Reacting to questions raised recently in the media, the bishops said the Church loved such couples in the same way as it loved all its members. It would continue to offer them spiritual help and it encouraged them to go to Mass and participate in the life of the Church.
“However, the Catholic Church insists that couples who live together without being married should not receive Holy Communion.
“The Church does not impose this as a punishment, but because the way of life of such people goes against the sacrament of marriage,” the bishops said.
Furthermore, the bishops said, such behaviour went against Church teaching that those who received the Eucharist had to be one in unity with Christ and the Church.
Nothing surprising here. There are all kinds of people who should not be receiving communion such those who are cohabiting, in same-sex relationships, participants in abortion, involved in Protestantism, murderers, thieves, prostitutes, women who attempt ordination, blasphemers, heretics, apostates and others one might find in TEC pews. [/sarcasm]
Sorry folks, couldn’t help myself. Some of my best friends are Anglicans. Really! Happy Pentecost.
Two observations…
1. It was good that this was said as it reaffirms “boundaries” and the nature of Holy Communion.
2. It is very sad that this had to be said as it tends to point towards not just the total abandonment of basic Christian morals, but also a fundamental ignorance of what Communion is.
I can count with my fingers (with change left over) the number of “churches” that would take such a stand in the modern world.
While clearly wishing to endorse the relationship between molarity and those who participate fully in Holy Communion/Eucharistic celebration, I would still want to ask my Roman brothers and sisters this essential question: does the Church make the Eucharist, or does the Eucharist make the Church? And if BOTH (though to what degree might be a subsequent question), then where in both liturgical theology and pastoral practice do we see this in current Roman policies? The answer of course is, Rome still does not really want to engage with the Eastern Orthodox emphasis upon the latter dynamic, and its ecclesiological consequences. Which consequences also have pastoral application, despite my own opening comment – for there are consequences too of a non-moral nature!
Art, I am not sure how your point is germane to the article in question, but I have not found this distinction to be one of the central theological issues that divide East and West. It strikes me as one of those notions that on first blush sounds important and very consequential but does not in the end make much practical difference. If there are real concrete consequences to this distinction which to me seems a false one, I would like to hear you state them plainly rather than to assume your readers have them clearly in mind.
Good call, Fr J – in the first place. For the article properly speaks of moral boundaries, as the Roman Catholics see them. But then your own list goes on to widen the scope …
Actually, if one reads John Zizioulas’s work (for example) and takes his many readings of Early Church history and theology as having any real import, then I cannot agree the distinction is a false one. One that we might use to extrapolate – as you request.
There is an entire global ‘community’ now of inter-church/mixed marriages, with a few organizations to foster these. Cardinal Arinze, newly retired Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, recently made it very clear that [i]on account of the first dynamic and its logic[/i], there could not possibly be any intercommunion among such families and their spouses. Intercommunion would simply be the last step in a process of reunification – with Rome of course! On the other hand, if one were to follow the alternate dynamic, of the Eucharist making the Church, predicated upon such a theology as Zizioulas’s, then – even by B16’s standards and desires for “gestures†– granting intercommunion in specific situations would be a landmark ecumenical prophetic step. Just that!
Art, you make some interesting points, yet as you mention this is an emphasis among the Orthodox, who are precisely those who are LEAST likely to have intercommunion without complete theological and ecclesial communion taking place first.
Also, your point doesn’t take into account the early church practice of withholding communion between bishops precisely on the ground of a lack of theological agreement.
This is why I don’t like these gausey poetic theological broad-strokes. They only makes sense when looking at things from a great distance through squinted eyes.
Yes, the Orthodox may emphasize that communion makes the Church and yes, this may have been the emphasis in the first millenium. But, in practice, neither the first millenium church nor the Orthodox churches actually behave this way in the concrete.
This is why I said these things often seem to be big important distinctions but end up making almost no difference in practice.
OK Fr J, so you don’t like poetics, it seems! Or what passes for same in your eyes … While you make some good historical points, yet I would simply suggest you see what the Orthodox are themselves making of things: viz Zizioulas again re “Eucharistic Mysticism†(e.g. [i]Communion & Otherness[/i], pp.296ff). And there is nothing more “material†and “typological†than spousal love … Furthermore, the likes of the latest copy of [i]Pro Ecclesia[/i] (Spring 2010) reveals how many an Orthodox are themselves extrapolating from their sense of Tradition into quite novel ways of ‘seeing’. But this is truly getting us off topic – perhaps; but perhaps not!
I wholeheartedly agree that Protestants should not receive Communion in RC churches.
Good for the Malta RCs!
Fr. J. –
How is it that you are so set against sharing the Eucharist with us and yet spend such a considerable amount of your time communing with us on this blog?
How many angels *actually* can stand on the head of a pin?
10. I don’t think I spend so much time on this blog. Months will pass without my commenting. But, since you ask, I used to attend a TEC church many years ago before recommitting to the Catholic faith. My father was then a member of TEC and now considers himself an Anglican in line with the ACNA, though he attends an evangelical community church where he lives. So, yes, I’m interested.
