The Episcapol Church and the Eucharist

[GKC]

Catholic_Girl 9:

Schismatic Anglican Churches
African Orthodox Church
African Orthodox Church of the West African Orthodox Episcopal Church
American Episcopal Church
Anglican Mission in America
Anglican Province of Christ the King
Charismatic Episcopal Church Communion of Evangelical Episcopal Churches
Free Church of England
Free Protestant Episcopal Church
Reformed Episcopal Church Southern Episcopal Church
Anglican Church in America

Here are 13 different anglican churches not in communion with each other. Im sure there are a lot more.

There are. You missed one of the biggest, the Anglican Catholic Church, among several others. And some are no longer in existence, or have merged with others. And not all of these are not in communion with one another. And not all are Anglican Churches in the sense you mean. The Anglican Mission in America is an association of ECUSA parishes. The status of Anglicanism these days is a subject not for amateurs

Most of these groups were formed after 1978 (The REC particularly excepted), and are reactions to the decline in orthodoxy of the ECUSA. Do I wish they were all one (where have I heard that)? Sure I do.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Ave, friend Contarini,

You: “You make a great fuss about the fact that there are a number of tiny Anglican groups that are not part of the Anglican Communion. With all due respect to my friend GKC (quem omni honore saluto), all of the Continuing groups together might populate one diocese of the Anglican Communion. That is not to say that they are to be ignored or dismissed, only that to say “Anglicanism has split into hundred of groups” lacks perspective.”

My best guess is that if you did a comprehensive floor sweeping, you’d get maybe 50 thousand +, of all the fractured Continuum. And a few more for those outside it. Not sure what the count on the CEC would be, but, as you know, it’s not in the Continuum. I’'ve heard large numbers for it. That’s in the US. But then, have you seen the figures that the TAC is reporting? The TAC is looking very interesting.

Dominus tecum, frater.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus

 

[ZoeTheodora]

Hi, GKC:

As far as I know, it was not a piscina. The clergyman specifically mentioned the sink in the kitchen attached to the parish hall–IOW, the same sink that would presumably be used during the English equivalent of potluck dinners. (Is there an English equivalent of potluck dinners? )

I appreciate your comment about RCs who practice ABC, but here’s where I see the difference: RCs who practice ABC are in direct violation of Church Teaching…and there is an explicit, defined Church Teaching in the case. But as for the Altar Guild ladies who poured the elements down the sink: Were they in violation of any explicit Anglican Teaching? Is there an explicit Anglican teaching on such matters? If not, then how could they violate it? IOW, what is to prevent any Altar Guild from doing just what these ladies did? And why shouldn’t any Altar Guild do so, if there’s no rule to forbid it? (Assuming there isn’t, that is.)

Thanks for the background info on the BCP, BTW. I knew there were various theological strands interwoven in the Anglican Eucharistic liturgy…thanks for untangling them for me!

God bless,

Your admiring cyber-friend, ZT a/k/a Diane

 

[Serafin]

Catholic_Girl 9]Schismatic Anglican Churches

Charismatic Episcopal Church
Here are 13 different anglican churches not in communion with each other. Im sure there are a lot more

Dearest sister in Christ! Please allow me to correct you in this point.

Yes there are various bodies which use the name Anglican who are not in communion with the Anglican Communion. The Charismatic Episcopal Church however is by no stretch of the imagination a scism from Anglicanism or at all…

“Uniquely, the ICCEC is not a schism or splinter group from another denomination” … www.iccec.org

Please check your facts before publishing. Charismatic clergy and laity from various denominational backgrounds including RC’s merged to form the CEC, its apostolic sucession is not Anglican at all but comes from the Catholic Apostolic Church of Brazil.
Yes, the liturgy in CEC churches and the flavor is Anglican but scism…hardly!

There could be greater unity among “Anglicans” and it may be that among conservatives and Traditional Anglicans such will yet come to pass.

By your standards , the same could be said of you:

Roman Catholics, Lefebrist Traditional Catholics, Old Catholics, Polish National Catholic Church, Catholic Apostolic Church of Brazil …etc…all of these are groups originating in Latin Catholic Christendom are also schismatic from one another!

