Episcopalian Sacraments: Valid or Not? - Page 7

GKC · #91 Apr 25, '12, 10:35 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by martininthefiel

I read the article, especially Chapter 3, and I do not entirely agree, but it would take a rebuttal of equal length or better to respond. I have no inclination so to do.

I did note, however, that he commented that initially Anglo-Catholic received the 1979 book favorably, which was one of my original points.

I also agree that the language employed in the 1979 BCP is often too pedestrian, but the same can be said of the Second Roman Missal--also a product of the 1960's ethos. With the exception of Eucharistic Prayer D, the Saint Basil prayer, all of the Consecrations are wanting. Prayer C, with the exception of its version of the Dominie non sum dignis, borders on tragic comedy. Some of his points, though, strike me as nitpicking.

I have seen several of the current 'experimental liturgies', which will largely make it into the next BCP, and they scare me--terrify would not be too strong a word. The drift away from Trinitarian Christianity is unfortunate. The imperative to drive the Anglo-Catholic wing out of TEC, and replace it with a feminized, or worse yet neutered, theological formula is palpable.

The drift away from orthodoxy drove me out of TEC, but that drift had more to do with things other than the BCP. I believe the fractures in the Body of Christ are very sad. We should be seeking to fulfill Our Lord's admonition that we all should be one. Part of accomplishing that is doing more listening to each other than talking at each other.

I agree entirely. I have no interest in dissecting the 79 book. Nor will I use it.

Concur with the family relationship between the RC and Episcopal liturgies in the 60s.

Years ago I was told of what was coming, liturgically, after the 79 book. I agree with you completely. I have no truck with TEC.

Agree with your ultimate para.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus

martininthefiel · #92 Apr 25, '12, 5:32 pm

All Baptisms with water, and in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit are valid, even if they are performed by a non-Christian.

loko · #93 May 14, '12, 4:19 am

In answer to your question you need to decide where you want to worship. Sounds like you are hedging your bets.

Not all 'christian communities' are valid. We are not just talking about 'valid orders' I would look at the 'community' as a whole. What are their Doctrines?

I consider 'christian communities' with Doctrines that ordain female priests and openly gay clergy as false, therefore I would never receive Communion from someone who is not Catholic unless he were an Eastern Orthodox Priest.

That's just my personal opinion, I don't believe in Ecumenicism, it smacks of 'we are all the same' which is not what I believe. However I will engage with other christians politely and with respect.

nightranger · #94 May 15, '12, 8:08 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brofessor

However, I did some research, and it looks like the sacraments at my Ep. church are more or less the same as at my Catholic church--that is, they have apostolic succession like Catholics.

They are not valid sacraments my friend. They certainly do not have apostolic succession. Your Episcopal church is just another protestant religion.

**JharekCarnelian** · #95 May 16, '12, 6:23 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by nightranger

They are not valid sacraments my friend. They certainly do not have apostolic succession. Your Episcopal church is just another protestant religion.

They are Protestant from our point of view but they are not 'another Protestant religion', rather they are fellow Christians who lack the fullness of revealed truth.

Anna Scott · #96 May 16, '12, 10:24 am

I see the discussion about our Holy Orders is still going.

Anna

**JharekCarnelian** · #97 May 16, '12, 10:33 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anna Scott

I see the discussion about our Holy Orders is still going.

Anna

I wouldn't mind if people stated the view with some discernment, I certainly don't think charges that Anglicans are 'another religion' are helpful though. They turn up the heat but don't produce any light.

martininthefiel · #98 May 17, '12, 6:21 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by nightranger

They are not valid sacraments my friend. They certainly do not have apostolic succession. Your Episcopal church is just another protestant religion.

It is interesting that your position is not that of the Catholic Church, itself. The Anglican—Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) agreed that the two Communions were in "substantial agreement" as to the nature of the Eucharist and concluded that "that the eucharist as sacrifice is not an issue that divides our two Churches."

