Anglican & Lutheran Eucharistic miracles

[veritashunter]

Dear GKC:

One last note re: the schismatic Old Catholic Church. Archbishop Matthews (I think) was the one who sought out the Orthodox Partriarch of Antioch to secure full communion in the early 1900’s. This was to ensure the existence of a valid priesthood in response to the AC as it completely invalidated the Anglican Orders.

The attempted grafting of the Old Catholics with the Anglicans to renew the validity of Anglican orders and to unite large sects of the separated Christian communion was something that fell apart after a very short time since the Anglicans were not orthodox enough in their observances to satisfy the Old Catholic Church leadership.

The Old Catholic Archbishop severed those ties (including those to what is termed the Liberal or Independent Catholic Church) in fear that this could invalidate their own orders through associated corruption and the same defect of “form and intention”. So, the Old Catholic Church was formall received into communinon with the Orthodox Patriarch in Beirut sometime around 1911. This ensured valid holy orders through a valid Apostolic lineage separate from the Catholic Church of which they removed themselves. In reality, they are now Orthodox (following their own Latin Tradition) by reason of the Orthodox Apostolic lineage and their views on Papal Infallibility which was the reasoning for their initial schism after the first Vatican Council.

As far as the PNCC goes…I don’t know enough about their history to comment…but if the Catholic Church says they are valid then they are valid. By what means I am unaware.

Yours in Christ,

Veritashunter

 

[GKC]

Dear GKC:

Just a sidenote.

In my case I was baptized and confirmed as a Roman Catholic but am now a member of a Melkite Catholic Church (Syrian/Lebanese). And I am Irish. I have served on the altar and was even asked to be on the church council. Go figure!

This is the real glory of being Catholic. It takes all of the “particular churches” to fully express the “Catholic Church”.
Different but equal…all with unique customs and ethnic backgrounds but all equally Catholic and obedient to one another while equally necessary for the Church to fulfill its mission of the Universal Faith.

All over the world we are One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. We are always welcome one to another…Melkite to Roman to Chaldean to Coptic and all fully Catholic. We can inter-communion at will within the Eucharist.

There’s always room for one more, GKC. By the way, this is one of those not-so-subtle invitations…if you haven’t figured it out by now.

God bless,

Veritashunter

Yours in Christ,

Veritashunter

I thank you, sir. You are very kind. And have obviously had quite a journey.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Is history even relevant to the current condition of not having valid priestly orders in the eyes of Christ’s Vicar? Irrespective of all that it seems to me that Anglicans physically lost their chain of apostolic succession when the last of the licitly and validly ordained original Anglican Catholic Church Bishops and priests all died.

One thing I think is interesting in all of this is that you seem almost to suggest that Fr. Hughes, the Anglican who converted to Catholicism, becomes in the Roman collar the champion for the Anglican case. You are not suggesting here that Fr. Hughes converted to Catholicism “validly but illicitly” for ulterior reasons just to get inside The Church to colour the Catholic Bishop’s
opinions about validity of Orders. In other words you don’t imagine the Fr. Huges is ostensibly a Catholic but privately wears Union Jack & Anglican Coat of Arms undergarments do you?

I come back to the remarks of Pope Innocent XI in 1679 condemned the position that it is permissible in conferring sacraments to follow a *probable opinion *regarding the value of the sacrament, the safer opinion being abandoned….“Therefore, one should not make use of probable opinions only in conferring baptism, sacerdotal or episcopal orders. (Proposition 1 condemned and prohibited by Innocent XI, Dz. 1151)”.

I would say that in addition to losing physical continuity of apostolic succession that Anglicans through neglect in abandoning a safer opinion with regards to the sacraments demonstrated not only a lack of communion with The Church but a wilful and even hostile act of abdication of whatever dubious authority (valid but illicit) it may have had in fact.

I also think that there were enough anathemas being tossed around in the wake of Luther’s rebellion that Anglican’s catch one between the eyes somewhere in the early 1530’s time frame.

