Why no communion for visiting Protestants?

[GKC]

Yes, that’s also my recollection as well. They restored the form 200 years later, but they had to go through a very circutuous process to re-establish the actual succession, by using Bishops from various different Orthodox churches and also from something called the Old Catholic Church - sometimes they were willing to do it, and sometimes not, so some Anglican Bishops have Apostolic Succession via the Orthodox and/or Old Catholics, and others do not - I have no idea how they know, or even whether they care, which is which.

(Sigh)

No, it happened a little over 100 years later, in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. The change had nothing to do with Rome, but was a struggle with the Church of Scotland, over the nature of a bishop.

While there is a slight possiblilty that on one occasion Orthodox bishops took part in an Anglican consecration, generally this is not the sort of things that Orthodox bishops do (other than vagantes). But beginning in 1932, there was established an intercommunion agreement between the Utrecht Old Catholics, and the Anglican Communion, resulting in joint participation of bishops from each, at consecrations of bishops, in each. This was followed by a similar agreement with the Polish National Catholic Church, in 1946.

And of course it’s known which is which. Records are kept. My own priest, for example, was consecrated by a bishop who himself was consecrated by a bishop who was co-consecrated by a PNCC bishop, in 1962. In fact, given the way Anglican consecrations are done, it is hard to find a bishop who doesn’t have the Dutch Touch in his lines.

History. It’s interesting.

GKC

 

[Randy_Carson]

Nonsense. The Methodist Church does, in fact, believe in the Real Presence.

Zooey-

You know I respect your level-headed approach. In this particular case, I am wondering exactly how the Methodist Minister is able to confect the sacrament if his ordination is invalid. Would you say that it is valid - despite Rome’s judgment that it is not? or would you say that valid orders are not necessary?

I know that Catholics refuse to believe that we have it, but that doesn’t change what we believe. (It also doesn’t change the fact that, in fact, the UMC & most if not all other Wesleyan bodies] do, in fact, have the Real Body & Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ in our Holy Communion. I know you don’t agree. We must agree to disagree on this part).

When Wesley ordained the first four ministers here in the US (I think the Anglican bishops refused to send help at the time, and Wesley needed manpower - correct me if my dad’s account was incorrect.), then two problems were present - the Anglican orders themselves were defective and Wesley acted alone apart from other Bishops of his own communion.

Sorry, but He is indeed present. Actually, this is bordering on that heresy (the name of which escapes me just now) which claims that the nature & efficacy of the sacraments depends on the spiritual state of the officiant. You can, if you like, say that Luke, & my pastor, & the other UMC pastors don’t hold to Catholic doctrines, & are therefore in some sense heretical in your understanding. But that doesn’t change the facts in the case.

I’m not questioning the spiritual state of the men…they could the holiest people this side of heaven. I’m questioning whether they can consecrate bread and wine without the authority Jesus gave to the Apostles passed by the laying on of hands through Apostolic Succession.

I respect you too much to be argumentative, so this is a legitimate question:

If I wanted to have a communion service at home with my family one Saturday evening as part of our family devotions, could I consecrate the bread and wine such that Jesus would be truly present? I would say all the right words, and obviously, two or more would be gathered in His name which some folks claim is sufficient for Him to be present. Can I as a non-ordained lay person who clearly believes in the Real Presence in the elements celebrate in the same way that an ordained Minister of the Methodist Church does?

No tricks, nothing up my sleeve…just trying to understand what Methodists really believe 'cause This Holy Mystery is kinda vague on this issue.

TIA. :tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

So from the beginning Jesus planned that only the RC was his church no matter what they did. This is ridiculous.

I know I am asking this a bit late in the thread, but it exploded with activity last night…sorry I missed the fun.

My question is this: Did Jesus intend to found one Church or many?

Thanks in advance. :tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

You need to read the whole document. It says much more than that.

I have the book, Luke. My dad picked it up at a Cokesbury Bookstore for me.

Is there any particular passage that you would like for me to focus on?

I have no problem with Jesus being really, truly and substantially present - body, blood, soul and divinity - by means of transubstantiation which occurs at the consecration during mass.

My dad says that his pastor says that he is pretty much free to believe whatever he wants about the Lord’s Supper…that doesn’t seem right. As a pastor, I suspect you would not be comfortable with that.

So, how would you describe what the Real Presence is in Methodist terminology? I can’t really find much of a definitive statement in This Holy Mystery…can you tell us or point it out for me?

