My Catholic Friend Receiving Anglican Eucharist

[Wannano]

Wannano:
In my answer to #1 above add…

 

[Wannano]

Agreed, He is not a God of confusion. I never said He speaks via me, which is why I used the word MAY. Can you show me where I have ever made the statement that Jesus is speaking through his Church via Duane?

But again, not one person on this thread has challenged my central point. Wannano, what individual or group wields the power to bind and loose you? What authority will you submit to, even if you disagree with what they bind?

Have I satisfactorily answered your question?

 

[Wannano]

These two conceptions of the Church, one visible, and the other invisible, also have different implications for what it means to be united in one Body. If what Christ founded is invisible, but has visible members, then the only thing necessary to be fully united to this invisible entity is faith in Christ. ."

Galatians 3:26 & 27: "for ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

 

[Church_Militant]

I remember a high school social studies teacher saying the only thing we learn from history is that we do not learn anything from history!

Sadly all too true…

By the way, I guess we have answered the issue of the Catholic receiving communion in an Anglican service.

I’m “oscar mike…”

 

[Duane1966]

1.) Who wields the power to bind and loose you?

****** Jesus with the Holy Spirit

Have I satisfactorily answered your question?

You say it is Jesus with the Holy Spirit, but isn’t it what you feel the Holy Spirit is saying to you? Isn’t this in reality individualism?

The following is from two separate articles from the blog I linked to earlier.

What makes the individualist an individualist, is not that he interprets Scripture, but that he treats himself as the highest interpretive authority for himself, as someone not under the interpretive authority of the Church

… when those wanting their ears tickled accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires. (2 Timothy 4:3) True teachers tell us what we do not yet know and often do not want to hear. But those whom we select to tell us only what we want to hear, what we want to believe, or what we already believe, are not teachers. Calling them ‘teachers’ is the way those with itching ears mask their own individualism. “We are not individualists – we have teachers”, they might say. “No,” Paul would say, “you have no true teachers. You select those saying only what you agree with, and you pay them to say it. They are not teachers; they are hired flatterers, merely parroting back to you your own interpretive and theological determinations. You “accumulate” such flatterers around you in order to make their claims seem to have the weight of consensus. But you are deceiving yourselves into thinking they are teachers, and they have deceived themselves into thinking that they are teachers.”** Oddly, it seems to me that the great majority of persons who read this verse assume it is talking about persons other than themselves. The deception is so effective that it is very hard to recognize that one is guilty of what is being described in this verse.**

 

[Duane1966]

Galatians 3:26 & 27: "for ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Your verse determines who is a member of the Church, but does not answer the visibility of the Church question.

 

[Wannano]

You say it is Jesus with the Holy Spirit, but isn’t it what you feel the Holy Spirit is saying to you? Isn’t this in reality individualism?

The following is from two separate articles from the blog I linked to earlier.

Thank you for responding. To answer your query regarding individualism I would first like you to answer your own question: who wields the power to bind and loose you?

 

[Wannano]

Your verse determines who is a member of the Church, but does not answer the visibility of the Church question.

The quote I was referring to was this:

“These two conceptions of the Church, one visible, and the other invisible, also have DIFFERENT IMPLICATIONS for what it means to be united in one body. IF what Christ founded is INVISIBLE , but has visible members , then the ONLY thing necessary to be FULLY united to this invisible entity is FAITH IN CHRIST”.

so the verse I quoted you agree determines who is a member of the Church which is being united in one body. What more does God require of a person to be a member of the visible Church?

 

[Duane1966]

Thank you for responding. To answer your query regarding individualism I would first like you to answer your own question: who wields the power to bind and loose you?

The Magisterium and the pope. For me their authority is clearly defined when Jesus gave the power to Peter individually, and the other Apostles collectively. I see nowhere in Scripture where Jesus gives that power to ourselves. You can say that Jesus with the Holy Spirit is what binds you, but so do millions of others who disagree with you on important issues. Now you may say, if they had the Spirit they would agree with you, but they say the same about you. And if they all have the Spirit, but come to markedly different answers on a myriad of issues, then God must be a God of confusion. I think the only solution is an authority outside of a person’s own private interpretation. When the Magisterium teaches, I hear Christ. Sometimes they teach what I do not want to hear, but I submit, knowing that though I may not understand the whys of the teaching now, I will in the future.

