G
- Status
S
SteveVH
Guest
I know Anna, its the logical progression of the discussion and after we discover, to our delight, that our beliefs in the Eucharist are so similar, we then are faced with the painful truth of our separation and the questions of authority. The conversation almost had to go there.
I would not say that there is no unity. We have unity of doctrines, for the most part. The Anglican Church retained much of what is Catholic, however they did not keep the same rite of ordination. I am not equiped, nor do I have the desire at the moment, to delve into all of the history. We could all sit back and listen to GKC and learn a lot, but that really isn’t the point of the thread.
We have unity of belief and we are brothers and sisters in Christ. We are all part of the one Body, just in imperfect communion with each other.
Well, I didn’t make the charge. I am simply giving what I believe to be the Catholic Church’s position on the validity of Anglican Holy Orders, and therefore certain sacraments as well in order to explain why we are not in full communion, considering the consistency of our beliefs.
It has nothing to do with God hearing or not hearing the prayer. The question comes down to one of valid Holy Orders. I could repeat those same words and ask “doesn’t God hear these prayers”? I am not a priest so the prayer has no effect.
But Anna, we can talk about why the Catholic Church decided the way it did and wonder how it can be so unfair. But we also have to remember that there are two sides to the story. The Anglicans did change the rite and made it very clear publicly that they were disassociating themselves from the Church they once called home. The Church would say the same thing to any bishop within our Church who decided to change the rite of ordination to something other than what it has always been. So if we can ask how the Catholic Church can hold to such a position, we must also ask the Anglican Church how it can hold onto its position.
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Fair enough.
J
jrtrent
Guest
Lots of good stuff in those links, especially the first (good explanations for such things as mass stipends, the limited applicability of the fruits of the mass, and so on). I’ve read them, but I think I need to print them out for a better look. A couple of copy and pastes seem directly applicable to topics in recent posts. This first is from early in the first document:
When Leo XIII in the dogmatic Bull “Apostolicae Curae” of 13 Sept., 1896, based the invalidity of the Anglican form of consecration on the fact among others, that in the consecrating formula of Edward VI (that is, since 1549) there is nowhere an unambiguous declaration regarding the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Anglican archbishops answered with some irritation: “First, we offer the Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; next, we plead and represent before the Father the Sacrifice of the Cross . . . and, lastly, we offer the Sacrifice of ourselves to the Creator of all things, which we have already signified by the oblation of His creatures. This whole action, in which the people has necessarily to take part with the priest, we are accustomed to call the communion, the Eucharistic Sacrifice”. In regard to this last contention, Bishop Hedley of Newport declared his belief that not one Anglican in a thousand is accustomed to call the communion the “Eucharistic Sacrifice.” But even if they were all so accustomed, they would have to interpret the terms in the sense of the thirty-nine Articles, which deny both the Real Presence and the sacrifical power of the priest, and thus admit a sacrifice in an unreal or figurative sense only. Leo XIII, on the other hand, in union with the whole Christian past, had in mind in the above-mentioned Bull nothing else than the Eucharistic “Sacrifice of the true Body and Blood of Christ” on the altar. This Sacrifice is certainly not identical with the Anglican form of celebration.
That seems to explain the major difference between Catholic and Anglican celebrations of the Lord’s Supper quite well, as does this quote from further down in a section called “the effects of the sacrifice of the Mass”:
The Reformers found themselves compelled to reject entirely the Sacrifice of the Mass, since they recognized the Eucharist merely as a sacrament. Both their views were founded on the reflection, properly appraised above that the Bloody Sacrifice of the Cross was the sole Sacrifice of Christ and of Christendom and thus does not admit of the Sacrifice of the Mass. As a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving in the symbolical or figurative sense, they had earlier approved of the Mass, and Melanchthon resented the charge that Protestants had entirely abolished it. What they most bitterly opposed was the Catholic doctrine that the Mass is a sacrifice not only of praise and thanksgiving, but also of impetration and atonement, whose fruits may benefit others, while it is evident that a sacrament as such can profit merely the recipient.
C
crazzeto
Guest
I think also the subject matter of your signature is another huge impass, the idea that you are ‘fighting for orthodoxy within the communion’. The greater anglican communion has accepted today, doctrine which is antithetical to Christian teaching. This would prevent us from communing as well. Its not meant to be a slight, rather it is a realization of the current situation in which we live.Fair enough.
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
I enjoy newadvent. The site really goes in depth at explaining things. Really helpful for a forum like this.
The part that caught my eye was
XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper.
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
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.
The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.
G
GKC
Guest
Do recall that the Articles are not normative for Anglicans in general, save only, in a technical, erastian sense, for the clergy of the Church of England.I enjoy newadvent. The site really goes in depth at explaining things. Really helpful for a forum like this.
The part that caught my eye was
XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper.
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
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.
The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.
*Apostolicae Curae *is not the only topic that I am overly exercised on. Nothing lately on Henry’s Great Matter, thankfully.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
Horny Hank and his hormones (as the subject often arises) is another hobby of mine.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
That he did.
Unlike the XXXIX Articles, when Henry promulgated the Six Articles, they were meant to be obeyed. The first of which is “that in the most blessed Sacrament of the Altar, by the strength and efficacy of Christ’s mighty word, it being spoken by the priest, is present really, under the form of bread and wine, the natural body and blood of Our Saviour Jesu Christ, conceived of the Virgin Mary, and that after the consecration there remaineth no substance of bread and wine, nor any other substance but the substance of Christ, God and man”.
GKC
J
jrtrent
Guest
That statement in New Advent appears to be commentary by Bishop Hedley, who was a Catholic. The term “real presence” gets confusing because to many it necessarily implies bodily presence, yet many Anglicans will say there is a real presence even if it’s a spiritual rather than material one. The rubric on kneeling, originally written in 1552 but not included in the 1559 Book of Common Prayer, was re-inserted in the 1662 book but with a change in wording.
1552: Leste yet the same kneelyng myght be thought or taken otherwyse, we dooe declare that it is not ment thereby, that any adoracion is doone, or oughte to bee doone, eyther unto the Sacramentall bread or wyne there bodily receyved, or unto anye reall and essencial presence there beeyng of Christ’s naturall fleshe and bloude. For as concernynge the Sacramentall bread and wyne, they remayne styll in theyr verye naturall substaunces, and therefore may not be adored,
1662: lest the same kneeling should by any persons, either out of ignorance and infirmity, or out of malice and obstinacy, be misconstrued and depraved: It is hereby declared, That thereby no adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental Bread or Wine there bodily received, or unto any Corporal[n 1] Presence of Christ’s natural Flesh and Blood. For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored;
Some have written that changing the words “real and essential” in the 1552 to “Corporal Presence” in the 1662 make it clearer that the idea of a real, but spiritual, presence is within bounds of Anglican teaching. Others, of course, disagree.
G
GKC
Guest
And the answer is:That sounds like a Jeopardy category…
Horny Hank and his hormones for 200
“An undispensed diriment impediment of the justice of public honesty”
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
The Articles are the expression of the Elizabethan Compromise. Politics and religion intertwined, for the better governance of the realm.
Politics and religion were very close relatives, back in the day. Amongst everybody.
GKC
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
That may be the big “divide” one would point to. As our friend GKC always points out
there are many different views in Anglicanism.
G
GKC
Guest
If Henry has said it, in his *causa *seeking a decree of nullity with respect to his marriage to Catherine, his case would have been stronger.GKC…That’s EXACTLY what I would have said
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
Not sure there are those who advocate a material presence, though. Could be, I guess.That may be the big “divide” one would point to. As our friend GKC always points out
GKC
- Status