Since you are in agreement with Catholics on the matter of real presence. Do you believe that there is the same real-presence in the Eucharist present in Catholics rites as in there is in the presence arising from the Anglican formula?
Well, it’s not doctrine or dogma and we don’t have to accept or believe in it. But that it has happened (rarely) is reliably documented. That’s what we mean when we speak of Eucharistic miracles. I’m sure God would not allow you to witness such an event if it would take you away from Him.
Well, the Man did say his teachings would be hard to accept and many did leave after that whole “eat my flesh” talk
I disagree with the premise of your question. The Real Presence is not contingent upon the use of any particular rite, but upon Christ’s unfailing words of institution. (I know that other requirements have been delineated over the centuries, but I am not trying to expand the scope of my answer to include topics such as the validity of certain orders or certain matter, etc.) But if I get the gist of what you’re aiming at, yes–I believe that classical Anglican teaching is indistinguishable from Catholic dogma. In practice over the centuries, some have grown to teach a reformed view, and some have held to catholic teaching. But I do not hold that what one individual, priest, bishop teaches about the Eucharist or even believes about the Eucharist changes what the Eucharist is. I personally know many Roman Catholic laity whose understanding of the Eucharist is as follows: “Aren’t we Catholics supposed to believe it’s actually Jesus’s body and blood when we take communion?” That’s it. They have no greater understanding than that. I believe that God is always faithful to us, if we are faithful to him, and often when we are not. But thank God we can be sure that he always gives us the grace we need, even if we do not believe the “right” or “correct” dogma. That is true in the Roman Catholic Church, and the Anglican Communion, in my opinion.
I don’t pick proceedings. I attend Mass in an Anglo-catholic, or what you might call a “high church” Episcopal parish in the Diocese of Dallas. At my church, I do not have the option of choosing a Mass from St. Joseph’s Missal over one conducted pursuant to the Book of Common Prayer. Just like you do not have the option of choosing to attend a Mass at your Roman Catholic parish which is conducted from Holy Eucharist Rite II from the BCP. Nor do I have the option of receiving communion from a Roman Catholic priest (unless he is a former RC priest officiating in an Anglican Eucharist), as your dogma will not allow it except in the gravest of circumstances. Just as your church will not allow you to receive communion from Fr. Doug at my parish.
That doesn’t change the fact that people do accept and believe in it. Nor does it change the fact that, substantively, it’s gross.
I respect your opinion on that.
God allows things to happen to us that push us further away from him all the time. Think of those that God allows to be molested by clergy members (not an attack on Catholics only, just bringing it up because it’s a good example).
Good enough for me, too.
John 6 is quite applicable to the Mass, especially in view of the last supper narrative. It is not applicable to fleshy organs. It overthrows the idea that the Mass is an unbloody sacrifice.
I think watching people drink milk is gross, but that’s not really applicable to doctrines and dogmas concerning the Eucharist. I think the so-called “miracles” like the one made the basis of this discussion actually mock the deep spiritual nature of the Sacrifice and its relation through time and space, uniting all members of the Church. My 2 cents.A couple Sundays ago we heard how Jesus put mud made out of spit and dirt and put it on some guy’s eyes. Yuck! The Gnostics were grossed out by the idea that God really became human, how icky!
Thanks for the reply. I think you Anglican based “middle of the road” protestants are so close to Catholic belief that its just a crying shame we can’t overcome the few hurdles that seperate full reunion. As I understand it, your belief in real presence is entirely personal and not in Episcopal/Anglican dogma anywhere.
I hope you can come someday soon to see that you really belong in the Catholic Church even though you don’t know it yet. Topics such as abortion as not political - these are spiritual issues. Each time somone caves into Satan someone is making a conscious effort to reject God and that has consequences on the ENTIRE planet. Most just do not get it - sin is cascading and degrades not only the person in sin but the entire planet. Some mystics even claim that each murder, abortion etc. releases a new demon from hell to roam the planet. We are living in a cesspool of demonic influence that is becoming more polluted with each sin. It is almost impossible for the world to repent now since most are so saturated with the effect of sin they see it as a normal condition and anyone outside of sin as a freak or abnormal. Those in God’s Church are going to be increasingly persecuted as the difference becomes condemning to these others. Pray over it.
I need that popcorn-eating emoticon. Let’s see if the concept of *Apostolicae Curae *, and what it says for RCs to believe takes mbd1475 by surprise. I’m betting it doesn’t.
First of all, I do not protest the Roman Catholic Church. That’s something that Martin Luther did. (Incidentally, I think he was a crazed, anti-semitic lunatic, who happened to write some pretty decent songs, which the Roman Catholic Church, along with mine, uses sometimes).
