Do you think Protestants should not leave their denomination and rather change it from within?

[Peter J]

Originally Posted by gabjus

How?

I was wondering that also. There's no "dual communion".

[GaryTaylor]

Originally Posted by Contarini

It's a Latin translation of the Greek, which has been lost!

Edwin

Shame we can't compare. We "do" have the Latin, Against Heresies in its entirety! And the date is also a known.

Fragments of Syriac, Greek and Latin exist to compare.

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://w...tGUvSre9hAmpNQ

I guess that sort of leaves us with what we do have and an "assumption" of what we do not have. However, there was no point on contention in this work and the quotation, between the 2 and 4th century which it is dated from. Or that work must be missing also?

[Contarini]

Originally Posted by Peter J

I was wondering that also. There's no "dual communion".

Canon law certainly forbids it. I'm unclear on what the consequences are. I've seen Fr. Gustavo Gutierrez engage in it with my own eyes (in the chapel of Duke Divinity School, where he had just preached), and in spite of having been investigated by the CDF a number of times (not for that reason, as far as I know), he remains a Catholic theologian in good standing.

However, short of receiving communion, as far as I can see one could participate in a non-Catholic church in a variety of other ways. The Vatican's "Principles and Norms for Ecumenism" explicitly say that Catholics may take part in prayers, Scripture reading, etc., and may even preach, and the Church has frequently encouraged such things as joint study of Scripture.

So it seems to me that one could quite easily participate in most aspects of a non-Catholic church's parish life while also being a Catholic in good standing and not violating any teaching or current discipline of the Church.

Many folks on this forum resist this idea, but in previous debates they've been unable to support their position with any recent directive from the Vatican. Certainly pre-Vatican-II discipline forbade this kind of thing (or indeed any visit to a Protestant church that was not motivated by social considerations), but it's a well-known principle that discipline can and does change.

Edwin

[Peter J]

Originally Posted by Contarini

Canon law certainly forbids it. I'm unclear on what the consequences are. I've seen Fr. Gustavo Gutierrez engage in it with my own eyes (in the chapel of Duke Divinity School, where he had just preached), and in spite of having been investigated by the CDF a number of times (not for that reason, as far as I know), he remains a Catholic theologian in good standing.

However, short of receiving communion, as far as I can see one could participate in a non-Catholic church in a variety of other ways. The Vatican's "Principles and Norms for Ecumenism" explicitly say that Catholics may take part in prayers, Scripture reading, etc., and may even preach, and the Church has frequently encouraged such things as joint study of Scripture.

So it seems to me that one could quite easily participate in most aspects of a non-Catholic church's parish life while also being a Catholic in good standing and not violating any teaching or current discipline of the Church.

Many folks on this forum resist this idea, but in previous debates they've been unable to support their position with any recent directive from the Vatican. Certainly pre-Vatican-II discipline forbade this kind of thing (or indeed any visit to a Protestant church that was not motivated by social considerations), but it's a well-known principle that discipline can and does change.

Edwin

I find what you're saying here a bit confusing. If you're talking about inter-communion, then I would point out that most Christians (with a few exceptions like the Orthodox) have some inter-communion. For example, the RCC doesn't object to giving communion to members of the PNCC, even though they are not in full communion.

However, when I said "dual communion" I was referring to FinalRepentance's question, "But why not remain in both churches?" (which seem to me to be impossible).

[lulu88]

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.

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).

lulu

[Peter J]

Exactly. Hence, there's inter-communion (e.g. between the RCC and the PNCC); but there isn't "dual communion" because a member of the PNCC can't be in full communion with the RCC and still be in full communion with the rest of the PNCC as well (excepting, of course, if the rest of the PNCC also decided to come into full communion with the RCC).

[Contarini]

Originally Posted by Peter J

I find what you're saying here a bit confusing. If you're talking about inter-communion, then I would point out that most Christians (with a few exceptions like the Orthodox) have some inter-communion. For example, the RCC doesn't object to giving communion to members of the PNCC, even though they are not in full communion.

However, when I said "dual communion" I was referring to FinalRepentance's question, "But why not remain in both churches?" (which seem to me to be impossible).

OK, I assumed you were talking about receiving the Eucharist in both churches.

Why exactly does "remaining in both churches" seem impossible?

Of course, a lot depends on what "remaining" means.

If I seek full communion with Rome, I will obviously step down from Diocesan council--it wouldn't be appropriate for me to share in the governing of a community that doesn't act in full communion with and under the authority of the Catholic Church.

And as I said, I'm aware that receiving the Eucharist in the Episcopal Church is forbidden, but that doesn't seem to be your issue.

All the other many ways in which one "remains" in a community seem open to me.

But I welcome criticisms.

Why exactly does "belonging to both" seem so obviously impossible?

Sure, in a formal canonical sense one needs to belong to one or the other. But I don't think that's the issue here.

I would suggest that the flawed assumption that shapes how folks look at this is that Protestant churches are "other churches" that occupy the same "space" as the Catholic Church. But that's obviously false. Your Church doesn't teach this. There's only one Church.

Protestant churches are, in your Church's formal teaching, "ecclesial communities" of baptized people with an imperfect relationship to the Catholic Church.

