Unity in the Eucharist?

[joe370]

jrtrent;10531686]Sorry to jump into other people’s conversations, but the above help me, I hope, to better understand the question.

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)

True. What about the Body and Blood of Jesus being offered up to the Father?

Holy Communion is a memorial of the sacrifice made by Christ. That last shows that the Lord’s Supper is not only a memorial, but also a sacrament:

And it is Jesus’ Body and Blood, upon the words of concentration - right?

For clarity, I should add that the Body and Blood are received spiritually, nor corporally.

Could you flesh that out a little, no pun intended. LOL…“My flesh is real food…”

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.

:thumbsup:Well, we are not eating Jesus’ visible flesh and blood so I agree, when you say, sacramentally and spiritually…

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.

Do you believe the preceding in bold?

 

[jrtrent]

Do you believe the preceding in bold?

Yes. It’s one of the Articles of Religion established by my church, so of course I believe it. Having said that, it’s not something I’ve studied out in any great detail. From commentary on the 39 Articles, I know that this article is based on the idea that “in the mass the priest is said to offer up Christ afresh, as a true propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the quick and the dead. That is to say, the mass is a repetition or iteration of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.” (An Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles, Historical and Doctrinal, by Edward Harold Browne, Lord Bishop of Winchester).

Browne spends 14 pages on this article, so I’m scarcely doing him justice in this short post, but he goes on to argue that the repetition of the Jewish sacrifices was a result of their imperfection, but that Christ’s sacrifice was a one-time event that perfected forever them that are sanctified. Therefore, “to believe in the repetition of Christ’s sacrifice is to believe in its imperfection.” And he concludes, “All combines to assure us, that the one Sacrifice has been once offered, that it admits no addition, that it can never be renewed. . . We may therefore confidently adopt the strong language of our Article, that the sacrifices of masses were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits.”

 

[Eric_Hyom]

joe370;

True. What about the Body and Blood of Jesus being offered up to the Father?

How can we divide the ‘One Jesus’ into a thousand denominations who all seem to like doing things their own way? We all claim some kind of truth.

Is division the greater sin against God?

Blessings

Eric

 

[aidanbradypop]

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?

Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter was set up in the US for Anglican Catholic Parishes that wanted to come into full communion with the Holy See. They are Catholic in every sense while they have the Anglican Use.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Ordinariate_of_the_Chair_of_Saint_Peter

 

[GKC]

Yes. It’s one of the Articles of Religion established by my church, so of course I believe it. Having said that, it’s not something I’ve studied out in any great detail. From commentary on the 39 Articles, I know that this article is based on the idea that “in the mass the priest is said to offer up Christ afresh, as a true propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the quick and the dead. That is to say, the mass is a repetition or iteration of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.” (An Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles, Historical and Doctrinal, by Edward Harold Browne, Lord Bishop of Winchester).

Browne spends 14 pages on this article, so I’m scarcely doing him justice in this short post, but he goes on to argue that the repetition of the Jewish sacrifices was a result of their imperfection, but that Christ’s sacrifice was a one-time event that perfected forever them that are sanctified. Therefore, “to believe in the repetition of Christ’s sacrifice is to believe in its imperfection.” And he concludes, “All combines to assure us, that the one Sacrifice has been once offered, that it admits no addition, that it can never be renewed. . . We may therefore confidently adopt the strong language of our Article, that the sacrifices of masses were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits.”

The Mass is not a repetition of Christ’s sacrifice. It is the same sacrifice. Not a repeated one, or an additional one, or a subsequent one, or another one, or a sequential one, or a renewed one. It’s the same one. The one at Calvary. That one.The one continually offered by the Son to the Father. There are no sacrifices. There is the One Sacrifice. Which is made present to us at the altar, in the Eucharist.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter was set up in the US for Anglican Catholic Parishes that wanted to come into full communion with the Holy See. They are Catholic in every sense while they have the Anglican Use.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Ordinariate_of_the_Chair_of_Saint_Peter

I’m not going to continue inquiring, but I’m still don’t know what Anglican entity your relatives were a part of, before they joined the Ordinariate, and came into communion with the RCC. Unless you mean they were formal members of the Anglican Catholic Church (which is a proper name of a specific Church), under Archbishop Mark Haverland.

GKC

 

[jrtrent]

Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter was set up in the US for Anglican Catholic Parishes that wanted to come into full communion with the Holy See. They are Catholic in every sense while they have the Anglican Use.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Ordinariate_of_the_Chair_of_Saint_Peter

Thanks. Given the statement I quoted before, I was just surprised to hear that some parishes within the Anglican Catholic Church went that way [edit: like GKC, I’m still not sure that when you say Anglican Catholic you are referring to a specific church organization, or if you are using the term generically to mean any Anglican church that leans toward communion with Rome].

