Eucharistic Theology in the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox & Anglican Church

[She]

But the lack of missing sentence in the ordination rite was not the focal point of the document as A_NTV pointed out clearly and what was missing from the Edwardian Ordeal was the intention to do what the Church believes. If that single sentence was the focal point, I would agree with you, however becuase it is not, the Anglican arguement becomes very weak.

As far as I am aware, that single missing sentence at ordination was the main reason for the rejection, by the Roman Catholic Church, of the validity of the Anglican Eucharist. This has been a well known fact for more than 100 years.

 

[Counter-Reformer]

As far as I am aware, that single missing sentence at ordination was the main reason for the rejection, by the Roman Catholic Church, of the validity of the Anglican Eucharist. This has been a well known fact for more than 100 years.

By removing this sentence without the Okaying of the Church as a whole make the consecretions of the Edwardian Ordeal invalid becuase they did not have any dispensation from canonical form from Rome. They changed the rurbrics of ordination without any okaying from Rome or from an Ecumenical Council. Since they were in schism, in order for them to have valid apostolic succession they were to keep the rite as it was given them before the schism without anychanges or changes in the intent of the Sacrament. Since they refused to sign on to the Tredentine Reforms of the Liturgy, they were stuck with the Liturgy and rites they had since they had placed themselves outside the Roman Rite and the universal dispensations given at Trent in 1546 and at Vatican II.

Therefore any ordination from thereon in would be invalid and ilicit becuase they are using a Roman Rite Ordination rite that is neither true to Canonical form and Without Dispensation, and since the Bishops of the Anglican Church Hold to their Confessions, since the sacerdotal nature of the Prieshood is denied outright then since all of the Sacraments require Form, Matter, and intent, First and Third are missing making the ordination invalid.

 

[DeoJuvante]

By removing this sentence without the Okaying of the Church as a whole make the consecretions of the Edwardian Ordeal invalid becuase they did not have any dispensation from canonical form from Rome. They changed the rurbrics of ordination without any okaying from Rome or from an Ecumenical Council. Since they were in schism, in order for them to have valid apostolic succession they were to keep the rite as it was given them before the schism without anychanges or changes in the intent of the Sacrament. Since they refused to sign on to the Tredentine Reforms of the Liturgy, they were stuck with the Liturgy and rites they had since they had placed themselves outside the Roman Rite and the universal dispensations given at Trent in 1546 and at Vatican II.

Therefore any ordination from thereon in would be invalid and ilicit becuase they are using a Roman Rite Ordination rite that is neither true to Canonical form and Without Dispensation, and since the Bishops of the Anglican Church Hold to their Confessions, since the sacerdotal nature of the Prieshood is denied outright then since all of the Sacraments require Form, Matter, and intent, First and Third are missing making the ordination invalid.

In other words, Anglican ordinations are invalid because Rome did not authorise the Anglican ordination rites?????????

So God will convey the Sacrament of Holy Orders only at Rome's beck and call. What authority does Rome have to tell God which rites to accept or not to accept?

Incidentally, this comment is not directed to the vast army of Roman Catholics here but jus t Counter-Reformer here, whose argument is really quite amazing.

 

[karen freeinchristman]

Yes, I find that argument amazing as well.

This whole thread turns my stomach actually. Thank God I am in the Anglican church. All the legalism spewing out around here reminds me of something... the Pharisees, perhaps?

Can we actually imagine Jesus reading this thread and approving of all of that stuff?

This makes me feel sick.

 

[She]

By removing this sentence without the Okaying of the Church as a whole make the consecretions of the Edwardian Ordeal invalid becuase they did not have any dispensation from canonical form from Rome. They changed the rurbrics of ordination without any okaying from Rome or from an Ecumenical Council. Since they were in schism, in order for them to have valid apostolic succession they were to keep the rite as it was given them before the schism without anychanges or changes in the intent of the Sacrament. Since they refused to sign on to the Tredentine Reforms of the Liturgy, they were stuck with the Liturgy and rites they had since they had placed themselves outside the Roman Rite and the universal dispensations given at Trent in 1546 and at Vatican II.

Therefore any ordination from thereon in would be invalid and ilicit becuase they are using a Roman Rite Ordination rite that is neither true to Canonical form and Without Dispensation, and since the Bishops of the Anglican Church Hold to their Confessions, since the sacerdotal nature of the Prieshood is denied outright then since all of the Sacraments require Form, Matter, and intent, First and Third are missing making the ordination invalid.

What about an earlier post which pointed out that, after Vatican II the ordination rite was changed to be almost identical to the Anglican ordination rite. Does that validate Anglican ordination? Or does it invalidate Catholic ordination?

 

[a_ntv]

What about an earlier post which pointed out that, after Vatican II the ordination rite was changed to be almost identical to the Anglican ordination rite. Does that validate Anglican ordination? Or does it invalidate Catholic ordination?

By first I would like to state that an ordination (or a ordination rite) without the Rome approval makes this ordination simply unlegal, but this point does not touch the validity of a ordination.

As I pointed out in my post #34, the validity of a bishop ordination can be checked with following 5 points (only the first three officially by CC, as far as I know):

1- who order him is a true bishop(s) (ok)
2- the rite is formally correct
3- the intention of the ordaining bishop(s) is to do what the Church believes
4- the existance of a Church in which the ordination is done
5- the correct orthodoxy of the bishops consactrating and consacrated

Apostolica Curae checked the Edwardian ordiantions, and focused on the form (point 2) mainly to verify the intention (point 3).
We well know that Mr Cranmer and his company believed a doctrine really away from Catholism, even farer than Luther himself. They changed the rite of ordination not because a 'mistake' or to find 'an equivalent way', but because they didnot believed in apostolic succession at all and retained the formal ordination of bishops only as a statal appointment of statal officers (bishops). This lack of intention is clear from the rite used, but also from lots of writings of such a century.
Anyway this leave a trace of hope, because noone in fact is in the very minds of the bishops involved in such ordinations.

But Apostolica Curae is completly surpassed in the XX century with the new chain of ordinations, from Old Catholics, that had surely valid bishops.

But are so valid also the sussequent Anglican Ordinations (or Episcolap ones), and the Lutheran ordinations made by Episcopalian ????

I cannot give an answer, nor, as far as i know, there is any official answer by Rome. So we shall respect such a bishops and their Eucharistic. But for sakeness re-ordain them if they join the CC.
I can immagine an answer: IMO, and IMO, Episcopalian ordinations could be valid if:
- it is possible to came back to a Old Catholic bishop
- in any bishops in the chain there was a correct and orthodox believe about the sacrament of ordination (like there in many brach of Episcopal church)
- in no step there was a woman bishop

It should be intersting to ask some episcopalian bishop or priest if they know which is their apostolic succession.

 

[Counter-Reformer]

What about an earlier post which pointed out that, after Vatican II the ordination rite was changed to be almost identical to the Anglican ordination rite. Does that validate Anglican ordination? Or does it invalidate Catholic ordination?

It does not invalidate Catholic ordinations becuase the Church in the reform of the Roman rite kepty the sacerdotal nature of the priesthood intact by infallible ecumenical council and ex cathedra statements by the Pope. The Church being indefectable stated quite clearly this case in the catchechism of Vatican II and a dispensation was given in the new liturgical rite. Anglicans may have a similiar rite to vatican II's reforms, thier confessions (the 39 articles and the Westminster confessions) hold that Apostolic sucession is denied as well as the sacerdotal nature of the priesthood. By holding to that and the refusal of the dispensations given with the correct intention, means agaib without a shadow of a doubt, Anglican ordinations are unlawful and invalid.

 

[nikolayalexandroff]

Yes, I find that argument amazing as well.

This whole thread turns my stomach actually. Thank God I am in the Anglican church. All the legalism spewing out around here reminds me of something... the Pharisees, perhaps?

Can we actually imagine Jesus reading this thread and approving of all of that stuff?

This makes me feel sick.

AC it seems to me now is in condition of an incurable illness. It is hardly possible to speak about Eucharist in AC at all after well-known events of several last years. It is complete deviation from the Apostolic Tradition and from the letter of Scripture. Theological subtleties don’t matter any more.

 

[a_ntv]

AC it seems to me now is in condition of an incurable illness. It is hardly possible to speak about Eucharist in AC at all after well-known events of several last years. It is complete deviation from the Apostolic Tradition and from the letter of Scripture. Theological subtleties don’t matter any more.
.

This post is a little hard. It is easy to arrive to final result if we never attended the others church.

I was in Oxford and I was in a Anglican Church on a midweek: I attended a eve Mass (we were two: I and the old priest): the priest, with correct vestments, celabrated the Mass with a so huge reverence for the Liturgy and for the Eucharist that I've seen a few time in catholic Masses.
As a catholic I knew that he should be a un-valid priest, that his Eucharist should be not valid....but.........

Probably the 5 conditions I listed above are correct, but the right way is to see the fruits...and such adoration and care for the Eucharist was fruit that leaves no doubt.

 

[She]

This post is a little hard. It is easy to arrive to final result if we never attended the others church.

