THE MCJ

I wouldn't be so sure. The Anglican "Communion" (sorry, I just can't say it without scare quotes any more) is still one of the largest identifiable Christian groups in the world. And Rome has long memories - Henry VIII and his successors are still fresh in the Vatican's memory. And finally, Benedict's choice of name is widely believed to reflect a high level of concern for the restoration of Christianity in Europe.

Benedict's predecessor was a Slav who made union with the Eastern Orthodox a priority; why shouldn't his western European successor focus on the separated western churches?

Speeding the reunification of Anglicans with Rome is a natural goal for the new Pope. And if he has decided that that goal is more intelligently pursued through traditionalists than through Cantuar, I certainly can't fault him.

There is precedent for married Anglican priests and deacons to be received into the RCC under the Pastoral Provision, but I can't imagine even Rome ever accepting married bishops. There has also never been any recognition by Rome of an “Anglican Rite,” but only of a “Latin Rite - Anglican Usage.” The Anglican form of liturgy is too similar to the Latin Rite to be formed as a distinct rite, especially after whatever necessary revisions are made to make it conform to Latin doctrine. The fantasy that some Anglican bishops have had that they can be married and somehow keep their purple shirts after assimilation into the Latin Church is really kind of sad.

I know that there is already a BCP equivalent for the LR-AU parishes, but does anyone know what changes were made to the BCP liturgy for use in the RCC?

RCs do not worship Mary or any of the saints.

When your pope and many, many others of you pray "Totus tuus" to Mary, over and over again for years, I call that worship — or at least idolatrous.

Romans 12:1: Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God — this is your spiritual act of worship.

I obviously agree with you, anglicanxn. I even receive Mass at a nearby Catholic Church. (The priests there know I don't attend their church on Sunday, but they deliver superb homilies and they serve Mass to me on a don't-ask, don't-tell basis.) And I prefer to focus on what we have in common with Roman Catholics (the ones who are true believers, that is) rather than on what we disagree about.

However, there seem to be a number of apologists for RC dogma who contribute to this blog and, at times, some of them can make Protestants feel quite pressured. They have sometimes clarified their beliefs in a helpful way, but they have also propagandized some and once or two have become pretty "assertive" on occasion.

I truly hope we can all stick together against the "tyranny of relativism" and of liberalsim, though. We are more than political allies against these evils, however, IMO. We are siblings in Christ. The more we all focus on Him, the closer we will draw to each other in communion.

Pax vobiscum.

Alfonso, yes and I know many cradle Catholics who pick and choose what RC dogma they believe, but if you want to join the RC church from outside, you have to say you believe every jot and tittle of their dogma. Go figure.

Christine wrote: ...if I am reading you correctly that neither of you are in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church but are receiving Holy Communion, that's very disrespectful.

That's your opinion, but if I didn't love and respect my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ, I wouldn't celebrate the Eucharist with them.

Receiving Holy Communion in the Catholic Church requires that one be in communion with the local bishop and the Bishop of Rome.

Not according to Christ. He commands His followers to make Eucharist together and to maintain unity as far as they are able to. I defer to His authority, as it's infinitely higher than Rome's — just as the RC priests who serve Mass to me do!

Because I am a believing Roman Catholic, I choose to obey my Church. It's that simple.

Fine, Christine. Because I am a believing Protestant, I choose to obey my Lord, even when His command contravenes that of an earthly authority.

Pax vobiscum.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you Orthodox? If so, the RC position on Communion is that you are asked to respect the discipline of your own Church. If not...

Are you then saying that you believe the RC doctrine of the Eucharist? If you don't believe it, how is your receiving with us not a fraud, since every Protestant confessional document I have read took pains to DENY the RC doctrine, several terming it blasphemous and idolatrous? *

I'm afraid I hav to agree with Christine that it is disrespectful. You are in a sense impersonating a Catholic.

Perhaps you should forebear for the sake of your weaker brethren, as Paul recommended.

* Art. 28: "...Transubstantiation (the change of the substance of the bread and wine) in the Supper of the Lord cannot be proved from holy Scripture, but is repugnant to the plain teaching of Scripture. It overthrows the nature of a sacrament and has given rise to many superstitions. The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper only in a heavenly and spiritual manner. The means by which the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is by faith." Westminster Confession, Chapter XXIX, p. 2:

"In this sacrament, Christ is not offered up to His Father; nor any real sacrifice made at all, for remission of sins of the quick or dead; but only a commemoration of that one offering up of Himself, by Himself, upon the cross, once for all: and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God, for the same: so that the popish sacrifice of the mass (as they call it) is most abominably injurious to Christ's one, only sacrifice, the only propitiation for all the sins of His elect."

p. 6:

"That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ's body and blood (commonly called transubstantiation) by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant, not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense, and reason; overthroweth the nature of the sacrament, and hath been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions; yea, of gross idolatries."

Ed the Roman, while the RCC has said that Orthodox may receive communion in RC churches, the Orthodox position is that neither communion nor any other sacraments should be received anywhere but in an Orthodox church. I believe an agreement has been worked out now to allow a mixed RC/Orthodox couple to only be required to have one wedding whereas a ceremony previously had to be held in each communion, but that's about it. The only other group with whom the Orthodox have a closer relationship is the Oriental Orthodox; there, if there is no Orthodox church within a reasonable vicinity, it is permissible to receive communion in an Oriental Orthodox parish and vice versa. To receive communion outside of the Orthodox Church (except in the special situation mentioned above) is to excommunicate oneself and the person who does so can only be received back into communion through confession and penance.

