O
- Status
G
GKC
Guest
Even so, in a word, no. I figured this was what was being referred to. It’s the sort of report that is turned out by the ARCIC, mainly the liberals in each Church talking to one another. And, of course, the Times never gets it right.
GKC
A
ASimpleSinner
Guest
That article has been so masterfully discredited as being little more than VERY poor inept reporting. See here:
jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2007/02/shes_baaaaaaaaa.html#comments
PLEASE, when getting your religion news, go ANYWHERE but Ruth Gledhill.
P
Publisher
Guest
Hear hear Melanie, you have hit the nail on the head…there’s another thread of Catholics and insults…I guess it only does go one way with many members on this board…the lack of respect for others who share a different faith tradition is amazing to me…very sad really.
A
ASimpleSinner
Guest
NO, the validity of the Mass is NOT problematic based on the lack of uniformity of belief. It is especially problematic because it is not clear that (1) it is the intent of the celebrant to confect the Eucharist and (2) the celebrant has valid orders. You or I (laymen) could pick up a Roman Missal and offer a mass - but it would be no more valid because we used the right form.
NO, the issue of intent and valid priesthood - regardless of communion - is still present. Rome looked favorably on PNCC orders the whole time it was in communion with the Anglican Church.
You imagine the pope to have far greater “powers” than even most anti-Catholics claim he has. He can no more wave a wand over the whole deal and say “Now it is is valid” on his own power than he can defy the law of gravity. He could possibly re-examine the current state of Apostolic succession in TAC, but the Mass is NOT something a pope can “validate” just on his own words.
That there orders are valid is speculative and no such ruling has been made. To date, NO priest ordained or bishop consecrated by the prior four AoC’s have been recieved as priests into the Catholic church. All have been ordained, with a few being ordained sub-conditione. Please cite a source claiming that they are definatively held to be valid.
To speculate that they are, and have that be good enough for you, sets you up as a private magisterium. Many orders may very well be - I am not going to play “lets figure it out for ourselves.”
Being in communion, under prevailing Augustinian concepts of sacred orders, is NOT what determines validity. Many outside of Rome are considered valid witout intercommunion.
D
DB_AND_ALI
Guest
C
catsrus
Guest
I think everyone here who has answered this HAS been respectful.
I t is NOT disrespectful to not genuflect in a protestant church.
Christ is truely present in The Eucharist in a Holy Catholic Church so we do him obeisance.
Since he is not present in protestant communion bread, why in the world would we genuflect?
It’s certainly not the same thing as removing one’s shoes or standing and sitting.
To understand our position, you must read what we believe regarding The Eucharist.
E
eliasaph99
Guest
But in a Catholic Church, it is proper to genuflect towards the altar or the crucifix, if there is no tabernacle in the sanctuary. Frequently, as in my old church, the tabernacle is housed in a chapel.
So, if I’m in a Protestant church and there is a cross, I have no problem genuflecting to the cross. This is because I am genuflecting to what the cross symbolizes. I believe that this is wholly appropriate.
Now, if an Episcopalian were actively misled by what I was doing into believing that I believed that the eucharist in his church was the same as the Eucharist in mine, I would reconsider. But in general, I don’t think this happens. That is, I don’t think that there are any Episcopalians who would think that I was giving equivalent endorsement of their beliefs based on me genuflecting before I entered a pew.
That said, there are things I wouldn’t do, because they would communicate such a thing to even the casual observer. These would be praying before their tabernacle or going to adoration at their church. I would never do such a thing.
But genuflect? I am doing it to the cross, not the bread.
O
orgel_maestro
Guest
well, I believe the church does not recognize even the ordinations of Anglican priests as valid. When an anglican priest converts, he is reordained. Thats a pretty good indication that theres no apostolic succession and so every time an Anglican priest says Mass, the Host does not become consecrated. Genuflecting is one of the highest forms of reverence, to be only reserved for Jesus. No genuflecting in Anglican churches, but maybe a little bow towards the altar.
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
With all due respect Orgel, that’s not so. My Mother was a lifelong Episcopalian. Genuflecting was part of her entrance the the pew. As the Cross passed by the center aisle in the opening procession, she bowed her head. Ditto on the closing procession. During certain parts of the prayers throughout the service there were more bows, more genuflection, particularly during the Nicene Creed and the prayers over the Eucharist. When leaving the pew to take communion at the altar, again she genuflected. And again when she left the pew after the service.
