H
HopkinsReb
Guest
Right.
10char
10char
According to Protestants who believe in the Real Presence, what makes for a valid Eucharist?
- Status
G
GKMotley
Guest
Speaking for all Anglicans seated at my computer, I concur.
A rather unified comment for Anglicans.
G
GKMotley
Guest
It’s as comprehensive as I can make it.
R
RealisticCatholic
Guest
No. This is very wrong.
Plenty of Protestant traditions profess a belief in the Real Presence, going so far as to say the Eucharistic elements are to be regarded as Christ himself.
And again, I’m not asking for the Catholic perspective on Protestant beliefs. I’m asking Protestants…
Plenty of Protestant traditions profess a belief in the Real Presence, going so far as to say the Eucharistic elements are to be regarded as Christ himself.
And again, I’m not asking for the Catholic perspective on Protestant beliefs. I’m asking Protestants…
Last edited:
R
RealisticCatholic
Guest
OP here.
Coming at this from another angle…
I want Protestants to have the Real Presence. I even wish inter-communion with non-Catholics was possible.
Just as the Catholic Church recognizes the validity of Protestant Baptisms, so I wish there was a common Eucharist too.
But part of the reason this is impossible is because the Eucharist makes the Church, and the Church makes the Eucharist. And part of the “constitution” of the church is the ministerial priesthood, which is an expression of Apostolic Succession. And this is needed for the Eucharist.
But not according to many Protestants. But then, what are the requirements, how do we know, and who decides?
There are also further questions for those Protestant traditions that profess or at least nod to Apostolic Succession. How do you know you have valid succession? What is required for Ordination? How do you know?
Coming at this from another angle…
I want Protestants to have the Real Presence. I even wish inter-communion with non-Catholics was possible.
Just as the Catholic Church recognizes the validity of Protestant Baptisms, so I wish there was a common Eucharist too.
But part of the reason this is impossible is because the Eucharist makes the Church, and the Church makes the Eucharist. And part of the “constitution” of the church is the ministerial priesthood, which is an expression of Apostolic Succession. And this is needed for the Eucharist.
But not according to many Protestants. But then, what are the requirements, how do we know, and who decides?
There are also further questions for those Protestant traditions that profess or at least nod to Apostolic Succession. How do you know you have valid succession? What is required for Ordination? How do you know?
Last edited:
H
HopkinsReb
Guest
Generally speaking, I think those who reject the RP also reject Apostolic Succession and/or the ministerial priesthood (though it depends on how you define AS, and there are, of course, some exceptions).
Last edited:
R
RealisticCatholic
Guest
@HopkinsReb
I see you are an Anglican looking into Catholicism.
How do you feel about the Catholic Church’s decision that Anglicanism, in general, does not have valid orders?
Do you think there is strength to any of those arguments? If you became Catholic, do you think you would look back and agree there was lack of valid orders?
I see you are an Anglican looking into Catholicism.
How do you feel about the Catholic Church’s decision that Anglicanism, in general, does not have valid orders?
Do you think there is strength to any of those arguments? If you became Catholic, do you think you would look back and agree there was lack of valid orders?
Last edited:
H
HopkinsReb
Guest
That’s the question, isn’t it?
It’s an area I’ll be researching thoroughly and soon. My conclusion will have obvious ramifications. But right now, I can only state the basics of the disagreement. I lack the knowledge and understanding to fall on one side or the other at present, so I defer to inertia.
Last edited:
R
RealisticCatholic
Guest
I honestly haven’t looked into it much, either.
Catholicism obviously readily accepts valid succession/orders from Eastern Orthodox, Assyrian Church, and Oriental Orthodox. So there must be something major missing from the Anglican ordination (from Catholic perspective), though I’m not sure what it is. I may research it a little here in a bit.
Catholicism obviously readily accepts valid succession/orders from Eastern Orthodox, Assyrian Church, and Oriental Orthodox. So there must be something major missing from the Anglican ordination (from Catholic perspective), though I’m not sure what it is. I may research it a little here in a bit.
H
HopkinsReb
Guest
As I understand it, it’s the intent to confer the grace to perform the sacrifice of the mass. Sir Motley could explain better.
Last edited:
R
RealisticCatholic
Guest
Looks like it’s a complicated issue, but that the change in ordination occurred during the reign of Edward. It also seems the Catholic decision is definitive.
Whatever the case, it is sad, for either the Anglican communion believes it has valid orders and Eucharist, but it in fact does not, OR the Anglican communion does have valid orders and Eucharist, but the Catholic Church does not properly regard them on the level of a true church, like it does for the various Eastern communions.
