I Just Had An Interesting Conversation

[phatcatholic]

pham,

maybe i'm revealing my ignorance here, but i had no clue that anglicanism was so much like catholicism. i went to a presentation w/ my ex-gf (b/c i'm trying to be supportive, grrrrr) about the role of the Altar in the Episcopalian service. the whole way there i'm thinkin, "what on earth could this guy possibly have to say that is going to square w/ the use of altars in the Bible and in the Church from the very beginning? an altar must have a REAL sacrifice made upon it..."

so, we get there and he starts talking, and to my surprise they have all the same vessels we have (paten, pall, corporal, chalice, lavabo dish, tabernacle, purificator, burse, creedance table....) and--here's the kicker--they believe in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist!

WHAT? Do my ears decieve me? i have a few questions for this guy....

so, when the question and answer session finally came, i raised my hand and asked him two questions:

1. I may have missed the distinction you made earlier in your presentation. Can you please explain how, if at all, the Catholic "Transubstantiation" differs from the Episcopalian "Real Presence"? (he seemed to go to great lengths to avoid using our "catholic" word, which i found curious)

ANSWER: well, i still don't quite understand the difference. he said something like, "well Thomas Aquinas went to great lengths to try to explain the mystery that occurs, using very blunt and literal terminology, as if the Communion was an actual piece of flesh on the altar. then u have people getting carried away, saying that u shouldn't "bite" the communion b/c ur biting Jesus, and all that. so, we are content just to say that it is a mystery and we don't try to explain it. we just say that Jesus "Real Presence" is truly here."

ummm.....ok. still failing to see the difference. afterwards, and privately, i tried to clarify his belief even further, and he finally said that he does believe in Transubstantiation, but Episcoplains would have a cow if they heard him use that word. who knows......sounds an awful lot to me like someone trying to get as close as he can to be catholic w/o being catholic. he even bragged over the fact that many call Episcopalianism "Catholic Lite."

ANYway, my second question was this:

2. In Catholic theology, the mass is a sacrifice, in which the Jesus' death on the cross is re-presented once and for all. does this idea of the sacrifice translate over to Anglicanism?

ANSWER: he said, "no. see, whereas Catholics re-crucify Christ at every Mass, we share in his Real Presence." i charitably and respectfuly corrected him, upon which he said, "well, Vatican II changed that. before V2, a priest could have a mass by himself if he wanted to, just re-crucify Christ w/ no one else in the Church. but after V2, they changed that."

reeeallly. as far as i know the Church never practiced re-crucifying Christ. but then again, what do i know? i sat there for a second, trying to discern wether i should engage him on this topic, and i decided that it was better if i didn't--not b/c i couldn't, but b/c i knew that me, and him, and the preacher were the only ones who were actually able to follow the conversation. no one else there knew what we were talking about, nor did they really care. so, i felt it best to maintain his integrity in their eyes and speak my peace privately.

it was an eye-opening experience, but it also left me w/ many questions:

1. is there a difference between their Eucharist and ours?

2. can a priest really hold mass by himself?

3. do anglican priests even have the right to turn the bread/wine into the body and blood of Jesus?

4. apparently they have 7 sacraments too. these aren't valid are they?

5. he seemed to describe Anglicanism as if it were a branch of Catholicism. this can't be right.....

i'm pretty sure i know the answers to all of these questions, but i pose them here to invoke ur response and to see what u guys think about my "Anglican" experience.

pax christi,

phatcatholic

[Theoketos]

1. Yes, their line is not an apostolic...

In a valid sacrament, proper matter and form there must be....

Because their line is not apostolic, they may have proper matter, but not form.

2. Yes, a priest can have a private mass.

3. Anglicans are indeed really close, but because their right of ordination calls for God to save them from the tyrant of Rome (that would be the Holy Father), the form becomes invalid, which is a shame.

4 Baptism and Marriage could possibly be valid, and the rest of the sacraments are not though they easily could be.

5. Some people used to say that there were three branches of Catholicism, but that was rejected in the second Vatican council.