Blessings

Serafin

 

[Catholic_Girl_9]

By your standards , the same could be said of you:

Roman Catholics, Lefebrist Traditional Catholics, Old Catholics, Polish National Catholic Church, Catholic Apostolic Church of Brazil …etc…all of these are groups originating in Latin Catholic Christendom are also schismatic from one another!

you just don’t seem to get it. Do you know what all these groups have in common? They reject the authority of the Pope. By doing so they are no different than Anglicans or Baptists, Lutherans or any other group not in communion with the church. There are just different levels of similarity.

Do you know what every Protestant/Anglican denomination have in common? No authority.

Pope Damasus I "

Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).
you have a choice: leave Anglicanism and be part of the one true church - the Catholic Church, or continue to split into smaller factions and continue to have no absolute truth.

By the way, do you think it’s any coincidence that sola scriptura took off a mere 50 or so years after the invention of the printing press??

 

[JimO]

Serafin,

Before I leap into the fray again, I want to commend you on your restraint - that goes for everyone! This is an emotional issue and on other threads people have resorted to personal attack.

It’s hard as a RC to say this without sounding self righteous. Believe me, I know I’m a sinner and fallible and subject to opinions an understandings that are wrong. But, the Eucharist comes down to objective truth. At a given service, the final result of the prayers and actions of the participants and celebrant is either the transubstantiated Body and Blood of Christ or it is not. Although I’m sure that the Lord blesses the sincere actions and beliefs of a given participant with special grace whether transubstantiation occurs or not, this miracle is an objective truth and no amount of fervent belief, desire or prayer by the participants can change that. Do you agree?

For example, if a Catholic priest decides to do his own thing and use rice cakes instead of bread, the rice cakes will not become the Body of Christ no matter what the people in the pew or the priest himself think or believe.

Thus, and this is where it’s tough, if (and I will say if at this point) the Anglican Church does not have a valid priesthood with the authority to consecrate the bread and wine, no amount of cerimony, vestments or even reverence will change the fact. On the other hand, even in the face of irreverence and apathy (as we sadly see in many RC parishes) a valid priest saying a valid Mass results in the Body and Blood of Christ.

It then goes back to my point of several days ago. Authority. I’m not going to argue that Anglicans (and churches that claim apostolic succession through the CoE) don’t have the Real Presence. I’m not theologically trained to make that judgement. And believe me, I could not maintain your restraint in the face of a bunch of Catholics basically saying that you are in the wrong church. Forgive our arrogance - although I don’t think that is what is intended.

You have a good heart and are intelligent and obviously want to do the right thing. If you agree with me that the consecration of the Eucharist into the Body and Blood of Christ is an objective truth that only occurs under certain conditions by individuals with the office to do so, then I would ask you only to look into the authority issue and keep an open mind. The Eucharist is heaven on earth and the greatest gift left by Christ. If there is even the remote chance that apostolic succession ceased when the Anglican Church formed, wouldn’t that be grounds for an honest examination of the possibility? That’s all I’m suggesting. I’m not claiming that Catholics have it all together. Your points regarding how many Catholics hold ideas that are, basically, heretical are correct. We can be a pretty sorry bunch at times. But, as my pastor is fond of saying, “the faith cannot be judged by the poor practice of it.”

Blessings - Really,

Jim

 

[GKC]

JimO,

Excellent post, well worded. Charitable and soft spoken.

Good show.

Of course, Anglicans believe that AC was an error (not a totally illogical one, but an error, with an admixture of politics in the decision; the Revenge of the Recusants), and Anglican orders are valid, hence the Sacrament is confected, assuming the matter, form and intent are as required. The ordained minister is. If any RC said the same, I’d send him to the source.

Dominus tecum, frater.

GKC

traditional Anglican

 

[JimO]

GKC,

Just curious, what’s with the initials? G.K. Chesterton?

 

[GKC]

JimO:

GKC,

Just curious, what’s with the initials? G.K. Chesterton?/QUOTE

Yep.

Almost 40 years ago, I discovered Chesterton, while first moving in a Catholic direction back in college (to be deep in history, as our boy Newman said). It grew out of my fondness for classical msytery fiction,and especially the works of John Dickson Carr (a connection not as obscure as it might seem). I likewise grew very fond of, and collected Belloc, Williams, Lewis, Sayers, Lunn, Knox, and others of that ilk. But Chesterton was my favorite. I’ve read studied and collected him since about 1965. Got about everything he wrote, that was published between covers, except the recently collected newspaper columns.

