Catholics & Catholicism

Question:

It should be pointed out that the Articles of Religion are no longer considered normative. C. Wingate

Response:

It should be pointed out that the Articles of Religion are no longer considered normative.

Neither are heterosexual relations! John+

Response:

   The Abp. of Canterbury has requested of the Vatican a lift on the extra-Catholic ban for receiving the Eucharist in the Catholic Church (IOW letting other people than Catholics receive Catholic Eucharist). As a Catholic, I see the reason this has gone unanswered (and will be answered in the negatve), but I was wondering what others thought of this, if anything?

I am pleased to learn of the Archbishop’s earnest petition of the Pope. First, it is one shepherd addressing another, with the appropriate deference given the chief shepherd, the Archbishop of Rome, the Prelate of the Roman Communion, the Economus of the worldwide Church. Second, I am delighted that the Archbishop of Canterbury’s request entails, at least implicitly, that the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is mutually shared among the Anglican, Roman, and Eastern Communions. I only hope that the heretical Bishop Spong of the ECUSA won’t cause the Economus to reject the Archbishop of Canterbury’s request. I am still unnerved by such overt, heretical statements, and I can’t help but believe that the Roman Pontiff has been made aware of this "influence" in the Anglican Communion. Third, I am delighted that Archbishop’s request *assumes* that the individual churches in the Anglican Communion will maintain apostolic succession as a constitutional necessity. Finally, I hope and trust that the agreements reached between Roman and Anglican theologians on such essentials as the One Holy Church, the Catholic Faith, the Apostolic Ministry, the Sacraments, a Common (or, at least similar) Liturgy, a shared Life in the Spirit, and allowance for Unity in Diversity are not mere academia speaking, but the whole of the two Communions speaking. It is with great hope and prayer that the efforts toward Christian Unity are everywhere about us. I only hope that such efforts are not superficial, at "any cost," or at the expense of things necessary. "Lord, grant that we may be one, as you and your Father and the Holy Spirit are One. Amen." D. Stephen Heersink San Francisco "In things necessary, unity; in things doubtful, liberty; in all things, charity."      –Augustine of Hippo

Response:

Christ is risen! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –    But more to the point: What, exactly, do Anglicans believe the Eucharist is? Could someone post the " official " position of the Anglican communion on Real Presence. TIA The Book of Common Prayer says in the Articles of Religion, written in 1801, "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 beark 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 proven by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words fo Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many supersititions. The Body of Christ is given, taken and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby hte 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." BCP. p. 873

You see a rejection of Aristolean logic here, not a rejection of the Real Presence.  Aquinas is not canonical scripture. Ascendit deus. Bob — Robert R. Chapman, Jr. Lynnwood, Washington USA Those who do not think about their own sins make up for it by thinking incessantly about the sins of others.      –C. S. Lewis  (God in the Dock, "Miserable Offenders," p. 124)

Response:

    Jump forward to the 1500s in Europe, specifically England.  Church splits from the Catholic church and yadda yadda yadda until we get to today.  Catholic church denies the sacraments of the Anglican church as valid (and they do) and the Anglican church says "we do not own the Eucharist" as a sideways stab at the Catholic church’s doctrine concerning schismatics and heretics validity.

The problem with this is that it is completely unhistorical. Anglican theology isn’t really in reaction to Catholic theology; development has generally been driven by *internal* conflict. The Roman Catholic Church, at least until the Oxford Movement, came into the picture as something to be differentiated from. That was exactly why the Oxford Movement caused such a ruckus. It eliminated, at least liturgically, a lot of the differentiation. People really don’t appreciate how different a colonial era anglican service was from a catholic mass of the same period. Even the layout of the church was often radically different; in many colonial churches the altar was on a side wall, and the pulpit was the focus. In the middle of this we got Apostolicae Curae. This is one of the more argued encyclicals. It’s pretty clear that the deck was stacked to make it come out against the anglicans, because there was a substantial group arguing against it in the Vatican. Naturally, the anglicans promulgated a coutnerargument and dismissed it. However, this came some two centuries after the fact. Hooker’s _Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity_ is where it’s at, and in this case the issue was trying to keep everyone from getting into a fight at the altar rail. The solution, basically, was to decide not to fight over these issues, and leave them to God. C. Wingate