There are several other interesting things that you should know about, I will post again with links...

UNUM SINT!

Edited February 1, 2004 by Theoketos

[cmotherofpirl]

Anglicans do not have valid ordination, so they do not have transubstantiaton.

Of course a priest can say a Mass by himself.

Their Baptism is certainly valid.

Anglicans are not exactly a Church ( one faith, one Baptism thing) but a communion of various groups with differing theologies semi-united under the Archbishop of Canterbury.

THats why you will find anglicans with women priests , homosexual bishops, and also a very evangelical strict groups as well all calling themselves anglicans.

Compare them to the articles of Confederation trying to hold the union together.

They are probably the most diverse group of people all under the one banner.

High-church anglicans are almost Catholic, low-church are more like evangelicals.

I am glad you tried to correct the priests misunderstanding of the Mass. At every Mass Jesus is not re-crucified, we are present at the foot of His cross back at Calvery.

[Theoketos]

After re-reading, Catholics also do not re-sacrafice. We are virtualy present in the mass at the Crucifiction. The metaphysical importance of the cross allows us who are in communion to be physically present at the same, single, and perfect sacrafice on and at Calavey!

[Laudate_Dominum]

I wish I had a dime for everytime I've heard this one. Jesus Christ is NOT re-crucified in the Mass, the Church has never taught this and never will. I've yet to meet a protestant who doesn't think that this is what the Church teaches. It's anti-catholic propaganda at worst, and ignorance/misunderstanding at best.

It's a very important point too, because it touches upon the nature of Christ's Atonement and the reality of our Redemption, not to mention the nature of the Mass. If Christ is recrucified at each Mass then that means His death on Calvary wasn't enough. It also contradicts Scripture since Hebrews says that Christ died "once and for all".

So what does the Church teach? Well, from the first century we have statements about the Mass as a Sacrifice. The Didache, Justin Martyr, all the way up to today speak of this essential aspect of the Mass. And it's the teaching of the Eastern Church's as well. It's not a Roman invention at the Council of Trent as some would have you believe. Actually it's in Scripture too. An anaysis of the Greek in the account of the Last Supper reveals that the whole institution narrative is couched in sacrificial terminology and a sacrificial context. Jesus is the High Priest, in the order of Melchizedek, the Eucharist is like the bread and wine that Mel offered.

Christ's bloody Sacrifice was once and for all, this is what those passages in Hebrews are talking about, the end of the bloody sacrifices of the Jews, but the Eucharist is offered as an unbloody Sacrifice.

There is nothing at all preventing Christ, in an unbloody manner, from continually offering himself to God in an unbloody manner -- as a living sacrifice, as his spiritual service (Rom. 12:1), appealing to God on our behalf (Heb. 7:25, 9:24), in his unbloody, glorified flesh (cf. Paul VI, Credo of the People of God).

The Eucharistic Sacrifice that is offered at the Mass is not a supplement to Christ's once and for all Atoning Sacrifice at Calvary. It is the representation of that Sacrifice and our association with it. Salvation, in it's essence, is association with the Paschal Mystery. At the Mass we are united with Christ's Sacrifice and recieve spiritual gifts through the infinite merits of Christ. The Mass exists so that we might be drawn into and participate in the Offering of Christ. "Christ died for our sins to make of us an offering to God" - (from vespers for the feast of St. Ignatius of Antioch). And Hebrews 9:22-24 indicates the ongoing nature of "heavenly sacrifices" (as opposed to the merely earthly ones of the old Covenant). Christ is before the Father making intercessions on our behalf, the Mass is our corporate memorial and participation in the heart of Redemption.

So Christ was crucified once and for all. The Mass makes present the Sacrifice of Calvary (think of it as a time machine, it puts us at the foot of the Cross). And we are drawn into the glorified flesh of Christ and His Oblation which is mystically offered to the Father through Christ in the priest (who stands in the person of Christ, in persona Christi).

Many misunderstand Hebrews (and Revelation) when it comes to these issues because they do not understand the way the concepts of heaven, the temple, the priesthood, etc. relate in the Biblical imagery. Hebrews actually affirms the reality of the Sacrifice of the Mass, as does the book of Revelation, the institution narratives, Paul's letters, and the Old Testament prophecies and typologies.

The Didache

"Assemble on the Lord’s day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23–24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, ‘Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations’ [Mal. 1:11, 14]" (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).

 

Pope Clement I

"Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its sacrifices. Blessed are those presbyters who have already finished their course, and who have obtained a fruitful and perfect release" (Letter to the Corinthians 44:4–5 [A.D. 80]).

 

Ignatius of Antioch

"Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his Blood, and one single altar of sacrifice—even as there is also but one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors, the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God" (Letter to the Philadelphians 4 [A.D. 110]).

 

Justin Martyr

"God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [minor prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord, and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering, for my name is great among the Gentiles . . . [Mal. 1:10–11]. He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us [Christians] who in every place offer sacrifices to him, that is, the bread of the Eucharist and also the cup of the Eucharist" (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 41 [A.D. 155]).

Edited February 1, 2004 by Laudate_Dominum

[phatcatholic]

laudate.............dude, i'm putting ur last post in the reference section, whether you like it or not!!

[PhatPhred]

"well, Vatican II changed that. before V2, a priest could have a mass by himself if he wanted to, just re-crucify Christ w/ no one else in the Church. but after V2, they changed that."

This is inaccurate on several levels. Ever since the middle ages, a priest holding a mass with no one else present has been against the normative practice. Vatican II did not change this in any way, but it did reaffirm this principle in a slightly weaker form in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, paragraph 27. The 1983 Code of Canon Law responded by reducing the threshold required for a priest to licitly hold a mass alone from "having a serious necessity" to a "just and reasonable cause."

Also, just FYI, some Anglican bishops now have valid orders, having been ordained from Old Catholic (and possibly Eastern Orthodox) apostolic lines in recent times.

[cmotherofpirl]

Some individual Anglicans might have valid ordination, if they followed a CAtholic ordination rite. However, in general , the do not have valid ordination, so if they become a Catholic priest, they are re-ordained.

[phatcatholic]

Some individual Anglicans might have valid ordination, if they followed a CAtholic ordination rite. However, in general , the do not have valid ordination, so if they become a Catholic priest, they are re-ordained.

i don't understand how an individual Anglican can have a valkid ordination and still be Anglican. would he not be catholic then? also, if an individual Anglican has valid ordination, are the sacraments he performs valid? could i recieve the Eucharist from him? (even though he's performing sacraments in an Anglican church?)

[PedroX]

Phat Catholic,

I think that the difference is between valid and licit. Valid simply requires valid form and material. It is possible to have a valid Anglican ordination, but since it is not licit the priest doesn't become a "Catholic" or have permission to celebrate the sacraments as a "Catholic" priest.

peace....

[cmotherofpirl]

If an Anglican was ordained following the Catholic formula by Old Catholic bishops he might have valid ordination. But you never could be sure, could you, so know you could not recieve Communion from him. It would be recieving Communion in another Church since even if validily ordained it would not a proper Mass.

[phatcatholic]

Phat Catholic,

I think that the difference is between valid and licit. Valid simply requires valid form and material. It is possible to have a valid Anglican ordination, but since it is not licit the priest doesn't become a "Catholic" or have permission to celebrate the sacraments as a "Catholic" priest.

peace....

hmmmm, this distinction in vocabulary to describe a sacrament is new to me.....

(phatcatholic thinks he must do more research) :ph34r:

[p0lar_bear]

phatcatholic,

Distinctions between valid and licit are common in discussing sacraments.

Valid means the sacrament actually happened. Licit means the sacrament was celebrated legally (i.e. according to canon law).

