Episcopalian Communion

[jwinch2]

Back to no salvation outside the church then.

When understood properly, it never left.

papalencyclicals.net/Bon08/B8unam.htm
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html
catholic.com/tracts/salvation-outside-the-church

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

This is why you can’t receive Eucharist at an Episcopalian Church: Henry VIII*(In case this is unreadable…)*MAKING YOUR OWN RELIGION, because nobody tells the king he can’t sleep with whoever he wants to.

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

I know. I just found that “meme” a couple of days ago. It was funny to me, always going for the joke. Sorry.

I recently watched Dr. David Starkey’s series on the Monarchy, and was “re-educated” about this. I’m always trying to re-understand what I studied in college because I keep forgetting. I was under the assumption that it *began *with Henry VIII as he began his kingship defending papal authority against Martin Luther, and ended his reign wearing “the Crown Imperial” being head of Chuch and State as it were.

Henry VII, his father, hadn’t tried to seperate from Rome, and of course Henry VIII’s kids (all except “Bloody Mary” the Catholic ) followed through with Episcopalianism so it *centers *on Henry VIII. Basically. He’s the fulcrum?

 

[steve_b]

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

Sorry old friend about the back.

 

[GKC]

Sorry old friend about the back.

Thanks; it comes and goes. My dad had it most of his life. I manage.

GKC

 

[jwinch2]

ncregister.com/daily-news/were-starting-to-get-our-act-together/

A very informative interview which touches a fair amount on the idea of salvation outside of the Church. Well worth a read.

 

[fnr]

I am trying to understand why I can’t take communion in an Episcopalian Church? I believe the Catholic Church’s teaching on Transubstantiation completely. The Episcopalian Church says it believes in the “real presence” but haven’t really defined what that means exactly.

Assuming they are not meaning it the way we are why is it a big deal if I have “refreshments” because that would be all that it is right? So where’s the crime in a shot of wine and an oyster cracker? I see it as just having a snack. I would feel like I was being a snob to say no when people are being kind and giving an invitation. If you go ahead and have communion why is that a sin? I guess I need to read on this more–any guidance on reading materials would be appreciated.

BTW, this is hypothetical, I’m not going there to church. I was just reading about them because someone said they were the “same” as Catholics in a lot of ways but I found them to be very vague and not specific on what they mean when they give theological viewpoints. I heard they were “Catholic Lite” but I wasn’t impressed. I got the impression you could “write your own ticket” and that usually gets me in trouble.

Thanks,

Lorrie

“Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.”
John 6: 35

“Therefore, my beloved, avoid idolatry. I am speaking as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I am saying. The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.”
-1 Corinthians 10:14-17

"In giving this instruction, I do not praise the fact that your meetings are doing more harm than good. First of all, I hear that when you meet as a church there are divisions among you, and to a degree I believe it; there have to be factions among you in order that (also) those who are approved among you may become known. When you meet in one place, then, it is not to eat the Lord’s supper, for in eating, each one goes ahead with his own supper, and one goes hungry while another gets drunk. "
-1 Corinthians 11:17-21

“Everyone who commits sin commits lawlessness, for sin is lawlessness. You know that he was revealed to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. No one who remains in him sins; no one who sins has seen him or known him. Children, let no one deceive you. The person who acts in righteousness is righteous, just as he is righteous. Whoever sins belongs to the devil, because the devil has sinned from the beginning. Indeed, the Son of God was revealed to destroy the works of the devil. No one who is begotten by God commits sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot sin because he is begotten by God. In this way, the children of God and the children of the devil are made plain; no one who fails to act in righteousness belongs to God, nor anyone who does not love his brother.”
-1 John 3: 4-10

 

[Prophet_of_doom]

But then how one defines “church” becomes crucial to this whole teaching. A shared Gospel, Baptism, creed and Lord prayer is pretty convincing. Many many Protestant churches regard themselves as being “catholic” - and on we go into the mess that some of our earthbound teaching gets us all in to. No salvation outside the church needs an up front definition of “the church” and then one needs to examine that definition for its “infallible” nature or otherwise. Whilst all this is going on those who are moved by the love of the Lord and his Holy Spirit must get on and folow their call. it is nice to see so many fully researched “doctors of the church” though, so glad Ii am not a curate ministering to them somewhere, there seems little love in all this stuff but lots of fancy names and banners. I do hope it is helping some people and not just massaging egos. As a young man I too quoted “the rules” to my anglican mother in law at midnight Mass one Christmas, as a result she did not attend communion. Every Easter and Christmas since that day she has not attended communion when at Mass with us and it is to my great dismay. It was clearly not for me to have refused her, it was for Christ himself to decide whether to be present for her or not and she should have followed the love in her heart. I feel that pain of her inner rejection each time she comes to Mass with us over these last 45 years. The rules are great, but the greatest rule of all is “love”. Live a good and love filled life and let Christ in where he may, he is well able to decide. God bless each of you in your deliberations.

 

[steve_b]

But then how one defines “church” becomes crucial to this whole teaching. A shared Gospel, Baptism, creed and Lord prayer is pretty convincing.

