Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Pause Switch to Standard View Episcopalians at Catholic Daily Mass
Show More
Loading...
Flag 0615sakura November 20, 2011 10:33 PM EST
Hi everyone,

I have a simple question. I know there are many exRC here. I am now an Episcopalian who was a exRC who very regularly attended daily Mass.

Are there those who are now episcopalian but who occasionally go to daily mass at RC?

I miss attending daily mass as RC.


Jason
Flag Dutch777 November 21, 2011 10:11 AM EST

Nov 20, 2011 -- 10:33PM, 0615sakura wrote:

Hi everyone,

I have a simple question. I know there are many exRC here. I am now an Episcopalian who was a exRC who very regularly attended daily Mass.


Welcome Jason to the A/E board.  It's always a pleasure to meet a fellow XRC2TECie, of which there are many on this board.

Are there those who are now episcopalian but who occasionally go to daily mass at RC?


Every Sunday is a "mini-Easter", so the service of Holy Eucharist is appropriate for the Lord's Day.  Most parishes have morning and/or evening prayer during the week; many have a mid-week eucharist.  AFAIK, the daily H.E. is observed in cathedrals.


No, I don't attend any services in the RCC; I left that church completely.  Why not discuss your request with your priest?  There may be a group in your congregation that would be interested in a daily mass.  


May I ask what diocese you're in?




I miss attending daily mass as RC.


Jason




Flag 0615sakura November 21, 2011 10:48 AM EST

Dutch777,


Thank you for your welcome!


I live in the Diocese of Chicago and am a parishioner of an anglo-catholic parish in dowtown Chicago. I drive one hour every sunday to Church, so going to daily mass there every day is not very ideal even though they do celebrate mass every single day.


In the suburb I am currently in, the eucharist is celebrated on Sundays only.


Jason

Flag JoanTreese November 21, 2011 11:47 AM EST

I have from time to time gone to a weekly RC Mass. The RC Cathedral has a noon time Mass that I have attended. We also have a Roman Catholic Center in one of our malls that offers a noon time Mass. My parish does offer Morning Prayer with Eucharist 2 days per week along with bible study.

Flag JoanTreese November 23, 2011 9:49 PM EST

The RCs may have closed communion but Jesus doesn't!

Flag GRobit625 November 24, 2011 12:59 AM EST

It should at least be reserved for the baptized but people want to get rid of that too. You're doing the non-baptized a disservice if you ask me. Jesus didn't just take anyone off the street for the Last Supper either.  And honestly, I wouldn't want to receive in the RCC because of theological reasons alone. Transubstantiation doesn't add up to me, real presence yes but actual body and blood,no.

Flag Jupiter6208 November 24, 2011 7:03 AM EST

Nov 24, 2011 -- 12:59AM, GRobit625 wrote:


It should at least be reserved for the baptized but people want to get rid of that too. You're doing the non-baptized a disservice if you ask me. Jesus didn't just take anyone off the street for the Last Supper either.  And honestly, I wouldn't want to receive in the RCC because of theological reasons alone. Transubstantiation doesn't add up to me, real presence yes but actual body and blood,no.





GRobit,



I agree with you on the actual Body and blood part and i think you do need to be Baptized.

Flag Dutch777 November 24, 2011 9:11 AM EST

Nino,


I'm really conflicted about this; I'm still wrestling with this matter.


First of all, yes, I do consider Salvationists and Quakers Christian even though they do not practice the two dominical sacraments.  They accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior but I'm perplexed as to why they just don't practice His stated sacraments.


My tentative position is that normatively the HE should be reserved for baptized Christians; the non-baptized may come forward for a blessing.  If they are deeply moved to receive the HE, they should enter "inquirers' class" in preparation for becoming part of the Body of Christ.  Nevertheless, if they come forward for the HE, they may be prompted by the Holy Spirit --- so who am I to say "no"?


Centuries ago, the Presbyterian Church of Scotland issued "communion tokens" to be collected by the elders from members-in-good-standing of the church.  This disqualified in a discernable way the non-eligable from receiving communion.  I think this is a bit too much. Surprised

Flag GRobit625 November 24, 2011 10:42 AM EST

But it's more than being moved....it's about self-examination as well. There are quite a few days when I'll just go up for a blessing. I don't consider the Eucharist as an entitlement. It's a gift like salvation is. If you're "moved" to receive communion, you're moved to talk to the priest about accepting Christ and getting baptized. Like I said, Jesus didn't just pick up anyone off the street for the Last Supper. These people, the disciples,  willingly followed Him and obeyed Him. It's not a hospitality issue. If this issue ever comes in the General Conviction, for the Church's sake I hope they vote it down overwhelmingly, show the world we still have some Christian discipline.

Flag Cuileann November 25, 2011 7:47 AM EST

Our minister (priest? which one do you guys use more? And I have to say it's a bit weird to have priests that aren't fathers - to the point where I've barely caught myself from saying "Good morning Father" to a female priest on the way out. I guess my brain has robes=Father imprinted somewhere.)


Anyhow the ordained religious leader who lead the inquiry sessions I attened mentioned that there are two valid traditions around communion - the Last Supper where Jesus us with a few and the Loaves and the Fishes where Jesus wasn't picky about who he fed. Of course we remember the Last Supper when we have communion, but they more I think of it, could you use that same logic to exclude women from communion? Our church goes with the latter and encourages anyone seeking a relationship with Christ to have communion, which took a while to wrap my brains around.


Actually the hardest wasn't so much the idea that an unbaptised adult can take communion, but that my baptised children can. There's no first communion, no little white dress, nothing like that. The kids can just take communion. That really took some coming to terms with, but my kids love it. Well, my five year old loves it; my two year old seems fine taking communion, but he gets more excited when they have percussion instruments to pick up afterwards. I swear he's not a macho little guy, but he ALWAYS goes for the sticks.


Anyhow, it's something that I love - that my kids are welcome at the table, though I can't say my son or even my daughter has a better understanding of communion or better connection to Christ than an adult seeking baptism.


Flag journeying November 25, 2011 8:39 AM EST

I know my knowledge of the Bible lacks much but I don't remember Jesus saying anything about baptism as a requirement for anything. And I certainly don't recall any passage where he chased children away. But I don't have much of a memory either.

Flag GRobit625 November 25, 2011 10:03 AM EST

Nov 25, 2011 -- 9:04AM, Nino0814 wrote:


Nov 25, 2011 -- 8:39AM, journeying wrote:


I know my knowledge of the Bible lacks much but I don't remember Jesus saying anything about baptism as a requirement for anything. And I certainly don't recall any passage where he chased children away. But I don't have much of a memory either.




In Matthew's gospel, the resurrected Christ instructs his followers to  make disciples and to to baptise them: Matthew 28 


IMO it is not appropriate to draw conclusions on who should be admitted to Eucharist, or be ordain, from the patterns of Jesus and the disciples depicted in the scriptures.  The Church affirmed that authority for these decisions was given to the Church by Christ, as we are guided by God's Spirit (John 16), the scriptures, and tradition.  Based on these, it is clear that Christians should be baptised.  The issue is whether we should exclude persons whose interpretation of the scriptures and tradition is different from ours.  