To give an exteme example, a validly ordained priest can consecrate bread and wine anywhere, anytime. If he consecrates bread and wine outside of the context of the Mass, it is gravely illicit, but the species still become the Body and Blood of Christ.

Msgr LeFebvre ordained three bishops against the direct order of the Vatican. Those consecrations were illicit, but valid.

To be valid, each sacrament requires the proper matter, form, and minister. Liciety requires a lot more.

[Truth]

I'm GLAD to know that you Catholics here have everone else going to hell. You Guys bost of something you don't have. I feel sorry for you that you don't know any better. I wish that you could understand the truth. That was my only reason for coming to this site. To share with you the Truth. You don't have any Apostles connection with Peter or any other Apostle. You don't have any truths but that Christ is the son of God and he when to the cross for us all, not Catholics. No one could be further from the Truth than your Cc. You use only history to as proof you can't used the Bible because you only show up in Rev 17-19, the true Christian church is Christ Church. If you beleive in your Church than the Word of God you have a false teaching. If you beleive that man controlled the Bible you wrong again. God knew the end before the beging of the world. You can't be baptize now that you are old enough to learn the truth so you are stuck with the understanding of REASON and not of the HOLY SPIRIT.

LOVE PEACE AND UNDERSTANDING, IS MY PRAYER FOR YOU ALL.

EXIT PEACE OUT.

[Jake Huether]

Also note: if a "validly" ordained Anglican effects Transubstantiation, and beholds our Beloved Savior in his hands, while at the same time rejecting His Mistical Body, the Catholic Church, this would be a grave sin against him - and it might also be seen as disrespectful to the Body of our Savior to recieve him in communion with a heretical church.

Stay with the Catholic Mass and let God sort out the confussion among others.

[phatcatholic]

I'm GLAD to know that you Catholics here have everone else going to hell. You Guys bost of something you don't have. I feel sorry for you that you don't know any better. I wish that you could understand the truth. That was my only reason for coming to this site. To share with you the Truth. You don't have any Apostles connection with Peter or any other Apostle. You don't have any truths but that Christ is the son of God and he when to the cross for us all, not Catholics. No one could be further from the Truth than your Cc. You use only history to  as proof you can't used the Bible because you only show up in Rev 17-19, the true Christian church is Christ Church. If you beleive in your Church than the Word of God you have a false teaching. If you beleive that man controlled the Bible you wrong again. God knew the end before the beging of the world. You can't be baptize now that you are old enough to learn the truth so you are stuck with the understanding of REASON and not of the HOLY SPIRIT.

LOVE PEACE AND UNDERSTANDING, IS MY PRAYER FOR YOU ALL.

EXIT PEACE OUT.

why do you do this? instead of replying to the five or six other threads that are waiting on you to respond, u plop down in another one...........and again, only state your opinion. what happened to providing proof to back up ur claims? every time we provide proof for ours, u disappear and never respond again. is it b/c u don't know how to answer, b/c u can't accept the fact that we might actually be right about something.

i shall again, respond to this mass collection of opinions, and hopefully get a response from you in return.

I'm GLAD to know that you Catholics here have everone else going to hell.

where in this ENTIRE THREAD do we question ANYONE'S salvation or say that ANYONE is going to hell?!?! find that for me please, i'm begging you. just b/c we claim that anglicans have invalid sacraments, that DOES NOT MEAN that we think they are going to hell.

You Guys bost of something you don't have. I feel sorry for you that you don't know any better. I wish that you could understand the truth. That was my only reason for coming to this site. To share with you the Truth.

is that really why you are here? your behavior here tells me otherwise. first off, u hardly every back up ur opinion w/ proof. secondly, everytime we provide our proof, u disappear. if u were interesting in sharing Truth w/ us, then u would engage in continual dialogue, instead of poking ur head into a thread, stating ur opinion, and then leaving. also, if u were interested in Truth, then u would be open to reading and learning about what we have to say as well. but ur posts show that u rarely thoroughly read what we post, and that especially pertains to any articles that we may provide.

