I am Going to My First Roman Catholic Mass Tomorrow

[jmcrae]

God drawing him to the Catholic church?

It seems like it.

Is the Holy Spirit nudging an errant priest into giving Communion to a non-Catholic knowingly?

This is the priest’s problem. He should not have allowed it, and he will be held accountable for it at the Judgment Day, if he does not repent of it.

 

[jmcrae]

I would disagree. We both believe in Christ and the ‘One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’ that He founded; however, we believe in different expressions of that truly Catholic (Universal) Church.

We are not Hindus; our Church does not have multiple avatars.

EDIT: I would add that, at the Roman Catholic Mass, there was no liturgy that I disagreed with or felt troubled by my conscience in agreeing to.

I am trying to figure out how one would “disagree with” a Liturgy. It’s theology and moral principles that you have to be worried about; not the Liturgy.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

God drawing him to the Catholic church?

Is the Holy Spirit nudging an errant priest into giving Communion to a non-Catholic knowingly?

How absurd is that?

These are two separate issues. God is drawing him/her to the Church via grace. The erring Priest is just in the middle of it.

Or are you saying that God is not drawing him/her to the Church. If so, what makes you think that?

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I am trying to figure out how one would “disagree with” a Liturgy. It’s theology and moral principles that you have to be worried about; not the Liturgy.

You should back off his nsper7. She (or is it a he?) is not a canon lawyer or a Catholic theolgian. A priest say it was OK to receive, and that is what she did. It was wrong, but she had no way of knowing.

If God is drawing her into the Catholic Church, don’t get in the way by runner her off. If you want to argue with someone, argue with me. Leave her alone.

 

[nsper7]

It seems like it.

Well, in order for me to leave the Anglican Communion, I would have to be convince that Anglicanism has lost the Real Presence (which could happen if they alter the BCP and liturgy a certain way) and also that the Archbishop of Canterbury has lost Apostolic Succession which connects him to the first +Cantuar and Pope Gregory I.

We are not Hindus; our Church does not have multiple avatars.

That is not what I meant. It is hard to explain in one way.

We can all agree there is ‘One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’, that one Body of Christ, that true Catholic (Universal) Church founded by Christ that the gates of Hell will never prevail against. We agree on that right?

Unfortunately, as we can empirically determine, there are multiple Rites/sects that refer back to the Nicene Creed as a foundational statement of theology, so thus they acknowledge that there is ‘One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’.

Thus, there are a couple options:

1. One of the Rites/sects (Roman Catholicism/Anglicanism/Eastern Orthodoxy/certain Lutheran movements/etc.) is the ‘One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’ and everyone else is not
2. While there is ‘One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’, the various Rites/sects that reference it are, despite theological and liturgical difference, in a way that is Mysterious, are all part of, and an expression of, the OHCAC.

NOTE: I am a ‘he’ BTW.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Well, in order for me to leave the Anglican Communion, I would have to be convince that Anglicanism has lost the Real Presence (which could happen if they alter the BCP and liturgy a certain way) and also that the Archbishop of Canterbury has lost Apostolic Succession which connects him to the first +Cantuar and Pope Gregory I.

Another point to look into is the office of the Pope. Did Jesus establish Peter and his successors as the head of the Church? If so, that would be a good indication that the Catholic Church is the true Church, since it is still ruled by the successor of Peter.

Remember, almost all of the heretics and schismatics in the early years maintained apostolic succession when they fell away and the true presence when they fell away, so those are not the only important points.

Just something to think about.

 

[jmcrae]

Well, in order for me to leave the Anglican Communion, I would have to be convince that Anglicanism has lost the Real Presence (which could happen if they alter the BCP and liturgy a certain way) and also that the Archbishop of Canterbury has lost Apostolic Succession which connects him to the first +Cantuar and Pope Gregory I.

If the Edwardian thing doesn’t do it for you, I don’t know what would.

We can all agree there is ‘One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’, that one Body of Christ, that true Catholic (Universal) Church founded by Christ that the gates of Hell will never prevail against. We agree on that right?

Right, and when we go to the source of that, we see that it was given to Peter. Where is Peter? He is in Rome. Where is his Successor? Again, in Rome.

Unfortunately, as we can empirically determine, there are multiple Rites/sects that refer back to the Nicene Creed as a foundational statement of theology, so thus they acknowledge that there is ‘One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’.

Yes, but only one of them goes back to the Council of Nicea in an unbroken line - that is, without changing religions and without changing the location of the Bishop’s See, somewhere along the line.

Those who have to change religions or change Bishops at some point along the line, have to do so because of something called a “schism” - a complete cut-off, or break - through which Apostolic authority cannot be transmitted.

 

[nsper7]

Another point to look into is the office of the Pope. Did Jesus establish Peter and his successors as the head of the Church? If so, that would be a good indication that the Catholic Church is the true Church, since it is still ruled by the successor of Peter.

Remember, almost all of the heretics and schismatics in the early years maintained apostolic succession when they fell away and the true presence when they fell away, so those are not the only important points.

Just something to think about.

Well, in another thread, we got into a whole discussion on the Pope and his role in the ‘One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’. For me, I acknowledge that the Pope’s role as Bishop of Rome (and, possibly, Primate of Italy) are roles within both the Roman Catholic Church (an expression of the OHCAC) and the OHCAC itself.

The former Archbishop of Canterbury, Michael Ramsay, recognized the Pope as the spiritual head of the Church on earth I believe.

 

[saylo]

This thread, and the advocacy of allowing a non-Catholic to experience full communion and participation in the Eucharist along with a priest who knowingly offers the Sacrament, is a kind of wake-up call albeit in a kind of microcosm of a ONE WORLD RELIGION.

There is only ONE, TRUE, APOSTOLIC church and many seem to think it has no parameters of discipline and regimentation.

The main target for the One World Religionists would naturally be to diminish the Eucharist since It is central to the Faith.

I can see many within the Church marching to the tune of “anything goes.”

If the Church was undergoing a nefarious attack wouldn’t the Eucharist and the de-emphasis that it is the actual Body and Blood of Christ be the focal point?

Have the people think of the Eucharist as merely “symbolic” would be the main objective.

 

[nsper7]

If the Edwardian thing doesn’t do it for you, I don’t know what would.

This is according to the Roman Catholic Church that this broke Apostolic Succession, but as GKC and others have pointed out, there is more nuance to it than this. And, personally, like other Anglicans, I believe that the Anglican Communion has valid Apostolic Succession and the Real Presence.

Right, and when we go to the source of that, we see that it was given to Peter. Where is Peter? He is in Rome. Where is his Successor? Again, in Rome.

Yes, I suppose the Pope is the Apostolic Successor to St. Peter just as +Cantuar is the Apostolic Successor to St. Augustine of Canterbury.

Yes, but only one of them goes back to the Council of Nicea in an unbroken line - that is, without changing religions and without changing the location of the Bishop’s See, somewhere along the line.

Those who have to change religions or change Bishops at some point along the line, have to do so because of something called a “schism” - a complete cut-off, or break - through which Apostolic authority cannot be transmitted.

The Anglican Communion has never changed Sees. The Archdiocese of Canterbury goes back to the era of Pope Gregory I and the Archbishop of Canterbury was Primate of England. This continues to this day, although we have added that +Cantuar is primus inter pares among all Anglican Primates.

 

[nsper7]

This thread, and the advocacy of allowing a non-Catholic to experience full communion and participation in the Eucharist along with a priest who knowingly offers the Sacrament, is a kind of wake-up call albeit in a kind of microcosm of a ONE WORLD RELIGION.

There is only ONE, TRUE, APOSTOLIC church and many seem to think it has no parameters of discipline and regimentation.

The main target for the One World Religionists would naturally be to diminish the Eucharist since It is central to the Faith.

I can see many within the Church marching to the tune of “anything goes.”

If the Church was undergoing a nefarious attack wouldn’t the Eucharist and the de-emphasis that it is the actual Body and Blood of Christ be the focal point?

Have the people think of the Eucharist as merely “symbolic” would be the main objective.

Huh? One of the things the Roman Catholic Priest who I spoke to said was required was that I have a similar Eucharistic theology (i.e. believe in the Real Presence) to a Roman Catholic. How is that degrading the Eucharist to mere symbolism?

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

This thread, and the advocacy of allowing a non-Catholic to experience full communion and participation in the Eucharist along with a priest who knowingly offers the Sacrament, is a kind of wake-up call albeit in a kind of microcosm of a ONE WORLD RELIGION.

There is only ONE, TRUE, APOSTOLIC church and many seem to think it has no parameters of discipline and regimentation.

The main target for the One World Religionists would naturally be to diminish the Eucharist since It is central to the Faith.

And/or to try and move toward a “common Eucharist”.

 

[jmcrae]

This is according to the Roman Catholic Church that this broke Apostolic Succession …]

That was the intent - King Edward thought that Apostolic Succession was a superstition. He was trying to drive out superstition from the Anglican Church, which (to his way of thinking) meant getting rid of the Sacrament of Ordination.

Answer me this - if he changed the words of the Ordination ceremony so that they no longer show an intent to ordain, and, the reason for doing this is because he does not intend to ordain, then how can anyone sit there with a straight face and say, “but they have the intent to ordain, so it’s okay.”

No, they don’t have the intent to ordain. **That’s why they were changed. **

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Well, in another thread, we got into a whole discussion on the Pope and his role in the ‘One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’. For me, I acknowledge that the Pope’s role as Bishop of Rome (and, possibly, Primate of Italy) are roles within both the Roman Catholic Church (an expression of the OHCAC) and the OHCAC itself.

The former Archbishop of Canterbury, Michael Ramsay, recognized the Pope as the spiritual head of the Church on earth I believe.

I’m going to start a thread and post a portion of a letter I sent to my mom’s Anglican Priest. We had a long discussion one day on a variety of points. I followed up with a letter discussing two points, once of which was the office of the Pope.

I’ll post the letter for you to read in a new thread in this section.

 

[nsper7]

That was the intent - King Edward thought that Apostolic Succession was a superstition. He was trying to drive out superstition from the Anglican Church, which (to his way of thinking) meant getting rid of the Sacrament of Ordination.

Answer me this - if he changed the words of the Ordination ceremony so that they no longer show an intent to ordain, and, the reason for doing this is because he does not intend to ordain, then how can anyone sit there with a straight face and say, “but they have the intent to ordain, so it’s okay.”

No, they don’t have the intent to ordain. **That’s why they were changed. **

Regardless of King Edward’s intent, there has been a continuous tracing of Apostolic Succession. Where is the text of the Edwardine Ordinal?

EDIT: Sorry if that sounded rude. That was not my intent. I just think that the Edwardine Ordinal has gotten blown way out of proportion. We still say we ordain BIshops into the ‘One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’.

 

[jmcrae]

Regardless of King Edward’s intent, there has been a continuous tracing of Apostolic Succession.

Not really, no. What you have are people from other religions coming in to ordain Anglican “priests” - how can someone from a different religion have the intent to ordain someone into a religion that he does not even believe in?

Where is the text of the Edwardine Ordinal?

I don’t know off hand. But once he did that, it was done. There is no undoing something like that.

 

[jmcrae]

We still say we ordain BIshops into the ‘One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’.

Not “still” but “again.” For a hundred years, you did not have that wording, and you certainly did not have that intent.

 

[nsper7]

Not “still” but “again.” For a hundred years, you did not have that wording, and you certainly did not have that intent.

Where is GKC when I need him? He would be able to explain this better than I can. I admit you have brought up something for which I am unable to currently address due to lack of information/knowledge on my part.

 

[jmcrae]

Where is GKC when I need him? He would be able to explain this better than I can. I admit you have brought up something for which I am unable to currently address due to lack of information/knowledge on my part.

Actually, he couldn’t explain it, either, when I asked him the same question. He takes it on faith.

 

[BarbaraTherese]

St. Paul said, (paraphrasing) …“he who receives the Body and Blood of Christ unworthily is guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ…”

“Unworthily” is defined by Canon Law and that cannot be challenged no matter how, as individuals, would like to be more tolerant and humane. It is NOT a “social” gesture. How did we ever get to that point?

The Eucharist is NOT a meal, per se, it is a bonding of the flesh and blood of Jesus with our own as individuals. WE ALL have to come to Him in total belief, appreciation, humility, and a love for Him that transcends anyone else on this earth.

There must be a total belief in His Presence. This is not a “social” thing…it is personal and yet it is a community as well.

Receiving unworthily can result in eternal condemnation. The opposite is true when we receive with gratitude: eternal life.

“He who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood shall never die…”

We are talking about the Eucharist here and NOT about being “judgmental.”

… …as I posted previously, but you may have missed it, if I receive The Blessed Eucharist in the state of mortal sin, then I am committing another mortal sin and a very serious one…and unless I repent and attend The Sacrament of Reconciliation, then my soul is destined for Hell…

You may have missed, too, where I posted that The Blessed Eucharist is Jesus’ Body and Blood, who walked this earth around 2000 years ago and is still Truly God and truly man.

Blessings and regards…Barb