Nino, we don't. Before I was confirmed, I was allowed to receive communion because I was baptized. I was immersed, but I was baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity. JW's and Mormons need to seek out Trinitarian baptism but other than that we have communion open for a wide range of baptized Christians, but it's nothing to do with being hospitable  but everything to do with what it means to be baptized. As far as what the RC's do, let them do what they want as far as their interpretation is concerned. I don't lose sleep over not being able to receive in their Church. I don't believe in their interpretation so why should I concern myself with it. But you should be baptized at the least as far as our church is concerned. Let's not make EVERYTHING about hospitality. With all the opportunities for hospitality there is no reason to screw with the sacraments.

Flag GRobit625 November 25, 2011 11:41 AM EST

There are actually quite a few TECs parishes that do offer First Communion classes for the children, even in my wacked out diocese.

Flag GRobit625 November 25, 2011 2:18 PM EST

Nov 25, 2011 -- 2:04PM, Nino0814 wrote:


I am not being hospitable if I invite people to someone else's home for a meal. 


The point of view of some is that the communion table is the Lord's.  There are some who belong to Christ who do not practice baptism; therefore we are not in a position to exclude them from receiving communion (assuming that they are worshipping Christ with us and request the sacrament).  Including them has nothing to do with hospitality, but a discernment on who is the host of the table and our role as the servants.


Christians after spiritual reflection have come to different conclusions on this matter. 





That's funny, here in my diocese, "hospitality" is the only reason they've manage to come up with as a reason to break from everything the Church is. Believe what you will, but I think that those who practice this is in grave error, including my parish. "Radical hospitality,radical inclusion" SSDD...It cheapens His sacrifice. You said yourself with scripture to back it up that Christ called for baptism in the name of the Father,Son, and Holy Spirit. He had a formula in place. He was clear on this and many other things. People need to re-evaluate their "conclusions" next to scripture. If it doesn't match...well, you get the picture. Everyone is so worried about excluding and offending people..screw that, as you can tell I'm not. It's about integrity not about being "moved"... any priest that does this  and pushes for this needs to be defrocked. I know it won't happen but still.....the ranks need to be cleared. I swear sometimes I have half a mind to discern ordination myself....but the thought of having to possibly be ordained by that bishop in an illegitimate relationship disturbs me greatly. I wonder can one make a request to be ordained by another bishop.

Flag RJMcElwain November 25, 2011 2:30 PM EST

Nov 25, 2011 -- 2:04PM, Nino0814 wrote:


I am not being hospitable if I invite people to someone else's home for a meal. 


The point of view of some is that the communion table is the Lord's.  There are some who belong to Christ who do not practice baptism; therefore we are not in a position to exclude them from receiving communion (assuming that they are worshipping Christ with us and request the sacrament).  Including them has nothing to do with hospitality, but a discernment on who is the host of the table and our role as the servants.


Christians after spiritual reflection have come to different conclusions on this matter. 





Agreed. I know of a number of Episcopal Churches that don't require a person to be baptized in order to receive, and I agree with them. My Church is not one of them. However, at these other Churches that do, the usual invitation is to all who seek nourishment at God's table and/or recognize Christ's presence in the Eucharist.

Flag GRobit625 November 25, 2011 5:31 PM EST

And the Mormons and JW's consider their baptism valid as well but it isn't because it isn't trinitarian. Jesus was clear. The Quakers,Mormons and JW's thought otherwise but it is what it is. By definition of what our Church considers the sacrament of baptism to be, Quakers aren't baptized. What another tradition considers themselves to be is NOT our concern.

Flag GRobit625 November 25, 2011 7:15 PM EST

Nov 25, 2011 -- 7:04PM, Nino0814 wrote:


Mormonism and The Watchtower do not see themselves as part of the historic Christian Church, but see themselves as the true Christian Church (restored - as Christendom was deemed an abomination, requiring God to do something new).  When we are baptized, we are baptized into the historic Church - the unbroken communion of saint; which the LDS and JWs reject.  


Quakers did not renounce the historic Church.  Like the Anabaptists, they formed a new understanding of baptism.  The Quaker view of "Spirit baptism" is clearly an innovation, and one that we reject.  The Baptist view of baptism is also an innovation.  Baptists reject the historic teaching of baptismal regeneration, and that grace can be conferred from the sacrament alone.  Still we would not consider a Baptist's baptism invalid inspite of their abberational change from the historic teaching and practice of the Church.





I know the history of those churches and there is a difference in this situation...the Baptists still follow the formula despite their views, so it's still legitimate. A Quaker coming into our Church would still have to be baptized. I didn't have to be baptized again,hence the difference.

Flag journeying November 25, 2011 8:32 PM EST

Our priest simply doesn't ask if someone has been baptized. He leaves it up to the individual and Jesus and simply says The Gifts of God for the People of God. 

Flag GRobit625 November 25, 2011 10:58 PM EST

Nov 25, 2011 -- 7:58PM, Nino0814 wrote:


The LDS uses the same formula as the Historic Church; they baptise with water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, yet the LDS view about what they are baptized into disqualifies their baptism.  Therefore I do not see how the formula the Baptist follow would be sufficient to make their rite equivalent to the historic Church, given their abberational view of what the rite is.  


I believe it is our view of the nature of the Church and sacrament that allows us to see the Baptist ordinance as a sacrament.  Sacraments make us members of the body of Christ.  Baptists are a part of the body of Christ - therefore we interpret their rite as a valid sacrament (even though Baptists do not believe in sacraments and do not believe that their baptism confers grace).  Logically we should apply this reasoning to other members of the body of Christ (no matter their interpretation of baptism, or what formula they use, or do not use).





It's more than words as well...last time I checked, Mormons aren't even trinitarian, Baptists are. So despite the view that it's just a sign of accepting Christ, at least the Baptists still are somewhat close to the view of the historic Church in this matter So no, we should view it the way we been viewing it. The Mormons,JW's and Quakers are too far apart. Baptism is by water and spirit in the name of the Trinity while actually BELIEVING in the Trinity....

Flag GRobit625 November 25, 2011 11:02 PM EST

Nov 25, 2011 -- 8:50PM, Nino0814 wrote:


Nov 25, 2011 -- 8:32PM, journeying wrote:


Our priest simply doesn't ask if someone has been baptized. He leaves it up to the individual and Jesus and simply says The Gifts of God for the People of God. 




Simple theological statements like your priest's are ususally best.  The sacraments are meant for the people of God.  




I've never seen a priest even ask if someone has been baptized. It's an honor system. You know, respecting the respective denomination's traditions and doctrine (that even clergy of our own Church fail to do on the daily bases..God save us). The sacraments are meant for the people of God,yes, but not all people are the people of God, and NO one is entitled to them either.

Flag Dutch777 November 26, 2011 11:04 AM EST

  


[/quote]
 NO one is entitled to them either.[/quote]


Good point; frequently overlooked.

Flag GRobit625 November 26, 2011 11:53 AM EST

Nov 26, 2011 -- 11:04AM, Dutch777 wrote:


  



 NO one is entitled to them either.




