The Catholic perspective is that the Catholic Church doesn’t go around declaring non-Catholics as heretics.Gorgias:
Yes, but the OP is asking for the Catholic perspective.
Yeah… that just doesn’t sound convincing, IMHO. YMMV.
That isn’t what “makes a church a church”, though.
Well… it seems that what you mean is “if a group believes something to be true, then no one has the right to say it’s not true.”
I thought the OP wanted to know if the Catholic faith was the ONLY faith that believed in the transubstantiation of the Eucharist.
It’s the four characteristics, inseparably linked with each other, indicate essential features of the Church and her mission. I believe @1ke stated it was what was necessary for a valid confection for Christ to become sacramentally present in the Eucharist.
No, you can tell me it’s not true… but there are a few things in this world where you can’t say that for certainty because there is no way for you to know. A person’s heart, mind, faith and belief are some examples of those things or elements (not sure how you would classify the heart, mind, faith and belief) where you can’t say something is true or not. Someone said Lutheran’s might believe what they believe but that their beliefs were not valid… how can anyone know that but God?
The issue, though, isn’t whether a particular group claims that they have all four marks, since many groups who have broken away from the Church – and thereby formed their own denomination without apostolicity – but rather, whether they actually do have all four marks.
It is necessary to have a priest who was validly ordained. Only those ordained by a bishop who himself was ordained in a Church that maintains an unbroken chain of apostolic succession can hope to claim to be “validly ordained.”
In this case, we’re talking about valid priesthood. According to the definition of the Catholic Church, Lutherans don’t have valid priests and therefore, cannot possibly have a valid Eucharist. They might disagree, and have their own definition, and we’d look at that and respond, “OK, that’s your opinion, but…”.
Well… I’m not sure I agree. If I said that I believe that the Easter Bunny died on the cross to save you from your sins, would you need God to assess the validity of that assertion?
No they don’t, but they do pronounce certain teachings as heretical, and so, it logically follows that one who holds to a heretical teaching is a heretic.
Opinions are like bellybuttons, everyone has one, that being said, I respect yours and I hope that you respect mine (opinion, not bellybutton lol).
That was only one part of the OP, i think if we read carefully the OP alludes to wanting to know, in the RCC’s opinion, who has a valid Eucharist, consider how the OP presents the question:
By asking if “any other faith have valid transubstantiation during mass?”, the keyword here being “mass”, he’s asking for the RC perspective.
Taking all of this into consideration I think it leads one to believe that the OP was asking for the RC perspective.
Peace brother.
My point is if you “truly” deep, deep in your heart believe the Easter Bunny died on the cross for your sins, who am I to say you “truly” deep, deep in your heart do not believe that, only God would know how serious you are in that belief.
please ask your priest… they will give you advise you best, and are the one’s hearing your confession.
Actually, they do have reserved sacrament, at least in some cases. I saw a photo of one of their tabernacles, with a sanctuary lamp, and a sign posted by the tabernacle making reference to it (in Finnish, I don’t read Finnish, but their word for “real presence”, oddly enough, is similar to English).
To my knowledge, no sedevacantists have been declared to have fallen into heresy.
Yes, but is it a heresy to declare yourself as Pope? As is the case with “Pope Michael”.
Right. And the question isn’t “do you believe it to be true?” but rather “is what you believe actually true?”.
Yeah, it’s more like schism, no?
Yes, things are never simple. Therecare in fact Lutherans who have taken to reserving their sacrament as a departure from Lutheranism, much as the Tractarians (led by Newman before he converted) argued for Transubstantiation in the Church of England.
How can you be sure that their prayers are not effective and that Jesus is not truly present among them. Did Jesus say that you have to have apostolic succession for your prayers to be effective?
but wasn’t that the question we asked ourselves when we accepted Jesus as our Lord and Savior…is what you believe actually true?
It is not a heresy to declare that oneself is Pope — the antipopes of the Avignon era were not heretics. For what it’s worth, Mr Bawden did not “declare himself Pope”, there was a rump “conclave” comprised of his family and possibly a few others.HomeschoolDad:
Yes, but is it a heresy to declare yourself as Pope? As is the case with “Pope Michael”.
I believe it is, but I admit ignorance in the case of Sedevacantists.
I have done a little reading about their views and understand their beliefs, but I have heard about sub-groups within Sedevacantistism such as those I have mentioned that get a bit iffy, I have heard it said that they (the sub-groups) have fallen into heresy, but I honestly don’t know.
HomeschoolDad:
Sure. But that doesn’t mean that ‘believing’ makes it so. Remember what Jesus said: “not all who cry out ‘Lord, Lord’…”!!
Fair enough. And yet, by belief isn’t based on ‘proof’; it’s based on Jesus. And Jesus gave authority to teach to… the Apostles, who handed that authority on to their successors. So, my belief doesn’t come from whether a document is true – it comes from whether Jesus is true. And if He is, then the teaching that flows from Him is true, too.
Right. And so, the question isn’t “do you truly believe?”, but rather, “is what you believe, true?”.
Yeah, but that’s schism. See canon 751:
They generally aren’t saying “we are part of the Catholic Church”; they’re saying “Rome is no longer part of the Catholic Church, but we still are.” Schism.
When I said sub-groups within Sedevacantistism, I was talking about those associated with “Pope Michael” and Francis Schuckardt, I have heard it said that most Sedevacantists distance themselves from these groups.
Yes, as I understand it he, and his mother and father are three of six that declared him pope, seems we are splitting hairs here.
Please reconcile these two statements, because as I see it, some SV’s think that, they themselves have the ability to convene a “conclave” in the living room of mom and dads house and declare themselves pope.
Right. It’s schism to do so.HomeschoolDad:
I think the “reconciliation” comes from modifying @HomeschoolDad’s assertion. It’s not that “SVs are the most vigorous defenders of the papacy”, it’s that they’re “the most vigorous defenders of what they consider to be the papacy”, and that personal assessment runs counter to what the papacy itself is.
I don’t disagree, and as I stated from the outset I plead ignorance, my knowledge of SV’s is admittedly limited (and my knowledge of certain groups within SV is admittedly more limited).