Response:

   But more to the point: What, exactly, do Anglicans believe the Eucharist is? Could someone post the " official " position of the Anglican communion on Real Presence. TIA

The Book of Common Prayer says in the Articles of Religion, written in 1801, "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 beark 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 proven by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words fo Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many supersititions. The Body of Christ is given, taken and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby hte 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." BCP. p. 873 Jeff and Tammy Quackenbush To reply, remove "nospam." from the address above.

Response:

The Book of Common Prayer says in the Articles of Religion, written in 1801,

        The Articles were adopted by the Episcopal Church 1801, but were written in the 1570’s and formed part of the Prayer Book of 1662, the official book until the 1789 American revision.         The 1979 Prayer Book Catechism is the best source for information on the doctrine of the Episcopal Church.

Response:

Is it true that the Anglicans are planning to put Viagra in the communion wafers so that communicants can really "turn on" to Christ? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 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. … I hope that helps….     Certainly did, for this is the part I was after.  I can see now where the problem lies: the Eucharist to Anglicans is bread and wine in the physical world whereas Catholics see it as the true Body and Blood. That’s basically the point that was causing the stir in the Catholic world with that announcement, it just never hit me that the Eucharist might be defined differently to Anglicans. Thanks. =) — Adam Knight Computer Science, 2001 — Baylor University, Waco, TX Mail me at funkyboy at swbell dot net

Response:

Well, I think this presents us with a real problem. If you take an objective approach to the sacraments, they either happen or they don’t. It doesn’t seem reasonable to me to claim that the efficacy of the sacraments depends upon theorizing about how they work. It seems sufficient to have faith that they *do* work. Also, I definitely don’t believe in the sovereign right to take offense, especially on the behalf of God. If Jesus can forgive us for not bowing to him because we are misguided, the least we can do is have the same courtesy. Not bowing to the tabernacle is clearly not in the same league as apostacy.

    Yet could be perceived as a symptom of it.  Hear me out before you go on a rampage. =)     You are a part of the New Testament church in the year 110 or so.  A group has radical ideas about something and walks out with a lot of yelling and firey mouths.  Relations get better over the years.  It is now 120 and things are going okay, but there are still two groups.  Can the original group look at the seperated one and say their teachings are fine?  Not really.  Can the seperated group claim that everyone’s a believer and that it doesn’t matter what or how you believe as long as you do?  Absolutely.  And they will.  And do.     Jump forward to the 1500s in Europe, specifically England.  Church splits from the Catholic church and yadda yadda yadda until we get to today.  Catholic church denies the sacraments of the Anglican church as valid (and they do) and the Anglican church says "we do not own the Eucharist" as a sideways stab at the Catholic church’s doctine concerning scismatics and heretics validity.     We now have good cause to say that there is a reason for the actions being taken.  Now the question is: is the Anglican church a "valid" church, in the sense that is retains the communion with God required for the sacraments to work?  I argue not this point, nor do I offer it for conversation.  I am merely pointing out that this is the key question to intercommunion. — Adam Knight Computer Science, 2001 — Baylor University, Waco, TX Mail me at funkyboy at swbell dot net

Response:

I find the communion ‘rules’ at churches to be kinda silly. ANY baptized Christian should be welcome to the Lord’s Supper at ANY church.

    But not EVERY church believes it is the same thing.  For soemone to believe it is something more and for someone who thinks it’s something less to receive from that person, is sacreledge to the former.  For instance, take the Tabernacle in a Catholic church.  It holds, to Catholics, Christ’s presence.  Now put a Baptist in there, who doesn’t believe that and will not respect that.  The Catholic will genuflect at every crossing while the Baptist just flys on by.  That’s what it would do to the Catholics to have others sharing in their Eucharistic celebration, people who don’t beleive the same just taking, to them, for granted what they see as the ultimate gift from God.  That gift being the Real Presence. — Adam Knight Computer Science, 2001 — Baylor University, Waco, TX Mail me at funkyboy at swbell dot net

Response:

But not EVERY church believes it is the same thing.  For soemone to believe it is something more and for someone who thinks it’s something less to receive from that person, is sacrilege to the former.

