Anglican & Lutheran Eucharistic miracles

[CatherineJones]

I have a book at home that details several miraculous experiences in the life of an Anglican woman, including a lot of smells and happenings during Mass. I would have to re-read to remember more.

There are Anglicans who feel it is to dishonor the Lord to deny the sacraments they have received/celebrated as part of entering the Roman Catholic Church.

I have a book of the title Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans published in 1972, just before the ordination of women falsely so called. It documents a couple of people who had meetings with the pope and were under the impression that he intended to release a statement rescinding condemnation of Anglican orders. I even know one Anglican who insists a seminary professor of his saw the draft document, although I have never been able to track that down. It is widely believed among those scholars who care to study the matter that such discussions were abandoned due to the so-called ordination of women.

In my mind, the state of Anglican Orders at the time of Apostolae Curae is ancient history, as in response, Anglicans were conditionally re-ordained by persons outside the RC church, who’s orders Rome unquestionably recognized. (There is much written that would cause reasonable theologians to question Apostae Curae’s correctness to begin with. For instance, the arguement that Anglican orders are invalid because the word “priesthood” was not used is also true of many ancient liturgies, from which Roman Catholic orders descend.)

It would seem to me that a more honest statement would be: some Anglican orders are valid. I am sickened every time I hear Anglican orders completely condemned. Not only does it sound dishonest, it reaks of dishonoring The Lord in His Most Precious Body and Blood.

There are Anglo-Catholics who are so Roman in thought they accept the papal claims. And there are good Anglican theologians who see the Roman position on Peter as not wrong, but a different perspective on the facts. However, there are places in Anglicansim where the faith proclaimed by Peter’s successors seems to be more faithfully taught and more zealously proclaimed to the world than in nearby local Roman Catholic churches.

A relative has observed that Roman Catholicism is boring because the services are very boring. Only once have I seen the modern Roman Rite celebrated well. Moreover, I have experienced the Holy Spirit’s power in that church; whereas oppression seems to be the mainstay in the local RCC. Although the leadership seems to be doing good things, praying off the darkness doesn’t appear to be on their radar screen.

From a missionary zeal perspective, if we take out the Hispanic numbers, adding in conversions, the RCC has lost 1/3rd of its members in the thirty-five years I have been on the planet. And there are reports from Human Life International of orthodox candidates turned down for the priesthood. These are hardly signs of an institution united with Peter and working in harmony.

Moreover, there remains a question of institutionalization. I find it extremely difficult to believe faithful membership in the church should require belief in difficult and inopportune fringe dogmas, such as papal infallibility and Marian Immaculate Conception. The position of the RCC is essentially that if one does not believe these things, they can not be real Catholics and receive the sacraments all proclaim necesssary for salvation. Even accepting the papal claims, I am not sure it is moral to obey such orders, which keep people away from the sacraments. Anglicans, being insubordinate as one commentor mentioned, believe these are optional theological opinions, not necessary for salvation or church membership. Thus, they serve as a bridge to bring the lost to the sacraments.

(In truth, I am extremely uncomfortable that ALL of the apostolic sees, except Rome, expressly refused as NOT APOSTOLIC the Roman see’s claims of authority. I do not specifically deny these claims, but faced with the historical opposition, I can not call them APOSTOLIC or CATHOLIC, meaning believed by ALL those bishops in precisely such as way as to reach modern conclusions, either. They seem more to me to be a theological opinion consistent with apostolic tradition. How can one apostolic see say to all the others: you bishops are all wrong; I alone am right --and expect much credibility?)

I am one of those who can see things from both perspectives, without feeling like I must be unfaithful to one to affirm the other.

 

[GKC]

Two points, speaking as an Anglican who has spoken before.

There are, indeed, a thin wedge at the top of Anglo-Catholics who are rightfully referred to as Anglo-Papalists. They’re sort of Anglo-Catholics on steroids.

And the lack of reference to the function of the sacerdotal priesthood in the Edwardine Ordinal, while cited as the defect in form, must be considered in conjunction with the assumed defect of intent, of the consecrators’ of ++Parker, as shown by their use of that form, devised by whom and in which particular historical circumstances it was. It is the intent and form together that vitiates (in Romes’ eyes) Anglican orders, from that point on.

Still, thanks for your post.

GKC

*Anglicanus Catholicus *

 

[CatherineJones]

GKC:

What a completely bizarre conclusion: that a bishop would go to all the trouble of ordaining a man with no intention to accomplish what the church does in ordaining a man. Why would he “ordain” a man if he had no intention to create holy orders?

Any reasonable person who didn’t believe in ordination would appoint a minister and consider conducting any Rite of ordination sacriligious.

If the church were to take the position that doubts about the faith or heresy in the sacred minister (or any other moral quality) effected the validity of the sacrament, we would never know if any sacrament were valid. I do believe that position has been condemned as heretical.

There are reams of evidence both that Anglicans did ordain and intended to ordain! Moreover, I am not aware of ANY problems with their orders prior to the ordination of women falsely so called. Their conditional re-ordinations were done solely in the interest of ecumenical relations with the Roman see because of the concerns raised in Apostolae Curae, not because of any doubt on their part about the validity of their orders.

On another subject, I’m confused about papal infallibility. I thought it applied to defining matters of the deposit of the faith. I’m going to have to pull the CCC and look that up to make sure. How could the status of anyone’s orders–a matter which occurred 1600 years AD–be a matter of the deposit of the faith?

CJ

 

[mbd1475]

GKC:

What a completely bizarre conclusion: that a bishop would go to all the trouble of ordaining a man with no intention to accomplish what the church does in ordaining a man.

---

On another subject, I’m confused about papal infallibility. I thought it applied to defining matters of the deposit of the faith. I’m going to have to pull the CCC and look that up to make sure. How could the status of anyone’s orders–a matter which occurred 1600 years AD–be a matter of the deposit of the faith?