I would also think there are many more Anglicans who are Catholic watchers than the reverse, so I understand why you ask.
Art, nice bluster, brother. But, you still have not shown any practical consequences of your position in the concrete world. Before I take seriously a swipe at Catholic theology and practice, I like to know that the position advocated actually makes a difference. I cannot see how yours does, though I remain open to the possibility.
The fact is, that as regards “interchurch marriage” the Orthodox are far more insistent than Catholics tend to be, at least in America, that the existence of such marriages no more justifies providing the Eucharist for the non-Orthodox party to the marriage than does belong to any other sort of “associational community” does. And (although not Orthodox myself) I agree with them. If you want to partake of communion in an Orthodox church, become Orthodox; if in a Catholic church, become Catholic. In the Catholic and Orthodox view (and I think that this is the proper and historic Lutheran view as well) to share communion means that you accept and embrace all the authoritative doctrinal and “confessional” beliefs of that church — and if you do so, then why not join that church; and if not, then why seek to communicate in it anyway?
Fr. J….What if anyone of those in your list in your first post repents and asks for forgiveness and makes every effort to walk a life more upright following God’s Word? What do you do with those people?Still deny them unfit to be forgiven and receive until “you” deem them so? Seriously….what makes you a better judge than God?
12. Fr. J.
Thanks for your frank response. Perhaps I am unusual as an Anglican in that I don’t take undue interest in Catholic affairs, although I maintain a friendly concern for them, but no more than I do for the Orthodox, the Methodists and the Assemblies of God, who are all Christians as far as I am concerned. The exception to that comes when people have a problem with my church.
But when you can say: “There are all kinds of people who should not be receiving communion such those who are … involved in Protestantism and include in that group your Christian father, something has gone very wrong if you think that is the view of your church that you are happy to go along with.
Blessings from this Protestant this Whit Sunday, who would have no wish to deny you Communion.
#15 Pageantmaster,
Regarding Fr. J and his father, Jesus did say something bringing division, about father and son being divided against one another (Luke 12: 51ff).
NewTrollObserver…He did! But we are still to ovliged to follow and obey the Ten Commandments and that 6th one about Honoring your mother and your father still applies
Oops “obliged”
Biblical quotes all work. There is also something about criticising another’s servant. I suppose for me it is a real turn off when people say this or that group of Christians aren’t real Christians and shouldn’t come to the Lord’s table. When it involves members of one’s own family it shows the absurdity of the whole thing.
So often I come across a website and Christian group and am impressed when I start reading or listening. Then it starts, as they say that this is why their group are the only real Christians and the others aren’t – then I sadly switch off. I think that’s one of the really good thing about Anglicanism – we don’t start by telling everybody else that they are wrong.
Thank you Pageantmaster….I concur with you and this one issue that has been a huge problem for me with the RCC. Thank you for putting it out there….anyone who professes Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and intends to walk in His ways and tries diligently to do so while making mistakes as we humans will do, which is why we all needed a Savior, should be allowed communion. He gave his life, body & blodd, for all not just some.
#11 You may find this answers your question http://lyfaber.blogspot.com/2009/09/new-discovery.html or if you are seeking more deeply look [url=http://books.google.com/books?id=AMOQZfrZq-EC&pg=PA251&lpg=PA251&dq=Mathematics+and+the+Divine+angels+know+things+more+clearly+in+a+morning&source=web&ots=q4ywufSsSi&sig=7OuXkvL3AM3mwi5Dw34tmr-gQ1U&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#v=onepage&q&f;=false]here[/url].
For those seeking a concise, though not exhaustive coverage of some of the issues raised by “art,” see: http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0821/__P6.HTM which is to say, chapter four of John Paul II’s encyclical letter [i]Ecclesia de Eucharistia[/i].
It’s good to see there are more folk chipping into this thread. For a while there I was afraid Fr J and I would be slogging it out alone! I use this tone now, BTW, Fr J, since you’ve selected the world “bluster†– even as you’ve chosen to also address me as “brotherâ€. “Separated brother†of course, as per Vat 2; be that as it may …!! For you are indeed my brother, [i]simpliciter[/i]: having the same “Father†and elder “Brother†– and dare I say, “Motherâ€, as per John 19 – all make it so. Now; down to it.
I can only ask: What have you actually read of the likes of John Zizioulas? Your own RC theologian, Paul McPartlan, certainly regards him highly, with due justification. I am also a wee bit surprised by your sense – or lack – of a due poetics. Or are you averse to, say, Scott Hahn’s take on the Book of Revelation, entitled [i]The Lamb’s Supper[/i]? I have to ask since the Holy Spirit, who seeks the unity of the Son’s Bride, will use all means at his/her disposal to bridge the divides we’ve established for ourselves. And actually, BTW, Arinze had never thought of joining the dots, when I put it to him, that might be construable via Scola’s work on the Nuptial Mystery: that is, of seeing the direct links among mixed marriages, as sacraments, the Church as Bride, and the Eucharist – and therefore of some due possibility of intercommunion, to alleviate the dissonance we’ve (falsely) created. His sense of poetics was certainly up to it! So while I endorse some measure of discipline regarding Holy Communion’s reception, we all need to be far more nuanced in our “list making†– brother.
art…I love God’s Word. And I love the fact that Jesus never felt separated from the sinners, the lepers, or even the Samaritan Woman. He gave them the Living Water and I am sure they would have even welcomed after their encounter with Him at His table.
