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

[Virgil the Roman]

If the orthodox Anglican Bishops, were to hold to at least the first three points that a_ntv said earlier in post 34#, and that they hold a ecumenical council with the Church in Rome, to correct the doctrinal errors that Some of the Anglican Hierachs promulgated, then after this they could possibly considered to receive intercommunion with the Catholic Church, and maybe even eventually reunion with the Catholic Church. However the likelihood of this happening is not very high for anytime in the near future, I fear.

 

[karen freeinchristman]

If the orthodox Anglican Bishops, were to hold to at least the first three points that a_ntv said earlier in post 34#, and that they hold a ecumenical council with the Church in Rome, to correct the doctrinal errors that Some of the Anglican Hierachs promulgated, then after this they could possibly considered to receive intercommunion with the Catholic Church, and maybe even eventually reunion with the Catholic Church. However the likelihood of this happening is not very high for anytime in the near future, I fear.

You are right, it is not likely to happen.

 

[Lotar]

I don't understand why Anglicans are so obsessed with trying to get us to say they have valid sacraments. If you think you have them, what does it matter if we say that you don't?

 

[karen freeinchristman]

I don't understand why Anglicans are so obsessed with trying to get us to say they have valid sacraments. If you think you have them, what does it matter if we say that you don't?

You know, it doesn't really matter to me what the Orthodox church or the Roman Catholic church thinks of us, but I just think it is very sad, and I think that God is saddened, too, that they seem to have placed themselves on some kind of pedestal and us under the door mat. Really, I'm not bothered. I just have to pray harder to love those who I find difficult to understand.

 

[TomUK]

I don't understand why Anglicans are so obsessed with trying to get us to say they have valid sacraments. If you think you have them, what does it matter if we say that you don't?

Why are other denominations so obsessed with discrediting our sacraments?

 

[nikolayalexandroff]

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.

In estimating validity of the Eucharist there is another not the less important criterion. It is fidelity of the moral doctrine of the Church to the Scripture and to the Christian tradition. All members of the Church are sinners. All of them have utter need for salvation. The Church points out the way to it. The Church cannot teach people to make sinful deeds. But if a known community by the word and by the deed (I mean ordaining as a bishop openly practising homosexual) asserts that some deeds condemned by the Scripture are not sins at all, whether this community is the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ? Or we are just playing? Kind of Glassperlenspiel? Isn’t this fact a real damaging of the Christian teaching? It is necessary to pay attention to this circumstance before to go deep into details of rite. Please, try to understand what I mean correctly. I believe by all my heart that there are millions of true Christians in the AC. But there are sins and sins. Even if we are considering the most odious person in the Church history, Alessandro Borja, though he has terribly injured moral authority of the RCC, he didn’t change the moral doctrine of the RCC.

 

[Counter-Reformer]

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.

IF the Eucharist in the Anglican Church is "valid", then why has the sacerdotal nature of ther Priesthood been removed and why hasn't the Anglican Church agreed with an ecumenical council of the nature of the Eucharist as defined by the Fourth Lataran council in 1215? Both of which are necessarry to confect a valid eucharist.

 

[Lotar]

Why are other denominations so obsessed with discrediting our sacraments?

I have yet to see an Orthodox or Catholic Christian start a thread on whether or not Anglicans have valid orders or sacraments.

It's probably because deep down you all know that you are really just Protestants.

 

[She]

I have yet to see an Orthodox or Catholic Christian start a thread on whether or not Anglicans have valid orders or sacraments.

It's probably because deep down you all know that you are really just Protestants.

What "is probably because deep down you all know that you are really just Protestants"?

If you are referring to me, as the OP, my intention was not to start a thread about whether or not the Anglicans have valid orders or sacraments. My intention was to find out why the EO do not allow catholics to receive their Eucharist. Why the catholics do not allow the Anglicans to receive their Eucharist. And what was each denominations view of each other's sacrament.

My apologies to the Anglicans reading this thread. Please let me know if you would like me to request closure of this thread as I would be more than willing to do so, at your request.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

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

Where exactly is it. there's 6 stickies... I don't feel like reading through all the posts Cna you quote it in context or link it?

Thanks,

John

 

[Counter-Reformer]

What "is probably because deep down you all know that you are really just Protestants"?

If you are referring to me, as the OP, my intention was not to start a thread about whether or not the Anglicans have valid orders or sacraments. My intention was to find out why the EO do not allow catholics to receive their Eucharist. Why the catholics do not allow the Anglicans to receive their Eucharist. And what was each denominations view of each other's sacrament.

My apologies to the Anglicans reading this thread. Please let me know if you would like me to request closure of this thread as I would be more than willing to do so, at your request.

Catholics do not partake in the Eucahrists of the Anglican Church becuase of the afformentioned lack of Sacraments, but more importantly to take communion means to give assent to the theological and liturgical practices and foundation by which the Anglicans were founded on and taht includes the assent to the Schism of Henry VII and Cardinal Wosely.

 

[Tawny]

Supervisor Note

I have edited the title of this thread at the OP's request. This is an excellent thread with valid points being made, please do not descend into pettiness and flames against Congregational Beliefs.

If this happens, I will close and review the thread accordingly.

Thank you

Tawny
Supervisor - Theology Team

 

[a_ntv]

In estimating validity of the Eucharist there is another not the less important criterion. It is fidelity of the moral doctrine of the Church to the Scripture and to the Christian tradition. All members of the Church are sinners. All of them have utter need for salvation. The Church points out the way to it. The Church cannot teach people to make sinful deeds. But if a known community by the word and by the deed (I mean ordaining as a bishop openly practicing homosexual) asserts that some deeds condemned by the Scripture are not sins at all, whether this community is the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ? Or we are just playing? Kind of Glassperlenspiel? Isn’t this fact a real damaging of the Christian teaching? It is necessary to pay attention to this circumstance before to go deep into details of rite. Please, try to understand what I mean correctly. I believe by all my heart that there are millions of true Christians in the AC. There are sins and sins. Even if we are considering a most odious person in the Church history, Alessandro Borja, though he has terribly injured moral authority of the RCC, he didn’t change the moral doctrine of the RCC.

You are mixing two different criterias: a wrong teaching of the church in moral, that could fit the criteria #5 (correct orthodoxy), and the personal sanctity of the ordaining bishop, a criteria that CC does not accept.
At the limit, if the gay Gene Robinson is a valid bishop, any ordination celebrated by him is valid (if under the criterias I listed in a above post)!!!

I have yet to see an Orthodox or Catholic Christian start a thread on whether or not Anglicans have valid orders or sacraments.

It's probably because deep down you all know that you are really just Protestants.

I dont think that 'protestant' is a valid cathegory: it is too generic.
A better cathegory into the Christianism is 'with/without valid apostoli succession': that cathegory is relevant for the CC. This cathegory has many implications: ad instance a complete different ecumenic path, or very different attention to other church bishops teachings

An exemple: Catholic Church have not dogmaticly defined (in a negative way) the chance to order woman-deacons, ONLY because some orthodox bishops (OO) recently restored this use: because these bishops were orthodos, the CC paid attenction, while if these bishops were ...methodists... (ad instance)... the attenction should have been very minor.

Anglicans are on the border: so it is an important point to debate.

 

[nikolayalexandroff]

You are mixing two different criterias: a wrong teaching of the church in moral, that could fit the criteria #5 (correct orthodoxy), and the personal sanctity of the ordaining bishop, a criteria that CC does not accept.
At the limit, if the gay Gene Robinson is a valid bishop, any ordination celebrated by him is valid (if under the criterias I listed in a above post)!!!



I dont think that 'protestant' is a valid cathegory: it is too generic.
A better cathegory into the Christianism is 'with/without valid apostoli succession': that cathegory is relevant for the CC. This cathegory has many implications: ad instance a complete different ecumenic path, or very different attention to other church bishops teachings

An exemple: Catholic Church have not dogmaticly defined the chance to order woman-deacons, ONLY because some orthodox bishops (OO) recently restored this use: because these bishops were orthodos, the CC paid attenction, while if these bishops were ...methodists... (ad instance)... the attenction should have been very minor.

Anglicans are on the border: so it is an important point to debate.

The wrong teaching of the Church in moral, I think is the very reason of the invalidness of the Eucharist. The teaching of EOC does not demand personal sanctity from the priest or bishop, as far as I know.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

The wrong teaching of the Church in moral, I think is the very reason of the invalidness of the Eucharist. The teaching of EOC does not demand personal sanctity from the priest or bishop, as far as I know.

The wrong teaching of the Church in moral, I think is the very reason of the invalidness of the Eucharist. The teaching of EOC does not demand personal sanctity from the priest or bishop, as far as I know.

That's what I am told as well.

 

[Aymn27]

Because of the Sacerdotal nature of the Priesthood has been removed from the Anglican Holy Orders,as CounterReformers, I think this in effect means, that the Part of the Anglican Communion that does this, is in Apostasy, because, they reject the Sacerdotal Nature of the Priesthood, and have begun to ordain Women, which the Roman Catholic Church says, that it runs counter to the original way Christ estabilished the priesthood, and thus, is invalid.

Brother Raven and Counter Reformer, I sincerely hope that I am not entering this discussion too late as I find it of much interest.

If I may beg you - pray tell, where exactly in Scripture does Christ institute a "sacredotal" priesthood. I would also like to see ante-Nicean references to the same. I anxiously await your reply.

Blessings and peace,
Aaron

 

[She]

Welcome, Aaron. I am glad that you finally made it. I look forward to hearing your argument in defence of the Anglican Church. (We have been in need of it for almost a week now.) I hope that it is not too late.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

That is not completly correct.

Catholic standard positions on the ordinations was that that a bishop is a true bishop if:
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

About the rite, the lack of some sentences in some anglican rite is quite weak: not only because the form of the sacrament changed a lot during the centuries, but also because the Church have the power to 'sanate' some missing in the form (a doctrine very similar to the orthodox idea of 'ecomony', even if more limited)

In fact the focal point of the Apostilicae curae was the missing of intention to do what the Church believes. But this is very dependent from the very bishops who performed the ordinations. We cannot read in the mind of them. But we can anyway rely on the word of the pope, and so consider such ordination invalid.

Orthodox add (as far as I know) two other conditions for the validity of the sacrament of the order:
4- the existance of a Church in which the ordination is done
5- the correct orthodoxy of the bishops consacteting and consacrated

The first condition is, IMO, really appropiate because the the Church is an essential part of the priesthood, that is not a proprerty of someone. (well..there are many single person, out-from-the church, that are ordained 'validally' as bishops..quite ridicolous)

The second condition is not really considered by catholic, because it do not marry well with the principle "ex opere operato", and because it is not easy to define the border of a correct orthodoxy.

But we know that know the most of episcopal, and also some lutheran, bishops can trace their ordination back to some catholic or orthodox bishops of the XIX - XX century, and so out from the Apostilicae curae. Are they properly ordained? who know. IMO Probably not, and because of mainly above point 5.

I believe the first three points that a_ntv so eloquently stated here are the criteria of which you're looking for. In addition, some of the Anglican Church, have adopted the practice of permitting and ordaining women priests, counter to the all-male priesthood Christ established for his church, thus nullifying the validity of the priesthood for those parishes that accept it, being as they changed a doctrine that Christ himself founded, they've put themselves in error, or Heresy as one would say.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Also, and I've heard that the Anglican Communion believes that the Eucharist is contains the "real Prescence" of Jesus Christ within it. I'd think it be better to state, that for all to know it is the real and true body and blood of Christ Jesus, when consecrated by the priest. To deny this is to put oneself into heresy.
Does the Anglican Church affirm that the Eucharist is truly 100% the real body and blood of Christ Jesus, and not just in spirit or in a "symbolic" manner? If they cannot affirm this for all Anglicans, those who espouse doctrines counter to believing that the Eucharist are in fact the true 100% Body and Blood of Christ Jesus once consecrated, are to be considered Heretics.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Brother Raven and Counter Reformer, I sincerely hope that I am not entering this discussion too late as I find it of much interest.

If I may beg you - pray tell, where exactly in Scripture does Christ institute a "sacredotal" priesthood. I would also like to see ante-Nicean references to the same. I anxiously await your reply.

Blessings and peace,
Aaron

Good to see you too, Aymn! Haven't talked to you in awhile. I hope all's well with you.