Y
YoungApologist3
Guest
So people can belong to the ACC just like they can belong to an EC rite? I figured that they were just Latin rite.
Why are high Chuch Anglicans not allowed to receive Communion in a Catholic Church but the Eastern Orthodox are?
- Status
blackforest
Well-known member
Sorry - not reading this clearly. Do you mean that the ACC is Latin rite?
Y
YoungApologist3
Guest
That’s what I thought they were. I thought they were Latin Rite with permission to celebrate Mass according to corrected Anglican rubrics. They are an entirely separate rite?
EDIT: OHHHH do you mean Armenian Catholic Church by ACC?
EDIT: OHHHH do you mean Armenian Catholic Church by ACC?
Last edited:
W
Wesrock
Guest
I’ve seen some EO who are fine with the term transubstantiation. It strikes me that many EO, Anglicans, and Lutherans attach more Aristotlean metaphysical baggage to the term transubstantiation than the Catholic Church actually considers doctrine. It’s not Aristotlean, though it’s been elaborated in Aristotlean terms by some theologians.
All it means is that it is no longer bread and it has changed into Jesus, even if it still looks like, feels like, tastes like, and is chemically identical to bread. There has been a change in what it “is” (trans substantiation) if not in how it appears (appears meaning more than just sight). The terms accidents and species in this are not strictly defined as only Aristotlean terms and simply means what I mentioned above.
Last edited:
blackforest
Well-known member
Sorry - ACC=Anglican Catholic Church. http://www.anglicancatholic.org/
I should have realized that ACC could stand for quite a bit, lol! Anyway, we were not Latin rite.
I grew up believing in the True Presence in the Eucharist. So is this consubstantiation? I’m still learning a lot.
I should have realized that ACC could stand for quite a bit, lol! Anyway, we were not Latin rite.
I grew up believing in the True Presence in the Eucharist. So is this consubstantiation? I’m still learning a lot.
Last edited:
Y
YoungApologist3
Guest
It’s all good!
Huh. You learn something new every day.
This is transubstantiation. The substance of the bread and wine is entirely gone, only with the appearance (in Aristotlean terms, “accidence”) of bread and wine. Consequently, whenever the accidence of the bread or wine is gone, so is the body and blood.
We might want to start another thread if we want to continue this conversation. I don’t want to take over this one.
Last edited:
T
twf
Guest
Its right there in canon law. The EO and the OO are invited to receive assuming they are properly disposed and obedient to the rules of their own respective Churches. The Catholic Church allows Catholics to receive from their ministers only if we do not have access to a Catholic minister… and of course with their permission.
T
twf
Guest
Some Anglicans do hold a view of the Real Presence that definitely approaches the Catholic view. At the end of the day this isn’t enough. As they don’t have valid holy orders, they don’t have the Eucharist in their own churches nor can they receive sacramental absolution. You Orthodox, from a Catholic perspective, have both a valid Eucharist and valid confession.
Of course, high church Anglicans and Lutherans may receive Catholic communion under extraordinary circumstances such as danger of death- there is a provision in canon law.
Of course, high church Anglicans and Lutherans may receive Catholic communion under extraordinary circumstances such as danger of death- there is a provision in canon law.
blackforest
Well-known member
I mentioned it because I was a high church Anglican Catholic allowed to receive Communion in the Roman Catholic Church. I was hoping to address the OP’s question in showing that I believe high church Anglicans can, indeed, receive Eucharist in a Catholic parish.
blackforest
Well-known member
For anyone interested, “Anglicans” come in many stripes and colors. Before I became a Roman Catholic, this was my stripe and color: http://www.anglicancatholic.org/believe?class=greenlink
The RCC may not hold a lot of this as “valid” but we’re talking fine-tooth-comb as far as theological differences go.
Last edited:
S
steido01
Guest
Amateur hour, indeed. Lutherans do not and never have professed Consubstantiation.
As I’ve explained ad nauseum, Lutherans simply acknowledge that Christ is really, truly, physically present in every possible way (in, with, under, around, over, behind, whatever-- it’s real, not merely spiritual, like in Calvinism) and do not attempt to explain how this happens like Transubstatiationists or Consubstantiationists. Similar to the Orthodox. Or many pre-Tridentine Catholics, for that matter.