Opps…my point….Even Jesus never separated Himself from them.
Wholesome point TLDillon. And just the point of Francis Moloney’s [i]Body Broken for a Broken Body[/i] – and he’s a RC Biblical scholar and member of a Pontifical Commission. So we are in ‘heated agreement’ at this point of principle. For all that, what do you make of Paul’s demand to have certain offenders “removed from among you†(1 Cor 5:2)? And this is the same man saying this who bailed Peter up in Gal 2! I.e. would you have absolutely NO-ONE populate [i]any[/i] “list†at all?
15. You raise an interesting point.
First, let me state that I had not intended to get into a conversation about my father and communion. But, I answered questions and you’ve connected dots–so here we are.
A few points on Catholic teaching on communion. Reception of Holy Communion is predicated on “being in communion” with the bishop of the place and by extension with Rome and the rest of the Church or Churches in communion with her. It is also predicated on being in a state of grace. Neither of these requirements is observed as strictly in practice as in the past, which I regard as regrettable. Nevertheless, the teaching on these matters remains unchanged.
The central argument Art has been advocating, as I understand it, is that the Eucharist makes the Church, or in a sense, it makes Communion. But, this is neither the practice of the ancient unified Church nor the current practice of either the Orthodox or Catholic Churches, with minor exceptions such as the Zoghbyite position which has not be accepted generally by either East or West. So, the claim that an emphasis on the “Eucharist making the Church” would reconstrue the boundaries of communion does not seem at all convincing to me.
While the Catholic Church’s teaching on fitness for Communion is pretty clear, in practice only the most notorious case in the most extreme situation would warrant an actual denial of the Eucharist to someone who approaches the priest or minister to receive. This may appear inconsistent, but it is both pastorally sensitive and practical. Ultimately it is the would-be-communicant who has the obligation to refrain. The priest is not a referee over communion. It is not his duty to deny communion except in rare instances. Imagine if it were the priest’s duty to manage who may or may not receive. This would require him to memorize lists of the ineligible and somehow update the list for those who had gone to confession somewhere in the world since last Sunday. Imagine the databases that would be necessary!
The famous case of Bill Clinton’s scandalous reception is an example of a denial of communion that ought to have been attempted because of the fact that he was a public figure–perhaps THE most public figure of the time behind JPII. The priest should have given him a blessing instead. However, if Mr. Clinton had still insisted, then the priest would still have given him communion.
In the case of my own father, the teaching of the Catholic Church on communion is well known to him. We have discussed at length this teaching and my agreement with it. It is his choice to not respect the Church’s boundaries on communion. So, when he approaches me for the sacrament, I give it to him despite the fact that the Church and I believe it to be wrongful and that he knows it. I have done my duty to inform his conscience. His wrongful reception is on his conscience, not mine. Furthermore, it might do his spirit more harm to refuse him, particularly in public.
As you imply, I cannot deny my father communion. But, it is not because he is my father that I do not refuse him. That would be the worst possible reason. We cannot have one teaching and practice for the Church at large and another for our family members. On that I hope you would agree.
Thanks Fr J for spelling matters out for those who are perhaps/probably unaware of how the RCC actually views matters – the point of the thread initially I fancy! What you say is broadly my understanding too. But there our overlap ends.
John Zizioulas (and those other Orthodox theologians who agree with him) simply does not agree with your position. The undivided Church – an abstraction already – was quite simply not as unified in either its theology or practice as some would have their early history ‘read’. So; to progress the matter: I suggest a case of [i]tolle lege! tolle lege![/i] His [i]Being as Communion[/i] is a helpful start … Enjoy!
Well of course the early church was not all unified, silly. It was rife with heresies and other divisions. And, it was the practice of those orthodox bishops to sign their communion with one another by literally sending one another fragments from their Sunday Eucharist. They signed their theological communion with their Holy Communion.
[blockquote]E.G.: “We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true…â€
-Justin Martyr -FIRST APOLOGY, 66,20–(150 A.D.)[/blockquote]
Now if Justin Martyr is really out of sync with the rest of the ancient church on this practice, there surely would be a whole host, pun intended, of church fathers decrying his error. But, there is none!
18. Now before you go extolling the great Anglican virtue of never telling someone they are wrong, lets look at this a little closer. First, the Catholic Church teaches that there are proper moral and theological boundaries which limit who may receive communion. Anglicanism is in the present mess it is in now precisely for its failure to set and keep such boundaries.
