Another question about the Anglican Eucharist...

[Fish and Bread]

Actually, that's rather backwards. The presbyters and bishops spoken of in scripture are the same except that the council of elders in each parish did, upon occasion, choose a leader or assign one of their number to a special responsibility...voila, a bishop. The priest/presbyters later became, as they are today, the delegates of the bishop, with the deacons being the helpers of both.

That's not the way I've seen it explained in either Roman Catholic or Episcopalian circles. It's always been, in not that three-fold ministry from the beginning, then that the bishops and deacons were the two that things began with. For there to be *Apsotolic* Succession through bishops from the Apostles, that means that the Apostles would have had to have directly consecrated bishops. Priests couldn't have come first and later chose one of their number to be a bishop without a consecration from an Apostle or it the succession would come through priests, as Luther and and others believe.

But Anglicans do not, universally, recognize holy orders as a sacrament (not even a church-created one, as opposed to a sacrament of the Gospel)

Which Anglican bodies don't recognize seven sacraments? Are any of them in full communion with Canterbury?

So...uh.....thanks for the lecture or whatever that's meant to be....but what's your point exactly? It really doesn't deal with what I was saying...it's more like...I dunno.....preaching?

It's a conversation. Conversations ebb and flow and go on tangents and come full circle with greater understanding.

Right. I was basically addressing the weird notion that God only gives grace at the hands of special "zapped" people- which is obviously nonsense and neither scriptural nor Patristic.

Well, I think the ancient teaching of the undivided church was that holy orders was grace bestowed on the ordained transmitted from the Apostles down a line of bishops, and that bishops exclusively could consecrate new bishops or ordain priests, and bishops or priests could exclusively through the word of God and the power of the Holy Spirit and by virtue of their ordination confect the body and blood of Christ. I don't think it's a case where lay people could do it and are just told not to as a matter of church order. That would be a very Protestant understanding.

 

[Fish and Bread]

I'm waiting for the case to be made that the donkey was either a priest or a prophet.

The point isn't that you have to be ordained to do good works or to preach the Gospel in a non-Eurcharistic setting. You must be ordained to confect a valid Eucharist.

 

[Albion]

The point isn't that you have to be ordained to do good works or to preach the Gospel in a non-Eurcharistic setting. You must be ordained to confect a valid Eucharist.

We all know that you don't have to be ordained in order to do good or serve the Lord in some fashion or another, but how did a discussion on the Eucharist and valid priesthoods morph into that?

 

[Fish and Bread]

We all know that you don't have to be ordained in order to do good or serve the Lord in some fashion or another, but how did a discussion on the Eucharist and valid priesthoods morph into that?

I wasn't the one who brought up the donkey. I was just responding to what I thought that implied.

 

[Liberasit]

Which Anglican bodies don't recognize seven sacraments? Are any of them in full communion with Canterbury?

Church of England here, province of Canterbury, no less.

We recognise two sacraments - Baptism and the Lord's Supper

 

[Liberasit]

I've asked before on this forum, and never received a very satisfactory answer, but what is meant by "valid"? I don't hear this word used in real life in church circles in England.

 

[PaladinValer]

Church of England here, province of Canterbury, no less.

We recognise two sacraments - Baptism and the Lord's Supper

Nope. The actual Article doesn't say that the other Five aren't sacraments, only that they are not Sacraments of the Gospel, which is fancy words for "not generally necessary for salvation".

That's been explained many times before.

 

[PaladinValer]

I've asked before on this forum, and never received a very satisfactory answer, but what is meant by "valid"? I don't hear this word used in real life in church circles in England.

Asked and answered 2 years ago: http://www.christianforums.com/thre...an-church-nearby.7788556/page-3#post-64536012

 

[Fish and Bread]

I've asked before on this forum, and never received a very satisfactory answer, but what is meant by "valid"? I don't hear this word used in real life in church circles in England.

The explanation I have usually heard is something like this:

"Licit" means something that is authorized by the appropriate authorities. "Valid" means something that is, whether it is authorized or not.

For example, take a priest who has gotten into some sort of trouble, and has been told by the competent authorities that he can no longer celebrate the Eucharist or present himself as a priest, but rents out a hall or meets with people in their home, and presents himself as a priest and celebrates the Eucharist with people anyway as the presiding priest. That Eucharist would be valid (i.e. really the body and blood of Christ) but illicit (i.e. not something he's supposed to be doing). A priest is always *able* to confect the Eucharist, but some are not *supposed* to be doing it. Validity is the first thing, licitity is the second.

A counter example would be let's say someone a person who never ordained properly, but who believes himself to have been, and who the church believes has been, and is not lying to his bishop or anything, it's somehow an honest mistake, goes and celebrates a Sunday Eucharist. That Eucharist is licit (authorized), but not valid (i.e. it is not really the sacrament, or at least not guaranteed to be unless God wills it to be so, because in this weird hypothetical, he is not really a priest and just thinks he is).

 

[katerinah1947]

Asked and answered 2 years ago: http://www.christianforums.com/thre...an-church-nearby.7788556/page-3#post-64536012

Hi,
And she asked for a summary two years ago. I just saw it, her request on your reference.
LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

 

[Liberasit]

Asked and answered 2 years ago: http://www.christianforums.com/thre...an-church-nearby.7788556/page-3#post-64536012

As I said, I asked and never received a satisfactory answer...