I have occasionally remaked that if Chesterton couldn’t get me across the Tiber, after 40 years, it’s unlike anything mundane will.

GKC/Jim

 

[Servant1]

Well, gentle readers, let’s talk for a moment about validity.

What is it? What doe it give us? What is invalidity? What it give us? What does it not give us? Those are simple, but important questions.

Orthodox theologians I have read have put this well, and some Catholic ones as well, and I think it is well understood that the Spirit blows where he wills. Further, I think it is well understood that while one gift of validity is that we can be certain and sure where the Church is, we cannot be equally sure about defining where the Church is not. Especially in terms of grace.

The validity of a sacrament (or mystery, tou use the Eastern term) is something that gives us a certain guarantee. If we accept a simple definition of a sacrament as an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace, we can further talk about the fact that a valid sacrament (valid in all its component parts, and received in faith) has an objective reality, and is guaranteed to impart the grace intended by God and the Church.

The lack of validity - or invalidity, if you will - means that the guarantee of imparting grace is not there. It is at THIS point that we need to be reminded that the absence of a GUARANTEE of grace is not the same as a guarantee of absence of grace! They are two different things. Grace is imparted by the Spirit, and the action of the Spirit in imparting grace is not limited by canon law, Petrine primacy, or anything else. We have no guarantee in scripture or elsewhere that the Spirit cannot impart grace where, when, and how the Spirit desires to impart grace.

The Church says we can see validity of Holy Orders and Sacraments, and we can vouchsafe that grace is imparted by the same. The Church says, rightly so, that where we see this, we can define “Here is Church.”

It is nothing new, nor is it radical change, for theologians to recognize that grace can be imparted by the action of the Spirit in ways not seen or not understood by the Church.

So my opinion is that, being individuals who recognize our own fallen-ness, and who know we must remove the plank from our own eyes before we undertake to remove the dust from our brother’s eye, we must be very careful about declaring that others who want to and try to follow Christ are guaranteed to have no grace imparted to them by anything they say or do. We may be able to say of a surety that invalidity does not give them the guarantee of imparted grace. But we can also say, with equal surety, that invalidity does not guarantee that they cannot receive grace by the volition of the Spirit.

Charis kai eirene!

 

[Catholic_Girl_9]

GHC

I have occasionally remaked that if Chesterton couldn’t get me across the Tiber, after 40 years, it’s unlike anything mundane will.

The church teaches, “those who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity”.

“Be not deceived, my brethren: If anyone follows a maker of schism *, he does not inherit the kingdom of God; if anyone walks in strange doctrine *, he has no part in the passion [of Christ]. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop, with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons” (*Letter to the Philadelphians ***3:3–4:1 [A.D. 110]).
If you acknowledge it was a mistake for the Anglican’s to split from the church, how can you stay with it?

Maybe it’s too hard to be Catholic, to many rules, too universal. This isn’t entirely academic. There are very intellegent educated people who don’t join the Catholic Church for any number of reasons. Look at how many Catholic theologins fall away from the truth. It takes humility.

 

[GKC]

Catholic_Girl 9:

GHC

“K” for “Keith”, not “H” for “Heretic”, please. (I don’t use emoticans, but imagine a smiling one here).

The church teaches, “those who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity”.

Yes, the RCC certainly teaches that.

If you acknowledge it was a mistake for the Anglican’s to split from the church, how can you stay with it?

That is certainly a legitimate question for anyone who is described in the first half of your sentence.

Maybe it’s too hard to be Catholic, to many rules, too universal. This isn’t entirely academic. There are very intellegent educated people who don’t join the Catholic Church for any number of reasons. Look at how many Catholic theologins fall away from the truth. It takes humility.

It certainly does. Humility is a great virtue. And I find it hard indeed.

Dominus tecum. soror.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus.

 

[Catholic_Girl_9]

GKC,

Of course, Anglicans believe that AC was an error (not a totally illogical one, but an error, with an admixture of politics in the decision; the Revenge of the Recusants), and Anglican orders are valid,

You admit your religion is founded on a error. But you stay anglican??