There’s no such thing as Episcopal/Anglican dogma. The Communion is based upon a way of worship. The catholic faith remains the same, for those who choose to believe in it. The same way it works in the Roman Catholic Church. And although the failure of some of our leaders to actually teach it receives much more media attention, the same failures fall on RC clergy as well.
Me either.
Congratulations. You figured out what Jesus was thinking. Sorry for the sarcasm, but Eucharistic discipline was derived from the teachings of St. Paul and a (perhaps well-intentioned) zealousness to exact penance and ensure the spiritual well-being of communicants. Jesus never spoke of the Sacrament in exclusionary terms. Discipline is a completely separate thing from providing communicants eternal life.
I guess no one would ever be able to partake of the Eucharist, then, eh? Maybe you mean the teachings of Paul. Oh, we just need to ask forgiveness for our sins first and receive absolution? Well, we have a penitential rite, the same as you do.
I submit that one doing so could possibly be viewed as disobedient to church teaching or to Paul, depending on your interpretation of “receiving unworthily.” But I do not agree that Jesus used any such language. By the way, the Mass is not an imitation in any way of the Last Supper, beyond the words of institution that are used. If it were, there would only be twelve communicants, who would lie on their backs around a table, while the rest of us watched. I would encourage you to do a little research on the development of Eucharistic doctrine, as well as practice, particularly in the first century church, before making further analogies like the one above.
Not all those in apostolic succession have taught the exact same thing throughout time, and I’ll be flamed for saying this, but not even the popes. Apostolic succession deals with the method of obtaining authority, not what is done with that authority. And again, Jesus did not speak of Eucharistic discipline. Paul and countless others have, and they have oft disagreed. For example, the Didache’s admonition not to give the Sacrament to the unbaptized is a pretty good idea, don’t you agree? Well, not everyone did. But the reason for that practice was borne out much more strongly through the ages as the idea of the importance of the Sacrament increased in the hearts and minds of certain groups of believers.
GKC is right. No insult taken, as I understand that is what you are supposed to believe. I won’t bother debating whether it makes too much sense, because you are told to, and that’s the end of it. Except to say that to the extent that you claim Anglican orders are invalid because of “false teaching” or “bad intention” then you should be willing to apply the same standards to the Roman Catholic Church, who tends to places much value in office and form over substance. Otherwise the whole thing becomes circular (stew on that). Okay, that’s all about that. I promise.
You first need to re-read what I said, then re-read your Catechism, and the most current papal bulls and apostolic exhortations.
Agreed.
Ecclesiastical body. I know you got the phrase from the Pope, but it’s just more semantics. One of the words for church as expressed in scripture is “ecclesia,” referring to the gathering of the body, or “kyriakon.” It is unhelpful as a descriptor. Just go ahead and say schismatic or heretic or something else to say what you really think.
We desire and believe in only limited grace? And why do you hope for only limited grace for us?
And there’s the whole problem, isn’t it? An argument from authority rather than from sound reason. It’s no wonder the world as a whole flatly rejects religion. We are all fighting about AUTHORITY TO PREACH THE GOSPEL instead of THE GOSPEL. Come off it, already.
I don’t think being “in” the Roman Catholic Church is the end all - be all goal. Even within the Roman Catholic Church you are denied sacraments if you do the wrong thing, as a means of regulating the grace available to believers. While I don’t consider grace a thing to be received “cheaply,” I think you are being disingenuous when you make implications that it cannot be received “outside” the Roman Catholic Church, whatever that even means.
Then why deal with it as a political issue, like those preaching from Roman Catholic pulpits today? In scriptural times, whenever the apostles exhorted the church in Thesselonica, for example, to refrain from a certain behavior, it was because the people within the church were engaging in said behavior. Now on most issues of sin, the Roman Catholic church today will deal with them in private counseling, confession and absolution. But with abortion and birth control, as well as euthanasia, stem cell research and life support issues, the Roman Catholic church is not merely instructing its adherents to refrain from these behaviors, rather they are encouraging the adherents to go out and rally and protest and block clinics and vote a certain way (but we’re not telling you which political party! wink, wink, nudge nudge!) and convince those outside the church to conform. I agree that they shouldn’t be political issues. That’s the point.