I was in Oxford and I was in a Anglican Church on a midweek: I attended a eve Mass (we were two: I and the old priest): the priest, with correct vestments, celabrated the Mass with a so huge reverence for the Liturgy and for the Eucharist that I've seen a few time in catholic Masses.
As a catholic I knew that he should be a un-valid priest, that his Eucharist should be not valid....but.........

Probably the 5 conditions I listed above are correct, but the right way is to see the fruits...and such adoration and care for the Eucharist was fruit that leaves no doubt.

Thank you. These are my thoughts exactly, about an Anglican Church which I like to go to. The priest and the congregation are so reverent and spiritual. They truly believe in the True Presence of Jesus. Their sacrament is sacred and holy. You can see it by the respect which they have for the Eucharist and by their spirituality.

 

[ROGER459]

(Hebrews 1:1-2-3) God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
(Heb 1:2) Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
(Heb 1:3) Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

(John 19:30) When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

(Hebrews 10:12) But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

Thanks, Roger459

 

[karen freeinchristman]

Theological subtleties don’t matter any more.

If you are saying here that theological subtleties don't matter to the Anglican church, then I would rather have that be the case than that we'd lost the plot altogether.

Using the scriptural verses about Jesus' body and blood, however clear they may be, and forming it into the most important thing in a denomination, to the exclusion and diminishment of other Christians, is much worse, IMO, than focusing on Jesus' message as a whole (i.e. the Gospel, the Kingdom - I'm sure you've heard of those) and making an inclusive gesture to welcome people (Jesus died once and FOR ALL).

The Anglican church diminishes neither the Eucharist nor other Christians. Rather than run from it, I'm even further convinced (if that could be possible) by the arguments presented here that I must stick with the Anglican church.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

So not allowing people to receive Christ is a sign of unity?

No, it's not. That's the point. Tom, you and I are not unified in one Church. We don't even believe the same things ABOUT the Church. In the bible it says that the people were of one mind. We can assume that this is on important topics. Sure, you can say that "important" is very subjective (and I would agree). But the point is that we (orthodox and Catholics) believe that certain issues ARE important: "Real Presence" to name one that is apropos to this thread. Your Church and my Church do not even profess the same things about the Eucharist. How can we drink of the same Chalice and claim unity whe we don't even necessarily agree on WHAT is in that Chalice?

I am not denying that 1) you are a Christian and 2) that we are connected in certain, very important ways. I am merely saying that we are not united as one in the Bride of Christ, the Visible Church. As for some kind of Invisible Church that goes beyond the visible boundaries, I am not going to speculate except to say that God loves all of us and I a sure that He is pleased by the fact that many Anglicans DO treasure the Eucharist and take the words of Christ seriously believing that It truly is His body and Blood. Not to mention many other aspects of some Anglicans' beliefs and the good deeds they do in Christ's name.

Please remember, I am not here to bash your Church nor tell you what you should do with Communion. Your Church has a very different understanding of both the Sacrament and what the Church is. We have very little common language or perspective (in this matter) with which to speak on this subject and have any kind of coherent dialogue.

Quite frankly, if a Church didn't believe in a Visible Institution laid down by Christ against which the gates of Hades should never prevail, it would seem logical that as long as you share the minimum requirements of beliefs that that particular Church holds, communion can be quite open. To be honest, I have never understood why the LCMS (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod) holds closed communion. De Facto, most Chruches don't hold very strictly to this, but De jure, they are supposed to. On the other hand, if one believes that they are the Church of Christ... the Visible Body of Christ on Earth then it makes sense that being a part of that is something very exclusive and that joining the Church is more than just converting with your mind, but with your body and soul and giving your all to that Church. If I didn't believe in a Visible Church, however, I would never give my body and soul to any institution, because it would be nothing more than that... an institution - perhaps a very good and God-fearing institution and perhaps even an institution that pleases God (with good belief, strong faith and good works of faith) more than others, but we all know that doesn't last forever.

Forgiven

Thank you.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

By the way, let me reiterate, that I am not saying that Anglican Eucharist is not real. I don't know... but my gut tells me that something real is happening at many (if not all) of those Churches... but that's just me. That has nothing to do with the Question from an Orthodox POV. On a side noute, however, it would seem to me that IF something real is happening there, it DOES matter what people are taught to believe on it. Am I wrong in remembering that the Anglican Church does not take either side on the Real Presence? Please let me know if and where I err.

God bless,

John

 

[Lotar]

IMNSHO, Catholics probably have valid communion, but I highly doubt Anglicans have anything other than bread and wine.

 

[masuwerte]

Am I wrong in remembering that the Anglican Church does not take either side on the Real Presence?

Perhaps you'd like to read what our catechism says about the Mass. It's in a sticky over at STR.

