P
Picky_Picky
Guest
Well, all Anglican Churches within the Anglican Communion are in full communion with him. To what extent his relationship with other Anglican churches could be described as communion depends on definitions.
- Status
C
ComplineSanFran
Guest
Which in this day and age (centuries later), is a moot point. Anglicans are a branch of the Church, as are Lutherans. Arians, sadly, have died their death. But the rest of us are here to stay.
In my parish, we have open communion. The invitation to receive is not so much an invitation to sign on the dotted line of Anglicanism, but rather to partake of the Body of Christ. Christ, not Anglicanism, being the operative word.
T
thephilosopher6
Guest
What do you mean by “branch of the Church?” There is only one true Church, and the Anglican Communion is not it. The Anglican Communion cannot even be rightly called a Church since it lacks apostolic succession.
The Eucharist is the central theme of the Church, It is where we experience full unity of faith. I sometimes don’t even see how you can do that with Anglicanism due to the lack of any formal doctrine. It seems like people can believe anything they want in the Anglican Communion. Heck, I bet if you search really hard you can find those who hold to Arian theology! Honestly, I would not be surprised if that were the case.
G
GKC
Guest
And the extent to which all Anglicans within the Communion are likely to remain within the Communion is a point to ponder.
G
GKC
Guest
It’s almost as if Anglicans were sort of …I dunno… motley or something.
M
Michael68
Guest
I would caution my friend that it is not a valid Eucharist. If they understand this, then what is wrong sharing a snack and a shot of grape juice?
W
Wannano
Guest
What is wrong Michael in my opinion is the complete lack of respect. While you or the Church may determine that it is not a valid Eucharist are you willing to also speak for Christ that He does not honor or appreciate the sincere desire of the hearts of the people who are partaking of His body as symbolically presented in the bread and wine in remembrance of Him?
G
GKC
Guest
The thought has crossed my mind.
M
Michael68
Guest
Hey bro! I guess that was a little disrespectful. Taking a symbol is not spiritual food. I’m sure Christ recognizes it, but you are starving your soul.
M
mattp0625
Guest
Agreed with all the previous points made about consecration.
This scenario seems to reflect the concept of relativism that is popular in media and universities. That is, all belief systems carry equal weight and there are no absolute truths.
Folks who apply this concept to Christianity essentially use the cafeteria approach to find truth.
This scenario seems to reflect the concept of relativism that is popular in media and universities. That is, all belief systems carry equal weight and there are no absolute truths.
Folks who apply this concept to Christianity essentially use the cafeteria approach to find truth.
W
Wannano
Guest
We have a different understanding that is true. I have no desire to mock anyone else’s practice regrading something as important as this. “Do this in remembrance of me” is a very personal act. God alone will ultimately judge our souls. May He have mercy on us all!
M
Michael68
Guest
Please read John ch 6. Jesus speaks extensively about the “Real Presence”.We have a different understanding that is true. I have no desire to mock anyone else’s practice regrading something as important as this. “Do this in remembrance of me” is a very personal act. God alone will ultimately judge our souls. May He have mercy on us all!
Yes, this is very important and I would want to make sure I partake properly.
The Eucharist is the reason for the Mass, yes, important.
This should not be treated lightly. Some churches have “remembrance communion”, but it is so much more than that. We come in physical contact with Jesus!!! Amen!
M
Michael68
Guest
Here’s a question for you: Who was the very first person to leave Mass early?We have a different understanding that is true. I have no desire to mock anyone else’s practice regrading something as important as this. “Do this in remembrance of me” is a very personal act. God alone will ultimately judge our souls. May He have mercy on us all!
W
Wannano
Guest
Believe me when I say I am very familiar with John 6. I understand the reasoning for seeing the Real Presence. I also see the reasoning for believing Jesus was speaking metaphorically. Verse 63 is a clue for those who feel only a literal interpretation was given. I am not a scholar nor do I want to argue. We all know there are two applications od these verses. We agree that Jesus is the bread of life. We have differing views of how we partake of Him.
W
Wannano
Guest
I am actually running off right now to attend a funeral Mass. You can tell me in the meantime.