Good point; frequently overlooked.





You know dutch, if it was just some obscure layman doing that I really wouldn't care but when you have the ordained taking part in this kind of rhetoric, it gives me pause (understatement).

Flag MsTopaz November 27, 2011 11:38 PM EST

Nov 25, 2011 -- 8:32PM, journeying wrote:


Our priest simply doesn't ask if someone has been baptized. He leaves it up to the individual and Jesus and simply says The Gifts of God for the People of God. 




Good strategy.


As to worrying about other people's entitlement, that seems a path fraught with peril. As Christians, are we really preocuppied with angst that someone might improperly receive communion?

Flag GRobit625 November 28, 2011 12:03 AM EST

Considering what the sacrament of Holy Eucharist is, yes, I believe it should be of concern to all who profess to be Christians.

Flag JoanTreese November 28, 2011 11:39 AM EST

I sometimes think our "human" responses to issues might amuse Jesus.  Sometimes the question "what would Jesus do?" seems the best way to go for me.  If I receive Communion in a RCC or any other church, I have to answer to God not to "man."

Flag GRobit625 November 28, 2011 1:00 PM EST

Funny thing about the WWJD thing...is the answer we go with really something He would do or is it a cliche covering we put in place to cover our own wills in? When I went to the RC parish with my sister-in-law a few years back, I didn't receive because for one, I respected their right to have their own members "in good standing" receive and secondly, because I don't even believe in what the Eucharist means to them. Respect and integrity is key here. Sure we'll have our time of judgment at the end but it doesn't mean that we should just do whatever we feel like either. How about respecting other Christian community's doctrine and stop with this misguided idea that watering things up and being lukewarm will bring people in because it won't.

Flag JoanTreese November 29, 2011 12:26 PM EST

Nov 28, 2011 -- 1:00PM, GRobit625 wrote:

Funny thing about the WWJD thing...is the answer we go with really something He would do or is it a cliche covering we put in place to cover our own wills in? When I went to the RC parish with my sister-in-law a few years back, I didn't receive because for one, I respected their right to have their own members "in good standing" receive and secondly, because I don't even believe in what the Eucharist means to them. Respect and integrity is key here. Sure we'll have our time of judgment at the end but it doesn't mean that we should just do whatever we feel like either. How about respecting other Christian community's doctrine and stop with this misguided idea that watering things up and being lukewarm will bring people in because it won't.


To each, his own! I made my first Communion in the RCC and I believe in transubstantion.  My "theology" is therefore in line with Rome.  The "WWJD" statement on my part was not a cheap excuse or some type of cop out. Just quite frankly, I think there are more important issues in this world then who receives at Christ's table. FOR ME, this is a 2% item and each person should do as their conscience guides them.  Remember, the opening thread was from a former RCC about daily Mass.  My response was to that question. Nothing more, nothing less.

Flag GRobit625 November 29, 2011 1:40 PM EST

Fair enough. I don't see the sacrament that Jesus Himself implimented as a 2% issue but alright. My only argument was respecting other's doctrines are including our own. The RCs don't have any restrictions on who can visit a Mass but they do as far as the Eucharist goes and so do we. It's just respect that's all.

Flag GRobit625 November 29, 2011 4:40 PM EST

Nov 29, 2011 -- 4:12PM, Nino0814 wrote:


Nov 29, 2011 -- 12:26PM, JoanTreese wrote:

....I made my first Communion in the RCC and I believe in transubstantion.  My "theology" is therefore in line with Rome....



Here are two RC sources that address the question regarding Non-Catholics receiving communion:



"... there are circumstances when non-Catholics may receive Communion from a Catholic priest. This is especially the case when it comes to Eastern Orthodox Christians, who share the same faith concerning the nature of the sacraments.www.catholic.com/tracts/who-can-receive-...".



"Why is it that Anglo-Catholics (or Anglicans and others who are considered Catholic) who observe the Eucharist cannot receive Communion at a Roman Catholic Mass? What is required in order to do so?




Answer: ... In the Anglican communion, it remains legitimate to believe that the sacrament is merely a symbol of Christ’s body and blood...."www.catholic.com/quickquestions/why-cant...



Joan's situation is unique since she first received the sacrament in the RCC and also believes in the transubstantiation of the Eucharist.








She left the RCC which would mean that she's not a Catholic in "good standing". When I went to Mass with my sister in law, she didn't receive either, why? Because she's not in good standing. If she went back and followed their doctrine through and through, regular articular confession,meeting Sunday obligation and the like, she can receive all day.

Flag a_dancer November 29, 2011 5:31 PM EST

Nov 29, 2011 -- 4:40PM, GRobit625 wrote:



 If she went back and followed their doctrine through and through, regular articular confession,meeting Sunday obligation and the like, she can receive all day.





...she can receive ONCE a day (except Christmas)!

Flag GRobit625 November 29, 2011 6:13 PM EST

Nov 29, 2011 -- 5:31PM, a_dancer wrote:


Nov 29, 2011 -- 4:40PM, GRobit625 wrote:



 If she went back and followed their doctrine through and through, regular articular confession,meeting Sunday obligation and the like, she can receive all day.





...she can receive ONCE a day (except Christmas)!




I was just being ironic. I didn't mean "all day" like all day long. I don't get the obsession about receiving in a church of which you don't believe in the authority of, unless you wanted to "go home" so to speak..

Flag JimRigas November 29, 2011 6:26 PM EST

...she can receive ONCE a day (except Christmas)!


 


That was brought up in another thread but I don't remember how it went.  Why?  Where does it say so?  Obviously the officiating priest receives at each service.

Flag Dutch777 November 29, 2011 6:36 PM EST
Flag JoanTreese November 30, 2011 12:54 PM EST

Like I said before if and when I receive Communion in an RCC or any other faith, it will be between me and God. Don't let my "unorthodox" approach to Communion be your concern! If we spent more time worrying/caring about our own souls instead of others, we will all be in good stead.Smile

Flag GRobit625 November 30, 2011 1:02 PM EST

Trust me, I don't lose any sleep over what anyone does. But that won't stop me from sharing my beliefs on the subject either just as you are. You're free to ignore it.

Flag LitanyoftheSaints November 30, 2011 1:51 PM EST

Nov 29, 2011 -- 6:36PM, Dutch777 wrote:


www.tofinotime.com/articles/A-T502-10img.jpg




Apparently a few people here do!


 


Hey, not only have I received communion in an RC church as a non-RC, but I went to  confession in an RC church as a non-RC!

Flag a_dancer November 30, 2011 1:59 PM EST

Nov 29, 2011 -- 6:26PM, JimRigas wrote:


...she can receive ONCE a day (except Christmas)!


 That was brought up in another thread but I don't remember how it went.  Why?  Where does it say so?  Obviously the officiating priest receives at each service.





We were speaking rules for taking communion the RC way.  That's one of the them: lay people can only receive once a day, except at Christmas Midnight mass and the one other time Christmas day.  (I remember all kinds of dire warnings against actually [gasp!] touching a consecrated host: only a priest's hands were holy enough to do that.)

