Roman Catholicism vs. Episcopalianism

[Katzpur]

It might be worth noting that we do believe that Christ gives us his Flesh and Blood sacramentally, that is, in a manner worthy of the term "mystery". So while we say the Eucharist is one sense "literally" Christ's flesh and blood, we do not believe the Eucharist is merely a chunk or peice of Christ, but rather, his whole person mysteriously made present to us under the signs of bread and wine .

I do not envision myself so much chewing on the parts of a dead man, rather, the doctrine teaches that Christ is present in his full incarnated reality. In the Eucharist, the Lord gives us the fullness of himself, and we receive, in our bodies, the mystery of his body, of the Word, the Son becoming flesh, material, human.

So the subsantial element is essential, because the Incarnation is more than a spiritual event, as well as the Cross being more than just an appearance, and since the Eucharist is the sharing in the Incarnation, the Cross and the Resurrection, and because salvation concerns both the body and the soul, it is absolutely essential to our understanding that the Eucharist also have this substantial element.

He gives of his own flesh in something like the way a mother gives of her own body, milk, to feed her infant child: we are not feeding off of a dead man, but living from the one who is willingly sharing his own life.

Thank you. That really does help, and I apologize if the question was offensive. It's that word "literal" that has always made me wonder. It's sort of like when Mormons say that we believe God the Father is "literally" the Father of Jesus Christ. People pick up on the word "literal" and the first place their minds go is to the sex act. I tell them that we also believe that Mary was "literally" the mother of Jesus Christ, and that we believe she was a virgin. If a virgin got pregnant, she didn't have sex to do it, so how anybody could think there's any logic in saying we think God had sex with Mary is beyond me. Yes, we believe God is literally Jesus' Father. We would call Jesus' conception a "mystery." If we can call His conception a mystery, I don't know why His Real Presence at the Eucharist can't be just as much a mystery. Thank you for your reply.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

That is interesting Jordan St. Francis. I have not seen that done before. Our consecrated Host is considered the Body and Blood of Christ, though. It is kept in a special cupboard (can't remember the official name of it) with a candle that is always lit. It is only removed on Good Friday, and returned at Easter Vigil. Anything not consumed, even crumbs or residue in the cup, needs to be put into blessed ground.

The special Cupboard (Aumbry)Is always made of iron and locked ( against devil worshipers, who in times past used to steal them for their own services.)
as you say it is constantly guarded buy a light, and covered with a curtain.
The consecrated Host is Kept there when ever there is a surplus ( often intentional) and is used by the priest in home communions.
The holy oil (chism) is also kept here.

We believe in the real presence of Christ during communion, but not that the bread and wine turns into the actual Body and blood of Christ, But that he is in them.
We also believe that there is only one Eucharist and that we are partaking in the actual last supper.

Those Episcopalians who are in Communion with Canterbury Generally follow the same beliefs and practices. However the Anglicans and the other Episcopalians are not a Top down organization like the catholics. so considerable variations of belief are practiced.

Were a catholic to wake up in a High Church Anglican service he would not be able to tell the difference, except perhaps that everything was more strictly done. ( some times in Latin) Their beliefs are identical to Catholics Bar the acceptance of the Pope. Icons and the stations of the Cross are normal in their churches.

The interesting thing in the Anglican faith is that very few members know or even want to know these things, as it is very much a worship based religion. They simply know what goes on in their particular church.

We have no women Bishops yet Though the necessary vote has been taken. We do have women priests and canons.

The Church of England would maintain that their First priests and bishops were Ordained in the Catholic faith but changed their allegiance away from the Pope.
The Catholics would say that they were excommunicated. We do not believe that to be the case, as the Pope had no authority over them.

The Anglican Church has only ever made one Saint, and now has no method to do so.
It is not normal for us to pray to Saints but some individuals may do so.
We do however remember them along with other notable Christians on our yearly calendar.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

Katzpur,

There is an interesting paraphrase from St. Augustine: when we eat ordinary food, our bodies break it down and it becomes part of our body. When we eat the Eucharistic Food [ie. Christ's flesh], it breaks us down and makes us into His Body.

So, while we truly are eating the flesh of Christ, it is not in the manner of cannibalism, where the body separates, conquers, subsumes a dead thing. Rather, because we receive the in-carn-ated Word into our bodies, the Eucharist is the the foremost and supreme sacrament which tends towards theosis (divinization).

In otherwords, the new and heavenly earth, the new matieriality of the World to Come has, in a certain way, its beginning in the Eucharistic table.