Well, I think this presents us with a real problem. If you take an objective approach to the sacraments, they either happen or they don’t. It doesn’t seem reasonable to me to claim that the efficacy of the sacraments depends upon theorizing about how they work. It seems sufficient to have faith that they *do* work. Also, I definitely don’t believe in the sovereign right to take offense, especially on the behalf of God. If Jesus can forgive us for not bowing to him because we are misguided, the least we can do is have the same courtesy. Not bowing to the tabernacle is clearly not in the same league as apostacy. C. Wingate

Response:

We had an interfaith meeting with Baptist, RC, Episcopal, and Methodist representatives answering questions about differences and similarities. The RC priest answered the question about Communion with what I thought to be a weak response about unity.  Basically he said since the RC church had differences among the other faiths, then for them to share Communion in both directions would not signify the unity of the RC faith.  He didn’t touch on the unity of all Christian faiths, Christ, however.

    What he meant was simply that Catholics believe that the Eucharist cannot be shared with churches that are out-of-communion with them because that would signify acceptance of the seperation of that church, which they do not accept as right.     Communion is just that, a celebration of communion with God, and to the Catholic church, you cannot be in communion with God AND be out of communion with it.  If you real more of Catholic theology you see that it is the belief of the churcht hat it is the only true Christian church, all others are dissenting because they broke away.  In light of THAT, you can see where the problem lies in ecumenism. =) — Adam Knight Computer Science, 2001 — Baylor University, Waco, TX Mail me at funkyboy at swbell dot net

Response:

   But more to the point: What, exactly, do Anglicans believe the Eucharist is?  If we get this into the open it’d be easier to see the problems associated with it all.  This is the point that confuses me. What are the differences in belief about the Eucharist? —

&Q. What is the Holy Eucharist? &A. The Holy Eucharist is the sacrament commanded by Christ for the continual remembrance of his life, death, and resurrection, until   his coming again. &Q. Why is the Eucharist called a sacrifice? &A. Because the Eucharist, the Church’s sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, is the way by which the sacrifice of Christ is made present, and in which he unites us to his one offering of himself. &Q. By what other names is this service known? &A. The Holy Eucharist is called the Lord’s Supper, and Holy Communion; it is also known as the Divine Liturgy, the Mass, and the Great Offering. &Q. What is the outward and visible sign in the Eucharist? &A. The outward and visible sign in the Eucharist is bread and wine, give and received according to Christ’s command. &Q. What is the inward and spiritual grace given in the Eucharist? &A. The inward and spiritual grace in the Holy Communion is the Body and Blood of Christ give to his people, and received by faith. &Q. What are the benefits which we receive in the Lord’s Supper? &A. The benefits we receive are the forgiveness of our sins, [ Page 860 the strengthening of our union with Christ and one another, and the foretaste of the heavenly banquet which is our nourishment in   eternal life. &Q. What is required of us when we come to the Eucharist? &A. It is required that we should examine our lives, repent of our sins, and be in love and charity with all people. Additionally, here are some thoughts from the Episcopal / Anglican Articles of Religion, which really get into the differences in point of view between Cantebury and Rome: 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. Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ’s, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in receiving the Sacraments.  Neither is the effect of Christ’s ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God’s gifts diminished from such as by faith, and rightly, do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ’s institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men. Nevertheless, it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church, that inquiry be made of evil Ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally, being found guilty, by just judgment be deposed. 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. The Wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they docarnally and visibly press with their teeth (as Saint Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ; yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ: but rather, to their condemnation, do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing. The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people: for both the parts of the Lord’s Sacrament, by Christ’s ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike. The Offering of Christ once made in that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone.  Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits. I hope that helps….