Thanks in advance. :tiphat:

 

[MrS]

I know I am asking this a bit late in the thread, but it exploded with activity last night…sorry I missed the fun.

My question is this: Did Jesus intend to found one Church or many?

Thanks in advance. :tiphat:

I know, I knowsmileys.smileycentral.com/cat/3/3_3_2v.gif

Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/23_13_15.gif
%between%

 

[Randy_Carson]

A lot of us are not. Though some of us are knowledgeable on the subject.

Nope.

But Peter is. Our apostolic succession runs right back to the same place yours does.

GKC

Are you saying that all Anglican priests are validly ordained via a line of Apostolic Succession that Rome would agree with?

If not, are some ordained validly? If so, how do you know which are which?

These are not trick questions…I’m trying to learn what you guys believe.

Thanks. :tiphat:

 

[GKC]

Are you saying that all Anglican priests are validly ordained via a line of Apostolic Succession that Rome would agree with?

Oh, heck no. I don’t think Rome has made a generic judgement on the OC/PNCC lines in Anglicanism. They look at each case individually. And would normally consider any Anglican’s orders as illicit, at least. This is not a matter of overwhelming concern to the average Anglican,

If not, are some ordained validly? If so, how do you know which are which?

Sure. Some are ordained validly. Generally, this would be those who don’t wear hairspray. But remember, to an Anglican, (let’s leave aside the issue of females in sacerdotal garments) ALL of them are validly ordained, absent some issue of form/matter/intent/minister, as would apply to a RC, too. For RCs, I wouldn’t presume to speak.

But if the issue is which Anglicans have episcopal lines from OC/PNCC participation, Canterbury has all records of consecrations, as do the individual member Churchs that make up the official Anglican Communion. It’s kinda easy to see if a given priest/bishop has OC lines. If that is of interest. As I said, my priest does. And I know exactly who ordained my son in law a deacon, and what lines that bishop has. it’s not hard. It gets written down.

These are not trick questions…I’m trying to learn what you guys believe.

Thanks. :tiphat:

Fair enough, and any time. I started posting 8-9 years ago, in order to explain Anglicanism to RCs. Made a lot of friends.

In general, we believe a lot of what you believe. Some of us, that is.

GKC

 

[ronnok20]

I know I am asking this a bit late in the thread, but it exploded with activity last night…sorry I missed the fun.

My question is this: Did Jesus intend to found one Church or many?

Thanks in advance. :tiphat:

Jesus did found one church. The early Christian church. I am sure that Jesus isn’t happy about the way it has splintered but ponder this: we are all seeking Jesus Christ and the truth and if one is honestly seeking salvation then maybe Jesus is commending each one of us for it.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Jesus did found one church. The early Christian church. I am sure that Jesus isn’t happy about the way it has splintered but ponder this: we are all seeking Jesus Christ and the truth and if one is honestly seeking salvation then maybe Jesus is commending each one of us for it.

Seeking Jesus is a good thing.

Tell me: is the one church that Jesus founded visible and tangible, or is it more of an invisible collection of all true believers regardless of denomination?

 

[mercygate]

(Sigh)

No, it happened a little over 100 years later, in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. The change had nothing to do with Rome, but was a struggle with the Church of Scotland, over the nature of a bishop.

While there is a slight possiblilty that on one occasion Orthodox bishops took part in an Anglican consecration, generally this is not the sort of things that Orthodox bishops do (other than vagantes). But beginning in 1932, there was established an intercommunion agreement between the Utrecht Old Catholics, and the Anglican Communion, resulting in joint participation of bishops from each, at consecrations of bishops, in each. This was followed by a similar agreement with the Polish National Catholic Church, in 1946.

And of course it’s known which is which. Records are kept. My own priest, for example, was consecrated by a bishop who himself was consecrated by a bishop who was co-consecrated by a PNCC bishop, in 1962. In fact, given the way Anglican consecrations are done, it is hard to find a bishop who doesn’t have the Dutch Touch in his lines.

History. It’s interesting.

GKC

My mentor, a bishop in one of the Church-of-the-Month-Club “Continuing” Anglican Churches has charts of both his priestly Ordination lines in the Episcopal Church and his Episcopal Consecration line in the Church of Whatever-it-was-at-the-time (Anglican Catholic Church, if I recall) . . . Very detailed.

 

[GKC]

My mentor, a bishop in one of the Church-of-the-Month-Club “Continuing” Anglican Churches has charts of both his priestly Ordination lines in the Episcopal Church and his Episcopal Consecration line in the Church of Whatever-it-was-at-the-time (Anglican Catholic Church, if I recall) . . . Very detailed.

