protestant at notre dame?

<p>“We were both, well, just horrified by the feeling of preppiness, wealth, privilege, and lack of diversity on campus”</p>

<p>There is more than a little irony in such a comment from a well-paid graduate of ND’s law school. Perhaps you and your daughter were looking into a mirror? It’s a wonder that you could stand to attend the law school back in the day, when the endowment was much smaller, financial aid much less generous, and the student body actually less “diverse” than it is today.<br>
Yes, as is the case at every highly selective private school, there are many students (like your daughters) who were raised by professional parents in privilege, but you’d be hard-pressed to pick them out of a lineup. (Ever been to USC – the “University of Spoiled Children”?) All of the students dress in a pretty similar fashion, with lots of Ugg boots, sweatpants, and North Face jackets. Unlike some urban campuses, there aren’t many fashionistas at Notre Dame. The students certainly aren’t living in cushy on-campus apartments, or enjoying a luxurious student center. If they brought a car on campus, it’s probably an old one. Half of the students receive need-based financial aid, so obviously they aren’t all the children of doctors and lawyers. Many are from large Catholic families, with parents who may not have had the chance to attend college, let alone a prestigious law school. A sizable percentage of each “wealthy and privileged” graduating class enters the military as part of their ROTC obligation, or teaches in an impoverished Catholic school as part of the ACE program, or volunteers to work in orphanages or medical clinics in Africa.<br>
You’re right that it’s not the same school it was. It’s actually much, much better.</p>

<p>“Look in the mirrorr”? Interesting how you know nothing about me other than I’m a lawyer, yet that doesn’t stop you from taking personal shots at me. It’s possible to take issue with Notre Dame without ME being the problem, you know.</p>

<p>Telling, too, the gratuitious shot you take at thousands of USC students. We’re having a serious discussion here, we’re not talking about football, and it’s no more fair for you to take shots at those folks than it is for me take issue with ND. </p>

<p>By the way, that almost half of the undergradute school gets financial aid means that more than half can afford more than 50k a year. That’s a lot of rich kids.</p>

<p>As you well know, being ineligible for need-based financial aid does not make a family “rich.” A family in which both parents are teaching in some suburban Chicago public high schools would be in that category. You can read plenty of posts on this very forum from parents who have taken out sizable loans to send their kids to Notre Dame, because their incomes are too high to qualify for financial aid, but they are unable to pay tuition out of current income.</p>

<p>The problem is the rigidity of the Catholic rules stating non-Catholic’s can’t receive communion in a Catholic church. The Presbyterians & Methodists & many other denominations don’t care is you are of their denomination, only that you are a believer in Christ.</p>

<p>But unlike the Presbyterians and Methodists and many other denominations, the Catholic Church teaches that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, not simply a symbol. That is why the Catholic Church reserves reception of the Eucharist to Catholics in a state of grace. And that is why non-Catholics should refrain from receiving communion at a Catholic Mass – because they do not actually believe what the Catholic Church teaches on this point. When the priest presents the host to a communicant, he says “The body of Christ” and the communicant responds “Amen (I believe).” A non-Catholic, who thinks that he/she is just getting a piece of bread, would be lying by saying “Amen” in that situation.</p>

<p>BalconyBoy needs to do some research before throwing out random and utterly false information. I think the problem is with people like you</p>

<p>

[quote]
BalconyBoy needs to do some research before throwing out random and utterly false information. I think the problem is with people like you;/quote]</p>

<p>Utterly false??? I don’t think so. What is utterly false about my statement?</p>

<p>The first sentence “The problem is the rigidity of the Catholic rules stating non-Catholic’s can’t receive communion in a Catholic church.” That isn’t the problem.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Maybe I should have said “aren’t allowed” instead of “can’t”.</p>

<p>No… your are right that the Catholic Church doesn’t allow non-Catholics to receive Holy Communion. But you are wrong because that is far from the problem.</p>

<p>^ Ah but it is a problem. Catholics are Christians as are Presbyterians and Methodists and many other denominations. They all believe Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior so receiving communion shouldn’t be a problem in the Catholic church for non-Catholic Christians. In my Presbyterian church, all believers are welcome to take communion. In the Catholic church, they aren’t.</p>