CJ

Wholeheartedly agree with everything you’ve posted. I’m afraid the answer to your last question is going to be disappointing. You see, much like birth control, stem cell research, and countless other issues, the Roman church fancies itself competent to render an opinion which becomes de facto doctrine. There is no room for dissent-not for a lack of compelling evidence for the dissenting position-but because they have been able to craft dissent on any issue as an abandonment, of sorts, of communion, if you will.

 

[GKC]

GKC:

What a completely bizarre conclusion: that a bishop would go to all the trouble of ordaining a man with no intention to accomplish what the church does in ordaining a man. Why would he “ordain” a man if he had no intention to create holy orders?

Any reasonable person who didn’t believe in ordination would appoint a minister and consider conducting any Rite of ordination sacriligious.

If the church were to take the position that doubts about the faith or heresy in the sacred minister (or any other moral quality) effected the validity of the sacrament, we would never know if any sacrament were valid. I do believe that position has been condemned as heretical.

There are reams of evidence both that Anglicans did ordain and intended to ordain! Moreover, I am not aware of ANY problems with their orders prior to the ordination of women falsely so called. Their conditional re-ordinations were done solely in the interest of ecumenical relations with the Roman see because of the concerns raised in Apostolae Curae, not because of any doubt on their part about the validity of their orders.

On another subject, I’m confused about papal infallibility. I thought it applied to defining matters of the deposit of the faith. I’m going to have to pull the CCC and look that up to make sure. How could the status of anyone’s orders–a matter which occurred 1600 years AD–be a matter of the deposit of the faith?

CJ

Catherine,

Keep in mind that I’m an Anglican. I know Anglican orders are valid.

The conclusion of *Apostolicae Curae * is that in changing the form from that used in the Roman Pontifical, as then current, the Anglican Church clearly did not intend to ordain a sacerdotal, or sacrficing priesthood, in view of that change, and in view of the historical situation in which the change occurred. Had the Anglican Church continued to use the Pontifical instead of changing to the Ordinal, the logic in *Apostolicae Curae *would not have held.

Validity of a sacrament is dependent on valid form, matter, intent and minister. If the form is changed, and the use of the changed form indicates invalid intent (not facere quod facit ecclesia), then the sacrament is invalid. The position of the RCC is that Anglicans did not intend to ordain a priest (actually, to consecrate a bishop) in the ame sense that the Church has always used the term. That is, what they did was in fact, appoint a minister.

You are referring to Donatism. Donatism holds that heretical notions/beliefs do not affect the validity of a sacrament as long as the celebrant meets the other requirements (is a priest, for example) and has the minimum intent of doing what the Church does, in the action. This is precisely what *Apostolicae Curae *says did not happen. AC also says that the Church does not attempt to judge the interior state, but judges by external actions. And that the adoption of the Ordinal was just such an external action, which proves that invalid intent. The mention of the sacrificing priesthood being deliberately surpressed rendered the form invalid, in Romes eyes.

I am of the opinion you might be confused about Papal infallibiity, yes. AC was not an *ex cathedra *statement, though it is to be treated as *de fide * I also wonder if you have read the Bull, itself. I recommend it. Your thoughts about how the RCC treated Anglican orders historically might be changed.

Remember, I don’t accept Apostolicae Curae. I’m Anglican. But I do know the subject matter.

Man, I get into some odd conversations. Any RCs here want to add to the infallibility bit, feel free. Or jump in on the form/intent. But I’ll be watching.

GKC

 

[Jennifer_G]

Do the Anglican/Episcaples and Lutherans claim to have any Eucharistic miracles like we as Catholics have? I have never heard of any but I’m curious.

Also what about incorrupt bodies of protestants, anything on that subject?

I never heard of any when I was Lutheran. In fact, any type of miracles, visions, incorrupt bodies etc., weren’t even talked about. From a Lutheran standpoint, Lutherans feel as if those things are extra, and not needed.

 

[veritashunter]

Wholeheartedly agree with everything you’ve posted. I’m afraid the answer to your last question is going to be disappointing. You see, much like birth control, stem cell research, and countless other issues, the Roman church fancies itself competent to render an opinion which becomes de facto doctrine. There is no room for dissent-not for a lack of compelling evidence for the dissenting position-but because they have been able to craft dissent on any issue as an abandonment, of sorts, of communion, if you will.

Dear GKC:

Strangely you question the teachings on birth control, stem cell research, and countless other issues. How about Genesis and Onan…how about if the Virgin Mary decided to be on the pill…or to have her tubes tied…or…to sum it up…chose to live outside of the natural authority of God’s love rejecting His gift? Well, simply put, if Mary followed your logic we’d all be condemened to Sheole. Smart plan!

Tell me, was Jesus the same person at the moment of his conception as he was as a developed adult? Of course he was just as you are and has been proven by DNA…an embryo has the same genetic identity then as it does as an adult. So, embryonic stem cell research involves the formation of embryos (little people) just for scientific experimentation and destruction then is certainly immoral…just as is the case for invitro fertilization due to the destruction of the leftover embryos (at the very least). The same science is involved in cloning.

Of yes, I forgot, the Anglican…excuse me…the Episcopal Anglicans are the group who said in 1930 at the Lambeth Conference that it was okay to use birth control even though every Christian assembly in the world condemned it as grave sin up to that point including fundamentalist Christians. This from the same folks that brought you female and homosexual ordinations. One by one they fell off…led by Anglicanism and Epsicopalism.

So, who is being Catholic and who is not on this subject?

Well, the Church Fathers and early Church historians wrote extensively on the topics of both artificial birth control and abortion as separate and equally evil acts. This is not a new problem or new position. This also was the case until recent years in Orhtodoxy. The ecumenical Patriarch Athanagoras of Constantinople wrote Pope Paul VI in 1968 telling him that the Orthodox completely endorsed all of the timeless doctrine expressed in as fully Orthodox and matching their teaching.