Sasha, the problem comes when one tries to define “real truly believing Christians.” For the Orthodox, communion is not a means to unity, but an end. To disagree about what happens in the Eucharist means that unity has not yet been achieved. A fundamental flaw of Anglicanism is that this disunion has been accepted from the very beginning in the spirit of political compromise. Communion requires unity in faith and doctrine while still allowing diversity in the liturgical expression of that unity. The only thing Anglicanism had going for it before the 1979 “BCP” in the U.S. and the ASB in the CofE was a unity of liturgical expression that allowed for diversity in faith and doctrine. As we're seeing now in the Anglican “Communion,” merely saying certain words together while holding sometimes opposite beliefs is no basis for true union.

Here's my 2 cents' worth: Communion = common union. All who believe that Jesus Christ of Nazareth is (uniquely) God incarnate, was physically resurrected and reigns in divine sovereignty are one in Christ Jesus, and that's all that really matters, however you understand the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Whatever instituional church regs try to tear that unity asunder are, IMO, of the devil, so I ignore them. In fact, I delight in disobeying them!

In the original Greek of the NT, the root meaning of the word for heretic is one who causes schism. Those who make adherance to a long list of questionable doctrines a prerequesite for taking communion with them are the heretics, not those of us who want to be in charitable fellowship with our fellow Christians. I refuse to cooperate with that kind of crap.

All earthly authorities are limited. Only God's authority is absolute, and when any earthly or delegated authority contravenes the clear command of God, you have to choose to respectfully disobey the lower authority. (That seems both obvious and pretty basic to me, Mike. I mean, what would you do if you lived in Saudi Arabia, for instance, where it is illegal to practice any religion but Islam?)

And Ed, I'm not "impersonating a Catholic." The priests in question know that I'm not baptised or confirmed in the RCC, but they believe that, as a Christian, I have as much right to receive the consecrated elements as they have.

And Christine - I'm not sure what you mean by being "in communion" with the current pope, but I believe he's a Christian and would eat, fellowship and take Eucharist from/with him any time. I just don't agree with a few things his institution insists on. If the RCC didn't require me to believe anything beyond what's in the Creeds, I might even join it!

What you said. Really. Not kidding .

That is why I mentioned the bit about the Orthodox being "...asked to respect the discipline of their respective Churches", even though we wouldn't have a problem ourselves.

J. Scott,

In public, only public excommunicandi are denied communion. In private, known non-Catholics should be turned away. No Christian has a 'right' to the Blessed Sacrament, whence 'Lord, I am not worthy...' A chaplain friend once explained to me how he could not turn away the Protestant base executive officer who came to Mass daily, but had to turn away one of the Protestant chaplains who asked to receive privately. He advised the Protestant chaplain to finish his career and then convert, since he was most of the way to retirement and had a family. I wish I were sure what I thought of that advice.

P&L,

Exactly.

Ed the R - The liturgy notwithstanding, every Christian has not only the right but the duty to take, eat, and drink in remembrance of Christ. If you have an issue with that, I refer you to Him. He commanded it.

But your last post illustrates the nub of the matter in that, given a choice between obeying Christ and His apostles or the rubrics of the Roman Catholic Church, those priests opt for the latter. They are obviously Catholics first and Christians second. Which is just one more reason why I am a Protestant! :-)

2. I have an interest in Anglicanism that stems from an old boss. This is good place to check up on it.

3. I like to clarify points on which I think people are mistaken. They surely feel free to do likewise with me.

4. How will we ever have Christian unity in any visible form if we don't talk about this stuff anyway? And how can an invisible unity remove the scandal of our divisions to the World?

I like to clarify points on which I think people are mistaken. They surely feel free to do likewise with me.

You have to admit you go far beyond that sometimes, though.

It does however, establish the reality within RC rubrics and practice, that there is a possibility of a "shared" communion with non Catholics correctly receiving the elements at Mass, within the limited conditions of the recipient being unable for whatever reason, to attend his own church.

At its deepest heart, it is of course, merely an expression of Christian love, trumping doctrinal practice, and that is in my mind, as it should be.

Mike H. - [Sigh]...

Then the high priest and all his associates, who were members of the party of the Sadducees, were filled with jealousy. They arrested the apostles and put them in the public jail. But during the night an angel of the Lord opened the doors of the jail and brought them out. Go, stand in the temple courts, he said, and tell the people the full message of this new life. At daybreak they entered the temple courts, as they had been told, and began to teach the people. When the high priest and his associates arrived, they called together the Sanhedrin— the full assembly of the elders of Israel— and sent to the jail for the apostles. But on arriving at the jail, the officers did not find them there. So they went back and reported, We found the jail securely locked, with the guards standing at the doors; but when we opened them, we found no-one inside. On hearing this report, the captain of the temple guard and the chief priests were puzzled, wondering what would come of this. Then someone came and said, Look! The men you put in jail are standing in the temple courts teaching the people. At that, the captain went with his officers and brought the apostles. They did not use force, because they feared that the people would stone them. Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name, he said. Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood. Peter and the other apostles replied: We must obey God rather than men! (Acts 5:17–29)

Furthermore, the earliest Christians went to the lions rather than obey ceasar and offer incense to the idols of him and confess him as Lord, rather than Jesus.

These are extreme examples, but the principle is still the same: earthly authorities are to be obeyed only up to the point where their commands contradict God's, and only up to that point.

No further than is frequently gone by many here in different directions. Have I exceeded courtesy, in your view? Or in that of our host?

Well, I don't call accusing someone of impersonating a Catholic very couteous, do you?

But my point still stand