I have met TEC folks who were fundamentally Baptists with a prayer book, who claimed I was an idolater and not a Christian for being Catholic and worshipping statues etc. These would include the youth pastor at Truro Church when I was there. I have also met TEC seminarians at the CDSP who “believed” there should be no such thing as a creed because that was defining for another whether or not they were a Christian. An Anglican can believe communion to be a mere symbol or the real presence. Both are equally acceptable positions. An Anglican can be a CS Lewis or a Bishop Spong or an NT Wright. One may believe that SSB is a blasphemy or a sacrament. Both are legitimate Anglicans.
In other words, the moral and theological boundaries around the Eucharist are precisely what keeps Catholicism from becoming what is at the moment the Anglican Communion. The seeds of the Church’s destruction always lie within her. But, it is her faith, conviction, discipline and order which keep her from being swallowed whole at any moment by the spirit of the present age. Anglicanism would do well to imitate her.
#30. This arrangement you speak of used to be called “setting standards.” It was assumed that there cold be no identity, no orderly society – indeed, no knowledge – if boundaries were not established clearly and kept. But the Baby Boomers and their children became enlightened – we call it liberal – and they believed that past was nothing but a set of shackles which needed to be broken if one were to become “free.” So they broke those shackles and replaced them with nothing but the belief that they were finally at liberty to be who they wanted to be. It has turned out that being what one wants to be without the restraint of standards means that one becomes selfish, egotistic, opportunistic, promiscuous, exhibitionistic, – in short unprincipled – but this is what they were aiming at in any case.
I have no use for the RC Church and its practices and I have lost my faith in the Pope. whom I had admired, but this much remains true: If you wish to have an identity, you must establish standards and keep them. Life becomes meaningless otherwise, and as you say, the Anglicans had better listen up. If we had done so from the outset of the TEC debacle, Shori would have been toast. If you are not willing to pay the price to be someone, you had better be content to be no one. Larry
#30 Fr. J.
Not sure how you got from what I said:
[blockquote]I think that’s one of the really good thing about Anglicanism – we don’t start by telling everybody else that they are wrong.[/blockquote]
to what you said I said:
[blockquote]Now before you go extolling the great Anglican virtue of never telling someone they are wrong[/blockquote]
and the conclusion you develop from there:
[blockquote]the Catholic Church teaches that there are proper moral and theological boundaries which limit who may receive communion. Anglicanism is in the present mess it is in now precisely for its failure to set and keep such boundaries[/blockquote]
It seems to me that:
1. You are attempting to change the argument from your blanket exclusion from the Eucharist of all Protestants [me, your dad, and the youth minister at Truro and indeed yourself when you were there] into an argument that we encourage unrepentant sinners to take the Eucharist. You have not dealt with the issue of the argument you set out which is not that you would exclude Anglicans that do not follow the rubrics of the service, but that you would exclude all Anglicans, indeed all Protestants from Communion.
2. Even taking your rephrased point, as you well know it is not the position that Anglicanism has no teaching on sin or the Eucharist. Our teaching has been stated in our formularies and in the decisions of our Councils, including Lambeth 1:10. The fact that some churches in our Communion are disobedient to our teaching and the word of God does not change that. It is why we have gone through the long process of discipline and attempts to resolve the situation in North America
[blockquote]One may believe that SSB is a blasphemy or a sacrament. Both are legitimate Anglicans.[/blockquote]
It is one thing to argue for change to the teaching of the Communion, it is another to ignore it. Anglicans are those who follow the teaching of our church.
[blockquote]An Anglican can believe communion to be a mere symbol or the real presence. [/blockquote]
You can be a memorialist or believe as I do in the Real Presence, but you are not required as indeed I do not in the traditional RC teaching on transubstantiation.
[blockquote]In other words, the moral and theological boundaries around the Eucharist are precisely what keeps Catholicism from becoming what is at the moment the Anglican Communion. The seeds of the Church’s destruction always lie within her.[/blockquote]
It is the reformed and catholic nature of Anglicanism and in particular concentration on Scripture that keeps Anglicanism from falling into the errors of the RC church for which there is no Scriptural warrant: Purgatory, Indulgences, Immaculate Conception, Marian idolatry, invocation of Saints, not to mention Papal infallibility.
Now if you believe all that stuff, it is correct for you to be a Roman Catholic, but we by and large don’t and certainly do not believe it to be necessary to salvation or to be required of Anglicans.
[blockquote]But, it is her faith, conviction, discipline and order which keep her from being swallowed whole at any moment by the spirit of the present age.[/blockquote]
Most Anglicans believe and practise the same, when we don’t that is when some get into trouble.
[blockquote]Anglicanism would do well to imitate her[/blockquote]
Insofar as we should operate with “faith, conviction, discipline and order” I agree with you, but over prescriptive and bureacratic centralisation can also be a problem. This is why across the world, in Ireland, Europe and the States, the RC church has lost its status and congregations as the pattern of institutional protection and cover-up of sexual abusers has come out. Discipline is a powerful tool and needs to be exercised for the benefit of the Church, not its institutional protection.
