The Didache

[Albion]

in case of emergency also the protestants can.
EO and OO, Assirians, PNC can also not in emergency, even if we do not encourage them to go against their church provisions.

All right, but it's not as if the RCC has intercommunion with any of these churches, so there's no blame on the Anglicans if there is no intercommunion between our churches.

Well, I have been not clear. The CC recognize the full validity of very unusual Eucharistic Prayers, like the one of Addai and Mari that is without the explicit institution narrative.
Such texts have not all the doctrines well developed, the same that the BOC (1549 edition, better than the 1552 edition): they could be anyway used if the priest has the right will to do what the Catholic Church does: there is nothing magic in the liturgy

Think also the the other eucharistic prayers used in the CC: not all of them have all the doctrinal elements well developed in the same way, but all of them are valid (if used with the correct will).
I think for instance that you find acceptable without problems our Eucharistic Prayer n.3: simply because the sacrifical meaning is not so explicit. I've never heard that the BOC Eucaristic Prayer was not valid by itself: perhaps it is not explicit in doctrine, but the main elements are for sure present.

Well, I'm interested to know that.

Ok, if these words were Middle-Age developments, we could think to change them.

But they are too old and ancient...

They are not from scripture in this form, so I don't see the difference. Old, very old, really really old. It doesn't make much difference when all are human in origin. By the way, didn't the New Mass change them?

Question: What is the meaning of the affirmation that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church? (you would say in the RCC)

Answer: Christ “established here on earth” only one Church and instituted it as a “visible and spiritual community”, that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found ALL the elements that Christ himself instituted....It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them(see here)

As you know, we don't accept that as being correct. For one reason, we don't associate "Catholic Church" with the Church of Rome any more than with a number of other denominations, ours included. The word didn't refer to the diocese of Rome when it first was used, as you know. It referred only to the authentic faith as opposed to errant varieties of Christianity then in existence.

 

[a_ntv]

According to the Catholic version, the New American Bible, the translation reads "to be poured out on behalf of many." So you may be wrong.

I've never read the NAB, because I'm not English.
I'm not wrong.
The Vulgata (the only one ufficial Catholic version) uses the present: effunditur, that means 'is shed' (the future would be effundibitur)
Ok let's see the Greek. You can check the greek original Mt 26:28 here: the verb is at present

That's the Catholic way of considering grace and forgiveness to be produced, not the reformed way. Here you have a problem (in the Mass) only with your own theology, not with ours.

You are joking...that is the protestant way, not the catholic way.
You are bad-informed about us.

You wrote The Anglican view on this aspect of the Lord's Supper is that the Crucifixion was completed once for all and cannot be repeated, although we are in mind of it and its benefits to us at every Liturgy.: So the benefits produced once, and distributed (re-minded if you like the memorialist terms) at each liturgy

An early protestant slogan was 'sola gratia', grace alone, grace separed by the Cross, grace separated by the Eucharist, grace separated by the prayer, grace separated by the charity, grace separed by the Holy Spirit, grace like un immaterial dust produced once a time.
This separation is typical of the protestantism...

Our understanding does not include the idea of separation between Christ, the Cross and the benefits, as you view does

It is only that you think the Mass is a resacrifice--and that a new or renewed sacrifice is what produces grace not otherwise available to mankind--that you have a problem of placing the time when it was "created." We have no such mechanics and merely believe that what is promised with the sacraments, occurs.

Again, it is the Anglican underdtanding,as described by you, that separes the benefits form the Cross: NOT our view.
For us there is NOT the problem of the before or later, there is NOT any mechanism of keeping/distributing/remind the benefits.

Your understanding places the Cross before the benefits to us: but this your view is illogical due the present verb used by Christ in the last supper

For us the relation with Christ is always on the PRESENT: He dies for us, we unit with Him, He makes Himself to be found physically, we offer the Cross to the Father, He forgives us, He became one in Him and He one in us: that is the grace.

They are not from scripture in this form, so I don't see the difference. Old, very old, really really old. It doesn't make much difference when all are human in origin.

The church is like an old building: the foundations are the scricpture, the floor are the early christians and the Fathers.
We like to live in the same building, perhaps to change the furniture, but nothing more.
The protestants like to destrot the ancient building keeping only the foundations, and to build a new building: for sure more modern and confortable, but that it is not the ancient one

By the way, didn't the New Mass change them?

