Differences between RCC and orthodox Anglican theology

What are the differences between orthodox Anglican theology and the theology of the RCC?

Which of the differences is most important to you in your decision to be Anglican?

 

Here are some quotes from the 'Catechism of the (Roman) Catholic Church' (CCC) that I find extremely significant:

CCC 2010, "...Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life."
CCC 2027, "Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods."
CCC 2068, "The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them; the Second Vatican Council confirms: "The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments."​

This teaching is unscriptural and false.

In contrast, the Anglican position is found in

Article 11 - The Justification of Man
We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or deserving. Wherefore that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort; as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.
Article 12 - Good Works
Albeit that good works, which are the fruits of faith and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins and endure the severity of God's judgement, yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith, insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit.​

This is entirely in keeping with the Bible, as we can see clearly in Ephesians 2, Galatians 3, John 5, and numerous other scriptures. If a church cannot correctly teach the way of salvation, what good are they?

The Roman Church places great emphasis on the church's Tradition and the decrees of their Magisterium. These may (and often do) contradict scripture, and this is how they have wound up with incorrect, dangerous teachings like what I've quoted above.
The Anglican position is that "Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation" (Article 6) and that although the writings and oral traditions of the early church may shed some light upon our understanding of scriptures, the former do not have the force of the latter.

I hope that is helpful to you. Much more could be said, but that's enough to convince me.

 

I think you've somewhat misinterpreted those passages by taking them in isolation (even from their paragraphs, but especially from their sections). For that matter, while Catholics certainly aren't sola scripturaists, those specific ones seem to have plenty of scriptural roots.

2010 and 2027 aren't indicating that anyone merits grace and sanctification apart from God, but rather specifies the source of even this merit comes from Jesus Christ. No one has a right to merit before God, but God through Jesus Christ has allowed us to participate in the life of God. Thus, all good acts bring us in contact with God and make us participants in God's salvific work. That's certainly scriptural, as you'll recall enough times St. Paul saying that the good that he does is Christ working through him. We also hear how it was accounted as righteousness of Job to offer sacrifices on behalf of his children (and others do likewise). And besides, if the works of Christ and the Holy Spirit can't merit salvation for us, what do you propose can? If faith without the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ were enough, why did Christ treat it as necessary to suffer so greatly, despite his own human will desiring not to do so? Where is the place of Christ in our salvation?

As for 2068 (and actually the prior ones) keep in mind Matthew 19 (and the related passages). When asked, "what good must I do to gain eternal life?" Christ neither says, "all you need is faith" nor does he rebuke the young rich man saying, "nothing you do can gain eternal life for you!". Instead, he says specifically, "Keep the commandments" and when asked which (since much of the Law of Moses was considered commandments) Christ specifies 5 of the 10 commandments (in Matthew) and the command to love neighbor as self (which He elsewhere describes as summing up the law and the prophets, along with the greatest commandment dealing with love of God).

Turns out, with that accomplished, that is not enough, we still must follow Christ, for Christ is 'the Way, the Truth, and the Life", but that doesn't negate that there is a role for the commandments, which are there to lead us and teach us how to be like Christ, to realize the end which we seek (for we aren't simply promised that we will live forever, but rather, that we will be happy, in the ancient sense rather than the modern, requiring a transition in our being from a fallen state to a glorified, virtuous and perfected state).

Interestingly, your highlighted bit about "cannot put away our sins" from Article 12 is not in disagreement. Again, if you read that whole section of the CCC, you'll find that prior, in fact it's even repeated at the start of 2010 that you cut out, "Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion."

The relationship of Tradition and Scripture is a bit more complex in the Catholic Church than as you describe. It's certainly not seen as something that even can be in conflict, as Scripture itself is considered a specially and uniquely honored and important part of Tradition, not something laid to the side or external to it. For Catholics, to truly reject one is to reject the other (though, there is distinction between Tradition and traditions, with the latter not enjoying such a place).

 

Everyone, say hi to Djindy. He's a friend of mine from another community that helped counsel me during the period when I was suffering from the abuse of my former psychiatrist, and he is a learned Roman Catholic who teaches Catechism. I hope we can have a respectful dialogue with him here as someone who is probably a more robust apologist than many others in his church.

 

Hi, @DJIndy , and welcome among us. I hold the rcc with a degree of respect, and mutual affection in Christ, however I am not a member or the rcc, and there are a number of reasons which matter to me, but which others may hold in little account.

