NEW YORK: Lesbian [Episcopal ] Priest Nominee on List to be Next Bishop of New York

[via_media]

The Orthodox do not call it transubstantiation, but they understand the Eucharist in exactly the same way as the Catholic Church does (I was Greek Orthodox for 8 years).

God created a natural order. Part of that natural order is that women were created to be with men. God, and later St. Paul, call the act of being with the same sex an abomination and an unnatural desire. Love is not some heart pitter-patter that makes you feel loopy when you think of someone. Love is obedience and service, first to God, and then your fellow man (or woman). If the first part of that equation is wrong, then the second part of that equation is de facto wrong. You can think you are loving God when you love your fellow man, but if you are doing it in a way that is insulting to God, then you are insulting God, regardless of how you feel about it.

This brings up the entire problem with Protestantism. It is an entirely emotion based religion. Anything that they want to do is justified in Scripture. That is why Sacred Tradition is discarded, because much of it contravenes their basal passions. They want their cake and eat it too. They want to claim that they love Jesus MORE than the Catholic Church does…and have abortions, and have gay sex, and use contraception, and claim that the bread and wine is NOT actually the Body and Blood of Christ, that women can be priests, that you can get divorced and remarried as often as you want, that you can cohabitate, and the list goes on. All of this stuff was rejected by the early Church. Religious pluralism and “tolerace” have made it seem as though we have to accept the premise that you can reject the Church that Christ Himself established, and yet still accept Christ as fully as a Catholic can. Are not Catholic Christians still Christian? Yes. Will they have some 'splaining to do when they get to Heaven? Absolutely. “Accepting Christ as your personal Lord and Savior” isn’t an automatic “get into heaven card”. Jesus said that we will be judged for every action we take and word we utter. Some of us are going to hear the words, “Get from me you evildoer, I never knew you”.

Do I say these things in hatred? Absolutely not, although I will be accused of it. Love is not permissiveness. Love is confrontation of wrongdoing and a demand for righteousness in the mold of Christ and His Church. The Catholic Church is not OUR Church, it was bought and paid for by Jesus Christ with his Body and Blood, the very Body and Blood that is rejected by non-Catholic and non-Orthodox Christians. You will have to answer the question, “Why did you believe that you accepted ME, but rejected my Body and Blood, which were given up for you?”

they do NOT accept the same belief in the Eucharist as Catholics do. My father is an Orthodox Christian and my grandfather was a Orthodox priest. (mixed family, bought up as a catholic but participated in both) it’s true they believe in a real presence and outwardly have many of the rituals as Catholics so.
but they fully affirm that the elements remain bread and wine both on the outside and inside…my father’s former priest (at that time was was going to a Greek Church) described the Eucharist in term of the hyperstatic union of Christs natures…both fully human and fully divine. in the same way the Eucharist is both bread and wine and body and blood. they believe a change occurs in the elements but this change doesn’t render the bread and wine absent or consumed. where as transubstantiation to the best of my knowledge means it’s outward form remain bread and wine whilst internally they are no longer bread and wine.

you will also find Orthodoxy doesn’t share the same Theology of confession either…in fact priests don’t necessarily have the Authority to give Christ’s absolution to the contrite in heart. Only the Bishop has that Authority and he can delegate it to priests of his choosing. in face many Orthodox Priests where I am cannot hear someone’s confession cause the Archbishop hasn’t given them permission to do so. and there have been many times where an Bishop or Archbishop has given a dispensation for monks or nuns or people who he feels are spiritually mature (yes women too) to hear confessions.

Orthodox and Catholicism may seem very similar in some way but in other ways Orthodoxy and Catholicism are worlds apart!

 

[via_media]

you say that Protestants don’t use tradition…Not so!
Anglicans use Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and Reason.

its abit of a lie that Catholics tell when they say Protestants do this and dont do that…alittle like Protestants when they tell each other what Catholics believe.

when I first attended Anglican worship it took a year to fully de-program myself from everything I had read and from my Catholic/Orthodox upbringing.

true some Protestants disregard Tradition but Anglicans certainly do not!