In Orthodox Bishop Ware’s first published version of his book he upheld this position and quoted the same letter mentioned above…but in his later version he changed the text to say that non-abortifacient types of birth control were moral and acceptable. Unfortunately, the only artificial form that does not have a primary or secondary abortifacient method (the Pill, the Norplant, The IUD, etc.) is a condom. But all methods are condemned by the ancient Church by those closer in Apostolic lineage to the Apostles than you or I.

The writings of Barnabas, Clement of Alexandria (sex without being open to God’s creation of children is evil) Hippoclytus (on abortion), Lactantius (teaches abstinance if one does not want children because that is the primary reason for sex and anything for mere pleasure even in marriage is sinful), the Council of Nicea 1 (regarding castration and genital mutilation…vasectomey comes to mind), Epiphanus of Salamis (condemned all forms of birth control including withdrawal method), Augustine (calls all of those using these methods to be not wives but harlots and not husbands but adulterers), St. John Chrysostom (condemned both orally consumed contraceptive drinks and abortion), Jerome argues the same as all of these above and quotes Genesis and cites Onan’s sin, and Caesarius of Aries specifically writes about oral contraceptives and various abortion methods condemning all as evil as did Basil the Great, Clement of Alexandria, Ambrose of milan, John IV Nesteutes, .

What about Councils and Synods? The Council at Nicea (1), Synod of Ancyra (314 AD) and Council of Trullo (692 AD)…same there too!

Just more Roman innovations, I guess. Oh, that is right…all of those references were while the Catholic and Orthodox were one single Church! And Anglicanism was non-existent. HMMMM. HMMMM.

Actually, the innovative thinking seems to be traced to about 1000 years later to some “mad” Anglican (or was he Catholic) fellow named Henry VIII who contradicted everything he wrote in his own book “Assertio Septum Sacramentorum” in 1521.

In so far as what the Pope says in regards to any discipline or matter of faith and morals…check out my previous post that you agreed with, GKC: Let no one do anything connected with the Church without the agreement of the bishop for in his authority is the Church (Ignatius of Antioch). And the rightful and authoritative Patriarch of Britain is the Bishop of Rome since the Church in Britain was part of the Church under that Patriarch.

(By the way…anyone is going to try to say that Onan was put to death for breaking the Levirate Law save yourself from the attempt since this was not an offense punishable by death under Levirate Law.)

Better luck next time.

Yours in Christ,

Veritashunter

PS - Children, you’ve played outside long enough. And those friends you’ve been consorting with have given you a nasty head cold. Time to come back inside (the Church). You’re beginning to catch the flu…that’s what happens when you get exposed to a dangerous virus…like pride. After a while you don’t even sound like your healthy self anymore.

 

[GKC]

Dear GKC:

Strangely you question the teachings on birth control, stem cell research, and countless other issues. How about Genesis and Onan…how about if the Virgin Mary decided to be on the pill…or to have her tubes tied…or…to sum it up…chose to live outside of the natural authority of God’s love rejecting His gift? Well, simply put, if Mary followed your logic we’d all be condemened to Sheole. Smart plan!

Tell me, was Jesus the same person at the moment of his conception as he was as a developed adult? Of course he was just as you are and has been proven by DNA…an embryo has the same genetic identity then as it does as an adult. So, embryonic stem cell research involves the formation of embryos (little people) just for scientific experimentation and destruction then is certainly immoral…just as is the case for invitro fertilization due to the destruction of the leftover embryos (at the very least). The same science is involved in cloning.

Of yes, I forgot, the Anglican…excuse me…the Episcopal Anglicans are the group who said in 1930 at the Lambeth Conference that it was okay to use birth control even though every Christian assembly in the world condemned it as grave sin up to that point including fundamentalist Christians. This from the same folks that brought you female and homosexual ordinations. One by one they fell off…led by Anglicanism and Epsicopalism.

So, who is being Catholic and who is not on this subject?

Well, the Church Fathers and early Church historians wrote extensively on the topics of both artificial birth control and abortion as separate and equally evil acts. This is not a new problem or new position. This also was the case until recent years in Orhtodoxy. The ecumenical Patriarch Athanagoras of Constantinople wrote Pope Paul VI in 1968 telling him that the Orthodox completely endorsed all of the timeless doctrine expressed in as fully Orthodox and matching their teaching.

In Orthodox Bishop Ware’s first published version of his book he upheld this position and quoted the same letter mentioned above…but in his later version he changed the text to say that non-abortifacient types of birth control were moral and acceptable. Unfortunately, the only artificial form that does not have a primary or secondary abortifacient method (the Pill, the Norplant, The IUD, etc.) is a condom. But all methods are condemned by the ancient Church by those closer in Apostolic lineage to the Apostles than you or I.

The writings of Barnabas, Clement of Alexandria (sex without being open to God’s creation of children is evil) Hippoclytus (on abortion), Lactantius (teaches abstinance if one does not want children because that is the primary reason for sex and anything for mere pleasure even in marriage is sinful), the Council of Nicea 1 (regarding castration and genital mutilation…vasectomey comes to mind), Epiphanus of Salamis (condemned all forms of birth control including withdrawal method), Augustine (calls all of those using these methods to be not wives but harlots and not husbands but adulterers), St. John Chrysostom (condemned both orally consumed contraceptive drinks and abortion), Jerome argues the same as all of these above and quotes Genesis and cites Onan’s sin, and Caesarius of Aries specifically writes about oral contraceptives and various abortion methods condemning all as evil as did Basil the Great, Clement of Alexandria, Ambrose of milan, John IV Nesteutes, .

What about Councils and Synods? The Council at Nicea (1), Synod of Ancyra (314 AD) and Council of Trullo (692 AD)…same there too!

Just more Roman innovations, I guess. Oh, that is right…all of those references were while the Catholic and Orthodox were one single Church! And Anglicanism was non-existent. HMMMM. HMMMM.

Actually, the innovative thinking seems to be traced to about 1000 years later to some “mad” Anglican (or was he Catholic) fellow named Henry VIII who contradicted everything he wrote in his own book “Assertio Septum Sacramentorum” in 1521.