 

[katerinah1947]

As I said, I asked and never received a satisfactory answer...

Hi,
I know that was supposed to be my point. You were given a reference, and in that reference you asked for a summary, and no one gave you an answer then.
I read that description. It makes precisely no sense to me. It is written in jargon/esoteric-language.
LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

 

[Liberasit]

Hi,
I know that was supposed to be my point. You were given a reference, and in that reference you asked for a summary, and no one gave you an answer then.
I read that description. It makes precisely no sense to me. It is written in jargon/esoteric-language.
LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

Exactly, Mary.

I appreciated Fish & Bread's description of the concept, but I do feel that this is all through a Roman Catholic lens. It's not a concept I have encountered IRL in the Church of England.

 

[katerinah1947]

Exactly, Mary.

I appreciated Fish & Bread's description of the concept, but I do feel that this is all through a Roman Catholic lens. It's not a concept I have encountered IRL in the Church of England.

Hi,
The last time I asked anyone in direct contact with God, about my orders from Jesus, not to partake of Communion untiil heaven, the angel replied to me. My orders still stand. I am not to do that, until heaven.
In any event, I still go to Mass some of the time, when my health permits, and the angel or his charge, found an Anglican service in my town, that I can go to. There are actually two, but one does not care for some of my traits.
That one, the larger one never called me back after I visited them, to see if my mystical marriage caused them a problem, or not. That lack of an answer, I am taking as an acknowledgement that they can not handle my being mystically married.

The priest at the smaller service has no problems with me, in any sense. On the subject of Communion, I was wondering just what it meant Anglican wise. So I came here, and this site is bothering me, as when I saw Jesus in Sprit form enter the bread last week, and then later enter the wine last week, I thought I totally understood. Then someone spoke of entering only in the Spirit, and now I am confused.

I knew it was Jesus, and He was too dark in that form to be just a spirit. So I think He must have been there in some bodily fashion also. When I see angels in that form, they are materialized enough for me to see them, with my heart. And, I don't know if I saw Jesus enter in heart mode or with my eyes. I don't remember.

In any event I quizzed the priest. He said when He consecrates the Eucharist and the Wine, Jesus is bodily present. I then told him what I saw.

I am so confused by Jesus in Spirit. Would I or anyone see Jesus in Spirit mode? I think so.

LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

 

[Catherineanne]

Hello,

In the Anglican Church, is an ordained priest the only one permitted/ is able/ has the grace to effect the change of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ for the Eucharist? Or can anyone do this, for example, if a group of lay people were at a retreat or a home fellowship, could Communion be prepared by the group's leader (or anyone else) and served, as is done in some evangelical groups?

And for the priests, I am assuming the Anglicans believe in apostolic succession?

Please forgive the ignorance of my questions. I do have a purpose in asking them.

The priest is the only person who can preside over the Eucharist, and apostolic succession is part of Anglicanism.

The good news for your friend is that the communion he carries out for himself is likely to be quietly disregarded for a time, to allow him to reflect and consider; Anglicanism is not prone to draconian prohibitions. What he is doing won't be approved, and it will probably be gently discouraged, but nobody will come knocking on his door demanding he hand over the wafers or else.

If he is taking people from the congregation to his 'communion', or still doing it in a few months time, that might be different. But I think he will be given time to reflect.

 

[Bonifatius]

Church of England here, province of Canterbury, no less.

We recognise two sacraments - Baptism and the Lord's Supper

Well, that's a matter of discussion - or a matter of counting. All seven sacraments are administered in the Church of England, however, two of them are seen as Sacraments the Lord has instituted in his holy gospel (Baptism and Eucharist) while the others (commonly called sacraments) are ordinances of the church which are to be kept. Some would say that makes seven sacraments, others say it makes two major and five minor sacraments and others again say that makes two sacraments plus five other rites.

 

[PaladinValer]

As I said, I asked and never received a satisfactory answer...

That reply was quite intelligible for my students.

 

[Bonifatius]

As I said, I asked and never received a satisfactory answer...

I think when we use the term 'valid' in a church context we simply mean: it says what it is.

A 'valid' baptism is a ritual where we can acknowledge that it actually was a baptism. If someone sprinkles some water over a baby and says 'God loves you' we would not call that a baptism. If they say it was a baptism we would argue that it was not a valid baptism. Or the Eucharist: if it is performed by some minister with coke and crisps and they recite some poetic texts it might be a lovely thing to do but not a 'valid' Eucharist.

So validity in a context of a discussion in an Anglican church means simply that we acknowledge a rite to be a sacrament or to do what it says.

I think in this our use of the term is different from that in the Roman Catholic church.

 

[Liberasit]

That reply was quite intelligible for my students.

Obviously something is lost in translation

 

[Albion]

Well, that's a matter of discussion - or a matter of counting. All seven sacraments are administered in the Church of England, however, two of them are seen as Sacraments the Lord has instituted in his holy gospel (Baptism and Eucharist) while the others (commonly called sacraments) are ordinances of the church which are to be kept.

That means that they are commonly called sacraments, not that they are sacraments. BTW, no one is advocating that they be discontinued by the church, so that idea is hardly worth approaching.