L
lanman87
Guest
As have I, and others.
- Status
M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
@steve-b stated “illicit” not invalid as per your post. Invalid does not mean it’s illicit and vice versa. Strictly speaking, if something is illicit, it’s against the law. Invalid means that it is not true.
Example: If I dressed up in Father’s vestments (perish the thought!), and said the words of consecration over a piece of bread and a cup of wine, it would be illicit, i.e. against the law (and Scripture as well as the teaching of the Church) AND invalid, i.e. the bread would remain bread and the wine would remain wine because I am not an ordained priest (Deo Gratias).
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
Well, it is presumption then in applying 4/5 th century circumstances to say a milennia later.
For example, would Augustine’s writings make an Orthodox Eucharist equal to a Catholic one, or Anglican one, or a Baptist one?
Does Augustine specifically state foundation for also making non Roman Catholic ordination unequal to Catholic?
It is also the weakest argument to state Augustine was Catholic, therefore would have followed any future Catholic teaching. Even Aquinas says “argument from authority” is limited or weak.
Last edited:
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
I’ve always wondered where Roman Catholics get this idea. As a former Roman Catholic, now Orthodox, I never believed this, even when I was neck deep in RC apologetics and saw myself as an “amateur RC apologist.” In documents since VII I don’t see anything hinting that Orthodox Sacraments are “illicit,” unless I’m missing something, but again, I’m Orthodox, and the Church of Rome can say whatever she wishes.
The Orthodox Church does not need the permission of the Church of Rome, or the Pope for that matter, to participate in the Holy Mysteries. We Orthodox have our own authority to follow the will of God. This authority is the same as it is in the Church of Rome.
The Pope of Rome is an important link to this Apostolic authority as it is also true that the collegitive authority that resides in the Eastern Orthodox Church as well as the Oriental Orthodox Church and the Assyrian Church of the East is another important link to this Apostolic foundation.
ZP
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
That being said, as a former RC to BC now home in the EO Church, who has almost my whole family in the RC Church, I believe that the Church of Rome is Apostolic and is able to teach and preach according to her Tradition. The issue, or schism, has to do with upper management.
ZP
ZP
M
mcq72
Guest
I know and agree with what you mean, for Paul speaks of it in an epistle. Yet I am also reminded of what some say before participating, " Lord, I am unworthy…"
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
Did they worship the Monstrance, or even have one during that time (Augustine’s time)? Did they have Eucharist adoration, processions ? Did they have a “tabernacle” for consecrated elements, even have any leftovers.? Did they genuflect while passing the altar ?
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
According to St Basil the leftover Eucharist was taken home by the faithful (I’ll have to double check however).
ZP
M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
Also see this thread:
The Eucharist and Mortal Sin do not mix --an article in a Catholic newspaper Spirituality
S
steve-b
Guest
AND
The same could be asked of your rersponses.
I have to think,
Paul was addressing this same point with Bishop Titus when he said
Titus 3:10-11 “As for a man who is factious αἱρετικὸν , after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted ἐξέστραπται and sinful; he is self-condemned αὐτοκατάκριτος .”
IOW
Paul is talking to a Catholic bishop in the Catholic Church. The Church Jesus wants everyone to be perfectly one in. Jn 17:20-23
SO
Paul didn’t waste time with a factious αἱρετικὸν person. And he was saying the same to Bp Titus. 2 responses was enough and that’s it. He’s done and obviously so is the factious αἱρετικὸν person
AND
CA addresses THEM Great Heresies
Since
millions of people read this forum, but don’t participate in this forum, conversations don’t just happen between 2 people. Millions of people at any one time might be reading any particular question or answer.
AND
THEY potentially learn from these dialogues.
AND
as Paul says, people who are factious αἱρετικὸν have a chance to change. Not an unlimited chance, but a chance to change.
SO
factious αἱρετικὸν people, reading what Paul said, see what scripture says about their condition.
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
I have heard that…thanks
M
mcq72
Guest
Yes, thank you…i think both types are healed by His Word, which we confess before receiving…generally speaking anyone who admits their unworthiness is not destitute to His
grace and call of repenting of any grievous offense, and that before receiving any communion.
S
steve-b
Guest
Taking this in stepssteve-b:
Jesus didn’t give any example of when the Eucharist would be invalid. Remember everything Jesus says is true and here He made an unequitable statement that whoever eats His flesh and drinks His blood has eternal life.