Flag Dutch777 November 30, 2011 2:36 PM EST

Many of us were baptized and confirmed in the RCC.  There was a method of formally withdrawing from the RCC called Acta Defecationorum Factorm Kumquatorum Romanorum or some such title.  It didn't un-baptize or un-confirm the RC but did allow some form of voluntary renunciation of affiliation.


I'm not aware that any of us have taken advantage of that provision --- which doesn't exist anymore, anyway.  Seems too many RCs were applying to become X RCs, and this gummed up the works for the local dioceses.  It was also embarassing for them; the hemorrhage of communicants out of the Vatican Church.


Bottom line: we XRCs really aren't X,  --- just lapsed, apostate, heretical RCs.  How 'bout that ?  Tongue Out  

Flag Dutch777 November 30, 2011 2:53 PM EST

Here it is, folks:  the application process for getting out of Rome.  Ah well, it's been rescinded as of 2009; all good things come to an end.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actus_formalis_def...


Anyway, it was a grueling, 3-stage process which included appearing before the RC bishop or his designated agent for a "chat".  (Translation: tongue-lashing and browbeating about leaving the one-true-chuch and entering the express lane to hell).


There was a website which provided info and print-out applications re: leaving the RCC.  The site was called Count Me Out but is now inactive because of the suspension the the Acta Defecation Kumquatis Catholica by the Vatican.


This isn't an issue for me inasmuch as I don't and won't receive communion in the RCC.  Both sides should be pleased with that.  Besides, I've burned my bridges behind me --- and blown-up the girders and pilings too.  Cool

Flag Dutch777 November 30, 2011 3:06 PM EST

 


[/quote]
 
  (I remember all kinds of dire warnings against actually [gasp!] touching a consecrated host: only a priest's hands were holy enough to do that.)[/quote]


Balderdash !


My tongue is holier than any priest's hands.  Do they sanitize their digits with Listerine ?

Flag LitanyoftheSaints December 1, 2011 1:25 PM EST

Oh I didn't say to him  I wasn't RC.


 


Don't ask, don't tell!

Flag GRobit625 December 1, 2011 2:41 PM EST

Figured as much....

Flag Dutch777 December 1, 2011 2:45 PM EST

Maybe the RC sacrament of reconciliation only works for RCs; for others it's ineffective.  Just like purgatory and indulgences are only for RCs; not for us heathens.  We go straight to perdition. If a non-RC receives an RC sacrament, isn't that considered a mortal sin --- which would render the sacrament ineffective for that recipient ?

Flag GRobit625 December 1, 2011 2:50 PM EST

Dec 1, 2011 -- 2:45PM, Dutch777 wrote:


Maybe the RC sacrament of reconciliation only works for RCs; for others it's ineffective.  Just like purgatory and indulgences are only for RCs; not for us heathens.  We go straight to perdition. If a non-RC receives an RC sacrament, isn't that considered a mortal sin --- which would render the sacrament ineffective for that recipient ?





From what I understand, the RC sacraments are only for the RC faithful, unless it's a matter of life and death or something like that. But it makes since though, how can anyone expect people to respect their own traditions and doctrine when they don't respect others'.

Flag Dutch777 December 1, 2011 4:31 PM EST

[/quote]
From what I understand, the RC sacraments are only for the RC faithful, unless it's a matter of life and death or something like that.


That's my understanding also.


 But it makes since though, how can anyone expect people to respect their own traditions and doctrine when they don't respect others'.[/quote]


The RCC has contempt for all other Christian Churches --- excepting the EOC --- refering to them as merely "ecclesial communities" which lack the fullness of a real church.


Rome has attempted to subvert, undermine, and coopt Anglicanism from the 16th. century onward.  The (Papally blest) Armada, Gunpowder Plot, the excommunication of Queen Elizabeth & release of the English People from loyalty to her; the denunciation of Anglican Orders, the surreptitious "Anglican Ordinairate" --- I personally would avoid anything RCC like the plague.


Any local TEC priest would hear one's confession.  So would the local Lutheran Pastor.  Why go to an agent of the institution which seeks to subvert us?


Hellzbellz --- for a Big Mack and a side of fries --- I'LL hear one's confession.  Laughing

Flag GRobit625 December 1, 2011 5:40 PM EST

That's why the whole thing confuses me. I'm not an RC for a reason as I'm sure those here also left the RCC for good reason. The reason why I avoid their sacraments were not only the reasons you mentioned dutch but because I believe them to be the heretics. They are the ones that lost their way when they decided to be the Pharisees 2.0. Do onto others,right? I wouldn't want anyone screwing with the sacraments of my Church so I'm not going to do that to another church,regardless of my very negative beliefs about them. I actually went through the rite of reconciliation (TEC of course) with a great friend of mine who is a priest. I felt clean as a whistle and relieved.  It was a beautiful thing.

Flag GRobit625 December 2, 2011 12:40 AM EST

Dec 1, 2011 -- 8:59PM, Nino0814 wrote:


The RCC is not monolithic.  So references to "they" should be more specific.  I assume from the context that the reference is the hierachy; but this thread is about receiving sacrament from a RCC priest (who is a priest of Christ's).  There are some wonderful Christians serving God through the RCC institution.  I believe we have the better presentation of the light of Christ in our instititution, but neither the Anglican communion, nor the RCC is the Church. 


We should be more careful about our criticism of the entire RCC.  When I am tempted to do the same I am reminded of Paul's words to the gentile Christians at Rome about the non-Christian Jews: 


Romes 11 18 do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you.


If Paul spoke this way about a people who where not part of the body of Christ, how much more should we respect our brothers and sisters in the RCC.  There would be no Western Christian Church (and no Anglicanism) without the RCC.  Our Apostolic roots run through Rome.


Nino





All criticism of the RCC is rightly earned. They have a three legged stool of their own: scripture, tradition, and the magisterium...more so magisterium and tradition in my opinion but that's just me. Now I don't doubt that there are sincere people who are faithful RCs but I believe they are sincerely wrong. Whether you, some here, and some of the RC faithful want to believe it or not, the hierarchy rules the Roman church, so you saying it isn't monolithic is just not true because that's exactly how it's set up to be. You form your conscience through the teachings of the catechism and whatever else the magisterium commands of you or you're not in communion with them. RC sacraments are meant for the RC faithful, and whatever requirements you have to go through to get them you must follow,period. As for bragging, you already know that there really isn't much to brag about these days as far as our own Communion is concerned so you can take that off the table. We're screwed up too, I just believe they are moreso, and that is nothing to brag about. You're half right about one thing, our Apostolic roots DO run through Rome but there would be no Western Christian Church (and no Anglicanism) without the screw ups of the RCC. If you truly "respected" them, you would respect their doctrine and their way of business, which would include not receiving their sacraments. Or you could always return, on their conditions of course.



Otherwise, you're just paying lipservice for God knows what.......

Flag LitanyoftheSaints December 2, 2011 8:51 AM EST

Dec 1, 2011 -- 4:31PM, Dutch777 wrote:



From what I understand, the RC sacraments are only for the RC faithful, unless it's a matter of life and death or something like that.