Not at all
Becarefull: I never said that the Roman canon is the only one possible eucharistic prayer to be used (the New Mass allows also many others Eucharistic Prayer); I simply said that it cannot be rejected

 

[Albion]

I've never read the NAB, because I'm not English.

Nevertheless, it is a very widely read, official, and Catholic version and does not support your contention about tenses.

You are joking...that is the protestant way, not the catholic way.
You are bad-informed about us.

No. I stand by what I said. The Catholic Mass is believed to create grace in that it is believed to be a sacrifice of Christ. We do not see grace as being multiplied or created new by each observance of the Holy Meal, and since we do not see it as resacrificing Christ, we couldn't consider it to be what you do--a new version of the OT sacrifices of animals, etc. which were believed to put away God's wrath.

You wrote The Anglican view on this aspect of the Lord's Supper is that the Crucifixion was completed once for all and cannot be repeated, although we are in mind of it and its benefits to us at every Liturgy.: So the benefits produced once, and distributed (re-minded if you like the memorialist terms) at each liturgy

Not that. You are thinking that we are continuing, in some way, the sacrifice of the Cross, something like you say you do . I merely was saying that we are put in mind of it and give thanks for it during the liturgy. That's all.

An early protestant slogan was 'sola gratia', grace alone, grace separed by the Cross, grace separated by the Eucharist, grace separated by the prayer, grace separated by the charity, grace separed by the Holy Spirit, grace like un immaterial dust produced once a time.
This separation is typical of the protestantism...

You have the saying correct, just not the meaning. Sola Gratia means that we are saved by God's grace only, not by anything that we do to earn his favor sufficient to overlook our sins.

Again, it is the Anglican underdtanding,as described by you, that separes the benefits form the Cross: NOT our view.

It certainly does not separate grace from the Cross. It affirms quite unequivocally (Sola Gratia) that all grace is because of the Cross. What is separate, if you want to put it that way, is the Liturgy separate from the Crucifixion.

Your understanding places the Cross before the benefits to us:

That's right.

relation with Christ is always on the PRESENT:

"relation" with Christ, yes. The Sacrifice of the Cross, no. It was finished, and accomplished its purpose, ca. AD 31.

Becarefull: I never said that the Roman canon is the only one possible eucharistic prayer to be used (the New Mass allows also many others Eucharistic Prayer); I simply said that it cannot be rejected

Well, that's all for you and your church to decide. We worship according to the Book of Common Prayer and you have the wording.

 

[a_ntv]

I merely was saying that we are put in mind of it and give thanks for it during the liturgy. That's all.

Final result:

it is clear that the anglicans have NOT the same understanding of the Mass than the catholics: for you it is only a say thank for something happened 1970 years ago, for us the Mass is having Chist present that gifts Himself for us now.

Pratical points based on the texts only:
- for us it would be acceptable to partecipate to a liturgy of you
- for you it would be NOT acceptable to partecipate to a liturgy of us (for sure not when we use the roman canom, and I don tknow when we use other eucharistic prayers)

 

[Albion]

Final result:

it is clear that the anglicans have NOT the same understanding of the Mass than the catholics:

Assuming that you mean Roman Catholics...yes, of course. I've been saying that for several posts now.

for you it is only a say thank for something happened 1970 years ago

, for us the Mass is having Chist present that gifts Himself for us now.

Now you are right back with your first big error. We do believe in the Real Presence--I as I explained and as the BCP clearly teaches and the liturgy affirms--just not that Christ is resacrificed. If you don't keep all of this in mind, you're always going to have the wrong understanding. You started by talking about the RP and then switched to the sacrificial aspect. They are not the same.

Pratical points based on the texts only:
- for us it would be acceptable to partecipate to a liturgy of you for you it would be NOT acceptable to partecipate to a liturgy of us (for sure not when we use the roman canom, and I don tknow when we use other eucharistic prayers)

That's approximately correct if oversimplified. We would do nothing wrong by worshipping at a Catholic Mass, whereas you are forbidden by your church to worship at one of our Communion services. We would not, however, affirm all the wording you use, is all. You are welcome to commune in our churches, too, which we are not welcome to do in yours.