In so far as what the Pope says in regards to any discipline or matter of faith and morals…check out my previous post that you agreed with, GKC: Let no one do anything connected with the Church without the agreement of the bishop for in his authority is the Church (Ignatius of Antioch). And the rightful and authoritative Patriarch of Britain is the Bishop of Rome since the Church in Britain was part of the Church under that Patriarch.

(By the way…anyone is going to try to say that Onan was put to death for breaking the Levirate Law save yourself from the attempt since this was not an offense punishable by death under Levirate Law.)

Better luck next time.

Yours in Christ,

Veritashunter

PS - Children, you’ve played outside long enough. And those friends you’ve been consorting with have given you a nasty head cold. Time to come back inside (the Church). You’re beginning to catch the flu…that’s what happens when you get exposed to a dangerous virus…like pride. After a while you don’t even sound like your healthy self anymore.

VH,

May I point out, gently, that I’m not the author of that post?

Nice hearing from you, though.

Oddest conversations, like I said.

GKC

 

[veritashunter]

Dear GKC:

Sorry…typo idiot here. I meant to direct the last post to the response of MBD1475.

18 hour day so far…and they say age doen’t matter. Who are they trying to kid.

Yours in Christ,

Vritashunter

 

[CentralFLJames]

How could the status of anyone’s orders–a matter which occurred 1600 years AD–be a matter of the deposit of the faith?

CJ

I don’t want to come across uncharitable - I really don’t. But there have been a few Anglicans chumming the waters with lots of opinions that need to be rebutted.

I suppose you do not believe that intrinsic to The Church’s authority vested through the power of The Keys (e.g. “to loose and bind”) is also The Church’s absolute responsibility to God to not permit the apostolic succession to be carelessly rendered and extended to bring in every heretical cult that pops up and says “me too”?

For me it’s really pretty simple. In spite of what some want to believe and rationalize Anglicans by papal decree, and by matter of consequence of heretical action (embracing Protestantism and insubordination to The Chair of Peter), and by the fact that the ordained Catholic priests and bishops in the Anglican Catholic Church all died off sometime after the separation that Anglicans are simply left vacated with no valid apostolic succession nor holy orders. Recall too that King Edward’s men completely Protestantized and revised the Roman priestly rites as well. Can any Anglican say that they believe the same thing Catholics do? If not then why get upset or even pretend you are part of us when we Catholics don’t even acknowledge that you are a material part of us? Anglicans act like God would permit His Church to be hijacked simply by claiming they have an apostolic succession that no one else recognizes. Or do Anglicans think they now have the new One Truth now and the Archbishop of Canterbury should be the new seat of The Church?

There is no court nor opinion nor force of argument on the planet outside of Rome that has the authority to change the current circumstances. Period. If Anglicans want unity with Rome and if they want valid sacraments they must re-establish the Apostolic succession through Rome or the Orthodox branch. Neither will ever permit it while the “seperate but equal” attitude and the non-conforming theological beliefs picked up as bed-bugs in sleeping with Protestant influences prevails.

So, the laws of man permit Anglicans to go on believing what they want - just like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Scientologists, Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists and Bubba Bob’s Bible Church are permitted. What it merits anyone though is any-one’s guess.

In this, Anglicans are no different really than any other Protestant group. All the arguments presented thus-far extend from the presumption of a superior moral and legal argument. But that presumption I think is indicative of the fundamental spiritual problem - insubordination and a separatist and even a nationalist mentality rather than a universal alignment.

The (Catholic) Church is simply not going to permit those outside the Church to define its cannon nor its ecclesiastical rule of order nor its ruling on the matter. Nor do I expect most Anglicans to care. If Anglicans decide someday that they want to come back into The Church they know what they must do. The easier thing for Anglicans wanting full sacraments is to simply vacate the Anglican communities and come into the Catholic Church.

At the end of the day - no matter how much anyone wants to complain or argue, the facts that remain to us Catholics are clear. Without Rome’s consent - Anglicans have little more than a sacrament of baptism and an ecclesiastical assembly or community that comes together each Sunday to pray and sing together (with or without light horderves). No doubt most of you all think different. No doubt one of us is absolutely wrong and since Catholic apostolic succession is not in question that means Anglicans are left to gamble their eternity with at best 50:50 odds - flip a coin. That’s pretty scary odds if you ask me given that assertion of papal infallability. We Catholics do pray for you though.

Those Anglicans wanting to participate in the full mass and the full sacraments are welcome to come back to The Church anytime they can accept Her Authority. But you can’t seperate authority from The Church by trying to do an end run around Peter’s Seat to a different point in time. Either you accept authority or you reject authority.

James

 

[GKC]

I don’t want to come across uncharitable - I really don’t. But there have been a few Anglicans chumming the waters with lots of opinions that need to be rebutted.

I suppose you do not believe that intrinsic to The Church’s authority vested through the power of The Keys (e.g. “to loose and bind”) is also The Church’s absolute responsibility to God to not permit the apostolic succession to be carelessly rendered and extended to bring in every heretical cult that pops up and says “me too”?

For me it’s really pretty simple. In spite of what some want to believe and rationalize Anglicans by papal decree, and by matter of consequence of heretical action (embracing Protestantism and insubordination to The Chair of Peter), and by the fact that the ordained Catholic priests and bishops in the Anglican Catholic Church all died off sometime after the separation that Anglicans are simply left vacated with no valid apostolic succession nor holy orders. Recall too that King Edward’s men completely Protestantized and revised the Roman priestly rites as well. Can any Anglican say that they believe the same thing Catholics do? If not then why get upset or even pretend you are part of us when we Catholics don’t even acknowledge that you are a material part of us? Anglicans act like God would permit His Church to be hijacked simply by claiming they have an apostolic succession that no one else recognizes. Or do Anglicans think they now have the new One Truth now and the Archbishop of Canterbury should be the new seat of The Church?

