Invited to take communion at service

[GKC]

And in an Anglo-Catholic context that would be correct, since Anglo-Catholics claim (incorrectly, in my longstanding opinion) that Anglicanism is fully Catholic (I’m less interested in the technical question of valid Orders than I am with the evident fact that Anglicanism is historically Protestant and has abandoned key parts of Catholic doctrine as taught before the Reformation by both East and West, although Anglo-Catholics have inconsistently and for the most part unofficially tried to recover this heritage).

I see and expected your AC point. But I don’t see that it overrides what (name removed by moderator) said, re: a sharing of Communion being a false communion, whatever that Communion might mean to each. It differs; they are not in communion and cannot share in it.

Makes sense to me. I mean by the Eucharist precisely what a RC means. But I am not in communion with the RCC. Full stop.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

I see and expected your AC point. But I don’t see that it overrides what (name removed by moderator) said, re: a sharing of Communion being a false communion, whatever that Communion might mean to each. It differs; they are not in communion and cannot share in it.

Makes sense to me. I mean by the Eucharist precisely what a RC means. But I am not in communion with the RCC. Full stop.

GKC

As always, you respond with good humor even when I’m testy. I don’t know how you manage it. God bless and Happy New Year!

 

[GKC]

As always, you respond with good humor even when I’m testy. I don’t know how you manage it. God bless and Happy New Year!

And to you, frater.

And thank you.

GKC

 

[EvangelCatholic]

[No message]

 

[EvangelCatholic]

The holy Father will lead us:thumbsup:

 

[Peter_J]

Agreed.

What I have more trouble with is why it would be wrong for a Catholic to receive communion in a Protestant church while believing what Protestants believe about Protestant Eucharist.

I’m not exactly sure what that means.

Do you mean, say, if a Catholic says “I believe that the Catholic eucharist is what Catholics believe it to be, and I believe that the Presbyterian eucharist is what Presbyterians believe it to be, etc.”?

 

[Contarini]

I’m not exactly sure what that means.

Do you mean, say, if a Catholic says “I believe that the Catholic eucharist is what Catholics believe it to be, and I believe that the Presbyterian eucharist is what Presbyterians believe it to be, etc.”?

Right.

I have thought about this some more and I think it doesn’t work, if only because it would make Protestant baptisms invalid, which is too high a price to pay. (I.e., if one treats Protestant Eucharist as something completely different from Catholic Eucharist, then logically one should do the same with baptism, since most Protestants likewise don’t believe baptism to be all that the Catholic Church says it is.)

But it’s still a very difficult problem for me. I can accept, as I’ve said, that Anglo-Catholics are wrong (though there’s always the “Dutch Touch”), because I think independently of the valid orders issue that Anglo-Catholics tend to exaggerate the historic Catholicity of Anglicanism (that’s a nicer way to put it than I did a few posts ago). But I know that I have received grace through Protestant (not just Anglican) Eucharists. Indeed, that’s why I’ve never identified myself with Anglo-Catholicism fully (apart from my historical issues with their narrative, which probably can be gotten over–GKC certainly knows Anglican history better than I do, for instance). There’s no point setting up your own little insular “Catholicism” isolated from Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants alike. The only reason I have remained Anglican is so as not to cut myself off from Protestantism. It seems like an insoluble dilemma. I can’t in good conscience remain out of union with the bishop of Rome and continue to call myself an orthodox, historic Christian. But at the same time it seems wrong to cut myself off from fellow-Christians. It seems like healing one wound by opening another.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

Right.

I have thought about this some more and I think it doesn’t work, if only because it would make Protestant baptisms invalid, which is too high a price to pay. (I.e., if one treats Protestant Eucharist as something completely different from Catholic Eucharist, then logically one should do the same with baptism, since most Protestants likewise don’t believe baptism to be all that the Catholic Church says it is.)

But it’s still a very difficult problem for me. I can accept, as I’ve said, that Anglo-Catholics are wrong (though there’s always the “Dutch Touch”), because I think independently of the valid orders issue that Anglo-Catholics tend to exaggerate the historic Catholicity of Anglicanism (that’s a nicer way to put it than I did a few posts ago). But I know that I have received grace through Protestant (not just Anglican) Eucharists. Indeed, that’s why I’ve never identified myself with Anglo-Catholicism fully (apart from my historical issues with their narrative, which probably can be gotten over–GKC certainly knows Anglican history better than I do, for instance). There’s no point setting up your own little insular “Catholicism” isolated from Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants alike. The only reason I have remained Anglican is so as not to cut myself off from Protestantism. It seems like an insoluble dilemma. I can’t in good conscience remain out of union with the bishop of Rome and continue to call myself an orthodox, historic Christian. But at the same time it seems wrong to cut myself off from fellow-Christians. It seems like healing one wound by opening another.

Edwin

I’m betting I know how that will eventually play out for you. I’ve been patiently watching it.

I’d not see ACs as insular Catholics. I’d see them as Catholics in the same sense that all who possess valid apostolic succession are Catholic - RCs, Orthodox, Anglicans so situated, whatever the truth is about Nordic Lutherans, and the odd PNCC/OC situation.

Sorry we all can’t get together, beyond that basic characteristic, but, in a sense, your hesitation to move is that sort of impediment.

GKC

 

[Peter_J]

But it’s still a very difficult problem for me. I can accept, as I’ve said, that Anglo-Catholics are wrong (though there’s always the “Dutch Touch”), because I think independently of the valid orders issue that Anglo-Catholics tend to exaggerate the historic Catholicity of Anglicanism (that’s a nicer way to put it than I did a few posts ago). But I know that I have received grace through Protestant (not just Anglican) Eucharists. Indeed, that’s why I’ve never identified myself with Anglo-Catholicism fully (apart from my historical issues with their narrative, which probably can be gotten over–GKC certainly knows Anglican history better than I do, for instance). There’s no point setting up your own little insular “Catholicism” isolated from Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants alike.

Out of explanations I’ve heard, the one that makes the most sense to me is that both adjectives, catholic and protestant (or “Catholic and Protestant” depending on your grammar teacher ) apply to Anglicans (and Lutherans for that matter).

 

[GKC]

Out of explanations I’ve heard, the one that makes the most sense to me is that both adjectives, catholic and protestant (or “Catholic and Protestant” depending on your grammar teacher ) apply to Anglicans (and Lutherans for that matter).

Could be.

It’s not the precise same thing, but my parish’s motto is “A Catholic and Evangelical Parish, in the Anglican tradition”.

GKC

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I’m betting I know how that will eventually play out for you. I’ve been patiently watching it.

I’d not see ACs as insular Catholics. I’d see them as Catholics in the same sense that all who possess valid apostolic succession are Catholic - RCs, Orthodox, Anglicans so situated, whatever the truth is about Nordic Lutherans, and the odd PNCC/OC situation.

Sorry we all can’t get together, beyond that basic characteristic, but, in a sense, your hesitation to move is that sort of impediment.

GKC

Can you elaborate on the AS “truth” of Lutherans?

 

[GKC]

Can you elaborate on the AS “truth” of Lutherans?

No. Hence I said “whatever the truth is”.

GKC

 

[benjohnson]

I can’t in good conscience remain out of union with the bishop of Rome and continue to call myself an orthodox, historic Christian. But at the same time it seems wrong to cut myself off from fellow-Christians. It seems like healing one wound by opening another.

My strategy: Wait sixty years, at the most, to be in union (God willing) with all Christians.

 

[Peter_J]

My strategy: Wait sixty years, at the most, to be in union (God willing) with all Christians.

You another Gen-X’er?

 

[Peter_J]

Could be.

It’s not the precise same thing, but my parish’s motto is “A Catholic and Evangelical Parish, in the Anglican tradition”.

GKC

Indeed. I’m thinking the difference isn’t really surprising: since “evangelical” has a more positive connotation than “protestant”, it seems natural that you guys would say “catholic and evangelical” (or with caps) and we would describe you as “catholic and protestant”.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

On the other hand, there are Lutherans and Anglicans who pray for the Pope and abide by his decisions. So we are not a functioning reunion yet but in spiritual communion with the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[GKC]

Indeed. I’m thinking the difference isn’t really surprising: since “evangelical” has a more positive connotation than “protestant”, it seems natural that you guys would say “catholic and evangelical” (or with caps) and we would describe you as “catholic and protestant”.

Ya’ll may describe us as ya’ll wish. We have our own definition.

Evangelical is an emphasis on preaching the Gospel, of course.

GKC

 

[Peter_J]

Ya’ll may describe us as ya’ll wish.

I’m not sure if you’d want us to hold you to that. uch:

 

[GKC]

I’m not sure if you’d want us to hold you to that. uch:

Sure.

GKC

 

[EvangelCatholic]

No. Hence I said “whatever the truth is”.

GKC

I know your interest in history and came across this article. It appears the Swedes went through a momentary Lutheran antipathy toward bishops just like Martin Luther but never quite fell out of apostolic succession, not that it matters to Roman Catholics:

The Church of Sweden has had “apostolic succession” since Stefan was consecrated Archbishop of Uppsala in A.D. 1164 by Pope Alexander III and the Archbishop of Lund, who was made Primate over Uppsala. Uppsala became independent of Lund when Folke Johansson Ängel was consecrated as Archbishop of Uppsala directly by Pope Gregory X in A.D. 1274. During the Reformation, Laurentius Petri was elected Archbishop of Uppsala by all the pastors of Sweden. “The Consecration took place on 22nd September 1531 at Stockholm, being performed by Petrus Magni, Bishop of Västeras, who had himself been confirmed and consecrated by the authority of Pope Clement VII in 1524.”# “It was through this bishop that the Apostolic Succession was preserved in the Church of Sweden.” When Laurentius Petri Nericius died, the next archbishop of Uppsala, Laurentius Petri Gothus, maintained “apostolic succession” by having as one of his consecrators, The bishop of Abo, Paul Juusten.

This succession has been passed to others. The Church of Finland and all three Baltic Lutheran Churches also have their “apostolic succession” through Sweden. But, once again, neither the East nor Rome recognize this succession. Only the Anglicans are impressed with the Swedish pedigree.
saintbonifacelutheran.org/