 

[a_ntv]

Now you are right back with your first big error. We do believe in the Real Presence--I as I explained and as the BCP clearly teaches and the liturgy affirms--just not that Christ is resacrificed. If you don't keep all of this in mind, you're always going to have the wrong understanding. You started by talking about the RP and then switched to the sacrificial aspect. They are not the same.

I've understood that you believe in a real presence, but we believe that Christ not only is physically present but He gifts Himself for us.

We use the name 'Real Presence' for something different

Again you misunderstand what I wrote: we do not re-peat the sacrifice of the Cross: we only perpetuate it, because the sacrifice of the Mass is always the ONE SINGLE SAME sacrifice of the Cross: not a re-petion, nor a re-mind.
The altar is not a table but a altar, because the Eucharist is a sacrifice, the very one sacrifice of the Cross, that happened once.

That's approximately correct if oversimplified. We would do nothing wrong by worshipping at a Catholic Mass,

How can you say that if you find NOT acceptable our prayers?

********

Ok, let's lissen to the Orthodox Coptic Patriarch, pope Shenouda III (I love his books):

19] Shedding Of Blood Constitutes A Sacrifice
The Lord while offering this Sacrament uttered the following:
(Mat 26:28) "For this is My blood of the new covenant, which
is shed for many for the remission of sins.
(Mark 14:24) And He said to them, "This is My blood of the
new covenant, which is shed for many.
(Luke 22:20) Likewise He also took the cup after supper,
saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is
shed for you.
(1 Cor 11:24) and when He had given thanks, He broke it and
said, "Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do
this in remembrance of Me."
So if there is to be the breaking of the Body and shedding of
Blood, there must be an altar. An Altar requires an altar servant,
that is, a priest to offer the sacrifice.
This takes us to an interesting and vital point on the shedding of
blood and forgiveness of sin.

