| We hope you enjoy your visit! You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Praying in churches of other denominations; Split from the Ordinariate topic | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Monday, 28. November 2011, 14:28 (1,546 Views) | |
| Rose of York | Wednesday, 7. December 2011, 01:10 Post #61 |
![]()
Administrator
|
http://ireland.anglican.org/information/8
Does the Church of Ireland teaching deny that transubstantiation takes place at the consecration?????????????? |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Emee | Wednesday, 7. December 2011, 01:29 Post #62 |
|
Fairplay Rose...! :) |
![]() |
|
| Angus Toanimo | Wednesday, 7. December 2011, 02:07 Post #63 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Rose, it can teach what it likes but its "priests" remain laymen playing "Mass" and Transubstantiation does not take place. |
![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| Emee | Wednesday, 7. December 2011, 02:17 Post #64 |
|
But what if they can trace their ordinations back to old Catholic Bishops Patrick? I really am not certain that it is as clear cut as "...laymen playing "Mass"...". (After all this has been much argued over in terms of our own Anglo-Catholics...) |
![]() |
|
| Angus Toanimo | Wednesday, 7. December 2011, 02:42 Post #65 |
![]()
Administrator
|
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM
|
![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| OsullivanB | Wednesday, 7. December 2011, 02:48 Post #66 |
|
I would have to refresh my memory to be certain, but I don't think that Apostolicae Curiae considered the question of succession through the Old Catholic Church. I think it did consider the question of succession through the strictly Anglican sequence of ordination of priests and bishops, and also the Anglican liturgy of ordination and pronounced that succession and liturgy not to confer valid orders. But I may misremember. |
| "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer | |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Wednesday, 7. December 2011, 03:00 Post #67 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Link to Apostolicae Curiae http://s10.zetaboards.com/Catholic_CyberForum/topic/7304070/1/#new |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Home in Rome | Wednesday, 7. December 2011, 04:18 Post #68 |
|
The participation of Old Catholic Bishops in Anglican consecrations of bishops has certainly muddied the water as far as Apostolicae Curae is concerned. The Vatican through CDF is prepared to allow investigation of valid ordination through Old Catholic lines if an Anglican cleric destined for the Ordinariate appeals directly to them and supplies documentary evidence, but it can take months and years and his (conditional) ordination may be delayed, or it may not be granted. Hence so far only two people to my knowledge have managed to be ordained conditionally - Fr John Jay Hughes in 1968 and Mgr Graham Leonard in 1994. But the Vatican has ruled out (or hasn't even discussed) the possibility of re-opening the case on the validity of Anglican Orders, probably because it would open a can of worms, and in any case the further erosion of catholic heritage in CofE has made the exercise rather pointless. All I know about the CDF's (and the Sureme Pontiff's) attitude towards Anglican Orders is that officially they are invalid (i.e. not recognised as equivalent to Catholic Orders). Whether in some cases they are held to be probably valid because of Old Catholic line remain an open question. All convert clergy as a rule are ordained absolutely to repel any doubt about the validity of their Orders, but they aren't required to deny any of their past ministry, including the sacraments they have celebrated which have clearly been channels of God's grace, even though they don't represent the fullness of Catholic mysteries. Whether any Anglicans believe in the Real Presence and Transubstantiation varies widely. Anglo Catholic do, and Evengelicals don't , and there are all views in between! If you interpret the doctrine of transubstantiation as way of affirming that a real change takes place in the elements, a lot of Anglicans will agree to it. Whether they interpret this change in the language of Aristotelian metaphysics, probably the majority don't. A modern phylosopher won't subscribe to the scholastic interpretation of matter in terms of substance and accident. So transubstantiation can be regarded as describing that a change has taken place in the elments, not how that change has happened. Teaching of Churh of Ireland on Christ's presence in the Eucharist sounds more Lutheran than Anglican, such as transignification |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Wednesday, 7. December 2011, 09:46 Post #69 |
|
There is very little documentary evidence of how the exactly the Eucharist was celebrated in the earliest days but I think we can work it out by implication. We have to remember that the first Christians did not regard themselves as a separate religion, they were still Jews and followed Jewish practices and rituals, hence the need to change the rules about circumcision and Paul chastising Peter about his attitude towards non-Jewish converts. During the period where they still practised the Jewish religion, it is unlikely that they would have appointed their own priests in opposition to the Jewish priesthood, indeed the Eucharist would have been seen as an addition to their Jewish worship rather than a replacement for it. This is implied in the words of Justin Martyr in Chapter 66 of his Apology - “bread and a cup of water and mixed wine are brought to him who presides over the brethren. " which suggests somebody selected by those present rather than an external appointee. It is also perhaps significant that the Didache goes into quite a lot of detail on the celebration of the Eucharist but makes no mention of who should carry out the Consecration. I think most of the formal/bureaucratic structures of the Church, including the priesthood and the whole clericalism concept, began when the centre of gravity of the Church moved from Jerusalem to Rome. |
![]() |
|
| saundthorp | Wednesday, 7. December 2011, 09:46 Post #70 |
|
Mairtin,
I think your question has been well and truly answered in recent post. Yes, I think a Catholic who receives communion at a non-Catholic service is indulging in a form of dishonesty because it gives a false appearence of unity. That is where the scandal comes in. Edited by saundthorp, Wednesday, 7. December 2011, 09:47.
