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

[via_media]

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.

yeah SOME orthodox…not all and in fact the trend within the Orthododx church is to reject it…was more prevalent in the 17th and 18th centuries in Russia (thanks to Jesuit interference in the Ukrainian church)

and yes I know the Q&A didn’t mention the nature of Christ beyond the fact he is present. that is also what mainstream Orthodoxy teaches. Orthodoxy doesn’t like to get into the nature of Christ’s presence. mainly cause it carry’s alot of Western baggage. some orthodox Christians speculate but for the most part speculation about how is avoided.

and on a grass roots level every priest or bishop ive ever spoken to has always maintained that its really the body and blood and really wine and bread. NEVER have I had an Orthodox priest agree that the lords body and blood have totally consumed the bread and wine

 

[via_media]

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.

oh yes and I know that Anglicans hold some diverse opinions but the basic outline that all Anglicans should subscribe to in that Q&A. they allow for variety of opinion as to how whilst the official party-line answer is that it’s a mystery.

Once again much like Orthodoxy…lots of variety of opinion but at the end the only official position is “its a mystery”

 

[1holycatholic]

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.

There are no Sacraments apart from the Catholic Church, for the Church is Christ. The Church, as custodian of the Sacraments entrusted to her by Christ has infallibly declared that Anglican Holy Orders are invalid, and that the only Sacramental actions Anglicans can enjoin are baptism and marriage provided they use proper form, matter and intent.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

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.

Catholic’s don’t worship Mary in the theological, First Commandment sense of the word. Catholic Doctrine specifically forbids it. So, feel free to say anything you’d like to your Calvinist friend. He’d still be wrong in his assertion. It would also indicate a significant shortfall in the understanding of the evolution of the word “worship” as used in the English language. That is why I prefer the Latin, as it is more precise in context. Begin a dead language, it is no longer subject to modernization, mutation, or reform.

 

[via_media]

There are no Sacraments apart from the Catholic Church, for the Church is Christ. The Church, as custodian of the Sacraments entrusted to her by Christ has infallibly declared that Anglican Holy Orders are invalid, and that the only Sacramental actions Anglicans can enjoin are baptism and marriage provided they use proper form, matter and intent.

we do indeed have sacraments. whether u recognize them as such is your business but you can at at least be respectful towards my belief system. or does being a catholic mean your beyond the need for common decency and respect?

 

[ringil]

How would you reconcile that with what St. Paul said about women keeping silent in Church and wearing headcovering? I notice that these women priests do not wear headcovering as commanded by St. Paul, and they teach men in Church which is also condemned by Holy Scripture? Shall we follow Holy Scripture, the divine word of the Lord, or shall we make up our own rules as we go along and forget about the word of the Lord?

Oh stop that! You know Catholics don’t believe in this passage literally. Women are NOT expected to keep silent in Church and the wearing of headcoverings is a discipline which Catholic are free to follow or not.

You are not accurately representing Catholic thought or practice here.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

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.

The Orthodox tend to shy away from rationalistic explanations of spiritual mysteries. The term “transubstantiation” came out of the Scholastic school of western theological thought after the schism of 1054. However, Orthodox and Catholic scholars and ordinaries have dialogued for centuries on the matter, and with regards to the Eucharist, what we believe is fundamentally the same.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

we do indeed have sacraments. whether u recognize them as such is your business but you can at at least be respectful towards my belief system. or does being a catholic mean your beyond the need for common decency and respect?

Nothing in what he said was disrespectful. You don’t like it because it conflicts with your understanding of the matter. But, here at CATHOLIC ANSWERS, you can be sure that you will receive a well grounded, honest, and robust defense of the Catholic position on things. We don’t have to accept the Anglican position on anything, because this is a Catholic apologetics site. Not rude, just the truth of the matter.

 

[ringil]

BEcause there are not encough men who volunteer for these positions. In actuality, the idea of the EMofHC only exists because there aren’t enough ORDINARY ministers of Holy Communion (Deacons and Priests) to facilitate Mass.