There is no court nor opinion nor force of argument on the planet outside of Rome that has the authority to change the current circumstances. Period. If Anglicans want unity with Rome and if they want valid sacraments they must re-establish the Apostolic succession through Rome or the Orthodox branch. Neither will ever permit it while the “seperate but equal” attitude and the non-conforming theological beliefs picked up as bed-bugs in sleeping with Protestant influences prevails.

So, the laws of man permit Anglicans to go on believing what they want - just like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Scientologists, Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists and Bubba Bob’s Bible Church are permitted. What it merits anyone though is any-one’s guess.

In this, Anglicans are no different really than any other Protestant group. All the arguments presented thus-far extend from the presumption of a superior moral and legal argument. But that presumption I think is indicative of the fundamental spiritual problem - insubordination and a separatist and even a nationalist mentality rather than a universal alignment.

The (Catholic) Church is simply not going to permit those outside the Church to define its cannon nor its ecclesiastical rule of order nor its ruling on the matter. Nor do I expect most Anglicans to care. If Anglicans decide someday that they want to come back into The Church they know what they must do. The easier thing for Anglicans wanting full sacraments is to simply vacate the Anglican communities and come into the Catholic Church.

At the end of the day - no matter how much anyone wants to complain or argue, the facts that remain to us Catholics are clear. Without Rome’s consent - Anglicans have little more than a sacrament of baptism and an ecclesiastical assembly or community that comes together each Sunday to pray and sing together (with or without light horderves). No doubt most of you all think different. No doubt one of us is absolutely wrong and since Catholic apostolic succession is not in question that means Anglicans are left to gamble their eternity with at best 50:50 odds - flip a coin. That’s pretty scary odds if you ask me given that assertion of papal infallability. We Catholics do pray for you though.

Those Anglicans wanting to participate in the full mass and the full sacraments are welcome to come back to The Church anytime they can accept Her Authority. But you can’t seperate authority from The Church by trying to do an end run around Peter’s Seat to a different point in time. Either you accept authority or you reject authority.

James

You don’t come off as uncharitable. You come off as someone who has never read Apostolciae Curae, or any of the literature on it, or who doesn’t know that Rome accepts as valid and illicit, orders of Churches not in communion with the Holy See.

Your prayers are sincerely appreciated.

GKC

 

[mbd1475]

Veritashunter:

If the matter is closed, why argue? The moment you argue, you open the door for reason, science, facts, history, bias, and a whole host of other things you clearly do not want to deal with. The reason that I do not agree with the Roman position on matters of biology is not because of pride, resentment or a lack of knowledge as to what the fathers of the church said; rather it is because I believe them to be factually wrong, i.e, they do not comport with reality. Case in point, I saw a priest yacking about birth control being intrinsically evil, all the while approving of the intent behind birth control (while claiming not to). He said that it is perfectly ok in the eyes of the church to “defer having children, even indefinitely” using “natural” family planning. Of course, such deferral is the actual intent of all birth control, yet he made the disingenuous argument that using abc was an unconscious rejection of the spouse. He can say that behind the Roman tab all he wants to, but try a scientific poll of people who use abc and they will tell you it is to “defer having children.” Claiming that others’ motivations are hidden and subconscious, so that the holder does not even know them is, of course, an unprovable proposition, and the last resort of an intellectual coward defending an untenable position. Even the laity in your church recognize that, and I say that not because I have “authority” to “know” their subconscious motivations, but because they all admit to using birth control.

 

[veritashunter]

Veritashunter:

If the matter is closed, why argue? The moment you argue, you open the door for reason, science, facts, history, bias, and a whole host of other things you clearly do not want to deal with. The reason that I do not agree with the Roman position on matters of biology is not because of pride, resentment or a lack of knowledge as to what the fathers of the church said; rather it is because I believe them to be factually wrong, i.e, they do not comport with reality. Case in point, I saw a priest yacking about birth control being intrinsically evil, all the while approving of the intent behind birth control (while claiming not to). He said that it is perfectly ok in the eyes of the church to “defer having children, even indefinitely” using “natural” family planning. Of course, such deferral is the actual intent of all birth control, yet he made the disingenuous argument that using abc was an unconscious rejection of the spouse. He can say that behind the Roman tab all he wants to, but try a scientific poll of people who use abc and they will tell you it is to “defer having children.” Claiming that others’ motivations are hidden and subconscious, so that the holder does not even know them is, of course, an unprovable proposition, and the last resort of an intellectual coward defending an untenable position. Even the laity in your church recognize that, and I say that not because I have “authority” to “know” their subconscious motivations, but because they all admit to using birth control.

The Church has always permitted the deferral of children due to circumstance such as poverty. But it has held many points in its philosphy specific to the ferreal of children.

1. No artificial means may be used as described in the quotes I cited.
2. No internal medicines or compounds may be used for prevention of conception of abortion (both mentioned distinctly).
3. No mutilation of the body is permitted such as is the case with present day vasectomy and fallopian tube severence procedures.
4. It condemns the withdrawal and casting away of the male seed.
5. That whenever one wishes to prolong children it is essential to either be celibate or at least open to God’s will over your own.

Most damaging of all your assertion proposes the opposite in all of thes circumstances. It replaces God’s superior will with your own inferior will (as a human being).

What is distinct about NFP (Natural Family Planning/Creighton Model) is that it is 95% effective and is still open to the possibility of life…being open to the will of God letting “His will be done on earth as in heaven”. I am sure that you recognize that wording. A guy name Jesus told us about it once.

And, NFP is not the Rythym Method. It is completely different using physical signs only obvious to the husband and wife including temperature and mucous conditions as applied to her personal fertility cycle. The couples abstain during those most fertile days which is completely morally and biblically compatible. It is so private that it requires more intimacy within the marriage. That is why people who practice this form of NATURAL BIRTH CONTROL (greatly depending upon the tenet of Biblical Self-Control) has only a 5% divorce rate. Yes, only 5%! Do the research.