The congregation I belong to was formerly in the Anglican Province of America. We left that organization about the time they entered into intercommunion with the Anglican Church in America, which is part of the Traditional Anglican Communion. The TAC had been seeking unity with the Roman Catholic church since 2007, when many in that organization signed the Portsmouth Petition. (theanglocatholic.com/2010/01/text-of-the-tac-petition-to-the-holy-see/)

The ACA had definitely been seeking the personal ordinariate you mentioned, though it appears many had second thoughts about that:

On March 3, 2010, in Orlando, Florida, the eight members of the House of Bishops of the ACA voted unanimously to accept the Pope’s proposal by formally petitioning the Vatican for a personal ordinariate in the United States. In September 2010, however, the bishop of the ACA Diocese of the West announced that the bishops were divided on the matter and that parishes had left the church since the earlier news broke that union with the Roman Catholic Church was anticipated by the bishops. He also stated that talks between the ACA and the Anglican Province of America concerning a possible intercommunion agreement between the two were planned. That agreement was finalized in September, 2011.

On February 5, 2011, the Chancellor of the Anglican Church in America issued a statement on behalf of the bishops of the ACA announcing that the church would remain a Continuing Anglican church. The statement also reported that one diocesan bishop who favored acceptance of the Pope’s proposal had submitted his resignation and that approximately fifteen parishes were expected to leave the ACA with him. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_Church_in_America

Anglicans are certainly a varied group. One site I read said that there are now over 150 separate groups of churches calling themselves Anglican.

 

[GKC]

Thanks. Given the statement I quoted before, I was just surprised to hear that some parishes within the Anglican Catholic Church went that way. The congregation I belong to was formerly in the Anglican Province of America. We left that organization about the time they entered into intercommunion with the Anglican Church in America, which is part of the Traditional Anglican Communion. The TAC had been seeking unity with the Roman Catholic church since 2007, when many in that organization signed the Portsmouth Petition. (theanglocatholic.com/2010/01/text-of-the-tac-petition-to-the-holy-see/)

The ACA had definitely been seeking the personal ordinariate you mentioned, though it appears many had second thoughts about that:

On March 3, 2010, in Orlando, Florida, the eight members of the House of Bishops of the ACA voted unanimously to accept the Pope’s proposal by formally petitioning the Vatican for a personal ordinariate in the United States. In September 2010, however, the bishop of the ACA Diocese of the West announced that the bishops were divided on the matter and that parishes had left the church since the earlier news broke that union with the Roman Catholic Church was anticipated by the bishops. He also stated that talks between the ACA and the Anglican Province of America concerning a possible intercommunion agreement between the two were planned. That agreement was finalized in September, 2011.

On February 5, 2011, the Chancellor of the Anglican Church in America issued a statement on behalf of the bishops of the ACA announcing that the church would remain a Continuing Anglican church. The statement also reported that one diocesan bishop who favored acceptance of the Pope’s proposal had submitted his resignation and that approximately fifteen parishes were expected to leave the ACA with him. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_Church_in_America

Anglicans are certainly a varied group. One site I read said that there are now over 150 separate groups of churches calling themselves Anglican.

I am not sure the ACC was what was meant. But I’ve given up trying to find out.

GKC

 

[jrtrent]

I am not sure the ACC was what was meant. But I’ve given up trying to find out.

GKC

Yes, I saw your post and edited mine accordingly, but not til you posted this reply. Not that it matters what their particular affiliation was, but I was surprised that it would have come out of the ACC.

 

[aidanbradypop]

I’m not going to continue inquiring, but I’m still don’t know what Anglican entity your relatives were a part of, before they joined the Ordinariate, and came into communion with the RCC. Unless you mean they were formal members of the Anglican Catholic Church (which is a proper name of a specific Church), under Archbishop Mark Haverland.

GKC

Sorry GKC…lol…They were ACC under Archbishop Haverland. Some of them are still ACC but some have left the ACC. Does that help?

Thanks. Given the statement I quoted before, I was just surprised to hear that some parishes within the Anglican Catholic Church went that way [edit: like GKC, I’m still not sure that when you say Anglican Catholic you are referring to a specific church organization, or if you are using the term generically to mean any Anglican church that leans toward communion with Rome].

Anglicans are certainly a varied group. One site I read said that there are now over 150 separate groups of churches calling themselves Anglican.