"For this perishable body must put on imperishability, and this mortal body must put on immortaility, then the saying that is written will be fulfilled: "Death has been swallowed up in victory". 1 Cor. 15:53

Thanks, Katzpur, for your questions, I know there are still yet points to address. You don't need to worry about being offensive, you never are. Your curiosity is very inspiring for a place usually consumed with arguing and so often closed off to genuine listening.

And a thank you, of course, to Lunamoth also.

 

[lunamoth]

And a thank you, of course, to Lunamoth also.

Thank you as well. I enjoy reading your answers.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

As regards ordination and consecration, Katzpur, I think LoTrabador was correct, it is a separate, though linked, question from authority.

I said, in ordination, the priest is ontologically conformed to Christ so that he shares in His priesthood in a way that is unique from lay members of the Church (who all share in the general priesthood, or the priesthood of all believers).

A priest who breaks communion with the Church still retains the faculties to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, or any of the sacraments. However, in doing so, he must preserve the proper form, intent and matter of the sacrament. Secondly, while the Church acknowledges that all who are ordained by her posess valid holy orders, any such sacraments performed outside of ecclesial unity are valid but illict. That is, they are performed without the proper authority to do so.

Why is this all so? This is because, in the New Covenant, the sacrifices of the Temple have been abolished and surpassed by the "once and for all" sacrifice of Jesus Christ Himself- both the victim and the High Priest of His offering.

The priesthood of the New Covenant is therefore unable to offer anything new, anything other than what Christ did once and for all. Thus the priest is ontologically- at the level of his being- incorporated into the priesthood of Christ. The priest is then co-joined with Christ and becomes a participant in the offering of the sacrifice of the New Covenant: the Paschal Victim, Jesus Christ.

The Holy Mass is the once-and-for-all offering of the Cross in 1st century Israel extended and brought through time and space to God's People here and now.

In the Holy Mass, at the hands of the priest, the self-same sacrifice of the Cross is "renewed", or in other words, is made present to us in this given moment so that we too might become participants.

The priest, working in persona Christi, that is, "in the person of Christ", makes the sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood. The lay participants bring themselves to this Sacrifice, join themselves to it as members of Christ's Body, and incorporate themselves into the Living Sacrifice of Christ to the Father. In this way, the Holy Mass constantly renews the Christian life, as we constantly return to the source of our salvation.

It is also because the priest, having been ontologically conformed to Christ the Priest and therefore working "in the person of Christ", must be male, as Christ was ontologically a male.

Any other Catholics reading this, feel free to correct me if I have misunderstood something.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Unfortunately, the Catholic Church, officially, does not actually see Anglican holy orders as valid, Pope Leo XIII declared so in his bull Apostolicae Curae (1896). This is because, it is understood, Anglicans tampered with the form and intenion of the sacrament of ordination at some point following the Reformation. Consequently, all Anglican sacrament are henceforth "void" in the eyes of the Catholic Magisterium.

Personally, I find some of this problematic. While I assent to the ontological character of holy orders, I personally do not feel that we, as Catholics, can have any certainy about the validity of any other Church's sacraments. I believe Catholics can state that, objectively, we ourselves have valid orders, but I don't think we can limit the grace of God within fellow Christian communities.

As a Catholic, I do not feel obligated to believe that, when an Anglican consumes the Eucharist, he or she is eating mere bread. What Pope Leo XIII wrote was a bull, not an ex-cathedra pronouncement. Is Leo right about the defect of form and intention? Honestly, that is both a historical and a theological question, and one for which I am not well educated.

In what way is the form and intent of the Anglican sacrament of Holy Orders supposed to have been altered?

If this declaration is from 1896, it's not about the issue of ordination of women, is it? (Am I right in thinking that women's ordination in the Anglican/Episcopal Church is newer than that?)

BTW - Luna: there's something I've wondered about: is the Episcopal Church still part of the Anglican Church? I remember hearing something about the American church changing their name from "Anglican" following the American Revolution, but I'm not sure of the relationship between the Episcopals and the Anglicans.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

In what way is the form and intent of the Anglican sacrament of Holy Orders supposed to have been altered?

If this declaration is from 1896, it's not about the issue of ordination of women, is it? (Am I right in thinking that women's ordination in the Anglican/Episcopal Church is newer than that?)

No, the issue at that time was not the ordination of women. I believe the understanding is that, in the decades following the English Reformation, as the English Church steadily accepted the influx of Continental Reformed ideas, the intent of the sacrament of Holy Orders was altered, and consequently, all ordinations after the time steadily supplanted the valid orders that they once posessed.