 

[via_media]

And for the record we Anglicans do believe we are receiving the Body and Blood. I know Catholics will dispute that we really receiving this over technical issues and that is your right to do so.
but don’t tell us what we believe and don’t believe about the Eucharist. in fact our definition of it is much like that of Orthodoxy.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

you say that Protestants don’t use tradition…Not so!
Anglicans use Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and Reason.

its abit of a lie that Catholics tell when they say Protestants do this and dont do that…alittle like Protestants when they tell each other what Catholics believe.

when I first attended Anglican worship it took a year to fully de-program myself from everything I had read and from my Catholic/Orthodox upbringing.

true some Protestants disregard Tradition but Anglicans certainly do not!

Henry VIII perverted Anglican tradition to justify establishing a secular ruler as head of the Church. This is a historical fact that cannot be talked around. Henry’s was excommunicated and his Fidei Defensor title was stripped away by Pope Paul III. The breach between Anglicanism and Catholicism remains today. It was the Anglicans under Henry and finally Elizabeth that left the Catholic Church, not the other way around. The entire Anglican Communion remains in schism and heresy to this day. The “Tradition” that you follow is not the Sacred Tradition of the Apostles. It was left at the doorstep of secular rulership of the church.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

And for the record we Anglicans do believe we are receiving the Body and Blood. I know Catholics will dispute that we really receiving this over technical issues and that is your right to do so.
but don’t tell us what we believe and don’t believe about the Eucharist. in fact our definition of it is much like that of Orthodoxy.

No, it isn’t. Catholics can, in emergency situations, receive the Eucharist from an Orthodox priest, since it is considered validly consecreted in form and substance. Anglican communion is not. You are free to believe what you’d like about it, but it doesn’t change the fact of the matter. Orthodox retain valid Apostolic Succession and valid Eucharistic confection. Anglicans do not.

 

[via_media]

Sorry to tell u man but the Orthodox and Catholic understanding of the Eucharist is different.
both are indeed really the body and blood but both have entirely different understandings of how that change occurs.
Orthodox do indeed reject Transubstantiation, but they do not deny the presence of Christ in Eucharist in a unique and real way. but they are different.
a Transfiguration is a better way to understand the Orthodox conception of the Eucharist, or a hyperstaic union but defiantly not Transubstantiation

…and I did say that your free to reject the validity of Anglican Sacraments. Just don’t tell us Anglicans what we believe about them. and we believe in an orthodox understanding of the Sacraments. that they remain bread and wine both in form and substance yet are changed or transfigured in a way that defies understanding. without any philosophical speculation that the Roman Church has.

 

[via_media]

Your free to dispute the validity of our Sacraments.
just don’t tell us Anglicans what our Theology regarding them is. that’s for us to tell you!

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Sorry to tell u man but the Orthodox and Catholic understanding of the Eucharist is different.
both are indeed really the body and blood but both have entirely different understandings of how that change occurs.
Orthodox do indeed reject Transubstantiation, but they do not deny the presence of Christ in Eucharist in a unique and real way. but they are different.
a Transfiguration is a better way to understand the Orthodox conception of the Eucharist, or a hyperstaic union but defiantly not Transubstantiation

…and I did say that your free to reject the validity of Anglican Sacraments. Just don’t tell us Anglicans what we believe about them. and we believe in an orthodox understanding of the Sacraments. that they remain bread and wine both in form and substance yet are changed or transfigured in a way that defies understanding. without any philosophical speculation that the Roman Church has.

I am sorry to tell you, but the Orthodox understanding of the Eucharist is the same as the Catholic understanding in form and substance. This is a fact that I can substantiate with documents from both Churches. The Anglican understanding of it is insufficient, from a Catholic and Orthodox perspective.
Orthodox Church USA:

The Orthodox Church denies the doctrine that the Body and the Blood of the eucharist are merely intellectual or psychological symbols of Christ’s Body and Blood. If this doctrine were true, when the liturgy is celebrated and holy communion is given, the people would be called merely to think about Jesus and to commune with him “in their hearts.” In this way, the eucharist would be reduced to a simple memorial meal of the Lord’s last supper, and the union with God through its reception would come only on the level of thought or psychological recollection.

Thus, the bread of the eucharist is Christ’s flesh, and Christ’s flesh is the eucharistic bread. The two are brought together into one. The word “symbolical” in Orthodox terminology means exactly this: “to bring together into one.”

