Episcopalian Communion

[bmonk]

Change the question and reverse it. When a christian church, with whom we share a common baptism, a common Lords Prayer and a common creed, celebrates the Eucharist does ANYBODY believe that Christ departs from this Eucharist on the grounds that the celebrant went to the wrong seminary, was ordained by not quite the right bishop with not quite the right words? Remember Christs response when the apostles complained that a couply of guys were curing the sick and they “are not one of us” . Christ insisted that the two guys were left alone and that what was done in his name was good and sound and he reminded the apostles that “… those who are not against us…” etc. If we ask the question “When does Christ DEPART from the bread and wine?!” perhaps we would get a more loving answer, a more Christ like answer from within your heart and from the Spirit. Work on it, pray on it, the loving and spirit filled answer will reveal in your heart.

The only bit of sense in the whole thread! We must ask is it the doctrine that we follow or the words of Christ and his followers (they were there after all!)?

But what of those who do not believe it is the presence of the Lord? For some, the rule is simple–we use it in baptism. If Catholic baptism is not acceptable to Mormons, then they obviously think they are doing something different, and so their baptism is not acceptable to us.

The Anglicans and Lutherans are a harder case, but I think the principle is still effective. You just have to take it a step or two further. Long ago, we and they had mutual excommunications. Our understanding of the faith and of the sacraments were different enough that we could not partake of communion together.

If this has changed, then we need to officially lift those excommunications and we can be together. If it has not changed, then to partake of each others communion would be a lie.

If we simply assume they no longer apply, then we will never do the hard work to get together in truth. Sometimes things have to hurt to move us to change.

 

[runningdude]

Change the question and reverse it. When a christian church, with whom we share a common baptism, a common Lords Prayer and a common creed, celebrates the Eucharist does ANYBODY believe that Christ departs from this Eucharist on the grounds that the celebrant went to the wrong seminary, was ordained by not quite the right bishop with not quite the right words?

I’m not sure I understand what you are trying to say . I believe that Christ never takes the form of bread and wine if the priest was not ordained properly. I believe this with all my heart and soul. My life would have no meaning if it were not true…

Remember Christs response when the apostles complained that a couply of guys were curing the sick and they “are not one of us” . Christ insisted that the two guys were left alone and that what was done in his name was good and sound and he reminded the apostles that “… those who are not against us…” etc. If we ask the question “When does Christ DEPART from the bread and wine?!” perhaps we would get a more loving answer, a more Christ like answer from within your heart and from the Spirit. Work on it, pray on it, the loving and spirit filled answer will reveal in your heart.

 

[Prophet_of_doom]

Then dear Runningdude nobody must persuade you otherwise. Knock and the door will be opened, search and you will find. When theology gets into a head to head with love then love must always win and must always prevail. Each of us must find a level of understanding within which we are able to live and love the Lord, perhaps it is not necessary for us all to be in exactly the same level of acceptance or understanding. Bear in mind though that there are very very few matters which are dogmatically defined as being infallible matters or absolute dogma. The Walsingham ordinariate came as a surprise to many of us after all. God bless you and worry no more.

 

[andrewstx]

As far as what they believe look at articles #28 and #29 of the 39 Articles. The Eucharist is purely a simbol. They deny and reject anything goes on in the consecration to change the elements of bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus. Therefore, they don’t reverence the Euicharist, they don’t worship the Eucharist, because it’s merely a simbol. To worship the Eucharist for them, given it’s merely a simbol, would be idolotry.

Look it up yourself.
anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html

No one in protestantism has valid ordinations.

I’m not sure about that. In my days as an Episcopalian I was taught that the 39 articles are not binding on anyone, and are in fact just a historical document that was never refferenced.

And never did I hear of the Eucharist as a symbol or just a memorial.

But OTOH I always went to high anglo-catholic churches and was exposed to the other side of Episcopalianism.

But to me it all comes down to Elizabeth I. She needed to unite a fractious nation in one church, she could not be Catholic since in Catholic eyes she was illegitimat. So there was no effort to make things exact, and to me that is why the wishy-washy theology that never comes out and says much of anything exacting.

BTW Queen Elisabeth I seemed to prefer Catholicism at least to the point of having the Latin Mass said in her private chapel.

