Why don't Catholics have Open Communion?

[jmcrae]

Well, for me the Churches I mentioned ARE apostolic.

Uh - King Henry VIII was not an Apostle of Jesus Christ. He lived in the 16th century.

The PNCC is most definetely, and the others too.

The PNCC is a group of schismatic Catholics. I don’t think they practice open communion (although they do attempt open ordination - I’m not sure how valid that is, though, since surely they are lacking the required intent.)

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yes, I know.

But all other, let’s call them protestant, Churches do have open communion.
[Although the Anglican Church and the others mentioned above, are not “typical” protestants for me. They are more “Catholic without a pope” )

At the moment I am studying the Heidelberg Catechism and the Helvetic Confession (by Heinrich Bullinger), as I really like their theology - it is very similar to the belief of Baptists. And I am at the moment attending a Baptist Church on a regular Basis.

Here a quote concerning Communion:
"Question 81. For whom is the Lord’s supper instituted?

Answer: For those who are truly sorrowful for their sins, and yet trust that these are forgiven them for the sake of Christ; and that their remaining infirmities are covered by his passion and death; and who also earnestly desire to have their faith more and more strengthened, and their lives more holy; but hypocrites, and such as turn not to God with sincere hearts, eat and drink judgment to themselves. " (301 redirect”]Heidelberg Catechism, Question 81

)

Actually, I was looking for something else, but I can’t find it at the moment.

If I do so, I’ll post it here.

Esdra

The question here is, what do people think happens when one receives the Eucharist? Why is it called “communion”? What does “communion mean”?

 

[Esdra]

Uh - King Henry VIII was not an Apostle of Jesus Christ. He lived in the 16th century.

No, I was not referring to that King Henry VIII was an Apostle of Jesus Christ!
But that the Anglican Church does have apostolic succession, like all the others I mentioned.

The PNCC is a group of schismatic Catholics. I don’t think they practice open communion (although they do attempt open ordination - I’m not sure how valid that is, though, since surely they are lacking the required intent.)

I know too less about the PNCC. But I know about the Old Catholic Church/Utrecht that it DOES have open communion. - So, since the PNCC is a splitter group of the Old Catholic Church/Utrecht, I guess they have open communion, too!

Esdra

 

[jmcrae]

No, I was not referring to that King Henry VIII was an Apostle of Jesus Christ!

He is the founder of the Anglican Church. His son, Edward VI, changed the Ordination ceremony deliberately to make it so that there was no more connection to the Catholic Church (and thus, no Apostolic Succession for the Anglicans).

But that the Anglican Church does have apostolic succession, like all the others I mentioned.

Not since Edward VI.

I know too less about the PNCC. But I know about the Old Catholic Church/Utrecht that it DOES have open communion. - So, since the PNCC is a splitter group of the Old Catholic Church/Utrecht, I guess they have open communion, too!

Maybe. It doesn’t matter anyway, because they are in schism.

 

[dzheremi]

Esdra: Your opinion or my opinion or anyone’s opinion does not matter. The designation of “apostolic” (when talking about churches or church communions) is not a matter of personal opinion, but of historical fact. The historical facts regarding the various church communions are as they have been presented to you, and all the churches concerned agree on that (the EO, for instance, may say that the Roman Catholic Church has deviated from apostolic teaching, but they do not deny that it is an apostolic church, because its roots are indeed firmly planted in the apostolic era as a matter of historical record).

 

[mountaintop]

But where would the separated brethren fit into all this? Aren’t they considered part of the church?

they were lead away from the Eucharist by father martin Luther in the 1500’s but they can come home.

 

[1beleevr]

they were lead away from the Eucharist by father martin Luther in the 1500’s but they can come home.

Newsflash: When we are with Christ, we are home!

