The Episcapol Church and the Eucharist

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lttlflower24
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi Jim
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?
Click to expand...
Anglicans have though about this, even included in their apostolic lineage Old Catholics whose orders Rome considers valid and the CEC has apostolic lines from Roman Catholic sources… ! To us our celebrations of the Eucharist are filled with grace and the power of God and Jesus really present…others think differently! Time will tell, as will God when we all celebrate Eucharist together, maybe in heaven!

Thankyou for your charitable comments

Blessings

Serafin
 
40.png
Serafin:
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
Click to expand...
Serafin
I like how you feel you can pick and choose what to believe and reject. You’re your own boss. Don’t listen to an old Pope in Rome, your conscience has supreme authority in your life and answers to no one. Just like Henry the 8, Luther, Calvin, Photius, Rowan Williams, Crammer, Benjamin Franklin,… etc.

Because God didn’t create one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, but a lose coalition that may or may not agree on faith an morals. This is exactly what Jesus meant when he hoped Christians would “all be one”. The important thing is, God lets us decide what is right for us. If i want to use contraceptives in marriage I will because it feels like the right thing to do. Frequent confession to a priest -romish superstition. Because ultimately, there is no absolute truth. But I think Anglicans and CEC are probably closer to the truth: my truth. Thanks for letting me see the light.
 
Hello everyone:

Flower and several of you have posted quotes from the Church fathers pointing to the “superior origin” and" authority of the Church at Rome.
Please permit me to post respectfully some quotations from another ancient Christian writer of value to Christians in discerning authority and catholicity:
Vincent of Lerins…
"
Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense “Catholic,” which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent
Click to expand...
As we humbly apply this simple to statements of faith which are deemed matters of faith binding on all Christians, specially dogmas which have been “more clearly understood” or promulgated by the RCC after the catholic Church divided in 1054 … some do not seem to pass muster.

Blessings

Serafin
 
Hi…here is the rest

The call to trust and accept authority and Papal infallibility on matters of faith and morals is also concerning for this reason…
What then will a Catholic Christian do… if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty.But what, if in antiquity itself there be found error on the part of two or three men, or at any rate of a city or even of a province? Then it will be his care by all means, to prefer the decrees, if such there be, of an ancient General Council
Click to expand...
The absence of mention the unity to Rome and its infallible charism as a guarantee of orthodoxy is very telling…perhaps he was not aware of such! He does refer Christians to antiquity, and to the legitimacy of a General Council among other things.

And there is if course this…
This being the case, he is the true and genuine Catholic who loves the truth of God, who loves the Church, who loves the Body of Christ, who esteems divine religion and the Catholic Faith above every thing, above the authority, above the regard, above the genius, above the eloquence, above the philosophy, of every man whatsoever; who sets light by all of these, and continuing steadfast and established in the faith, resolves that he will believe that, and that only, which he is sure the Catholic Church has held universally and from ancient time; but that whatsoever new and unheard-of doctrine … he will undestand, does not pertain to religion, but is permitted as a trial…
Click to expand...
It is not heresy or scism that keeps many of us from union with Rome, but genuine concerns about the legitimacy of certain seemingly novel dogmas whose legitimacy can not be accepted only of the basis of authority! To us, they can not be accepted if they lack antiquity, universality and consent.

For Anglicans and many other Christians, the Catholic faith, is that which is believed “everywhere, always and by all…” ! You may not agree but I hope it helps understand non RC’s better.

Blessings

Serafin
 
40.png
Serafin:
A
Click to expand...
s we humbly apply this simple to statements of faith which are deemed matters of faith binding on all Christians, specially dogmas which have been “more clearly understood” or promulgated by the RCC after the catholic Church divided in 1054 … some do not seem to pass muster.BlessingsSerafin

As an aside, the east and west church was unified briefly during the 15th century.

This argument is useless. Our faith and morals are not decided by a majority vote. Why do you hold the church prior to 1054 is anymore correct than today? There were schismatic groups since day 1 of the church -the judizers and gnostic sects. During the arian heresy, 2/3 of the church fell into apostacy. Using your logic, we have to throw out everything that wasn’t held by all everywhere.

You’re not hearing reason. Without authority, you can believe whatever you want. AUTHORITY is the issue. The pope is that authority and can be shown by history as he was given this authority by Jesus- who is revelation himself.
 
Catholic_Girl 9:
As an aside, the east and west church was unified briefly during the 15th century.

You’re not hearing reason. Without authority, you can believe whatever you want. AUTHORITY is the issue. The pope is that authority and can be shown by history as he was given this authority by Jesus- who is revelation himself.
Click to expand...
… and then the Council of Florence (if that is what you are referring to) fell apart when the Catholics and Orthodox couldn’t agree on the issue of papal authority.