 

[steve_b]

I’m not sure about that. In my days as an Episcopalian I was taught that the 39 articles are not binding on anyone, and are in fact just a historical document that was never refferenced.

And never did I hear of the Eucharist as a symbol or just a memorial.
But OTOH I always went to high anglo-catholic churches and was exposed to the other side of Episcopalianism.

**
Did you ever have eucharistic adoration? Without a valid eucharist, adoration would be idolotry.
**

 

[RyanBlack]

I’m not sure about that. In my days as an Episcopalian I was taught that the 39 articles are not binding on anyone, and are in fact just a historical document that was never refferenced.

And never did I hear of the Eucharist as a symbol or just a memorial.

But OTOH I always went to high anglo-catholic churches and was exposed to the other side of Episcopalianism.

But to me it all comes down to Elizabeth I. She needed to unite a fractious nation in one church, she could not be Catholic since in Catholic eyes she was illegitimat. So there was no effort to make things exact, and to me that is why the wishy-washy theology that never comes out and says much of anything exacting.

BTW Queen Elisabeth I seemed to prefer Catholicism at least to the point of having the Latin Mass said in her private chapel.

During my experience of about three years in the Episcopal Church, nobody talked about or even cared about the Thirty-Nice Articles. The fact of the matter is that Anglicans are all over the place with respect to their eucharistic theology. Some Anglicans believe in transubstantiation (in spite of the Thirty-Nice Articles), some believe in a Zwinglian memorial meal. In between, you can find those who hold to a position not unlike that of Luther, and there is probably a very large group whose beliefs about communion are essentially Calvinist.

 

[jwinch2]

Change the question and reverse it. When a christian church, with whom we share a common baptism, a common Lords Prayer and a common creed, celebrates the Eucharist does ANYBODY believe that Christ departs from this Eucharist on the grounds that the celebrant went to the wrong seminary, was ordained by not quite the right bishop with not quite the right words? Remember Christs response when the apostles complained that a couply of guys were curing the sick and they “are not one of us” . Christ insisted that the two guys were left alone and that what was done in his name was good and sound and he reminded the apostles that “… those who are not against us…” etc. If we ask the question “When does Christ DEPART from the bread and wine?!” perhaps we would get a more loving answer, a more Christ like answer from within your heart and from the Spirit. Work on it, pray on it, the loving and spirit filled answer will reveal in your heart.

It sounds as if you are saying that having a valid priesthood and an episcopate who can actually confer the sacrament of Holy Orders is irrelevant for the Eucharist. I don’t want to accuse you of something like that without clarification so if you could, please explain.

Peace,

 

[jwinch2]

The only bit of sense in the whole thread! We must ask is it the doctrine that we follow or the words of Christ and his followers (they were there after all!)?

I would remind everyone that Christ’s statement about those teaching who are not among the Apostles was before the institution of the Eucharist, the establishment of the Church, and the reception of the Holy Spirit by the chosen at Pentecost. If Christ wished all to be able to act in his name with equal authority he would have sent all of them the Holy Spirit and there would have been no need to establish a Church and give her the power to bind and loose.

Secondly, I would remind everyone that Sacred Tradition and Magisterial teaching are viewed as co-equal in authority with Sacred Scripture in the Catholic Church. In addition, it is the Church herself who is the authentic interpreter of the Bible, not the individual. We have a name for people who latch on to something in the Bible which appears to contradict the teaching of the Church and who use that to reject Church teaching. We call them Protestants.

 

[jwinch2]

The bottom line on this issue is very simple. The Anglican Church and the Episcopal Church in America do not have a valid priesthood and thus, cannot confer the Eucharist.

catholic.com/quickquestions/can-i-receive-communion-in-an-anglican-church

newadvent.org/cathen/01491a.htm

Furthermore, if a Catholic treats something which is merely bread and wine as if it were the body and blood of Christ, are they participating in idolatry? I do not know the answer to that one, but it is probably worth considering.

 

[steve_b]

if a Catholic treats something which is merely bread and wine as if it were the body and blood of Christ, are they participating in idolatry? I do not know the answer to that one, but it is probably worth considering.