Not something Anglicans would do well to imitate.
I so love Pageantmaster #32 ;>) DITTO! The Lord told me to wait before I answered or jumped back in and this is why…..you said it far better than I could have. Pageantmaster….YOU ROCK
32. What a nice dream. To hold that there is something in the abstract that is Anglicanism apart from the Anglican Communion is to engage in fantasy. There are no disobedient churches if there is no attempt to discipline them. The Anglican Communion has demonstrated that the idea of discipline is meaningless. TEC could ordain a thousand gay bishops and it would make no difference in its relationship with Canterbury. Spong has never been disciplined for his rejection of the resurrection among other essentials. One can hold to any concept of the Eucharist whatever and still be an Anglican. Etc. Communion is routinely offered to anyone who happens to be in the room. Having formularies is pretty meaningless if they have no consequences. To selectively claim that Anglicans are those who do X is to ignore that fact that all the rest remain in fact Anglicans in good standing. That one Lambeth conference demands a discipline that the following Lambeth ignores that discipline demonstrates the irrelevance of Lambeth conferences. The very fact that essentials of the faith are voted upon periodically only shows the capricious nature of the AC.
[blockquote]The fact that some churches in our Communion are disobedient to our teaching and the word of God does not change that. It is why we have gone through the long process of discipline and attempts to resolve the situation in North America[/blockquote]
Now I am not so new to Anglican issues to be fooled by this charade. The only Anglicans in North America whose place in the Communion is in question are those who hold to Lambeth 1:10. It is they whose lines of communion with Canterbury are canonically irregular, not those who have defied 1:10. And, this was made clear by the invitation list of Lambeth 08.
And, yes, unrepentant sinners ARE encouraged to receive communion in the AC. I have never heard of anyone in TEC who refrains from going to communion because they are in an SS relationship, or because they are divorced and remarried, or because they are cohabiting, or because they “in good conscience” participated in abortion. Catholics with regularity ask for a blessing in the communion line because they are not properly disposed. I have not seen this in TEC churches or even in the Anglican seminary where I took classes. In fact, when I have been on Anglican retreats or gone to daily services I have felt pressured to receive.
No form of order or discipline can eliminate human sinfulness. Pointing to the sins of Catholics or Anglicans or anyone else cannot demonstrate anything but that there remains human sinfulness. So, pointing to the scandals that rack not only the Catholic Church but every church, scout organization and public school system is a non starter. That the media loves to swarm the CAtholic Church and make her the scapegoat for great social evils is quite clear. So for a Christian to follow suit only demonstrates his willingness to lower himself to make some presumed argument points, which is false.
Now you, Pageantmaster, hold a pretty consistent point of view. Your arguments lean more Protestant than catholic. But there are plenty of Anglicans which differ with you greatly. Plenty of Anglicans hold what you reject in your anti-Catholic laundry list: “Purgatory, Indulgences, Immaculate Conception, Marian idolatry, invocation of Saints, not to mention Papal infallibility.” Be sure to carry out a careful witch hunt to root out these evils from Anglicanism which have run rampant in your communion since the days of the Oxford Movement. But, of course, you cant root out these “evils” without destroying the nature of Anglicanism which is a compromise. So, no Anglican can decry these teachings without rejecting his own fellow Anglicans.
I am so sorry but…..this all sounds like the “Pot” calling the “Kettle Black”…..This is probably one of the most top reasons why many will not embrace the Catholic Church and it is sad really because I think God shakes His head saying, [i]”They all have twisted my teaching (His walk amount us teaching). I want all to come unto me that is why I hung on that cross…for the masses….not just those who would embrace one religions views. Did I not forgive the thief next to me? HE did not have to accept a RCC view, only accept and believe in me and profess me the Son of Man and I gave him a place in paradise with me, without an oath to a list of man made rules.”[/i]
31. I think the time to have held the line in TEC/PECUSA would have been with Bishop Pike. Surely, he was a tortured soul in so many ways, but he should hot have been allowed to remain a bishop while he moved from crisis to crisis allowing along the way a wholesale rejection of Christian moral teaching on homosexuality. But, hindsight is 20/20. It was a period of mass confusion on nearly every teaching.
Still, if a line had been held then, I suspect TEC would now have been 5 to 10 times her present size or more. She would have remained a major player in American Christianity by gaining many among the mainline membership that have now moved to the evangelical churches.
#36 Fr. J that post I can agree with you on….
#36 Hmm Fr. J.
[blockquote] What a nice dream. To hold that there is something in the abstract that is Anglicanism apart from the Anglican Communion is to engage in fantasy.[/blockquote]
Not at all – once again a desire to distinguish a difference between Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. One can say the same about trying to draw a distinction between Catholicism and the RC Church. Pointing to one or two provinces that step outside the whole is as relevant as pointing to one or two popes who have stepped outside Catholicism in support of a proposition that therefore there is no coherence with Catholicism. Just not the case.