 

[Polycarp1]

For what it's worth, the Anglican Communion preserved the Apostolic Succession not only through the English line but also through the Scottish and Irish bishops, who were not dependent on Canterbury and, so far as I know,did not use the Edwardian Ordinal.

I find the entire argument of CounterReformer to smack of the worst kind of circular logic. "It was not OK when you did it, because you were in schism from us, so by doing it you eradicated a necessary part of form and intent. But it's OK when we did the same thing, because we're infallible, and so cannot commit error." Blech! Even considering that Michelina and PS139, who I believe know what they're talking about, have said that with the issues raised, it's quite possible there have been Anglican clergy validly ordained by the Catholic perspective.

Now, we are talking about the Eucharist. Suppose, for the sake of argument, we presume that bishops and priests of the four communions are in fact valid. (I assume everyone recognizes "presumption for argument" -- it's not asking you to buy a pig in a poke, but to set aside doubts (or even convictions) to the contrary for the moment, so that we can discuss the "then" clause that depends on the "if." In this case,"If a validly ordained priest essays to confect Eucharist, the Eucharist is valid if confected with the proper form, matter, and intent." Grant the "if" clause, the premise, so we can discuss the conclusion.

Anglican belief is simply stated: We believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. We do not presume to accept one or another explanation of how this comes to be, but hold it as a holy mystery." I believe those terms should strike a chord with our Orthodox brethren.

 

[Counter-Reformer]

For what it's worth, the Anglican Communion preserved the Apostolic Succession not only through the English line but also through the Scottish and Irish bishops, who were not dependent on Canterbury and, so far as I know,did not use the Edwardian Ordinal.

Even in the Scottish and of Irish Bishops refused to acknowledge Apostolic Succession and the sacerdotal nature of the Priesthood. Heck, the Church of Scotland holds to the Calvinist Westminster Confessions as did the Church of Ireland. To say that there was valid apostolic sucession coming from the Scottish bishops is laughable.

I find the entire argument of CounterReformer to smack of the worst kind of circular logic. "It was not OK when you did it, because you were in schism from us, so by doing it you eradicated a necessary part of form and intent. But it's OK when we did the same thing, because we're infallible, and so cannot commit error."

However, the Church in her liturgical reforms has always kept the form and intent intact.In the ordination, the consecration is always done in the intention of what the Church as a whole confesses. Becuase the Anglicans do not hold to the sacerdotal nature of the Priesthood and have Refused the Reforms of Trent and Vatican II, so thier ordinations are illicit and thier eucharists just bread and wine.

Blech! Even considering that Michelina and PS139, who I believe know what they're talking about, have said that with the issues raised, it's quite possible there have been Anglican clergy validly ordained by the Catholic perspective.

Which would be only recently during the 19th century Rush to get Utrecht Bishops to consecrete them during the Oxford Movement. With the consecretion of female priests and Bishops, this throws whatever Apostolic succession the Anglicans had after the conversion of Cardinal Newmann and Apostilicae Curae back into question.

 

[a_ntv]

Anglican belief is simply stated: We believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. We do not presume to accept one or another explanation of how this comes to be, but hold it as a holy mystery." I believe those terms should strike a chord with our Orthodox brethren.

Be carefull with the term Real Presence: it means nothing. A protestant explained me that he believes in the Real Presence because in his service there were more that two people attending and so For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (Mat 18:20). This can be called Real presence but it is not what we beleive about the Eucharist. To believe in the Eucharist you shall believe (if you dont like to speak of substatia) that there is a actual change in the bread&wine on the altar, due to the priest consacration (and not due to who eats them), and that so the bread&wine became the actual One Very Touchable Body and Blood of Chirst.
As far as I know the teaching of the Anglican Church on that is always been very deliberately vague, to cover both who have the very same understanding of chatholic (from the Oxford movement) and who believe that the 'is' means 'simbolizes'.

Which would be only recently during the 19th century Rush to get Utrecht Bishops to consecrete them during the Oxford Movement. With the consecretion of female priests and Bishops, this throws whatever Apostolic succession the Anglicans had after the conversion of Cardinal Newmann and Apostilicae Curae back into question.

In that I really do not agree.
The Apostolic Succesion is not a 'property' of a institution but of any single bishop. Ok, some bishops became so near to a generic liberalism that there is no more hope, but other bishops are resisting against these changes and profess a very conservative (they say 'orthodox') faith.
More, these 'orthodox' anglican bishops have already asked a Alternative Primatial Oversight (APO) from the Archbishop of Canterbury !!! See http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4617

 

[higgs2]

As Anglicans, we need to make sure that our Roman Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters know that we have no doubt that their Eucharist is "valid" and that they are welcome at our table. I am proud of our church for this welcoming spirit of love and reconciliation.