Anglican Woman Priest Gives Dog Communion

[CMatt25]

Shocking. The dog was Lutheran.

Not so shocking if the dog was ELCA though. TEC and ELCA and others are in communion.

 

[CMatt25]

Matt,

You can’t dialog with him. He is always right and I am always wrong!. I really don’t care that he has chosen to stay in TEC. We have a complicated relationship and this is his choice. His daughter’s FIL was the TEC Bishop of a very large diocese years ago and didn’t believe in the Resurrection, so that should tell you something about where he is coming from.

I wish it was different as he is my only brother, but the decision was made by him years ago to distance himself from his family and I think it was because he wouldn’t have to take any responsibility for my mother or father or any other issues he felt would be a burden to him. I can’t judge why he would rather do more for others than family as we were a normal family, but sometimes he is more radical in his beliefs. I am very conservative.

We do talk, but not about anything serious and he hasn’t lived close since he was in University.

Thanks for the thought.

God Bless

Bernadette

Bernadette, I know some Catholics who think they’re always right and I’m always wrong too. Seriously I pray for His peace to be with you always and God bless you.

 

[AndrewA]

It was nothing more than a piece of bread. Big whoop.

But if they do not believe it was only a piece of bread, then it is a really revolting thing to do.

Even if it was believed to be a symbol of Jesus.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

**You said this: “This should show anyone connected with the Anglican Communion that they do not believe in the Real Presence of Christ.” Now while the ACNA is not officially recognized by Canterbury, it wants to remain part of the Anglican Communion. ACNA is full of Eucharist-believing people. My rector is more on the Protestant side but fervently believes in the Real Presence. My bishop has talked about Eucharistic miracles he’s experienced that changed his life. There ARE dioceses all over the world that are faithful to the Eucharist and traditional Anglicanism and yet still part of the communion. If you really look at the situation, the vast majority of the Anglican Communion believes in the Eucharist, tradition, is anti-abortion, and pro traditional marriage. It is the Episcopal Church and the liberal Anglican Church in Canada primarily that accept this new world order malarchy that Jesus is “a” path to God amongst many, the feminist theology, silly views of the Eucharist, gay marriages, gay clergy, etc. My point is that you shouldn’t sully the entire Communion because a couple of members happen to have lost their way badly. I just picked my kids up from vacation bible school at my Anglican parish. It’s very Eucharistic and holds a high view of the Sacrament, as do many members of the Communion. The Communion is in realignment, no doubt. Just as the Catholic Church is in the midst of the worst PR scandal in decades and trying to stop the pedophilia and restructure itself to make sure these things don’t happen again, Anglicans are trying to do a purging of their own. It’s messy. Jury’s still out. I wish them well and hope for the best. I also hope the Catholic Church can overcome its crisis of historically scary priestly shortages, child predators, too many gay clergymen, etc. Christendom is going through a lot. Presbyertians and Episcopalians and the ECLA Lutherans all have chosen dark paths with the gay/feminist agendas. Sad stuff. **

See my post I think it is #15 to GKC, I wasn’t referring to those who have left TEC and the Anglican Communion as a whole, but those who still feel they can stay within that Communion and hang on to the former beliefs of the Anglican Communion.

My comments were nothing compared to many people still in TEC or the Anglican Communion and also by Continuing Anglicans on other websites. I also don’t perceive what I said as “outrage”.
All the leaders? This is a pretty broad generalization. Orambi, Akinola, Duncan, Schofield, Iker, CANA leadership, AMIA leadership, REC leadership, Venables in south america, the list goes on and on of good bishops who have done nothing but try to preserve and reform the mess. Give the good guys some credit. I agree, however, that guys like Rowan have just been a disaster, total disaster…
We can all be charitable towards those who just can’t make a decision to leave, but also must recognize the fact that the leaders of the Anglican Communion have destroyed it. Those being harmed are the members. Whether your a Baptist, Methodist etc. people ususally know what their church believes, but at this point in time I think it would be very difficult for a member of the Anglican Communion to say what the church believes.

Maybe to some this is not serious, just another strange incident within their church, but when your speaking of the Real Presence of Christ it is another issue.

Either the Anglican Communion as a whole teaches in the Real Presence or they don’t. As I stated growing up it was considered a symbol in my parish. After going to an Anglo Catholic parish for many years I was out of the loop as far as how the Episcopal church had changed. When I was young most clergy did not wear chasubles etc. Years later I noticed that most do. The outer elements like incense, vestments etc. does not reflect what is actually being taught and believed. Because the name Anglican does appear to others that all who use this title are connected to the Anglican Communion creates a problem as I can see by your response. I was not speaking of the Continuing churches, but those who are still within the Anglican Communion. From what I know these churches have left it many years ago. Most people in general don’t have a clue as to the difference.