Division is condemned in scripture. The scriptures were written in by and for the Catholic Church. This Church is the pilar and foundation of truth spoken of in scripture. Johnny come lately’s aren’t churches.
P:

Many many Protestant churches regard themselves as being “catholic” - and on we go into the mess that some of our earthbound teaching gets us all in to. No salvation outside the church needs an up front definition of “the church” and then one needs to examine that definition for its “infallible” nature or otherwise. Whilst all this is going on those who are moved by the love of the Lord and his Holy Spirit must get on and folow their call. it is nice to see so many fully researched “doctors of the church” though, so glad Ii am not a curate ministering to them somewhere, there seems little love in all this stuff but lots of fancy names and banners. I do hope it is helping some people and not just massaging egos. As a young man I too quoted “the rules” to my anglican mother in law at midnight Mass one Christmas, as a result she did not attend communion. Every Easter and Christmas since that day she has not attended communion when at Mass with us and it is to my great dismay. It was clearly not for me to have refused her, it was for Christ himself to decide whether to be present for her or not and she should have followed the love in her heart. I feel that pain of her inner rejection each time she comes to Mass with us over these last 45 years. The rules are great, but the greatest rule of all is "love". Live a good and love filled life and let Christ in where he may, he is well able to decide. God bless each of you in your deliberations.

Re: the highlighted text

Absolutely true. And Love can be manifested in various ways.

• Division / sedition / factions / etc whichever the term one wants to use, is a lack of charity (love) in itself against the Church, the body of Christ.
• Jesus said Mt 5:23"Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift. iow one needs to end their division, & return to unity before approaching the altar of forgiveness. i.e. one needs to accept that they have a grievance against the Catholic Church, and are seperated from the Church. It needs to end if they want to approach the altar. And Jesus is perfectly clear on that.
• Paul said those who cause or caused division don’t serve our Lord but themselves, it’s evil, [Rom 16:17…] We know who Protestants of all stripes originally divided from. Love then, would be manifested by the one who is divided, by a return to unity rather than remain divided as if there was a unity that doesn’t really exist.
• Love is also not letting someone commit serious sin, i.e. by letting one to eat and drink (take the Eucharist) unworthily. That doesn’t just apply to this issue of a non Catholic receiving the Eucharist, but that’s the issue on the table so we’ll stick with this example. It’s unworthy for a non Catholic because division in itself from the Church is a grave sin against charity and that disunity and lack of charity needs to be corrected before receiving the Eucharist. Why is division so grave a sin one would ask? Because
• Paul said factions/division is an act of the flesh that if one lives in this sin they will not inherit the kingdom of God [Gal 5:20-21] So given that consequence for division, that is what a mortal sin does to the soul. One can’t receive the Eucharist in mortal sin, because that would be one way of receiving the Lord unworthily.*** [1 Corinthians 11:27 ]Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy* manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. The most charitable act then, is to not let someone do that to themself.

Therefore, I would suggest, while on the surface, what looks like “rules” or “charity” so pick charity because the law is getting in the way of charity, that’s a false narative and false sentament. This is not a competition or even a contradiction between law and charity. They are complementary to each other. Law in this case preserves, supports, & accomplishes true charity towards others. It’s directing them and us, to do what’s good for another’s soul, and also protection for them from doing harm to themselves. That’s true charity

:twocents:

 

[jwinch2]

If I might make a friendly suggestion, it would be that more people need to read the church fathers and great spiritual masters when they speak about obedience and humility, as it relates to love.

 

[runningdude]

But then how one defines “church” becomes crucial to this whole teaching. A shared Gospel, Baptism, creed and Lord prayer is pretty convincing. Many many Protestant churches regard themselves as being “catholic” - and on we go into the mess that some of our earthbound teaching gets us all in to. No salvation outside the church needs an up front definition of “the church” and then one needs to examine that definition for its “infallible” nature or otherwise.

This has already been done. “No salvation outside of the church” is infallible doctrine. Vatican II and other documents throughout history have clarified that their exists varying degrees of union to the one true Catholic Church, and that it is possible, though the likelihood is undefined, for Protestants and even Non-Catholics to be saved in certain instances.

Whilst all this is going on those who are moved by the love of the Lord and his Holy Spirit must get on and folow their call. it is nice to see so many fully researched “doctors of the church” though, so glad Ii am not a curate ministering to them somewhere, there seems little love in all this stuff but lots of fancy names and banners. I do hope it is helping some people and not just massaging egos. As a young man I too quoted “the rules” to my anglican mother in law at midnight Mass one Christmas, as a result she did not attend communion. Every Easter and Christmas since that day she has not attended communion when at Mass with us and it is to my great dismay. It was clearly not for me to have refused her, it was for Christ himself to decide whether to be present for her or not and she should have followed the love in her heart. I feel that pain of her inner rejection each time she comes to Mass with us over these last 45 years. The rules are great, but the greatest rule of all is “love”. Live a good and love filled life and let Christ in where he may, he is well able to decide. God bless each of you in your deliberations.

I’d consider it a profound act of indifference to allow Protestants to believe that a piece of bread is our Lord and Savior. Christ promised his followers that he would never abandon his Church, and promised that he would be physically present during the Communion meal. This is a promise Christ made out of profound love for humanity.

In the past, the fathers of today’s Protestants made the grave mistake of leaving the Church that Christ founded. Today’s Protestants bear no fault for this mistake; however when their fathers abandoned the Church, they abandoned Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist. It is a profound act of love that we Catholic reach out to them to welcome them back to the Church Christ founded, rather than leave them living with the mistakes of their ancestors.

We humans all bear the taint of original sin from our first grandmother and grandfather. Christ reached out to us to wash this away in Baptism out of love, and remains with us in the Eucharist out of love. It would be hateful and spiteful on our part to allow Protestants to believe that the bread they break transmits this profound love of Christ.