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.

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

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.

 

 

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.

[/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]

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.