Wow… that’s pretty incoherent, but let me just say that blaming all the evil in the world on demons is a pretty easy way to get out of taking personal responsibility for your decisions. I prefer to look at the parable of the talents and adopt the view that to whom much is given, much is required. Passing a law against murder doesn’t stop murder. A personal decision is required to be made in order to do the act. Same with abortion. I do not agree that people are basically bad. We are created in God’s image, and we are all in a broken state because of sin. But that broken state does not mean that we are all part of a cesspool. Nothing can separate us from the love of God. Nothing. God loves us. Pray over it.
Nor can any of us.To the extent that any differences arise out of my inferior understanding of AC, I bow unto you, sir.The politics, I can’t do anything about
. I want to know how a “proceeding” like that does not “overthrow the nature of the Sacrament”. ISTM that people confuse the “gross and carnal” error of ultra-realism AKA Capernaitism with transubstantiation. If these phenomena are real, they raise extremely awkward questions, which can’t be ignored for ever.If these occurrences are from God, they do not overthrow the nature of the sacrament.You aren’t the only one to think this
You could say that except it would be completely nonsensical and silly to do so. Where there is only one Roman Catholic Church and one teaching there are a legion of Anglican/Episcopalian sects; each with their own private member beliefs and open-ended dogma. No disrespect, but just how does structure and order “come together” with a stochastic assembly of orthogonal concepts formed over a substrate of gelatin and shifting ideals? Actually given that imagery I can admire that a dichotomy of beliefs can all wear the same team logo and forget the internal schisms each Sunday to come together and arrive at the same time in the same building for “religious services” and exist without coming to blows in the parking lot. I see that compromise is at least one de-facto unifying dogma; but only God knows if that will merit individuals anything in the afterlife. Pity that God does not judge institutions as well as individuals - or does he?
No kidding. I am surprised that you don’t seem to be uncomfortable with a free-style sort of doctrine. The various kings of England (in particular Edward) ordered the rewrite of Anglican rites since they were too Catholic; and because they implied subordination to the Pope rather than the King. At least you are not making any false claims of having any rites extending from anything with real authoritative roots that go back to the early Church. It’s only been 500 years, just how long do you imagine that the fledgling Anglican Tradition can keep it all together without the aid of duct-tape and bale wire?
There is no case that I know of where politics have had anything whatsoever to do with RCC dogma. Ecclesiastical practices maybe - but not core doctrine nor dogma. But maybe you are equating the term “politics” with the church’s action in crushing heresies since it resembles a policing or quashing action. If that is the case, then I can certainly see how “religious” heretics would want to imagine they are the victims on the losing side of the political struggle rather than as fallen from grace evil doers. You are of course free to imagine what you want but the truth is outside The Catholic Church we believe that there is little opportunity for salvation since there is no authority on earth to loose sins nor transform Eucharist (which you agree Jesus commands us to eat). What** I** think separates Anglicans from The Catholic Church is the historical proclivity of the Anglicans from the earliest days of The Church to favor or tend toward independence and insubordination. So, from my perspective I see the separation as providential. It remains to be seen what God has in plan for England as it rapidly takes on airs of Religious Plurality with Islam seeming to want to gain the upper hand.
Scripture can not be divided against itself as you attempt to do by sequestering Paul who was not even present at the last supper. Its absurd to claim that Catholic teaching from Eucharist came fro only Paul. John had a profound mystical insight that gets us decisively to “real presence”. Go back and read your scriptures and see that Jesus washed the feet of his disciples before He broke bread. This was prefiguring of the sacrament of penance. If in doubt recollect Jesus words in John 13:5-20. And you are wrong about Jesus teaching on exclusion of the sacraments. Do you not recollect Jesus saying in John 6:44 ‘No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him…’ in direct response to those rejecting Eucharist? Don’t blame me if some are not drawn.
I would encourage you to not put words in my mouth and create strawman arguments. I never said the mass was an imitation of the last supper - but the Liturgy of The Eucharist portion of the mass is certainly directly related to a part of it.
You are just wrong - apostolic succession means respecting the rulings of prior popes and not contradicting infallible teaching or deprecating a doctrinal truth. As for if Jesus taught specific as you say “discipline” do you imagine that what is written in scripture is all Jesus taught? Do you imagine that what the apostles taught can be ignored unless we have a record of Jesus also teaching it? What part of scripture do you blot out? There are no contradictions in scripture. You have not done your homework. Jesus did teach what you call Eucharistic discipline through his apostles and through his church. In particular (1 Cor. 11:27–28, Matt. 5:28–29, 1 Cor. 6:9–10 and Gal. 5:19–21, 1 Cor. 11:29,Mark 14:22-24, cf. Luke 22:14-20). Didache 10 (A.D.70) “Whosoever is holy *, let him approach. Whosoever is not, let him repent”. I won’t enumerate the CCC.