That's my understanding also.


 But it makes since though, how can anyone expect people to respect their own traditions and doctrine when they don't respect others'.



The RCC has contempt for all other Christian Churches --- excepting the EOC --- refering to them as merely "ecclesial communities" which lack the fullness of a real church.


Rome has attempted to subvert, undermine, and coopt Anglicanism from the 16th. century onward.  The (Papally blest) Armada, Gunpowder Plot, the excommunication of Queen Elizabeth & release of the English People from loyalty to her; the denunciation of Anglican Orders, the surreptitious "Anglican Ordinairate" --- I personally would avoid anything RCC like the plague.


Any local TEC priest would hear one's confession.  So would the local Lutheran Pastor.  Why go to an agent of the institution which seeks to subvert us?


Hellzbellz --- for a Big Mack and a side of fries --- I'LL hear one's confession.  Laughing




With me, it was a one time, spur of the moment type thing, I was vacationing in a spot where there was no Episcopal Church around. It was a "one time only thing" and I wouldn't do it again.

Flag Dutch777 December 2, 2011 10:55 AM EST

[/quote]
With me, it was a one time, spur of the moment type thing, I was vacationing in a spot where there was no Episcopal Church around. It was a "one time only thing" and I wouldn't do it again.[/quote]


Oh --- all is forgiven.  It's no big deal, anyway.   Kiss

Flag Dutch777 December 2, 2011 11:19 AM EST

Dec 1, 2011 -- 8:59PM, Nino0814 wrote:


The RCC is not monolithic.  So references to "they" should be more specific.  I assume from the context that the reference is the hierachy; but this thread is about receiving sacrament from a RCC priest (who is a priest of Christ's).  There are some wonderful Christians serving God through the RCC institution.  I believe we have the better presentation of the light of Christ in our instititution, but neither the Anglican communion, nor the RCC is the Church. 


Nino, I can see the positive points in what both you and GRo have posted.  The RCC isn't a monolithic institution; neither is it heretical --- that's a harsh and pejoritive term.  It is fair to say that the RCC is an autocratic, flow-down authority structure whose inner workings are obscure and secret. 


GRo is correct in stating that both the AC and the RCC base their beliefs on scripture and tradition, the AC stresses reason/experience while the RCC emphasizes magisterium.  This magisterium is focused at the top layer of authority; the pewsitter has neither seat nor voice nor vote in the understanding or dissemination of the magisterium's functions.


The magisterium has emphasized compliance and unquestioning acceptance of doctrine and discipline.  Any perceived dissent is met with suppression.  An Aussie archbishop stated that "if" the Vatican would "consider" a discussion of married clergy, he wouldn't oppose entering such a discussion.  He was summerily dismissed from his post.  Consider: Syllabus of Errors; Lamentibili; Pascendi; Ad Tuendum Fidum --- these encyclicals and motu proprios issued by the Vatican.  These condemn basic democratic assumptions and modern biblical and theological scholarship.  These documents are available on-line.  Both clergy and laity must accept all teachings eminating from the Vatican, without question, even those not invested with infallibility, as "authoritative".


We should be more careful about our criticism of the entire RCC.  When I am tempted to do the same I am reminded of Paul's words to the gentile Christians at Rome about the non-Christian Jews: 


Romes 11 18 do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you.


"Careful" ?  Yes.  "Courteous"? Yes.  Under no circumstances, however, should honest and factually based criticism of the RCC, or any church, including our own, be restrained or suppressed.


If Paul spoke this way about a people who where not part of the body of Christ, how much more should we respect our brothers and sisters in the RCC.  There would be no Western Christian Church (and no Anglicanism) without the RCC.  Our Apostolic roots run through Rome.


The criticism isn't directed towards the fine clergy or laity of the RCC but towards the secretive, suppressive, intrusive nature of the Institution itself.  I would say that the long history of subversion of the RCC towards Anglicanism, most recently the "ordinairate", adequately demonstrates the posture of the RCC towards the AC.  It is one of subversion and contempt --- they won't even call us a "church" but merely an "ecclesial community" without valid Orders --- and that's the RCC's official posture vis-a-vis Anglicanism.  I'd say that rather nicely frames their mindset towards us, eh what ?


Nino




I've been attending lectures by Roger Haight, the esteemed and published RCC theologian and former head of the Society of RC Theologians.  I've attended about six so far.  His views are quite moderate; rather tame imvho.  Nevertheless, he's been forbidden to teach in RC Universities, and most recently, in non-RC institutions.  He's been forbidden to publish; he's been called to Rome several times to appear before the "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith".  That is the contemporary title  of the "Inquisition".  He's due there again for a "chat".  Even though he's banned from teaching, he has a "lecture" arrangement with Union Theological Seminary.   That is how any autocratic, secretive entity deals with even the suspicion of dissent.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Haight

Flag GRobit625 December 2, 2011 7:31 PM EST

Dec 2, 2011 -- 7:04PM, Nino0814 wrote:


The RCC's hierachy is autocratic, and IMO, not relevant to thinking Christians today (those in and outside of the RCC).


An apology of Anglicanism would likely include our apostolic history, which is tied to the RCC.  Radical Protestants are IMO ignorant of the nature of the Church.  They assume that the Church is a grouping of people who believe in a given set of doctrines / dogmas.  This is not the picture of the Church found in the scripture or writings of the Church Fathers.


Those who label the RCC as heretical (i.e., apostate) are following the same error as the Watchtower and the LDS.  The official teachings of the RCC is no more in error than the COE under Henry VIII; if the RCC is apostate, than our apostolic roots are corrupt.


The Life of Christ can be found in the RCC, and under special circumstance the Faithful outside of the RCC should respond to the Holy Spirit if prompted to receive the sacrament.


As stated before, my Presbyterian Uncle, who attened Mass with my Aunt, started receiving communion when he was invited by the priest (who knew him well) to do so.  IMO my Uncle and the priest were right to do so.


Nino





Whether or not you and others see the RCC's autocracy as relevant or not, is irrelevant. That is a huge platform of their faith. As you know, the RCC has no issue maintaining that we are the ones who are apostate. The splits of the Church, from the Great Schism to the forming of Anglicanism were about things that were viewed as heretical. Yeah, Anglicanism is about more than Henry VIII trying to get a son...I have no problem with saying it just as they don't. Sounds like you have a problem with authority period. Your uncle didn't respect the boundaries, that is, if he even knew them, and that priest? If his bishop knew what he did, he would be punished, at the worse, laicized.  But hey, if no one says anything that makes it A-OK right???? Yeah...no it doesn't. As far as Christ being found in the RCC...that's up to the beholder to see if He's there.
 

Flag Dutch777 December 2, 2011 10:43 PM EST

Dec 2, 2011 -- 7:04PM, Nino0814 wrote:


The RCC's hierachy is autocratic, and IMO, not relevant to thinking Christians today (those in and outside of the RCC).


I agree.