See, Consubstantiation, like its cousin Transubstantiation, supposes that changes or additions happen in the ‘accidents’ and ‘substances.’ Consubstantiation essentially creates a third ‘thing’ from the combination of bread/wine with Body/Blood, while Transubstantiation essentially believes that the first things (bread/wine) cease to exist altogether. In other words, Consubstantiation and Transubstantiation are Aristotelian concepts; they are based on reason:
- Transubstantiation reasons that the entire “substance” of the bread and wine is changed into Christ’s Body and Blood, until only the “accidents” of bread (taste, consistency, color, etc.) remain.
- Consubstantiation reasons that the bread and the wine and the Body and the Blood are united in some way that, more or less, creates some new, third substance. I don’t know of any sect today that actually believes in Consubstantiation, though even some Lutherans have been duped into using the term (but not the beliefs behind it, thank God!). Consubstantiation has been explained as:
- As an actual creation of a new, third substance
- As impanation - where the substances don’t change, but Christ’s presence is substantially stored in the substance of the bread and wine
- As incorporation - where the substances don’t change, but Christ’s presence is mingled into the substance of the bread and wine
- In countless other messy, over-thought interminglings** of the “substances” and “accidents” in an array of almost comical combinations.
- Sacramental Union, which Lutherans actually believe, does not attempt to reason out the miracle of the Sacrament of the Altar. It simply trusts in the mystery of Christ’s Words; that He does what He says He does. That He truly, physically gives Himself for us for the forgiveness of sins in (and with and under and in every inadequate human way of understanding) the bread and the wine.
These points are well and good. But, my friend, “We are what we are, and we’re doing the best we can. It is not for you to set the standards by which we should be judged!”
A
AugustTherese
Guest
Transubstantiation is not based on reason, it is based on the supernatural, creative and transformative order that God implements through His Word. However, God’s Word is not contrary to reason, He complements and supplements it.
The concept of the Trinity uses Aristotelian elements, yet, I’m presuming you’re okay with that, yes?
W
Wesrock
Guest
Is the consecrated host truly bread or the body and blood of Jesus?QContinuum:
Amateur hour, indeed. Lutherans do not and never have professed Consubstantiation.
As I’ve explained ad nauseum, Lutherans simply acknowledge that Christ is really, truly, physically present in every possible way (in, with, under, around, over, behind, whatever-- it’s real, not merely spiritual, like in Calvinism) and do not attempt to explain how this happens like Transubstatiationists or Consubstantiationists. Similar to the Orthodox. Or many pre-Tridentine Catholics, for that matter.
See, Consubstantiation, like its cousin Transubstantiation, supposes that changes or additions happen in the ‘accidents’ and ‘substances.’ Consubstantiation essentially creates a third ‘thing’ from the combination of bread/wine with Body/Blood, while Transubstantiation essentially believes that the first things (bread/wine) cease to exist altogether. In other words, Consubstantiation and Transubstantiation are Aristotelian concepts; they are based on reason:
- Transubstantiation reasons that the entire “substance” of the bread and wine is changed into Christ’s Body and Blood, until only the “accidents” of bread (taste, consistency, color, etc.) remain.
- Consubstantiation reasons that the bread and the wine and the Body and the Blood are united in some way that, more or less, creates some new, third substance. I don’t know of any sect today that actually believes in Consubstantiation, though even some Lutherans have been duped into using the term (but not the beliefs behind it, thank God!). Consubstantiation has been explained as:
- As an actual creation of a new, third substance
- As impanation - where the substances don’t change, but Christ’s presence is substantially stored in the substance of the bread and wine
- As incorporation - where the substances don’t change, but Christ’s presence is mingled into the substance of the bread and wine
- In countless other messy, over-thought interminglings** of the “substances” and “accidents” in an array of almost comical combinations.
- Sacramental Union, which Lutherans actually believe, does not attempt to reason out the miracle of the Sacrament of the Altar. It simply trusts in the mystery of Christ’s Words; that He does what He says He does. That He truly, physically gives Himself for us for the forgiveness of sins in (and with and under and in every inadequate human way of understanding) the bread and the wine.
These points are well and good. But, my friend, “We are what we are, and we’re doing the best we can. It is not for you to set the standards by which we should be judged!”
