E
Eric_Hyom
Guest
All our differences would make a lot more sense if there were a hundred saviours, but our Lord Jesus Christ is ‘One’
- Status
S
SteveVH
Guest
I really did not want this discussion to get sidetracked into the validity of sacraments, but I suppose it is a logical progression and probably necessary to discuss as it seems to be the remaining stumbling block. A belief in the real presence does not seem to be a problem between many Anglicans and Lutherans, generally speaking, so the question becomes “is your real presence real”?
Well, there is no point in beating around the bush. The Catholic Church has made the determination that Anglican ordinations are invalid due to the changes it made in the rite of ordination. If one accepts this premise (which I realize Anglicans don’t) then it follows that one without valid Holy Orders cannot confect or administer valid sacraments.
Here is how Fr. Christopher Phillips expressed it:
“It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that in order for any sacrament to be valid, it must be administered with a proper form (i.e., using a valid rite) and with a proper intention (i.e., that no defective intention be stated or manifested externally). Because those who formulated the Anglican rite for ordination specifically expunged any reference to the traditional Catholic priesthood, and were quite public in their intention not to continue what they considered to be a “superstitious” understanding of Holy Orders, ordinations carried out using the Anglican formularies were null and void. Because the sacrament of Holy Orders is so intimately associated with the sacraments of the Holy Eucharist and of Reconciliation, these sacraments also were not able to be validly celebrated by those who were ordained according to the Book of Common Prayer.”
So that’s kind of where we are. Having said this, the Catholic Church realizes how close we are and gives the Anglican Church a special place of honor among our sperated bretheren:
From the Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio)
*"The first divisions occurred in the East, either because of the dispute over the dogmatic formulae of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, and later by the dissolving of ecclesiastical communion between the Eastern Patriarchates and the Roman See.
Still other divisions arose in the West more than four centuries later. These stemmed from the events which are commonly referred to as the Reformation. As a result, many communions, national or confessional, were separated from the Roman See. Among those in which Catholic traditions and institutions in part continue to exist, the Anglican communion occupies a special place (emphasis added)."*
That is what makes this separation even more painful. It is not really a question of belief as much as it is a question of authority. I pray that we will be one again, and soon.
C
crazzeto
Guest
Nice seeing you here Anna, been a while since I ended up getting busy and not being here much.
I would say there’s more to this than whether or not the institution is valid. It is possible there is an Anglican Priest with valid orders, and as such its possible an institution could be valid (provided the priest has the correct intention, form, and permission of his validly ordained Bishop).
That said, even in this case, and even if this is known for a fact we can’t take an Anglican Eucharist. The same existed between us and the Eastern Orthodox (and from their side, they still deny their own parishioners to accept at Roman services) despite validity. There’s just more to communion than the sacrament in and of it’s self, there is fully consent with the doctrine of the Church you are communing with.
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
Bingo
The term communion is derived from Latin communio (sharing in common). The corresponding term in Greek is κοινωνία, which is often translated as “fellowship”.
G
GKC
Guest
Indeed, though Fr. Phillip’s explication could stand a tiny tweak. As may be recalled (or not), I’ve been known to post on the sad tale of* Apostolicae Curae* on more than a few (hundreds) occasions over the years, it being a long time hobby of mine. Certainly, the conclusion expressed in Monsignor Raphael Merry del Val’s (assisted by Dom Francis Gasquet) words, over Leo XIII’s signature, should be affirmed by any RC, at the appropriate level of theological certainty. Anglicans, OTOH, may take a different view of the matter (and of the form, or the intent), as you say. Nothing new here.
If the aim of the thread was anything more than exploring the respective views on the Eucharist that RCs, Anglicans, Lutherans, and others might have on the subject, to see in what manner or degree they might approach, diverge, converge, agree, or contradict (hence my answer to Anna’s post about unity: that between my belief and hers), I mistook it. The idea that, given the RCs position on the Eucharist and the idea of communion, we might actually achieve sacramental union in the receiving of the Eucharist never occurred to me.
GKC
S
SteveVH
Guest
You didn’t mistake it. That was exactly the intent of the thread. I really didn’t want to get into valid sacraments and questions of authority. I felt that I owed Anna an explanation of why we are not in full communion with one another; that it is more a question of authority than belief in the nature of the Eucharist. It gets pretty touchy and stresses me out that we even have to discuss it. Maybe we don’t.
G
GKC
Guest
1
1AugustSon7
Guest
Oh wow that has got to be the worst argument ever.
