The Early Church: If They Weren't Catholic, What Were They?

[KathleenGee]

To finish on the early Mass, and to show the integrity of not having the apostolic line broken, here is a presentation given by St. Justin the Martyr, the first Catholic apologist. He travelled around preaching and correcting errors. St. Justin also referred to the prophet Malachi who said there would be a perfect sacrifice being said around the world.

Our unity is most sacred and not to be fractured.

St. Justin was asked by the Roman Emperior in his time around 155 AD to explain what happens at Mass. Here is an excerpt of the Mass after Baptism.

"After we have washed someone who has been convinced and has accepted our teaching, we bring him to the place where those who are called ‘brethren’ are assembled. Together, then, we offer hearty prayers for ourselves, for the enlightened (baptized) person, and for all others in every place…After the prayers, we greet one another with a kiss. Then bread and a cup of wine are mixed with water are brought up to the president of the brethren. Taking them, he gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and he offers thanks at considerable length that we have been counted worthy to receive these things from his hands.

When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgiving, all the people present express their assent by saying “Amen.” This word is Hebrew for “so be it.” And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those whom we call deacons distribute to each of those present a portion of the bread and wine mixed with water, over which the thanksgiving was pronounced. To those who are absent, they carry away a portion.

This food we call the Eucharist, and no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that our doctrines are true, who has been washed with the bath for the remission of sins and rebirth, and who is living as Christ has commanded.

We do not receive these as common bread and drink. For Jesus Christ our Savior, made flesh by the Word of God, has both flesh and blood for our salvation. Likewise, we have been taught that the food blessed by the prayer of his word – and from which our own blood and flesh are nourished and changed – is the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ who was made flesh.

The apostles, in the memoirs they composed called “Gospels,” have passed on to us what was given to them: that Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, said, “do this in memory of me. This is my body.” In the same way, after taking the cup and giving thanks, he said, “This is my blood.” *and he gave it to them alone.
*
This the wicked devils have imitated, commanding the same thing to be done in the mystery of Mithras. There, in the mystic rites of initiation, bread and cup of water are placed amid certain incantations. This you already know or can find out."
–First Apology, 65-66.

Note how St. Justin said that the Lord gave to the apostles the Body Alone…The apostles were chosen by our Lord, and the same with their apostles and successors.

The great unity of faith Catholics have is a most powerful witness to the living presence of the Holy Spirit. And it is to “Peter”, the Papacy, that the Holy Father holds the Keys to the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

It is the Holy Father who appoints the bishops. And the bishops in turn consecrate their priests in Spirit and Truth. To break this sacred bond does not facilitate the Epiclesis of the priest at Mass. When a priest comes into the fold, such as an Anglican priest, he then receives the special grace through the bishop, to become and restored to the line of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, to the priestly order of Melchizedek set aside from his people and a member of Christ’s order of priesthood, duly called and duly chosen.

 

[KathleenGee]

OneholyCatholic, yes acknoweldged…and I obviously still find it confusing in some aspects. Hesychios was the one who told me the Orthodox do not believe like we do and I had thought we did…as well as being surprised the Latin does not go that far with the statement, Theotokos…but in so many ways, already does as well as use that icon…

 

[inkaneer]

GKC,

No problem. Doesn’t matter who answers the questions. So, thanks.

Wouldn’t that mean the CC believes Christ doesn’t answer the Eucharistic Prayers of an Anglican Priest? They are simply denied for lack of “valid orders.”

Anna

It comes down to authority or rather the lack of it. Jesus had many disciples but only a few Apostles. Only the Apostles were empowered with authority and that authority was passed down by the rite and sacrament of Ordination [Holy Orders] to succeeding bishops. The Apostles appointed deacons but these deacons were only empowered to serve the temporal needs of the Church. Priests were later ordained to meet the sacramental needs when the number of converts became too large for one bishop to administer. But priests are limited [by their bishop] on just what authority they have. Usually the bishop reserves the sacraments of Holy Orders and Confirmation to himself. In all of this authority is key and that authority is delegated by the proper rite of ordination. Several things are necessary here. First the delegator must have the authority he is delegating. You can’t give what you don’t have. Second, the proper ordination must be done or else there is no authority delegated. This is what is lacking in Anglican orders. Thus the Eucharistic prayer of an Anglican minister is invalid for its intended purpose which is to consecrate the host.

 

[KathleenGee]

And back to sinful priests…St. Francis of Assisi had great respect for the Ministers of the Blood as St. Catherine of Siena referred to them.

One day St. Francis heard the villagers concerned about the sinful behavior of a local priest. So St. Francis took off, went to the priest and knelt down and kissed his hands…we receive full benefit of the sacrament, but there is that much more grace conferred when the priest is living the life worthy of his vocation.

 

[KathleenGee]

And if I may add, it is also this tradition that the integrity of the Sacrament of the Eucharist be most guarded…and not meaning to get off topic, but this was the burden of faith carried by the Spanish before the Inquisition of non-believers receiving the Sacrament…and i am not sure of this …that Jews and Muslims were free to practice their own religions…not sure…

But again, the Sacred Eucharist calls for faith and not communicate fractured Christianity…

 

[Anna_Scott]

Guys,

I’ve heard countless speeches about authority. I do learn things with each post, so they are appreciated.

I’m not expecting Catholics to change their beliefs or meet me half way. I realize Catholicism is all or nothing. Either I submit “mind and will” or I do not. That party I understand.

Anna

 

[josie_L]

OneholyCatholic, yes acknoweldged…and I obviously still find it confusing in some aspects. Hesychios was the one who told me the Orthodox do not believe like we do and I had thought we did…as well as being surprised the Latin does not go that far with the statement, Theotokos…but in so many ways, already does as well as use that icon…

This particular site gives a quick rundown of the differences between East and West (Catholicism) with references to the Orthodox.

east2west.org/doctrine.htm

 

[GKC]

Anna,

It’s a question of form and intent durring the Sacrament. Indeed, it was a very early Church decession that even if a Bishop (or priest) was personally in a state of mortal sin, indeed even if they are heretics (as is the case with Arian’s), that the sacraments would still be valid provided:

Proper form,
Proper Matter,
Proper intent.

The Church maintains that the Orthodox have a valid priesthood because at no point, despite schism, despite various heresies, never altered form, matter or intent and most particularly they never altered these with regard to the ordination to Holy Orders.

It’s another story with the Anglicans, it was found that indeed the Anglicans had altered at a minimum form, if not intent (see 39 articles for instance) durring the ordination of Bishops. Because of this discovery, the Pope had no choice but to issue his bull.

It should be noted, this bull halted the potential reunification of the Anglican and Catholic Churches, something our side was not happy about.

A valid minister is also required.

And the intent has nothing to do with the Articles. Sacramental intent inheres in an individual, in the sacramental action. The intent involved in Apostolicae Curae is fuzzy, but the best analysis of it is in Francis Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION; the intent of the consecrators of Archbishop Parker, in 1559.

It is necessary to consider both the intent and the form together, since the form did not differ significantly, as to the alleged defect, from a number of liturgical rites that the RCC recognizes as conveying valid orders. It is complicated.

The Bull halted some discussions that were being promoted by Lord Halifax, and the Abbe Portal. While there was some RC interest, esp. from Cardinal Rampola, there was also a great deal of hostility, particularly from Herbert Cardinal Vaughan, Cardinal-Archbishop of Westminister. The fact of the Bull being issued was directly related to his contact with Leo XIII, resulting in the Commission that originally studied the two questions that were posed to them, re: Anglican Orders.

GKC

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . .Thus the Eucharistic prayer of an Anglican minister is invalid for its intended purpose which is to consecrate the host.

Whatever the issues are regarding authority; it still comes down to whether or not Christ will answer the Eucharistic Prayers of an Anglican Priest.

According to the CC, my experiences in receiving the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist are only mistaken illusions on my part.

 

[GKC]

Whatever the issues are regarding authority; it still comes down to whether or not Christ will answer the Eucharistic Prayers from an Anglican Priest.

According to the CC, my experiences in receiving the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist is only a mistaken illusion on my part.

That is usually nuanced a little, but that is correct. No valid priest, no confection of the Eucharist, no Body, no Blood. So says the RCC, re: the Anglican Eucharist.

GKC

 

[Anna_Scott]

That is usually nuanced a little, but that is correct. No valid priest, no confection of the Eucharist, no Body, no Blood. So says the RCC, re: the Anglican Eucharist.

GKC

I must have a very vivid “imagination.”

Anna

 

[GKC]

I must have a very vivid “imagination.”

Anna

That I don’t think they would deny.

GKC

 

[Anna_Scott]

That I don’t think they would deny.

GKC

I think you are right.

 

[GKC]

I think you are right.

In all the hustle and bustle in the thread today, I want to convey something. The issue of Apostolicae Cuare is complicated. It has roots in history, theology, politics and many personalities. Gave and take, fast posts like this can only deal superficially with it. But for a RC, in-depth analysis is not required, merely affirmation of the bottom line. For any who might be interested, the best books I’ve found, in many years of study, are Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION, and Fr. J.J. Hughes two books, ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID (the best detailed history of what happened, by far) and STEWARDS OF THE LORD (the best treatment of a theological defense of the Anglican position). Fr. Hughes is a RC priest, and one of the two Anglican priests ordained sub conditione, after conversion.

GKC

 

[inkaneer]

In all the hustle and bustle in the thread today, I want to convey something. The issue of Apostolicae Cuare is complicated. It has roots in history, theology, politics and many personalities. Gave and take, fast posts like this can only deal superficially with it. But for a RC, in-depth analysis is not required, merely affirmation of the bottom line. For any who might be interested, the best books I’ve found, in many years of study, are Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION, and Fr. J.J. Hughes two books, ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID (the best detailed history of what happened, by far) and STEWARDS OF THE LORD (the best treatment of a theological defense of the Anglican position). Fr. Hughes is a RC priest, and one of the two Anglican priests ordained sub conditione, after conversion.

GKC

When you say that Fr. Hughes was one of only two Anglican priests ordained sub conditione, after conversion. What exactly are you saying? I ask because I myself am aware of several former Anglican priests who have converted and have been ordained as Catholic priests.

 

[crazzeto]

I must have a very vivid “imagination.”

Anna

It depends upon your priest, some actually have valid Orders because their Orders are not obtained through the lines which are null & void. This is an issue worth bringing up with your priest if you are curious. However there has in fact, been an injection of orders from Orthodox and Old Catholic lines, which has created a situation where there are in fact, some Anglican Priests who are in fact truely priests. We have one on these forums, Pardej (who is a Bishop no less).

The fact remains, a valid Bishop is required to consecrate the hosts (Priests can do so at the direction of the Bishop). This has been the ancient tradition of the Church, it was never anyone but the Bishops (and later priests when they were added) who consecrate the host.

Needless to say, the real pressense of Christ in the Eucharist isn’t mearly a matter of belief. You can’t go to a Church where some people receive the true body and blood of Christ because they believe, but other’s don’t because they don’t. It’s the priest (or bishop) and his faculties that make the difference.

 

[inkaneer]

It depends upon your priest, some actually have valid Orders because their Orders are not obtained through the lines which are null & void. This is an issue worth bringing up with your priest if you are curious. However there has in fact, been an injection of orders from Orthodox and Old Catholic lines, which has created a situation where there are in fact, some Anglican Priests who are in fact truely priests. We have one on these forums, Pardej (who is a Bishop no less).

The fact remains, a valid Bishop is required to consecrate the hosts (Priests can do so at the direction of the Bishop). This has been the ancient tradition of the Church, it was never anyone but the Bishops (and later priests when they were added) who consecrate the host.

Needless to say, the real pressense of Christ in the Eucharist isn’t mearly a matter of belief. You can’t go to a Church where some people receive the true body and blood of Christ because they believe, but other’s don’t because they don’t. It’s the priest (or bishop) and his faculties that make the difference.

I have heard that some Anglicans have attempted to gain valid orders thru the Orthodox but I have never seen anything that says this indeed happened. Obviously anyone claiming such would have to provide evidentiary proof. As for the Old Catholics I am not sure that their orders are valid but I am sure they are illicit as is the case with any ordinations by a heretical bishop.

 

[crazzeto]

Anna,

I think perhaps part of the problem is that you come originally out of a faith tradition in which any believer could declare them selves a preacher (priest if you will), get up and start preaching (or perhaps start their own Church).

So that said, let me suggest this. Lets put aside the authority of the Church for just a minute, and lets go with this “valid priests do exist out side of the catholic church”. The first question becomes this, what is a priest?

In some traiditions (like your previous one), believers cling to the idea of the common priesthood. However as we should know, this idea is invalid. The Israeliest also had a common priesthood (this was declared in the OT), however when it came time to Sacrafice on the Alter, offer oblation and pray for the forgivness of sins (prefigures sacrament of reconciliation), it was only the levites who could do this was it not?

More over, we see in the New Testament a clear distinction between Bishops/Elders/Prybiterate and the Lay (as well as with the Priestly order, and Deacons). So what makes a priest, and what do they do?

I would argue what makes a preist is someone who had hands laid upon them by a successor of the Apostles (valid). And what they do is minister the sacraments, most particularly the Eucharist.

The next question is, how does one properly become one? Earlier in this thread you argued that you weren’t comfortable with Adoration, because you personally didn’t see any evidence in scripture of the Eucharist being taken out of a meal context. This tells me that you beleive that there is a certain proper order about the sacraments, in order to be valid they must be intituted (and even used) properly.

So I would ask this for starters, can you acknowlege that there must be some distinction between the priesthood and lay. There must be a certain proper order about how one goes about becoming a priest, and with out that proper order one can not be a priest, and there for can not do what a priest does.

God bless,

 

[crazzeto]

I have heard that some Anglicans have attempted to gain valid orders thru the Orthodox but I have never seen anything that says this indeed happened. Obviously anyone claiming such would have to provide evidentiary proof. As for the Old Catholics I am not sure that their orders are valid but I am sure they are illicit as is the case with any ordinations by a heretical bishop.

There have been a number of priests accepted into the CC who required no extra ordination or training in order to begin ministering because they are already priests. Cardnal Ratizgar him self investigated and confirmed such a case.

 

[GKC]

There have been a number of priests accepted into the CC who required no extra ordination or training in order to begin ministering because they are already priests. Cardnal Ratizgar him self investigated and confirmed such a case.

There have been two who were received, and ordained sub conditione, J. J. Hughes and Graham Leonard, neither who had any connection with Othodoxy. If anyone knows of an Anglican priest who was received in his orders, I would greatly appreciate the details.

GKC