Can Someone Explain Protestant Churches who have the Holy Eucharist?

[GKC]

Originally Posted by liturgyluver

I wouldn't agree that they changed it in significant ways. Between 1550 and 1662 no explict mention was made at the point of the laying on of hands of the particular grade of Ministry, though the rite itself was described as "The form for ordering of priests" After 1662 the words "for the office and work of a priest" were added during the laying on of hands.

What's interesting is to compare the form used for consecrating Bishops where in the Catholic rite they simply say "Receive the Holy Ghost" during the laying on of hands, wheras the corresponding Anglican one (again between 1550 and 1662) was "take the Holy Ghost and remember that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee, by imposition of hands; for God hath not given us the spirt of fear but of power, and love and soberness" which are a quotation from St Paul's charge to St Timothy.

Finally "Receive authority to offer sacrifies to God, and to celebrate mass as well for the quick as the dead" (which was added to the Roman Rite in the 11 th century) was changed to "Take thou authority to preach the word of God, and to minister the Holy sacraments" So I think the changes were minor but Pope Leo's bull was about a Catholic interpretation of the intent during the period 1550 to 1662, and how this defective use broke the apostolic succession, even though the rite used today is not defective (as far as content).

The form in the original Edwardine Ordinal, which was considered invalid for valid transmission of orders, did not mention the authority of the ordinand to offer the Eucharistic sacrifice. But that alone was not sufficient to judge Anglican orders invalid, since there are a number of Rites which the RCC recognizes as valid, which to not mention that, either. The problem lay in intertwining the form, written in that fashion, by whom it was, when it was, with the sacramental intent of the celebrant. To have excised the reference to sacrificing, in the Ordinal, was taken as a positive rejection of the concept of the sacrifice. And the intent of anyone who used such a form was judged to be invalid, not facere quod facit ecclesia. Hence a form that was not itself unknown, and judged valid, was here judged invalid, by the context in which it was constructed. And the sacramental intent of those who used it was judged invalid, determinatio ex adiunctus. These two together were taken to justify the judgment. As is known, for reasons unrelated to this discussion, the form was changed in the 1662 Book and is unexceptional, now.

Thus the theological parts of the Apostolicae Curae story, which also includes history, politics and personalities. A long and sad tale.

GKC

[Anna Scott]

Originally Posted by JD27076

No protestant church gives valid communion. You are not to accept protestant communion either.

Episcopalians have a "holy Eucharist" but it is not holy, nor a Eucharist.

The Only churches that Rome gives valid communion, confession, etc, is the Orthodox Churches. (Other than themselves :P)

JD,
Just because the Catholic Church delcares Anglican Orders invalid does not make them invalid. God answers the Eucharistic Prayers offered through the Liturgy (which is almost identicle to that of the CC) by our Priests.

Of course, being Catholic, you must disagree with me; and I would be disappointed if you didn't.

Peace,
Anna

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by BrianH

There are traditional or continuing Anglicans that have
valid Old Catholic lines in their apostolic succession though. To further complicate things...

And to further complicate, the words of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger:

I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of 'validity.' Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord in a Lutheran Lord's Supper

Jon

[JonNC]

=KathleenGee;8997733]Protestant churches, based on Martin Luther's denial of apostolic succession, do not believe as well.

Hi Kathleeen,
I am not aware that Luther denied AS, but even if he did, it is irrelevent to Lutherans, and quite moreso to those who are not Lutheran. As for Lutherans, here is what the confessions say about AS:

The Fourteenth Article, in which we say that in the Church the administration of the Sacraments and Word ought to be allowed no one unless he be rightly called, they receive, but with the proviso that we employ canonical ordination. Concerning this subject we have frequently testified in this assembly that it is our greatest wish to maintain church-polity and the grades in the Church [old church-regulations and the government of bishops], even though they have been made by human authority [provided the bishops allow our doctrine and receive our priests]. For we know that church discipline was instituted by the Fathers, in the manner laid down in the ancient canons, with a good and useful intention.

Jon

[1ke]

Originally Posted by Anna Scott

JD,
Just because the Catholic Church delcares Anglican Orders invalid does not make them invalid.

Well, actually it does.

But, of course, you reject that reality.

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by domandcarols

Protestants don't have Holy Communion. They have wafers or whatever they want to call it.

This is as condescending and harsh as some non-Catholics that view the Catholic Eucharist as "cracker worship". Compare what you have said here to what Cardinal Ratzinger said in the quote I posted previously.