Last edited:
Q
QContinuum
Guest
My humblest apologies, sir. I was already aware of the theological difference between Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation.
I had come across multiple references and sites which state support for and against it (such as this one) in the Lutheran Church. I should have stated that the term is more strongly linked to Lutheran theology (rightly or wrongly) than to Anglicanism.
Your last quote is completely lost on me, I’m afraid. My Episcopal church celebrates with Lutheran clergy from time to time. Their views, whether they include Consubstantiation or not, have no bearing on my appreciation for their ministry. I greatly appreciate them and Lutheran tradition.
I had come across multiple references and sites which state support for and against it (such as this one) in the Lutheran Church. I should have stated that the term is more strongly linked to Lutheran theology (rightly or wrongly) than to Anglicanism.
This view is akin to what many hold to in the Anglican communion. Although, as previously stated, Consubstantiation is held by some.
Your last quote is completely lost on me, I’m afraid. My Episcopal church celebrates with Lutheran clergy from time to time. Their views, whether they include Consubstantiation or not, have no bearing on my appreciation for their ministry. I greatly appreciate them and Lutheran tradition.
Last edited:
Y
YoungApologist3
Guest
Ah, so you are not referring to the “Anglican Use” parishes that are scattered about—which used to be Episcopalian or Anglican, but the entire parish converted to Catholicism (but have been granted permission to use doctrinally corrected Anglican Mass rubrics)—but rather are referring to a denomination distinct from Catholicism?
Last edited:
N
neophyte
Guest
The Church, who is the arbiter of such things, says you are mistaken. Therefore you are mistaken.
S
steido01
Guest
He says it is, so it is. Let me put it this way:
In October 1529 Lutherans met with Zwinglians to learn more about their separate Reformations and possibly form some Protestant alliance. Things were going well until they got the the doctrine of Holy Communion. Zwinglians thought Jesus wasn’t speaking literally when He said “This is my Body.” The Lutherans (along with all of Christianity before then) disagreed.
The two groups of theologians discussed the issue for hours until it was finally just Zwingli and Luther sitting across from each other at a wooden table. The debate was heated. Voices were raising and tempers were flaring. Things were escalating quickly when, to everyone’s horror, Luther pulled out a knife.
Instead of stabbing Zwingli, Luther proceeded to carve “ist! ist! ist!” (the German word for “is”) into the table.
Talk about a mic drop.
S
steido01
Guest
It’s from an episodic TV show I enjoy. Spoken by a space-faring captain to his extra-dimensional friend.
W
Wesrock
Guest
And do the consecrated host and wine appear to all the physical senses and material studies as remaining what they were?Wesrock:
He says it is, so it is.
Last edited:
D
Dovekin
Guest
The first Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission reached “substantial agreement” on the Eucharist. This document was approved by the Lambeth Conference in 1988. In 1992, the Vatican sent their response, asking for clarifications. Clarifications came quickly, and the substantial agreement was affirmed and the ARCIC-I agreements accepted by the Pope. John Paul II celebrated these agreements with the Archbishop of Canterbury in Dec 1996.
While there is no disagreement between some Anglicans and Roman Catholics, it is a requirement that Anglicans have this Catholic theology before receiving the Eucharist, presumably because some Anglicans can hold a different view. Despite continuing disagreement on Apostolic Succession, Catholics and Anglicans agree on the Eucharist.
The Anglicans and Roman Catholics do not share the Eucharist not because of differences on the Eucharist but because they belong to different Churches. There are other differences that keep us from a fuller unity. If there are not many High Church Anglicans receiving in Roman Catholic Churches, it is probably because Anglican ministers are usually available in most areas where it might happen.
While there is no disagreement between some Anglicans and Roman Catholics, it is a requirement that Anglicans have this Catholic theology before receiving the Eucharist, presumably because some Anglicans can hold a different view. Despite continuing disagreement on Apostolic Succession, Catholics and Anglicans agree on the Eucharist.
The Anglicans and Roman Catholics do not share the Eucharist not because of differences on the Eucharist but because they belong to different Churches. There are other differences that keep us from a fuller unity. If there are not many High Church Anglicans receiving in Roman Catholic Churches, it is probably because Anglican ministers are usually available in most areas where it might happen.
- Status