If we want now to look at history just judge how fast things went to hell in England after Luther comes onto the scene and Henry usurps The Church:

1520–1 • Luther excommunicated by papal bulls Exsurge Domine and Decet
1521 • Imperial Diet at Worms; Luther anathematized and his teachings condemned by Edict of Worms
1534 • Act of Supremacy institutes Henry Ⅷ as official head of the Church of England
1577 • Beginning of a wave of executions of Catholic missionaries in Elizabethan England
1581 • First anti-Catholic legislation enacted in the United Provinces
1641 • Anti-English and anti-Protestant uprising in Ireland suppressed by Oliver Cromwell
1642 • Beginning of Civil War in England

Given that history I’d say that if Anglicans had valid orders they certainly have had little good fruit to show for it. In fact ever since the Anglican Church was taken over by the British Monarchy it looks like Catholics became the new sacrifice for the secular crown. Maybe that’s a bit harsh but its not exactly a pretty picture of the merrie ol England that Gilbert Keith Chesterton loved and portrayed but never really ever existed.

Getting back to the OP topic I will believe Anglicans have valid Holy Orders when I see miracles. I will believe it when I see Anglicans reunited with The Catholic Church or when England becomes as merrie as it imagined it once was. The reality though is that England is not like it used to be and never was.

The evidence suggests its high time for some changes…

James

No, I wouldn’t say anything like that about Fr. Hughes. Would you?

What I would say is that his ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID is the most detailed account of the whole affair, from beginning to end, that I have discovered in reading the literature. And that his STEWARDS OF THE LORD is the most detailed account of a possible interpretation, based on the prevailing eucharistic theology of the 16th century, presenting the Anglican case. It directly engages (then) Fr. Clark’s great work. I always suggest both authors to anyone who is looking into the matter, or, indeed, anyone at all.

And, with respect to Apostolicae Curae, the topic is one of those where actual knowledge, pertinent to it, advances the discussion greatly.

Any specific anathema in mind, around 1530, more or less?

And I wouldn’t advise you to consider Anglican orders as valid until and unless Rome says you should.

I agree with your last sentence.

Have a blessed Easter.

GKC

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

If these occurrences are from God, they do not overthrow the nature of the sacrament.

But, you say, they do overthrow the nature of the sacrament.

Therefore, they cannot be from God

Is that a fair assessment of your view?

Yes, entirely fair ​

 

[GKC]

GKC:

I apologize about the date in my head. I was referring to the Bull in 1555 or so from Paul IV as it related to the later work Clement XI at the beginning of the 1700s regarding to the ordination of Gordon.

I realize that the AC was not issued until the later part of the 19th Century but was dependent upon these previous documents for much of its intent.

It listed defective form and intention as reasons as well as the reasons I stated to you regarding the existence of a partially valid clergy from the initial time of the schism. This discussion is contained in the letter of Cardinal Pole around 1554 relating this concept determining 2 groups to be present: those validly ordained before the schism and those after also noting the issues relating to those related to the Edwardine Ordinal. The first was only considered valid if the form and matter were in harmony with the existing rubrics…the second was considered null in any case.
This led to the “all or nothing” decree later due the fact that it was impossible to trace the lineage for certain.

I do understand the issues. The same applies to the the Old Catholic order…as I said…even if not in an absolute sense. And each of the points I have made were with that in mind…but offered from a broader perspective that relates back to the initial questions posed on the thread. I also try to explain them in a way that that realates more closely to fundamentalist Christians (especially Sacred Scripture and Apostolic Canon) so they can better follow long (and join in to these discussions) as they are not usually as well versed as you or I in these teachings (and many others).

I apologize if that has led you to believe otherwise. But these forums tend to spin off into huge subplots of their own (as I am sure you have noticed), so I make every attempt to keep them on point.

Yours in Christ,

Veritashunter

PS - You should read my book on the teachings of the Catholic Church…although I fully admit it is likely to be a little “below the bar” of the subjects and text that you are used to reading.

I’m aware of the points you raise here; they are a commonplace in the *Apostolicae Curae *literature. Hughes (for my favorite example) treats them extensively. Indeed, it is not possible to address the first part of the question offically given to the commission, without treating the cases between Pole, and his determinations, the "certain French Calvinist and the Gordon case, the last addressed by *AC *.