One need not agree with the Lutheran view that our sacraments and ordinations are valid to recognize that we take seriously the Lord's call that we each and drink His true body and blood for the forgiveness of sins.

Jon

[Anna Scott]

Originally Posted by JonNC

This is as condescending and harsh as some non-Catholics that view the Catholic Eucharist as "cracker worship". Compare what you have said here to what Cardinal Ratzinger said in the quote I posted previously.

One need not agree with the Lutheran view that our sacraments and ordinations are valid to recognize that we take seriously the Lord's call that we each and drink His true body and blood for the forgiveness of sins.

Jon

Well said.

A bit of respect would be appreciated.

Anna

[Anna Scott]

Originally Posted by 1ke

Well, actually it does.

But, of course, you reject that reality.

As a Catholic, you pretty much have to say that.

Peace,
Anna

[Lochias]

Originally Posted by gcnuss

Your argument is a reductio ad absurdum. As sinful human beings we demand nothing from Christ -- we accept the wonderful gift of his body and blood and the grace that comes through receiving him. From the perspective of Lutheran theology, Holy Communion is a gift given by our Lord to those who follow him. We believe that the words "this is my body, given for you" and "this cup is the new covenant in my blood, shed for you" apply to all who come to him in faith.

Finally, and I am probably repeating what you have heard before, we do not believe that the Catholic Church has authority over our relationship with Christ, particularly when it comes to whether or not he comes to us in Holy Communion.

God's blessings to you as you continue on your journey in faith.

But you are demanding something from Christ...the authority to change the rules He set down. You said that what your church believes is all that matters; I could almost hear a light-hearted "nyah nyah!" after that sentence. How is that any different from what I believe being all that matters? Your church was started by a sinful human being...who or what gave him the authority to demand changes to Christ's rules?

Grontar demands a flat-screen TV to go with half of your paycheck!

And, thank you, I will take all the blessings I can get. I will pray for you as well.

[JonNC]

[quote=Lochias;9017641]But you are demanding something from Christ...the authority to change the rules He set down. You said that what your church believes is all that matters; I could almost hear a light-hearted "nyah nyah!" after that sentence. How is that any different from what I believe being all that matters? Your church was started by a sinful human being...who or what gave him the authority to demand changes to Christ's rules? QUOTE]
Only if christ was a sinful man. But if we are speaking of the non-divine, Peter was indeed quite the sinful man.

Curiously, though, which rules that Christ set down are you speaking of?

Jon

[RevNeal]

Originally Posted by JonNC

And to further complicate, the words of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger: ...

Dear Jon,

Thanks for this quote. Can you give me the source, please? I'd love to read the full context of his statement. I've been working my way through all of his published books, and find him both a lucid and compelling thinker and author. While I certainly disagree with the RCC's position on this subject, I can appreciate the approach he articulates here. It fits well with something he said to the Methodist/Catholic Dialog back in 2002 regarding the "clear evidence of the sanctifying real presence of Jesus in Methodist Communions, notwithstanding the question of valid orders."

[PJM]

=jinc1019;8997542]I don't really understand how Episcopalians, Anglicans, or other Protestant branches are able to have Holy Communion. Can someone please explain this to me? Also, can someone direct me to a list of churches (other than the orthodox Churches in the East) that Rome allows to give Holy Communion that are not in the Latin Church or the Eastern Churches? Are there any other Protestant churches that are able to give Holy Communion or is it just Episcopalian/Anglican?

They DO NOT have it validly AND LICTLY or FULLY and REALLY as we Catholic do

[hn160]

Originally Posted by PJM

They DO NOT have it validly AND LICTLY or FULLY and REALLY as we Catholic do

I guess that you know the mind of God!!!!!

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by RevNeal

Dear Jon,

Thanks for this quote. Can you give me the source, please? I'd love to read the full context of his statement. I've been working my way through all of his published books, and find him both a lucid and compelling thinker and author. While I certainly disagree with the RCC's position on this subject, I can appreciate the approach he articulates here. It fits well with something he said to the Methodist/Catholic Dialog back in 2002 regarding the "clear evidence of the sanctifying real presence of Jesus in Methodist Communions, notwithstanding the question of valid orders."

Hi Pastor,
I first saw it here, in paragraph 107:
http://nccbuscc.org/seia/koinonia.shtml

It was in a letter he wrote to German Lutheran Bishop Johannes Hanselmann. It is published in the Cardinal's book, Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith: The Church as Communion

Jon

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by hn160

I guess that you know the mind of God!!!!!

No, hn, he is reflecting the teachings of his communion.

Jon