I do not agree with your statement here. Women are completely free to be lectors and EMHC (though too many EMHC’s are used I agree)

Women lectors are used at papal masses, now I think there might be a few men around to fill this role if the Holy Father was inclined, don’t you?

But, certainly, women’s calling is not to the ministerial priesthood. This is the understanding of all of the ancient Churches of both the east and the west.

 

[ringil]

I hope she lives a long and healthy life as well. But she is as much a priest as I am a mother of 4.

Also this woman would be a Bishop just not a valid one or a priest in our faith, which we believe to be correct.

I will call a pagan guy a Priest if he wants that title but I would not believe he is a Priest for me.

When the Anglicans use the term “Priest” they aren’t using the term as we believe it to be true. I will not denigrate them for their faith, even if I feel they are mistaken on this matter.

 

[via_media]

The Orthodox tend to shy away from rationalistic explanations of spiritual mysteries. The term “transubstantiation” came out of the Scholastic school of western theological thought after the schism of 1054. However, Orthodox and Catholic scholars and ordinaries have dialogued for centuries on the matter, and with regards to the Eucharist, what we believe is fundamentally the same.

lol u belive what u want mate. I can see u want to believe what u want to believe and nothing will change that. but your wrong. the orthodox church disagree’s whole hartly with the catholic church and don’t acknowledge the validity of Catholic Sacraments anymore than the tools on his board accept the validity of Anglican ones.

once u stop deluding yourself into believing that Orthodoxy accepts Roman theology on any level (including original sin, Substitution Atonement, Immaculate Conception, the organisational structure of the church, Transubstantiation etc) then we could have a real conversation until then I’ll leave u to your make-believe world.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

oh yes and I know that Anglicans hold some diverse opinions but the basic outline that all Anglicans should subscribe to in that Q&A. they allow for variety of opinion as to how whilst the official party-line answer is that it’s a mystery.

Once again much like Orthodoxy…lots of variety of opinion but at the end the only official position is “its a mystery”

Well, in the Catholic Church, there isn’t a “variety of opinion”. Christ taught one Truth, not several conflicting truths. If the matter is up for debate, the college of bishops convene an ecumenical council and attempt to resolve the matter. If they cannot, the Pope does. That is why the early writers of the Church all agree that the pinnacle of Christian unity was found in the " ex cathedra Petrine" (from the chair of Peter), i.e., the office of the Pope. Truth can as much conflict with itself as God can. God is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. He cannot conflict with Himself. The Eucharist cannot be be the actual Body and Blood of Christ, while simultaneously NOT being the actual Body and Blood of Christ. It seems that within the Anglican communion, there remains the potential for members of that body to hold various beliefs about what happens during the consecration. Does it become the Body and Blood? Does Christ just come down and become “co-present” within the bread and wine? Is He just “spritually present” at the cracker and grape juice picnic? It seems that all three views are considered acceptable, and then mashed together with a shrug of the shoulders and say “Mmmmm, its a mystery”.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

lol u belive what u want mate. I can see u want to believe what u want to believe and nothing will change that. but your wrong. the orthodox church disagree’s whole hartly with the catholic church and don’t acknowledge the validity of Catholic Sacraments anymore than the tools on his board accept the validity of Anglican ones.

once u stop deluding yourself into believing that Orthodoxy accepts Roman theology on any level (including original sin, Substitution Atonement, Immaculate Conception, the organisational structure of the church, Transubstantiation etc) then we could have a real condensation. until then I’ll leave u to your make-believe world.

Its not about what I can believe, its about what I can prove. I can back up all of my assertions with documentation from the different congregational official sites.

Can you? I admire your robust defense of your new theology. But as of yet, it is all opinion and conjecture, as you have yet to produce one piece of credible evidence that proves your assertions.

I never said that the Orthodox runs lock step with Catholic theology. That’s a nice red herring you threw out there, but I am not interested in chasing down blind tunnels. The truth of the matter is that the Orthodox and Catholics we ONE CHURCH with identical beliefs until the 1100s or so. The Eastern Church (Orthodox) continued down the path of oriental mysticism, the western Church (Catholic) trrended down a path of rationalism and scholasticism.