My points remain: AC faults the orders on the grounds of intent and form, interlocked, only. And the RCC maintains an Augustinian attitude toward the transmission of orders, not a Cyprianic one, with the implications that raises.

I’d gladly read your book; what is it? My hobby, for over 45 years, (and for 11 years a vocation) has been books. My total holdings, after the latest on-going purge, will be somewhere below 20,000 volumes on hand. If I’m right about my total number of books on * Apostolicae Curae * and Anglican orders, those might represent perhaps 1/1000 of my holdings.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Dear GKC:

One last note re: the schismatic Old Catholic Church. Archbishop Matthews (I think) was the one who sought out the Orthodox Partriarch of Antioch to secure full communion in the early 1900’s. This was to ensure the existence of a valid priesthood in response to the AC as it completely invalidated the Anglican Orders.

The attempted grafting of the Old Catholics with the Anglicans to renew the validity of Anglican orders and to unite large sects of the separated Christian communion was something that fell apart after a very short time since the Anglicans were not orthodox enough in their observances to satisfy the Old Catholic Church leadership.

The Old Catholic Archbishop severed those ties (including those to what is termed the Liberal or Independent Catholic Church) in fear that this could invalidate their own orders through associated corruption and the same defect of “form and intention”. So, the Old Catholic Church was formall received into communinon with the Orthodox Patriarch in Beirut sometime around 1911. This ensured valid holy orders through a valid Apostolic lineage separate from the Catholic Church of which they removed themselves. In reality, they are now Orthodox (following their own Latin Tradition) by reason of the Orthodox Apostolic lineage and their views on Papal Infallibility which was the reasoning for their initial schism after the first Vatican Council.

As far as the PNCC goes…I don’t know enough about their history to comment…but if the Catholic Church says they are valid then they are valid. By what means I am unaware.

Yours in Christ,

Veritashunter

That’s Bishop A. H. Mathews. But *episcopi vagantes *, while interesting enough, are a peripheral issue to that of Apostolicae Curae, at best. If they interest you, I’d advise Anson’s BISHOPS AT LARGE, C. B. Moss’ THE OLD CATHOLIC MOVEMENT, and the classic EPISCOPI VAGANTES of H.R.T. Brandreth.

As to how the PNCC might hold valid and illicit orders, in the eyes of Rome, that would be in the same manner (but with a far less complex history) as the Old Catholics of Utrecht, which do the same.

GKC

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…My hobby, for over 45 years, (and for 11 years a vocation) has been books. My total holdings, after the latest on-going purge, will be somewhere below 20,000 volumes on hand. If I’m right about my total number of books on *Apostolicae Curae *and Anglican orders, those might represent perhaps 1/1000 of my holdings.

GKC

<— green-eyed monster ​

 

[GKC]

<— green-eyed monster ​

An estimate, admittedly. Down from an estimated 24,000+ a year ago.

I’ll be building the library addition in about a year.

GKC

 

[GKC]

veritashunter,

Got it. Will get it.

GKC

 

[CentralFLJames]

That’s Bishop A. H. Mathews. But *episcopi vagantes *, while interesting enough, are a peripheral issue to that of Apostolicae Curae, at best. If they interest you, I’d advise Anson’s BISHOPS AT LARGE, C. B. Moss’ THE OLD CATHOLIC MOVEMENT, and the classic EPISCOPI VAGANTES of H.R.T. Brandreth.

As to how the PNCC might hold valid and illicit orders, in the eyes of Rome, that would be in the same manner (but with a far less complex history) as the Old Catholics of Utrecht, which do the same.

GKC

I agree with Veritashunter. For Catholics its really all very easy - what ever Rome says is final. I personally don’t know a thing about the PNCC issue or what happened there. But it sounds like you are trying to hold the RCC to some kind of judicial or jurisprudence legal standard. The Church does not operate that way. The findings in Anglican orders being utterly null and void under AC are simply upholding prior positions. The two points found defective (“form and intention”) are both simultaneously objective and subjective in nature. Being shrill and disobedient to Rome did not help in the matter. Don’t expect a repeatable process or an objectively rational outcome when there is a subjective component. And let’s not forget that the nature of the case is spiritual. Legitimate Holy Orders and apostolic succession are not things that just anyone can self-assign to themselves. There is a LOT more than just law and rites involved. I have to assume that God is part of this too.