In my opinion the whole Anglican Communioin is a mess, it is not the church I know from my past and as I have said many times I feel only sadness for those who stay. There are many continuing Anglican churches that one can choose to belong to, where they have clear teachings and they are much more condemning of this incident than I.

Bernadette

 

[GKC]

I know lots of folks connected with the official Anglican Communion who believe exactly what you and I do with respect to the Eucharist and the Real Presence. You know those folks over in the Church of England, Forward in Faith, who are looking to the Ordinariates? Them, for example. How long can they stay? We shall see. But in the Communion or out, there are Anglicans, and they are in the majority, I believe, who recognize that this was the action of an incompetent ninny.

GKC

Yes I know, but as you also can see from my post I said anyone connected to the Anglican Communion and as far as I know you and the Continuing groups are not. I was thninking of TEC. As a former Episcopalian and brought up in low church, they didn’t believe in the Real Presence, it was a symbol. My parents felt they were protestants.

I got this from a website of a Continuing Anglican and the responses to it were from both members of TEC and Cont. Anglicans and they were less charitable than many of CAF.

Of course I know exactly what the Anglican Communion NOW teaches, anything and everything. Sorry if you misunderstood what I meant by people still attached. I can’t understand why anyone would stay in TEC etc. My brother has a IQ that they couldn’t measure when he was young, but he will always be in TEC. We don’t discuss religion or politics because he knows BEST. His Ph.d is from Princeton.

You should know me by now that I don’t judge Anglicans who are like you and really I am not judging people in TEC as far as their salvation, but can judge actions taken by this woman and why anyone would stay in that parish.

Yes there are still some parishes in TEC that are Anglo Catholic and hold to their former beliefs, but for how long will they be allowed to?

God Bless

Bernadette

 

[adamirene]

There is a story on the web that a woman priest in the Anglican church of Toronto, Canada gave a dog and his owner a communion wafer during the liturgy.

This should show anyone connected with the Anglican Communion that they do not believe in the Real Presence of Christ. When speaking of the incident the people at the church referred to the wafer as a wafer and not as the Body and Blood of Christ.

It is very sad to see what is going on in the Anglican Communion today. Actually it is quite shocking.

All the more reason for being Catholic.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

You are absolutely right. People are insane. As Father Corapi say -“Thy live out of touch with reality”
I am so happy , happy ,HAPPY to be a Catholic.
It doesn’t matter that sometimes some of us falls due to sin. It is matter that we have Peter behind of it and Jesus a front of us and ourselves we find seating on that supernatural ROCK.
Adam

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

It’s great that you’re happy, happy, happy

You are absolutely right. People are insane. As Father Corapi say -“Thy live out of touch with reality”
I am so happy , happy ,HAPPY to be a Catholic.
It doesn’t matter that sometimes some of us falls due to sin. It is matter that we have Peter behind of it and Jesus a front of us and ourselves we find seating on that supernatural ROCK.
Adam

 

[Dale_M]

Sorry to see that this made TWO threads, while the hundreds of wonderful Anglican priests and laity that I know - who love Christ, believe in the Real Presence, and abhor such events - will NEVER make a thread on any forum ever. For every fringe Anglican nut, there are thousands upon thousands of Faithful.

Yes, and we won’t see many of the faithful Anglicans posting in a Catholic forum. We do, though, get a few fringe Catholics posting here.

I would point out, however, that no one seems to be defending the dog getting communion. Even the priest involved has expressed remorse.

But if they do not believe it was only a piece of bread, then it is a really revolting thing to do.

Even if it was believed to be a symbol of Jesus.

I understand your point of view, because based on Catholic teaching, an Anglican consecration of the bread doesn’t produce any change in it.
As PZ Myers would say: “Its just a frackin’ cracker.”

However, beliefs of the faithful are important, even if we do not subscribe to those beliefs. Its a matter of charity. As symbols go, the flag of one’s nation often is greatly respected by those who identify as patriotic. Many are rightly upset when the flag is burned as a protest. Yes, it is just a symbol, but people’s feelings about the symbol are not invalid nor inconsequential nor to be simply dismissed.

 

[HauntedJame]

This is all very Vicar of Dibley…

But then again, it might calm some animal owners down. As a kid I did as my mom if my dog would go to Heaven and she said “well, God loves us all…” and left that at that. Took me ages to realize she hadn’t given me a reply!

 

[Nine_Two]

Your outrage is commendable in that this is an example of idiocy and over-the-top weirdness. You’re wrong in that you draw a quick conclusion that this somehow represents all Anglicans. I happen to be “connected” to the A.C. right now and resent the implication that my parish and diocese haven’t a clue about the Real Presence because some dipstick in Canada is out to lunch?