THE PRESENCE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ALTAR
[1] Saint Paul Mentions The New Testament Altar
(Heb 13:10) We have an altar from which those who serve the
tabernacle have no right to eat.
The tabernacle servants are the Jews... i.e. the Jews who
remained as Jews, have no authority no write to partake of the
Christian altar.
[2] The Book Of Isaiah Prophesied About The Christian
Altar, Especially The Altar Of Egypt
(Isa 19:19-21) In that day there will be an altar to the LORD
in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar to the LORD at
its border. {20} And it will be for a sign and for a witness to
the LORD of hosts in the land of Egypt; for they will cry to the
LORD because of the oppressors, and He will send them a
Savior and a Mighty One, and He will deliver them. {21} Then
the LORD will be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians will know
the LORD in that day, and will make sacrifice and offering;
yes, they will make a vow to the LORD and perform it.
It is obvious that such altar to the Lord could not be a
pagan altar
The emphasis of calling this altar "altar of God" was repeated at
least 10 times through the chapter.
Also the prophecy concludes
(Isa 19:25) whom the LORD of hosts shall bless, saying,
"Blessed is Egypt My people, and Assyria the work of My
hands, and Israel My inheritance."
This verse is aimed at the Christian altar of Egypt, which is not
any way connected to any pagan worship.
It is also obvious that such altar could not be a Jewish altar
This altar cannot be Jewish, as the Jews were not allowed to
offer a sacrifice nor have an altar outside Jerusalem.
(Psa 137:1-4) By the rivers of Babylon, There we sat down,
yea, we wept When we remembered Zion. {2} We hung our
harps Upon the willows in the midst of it. {3} For there those
who carried us away captive asked of us a song, And those who
plundered us requested mirth, Saying, "Sing us one of the
songs of Zion!" {4} How shall we sing the Lord's song In a
foreign land?
Also the Lord ordered the Jews out of Egypt to offer sacrifice
and worship.
(Exo 8:20) And the LORD said to Moses, "Rise early in the
morning and stand before Pharaoh as he comes out to the
water. Then say to him, 'Thus says the LORD: "Let My people
go, that they may serve Me.
(Exo 9:1) Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go in to Pharaoh
and tell him, 'Thus says the LORD God of the Hebrews: "Let
My people go, that they may serve Me.
Also Pharaoh promised;
(Exo 8:29) Then Moses said, "Indeed I am going out from you,
and I will entreat the LORD, that the swarms of flies may
depart tomorrow from Pharaoh, from his servants, and from
his people. But let Pharaoh not deal deceitfully anymore in not
letting the people go to sacrifice to the LORD."
So It was not feasible to have a Jewish altar in Egypt
We observe that God commanded that no sacrifice is to be
offered except in the place of His selection, which would be
called after His Name.
(Deu 12:11) "then there will be the place where the LORD
your God chooses to make His name abide. There you shall
bring all that I command you: your burnt offerings, your
sacrifices, your tithes, the heave offerings of your hand, and all
your choice offerings which you vow to the LORD.
(Deu 12:26) "Only the holy things which you have, and your
vowed offerings, you shall take and go to the place which the
LORD chooses.
(Deu 26:2) "that you shall take some of the first of all the
produce of the ground, which you shall bring from your land
that the LORD your God is giving you, and put it in a basket
and go to the place where the LORD your God chooses to
make His name abide.
The Lord Has Selected Jerusalem.
(2 Chr 6:6) 'Yet I have chosen Jerusalem, that My name may
be there; and I have chosen David to be over My people
Israel.'
(Zec 3:2) And the LORD said to Satan, "The LORD rebuke
you, Satan! The LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you!
Is this not a brand plucked from the fire?"
Hence we see that the prophecy of Isaiah is pertaining to the
Christian altar of Egypt.
[3] Also Malachi Prophesied That God Will Reject The
Jewish Sacrifice And Will Accept A Sacrifice From The
Other Nations (the Gentiles).
(Mal 1:10-11) "Who is there even among you who would shut
the doors, So that you would not kindle fire on My altar in
vain? I have no pleasure in you," Says the LORD of hosts,
"Nor will I accept an offering from your hands. {11} For from
the rising of the sun, even to its going down, My name shall be
great among the Gentiles; In every place incense shall be
offered to My name, And a pure offering; For My name shall
be great among the nations," Says the LORD of hosts.
This prophecy was fulfilled during the Christian era. Before
Christianity there was no other godly worship other than the
Jewish.
[4] The Lord Jesus Spoke About The Christian Altar
(Mat 5:23-24) "Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar,
and there remember that your brother has something against
you, {24} "leave your gift there before the altar, and go your
way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and
offer your gift.
The Lord Jesus did not limit His teaching to the Old Testament
but also His teaching extends to the New Testament. Otherwise
His words were only applicable for 3 and a third years.
[5]If the Preceding Four points, we prove the need for an
Altar for the Christian faith, then We Shall Find That We
Must Have A Priest To Serve This Altar.

[25] Some Object That Christ's Sacrifice can not Be
Repeated
Yes we agree that the Sacrifice of Christ is one, but it is a
perpetual sacrifice.
Christ wanted it to perpetuate, otherwise why did He say "Do
this... until I return".
By handing the Sacrament to Saint Paul years after His
resurrection, He showed His desire for its perpetuity.
Also note:
(Psa 110:4) The LORD has sworn And will not relent, "You
are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek."
(Heb 7:21) (for they have become priests without an oath, but
He with an oath by Him who said to Him: "The LORD has
sworn And will not relent, 'You are a priest forever According
to the order of Melchizedek'"),
The expression "'You are a priest forever According to the
order of Melchizedek'"), meant its perpetuity.

I suggest to read this whole booklet. It is by an Orthodox, but it describes also the Catholic faith on the Eucharist, that is exactly the same one, and different from the protestant/anglican one (here)

 

[Albion]

I've understood that you believe in a real presence, but we believe that Christ not only is physically present but He gifts Himself for us.

OK

We use the name 'Real Presence' for something different

You mean by it Real Presence + Transubstantiation. We merely believe in the Real Presence.

Again you misunderstand what I wrote: we do not re-peat the sacrifice of the Cross: we only perpetuate it,

When I say 'resacrifice' I appreciate the difference you say you are making. There just isn't a handy way of saying it (unless you know of a word that does it). Perpetuate or reperpetuate doesn't do it.

How can you say that if you find NOT acceptable our prayers?