James

 

[GKC]

I agree with Veritashunter. For Catholics its really all very easy - what ever Rome says is final. I personally don’t know a thing about the PNCC issue or what happened there. But it sounds like you are trying to hold the RCC to some kind of judicial or jurisprudence legal standard. The Church does not operate that way. The findings in Anglican orders being utterly null and void under AC are simply upholding prior positions. The two points found defective (“form and intention”) are both simultaneously objective and subjective in nature. Being shrill and disobedient to Rome did not help in the matter. Don’t expect a repeatable process or an objectively rational outcome when there is a subjective component. And let’s not forget that the nature of the case is spiritual. Legitimate Holy Orders and apostolic succession are not things that just anyone can self-assign to themselves. There is a LOT more than just law and rites involved. I have to assume that God is part of this too.

James

Curious. It almost sounds like you think that somewhere in this I’ve expressed what I think of the findings of AC. Curious.

However, to your first para, second sentence. Yes. Exactly. Remember that. It’s essential. That’s precisely what I said. What I repeat, every time this sad subject comes up. As I have done a ton of times in this thread. Well said, sir.

However, the Church does hold itself to standards of rule, logic, law, doctrine, and precedence. But I quite agree that subjective components can play a part. Indeed. Yes. Often.

GKC

 

[O.S.Luke]

To answer the original post (I am United Methodist) - anytime the Eucharist is celebrated, and the bread and wine become for us the Body and Blood of Christ, a miracle happens. Ordinary means have become extraordinary means.

Good posts, GKC. The best I have ever read here. I too remain Methodist instead of Catholic for many of the same reasons.

 

[veritashunter]

To answer the original post (I am United Methodist) - anytime the Eucharist is celebrated, and the bread and wine become for us the Body and Blood of Christ, a miracle happens. Ordinary means have become extraordinary means.

Good posts, GKC. The best I have ever read here. I too remain Methodist instead of Catholic for many of the same reasons.

Dear O. S. Luke:

This is not offered as a critical question or statement, but how can you be in communion with the United Methodist Church when their theology does not believe in the Real Presence and transubstance of the Eucharist?

Denial of the transubstancial reality of the Eucharist has always been the response from within the United Methodist community as well as the Free Methodists when I have posed the question to their clergy. “It is only a memorial…It doesn’t really change” are both common responses.

As related to this topic, although both groups typically promote seminary training (in one form or another) neither require it as a strict requirement to become a pastor nor do they have valid bishops. I have a friend who is such a pastor in the Methodist community without any significant liturgical training (especially in form, intent, and matter) and could never be considered part of any valid holy order in any case whatsoever. Thus, such ministers could not consecrate in any capacity regardless of their willful (and faith-filled) intent, not to mention the invalidity due to form and formula.

Also, in order to have a valid Eucharist the bread must be composed of wheat flour and water (only) and true fermented red grape wine containing alcohol must be used. This is in conformity to the Jewish Passover celebration/sater and the norms that we (Orthodox and Catholic) have followed for 20 centuries. Again, not meaning to be offensive, but unfermented grape juice is not and has never been considered to be valid matter. And without valid matter there can be no valid Eucharist. The Methodist community also does not strictly observe the necessary spoken words and formula of consecration.

Otherwise, you or I would be just as capable to consecrate as any priest or preacher with whatever materials were on-hand; assuming that you agree that neither you or I are members of a valid Holy Order. Without valid bishops, priests, form, intent, formula, and matter…how can you remain faithful to Methodist doctrine and likewise faithful to your conscience (in strict truth)?

Wouldn’t your belief in the Real Presence be more compatible (and likely…more fulfilling) within the Anglican and/or Episcopal communities? Or within the Catholic/Orthodox communities?

Yours in Christ,

Veritashunter

 

[CentralFLJames]

To answer the original post (I am United Methodist) - anytime the Eucharist is celebrated, and the bread and wine become for us the Body and Blood of Christ, a miracle happens. Ordinary means have become extraordinary means.