In your post you merely retorted with conjecture and non-scientific facts. You spoke about what you have seen and you know, your experience, your will, etc. That is the essential limiting factor in all human faith and you proved it beyond any doubt. It is your experience vs. your knowledge vs. your will…all of which vs. OBEDIENCE!

It is funny that your post comes at a time when both the Roman Catholic, Melkite Catholic, and many other Liturgies (as well as 2 conversations I have had in the past 3 days) involve St. Thomas (the doubter) needing proof and putting God’s will (relayes to him by the other Apostles…the Church) to the test because of his personal (singular) understanding and faculties vs. His understanding and faculties.

Please be intellectually honest enough to notice that I didn’t state “my experience teaches”. I did that when I was but a child. I defer to the Church and its bishops as Sacred Scripture demands as do all of the Church Fathers and Paul’s writings and the Book of Acts, etc.

And please also note that all of the ancient sources of Church historians, Fathers, Councils, and synods I cited were in agreement with the present day Church doctrine…while none of which were sympathetic with your position. Our postion has never changed on this…only Protestant thought has done so.

Regarding your point about addressing it only makes it more questionable as a point of debate. If your philosphy of “If it is closed why talk about it?” is correct then likewise everyone on this and any other forum is (by default of your knowledge, opinion, and experience) an idiot wasting their time. Futher to that point, so then are all of the Counciuls of the Church, the Synods, and every other meeting to defend truth that has ever occured in the history of the Church when opposing false teaching and affirming truth. By the way, this logic would also strangely exclude the Council at Jerusalem (49 AD) in the Book of Acts who did just that same thing.

We have an obligation as Christians to bring people back to the body of Christ by truthful dialogue quoting the teachings of the Church (the embodiment and bride of Christ) as the Truth of Christ . Thus, the Saints, the Councils, the Synods, the Church in all things…in all truth…in all Christ.

Yours in Christ,

Veritashunter

 

[mbd1475]

I’m following your points, and your quotes, until you get here:

1. That whenever one wishes to prolong children it is essential to either be celibate or at least open to God’s will over your own.

Most damaging of all your assertion proposes the opposite in all of thes circumstances. It replaces God’s superior will with your own inferior will (as a human being).

Okay, fine, that argument is to be expected. But then you contradict yourself:

What is distinct about NFP (Natural Family Planning/Creighton Model) is that it is 95% effective and is still open to the possibility of life…being open to the will of God letting “His will be done on earth as in heaven”. I am sure that you recognize that wording. A guy name Jesus told us about it once.

That is a complete and utter lie. There is absolutely no difference in the “will” or state of mind or intention or whatever you want to call it between ABC and NFP. None. It is a form of birth control. Anything you might say to the contrary is laughable, and the entire church knows it. The priests know it, that’s why they have to basically apologize every time they teach it. (see the Catechism of the Catholic Church on EWTN sometime if you want to see an example of this apologizing for having to teach it. It’s quite telling). By the way, putting words into the mouth of Jesus is something I would think twice about, my friend.

Since you have taken a position that is prima facie inconsistent, the onus is upon you to prove that:

1. people do not use NFP with the mindset of avoiding children; and that
2. their mindset is different from that of people using ABC.

I’m still waiting…

And, NFP is not the Rythym Method. It is completely different using physical signs only obvious to the husband and wife including temperature and mucous conditions as applied to her personal fertility cycle. The couples abstain during those most fertile days which is completely morally and biblically compatible. It is so private that it requires more intimacy within the marriage. That is why people who practice this form of NATURAL BIRTH CONTROL (greatly depending upon the tenet of Biblical Self-Control) has only a 5% divorce rate. Yes, only 5%! Do the research.

1. First of all, you just disproved that NFP is purely “natural.” The ancients had no way to accurately determine temperature and follow this method. As a matter of fact, the ancients thought that the fertility cycle was part of something “unnatural” that made the woman “unclean.” Just look at how Jews and early Christians treated menstruating women in the Bible. If it WAS the rhythm method, it would help your argument. By appealing to science in order to support its effectiveness, you have undercut your own argument. No, my friend, there is nothing any more natural about NFP than a condom.
2. Second, you promote the fact that NFP is 95% effective as some sort of positive in that it promotes life. Only in a twisted world of hoops, smoke and mirrors would that make sense. The conscious purpose of NFP, like all birth control, is to prevent pregnancy, period. Anything else is merely crafted to help you sleep at night.
3. There is a difference between correlation and causation. Those who use NFP (the most hardcore Roman Catholics) would never EVER consider divorce (for the reason that they are hardcore Roman Catholics). It does not follow that NFP is the cause of the low divorce rate. Again, logic.

In your post you merely retorted with conjecture and non-scientific facts. You spoke about what you have seen and you know, your experience, your will, etc.

Nope, haven’t made any factual claims based upon experience at all. Only thrashed your position using logic and reason.

It is funny that your post comes at a time when both the Roman Catholic, Melkite Catholic, and many other Liturgies (as well as 2 conversations I have had in the past 3 days) involve St. Thomas (the doubter) needing proof…

I don’t find that humorous or ironic. I find it to be a strawman.

Please be intellectually honest enough to notice that I didn’t state “my experience teaches”. I did that when I was but a child. I defer to the Church and its bishops as Sacred Scripture demands as do all of the Church Fathers and Paul’s writings and the Book of Acts, etc.

I didn’t accuse you of arguing from experience. I accused you of arguing from authority in spite of all facts, reason and logic. And you just admitted to it.

Our postion has never changed on this…only Protestant thought has done so.

The only way this is true is if the overwhelming majority of catholic laity are protestant, and the overwhelming majority of scientists and doctors are even Christian. I hope you will reconsider your position.

We have an obligation as Christians to bring people back to the body of Christ by truthful dialogue quoting the teachings of the Church (the embodiment and bride of Christ) as the Truth of Christ . Thus, the Saints, the Councils, the Synods, the Church in all things…in all truth…in all Christ.