Since that time there have been developments that would serve as true roadblocks to Catholic-Anglican accord--the ordination of women, and the acceptance of same-sex unions.

The fact that we, as Catholics, do not accept the Anglican Eucharist as valid, does not mean that it is without Grace, or that it can be entirely disregarded. And we should always treat fellow Christians with respect.

martininthefiel · #99 May 17, '12, 7:01 am

[MORE] As I have said elsewhere, I will not receive Communion in Episcopal churches because I defer to the discipline of The Catholic Church. But I should point out that almost everything I know about the theology of the Eucharist I learned as an Episcopalian--it was only reinforced in RCIA.

One cannot lump all Protestant denominations together. There is great variability in theology amongst the various denominations. Anglicans and Lutherans are actually quite close to Catholics in what they believe. (The representation of either Church believing in 'Consubstantiation' is simply not accurate.) Baptists, on the other hand, deny that there is any sacrificial nature at all in Holy Communion, and object to the use of the word 'Eucharist' at all. (Although the word means 'thanksgiving'.)

I am, however, concerned about recent developments in the American Church, in particular, which, I fear, is moving away from the rest of the Anglican Communion at warp speed. At the next General Convention, two proposals will be considered that would open the altar rail to the un-Baptised. This would be a truly unfortunate decision, and would substantially alter the Church's understanding of the Sacrament. I pray this does not happen.

My hope is that in time there will be unity amongst all those who confess the name of Jesus as the Son of God. I especially hope that the dialogues between the Anglican Communion and the See of Rome will continue, unimpeded by the vanities of peoples of both Churches.

This is a broken and hurting world. The mission of the Church is spread the Gospel to every race and nation, and to heal the world in the name of Christ Jesus. We do little to accomplish this goal when we are constantly arguing over Doctrine.

TheRealJuliane · #**100** May 17, '12, 7:06 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by martininthefiel

[MORE] As I have said elsewhere, I will not receive Communion in Episcopal churches because I defer to the discipline of The Catholic Church. But I should point out that almost everything I know about the theology of the Eucharist I learned as an Episcopalian--it was only reinforced in RCIA.

One cannot lump all Protestant denominations together. There is great variability in theology amongst the various denominations. Anglicans and Lutherans are actually quite close to Catholics in what they believe. (The representation of either Church believing in 'Consubstantiation' is simply not accurate.) Baptists, on the other hand, deny that there is any sacrificial nature at all in Holy Communion, and object to the use of the word 'Eucharist' at all. (Although the word means 'thanksgiving'.)

I am, however, concerned about recent developments in the American Church, in particular, which, I fear, is moving away from the rest of the Anglican Communion at warp speed. At the next General Convention, two proposals will be considered that would open the altar rail to the un-Baptised. This would be a truly unfortunate decision, and would substantially alter the Church's understanding of the Sacrament. I pray this does not happen.

My hope is that in time there will be unity amongst all those who confess the name of Jesus as the Son of God. I especially hope that the dialogues between the Anglican Communion and the See of Rome will continue, unimpeded by the vanities of peoples of both Churches.

This is a broken and hurting world. The mission of the Church is spread the Gospel to every race and nation, and to heal the world in the name of Christ Jesus. We do little to accomplish this goal when we are constantly arguing over Doctrine.

I went to a memorial service for a friend of mine about a month ago. When it was time for communion, the priest (I want to put quotes around that) invited ALL to come up and partake. Nothing was mentioned about being baptized, Christian, any qualifier whatsoever. You could have been an atheist and take their communion.

Unfortunately, as far as I could tell, I was the only one of my Catholic friends who did not participate.

I have a lot more teaching to do...

coachkfan1 · #**101** May 17, '12, 7:10 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by kmuestwin

Wrong. Their sacrifices became invalid when they denied the sacrificial nature of the mass.

Bingo!

Also, What does the OP mean by saying that the sacraments are "more or less" the same? Either they are or they aren't. And they aren't.

martininthefiel · #**102** May 17, '12, 7:47 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by coachkfan1

Bingo!