Good posts, GKC. The best I have ever read here. I too remain Methodist instead of Catholic for many of the same reasons.

I suppose I can at least accept that there must be some kind of inexplicable event going on that simultaneously permits a personal belief in real-presence to stand non-contradictory with those around you in Church who personally believe only in symbolic presence; all while remaining in full communion with Anglican Church through defiance to the Catholic belief that Anglican orders are utterly null and void.

I can also accept that if what you assert is true and acceptable to The Almighty in the salvific sense, then God does indeed move in mysterious ways.

I try to be a problem solver. I want you Anglican common folk who are trapped in the morass of the schism and whom believe in real presence to get Eucharistic graces. In that aspect I am a pragmatist - Christ came to save souls not get them stuck in a new limbo of doctrinal infighting. If we can’t find a timely way to get the entire Anglican Church back into communion with the Catholic Church I’d like to find a valid way to get Eucharist to you if its possible.

We Catholics have a concept called “Spiritual Communion”. Pope John Paul II’s Ecclesia De Eucharistia mentions this - and I have provided a reference herein. Basically, there is a way to receive communion spiritually by desire when its physically impossible to get to mass and be in communion sacramentally. This proved useful over the centuries of Catholic persecution where the saints and the faithful could not receive the sacrament. I am not sure what the ecumenical rules are for sharing “prayers” but we have an actual prayer we can say to receive Spiritual Communion. Dogmatic Logic would tend to necessitate that Anglicans be in Communion with Rome for this to apply but it might be worth looking into. At worst, the prayer can only be rejected by God without danger of committing a sacrilege as would be the case of receiving sacraments that were invalid and illicit.
Act of Spiritual Communion:

An Act of Spiritual Communion
My Jesus, I believe that You are present in the Most Holy Sacrament. I love You above all things, and I desire to receive You into my soul. Since I cannot at this moment receive You sacramentally, come at least spiritually into my heart. I embrace You as if You were already there and unite myself wholly to You. Never permit me to be separated from You. Amen.

I hope I don’t cause a stir with this next idea but it might be a very pragmatic way to accommodate Anglicans who believe in real presence but don’t want to risk that their sacraments may be invalid and illicit. Just get an Anglican official to talk to the English Catholic Cardinal (I think it’s Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor Catholic Church in England and Wales) and see if they will permit a Catholic Deacon or Eucharistic Minister to administer Catholic ordained Eucharistic Hosts to Anglican’s who believe in real presence. If permitted they might just arrive shortly after services and administer it locally. What I am suggesting here is a grass roots effort to see if we can get to ecumenicalism by getting individual Anglican’s approved for receiving The Catholic Eucharist through written agreement between The Archbishop of Canterbury and a The Catholic Cardinal of England. If we can’t get the Church authorities to normalize relationships at an ecclesiastical level maybe we can embarrass them if we can get the two different “Christian” laiety to find a way to normalize relations.

More here: ECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIA
The Eucharist thus appears as the culmination of all the sacraments in perfecting our communion with God the Father by identification with his only-begotten Son through the working of the Holy Spirit. With discerning faith a distinguished writer of the Byzantine tradition voiced this truth: in the Eucharist “unlike any other sacrament, the mystery [of communion] is so perfect that it brings us to the heights of every good thing: here is the ultimate goal of every human desire, because here we attain God and God joins himself to us in the most perfect union”.69 Precisely for this reason it is good to cultivate in our hearts a constant desire for the sacrament of the Eucharist. **This was the origin of the practice of “spiritual communion”, which has happily been established in the Church for centuries and recommended by saints who were masters of the spiritual life. Saint Teresa of Jesus wrote: “When you do not receive communion and you do not attend Mass, you can make a spiritual communion, which is a most beneficial practice; by it the love of God will be greatly impressed on you”.**70

Here is a link to Archbishop R. L. Burke’s memo about Spiritual Communion that may give additional insight:Sacrament of Communion by Archbishop Raymond L. Burke (May 13, 2005)

Just ideas…

James

 

[veritashunter]

To answer the original post (I am United Methodist) - anytime the Eucharist is celebrated, and the bread and wine become for us the Body and Blood of Christ, a miracle happens. Ordinary means have become extraordinary means.