There seems to be no “unified” single theological concept of the Eucharist in the Anglican communion. It appears that High-Church Anglicans subscribe to a belief similar to the Catholic Church, and in fact both parties have signed a declaratory statement saying that there “is much in common belief” regarding the sacrament. However, most “low-church” Anglicans, including most Episcopalians, believe in the “Real Presence” much in the manner of Luther, that Christ is “truly present” with the bread and wine, while not becoming one with the bread and wine itself. Since there is no single, unified belief regarding the Eucharist in the Anglican communion, you cannot say that it is substantially the same as the Orthodox. The Orthodox belief in the Eucharist is substantially the same as the Catholics, although the tend to reject the rationalist/scholastic attempts to describe the metaphical transformation of the bread and wine, preferring to call this act of God a mystery that must be taken on faith. However, since the Orthodox Patriarchs and the Pope have on more than one occation concelebrated the Eucharist, it is safe to say that our understanding and belief of the Eucharist is similar enough to be theologically compatible.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Your free to dispute the validity of our Sacraments.
just don’t tell us Anglicans what our Theology regarding them is. that’s for us to tell you!

I am free to debate anything I wish. I am also free to research Anglican theology directly from Anglican theological sites, rather than relying on your opinion of Anglican theology.

 

[via_media]

I am free to debate anything I wish. I am also free to research Anglican theology directly from Anglican theological sites, rather than relying on your opinion of Anglican theology.

well then when a Calvinistic protestant says “Catholics worship Mary” I shall not correct them in the future…since u believe u are the Authority on a religion u don’t belong to then perhaps they know more about Catholicism than you do.

 

[via_media]

I am sorry to tell you, but the Orthodox understanding of the Eucharist is the same as the Catholic understanding in form and substance. This is a fact that I can substantiate with documents from both Churches. The Anglican understanding of it is insufficient, from a Catholic and Orthodox perspective.

There seems to be no “unified” single theological concept of the Eucharist in the Anglican communion. It appears that High-Church Anglicans subscribe to a belief similar to the Catholic Church, and in fact both parties have signed a declaratory statement saying that there “is much in common belief” regarding the sacrament. However, most “low-church” Anglicans, including most Episcopalians, believe in the “Real Presence” much in the manner of Luther, that Christ is “truly present” with the bread and wine, while not becoming one with the bread and wine itself. Since there is no single, unified belief regarding the Eucharist in the Anglican communion, you cannot say that it is substantially the same as the Orthodox. The Orthodox belief in the Eucharist is substantially the same as the Catholics, although the tend to reject the rationalist/scholastic attempts to describe the metaphical transformation of the bread and wine, preferring to call this act of God a mystery that must be taken on faith. However, since the Orthodox Patriarchs and the Pope have on more than one occation concelebrated the Eucharist, it is safe to say that our understanding and belief of the Eucharist is similar enough to be theologically compatible.

and in fact we do have a firm statement on our Eucharistic Theology…but I suppose since your such a religious Authority on Anglicanism you’d probably know that…or not! (I would guess the latter)

and now to get you your high horse I shall present the Eucharistic information from the Anglican Catechism:

The Holy Eucharist
Q. What is the Holy Eucharist?
A. The Holy Eucharist is the sacrament commanded by Christ for the continual remembrance of his life, death, and resurrection, until his coming again.

Q. Why is the Eucharist called a sacrifice?
A. Because the Eucharist, the Church’s sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, is the way by which the sacrifice of Christ is made present, and in which he unites us to his one offering of himself.

Q. By what other names is this service known?
A. The Holy Eucharist is called the Lord’s Supper, and Holy Communion; it is also known as the Divine Liturgy, the Mass, and the Great Offering.

Q. What is the outward and visible sign in the Eucharist?
A. The outward and visible sign in the Eucharist is bread and wine, given and received according to Christ’s command.

Q. What is the inward and spiritual grace given in the Eucharist?
A. The inward and spiritual grace in the Holy Communion is the Body and Blood of Christ give to his people, and received by faith.

Q. What are the benefits which we receive in the Lord’s Supper?
A. The benefits we receive are the forgiveness of our sins, the strengthening of our union with Christ and one another, and the foretaste of the heavenly banquet which is our nourishment in eternal life.

Q. What is required of us when we come to the Eucharist?
A. It is required that we should examine our lives, repent of our sins, and be in love and charity with all people.

