Organization: Argus Consulting, Tucson, AZ
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.4 2/2/92)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 11:09:42 -0700
From:         "Gordon C. Zaft" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG>
Subject:      Re: Church rules

On Jan 6,  8:47am, noao!URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM wrote:
} Subject: Re: Church rules
} "Gordon C. Zaft" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG> writes:
}
} >} I really don't see a difference, either He's present when His followers
} >} "do it in memory of Him" or He's not. Whether we call it "trans" or "con"
} >} would seem to be irrelevent to Him.
}
} >        Well, doe you not see a difference because you don't understand,
} >or merely because you don't think the difference is important?  Which
} >'it' do you think Jesus was referring to?  And who decides?
}
} Yes, I don't understand the process (that's why they call it a mystery, I
} suppose:-). The words seem simple enough, the bread and wine seem simple
} enough, the people involved all call themselves Christians, yet, Christ
} decides to show up in one and not the other???
} I guess I not only don't understand the process, I don't understand the
} end result and how it is different in an Anglican vs. Catholic communion.
} Is it part of our faith to believe that God treats each communion
} differently?

        Hm.  Well, while it's true that what we call it is irrelevant,
it is also true that the minister must have the intent to do what the
Church does.  (someone correct me if I'm wrong)  The Church defines its
doctrine as transubstantiation; that is, the Church says that that term
most closely reflects its understanding of the Real Presence.  While the
Anglicans (If I understand them correctly) believe in the Real Presence
also, they don't have the same understanding the Roman Church does, and
thus they use a different term.
        [Incidentally, can someone tell me why the Anglicans changed their
beliefs on this matter?  Presumably at the time of the split they believed
in transubstantiation since it was Church teaching at the time.  What
reason did they give for the change?]
        Obviously, Ed, no one 'understands' the process, and yes, it is
a 'mystery'.  Without launching into an explanation of the Church's
teaching on transubstantiation (which I think someone else gave quite
nicely a while back) I will simply say that with this (as with the other
sacraments) the Church teaches that there are certain prerequisites of
both 'materials' as it were (in this case, bread and wine) and 'form'
(words and gestures and the minister's intent in doing so).  The
Anglican Communion is probably not defective in materials (usually
called 'matter') but is defective in form.
        Again, input from an Anglican would be useful here (though
obviously we would disagree on what's valid and what's not).
w
}
} >} There are a lot of silly Church rules, but the one on marriage doesn't
} >} appear to be one of them. I think it comes down to "what God has joined,
} >} let no man part" or something like that. But since he gave His apostles
} >} the power to join through Him, it would seem reasonable that they would
} >} also have the power to "unjoin" through Him, whether they know it or
} >} not:-) maybe even an eight sacrament:-)
}
} >        No, it doesn't seem reasonable, since Jesus specifically said
} >that what God has joined men must not put asunder.
}
} Well, what I was referring to was the power given to the apostles to
} forgive or not to forgive sins, and could this also apply to vows
} made before them? I suppose it was stretching things a bit, hence, my
} use of the smiley.
}
} >} Are priests who leave the priesthood and marry allowed to receive
} >} communion? Seems like the same type of vow being ended to me.
}
} >        It's not the same.  First of all, they have to have received
} >a dispensation.  Second, the one is God's law, the second is the Church's;
} >she may dispense her own laws but not God's.
}
} Bzzzt, I can't connect the answers to the questions, Gordon:-)
} 1) Not being allowed to receive communion is a Church law? (if one either
} is divorced and remarried or an ex-priest and (re)married)

        Case 1.  If one is divorced and re-married outside the Church,
one is in a state of adultery (a serious sin).  Like all cases of serious
sin, one cannot receive the Sacrament until one has received absolution
from the serious sin.  Receiving absolution is depending on a purpose
of atonement which is not there if the person is continuing in the same
state as before (unless the couple agree to live like brother and sister).
        Case 2.  If a priest leaves the priesthood, he can receive a
dispensation from his promise of celibacy (I'm talking about the secular
(diocesan) priesthood here.  I'm not sure about the Religious orders).
Since it is only a Church law requiring priests to be celibate, she can
and does dispense that law on occasion.
}
} 2) Is a dispensation like an annulment. No valid vow was made in the
} original sacrament of holy orders?

        No, a dispensation is nothing like an annulment.  A dispensation
is a waiving of Church law.  An annulment is a statement that there was
not actually a valid marriage.  Furthermore, Holy Orders are similar to
baptism and confirmation in that they leave an indelible mark on the
soul; once a priest, always a priest (even though one may be unable to
exercise that ministry).
}
} Maybe I'd better place an order for that new Catechism:-) -J.J.
        I've already got mine in.
}-- End of excerpt from noao!URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM



--
* Gordon Zaft     Argus Consulting  4500 E. Sunrise #N-6, Tucson, AZ 85718
* zaft@caritas.cotdazr.org | noao.edu!coyote!caritas!zaft
                 Semper fidelis Christi et Vicarii sui.