 

[1beleevr]

There’s that stinkin’ reference to a strawman again; geeeeez! And there are many catholics who make you feel like if you do not partake of the eucharist, you are doing it wrong! What about those who celebrate Communion as Christ and His disciples did in Matthew 26? Arethey wrong?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The Anglican Church existed outside of the papacy for a while before Rome provided oversight of the Church of England. Henry is not the “founder” of the Church of England, in the opinion of Anglicans, as he simply took the Church away from Roman primatial oversight. It existed before Henry and Henry really kept everything status quo. So if you are trying to imply that the Church of England was no longer what it was pre-Henrican times you’d be better off arguing that Elizabeth founded the Church of England. She did more with her compromise and the Matthew Parker installment to change the face of the Anglican Church. The ordination ceremony during Edwardian times was not written to deliberately alienate Catholic roots and try to sever any connection. In fact, in Saepious Officio, Anglicans argue that the Catholic ordination ceremony that had existed hundreds of years prior in England was almost verbatum the same verbage and style as Edward’s!

To say that Anglican valid apostolic succession hasn’t existed since Edward is something you, with all due respect, cannot claim. You are probably arguing this using Apostolicae Curae as inspiration. Problem is the Dutch Touch and Polish pat with the Old Catholic Utrecht churches and the PNCC respectively reinfused apostolicity into all quarters of the Anglican communion in their bishops. This happened post-apostolicae curae, something Leo XIII couldn’t speak to as it came long after his pronouncement.

It is valid to think they are in schism from a Catholic point of view

He is the founder of the Anglican Church. His son, Edward VI, changed the Ordination ceremony deliberately to make it so that there was no more connection to the Catholic Church (and thus, no Apostolic Succession for the Anglicans).

Not since Edward VI.

Maybe. It doesn’t matter anyway, because they are in schism.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Elaborate please 1beleevr

What about those who celebrate Communion as Christ and His disciples did in Matthew 26? Arethey wrong?

 

[jmcrae]

To say that Anglican valid apostolic succession hasn’t existed since Edward is something you, with all due respect, cannot claim. You are probably arguing this using Apostolicae Curae as inspiration. Problem is the Dutch Touch and Polish pat with the Old Catholic Utrecht churches and the PNCC respectively reinfused apostolicity into all quarters of the Anglican communion in their bishops.

Only if it is possible to intend (in the Sacramental sense of the term) to ordain someone of a different religion, and into a different religion - which I don’t think it is. They have the proper words and the proper form, but I do not honestly think it is possible for the proper intention to be there.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The key here is you’re saying “I don’t honestly think” with regard to intention. And yet in your other post you spoke with great certitude that they lack orders and validity. GKC is more adept in this area than yours truly but intention is something you and I sitting here cannot ascertain. Anglo-Catholics hold a very very sacrificial, historical view of the Mass. Heck, many broad church priests in the Anglican communion do as well. So I think if we’re in the assumption game, as it seems we are today, I’d say that most of them and at a bare minimum many of them have valid orders. And keep in mind that we don’t want to enter into the Donatist heresy here either.

Only if it is possible to intend (in the Sacramental sense of the term) to ordain someone of a different religion, and into a different religion - which I don’t think it is. They have the proper words and the proper form, but I do not honestly think it is possible for the proper intention to be there.

 

[ConstantineTG]

And how do you know this with any certainty? Prior to Pentecost, was anyone, anything? Remember that before the betrayal, Judas was a disciple, as were the other 11! He may not have been predestined to do what he did, but someone was going to walk into that role; it just happened to be him. God’s plan worked to perfection, thank You, Lord! I think you’re just calling him Protestant, because in your narrow scope, he wasn’t “catholic.” Nobody was!