I would merely not say or read the parts in question. We all attend Catholic Masses occasionally, for a wedding or when a relative asks us to accompany them. I don't find that I'm violating anything by doing so, and my church does not call it a sin to attend a Catholic Mass, but I don't mentally or verbally participate in the offending sections such as the worship of the host.


[/quote]Ok, let's lissen to the Orthodox Coptic Patriarch, pope Shenouda III (I love his books):[/quote]

Oh, lets' not. I am not seeking to have the Catholic interpretation justified to me. I already know it, anyway.

 

[a_ntv]

You mean by it Real Presence + Transubstantiation. We merely believe in the Real Presence.

no
Real Presence is the same thing of Transubstantiation: the Braed looks like bread but it is the Body of Christ
I think that your definition of Real Presence (not depending on the people faith, not a sign, not a remind) is compatible with our understanding. We cannot force anyone to use Thomistic terms, but the fact believed shall be the same.

The difference is the reason of the Real Presence: "He gifts Himself for us", "we offer to the Father the sacrifce of the Son".

Cathechim of the CC 1358: We must therefore consider the Eucharist as:
- thanksgiving and praise to the Father; -> here no problem with the Anglicans
- the sacrificial memorial of Christ and his Body; -> here is the problem
- the presence of Christ by the power of his word and of his Spirit. -> here no problem with your vision of the Real Presence

When I say 'resacrifice' I appreciate the difference you say you are making. There just isn't a handy way of saying it (unless you know of a word that does it). Perpetuate or reperpetuate doesn't do it.

Perpetuate is from the Latin verb perpetuo that means "to make it lasting forever". I think this word is quite good
The Cathchism uses "make present": 1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross

Ok the catholic postion is not at all logic: it is mistery
- we dont do new sacrifices (the one of the cross is enough)
- we dont simply put in mind of it (using your words)

To understand this illogic position you shall think that the Roman Canon is very ancient and semitic.
Now I try to explain it even if it would be better to leave it as a mystery:

In the Temple there were two separate acts:
- the killing of the animal, made on the balaustre that separed the Jews court from the Priests court, and made usually by the male Jews, not by the priest
- the offering of the blood and of part of the animal, made only by the priest and only on the altar: this act was the IMPORTANT one
The result was not mecchanic: God had to accept the sacrifice

Let's go to the early semitic Christians
They considered not necessary the killing of animals, because there have been the Cross.
But in the liturgy they offered to God the ACTUAL ONLY ONE TRUE VICTIM, Christ Himself (the same we do)
Lissen the Roman Canon: Most humbly we implore You, Almighty God, bid these offerings to be brought by the hands of Your Holy Angel to Your altar above, before the face of Your Divine Majesty.
Deign to regard with gracious and kindly attention and hold acceptable, as You deigned to accept the offerings of Abel, Your just servant, and the sacrifice of Abraham our Patriarch, and that which Your chief priest Melchisedech offered to You,(the Alexandrin canon is very similar)
The adjectives used in the ancient canons to descibe the offer are: bloodless (no animal killed), logiteicon (=of the Logos, translated as rational, of the Word), accepted, valid, blessed
The offerings were Christ himself, His Bread and His Blood, effective due the Real Presence

Christ in the Eucharist let Himself to became bread-like, to let us offer Him to the Father, to make present the sacrifice of the Cross

I would merely not say or read the parts in question. We all attend Catholic Masses occasionally, for a wedding or when a relative asks us to accompany them. I don't find that I'm violating anything by doing so, and my church does not call it a sin to attend a Catholic Mass, but I don't mentally or verbally participate in the offending sections such as the worship of the host.

Well, the will of the catholic priest that celebrates the Eucharist is different form the will you have
We are happy you to partecipate to our Mass, but we are making something quite different from what you have in your mind: that is the problem

*****

Anyway the sacrifical understanding as I explained you is extremly ancient and semitic, far from our modern way of thinking.
Perhaps it could be more acceptable to you if expressed in different forms.
Let's see some our other eucharistic prayers:
e.c.2: In memory of his death and resurrection, we offer you, Father, this life-giving bread, this saving cup
e.c.3: we offer you in thanksgiving this holy and living sacrifice.
e.c.4: we offer you his body and blood, the acceptable sacrifice which brings salvation to the whole world.
(PS: IMO these english translations I've found are poor and quite different from the Latin originals)
Even if whichever form is used, the will is always the same

 

[Albion]

Real Presence is the same thing of Transubstantiation:

Sorry, it's not. At least four other Apostolic communions believe in the Real Presence and not Transubstantiation.