Why would a person seeking full communion with the Church not be able to continue to share (albeit now "imperfectly" with regard to Eucharist and government) in the life of the community that shares "imperfectly" in the life of the Catholic Church?

This is a very real and very personal issue for me.

Edwin

[adf417]

I think it is not a bad idea depending on the true intent of the individual, which only Gods knows, and also conforming to church teachings. If I make my obligations at my Catholic church then what happens afterwards should be considered outward evangelization. I can see myself as attending Mass on Saturday and going to a protestant service on Sunday. This would be no different than attending Mass on Saturday and attending a non-Catholic bible study or prayer service later on in the week right?

I have been considering doing just this myself.

Peace!!!

[AlwaysCurious]

Originally Posted by Contarini

Why would a person seeking full communion with the Church not be able to continue to share (albeit now "imperfectly" with regard to Eucharist and government) in the life of the community that shares "imperfectly" in the life of the Catholic Church?

This is a very real and very personal issue for me.

Edwin

Seems to me that this is a good way to make sure a person never has any real peace (at least from the ecclesiastical point of view). It would be like knowing that my shoulder is dislocated, and that it's really going to hurt to set it, so I try to content myself with living with the dislocation.

I'm curious about this idea of trying to work within an "imperfect" community to seek full communion. Does it mean I'm operating as a sort of "double agent" to push individuals toward the Church? Does it mean I'm trying to change the outlook of the parish as a whole so that it will return home together (and what if that never happens)? Does it mean I'm hoping the Church will change its teaching such that there's really nothing wrong at all with these "ecclesial communities"? Or is it ultimately a rationalization?

I guess no matter how you look at it, it's a tough spot. All the more reason to keep praying for unity!

[Contarini]

Originally Posted by AlwaysCurious

Seems to me that this is a good way to make sure a person never has any real peace (at least from the ecclesiastical point of view). It would be like knowing that my shoulder is dislocated, and that it's really going to hurt to set it, so I try to content myself with living with the dislocation.

But as long as not all baptized Christians are in communion with each other, and for that matter as long as any baptized Christians are not glorified saints (in other words until Jesus comes), we will be "dislocated."

Perfectionist ecclesiologies, like other forms of perfectionism, are trying to evade the limitations of our existence "in pilgrimage."

I'm curious about this idea of trying to work within an "imperfect" community to seek full communion.

All communities of the Church Militant are imperfect, because all are made up of imperfect people.

Protestants have particular imperfections arising from their lack of union with the See of Peter and their abandonment of certain parts of the deposit of faith.

Does it mean I'm operating as a sort of "double agent" to push individuals toward the Church? Does it mean I'm trying to change the outlook of the parish as a whole so that it will return home together (and what if that never happens)?

No, it means that I'm refusing to turn my back on anything good and true, period. It means that if I conclude that communion with the Church involves communion with Rome, and that my present community is imperfectly in communion with the Church for that reason, then I may need to have an imperfect communion with my present congregation (by not receiving communion--though even that is very difficult for me to contemplate). But to refuse to have any communion at all would not reflect what the Catholic Church actually teaches about these communities' relationship with the Church.

Conservative Catholics are very concerned about "giving the impression" that all religions are the same and everything is OK.

They aren't nearly enough concerned about giving the impression that Protestants are not really brothers and sisters in Christ at all, instead of being imperfectly united to the Church. That's actually the impression that many non-Catholics have.

There's a radical dissonance between saying that there are many gifts and graces within Protestantism, and acting as if there aren't.

Edwin

[Peter J]

Originally Posted by Contarini

OK, I assumed you were talking about receiving the Eucharist in both churches.

Why exactly does "remaining in both churches" seem impossible?

Of course, a lot depends on what "remaining" means.

If I seek full communion with Rome, I will obviously step down from Diocesan council--it wouldn't be appropriate for me to share in the governing of a community that doesn't act in full communion with and under the authority of the Catholic Church.

And as I said, I'm aware that receiving the Eucharist in the Episcopal Church is forbidden, but that doesn't seem to be your issue.

You're right that's not the issue I was talking about.

I should clarify: when I said "dual communion", I meant that in the sense of being in full communion with 2 different groups who are not in full communion with each other. That's just not happening -- just consider the Zoghby Initiative, or read any of the various discussions of same.

I don't mean to imply that there can't be ways of "belonging" other than full communion. There are -- a simple example would be someone who is in full communion with the PNCC receiving communion in the RCC.

[Contarini]

Originally Posted by Peter J

You're right that's not the issue I was talking about.

I should clarify: when I said "dual communion", I meant that in the sense of being in full communion with 2 different groups who are not in full communion with each other. That's just not happening -- just consider the Zoghby Initiative, or read any of the various discussions of same.

I don't mean to imply that there can't be ways of "belonging" other than full communion. There are -- a simple example would be someone who is in full communion with the PNCC receiving communion in the RCC.

I guess I need a definition of "full communion." It's a term that gets thrown around a lot. If it doesn't mean Eucharistic intercommunion, what does it mean? In mainline Protestant circles (where open communion is widely practiced anyway) it tends to mean that ministers of one denomination may serve as ministers in another. But that doesn't affect the present question regarding the possibility of individual laypeople practicing "dual communion."

As I said, I can certainly see that if I were to enter into full communion with Rome I'd have to give up serving in any kind of governmental capacity in Anglicanism (I was on the vestry until this year, and am still on the diocesan council). And a fortiori it wouldn't be possible to function as a clergyperson in both (whereas one may function simultaneously as a clergyperson in both TEC and ELCA, or in the Mennonites and the Church of the Brethren, or in the Roman Catholic and Byzantine Catholic churches, though the last is probably the most difficult owing to the huge liturgical differences).

Edwin

[MasterAsia]

Originally Posted by JonNC

As you're new here, there's history behind the listing, even other than the historical reference of the type of Lutheran I see myself as. I would suggest you google "evangelical Catholic" before you accuse of "misleading".

Whatever is your personal story it is still misleading. The Catholic Church has more than a billion adherents. Catholics from the third-world who are just recently having Internet connection will surely be confused about your label. In the Philippines we have a lot of "Evangelical Catholics" who are Catholics. Lutherans here label them themselves as "Lutheren".

And what happened to the old Internet rule of taking and presenting things at face value? Although we are allowed freedom to represent ourselves, we still ought to be factual as well as practical.

Imagine after you have gone (knock on wood) people would say "oh this guy labeled himself an Evangelical Catholic" Then would go on to read that JonNC was holding heretical positions. Why give a greater probability for confusion, when it can be clear at first hand? Unless you are not really a proud Lutheran.

you seemed to imply that they came on the scene at the same time.
...
And that means they were of the same communion, other than Catholic, how?
...
Ask the Anglicans and Methodists about that. That said, I'm not sure what difference that makes, other than the implication (is there here?) that those who "followed" Luther really didn't think about it, simply following a pied piper of sorts. I have no particular (theological) fondness for Calvin or Zwingli, but I don't consider them lemmings, either.
...
And you don't see the hyperbole in that?
...
Where did you get this from: Lutheranism has never been hierarchical in the sense that Catholicism is.
Here again you erroneously speak of protestantism as a monolith. I could only move to another protestant commuion if they accepted Augsburg.

Not true, you either misread or is misrepresenting my statements. Probably you are having an assumption that you thought I was having. Now you know it is none of what you thought you knew.

Again Luther is the "prime mover" of Sola Scriptura. In effect there must be a level of expectation via Sola Scriptura that others who will subscribe to Sola Scriptura will have different and diversified conclusions. How hard is that to understand? LOL That is why there are Baptists and Methodists too, not only Lutherans. One ultimate doctrine (courtesy of Martin Luther) that is the father of all these Protestant denominations.

Can't imagine why. Are you saying that Catholic catechesis is doing a great job of avoiding these kinds of mistakes? Obviously, I can't always say that about Lutheran catechesis.

One would wonder why you would incline to be Catholic, "I would much sooner be Catholic".

Maybe because the things that bind us are more important than the things that divide us.

Actually, I've said before that I would much sooner be Catholic than any other western communion, with the possible exception of more High-church Anglican.

No. It's name calling. You would consider it name calling if I referred to you as "Romanist" or "Papist".

I would never expect you to submit to anything you personally do not believe in.

Agreed on the last statement, though I would hope that includes a high level of charity.

Jon

Here in the Philippines, in real life, we take verbal assaults from Protestants and Muslims. Protestants in the midst of their worship services will call us anything from pagans to apostates. Muslims in the midst of the the feast of the Nazarene where 9 million Catholics attend, would openly mock us of idolatry and paganism. I don't know about our brothers and sisters overseas, but here in the Philippines we are proud papists and Romanists.

Why don't you shed your onion skin. The Internet is a straightforward communication medium. If the high-level of charity for you equates to a liberal and politically correct wording that serves only your own personal feelings then I am sorry you are not going to get it from us. In the Philippines, face-to-face dialogue with Protestants demands the highest charity by shutting off any argumentation in the defense of Marian beliefs and the papacy. In real life, Catholics here are decent and submissive and will not provoke nor add fuel to the fire that we only remain silent in the midst of religious assault. Only in the Internet that we have a chance to equalize the playing field. Expect uncompromising positions regarding doctrine, but charity (and beers) in anything else.

Sola Persona is a scholarly derivation of the true meaning of Sola Scriptura, and that just means personal interpretation. It has positive and negative connotations, but as a Catholic, we perceive that the risks outweighs the benefits.

[benjohnson]

Originally Posted by MasterAsia

Whatever is your personal story it is still misleading.

The term "Evangelical Catholic" is old, and is correctly used by JonNC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangel...al_Catholicity

[Peter J]

Originally Posted by Contarini

I guess I need a definition of "full communion." It's a term that gets thrown around a lot.

True, it does get thrown around a lot.

Originally Posted by Contarini

If it doesn't mean Eucharistic intercommunion, what does it mean?

If memory serves, back before the ELCA and TEC-USA had a "full communion" agreement, they had a "eucharistic sharing" agreement, right? I don't recall the year.