I have no idea what “make believe” world you think I live in. You reject the Truth that you once held and now embrace something different. It is a very normal process to point at the girl you used to date and call her fat and ugly. You’ll get over it in time. I’ll pray for it.

 

[Wolseley]

lol u belive what u want mate. I can see u want to believe what u want to believe and nothing will change that. but your wrong. the orthodox church disagree’s whole hartly with the catholic church and don’t acknowledge the validity of Catholic Sacraments anymore than the tools on his board accept the validity of Anglican ones.

once u stop deluding yourself into believing that Orthodoxy accepts Roman theology on any level (including original sin, Substitution Atonement, Immaculate Conception, the organisational structure of the church, Transubstantiation etc) then we could have a real condensation. until then I’ll leave u to your make-believe world.

Scott, I’m in no way telling you what to do here, but I for one would really, really love to see you and via media have a condensation.

I don’t think I’ve ever observed one of those before…

 

[ringil]

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.

I do know that women and male religious do hear confessions in some of the Orthodox Churches HOWEVER they do not confer absolution which MUST be given by the Priest. Many Orthodox Churches do this immediately prior to celebrating the Divine Liturgy.

 

[rlg94086]

Scott, I’m in no way telling you what to do here, but I for one would really, really love to see you and via media have a condensation.

I don’t think I’ve ever observed one of those before…

Well, there has certainly been plenty of gas - not sure I want to see it condensed.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Scott, I’m in no way telling you what to do here, but I for one would really, really love to see you and via media have a condensation.

I don’t think I’ve ever observed one of those before…

Condensation?

 

[via_media]

Its not about what I can believe, its about what I can prove. I can back up all of my assertions with documentation from the different congregational official sites.

Can you? I admire your robust defense of your new theology. But as of yet, it is all opinion and conjecture, as you have yet to produce one piece of credible evidence that proves your assertions.

I never said that the Orthodox runs lock step with Catholic theology. That’s a nice red herring you threw out there, but I am not interested in chasing down blind tunnels. The truth of the matter is that the Orthodox and Catholics we ONE CHURCH with identical beliefs until the 1100s or so. The Eastern Church (Orthodox) continued down the path of oriental mysticism, the western Church (Catholic) trrended down a path of rationalism and scholasticism.

I have no idea what “make believe” world you think I live in. You reject the Truth that you once held and now embrace something different. It is a very normal process to point at the girl you used to date and call her fat and ugly. You’ll get over it in time. I’ll pray for it.

lol this is from an Orthodox Christian regurding the validity of Catholic Orders and Sacraments:

*'According to the first Canon of St. Basil, which was incorporated into the decrees of the Sixth Ecumenical Council:
“The beginning, true enough, of the separation resulted through a schism, but those who seceded from the Church had not the grace of Holy Spirit upon them; for the impartation thereof ceased with the interruption of the service. For although the ones who were the first to depart had been ordained by the fathers and with the impartation of their hands had obtained the gracious gift of the Spirit, yet after breaking away they became laymen, and had no authority either to baptize or to ordain anyone, nor could they impart the grace of the Spirit to others, after they themselves had forfeited it.”

Of course, interpretation of his words may vary, but given Rome’s propagation of heresies unacceptable to the Church of Christ, and the obvious schism that exists between them and us, I would suggest we do not regard as valid the priesthood of the Catholics, regardless of Apostolic succession, given the above words of St. Basil.*

your full of it mate!

 

[rlg94086]

I do know that women and male religious do hear confessions in some of the Orthodox Churches HOWEVER they do not confer absolution which MUST be given by the Priest. Many Orthodox Churches do this immediately prior to celebrating the Divine Liturgy.

Sounds like spiritual direction, rather than Confession/Reconciliation. The Catholic Church allows for non-priest Spiritual Directors, as well.

 

[Wolseley]

Condensation?

Read carefully the last line of what you quoted via saying in post #224. /