[blockquote]There are no disobedient churches if there is no attempt to discipline them. The Anglican Communion has demonstrated that the idea of discipline is meaningless.[/blockquote]
That remains to be seen, but in any event does not establish your premise. For example the selling of indulgences for hundreds of years did not invalidate the whole of the RC Church, or in due course cleaning up its house. Similarly one hopes that cleaning house after the clergy scandals and cover ups will also occur, but I would certainly not argue that it means that there has been no discipline in the RC Church.
[blockquote]One can hold to any concept of the Eucharist whatever and still be an Anglican. Etc. Communion is routinely offered to anyone who happens to be in the room.[/blockquote]
If you look at the liturgy, it is quite clear that this is not the case. The fact that it may be abused does not mean that Anglicans have no concept of the Eucharist nor does it mean that the rubric of the service and in particular the general confession and injunctions to set things right before receiving do not exist. Like you though we are not going to institute an Inquisition to check people appearing at the altar rail.
[blockquote]Having formularies is pretty meaningless if they have no consequences.[/blockquote]
Would you argue that breach of the Ten Commandments which we all do on ocassions renders those commandments meaningless?
[blockquote]That one Lambeth conference demands a discipline that the following Lambeth ignores that discipline demonstrates the irrelevance of Lambeth conferences. The very fact that essentials of the faith are voted upon periodically only shows the capricious nature of the AC.[/blockquote]
Essentials should be reaffirmed periodically, particularly where some parts of church are ignoring them. This does not invalidate either the Councils of the Church nor the votes taken by the bishops. Indeed the RC church regularly does the same at its conferences of bishops of which Vatican II was an example.
[blockquote]The only Anglicans in North America whose place in the Communion is in question are those who hold to Lambeth 1:10. It is they whose lines of communion with Canterbury are canonically irregular, not those who have defied 1:10. And, this was made clear by the invitation list of Lambeth 08[/blockquote]
Lines of communion with Canterbury are indeed in issue for all Americans and there were a number of people not invited to Lambeth. There was no Lambeth 1:10 correlation as simple as the proposition you set out.
[blockquote]yes, unrepentant sinners ARE encouraged to receive communion in the AC. I have never heard of anyone in TEC who refrains from going to communion because they are in an SS relationship, or because they are divorced and remarried, or because they are cohabiting, or because they “in good conscience†participated in abortion. Catholics with regularity ask for a blessing in the communion line because they are not properly disposed. I have not seen this in TEC churches or even in the Anglican seminary where I took classes. In fact, when I have been on Anglican retreats or gone to daily services I have felt pressured to receive.[/blockquote]
I have dealt with this above, the rubrics of the Communion service are clear – you are to set yourself at peace with God and man before receiving, but this is a matter for the individual to follow for Anglicans. It is not used as a mechanism of control and power as it is in the RC Church.
[blockquote]So, pointing to the scandals that rack not only the Catholic Church but every church, scout organization and public school system is a non starter. That the media loves to swarm the CAtholic Church and make her the scapegoat for great social evils is quite clear. So for a Christian to follow suit only demonstrates his willingness to lower himself to make some presumed argument points, which is false.[/blockquote]
Sexual abusers target organisations where they can gain access to young and vulnerable people. However the particular errors of the RC Church have arisen from how they have chosen to deal with this issue – not reporting allegations to the police, moving priests and foisting them on remote congregations, not once but systematically, covering what they have done and resisting requests for disclosure from the civil authorities. It is not that the RC Church is targetted by abusers any more than others but that it has failed to deal with the issue and in doing so permitted abusers to continue unchecked to ruin more young lives. This more than anything is why I don’t take seriously RC criticisms of my church when it is apparent that for any speck in our eyes, there are huge planks in theirs, and it is not just about the media on a witch hunt. The RC church has given them the ammo, by the caseload.
[blockquote]Now you, Pageantmaster, hold a pretty consistent point of view. Your arguments lean more Protestant than catholic. But there are plenty of Anglicans which differ with you greatly. Plenty of Anglicans hold what you reject in your anti-Catholic laundry list: “Purgatory, Indulgences, Immaculate Conception, Marian idolatry, invocation of Saints, not to mention Papal infallibility.†Be sure to carry out a careful witch hunt to root out these evils from Anglicanism which have run rampant in your communion since the days of the Oxford Movement. But, of course, you cant root out these “evils†without destroying the nature of Anglicanism which is a compromise. So, no Anglican can decry these teachings without rejecting his own fellow Anglicans[/blockquote]
Thank you – I try to keep to a consistent viewpoint but am not sure that it is as you portray it. I don’t believe in many of the RC doctrines you set out, but if others want to go along sticking statues up in their churches, tootling off to Lourdes, or cluttering their altars with candles, well that is up to them. For me it is part of the richness of Anglicanism, but not something which is to be required of Anglicans, as it has no scriptural foundation nor is essential to salvation. Personally if I believed all that rubbish about Purgatory and Papal Infallibility I would become a Roman Catholic. But I don’t and so I shan’t, but I have no wish to root out those who do, as you seem to think I should.
