Damian Thompson: Traditional Anglicans ‘to be offered personal prelature by Pope’

I’ll believe it when the Vatican announces it.

The original report is in a rather obscure RC newspaper:

http://www.google.com/gwt/n?u=http://www.therecord.com.au/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=757&Itemid=1

and apparently is a recycled reporting of last October’s hoopla.

The comments at the Telegraph blog are very interesting.

God works in mysterious ways, his wonders to preform.

I’ll believe it when the Vatican announces it.

The sure sign will come about a month before any actual announcement- when KJS deposes the Pope for what he is thinking about doing, and all those statements he has made over the last several years inciting Episcopalians to abandon TEC in favor of some non-TEC diocesan structure that overlaps the jurisdiction of TEC bishops.  I understand the Pope also recognizes a number of priests who have been deposed or had their renunciations accepted by the Episcopal Church.  And only last year, the Pope entered the United States and performed episcopal acts without her permission.

The Roman Catholics are smart.  I’d be really surprised if the Pope let the church get involved in this tar-baby in any way, other than encouragement to stay away from the mess that much of the Western Anglican church has become.

Looking for Leaders…....
I’m in the same book on the same page as you! Anglicanism is a very toxic place at the moment and looks to get worse…why would the Pope even want to come close to any kind of engagement with any Anglican Liberal or Conservative?

I’d put it in the realm of possibility, but there are still issues to be resolved with regard to orders (Rome does not recognize Anglican orders as per Leo XIII’s decision on this, so there would have to be resolution on that score (the issue of reestablishment of Anglican lines of Apostolic succession through Old Catholic lines, etc., has not been addressed by Rome, but re-ordination/conditional ordination seems the more likely route to resolution), as well as the issue of married priests/bishops (priests likely permitted as it is in the pastoral provision, bishops almost certainly not).  I don’t think the traditional Anglicans have WO, so that issue probably won’t come up).  In addition, the successor to the see of Westminster hasn’t been resolved yet; I’d think that the Pope would make a decision there first before considering bringing in traditional Anglicans—not that the two things are necessarily related, but politically they may well be.  I think this is more in the rumor/trial balloon category until those things are cleared up.  I think this would also imply that the broader issue of Rome’s efforts at reunification with Canterbury are likely at a dead end (I think they are at a dead end anyway, but the parties are probably not willing to openly admit that).  The beatification of Cardinal Newman is also somewhere in the Pope’s file on England—again, not related directly, but related perhaps politically. 

I don’t see any of the SSPX issues as being related, in the Pope’s mind, as the split there was of a different magnitiude and type. The SSPX is really more of a French issue; and there will be things to work out there, still, as the schism between the SSPX and the French hierarchy is still a fresh wound that will need healing. 

But you never know.

Holy Orders may be easier to solve then serial marriage among the laity within various anglican groups.  We’ll see what happens.

I hope the article means a step closer…but I will watch, wait, and pray… 

The main positive(selfishly) to staying in ACNA is that the option of possible marriage for a never-married single young clergyman remains open…would that be withdrawn if he went under this possible personal prelature or whatever final form it takes???  The principal of marriage being a possibility is important,  whether or not there is actual eventuality.

TxThurifer,
If the concern about marriage is what is keeping you from Rome, consider the Eastern rite of the Roman Church. They do have married clergy. Married vs celibate clergy is discipline unlike the issue of women’s ordination which is dogma.

Virtue commenters( I know,I know Cardinal sin on SFIF no yellow flag please)have not quite bit in that this is new news as opposed to a recycled story from last fall.
Signed,
Wet Blanket

I’m former Episcopalian, serially married, now Catholic. I wasn’t permitted to receive sacraments until my previous marriages had been nullified. This was a 26- month process requiring some patience, but my status is now regularized and I’m a full participant in the Church. As a guess, the Church would probably require this procedure, or a varient of it, for all serially-married converts. The sanctity of marriage is very serious.

The very best wishes, guys, if it’s true!!! We all need to get back together again, because we’re ALL under strong attack. The Lord bless the efforts of those who seek reunion in the Church!!

In faith, Dave
Viva Texas

You can’t get an anullment unless an anullment is warranted—which is to say unless it’s determined that you were not, in fact, in a valid sacramental marriage.  Which can be difficult to prove if you actually were.  Especially if your spouse opposes the anullment.  Unlike what VGR appears to have orchestrated, we don’t have “unmarriage” ceremonies.

“why would the Pope even want to come close to any kind of engagement with any Anglican Liberal or Conservative?”

Ummmm… Because he is a Christian who cares deeply about the state of mens’ souls, and as head of the largest Christian denomination in the world he feels committed to strive for the unity that Christ said can be ours?

I’m just askin’...

Catholic Mom, #13, you’re right. People tend to think of annulments as divorces, and they aren’t. I’m not a canon lawyer but, as I understand it, a marriage is invalid if one or both the parties is unable because of immaturity or some other failing (drugs, alcoholism, history of violence, or similar) to give a binding oath; the other reason for invalidity is if the marriage is not entered into in accordance with God’s purposes for marriage: union and procreation. The intent of using contraceptives, for instance, invalidates the marriage before it occurs.

I can’t see the Church bending very far on this particular subject. But, the Church is merciful just as the Groom is merciful.

In faith, Dave
Viva Texas

One Day Closer,
You ask why?

Consider that the RCC in the USA has the same problem all the mainline denominations have, it is losing members primarily due to the PR concerning molestation and sodomy lawsuits leveled at clergy and diocese.  Many RC parishes and universities are as liberal as any in the Episcopal enterprise and a good number have nuns in charge that desire to be a priest and actively block young men from being considered for the ordination process.  Sort of creating a shortage to justify WO.  A traditional Prelature in the US and UK could relieve some of these issues providing a home for disillusioned Roman Catholics. Elsewhere in the world the TAC has a presence in some distant places where Rome does not.

losing members primarily due to the PR concerning molestation

So sorry I should have said “losing members, in this case, primarily due…”

I did not mean to imply all denominations are losing members for the same reasons as Rome.

I am astounded!  I just this AM sent an E-mail to Benedick’s new address praying that they bring this about.  Can God answer prayers this quickly?
Tom+ of San Joaquin

#8 Not only among the laity, but among the clergy as well. Some of the TAC clergy including bishops are divorced and remarried.

Just Wonddering,
I understand what you and a few others are trying to get across, but I haven’t seen any movement from the See of Rome in that direction since our woes have begun…have you?

I should have also included that I have seen protestant and Baptist churches coming to the aid of disenfranchised orthodox Christians i.e. Saddleback church….but nothing from Rome!

One Day Closer,
“I should have also included that I have seen protestant and Baptist churches coming to the aid of disenfranchised orthodox Christians i.e. Saddleback church….but nothing from Rome!”

I believe that your statement is incorrect and uncharitable.

From Matt Kennedy’s posting here on Stand Firm, we know that Good Shephard was provided use of a rectory and a sanctuary from a Catholic parish.  I know of other groups that have received the use of facilities from Catholic parishes and religious orders.

JW, you wrote—
<i>...nuns in charge that…actively block young men from being considered for the ordination process.<i>
Please explain how nuns can keep young men from seeking ordination in the Catholic church. Did someone make them unofficial bishops? I know there are liberal nuns in certains orders, and that many are involved in educational efforts in many churches and schools, but what you say sounds like a bit of a stretch. Dave

For some reason the coding has been acting up. My question to JW should not be in italics, which is the whole second paragraph. Dave

As far as I understand it, it is not specifically the nuns who are “pastoral administrators” of parishes who block the access of young men to the ordination process in any direct way, but those who teach in seminaries or serve as consultants to seminaries.  At some point seminaries got told that their graduates “couldn’t work with women” or “weren’t sensitive to women’s concerns,”  and so seminaries added women to their discernment committees, who interview candidates and make reports about them.  Since the pool from which these women mostly come is a group of nuns of baby boomer age, they tend to have imbibed feminism and a very ‘spirit of Vatican II’ attitude.(as opposed to the letter of Vatican II which is something entirely different).  They are very into ‘team ministry’  and ‘lay empowerment’  and frown on young men who see themselves in “the cultic role of the priesthood.”  For a while, an interest in traditional Catholic devotions was enough to disqualify a young man.  On the controversial moral issues, he would have to show an ability to signal dissent from the church’s teaching without expressing it in so many words.  I think that this time is passing, and is past in many dioceses, not coincidentally, the ones whose seminaries are full. 

Nuns running parishes while priests drive in to say mass and then drive away, is a situation not very likely to impress a young man with the role of the priesthood, so in that sense it is a discouragement.  Some dioceses, like the one I live in, Rochester, New York, like to talk about the lack of priests as “crisis as opportunity”  -as something God wills so that lay people will have to take on more roles.  Of course Rochester continues to have fewer and fewer priests.  But elsewhere it is not so. 

I am hoping that Benedict XVI lives on in full mental vigor into his late nineties.  Even that will be too short a time to have had him. 

Susan Peterson

Thank you Susan, that’s very helpful for this newbie Roman. It seems like this shows the difference between TEC and Rome—TEC changes the canons (since it has so little “official” doctrine) because of the strong tendency on the part of the boomer generation to be “prophetic”. This in turn seals the fate of many conservative priests and candidates in TEC. But because Rome has its Magisterium, which is rooted in tradition, this problem with liberal nuns (or priests, or lay people) will pass too. After all, a conservative or traditional priest candidate in the RCC is really only trying to adhere to the tradition of the church, which is not a dirty word like it is in many TEC precincts. Does that sound right? Also, doesn’t the bishop have any final say on candidates, or are they often afraid to overrule the committees for fear of being seen as non-inclusive? Dave

One Day Closer,

Sorry to have not been able to reply.  By now you likely know this is a false start.  I have no idea where this will end up.  But until something is announced from Rome or from ++Hepworth it is fruitless to speculate.

David,
It may sound like sci-fi but consider how any error starts at the parish level when there is a lack of proper oversite.  ALl we need do to prove the possibility is to read St Paul’s letters to the seven churches.  I will say I have met nuns that fit the bill and they can have considerable influence where their is no priest and where the priest is weak of the same mind.  I have a friend who left the RCC because of clergy who were as much proponents of the Mush God as any liberal Episcopalian. 

Susan hits the nail on the head.  The same cult of feminism turns away young men from Episcopal seminaries for the same reasons.  There is actually a psychological test that brands men with a zeal for jesus and the Gospel aS “MESSIANIC COMPLEX”  and of course denies them.

I would agree that Benedict is a tonic that the RCC has needed for a long time. He is a first rate theologian and will work to reverse the liberal tide in the US branch of RCC.  I do hope he lives long and serves well.

As for the article it turns out it is just more rumor.

David: TEC is no longer a functional Church, Rome is.  There are Christians still within TEC but they risk much by staying.  As an Anglican I believe the RCC is a true Church but not the “One” true Church.  I also believe it is not completely Catholic because of dogma’s based on Medieval innovations.  For instance the earliest you will find any mention of the Assumption of St. Mary is between about 1250-1350AD.  The universal claims of the Papacy remain unproved and I have read St Peter was believed to be married which of course would be in line with “of one wife” we read in Timothy. Forced and universal celibacy is not a catholic practice.  While I hope for Communion between all Catholic and Orthodox Christians as John 17 seems to demand, I can not abandon my Anglican Patrimony or the rule of Saint Vincent: what has been believed everywhere, always, by all.  If a Personal Prelature is to be successful it will have to allow for us to be who we are and dissent where neither Scripture or Tradition support dogma.

Can God answer prayers this quickly?
Tom+ of San Joaquin

Some times He answers them even before you ask.

Marie

For instance the earliest you will find any mention of the Assumption of St. Mary is between about 1250-1350AD.

 
No, the tradition of the dormition and the assumption go back to at least the 4th and 5th centuries.  The tradsition goes back even further.

Just Wondering:  I am glad Pilgrim spoke up -from the Orthodox point of view, I believe? 
In any case,  the bishops of the TAC have already all signed the Catechism of the Catholic Church,  indicating that they accept the whole teaching of the Catholic Church.  (I know you want me to, but I won’t call it the “Roman” Catholic Church, as this excludes the other 21 sui juris churches in communion with Rome. )  The personal prelature, if it comes about, will be for those who want to be Catholics while preserving some of the Anglican tradition.  They would not be Catholics unless they accepted ALL of Catholic teaching,  because it is the teaching of The Church which teaches with divine authority. 
You obviously are not there yet. 
Susan Peterson

Susan,
If there is blind acceptance of false dogma (making things a matter of Salvation that cannot be proved by Scripture )than I stand with Athanasius who said “These are the wells of Salvation - these and these only” when he spoke of the 27 books of the NT in his 39th festal letter.  Now Rome holds him to be the first Doctor.  Don’t you think it strange that they do not listen to him?  Maccabees was not named by Athanasius at Easter in Alexandria and it never made the Canon in following Councils yet it the basis for the notion of Purgatory.  Can we find a universal claim to authority, or the Assumption of Mary, or mandatory celibacy for clergy or Indulgences/merit bank clearly defined in these 27 Books or in Tradition? If not than these practices are not Catholic and for a Catholic to accept things outside of Tradition and Scripture is not Catholic and that is the problem for many of us.  I could live with these things as pious beliefs but not as dogma. The Eastern Orthodox Churches are enough to prove the absence of any conciliar authority to the claims I outline without asserting a bias of Anglican consensus. 

The TAC Bishops indeed signed the Roman Church’s Catechism and their joint statement says this:“We accept that the most complete and authentic expression and application of the catholic faith in this moment of time is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church…”  Now the there is some truth to that, the Roman Catechism is a good Catechism exceptions noted above, and there is wiggle room in a political sort of manner in the statement “in this moment of time”.  It does not say exactly what you imply the TAC bishops mean.  However, I am inclined to agree that they will likely take whatever comes, but that does not mean the parishes will all march in lockstep.  Remember all the Canons of the large Continuing Churches site the Rule of Vincent through the Affirmation of St Louis and that rule is foundational as a proof of Catholicity in our view.  This is a basis for authority.  If Bishops do not follow the rules of their own Canons then they ought not expect others to follow their authority.  In fact, although unlikely, it is not unconceivable that some bishops could be brought under charges for failing to uphold their own Canons by abandoning them.  In the end what is the difference at that point and what TEC is doing with it’s Canons? Intention. Their intention is a good one, John 17, but many see it as faulty.  Good intentions are not always the best. We will have to wait and see. 

AT the end of the day it is uncatholic innovations that have divided the Church it is hard to see how ignoring them can result in a lasting peace.
God’s will be done.

We disagree on what is Catholic.  Rome claims it as an exclusive but has never been able to mount a convincing argument to anyone willing to evaluate the word vs practice.  I am perfectly willing to agree to disagree as it matters not to me whether you or anyone else feel they have the franchise.  Faith and Practice make a Catholic not permission from a particular Bishop or opinion of other layfolk. I have great respect for Pope Benedict and the RCC but they have perpetuated error. And they certainly are not alone or the most egregious.  The question for members of the TAC is if the P.P. ever materializes will they have unity at any cost, including sacraficing their own patrimony as an act of humility?  Maybe, maybe not.  It is a tall order.

There is only one other P.P. if I am not mistaken and that is Opus Dei.  I suspect you are right in your assessment of acceptance of the complete enchilada.  But until the offer is made and accepted we are all just rumor mongering.

Pilgrim,

Since this is from Wiki it holds no special authority but it is in line with what I have found elsewhere when trying to run down the legend: “Although the Assumption (Latin: assūmptiō, “taken up”) was only relatively recently defined as dogma (1950), and in spite of a statement by Epiphanius of Salamis in AD 377 that no one knew of the eventual fate of Mary,[3] accounts of the assumption of Mary into heaven have circulated since the 5th century”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Mary

If I am wrong and the 5th Century is the earliest mention then so what?  Surely one of the Apostles or one of their students such as Polycarp or Irenaeus would have written of the event if it was indeed an Assumption! How could such a demonstration of divine power be overlooked? 

I know it came into debate in the 1300’s and there is little available prior to suggest anything concrete.  None of the texts before then have Canonical authority and all of were rejected by Athanasius and those who must have contributed to the discernment of which books made up the 27 named in his 39th Festal letter.  Not a single book of the NT brings it up and that is a fact you cannot deny.

Now mind you Jesus raised Lazarus and I believe it. So I am agreeable to the possibility Mary could have been taken up, it is reasonable, she was the Theotokos. However, there is nothing contemporary to the event of her death to suggest other than a natural event and even that is sketchy and whether or not she was taken up in that fashion is not a matter on which the truth of the Church stands or falls. Surely she is there in any regard! So making an issue of Salvation out of pious belief is a stumbling block.

Just Wondering,

The Assumption is not a Catholic invention, and it is present in the Eastern churches as a feast, though not defined as dogma by the Eastern churches.  Here are three 8th century sermons on it by St. John of Damascus. 

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/johndamascus-komesis.html

Thank you I will read them but as you say they are from the 8th century and you are reinforcing my concern.

Pax

…Orthodox tradition is clear and unwavering in regard to the central point [of the Dormition]: The Holy Virgin underwent, as did her Son, a physical death, but her body—like His—was afterwards raised from the dead and she was taken up into heaven, in her body as well as in her soul. She has passed beyond death and judgment, and lives wholly in the Age to Come. The Resurrection of the Body … has in her case been anticipated and is already an accomplished fact. That does not mean, however, that she is dissociated from the rest of humanity and placed in a wholly different category: For we all hope to share one day in that same glory of the Resurrection of the Body which she enjoys even now.[12]
Many [Roman] Catholics also believe that she first died before being assumed, but they add that she was miraculously resurrected before being assumed.”

The two views do not agree seem to prove at least on the surface that the legend does not meet the test of Vincentian Canon. If is not agreed on what took place then not everywhere, always by all?  How is that Catholic?

The eighth century is not the thirteenth.  And if the Assumption was believed before the Great Schism, when there was no disunity between Christians, how is it Catholic to deny it?  I would suggest that one can argue that opposition to the Assumption is itself a Renaissance innovation, part of an accretion of errors and innovations by the reformers. 

Respectfully,

It’s my understanding, Just Wondering, that a bodily assumption of the Theotokos is permitted in Orthodoxy as a pious belief - and, in some quarters, it’s probably widely-held - but that the Church has not proclaimed this as dogma.  That seems fair.  There’s an analogue within Protestantism, after all, in which some hold sola scriptura to be dogma, even though tracing it to even the 8th century would be an achievement.

J.W., I’m guessing you’re in one of the continuing Anglican churches, and that is why this rumor is so distressing to you? I’m not trying to argue whether it’s true or not, but I do see you defending the “just rumor” angle quite strongly. What would the bulk of continuing Anglicans do, do you think, if this turns out to be true?

Susan:

“Just Wondering:  I am glad Pilgrim spoke up -from the Orthodox point of view, I believe?”

Good catch.  Antiochian, to be precise…

I can tell you from having spent a summer in Cyprus that the Assumption (“Dormition”) of the Virgin is a major holiday among the Orthodox, celebrated on exactly the same day that it is in the RCC—August 15.

I think most Eastern Orthodox Christians (clergy as well as laity) would view it as impious to deny the bodily assumption of the Theotokos after her death.

While the dormition and bodily assumption of Mary is not considered a point of essential dogma in Eastern Orthodoxy, that simply means that the issue has not been resolved by one of the Ecumenical Councils so an Eastern Orthodox Christian could at least discuss the possibility that this is not an historical event without being officially branded heterodox. 

As a practical matter, however, this is not really considered an issue open to debate in Eastern Orthodoxy because the tradition of the Eastern Church is not limited to the pronouncements of the Ecumenical Councils.  When the seasonal hymnology of the Eastern Church addresses an issue amply with references that are celebrated in the traditional feastday services of the Church, it is generally viewed as impious to reject that tradition.  One often hears of the importance of accepting all of tradition, not just picking and choosing some of it, in Eastern Orthodoxy, and the hymnology is considered an embodiment of the Church’s tradition over the centuries.

To put it bluntly, most Eastern Orthodox Christians would be very uncomfortable with the idea of rejecting the bodily assumption, and would share the sense that rejecting this idea is an evisceration of holy tradition with the scalpel of western rationalism.

From a traditional Anglican standpoint, the approach is someone different but does not require the rejection of the bodily assumption.  Because the bodily assumption the Theotokos is not inconsistent with Scripture (indeed, nothing in Scripture expressly forbids the idea and biblical figures such as Enoch and Elijah lay a precedent for the idea that a bodily assumption could occur), one is allowed to believe in the bodily assumption of the Theotokos as a traditional Anglican.  Where traditional Anglicanism would differ from the juridical reality of formal doctrine the Roman Catholic Church and the practical reality of the totality of tradition in the Orthodox Church, is that traditional Anglicanism cannot require that anyone subscribe to the idea of the bodily assumption of the Theotokos.  In other words, one could accept the idea or reject it.

Peace in Christ,
Dcn. John

Catholic Mom:

“I can tell you from having spent a summer in Cyprus that the Assumption (“Dormition”) of the Virgin is a major holiday among the Orthodox…”

And the two week fast which precedes the Feast of the Dormition is the most strenuous of the fasts in the Orthodox Church; much stricter than either Lent or Advent.

If I might add a contribution to this question of universals: The claim of the Roman Catholic Church is that it assumes spiritual and organic continuity with the catholic (a Greek word meaning universal) church of East and West; it is not merely another man-made sect and therefore sectarian in its doctrine, polity and law; its orgins do not rest on human notions about the teachings of Christ and the Apostles, but reach down through through the Western Church to the Church of the Ecumenical Councils, and finally to our Lord and the Apostles.  If this is true, then the Roman Catholic Church is but one National or Regional Church, i.e. a particular Church, autocephalous in character, in that stream of catholic christendom in which doctrine and law flow to the Apostles and to Christ Himself.  Furthermore, this has also been the historical claim made by itself for the Church of England and for the Episcopal Church.
The Roman Catholic Church is, therefore, but a part of the societas perfecta throughout the world; its mission is a worldwide mission.  The catholic church is an organism in historic time.  As an organic and spiritual component of the societas perfecta the sovereignty of the Roman Catholic Church, no less than the Episcopal Church, is a limited sovereignty; it may erect a constitution and compose canons for the government of itself, but the limitations imposed by the very nature of the catholic church - the universality of its claim over the souls of men - require that the doctrine and discipline of a regional catholic church, however separatist its political economy may be, must be in harmony with the doctrine and discipline received historically, from the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.
In manners which affect the doctrine and discipline of the catholic church of Christ, the Roman Catholic Church, no less than the Episcopal Church, is morally as well as canonically bound not to act by or for itself alone, but in harmonious agreement with that heritage through which it retains continuity with the past.  The Episcopal Church, its General Convention, its respective Diocesan Conventions, are not, by virtue of Episcopal Orders and the legislative power which accepted them for this Church, separate entities in the stream of spiritual, doctrinal, and canonical catholic order and discipline.  The ethos and composition of these Conventions, however constitutional and democratic in character, are homogeneous with the heritage and organic structure of catholic christendom.  To the extent that it is the Church, The Episcopal Church speaks as a catholic church implanted by God for His purposes in the Unites States, and those purposes of God cannot be divorced from His will from the rest of catholic christendom.  The Episcopal Church, if it is a Church, no less than the Roman Catholic Church, speaks through its deliberative and legislative assemblies as a Regional Forum Externum, and not from its peculiar national and political situation.  This Church is bound thereby, not merely legally by the canon and universal common law of the catholic church, but morally to the doctrinal and disciplinary heritage which it claims for itself through its Episcopal orders, creeds, law, and traditions that it has never rejected.There rests therefore, a moral and legal obligation upon the General Convention of The Episcopal Church.  That moral obligation is responsibility for the souls over whom the General Convention exercises legislative jurisdiction in this American branch of the catholic church.  Legislative action which removes sols from the organic and spiritual stream of catholic christendom must be considered as exceeding the powers of a regional council of the catholic church.  Such legislative action must be considered ultra vires; it could hardly be imposed without dire results upon the consciences of Episcopalian churchmen.  Morally, therefore, as well as canonically the soverignty of a regional church like TEC is limited in that it cannot without committing sin separate souls under its care from catholic order and life.  You understand I speak to the recent depositions by Presiding Bishop Schori, I presume.  Such is not a privilege exteded to the Universal Church, or to any regional Church, to deprive souls of the mans by which they arriveat their supernatural end, which is union with God though the grace and sacraments of the catholic church, as the Anglican Communion understands it.It is helpful to recall three facts:
1.  That the Episcopal Church is a province of the Anglican Communion;
2.  that the provinces of this Communion share a written and customary canon law (discipline) to which the canons of the General Convention are merely a provincial supplement;
3.  that legislation by General Convention which contravenes essential principle of this general law are simply invalid.  There is a definite, if not clearly defined, limite beyond which the enactments ordering the governement of a province may not go.  This limit is outlined succinctly in “Constitutional Episcopacy,” by Canon Bromfield: <blocquote>
those things which can rightly be regarded as belonging to the Church as a whole - not merely the Church of the present, but the Catholic Church of all ages - the things which constitute the Apostolic Tradition, witnessed to and interpreted by the undivided Church.  They include matters of faith, order and morals, such as the Bible, the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds, the threefold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons, with ordination by laying-on of hands, the sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion, and monogamy.  Whatever falls into this category has behind it the authority of the Church as a whole; and no lesser body of Christians, while claiming a place in the Apostolic Church, and no individual ecclesiastic however highly placed, while acting in an official capacity, should feel at liberty to alter or abandon any such things.</blockquote>

Ah, you can see as I become overwrought, my typing suffers.  Mea culpa!

I can tell you directly from the Antiochian tradition of Eastern Orthodoxy that the Dormition of Mary is a major feast in our calendar ... we even have a two-week fast from all meats (vertibrates) and dairy leading up to it.  The Dormition (falling asleep in the Lord of the Theotokos) is observed with deep piety and celebrated liturgically everywhere in Orthodoxy ... but it is NOT dogma for it is not essential to our understanding of salvation.  For one regional church apart from the rest to dogmatize is to exhibit canonical lawlessness and a misunderstanding of the nature of apostolic authority as witnessed in the antinomian chaos of TEC.  Again, I quote Canon Broomfield of blessed memory regarding authority:

There is first the authority connected with the responsibility for maintaining what has been handed down from the past, or has been decided by consitutional means in the part of the Church concerned.  Secondly, there is the authority which is competent to change, reinterpret or adapt what has previously been maintained.  I suggest that in the recognition of this distinction lies the secret of the right adjustment between the special authority of the bishops and the authority of the Church.  According to the principles observable in the New Testament and in the undivided Church, the first of the forms of authority is exercised by the bishops in virtue of commission (Acts i:8) which distinguished the Apostles from the rest of the Church.  The second is operative through them as representatives of the Church, and its exercise requires the concurrence of the Church.

You guys talking about whether Rome is wrong are using words more than 4 letters long so you left me behind. As a former Episcopalian now Catholic, I tussled with the “extra” doctrines until I realised two things:

First, although the Marian doctrines aren’t explicitly stated in scripture, they do not contradict any scripture and they may be logically derived from scripture without twisting it or ignoring parts of it. Episcopal doctrine can’t meet that test.

Second, I trust the Church. The Church is composed of people, even popes, who have been corrupt but the Church herself, through her Magisterium, has not wavered from the Apostolic faith.

Personally, I hope the possibility of rejoining the Catholic Church - whether by Personal Prelature or some other means - doesn’t itself become the cause of disunity among faithful Anglicans. Rather, I wish for you a “happy issue out of all your afflictions”. The Lord bless all of you and keep you, +

In faith, Dave
Viva Texas

(37) Phil,

I have no objection to the pious belief.  None. My church has observed the Feast on occasion because there are people who hold the belief and those of us who do not are willing to accommodate them because we love them.  But I do not want to be forced to believe anything not proven by BOTH Tradition and Scripture and I think the Biblical example of evangelism does not rely on force.

As I said I do think it reasonable.  One person mentioned the Reformers (or deformers in some cases) I am saying that there is nothing from the early church I can find to support it as fact.  There must be a reason that those texts which do mention it were not included in the Canon.  My problem is making this dogmatic.  St Mary by any measure died a natural death. Only Christ overcame it.

As to the 13th Century I had documentation on the issue coming to some argument but I cannot lay my hands on it at the moment- to many books and not enough time.

David,

Good question,

You are correct I joined the CC. several years ago after leaving the ECUSA and being unchurched for a few years.
You know I cannot speak for others.  My observation of the parishes I have visited I think most folk are basically Prayer Book Catholics.  I think the CC have a blessing and Charism in that there is generally tolerance of any pious belief or practice as long as it can be demonstrated to be of antiquity and it does not contradict Scripture or the Creeds or Councils.  Generally these issues are rightly left to the parish sensibility. 
I cannot say how many parishes observe the Assumption but I know there are those that do and again I have no objection.  No one that I know of or ever met would say this belief is a matter of Salvation and there is a strong Marian devotion in the CC.

Dpierce:  Thank you.  We all have to wrestle with matters of conscience.  If it were easy I would likely loose faith- it is the tough stuff that convinces me of the Truth of our Faith.

Mono:  Well said.

Abbot,

Your point is taken but as the 8th is not the 13th as the 1st, 2nd or 3rd is not the 8th. 

David

I may misunderstand did you mean CC assumptions regarding the Rumor?  - what do CC’ers think of the bid to Rome?  Until there is a real offer and people can see what it actually is I would be engaging in idle speculation.  If it happens and there is sufficient love, deference and charity on both sides maybe, just maybe, everybody will come away with a stronger faith a stronger Church and a separation could be healed.

#43, in your first paragraph,  don’t you mean “If this is not true”?  Or “If this is true the RCC is not ” etc ? 

If one has a visible church ecclesiology then ones’ starting point is that Christ intended there to be a visible united Church,  founded on the apostles and continuing their authority to teach, although that isn’t ultimately the most important thing about that Church.  I would say the most important thing about the Church is that it continues to celebrate the Eucharist, making Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross present in the now.  But here we were concerned with a dogmatic truth claim, about the Assumption, how early or late a teaching it is, and whether this belief is “necessary for salvation.”  What is necessary for salvation is that one be incorporated into the saved community,  which is the same as being incorporated into Christ.  A part of being in that community,  from inside really only a small part,  is that one accepts that it teaches authoritatively.  Orthodoxy would say I think that it teaches through preserving the tradition,  first and foremost in the liturgy.  Catholicism of course, keeps on having councils, and Popes keep on issuing encyclicals,  but of course these cannot stray from scripture and tradition, and as Catholics we accept that they do not.

If one has a visible church ecclesiology in which the Church simply cannot be divided, then in a “split”  one group by definition must be leaving The Church.  Catholicism and Orthodoxy each say that they are that Church. (This is one thing which makes talk of ‘reunion’ so difficult.  Who is coming home to whom?)  Catholicism, especially since VII in Lumen Gentium and in the Decree on Ecumenism,  tries to explicate in what sense those who are not fully united to the Church still belong to her by their baptism.  Orthodoxy simply says “We know where the Church is, but we don’t know where it is not.”   

I forget who it was, above, who was talking about St. Vincent of Lerins. Ok, looking back, it was “Just Wondering.” 
When St. Vincent says “by everybody, at all times and in all places,” who is everybody?  Are you including gnostics, Montanists, Docetists, Arians, and the whole rest of the swarm of heretics?  Of course not, but why not?  Because they weren’t in the Church and the Church condemned their teachings.  The ‘everybody’  in that statement means ‘everybody in the Church.’    This isn’t a criterion by which you can judge the Church.  The question has to be,“Where is that Church?”  Those with a Protestant ecclesiology have a different answer to this question,  an answer which has its own coherence and which certainly makes it easier to deal with the evidence fact that there are true believers in Jesus Christ even in ecclesial communities with no claim to apostolic succession and little sacramental life.  But here I am speaking to someone who I believe has a visible church ecclesiology yet wants to assert that a relatively small group which separated from the Church several hundred years ago but has to some degree revived a Catholic sacramental and liturgical understanding,  is really part of the body it split off from, and wants to issue conditions for what that body would have to do and not to for him to join it and call it The Church.    I would say, if you have a catholic, visible church ecclesiology,  you are called above all to beg God to show you where is that Church.  Then, when you have made your submission and your profession of faith ,  you can find out what it teaches about the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven.  You don’t approach the Church with a checklist of doctrines, to see if she agrees with you. 
Of course besides praying about where is the Church,  you will also have your own thoughts, opinions, experience, etc etc which none of us is without and which none of us can really dismiss.  If the claims of Rome continue to seem outrageous to you,  well,  the Orthodox agree.

#49, no, I meant “If this is true” and I hold that it is true of the Church in Rome.  If it is not, then neither the CofE nor TEC are inheritors of the same for their inheritance in the visible, historical sense is through Rome despite the original Christian witness from other churches. Traditionally, the Church of England and later the Episcopal Church held the same claim to the historical inheritance from Christ and the Apostles and even today the preface to the Ordinal speaks to apostolic succession although that has been at least suspended by TEC for the ELCA Concordat. At any rate, the Church in Rome acts as if she believes that she is the universal church rather than a regional church and that she can act as if she is in establishing dogma and holding “ecumenical councils” with herself.  I suggest a comparison to the way that TEC behaves.

What you persist in calling the “Church of Rome” , that is, all the churches in communion with the See of Peter,  does indeed claim that she is the universal church and can hold ecumenical councils and establish dogma.(  that is, proclaim that dogma have always been part of , or implied by,  tradition.)  I don’t think this is any secret!  When Catholics say,” I believe in One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church”  they mean that what is commonly called the Catholic Church,  referring to all the churches in communion with the see of Peter, is the Catholic Church of the creed, the very same one to which the Nicene fathers referred. 

TEC may be acting that way but I think for TEC to do so is, not to put too fine a point on it, pretty much of a joke, sort of like a Napoleon in an insane asylum.  But there was a real Napoleon in history.
Susan Peterson

A citation from Newman:

The drama of religion and the combat of truth and error were ever one and the same. The principles and proceedings of the Church now, were those of the Church then; the principles and procedings of heretics then were those of Protestants now.  I found it so almost fearfully; there was an awful similitude, more awful because so silent and unimpasioned, between the dead records of the past, and the feverish chronicle of the present.  The shadow of the fifth century was on the sixteenth.  It was like a spirit rising from the troubled waters of the old world, with the shape and lineaments of the new. The Church, then, as now, might be called peremptory and stern, resolute, overbearing and relentless; and heretics were shifting, changeable, reserved, and deceitful, ever courting civil power and never agreeing together except by its aid.”

“Securus judicat orbis terrarum;” they were words which went beyond the occasion of the Donatists, they applied to that of the Monophysites. They gave a cogency to the article [about the Donatists] which had escaped me at first.  They decided ecclesiastical questions on a simpler rule than that of Antiquity. .....What a light was hereby thrown upon every controversy in the Church! not that for the moment, the multitude may not falter in their judgment,  not that in the Arian hurricane, Sees more than can be numbered did not bend before its fury, and fall off from St. Athanasius, not that the crowd of Oriental Bishops did not need to be sustained during the contest by the voice and eye of St. Leo; but that the deliberate judgment, in which the whole Church at length rests and acquiesces, is an infallible prescription and a final sentence against such portions of it as protest and secede.”

My lunchtime is over so I cannot comment, perhaps it can stand without comment.
Susan Peterson

J.W., you wrote,
“did you mean CC assumptions regarding the Rumor?”
I did mean that, and I’m primarily curious how the people in the pews of the CC see this whole thing. If the rumor proved true, how many would not go along with it? And how many would, especially given that the CC has a high view of the episcopacy? Isn’t there a strong faith that the CC bishops would be truly led by the Spirit, and were doing the right thing?
You also wrote,
“I suggest a comparison to the way that TEC behaves.”
I agree with Susan—this is a bit of a stretch. I think most conservative Anglicans, wherever they’re at (TEC, ACN), would agree that what TEC has done in terms of innovations are way further beyond the pale than anything Rome presumes to do or say. Yes, I know you disagree with the dogma of the Assumption, but like someone said earlier, it doesn’t contradict anything
fundamental to Scripture—at least that’s how I see it. Thanks for the great dialogue! Dave

#51, eulogos, one small correction: Catholics say, “We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church…”; note that ‘catholic’ is spelled with a small letter, and is not capitalized. It’s the same in the Apostles’ Creed (New St Joseph Sunday Missal, p 19). ‘Catholic’ might refer to the Catholic Church, but ‘catholic’ (small c) refers to the universal Church which includes most Protestants. So we aren’t referring to only those Churches which are in communion with the pope; we are referring to all Christian Churches.

So far it appears that Rome is denying that reconciliation and Prelature has been “decided”. When I was a bureaucrat, that’s the way we phrased it when somebody leaked something which hadn’t received final approval yet, but it’s expected “shortly”. It may also mean there still are some last details to wrap up. But, far as I understand it, if the TAC has signed off on the Catechism, there isn’t anything substantive standing in their way.

So, be encouraged! You have at least one former Episcopalian rooting for you (besides Papa Benedict). That should do the trick! :^>

In faith, Dave
Viva Texas

dpierce
It doesn’t matter whether the c in Catholic is capitalized or not.  If what you say were true, it would not be a *small* correction. 
In the Creed, the phrase one holy catholic and apostolic church means the church which is called the Catholic Church.  That is what it meant at Nicea, and that is what it means today, when Catholics say it. 
Other churches (that is, the Orthodox) and ecclesial communities (that is, Protestants, whose communities we do not call ‘churches’ in the Catholic sense because they do not have bishops in apostolic succession, ) have some degree of union with that Church by their baptism but to an imperfect degree.  I don’t mean to be offensive,  but this is the claim of the Catholic Church, precisely that it is the Church of the creed. 
When the Orthodox say, “one holy catholic and apostolic church” they mean the Orthodox church and they don’t really include anyone else, although they are willing to say “We know where the Church is, but we don’t know where it is not”  extending some kind of possibility of membership in a mysterious way to the nonOrthodox.
This is the way the Church has always viewed itself.  One of the things the SSPX objects to is how far the Decree on Ecumenism went to extend some kind of membership in the Church to non-Catholic Christians, and especially to allow some kind of ecclesial status for their communities, and that these might be a means of grace for their members.  They believe this is untraditional and is a surrender to Protestant “invisible church” ecclesiology. 

The nature of the Catholic Church, and the relationship of the Church to other Christian communities are addressed in the VII documents Lumen Gentium (Constitution on the Church) and in the Decree on Ecumenism, whose Latin title I forget.  It was addressed again in Dominus Jesus, and even more recently in a clarification from the Congregation for the Faith which created quite a tizzy.  I think the Decree on Ecumenism would be a good place to start. 

Susan Peterson

#55, eulogos: I “think” you aren’t correct about that, but I’m not sure. I’ve sent an email to Fr Larry asking him which is correct.

Meanwhile, I would refer you to sections 748-750 of the Catechism. What “I” read here is that the ‘Church’ which is catholic is the Church which depends on Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit. People who are catholic (small c) are those who believe in the Trinitarian God. It’s my understanding that this includes most Protestants along with Catholics.

However, if Fr Larry corrects me, I will certainly retract what I said!

In faith, Dave
Viva Texas

56 d pierce,
I hope you sent him what I actually said and not a paraphrase, as this is a subject in which a slight change in wording produces a large change in meaning. 
I have a file with the Catechism on my desktop, and skimmed from 748 right down into the 790’s.  This is pretty much going through everything Lumen Gentium says about the Church,  explaining each of the images used to describe the Church.  It says nothing about how non-Catholic Christians are to be regarded.  It is only at 815 when it discusses the unity of the Church that it begins to address that subject, and the definitive statement is at 816.  “The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend it and rule it…This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him. ” [LG8#2]
(There has been a great deal of debate within the Church about the meaning of “subsistit in”.  Opinions ranged from saying that it means nothing different from “is”  to saying that it means The Church is there, but it is in all the rest of the Christian churches to the same degree. Clarifications have come from Rome, in Dominus Jesus, and then in a clarification which basically said, yes we really meant what we said in Dominus Jesus, which have disallowed the latter interpretation.)
816 goes on to say “The Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism explains:“For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained.  It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ, into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God. [UR 3#5]
(Now I remember the Latin for the Decree on Ecumenism-Unitatis Redintegratio)
Items 817-820 speak about the Catholic attitude to separated Christian communities, with language taken from the Decree on Ecumenism. I’ll let you read those for yourself.
Susan Peterson

eulogos, here’s what I sent him:

Fr Larry: I forgot to mention that I had looked at the Catechism sections
748-750.

Fr Larry:

I need to understand the meaning of the word ‘catholic’ in the Creed (“We
believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church….”).

My understanding is that ‘catholic’ (uncapitalized) means ‘whole’
or ‘universal’ whereas Catholic (capitalized) means the Church of Rome. In
other words, ‘Catholic” includes only Roman Catholics while ‘catholic’ could
include Protestants and others who believe in the Trinitarian God and follow
the Gospel.

Am I correct on that? It’s come up in an internet conversation and I’d like to
be sure of what I said (or retract if I’m wrong).

Thanks.

Hope that’s OK. I asked at RCIA tonight (I help teach the classes); 3 agreed with me and 1 agreed with you: his reasoning was, “catholic means universal but the only universal Church is Catholic”. That doesn’t SEEM to fit with what Benedict said recently about the separated Churches still being able to convey salvation. Anyway, Fr Larry should be able to tell me and I will pass that on.

In faith, Dave
Viva Texas

I see no great significance in the use of a capital “c” or a small “c.”  Since the Catholic Church is catholic, it may be called the “catholic Church.”  Don’t forget that “catholic” is only one of the four marks of the Church in the Creed, the others being “one,” “holy,” and “apostolic.”  There is no compelling need to capitalize “catholic” if the other three adjectives are not capitalized.

As to the relationship of non-Catholic baptized Christian to the Catholic Church:  “Those ‘who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.’”  (CCC 838.)  On the other hand, “Those baptized are fully in communion with the Catholic Church on this earth who are joined with Christ in its visible structure by the bonds of profession of faith, of the sacraments and of ecclesistical governance.”  (Code of Canon Law, can. 205.)  Thus, the question is the degree of communion with the Catholic Church.

Why can’t Roman Catholics use the word “Protestant,” or is it anathema to them?  The Vatican refers to us as “non-Catholic,” and I get the distinct impression that they deny that Protestants are not true Christians, according to Catholic dogma.

58 d pierce
I don’t know who Fr. Larry is; it is obvious he has earned your trust.
But I just cited the catechism to you, which was citing the documents of Vatican II.  You can read it yourself.  I was hoping for a response to what I quoted. 

By the way, since you are helping to teach an RCIA class, you may appreciate opportunities for ongoing education.  The Oratorian fathers in Toronto offer every year a week long class (8-3:30 M-F with time out for mass and lunch) on the Catechism.  It is always the first week of July.  They will put you up in the seminary dorms for 50 bucks a week. The class costs $150.  They offer a second week each year on a topic which changes from year to year, but they require that you take the catechism class once first.  My husband and I use our vacation time to attend this.  I don’t know how you are situated job and family wise, but if this would be possible for you it is a great chance to get a solid foundation from solidly orthodox, learned priests.
Susan Peterson

Cennydid,  In many contexts the reference may include the Orthodox.  I would also say that to use the word “Protestant” is to use a word which refers to your protest against the Church,  to your opposition to it.  That makes it sound like a very negative word to us.  To call you non-Catholic Christians is to refer to you primarily as Christians, admitting that you are unfortunately separated from us, but concentrating primarily on what is seen as positive, your Christianity, rather than what is seen as negative, your protest against the church. 
I couldn’t quite unscramble your double negative.  You said, “I get the distince impression that they deny that Protestants are not true Christians..”  Did you mean that they deny that Protestants ARE true Christians?  Or that they deny that they are not, meaning they assert that they are?  The latter is true.
From the Catechism:
818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church"272 [UR 3# 1].
819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 [LG 8# 2] are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements"274 [UR 3# 2; cf. LG 15]. Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him275 [cf. UR 3], and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity"276 [cf. LG 8].

Susan Peterson

It is obvious that “Protestants” view their status as a reform attempt against abuses ... not as being against “the Church”.  Whether they succeed in that without sacrificing yet more is a question that depends on your assumptions and definitions.  My own assumptions and definitions tell me that the Roman Catholic part of the Church is to some extent heretical and schismatic ... as are Protestants ... and to a lesser extent “even” us Orthodox!  I don’t expect we can fully separate theology from praxis or that we can find an unscathed regional church unless it be the region of Heaven.  Perhaps it is for the best that our voices are divided ... lest we join together in error.

eulogos, I’ve heard from Fr Larry. He agrees the word ‘catholic’ (uncapitalized) in the Creed signifies the whole Church, all those headed for Christian salvation, including Protestants. His response was:

The two differences in the capitalized word or un-capitalized word are as you stated.  I think historically what happens is that at different times for different reasons there is more or less emphasis on excluding Protestants or not from the one fold.  Many of Christ’s statements seem to lean toward a more accepting than less accepting attitude to divergent beliefs within his flock.  Vatican II, for instance, leans toward seeing Protestants as potentially headed for the same salvation as a “Catholic.” Scripturally in the Gospel we see Christ as judging all at the last judgment based on good deeds rather than any particular doctrinal assent.  My impression from the Roman Church’s history is that the issue in the Creed is more aimed at the potential oneness of all Christians in subscribing to the Gospel’s stated demands for salvation that transcend culture and time, and can never be altered.

I’m glad this came up, and I’m glad I had the chance to make this point in front of this mainly Protestant audience. Historically, there’s been a lot of discord among Christians who should have been brothers, or at least friendly cousins, all along. So, to you Protestant: I’m lucky to have had the opportunity to assure you that we Catholics do recognize you as part of the whole Church, even though you aren’t ‘Catholic’, and that we reiterate that recognition at every Mass in saying the Creed.

In faith, Dave
Viva Texas

<blockquote> Scripturally in the Gospel we see Christ as judging all at the last judgment based on good deeds rather than any particular doctrinal assent.  <?blockquote>
This is as divisive a thleological perspective as any possible interpretation of the word “catholic”.  Dear Lord, let me not be judged on my deeds!

Uuurgh…messed up the blockquote.

Fidela, before we embark on a 200 post discussion of justification, please let me respond to d pierce on the original ground of the discussion.

d pierce-
You may see Fr. Larry as an oracle, but I do not.  I disagree with him, just as I disagreed with you. I would say that he has imbibed too much “spirit of Vatican II” and not enough letter of Vatican II.  He is trying to express in rather vague and fuzzy, and therefore not quite accurate, terms, what the Catechism says in items 818 and 819,  which I reproduced in #62, above.

However he fails to express himself in words that can be reconciled with what the catechism says in item 816 as I cited in #57 above.  Please read these Catechism items and ask yourself if what Fr. Larry wrote can be reconciled with 816. 
These Catechism items are direct quotes from Vatican II documents, so they are absolutely authoritative for Catholics. 

Now, Fidela, let me say that your understanding of justification does at least have to take into account Our Lord’s words about the sheep and the goats.  I don’t doubt that there is a way to do it,  but you can’t just dismiss them. 
I am not sure why Fr. Larry brought this up in his response as he seems to be answering a different question from the one that was asked.  The question was not “Can Protestants be saved?”  and we were not discussing “Extra ecclesia nulla salis”
but only the question,  “What is the one holy catholic and apostolic Church of the creed?”  The questions are related but not identical and clarity is better served by addressing them one at a time.
Susan Peterson

d pierce- I am waiting for an answer from you.  Read Catechism 816 and 817 and then show me if you can, how what you and Fr. Larry said is consistent with it.  Otherwise you are spreading error, or at the very least, very fuzzy thinking which amounts to error. 
Again, I see that you are trying to say what the Catechism says in 818 and 819, but the way you are saying it is so imprecise as to lead to the denial of 816.  And remember that all of these items are direct citations from Lumen Gentium or Unitatis Redintegratio.
Feel free to bring this to Fr. Larry also.  You might want to print out or copy and paste some of this thread.  I also beg you to read the relevant Catechism items for yourself, and perhaps the relevant parts of LG and all of UR.  It upsets me that you are teaching RCIA with such a fuzzy idea of what the Church really teaches about herself.  I can see that you are kind and well intentioned,  and so is Fr. Larry, but I think that clarity about the truth is a much greater gift to give to those you are teaching than warm and fuzzy “We’re OK , they’re OK too”  feelings.
Susan Peterson

Ancient Traditions of the Virgin’s Dormition and Assumption, Stephen J. Shoemaker, Oxford University Press, is worthwhile studying.  Its appendices include the early versions of the story, one newly translated from an Ethiopic manuscript that we can date back at least to the fifth century (the original is earlier). This is a consistent tradition in the Church, as can be attested by an interesting piece of negative evidence—there are no relics of the Virgin.  WHY? This should surely have been a fruitful area of devotion for those so predisposed, but the traditions run contrary to it, across the board.  Theologically, I think it important to affirm that Mary was subject to death, and so requiring of the salvation of the Lord, like all of us. Her dormition and subsequent assumption trace for us the pattern of all the faithful, death, then resurrection adn glorification.  Since this is in line with the Scriptures, it enhances our hope rather than detracting from it.  IMHO, it is not easy to disentangle Scripture from Tradition as some have been trying to do on this discussion list.  Tradition is giving great value in the Scriptures themselves (cf. Paul’s commendation of the Corinthians for obeying what they have heard from him by word or letter).  Full Trinitarianism needed the articulation that came several centuries later than the Scriptures, though it is found in nuce in the Scriptures.  Those who hold to the primacy of Scripture need to listen to what Scripture itself says about Tradition and how to interpret Scripture—Tradition is significant, and Scripture is not self-interpreting (2 Peter).

Some quick thoughts,
Edith

I agree.  I forget what Catholic doctrine says over time but most I know believe Mary died before she was assumed.  The dogma of Immaculate Conception is, I think, wrong-headed but a logical development of wrong-headed theology following the logic of Augustine’s unique twist on Original Sin.

eulogos… Fr Larry is my parish priest and religious authority. Personally, I see nothing in what he said which is inconsistent with any of that. The catholic (entire) Church is all those who believe in Christ and are headed for salvation; the Catholic Church is that part of the catholic Church which is in communion with Rome. Although the rest of the Church have not retained the entirety of scripture and Gospel, they have retained enough that Salvation is to be found in them, as Benedict 11 said recently.

You seem very insistent that the Catholic Church does not recognize nonCatholics as Christian brothers. Are you Catholic?

As to Mary’s Assumption, the Catechism, 966 and 974, says she was taken up body and soul into heaven when her course of earthly life was done, that her Assumption is an anticipation of Resurrection for other Christians, and that she shares in the glory of her Son’s Resurrection. The wording of the Catechism seems to indicate that her body and soul were together when taken up.

In faith, Dave
Viva Texas

Yes, I am Catholic. I was received into the Church at St. Mary’s in Annapolis in 1972, making a profession of faith in which I said that I believed that the “Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman Church was the one true Church which Jesus Christ founded upon earth, to which I adhere with all my heart. ”  I said that I believed ‘everything she defines and declares’ and I “renounced every error and schism which she condemns.” 

I said nothing on this thread from which you could draw the inference that I said that Protestants can not be saved, or that they are not brothers in the Lord.  In fact I cited Catechism 818 and 819 above which clearly says that they are.  I’ll copy and paste them down here.
818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church"272 [UR 3# 1].
819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 [LG 8# 2] are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements"274 [UR 3# 2; cf. LG 15]. Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him275 [cf. UR 3], and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity"276 [cf. LG 8].

You do see that 818 starts with referring to the “sin of separation.”  Those who originally separated from the church did sin in so doing.  They were heretics.  But those raised in their traditions do not have a heretical spirit.  That isn’t the same as saying that these traditions have the truth to an equal degree as the Church.  You will see also that 819, after pointing out the many elements of sanctification and truth preserved by these communities, and saying that Christ’s Spirit uses these “churches and ecclesial communities”  as a means of salvation [which was an amazing statement considering preconciliar attitudes]  says that their power derives from the fullness of grace entrusted to the Catholic Church,  and that they are in themselves calls to Catholic unity. 

And if you doubt that the phrases in the last sentence “Catholic Church”  and “Catholic unity”  refer specifically to those in communion with the successor of St. Peter,  I refer you again to Catechism 816.  “The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend it and rule it…This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him. “ [LG8#2]

816 goes on to say “The Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism explains:“For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained.  It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ, into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God. [UR 3#5]

This is saying that the rest of the baptized belong in some way to the People of God, but they are all called to be fully incorporated into the Catholic Church, which is clearly identified as the one ruled by the apostolic college with Peter as its head, and which is said to be “the one Body of Christ.” 

The Catholic Church is not a part of the catholic church together with a whole bunch of other churches.  It of itself is the Catholic Church or the catholic church, whether you use capital letters or lower case letters matters not at all.  All the baptized to some degree belong to it, but those who are outside its visible boundaries are in imperfect communion with it.  Other Christian communities are means of salvation because they are in an imperfect sense part of it.  It by itself is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of the Creed,  but those who are visibly separated do in some sense belong to it and therefore would be included. 

Your formulation made it sound as if the “Roman Catholic Churcn”  was just one denomination among many, perhaps the one you thought was the best, or had the most of the truth, but nevertheless one of an assortment, all of whom taken together are the catholic church.  This is not true.  The Catholic Church with Peter as its head is the catholic church, the whole Body of Christ, in a spiritual and mystical way lacking nothing, and it is to her that the creed refers. 
In Christ,
Susan Peterson

#72 Thankyou for explaining the understanding of your denomination.  Clearly a lot of work to be done here in the future.

Because there had been confusion about this,  it was clarified in the document Dominus Jesus,  written by the current Pope when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, and issued by Pope John Paul II on August 6 2000.  Here are the relevant portions of itl

The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession53 — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: “This is the single Church of Christ… which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth’ (1 Tim 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”.54 With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”,55 that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56 But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.57

17.  Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.63

“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”.64 In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”.65 “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.66

The lack of unity among Christians is certainly a wound for the Church; not in the sense that she is deprived of her unity, but “in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of her universality in history”.67

You will see that this covers the ground we have been over in this thread.
In Christ,
Susan Peterson

72.  Of course, we don’t consider it a denomination. 
I realize that this is an Anglican blog and that it is generous of you to allow me to do this here.  But when we start discussing Catholic issues,  these questions will arise.  I wouldn’t go on and on about this to an Anglican.  But to one of my fellow Catholics whose understanding of these things is not entirely the Catholic one, at least in the way he formulated it,  I felt a need to make clear what the Church teaches.  Again, it is generous of you to let me do it here, and I certainly understand that you don’t see things this way. 
Susan Peterson

#75 eulogos
Thank you for your explanation of how you see things, and indeed unless one understands what other people understand things to mean it becomes impossible to see what points of interaction there are.  Not my blog of course so you have as much right to put forward your views as anyone else.

But of course your definitions are self-fulfilling and circular.  In support of your argument you cite the Pope as if that was somehow definitive.  Probably for you it is.  But then if I believed in the inerrancy of the Pope, I too would probably be a Roman Catholic.

But as events this week in relation to Bishop Williamson have proved to my satisfaction, this is unlikely to be the case.

I would trust that perhaps you too would see me as a brother in Christ.  I certainly see you as a sister.

Well, eulogos, I’ve been taught since I first converted that the catholic Church is the Universal Church, which includes faithful Protestants as well as Catholics. My parish priest agreed with me.

Yes, the separated Churches are called to reconcile with the Catholic Church and, yes, it’s the Catholic Church which contains the fullness of the Gospel; I said that. No, the Catholic Church isn’t just one denomination among many; it’s the original vine from which the separated Churches split off; I didn’t say anything else. None of that has anything to do with the distinction between catholic and Catholic, and also has nothing to do with making reconciliation easier.

Our pope has gone to some trouble making clear the recognition extended to separated Churches by Catholics. He has been careful to point out that separated Churches, although not containing the entirety of the Gospel, nevertheless contain sufficient for Salvation and are respected “brethren” and not exiles. This means that they are members of the catholic (universal) Church along with Catholics.

Note too that Christ himself is the cause of unity within the Church (Cat. 813), and that “All” who have been justified by faith and baptism have been incorporated into Christ (818). Additionally, many elements of sanctification and truth are found OUTSIDE the bounds of the Catholic Church… Christ’s Spirit uses these (other) Churches as means of Salvation (819). This all adds up in my mind to the same distinction made by the Creed between catholic and Catholic; the separated Churches and brethern are included in Christ along with Catholics.

The point now is to foster reconciliation.

In faith, Dave
Viva Texas

I just love to overhear the conversations of those who consider themselves the only true church and the only true vine ... while condescending to share with those churches who sent you Peter and Paul some vestigial membership.  Reminds me of listening to Saruman address his wizard words to some other hearer.

monologistos
You Orthodox think you are the only true church as well,  and regard the entire west, Catholics and Protestants, as being heretics and schismatics. (How often have I heard it said that Protestantism is the egg that Rome laid, and heard it all blamed on St.Augustine.)  Some Othodox, and I have met them,  don’t even think baptism outside the Orthodox church is valid.  The Old Calendarists and some others rebaptize all converts, right? 

No one makes this claim out of a desire to exalt his own group.  It is made in good faith, both by Catholics and by Orthodox, because NOT to make that claim is to admit that the Church has divided and is no longer one, and that is to believe that Christ’s promise to it has not been fulfilled.  So when I am among the Orthodox, as I frequently am,  I expect them to tell me, if it comes up, that the Orthodox Church is The Church of Christ and the Catholic Church of the Creed.  And when I attend Orthodox Divine Liturgy, I sadly watch everyone else go to communion and ask someone please to bring me some antidoron.  And pray that we may someday be reunited. ( Although I see at some Othodox sites where they are saying that even antidoron should not be given to non-Orthodox.  As far as I know I haven’t experienced this in practice.) 
Susan Peterson

#78 and #79 This is the really depressing thing about each denomination.  I have found exactly the same in finding one of many protestant Christian websites on the web, reading a sermon or article and thinking “yes, this is good stuff” but then finding that they go on to explain why all the other Christians except for them have got it wrong, and they are the only true church of Jesus Christ. 

At which point I turn off.

The good news is that this is one error I don’t beleive the Anglicans or Episcopalians have entered into…

Fidela ..... as I said in one of these recent threads, they would look pretty silly if they did.  It is not a difficult “error” to avoid if you don’t think there is such a thing as truth.
Pageantmaster…..So is there such a thing as truth in religious matters?  If it doesn’t matter what one believes about justification,  then why did Luther bother?  Was neither the Arian church nor the Athanasian church the one true one with respect to the nature of Christ?  Should they have condemned and excluded each other when the difference between them was just one iota? 
Susan Peterson

#82 Thanks Susan

Jesus said “I am the way, the truth, and the life” John 14:6

That is good enough for me.

Pageantmaster:  As long as you realize that Arius would have had no trouble with that either.  Nor Pelagius.   
Susan Peterson

#84 Susan - I think Arius and Pelagius are red herrings.  Neither the CofE nor the Orthodox are Arians, Pelagians, Marconians, Albigensians nor any of the other herecies; just Trinitian Christians who recite the Nicene Creed as the basis of their faith…...just like you, give or take the odd filoque here or there.

Pageantmaster stated:

Jesus said “I am the way, the truth, and the life” John 14:6

That is good enough for me.

Ah, but it is NOT “good enough” for the TEO hierarchy, who have unequivocally stated that Jesus is: “A Way, A Truth and A Life.”

That statement alone is enough to separate KJS from the vast majority of “Trinitarian Christians,” and anyone who submits to the authority of the Presiding Bishop and is in communion with her gives assent to that statement.

#85 Doubtless there were earlier heresies which neither Arius nor Pelagius subscribed to, and earlier creeds which they could say.  What makes you think that a council in the 300’s or 400’s would be the last the Church would have to have to make clear its teaching?  What makes the anathema’s of Nicea appropriate and authoritative, but those of later councils not so?  The issue of Nicea was worth splitting the church over, and after it those who agreed with it were the Church,  and those who disagreed were not,  and you agree with that.  No later issue could ever arise which would require similar discernment, which could be dealt with in a similar exercise of authority, and which would result in a similar declaration that those who did not agree were no longer in the church?  (Such as that decided at Trent, for instance?)
Susan Peterson

There’s no arguing with zealots.  Just be glad the churches are no longer identified with secular power.  Whether militant Papists or Puritans, the world has been safer without the inquisitions, witch burnings, and similar hysteria armed with ax and brand.

Monologistos,  I have done nothing in this thread but present what the Catholic Church teaches, citing official documents. ( I was also addressing my comments primarily to another Catholic.)  It really should be a surprise to no one.  And I have met many Orthodox folks who would certainly meet your definition of zealot, if I am one,  which only requires that they believe that they are adherents of the true church and say so firmly.  Orthodoxy certainly doesn’t teach that it is a denomination among denominations. 

Witch burnings were pretty much a Protestant thing, (or done by people who were incidentally Protestants, as I don’t see how it is implicit in the doctrine)  and I have read they did in a lot more people in a much uglier way than the Inquisition, which was actually a pretty restrained organization by the standards of the day.  (I posted something about this a week or two ago, but it attracted no attention.) 

Of course none of us these days wants to burn or torture anyone.  But we have the defect of our virtues as well as the virtue of our defect. 
Susan Peterson

Monologistos, I’d say the Church is also safer when it doesn’t have secular power. We kinda made a mess of things when our popes became worldly princes as well as Christian princes, and have spent many centuries now recovering. Secular power does corrupt.

In faith, Dave
Viva Texas

#87 Dear Susan
I read your anguished post:

And when I attend Orthodox Divine Liturgy, I sadly watch everyone else go to communion and ask someone please to bring me some antidoron.  And pray that we may someday be reunited. ( Although I see at some Othodox sites where they are saying that even antidoron should not be given to non-Orthodox

It strikes exactly the chord that I feel, when told that as a baptised Anglican that I am not welcome at the Lord’s table in a Catholic Church, for this or that reason.

Do you not see that for Baptised Christians of different denominations to take this attitude is an offence to our Lord?

Know that in an Anglican Church you are most welcome to partake of the sacrament, as is your right as a child of God.  We are all united in Christ.  How he must weep.

Whether militant Papists or Puritans, the world has been safer without the inquisitions, witch burnings, and similar hysteria armed with ax and brand.

No no no.  When it comes to mass murder, Big “C” Christianity cannot hold a candle to Big “C” Communism. Stalin and the turks in the 1900s make Hitler look like a piker. 

And it’s Christians that are still being slaughtered throughout the world today, not Christians doing the slaughtering and it is getting worse, much worse.  In two millennia of Christian history, an estmated 70 million people have been martyred for their faith.  65% of those people were killed in the 20th century alone.
Don’t protect the secularists from the Christian zealots, protect us from the secularists!

The Pilgrim,
Let us not leave out the Big M’s! Muslms! Who have no problem recruiting young adults to be suicide bombers and hijack an airplane or three full of innocent passengers and fly them straight into large skyscrapers to kill countless thousands of innocent people to further their cause and oh yeah!....behead innocent journalists and workers who are non-combatants…but then we will be letting them out of a military prison very soon to go where exactly????????????

Pageantmaster;  Yes my experience in Orthodox churches when I can’t take communion gives me some idea how you feel in Catholic churches when you can’t receive communion there.  However I understand the reason.  The reason is that the Eucharist is the symbol of, and the creator of, the unity of the Church,  and traditionally that unity has always included having one faith,  which meant unity in doctrine.  The attitude which the Catholic Church has, and which the Orthodox Church has, each believing it is Christ’s one true church,  and each believing that belonging to that church involves complete incorporation into that body, complete adherence to that body, and complete acceptance of all that it teaches,  that attitude IS the historic Christian attitude and belief about the Church.  The idea that Christians could be united in basic beliefs while many theological differences were unimportant developed only slowly after the reformation.  When Luther was excommunicated he didn’t say, well, ok then,  I’ll go my way and Rome will go hers, and we’ll all be Christian brothers who differ in a few points that needn’t separate us at the communion table.  He still felt the weight of being outside the visible church, and having decided his beliefs were true and important enough to separate him from that church,  he decided it could not be the church because it opposed them, and in fact he decided for that reason that the Pope must be the antiChrist.  At that point a new theology of the church was needed, and was found in the idea that the true church consisted of all the elect.  That idea was in Augustine to a certain degree; for him there was a invisible society of all those who would eventually be with God, the saints on earth united with the saints in heaven, but he held this in such a way that it did not conflict with the idea of the necessity, authority, and singularity of the visible church.  But now this idea of the true church consisting of the elect led people to think that perhaps God had not elected nothing but Lutherans or nothing but Calvinists…  Someone who knows Protestant church history would have to flesh this out, as to when along the historical line this happened.  For a long time the particular doctrines of each Protestant group were held to be important enough that people did not move easily in and out of those groups and I don’t think they communed with each other either right away.  I know Missouri Synod Lutherans still have this idea, that unity in the true doctrine is important and comes before eucharistic unity. 

    In any case, Catholicism and Orthodoxy hold to what was the historic Christian way of understanding the Church and what is mean by eucharistic communion.  If you understood what it means to go receive communion in one of these churches you wouldn’t want to, because by the very act of doing so you would be professing the faith of that Church and declaring your desire to be incorporated into it. 

    I know Anglicans would welcome me to communion,  and since I worship with them every week, ( I always go to mass or divine liturgy as well, understand)  there are moments when I feel very involved in the worship and very close to the people around me,  and emotionally I would like to receive.  But the Church teaches me that that would be an act of schism, intimately , organically, associating myself with a body which is separated from the Catholic Church, and thus partaking of its schism. 
So I do not do this.  I receive a blessing instead. 

    I don’t know how to conclude this.  I think your way of looking at it seems much more commonsensical in our world of many denominations,  much kinder, more open and generous,  more humble on the part of each group, and so on and so forth.  It is an idea by now so ingrained in the American way (at least the American way, probably it is more widespread) of looking at things,  that I couldn’t really disabuse another Catholic on this thread of the idea.  But it is not the historic Christian understanding, and to that the Catholic Church holds (officially; in many places the priests actually hold the other view and will commune anyone), and to that the Orthodox Church also holds, quite universally and strictly as far as I can tell. 

  I know you won’t by my writing this come to agree; I am only hoping that you will by having some idea of the origins and meaning of this practice be less unhappy about it.
Susan Peterson

91   Pageantmaster, I agree with you.  I know of no Anglican parish or mission in our diocese where baptized Christians of any denomination….RC or otherwise….are denied access to the Lord’s Table.  Several Roman Catholics receive the Eucharist every Sunday, and they fully participate in our functions, as well!

eulogos, well said.

