It's ok Toni ... Alana (original writer) still sees it as open season on Catholics.

http://www.dailygazette.com

Quoted Text

Not all Catholics so rigid about taking Communion

    In response to the Sept. 28 letter by Toni LaFond, I have to disagree with her opinion that non-Catholics should be denied Communion.
    Thirty-eight years ago, I married a Catholic man. Back in those days, the non-Catholic partner was required to sign a piece of paper stating that any children they might have would be raised Catholic. I had no problem with that. I was a member of the First Reformed Church, however, and I always enjoyed attending St. Helen’s with my girlfriend. Interestingly enough, she was not “allowed” to visit my church, per her parents.
    Around the time our two children made their First Communion, I considered converting to the Catholic faith. I never followed through with the conversion, however I had many conversations with a very kind Sister from St. Helen’s Church. I told her I wished I could receive Communion with our children, but wondered if I would be allowed. She told me that if I felt that strongly about it, I should indeed walk down the aisle with our children and receive the sacrament.
    As far as I know, Protestants and Catholics still worship the same God, and I’m sure he welcomes us all to his table.
    DONNA HART
    Schenectady

By tradition, communion in the Roman Catholic church cannot be received if the individual is not already, "in a state of grace," which means their sins have been forgiven - before receiving communion.  In order to do that, the person must first have had the sacrament of baptism in the church. The next requirement is that the parishioner must have received the sacrament of 'reconciliation' through confession and penance, and have committed no mortal sin since that time.  This is a system that Roman Catholics have practiced for centuries as part of their belief.  To bypass all the religious tradition involved and just receive communion as a non-Roman Catholic is nothing less than a show of complete disdain and contempt, both for the Church, and for the Roman Catholics who practice their faith in this manner. Every practicing Roman Catholic believes that they have to a degree 'earned' communion.

I guess they all do and believe what they have to.

I guess that the Roman Catholics are more like the Muslim faith that is based on 'works' and 'earning' their way to heaven. The Protestants believe that it is a gift of faith. I 'think' the Hindus and Buddhists believe in reincarnation. So they get a chance to do it the right way a few times.  And the Jews get a free pass due to their heritage.

correct me if I'm mis-informed here. I'm clearly no religious scholar for sure.

Earn away.....the Roman Catholic Church(not meaning disrespect to those in faith) is a capitalist system in a way.....everyone pays for their services....
which is fine obviously everyone in the Catholic church agrees....if not they wouldn't exist.....

The confusion at this end is just about complete.  It is very difficult to anticipate your reasoning on this, so just about any additional thoughts that might clarify exactly where the basis of the claim, that the RC Church is ‘capitalist, would be helpful.

A smaller, but still equally confusing, issue is; there seems no linkage between that fairly broad statement, and the denial of communion to those not of Roman-Catholic belief.

On both of these points, understanding seems beyond reach, at least for the moment.

Quoted from 246

By tradition, communion in the Roman Catholic church cannot be received if the individual is not already, "in a state of grace," which means their sins have been forgiven - before receiving communion.  In order to do that, the person must first have had the sacrament of baptism in the church. The next requirement is that the parishioner must have received the sacrament of 'reconciliation' through confession and penance, and have committed no mortal sin since that time.  This is a system that Roman Catholics have practiced for centuries as part of their belief.  To bypass all the religious tradition involved and just receive communion as a non-Roman Catholic is nothing less than a show of complete disdain and contempt, both for the Church, and for the Roman Catholics who practice their faith in this manner. Every practicing Roman Catholic believes that they have to a degree 'earned' communion.

My point was just in buying mass cards/candles etc.....they think they have 'earned' what???? this just an overlay to the stockmarket....
those who invest and hope to get 'return'....

practice faith/invest
return/earned

just a little different view....very small that it is.....

That's not a bad analogy.  However, because it is an analogy, by nature it is a simplistic comparison and lacks depth.  There is no 'purchase' involved in receiving communion in the Church.  Quite the opposite in fact.  A body of sin, which constitutes a moral debt, must be satisfied before hand.  In concert with that, behavior that follows ritual is required; behavior that has no earthly reward per se, beyond that the person is walking a life-path continuously struggling to remain in a state of grace.  It is no different in any organized religion, and it certainly cannot simply be dropped into the bucket of capitalism.  As nearly every altruistic act flies in the face of capitalistic gain, then so do many religions renounce the concept.  With Roman Catholicism there is a whole spectrum of such ranging from the Little Sisters of the Poor, to the broad scaled efforts of Catholic Charities.  I cite these only because of greater familiarity.  Every other major religion has similar as each has learned over the centuries that failure to be of direct benefit to believers will lead to complete failure.  In Palestine, even Hamas, a militant branch of Islam, practices this: at the same moment they are waging war, they are also running hospitals and schools, and not just schools for Islamic studies.