Also, What does the OP mean by saying that the sacraments are "more or less" the same? Either they are or they aren't. And they aren't.

The Episcopal Church does not deny he sacrificial nature of the Mass. I just covered that in my post above.

There are valid questions about Apostolic succession. There are valid questions concerning women's ordination. To be honest, I am not smart enough to judge these objections on my own. But the one thing I do know is that the Eucharist is regarded a sacrifice in TEC. Every one of the Mass Canons says that it is.

One of the problems is that the word 'Transubstantiation' does not translate well into English, and this has created some confusion as to what the term really means. Every Episcopal church I have ever been to acts exactly as one would behave if one believed that the species of the Eucharist were literally the Body and Blood of Christ. Sometimes, they are even more reverential toward the Sacrament than Catholics typically are.

One of the frequent plaints of Roman Catholics, myself included, is that we are often criticized by other Christians because they are ignorant of what the Church actually believes. ('Mary-worship', 'idolatry', etc.) We, in turn, ought to have an an accurate idea of what we are criticizing in other religious practices lest we, ourselves, speak from ignorance.

martininthefiel · #**103** May 17, '12, 8:10 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheRealJuliane

I went to a memorial service for a friend of mine about a month ago. When it was time for communion, the priest (I want to put quotes around that) invited ALL to come up and partake. Nothing was mentioned about being baptized, Christian, any qualifier whatsoever. You could have been an atheist and take their communion.

Unfortunately, as far as I could tell, I was the only one of my Catholic friends who did not participate.

I have a lot more teaching to do...

Perhaps he misspoke.The current TEC Canon (1.17.7, to be exact) prohibits non-Baptised persons from receiving Communion. If a priest states otherwise, he is violating Canon Law. There are currently proposals on the table to change this, and they are troubling in my mind. TEC currently allows all Baptised persons, regardless of denomination (or status as to Confirmation) to receive. Officially, it also cautions about being in a 'proper disposition'.

To be fair about it, I have never had to show my validated Roman Catholic picture ID card in order to receive Communion in the Catholic Church, and I have seldom heard a Catholic Mass celebrant make any declaration as to who can receive. No one protects their altar rail to that extent, especially at funerals and weddings. Mistakes are inevitable.

martininthefiel · #**104** May 17, '12, 8:35 am

One last word in this regard.

A Story:

About a decade ago, I was in Maine on holiday, and I discovered that my now ex-wife was having an affair with an old boyfriend of hers. That morning, I wanted the reassurance of God's Love that only the Eucharist can provide. I wanted the Grace to forgive her; and the strength to accept God's Will in this crisis.

The local Episcopal church did not have a Communion service that morning, so I went directly across the street to the Catholic church, which, indeed, had a Mass. I attended the service, and when time came to receive, I got in the queue and took the Sacrament.

After the dismissal, I approached the priest, and asked if we could chat privately for a few minutes, to which he consented. We went to his office and I told him of my troubles. In the process of doing so, I told him that I was an Episcopalian. He cringed a little bit, but not once did he ever say to me, "You shouldn't have partaken." Not once.

That experience; the gracious, and charitable response of that priest was one of things that led me to the Catholic Church.

nightranger · #**105** May 17, '12, 10:02 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by martininthefiel

The fact that we, as Catholics, do not accept the Anglican Eucharist as valid, does not mean that it is without Grace, or that it can be entirely disregarded.

I respectfully differ. How can a completely invalid sacrament (Anglican Eucharist), have any "grace? " What else would I do other than disregard it?
Does that mean Lutheran Eucharist has grace as well? Presbyterian? Methodist? Baptist? Perhaps if I hold a communion service with grape juice and crackers, it has "grace" as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by martininthefiel

And we should always treat fellow Christians with respect.

Agreed. I'm not trying to be disrespectful. I'm merely pointing out that the Anglican Eucharist is not a valid sacrament. It would be disrespectful to say otherwise.