I’m curious how a supporter of this assertion would go about arguing God into a box, such that he then can dictate to God where He, the Almighty, is allowed and not allowed to be, or in how many places at a time the Most High God may make himself truly present.
Reason can prove the claim false, because otherwise you have to argue that God isn’t actually Almighty; moreover, it’s at least scripturally “debatable”:
(Emphases mine).
Please tell me where more than five hundred Christians could possibly have safely gathered together at a time of wide-spread persecution? Was this the first World Youth Day gathering?
Jesus appeared to more than 500 people at the same time; and this is remarkable exactly because they were not all together in the same place. The fact that Jesus is absolutely in no way bound now by either space or time is one of the revelations that makes reconciling all the Ressurection accounts possible. Finally, it explains how the Prophets and Patriarchs were able to see Him, the one who seen and described as “like a Son of Man”. He is only “like” because of His risen, glorified human body/nature. We know Daniel, by “the Son of Man” means Christ, saw Christ - and we know that the Lord adopted and applied this mysterious title to Himself. However, the reason why Daniel described Him as being “like a Son of Man” might otherwise remain mysterious if we forgot that the Lord is Risen and glorified. We can compare this to, e.g., the Transfiguration where His glory is manifested to the select Apostles. God transcends all time and place and no ordinary, natural law could possibly contain or restrict Him.
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Steve,
I really didn’t intend to take the discussion in a direction not consistent with your OP.
I think what struck me is that even if our “belief and practice of the Eucharist” are the same; according to the Catholic Church, there still is no unity with Anglicans–because the Catholic Church has declared our Holy Orders invalid.
You said to GKC, “Man, do you ever sound Catholic!” when you read his description of the Holy Eucharist; and yet this does not bring unity.
It is quite a charge to declare the Anglican Eucharist invalid; because you cannot make such a declaration, unless you assume that God will not answer the Eucharistic Prayers of Anglican Priests.
That would mean that when our Priest prays: “And so, Father, we bring you these gifts. Sanctify them by your Holy Spirit to be for your people the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ our Lord,” God turns away and does not answer this prayer. The Holy Spirit does not make the bread and wine “the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ our Lord.”
Such an assumption saddens me to such an extent, I really cannot express it.
We can compare our beliefs and practices regarding the Holy Eucharist all day long. However, according to the Catholic Church, even if our beliefs and practices are exactly the same; that still does not bring unity. The position of the CC is that full unity only comes when we enter into Communion with Rome.
Steve, maybe I’m getting a bit “burned out” and need to take a break from these discussions.
Anna
.
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
crazzeto,
Wow! It has been a long time! I hope all is well with you and your family.
I understand what you are saying, and I appreciate your comments.
Peace and blessings,
Anna
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
Anna…It is a tough pill to swallow I’m sure. To a Protestant that does not believe in the RP, they could probably careless what the CC says. However, for Anglicans and Lutherans, it kind of stings I’m sure. I hate that it has to be that way.
SOOOOOO…will you join me in prayer that Christ is bring us together by the power of the Holy Spirit so that we can all sit down at the same table on day and be in full communion with one another?
SOOOOOO…will you join me in prayer that Christ is bring us together by the power of the Holy Spirit so that we can all sit down at the same table on day and be in full communion with one another?
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Pop,
Absolutely. It is a prayer we should all pray. Thanks for reminding me.
Anna
J
jrtrent
Guest
I’m sorry I wasn’t able to convince you. Does this mean you plan to continue on in your idolatrous adoration of the elements?
G
GKC
Guest
I’m not sure. I think a post may have disappeared. If so, I think I know why.
GKC
GKC
J
jrtrent
Guest
Maybe I’m one of those Aidanbradypop referred to who couldn’t care less what the CC says, and yet I already feel a unity with all Christians, including Catholics, that is quite enough for me. To borrow from Boettner’s list of common Christian essentials, we already share that the Bible is the word of God, belief in the deity of Christ, His sacrificial death on the cross for the salvation of those who place their faith in Him, the importance of keeping at least the two sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper (even if they are understood and practiced differently), the personal and visible return of Christ, the resurrection of the body and future judgement, the reality of heaven and hell, and of moral character and spiritual life.
The Catholic Church also sees that there is at least some unity with non-Catholic Christians.
Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers. . . one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."
819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”
It may not be full unity, but neither do I have that with non-Anglican Protestants, or, for that matter, with every division of Anglican. Full unity will likely not exist til the next life.
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
We still like ya
G
GKC
Guest
I’d consider the decision you made a judicious one. I’d consider a re-posting of the same an injudicious one. But my opinion is not one that would need to concern you.
GKC
- Status