See? Easy.

My month is August.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus

 

[ASimpleSinner]

“…and PERHAPS some Anglican bodies that have recieved the spiscopate outside the Anglican communion from Orthodox and Old Catholics, etc.”

Appreciate the nuance.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

And what a grand can or worms I re-opened for the upteenth time.

I actually lifted part of that text from a post I did on another forum on the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox.

The nuance was added given the heavy participation of Charismatic Episcopal Church participants (and converts therefrom to the Catholic Church) as, in recent years, the validity of the CEC orders has been brought under investigation in some Catholic circles due to the fact they were consecrated by a breakaway group from the Catholic Church of Brazil whose orders, like the PNCC, are frequently recognized.

In an ironic twist of fate, one of their bishops has now set up show with continuing Anglicans…

But to get back on topic, a main reason for the lack of open communion is that those who would approach may in fact not have had the necessary access they need to the sacrament of confession, as they had no priests to offer it to them.

In fact that was the nuance I was trying to offer.

OSL - if you are still about - I am curious to know more about what it is that you have come to such a catholic worldview in the Methodist communion.

 

[GKC]

Ah, it’s fun.

Would like to hear more about the some-time CEC bishop and the Continuing Anglicans.

GKC

And what a grand can or worms I re-opened for the upteenth time.

I actually lifted part of that text from a post I did on another forum on the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox.

The nuance was added given the heavy participation of Charismatic Episcopal Church participants (and converts therefrom to the Catholic Church) as, in recent years, the validity of the CEC orders has been brought under investigation in some Catholic circles due to the fact they were consecrated by a breakaway group from the Catholic Church of Brazil whose orders, like the PNCC, are frequently recognized.

In an ironic twist of fate, one of their bishops has now set up show with continuing Anglicans…

But to get back on topic, a main reason for the lack of open communion is that those who would approach may in fact not have had the necessary access they need to the sacrament of confession, as they had no priests to offer it to them.

In fact that was the nuance I was trying to offer.

OSL - if you are still about - I am curious to know more about what it is that you have come to such a catholic worldview in the Methodist communion.

 

[Bennie_P]

Oh, heck no. I don’t think Rome has made a generic judgement on the OC/PNCC lines in Anglicanism. They look at each case individually. And would normally consider any Anglican’s orders as illicit, at least. This is not a matter of overwhelming concern to the average Anglican,

Sure. Some are ordained validly. Generally, this would be those who don’t wear hairspray. But remember, to an Anglican, (let’s leave aside the issue of females in sacerdotal garments) ALL of them are validly ordained, absent some issue of form/matter/intent/minister, as would apply to a RC, too. For RCs, I wouldn’t presume to speak.

But if the issue is which Anglicans have episcopal lines from OC/PNCC participation, Canterbury has all records of consecrations, as do the individual member Churchs that make up the official Anglican Communion. It’s kinda easy to see if a given priest/bishop has OC lines. If that is of interest. As I said, my priest does. And I know exactly who ordained my son in law a deacon, and what lines that bishop has. it’s not hard. It gets written down.

Fair enough, and any time. I started posting 8-9 years ago, in order to explain Anglicanism to RCs. Made a lot of friends.

In general, we believe a lot of what you believe. Some of us, that is.

GKC

This is good/intersting information, thanks.

 

[dessert]

Although we love our separated brethern, there can be no Holy Communion for them in the sacrifice of the Holy Mass.

It is a fact that they do NOT believe as we Catholics do that we receive the Body & Blood of Our Lord.

The Body & Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ & ALL THAT IS WITHIN.
Read John 6.

I can relate this incident, which to me, left me shaking to the core.

A very good friend of mine, a minister in a protestant church, asked me this, "If you truly believe that you eat the Body of Jesus & drink His blood, IS THIS NOT CANABALISM?, we are meant to do it as a symbol in His memory.

I said that I would pray for the right words, as I just did not have them at the time, and would telephone him later.

I prayed, and this is what I received.

“CANIBALISM IS EATING DEAD FLESH, I AM YOUR LIVING LORD”

Peace be with you.

Yes this is what I really started to understand when I returned to the mass. We are celebrating His death but also His life and ressurrection and His and ours renewal each and everytime we receive.

Not that He is dying everyday through the mass, but this is the remembrance part that He did for us but that He is living in this bread and transformed as we eat, spiritually into our person not just physically but all of our person.

When people get together they are more than just sharing a meal ie; thanksgiving and nourishing their body they are socializing.
We are socializing our soul with the Lord, we are together but at that moment that each of us one at a time receive we are indivdually receiving the Lord into our soul body and mind and Spirit.
dessert

 

[dessert]

And what a grand can or worms I re-opened for the upteenth time.

I actually lifted part of that text from a post I did on another forum on the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox.

The nuance was added given the heavy participation of Charismatic Episcopal Church participants (and converts therefrom to the Catholic Church) as, in recent years, the validity of the CEC orders has been brought under investigation in some Catholic circles due to the fact they were consecrated by a breakaway group from the Catholic Church of Brazil whose orders, like the PNCC, are frequently recognized.

In an ironic twist of fate, one of their bishops has now set up show with continuing Anglicans…

But to get back on topic, a main reason for the lack of open communion is that those who would approach may in fact not have had the necessary access they need to the sacrament of confession, as they had no priests to offer it to them.

In fact that was the nuance I was trying to offer.

OSL - if you are still about - I am curious to know more about what it is that you have come to such a catholic worldview in the Methodist communion.

I think the UMC that is the old ones not the newer evangelical that has sprouted up today believe that their bishops are just like ours.

I used to hear my FIL speak about this when I was first married and he beleived that the only diff beteween us is we have a Pope.

And he said their catholic was not capital C, this is very old claims on his part. He is now in the same church but it is evangelical and they have women ministers and he was very dissapointed when it happened but has accepted it. I think he thought it would never happen.

In his old days they had all the sacraments etc. more than 50-100 years ago and of course older, but he claims his Methodist goes further back than Wesley, as he was brought up in a Methodist home in georgia but he had issues when he came north and I think that is why he married Catholic because he like some of the ideas of theRCC such as NFP and women staying home with kids etc. at the time most felt this was right.

Now he claims he doesn’t like the evangelical ideas but like I said he claims his Methodist goes back farther than Wesley.

I have his old hymnals and he gave me some things of my dh and all the certif he had of all the sacraments.

He claims his bishops are all valid and the music in the hymns are diff than now and we were at a funeral for a family member and a minister and a priest were there giving benediction and to me this is a union not a controversy, union in death.

He was married in a congregational church because neither wanted to make the other conform, but they did conform in later years to Methodistism.

He claimed we were the same but still wouldn’t accept the Pope’s authority even though he himself is into authority to the max.

He thinks of the RCC as a social organization ruled by an authority
Much like structural government rather than a family.

I don’t understand how him and the Orthodox can accept the authority of bishops and the structure of the Church but not the Pope and yet they believe in a president in government etc.

dessert

 

[GregoryPalamas]

I think you FIL is a bit confused:

“In his old days they had all the sacraments etc. more than 50-100 years ago and of course older, but he claims his Methodist goes further back than Wesley, as he was brought up in a Methodist home in georgia…”

It is not possible to have a Methodism that goes back further than Wesley. The Wesleys founded the movement.

CDL

 

[GKC]

This is good/intersting information, thanks.

You ae very welcome.

GKC

 

[dessert]

I think you FIL is a bit confused:

“In his old days they had all the sacraments etc. more than 50-100 years ago and of course older, but he claims his Methodist goes further back than Wesley, as he was brought up in a Methodist home in georgia…”

It is not possible to have a Methodism that goes back further than Wesley. The Wesleys founded the movement.

CDL

Yes more than likely he is, he named the church they started Asbury United Methodist and since Asbury was trained by Wesley, but my FIL doesn’t credit Wesley so much, as Asbury is the one that stayed in the states.

We had a big Methodist church in the city, near when it was founded about 1850 ? and this group split in to, so one was the cargil united m c and the other Asbury m c (about 1955)
cargil I guess meaning who donated the money?

They remained amiable but not to socialble to each other.

We also got a Wesleyan c in town sort of an indepenant type church later, we went for awhile, the church was very outspoken on gov…
My FIL has never liked be linked to the name Wesley so I will have to discuss this with him some more to see what are his reasons. ? Thanks for your info. It is interesting.
I will have to find out more of his beliefs as he is getting very old and is good to hear what the real facts are. Maybe I can find out who the bishops were at his church going way back.

Dessert

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I think the UMC that is the old ones not the newer evangelical that has sprouted up today believe that their bishops are just like ours.

More accurately, I think they believe are bishops are no more than theirs - and that we have added a lot to our beliefs.

I don’t think they would claim Holy Orders, but rather say that this is all there is to it - no more - and that they have all the basics that can be had.