Another question for Catholics...

Even a noncatholic like myself can see the problems in your question. First, the concept of papal infallibility does not extend to these statements. Second, the Council of Florence was 600 years ago. Much of the issues which it addressed were political in nature, including issues concerning the Basel council, and cannot be applied across the board or in perpetuity.

 

This won't be taken well, I am fully aware, but I will post the truth of the statements. Bear with me please, and don't judge to harshly for these things are not well received most times.

Those statements are true statements. They based upon the belief that all Christians are Catholic Christians. All Christians hold a piece of Catholic belief, as all Christians did come from the Catholic Church at one time. Whether it was during the reformation, the Bible they hold as truth, or the teaching on the Trinity. All these things are considered, by Catholics, as being inheritably Catholic.

So, in short, all Christians who believe in the Holy Trinity, in Christ himself, in the salvation he brings, are still a part of that Catholic *It means universal* Church.

 

*sighs* Did you even read the rest of it? Catholic means Universal. You do consider yourself part of the Universal Church do you not?

So, if you are not a member of the Universal Church, set by Christ, whether you believe it to be an invisible body of Christ or an actual denomination, you can not be saved.

I would think you are part of that Universal Church myself.

 

Papal infallibility does not apply to everything a pope says. It only apples to statements deemed "ex cathedra". The statements you cited were not ex cathedra statements.

There's nothing to "reverse". They weren't statements of perpetuity.

Never said they weren't. Statement by you like that obviously demonstrate that your agenda is not to engage in civil discussion and debate, but instead to espouse a wilfull and open hostility towards anyone who would disagree with you.

 

Whether a church practices open or closed communion is not necessarily an indicator of bad doctrine (nor is it an indicator of good doctrine).

 

Not so. Landmarkists frequently hold to closed communion. Some primitive Baptists do as well. So do branches of Lutherans. Menonintes and Amish hold to closed communion, as do some Reformed churches such as CRC congregations.

 

It is a gracious statement to try and show unity even though beliefs are so wide spread.

To answer your question, which I assume you already know the answer to, no, you can not.

You must be in FULL communion with the Church to partake in the Eucharist.

Doesn't mean you aren't part of the Church in some manner however, just means you are not in full communion with it.

 

The infallibility thing is something a lot of folk get in knots over, this is just Catholics I might add. Only in certain situations in relation to doctrinal matters can the Pope speak with such authority. Because of the gravity of the authority it is rarely invoked, after all the Pope must give an account at the day of his judgement to the Eternal Head of the Church.

The Holy Eucharist is bound to the Mystery of Faith...that is the Transubstantiation of matter to the Body and Blood of Our Redeemer. This is a Dogma of the RCC, to receive the Host in an irreverant manner such as unbelief mocks the Lord, so why would a non-Catholic Christian even consider such a sacriledge and imperil his/her soul.

 

The infallibility thing is something a lot of folk get in knots over, this is just Catholics I might add. Only in certain situations in relation to doctrinal matters can the Pope speak with such authority. Because of the gravity of the authority it is rarely invoked, after all the Pope must give an account at the day of his judgement to the Eternal Head of the Church.

The Holy Eucharist is bound to the Mystery of Faith...that is the Transubstantiation of matter to the Body and Blood of Our Redeemer. This is a Dogma of the RCC, to receive the Host in an irreverant manner such as unbelief mocks the Lord, so why would a non-Catholic Christian even consider such a sacriledge.

 

oops sorry about the double post, mea culpa:tear:

 

Another question here.

If those of us who are not in full communion with the RCC are denied the Eucharist on that basis, isn't that denying us the means of salvation?

 

Yes, this is the teaching of the Catholic Church. ALL Christians hold at least in part belief in the (little 'c') catholic Church. They hold the Bible as truth, they belief in the Holy Trinity, the Virgin Birth, that Christ died as an atonement for our sins,that after repentence and through faith in Him and Him alone by virtue of his shed blood upon calvary that by faith they are saved by grace. All you Christians (little 'c') are members of the body of Christ, the universal Church, the catholic Church.

Fr. Charles Feeney, a former Roman Catholic Church was ex-communicated for teaching that there was no salvation outside of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. He died in that belief. His monastery's (who held that belief) were also ex-communicated and only after re-canting that belief some of them have been welcomed back into communion with the rest of the Catholic Church.

 

For what reason are you being denied full communion? Are you refusing to amend your life in accordance to God's Holy Word. Refusing to accept God's promise of reconciliation to any and all sinners?

I'm just guessing. If you feel free to share on this board or contact me personally I will be glad to answer what I know with care and concern.

Joy in Jesus,

Lori

 

Dominus Vobiscum!