-C
 
Catholic_Girl 9:
As an aside, the east and west church was unified briefly during the 15th century.
Click to expand...
Is this an admission that the “east church” and the “west church” together are the “whole church”?
Why do you hold the church prior to 1054 is anymore correct than today?
Click to expand...
I hold that the Church was more objectively One!
There were schismatic groups since day 1 of the church -the judizers and gnostic sects. During the arian heresy, 2/3 of the church fell into apostacy. Using your logic, we have to throw out everything that wasn’t held by all everywhere.
Click to expand...
The Arrian heresy failed various tests…Scripture calls Christ, God!.. the test of antiquity, it was new! It also failed the test of universality…the 1st Ecumenical Council. And of course consent!

The same could be said for the newer papal dogmas…of course overly simplified! Not expicit in Scripture, antiquity…not explicit in early Church, universality… not believed thus by all at all times, and of course consent…half of all Christians , do not agree!
AUTHORITY is the issue. The pope is that authority and can be shown by history as he was given this authority by Jesus- who is revelation himself.
Click to expand...
Yes authority is the issue I agree…infalliblility and absolute authority that God does not seem to have explicitly and without condition given to any human, even bishops of the see of Peter!
"The true and genuine Catholic who loves the truth of God, who loves the Church, who esteems divine religion and the Catholic Faith above every thing, above the authority, above the regard, above the genius, above the eloquence, above the philosophy, of every man whatsoever … resolves that he will believe that, and that only, which he is sure the Catholic Church has held universally and from ancient time …
Do you notice dear sister how,in this gem from antiquity written by a saint, being catholic is not reduced to the mere subjection to any man…even the Bishop of Rome? :tsktsk:

Blessings

Serafin
Click to expand...
 
Serafin,

Boy, I’ve been following your posts and you’ve been doing tough duty! I just want to make sure you know that, for my part, I respect your decision to be where you are. It has always been my opinion that a lot of Catholics and Protestants will be stunned, and maybe pleasantly surprised, to see who is in heaven with them :D.

This being a Catholic apologetics forum, many amateur apologists (like myself) get lost in the excitement of getting chance for the “Coach” to put us in. I just feel sorry for the person who opened the thread “Considering becoming a Catholic”. Goodness, nobody could follow all the links and read all the encyclicals provided. Don’t take this stuff too personally and chaulk it up to overexuberence! Continue to be open to the leading of the Holy Spirit.
Blessings,

Jim
 
Yes authority is the issue I agree…
Click to expand...
Great, we’re on the same page now.
Peter Chrysologus
“We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome” (*Letters *25:2 [A.D. 449]).
Click to expand...
Council of Chalcedon
“Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the Council Fathers] and said, ‘We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out” (Acts of the Council, session 1 [A.D. 451]).
Click to expand...
Pope Leo “If in your view, [Anastasius of Thessalonica], in regard to a matter to be handled and decided jointly with your brothers, their decision was other than what you wanted, then let the entire matter, with a record of the proceedings, be referred to us. . . . Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen [to be apostles], but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others. . . . [So today through the bishops] the care of the universal Church would converge in the one see of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head” (ibid., 14:11). 455AD
Click to expand...
There are many more, I think I put down too many as is. How do you account for the historical veracity of universal authority associated with the See of Peter? You might be able to find some quotes that say there is no bishop of bishops or expressing the collegiality of the bishops, but you will not find one that speaks contrary to the authority of the Bishop of Rome, at least not until the great schism.

By the way, the reason the orthodox split off after the council of florence was from pressure from the muslims, not because of papal infallibility which hadn’t yet been defined. They didn’t want the west to help the christians of the east.
 
Catholic_Girl 9:
By the way, the reason the orthodox split off after the council of florence was from pressure from the muslims, not because of papal infallibility which hadn’t yet been defined. They didn’t want the west to help the christians of the east.
Click to expand...
That is not true at all.

The Eastern Emperor, John VIII, was the one who pushed for the Council. John personally traveled to Florence to be present at some of the sessions. He wanted to promote Christian unity because Constantinople was being pressured by the Muslims. He was hoping for help from the West.

The politics of the council were very complicated but, overall, the Orthodox did not re-unite with Rome in large numbers because of problems with Papal authority. They had reached consensus of the filioque and unleven bread. (I forgot what they did about Purgatory which was an issue that came up.) The deal breaker had to do with the relationship of the Pope to the Patriarchs.

-C
 
40.png
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? :D)

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!
Click to expand...
Greetings and apologies, ZT,

It’s been a rough couple of days, computer-wise and otherwise, and I let this slip.

You’re welcome. Any time.

The General Rubrics on Communion in the 1928 and the 1979 Prayer Books state that if there are consecrated elements remaining, after the Mass, they are to be reverently consumed, by the celebrant, other clergy, and/or, the congregation. I’ve seen this done many times, particularly with the Blood. My son-in-law, an ordained deacon, says sometimes it is fortunate that he is not a small man.

