Well no, we don’t know. Some posters intend to include the Orthodox when referring to the Catholic Church, and some intend to limit the Catholic Church specifically to those churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome.
My point had nothing at all to do with the seriousness of schism, and it certainly was not meant to endorse schism. I was simply pointing out that the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church validly celebrate the Eucharist.
And that would be wrongsteve-b:
Well no, we don’t know. Some postersintend to include the Orthodoxwhen referring to the Catholic Church,
That would be correct understanding
If he is limiting the Catholic Church to those churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome, then he is incorrect in his claim that only the Catholic Church has the true Eucharist.
point being, Catholics aren’t supposed to receive in those churches due to their “condition” not being in union with the pope AND those in union with him.steve-b:
My point had nothing at all to do with the seriousness of schism, and it certainly was not meant to endorse schism. I was simply pointing out that the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church validly celebrate the Eucharist.
I haven’t said otherwise.
You gave 2 scenarios of posters here. I picked to respond to your scenario #1 example, those who include Orthodox as Catholics.steve-b:
I haven’t said otherwise.
The reason I pointed out two scenarios as to exactly who is included in the “One Holy Catholic Universal Church” is that the claim he made is incorrect if he is limited it to the Roman Church and those Churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome. My point was not to start a debate as to who exactly is included in the Church.
I understand the distinction between validity and liceity.
Cutting to the chase, Catholic means being in union with one bishop, the bishop of Rome, AND the Churches in in the world in union with him and those in union with them.steve-b:
The reason I pointed out two scenarios as to exactly who is included in the "One Holy Catholic Universal Church" is that the claim he made is incorrect if he is limited it to the Roman Church and those Churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome. My point was not to start a debate as to who exactly is included in the Church.
And I was just pointing out that licit is hugely important.steve-b:
I understand the distinction between validity and liceity.
I also know the meaning of the term “schism.” I am not in need of having basic theological terms defined for me. You are taking the point of my original post in a direction I never intended. It was never my intention to turn this thread into a debate about who exactly makes up the Catholic Church. My point was simply that a valid celebration of the Eucharist is not limited to the Catholic Church, which is taught by the Catholic Church herself.
The original point is validity of the Eucharist, particularly Episcopalian Eucharist… That covers the areas we’re discussing.steve-b:
I also know the meaning of the term “schism.” I am not in need of having basic theological terms defined for me. You are taking the point of my original post in a direction I never intended. It was never my intention to turn this thread into a debate about who exactly makes up the Catholic Church. My point was simply that a valid celebration of the Eucharist is not limited to the Catholic Church, which is taught by the Catholic Church herself.
I understand that. I was simply pointing out that a particular assertion that was made in this thread is not correct, viz., that only the Catholic Church has a valid Eucharist. At no point have I asserted that the Episcopal Church has a valid Eucharist. However, I did point out that the Orthodox, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church all have a valid Eucharist, which is something that the Catholic Church herself maintains.
And it needs to be included, that as long as those others are included in the subject of valid Eucharist, then not just valid, but licit vs illicit needs to be pointed out as well.steve-b:
I understand that. I was simply pointing out that a particular assertion that was made in this thread is not correct, viz., that only the Catholic Church has a valid Eucharist. At no point have I asserted that the Episcopal Church has a valid Eucharist. However, I did point out that the Orthodox, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church all have a valid Eucharist, which is something that the Catholic Church herself maintains.
Actually my previous post gave from canon law, while admitting issues that weren’t foreseen, still gave a good answer given what is already known and applied
When the defecting Episcopalians were taken in as entire parishes (decades before the ordinariate), the only change required was these of the Roman Canon.