The difference is the reason of the Real Presence: "He gifts Himself for us", "we offer to the Father the sacrifce of the Son".

That 'reason' is one justification for it, but it doesn't define the Real Presence.

Perpetuate

is from the Latin verb perpetuo that means "to make it lasting forever". I think this word is quite good
The Cathchism uses make present: 1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross

I don't care for either of those words for the following reasons:

perpetuate suggests that whatever it is is capable of being continued on, and that is not the case with the Cross.

re-presentation is hardly anything more than a memorializing.

Maybe alleged perpetuation?

Christ in the Eucharist let Himself to became bread to let us offer Him to the Father, to make present the sacrifice of the Cross

But according to the theory of Transubstantiation, Christ did or does not allow himself to become bread. Ordinary bread is supposedly made his flesh, to the exclusion of bread.

Well, the will of the catholic priest that celebrate the Eucharist is different form the will you have: we are happy you to partecipate to our Mass, but we are making something quite different from what you have in your mind: that is the huge problem

Why would that be a problem? I visit your church and don't accept all its teachings. The same for you in reverse. So what?'

 

[No Swansong]

You two are going in circles. It seems to me perhaps Albion that he doesn't understand what you are saying. Perhaps it is a language issue. What you are posting is perfectly clear to me although I admit I come from a background that would allow me to understand it.

By the way Pope Shenouda III is an excellent author Albion if you do get a chance to read him, although I of course disagree with some of his conclusions.

 

[a_ntv]

Sorry, it's not. At least four other Apostolic communions believe in the Real Presence and not Transubstantiation.

The orthodox view is acceptable. If your view about he Real Presence is like the Orthodox one, it is acceptable for us.

As I wrote, the big issue is the sacrifical meaning, not your view about the Real Presence

I don't care for either of those words for the following reasons:

perpetuate suggests that whatever it is is capable of being continued on, and that is not the case with the Cross.

re-presentation is hardly anything more than a memorializing.

Maybe alleged perpetuation?

I apologize my English. When I use in english a word form Latin I use it with its latin meaning.
The Cathechism uses 'make present': that is for sure right

From wordreference: to perpetuate = cause to continue

But according to the theory of Transubstantiation, Christ did or does not allow himself to become bread. Ordinary bread is supposedly made his flesh, to the exclusion of bread.

I was not clear: I wanted to underline the similitude between Incarnation and Eucharist (in both of them there is the KENOSI of Christ)
I'm editing such sentence of mine

 

[Albion]

The orthodox view is acceptable. If your view about he Real Presence is like the Orthodox one it is acceptable for us.

As I wrote, the big issue is the sacrifical meaning, not the you view of the Real Presence

It is to YOU. And we already know this.

apologize my English. When I use in english a word form Latin I use it with its latin meaning.
The Cathechism uses 'make present': that is for sure right

All right, I'll try to say it in the way that you understand the concept, even if it's not with that word.

 

[a_ntv]

It is to YOU. And we already know this.

From the Code of Canon Law of the Latin Catholic Church:

for protestants:
844 §4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.

Exception: the Ortohodox and who has our same understanding of the Eucharist (even if not using the Transubstation terms):
844 §3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

 

[Albion]

From the Code of Canon Law of the Latin Catholic Church:

for protestants:
844 §4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church

Yes, we'll do the same for you.

 

[a_ntv]

You two are going in circles. It seems to me perhaps Albion that he doesn't understand what you are saying. Perhaps it is a language issue. What you are posting is perfectly clear to me although I admit I come from a background that would allow me to understand it.

Well, the sacrifical understanding is extremly illogical.

Using the ordinary logic we can only:
- do samething again, or
- think it it
but to say that all the masses are the one single same sacrifice of the Cross in undoubtly illogic

The protestants have lost the meaning of Liturgical Time, as something different and separate from the ordinary time

 

[a_ntv]

[/color]

Yes, we'll do the same for you.

or you can agree with the sacrifical meaning of the Mass, remaining Anglican:

It is simply something that has been never properly explained to you. For you it is a new dimension in the liturgy.