Good posts, GKC. The best I have ever read here. I too remain Methodist instead of Catholic for many of the same reasons.

Dear O. S. Luke:

I fully believe in your honest conviction to the Real Presence…not only in theological/spiritual theory but also in physical reality.

Just wanted you to know the basis for my previous post.

From the United Methodist Church:

Article XVIII, The Articles of Religion, The Book of Discipline:
“The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ’s death; insomuch that, to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ; and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ.

“Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine in the Supper of our Lord, cannot be proved by Scripture, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthrows the nature of a sacrament, and has given occasion to many superstitions.

Above it states that it denies transubstanciation.

“The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith. "The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshiped.”

And here it says what is eaten is “faith”. This is not the definition of Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation.

Article VI, The Confession of Faith, The Book of Discipline:
“…We believe the Lord’s Supper is a representation of our redemption, a memorial of the sufferings and death of Christ, and a token of love and union which Christians have with Christ and with one another. Those who rightly, worthily, and in faith, eat the broken bread and drink the blessed cup partake of the body and blood of Christ in a spiritual manner until he comes.”

Again, it affirms a spiritual manner but not that it is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ Jesus in Reality while under the recognizable form or bread and wine. Again, it says that it is a representation…a memorial…a token of love…but not his real flesh and blood, his soul and divinity, shared with him physically as we become co-united in one body with our Lord.

Yours in Christ,

Veritashunter

 

[GKC]

Dear O. S. Luke:

I fully believe in your honest conviction to the Real Presence…not only in theological/spiritual theory but also in physical reality.

Just wanted you to know the basis for my previous post.

From the United Methodist Church:

Article XVIII, The Articles of Religion, The Book of Discipline:
“The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ’s death; insomuch that, to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ; and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ.

“Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine in the Supper of our Lord, cannot be proved by Scripture, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthrows the nature of a sacrament, and has given occasion to many superstitions.

Above it states that it denies transubstanciation.

“The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith. "The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshiped.”

And here it says what is eaten is “faith”. This is not the definition of Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation.

Article VI, The Confession of Faith, The Book of Discipline:
“…We believe the Lord’s Supper is a representation of our redemption, a memorial of the sufferings and death of Christ, and a token of love and union which Christians have with Christ and with one another. Those who rightly, worthily, and in faith, eat the broken bread and drink the blessed cup partake of the body and blood of Christ in a spiritual manner until he comes.”

Again, it affirms a spiritual manner but not that it is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ Jesus in Reality while under the recognizable form or bread and wine. Again, it says that it is a representation…a memorial…a token of love…but not his real flesh and blood, his soul and divinity, shared with him physically as we become co-united in one body with our Lord.

Yours in Christ,

Veritashunter

VH,

Spiritual Communion is a common Anglican practice, in case of need. A form is presented, for example, in my SAINT AUGUSTINE PRAYER BOOK, a book of private devotions. I use it when unable to attend my parish.

And do please be cautious with the Articles. I’ll let O. S. reply for the Methodists, but for Anglicans, no one outside the ordinands of the Church of England need pay any attention to them (though some of the Articles are mere Christianity, acceptable to any Christian). They are not binding on Anglicans, generally. They are history. I know. It’s complicated.

GKC

 

[GKC]

To answer the original post (I am United Methodist) - anytime the Eucharist is celebrated, and the bread and wine become for us the Body and Blood of Christ, a miracle happens. Ordinary means have become extraordinary means.

Good posts, GKC. The best I have ever read here. I too remain Methodist instead of Catholic for many of the same reasons.

Usually, when complimented, I reply that you are very kind. In this case, I’ll say that you are too kind.

GKC

 

[veritashunter]

VH,

Spiritual Communion is a common Anglican practice, in case of need. A form is presented, for example, in my SAINT AUGUSTINE PRAYER BOOK, a book of private devotions. I use it when unable to attend my parish.

