Posted on 03/04/2007 8:21:23 AM PST by Iscool
"Only the Catholic Church has the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist."
!!!!!!!!!
"Once an Episcopal priest celebrated a "Mass" for us, a group of Catholics performing a grief ministry weekend, I would not go forward to receive the Communion because I knew it was invalid."
I agree that it was invalid, though for some very specific reasons. What difference, therefore, did it make if you partook or not? Suppose it had been an Orthodox priest. What would you have done then?
My guess would be that we're not allowed, but I don't know. Have the excommunications been lifted on every hand or what is the current situation? I mean other than a crying shame, that is.
While I think this article is terrible, I could not disagree more with the above statement. But you are entitled to this opinion, but it is just an opinion, like mine is. The Church is all of us who believe.
In the so-called "western Churches" very few intend that the sacrament involve the Real Presence of Christ. Some individual Episcopalians used to and I suspect some Lutherans did as well. But others do not intend this kind of thing. So it seems reasonable that in the normal course of events, it wouldn't happen.
GOd is merciful. So we're not going to say that the time is wasted. Pious people who are giving or hoping to give themselves to Jesus gather to commemorate the Last Supper and to meditate on and pray about all that that means, and about the unity in the Spirit they seek and all that.
I don't think God is going to say, "Tough. I never knew you. Have a nice day."
I do think, though, that maybe some aspect of the Grace of the Sacrament may be missing. Part of what we teach is not so much where God does NOT act, but rather where He has promised to act. We hold He is, as it were, guaranteed to be present in Our Eucharist, but has NOT guaranteed the same kind of graces in assemblies which do not ask for His sacramental presence. He MIGHT be there, He just didn't guarantee it.
I may be wrong on this.
"On the night of his death on the cross Peter’s followers BURIED his body. As in the case of Jesus on the hill of Calvary it was wrapped in linen and secretly taken to a PAGAN BURIAL GROUND on the Via Cornelia, behind the stone structure of the arena. This PAGAN CEMETERY lay on a knoll called VATICANUS: the Latin word ‘vatis’ means a ‘prophet’ or ‘SOOTHSAYER’. In days gone by there had been an Etruscan oracle on this spot" [p. 368].
Why would Peter be buried in a pagan cemetery? Didn't the Jews in Rome at that time have their own cemeteries, and Peter was Jewish.
And the cemetery on Vatican Hill appears to have been reserved for holy pagan prophets and soothsayers. How would he have qualified for burial there?
And the cemetery on Vatican Hill appears to have been reserved for holy pagan prophets and soothsayers.
Where can I find more about that?
"My understanding is that it's part of the discipline of the RCs that we don't communicate with separated brethren."
As a general proposition that's correct. Do you know why?
As for Orthodoxy, generally USCB says you can commune with us; we don't allow it. Do either of you know why?
Orthodoxy does not allow us to receive communion in any non-Orthodox church or ecclesial group save under certain circumstances with the Oriental Orthodox.
Out here in dial-up land videos are overwhelming. And for some reason they don't often work. Do you know how big it is?
I do observe that in churches like my old one, there's a kind of "open communion creep" that takes place. It used to be, if your church would allow Episcopalians and if YOU were allowed to receive in your church (and you were baptized and all that) then come on down. Now, in just my lifetime, anyone can receive, baptized or not.
So there may be some charismatic pastoral wisdom going on that I'm not aware of or that I don't understand.
Do YOU know why or have an opinion?
So the Lord just couldn't get the apostles to understand him.
No, I'm convinced that Peter was in complete understanding of that command, for the Lord didn't fail to instruct him, or the rest of the apostles.
Peter commanded baptism in the name of Jesus Christ in Acts 2:38; in the name of the Lord, in 10:48. Philip baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, in 8:12,16. Paul baptized at Ephesus in the name of the Lord Jesus, 19:5
What's to interpret? Do you have children? You no doubt have parents. Are you married? If so, you're a father, a son, and a husband. Is that what you sign on your drivers license, checks, etc.?
The fullness of the Godhead is found bodily in the Lord Jesus Christ (Col. 2:9). Just the mention of his name 'covers all the bases' (3:17).
If I'm not mistaken a Roman Catholic can receive Communion at an Orthodox Church. But as far as I know the Orthodox members do not receive Communion and a Roman Rite Church.
Here's a Newsweek article and there is more elsewhere on the www:
Oct. 13, 2006 - Just inside the Vatican's fortified walls, directly below the street connecting its private pharmacy and its members-only supermarket, lies a 2,000-year-old graveyard littered with bizarre, often disturbing displays of pagan worship. Under one metallic walkway, the headless skeleton of a young boy rests in an open grave. At his side, a marble replica of a hen's egg, which to pagans represented the rebirth of the body through reincarnation. Nearby, countless skeletons lie scattered among the remnants of terra cotta vases used in pagan ceremonies. The underground air is damp with the smell of wet dirt, and the clay tubes used by the pagans to feed their dead with honey and syrup still protrude, fingerlike, from the ground.
Walking among the exposed bones of any ancient graveyard would be chilling enough. But when it¡¯s a pagan necropolis directly beneath Vatican City, arguably Christianity¡¯s holiest shrine, then the situation redlines right into completely unnerving. Or it would be if it weren¡¯t so enthralling, especially for anyone who has ever pondered Roman Catholicism's pagan roots. The Necropoli dell'Autoparco (literally Necropolis of the Parking Garage), a 2,000-year-old burial ground, which opens to the public Oct. 20, offers a rarely seen glimpse of the close ties between pagans and Christians during the Augustan era (23 B.C.-14 A.D.).
"You see a mix of social class and even religious beliefs here,¡± says Francesco Buranelli, director of the Vatican Museums, who believes that including the pagan graveyard as part of the Vatican¡¯s museums will foster awareness of the roots of Catholicism and the importance of its Roman history. The site ¡°brings together the rich and the poor, the plebes and the nobles," he says. ¡°We have not opened an exhibit as historically significant in recent history."
The necropolis was discovered by accident in 2003 when construction workers broke ground for a new parking garage for Vatican employees. After local residents complained that dump trucks leaving the site were carrying tombstones and other seemingly important archaeological debris, the Vatican admitted uncovering what was believed to be an ancient Roman burial ground. Little further explanation was offered. But in the waning days of John Paul II¡¯s papacy, plans were made to open the graveyard to the public. John Paul himself was a student of Rome¡¯s pagan roots. But when he was succeeded by the more conservative Pope Benedict XVI, the plan was nearly derailed¡ªuntil the Vatican's official archeologists insisted that the Holy See carry through the plans to honor the former pope. Indeed, when it opens next week as part of the Vatican Museums' 500th anniversary, the very fact that it exists so publicly is a testament to the Holy See's curious new willingness to promote that which it does not necessarily believe. "Everyone always thinks that if it's not about pure Christianity, the Vatican isn't interested," says Cristina Gennaccari, an archaeologist with the Vatican Museums. "But there are many pagan aspects of all things modern, and when it comes to archeology, especially religious archeology, there is really no room for distinction."
"But from a scholarly perspective many other aspects of this complex are equally fascinating. It is striking, for instance, that although the monument above St. Peter's tomb is unequivocally Christian, all the mausolea in the necropolis around it were pagan. Accustomed as we are to associating the Roman Empire before Constantine with the persecution of Christians, it is interesting to note that Christians were apparently able to erect such a monument in an otherwise pagan area at this time.
"The numerous mausoleums in the necropolis, often quite intact and well-preserved, are also of obvious interest. One mausoleum, designated mausoleum M, has sparked much debate because of the mosaics with which it is decorated. One figure in particular, depicting the sun-god, is often interpreted as Christ. This would make the mausoleum the single exception to the rule that all mausolea in the necropolis are pagan. However, this mausoleum has been the focus of some of my own research that deals with the Roman sun god, and I question the Christian interpretation given to its mosaics. But it is through this mausoleum that I became interested in this complex as a whole.
"Returning to the tomb of St. Peter, its discovery immediately raised the question of the remains of the apostle. Did the excavators find them in the tomb under the monument? This is what Pope Pius XII said in his radio broadcast:
"The tomb of the Prince of the Apostles has been found. Such is the final conclusion after all the labour and study of these years. A second question, subordinate to the first, refers to the relics of Saint Peter. Have they been found? At the side of the tomb remains of human bones have been discovered. However, it is impossible to prove with certainty that they belong to the apostle.