You don't have any Apostles connection with Peter or any other Apostle.

PROOF PLEASE

You don't have any truths but that Christ is the son of God and he when to the cross for us all, not Catholics.

PROOF PLEASE. also, u seem to be implying here that we believe that christ died on the cross ONLY for catholics. can u please provide PROOF that we believe in this? i for one, can assure u that we do not.

No one could be further from the Truth than your Cc. You use only history to  as proof

PROOF PLEASE. we don't use scripture to defend what we believe? are you serious? i provided proof from scripture that the sacrificial lamb had to be eaten, and u never responded. i provided proof from scripture that the sabbath must be celebrated on sunday, and u never responded. if u've still never seen a catholic provide scripture to defend his belief, well then allow me to be the first:

--The Church

--Primacy of Peter

--Apostolic Succession

--Oral Tradition

--Scripture Alone

--The Eucharist

--Blessed Virgin Mary

--Saints

--Confession

--Purgatory

--Justification

--Salvation

--Baptism

--Confirmation

--Anointing of the Sick

--The Priesthood

--Divorce and Remarriage

--Contraception

--Deuterocanon

--Septuagint

--Sacramentals

--Sunday Worship

--Revelation and the Mass

--Vain and Repititious Prayer

--Homosexuality

--Suffering

--Fasting

--Drinking

--Hell

--Original Sin

--Second Coming

--Christ's Divinity

--Holy Spirit

--Messianic Prophesies

if you are interested in Truth at all, and if u still believe that catholics can not provide scripture to defend their faith, then i would dare you to go to one of those links.

you can't used the Bible because you only show up in Rev 17-19, the true Christian church is Christ Church.

see links above. it looks to me like that catholic church is all over the place.

If you beleive in your Church than the Word of God you have a false teaching.

WE DON'T BELIEVE THIS! we believe that the voice of the authoritative church is equal to the word of God, b/c it too is the word of God. see the first four links above.

If you beleive that man controlled the Bible you wrong again.

what do u mean by "man controlled the bible"? God wrote the Bible, we believe this. we also believe that God worked thru His Catholic Church in assembling these inspired works into one collection. of course, if u plan on denying this, PLEASE PROVIDE PROOF.

God knew the end before the beging of the world.

NO JOKE

You can't be baptize now that you are old enough to learn the truth so you are stuck with the understanding of REASON and not of the HOLY SPIRIT.

PROOF PLEASE

you have a long way to go to prove your claims, to refute my claims, and to be the least bit effective at sharing your "Truth" with us.

Good Luck and God Bless You in your search for Truth,

phatcatholic

Edited February 4, 2004 by phatcatholic

[Jake Huether]

EXIT PEACE OUT.

I'm GLAD to know that you Catholics here have everone else going to hell.

I didn't see hell or condemnation in anyone's post.

You Guys bost of something you don't have.

Quite the opposite. We bost of what we have: Christ Jesus, Body Blood Soul and Divinity to boot!

You don't have any Apostles connection with Peter or any other Apostle.

Truth, we've shown you historically and Biblically the roots. I'm sorry you don't see it.

You don't have any truths but that Christ is the son of God and he when to the cross for us all, not Catholics.

You display your ignorance whenever you post. Catholics know that Christ died for EVERYONE. He died so that Hitler might have a chance. But one must also BELIEVE in Christ. Not merely believe that Christ existed, but believe in his words and in his grace. One must believe HIS CHURCH in order to reap the benefits of His Holy Death.

No one could be further from the Truth than your Cc.

Truth, you have been lied to by the father of lies. He would like you to exchange the Truth for a lie, and lie for Truth. The Catholic Church holds the Truth, and nothing but the Truth.

You use only history to  as proof you can't used the Bible because you only show up in Rev 17-19, the true Christian church is Christ Church.