<p>Why would a practicing Presbyterian or Methodist want to receive the Sacred Body and Blood of Christ when they are not in communion with the Dogma of Transubstantiation?</p>

<p>That is where you haven’t done your research. You are right that you should not receive Holy Communion. This is why: [Who</a> Can Receive Communion?](<a href=“http://www.catholic.com/library/Who_Can_Receive_Communion.asp]Who”>http://www.catholic.com/library/Who_Can_Receive_Communion.asp)</p>

<p>BalconyBoy, it is not my intention here to spark the whole Faith vs. Works debate anew, but we as Catholics have a fundamentally different understanding of the Eucharist that is ultimately tied to the Fall and the Economy of Salvation. In some respects the Eucharist is at the center of Catholic life as much of our Theology and Catechesis is tied to it. The Sacrament itself is not a mere recreation where the congregation grow in fellowship by way of recreating the events that took place the night before Christ’s death. On the contrary, Catholics view it as an actual memorial and sacrifice. Just as Christ was offered on the cross, so to do Catholics offer the sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood on the altar for the sake of atonement with the Father.</p>

<p>I know most Protestants tend to favor the sola fide (faith alone) concept. As Catholics we enter into atonement with God and into communion with the Church through a sacrifice (a work), the Eucharist. Knowing this, I bet some Protestants might be drawn away from the reception of the Eucharist.</p>

<p>The Catholic Church’s position on reception of the Eucharist by non-Catholics is a “problem” only if you disregard the very real differences between the teachings of Catholic and non-Catholic churches on the Eucharist. As has been pointed out several times, the Eucharist consecrated and distributed to the faithful at a Catholic Mass is not a mere representation or symbol, but the true presence of Jesus Christ – Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. You use the term “welcome” as though communion at a Catholic Mass is simply a social ritual designed to make people feel included. But it’s not. Until you understand that the Eucharist is the “source and summit” of the Catholic faith, you won’t really get why non-Catholics should not receive.</p>

<p>Quote from post #41: “(Ever been to USC – the “University of Spoiled Children”?) All of the students dress in a pretty similar fashion, with lots of Ugg boots, sweatpants, and North Face jackets. Unlike some urban campuses, there aren’t many fashionistas at Notre Dame.” </p>

<p>Because of the cost of attendance, most private universities have their share of “spoiled children” – I’m sure Notre Dame is no exception. USC does have a lot of fashionable students, but given the weather in southern California, boots, sweatpants and North Face jackets aren’t what you would typically see predominate the campus. You would be much more likely to see boots and a North face jackets in South Bend. But why do you have to trash talk one university to defend another?</p>

<p>I fully understand the Dogma of Transubstantiation. I just don’t agree with it. What this claims is every Catholic priest performs a miracle every time they give communion. The bread and wine are a symbol.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I think I’ve found the actual problem.</p>

<p>I kid, I kid.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This is why you are not allowed to receive Communion at Catholic Eucharistic services. You are actually, according to the Council of Trent, anathema.</p>

<p>But the problem is that you believe that believing in Jesus is enough. We do not. Nothing you can possibly say will change the mind of a Church that believes she is divinely inspired, nor should it. I suggest you let this go before you get in deeper than you can handle.</p>

<p>Furthermore, Catholics who do not believe in Transubstantiation are ALSO not allowed to receive Communion.</p>

<p>P.S.: “Dogma” is not capitalized; only Transubstantiation is. And we’ve been through the fact that miracles happen in this form at every Mass. You say that is if we should have a problem with that belief.</p>

<p>*Correction: "You say that as if we should have a problem with that belief.</p>

<p>I apologize for the error!</p>

<p>“What this claims is every Catholic priest performs a miracle every time they give communion.”</p>

<p>Not quite. Any minimally qualified layperson can assist with the distribution of communion. No miracle is involved in that action. But a miracle does take place at every Mass, at the moment when the priest consecrates the bread and wine, which then become the Body and Blood of Christ.
The Church does not expect non-Catholics to believe in this miracle; after all, if they did, then they would be Catholics. But she does expect non-Catholics to respect our beliefs, and therefore to refrain from receiving the Body and Blood of Christ as though it were mere bread and wine.</p>