Do you know how to separate the men from the boys who call themselves “catholic” -Humanae Vitae

You religion is one big mess. The anglicans made a huge mistake with Lambeth conference 1930 (I think). That’s when they decided based on purely human means that contraceptives is ok. Obviously, no Holy Spirit was at work, just secular spirit. Now look at the Anglican communion and society in general. As society bends, Anglicanism bends. You’re fighting a loosing battle. The Catholic Church hasn’t fallen into heresy in 2000 years. Join the winning team.

By the way, I think you would like Fr. Rutler. I’m sure you have heard of him, he’s a neat guy.

 

[Serafin]

Hi sister:

How does this support sola scriptura? if anything it only supports the veracity of the Old Testament. The message here is not that the Bereans were more noble because they practiced the right of self interpretation but because they recieved the messege from the church with great eagerness.

Well dear I was not in any way suggesting this was a proof text for Sola Scritura…I don’t believe that! However Scripture is the principal ,unchangeable source of Apostolic teaching and Tradition as you know : “Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ”. There is also the detail that Scripture is …the written Word of God!

I find the text interesting because although the Bereans received the news of the Gospel with joy…they did not neglect to look in the Scriptures they had available…to see if it was true.! There was no buying it “hook line and sinker” as some would have us do!

Those pictures are ok but why worship a piece of bread? If you don’t believe in transubstantiation, you’re worshiping bread and that is idolatry.

As far as I know no one worships bread but we do worship Christ present in the Blesssed Sacrament. Transubstantiation is a word coined by the RCC to attempt to explain a mystery that defies complete explanation: How Christ can be present under the guise of inanimate matter! Many Christians find this terminology inadecuate and prefer to speak of the Real Presence of Christ.You of course know that Christians in the first centuries of the Church did not use said terminology when refering to the Eucharist.

You should also note I have asked several questions which none of you have adressed despite throwing the T word around:

1. Where do the bread and wine molecules and atoms go after the consecration ? Are they still there?
2. What are accidents? How does the concept relate to what we now understand of science?
3. Why does Christ’s blood taste like wine?
4. Why does St Paul refer to bread and the Body of Christ interchangeably in Scripture?

Would you care to comment on these now?

Without valid orders, all the good intention in the world will not transform it into the body and blood of Jesus. (this is not to say that there may be some valid ordinations by orthodox or old catholics).

Wether validity to the RCC means the same to God is something you have yet to prove! You obviously think the approval of your Church has more power than both the words of Christ at consecration and the invocation of the Holy Spirit. That is quite an eye opener!

As far as Anglicans go their claim to valid orders … are the same as yours. CEC orders come from the RCC so if yours are valid ours certainly are…!

God hears "pedigree and geneaology " discussions and either pukes, cries or laughs uncontrollably…we will find out for sure one day!

What I find amusing is that you’re trying so hard to be catholic without admitting Anglicanism/protestantism is inhieratrantly flawed. You’re not Catholic no matter how hard you try to look if you’re not in communion with the See of Peter.

Catholic Girl …we dont have to try to be catholic and certainly not RC. There is great depth and a beauty in the liturgy and spirituality of the Anglican Tradition …that nothing your Church has can add to. Many of us would not trade that for what you have in Rome. Yes we have inherent flaws which we admit to…You, on the other hand, do not seem to see or admit yours. What you seem to offer is absorption, submission, but certainly not communion…Precisely because we are Christians who value the Anglican Tradition we dont run to be your brand of Catholic.:tiphat: !

p.s. contraceptives are always wrong, even in marriage, and there is no such thing as a divorce. Notice how not one anglican church teaches this - I wonder why???

Your opinion about contraceptives is not shared by most Catholics! It is a little hypocritical to allow NFP as many catholics … frown on “artificial contraception”…which has the same objective!

Divorce happens to millions of Christians many of them Catholic! It also happened in Scripture … and although horrible and sad…life must go on!

Blessings

Serafin

 

[Catholic_Girl_9]

Your opinion about contraceptives is not shared by most Catholics! It is a little hypocritical to allow NFP as many catholics … frown on “artificial contraception”…which has the same objective!

How is this relavent? The church is made up of sinners, but the teachings are absolute. This wouldn’t make the teachings not true. As Cardinal Ratzinger says, “Truth is not decided upon by a majority vote” -unlike the CEC.