Response:

   But more to the point: What, exactly, do Anglicans believe the Eucharist is?

Could someone post the " official " position of the Anglican communion on Real Presence. TIA

Response:

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. … I hope that helps….

    Certainly did, for this is the part I was after.  I can see now where the problem lies: the Eucharist to Anglicans is bread and wine in the physical world whereas Catholics see it as the true Body and Blood. That’s basically the point that was causing the stir in the Catholic world with that announcement, it just never hit me that the Eucharist might be defined differently to Anglicans. Thanks. =) — Adam Knight Computer Science, 2001 — Baylor University, Waco, TX Mail me at funkyboy at swbell dot net

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It is my understanding that because Episcopalians do not believe this, that they are turned away and urged to receive where they are offering Communion as what they believe it to be. I actually go to a RC school and during my theology class, one of my Anglican friends asked why the Anglicans aren’t allowed to receive Communion since they believed basically the same thing(with a slight difference). The teacher, a RC priest, could only respond "because of cultural differences."  Well, it wasn’t a great reason but I do have to admit that he is new to the priesthood and is still learning…. Brent We had an interfaith meeting with Baptist, RC, Episcopal, and Methodist representatives answering questions about differences and similarities.  The RC priest answered the question about Communion with what I thought to be a weak response about unity.  Basically he said since the RC church had differences among the other faiths, then for them to share Communion in both directions would not signify the unity of the RC faith.  He didn’t touch on the unity of all Christian faiths, Christ, however.

joeu

Response:

   I got to wondering about this after the thread got started in a mailing list I am on, then I saw the news report posted in the Episcopalian group.    The Abp. of Canterbury has requested of the Vatican a lift on the extra-Catholic ban for receiving the Eucharist in the Catholic Church (IOW letting other people than Catholics receive Catholic Eucharist). As a Catholic, I see the reason this has gone unanswered (and will be answered in the negatve), but I was wondering what others thought of this, if anything?

      In that one may go to Mass and partake of the Eucharist…unidentified, the individual concerned would only be seen by God and judged accordingly. I’ve no doubt that this did, does, and will occur. Alan

Response:

    Turning people away from the Communion rail isn’t an exclusively RC phenomenon. The former rector of an Episcopal church in Nashville, TN used to whisper to people he didn’t recognize, "Have you been confirmed in the Episcopal church?".

    Perhaps what makes it an issue at all is precicely the part I do not know.  What do Episcopalians believe the Eucharist/Communion is? Catholics believe that it is the Body and Blood of Christ; that the bread and wine are no ore and that it is Christ’s sacrifice in our mouths and bodies.  It is my understanding that because Episcopalians do not believe this, that they are turned away and urged to receive where they are offering Communion as what they believe it to be. — Adam Knight Computer Science, 2001 — Baylor University, Waco, TX Mail me at funkyboy at swbell dot net

Response:

It is my understanding that because Episcopalians do not believe this, that they are turned away and urged to receive where they are offering Communion as what they believe it to be.

I actually go to a RC school and during my theology class, one of my Anglican friends asked why the Anglicans aren’t allowed to receive Communion since they believed basically the same thing(with a slight difference). The teacher, a RC priest, could only respond "because of cultural differences."  Well, it wasn’t a great reason but I do have to admit that he is new to the priesthood and is still learning…. Brent "They say that love often passes in a second and you can never catch it up. So I’m holding onto you as though eternity beckoned though it’s clear that the match is rough."-Pete Townshend

Response:

Adam, Actually, there is very little difference between official Anglican thought on the Eucharist.  Great strides were made on that subject during the Anglican/RC dialogues during the ’70’s.  The current position of both is that of Real Presence.   Personally, I do not think we will see ‘open communion’ practiced by Rome anytime soon, but then you never know.  Many things have changed in my lifetime that I did not expect to see.   Incidently Anglicans today for the most part offer the Eucharist to all baptized Christians on the basis that we do not feel we own the Lord’s table or His meal.   It is ours to share.   I have read and understand Rome’s official position on the subject, needless to say I do not agree with it. Peace, Arthur Pedersen, II

Response:

   The Abp. of Canterbury has requested of the Vatican a lift on the extra-Catholic ban for receiving the Eucharist in the Catholic Church (IOW letting other people than Catholics receive Catholic Eucharist). As a Catholic, I see the reason this has gone unanswered (and will be answered in the negatve), but I was wondering what others thought of this, if anything?

I guess the Anglican church is now looking for a payback for when 6 Anglican ministers assisted with the changes of Vatican II.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Adam, Actually, there is very little difference between official Anglican thought on the Eucharist.  Great strides were made on that subject during the Anglican/RC dialogues during the ’70’s.  The current position of both is that of Real Presence.   Personally, I do not think we will see ‘open communion’ practiced by Rome anytime soon, but then you never know.  Many things have changed in my lifetime that I did not expect to see.   Incidently Anglicans today for the most part offer the Eucharist to all baptized Christians on the basis that we do not feel we own the Lord’s table or His meal.   It is ours to share.   I have read and understand Rome’s official position on the subject, needless to say I do not agree with it. Peace, Arthur Pedersen, II

    But more to the point: What, exactly, do Anglicans believe the Eucharist is?  If we get this into the open it’d be easier to see the problems associated with it all.  This is the point that confuses me. What are the differences in belief about the Eucharist? — Adam Knight Computer Science, 2001 — Baylor University, Waco, TX Mail me at funkyboy at swbell dot net

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It is my understanding that because Episcopalians do not believe this, that they are turned away and urged to receive where they are offering Communion as what they believe it to be. I actually go to a RC school and during my theology class, one of my Anglican friends asked why the Anglicans aren’t allowed to receive Communion since they believed basically the same thing(with a slight difference). The teacher, a RC priest, could only respond "because of cultural differences."  Well, it wasn’t a great reason but I do have to admit that he is new to the priesthood and is still learning…. Brent "They say that love often passes in a second and you can never catch it up. So I’m holding onto you as though eternity beckoned though it’s clear that the match is rough."-Pete Townshend

I find the communion ‘rules’ at churches to be kinda silly. ANY baptized Christian should be welcome to the Lord’s Supper at ANY church. KB

Response:

    I got to wondering about this after the thread got started in a mailing list I am on, then I saw the news report posted in the Episcopalian group.     The Abp. of Canterbury has requested of the Vatican a lift on the extra-Catholic ban for receiving the Eucharist in the Catholic Church (IOW letting other people than Catholics receive Catholic Eucharist). As a Catholic, I see the reason this has gone unanswered (and will be answered in the negatve), but I was wondering what others thought of this, if anything? — Adam Knight Computer Science, 2001 — Baylor University, Waco, TX Mail me at funkyboy at swbell dot net

Response:

    As a life-long Episcopalian, I applaud the Abp’s effort. At the time of the Anglican/RC dialog of the mid-late ’70s, there was some hope, but now, it seems unlikely due to the actions of both sides.     Turning people away from the Communion rail isn’t an exclusively RC phenomenon. The former rector of an Episcopal church in Nashville, TN used to whisper to people he didn’t recognize, "Have you been confirmed in the Episcopal church?".     Over the years, there have been many times when I wanted to go to a Eucharist, but an Episcopal church was not handy. Fortunately, there was usually an RC church near. I didn’t feel like an intruder and received the Sacrament in good conscience.     I feel that both churches are very close, at least in matters I consider "essential to salvation". It is because of the "un-essential" (but not unimportant) matters that I am an Episcopalian.     Intercommunion takes place unofficially all the time. Just before Communion, most Episcopal priests invite ALL who have been baptised into a Christian church to receive. Obviously, this doesn’t happen in RC churches, but many Roman priests I’ve known make non-Romans welcome, albeit quietly.     I don’t expect to see offically sanctioned intercommunion in my lifetime. It would take openness and reform on both sides, as well as a leader such as John XXIII. If it is to happen at all, the prayer and work must continue.

Response: