IN 1971 there was an agreement between Catholics and Anglicans about the eucharist.Catholic aknowledge the Anglicans do have the real presence of Christ in the eucharist…Transubstantiation is a way to teach about the real presence. I just learned of it byreading an article.If this I true why can’t they be in communion with each other?
I suspect that you are referring to the 1971 joint statement of the ARCIC on the Eucharist. It does not state that Anglicans have, in the joint conclusions of the Anglicans and the RCs on the commission, the real presence of Our Lord, in the confected sacrament, but that there is agreement on what the doctrine of the sacrament is.
In 1994, ARCIC issued a short summary of that statement, which said that it was agreed that “only a validly ordained priest can be the minister who, in the person of Christ, brings
into being the sacrament of the Eucharist and offers sacramentally the redemptive sacrifice of Christ which God offers us”.
Which, again, is offered as a joint agreement, of the participants in the dialogue, as to the doctrine of the Eucharist. But the RCC does not accept that Anglicans have a valid priesthood, so the statement is not saying that Anglicans, in their Eucharist, possess the real presence. Nor, if they were to do so, would those facts constitute a communion between the Churches.
And joint commissions do not establish RC doctrine.
No matter how dearly many folks, including some on this very forum, mistakenly think so.
You are very much mistaken. The Catholic Church has never stated the Anglican Church has a valid priesthood or a valid Eucharist. There has been ecumenical dialogue between the Anglican and Catholic Churches, but the Anglican/Episcopal Church has since chosen to move farther away from Apostolic Christianity. Even the Eastern Orthodox, who formerly had close relations with the Anglicans, acknowledge this tragedy.
My friend, please do not hop on a train going in the wrong direction.
I’ve faced this idea, in the ARCIC discussions, for many years.
Anglicans, of various types, acknowledge this tragedy, too. Others, not so much.
it is really time for bilateral talks with the Roman Catholics and Anglicans to end-
there is no hope of reconciliation and communion of the two Churches: one can view it two ways-one the RC Church is obstinate and will not change any dogma ( I know I guess they did on Limbo) and the RC Church is at fault
Or many of the Anglicans (but not all) are really at fault and have gone down a road of no return:
female priests - did I mention female Priests -female Priests
the approach to Human sexuality-read the New York Times Sunday-there are usually 1 or 2 entries on the marrige page where the marriage ceremony was conducted by an Episcopal Priest ( by the way often a female Priest-did I mention female Priests)-my Diocese is awaiting the Bishop’s ruling on same sex marriage-if this happens and he sanctions it I will give the ANCA a try:cool:
I really do not feel the Pope is a major obstacle to unity
Things end -the RC- Anglican dialog is done
GKC, perhaps we should use your good statements about Anglican nature to find the Platoic Ideal Anglican. That Anglican may exist only in theory, but I suspect small deviations from it would still make for excellent people.
I know a few excellent people, including Anglicans.
Anglican communion use to be one of the greatest churches. WHAT HAPPEN? I think it should be more united. ONE DOCTRINE the real presense in the eucharist is taught in the CoE but then let peolpe pick if they want to believe it or not. In America TEC is letting bishops and priest teach anything that not Christianthere was one teaching Islamismand still remain priests in the church, then want can you do when your presiding bishop is doing the same thing. They’re not united in one faith. I belong to the ACNA. They only stsrted in 2009 and having trouble on what to do with women priest that came over from TEC. No gay marriages or bishop or priestsThey’re trying to make anglicanism united in the US. They belong to the province of Nigeria. Africa is the only place where Anglicanism stayed traditional.
The ARCIC document was written at a time of great hope at reconciliation of the two traditions, and the resultant phrases were the best they could come up with, a recognition of the acceptance of the real presence of the Lord in the Eucharist in some ill-defined manner. There was certainly no acceptance of the validity of Anglican Holy Orders, nor in the doctrine of transubstantiation. All wishful thinking that collapsed in the female priest; female Bishops; now the destruction of the confessional seal; contraception; soon same sex marriage.
It is all over. The Anglican tradition is ripping themselves apart and there is no one authority to even have talks with anymore. It is a sad process and we should look away; it is rude to stare.
Rather we should do all in our power to foster unity with the Orthodox through doctrinal discussions at the appropriate levels and movement to overcome political and other tensions that separate two true Christian Traditions with the real priesthood; the real sacraments and the historical authority for its leaders to truly represent its own members.
Can you provide a link to these talks? I’ve accessed the Malta Report [prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/arcic/doc/e_arcic_malta.html]](http://www.prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/arcic/doc/e_arcic_malta.html])
I have essentially inquired about the same thing and relied on GKC’s reliably glum assessment.
And these issues of female clergy/ gay marriage may be less of a concern than you think. Per a Lutheran perspective, Anglicans are fellow Catholics. We look forward to the magnificent worship experience that full communion has afforded us. Early on, Lutherans forged alliances with Anglicans/ Episcopalians, thus there really is no disagreement over the Eucharist.
The ecumenical relationship between Anglicans and Catholics started off very well as illustrated below. What puzzles me are the strains that seem to have developed since then. Especially since Lutherans were one of the first to ordain female pastors yet talks have led to extraordinary convergence with Roman Catholics.
Per the Common Declaration by Pope Paul VI and the Archbishop of Canterbury
24 March 1966
Our similar liturgical and spiritual traditions make extensive sharing possible and desirable; for example, in non-eucharistic services, the exploration of new forms of worship, and retreats in common. Religious orders of similar inspiration in the two Communions are urged to develop a special relationship.
Our closeness in the field of sacramental belief leads us further to recommend that on occasion the exchange of preachers for the homily during the celebration of the Eucharist be also permitted, without prejudice to the more general regulations contained in the Directory.
Since our liturgies are closely related by reason of their common source, the ferment of liturgical renewal and reform now engaging both our Communions provides an unprecedented opportunity for collaboration. We should co-operate, and not take unilateral action, in any significant changes in the seasons and major holy days of the Christian Year; and we should experiment together in the development of a common eucharistic lectionary. A matter of special urgency in view of the advanced stage of liturgical revision in both Communions is that we reach agreement on the vernacular forms of those prayers, hymns, and responses which our people share in common in their respective liturgies. We recommend that this be taken up without delay.
The solution does not lay in more division and schism. Schism is what led to these problems in the first place.
ARCIC speaks for ARCIC only.
The 1552 and subsequent BCPs to 1662 clearly both implicitly and explicitly mark a departure from the doctrines both of transubstantiation and of Christ being slain on the altar of the Mass as a sacrifice of propitiation to God for sins.
No one suggests Christ is slain on the altar, even in the motley range of Anglicanism.
Reliably glum, perhaps. Reliably accurate and knowledgeable, definitely.
The origin of the ARCIC lay in the close personal relationship between Pope Paul VI and Archbishop Ramsey. Pope Paul had the same sort of hope that lay beneath the Malines conversations, and what had motivated and shaped the early work of Halifax and Portal, 75+ years before: to use the method of scholarly, ecumenical discussions to try and close the gap between the two Churches, step by step, That hope and belief in the possibility of that convergence was behind both the ARCIC formation and was the reason behind the gifts from the Pope, to ++Ramsey, of an episcopal ring, and episcopal pendant cross, worn by ++*Cantaur *on appropriate occasions to this day.
And that hope was frustrated, from almost the very beginning of the process, by the steady erosion of Catholic principles, within Anglicanism, that we all see, note, and lament today. Whether or how anything realistically could have come from such talks, given, at the least, the nature of such events in relationship to the promulgation of definitive doctrine (which we all are familiar with) is open to interpretation. But it was certainly something worth pursuing. Now it is merely something to view as what it is, an opportunity to do something, lost. The Devil’s timing is exquisite.
Not speaking to your last para, because it is not my area; the rest is accurate.
The 1971 statement that the OP referenced:
This list of documents might be useful:
Thanks, Fr David
NOTE: Limbo was never Dogma. It was really more of a theory, but never Dogma.