I deeply regret that our closed communion is hurtful to you, and ask you to understand that it derives from the unique and very special way Catholics view the eucharist. It’s not an expression by us that you are lesser Christians, or any kind of penalty against you. Even though it might seem like that to you, please accept what I’m saying in the spirit in which I’m saying it.

To me, it would be extremely impolite and disrespectful to commune in an Episcopal Church, even though I was Episcopal for 51 years.

In faith, Dave
Viva Texas

It’s not that Catholic laymen express any adverse opinion with regard to treatment of fellow Christians, and in particular, Anglicans; I’ve heard more of that from Catholic clergy in one form or another.  We have been continuously referred to as “non-Catholics,” as though the word “Protestants” is forbidden by the Vatican as though we don’t exist!  Why?

Cennydd, I don’t know about others but “I’m” not trying to be politically correct by mostly using ‘nonCatholics’. I’m doing it because there are other non-Catholic Christians besides Protestants… like Eastern and Russian Orthodox, Coptics, and various national Churches in the middle east. And I haven’t received any instructions on this .

But I just hate for our ways on communion to be a source of hurt feelings; on the other hand, I know why we feel that way, and I believe it’s right. So I’m kind of stuck.

In faith, Dave
Viva Texas

94 and 96: Well said.  As you know, one reason that We Anglicans are not welcome to receive in either the RC or Orthodox Churches is because it would Blaspheme the Blessed Sacrament and bring damnation to our Souls. Thus we should not feel bad about not being able to receive. It speaks of this quite clearly in one of Paul’s Epistles, which one I cannot remember, and I have been searching my apologetics books to assist me to no avail. I want to say Corinthians but I am probably wrong.
As an Anglo-Catholic I would like nothing more than to be in full communion with the See of Peter. That being said I think that this is going to happen, and I pray it does. This is one small step towards the Reunification of us Anglicans that see the truth of what the AC is becoming.

FWIW as I understand it - the historic Anglican position was remarkably similar to that now held by the RCs. Namely that one had to be baptized and confirmed (or at least desirous of confirmation) to receive the eucharist. The Church of England Canons, as I recall, on this matter were changed in the early 70s.

I do remember when one had to be a confirmed Episcopalian to receive the eucharist in an Episcopal Church.

The start of the end, of the Episcopal Church, was opening communion tIt is o anyone who approaches the altar rail. It is painful to administer the blood of Christ to those who have no Idea what they are receiving. The second move towards the end was the way in which WO was allowed.

dpierce,
What if you met Jesus one day and He says to you tht you and the RC’s were wrong? Peter was not the only Apostle making Christians! Sure Jesus said that he would build a church through Peter, but I don’t think hat Jesus meant that the Church was going to be only through Peter…if that was the case then why were their 12 instead of just the one? I don’t buy the RC’s rules….I buy Jesus’ rules!

Geesh! I should know better than to try and post at close to midnight….my apologies for my typos! Late night charm!

One Day Closer, I don’t have any problem with that. And if Jesus should tell me something, I would believe it.

In faith, Dave
Viva Texas

My bad!! Jesus has told me many things. I’m really not that good at following but I do believe pretty well.

In faith, Dave
Viva Texas

Peter in Greek is Rock. Thus He was stating the Peter was to be the visible leader of the visible Church. When Jesus said to Peter, on this Rock I will build my Church.  Even the Apostles would refer to him as Pater in letters and in books the were not included as a part of the Bible, other than the Apocrypha. Also the 12 were to be transforming the Gospel to all and also to represent the 12 tribes of Israel. I believe we should all be striving to come back into communion with the See of Peter.

dpierce,
I try always what Jesus has already said and w=continues to tell me .....I know that when He said “Go and make disciples and spread the Good News” He didn’t mention that they had to be Roman Catholic! I think that that is narrowing what God had in mind IMHO! I don’t think that Mary Magdalene was RC, nor was that thief on the cross, nor countless others that Jesus brought into His fold. Nor were the Ephesians, nor the Corinthians, nor the Galatians, etc….etc….

Oops should say I try always to do what Jesus has said and continues to say to me

They were apart of the Catholic Church unbroken. The Church Split then we had the Church of Rome and the Eastern Orthodox. One at the Vatican.one based in Constantinople, or however you spell it, in Greece. both lay claim to the one true church. However I believe that Rome is the one true church. Go back and look, you will see the liturgy being done in many forms. THe First Written Liturgy was by John Crysostom which was a four hour monster of a mass, from my readings. Thus making disciples is not just baptizing and confirming, but is also through the sacrament of communion seen in the sacrifice of the Eucharist. So just saying that you have brought people to the Faith does not mean that they understand the fullness the the lord asks us, just as Paul does in the New testament, to be apart. Thus if there is a fullness that gives us 2 choices. The one true church of the east or the one true church of the west. They both have a claim to the title because they were the Catholic Church unbroken in the beginning. I choose Christ and Rome out of the 2 that lay claim, just because i a western guy from Texas.

Let me also state that I am not a RC yet.

One day closer…Inasmuch as all the people you mention are now part of the church triumphant, they are part of the ecclesia catholica. 

Whatever comes into your mind when you say “Roman Catholic” , whatever images of nationality,  of worship style, statuary, holy cards, rosaries and so on, of course does not apply to the Ephesians or the Corinthians.  But Catholics do believe that there is a continuity between that Church in the New Testament and the Church now.

Perhaps it would be better to let this go at this point.  I was concerned to have clarity with my fellow Catholic about what the Church teaches.  I am not really wanting to shout it at Protestants for whom it is a strange and offensive idea,  when there is no hope of its making sense to them. 

Let’s count it as a given that any of us would, if Jesus spoke to us and we knew it was He who spoke, would accept His word and try to follow it.
Peace in Christ,
Susan Peterson

Pageantmaster, I agree with you.  I know of no Anglican parish or mission in our diocese where baptized Christians of any denomination….RC or otherwise….are denied access to the Lord’s Table.

I don’t get it.  I do not want to join the Democratic party, pay money to them and go to the meetings.  I do not have much in common with them, and do not share their beliefs about big government, abortion, capital punishment and foreign affairs, and I do not believe that I am part of their community.  Yes, there are core principles that we share: love of country and the constitution for starters, and adherence to the laws of our country, but that is not enough to gain me entrance to their enclaves.

That is what people are doing when they bemoan not being able to receive in the Catholic or Orthodox Churches.  When you walk up to the priest—or the communion rail—you are saying “I am part of this community.  I share and am willing to defend all of our beliefs.  I submit myself to the authority of this Bishop as Christ’s representative on earth, and I have prepared myself in accordance with the requirements.  I have had NO food or water in at least the last twelve hours.  I have been to confession within the last seven days.”
As an Orthodox, I am one of the people that Susan can count on to bring her some of the antidoron after communion, and if I were in her Church, I know I could count on Susan for a welcoming smile and handshake.  But that is as much as I have any right to expect.  For me to expect Susan’s priest to accept me at Communion would be for me the height of arrogance and hubris.

#94 Susan

Thank you for your graciously expressed posts.

I do understand what you and others say when:
1. A 19th Century Pope declared that Anglican Orders are invalid;
2. A 19th Century Pope decided that in certain situations he was infallible;
3. the CDF in 2000, reaffirmed recently by the office of Cardinal Levada, the noted childcare authority, put out the piece you quote declaring that our churches are “ecclesial communities” - a gratuitously offensive and arrogant act which was roundly condemned all round including by the German Catholic bishops.

It seems to me that when I hear you set forth these views, whether in the context of “correcting” fellow Roman Catholics or not, what I am hearing is the voice of the Vatican declaring a desperate attempt to retain power over the faithful, if necessary by attempting to terrify them, rather than declare the Word of God.

Notwithstanding your commitment to these teachings, consider, I ask you, whether the claim of each of these denominations, Roman Catholic and Orthodox might not be following the word of Christ in this matter.  Both of the Orthodox and Roman Catholic claims to be the only ‘church’ cannot be true as they are mutually exclusive.  Do you not in your heart know that the Anglican welcome, and respect for fellow Christians, is not indeed the ‘Christian’ thing to do.  We regard the Lord’s table as His, not ours.

Perhaps in my lifetime, having seen the Iron Curtain and Berlin wall fall; this stuff too will go the same way.

[btw I am not a Calvinist [nor are most Anglicans] and do not believe in the predetermined ‘elect’]

#103 One Day Closer
“What if you met Jesus one day and He says to you that you and the RC’s were wrong?”
I rather think he did [Luke22:14-20]:

14When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. 15And he said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.”

17After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. 18For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”

19And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

20In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

#114—
the noted childcare authority Huh??
Pageant, it’s good to hear someone so passionately defending the open table of (your brand of) Anglicanism, although I agree with Susan, and want to say that she’s been very patient about explaining Rome’s claims. These are claims that must be internalized and processed before they can be accepted, especially when one is coming into the Church as an adult, as I am. Clearly you can’t accept that, which I understand. What I don’t get is your notion that neither the RCC nor the Orthodox church can be right since they both make such strong claims. We take a step of faith in embracing those exclusive truths, and will only only know in eternity whether we are right or not, just as your idea that a “broad” Anglican approach to the Lord’s Table is the correct one.
  I do know also that I am gladly awaiting the day in April when I recieve the Host at the Catholic parish where I’m taking RCIA, and fully understand why it’s important that I go through a process of reception before I do that. The Eucharist will mean that much more to me as a result.
Susan: you are a very patient explainer. Thanks for laying it all out!

“having seen the Iron Curtain and Berlin wall fall”
Communism lasted less than a hundred years in Russia and Europe, so this is meant to be a joke, right?

#115 David Sh
William Cardinal Levada

Insofar as you are leaving Anglicanism, it is a matter of deep regret and shame for me that you and so many others have not been looked after by the rest of us, from Rowan Williams down.  The Pope has been more publicly supportive than our Archbishop and hierachy.  We have failed you and for this I apologise.

Insofar as after proper study, prayer and discernment you have determined that God is leading you to join the Roman Catholic church, it is for me a matter of joy and thankfulness and you have my best wishes for your future journey in Christ.

The principle of what people call ‘closed communion’, or allowing only one’s own ecclesial membership to receive the consecrate elements is based on the rule that those in ‘organic union’ with the Church in question are welcome to receive.This principle is EXACTLY analagous to the idea that a couple is not to have sex before marriage. It’s based on the underlying assumption that the RC (or Orthodox) Church is the One Church and those not in it are spiritually separated from it. TEC’s canonical rule is based on the idea that all Christians are part of one Church with many branches. So, it’s simply a difference in ways of seeing, that’s all. If you find yourself offended by not being able to receive at RC or Orthodox churches, either get over it or don’t go.

“If you find yourself offended by not being able to receive at RC or Orthodox churches, either get over it or don’t go.”

I have - I have a lot of time for some of their theologians, the Pope, Fr Raniero Cantamellessa and others and read them for the sense they make, not their claims to ‘authority’.  I just have no time for the nonsense they trot out, particularly when they are as patently fallible as the rest of us.  The head of the Church is Christ.  That’s it as far as I am concerned, and I find out about what he wants of me and how I can be saved by looking in the bible.  It is against that that I consider what any church leader tells me I am to believe.

But I guess that’s why I am and am glad to be an Anglican.

Pageantmaster: So you are propagating Sola Scriptura, as well as denying the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist?  All in 2 posts. Hmm. If I am wrong please tell me i miss read something or am stupid because, the part of the Anglican Church I am in requires that you be baptized and believe in the true presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. Meaning that transubstantiation has indeed taken place. It is more than rememberance. Otherwise we could say a quick prayer like our Baptist and Methodist friends and start passing out the little cups and the crackers. NO. There is genuflection and elavation of both the host and the Chalice. Meaning that Jesus is on the Altar in the sacrifice of the Eucharist.

I love Anglican Debates. It is a lot of fun.
Peace Be with you Pageantmaster.

JR

“how I can be saved by looking in the bible.  It is against that that I consider what any church leader tells me I am to believe. “
Are you serious?
Really—You posit an infallibility far beyond any claimed by the Magisterium or the seven councils.
Reminds me of the Prot Popes I grew up with.

Johnnyreb,
Friendly warning—you might want to reconsider the gauntlet you have just thrown down.  I’m no theologian and can already spot errors in your comment (i.e., the distinction between “real presence” and “transubstatiation”).  Pageantmaster might eat you for lunch (with just a touch of English mustard, and using the proper untensils!)

Thank you Pageantmaster,
I can always count on your generosity and wisdom. I do however have another question for those such as Susan Petersen and DavidSh…....With all that you have tired to explain, put forth, etc… I would have to also assume that my baptism is also considered invalid by the RCC since I was not baptized in the RCC but in a Presbyterian Church? That being the case then it would appear that those many rooms in my Fathers house will be empty since they are only being reserved for RC’s who are in communion with themselves! Sad that! I mean no disrespect but by the RC’s way of thinking and professing only those who are in the RCC are worthy to be received! I’m not altogether sure that God had that in mind either!

ODC,
My mother, who is in the process of conversion to the RCC, tells me that she is not required to be re-baptized as long as the baptism was made in the name of the Trinity.

You are right Fidela [122]and [124].[122] However I would argue that the Real Presence means that the Bread is the BOdy of Christ and the Wine is the Blood of Christ.  Not a representation of the last supper.  [124] Thats correct if you were baptized in the name of the Trinity there is no reason for being re-baptized.

Fidela,
That is good! But I think that every church I have ever been in, whether it was the one I grew up in (Pentecostal), visited (various Methodist, Presbyterian, Assembly of God), or came to be baptized in (Presbyterian), or have found a home in (Episcopal now Anglican) I have always heard them say, “In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit! Amen.”