The early Christians that disagreed with what the council of Jerusalem decided (there had to be some, as the Bible says there was much debate), would it have been acceptable for them to tell Peter and the other Apostles: Christ, with the Holy Spirit is telling us something different?

 

[Wannano]

The Magisterium and the pope. For me their authority is clearly defined when Jesus gave the power to Peter individually, and the other Apostles collectively. I see nowhere in Scripture where Jesus gives that power to ourselves. You can say that Jesus with the Holy Spirit is what binds you, but so do millions of others who disagree with you on important issues. Now you may say, if they had the Spirit they would agree with you, but they say the same about you. And if they all have the Spirit, but come to markedly different answers on a myriad of issues, then God must be a God of confusion. I think the only solution is an authority outside of a person’s own private interpretation. When the Magisterium teaches, I hear Christ. Sometimes they teach what I do not want to hear, but I submit, knowing that though I may not understand the whys of the teaching now, I will in the future.

The early Christians that disagreed with what the council of Jerusalem decided (there had to be some, as the Bible says there was much debate), would it have been acceptable for them to tell Peter and the other Apostles: Christ, with the Holy Spirit is telling us something different?

Does the Magisterium and the Pope operate only under the continual mind and ultimate authority of Jesus?

 

[Reuben_J]

When the Magisterium teaches, I hear Christ. Sometimes they teach what I do not want to hear, but I submit, knowing that though I may not understand the whys of the teaching now, I will in the future.

Remind us of the disciples in John 6 about the hard teaching. Instead of turning away like some did, they followed Jesus in faith as there is nowhere else to go.

Similarly the Magisterium teaches the word of eternal life by the power bestowed by Jesus on Peter, and we are not to turn away even if the difficult teaching is hard to accept. When we turn away, it is like the other disciples who went away because they did not believe.

 

[Duane1966]

Does the Magisterium and the Pope operate only under the continual mind and ultimate authority of Jesus?

When teaching what Catholics must hold de fide, of course. Jesus promised the Spirit would guide the Church into all truth, and He would be with the Church to the end of the age. What good is it if I can only trust the Church some of the time? And if I can only trust Her some of the time, then the Spirit’s guidance was poor.

 

[Duane1966]

What more does God require of a person to be a member of the visible Church?

From that earlier posting:

These two conceptions of the Church, one visible, and the other invisible,** also have different implications for what it means to be united in one Body. If what Christ founded is invisible, but has visible members, then the only thing necessary to be fully united to this invisible entity is faith in Christ. The notion of schism is then reduced to a deficiency in love, insofar as one person having faith in Christ fails to love sufficiently another person having faith in Christ. Unity and schism are then fundamentally spiritual. So given the Protestant conception of the church as spiritual, it follows that if we love Jesus and love one another, we are in full communion, no matter to which religious organization or congregation we belong. By contrast, given the Catholic notion of the Church as a visible hierarchically organized Body, it follows that in order to be in full communion with the Church, one must not only believe the faith taught by that hierarchy, one must be under the authority of that hierarchy.

Wannano, if Christians have no hierachy that has the authority to bind them, other then how they interpret Scripture, how can two people who disagree take it to the Church, as Jesus teaches in Matthew 18? Which church, could you or I take it to?

 

[Wannano]

From that earlier posting:Wannano, if Christians have no hierachy that has the authority to bind them, other then how they interpret Scripture, how can two people who disagree take it to the Church, as Jesus teaches in Matthew 18? Which church, could you or I take it to?

I have seen it in one church where both are members or in a combination of two or more churches. Which church did the Council of Jersualem take it to?

 

[Padres1969]

Yes, the Catechism and canon law say that under the three conditions it is a mortal sin to receive Protestant communion.because:
1) it doesn’t recognise the True Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist,
2) it’s the sin of Scandal, promotion of leaving the True Faith

Actually Anglican Eucharist does recognize the Real Presence. The issue for Catholics is that they don’t view Anglican orders as valid and thus Anglican consecrations as valid. But we do believe in the Real Presence.