I believe the same faith about God as you do. That’s another strawman argument. The whole point is that while the Church fathers may have said something about birth control, that’s not within the purview of religion. It has nothing proper to do with doctrine or dogma. It’s not in the creeds. It hasn’t been addressed by an ecumenical council. It is not pertaining to salvation, etc., etc. any more than you would now argue that the earth’s flatness is doctrine or dogma.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Recommend if you all want to talk about birth control you spin off a new thread.

James

 

[mbd1475]

Recommend if you all want to talk about birth control you spin off a new thread.

James

If you’ll look back, birth control was brought up in the context of the perceived authority of the magisterium to opine or decree upon certain matters that may or may not be part of the deposit of faith, e.g. the validity of Anglican orders, as compared to issues regarding the propriety of genetic research, so on and so forth . I’ve tried to focus the birth control topic upon the issue of authority precisely for that reason. To talk about the possibility of Anglican eucharistic miracles in the context of the non-catholic religions forum really requires more than a very narrow scope, because the majority here take for granted that it would not be possible, precisely because they invest the magisterium, even the Pope alone, with that authority.

 

[veritashunter]

Dear MBD1475:

First, I never put any words in your mouth.

Second, the teaching of the Catholic Church invites the use of NFP so long as it is used in accordance with Church teaching. Your logic is again flawed at best assuming that the Church beleives that people do not abuse NFP as do people with other artificial forms. It is, as it has always been, dependent upon intent or intention, method, and effect just as is stated in the citations I offered previously.

For instance, there are some (all be it rare) medical conditions that may use the same materials (such as the birth control pill) to treat a legitimate condition. The secondary effect of that treatment may be infertility which is not the actual intention. Another is the surgical removal of the uterus to treat cancer. The primary effect is not to seek an infertile condition.

Third, I agree that the ancient Church didn’t have the ability to do NFP but that doesn’t make it unnatural since its proper use employs no chemical, physical mutilation, or strict disregard of God’s will which is exactly what the early Church teaches. Even when employing this method there is no physical, surgical, or chemical blockage/intervention on the part of the person using this method. If their intention is to attempt to space out their children, to protect the mother from a complication that is possible or even probable to harm her, etc. these are understood as still seeking life. But even in those cases one must either abstain or use a method that is still open to God’s will should He choose to bless upon them a child.

Fourth, where did I say you were not a Christian? I said that your postion imposes your will (as a human being) over God’s will (as the supreme Being). I have done the same in my life at times. I am not judging your faith or your soul…just you logic. You ight choose your words more precisely beofre attacking mine. Your position has as its primary and first foundation “your” right to do something that the “Church” (the spouse and embodiment of Christ on earth) prohibits. God expects us to make decisions but not in a way that abuses free will. NFP used in conjunction with the correct intent can be a moral and faithful decision. Yet, using any artifical means/mode/method is morally wrong…even using NFP without proper intent and disposition to God is wrong as well. No one disagreed with you on that point.

Fifth, who said scientists weren’t Catholic or other Christian denominations. History would prove you wrong. Who said that the Church does not embrace science…it does which should be rather apparent in its scientific scrutiny of the lives of the Saints before Canonization. Who invented the “university”? The Universal Catholic Church! But science can never replace faith and logic. Maybe you would believe Albert Einstein…that was his take on the situation.

A great example is that one can look to science to explain the after effects of Creation through carbon dating, geology, astrophysics, thermodynamics, etc. But one cannot look to science to explain the Great Mystery of Creation due to the fact that scientific explanation of such requires explanations such as not only immediate cause and effect (such as evolutionary theory) but in absolute cause and effect. This is impossible until we can identify the first object affected and define the First to cause the action of effect. In science there is a material law stating that nothing comes from nothing…matter must come from matter. Therefore, science will always fall short in explaining its own theory of an initial complete void that now contains the Cosmos. Personally, I find it much more logical to believe the teachings of Christ, his apostles, their apostles, and their apostles…right up to the present day.

Better yet, just do this. Imagine Christ, Mary, and Joseph standing across from you. Now state your right to contracept in their presence. What do think the response would be?

And, lastly, yes…I agree…many Catholics lean toward Protestantism in many ways (including this one). A single ember sets many coals afire. Yet, an unfaithful minority or majority opinion does not the truth make.

The straw argument (as you put ) is found within your own position. It sets aside the historic teachings of Genesis, the early Church Fathers, Church historians, Church Councils and Synods, the teaching authority of the bishops, etc., etc. for your own position which seeks human will (not in accord with God’s will, but rather in exclusion of it). I am not saying that this is your personally held opinion but that is the logical effect of it. This is why intent, method, and effect must all be considered in both logic and Truth (which should not be in opposition). Also the greatly increased rates of breast cancer, ovarian and uterine cancer, sepsis, heart attack, etc. that come from nearly all methods of artificial birth control. All you have to do is read the back of the packages. Don’t take my word for it. And for men a vasectomy doubles a mans chance of getting prostate cancer. Again, don’t believe me…just do me the justice of taking the time to research it. The science of it!

Look at Roe v. Wade in the USA. Intent, method, and effect! 1.25 million children a year are murdered. You may even want to take the time to read up on Eugenics, artificial birth control, Margaret Sanger, her relationship to members at the 1930 Lambeth Conference ushering in this wonder of family destruction known as artificial birth control, and the present day Planned Parenthood organization. You will probably be most amazed at the truth. Most folks are.

And as far as my use of the Lord’s Prayer quotation…in what context do you think Jesus spoke those words? Especially, when he repeated them (but not my will, Thy will be done) in The Garden of Olives just before his crucifixion.

Yours in Chirst,

Veritashunter

 

[mbd1475]

VH, I am afraid you’re getting in way over your head here. Let’s lay down some ground rules, shall we?