Wether validity to the RCC means the same to God is something you have yet to prove! You obviously think the approval of your Church has more power than both the words of Christ at consecration and the invocation of the Holy Spirit. That is quite an eye opener!

Explain this:

Irenaeus “But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

I’m not going to waste my time trying to defend every Catholic dogma. It’s based on authority, either you accept it, or you don’t. In which case you’re wrong. Look it up, buy a Catholic Catechism. It puts the CEC/Episcopal/Anglican Catechism to shame.

 

[GKC]

GKC,

Quote:
"Of course, Anglicans believe that AC was an error (not a totally illogical one, but an error, with an admixture of politics in the decision; the Revenge of the Recusants), and Anglican orders are valid, "

You admit your religion is founded on a error. But you stay anglican??

No, ma’am. I’m sorry that I worded my sentence unclearly. That’s talking about Apostolicae Curae (AC), and the error mentioned was that of Monsignor Raphael Merry del Val, Dom Francis Aidan Gasquet, Herbert Cardinal Vaughan, and a number of Cardinals on a commission of the Holy Office, inter alia, in 1896. And, in the end, His Holiness, Leo XIII.

Do you know how to separate the men from the boys who call themselves “catholic” -Humanae Vitae

You religion is one big mess. The anglicans made a huge mistake with Lambeth conference 1930 (I think). That’s when they decided based on purely human means that contraceptives is ok. Obviously, no Holy Spirit was at work, just secular spirit. Now look at the Anglican communion and society in general. As society bends, Anglicanism bends. You’re fighting a loosing battle. The Catholic Church hasn’t fallen into heresy in 2000 years. Join the winning team.

By the way, I think you would like Fr. Rutler. I’m sure you have heard of him, he’s a neat guy.

Fr. Rutler was an absolute gem of the Anglo-Catholic side of Anglicanism. He is an equally admirable Roman Catholic. If memory serves, he was present at the Congress of St. Louis, in 1977, when we traditional Anglicans took our leave of ECUSA.

GKC

 

[Serafin]

Servant1:

Well, gentle readers, let’s talk for a moment about validity.

What is it? What doe it give us? What is invalidity? What it give us? What does it not give us? Those are simple, but important questions.

Orthodox theologians I have read have put this well, and some Catholic ones as well, and I think it is well understood that the Spirit blows where he wills. Further, I think it is well understood that while one gift of validity is that we can be certain and sure where the Church is, we cannot be equally sure about defining where the Church is not. Especially in terms of grace.

The validity of a sacrament (or mystery, tou use the Eastern term) is something that gives us a certain guarantee. If we accept a simple definition of a sacrament as an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace, we can further talk about the fact that a valid sacrament (valid in all its component parts, and received in faith) has an objective reality, and is guaranteed to impart the grace intended by God and the Church.

The lack of validity - or invalidity, if you will - means that the guarantee of imparting grace is not there. It is at THIS point that we need to be reminded that the absence of a GUARANTEE of grace is not the same as a guarantee of absence of grace! They are two different things. Grace is imparted by the Spirit, and the action of the Spirit in imparting grace is not limited by canon law, Petrine primacy, or anything else. We have no guarantee in scripture or elsewhere that the Spirit cannot impart grace where, when, and how the Spirit desires to impart grace.

The Church says we can see validity of Holy Orders and Sacraments, and we can vouchsafe that grace is imparted by the same. The Church says, rightly so, that where we see this, we can define “Here is Church.”

It is nothing new, nor is it radical change, for theologians to recognize that grace can be imparted by the action of the Spirit in ways not seen or not understood by the Church.

So my opinion is that, being individuals who recognize our own fallen-ness, and who know we must remove the plank from our own eyes before we undertake to remove the dust from our brother’s eye, we must be very careful about declaring that others who want to and try to follow Christ are guaranteed to have no grace imparted to them by anything they say or do. We may be able to say of a surety that invalidity does not give them the guarantee of imparted grace. But we can also say, with equal surety, that invalidity does not guarantee that they cannot receive grace by the volition of the Spirit.

Charis kai eirene!

Well, what can I say? …A breath of fresh air!

Blessings

Serafin

 

[Serafin]

Catholic_Girl 9]
you just don’t seem to get it. Do you know what all these groups have in common? They reject the authority of the Pope. By doing so they are no different than Anglicans or Baptists, Lutherans or any other group not in communion with the church. There are just different levels of similarity.