"Little did he know what a bizarre episode in Christian archaeology lay ahead when he spoke these words. The whole subsequent story has been clearly set out by Dr. J. Curran in the journal Classics Ireland but I will summarize it here. Although the scant remains of bones found in the tomb were initially identified as those of a man in his late sixties, more extensive study later revealed that they actually belonged to an older man, a younger man, a woman, a pig, a chicken, and a horse."
The issue is the validity of the sacrament.
Catholics and Orthodox don't have intercommunion one with another because of our disagreements in the past. It is a matter of discipline that can, and has, been waived in certain circumstances. But we believe that each other's sacraments are valid.
(For example, I believe the official position of the Church is that we may receive communion, if the Orthodox priest is willing to distribute it to us, if there is not a Catholic church within a reasonable distance)
However, with the other Western ecclesiastical communitites, we do not believe that their communion is a valid sacrament. There is no transubstantiation in any of their rites. This is because we do not believe that there is a valid apostolic succession and, thus, no valid sacrament of Holy Orders. Reception of bread and wine/juice in any of the worship services of those communities would be a public scandal, as it would indicate that we accept the validity of their ceremonies.
As to the beliefs of the schismatic western communities (protestants), I believe that Anglicans think there is transubstantiation, while the Lutherans believe in something called "consubstantiation" -- that the body and blood are 'spiritually' there, in addition to the physical presence of the bread and wine. I also think that the Lutherans believe that the spiritual presence of Christ leaves immediately when the service is over. I believe that the other groups simply consider it to be a symbolic thing...they are doing it to recreate the last supper.
(Having said that, I'm no expert on the theologies of various protestant groups, so if somebody wants to correct me about my statements on them, I'll accept the correction gladly)
Having said that, have you ever heard of a document called the Didache? It is a document dated from around 74-100 AD. While it is not part of the Canon of the New Testament, and thus is not something that can contradict scripture with authority, it is something that can show what others believed and practiced in the early Church.
Chapter 7 of the Didache says the following in regards to baptism:
1. And concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. 2. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. 3. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. 4. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.
Again, I am not citing this as a doctrinal authority, but as something that is an indication of the beliefs and practices of the first century Christians.
I can't figure out how to load it even with broadband, so I guess you'll just have to use your imagination. You could probably find an audio file if you poke around CMT.com or aarontippin.com, though.
While Henry VIII fancied himself a theologian, and a conservative one at that, the break happened as continental reform was hitting its stride. Cranmer, I think, just didn't have a philosophical system to support coherently what he thought the sacrament was. (Though he was courageously content to be burned for his incoherence. He's a very interesting guy.) But in general I think a receptionism ("real presence in the believer") or Zwinglian virtualism rapidly dominated ONE strand of English thought. However many persisted in holding to Transubstantiation or in any event to a "Real presence in the consecrated elements" view while not troubling themselves with working out the philosophical underpinnings for such a view. Queen Elizabeth was reportedly firmly pro Real Presence, and the following rhyme is attributed to her:
'Twas God the word that spake it,
He took the bread and brake it,
And what the word did make it,
That I believe and take it.
But by the middle of the 17th century the idea that Jesus was in the Sacrament was so offensive that when the 1662 prayer book prescribed kneeling to receive the "black rubric" was inserted to make clear that "just 'cause we're kneeling doesn't mean we think He's in there, so relax!" (I think they used different words though.) The whole Anglican thing was, pretty much, believe what you want, but treat the thing with the greatest respect -- the "Settlement" which provided words and ceremonies which admitted or were compatible with a belief in the real presence, but did not prescribe a theology one way or the other.
This might have worked in England, but in the US have seen priests pour consecrated wine down a common drain or in the flowers, and heard of one who fed "left over" consecrated hosts to a dog. Episcopal Clergy just don't play well with others, and think being ordained frees them from any obedience.
Eucharistic Theology and liturgics was a big deal with me.
I always used to get in trouble with my altar guild because of this chapter and, I think, Hippolytus who say pretty much the same thing about living if possible, but if not living at least cold, if possible. They always wanted to make it baby bath temperature.
IN my former denomination there were a lot of PARTS of horses who got ordained to the Episcopate .... And, come to think of it, at least one chicken, to my knowledge.
Just saying ....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.