The problem is, as you well know, Catholics and other traditional Churches see the Eucharist as a visible sign of unity, being part of the same communion with parishes which do this indicates to these people complicity.

As a former Anglican, however, I do understand that this isn’t the Anglican view, and Anglicans have no trouble thinking such an action to be stupid without believing they have to belong to a different communion.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

True enough, Nine. I agree. Catholics look at everything globally, not in provinces or in dioceses. Much of what I see them criticizing the Orthodox for is often a misunderstanding of your own church polity. They don’t understand that in the early Church a bishop had complete sovereign control over his diocese and was equal to all other bishops. Anglicans view things this way. We care about what happens in this diocese and this microcosm of ACNA more than the entire communion and especially more than TEC!

The problem is, as you well know, Catholics and other traditional Churches see the Eucharist as a visible sign of unity, being part of the same communion with parishes which do this indicates to these people complicity.

As a former Anglican, however, I do understand that this isn’t the Anglican view, and Anglicans have no trouble thinking such an action to be stupid without believing they have to belong to a different communion.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

From the Thirty-Nine Articles, the founding document of the Church of England:

–quote–

Article XXVIII

Of the Lord’s Supper

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 it 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 the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after an 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 worshipped.

–end quote–
bold and italics added

Have Anglo-Catholics disregarded the Articles and imitated the Catholics, and do the Low (evangelical) and Broad (liberal) groups of Anglicans adhere to them?

And all of this chit-chat is because “the dog ate my communion wafer.”

Peace to all.

cofec.org/39Articles.htm

 

[GKC]

From the Thirty-Nine Articles, the founding document of the Church of England:

–quote–

Article XXVIII

Of the Lord’s Supper

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 it 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 the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after an 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 worshipped.

–end quote–
bold and italics added

Have Anglo-Catholics disregarded the Articles and imitated the Catholics, and do the Low (evangelical) and Broad (liberal) groups of Anglicans adhere to them?

And all of this chit-chat is because “the dog ate my communion wafer.”

Peace to all.

cofec.org/39Articles.htm

The XXIX Articles are not the founding document of the Church of England. The history of the various sets of Articles would require a lengthy exposition, but none of them were “founding” documents, for the CoE, or any other form of Anglicanism.

The XXIX Articles are historical, a statement of how Elizabeth I decided to govern the extremes of the CoE in her day. They were supposed to be binding only on the ordained clergy of the CoE, and, in fact, are not binding on anybody, in practice. They are not necessarily normative, in any sense, on any other Anglicans outside the CoE, and useless to consult to determine what an Anglican might believe.

Most Anglicans, of any stripe, adhere to some of the Articles, and so do, for that matter, any Trinitarian Christians, since around a third or so of the Articles are simple Mere Christianity. No Anglican, generally, is required to adhere to them, by virtue of being the Articles, though you do find a lot of Anglicans who affirm a wider selection. And you find a few Anglicans who cut the things from the Prayer Book and use them to kindle the new fire at Easter.

Anglicanism is a Creedal, not a Confessional, Church and the Articles are not a form of Anglican Confession which defines that faith, generally. Folks often make that mistake.

GKC

 

[kenofken]

Sometimes I think dogs would make better parisioners, and even religious, than their two-legged counterparts. I once had the idea to give my brother’s Rottweiller a tonsure and enter him as a Benedictine novice. I figured he was an ideal candidate for vows. He was obedient, didn’t care less about money or worldly goods. loved simple food, cared for others, didn’t mind hard work and didn’t have any trouble with chastity since he was fixed. Smarter than a fair number of humans too. He would have never distinguished himself as a Gregorian chanter, but in all other respects…

 

[BernadetteM]

From the Thirty-Nine Articles, the founding document of the Church of England:

–quote–

Article XXVIII

Of the Lord’s Supper

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 it 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 the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after an 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 worshipped.

–end quote–
bold and italics added

Have Anglo-Catholics disregarded the Articles and imitated the Catholics, and do the Low (evangelical) and Broad (liberal) groups of Anglicans adhere to them?

And all of this chit-chat is because “the dog ate my communion wafer.”

Peace to all.

cofec.org/39Articles.htm

Yes this is what I recall as an Episcopalian when I was young. The actual substance does not change into the actual Flesh and Blood of Christ, but you receive with faith and in some spiritual sense are receiving His Body and Blood. This is more in line with the teachings of Luther.

Anglo Catholic parishes where I later was a member believed as the Catholic Church taught.

Although many Anglicans today have ignored the teachings of the 39 ariticles it is clear as to what was believed by at least the Episcopal church. I have no idea what the teachings of the CoE taught.