So if our baptisms are recognized then why are and why should we be denied the body and blood of our shared Father in Heaven? If I was baptized in His name and died in Him and had risen again a new in Him then why is what He gave for me denied me? Because a human man made a rule that it should be exclusive to his church members only! I still say that that goes against what Jesus had stated at the Last Supper.

#120 johnnyreb and #121 hookemhooker
I suppose my belief, speaking as an Anglican is based on Articles VI and XX of the Articles of Religion of the Church of England:

VI. Of the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
HOLY Scriptures containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.

XX. Of the Authority of the Church.
THE Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies and authority in controversies of faith; and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything contrary to God’s word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ: yet, as it ought not to decree anything against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of salvation.

That is all I am saying about the Bible and its authority.  FWIW I do believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist and I have read Roman Catholic Theologians explain transubstantiation in terms not involving a physical chemical change in the elements which I could not take exception to, although it is not essential for my understanding that Christ is present.

Blessings to you too.

One Day Closer (#123)

So you make an assumption and then take offense at it?

If you’re going to build a strawman… why not build one you can get along with?

Here is a link to the Articles I mentioned.

#127. Okay, you just did not say that you accepted the Authority of the Church as taught by our Anglican Articles. I guess I thought it was just you looking in your Bible and being your own judge. Even John (The Accusative Case) Calvin did not claim that.
Peace

Pageantmaster, I take issue with some of the Articles, even as an Anglican. I do not believe the Articles are exactly what Henry wanted. More of what Oliver Cromwell and Cranmer wanted. I know that these me may or may not have been around at the same time. I am making an overall generalization which may be false. But I have issues with some of the 39 articles.

“So if our baptisms are recognized then why are and why should we be denied the body and blood of our shared Father in Heaven?”

Perhaps because they take Scripture seriously?

If they believe that it is the Body and Blood and believe “all who eat and drink without recognizing the body, eat and drink judgement against themselves”... then they should restrict communion to those who have the same understanding. To do less would be uncharitable in the extreme.

Thank you Phototaxis.  That was a far more Positive response than the one I was working on.

Positive Phototaxis,
I didn’t build a strawman….you maybe trting to out of what I stated….I am in the same like minded beliefs as Pageantmaster!

Positive Phototaxis,
Since you know nothing of me….I can tell you one thing…I take Scripture very seriously and I do not approach the communion rail so nonchalantly! That is a serious place of business between me and God and I make sure that before I approach and partake I am in not only a right mind but in a right spirit with God and my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.  Don’t even try to lump me in with those who may view the most precious Body & Blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as just something that we do every Sunday type of group. You do not know me well enough to make that pronouncement!

#130 Hookemhooker - Yes, Church is more than just me rummaging in my Bible;

#131 johnnyreb - “I take issue with some of the Articles, even as an Anglican”

Yes I can accept that; I imagine you don’t go a bundle on Article XXXVII - otherwise you wouldn’t be johnnyreb I guess.

I am no expert on the Articles, but my understanding is that Henry had little to do with them; they were a development primarily of Thomas Cranmer under Edward VI, ratified by Elizabeth I and then a declaration added by Charles I.  They are part of the legal prayerbook of the Church of England.

It also appears that those on the RCC side are taking a far more offensive stance at those of us who are not RC than the other way around by the tone and words written so far! We are just asking questions and I think good ones that a vast many ask all the time…..and I believe that Pageantmaster has stated very clearly the foundation and beliefs of the Anglican side quite well. Yet Nikolaus was working a a much stronger admonition than what Positive Phototaxis wrote…..well that does raise an eyebrow!

re #129 I should add that thanks are due to Lynda Howell for the online version of the Book of Common Prayer in which those articles are found.

Let’s offer grace to any and all…we are not re-fighting the Reformation here!  And certainly thoughts not expressed are no cause for offense.

Provided the Baptism is done in the Name of the Father, the Son and The Holy Spirit as the person is being dunked or water is being poured on him the Baptism is valid.  In case of doubts a Candidate will receive a conditional Baptism.  For years LDS baptisms were considered valid but once it was made clear their theology of the Trinity was not in keeping with Christian (Protestant or Catholic) teaching the Catholic Church declared LDS converts would need to be newly Baptized.  Unless of course they had previously been Baptized in a Trinitarian church.  In case of emergency anyone can perform a valid Baptism.  With the understanding should the person recover he should be conditionally baptized by a priest. 

As for closed communion the Orthodox and Catholic are not the only Christian bodies practicing the same.  Keep in mind that in the Early Church non members were not allowed to participate in the Liturgy of The Eucharist but were separated out after the Liturgy of the Word.  So there has always been a distinction from those in full communion and those who were not.  This continued as denominations formed from the Reformation.  Not because they malign other Christians but because they take very seriously the act of Communion.  And this is true of those believing in the Real Presence and those who regard Communion mostly as a memorial.  I doubt I could take Communion with the Old Amish.

As for Dominus Iesus this was produced under the auspices of then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.  And it must be understood did not reflect any new teachings of Catholicism.  It was written mainly as a clarification.  As to Papal infallibility again though it was not officially defined as dogma the Council did not make it up out of whole cloth but relied on study of Scripture and Holy Tradition to declare the teaching as binding on the faithful. 

And yes I understand fully that the Orthodox reading these same sources have come to a different conclusion and I respect that.  I agree fully that they are indeed a true Church having a valid Eucharist and orders.  I pray at some point we may be reunited.  It saddens me that they view me as a heretic but that is their right.  More imporantly it shows they take their own faith seriously and will not abandon it in order to make nice.  That I can endorse and support.  Why should I demand they be lukewarm when lukewarm only leads to the likes of what is happening now in TEO? 

Honestly I believe only one thing about everyone when it comes to Christian teacing.  And that is everyone is a sinner in need of a savior and that the only savior is Jesus Christ.

#134/135

I didn’t build a strawman

I didn’t mean to come across as insulting you. From what I read, you essentially said that you assumed one thing (that your baptism would not be considered valid) and then got upsert about it and claimed that it meant that RCs didn’t consider anyone else saved.

Since both the assumption and conclusion drawn are untrue… but I doubted that the untruth was intentional on your part… “strawman” seemed the charitable way to point that out.

Since you know nothing of me….I can tell you one thing…I take Scripture very seriously and I do not approach the communion rail so nonchalantly!

I’m sure that’s true… but should they assume that you believe the same thing? Given how crucial the subject is for them?

No offense intended to you or any of your prior denominations, but “Pentecostal to Methodist to Presbyterian to Assembly of God to Presbyterian to Anglican” is not the spiritual “resume” of someone who agrees with them 100% on the Eucharist.

You do not know me well enough to make that pronouncement!

You seem confused… it is because they cannot make that pronouncement that they should not allow you to receive…. nor, frankly, should you want to until you have a better understanding of what they believe is happening.

In short “is my baptism considered valid here” is a question you should already know the answer to before ever wondering/caring whether they will let you receive.

I went through the beginnings of RCIA before I realized I was not to be Catholic, and that is how they handle the class members today.  All the people in the RCIA class stay in church through the Gospel reading, then they go with their leaders to discuss the day’s readings; or what was called “to break open the Word.”

#113 The Pilgrim

As an Orthodox, I am one of the people that Susan can count on to bring her some of the antidoron after communion, and if I were in her Church, I know I could count on Susan for a welcoming smile and handshake.  But that is as much as I have any right to expect.  For me to expect Susan’s priest to accept me at Communion would be for me the height of arrogance and hubris.

Arrogance and hubris - is that what you really feel?  As a baptised, accepted and loved child of God is that what you would feel in asking to come to His table and partake of the good things which He offers you and has instructed you to take?

But I suppose we live in an imperfect world and an imperfect church.  Hubris and nemesis.

Nevertheless thank you for sharing your experience at #142 and I would say the same to Susan Peterson and others.  This has been a most interesting and revealing discussion, and for that I am grateful.

Here is where, maybe, some of my friends may disagree with me…but that’s okay.  If we take Scripture to be true, then we must consider that we must not take the Precious Body and Blood of Our Lord lightly…to our detriment.  I believe that it is not fitting for an unbaptized and untaught person to partake of the Eucharist, especially if they do not discern the Body and Blood of Our Lord in His Real Presence….therefore I believe in a communion with boundaries of sorts.  By the same token, Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Lutheran CMS, and others practice a more closed communion.  They have more specific guidelines and more fervent statements of belief on the Eucharistic Mysteries.  Therefore, if I am not in complete corporate communion with their ecclesial body, then I do not expect to have the “right” to partake.  It is not about my rights anyway.  If a Roman Catholic or Orthodox person saw me partake and knew I was not of their communion, their conscience could be compromised, as they could believe I was eating and drinking to my detriment…since they believe that one MUST believe in the absolute Real Presence that the Anglican Churches vary on(however, I believe fully in it).  I am able to accept this, even though I know in my heart that I accept the doctrine of Real presence very much in the vein of the Orthodox and also like Roman Catholics in practice and adoration.  Out of respect I do not partake at RC or O churches…I choose not to cause my brothers and sisters to stumble. (As a Lay Eucharistic Minister, I have seen some very casual, irreverent, and possibly untaught communicants at the rail.)  I do, however, rigorously accept the blessings of RC and O clergy at the Altar rail, like I have at St. Mary the Virgin Roman Catholic(Anglican Use) in Arlington, TX by Fr. Hawkins+...and at St. Peter Antiochian Orthodox(Western Rite)in Fort Worth by Fr. Miller+...accepted some Antidoron, too.

DavidSH:

What a joy that you will be joining us in the Catholic Church fully so very soon! We have 37 in our RCIA class who will join you. Ours will take the step at the Easter Vigil Mass Saturday April 11. The Lord be with you!!!

Pilgrim:

No, RCIA students aren’t required to leave the sanctuary before Communion. They may be present, and may get in line approaching the Communion ministers. But they may not partake; instead, they cross their arms across their hearts and receive the blessing of the Church.

To All:

I apologise for having kicked off this discussion about closed communion and having released all these hard feelings. It was never my intention to do that, nor to ‘demean’ non-Catholics (Protestants) in any way. I only wanted to express my gladness at the possibility that some of you might be finding a safe haven in the Catholic Church, and to offer my support for them and for you in your afflictions.

In faith, Dave
Viva Texas

You know, there is a certain irony in reading posts from people who are anything from concerned to insulted over the Roman Church not extending Holy Communion to them, when, for the last several years, some of the same people have been calling on the Anglican Communion to break communion with TEC.  Also amusing to see how many people who view themselves as traditionalists, know so little of TEC’s own tradition, at least in the days when there were a large number of Anglo Catholic dioceses in TEC.
When Nigeria or Uganda talk about broken communion, when their primates refuse Holy Communion at Eucharists presided over by Frank Griswold or attended by KJS, are they not indicating that a state of communio sacris does not exist between TEC and their churches.  Is not the call to repentance put forth by the GS primates a call for the same repentance expected of us all before we approach the communion rail? 
The Roman Church has determined that membership in another church is de facto excommunication.  In my own youth, in TEC- or in some dioceses, at any rate- Holy Communion was restricted to confirmed Episcopalians, or those who had been confirmed in another church and received into the Episcopal Church. You were expected to be in a “state of grace” when approaching the rail- having recently attended confession and done your penance (I will accept that many did not take this last item seriously, and it was not rigidly enforced).  Now, this no doubt seems foreign to those of you in your 50s and older who grew up in Evangelical Anglican or Episcopal traditions.  It probably seems completely alien to those who joined TEC after 1979.  But opening communion to all baptised by canon was one of the things that, along with Prayer Book revision and WO drove a lot of good priests and parishioners out of TEC in the late 70s. This “all the baptised” stuff came in with the Baptismal Covenant which raised Baptism from a sacrament to an idol.

(#146)
Yup.

Thanks 146. Great post and the Truth. I am someone born in 1979 who is a member of an Anglo-Catholic Church. I am in Total agreement with your assessment. Good Stuff.

JR

No, RCIA students aren’t required to leave the sanctuary before Communion. They may be present, and may get in line approaching the Communion ministers. But they may not partake; instead, they cross their arms across their hearts and receive the blessing of the Church.

Many of the older Episcopal clergy of my acquaintance long ago counseled their own children to go to the Roman Catholic Church when they became adults rather than stay in TEC. Of the few I have stayed in touch with over the last 45 years or so, more are RC than Anglican (in or out of TEC). One of the most melancholy moments I have ever witnessed was a father giving a blessing to his own daughter with her arms crossed at the communion rail because she could not receive holy communion from her own father.  To this day, I do not know whether that was harder for her or for him. (for number 144 above, that would be my most memorable moment assisting as a lay Eucharistic minister)

TJ: I had that situation for 2 1/2 years, being Catholic but not admitted to Communion, until I completed RCIA and got my previous marriages straightened out. For all that time I went forward, crossed my arms over my heart, and received the blessing of the Church rather than the Body and Blood of Christ. Sometimes it hurt, but I persisted. Eventually I came to value highly the insistence of the Church that I not partake until my previous sins were dealt with and my life was straight once more. It was a measure for me of the importance attached to the Eucharist. It was right.

I hope your friend and his daughter saw it that way. There is a virtue to patience and submission to just requirements.

I also assist as an extraordinary eucharistic minister. It’s such a privilege to hold the Lord in my hand and serve him that way. It really is an extraordinary thing. You are blest.

In faith, Dave
Viva Texas

Dave,
I am sure that both the Episcopal priest and his RC daughter saw it as a just requirement. (It is interesting to me, btw, that I distinguish in my own mind between “Episcopal priest” and “TEC priest”.)
At any rate, let us all keep in mind that the Romans and the Orthodox are just maintaining the same discipline they have been maintaining for 2000 years.  Would that we Anglicans had any discipline to maintain on much of anything.
The fabric of communion is torn within the Anglican Communion.  It is virtually completely severed between the Anglican Communion and Rome (ARCIC notwithstanding). This is where the important stuff is folks.  Don’t be distracted by gay bishops and same sex blessings.  The changes in ordination and sacramental understandings are a direct result of the “new teaching” on Baptism and Holy Communion.  Once those sacraments were revised while no one was paying much attention 30 years ago, the rest followed right along.  When baptism went from being an action of God in washing away sins and admitting the humble to the Church, to the modern interpretation, in which the priest and congregation make you one of the elect of TEC with certain rights and privileges, that is where the fight was lost.  The reason San Joaquin and Quincy and Fort Worth are no longer in TEC is that they are the last bastions of that older sacramental understanding.  This is all deeper and much more important than gay blessings.  It’s just that until VGR was consecrated, people did not understand that there was a problem.  VGR’s consecration was not the problem, it was a result.  As are gay marriage, and lawsuits, and depositions.  With solid understanding and discipline in sacramental theology, none of those other things could have happened.

TJ, I agree with you that the changes in baptism and communion hurt the Episcopal Church, but IMHO the fatal blow was struck much earlier, back in the 1930’s. Many many people won’t agree with me, but the Episcopalians lost it when they ratified contraception. One of the biggest problems in the Christian Church has always been sex; ratifying contraception broke the gates and made it inevitable that sexual ‘freedom’ would be extended and extended until what the Episcopalians have now. Contraception opened the way for ordination of women, and euthanasia, for example. It opened the way for their whole attack on biblical authority and the traditions which the Church, even the Episcopalians, had lived by for 2000 years; it made it possible for anyone to attack a biblical provision as ‘wrong’, or ‘outdated’, or the product of ‘bigots’, etc. That was fatal, IMHO.

And, yes, I used contraceptives every change I got (except two, thank God). It made things a LOT easier. But, in doing so, I barred God from the decision process; that attitude leads to everything else which has happened.

I also still distinguish between Episcopal and TEC :^). I feel like my old Church ran away from home and left me standing there. I mourn the Episcopal Church; she was a beautiful faithful Church.

Not any more!

In faith, Dave
Viva Texas

#152…many of my fellow Anglican friends will disagree with me, but I agree with you on the Lambeth 1930 debacle…good intentions by many, but a slippery slope…

Hi TJ—What you say about open communion has, unfortunately, also slipped to some degree into the Roman church as well. Fr. Neuhaus, in his book “Catholic Matters” has a sad little story about a woman who was in TEC for a long time, and whose husband was Catholic. Finally she overcame her problems with Catholic doctrine and began RCIA, eagerly looking forward to recieving Holy Communion together with her husband. Before she was fully recieved, she attended a Catholic wedding with her husband where the priest did the “all are welcome” thing for the somewhat mixed crowd of Christians. She was very disappointed to see this, and though it did not stop her in her journey, it was surely hard to see such a thing.

At the risk of stoking the fire:

Baptism and Communion
I think one has to draw a distinction between between ‘open’ communion which I understand to mean communion of the unbaptised and the welcoming of those baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost and who are communicant members in other churches [or ecclesial communities if you will] to the Lord’s table.

Far from being the thin end of the wedge I think this is a sign of us obeying the instruction to be ‘one’.

Contraception
Always a difficult one, but again there are arguments on both sides.  Some say that it is no coincidence that the Roman Catholic church is a church of third world countries and which perhaps does not help those countries to move forward from the third world.  It has not helped the poverty from the population explosion or to limit the spread of disease. 

Abstinence is of course what is ideal but in my experience talking to Catholics in England this is one stricture which is pretty much ignored; I would be surprised if the position was much different in the US or among the Catholics on this blog.

Pageantmaster:

Arrogance and hubris - is that what you really feel?  As a baptised, accepted and loved child of God is that what you would feel in asking to come to His table and partake of the good things which He offers you and has instructed you to take?

I feel that this is one of those disagreements that will not get resolved here and shows one of the many deep rifts between catholic and protestant and Orthodox. 
Most Orthodox priests will hold up a line of communicants to question a stranger who stands before them to receive, asking their name, home parish and name of their priest to make sure they are Orthodox, because it is his DUTY to keep a nonmember from receiving, lest their condemnation be on his soul.  Do you understand the seriousness of Paul’s warning? that those who eat and drink unprepared do so to their own condemnation?  That Lutheran, Catholic or Orthodox priest who is refusing you the sacrament of communion is not excluding you, he is protecting you from God’s judgment.

#156 The Pilgrim
Thank you - I do understand what the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches are currently saying about Communion and about other churches, including the Anglican church [and we are a church whatever TEC may say].  I just disagree with them and have put here a traditional Anglican understanding, which I am very comfortable doing on a traditional Anglican blog.

I also understand that the teaching of these churches is that there is a risk to me in taking Communion in those churches, somehow different I suppose to my taking communion in my own.

I have taken communion in RC churches although not recently, and always after making myself known to the priest.  Although I believe that I am entitled to approach the Lord’s table, as a matter of courtesy I would never breach the wishes of others [someone called it causing others to stumble].  I also have Catholic friends who attend Anglican services and receive Communion.

The sad fallout from the actions of TEC is that the relationship between the Orthodox and the Anglican churches which has always been close and at one point looked as though Communion might be possible, has been perhaps irreparably damaged in the medium term.  Pretty much the same is true of Anglican relationships with the Roman Catholic Church although relationships were nowhere near so close.

I’m slightly baffled by the theological intensity of this discussion. I uphold the contemporary Anglican teaching on those eligible to receive communion, and am pleased to do so, but recognize that it is a departure from our own historic practice.

That some other churches have not been persuaded by this innovation strikes me as hardly surprising. The history of common protestant missionary endeavors, the formation of the Church of South India and, in England, the proposed union with the Methodist Church all mean that we have a distinctive history. A history that is shared, only in part, by the RC church.

So if we disagree on this - as we do - it is not because they have changed but because we have. If we believe we have seen something that is a fitting development of the church’s traditional teaching then surely a christian response is to desire to share in love that which we believe we have learned and attempt to persuade them. In other words to take time to show it is a more fruitful, more fitting, more faithful to the Gospel and is a reasonable and natural (organic) development of those truths the Lord has revealed to his church.

On the whole, I find people slightly reluctant to attend to one’s persuasion if one begins by telling them that their practice is scandalous.

Photo said…If they believe that it is the Body and Blood and believe “all who eat and drink without recognizing the body, eat and drink judgement against themselves”… then they should restrict communion to those who have the same understanding. To do less would be uncharitable in the extreme…

Surely you jest!!! Given the responses to surveys among Catholics regarding the real presence, maybe they should hold a pop quiz at mass and just communicate those who pass!

I have been to mass at RC weddings where relatives that are C and E catholics, practice spiritualism and deny most tenets of the faith were communed, yet faithful Christians from other denominations were denied the sacrament…How is that for charitable restriction?
 
It is scandalous that those who have been “baptized into one body by the same Spirit”, should be denied access to the table of the Lord by rules made up by men!!!!

blessings

Seraph

It’s amazing how often people call rules that they don’t agree with “rules made up by men” without realizing that the most “by men” part of the entire conversation is their own determination of which rules they will follow.

Almost as amazing is the argument that failure on the part of some to follow a rule is evidence that the rule should not exist.

In reality… denial of communion to those who are not in communion is the most charitable thing they can do. Far from scandalous… precisely the opposite is true. As bad as ceasing to preach the Gospel to anyone who claimed they had heard the “good news”... without ever asking whether the good news they received was something more than the home team winning a football game.

The C&E;Catholics have at least had the truth laid before them… they know (or should know) whether they can receive. The visitor is more likely to be confused… more likely to think “well it looks like our communion service so it must be ok”.

I still think the pop quiz idea is probably the safest..when protecting people rather than our spiritual hegemony is really the underlying motive!

As far as these “rules”...since they are men’s and not God’s; Why should the ones you impose be better than the ones I choose to play by?

Blessings

Seraph

As far as these “rules”...since they are men’s and not God’s; Why should the ones you impose be better than the ones I choose to play by?

Because you (and they) likely believe that the “ones you choose to play by” are God’s rules while the others are man’s… the distinction, ironically, being made by man.

In short… they believe that they are following God’s rules and yours are made by men. Whose rules should control? I would think it’s simple… did you walk into their church building or did they walk into yours?

It is scandalous that those who have been “baptized into one body by the same Spirit”, should be denied access to the table of the Lord by rules made up by men!!!!

Leaving communion aside for the moment: 
  How about (unrestricted) access to the [operating] table of the abortionist? That’s an essential of TEC’s teaching today.  God’s rule or man’s, Seraph?
  Access to the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony for heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, transgendered and polyamorous, despite 4,000 years of clear and unambiguous Biblical teaching against homosexual acts. God’s rule or man’s?
  A church entity actively engaged in the most vicious lawsuits levied against those who are trying to leave and take the property they and their ancestors paid for, despite 2,000 years of clear and unambiguous Biblical teaching that prohibits Christians from suing Christians.  God’s rules or man’s?
  Celebrating, holding up and defending one’s own group of “man’s laws” while condemning someone else’s looks just a wee bit hypocritical to me.
But hey:  I’m just sayin’.

Dave P., thanks for the kind words. I too will be received at the Vigil this year, Lord willing. Dave S.

PagentMaster/Seraph:

“Open” Communion, as I understand it, is communion with others not members of my community - in this case, the Catholic Church. Other baptized persons have their own communities. Baptism admits you to the catholic Church (small “c”), but not to the Catholic Church. Catholics (supposedly and officially) do not practice open communion except in remarkable and extraordinary circumstances with high-level permission. As to “oneness”, we are one in the Christian sense when you receive communion in your community and I receive it in mine; but we simply aren’t members of the same communities of faith: I am Catholic and you are not. You’re just as good a Christian as I, but not Catholic. If you should like to become Catholic, we have a procedure for that, and welcome!

I hasten to add that I don’t find your arguments in favor of open communion to be scandalous; but we have expressed our arguments, and you no doubt had heard them before, so there shouldn’t be any need to press your arguments on us any further.

Let us agree to disagree… fraternally. And let us support one another as much as we can.

Regarding contraception, yes, there are many arguments for limiting population growth. But we cannot accomplish something good, no matter what our motive, if we use a wrong method. And, yes, many Catholics observe this doctrine by ignoring it :^>, but that does not change the Lord’s instructions to us any more than the homosexuals’ arguments have changed the Lord’s instructions to you. We live in bad times, and we need each other’s help.

In faith, Dave
Viva Texas

159…you are correct that an overwhelming number of Roman catholics treat the Eucharist shamefully and sometimes practice a neo-pagan tinged version of Catholicism…I just feel it is important to respect the authority of the Catholic Magesterium when I am a guest in her houses…as an Anglo-Catholic, I do grieve these abuses on both sides…

TX Thurifer-appreciate your cognomen.  I believe God honors your observance of the limitation of communion in Catholic churches to Catholics.  When I am at an Orthodox church and cannot recieve, besides making a “spiritual communion”  I always use the time to pray for the unity of the Church,  praying that it will come about as He desires it and knows it should be. 
Just a little spelling correction…it is “magisterium,”  from “magister” which means teacher in Latin. 
Susan Peterson

Sorry…it is magisterium…knew that…

#165 dpierce
“let us support one another as much as we can”

Always

God bless

PM

The Lord be with you as well +

On point to this discussion may I recommend listening to the audio of the Introduction given by the Archbishop of Canterbury and to the speech given to the CofE General Synod today by Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor, Archbishop of Westminster and Primate of All England here on the work of the Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission about Communion, both between and within the churches.

O Christ, may all that is part of today’s encounter be born of the Spirit of Truth and be made fruitful through love. Behold before us the past and the future; behold before us
the desires of so many hearts. You who are the Lord of History and the Lord of human hearts be with us. Christ Jesus, Eternal Son of God, be with us. Amen.
Pope John Paul II

I’ve listened and kept my mouth (keyboard) quiet.  Let me simply say that I was raised in the Episcopal Church and we had closed communion until very recently.  My understanding of the debate that took place within the Episcopal Church began by speaking of “open communion” as welcoming all fellow Christians to our altar fellowship who are in good standing with their own denomination.  Only within the last decade has the terminology of “open communion” come to ask the question of welcoming non-Christians or members of other religions.  Unless I missed a change, the national canons of the Episcopal Church still require both baptism and a belief in the Real Presence for table fellowship.  Of course, the spirit of antinomianism and lawlessness is firmly affixed on TEC today.  And yes, I distinguish the two:  The Episcopal Church is a group of worshipping Christians that I love and whose belief I respect while TEC is, for me, identifiable with the spirit of the age, with the hogwallow of the Prodigal, with a socialist philosophy of disablement of excellence for the imagined good of weaker, stupider people who feel inferior because they are inferior in effort and in spirit.  At root, the ill is a godless pride that equates humility and humiliation as an ideological tool.  This is why so many “liberals” so closely resemble fascists (authoritarians if you prefer.)  While such benign malevolence tempts me to despise its adherents, that is a trap - despite is a tool of despair and we know its author, the prince of this world.  OK, I entertained myself with this rant.

OK, OK, *whom* I love…