Okay.. I don't really follow you.. But if you look in our reference section. Or if you've read any of the threads. All we do is quote scripture. But I suppose that if Christ were to come down right now and tell you which was His Most Precious Bride, you would still not believe.

If you beleive in your Church than the Word of God you have a false teaching.

I don't get this statement too much either. But I think I understand the jist of it. And, SURPRISE, we believe the Word of God. And the Word of God is this, "you are Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." We don't believe in our Church outside the Word of God. On the contrary, we believe in our Church BECAUSE of the Word of God.

If you beleive that man controlled the Bible you wrong again.

"Controlled the Bible"... Well, I'll tell you what we believe and you can comment on whether or not you think it is correct. We believe that God inspired certain individuals to write the letters and histories which are collected in the Bible. We further believe that a group of disciples of our Lord, some time after his death, came together under the inspiration of God, and picked out which texts and letters where inspired. These disciples belionged to what is known as the Catholic, or universal Church, apart from which there was no other "Christian" Church at the time.

God knew the end before the beging of the world. You can't be baptize now that you are old enough to learn the truth so you are stuck with the understanding of REASON and not of the HOLY SPIRIT.

Okay, your probably going to have to reword this for me. I'm not understanding. I agree so far with the first sentance.

LOVE PEACE AND UNDERSTANDING, IS MY PRAYER FOR YOU ALL.

Thank you! I will pray for you too.

God bless.

Edited February 4, 2004 by Jake Huether

[cmotherofpirl]

Truth we have been baptised, so we are already members of the Kingdom.

Our Church was founded by Jesus Christ the Son of God, who died and opened the gates of heaven.

WE do the things that Jesus asked of us, we preach and teach the Kingdom of God and are baptised into it. We are filled by thre Holy Spirit. We celebrate Communion as we were commanded so we have life within us. We work out our salvation in fear and trembling.

We have not merited this, but we are graced by it. We have the fullness of faith found in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scriptures left by Jesus the Christ who is God.

Sorry if that isn't good enough, but we answer to God, not to man.

[Theoketos]

Pham,

I wish that we could have a serious discussion on the Episcopal Church...

Did you know that his Holliness, John Paul II, gave a pectoral ring and cross to the Archbishop of Catenburry?

Yeah and the two of them get along really well.

[Ellenita]

An anglican raised in the 'high' anglican branch of the church would find much of liturgy of the catholic mass familiar. In a conversation recently, a priest described the vicar of the local anglican church to me as being "more 'Roman' than I am"!

In the mass at the anglican church where I was raised we chanted the creed and the Kyries and had incense at every Sunday morning mass. The church building was very old - originally built in the 13th century, and must therefore have been catholic until the 'reformation'. It was very beautiful, as was the form of the mass.

However, it is an inescapable fact that the line of apostolic succession was broken, beginning with the actions of Henry VIII, and once you know this, it's beyond my understanding that a 'high' anglican would remain within the anglican church. I would have to ask the question why?!

As an anglican, I don't ever remember being taught about Transubstantiation. I do remember being given an understanding that there was Presence in the Eucharist and that we celebrated it 'in memory' of Jesus and the Last Supper. The only time I ever remember being offered the opportunity to confess to a priest 'if I wanted to' was once just before being confirmed and as it really wasn't given any importance it didn't seem necessary - the general prayer of confession at the start of the mass is considered enough.

Given my understanding of all this, I would not take communion in an anglican church now - and that is not a decision reached lightly!

Of course, if you strolled into a 'low' anglican church you would find a number of differences between the form of service and the catholic mass. A methodist would be more 'at home' with the service, and you can't always tell whether a church is 'high' or 'low' from the outside!

There is certainly dialogue between the high anglican and the catholic church exploring the similarities, but I cannot see the anglican church joining the catholic church; there is too much history to 'undo' and in the UK would require a radical change in our constitution....but then again, I didn't believe there would be an end to apartheid or that the Berlin wall would come crumbling down in my life time...and my God is a God of miracles! :D