So on the surface, while the analogy has a good feel to it, that applies at one level only, and collapses completely when comparing the concept of capitalism with that of major religions.

That said and done, the answers I've tried to provide have no bearing on the larger issue, so I'll expand the original question into a conditional one: even if the Roman Catholic Church was the poster child of capitalism, how does that link to the right to receive the sacrament of Communion?  Which is the topic of this thread.

Boy, I'd like to know what Church you're pastor of, I'd be there 7 days a week. Most priests in this diocese don't have that level of comprehension any more. It's refreshing.

I do have a question tho.  Since you've obviously studied theology and have a significant understanding of the Roman Catholic Church, why then would you choose to use the name Ockham ... who was, correct me if I'm wrong, the "first Protestant" ?

here they are running down the Church again, just like liberals do!

Quoted from 246

  A body of sin, which constitutes a moral debt, must be satisfied before hand.  In concert with that, behavior that follows ritual is required;

If this were true, than what did Christ die for? He paid the debt through his crucifixion.

There have been and always will be reforms to the Roman Catholic Church, or any other religion for that matter.  I am not here to condone or disapprove any of them. Honestly, I really don't care. What people believe is their God given right.

What I am saying is that Christianity is based on the life teachings and death of Christ. Who according to Christian belief was God in the flesh. And according to Christian belief He was also a part of the trinity...God the father, God the son and God the holy spirit. According to Christianity, Christ was the Messiah who came to take away the sins of the world for all that 'believed' through his death/blood and resurrection. It is also Christian belief that before Christ's ascension into heaven, it is written that He said that He would send His Holy Spirit, God's spirit, the third member-head of the trinity, the comforter and councilor to guide and direct ALL of the faithful. If, as Christianity believes, that the Holy Spirit is in fact here to comfort and guide ALL of the faithful, it would then be naive to think that Christianity was referring to just one man, such as the pope or any other religious leader. It appears that over the centuries, religious rituals were 'created' by man. Religious rituals should have become a thing of the past according to the New Testament for Christians. The New Testament is solely based on Faith.

Now being that the Holy Bible that Christians base their faith on as being the living breathing word of God, has been, re-translated, re-written, with many different versions....then EVERYTHING is questionable which in turn leaves only the divine intervention, promised by God to each and every individual who 'believes by faith'.

Quoted from bumblethru

If this were true, than what did Christ die for? He paid the debt through his crucifixion.

You are correct if you are asserting the theological point that, “Christ died for our sins,” (and with that I’ll postpone all theological aspects for a bit).  It is the taking of this statement at face value and leaving it there that would be identical to say taking the first amendment, placing a period where the second comma is, and ending it there, perhaps placing the rest of it in another amendment.  What the constitution would have would be an amendment that talks in simple terms to separation of church and state; in simplest terms, a social imperative.  The great difficulty with social imperatives is that the vast majority of people try to apply them as ‘logical’ imperatives, which often fail miserably.  Here’s an example (borrowed from the Wiff n Proof game of Logic).

1.     There are three numbered statements in this post.
2.     Two of them are false.
3.     Because you read this, your IQ is now 200.

The logical imperative is that your IQ absolutely must now be 200; an affirmation I’m suspicious of as you’re here at this board instead of out cogitating on significant matters.  The parallel logical imperative of, “Christ died for our sins, so I get a free ride to sin as I desire,” is obviously inappropriate, and yet your post fairly well makes such claim.  To the logician, this is called ‘inference:’ condition A infers condition B.  A. ‘Cats need to breath oxygen, and this one’s been sealed in a small box a full day’ infers B. ‘You have a dead cat.’  So if you cannot locate that box and open it, the assumption or inference is valid.

The logician would look at Christ dying for our sins and change the wording to read, ‘so perhaps I get a free ride to…etc.’  Here, A 'implies' B, but with implications there is no logical certainty that B is correct.  Perhaps it happens 99.99% of the time, or in this case, .00000001% of the time (and probably less).

In secular metaphor, Christ did indeed buy the land and build the apartment houses for people to dwell within, but nowhere did he say it was rent-free.  

In Roman Catholic theology, Christ died for our sins in that he allowed us to be absolved of them through the sacrament of Reconciliation.  He did not say, “Go ye forth and sin freely,” though if one looks only at the logical imperative (inference) that’s exactly what is said.

I find it difficult if not impossible to mix or compare religious faiths with logic. Faith is void of logic and logic is void of faith. There is no comparison. Clearly just an ideology of how one approaches the subject.