So there is genuflection throughout the Anglican/Episcopal service, even though it is not Roman Catholic, by those who are sufficiently reverent, respectful and knowledgeable. From what I typically witness in my local Roman Catholic parish today, my Mother showed more reverence and more respect than most anyone does at my local church, at least most of the time. I’m not saying that to criticize my fellow parishoners, merely to distinguish and acknowledge the facts.
When I was Episcopalian and going to church with my Mother, I did the same as she did. When we visited Catholic churches, we showed the same reverence and respect that we would show in our own church. Now that I am Catholic, I still would show the same respect were I to visit an Anglican or Episcopal church. If no one else does, it’s your choice, but I do. To me, not to do so, is disrespectful.
So there is genuflection throughout the Anglican/Episcopal service, even though it is not Roman Catholic, by those who are sufficiently reverent, respectful and knowledgeable. From what I typically witness in my local Roman Catholic parish today, my Mother showed more reverence and more respect than most anyone does at my local church, at least most of the time. I’m not saying that to criticize my fellow parishoners, merely to distinguish and acknowledge the facts.
When I was Episcopalian and going to church with my Mother, I did the same as she did. When we visited Catholic churches, we showed the same reverence and respect that we would show in our own church. Now that I am Catholic, I still would show the same respect were I to visit an Anglican or Episcopal church. If no one else does, it’s your choice, but I do. To me, not to do so, is disrespectful.
A
ASimpleSinner
Guest
Please re-read my original post. We pretty much are making the same point.
A
ASimpleSinner
Guest
Actually I should phrase this better.
You are RIGHT but not for the reasons you think.
They are NOT valid because of a defect in intent and form in the transmission of the episcopacy. They are NOT invalid because they are not in communion.
In other words, it isn’t the fact they are not in communion that makes them invalid - that is generally a more Cyprianic view of Holy Orders…
Now, having said all that, there are NEW complications since 1898 when Leo XIII’s teachings on Anglican Orders were released. Old Catholic bishops, whose orders WERE recognized as valid, began to participate (starting in the 1930s) in Anglican consecrations. In theory, validity COULD be argued to be restored. To date, I am not sure that this has been handled…
Further complicating this situation is that Anglcan and Lutheran Bishops are now participating in each other’s consecrations, and Old Catholic bishops are showing up to participate…
But rather than pull out my hair in worry about WHO is a priest, I will just tow the Roman party line on this one…
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
You know what? This isn’t, and never has been, a nit-picking theological/liturgical discussion for me. Perhaps it has been for others, but not me. It has always been about reverence, respect and courtesy to others and other traditions, no matter how closely related. Is it so hard to show courtesy and respect? If so, then perhaps you need to look at yourself and figure out why that is. And I will pray for you.
In the Episcopal Mass, any blessed Sacrament elements are consumed entirely. The Priest is required to consume any blessed sacraments not used during the Eucharist. So nothing resides in a Tabernacle, and, in fact, there is no Tabernacle (so far as I have ever seen!) because there is no retained Host, at least not in an Episcopal church. (Anglicans can feel free to chime in and dissent!)
So all this talk of genuflecting to the Host, for Anglicans/Episcopalians has very little to do with the Host being present in the Tabernacle. There’s no Tabernacle, there’s no retained Host to venerate. And yet they genuflect. So it DOES have everything to do with respect and reverence towards our Lord. As I have said before, there are many things in a Church and/or Mass to give reverence to.
I’m sorry that so many draw the line at respect in a church at the line of transubstantiation. I wouldn’t do that, but that’s just ‘me’. Perhaps that is the leftovers of a convert, but there you are. I came from the Episcopal church. Now I’m Catholic. But I’m not going to trash the Episcopal church, I’m not going to disrespect it in any way. Because that church put me on the path to where I am today.
Having said all that, tonite at Holy Thursday (and I hesitate to say this for fear of sounding like boasting but I am going to go ahead) I attended the services at my local Catholic parish and I was one of the few in the congregation that was able to sing the plainsong that lead all of us out of the sanctuary and into the Parish Hall. Why was I able to do this? Because I was Episcopalian for so many years and learned all the songs. So THANK YOU Episcopal Church because you gave me all these spiritual tools. FEW OF MY CATHOLIC PARISHONERS WERE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE! And why is that important? Because without that, just walking over to the Parish Hall, and not singing, takes all the spirituality out of it for so many people, I saw it with my own eyes! And most of my fellow parishoners were totally lost! But because of my background, I could sing it, because I knew the songs. And I could keep the reverence going. For me and perhaps for those around me.
This is all just a thought you might want to consider while you’re thinking about showing reverence in an Anglican or Episcopal church
They’ve done a lot to keep the liturgy alive, especially in “the vernacular” even if you never noticed before. In fact my own Pastor has told me that their liturgy in English is better than ours. I privately agree, because I have a memory of the beauty of the Episcopal Mass, but I have adapted. And I look forward to what comes next.
Melanie
In the Episcopal Mass, any blessed Sacrament elements are consumed entirely. The Priest is required to consume any blessed sacraments not used during the Eucharist. So nothing resides in a Tabernacle, and, in fact, there is no Tabernacle (so far as I have ever seen!) because there is no retained Host, at least not in an Episcopal church. (Anglicans can feel free to chime in and dissent!)
So all this talk of genuflecting to the Host, for Anglicans/Episcopalians has very little to do with the Host being present in the Tabernacle. There’s no Tabernacle, there’s no retained Host to venerate. And yet they genuflect. So it DOES have everything to do with respect and reverence towards our Lord. As I have said before, there are many things in a Church and/or Mass to give reverence to.
I’m sorry that so many draw the line at respect in a church at the line of transubstantiation. I wouldn’t do that, but that’s just ‘me’. Perhaps that is the leftovers of a convert, but there you are. I came from the Episcopal church. Now I’m Catholic. But I’m not going to trash the Episcopal church, I’m not going to disrespect it in any way. Because that church put me on the path to where I am today.
Having said all that, tonite at Holy Thursday (and I hesitate to say this for fear of sounding like boasting but I am going to go ahead) I attended the services at my local Catholic parish and I was one of the few in the congregation that was able to sing the plainsong that lead all of us out of the sanctuary and into the Parish Hall. Why was I able to do this? Because I was Episcopalian for so many years and learned all the songs. So THANK YOU Episcopal Church because you gave me all these spiritual tools. FEW OF MY CATHOLIC PARISHONERS WERE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE! And why is that important? Because without that, just walking over to the Parish Hall, and not singing, takes all the spirituality out of it for so many people, I saw it with my own eyes! And most of my fellow parishoners were totally lost! But because of my background, I could sing it, because I knew the songs. And I could keep the reverence going. For me and perhaps for those around me.
This is all just a thought you might want to consider while you’re thinking about showing reverence in an Anglican or Episcopal church
They’ve done a lot to keep the liturgy alive, especially in “the vernacular” even if you never noticed before. In fact my own Pastor has told me that their liturgy in English is better than ours. I privately agree, because I have a memory of the beauty of the Episcopal Mass, but I have adapted. And I look forward to what comes next.Melanie
G
GKC
Guest
“In the Episcopal Mass, any blessed Sacrament elements are consumed entirely. The Priest is required to consume any blessed sacraments not used during the Eucharist. So nothing resides in a Tabernacle, and, in fact, there is no Tabernacle (so far as I have ever seen!) because there is no retained Host, at least not in an Episcopal church. (Anglicans can feel free to chime in and dissent!)”
I appreciate your attitude here, but generally, the Blessed Body is reserved, in a Tabernacle, on the altar, and is not required to be consumed at the service. Anglicans differ, to be sure, but that’s quite common.
GKC
I appreciate your attitude here, but generally, the Blessed Body is reserved, in a Tabernacle, on the altar, and is not required to be consumed at the service. Anglicans differ, to be sure, but that’s quite common.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
As you should.
And not to forget the participation of PNCC bishops, since 1946. It’s hard to find an Anglican bishop without a trace of Dutch Touch.
GKC
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
Hi GKC,
I believe you. And when I was Episcopalian, everything already blessed and not used during the Communion service was consumed by the priest. So as I said, at least in the church I went to, there was no host, real presence or no real presence, at the altar at the conclusion of the service, so if someone was to genuflect, that was not the reason.
Cheers!
Melanie
I believe you. And when I was Episcopalian, everything already blessed and not used during the Communion service was consumed by the priest. So as I said, at least in the church I went to, there was no host, real presence or no real presence, at the altar at the conclusion of the service, so if someone was to genuflect, that was not the reason.
Cheers!
Melanie
G
GKC
Guest
Greetings, MA,
it’s hard to fit a template on Anglicans, to be sure. I spent my time over on the Anglo-Catholic side, and we reserve. The Blood, of course, is consumed. My deacon son in law, when he was an acolyte, was often the one to assist, if there was a great deal left.
And thanks for your other observations. The signs of revernece vary, but genflecting at the entry, or leaving, at passing of the procession of the crucifix, and at the Incarnatus in the Creed, when singing the Angelus, (bowing, at least, for some), bowing at the Holy Name, crossing ones self at the Elevations, and at the other usual moments in the Mass, are pretty standard, except over on the reformed edge. Oh, and kneeeling to receive, invariably
Again, thank you.
GKC
*Anglicanus Catholicus *
G
Gerry_Hunter
Guest
This is a misrepresentation of the duty placed on Catholics.
We have no duty to “respect the beliefs” of others, in that there is any obligation to behave as if they were true if they are not.
On the other hand, we have a very strict duty to respect those who have those beliefs, as people for whom Christ gave his life on the cross, even if we know what they believe is nonsense.
It’s easy to respect someone whose beliefs resonate with our own. We are called to something harder.
Blessings,
Gerry
P
Publisher
Guest
As I said, it is sad.
O
orgel_maestro
Guest
Thats great that genuflects a lot at an Episcopal service, I would only genefluct to something the Hosts which has actually transubstatiated. You could probably get off arguing that the Anglican eucharist is valid, but there its next to impossible to say that Episcopalians have apostolic succession. I simply wouldnt genuflect at a non-catholic service as genuflecting is one of the highest forms of reverence. But if your mother/you believe that the Host has transubstatiated in an Episcopal service then definitley one should genuflect. However, I sincerely beleive it is not valid and hence no genuflecting. Im not going to genuflect to unleven bread. And, I dont genuflect to the altar, i bow deeply, genuflect towards the tabernacle if the consecrated Hosts are inside.
From Catholic Encyclopedia
(newadvent.org/cathen/06423a.htm)
"the Decree of the S. Cong. of Rites (n. 3402) of 7 July, 1876, insisting that women as well as men must genuflect before the Blessed Sacrament…
- All genuflect (bending both knees) when adoring the Blessed Sacrament unveiled, as at Expositions.
2. All genuflect (bending the right knee only) when doing reverence to the Blessed Sacrament, enclosed in the Tabernacle, or lying upon the corporal during the Mass. Mass-servers are not to genuflect, save when the Blessed Sacrament is at the altar where Mass is being said (cf. Wapelhorst, infra). The same honour is paid to a relic of the True Cross when exposed for public veneration.
3. The clergy in liturgical functions genuflect on one knee to the cross over the high altar, and likewise in passing before the bishop of the diocese when he presides at a ceremony. From these genuflexions, however, an officiating priest, as also all prelates, canons, etc., are dispensed, bowing of the head and shoulders being substituted for the genuflexion.
4. On Good Friday, after the ceremony of the Adoration of the Cross, and until Holy Saturday, all, clergy and laity alike, genuflect in passing before the unveiled cross upon the high altar."
O, when i wrote in my previous post “no genuflecting in Anglican churches” i meant, Catholics shouldnt at all feel obligated infact I dont recommend genuflecting in a non-Catholic church. I know Anglicans genuflect, sorry for the mix up. I sort of meant to say it in a “no, no!” -type imperative tone.
Its also interesting to note point number #3, genuflecting on one knee towards a bishop during ceremony. It should have specified that for bishops its left knee, jesus/Blessed Sacrament is the right knee. Technically speaking, “genuflecting” just means bending one knee and touching the floor.
- Status