The Episcapol Church and the Eucharist

[Contarini]

Oh, by the way, rereading my post above, I should have made it clear that while I am among the “many people” who find Archbishop Tutu “relevant,” I am certainly not one of those who find Pope Benedict “irrelevant.” I admire both of them, though theologically I’m probably more likely to agree with Pope Benedict.

Edwin

 

[elvisman]

So? You keep referring to the 33,000 Protestant denominations, so you should be prepared to tell everyone who they are by name.

Again - you haven’t answered the points in my initial post.
You are also ignoring the link to the post that I pasted regarding the approximately 33,000 denominations.

By the way - here is a source for that number. It uses the “World Christian Encyclopedia” for its source.
bringyou.to/apologetics/a106.htm

 

[Contarini]

**Fair **enough.

**BUT - Read through our exchanges on any **thread and you’ll see that you inevitably wind up getting angry and hostile, spewing virulently anti-Catholic attacks.

**First of all, I responded to your **post #162 with my post #163. You answered nothing and became hostile. It’s the same on the other threads – no substance, just anger.

As for the “33,000 or so” denominations of Protestantism – that was already done to death in the following thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=249551&page=2&highlight=33%2C000

Indeed. And since no one on that thread (as far as I can remember) came up with a reasonable justification for the figure, Catholics should just drop it. It doesn’t cut any ice. The mental gymnatics PhilVaz and others had to go through to justify it were truly astounding (claiming, for instance, that it’s reasonable to count one Protestant denomination per country, but not do the same thing for Catholics, even though the source you guys are relying on for the figure does just that for both).

This figure only causes controversy whenever it is introduced. Even if you think it’s valid, you obviously haven’t convinced myself or many other Protestants, so if you don’t want to keep distracting from perfectly reasonable threads you should stop using it. Otherwise we will keep “doing it to death,” because bad arguments don’t become more convincing by being repeated ad nauseam.

Edwin

 

[elvisman]

Indeed. And since no one on that thread (as far as I can remember) came up with a reasonable justification for the figure, Catholics should just drop it. It doesn’t cut any ice. The mental gymnatics PhilVaz and others had to go through to justify it were truly astounding (claiming, for instance, that it’s reasonable to count one Protestant denomination per country, but not do the same thing for Catholics, even though the source you guys are relying on for the figure does just that for both).

This figure only causes controversy whenever it is introduced. Even if you think it’s valid, you obviously haven’t convinced myself or many other Protestants, so if you don’t want to keep distracting from perfectly reasonable threads you should stop using it. Otherwise we will keep “doing it to death,” because bad arguments don’t become more convincing by being repeated ad nauseam.

Edwin

That’s why I gave a source in my last post #182 - that lists a source the “World Christian Encyclopedia”. A book that is endorsed by the Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary - a PROTESTANT institution
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a106.htm

 

[Contarini]

That’s why I gave a source in my last post #182 - that lists a source the “World Christian Encyclopedia”. A book that is endorsed by the Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary - a PROTESTANT institution
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a106.htm

And this has indeed been done to death. It has been pointed out ad nauseam that your source is counting one denomination per country, and thus considers there to be 248 Catholic denominations. I do not understand why you and others on this forum can’t see that this makes Barrett completely unusable for your purposes. By whatever standard there are 33,000+ Protestant denominations, there are 248 Catholic denominations! Clearly “denomination” does not mean “separate church not in communion with others,” which is what it *must *mean for the figure to have any value in arguing against Protestant disunity.

I should just give up, but you guys keep trotting out this figure as if it is supposed to impress someone. I guess bad habits are hard to break. But you really should, because you’re just embarrassing yourselves, and the issue is of no importance (except that it shows how intellectually shallow and unthinking so much Catholic “apologetics” is).

Protestant disunity is a serious problem. You and others who use this figure are committing the sin of scandal by giving Protestants an excuse to ignore the real problem. Numerical lists are intellectually lazy and shoddy when dealing with a complex subject like this. You have no excuse. By your own belief, this is a matter of great importance. Isn’t it important enough for you to take the trouble to come up with a real argument?

Edwin

 

[elvisman]

And this has indeed been done to death. It has been pointed out ad nauseam that your source is counting one denomination per country, and thus considers there to be 248 Catholic denominations. I do not understand why you and others on this forum can’t see that this makes Barrett completely unusable for your purposes. By whatever standard there are 33,000+ Protestant denominations, there are 248 Catholic denominations! Clearly “denomination” does not mean “separate church not in communion with others,” which is what it *must *mean for the figure to have any value in arguing against Protestant disunity.

It most certainly does mean separate when it comes to the Catholic “denominations” because they are renegade churches not in unity with Rome who “claim” to be the Catholic Church. I assure you that they are not - but nobody can say that they do not exist - just as you cannot say that the “Christian Church of Elm Street” or “Biker’s Christian Bible Church” don’t.