Also sorry. I guess I could have been more clear. lol They are and some were ACC.

usordinariate.org/ for the ones that left.

 

[MaryT777]

How can we divide the ‘One Jesus’ into a thousand denominations who all seem to like doing things their own way? We all claim some kind of truth.

Is division the greater sin against God?

Blessings

Eric

Eric you make a valid point. What I have come to realize is there is a delicate balance
between expressing the truth as Catholics see it…there is one true Church
the Catholic Church and Jesus established it and trying to understand more where
non Catholics are coming from in their beliefs. I am sure some of ours seem strange also
Jesus established a Church and there is no salvation outside of it.

It’s important to point out for the ‘Lurker’ and there are MANY that the Catholic Church
does indeed believe it holds the truth for the deposit of Faith. When I profess the Faith to point out the differences its because I hear from those reading the forum to learn more they are confused. Well the Lutherans and Anglicans profess real presence too so
why do Catholics consider their Eucharist invalid etc. Jesus is the source and summit of our Faith and the Eucharist is where we receive him body and blood soul and divinity.

So discussing and professing what we truly believe is important for effective dialogue.
To pretend major differences don’t matter is false ecumenism.

Blessings to you as well this Holy Week.

Blessings to you as well this Holy Week.

 

[crazzeto]

Going through RCIA several years ago (I entered the Church in 1997), I remember the class being told that if we go to some other Church other than Catholic, then we can’t receive their communion. Nor they in ours. This is because of the disparity of differences that come up here. Some Protestant churches don’t give out communion at every service. And I don’t know of any (correct me if I’m wrong) that consider it as the flesh and blood of Jesus. They may say it represents him, but that it isn’t him.

Its a mixed bag, you’ll have Lutherans and Episcopalians who claim to believe (and I’m sure really do). But that belief isn’t mandated upon the whole of the denomination (or even individual church). Even in the case where the priest believes, and even if they believe correctly and even if they have proper faculties (very rare, happens) to institute validly we still can not con-celebrate with them.

 

[GKC]

Sorry GKC…lol…They were ACC under Archbishop Haverland. Some of them are still ACC but some have left the ACC. Does that help?

Also sorry. I guess I could have been more clear. lol They are and some were ACC.

usordinariate.org/ for the ones that left.

I thank you. Though the ACA were the drivers for an approach that became the Oridnariate, Anglicans from many jurisdictions have joined through it. I have no idea even approximate numbers, but they have come from several Continuing jurisdictions I know, plus from the Episcopal Church.

GKC

 

[jrtrent]

The Mass is not a repetition of Christ’s sacrifice. It is the same sacrifice. Not a repeated one, or an additional one, or a subsequent one, or another one, or a sequential one, or a renewed one. It’s the same one. The one at Calvary. That one.The one continually offered by the Son to the Father. There are no sacrifices. There is the One Sacrifice. Which is made present to us at the altar, in the Eucharist.

GKC

I haven’t gone through them all yet, but a couple of the commentaries I’ve read on Article XXXI reference this quote from the Council of Trent, session XXII, chapter II:

*"CHAPTER II.

That the Sacrifice of the Mass is propitiatory both for the living and the dead.

And forasmuch as, in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross; the holy Synod teaches, that this sacrifice is truly propritiatory and that by means thereof this is effected, that we obtain mercy, and find grace in seasonable aid, if we draw nigh unto God, contrite and penitent, with a sincere heart and upright faith, with fear and reverence. For the Lord, appeased by the oblation thereof, and granting the grace and gift of penitence, forgives even heinous crimes and sins. For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests, who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different. The fruits indeed of which oblation, of that bloody one to wit, are received most plentifully through this unbloody one; so far is this (latter) from derogating in any way from that (former oblation). Wherefore, not only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities of the faithful who are living, but also for those who are departed in Christ, and who are not as yet fully purified, is it rightly offered, agreebly to a tradition of the apostles."*

So at least in Roman Catholicism, in their sacrifice of the mass, Christ is contained and immolated (killed as a sacrifice), though in an unbloody manner. The mass is then an offering of Christ again, one and the same victim, by the ministry of the priests, the manner alone of offering being different. This sounds to me like a repeated or subsequent or renewed sacrifice, but I’m certainly open to learning otherwise. I used to think Catholics worship Mary, but I’ve since learned the distinctions they make. Maybe the same will be true of the Eucharist.

 

[GKC]

Yes, I saw your post and edited mine accordingly, but not til you posted this reply. Not that it matters what their particular affiliation was, but I was surprised that it would have come out of the ACC.