 

[via_media]

I shall also post this from Orthodox fourms…
its quite clear that the Orthodox church rejects transubstantiation…either ur knowledge of Orthodoxy is incredibly poor or your looking for an alley in support of your own theological position (whithout actually knowing they are different)

orthodoxforum.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1406

I shall also Post a comment from a Orthodox Priest called Father David Moser:
‘There is currently a seminary professor in Mosow (Mr Osipov I believe his name is) who gives a very interesting perspective on this topic. He explains that the bread and the wine do not become the actual crucified body and blood of Christ, but rather that the bread and the wine are hypostatically joined to Christ in the same manner as He was initially hypostatically joined to the body in the womb of the Holy Virgin. In this manner when we partake of the Holy Mysteries, we do indeed partake of the flesh and blood of Christ, but at the same time it is not as if we cut off a finger or a piece of thigh muscle and eat it. If you read all of St John’s quotes with this in mind, you will see that there is no confict at all with suh an understanding.’

I’m sorry but you do not know enough about Orthodoxy to make the claim that the Catholic and Orthodox Eucharist is in agreement with one another. Orthodox do reject Transubstantiation and the Anglican Understanding of it is closer to Orthodoxy than Catholicism .

 

[1holycatholic]

and in fact we do have a firm statement on our Eucharistic Theology…but I suppose since your such a religious Authority on Anglicanism you’d probably know that…or not! (I would guess the latter)

and now to get you your high horse I shall present the Eucharistic information from the Anglican Catechism:
…

Anglicans have no authority to make any proclamations regarding the Sacraments. The Church is the custodian of the Sacraments, not Anglicans.

 

[via_media]

Anglicans have no authority to make any proclamations regarding the Sacraments. The Church is the custodian of the Sacraments, not Anglicans.

lol and the Orthodox would say the same about the Catholics…that argument doesn’t impress me much lol

besides I was stating what Anglicans believe about the Sacraments in their churches…not Catholic Sacraments. so perhaps instead of twisting my word you should educate yourself b4 u continue speaking.

 

[via_media]

Anglicans have no authority to make any proclamations regarding the Sacraments. The Church is the custodian of the Sacraments, not Anglicans.

are you saying Anglicans arn’t allowed to have their own theology about their own sacraments?

 

[1holycatholic]

are you saying Anglicans arn’t allowed to have their own theology about their own sacraments?

Christ established the Sacraments and entrusted them to His Church.

Anglicans can say whatever they want, but they can’t say anything with authority.

 

[via_media]

I was talking to the other fella b4 about what ANGLICANS BELIEVE ABOUT THEIR OWN SACRAMENTS…Im not debating that Catholics contest the validity of Anglican Sacraments…but Anglicans still have a right to profess what we believe…Good God! its like taking to a bloody Grand inquisitor with cotton wall in his ears!

 

[1holycatholic]

lol and the Orthodox would say the same about the Catholics…that argument doesn’t impress me much lol

besides I was stating what Anglicans believe about the Sacraments in their churches…not Catholic Sacraments. so perhaps instead of twisting my word you should educate yourself b4 u continue speaking.

Christ established only seven Sacraments and entrusted them to His Church.

Why do you write like you are composing a Prince song?

 

[via_media]

Christ established only seven Sacraments and entrusted them to His Church.

Why do you write like you are composing a Prince song?

OMG your like a broken record arn’t you. listen I was tellign someone else what Anglicans believe about their own Sacraments (we call them sacraments) I have no other word to use for them!

Im unsure what u mean by I write like im composing a prince song…but tell me, why are you going on about this like a dog with a bone??? Im not talking about the sacraments within the Catholic Church, Im talking about what Anglicans believe about their own Sacraments.

 

[rlg94086]

besides I was stating what Anglicans believe about the Sacraments in their churches…not Catholic Sacraments. so perhaps instead of twisting my word you should educate yourself b4 u continue speaking.

Actually, the Q&A you posted made no mention about the nature of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. If you do a little deeper research into your own faith, you will find that Scott Lafrance is correct. Some Anglicans believe in transubstantiation, some in consubstantiation. Some Orthodox also believe in transubstantiation, but most just treat the “Real Presence” as a mystery. The Orthodox you cited is one viewpoint, not definitive Orthodox teaching.