G
GKC
Guest
I have too, and so it is.
Anglicans are motley and confusing. Nomenclature is unclear.
GKC,
Some sort of Anglican
- Status
Anglicans are motley and confusing. Nomenclature is unclear.
GKC,
Some sort of Anglican
M
MaryT777
Guest
Hmmm, Aidan, does that mean if a Catholic joins the LCMS synod of LutheranismIts not really confusing. If the LCMS ever decided to come into full communion with Rome, I am pretty sure they would call themselves Evangelical Catholic. Just a hunch
The Anglo or Anglican Catholics that joined in full communion with Rome were Anglo Catholics just as you are and GKC.They just decided for full communion with the Holy See is all.
M uncle explains it as Catholic in faith and Anglican in patrimony
they can call themselves Catholic Lutherans? I’m not sure that would go over too well
there
Probably depends on if the C is Capital or not.
Maybe trade in that Book of Concorde for a CCIC C and restudy Catholicism from a different
“lense”.
Interesting though.
Mary.
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
I am an Irish Southern Catholic lol…How’s that for a labelHmmm, Aidan, does that mean if a Catholic joins the LCMS synod of Lutheranism
they can call themselves Catholic Lutherans? I’m not sure that would go over too well
there
Probably depends on if the C is Capital or not.
Maybe trade in that Book of Concorde for a CCIC C and restudy Catholicism from a different
“lense”.
Interesting though.
Mary.
G
GKC
Guest
No doubt at all, many of those who joined in communion with Rome were Anglicans of the Anglo-Catholic variety, as opposed to the more reformed troops. But the term Anglo-Catholic is historically a common one in Anglicanism running back to the 1850s. I currently see folks confused about the term today, mainly in the RCC. No one would argue that Ordinariate members, or the older Anglican Use folk are properly Anglo Catholic, or Anglican Catholics, should they wish to use the terms. But Anglo-Catholics (as a subset of Anglicans) also use it. And when you consider that Continuing Anglican Church which is formally known as the Anglican Catholic Church, it compounds confusion. Different groups who legitimately use similar terms do cause some confusion, in my experience. I’ve seen it on this board, in the past.Its not really confusing. If the LCMS ever decided to come into full communion with Rome, I am pretty sure they would call themselves Evangelical Catholic. Just a hunch
The Anglo or Anglican Catholics that joined in full communion with Rome were Anglo Catholics just as you are and GKC.
M uncle explains it as Catholic in faith and Anglican in patrimony
GKC
Anglicanus-Catholicus
G
GKC
Guest
G
GKC
Guest
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
And here I thought I had trouble being Spaniard-Puertorican-Southern-CatholicI am an Irish Southern Catholic lol…How’s that for a label
Cheers my friend! lol
G
GKC
Guest
There is no such unified entity, with a single position on the Mass, as the Anglican Church. There are a variety of Anglican opinions. I gave one, in post #148, above. The Mass is the re-presentation of the One Sacrifice, of Calvary, made present, as time and eternity intersect, at the altar, at the hands of the alter Christus. Hence it is not only a propitiatory sacrifice, it is the propitiatory sacrifice.
If you want to know what an Anglican believes, it will depend, mainly, on which Anglican you ask. Which is why I repeat so often: lots of varieties of Anglicans out there.
GKC
Anglicanus-Catholicus
G
GKC
Guest
I know a number of them. Not hard to find.There are even Reformed Anglicans
GKC
Not to my knowledge. there may be differences in Eucharistic hospitality, but not the doctrine of the real presence
This isn’t exactly correct. Luther’s view was, with support from St. Paul, there is not reason to deny the existence of bread and wine, but the bread and wine are the real and substantial body and blood of Christ.
Mr. Reymond makes a contradiction in his own presentation, or is stating his opinion, and not the Lutheran one. First he says “The Lutheran View—Consubstantiation". Then he says that we “do not call their view ‘consubstantiation’”.
The reason we don’t call it that is because our belief is not that. Mr. Reymond implies that our view really is consubstantiation, but we choose not to call it consubstantiation. So, his presentation is not accurate.
As I said, Lutherans of all synods share a common view of the real presence.Is that fair to say on his behalf? I only have the ELCA and LCMC view of the Eucharist.