An apology of Anglicanism would likely include our apostolic history, which is tied to the RCC.  Radical Protestants are IMO ignorant of the nature of the Church.  They assume that the Church is a grouping of people who believe in a given set of doctrines / dogmas.  This is not the picture of the Church found in the scripture or writings of the Church Fathers.


I agree.


Those who label the RCC as heretical (i.e., apostate) are following the same error as the Watchtower and the LDS.  The official teachings of the RCC is no more in error than the COE under Henry VIII; if the RCC is apostate, than our apostolic roots are corrupt.


Those terms are actually verbal bludgeons used in ex parte arguements.


The Life of Christ can be found in the RCC, and under special circumstance the Faithful outside of the RCC should respond to the Holy Spirit if prompted to receive the sacrament.


"Special circumstances" is quite an enticing term. Laughing


As stated before, my Presbyterian Uncle, who attended Mass with my Aunt, started receiving communion when he was invited by the priest (who knew him well) to do so.  IMO my Uncle and the priest were right to do so.


I think so --- but that priest is risking never being made a Monsignor.   I find "closed communion" a very sad thing.


Nino





Flag Dutch777 December 2, 2011 10:48 PM EST

[/quote]
As far as Christ being found in the RCC...that's up to the beholder to see if He's there.
 [/quote]


Christ is present wherever two or three are gathered in His name.

Flag Dutch777 December 2, 2011 11:03 PM EST

Dec 2, 2011 -- 9:48PM, Nino0814 wrote:


Dec 2, 2011 -- 7:31PM, GRobit625 wrote:


I do not know that, and neither do you.  The RCC does not consider Anglicanism apostate.  Ancient anathemas aside, the RCC consider Anglicanism part of the Church.       


Vatican 11 declared that the Church is the whole people of God.  It is not just the hierachy.


Nino, this is a rather tricky point.  The RCC afaik doesn't consider Anglicanism "apostate" but rather "heretical" and "schismatic".  Yes, V2 speaks of the whole people of God constituting the Church --- but since Pope JP2 the Vatican has been backtracking on Vatican-2.  The RCC only recognizes itself and the EOC and probably the Oriental Orthodox as Real Churches. The Reformation heritage churches are formally declared by the Vatican to be  merely "ecclesial communities" because they lack the "fullness" of what it means to be "Church".  That hardly sounds like the Vatican considers Protestants and Anglicans to be part of "the whole people of God".  At the very least, such pronouncements peripherialize those of the Reformation Heritage.  Shall I say "2nd. class Christians" not worthy to receive communion in RC churches --- except by special indult ?


The RCs I know consider V2 to be  a dead issue; their church is galloping back to Trent.


 


 









Flag GRobit625 December 2, 2011 11:13 PM EST

Dec 2, 2011 -- 9:48PM, Nino0814 wrote:


GR in black


I do not know that, and neither do you.  The RCC does not consider Anglicanism apostate.  Ancient anathemas aside, the RCC consider Anglicanism part of the Church.       


Vatican 11 declared that the Church is the whole people of God.  It is not just the hierachy.




*On the contrary, I DO know that. The RCC considers Anglican orders to be invalid. Read "Apostolicae Curae"...B-16 and those before him made it clear that it's very much still in effect. Our orders and sacraments,save baptism, mean squat to them. And when you're done, look up the word "apostate" and you'll see that it applies when it comes to the RCC argument against Anglicanism. Vatican II did declare the Church to be the people of God, but it doesn't take away the fact that the hierarchy controls the RCC and laymen and clergy alike must adhere to the teachings. Sounds like a poorly catechized ex-RC to me....


I have no problem with legitamate authority; especially authority established from a methodology based on critical thinking.  


*You have a problem with authority and obedience, I'm sticking with that one. It reeks through all of your posts.


My Uncle was an honerable man, you did not need to disparage him to make your point.  




*Oh drop it already, I didn't attack your uncle. It's just funny how you want to cry for respect towards our RC brethren when in the same key stroke you say that it was right that you and your uncle take communion from an RC priest,despite the teachings of their church. No, there isn't much integrity in masquerading as something that you clearly are not. Respect means respecting their regulations too...not going against them and claiming that the Holy Spirit lead you to do it. The Holy Spirit wouldn't tell anyone to lie and put up a front. God is not the author of confusion, nor is He the author of  deception.


 






You don't have to take my word for it. Talk to your local RC priest, sign up for a RCIA class...or you can actually go to the Vatican website and read up on the canons of the RCC. All three of those would work.

Flag Dutch777 December 3, 2011 10:58 AM EST

Nino,


Your post # 69 summates my understanding of these issues.  I would add that terms e.g. "heretic", "apostate", "schismatic", etc. are inflamatory and poison discussions.


The priest who gave communion to your uncle may be resident in a diocese headed by one of the few progressive RC bps. left in the RCC-USA, or he may have used his pastoral discretion.  When I lived in Tanzania, teaching in an RC seminary, some of the priests used indigenous materials in celebrating the Holy Eucharist viz. "ugali" (a type of corn meal mush) and honey beer, rather than bread and wine.  The bp.'s response was "I don't want to hear about it" but he didn't interfere with the practice.  I imagine that was a type of indult by default.


OTOH, a TECie friend of mine attended an RC requiem mass during which the priest said only Catholics may take communion because we're the one, true, Church.  Yup --- he really said that.  The point is, as you've pointed out, the RCC isn't monolithic.  A certain range of opinions exist in that Church.

Flag GRobit625 December 3, 2011 11:13 AM EST

Dec 3, 2011 -- 10:58AM, Dutch777 wrote:


  The point is, as you've pointed out, the RCC isn't monolithic.  A certain range of opinions exist in that Church.





Dutch, I know that there are different opinions there, but opinions have no grounding in how they run their communion. It isn't built that way. It's set up as a monolithic structure regardless of one's personal feelings. Their bishops make that very clear,very often. Have you seen some of the pastoral statements the USCCB release?

Flag Dutch777 December 3, 2011 11:30 AM EST

[/quote]



Dutch, I know that there are different opinions there, but opinions have no grounding in how they run their communion.


The structure is a flow-down autocracy as I've frequently stated, and I believe that characterization is accurate.  Nevertheless, there exists a range of opinion amongst lower clergy and laity which is indisputable.  I've experienced it and have lived with that range of opinion.  The issue is: does that range of opinion effect the doctrine, discipline, and governance of the RCC ?


The answer is "No".   As long as the laity and lower clergy lack seat, voice and vote canonically guaranteed,  in the governance of the RCC the institution will continue as a flow-down autocracy.


 It isn't built that way. It's set up as a monolithic structure regardless of one's personal feelings. Their bishops make that very clear,very often. Have you seen some of the pastoral statements the USCCB release?


Indeed I have.   Nevertheless, as I've stated, a range of opinion does exist amongst laity and lower clergy.  If that Church were truly monolithic, such a range would simply not exist;  uniformity or homogeneity would prevail.


"Monolith" / "monolithic" means "one stone" in Greek.  According to Mirriam-Webster's Dictionary, the term is defined as "exhibiting or characterized by often rigidly fixed uniformity.


It is that very lack of "rigidly fixed uniformity" that is aggrivating that flow-down autocracy; it is intolerant of any latitude, yet that latitude in doctrinal understanding and everyday, lived discipline does exist.  According to the RCC doctrine of "receptionism", many Church teachings are Not Received --- i.e. rejected in practice --- by clergy and laity.  That doesn't occur in a true monolithic apparatis.  When we factor in the variations in liturgics, pious practices, and observances of the Eastern Rites, the spectrum, the absence of rigidly fix uniformity,  of RCC becomes obvious.  


"Monolithic" and "flow-down" autocracy are not synonymous.


[/quote]


Flag GRobit625 December 3, 2011 11:36 AM EST

Dec 3, 2011 -- 8:35AM, Nino0814 wrote:


My uncle did not take it upon himself to receive the Eucharist in the RCC.  The officating priest fully knowing who my uncle was, invited him to the Table.  To consider my uncle's action disrespecting the RCC, one would need to agree with the RCC hierachy's definition of the Church, and not ours.  


 





Wrong again. I don't agree with the RCC at all about a number of things, hence the fact that I'm here and not there. What I DO agree with is their right to go about their business as they see fit. I don't have to agree with it. Thing is, I wouldn't want someone taking communion at our church that isn't baptized in the matter that WE see as baptism, not how some other sect sees it (such as the Quakers), but how we see it. They could always, oh I don't know, seek baptism in our church?! So yeah, in the same tone I wouldn't go to someone else church doing that either. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,right? I don't have to recognize someone's authority to do right by them and respect their wishes. That priest was wrong, according to their faith to administer communion to your uncle and your uncle was wrong for receiving it. But of course, to someone who doesn't even believe the teaching of our own church in regards to communion because it doesn't fit the doctrine  of "radical inclusion", I wouldn't expect you to understand any of this.




Flag GRobit625 December 3, 2011 4:04 PM EST

Dec 3, 2011 -- 1:55PM, Nino0814 wrote:



Wrong again?  About what?  Most of your post is about your opinion, not facts.  In the case of your earlier factual statement about the RCC considering the Anglican Church apostate, you were factually incorrect and IMO would jepardize our view of Apostolic succession.  An interesting opinion on Apostolic succession, with historical information, can be found here.


I believe my uncle was right to receive communion after the invitation by the priest.  That is my opinon.  You are free to disagree.  You seem to confuse matters of opinion with fact.


You are also factually wrong about my position / opinion regarding including the unbaptized in Eucharist.  I stated in the thread about Baptism and Eucharist that my opinion (and that of the UMC) had nothing to do with radical hospitality, but an understanding of "whose table it is".  It is the table of Christ's, not the table of the ECUSA, or any eccelsial authority's table.  Quakers may be incorrect not to practice baptism, but they still belong to Christ.  It is not for me to judge another servant of the Master (Romans 14).  


Feel free to disagree with me, but do not call your opinion facts, and please do not misrepresent my opinons (you can re-read my post again to see what I actually wrote).


Christ's Peace,


Nino






Nino, from day one of your appearance on this forum I always believed you were wrong about a lot of things, the list being too long to name. I'm not going to continue to sit up here and argue about RC doctrine,I'm starting to feel like I'm becoming an apologist for them,haha. Anyway, opinions, especially from a blog, are irrelevant in the matter. When I said what I said about RC communion, it wasn't an opinion, it was the RCCs teaching on the matter. If you want to say that the terms were used incorrectly, go ahead, but if you really want to know how the RCC sees our Communion, go talk to a RC priest. I'm positive that you will hear him say the same thing. Too many Christians today use that "I'm not going to judge another believer" thing as such a huge cop out....that won't work on me, and it's the primary reason why I don't participate in ministries in my own parish, because I'm liable to get kicked out because of my unwillingness to refrain from calling people out on their crap. I'm not afraid of telling someone, "Yeah, you're wrong". So, I'm protecting their feelings. Very Christian thing to do because those poor guys are so fragile.  I'm done with this thread now because this is starting to go in circles, and I'm not one to be persuaded, at all.

Flag GRobit625 December 3, 2011 8:42 PM EST

Dec 3, 2011 -- 7:31PM, Nino0814 wrote:


When you state I am wrong, you really mean that you disagree with my opinion.  That is fine.  I have not stated anything factually incorrect.


Nah, I meant exactly what I said.


I was specifically referring to your comment that the RCC considers Anglicanism apostate; that is factually incorrect.  If a priest states that his Church believes the Anglican communion is apostate, he would be factually incorrect.  The RCC would say we are schismatics, some of our teaching is heretical, and because we do not use a certain wording in our ordination, our priest's sacraments are not valid.  The RCC spelled this out in the Papal decree Apostolocae Curae.  They would not declare that we are not Christian; which is the meaning of apostate


Definition of APOSTASY according to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apostasy?show=0&t=1322961208




1

: renunciation of a religious faith



2

: abandonment of a previous loyalty : defection



Hmmm, I'd say it still applies. :-)



That is specially address by Paul in his letters.  You do need to be concerned about "the weak" in Faith, and not cause them to stubble.


The weak in the Faith are the ones who are causing all the stumbling.






Anything else you want to contribute or are we done here?

Flag Nino0814 December 4, 2011 12:50 PM EST

Common dictionaries are not a good source for defining Church language (especially a Church like the RCC).  The term apostate according to the "Catechism of the Catholic Church defines the terms we have been using as follows:


Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;


apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith;


schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." [Code of Canon Law c.751]


You were not using the RCC's definitions.  Hopefully you will agree that according to this definition (above) the RCC does not consider Anglicanism apostate.


Nino

Flag GRobit625 December 4, 2011 4:04 PM EST

Dec 4, 2011 -- 12:50PM, Nino0814 wrote:


Common dictionaries are not a good source for defining Church language (especially a Church like the RCC).  The term apostate according to the "Catechism of the Catholic Church defines the terms we have been using as follows:


Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;


apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith;


schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." [Code of Canon Law c.751]


You were not using the RCC's definitions.  Hopefully you will agree that according to this definition (above) the RCC does not consider Anglicanism apostate.


Nino





Sure. It's probably the first time in this entire thread, probably even during your own time as a RC that you've even picked one of those catechisms up. They may not see us (according to what YOU posed) as apostate, but the fact that they don't even consider us a church at all says more than enough to me, and honestly I see it as just as bad. It says that I've pretty much just gathered with other people to just pray this and every time I attend Mass: here is no Eucharist, no absolution, no anything.... Of course it means squat to me what they consider because I'm here, but I do respect their right to consider whatever it is they wish and I won't trample on it. Too bad people won't extend that same courtesy to others (or even their own Faith).

Flag Dutch777 December 4, 2011 4:12 PM EST

 


[/quote]
 the fact that they don't even consider us a church at all says more than enough to me.[/quote]


Yes, that flips the "off" switch for me also. 


The RCC has declaired Anglican Orders invalid; that we're not a real church but merely an "ecclesial community"; has formed the Anglican Ordinairiate to entice rightwing Anglicans into the RCC and snag a few priests to fill-in their depleted ranks.