M
Michael68
Guest
Judas Iscariot!
D
Duane1966
Guest
Actually, Christ is speaking through His Church. And His Church, which He gave the power to bind and loose, has bound the Anglican Eucharist. Now you may not believe the Catholic Church has this power, but then who does wield that power? You? Or has the power been lost? Right now, as I posted on the 33,000 denomination thread, probably over a billion Christians, though they will never say it, by their actions, believe that they themselves wield that power.
He may not honor or appreciate that desire. He may say to them: Why did you not listen to the ones I gave the authority to bind and loose? Then He may this:
For you did not hear those that I sent, so you did not hear ME.
E
exnihilo
Guest
I do think this is the mind of many, maybe most, Protestants today. When I was a Protestant this was my church’s and my outlook. As I understand it though this is more of a novelty in Protestantism. It is part of the modern ecumenical approach and attempt at unity. In the early days of division within Protestantism adherence to particular doctrines was important. As time went on though and I would think as people were born into their denomination the particular points of disagreement became less important. For me it began to seem as if the only dogma was that the dogma of Rome was wrong.
D
Duane1966
Guest
I like the answer (edited for space) from this article: principiumunitatis.blogspot.com/2009_04_01_archive.html
SETTLING FOR DIVISION AS IF IT WERE UNITY
One of the most common conversations I have with Protestants has to do with unity. I am asked why Protestants are not permitted to receive the Eucharist in the Catholic Church, and why the Catholic Church does not allow Catholics to receive communion in Protestant services. I explain that the Eucharist is a sign of unity, and so because from the point of view of the Catholic Church, Protestants are in schism from the Church, therefore for Protestants to receive the Eucharist in the Catholic Church, or for Catholics to receive communion with Protestants, would be a lie. In response, the Protestant usually says that Protestants do not see themselves as being in schism or divided from Catholics, but that we are all united in Christ; we all love Jesus and share belief in the essentials of Christianity.
I respond by explaining that there are two different conceptions of unity in use here, because there are two different conceptions of what it is that Christ founded. Protestants generally believe that the church that Christ founded is a spiritual, invisible entity, though some of its members (i.e. those who are still living in this present life) are visible. In the general Protestant mindset, anyone who has faith in Christ is a member of the one church that Christ founded. Protestants generally do not believe that Christ founded a visible, hierarchically organized Body, or that if He did, such a Body is still around. This Protestant conception of the church as invisible arose in the 16th century. It does away with the very possibility of schism.
The Catholic Church for two thousand years has believed and taught that Christ founded a visible, hierarchically organized Body. This notion of the Church as a visible, hierarchically organized Body has implications for what it means to be in unity. In the Protestant conception of the church as a spiritual, invisible entity, what counts as ‘the essentials’ is ultimately up to each person to decide. But given the Catholic conception of the Church as a visible hierarchically organized Body, what counts as ‘the essentials’ is determined definitively by the Church authorities. * And what these authorities have determined to be essential includes much more than the lowest common denominator of Evangelicalism. Therefore, from the Catholic point of view, Protestants are not in union with the Church regarding the essentials of Christianity, not only doctrinally, but also regarding the sacraments.*
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.
Some Protestants do claim to believe in a visible Church. But by that they mean that there are many local congregations each with its own visible hierarchy (e.g. head pastor, assistant pastor, deacons, etc.), and that every Christian should be a member of one such local congregation. According to these Protestants, these local congregations need not be part of one catholic (i.e. universal) visible hierarchy. Rather, these local congregations that are each visible hierarchically organized bodies are invisibly united to each other by sharing the same basic faith in Christ and love for Christ. One problem with this position is that its claim that visible hierarchical unity is essential at the local level, but not at any higher level, is arbitrary. If the local church needs a hierarchical organization, then so does the universal Church. But if the universal Church does not need hierarchical organization, then neither does the local congregation. Another problem is that this claim reduces either to the position that Christ founded many Churches, and thus has many Bodies and many Brides, or that the Church Christ founded is itself a spiritual, invisible entity, though some of its members, both individual persons and visible local congregations, are visible.