And do please be cautious with the Articles. I’ll let O. S. reply for the Methodists, but for Anglicans, no one outside the ordinands of the Church of England need pay any attention to them (though some of the Articles are mere Christianity, acceptable to any Christian). They are not binding on Anglicans, generally. They are history. I know. It’s complicated.

GKC

Dear GKC:

I understand the concept of Spiritual Communion as it began as a practice within the Catholic/Orthodox Church for Catecumens and others not yet fully initiated into full communion the Church.

But, if these “Articles of Discipline” are the published and professed precepts (disciplines) and theology of one’s Christian assembly (Methodism) yet they are not “binding” to the beleiver then they might as well not exist…because in reality, true common belief and communion within it would not exist in such a state.

It is like saying…"this is what the Church believes…but if you want to come on Sunday…be a false witness to the Eucharistic reality of Christ…and just associate with us in a group in a non-binding way…feel free to come a bring your opinions.

This variety of “non-binding” permisssible beliefs within Protestantism is the Achilles Heal of its philosophy. Separation from the historic Church under the leadership of a valid Patriarch (Catholic or Orthodox) lead to this.

And from this the ones who truly suffer are the “beleivers” since their is so much “variety” and subsequent confusion in “what is really true and binding” in doctrine and “by what authority is binding to me” (in terms of the visible earthly Church).

I am not trying to be insensitive, but as a former member of a Protestant family containing several denominations there is no single authoritative earthly church with which all Protestants are willing to submit to as required in MT 18:15-18. And in this matter Protestantim has never and will never fulfill the explicit obligation of such set forth in Sacred Scripture.

The variety of doctrines is contradictory to one another on so many fronts including faith and works through grace/Faith alone, transubstanciation vs consubstanciation vs nonsubstanciation, baptism as a mere symbolic act vs baptism as a sacrament having salvific action, the validity or invalidity of holy orders, the ordination of homosexuals and women (a slope that I know the United Methodists and Episcopals have begun to slip and slide upon causing great dissention among their faithful believers) etc.

The very statement of fact that “they aren’t binding to us” means that they have no real authority. Though spriritual in intent they are “policies” of a majority vote because if you don’t like the policy you choose to do it your own way or you move on to the next non-binding assembly.

We lived with and through this experience in my family which is how I know it doesn’t work in practicality. And if God is anything He is practical (not paradoxical)…“My Word does not go forth in vain.”

Anyone can argue denominational superiority…but, no matter how well-intentioned, by the very separatist tenets and foundations of Protestantism one cannot be in accord with the singular Church of the bible (Catholic/Orthodox) unless you first deny yourself in obedience to the bride and embodiment of Christ on earth…the Church.

There was an old pear tree in my grandmother’s yard within which was a hollow hole where squirrels had stored many pine cones. Over the years enough sustainable decomposed material existed in the hole (acting like soil) for a pine seedling to sprout. As it matured its small roots were unable to sustain life because they were so confined. So the pine tree grafted into the pear tree…a coniferous tree into a disiduous tree. But no matter how independent and self-distinguishing the developing pine tree appeared it was still fully dependent on the Pear tree and its massive roots for life. As time progressed it was quite a sight to see a pine tree growing out of the pear tree…one might even say odd. It was somewhat functional but lacking real identity by itself. And in the kindness of nature it was permitted to suckle form the “fruit bearing tree” even though, by its nature and identity, was very different in species and type…but still a tree. Try living on pine nuts sometime…yes it is possible, but a pear offers a lot more nutrition.

Sorry for the drama…but that is a true story. The same is true in this situation no matter if we argue validity of holy orders, the Real Presence, or faith and works. History has proved it as Protestantism continues to fracture more an more everyday in Evangelical and fundamentalist entities.

So, please come home…we really do miss you and have a wonderful banquet to share with all of you…the true Bread of Life through our Lord Jesus the Christ.

Yours in christ,

Veritashunter

 

[GKC]

VH,

Again, you are very kind. My post about Spiritual Comunion was intended to say that it is a concept that Anglicans know of, too. In fact, I think some of the wording in some of the forms I have seen amongst us can be traced to St. Alphonse Liguori.

