P
PJM
Guest
No, I didn’t:blush:
But can see a logic in doing so. [GRACE] although more limited, would still be made available to them.
God Bless,
Patrick
- Status
But can see a logic in doing so. [GRACE] although more limited, would still be made available to them.
God Bless,
Patrick
R
RyanBlack
Guest
You mean 1054 AD? That is common misconception. The Assyrian Church of the East left communion around the time of the Council of Ephesus (431), and the Oriental Orthodox left communion after the Council of Chalcedon (451).
I don’t think the Catholic Church considers the sacraments of the Assyrian Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, and the Eastern Orthodox Churches to be illicit. A very knowledgeable poster here, Br. JR (JReducation), argues that their sacraments are both valid and licit.
Hi Pat,Jon MY FRIEND
Thanks!
But this leads to another question.
How is it that Lutheran’s are able to “Transubstant” the Eucharist, having left the CC?
Continued Blessings Jon,
Patrick
Accepting for the discussion “transubstantiate”, we don’t but the Holy Spirit does. The only way you can assume our sacrament is invalid is to say our priesthood is invalid due to not being in succession. But even in the history of the CC there have been priests who were valid through presbyter ordination. Our orders are valid as are our sacraments.
Jon
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
OK
And THANKS!
But as I just asked Jon on a different thread, HOW is it possible for ANYONE outside the CC to “confect” the Eucharist? The authority was removed from all those lacking DIRECT Apostolic Succession. Yes?
This is a common non-Catholic position. But it’s not historical or biblical. The ONLY Church to exist for about 1,000 years, [until The Great Eastern Schism in 1010 AD] is today’s Catholic Church, which “alone” holds the authority for valid and licit Sacraments.
Therefore every reference to “church” in the bible is speaking ONLY of today’s CC, as the bible was fully authored by the end of the First Century; or early Second Century.
God Bless you!
Patrick
The power to confect the Eucharist is Gods power. Not any mans. Ergo, being in succession from anyone isn’t necessary, (although I believe Lutherans have it).
That’s not true, there were various other Christians sects operating prior to 1054. The Coptics, Ethiopians, Armenian Apostolic, Assyrian Church of the East, etc. Rome was an important See, no doubt, but it wasn’t the end all be all of Christianity.Therefore every reference to “church” in the bible is speaking ONLY of today’s CC, as the bible was fully authored by the end of the First Century; or early Second Century.
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
Allowing infants and toddlers to receive communion is an ancient practice still in use by the Orthodox, and Eastern Catholics. Are they “cavalier” in how they treat the Eucharist?
C
commenter
Guest
Welcome, Muffin, I hope RCIA is going well for you. It may help for your clarification to learn a little about the difference between “substance” and “accidents”, as philosophical terms. Catholics believe it is the substance that is changed into Christ’s Body and Blood. Learning a little bit of philosophy (through the books of Peter Kreeft, a convert from Calvinism to Catholicism) gave me the underlying basis for Catholic belief in this matter.
C
canme
Guest
i supp[ose that you think you are doing the cummunion correct-- and getting all the special grace out of it–but that is what you have been taught and educated to accept as true-
as a non catholic-- it is rare – that ther is any spiritual anointing at a catholic cummunion–
and if there is not - a spiritual impartation-- and you deceive your self-- that there is-- well-- that says a lot–
and yes don’t we all want to be – and have communion with Jesus and his fellowship thru the Holy Spirit–
Ask Doug | Roman Catholicism and the Eucharist
Published on Aug 28, 2013
Question: Is the Roman Catholic view of the Eucharist an idolatrous belief or simply an erroneous interpretation which is distinguishable as good faith? And can an Evangelical partake of in the Eucharist in a Roman Catholic service if he maintains a personal rejection of Christ’s physical presence in the bread?
as a non catholic-- it is rare – that ther is any spiritual anointing at a catholic cummunion–
and if there is not - a spiritual impartation-- and you deceive your self-- that there is-- well-- that says a lot–
and yes don’t we all want to be – and have communion with Jesus and his fellowship thru the Holy Spirit–
Ask Doug | Roman Catholicism and the Eucharist
Published on Aug 28, 2013
Question: Is the Roman Catholic view of the Eucharist an idolatrous belief or simply an erroneous interpretation which is distinguishable as good faith? And can an Evangelical partake of in the Eucharist in a Roman Catholic service if he maintains a personal rejection of Christ’s physical presence in the bread?
P
PJM
Guest
I agree, Brother is very well informed. Still I’d like to know how this is possible:shrug:
S
Son_of_Niall
Guest
Oh lookie here, its our old buddy, Working4Christ, belly filled with turkey and ready to spill his anti-Catholic propaganda here on CAF.
Tell us Alvin, how many times HAVE you been banned here?
R
RyanBlack
Guest
That Orthodox sacraments are licit.
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
I know he did not ask me but IMHO, I believe the Orthodox to have a very lawful and valid Eucharist. For what its worth lol
M
Miriam1947
Guest
They have apostolic succession.
R
RyanBlack
Guest
I don’t think anyone is questioning that. Patrick (PJM) has questioned the licity-no the validity-of their sacraments.
L
ltwin
Guest
What do you mean by “bible only belief church”? I adhere to Sola Scriptura through the lens of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral:
- Scripture
- Tradition
- Reason
- Experience
Holy Communion or the Lord’s Supper is an external rite directed by Scripture and observed by the gathered people of God (therefore a sacrament), decreed or ordained by God (therefore an ordinance).
Rev. Nathaniel M. Van Cleave ably describes the meaning of the Lord’s Supper from a Pentecostal perspective:
We seek a deeper spiritual reality as a present moment [of] experience. We do not believe superstitiously that the bread and wine actually become the physical body and blood of Christ, nor do we believe that there is any virtue in the physical elements themselves apart from their power as figures to point us to the deeper reality which they typify. We do believe, however, that an act of faith in partaking of the elements results in the real operation of the Spirit in us to strengthen us in the inner man and to heal us in our physical bodies. We, furthermore, believe that the reality which the Lord’s Supper signifies is our “daily bread” of which we partake day by day.
M
Miriam1947
Guest
I would think that Orthodox sacraments would be as valid as ours. They came from the same source.
P
PJM
Guest
Beautifully done. Thank you for your reply.
However, it does raise another question. What my friend in your position of the validity and authority of Holy Scripture: 2nd. Tim. 3:16 tells us the entire bible is “Inspired by God” [so its teaching is warranted by God. YES?
Christ Himself, + five separate authors of the bible give testimony of the “REAL PRESENCE” actually being Christ:
Mt. 26:26-28
Mk.14:22-24
Luke 22: 19-21
John all of chapter 6: but especially verses 40-60
St Paul 1st. Cor, 11:23-29
Additionally we have the belief and accepted practice for the PAST 2,000 years; beginning right after the Death and Resurrection of Christ. It was at first termed: “BREAKING of the BREAD”. And if that is still insufficient there are the numerous Eucharistic Miracles.
Check out www.therealpresence,org sight,
Thanks again for your reply:thumbsup:
God Bless you,
Patrick
P
PJM
Guest
IF???
I understood your previous post which claims that Eastern Church’s in Schism have the sacraments BOTH validly and licitly… How can this be?
P
PJM
Guest
“VALID”= YES!
“Licit”; I [me] don’t think so
- Status