The 1979 book makes that it explicit that the Sacrament may be reserved; it is implicit in 1928 book. As I said, that priest, and those ladies of the altar guild, need a remedial course in the Sacraments.

GKC
 
The Eastern Emperor, John VIII, was the one who pushed for the Council. John personally traveled to Florence to be present at some of the sessions. He wanted to promote Christian unity because Constantinople was being pressured by the Muslims. He was hoping for help from the West.
Click to expand...
Maybe your right, but the muslims defintivley had a negative effect on the situation "The new emperor, Constantine, brother of John Palaeologus, vainly endeavoured to overcome the opposition of the Byzantine clergy and people. Isidore of Kiev was sent to Constantinople to bring about the desired acceptance of the Florentine “Decretum Unionis” (Laetentur Coeli), but, before he could succeed in his mission, the city fell (1453) before the advancing hordes of Mohammed II. " www.newadvent.com

Imagine if we were united, we could have saved constantinople from the muslim hordes. One more reason for unity under the pope.
 
Hi There:
Catholic_Girl 9]Great, we’re on the same page now.
Click to expand...
I don’t think so…!
There are many more, I think I put down too many as is. How do you account for the historical veracity of universal authority associated with the See of Peter?
Click to expand...
The primacy and authority of the see of Rome in Christendom is widely recognized by Anglicans and other Christians…his infallibility is another matter…here is Vatican I.
Vatican I
Therefore faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning
Click to expand...
of the Christian faith:that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, … by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of theChurch.
“…But if any one-which may God avert-presume to con-
tradict this our definition: let him be anathema…”

In all honesty, I dont know wether to tremble or to run when I hear this kind of language! :bigyikes:
VATICAN II
This is the **infallibility **
Click to expand...
which the Roman Pontiff, … when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful… he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, are not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in
blessed Peter. Therefore they need no approval of others, nor
do they allow an appeal to any other judgment… .
In all charity to my RC brothers and sisters, I realize that this is a dogma you are bound to believe and uphold. Please understand that for non RC Christians this is a very hard concept to accept for many reasons. One of them is Peter himself as Scripture relates!Of all the “popes” it was he who heard Jesus give him “the keys” and make the statement about “the Rock”. Yet in his interventions in matters of faith as morals as recorded in the book of Acts, or in any of his letters does he use this kind of language or make any references to these supposed perrogatives. Why would that be?:confused:

Blessings

Serafin
 
Catholic_Girl 9:
http://www.saintgregorys.org/Liturgy/Photos/10am/PreachingMR-sm.jpg

http://www.saintgregorys.org/Liturgy/Photos/10am/Fraction3-sm.jpg

Serafin,

It doesn’t matter how externally ‘catholic’ those pictures looked if the interior is rotten to the core (contraceptives, divorce, women priests, openly gay clergy)

This is from saintgregorys.org/Liturgy/
Click to expand...
Tasteless , not color coordinated, not even on a diet…and very “uncatholic”! Lord have mercy, I am horrified!

Blessings

Serafin :whacky:
 
I agree with Katholikos on this matter
I was baptized Anglican, was a lay reader in the Anglican church for many many years. The fact is they are allowed to believe almost anything that they like to believe. Some believe in the real presence and some do not and they are allowed that.They have no real authority to go to. They are actually run more like a democracy. ie. the majority wins. I searched for many years to find the true church and all that time stayed with Anglicanism because I thought it was as close as one could get until I decided to look into Catholicism. What do you know. There is where the full truth is. I converted in 2003. My wife did not because she thinks I have been indoctrinated.
For me the Catholic church is the true church and I wouldn’t want to be anywhere else. I don’t know if anyone remembers the old badges that were going around one day that said - I found it - well I did
I still have many friends in the Anglican church but the fact is there is only one! true church
I can understand the Anglican position but can not agree with it and I think that I am in good company here as I don’t think that the Pope does either.
God Bless
 
Hi There:
Vatican I
Therefore faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith:that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, … by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of theChurch.
Click to expand...
Acts…find the Chapter!!!
5Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses.” 6The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them…The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13When they finished, James spoke up: "Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon1] has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. …19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 " *…*Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas

Are we talking about the same Peter, and the same Church here or did I miss something? :confused: 😦

Blessings

Serafin
 
It is the acknowledgement of mystery in the Anglican Church that I like the best. I personally think it blasphemy whenever we think we know the Mind of God.

For example:

He was the Word that spake it
He took the bread and brake it
And what His words did make it
That I receive and take it.

Let’s all receive Christ into our hearts in whatever manner He sees fit to share Himself with us. This is the greatest of all gifts the world has ever or ever will see. God bless!.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top