I don’t think anyone can argue with what it says in the 39 Articles, although they personally can believe that the bread and wine become the actual Flesh and Blood of Christ, this is not what was believed at one time and probably is still accepted by many Episcopalians. Transubstantiation is a word used to define that the bread and wine actually turn into the True Flesh and Blood of Christ and not just in a spiritual manner.

Thanks for quoting the actual belief in the words of the Book of Common Prayer.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

 

[GKC]

Yes this is what I recall as an Episcopalian when I was young. The actual substance does not change into the actual Flesh and Blood of Christ, but you receive with faith and in some spiritual sense are receiving His Body and Blood. This is more in line with the teachings of Luther.

Anglo Catholic parishes where I later was a member believed as the Catholic Church taught.

Although many Anglicans today have ignored the teachings of the 39 ariticles it is clear as to what was believed by at least the Episcopal church. I have no idea what the teachings of the CoE taught.

I don’t think anyone can argue with what it says in the 39 Articles, although they personally can believe that the bread and wine become the actual Flesh and Blood of Christ, this is not what was believed at one time and probably is still accepted by many Episcopalians. Transubstantiation is a word used to define that the bread and wine actually turn into the True Flesh and Blood of Christ and not just in a spiritual manner.

Thanks for quoting the actual belief in the words of the Book of Common Prayer.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

The CoE taught nothing in particular. The Articles, which related only to the CoE (though nothing would stop any Anglican, anywhere, from affirming them) required that clergy assent to them, under the Subscription Act of 1571. The purpose of the Act was to ensure uniformity of opinion; to prevent discord in the fractious Church Elizabeth found herself saddled with. As Bishop Bramhall put it “We do not hold our Thirty-nine Articles to be such necessary truths, `without which there is no salvation;’ nor enjoin ecclesiastical persons to swear unto them, but only to subscribe them, as theological truths, for the preservation of unity among us. Some of them are the very same that are contained in the Creed; some others of them are practical truths, which come not within the proper lists of points or articles to be believed; lastly, some of them are pious opinions or inferior truths which are proposed by the Church of England as not to be opposed; not as essentials of Faith necessary to be believed.” And Bishop Bull, similarly “The Church of England professeth not to deliver all her Articles as essentials of faith, without the belief whereof no man can be saved; but only propounds them as a body of safe and pious principles, for the preservation of peace to be subscribed, and not openly contradicted by her sons. And, therefore, she requires subscription to them only from the clergy, and not from the laity.”

And, of course, just as there no authority requiring Anglicans, generally, to subscribe to them, there is nothing to stop the more evangelical Anglicans from adopting them.

Transubstantiation refers to a particular theory as to how the real presence is present, and not to the real presence itself.

GKC

 

[CMatt25]

The priest at TEC near me says TEC doesn’t have an elaborate doctrine as the Catholic Church does about how or when the bread and wine become Christ’s body and blood. Instead TEC just says they are His body and blood.

 

[Newbie2]

Not so shocking if the dog was ELCA though. TEC and ELCA and others are in communion.

So it’s possible that a Lutheran dog attending an ELCA church in San Francisco could receive communion from a gay pastor (in a **committed **homosexual relationship) during a slinky service?

This world just keeps getting weirder every day.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Guidelines for posting on religious discussions

Members are not allowed to be disrespectful of anyone’s faith or religion, whether it is Catholicism or not. If a member is disrespectful, he will generally be counseled first and suspended if he persists in disrespectful postings.

If the nature of an initial posting is blatantly disrespectful to any religion (e.g., “the pope is the anti-Christ” or “Rome is the Whore of Babylon” or “Muslims are terrorists”), suspension may be immediate and without prior counseling.

Members are free to discuss, dialogue, question, disagree with, and debate the doctrines and dogmas of both Catholicism and non-Catholic religions. However, all discourse must be civil and charitable.

Guidelines
For both Catholic and non-Catholic posters:

• It is acceptable to question the doctrine or dogma of another’s faith
• It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs
• Bringing up historical controversies peculiar to a particular religion should be done cautiously*
• It is acceptable to discuss the effect the incident had on current policy or practice.
• It is acceptable to seek the truth vs. commonly-held beliefs or conventional wisdom about actual events.
• It is fallacious reasoning to use embarrassing incidents to claim that they “prove” a particular religion is false.
• Expecting members of any Church to defend or answer for the excesses or extremism of bodies that have broken with it is a technique that has no merit and can’t be defended.

*It is our observation that discussion of such past events rarely serves a useful purpose and inevitably opens a thread to posts that violate forum rules and/or the bounds of civil discourse. So, while such threads may be useful, they raise a red flag for the Moderation staff.