Of course there is also the third option that the Catholic decision is true, objectively, but that Christ still wills to make his sacramental presence manifested in some way in the Anglican Eucharist, even if not in the same Catholic sense. For God is not bound by the sacraments…
As a Catholic, my hunch is the third option.
Whatever the case, it is sad, for either the Anglican communion believes it has valid orders and Eucharist, but it in fact does not, OR the Anglican communion does have valid orders and Eucharist, but the Catholic Church does not properly regard them on the level of a true church, like it does for the various Eastern communions.
Of course there is also the third option that the Catholic decision is true, objectively, but that Christ still wills to make his sacramental presence manifested in some way in the Anglican Eucharist, even if not in the same Catholic sense. For God is not bound by the sacraments…
As a Catholic, my hunch is the third option.
Last edited:
R
RealisticCatholic
Guest
But anyway, this just gets back to the original question:
How do we know and who decides? Hmmm…
How do we know and who decides? Hmmm…
H
HopkinsReb
Guest
I think the third is actually the Catholic party line.
G
GKMotley
Guest
SIr Motley has made a vocation of it. Over the years. Maybe 20 of them. Gets wearying.
For all who are wanting to look into the matter (and the form and the intent), I suggest, as I have suggested recently and as I always suggest, look into 3 books. I got around 25 others on the subject, but this will get you started.
Fr. John J. Hughes/ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID and STEWARDS OF THE LORD. The first is the best historical account of the sad tale of Apostolicae Curae that I know of. The second is a consideration of some theological ideas associated with the controversy and the decision published in 1896. Fr. Hughes, who was still living a couple of years ago (haven’t checked lately) was the first Anglican cleric ordained as a RC priest sub conditione. I;ve discussed that somewhere around recently.
Francis Clark (at the time of writing, he was a Jesuit priest, later laicized at his request)/ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION. A noble Roman effort on explaining it.
A brief note: the subject is a study in history, politics, personalities and theology. In this it resembles another burden I took on myself about the same time. That is, considering what happened in Henry VIII’s Great Matter. Otherwise, we shan’t speak of that here.
The defect in Anglican orders, according to Apostolicae Curae lies in an intertwined fault in the form of the Anglican Edwardine Ordinal and the sacramental intent of the consecrators of ++Parker, as Elizabeth 1s Archbishop of Canterbury.
And that’s enough on that for tonight. Maybe.
For all who are wanting to look into the matter (and the form and the intent), I suggest, as I have suggested recently and as I always suggest, look into 3 books. I got around 25 others on the subject, but this will get you started.
Fr. John J. Hughes/ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID and STEWARDS OF THE LORD. The first is the best historical account of the sad tale of Apostolicae Curae that I know of. The second is a consideration of some theological ideas associated with the controversy and the decision published in 1896. Fr. Hughes, who was still living a couple of years ago (haven’t checked lately) was the first Anglican cleric ordained as a RC priest sub conditione. I;ve discussed that somewhere around recently.
Francis Clark (at the time of writing, he was a Jesuit priest, later laicized at his request)/ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION. A noble Roman effort on explaining it.
A brief note: the subject is a study in history, politics, personalities and theology. In this it resembles another burden I took on myself about the same time. That is, considering what happened in Henry VIII’s Great Matter. Otherwise, we shan’t speak of that here.
The defect in Anglican orders, according to Apostolicae Curae lies in an intertwined fault in the form of the Anglican Edwardine Ordinal and the sacramental intent of the consecrators of ++Parker, as Elizabeth 1s Archbishop of Canterbury.
And that’s enough on that for tonight. Maybe.
Last edited:
G
GKMotley
Guest
Even so, sometimes I’ll answer the questions you might pose to them.
G
GKMotley
Guest
Good luck with all that.
H
HopkinsReb
Guest
I suspect we both prefer Rome to ACNA, but I also prefer my wife to a cold bed.
G
GKMotley
Guest
It is a complicated case, being full of history. Which is full of people and you know how they are.
It is definitive, without being ex cathedra. RCs should affirm it, at whatever the precise theological level of certainty is appropriate.
Yes, I’d say those points likely cover the possibilities, unless no one has valid orders. Anglicans certainly don’t think that.
It is definitive, without being ex cathedra. RCs should affirm it, at whatever the precise theological level of certainty is appropriate.
Yes, I’d say those points likely cover the possibilities, unless no one has valid orders. Anglicans certainly don’t think that.
- Status