1. Actually read what I’m saying.
2. If you respond, then respond to what I’ve actually said.
3. It’s okay to say “I don’t know.”

First, I never put any words in your mouth.

I never said you did (See Rule No. 1). I said that I would be careful about putting words in Jesus’s mouth, e.g., by implying that it is his will to use NFP, as you did.

Second, the teaching of the Catholic Church invites the use of NFP so long as it is used in accordance with Church teaching. Your logic is again flawed at best assuming that the Church beleives that people do not abuse NFP as do people with other artificial forms. It is, as it has always been, dependent upon intent or intention, method, and effect just as is stated in the citations I offered previously.

The official stance of the church according to the catechism and every priest I’ve ever heard is that NFP may be used “to defer having children, even indefinitely.” You are implying that using NFP as a method of birth control, as the term is commonly used, is “abuse” of what the Church actually teaches. That is not true. It is clearly intended as birth control. From the US Conference of Catholic Bishops’ website:

“Natural Family Planning (NFP) is an umbrella term for certain methods used to achieve and avoid pregnancies.”

“NFP is unique among methods of family planning…”

“NFP instruction helps a couple identify the most opportune time to achieve as well as avoid a pregnancy.”

"If a couple wishes to avoid pregnancy, they abstain from intercourse and any genital contact during the fertile time. "

“In NFP both spouses are taught to understand the nature of fertility and work with it, either to plan a pregnancy or to avoid a pregnancy.”

“When couples understand the methods and are motivated to follow them, NFP is up to 99% successful in spacing or limiting births.”

“The effectiveness of NFP depends upon the spouses’ following the rules of the method according to their family planning intention (i.e., achieving or limiting pregnancy). Those who are strongly motivated to avoid pregnancy and follow the method-defined rules are very effective in meeting their goal.”

Since you have taken a position that is prima facie inconsistent with your own Church’s teaching and with logic and reason, the onus is still upon you to prove that:

1. people do not use NFP with the mindset of avoiding children; and that
2. their mindset is different from that of people using ABC.

and now in light of the evidence that I’ve presented, that:

1. that the Roman Catholic Church does not promote NFP as birth control in the same way that contraceptives are promoted as birth control.

For instance, there are some (all be it rare) medical conditions that may use the same materials (such as the birth control pill) to treat a legitimate condition. The secondary effect of that treatment may be infertility which is not the actual intention. Another is the surgical removal of the uterus to treat cancer. The primary effect is not to seek an infertile condition.

Fine, let’s go with that argument. But you have to be consistent with your standards, as the legitimate intention of artificial contraceptives is, USING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH’S LANGUAGE also “to plan a pregnancy or to avoid a pregnancy,” and the side effects (health, psychological, etc.) are merely secondary. The primary effect is not to seek an infertile condition, but to avoid pregnancy.

continued…

 

[mbd1475]

Third, I agree that the ancient Church didn’t have the ability to do NFP but that doesn’t make it unnatural since its proper use employs no chemical, physical mutilation, or strict disregard of God’s will which is exactly what the early Church teaches. Even when employing this method there is no physical, surgical, or chemical blockage/intervention on the part of the person using this method.

You have set up the criteria so that only NFP meets the criteria. This is a common fallacy among those attempting to make a logical argument. To demonstrate, If I said “pick the correct animal” and then said “the animal must have a neck that is as long as its body,” it will be no wonder if you pick a giraffe. Likewise, if you define the “correct” form of birth control as one that does all the things you list above, then of course you will arrive at the answer you seek. You’ve assumed what you have to prove.

Also, by reading the last part, what you have done is define NFP as God’s will. So essentially what you have is a tautology where God’s will = God’s will, which can never be proven wrong.

If their intention is to attempt to space out their children, to protect the mother from a complication that is possible or even probable to harm her, etc. these are understood as still seeking life. But even in those cases one must either abstain or use a method that is still open to God’s will should He choose to bless upon them a child.

Again, you haven’t demonstrated the (apparently twisted) argument it would take to prove that seeking to avoid pregnancy (as the Catholic Church clearly states is the goal of NFP) is “seeking life.” I’m still waiting…

God expects us to make decisions but not in a way that abuses free will. NFP used in conjunction with the correct intent can be a moral and faithful decision. Yet, using any artifical means/mode/method is morally wrong…even using NFP without proper intent and disposition to God is wrong as well.

1. What is the correct intent, and what are the incorrect modes of intent with regard to NFP; and again,
2. How do they differ from those using ABC?

And, lastly, yes…I agree…many Catholics lean toward Protestantism in many ways (including this one). A single ember sets many coals afire. Yet, an unfaithful minority or majority opinion does not the truth make.

But that standard is okay when it is a majority of “fathers” of the Church, as defined by the majority of current church scholars, as defined by the majority of the current magisterium, as approved by the majority of the magisterium before that, so on and so on. Please don’t try the whole “just because it’s popular doesn’t mean it’s right” thing, whenever the whole Roman dogma system is built upon precisely that. It’s also what the canon of the Bible is built upon.

The straw argument (as you put ) is found within your own position. It sets aside the historic teachings of Genesis, the early Church Fathers, Church historians, Church Councils and Synods, the teaching authority of the bishops, etc., etc. for your own position which seeks human will (not in accord with God’s will, but rather in exclusion of it).

No. Please use wikipedia or another valid source, and look up the term “strawman argument.” It does not mean what you think it means.

And as far as my use of the Lord’s Prayer quotation…in what context do you think Jesus spoke those words? Especially, when he repeated them (but not my will, Thy will be done) in The Garden of Olives just before his crucifixion.

That says nothing of the fact that you are claiming to know that his will includes NFP.

I would love for you to convince me that I’m wrong, but it won’t be done by raving about subjects such as the formation of the cosmos, about which you are clearly uneducated. If you can’t hang with the actual subject matter of this thread, see Rule No. 3.

 

[CentralFLJames]

I am withdrawing form the thread - the direction of the dialog has made a radical departure from Eucharist.

James