This is why there is no middle position between the teaching of the Catholic Church that Christ founded one universal, visible, and hierarchically organized Body to which all … This is also why a Protestant conception of the Church entails apathy about the present disunity of all Christians. Most Protestants see the fact that there is a different denomination represented on every street corner as normal, or even healthy. The very idea that there should be only one Christian institution in every city and all over the world, is completely outside their imaginative horizon, let alone the intended goal of any ecumenical endeavors they might undertake. …
…To our Protestant brothers and sisters we say, "Your vision of the unity Christ intended the Church to have is too small; you’ve settled for division as though it were unity."
SETTLING FOR DIVISION AS IF IT WERE UNITY
One of the most common conversations I have with Protestants has to do with unity. I am asked why Protestants are not permitted to receive the Eucharist in the Catholic Church, and why the Catholic Church does not allow Catholics to receive communion in Protestant services. I explain that the Eucharist is a sign of unity, and so because from the point of view of the Catholic Church, Protestants are in schism from the Church, therefore for Protestants to receive the Eucharist in the Catholic Church, or for Catholics to receive communion with Protestants, would be a lie. In response, the Protestant usually says that Protestants do not see themselves as being in schism or divided from Catholics, but that we are all united in Christ; we all love Jesus and share belief in the essentials of Christianity.
I respond by explaining that there are two different conceptions of unity in use here, because there are two different conceptions of what it is that Christ founded. Protestants generally believe that the church that Christ founded is a spiritual, invisible entity, though some of its members (i.e. those who are still living in this present life) are visible. In the general Protestant mindset, anyone who has faith in Christ is a member of the one church that Christ founded. Protestants generally do not believe that Christ founded a visible, hierarchically organized Body, or that if He did, such a Body is still around. This Protestant conception of the church as invisible arose in the 16th century. It does away with the very possibility of schism.
The Catholic Church for two thousand years has believed and taught that Christ founded a visible, hierarchically organized Body. This notion of the Church as a visible, hierarchically organized Body has implications for what it means to be in unity. In the Protestant conception of the church as a spiritual, invisible entity, what counts as ‘the essentials’ is ultimately up to each person to decide. But given the Catholic conception of the Church as a visible hierarchically organized Body, what counts as ‘the essentials’ is determined definitively by the Church authorities. * And what these authorities have determined to be essential includes much more than the lowest common denominator of Evangelicalism. Therefore, from the Catholic point of view, Protestants are not in union with the Church regarding the essentials of Christianity, not only doctrinally, but also regarding the sacraments.*
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.
Some Protestants do claim to believe in a visible Church. But by that they mean that there are many local congregations each with its own visible hierarchy (e.g. head pastor, assistant pastor, deacons, etc.), and that every Christian should be a member of one such local congregation. According to these Protestants, these local congregations need not be part of one catholic (i.e. universal) visible hierarchy. Rather, these local congregations that are each visible hierarchically organized bodies are invisibly united to each other by sharing the same basic faith in Christ and love for Christ. One problem with this position is that its claim that visible hierarchical unity is essential at the local level, but not at any higher level, is arbitrary. If the local church needs a hierarchical organization, then so does the universal Church. But if the universal Church does not need hierarchical organization, then neither does the local congregation. Another problem is that this claim reduces either to the position that Christ founded many Churches, and thus has many Bodies and many Brides, or that the Church Christ founded is itself a spiritual, invisible entity, though some of its members, both individual persons and visible local congregations, are visible.
This is why there is no middle position between the teaching of the Catholic Church that Christ founded one universal, visible, and hierarchically organized Body to which all … This is also why a Protestant conception of the Church entails apathy about the present disunity of all Christians. Most Protestants see the fact that there is a different denomination represented on every street corner as normal, or even healthy. The very idea that there should be only one Christian institution in every city and all over the world, is completely outside their imaginative horizon, let alone the intended goal of any ecumenical endeavors they might undertake. …
…To our Protestant brothers and sisters we say, "Your vision of the unity Christ intended the Church to have is too small; you’ve settled for division as though it were unity."
- Status