As a point of interest, there was a movement within the Anglican Church [obviously not shared by everyone] at the end of the 19th century to restore the objectivity of Anglican Holy Orders. They had a number of priests and bishops ordained by bishops of the Old Catholic Church [which went into schism with the Roman Church after Vatican I). Old Catholic bishops, at that time, certainly posessed valid Orders in the eyes of Rome.

Female ordination has made things more difficult.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, the issue at that time was not the ordination of women. I believe the understanding is that, in the decades following the English Reformation, as the English Church steadily accepted the influx of Continental Reformed ideas, the intent of the sacrament of Holy Orders was altered, and consequently, all ordinations after the time steadily supplanted the valid orders that they once posessed.

In what way?

I suppose they were no longer intending to ordain priests who would be in communion with what the Catholic Church views as the successor to St. Peter, so in that view, you could say they weren't intending to bring priests into the Church... is that it?

If so, that would mean that any schismatic group wouldn't have the "intent"... right?

As a point of interest, there was a movement within the Anglican Church [obviously not shared by everyone] at the end of the 19th century to restore the objectivity of Anglican Holy Orders. They had a number of priests and bishops ordained by bishops of the Old Catholic Church [which went into schism with the Roman Church after Vatican I). Old Catholic bishops, at that time, certainly posessed valid Orders in the eyes of Rome.

Female ordination has made things more difficult.

Sure, and I can see how the Vatican might say that at least some Anglican priests and bishops were invalidly ordained; I just can't see how they can claim with certainty that all of them were.

 

[lunamoth]

Hi 9/10ths, All.

All I can say is that, obviously, we don't think our intent toward the sacrament was changed or that the apostolic succession was broken.

The main portion of the Episcopal Church in the USA is still part of the Anglican Communion. Some dioceses are not happy with the ECUSA and so have said they no longer are part of it. Some have said they will be under the auspices of Archbishops in Africa and elsewhere, but there is no established protocol by which they can officially do this, so it's not officially recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

We have no one head of the Anglican Communion (other than Christ); the Archbishop of Canterbury is in a 'first among equals' position. We have depended very much upon our mutual dedication to the relationships of the communion to keep us together, although when things like the ordination of women and homosexuals come up, it strains these relationships.

Right now there is an effort to create a covenant that will allow us to go forward on establishing more clear mechanisms for addressing issues that disrupt our community.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

Being in communion with the Pope is not part of the intent of the sacrament of Holy Orders. For example, Rome acknowledges that the Orthodox Church has valid Orders and continues to perpetuate them.

Rather, I think the point would be made that, in Anglican reformed Catholic theology, the concept of priesthood itself became deficient. That is to say , in the Roman view, the Anglican Church ceased to have the proper intention of "doing what the Church" does when it ordains a priest.

I am no expert, but perhaps the matter is linked with the diversity of beliefs the Anglican Church actually permits under one banner, which leads to very open ended and often vague practices or doctrinal formulations.

I think, in short, the likely reply would be that the Anglican Church, under the influence of Reformed theology [which maintains that the priest/ minister and the lay person are distinguished by role and not by kind], does not have a sufficiently catholic concept of the priesthood, and therefore lost the intention of the sacrament of Orders.

When this happened, nullified Orders gradually replaced valid ones in subsequent ordinations over the years until the question of intention became irrelevant all together, because they lost the proper matter of the sacrament of Orders- a validly ordained bishop.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Being in communion with the Pope is not part of the intent of the sacrament of Holy Orders. For example, Rome acknowledges that the Orthodox Church has valid Orders and continues to perpetuate them.

Rather, I think the point would be made that, in Anglican reformed Catholic theology, the concept of priesthood itself became deficient. That is to say , in the Roman view, the Anglican Church ceased to have the proper intention of "doing what the Church" does when it ordains a priest.

I am no expert, but perhaps the matter is linked with the diversity of beliefs the Anglican Church actually permits under one banner, which leads to very open ended and often vague practices or doctrinal formulations.

I think, in short, the likely reply would be that the Anglican Church, under the influence of Reformed theology [which maintains that the priest/ minister and the lay person are distinguished by role and not by kind], does not have a sufficiently catholic concept of the priesthood, and therefore lost the intention of the sacrament of Orders.

When this happened, nullified Orders gradually replaced valid ones in subsequent ordinations over the years until the question of intention became irrelevant all together, because they lost the proper matter of the sacrament of Orders- a validly ordained bishop.

I would agree with Lunamoth on this as would most Anglicans.

Interestingly during the war and the shortage of Orthodox priests in the UK, Orthodox members were permitted to attend Eucharist in Anglican churches, so they must believe our priests have authority .