It does NOT opposite the centrality of the Cross: not at all, nor it change a single comma in your faith: it is simply a liturgic dimension that has been lost

 

[Colabomb]

From the Code of Canon Law of the Latin Catholic Church:

for protestants:
844 §4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.

Exception: the Ortohodox and who has our same understanding of the Eucharist (even if not using the Transubstation terms):
844 §3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

And we are not Roman Catholic, meaning we frankly don't care what the catechism has to say, anymore than we care what the doctrines of the Southern Baptist convention says.

 

[a_ntv]

And we are not Roman Catholic, meaning we frankly don't care what the catechism has to say, anymore than we care what the doctrines of the Southern Baptist convention says.

You had not followed the debate between Albion and me

I said that the agreement on the Transubstation, provided the belive in the Real Presence, is not a limit for the intercomunion.

Albion said that these are ideas of mine not of the Catholic Church.

ok
I posted canon 844 §3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

So the Ortothodox: believe the Real Presence, do NOT believe the Transubstation, but they could -even iof they dont use to- take the communion from us

Not only the Orthodox, but any other christian in the same condition.

So why not an Anglican? the problem is not the Real Presence / Trasubstantation issue, but the sacrifical meaning of the Mass, that is a liturgical dimension that is extremly important.

And actually this debate have shown that there is truely a big difference in the Eucharist between a catholic and a anglican: the difference is the sacrifical meaning of the Mass.

PS: it was Albion who said that the Catholic text of the Mass is not acceptable for him, while I said that the anglican text of the Mass is acceptable for me

 

[Albion]

or you can agree with the sacrifical meaning of the Mass, remaining Anglican:

Sorry, but the invitation is still good for you.

It is simply something that has been never properly explained to you. For you it is a new dimension in the liturgy.

You don't really know me, and you would not say something like that if you did.

I know quite well what the RCC's position is, although you persist in explaining it to me as though I will agree with you if you say it often enough. I find that Catholics often labor under the impression that all non-Catholics believe as they do purely out of having been misinformed about the RCC's views. Here's a good time for you to realize that we do have good reason for believing as we do and are not going to convert merely because a Catholic catechism is put under our noses to read.

And perhaps I am somewhat to blame for reading politely what you have posted and answering your questions without cutting you off. I allowed you to ask and explain as you wanted to do. But that does not mean that, having read your points, I am going to be persuaded by them. The strongest argument you came up with, after all, was just that the idea of the unfinished sacrifice of the Cross is old, although not Apostolic. That's not a strong argument.

It does NOT opposite the centrality of the Cross: not at all, nor it change a single comma in your faith: it is simply a liturgic dimension that has been lost

Not lost. It is a mistake that has been corrected by the application of Biblical principles, we'd say.

 

[Albion]

You had not followed the debate between Albion and me

I said that the agreement on the Transubstation, provided the belive in the Real Presence, is not a limit for the intercomunion.

Albion said that these are ideas of mine not of the Catholic Church.

ok
I posted canon 844 §3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

So the Ortothodox: believe the Real Presence, do NOT believe the Transubstation, but they could -even iof they dont use to- take the communion from us

Not only the Orthodox, but any other christian in the same condition.

So why not an Anglican? the problem is not the Real Presence / Trasubstantation issue, but the sacrifical meaning of the Mass, that is a liturgical dimension that is extremly important.

And actually this debate have shown that there is truely a big difference in the Eucharist between a catholic and a anglican: the difference is the sacrifical meaning of the Mass.

PS: it was Albion who said that the Catholic text of the Mass is not acceptable for him, while I said that the anglican text of the Mass is acceptable for me

Your summary of the discussion is essentially correct. I would, however, correct one item. At times, I said that the views you expressed were yours alone, but in the most recent exchange when I said "YOU" I meant you and your church ("You" in the plural).

Basically, what you have claimed as your church's position, I agree IS your church's position. That includes the unfinished sacrifice idea and transubstantiation.

Where it was your own personal position and incorrect, as I said, would be calling Cranmer a memorialist and what you said about the Catholic Church allegedly being fine with Anglican sacraments.