians we are to follow God as Jesus taught us.  We put our trust in His message and teachings.  As a famous 20^th century philosopher once said: “To trust Him means, of course, trying to do all that He says.  There would be no sense in saying you trusted a person if you would not take his advice.”  (C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity)

Jesus advised us to listen to His Church when He told us to bring our disagreements to it in Mat 18.  Specifically, He told the apostles to tell it to the Church and if they will not listen to the Church then we are to treat them as though they are lost.  Jesus said: “tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector. Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

And so we see that Jesus’ advice in determining the truth is to go to His Church.  On matters of faith and morals we also know that whatever the Church proclaims to be true is infallibly known to be true since Jesus said that whatever the Church binds on earth will be bound in heaven.  Since nothing untrue can be bound in heaven means that whatever the Church binds on earth must also be true.

Now, if you are aware of a Church teaching defined as true and binding but reject it anyway then you are freely going against the advice of Jesus as well as rejecting the authority of His Church.  If all these conditions are met, that is first, that you are aware of the binding authority of His Church and secondly freely reject it, which is a very grave matter, then you are rejecting the rightful authority given to His Church by God Himself.   You are perpetrating a mortal sin.

Are you aware that the Church Jesus founded teaches in the necessity of keeping the Sabbath day Holy by going to Mass on Sunday?  If you are aware of this and freely neglect to go without good reason then you are committing a mortal sin.

Are you aware that the Church Jesus founded teaches on the grave matter of artificial contraception usage to be against the moral law?  If you are aware of this teaching of the Church and yet freely use artificial contraception anyway then you are committing a mortal sin.

Are you aware that the Church Jesus founded teaches that human life is sacred and to be protected?  If you were aware of this and also aware of the extreme abortion views of one political candidate while the only other candidate opposing him clearly had a better life-affirming stand but voted for the one with the extreme abortion proponent anyway then you committed a mortal sin.

Please, examine your conscience before receiving our Lord in the Eucharist.  Are you guilty of mortal sin?  If you are then I urge you to go to confession before receiving the Eucharist since you would be “guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.” (1 Cor 1:27)

God Bless
Nathan

Why is Believing Correct Doctrine so Important?

Simply put, because Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, no one goes to the Father except by Him (John 14:6). That in knowing the truth we are made free of sin (John 8:32 ff ).  A doctrinal truth is a truth revealed to us by God through Jesus or the apostles.

John 14:6 tells us that the only way to go to the Father who is in heaven is by the truth.  Therefore through the truth is the only way to heaven.  If we accept false doctrines we are in real danger of turning away from the faith (1 Tim 4:1).  That’s why Paul reminds Timothy and Titus many times to confront those who teach falsely (1 Tim 4:16, 2 Tim 4:2, Tit 1:9).

But in this day and age, where do WE go to have the truth?  When one says that the bread and wine that are blessed are mere symbols of His flesh and Blood and another believes that the bread and wine are actually His Flesh and Blood, Soul and Divinity…who do we believe?  Who has the final say in determining the truth?  The final arbiter and defender of the truth decides what is true.  The final arbiter and defender of the truth is where the buck stops.  What is the defender and upholder of the truth? Scripture plainly tells us that the final authority that we are to go to settle the matter is the Church (Matt 18:15-17) with the guidance of the Holy Spirit (John 16:13) and that is how the first followers of our Lord Jesus Christ understood the matter and settled major disputes between themselves.  We know this with certainty because we see the first application of this teaching at the council of Jerusalem as found in the book of Acts (Acts 15:2) who’s decision, guided by the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28), was binding for all Christians (Acts 16:4).

 

The trick now is to determine which Christian Church out of the thousands of Christian churches out there today, which one has been in existence from day one to settle these disputes.  This church is the one Church that Jesus tells us that we are to go to determine the truth with assurance since He promised that the gates of Hell would never prevail against His church (Matt 16:19).  She therefore must be in existence throughout history from its inception to today.  Which Christian church out there claims to be 2,000 years old with evidence to back its claim?  Only the Catholic Church can make that claim.

God Bless
Nathan

Anti-Catholic on Christmas

Roger said:
Do you agree with the conclusion of the writer in the Catholic paper that I brought earlier?

I reply:
Yes, I agree with the history and also agree with the author on the limits historical documents can show us about the choice of Dec 25 as the day of celebration of Christ's birth.

You see, I have no problem when one shares his opinion based on facts when they are presented as such. You Roger present your OPINIONS, admittedly base on facts, but as facts themselves. That, sir, is a deceiving way of convincing others. Is deception the way of the Lord?

Here's what I mean. In the article you posted you highlighted what you thought proved your point but you don't seem to realize that the author, who you believe to be an expert in the art of textual criticism and in the analysis of historical documents, couched his OPINION in such a way as to make clear that it was indeed just his opinion. You do the opposite, you couch your OPINION as though it was a fact. Here’s an Example:

EXPERT:
The well-known solar feast, however, of Natalis Invicti, celebrated on 25 December, has a strong claim on the responsibility for our December date.

{Strong claim but not decisive or concrete}

ROGER:
It is known history that the pagans used to worship their sun god, Baal and his son, Tammuz on December 25th. It is also known history that - in order to entice the pagans to join the Church - the Church agreed to accept December 25th as a special day of worship, too. Now, where is logic applied so far here? (emphasis mine)

{See the differance? You pronounce it as fact when even the expert doesn't claim it.)

==================

Here's another example:

EXPERT:
The present writer is inclined to think that, be the origin of the feast in East or West, and though the abundance of analogous midwinter festivals may indefinitely have helped the choice of the December date...(emphasis mine)

{Here again we see a possibility that his statement is his opinion and not fact}

but you say:

ROGER:
Finally you agree that December 25th was adopted by the Church as a way to attract pagans to join and stay with the new Church. Of course, this is considered to be a known historical fact.

See the differance? Whether you realize it or not you are using deceiving tactics to make your point. God does not use deceiving tactics to give us His message but Satan does. Whose tactics do you wish to use? God's or Satan's?

Food for thought.

And by the way…  We call that special celebration of God being born in the flesh as Christmas, ie Christ's Mass. The name should at least show you that we are not commemorating Tammuz or Baal but Christ.  Not idol worship but true worship of God.

 God Bless

Nathan

Answering a non-Catholic objection

Non-Catholic “Roger” states:
You have never proven through Scripture that the RCC has anything to do with the Church that Jesus started. All that you have given is
one assumption based upon other assumptions - that lead you to a
false conclusion.

I reply:
Other than the fact that the Catholic Church has believed in the True Presence of Christ throughout the centuries without break to today. And we have a written record of such a belief from the first generation beyond the apostles(Ignatius of Antioch, 107 AD). So, at least, the belief in the True Presence has been in existence in the same church for nearly 2000 years. Can your belief in a symbolic presence only (if that is what you truly believe) be proven the same way?

But beyond that. To prove through Scripture that the Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus started, all one needs to do is look at the Nicean Creed..."I believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church". The Church Christ founded is apostolic. It has its roots in the teachings of the apostles for Jesus said to His apostles "He who receives you receives Me, and he who rejects you, rejects Me and the One who sent Me." (Matt 10:1,40). Jesus freely gives His authority to the apostles in order for them to effectively convert the world.

But first let's start with Matt 28:18-20:

18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Three things to look at here in these verses. Firts, Jesus commands to make disciples of ALL nations. Jesus knew that this task was never going to be done by these 12 apostles alone. Others had to take their place once they died. Second, Jesus says that He will be with THEM to the very end of the age. How is that possible since the apostles all died before the end of the first century? That because Jesus was speaking to the twelve as the representatives of His Church. Third, Jesus sends them off with what kind of authority? With the authority of Jesus Himself. This is also confirmed in the Gospel of John, chapter 20, verse 21 which says "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you."

The apostles have divinely appointed authority. And this authority is transferred to others as successors through the laying on of hands. The first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority (Acts 1:15-16). The authority of Judas' office (his 'bishopric') is respected notwithstanding his egregious sin. The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all. God never said, "I'll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own."

The apostles authority was to be given to successors since Jesus' command of teaching (with authority) to all nations was a command unfeasible for those twelve alone. They had to share this authority to others to fulfill Jesus' command. They gave this authority to others through the laying on of hands (Acts 6:6, 1 Tim 4:14, 2 Tim 1:1-6). And this is to go on through multiple generations as shown in 2 Tim 2:2. This verse shows God's intention is to transfer authority to successors. It goes beyond the death of the apostles.

^“22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers. ²³ With them they sent the following letter:

The apostles and elders, your brothers, to the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:

Greetings.

²⁴ We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. ²⁵ So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— ²⁶ men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. ²⁷ Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing.   (Acts 15:22-27)

Preachers of the Word must be sent by the bishops in union with the Church. We must trace this authority to the apostles. Who sent you Roger? My bishop was sent by a previous bishop who was sent by a previous one all the way back in history to one of the twelve apostles themselves. Can you claim the same of your teachers of the Word?

God Bless

Nathan

Eternal Security

From what I understand of the belief of eternal security is that once one accepts Jesus Christ into their hearts and pray the ‘sinners’ prayer then there is no sin, no evil this individual can do so as to keep them from reaching heaven.  They only need to believe in Jesus (John 3:16) and they’ll be ‘saved’.  They have absolute assurance of salvation.  And since works do not gain our salvation, our works cannot contribute to our losing our salvation.  We are now “hid” with Christ in God (Colossians 3:3).  There is “no condemnation” for those in Christ (Romans 8:1-2).

In fact some also bring up John 10:27 as proof that they can never lose their salvation since Jesus proclaims that “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:  And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.”  And yet nowhere do we find that one cannot willingly jump out of His hands through ones own choosing.

In fact, one Protestant writes:

“However, it is not merely from the Levitical laws that we were discharged, but also from the moral ones.  God only has one law.  Does that mean we can sin freely?  No, for God hates sin, and if we love God, we will live according to His commandments.  However, it does mean that no sin will be held against us once we receive Christ, for upon receiving Christ we are discharged from the very law against which our sins would have been reckoned.”

Let’s look at the question of absolute assurance.  Is there such a teaching in Scripture?  NO, there isn’t.  Romans 8:1-2 does not say absolute assurance.

Rom 8:1-2  “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.”

And Romans 6:15-16 says that sin leads to death.  Now, this verse is found in the SAME letter as the verse supposedly showing absolute assurance.  Decidedly, Paul does not agree with this.  We are not discharged from the moral law because there are consequences to sinning!! 

For example, what happens if a believer in Jesus cannot forgive the sins of another?  Jesus Himself says that: “…if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.” (Mat 6:14-15)

God is infinite in His resources, He spares nothing to convince us to come to Him and remain BUT because of our free will, we are always free to refuse God's infinite help and support and in this way even lose our own salvation and therefore the Protestant doctrine of Eternal Security is unequivocally false.

Papal Authority

A great image of papal authority is the image of the Good Shepherd. This powerful image is so abundant in the Old Testament that this short article cannot begin to recount all the references. Suffice it to say that the Hebrews were a nomadic-shepherd people, and the images of the lamb and the shepherd are woven in and through their story at every glance. From the beginning God himself is seen to be the shepherd of his people.

In Genesis 48 the old man Jacob, before blessing his sons, says that the Lord God of his fathers has been his shepherd his whole life long. The prophet Micah sees the people of Israel as "sheep without a shepherd," and the shepherd King David calls the Lord his shepherd (Ps 23 et al). The prophet Isaiah says that the sovereign Lord will "tend his flock like a shepherd: He gathers the lambs in his arms, and carries them close to his heart; he gently leads those that have young" (Is 40:11).

The theme of the Lord being the Good Shepherd reaches its Old Testament climax in the Book of Ezekiel. Earlier, Jeremiah the prophet had raged against the corrupt leadership of the people of Israel. They were wicked and abusive shepherds, but in the Book of Ezekiel God himself promises to be the shepherd of his people Israel.

So the Lord says,

As a shepherd looks after his scattered flock when he is with them, so will I look after my sheep. I will rescue them from all the places where they were scattered on a day of clouds and darkness . . . I will search for the lost and bring back the strays. I will bind up the injured and strengthen the weak, but the sleek and the strong I will destroy. I will shepherd the flock with justice. (Ez 34:12,16)

Finally, the Lord’s servant, the Son of David, will come and be the shepherd of the lost flock.

I will save my flock, and they will no longer be plundered. I will judge between one sheep and another. I will place over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he will tend them; he will tend them and be their shepherd. I the Lord will be their God, and my servant David will be prince among them. (Ez 34:22-24)

One of the clearest signs, therefore, of Christ’s self-knowledge as the Son of God is when he calls himself the Good Shepherd. In story after story Jesus uses the image of the Good Shepherd to refer to his own ministry. He explicitly calls himself the Good Shepherd (Jn 10:11,14) who has come to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Mt 15:24). He tells the story of the lost sheep, placing himself in the story as the divine Shepherd who fulfills Ezekiel’s prophecy (Lk 15). The author of the Letter to the Hebrews calls Christ the Great Shepherd of the Sheep (Heb 13:20). Peter calls Jesus the Shepherd and overseer of souls (1 Pt 2:25), and in the Book of Revelation, the Lamb on the throne is also the Shepherd of the lost souls (Rv 7:17).

When Jesus Christ, after his Resurrection, then solemnly instructs Peter to "feed my lambs, watch over my sheep, feed my sheep" (Jn 21:15-17), the ramifications are enormous. Throughout the Old Testament, God himself is understood to be the Good Shepherd. He promises to come and be the shepherd of his people through his servant David. When Jesus Christ, the Son of David, fulfills this prophecy, God’s promise is kept. Then before Jesus returns to heaven, he commands Peter to take charge of his pastoral ministry. Now Peter will undertake the role of Good Shepherd in Christ’s place.

 

Copied/pasted from:
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/peter%E2%80%99s-authority