Even within the more homogenized jurisdictions in the Continuum, Anglicans are a motley crew. My parish was formed over 30 years ago, from the most Anglo-Catholic Episcopal parish in the area. Half of those leaving that Episcopal parish went to Rome, forming one of the first 5 Anglican Use parishes in the country. The other half formed my Anglo-Catholic Continuing parish, which affiliated with one of the two jurisdictions that came out of the original ACNA.

And even in my Anglo-Catholic parish, as things now stand, the 9:00 morning service is markedly lower church than the sung Mass at 10:30.

Motley.

GKC

 

[GKC]

I haven’t gone through them all yet, but a couple of the commentaries I’ve read on Article XXXI reference this quote from the Council of Trent, session XXII, chapter II:

*"CHAPTER II.

That the Sacrifice of the Mass is propitiatory both for the living and the dead.

And forasmuch as, in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross; the holy Synod teaches, that this sacrifice is truly propritiatory and that by means thereof this is effected, that we obtain mercy, and find grace in seasonable aid, if we draw nigh unto God, contrite and penitent, with a sincere heart and upright faith, with fear and reverence. For the Lord, appeased by the oblation thereof, and granting the grace and gift of penitence, forgives even heinous crimes and sins. For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests, who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different. The fruits indeed of which oblation, of that bloody one to wit, are received most plentifully through this unbloody one; so far is this (latter) from derogating in any way from that (former oblation). Wherefore, not only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities of the faithful who are living, but also for those who are departed in Christ, and who are not as yet fully purified, is it rightly offered, agreebly to a tradition of the apostles."*

So at least in Roman Catholicism, in their sacrifice of the mass, Christ is contained and immolated (killed as a sacrifice), though in an unbloody manner. The mass is then an offering of Christ again, one and the same victim, by the ministry of the priests, the manner alone of offering being different. This sounds to me like a repeated or subsequent or renewed sacrifice, but I’m certainly open to learning otherwise. I used to think Catholics worship Mary, but I’ve since learned the distinctions they make. Maybe the same will be true of the Eucharist.

Ask the local RCs if they are taught that Christ is sacrificed again. You are reading this wrong.

GKC

 

[aidanbradypop]

So at least in Roman Catholicism, in their sacrifice of the mass, Christ is contained and immolated (killed as a sacrifice), though in an unbloody manner. The mass is then an offering of Christ again, one and the same victim, by the ministry of the priests, the manner alone of offering being different. This sounds to me like a repeated or subsequent or renewed sacrifice, but I’m certainly open to learning otherwise. I used to think Catholics worship Mary, but I’ve since learned the distinctions they make. Maybe the same will be true of the Eucharist.

Jr…we present the same sacrifice, which is eternal. Christ died once but we present the sacrifice to God. He told us to do that in memory of Him so we do. We are not killing Christ everytime Mass is held.

Christ, in Heaven, is offering Himself each time at Mass as his eternal sacrifice.

catholic.com/video/do-catholics-re-sacrifice-christ

 

[GKC]

Jr…we present the same sacrifice, which is eternal. Christ died once but we present the sacrifice to God. He told us to do that in memory of Him so we do. We are not killing Christ everytime Mass is held.

Christ, in Heaven, is offering Himself each time at Mass as his eternal sacrifice.

catholic.com/video/do-catholics-re-sacrifice-christ

Yep.

GKC

 

[MaryT777]

Even within the more homogenized jurisdictions in the Continuum, Anglicans are a motley crew. My parish was formed over 30 years ago, from the most Anglo-Catholic Episcopal parish in the area. Half of those leaving that Episcopal parish went to Rome, forming one of the first 5 Anglican Use parishes in the country. The other half formed my Anglo-Catholic Continuing parish, which affiliated with one of the two jurisdictions that came out of the original ACNA.

And even in my Anglo-Catholic parish, as things now stand, the 9:00 morning service is markedly lower church than the sung Mass at 10:30.

Motley.

GKC: What does lower church mean?
Mary.

GKC

 

[JonNC]

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???

It isn’t what is being offered up, but what Christ offers us: His true and substantial body and blood. How God deals with the elements of the bread and wine after the verba is His determination. And I think it speaks well, Joe, to the mystery that is the Eucharist; “He took bread, gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to them saying, take and it, this is my body.”
Clearly, it is not mere bread and wine we receive, but the true body and blood of Christ. How bread and wine can be the true body and blood is, indeed, a mystery. That it is a mystery does not mean it isn’t so.

Jon