I should just give up, but you guys keep trotting out this figure as if it is supposed to impress someone. I guess bad habits are hard to break. But you really should, because you’re just embarrassing yourselves, and the issue is of no importance (except that it shows how intellectually shallow and unthinking so much Catholic “apologetics” is).

Protestant disunity is a serious problem. You and others who use this figure are committing the sin of scandal by giving Protestants an excuse to ignore the real problem. Numerical lists are intellectually lazy and shoddy when dealing with a complex subject like this. You have no excuse. By your own belief, this is a matter of great importance. Isn’t it important enough for you to take the trouble to come up with a real argument?

Edwin

Would it make you happier if I said, 20,000? It’s still a tragedy.

You are correct though - this is a serious problem. It’s an abomination to Jesus to see that his wish - his fervent prayer (John 17) is not being heeded by so many Protestants and many Catholics today.

I don’t take any pleasure in mentioning the disunity among Protestants. When I say “Protestants”, I include those renegade so-called “Catholic” sects.

BUT, I didn’t start the problem of Protestant disunity, nor did I perpetuate it. Protestants did and continue to do so.
The Catholic Church didn’t start it. It was started by rebellious men.

 

[GKC]

**It most certainly does **mean separate when it comes to the Catholic “denominations” because they are renegade churches not in unity with Rome who “claim” to be the Catholic Church. I assure you that they are not - but nobody can say that they do not exist - just as you cannot say that the “Christian Church of Elm Street” or “Biker’s Christian Bible Church” don’t.

Would it make you happier if I said, 20,000? It’s still a tragedy.

You are correct though - this is a serious problem. It’s an abomination to Jesus to see that his wish - his fervent prayer (John 17) is not being heeded by so many Protestants and many Catholics today.

I don’t take any pleasure in mentioning the disunity among Protestants. When I say "Protestants", I include those renegade so-called “Catholic” sects.

BUT, I didn’t start the problem of Protestant disunity, nor did I perpetuate it. Protestants did and continue to do so.
The Catholic Church didn’t start it. It was started by rebellious men.

No, colors aside, when Barrett adds up the “Roman Catholic Church”, he counts each country seperately, and each RC Church (those in communion with Rome) as a separate denomination. Same with protestants. Thus, the RCC in Canada is counted as one denomination, in the US as a second denomination, etc. Same with the United Methodist Church, or whatever.

I don’t think it makes much sense, but that’s how the 33,000 number came about. Every Church or denomination that exists in more than one country is counted as a separate denomination in each country.

Of course, your’re right on the basic point. More than one is still too much.

GKC

 

[elvisman]

No, colors aside, when Barrett adds up the “Roman Catholic Church”, he counts each country seperately, and each RC Church (those in communion with Rome) as a separate denomination. Same with protestants. Thus, the RCC in Canada is counted as one denomination, in the US as a second denomination, etc. Same with the United Methodist Church, or whatever.

I don’t think it makes much sense, but that’s how the 33,000 number came about. Every Church or denomination that exists in more than one country is counted as a separate denomination in each country.

Of course, your’re right on the basic point. More than one is still too much.

GKC

**And that’s why I made the original point to SIA about “33,000 or so denominations”. **
**Hey - if it’s 10,000 - that’s too many. **
If it’s 1000 - THAT’S too many.

And again, as I told SIA - there is only ONE truth. He chose to derail the point by repeatedly asking about the exact number. It’s only irrelavent if you disagree that disunity is okay.

**The original point of this thread was to ask about the Eucharist and whether it means the same thing in the Episcopal Church and the Catholic Church. **
Again, there is only one truth . . .

 

[SIA]

And that’s why I made the original point to SIA about “33,000 or so denominations”.
Hey - if it’s 10,000 - that’s too many.
If it’s 1000 - THAT’S too many.

And again, as I told SIA - there is only ONE truth. He chose to derail the point by repeatedly asking about the exact number. It’s only irrelavent if you disagree that disunity is okay.

**The original **point of this thread was to ask about the Eucharist and whether it means the same thing in the Episcopal Church and the Catholic Church.
Again, there is only one truth . . .

Then I believe that it is neither relavent nor accurate to count churches and then weight the trustworthiness against truth.

 

[elvisman]

Then I believe that it is neither relavent nor accurate to count churches and then weight the trustworthiness against truth.

Still avoiding the points made in my original post, eh?
Gosh - that gives you a lot of credibility . . .

 

[SIA]

**Still **avoiding the points made in my original post, eh?
Gosh - that gives you a lot of credibility . . .

You just keep riding this ageless horse don’t you. I won’t agree so therefore I avoid.

 

[allenthorn]

The Episcopal church’s 39 Articles state, in article 28;
“Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.”

How can there be a question as to validity of the episcopal “eucharist”

BTW, I was raised, and served in the Episcopal Church, my father was an Episcopal minister. I, with great joy, swam the Tiber in 2005.