Finally just a brief response to your #26 for which thanks and apologies for overlooking it. Although I am aware of the RC concepts of the Eucharist, its just that probably like your father I don’t accept them. In particular:
[blockquote]Reception of Holy Communion is predicated on “being in communion†with the bishop of the place and by extension with Rome [/blockquote]
Well Anglicans do have such a monarchical view of Communion, but we regard the link as directly to Christ, rather than some intermediary, however connected with Rome. Our duty and our connection in the Eucharist is with Christ. Again if I did believe that it went via the bishop and Pope from time to time, I would be a Roman Catholic, but probably like your father I don’t. When he and I present ourselves for Communion, we have no concerns about the church issues you claim imperil us, because we just don’t believe them.
If you think about it, this claim of Rome as the intermediary in the Eucharist is something of an accretion, as I have never heard anyone RC or otherwise claim that the other Anglican sacrament of Baptism is anything other than the gift of the Father through His Holy Spirit which occurs when we are baptised with water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost and through that in the Spirit. Even the RC church has never dared to claim that.
But I do have one question Fr. J. – I note many Catholics and others turning up on this blog and welcome the discourse. It is one of the privileges I have found in T19 to be able to hear and discuss religious matters with many people so much more knowledgeable than I am and to learn from them. But sometimes there is a subtext to those who come onto this Anglican website, which is not so friendly and seems obsessed with dissing my church and its theology. To what end? We are Anglicans because we like our church and care about it. We come here to discuss things not in order to become RC’s, Orthodox, Seventh Day Adventists, Baptists, Mormons or whatever. So what gives with the anger and the aggression towards our church, particularly from those who are converts from us, but appear unable to move on like souls in Purgatory [were it to exist which it doesn’t]?
I guess selling indulgences was okie dokie…. and was that not a Papal Bull that put that into place? Oh let us not forget those Popes who had “sex on the side” and the priests who have abused children and the Church covered it all up and moved them around….were not these Popes and Priests taking communion at the Lord’s Table? Pot meet Kettle.
Let us do a little list:
[b]Married before receiving Holy Orders:[/b]
1. Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the Bible as having been miraculously healed
2. Pope Siricius (384–399), where tradition suggests that he left his wife and children in order to become pope.
3. Pope Felix III (483–492) was a widower with two children when he was elected to succeed Pope Simplicius in 483
4. Pope St. Hormisdas (514–523) was married and widowed before ordination. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.
5. Pope Agatho or Pope Saint Agatho (678–681) was married for 20 years as a layman with one daughter, before in maturity he followed a call to God and with his wife’s blessing became a monk at Saint Hermes’ monastery in Palermo.
6. Pope Adrian II (867–872) was married to a woman called Stephania, before taking orders, and had a daughter.
7. Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election to the papacy and had three sons, who all became priests
8. Pope Clement IV (1265–1268) was married, before taking holy orders, and had two daughters
9. Pope Honorius IV (1285–1287) was married before he took the Holy Orders and had at least two sons
But then the RCC decided not God mind you but a human Pope decided to make celibacy mandatory.
[b]Sexually active before receiving Holy Orders:[/b]
1. Pope Pius II (1458–1464) had at least two illegitimate children (one in Strasbourg and another one in Scotland), born before he entered the clergy
2. Pope Innocent VIII (1484–1492) had at least two illegitimate children, born before he entered the clergy
3. Pope Clement VII (1523–1534) had one illegitimate son before he took holy orders.
4. Pope Gregory XIII (1572–1585) had an illegitimate son before he took holy orders
[b]Sexually active after receiving Holy Orders:[/b]
1. Pope Julius II (1503–1513) had at least one illegitimate daughter, Felice della Rovere (born in 1483, twenty years before his election)
2. Pope Paul III (1534–1549) held off ordination in order to continue his promiscuous lifestyle, fathering four illegitimate children (three sons and one daughter) by his mistress Silvia Ruffini.
3. Pope Pius IV (1559–1565) had three illegitimate children before his election to the papacy
Along with other complaints, the activities of the popes between 1458 to 1565, helped encourage the Protestant Revolt
[b]Sexually active during their pontificate:[/b]
1. Pope John X (914–928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora and her daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his Antapodosis
2. Pope John XII (955–963) (deposed by Conclave) was said to have turned the Basilica di San Giovanni in Laterano into a brothel and was accused of adultery, fornication, and incest
3. Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, again in 1045 and finally 1047–1048) was said to have conducted a very dissolute life during his papacy. Accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of “many vile adulteries and murders”
4. Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503) had a notably long affair with Vannozza dei Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his famous illegitimate children Cesare and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of Alessandro Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered a total of at least seven, and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.