Jesus never said ANYONE could make the Eucharist happen.
THEREFORE
If the Eucharist doesn’t happen, it is invalid.
Who has the power to make the Eucharist happen? The one’s Jesus ordains
At the Last Supper
Lk 22:19
Jesus said to His apostles when He instituted the Eucharist
do this……. ποιεῖτε …Do what?
Definition:
to be the author of a thing, (to cause, bring about,) point to an actual result,
(a) make, manufacture, construct, (b) do, act, cause, to appoint or ordain one, to change one thing into another,
The apostles have the power to do what Jesus ordained them to do.
The apostles ordained others to do what they could do, …preach teach ordain etc.
Example:
apostolic succession
As far as apostolic teaching on specific matters
Through the HS, who Jesus sends, Jn 16
Even though Jesus might not have had EVERY teaching He ever gave specifically written down in the Gospels , Jesus makes His points through the HS to His apostles.
Now RE: the Eucharist
Example: Through Paul
1 Cor 11:27-31
AND
The Catholic Church who is THERE, tells us through scripture, apostolic succession /Tradition, and the consistent teaching of the magisterium, what is also illicit and what is invalid
you should open links given
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
S
steve-b
Guest
He, They, We, worship the host (the Eucharist) NOT the container, but content, what the container holds.steve-b:
Did they worship the Monstrance, or even have one during that time (Augustine’s time)? Did they have Eucharist adoration, processions ? Did they have a “tabernacle” for consecrated elements, even have any leftovers.? Did they genuflect while passing the altar ?
Last edited:
S
SyCarl
Guest
Jesus does not say who could do the Eucharist.
Jesus is not ordaining the apostles here. Ordain is one of many possible meanings of the Greek word ‘do’ used here. Even if ‘ordain’ is the intended meaning here, it relates to the pronoun ‘this’, not the apostles. ‘This’ relates to the last supper but says nothing about anything that is actually done to the bread.
The apostles did not ordain men to do what they could do. The article by Jimmy Atkin you link to recognizes this. For example apostles were given the power to perform miracles. Atkin agrees this was not passed on to others. It is convenient that everything purportedly passed on by apostolic involves things that cannot be objectively verified.
Your statement assumds something that has not been proved, ie, that the Catholic Church is the same as the original church. While it is part of that original church, there is nothing that makes being part of the church exclusive to the present Catholic Church except its own say so.
The triple legged stool of scripture, Tradition and the magisterium really means something is true simply the Catholic Church says so. This follows from the assertions that only the Catholic Church can correctly interpret scripture, that only it know what the correct Tradition is and the magisterium is the voice of the Catholic Church.
I do open the links. However nothing in them deals with my point. In John 6 Jesus says whoever eats His flesh and drinks His blood has eternal life. Jesus puts no restrictions on the whoever. Since Catholic teaching is everyone who receives the Eucharist in a Catholic Church, licitly or not, eats Jesus’ flesh and drinks His blood, it would follow that everyone who receives has eternal life. Any restriction would mean that not everyone who receives has eternal life. This is contrary to what Jesus says. Clarification cannot change whoever to not whoever and still have Jesus speaking the truth.
If what Jesus says in John 6 is not literal a contradiction does not arise. For example if He means eating and drinking is to believe in Him there is no contradiction.
M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
Right. I was trying to support you.
Last edited:
M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
On the contrary, Jesus DID ordain the Apostles at the Last Supper. That is dogmatically de fide et divina Catholicam.
S
steve-b
Guest
Augustine believed in Holy Orders as a sacrament.steve-b:
Well, it is presumption then in applying 4/5 th century circumstances to say a milennia later.
For example, would Augustine’s writings make an Orthodox Eucharist equal to a Catholic one, or Anglican one, or a Baptist one?
Does Augustine specifically state foundation for also making non Roman Catholic ordination unequal to Catholic?
Therefore he believed in all that the Catholic Church teaches on the sacrament.
The Orthodox, even though in schism, have maintained valid Holy Orders. Therefore, their consecrations of the Eucharist are valid but because of their schism from the Catholic Church , their Eucharist is illicit.
Re: Anglican orders: Declared Null and Void
AND You’re
trying to impose on a faithful Catholic bishop, who is saint and doctor of the Church, heretical ideas he wouldn’t accept
Last edited:
- Status