Dear Sister in Christ:

I obviously do not get it thankfully…although you make it sound so simple ! I do get that you classify “scism” among Anglicans differently that scism in your own church…that is interesting to note.

you have a choice: leave Anglicanism and be part of the one true church - the Catholic Church, or continue to split into smaller factions and continue to have no absolute truth.

The One true Church? … but I was baptized already, does that not count? It seems to! According to Scripture and your Catechism no less! Anglicans, by virtue of their baptism, also believe they are part of the Holy Catholic Church as no doubt are you. There are no second class citizens in the Body of Christ…" for by one Spirit were we all baptized into the body and we all were given to drink of the same Spirit…".

As far as truth…God is the only Absolute Truth, Jesus is the Truth, The Spirit is the Spirit of Truth, the Word of God is Truth…the church that has Him , loves and honors Him…cannot help but to have Truth.

Your Churches dogmas, many of which I and all Christians hold as truth, are human attempts to explain divine truth but are not Absolute in themselves… they are our interpretation of what God has revealed! In addition some of the latter ones, seem highly improbable, unprovable outside of appeal to authority and absent from the most reliable source of Divine Truth which is Holy Scripture.

Thanyou for your invitation to join the RCC…been there and done that…I 'll stay here for now!:tiphat:

By the way, do you think it’s any coincidence that sola scriptura took off a mere 50 or so years after the invention of the printing press

Its amazing what can happen when people can read for themselves…good things and bad ones …eternity will have the final verdict I am sure!

Blessings

Serafin

 

[Serafin]

I’m not going to waste my time trying to defend every Catholic dogma. It’s based on authority, either you accept it, or you don’t. In which case you’re wrong. Look it up, buy a Catholic Catechism. It puts the CEC/Episcopal/Anglican Catechism to shame.

I am going to assume that you can answer the questions I asked about Transubstantiation but choose not to…that is ok with me.

The Catholic Catechism is a gem , highly recommended reading for all Christians , of course there is that 2 or 3 pages us heretics and schismatics cut out! Unfortunately it does not answer the questions I asked you! Woe is me…!

Blessings

Serafin

 

[Serafin]

Hello Jim:

It’s hard as a RC to say this without sounding self righteous… But, the Eucharist comes down to objective truth. At a given service, the final result of the prayers and actions of the participants and celebrant is either the transubstantiated Body and Blood of Christ or it is not.

I agree except for the “transubstantiated” part…I do not claim to know that it happens exactly that way… but yes it is - Christ is either present or not!

Although I’m sure that the Lord blesses the sincere actions and beliefs of a given participant …this miracle is an objective truth and no amount of fervent belief, desire or prayer by the participants can change that. Do you agree?

Agree! Except unlike truth that can be objectively measured, this miracle has to be accepted by faith . There is no way that a consecrated host from “invalid” Anglican Eucharist can be distinguished from a “valid” Roman Catholic one using scientific methods. Both have bread and wine molecules and atoms and taste the same…Christ cannot be objectively measured! Herein a problem, human subjectivity, opinion, disagreement, judgement…these which can not in reality be completely objective truth enter into validity. Most inconvenient for measuring this objective truth, so RC’s have their opinion , Anglicans theirs , and God is not saying!

Thus, and this is where it’s tough, if (and I will say if at this point) the Anglican Church does not have a valid priesthood with the authority to consecrate the bread and wine, no amount of cerimony, vestments or even reverence will change the fact.

That is an “if” …which in our view, cannot be objectively proven as truth. As to validity I refer you to another post that, without advancing Anglican claims, seemed balanced.

It then goes back to my point of several days ago. Authority.
If you agree with me that the consecration of the Eucharist into the Body and Blood of Christ is an objective truth that …I would ask you only to look into the authority issue and keep an open mind. The Eucharist is heaven on earth and the greatest gift left by Christ.

The issue of legitimate authority in the Church certainly is at the root of all the divisions in Christendom. Admitting great limitations and fallibility on my part, I find no easy, pat answers to this question. Even if I very much wanted to, I cannot see in Scripture or early Tradition infallibillity granted to any individual apart from that possibly granted to the Church in Council.

Blessings

Serafin