The link contains a number of quotes from Lutheran theologians (not someone writing about Lutherans) regarding our rejection of consubstantiation.
stand-firm.blogspot.com/2012/06/lutheran-view-on-consubstantiation-and.html
Jon
Why not. If I can refer to myself as “Evangelical Catholic”, why not “Catholic Lutheran”?=MaryT777;10529576]Hmmm, Aidan, does that mean if a Catholic joins the LCMS synod of Lutheranism
They can call themselves Catholic Lutherans? I’m not sure that would go over too well
there
Actually, the Reformers saw themselves as fully Catholic.
Certainly our view on some aspects of catholicity is different.
Jon
H
hn160
Guest
A good book on this subject is a Confessional Lutheran Dogmatics Book Volume XII by John R. Stephenson titled The Lord’s Supper.
M
MaryT777
Guest
Jon, you need to change that small c to a Capital C in your religion area on the top rightSome of us already do.
Jon
then we’ll talk…Lol
Example: evangelical Catholic; after all you capitalize Lutheran yes?
Blessings and Peace…
Mary.
PS I like the law/gospel approach of preaching in the LCMS. (that’s off topic but just so you know
M
MaryT777
Guest
Hey, I thought you were an Irish born again Southern Catholic…I am an Irish Southern Catholic lol…How’s that for a label
Mary
Also Irish Catholic
J
joe370
Guest
Hey Jon.
If that is the correct assessment then what is being offered up to the Father is Jesus’ Body, Blood and of course mere bread and wine??? 
J
jrtrent
Guest
I’m still confused by this also. GKC had asked if you meant the Anglican Catholic Church, and you said yes, but seem to lump some other terms in along with it, as noted above.
If they were members of the Anglican Catholic Church, I find it surprising they would join an ordinariate. The quote below is from an article entitled “A response from the Anglican Catholic Church to Rome’s Offer to Former Anglicans”:
The forthcoming Constitution is in effect addressed to those who are already essentially Roman Catholic. We are not. We wish nothing but the best to Roman Catholic converts when they act in good conscience. But persons already convinced of the truth of Roman Catholic teaching in its fulness should become Roman Catholics promptly with or without the Pastoral Provision, with or without a liturgical “Anglican Use,” and with or without the new Ordinariates. . . We believe that classical Anglicanism, as presented clearly in The Affirmation of Saint Louis and in our liturgies and other authoritative formularies, is already faithful to Scripture and the Fathers and is already fully Catholic and Orthodox. Conversion is not necessary and absorption is not appropriate. anglicancatholic.org.uk/2009/11/09/a-response-from-the-acc-to-rome-s-offer-to-former-anglicans/
Did the Anglican Catholic Church change its position, or did your family members perhaps belong to some other Anglican church that has “Catholic” as part of its title?
J
jrtrent
Guest
Sorry to jump into other people’s conversations, but the above help me, I hope, to better understand the question.Hey Jon.
At least in my Anglican church, what’s being offered up to God is a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, offering “our selves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and living sacrifice unto thee.” (1928 BCP)
Holy Communion is a memorial of the sacrifice made by Christ. Here are parts of the communion service from the 1928 BCP:
thou, of thy tender mercy, didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious death and sacrifice, until his coming again . . .
we, thy humble servants, do celebrate and make here before thy Divine Majesty, with these thy holy gifts, which we now offer unto thee, the memorial thy Son hath commanded us to make . . .
And we earnestly desire thy fatherly goodness, mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; most humbly beseeching thee to grant that, by the merits and death of thy Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in his blood, we, and all thy whole Church, may obtain remission of our sins, and all other benefits of his passion. And here we offer and present unto thee, O Lord, our selves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and
living sacrifice unto thee; humbly beseeching thee, that we, and all others who shall be partakers of this Holy Communion, may worthily receive the most precious Body and Blood of thy Son Jesus Christ, be filled with thy grace and heavenly benediction, and made one body with him, that he may dwell in us, and we in him. justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1928/HC_1928.pdf
That last shows that the Lord’s Supper is not only a memorial, but also a sacrament:
Article XXV: . . . Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God’s good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him.
For clarity, I should add that the Body and Blood are received spiritually, nor corporally.
Article XXVIII: . . . The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.
With apologies for the rather blunt distinction made between the Anglican concept of the Lord’s Supper and that of some other faiths, here is another article that touches on the idea of the sacrifice of the Mass:
XXXI. Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross.
The Offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.
anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html
- Status