|
|
Truth is still the truth even if no one believes it. Error is still error even if everyone believes it. (Archbishop Fulton Sheen) | |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Wednesday, 7. December 2011, 09:52 Post #71 |
|
Ah, another one who has never met me and knows very little about me yet regards himself as qualified to judge my religious Faith. Funny how the willingness tojudge others seems to go hand in hand with Traditionalism. I refer you to Post #43 by Emee about taking lessons in scrilege from Trads, I cannot put it any better than that. |
![]() |
|
| saundthorp | Wednesday, 7. December 2011, 10:02 Post #72 |
|
No, Patrick, you are not the only one on here to see it like that. I think it would be a good idea to refresh our memories as to what the 39 Articles have to say about the Catholic Eucharist.
|
|
Truth is still the truth even if no one believes it. Error is still error even if everyone believes it. (Archbishop Fulton Sheen) | |
![]() |
|
| saundthorp | Wednesday, 7. December 2011, 10:10 Post #73 |
|
I might just add that if any Catholic on here doesn't have a problem with Article XXVIII they have ceased to be Catholic! |
|
Truth is still the truth even if no one believes it. Error is still error even if everyone believes it. (Archbishop Fulton Sheen) | |
![]() |
|
| Angus Toanimo | Wednesday, 7. December 2011, 10:42 Post #74 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Mairtin, I haven't judged you, I stated how it looks, to me. Love the sinner, detest the sin? Furthermore, the Church teaches, as far as my memory serves, that if one is in doubt of the validity of the Orders of the celebrant, one is to avoid that Mass, for invalid orders means there is no Mass. It isn't just about what you think, but what others are led to believe by your actions. |
![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| pete | Wednesday, 7. December 2011, 10:54 Post #75 |
|
Even Lord Nelson would have been obliged to take this oath. 1829 is not so very long ago, I wonder when it was the C of E decided that they had got it all wrong and the Papists had been right all the time? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_Act Test Act 1673 Act This act was followed by the Test Act of 1673[1] (25 Car. II. c. 2) (the long title of which is "An act for preventing dangers which may happen from popish recusants"[2]). This act enforced upon all persons filling any office, civil or military, the obligation of taking the oaths of supremacy and allegiance and subscribing to a declaration against transubstantiation and also of receiving the sacrament within three months after admittance to office. The oath for the Test Act of 1673 was: "I, N, do declare that I do believe that there is not any transubstantiation in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or in the elements of the bread and wine, at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever." [edit] 1678 Act Initially, the Act did not extend to peers; but in 1678 the Act was extended by a further Act (30 Car. II. st. 2[3]) which required that all peers and members of the House of Commons should make a declaration against transubstantiation, invocation of saints, and the sacrifice of the Mass.[4] The effect of this was to exclude Catholics from both houses, and in particular the "Five Popish Lords" from the House of Lords, a change motivated largely by the alleged Popish Plot. Repeal The necessity of receiving the sacrament as a qualification for office was repealed in 1828 under George IV and all acts requiring the taking of oaths and declarations against transubstantiation were repealed by the Catholic Relief Act 1829. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Catholic Discussion · Next Topic » |









3:43 PM Jul 11