 

[GKC]

The Episcopal church’s 39 Articles state, in article 28;
“Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.”

How can there be a question as to validity of the episcopal “eucharist”

BTW, I was raised, and served in the Episcopal Church, my father was an Episcopal minister. I, with great joy, swam the Tiber in 2005.

And here it is again, raised from the dead.

The Articles are not normative for any Anglican, save only (in a very technical sense) the Ordinands of the Church of England (IAW the Parliamentary Act of Subscription, 1571). The CoE, being an Erastian Church, gets to do things like

For other Anglicans, including the TEC, the Articles are historical, and one may affirm, ignore, partially affirm, partially affirm, ignore, or cut from the book and use to kindle the new fire at Easter. Since many of the Articles are merely statements of Trinitarian Christianity, partially affirm is often the key. But the mere existence of the XXXIX< in that form that Elizabeth chose to deal with her fractious Church, does not make them doctrine for any Anglican, save as noted. Which is why the Episcopal Church placed them in the “historical” section in the 1979 book, one of the few things I like about that volume.

The Article cited does not deny the Real Presence, but the theory of how it is manifested, as may be known already.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[allenthorn]

There you go again. Apparently in the Episcopal, Anglican, Church of England, church of what’s happening now, any historical beliefs and teachings can be freely ignored. So what does one believe in the Anglican/Catholic Church?

 

[GKC]

There you go again. Apparently in the Episcopal, Anglican, Church of England, church of what’s happening now, any historical beliefs and teachings can be freely ignored. So what does one believe in the Anglican/Catholic Church?

I am not familiar with the Anglican/Catholic Church. There is a a Continuing Anglican Church with the name of the Anglican Catholic Church, but I suspect you are thinking of the Anglo-Catholic portion of any Anglican jurisdiction; those who came from the Oxford Movement and the Ritualists, a little later, in the 19th century.

Where I go again is into history. Helps to understand things.

GKC

 

[62Joy]

I’m sorry, but Anglicans thinking their Holy Orders are valid doesn’t make it so. Rome carefully looked at the question and says they’re not valid. Anglican or Episcopal priests who become Catholic are ordained “de novo” (for the first time) unless it can be demonstrated that they were validly but illicitly ordained in Apostolic Succession.
QUOTE]

I find it upsetting that someone can declare another faiths doctrine “invalid”. In reality, despite what anyone, including Rome says, none of us will know what is real or false before the day we actually stand before the Lord.

GOD IS - the rest is all interpretation.

The Church of Later Day Saints, the Mormon’s and others, all think they have it “right” as well. Not all can be 100% right. Personally, I think what God cares about is that we are all seeking Jesus and are trying to follow Him to the best of our understanding. We have no clue if an ordained priest in the Episcopal Church is any more or less a priest than a priest ordained in the Catholic Church. Only God knows that. I have seen some great Episcopal priests and some great Catholic priests. I have also seen some really bad priests in both Churches. Who knows how God looks at them? Perhaps he judges their ordinations valid or not on how well they fulfill their ministries. I don’t know and neither does anyone else. Blessings to all who are striving to follow Christ.

 

[GKC]

Katholikos;32400:

I’m sorry, but Anglicans thinking

their Holy Orders are valid doesn’t make it so. Rome carefully looked at the question and says they’re not valid. Anglican or Episcopal priests who become Catholic are ordained “de novo” (for the first time) unless it can be demonstrated that they were validly but illicitly ordained in Apostolic Succession.
QUOTE]

I find it upsetting that someone can declare another faiths doctrine “invalid”. In reality, despite what anyone, including Rome says, none of us will know what is real or false before the day we actually stand before the Lord.

GOD IS - the rest is all interpretation.

The Church of Later Day Saints, the Mormon’s and others, all think they have it “right” as well. Not all can be 100% right. Personally, I think what God cares about is that we are all seeking Jesus and are trying to follow Him to the best of our understanding. We have no clue if an ordained priest in the Episcopal Church is any more or less a priest than a priest ordained in the Catholic Church. Only God knows that. I have seen some great Episcopal priests and some great Catholic priests. I have also seen some really bad priests in both Churches. Who knows how God looks at them? Perhaps he judges their ordinations valid or not on how well they fulfill their ministries. I don’t know and neither does anyone else. Blessings to all who are striving to follow Christ.

How carefully the question was examined, before Apostolicae Curae was issued, is debatable. The history and time line of the sad, lengthy, and complicated story of that Bull can be found best set out in Fr. J. J. Hughes’ ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID, the most complete accounting I have found, of the history and personalities involved, in my 10+ years of studying the subject, from the first meeting of Halifax and Portal, in 1890. I recommend it. As always.

Whatever one thinks of the process and history, certainly all RCs should affirm what the RCC requires to be affirmed, on the subject, at the appropriate level of theological certainty, without reservation. Anglicans are free to do otherwise.

GKC