As to the Articles, I do not speak for Methodism.But as to Anglicanism, I’ll tell a story.

About 8-9 years ago, I first discovered the internet and boards like this. I found a very nice RC board, and read and lurked, not wanting to intrude. But eventually some issues arose regarding Anglicanism and the RCs on the board were in a fog (understandably). There was a very knowledgeable Anglican who also posted there ( he’s seen here sometimes, too) but he wasn’t around. So I made my first post, ever, to explain some basic facts of Anglicanism, with respect to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Sovereign’s role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the difference between the Church of England and Anglicanism in general, the official Anglican Communuion, and other points. It’s confusing, I know. And I’ve been explaining it ever since.

The Articles are probably the point I have to explain the most. I’ll be very brief here; if more info is requiried, I’ll try.

The Articles represent how Elizabeth I chose to govern her Church, in the 16th century. Their intent was to steer a middle way (via media) between the RCC and the more radical reformers in England. But they were binding on the ordinands of the CoE, and no one else. They are statecraft as religion.

Any Anglican may, in fact, chose to affirm some, all or none of them. They are not a Confession, *a la *Augsburg; Anglicanism is officially creedal, not confessional. Other than the ordinads of the CoE (many of whom pay no attention to them), officially one other jurisdiction in the offical Anglican Communion has recently made the Articles a part of their faith statement. Otherwise, as a binding document, they are, as you say, useless. I know some Anglo-Catholics who cut them from the Prayer Book, and use them to kindle the New Fire on Holy Saturday. The Articles are, in fact, still included in the 1979 book which the Episcopal Church uses, but they are in a section for historical documents (one of the few things I like about the 1979 book).

The issue of authority is certainly the problem with Anglicanism. But pointing to the Articles in an attempt to define what Anglicans even nominally believe, or officially must believe, is useless. It gives me a lot of opportunity to post, though.

For the Methodists, whose Articles are taken from Anglicanism, and adopted, I will let O. S. speak.

Again, your kind thoughts are appreciated.

GKC

 

[CentralFLJames]

A lot of gems in this post veritashunter. Very well spoken.

The variety of doctrines is contradictory to one another on so many fronts including faith and works through grace/Faith alone, transubstanciation vs consubstanciation vs nonsubstanciation, baptism as a mere symbolic act vs baptism as a sacrament having salvific action, the validity or invalidity of holy orders, the ordination of homosexuals and women (a slope that I know the United Methodists and Episcopals have begun to slip and slide upon causing great dissention among their faithful believers) etc.

Not to be insensitive to our non-Catholic friends but I can’t help here but to imagine Groucho Marx’s humorous line:

“Please accept my resignation. I don’t want to belong to any club that will accept people like me as a member.”

Standards of conduct are everything and what differentiates one thing ostensibly similar in appearance from another that has an entirely different inner nature.

The very statement of fact that “they aren’t binding to us” means that they have no real authority.

I think the above statement is profoundly axiomatic.

Loved the pine and pear tree story:

There was an old pear tree in my grandmother’s yard within which was a hollow hole where squirrels had stored many pine cones. Over the years enough sustainable decomposed material existed in the hole (acting like soil) for a pine seedling to sprout. As it matured its small roots were unable to sustain life because they were so confined. So the pine tree grafted into the pear tree…a coniferous tree into a disiduous tree. But no matter how independent and self-distinguishing the developing pine tree appeared it was still fully dependent on the Pear tree and its massive roots for life.

I bet the squirrels were dismayed to discover that their stockpile of booty sealed the wound in the tree and denied them from their routine of entering to scurry about mischievously and depositing various droppings to further foul and soil the hole. I wonder if the squirrels have discovered any new pine cones (fruit) in the fledgling pine tree and If so have they noticed a change in the taste? In question is if the pine fruit was still fully pine or was imparted with the flavor of a “pine-pear” hybrid (yuk - I can only imagine the bitter and ironic gall of a pear infused turpentine here). I suspect that the pine-tree fruit was ordinary and the only thing exceptional was thee tree’s peculiar position of being carried in a more lofty position higher up the trunk while remaining subject to gravity at the risk of a greater fall.

All food for though…

James