[b]Suspected to have had male lovers during pontificate:[/b]
1. Pope Paul II (1464–1471) was alleged to have died of a heart attack while in a sexual act with a page
2. Pope Sixtus IV (1471–1484) was alleged to have awarded gifts and benefices to court favorites in return for sexual favors. Giovanni Sclafenato was created a cardinal by Sixtus IV for “ingenuousness, loyalty,…and his other gifts of soul and body”
3. Pope Leo X (1513–1521) was alleged to have had a particular infatuation for Marc-Antonio Flaminio.
4. Pope Julius III (1550–1555) was alleged to have had a long affair with Innocenzo Ciocchi del Monte. The Venetian ambassador at that time reported that Innocenzo shared the pope’s bedroom and bed
Then of course we have the sex abuse scandals of our modern time. So before the RCC begins to throw stones they need to take a better look at their own history.
Fr J – and others – many thanks for the conversation, especially Pageant Master’s characteristically clear material. If some/many of us did not want to differentiate ourselves from the actions of the likes of TEC’s hierarchy, there’d be little fuss going on! That is, to use your own words, of course the Early Church was not unified. However, nor was it uniform! That’s the clear point of distinction to be properly drawn – both then [i]and[/i] now. However, as I have been down this road really rather often, and see little resolution before the Parousia, such now is the sheer weight of historical decision and justification/rationalization, please excuse my bowing out … I suspect the real issue will be how we are judged when handling our Christian divisions: in the fulness of grace and truth, holiness and compassion, altogether.
“That is, to use your own words, of course the Early Church was not unified.”
Well, there were numerous mutually-opposed Christian bodies from at least the early 2nd Century, and so in one sense the statement I cited above is true. But what do you mean by “the Early Church?” Did Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian — or for that matter Novatian — acknowledge that “the Church” is divided? In other words, are you letting them define or explain “the Church” for themselves to you, or thrusting upon the lot of them a denominationalist or “branch theory” ecclesiology of which they never dreamt, and which they would reject with incredulity* if it were presented to them?
* cf. *Schism in the Early Church* by SL Greenslade (1953). Greenslade (1905-1977) was a notable English Evangelical Anglican Church Historian and Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Oxford from 1959 to 1973. I *love* his book, although I am in total disagreement with his “diagnosis and prescription” at its end. He is frank and straightforward about the nature of the ecclesiology embraced by Church Fathers and heretics alike in the first five centuries — which in the end he says has got to be repudiated by Anglicans (and he hopes by all Christians) in order to promote reunion.
Just to put the record straight, out of respect for yourself and the gentleman you cite: see # 29, “Well of course the early church was not all unified, silly. It was rife with heresies and other divisions. …” Secondly, the play was thereafter of course between “unified” and “uniform”. Thirdly, any hint of anachronism is certainly not mine! Rather, a brief read of [i]The Princeton Proposal – In One Body through the Cross[/i] woud allay your fears there: I thoroughly endorse its vision, which is for one visible Body that specifically undercuts any “branch theory”.
Well, art, another good book bearing on the subject, this time by a Lutheran, is Werner Elert’s *Eucharist and Church Fellowship in the First Five Centuries* (1954; Eng. trans. 1966; repr. 2003). He shows that “closed communion” (with no exceptions for family members) was the universal practice of the orthodox Catholics and the heretical or schismatic “counter-churches” alike in the Early Church. Zizioulas’s arguments (or the inferences you and others might wish to draw from them) are speculative at best, and they cannot outweigh universal Orthodox practice.
As I wrote before, if you wish to receive communion in an Orthodox church, become Orthodox; if in a Catholic church, become Catholic.
“Rather, a brief read of The Princeton Proposal – In One Body through the Cross woud allay your fears there: I thoroughly endorse its vision, which is for one visible Body that specifically undercuts any “branch theoryâ€. ”
I don’t see how it would. Orthodox and Catholics alike believe that there is already “one visible body” that constitutes “the Church” — for the former it is the Orthodox Church, for the latter the Catholic Church. To propose a scheme for attaining “one visible body” that is as yet nonexistent is a typically Protestant notion that would have no interest for Orthodox and Catholics, who would consider it tantamount to reinventing the wheel.
Thanks for the further Patristics refresher @ #42. However, I see your argument has now become an instance of “primitivism†– only that which is supposedly Early is genuine – permitting no development. Secondly, [i]Princeton’s[/i] vision is hardly as you ‘read’ it. De Lubac aside (perhaps – to say nothing of 1 Cor 10-11), what has happened to the good old Reformed notion of the mystical Body?! Thirdly, if ever the One Body is to breathe indeed genuinely with its “two lungs†(JP2), together, then something has to give, I suggest … So fourthly, this is yet another rationale for “remembering the future†(JDZ), for locating the Eucharist’s centre of gravity eschatologically, and viewing its celebration as the means of realizing Communion (which 4th point feeds back into the 2nd: our visible unity too is properly eschatological – which does not mean docetic, BTW).
Fifthly, what advice might you give now, in the 21st C, to a young faithful Croatian/Serbian couple, and their children? Apart from moving to Queens, New York!
Lastly, I do sign off this thread … really. See you at that Future Feast! Pax et bonum!