Of course The Anglicans would never deny Catholics or Orthodox the right to communion, rather it is those churches who would/could object.

There is also the question of the Coptic, Ethiopian, and eastern churches who predate Rome and Like the Orthodox do not share all the beliefs and views of Rome.

The Coptic Monastic tradition was the first church to be established in the UK, It only later agreed to come under the authority of Rome.

The concept and practice of Confession and forgiveness (tariff) of sins was an Idea that Rome copied from Irish island monks.

This is a list of all Churches in the Anglican Communion
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...19306-member-churches-anglican-communion.html

This gives a listing of Anglican Churches NOT in the Anglican Communion
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/episcopal-anglicans/19332-anglican-churches-not-communion.html

All told This is a very large Grouping of Churches... Some of those not in communion are so for opposite reasons. Some because we are too strict and some because we are not strict enough... Though there is little difference in the actual beliefs and practices.

All Anglican/episcopalian churches have as their base the 39 articles of faith. Which is More Lutheran/Calvinistic and anti catholic, Than most members would recognize, and mostly ignored by members today.

 

[LoTrobador]

There is also the question of the Coptic, Ethiopian, and eastern churches who predate Rome and Like the Orthodox do not share all the beliefs and views of Rome.

I think to say that Eastern Churches predate the Roman Church might be a bit streched; they trace their history back to Apostles (as the Roman Church does) or to a later period, so I would say they're either roughly the same age as the Roman Church or a bit younger. But yes, they don't share all beliefs of the Roman Church, and their traditions and theologies are different and largely independent of the Latin and Byzantine traditions.

The Coptic Monastic tradition was the first church to be established in the UK, It only later agreed to come under the authority of Rome.

I think you might be referring to the period in the history of the English Church, of which the History page on the Church of England site says:

These three streams came together as a result of increasing mutual contact and a number of local synods, of which the Synod of Whitby in 664 has traditionally been seen as the most important. The result was an English Church, led by the two Archbishops of Canterbury and York, that was fully assimilated into the mainstream of the Christian Church of the west. This meant that it was influenced by the wider development of the Western Christian tradition in matters such as theology, liturgy, church architecture, and the development of monasticism. It also meant that until the Reformation in the 16th century the Church of England acknowledged the authority of the Pope.

The concept and practice of Confession and forgiveness (tariff) of sins was an Idea that Rome copied from Irish island monks.

More precisely, I would say, it was the Irish monks' practice of private confession, which became later the norm in the Western Church.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I think to say that Eastern Churches predate the Roman Church might be a bit streched; they trace their history back to Apostles (as the Roman Church does) or to a later period, so I would say they're either roughly the same age as the Roman Church or a bit younger. But yes, they don't share all beliefs of the Roman Church, and their traditions and theologies are different and largely independent of the Latin and Byzantine traditions. .

I would say that all the earliest churches including the "proto church" in Rome started about the same time. However what we recognize as the Roman Catholic Church to day led by a pope, more properly started some time later.

I think you might be referring to the period in the history of the English Church, of which the History page on the Church of England site says:

The Church of england today, says very little about the early Celtic church, though it admits to some early saints of the period. this is not surprising as almost no written evidence exists. However when The Romans arrive and spread north they found well established Coptic style monastic Christians. it is known that they were well established in the 200's so were possibly in place well before that, and attending Bishops conferences in the third century.

More precisely, I would say, it was the Irish monks' practice of private confession, which became later the norm in the Western Church.

General confession was well established. What they introduced was the Idea of a tariff of penance and for Priests to forgive sins.

 

[LoTrobador]

However what we recognize as the Roman Catholic Church to day led by a pope, more properly started some time later.

I wouldn't say it "started" at some point of history (not more than the Eastern or Oriental Orthodox Churches "started"), but I see your point.

The Church of england today, says very little about the early Celtic church, though it admits to some early saints of the period. this is not surprising as almost no written evidence exists. However when The Romans arrive and spread north they found well established Coptic style monastic Christians. it is known that they were well established in the 200's so were possibly in place well before that, and attending Bishops conferences in the third century.

I think it might be simply due to Anglo-Saxon, rather than Celtic, ethnic heritage of the CofE; the Scottish Episcopal Church or the Church in Wales might be more likely to emphasise the Celtic heritage, as it's a part of their ethnic and cultural history.

What they introduced was the Idea of a tariff of penance and for Priests to forgive sins.

I think the idea of priestly power to forgive sins wasn't introduced by the Irish monks, but was already present in the writings of Ancient and Early Medieval Christian theologians, as it's outlined in the article on absolution from the Catholic Encyclopedia.