As for the OP’s friend, clearly she shouldn’t be receiving Anglican Eucharist if she still views herself as Catholic since the RCC forbids its members from receiving other Christian Eucharist/communion absent very limited circumstances defined by the holy see. And it doesn’t appear the friend’s situation fits those exceptions. Unless she’s in the process of swimming the Thames of course.

 

[Wannano]

When teaching what Catholics must hold de fide, of course. Jesus promised the Spirit would guide the Church into all truth, and He would be with the Church to the end of the age. What good is it if I can only trust the Church some of the time? And if I can only trust Her some of the time, then the Spirit’s guidance was poor.

So we agree Duane, Jesus wields the power to bind and loose us. He gave the authority to the Apostles and still gives it to the church today. That is why I cannot accept the claim of individualism you extend to me nor do I want it. Jesus wields the power even in 2016 and the church has the authority to exercise it. That was not taken away from the New Testament churches with the establishment of an hierarchical system.

 

[Duane1966]

So we agree Duane, Jesus wields the power to bind and loose us. He gave the authority to the Apostles and still gives it to the church today. That is why I cannot accept the claim of individualism you extend to me nor do I want it. Jesus wields the power even in 2016 and the church has the authority to exercise it. That was not taken away from the New Testament churches with the establishment of an hierarchical system.

There must have been a hierarchical system already in place, or it would have been perfectly fine to ignore the decision of the Council of Jerusalem by it’s members. Or to ignore the writings of Paul. Your answer from earlier is the definition of individualism. You said Christ with the Holy Spirit can bind or loose you. How do you know when you interpret what They say to you, you are not hearing what you want to hear? You left out the option of Jesus binding through others. I repeat, that is individualism. Can Christ working through others bind you, if you disagree with what the others teach? Remember, Jesus said what the Church binds, shall be bound. Ergo, it is not bound in Heaven, until it is bound by the Church.

 

[Wannano]

There must have been a hierarchical system already in place, or it would have been perfectly fine to ignore the decision of the Council of Jerusalem by it’s members. Or to ignore the writings of Paul. Your answer from earlier is the definition of individualism. You said Christ with the Holy Spirit can bind or loose you. How do you know when you interpret what They say to you, you are not hearing what you want to hear? You left out the option of Jesus binding through others. I repeat, that is individualism. Can Christ working through others bind you, if you disagree with what the others teach? Remember, Jesus said what the Church binds, shall be bound. Ergo, it is not bound in Heaven, until it is bound by the Church.

I think you misunderstand me. I stated that Jesus wields the power … I thought you agreed that is true within the Catholic framework. Did I not make it clear that the church or churches have the God given authority? Yours over you and mine over me.

 

[Wannano]

There must have been a hierarchical system already in place, or it would have been perfectly fine to ignore the decision of the Council of Jerusalem by it’s members. Or to ignore the writings of Paul. Your answer from earlier is the definition of individualism. You said Christ with the Holy Spirit can bind or loose you. How do you know when you interpret what They say to you, you are not hearing what you want to hear? You left out the option of Jesus binding through others. I repeat, that is individualism. Can Christ working through others bind you, if you disagree with what the others teach? Remember, Jesus said what the Church binds, shall be bound. Ergo, it is not bound in Heaven, until it is bound by the Church.

Concensus at the Jersalem council is more likely.

 

[Wannano]

There must have been a hierarchical system already in place, or it would have been perfectly fine to ignore the decision of the Council of Jerusalem by it’s members. Or to ignore the writings of Paul. Your answer from earlier is the definition of individualism. You said Christ with the Holy Spirit can bind or loose you. How do you know when you interpret what They say to you, you are not hearing what you want to hear? You left out the option of Jesus binding through others. I repeat, that is individualism. Can Christ working through others bind you, if you disagree with what the others teach? Remember, Jesus said what the Church binds, shall be bound. Ergo, it is not bound in Heaven, until it is bound by the Church.

Consensus at Jersalem not an option?