I would say, if a Catholic knowing what they were really doing, took part in a communion service by a Protestant minister regardless of stripe, as if it was the Eucharist, it would minimally be a scandal, and give scandal to others. If they took part in some sort of adoration of mere bread and wine as if they were validly consecrated body blood soul and divinity of Christ, which they aren’t, that by definition is idolotry, because one is taking mere objects and worshiping them as if they are the body blood soul and divinity of Jesus, which they aren’t.

 

[jwinch2]

I would say, if a Catholic knowing what they were really doing, took part in a communion service by a Protestant minister regardless of stripe, as if it was the Eucharist, it would minimally be a scandal, and give scandal to others. If they took part in some sort of adoration of mere bread and wine as if they were validly consecrated body blood soul and divinity of Christ, which they aren’t, that by definition is idolotry, because one is taking mere objects and worshiping them as if they are the body blood soul and divinity of Jesus, which they aren’t.

Thanks. My question would then be if we treat something which is not truly the Eucharist as if it is, are we not adoring it?

 

[Prophet_of_doom]

I would remind everyone that Christ’s statement about those teaching who are not among the Apostles was before the institution of the Eucharist, the establishment of the Church, and the reception of the Holy Spirit by the chosen at Pentecost. If Christ wished all to be able to act in his name with equal authority he would have sent all of them the Holy Spirit and there would have been no need to establish a Church and give her the power to bind and loose.

Secondly, I would remind everyone that Sacred Tradition and Magisterial teaching are viewed as co-equal in authority with Sacred Scripture in the Catholic Church. In addition, it is the Church herself who is the authentic interpreter of the Bible, not the individual. We have a name for people who latch on to something in the Bible which appears to contradict the teaching of the Church and who use that to reject Church teaching. We call them Protestants.

 

[steve_b]

Thanks. My question would then be are we not adoring the Eucharist when we receive it?

Good point. 1 Cor 11: 28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:53-54).

As an aside I would just add the following for Catholics to tuck away for that day when they might need it

catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0140.html

 

[GKC]

steve_b:
**
Did you ever have eucharistic adoration? Without a valid eucharist, adoration would be idolotry.
**

If this is just a toss-up, generic Anglican inquiry, then amongst the more Anglo-Catholic-flavored Anglicans, Benediction/Adoration of the Blessed sacrament, is not unknown. I’ve assisted in serving at such a Benediction.

And it likely has occurred to you that Anglicans who do such (in fact, Anglicans generally) are not overly worried about Apostolicae Curae.

Certainly, all RCs should affirm it, with whatever degree of theological certainty appertaining thereto.

GKC

 

[steve_b]

If this is just a toss-up, generic Anglican inquiry, then amongst the more Anglo-Catholic-flavored Anglicans, Benediction/Adoration of the Blessed sacrament, is not unknown. I’ve assisted in serving at such a Benediction.

And it likely has occurred to you that Anglicans who do such (in fact, Anglicans generally) are not overly worried about Apostolicae Curae.

Certainly, all RCs should affirm it, with whatever degree of theological certainty appertaining thereto.

GKC

Hi Jim :tiphat: it’s been awhile. Hope all is well with you.

The Catholic Church has it’s share of relativist, indifferent as well as garden variety disobedient Catholics too… It’s particularly and painfully clear who they are, especially now in this political season, with positions they take on important subjects. As the link I provided states, Catholics who claim to be true to the faith, can’t accept relativism and indifference on key issues, and need to speak out against such positions, whenever and wherever those views pop up. I’m sure you would agree.

Have a great day

 

[Contarini]

It sounds as if you are saying that having a valid priesthood and an episcopate who can actually confer the sacrament of Holy Orders is irrelevant for the Eucharist.

It’s not clear to me that it is relevant for validity (clearly it’s highly relevant for good order). That’s one of those points where I perhaps remain Protestant, and which may prevent me becoming Catholic.

The whole idea of “confecting” the Eucharist seems problematic, as if the Eucharist were something human beings did instead of a gift of grace. The Eucharist isn’t a confection–it’s a divine fire. Handle it in the wrong way, and it may explode in your face–that I can easily believe. But that the sacramental Word returns empty just because the wrong person uttered it–that’s harder to accept.

Yes, I’m sounding very Lutheran today. . . .

There’s a medieval story (in Durandus’ commentary on the liturgy, which was a standard text, though of course not magisterial per se) about some shepherds who put some bread on a rock and said the words of institution. Fire came down from heaven and burned them up. That seems to imply that the words have effect (even if it’s a destructive effect) even when uttered by the “wrong” people.

Edwin

 

[Prophet_of_doom]

It sounds as if you are saying that having a valid priesthood and an episcopate who can actually confer the sacrament of Holy Orders is irrelevant for the Eucharist. I don’t want to accuse you of something like that without clarification so if you could, please explain.

Peace,

I have said nothing about anything being irrelevant at all. The Holy Spirit will blow where he will and the love and grace of Christ is surely potentially openly available to all Christians. MEN can squabble about how valid one christian is versus another, let them squabble, the good Lord may well be amused or bemused by His childrens behaviour but he will clearly bestow His love and grace on those who are actually valid in His eyes and in their faithfulness and believe appropriately. I hesitate to be judgemental about this or that brand of christianity unless of course i find one is quite fundamentally out of tune with basic Catholic dogma, and there is very little actual dogma indeed if you care to investigate it. i think Christ in his loving wisdom decides when to be present and when to be absent in each Eucharist. To imagine that His divine presence is dependent on a particularly qulaified type of man on earth is unreal but this does not deny that men should be prepared in a special way to perform the appropriate ceremonies in a defined manner and with due regard to the christian tradition. We should all pray about it and pray to avoid pharisaic style pronouncements and listing of multiple trick situations and quoting page after page of rules rules rules that seem to prevent Christ from being present in any other than your own Eucharist. This is hubristic surely.

 

[GKC]

Hi Jim :tiphat: it’s been awhile. Hope all is well with you.

The Catholic Church has it’s share of relativist, indifferent as well as garden variety disobedient Catholics too… It’s particularly and painfully clear who they are, especially now in this political season, with positions they take on important subjects. As the link I provided states, Catholics who claim to be true to the faith, can’t accept relativism and indifference on key issues, and need to speak out against such positions, whenever and wherever those views pop up. I’m sure you would agree.

Have a great day

I knew that was you.

I got a back ache, and am roughly 38 years older (I think) since we last spoke. I hope you are well.

And yep, I agree.

GKC

 

[jwinch2]

I have said nothing about anything being irrelevant at all. The Holy Spirit will blow where he will and the love and grace of Christ is surely potentially openly available to all Christians. MEN can squabble about how valid one christian is versus another, let them squabble, the good Lord may well be amused or bemused by His childrens behaviour but he will clearly bestow His love and grace on those who are actually valid in His eyes and in their faithfulness and believe appropriately. I hesitate to be judgemental about this or that brand of christianity unless of course i find one is quite fundamentally out of tune with basic Catholic dogma, and there is very little actual dogma indeed if you care to investigate it. i think Christ in his loving wisdom decides when to be present and when to be absent in each Eucharist. To imagine that His divine presence is dependent on a particularly qulaified type of man on earth is unreal but this does not deny that men should be prepared in a special way to perform the appropriate ceremonies in a defined manner and with due regard to the christian tradition. We should all pray about it and pray to avoid pharisaic style pronouncements and listing of multiple trick situations and quoting page after page of rules rules rules that seem to prevent Christ from being present in any other than your own Eucharist. This is hubristic surely.

There are no trick situations. Either one possesses valid Holy Orders, or one does not.

You claim that Church doctrine on the sacrament of Holy Orders and the Eucharist is “unreal”. What is unreal to me is when Catholics come on Catholic Answers Forums and accuse others of pride and arrogance for defending orthodox Catholic doctrine against heretical teaching.

You also claim that there is little actual dogma, if one cares to investigate it. I beg to differ. To use your words, what is surely hubris is claiming to know more about Christian dogma, in particular things which are so central to our Faith such as the Sacraments of Holy Orders and the Eucharist, than the Church does. In fact, you are not only claiming to know more, you are claiming to know better.

Please do not misunderstand, there are teachings of the Faith with which I have difficulty and also struggle to understand fully. However at the end of the day, truth is not subjective or open to discussion based upon what we think or what our personal preferences are. Truth is immutable and objective and can be found in the authentic teaching of the Church.

 

[Prophet_of_doom]

Back to no salvation outside the church then.