If we're not a real church, why go any farther with the ARCIC meetings?  Call that off and let's go our separate ways, which we've been doing all along, anyway.

Flag GRobit625 December 4, 2011 4:17 PM EST

ARCIC is nothing but a farce...just so the pope and ABC can get together and hold hands...photo-op/dog and pony show.

Flag GRobit625 December 4, 2011 4:51 PM EST

Calling us not a church vs. Not a Christian....the sacraments are everything as far as our lives as Anglican Christians consists of. Everything we are is built on that. Yeah, I'd say it's the same difference.


Flag GRobit625 December 4, 2011 5:19 PM EST

Dec 4, 2011 -- 5:08PM, Nino0814 wrote:


Dec 4, 2011 -- 4:51PM, GRobit625 wrote:


Calling us not a church vs. Not a Christian....the sacraments are everything as far as our lives as Anglican Christians consists of. Everything we are is built on that. Yeah, I'd say it's the same difference. 



The Methodist clergy were considered laity according to the Anglican Churches until recent history.


In the "eyes" of the Anglican Churches, Wesley was not authorized to ordain priests, therefore the Methodists clergy were not considered ordain; therefore the Methodist's Communion was not a sacrament.






And this is relevant how? Last time I checked, Wesley wasn't even a bishop, he was a priest. Priests ordain now? The Methodist/Anglican situation can't be compared to this at all.

Flag GRobit625 December 4, 2011 5:39 PM EST

Dec 4, 2011 -- 5:35PM, Nino0814 wrote:


Dec 4, 2011 -- 5:19PM, GRobit625 wrote:


Dec 4, 2011 -- 5:08PM, Nino0814 wrote:


Dec 4, 2011 -- 4:51PM, GRobit625 wrote:


Calling us not a church vs. Not a Christian....the sacraments are everything as far as our lives as Anglican Christians consists of. Everything we are is built on that. Yeah, I'd say it's the same difference. 



The Methodist clergy were considered laity according to the Anglican Churches until recent history.


In the "eyes" of the Anglican Churches, Wesley was not authorized to ordain priests, therefore the Methodists clergy were not considered ordain; therefore the Methodist's Communion was not a sacrament.






And this is relevant how? Last time I checked, Wesley wasn't even a bishop, he was a priest. Priests ordain now? The Methodist/Anglican situation can't be compared to this at all.




You have no problem with discrediting Methodist ordination, and the sacraments celebrated by clergy ordained by Wesley?






What does the UMC have to do with this? Did the ABC in that time period draft up a document saying anything close, or anything at all really, to what the RCC did in regards to Anglicanism???????

Flag GRobit625 December 4, 2011 5:55 PM EST

Dec 4, 2011 -- 5:47PM, Nino0814 wrote:



Today the UMC and the Anglicans are close to approving a "Full Communion" document.  The Methodists never required this.  They always recognized Anglican Eucharist.  The document of "Full Communion" recognizes that the sacraments are "right celebrated in each others churches".  Therefore prior to the agreement, the Anglicans did not consider the Methodist's ordination legitamate.





In England, they are dissolving the Methodist church all together to reunite to the Church of England. What is your point? Did the Anglicans at any time say that they weren't a church? Did the Church of England make the outlandish claim that THEY are in fact the "One True Church"? For the record, I admire the UMC. They haven't succumbed to the pressures of secular society, and the clergy that have,they've been dealt with. Thanks. Be. To. God.

Flag Dutch777 December 4, 2011 7:12 PM EST

Methodists are in valid holy orders.  They obtained said orders from the Greek Orthodox bishop of Arcadia, Bp. Erasmus.  Pls. read the following:


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasmus_of_Arcadia

Flag SeraphimR December 4, 2011 8:10 PM EST

Dec 4, 2011 -- 7:12PM, Dutch777 wrote:


Methodists are in valid holy orders.  They obtained said orders from the Greek Orthodox bishop of Arcadia, Bp. Erasmus.  Pls. read the following:


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasmus_of_Arcadia




I don't think so.  The EO requires at least two and perhaps three bishops for an ordination.  I thought Episcopalians have a similar requirement.

Flag Nino0814 December 4, 2011 8:20 PM EST

Dec 4, 2011 -- 8:10PM, SeraphimR wrote:


Dec 4, 2011 -- 7:12PM, Dutch777 wrote:


Methodists are in valid holy orders.  They obtained said orders from the Greek Orthodox bishop of Arcadia, Bp. Erasmus.  Pls. read the following:


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasmus_of_Arcadia




I don't think so.  The EO requires at least two and perhaps three bishops for an ordination.  I thought Episcopalians have a similar requirement.




I was an active member of the United Methodist Church for over 20 years and never heard of this.


Wesley wrote a lot about everything he did.  His reasoning was based on a Presbyterian understanding of his authority. 

Flag GRobit625 December 4, 2011 11:35 PM EST

For ordination to the priesthood and the diaconate in TEC, only one bishop is required. For the episcopacy, three are required.

Flag Dutch777 December 5, 2011 8:31 AM EST

The minimum requirement is consecration by one bishop to validly consecrate another bishop.  The operative norm, however, is three bishops to assure valid and  and unquestioned validlity .  Only a fool drives without a spare. Wink


Wesley had the Anglican understanding of tactual transmission of the episcopate, however he did not want to be prosecuted to violating the Act of Praemunire.  He therefore documented the consecration but didn't publicize or gazette it.


As an aside, the PB of TEC during the FDR era was Bp. St. George Tucker, a member of the First Families of Virginia.  One of the co-consecrators at his consecration was the Presiding Bishop of the Old Catholic Church, Utrecht.  Bp. Tucker then personally consecrated every bishop elevated to the episcopate during his long tenure.  The holy orders of TEC clergy now trace both to the CoE and the OCC-Utrecht.

Flag SeraphimR December 5, 2011 10:24 AM EST

Dec 5, 2011 -- 8:31AM, Dutch777 wrote:


The minimum requirement is consecration by one bishop to validly consecrate another bishop.  The operative norm, however, is three bishops to assure valid and  and unquestioned validlity .  Only a fool drives without a spare. Wink


Wesley had the Anglican understanding of tactual transmission of the episcopate, however he did not want to be prosecuted to violating the Act of Praemunire.  He therefore documented the consecration but didn't publicize or gazette it.


As an aside, the PB of TEC during the FDR era was Bp. St. George Tucker, a member of the First Families of Virginia.  One of the co-consecrators at his consecration was the Presiding Bishop of the Old Catholic Church, Utrecht.  Bp. Tucker then personally consecrated every bishop elevated to the episcopate during his long tenure.  The holy orders of TEC clergy now trace both to the CoE and the OCC-Utrecht.




In the early part of the twentieth century there were many discussions between the EO and the ECUSA.  I think the Ecumenical Patriarch opined that the Episcopalians did indeed have a valid apostolic succession.


In fact Bishop Raphael (now Saint Raphael of Brooklyn) decided that in cases of extreme emergency an Orthodox could receive the sacraments from an Episcopalian priest.  Relations later soured and the Bishop rescinded this decision.


www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articl...

Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook