What If Billy Graham

[dairygirl4u2c]

so what if he believed in the true prescence, but did not believe in the catholic church. is a priest allowed to give him the eucharist if billy graham wanted it? i understand that the orthodox and some like them are allowed to partake in catholic churches.
so if he's not allowed, why are those others allowed? what's the reasoning? it'd seem to believe or not in the prescence would be the main feature that allow the orthodox, but there must be something i'm missing if he wouldn't be allowed.

[Resurrexi]

Only Catholics in full communion with the Vicar of Christ who is Bishop of Rome are allowed to recieve of the Body of Christ.

[quote name='Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott']For the worthy reception of the Eucharist the state of grace as well as the proper and pious disposition are necessary. (De fide as regards the state of grace.)[/quote]

Only Catholics or the invincably ignorant can be in a state of grace. Once a non-Catholic is through his own fault, not in the Catholic Church, he is no longer invincably ignorant.

[quote name='The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X']29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation[/quote]

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1172392' date='Jan 21 2007, 04:59 PM']
so what if he believed in the true prescence, but did not believe in the catholic church. is a priest allowed to give him the eucharist if billy graham wanted it? i understand that the orthodox and some like them are allowed to partake in catholic churches.
so if he's not allowed, why are those others allowed? what's the reasoning? it'd seem to believe or not in the prescence would be the main feature that allow the orthodox, but there must be something i'm missing if he wouldn't be allowed.
[/quote]
How could you believe in the True Presence and not the Only Church where you could find it?

[Socrates]

What Billy Graham wants has no effect on Church teaching or discipline.

[dairygirl4u2c]

I've gone to CCs long enough to know that if you look at the back of any missalette you'll find the rules for who can partake, which says it includes orthodox that can. I may be mistaken, but I don't think so.
I know for sure if it's an emergency an orthodox can.

Here's this site that says they can too.
[quote]The Eucharist is indeed the "work of the people" as the word liturgy means. Thus, all people in full communion with Christ and His Church are entitled to receive Christ's body and blood. The Catholic Church allows all Catholic and Orthodox Christians (including those in non-Chalcedonian Churches, e.g. Coptic Christians) in a state of grace to commune; Usually Orthodox Churches do not return the favor, but some will. [/quote]
[url="http://www.ancient-future.net/eucharist.html"]http://www.ancient-future.net/eucharist.html[/url]

And again my point.
[quote]so if he's not allowed, why are those others allowed? what's the reasoning? it'd seem to believe or not in the prescence would be the main feature that allow the orthodox, but there must be something i'm missing if he wouldn't be allowed.[/quote]

edit.. here's a more credible source..
[quote]canon law provides that only those Christians (such as the Eastern Orthodox) who believe in the Real Presence as Catholics do may take Communion in our churches (canon 844). All they need do is ask.[/quote]
[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9903fea2.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9903fea2.asp[/url]

look at Q and A 5.

Edited January 21, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Katholikos]

Unless Billy Graham (or others) makes a Profession of Faith in [b]all[/b] that the One Holy Catholic Church teaches, and is in a state of grace, and has fasted for the required time according to the laws of the Church he is attending (one hour for the Latin Rite), he is not eligible to receive holy communion.

The Profession of Faith assumes that the person knows[b] all[/b] that the Catholic Church teaches. That's why anyone aspiring to be a Catholic must ordinarily attend classes and receive instructions.

Eastern Orthodox Christians are forbidden by their own Churches from receiving communion in a Catholic Church. However, the Catholic Church does not forbid them (Code of Canon Law 844.3). Their beliefs are about 99 and 44/100% Catholic, and we pray for reunion of the two ancient Churches that were one for the first thousand years of Christianity.

Jay

-------------------------
Blessed Father Damien, pray for us!

[dairygirl4u2c]

What exactly is it about being orthodox that allows it though (even if it is only a technical allowance that isn't used)?
i understand they are close, very close even. but what exactly about being close is it?

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1172428' date='Jan 21 2007, 04:58 PM']Their beliefs are about 99 and 44/100% Catholic [/quote]
Ah, but do they float?

[Katholikos]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1172434' date='Jan 21 2007, 06:10 PM']
Ah, but do they float?
[/quote]<chuckle chuckle>


[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1172430' date='Jan 21 2007, 06:02 PM']
What exactly is it about being orthodox that allows it though (even if it is only a technical allowance that isn't used)?
i understand they are close, very close even. but what exactly about being close is it?
[/quote]The Orthodox are considered by the Catholic Church to be in schism, not in heresy.

Catechism of the Catholic Church 838 quote . . . Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain although imperfect communion with the Catholic Church." With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist." end quote

Jay

Edited January 21, 2007 by Katholikos

[dairygirl4u2c]

i guess. i'll take that to mean... they believe it all so much minus a little.. and someone not ortho and not catho would not have that attainment... and as you said they are in shism not heresy, so they are next to catholic anyway, which billy gram would not be. i guess i can take that.

i do wonder if billy grahm or X were to have many of the beleifs of the orthodox whether he could be in his own church which is not ortho or catho and receive in a catho. i guess he wouldn't have holy orders though...
and i'd have to really stretch it to get a new church, not ortho and not catho... to have holy orders involved.
okay i'm done with this thread

Edited January 21, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Mercy me]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1172457' date='Jan 21 2007, 06:33 PM']
i do wonder if billy grahm or X were to have many of the beleifs of the orthodox whether he could be in his own church which is not ortho or catho and receive in a catho. i guess he wouldn't have holy orders though...
and i'd have to really stretch it to get a new church, not ortho and not catho... to have holy orders involved.
okay i'm done with this thread
[/quote]

You are right. Basically it would come down to lack of apostolic succession.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1172435' date='Jan 21 2007, 04:16 PM']
<chuckle chuckle>
The Orthodox are considered by the Catholic Church to be in schism, not in heresy.

Catechism of the Catholic Church 838 quote . . . Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain although imperfect communion with the Catholic Church." With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist." end quote

Jay
[/quote]

That's completely incorrect. The Greek Orthodox are in schism and in heresy. They deny several Dogmata, most notably:

[quote name='The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by L. Ott']The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and from the Son as from a Single Principle through a Single Spiration. (De fide.)

Christ appointed the Apostle Peter to be the first of all the Apostles and to be the visible head of the whole Church, by appointing him immediately and personally to the primacy of jurisdiction. (De fide.)

According to Christ's ordinance, Peter is to have successors in his Primacy over the whole Church and for all time. (De fide.)

The successors of Peter in the Primacy are the bishops of Rome. (De fide.)

The Pope possesses full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not merely in matters of faith and morals, but also in Church discipline and in the government of the Church. (De fide.)

The Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra. (De fide.)
[/quote]

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

i agree with STM. The orthodox are obviously schismatic because they refuse to submit to the Pope, but they obviously deny Defined Dogma, which makes them heretic. according to the CCC

[quote]2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. [b]"Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same[/b]; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." [/quote]

therefore a heretic is someone who is baptized but denies Dogma (like the orthodox). Some orthodox deny The immaculate conception, purgatory, Papal infallibility, and the list goes on...

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1172430' date='Jan 21 2007, 06:02 PM']
What exactly is it about being orthodox that allows it though (even if it is only a technical allowance that isn't used)?
i understand they are close, very close even. but what exactly about being close is it?
[/quote]

In short, we share apostolic succession and celebrate all seven sacraments. We consider them illicit, but they are not invalid (like a Mormon Baptism or Anglican ordination are invalid).

[dairygirl4u2c]

i thought the anglican's had legitimate ordinations, which is why they have legitimate eucharistic celebration?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' post='1173329' date='Jan 22 2007, 06:53 PM']
i agree with STM. The orthodox are obviously schismatic because they refuse to submit to the Pope, but they obviously deny Defined Dogma, which makes them heretic. according to the CCC
therefore a heretic is someone who is baptized but denies Dogma (like the orthodox). Some orthodox deny The immaculate conception, purgatory, Papal infallibility, and the list goes on...
[/quote]
That's anachronistic. The Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility were both dogmatically defined well after the schism occured. You can't fault them for denying defined dogma if it wasn't dogmatically defined then. However, you can fault them for denying doctrine, but only in so much as they should know better, which is something you can't judge.

Anyway, it's not schism or heresy that negates the ability to consecrate. The Orthodox are in Schism and they can consecrate; the Assyrian Church of the East is Nestorian (heretical) and they can consecrate (at least according to my theology teacher, who cited the CDF). What keeps one from consecrating is a lack of valid priesthood. If your theology of the priesthood keeps you from properly understanding its nature in order to know what you're entering into as a priest (thus, nullifying your ordination) or if you do not have apostolic succession (a line of bishops coming from the Apostles, thus having the power to pass on priestly power), you can't consecrate the Eucharist.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1174112' date='Jan 23 2007, 05:24 PM']
i thought the anglican's had legitimate ordinations, which is why they have legitimate eucharistic celebration?
[/quote]
Anglicans do not have legitimage ordinations or legitimate sacraments, save Baptism and, if done with the right understanding of the sacrament, marriage (since marriage is conferred by the wife on the husband and the husband on the wife, not by the priest, except in the Eastern Rites, I believe).

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1174184' date='Jan 23 2007, 04:52 PM']
That's anachronistic. The Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility were both dogmatically defined well after the schism occured. You can't fault them for denying defined dogma if it wasn't dogmatically defined then. However, you can fault them for denying doctrine, but only in so much as they should know better, which is something you can't judge.

Anyway, it's not schism or heresy that negates the ability to consecrate. The Orthodox are in Schism and they can consecrate; the Assyrian Church of the East is Nestorian (heretical) and they can consecrate (at least according to my theology teacher, who cited the CDF). What keeps one from consecrating is a lack of valid priesthood. If your theology of the priesthood keeps you from properly understanding its nature in order to know what you're entering into as a priest (thus, nullifying your ordination) or if you do not have apostolic succession (a line of bishops coming from the Apostles, thus having the power to pass on priestly power), you can't consecrate the Eucharist.
Anglicans do not have legitimage ordinations or legitimate sacraments, save Baptism and, if done with the right understanding of the sacrament, marriage (since marriage is conferred by the wife on the husband and the husband on the wife, not by the priest, except in the Eastern Rites, I believe).
[/quote]

Just because one went in schism before a Dogma was defined, it doesn't make one cease to be an heretic. The definition of heretic is thus:

[quote] 14 Q. Who are heretics?
A. Heretics are those of the baptised who obstinately refuse to believe some truth revealed by God and taught as an article of faith by the Catholic Church; for example, the Arians, the Nestorians and the various sects of Protestants. [/quote]

Therefore, since the Greek Orthodox obstinately refuse Papal Supremacy (along with many other Dogmata) post-Baptism, they are heretics.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1174265' date='Jan 23 2007, 07:52 PM']
Just because one went in schism before a Dogma was defined, it doesn't make one cease to be an heretic. The definition of heretic is thus:
Therefore, since the Greek Orthodox obstinately refuse Papal Supremacy (along with many other Dogmata) post-Baptism, they are heretics.
[/quote]
I wasn't denying that the Orthodox Church is in a state of heresy. I was correcting your definition of heresy. Heretics deny "any revealed truth about God," as you quoted. That is not limited to dogma. I just wanted to say that you can't fault the Orthodox for denying defined dogma when the dogma wasn't yet defined (at least, not the Orthodox of 1054). However, you can fault them for denying doctrine, which still is heresy, [i]assuming that they knew better[/i]. Dogmas are not "higher" or "more true" than doctrines, they just have defined limits and much less room for theological speculation on their inner-workings.

Now, since heresy is intrinsically grave matter, one is in heresy by denying a truth of the faith. However, to be a heretic requires formal heresy, not material heresy. As such, it requires the same things as a mortal sin (because formal heresy is, by definition, a mortal sin): grave matter (check), full knowledge (not necessarily a check), full consent of the will (also not necessarily a check).

You don't have the right to call anyone a heretic, unless the Church judges the individual as one, because you can't assume that you know the state of their mind or will. Most Orthodox do not realize the truth of the Catholic faith and thus are not likely to be heretics. Most of them are walking through the fields without willingly and knowingly jumping in the poo, if I may use an analogy. You can say they have the stink of poo, you can even say they're surrounded by it, but you can't very well say that they are willingly and knowingly covered in it.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1174291' date='Jan 23 2007, 06:13 PM']
I wasn't denying that the Orthodox Church is in a state of heresy. I was correcting your definition of heresy. Heretics deny "any revealed truth about God," as you quoted. That is not limited to dogma. I just wanted to say that you can't fault the Orthodox for denying defined dogma when the dogma wasn't yet defined (at least, not the Orthodox of 1054). However, you can fault them for denying doctrine, which still is heresy, [i]assuming that they knew better[/i]. Dogmas are not "higher" or "more true" than doctrines, they just have defined limits and much less room for theological speculation on their inner-workings.

Now, since heresy is intrinsically grave matter, one is in heresy by denying a truth of the faith. However, to be a heretic requires formal heresy, not material heresy. As such, it requires the same things as a mortal sin (because formal heresy is, by definition, a mortal sin): grave matter (check), full knowledge (not necessarily a check), full consent of the will (also not necessarily a check).

You don't have the right to call anyone a heretic, unless the Church judges the individual as one, because you can't assume that you know the state of their mind or will. Most Orthodox do not realize the truth of the Catholic faith and thus are not likely to be heretics. Most of them are walking through the fields without willingly and knowingly jumping in the poo, if I may use an analogy. You can say they have the stink of poo, you can even say they're surrounded by it, but you can't very well say that they are willingly and knowingly covered in it.
[/quote]

Most Greek Orthodox, though, do know that the teachings of their false church deny the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church and are therefore not ignorant.

Edited January 24, 2007 by StThomasMore

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1174293' date='Jan 23 2007, 08:17 PM']
Most Greek Orthodox, though, do know that the teachings of their false church deny the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church and are therefore not ignorant.
[/quote]
You have absolutely no proof of that ridiculous statement. They have been brought up in their faith and believe it to be truth. If they thought their church was false they wouldn't be members! Bible -believing protestants and generic christians are the same way. They believe what they have been taught since they were little, just like you do.