Of course they were Catholic. They had the Pope at the Last Supper. Maybe you’re right, Judas was the first protestant because he didn’t fully believe in everything Jesus taught, like many today.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Constantine, my brother in Christ, saying Judas was the first Protestant is polemical and just hurtful to a Protestant. Imagine you’re a Protestant, a Lutheran or Anglican, and you came into CAF tonight curious about Catholicism and you read something like this? It’s like the Protestant polemicists of the Reformation Age calling the pope the Antichrist and the Catholic Church the Whore of Babylon. None of these comparisons wins hearts and minds and just serves to hurt our Protestant brothers and sisters. Charity, brother…

Of course they were Catholic. They had the Pope at the Last Supper. Maybe you’re right, Judas was the first protestant because he didn’t fully believe in everything Jesus taught, like many today.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Yes, context is key here

 

[JohnnyReb]

Constantine, my brother in Christ, saying Judas was the first Protestant is polemical and just hurtful to a Protestant. Imagine you’re a Protestant, a Lutheran or Anglican, and you came into CAF tonight curious about Catholicism and you read something like this? It’s like the Protestant polemicists of the Reformation Age calling the pope the Antichrist and the Catholic Church the Whore of Babylon. None of these comparisons wins hearts and minds and just serves to hurt our Protestant brothers and sisters. Charity, brother…

This^^^^^

This is why CAF needs reputation points so I can give you some, especially for this post.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Constantine, my brother in Christ, saying Judas was the first Protestant is polemical and just hurtful to a Protestant. Imagine you’re a Protestant, a Lutheran or Anglican, and you came into CAF tonight curious about Catholicism and you read something like this? It’s like the Protestant polemicists of the Reformation Age calling the pope the Antichrist and the Catholic Church the Whore of Babylon. None of these comparisons wins hearts and minds and just serves to hurt our Protestant brothers and sisters. Charity, brother…

You’re right, turn the other cheek. Never mind that many of them keep calling us the Whore of Babylon, we shouldn’t be going down to that level.

 

[JohnnyReb]

You’re right, turn the other cheek. Never mind that many of them keep calling us the Whore of Babylon, we shouldn’t be going down to that level.

Its wrong of them on so many levels. I respect my Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ, even if we have some disagreements that may not be resolved this side of eternity.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Constantine, you probably know I’m not advocating wimpy, simpering, cowardly antics from us. I’m saying that we must lift up our chins to Christ, proudly, and reject the Whore of Babylon lingo and show love while defending the Church. Defense need not include polemical attacks on them as well. One Bread, One Body. They’ll know you have found the truth through your love. My response to your post wasn’t to chastize you at all just to remind you that I have been on the other side of such statements when I was an Anglican and it angered and frustrated me so much that honestly I might have come back to Catholicism earlier had it not been for all the “Cafeteria Catholic” and “Lost Sheep Protestant” comments. Catholics often mean well in their desire to share their faith but frustration and disagreement leads us to say some strong stuff.

May God bless you this Christmas (so many people forget it’s still Christmas season! ) and may His Grace shine upon you ever more this New Year!

You’re right, turn the other cheek. Never mind that many of them keep calling us the Whore of Babylon, we shouldn’t be going down to that level.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

It’s funny to think that the term “Christian” was originally a bit of a put-down term. Then terms like “Lutheran” were also pejorative in nature. I was always sad to hear where the term “hocus pocus” came from. In England, during the Edwardian period, Anglican priests in churches were mocking the “supersitious mumbo jumbo” of Catholicism and at mass were making fun of the Latin liturgical saying hoc est corpus meum (behold, this is my Body) and they were saying “hocus pocus” chiding the expression laughingly. The term stuck and today we hear it with magic and superstition. Any Catholic should hate the term if he knew where it came from.

Luther and the gang loved the Whore of Babylon stuff. The early colonies here in the States were so anti-Catholic that it’s despicable and vile to even read about it. Thomas Jefferson was a huge anti-Catholic. There has been so much polemical speak on both sides. I like to think in 2010 we can just argue, debate, discuss, exchange ideas without as Mr. Spock called them in Star Trek IV “colorful metaphores”

Its wrong of them on so many levels. I respect my Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ, even if we have some disagreements that may not be resolved this side of eternity.