• I think Francis I is a great leader for the Western Church and I accept him as first among equals amongst the great overseers of the Church.
• I don't understand him to have the authority on his own to change matters of faith, and that would include the Creed of the first Council of Constantinople.
• I don't understand him to be the Vicar of Christ in any sense greater than that of the in persona Christi that I expect every priest to exercise and to encourage us all to reflect.
• I do not accept that he speaks infallibly, either in Council or Out.
• I find the Doctrine of Transubstantiation a difficult expression of the true nature of the sacrament of our redemption celebrated at the doorward to heaven, and much prefer the views expressed in Laudato Si.
• I prefer the term theotokos as a description of the role play by Mary in the mystery of our redemption, and I feel this has been poorly translated into Latin, and subsequently misunderstood and averarched.
• I do not accept that being in communion with the one who holds the ancient see of Peter as the very definition of catholic, and indeed I believe that holding such a view is counter the common expression of our faith that we are all duty bound to hold, namely the Creed of the First Council of Constantinople.
• That being said, I believe that the goal of being in communion is both good and holy, and in the mind of Christ, and I would want such a reality to include our sisters and brothers not simply of the west, but also of the east.

 

There is a basic fallacy in the proposition that "all good acts bring us in contact with God and make us participants in God's salvific work." Jesus said:
Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Clearly, not all good works are of God. When a man does something good by the urging of the Spirit, it is a Godly good work. But when a man does something he deems good but not in God's will, it is a fleshly work and the deed will be "burned as with fire" at the judgment. A simple example should suffice. Suppose you see a man along the road who appears to be homeless, and you decide (without guidance from the Holy Spirit) that it would be a good deed to give him $40. You feel a bit of a hesitation somewhere in the back of your mind, as the thought comes that this man might misuse the money, but you give him the money anyway and tell yourself you've done a good deed. The man takes it to his 'pusher' and buys drugs, gets high, and in his altered state of consciousness grabs a knife and kills someone. Was the "good work" from God? When we are 'dull of hearing,' fail to follow the Holy Spirit's wise counsel, and simply do what we think is right, our 'good work' is often unfruitful.

You also wrote:

"And besides, if the works of Christ and the Holy Spirit can't merit salvation for us, what do you propose can? If faith without the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ were enough, why did Christ treat it as necessary to suffer so greatly, despite his own human will desiring not to do so? Where is the place of Christ in our salvation?"​

Who, besides you, ever said that "the works of Christ and the Holy Spirit can't merit salvation for us"?? Is this more malarky from the CCC? It is entirely untrue. Christ Himself finished the work of redemption when He gave His mortal life on the cross and then arose from the dead in triumph. And when you write, "If faith without the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ were enough, why [did Christ have to suffer]" it sounds like you have gone so far as to make the proposition that Christ was called upon to live by faith. My question is, by faith in whom? We Christians live by faith in Christ. Did Christ have to live by faith in Himself? This makes no sense to me. Jesus was in a totally different position than we.

In Matthew 19:16-21 you cite a conversation between Jesus and a man who thought he could earn eternal life by his own merits. Jesus' answers to him revealed that such a thing is impossible. No one can be good enough to be perfect, and the standard of the Law was perfection. Indeed, the man should have known this, for the Law was sent 'as a schoolmaster' (Gal. 3:24-25) to point everyone toward the coming Messiah, Jesus. I can understand your confusion because Jesus' answer to the rich man was somewhat cryptic. On a separate occasion Jesus answered a similar question in a much more clear and pointed fashion:
Joh 6:27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
Joh 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
Joh 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

A basic rule of hermeneutics states that all Scripture harmonizes within itself. If one or two verses seem to support a certain idea, but the body of Scripture withdraws support from the idea, the one or two verses have been misinterpreted or lifted out of context. Dozens of scriptures could be cited, including the bulk of Paul's letter to the Romans, to show that although we followers of Christ are urged toward good works, those good works are fruits borne out of our cooperation with the Holy Spirit as He works in and through us, and those works can not in any way contribute to the full and completed work Christ accomplished in redeeming us to the uttermost from the penalty we deserved. Thus,
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life (John 3:36). And
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit (Romans 8:1).
Any doctrinal statement which says that a man can merit even a thimbleful of grace on his own merits is a false statement of doctrine.

It is most interesting and instructive to see you write, "...Scripture itself is considered a specially and uniquely honored and important part of Tradition..." for this truly is the mindset of the Roman doctrinal beliefs. Rather than Tradition holding an honored place a little bit below Scripture, the RCC holds Scripture to be a part (a subsection) of the more forceful body of Tradition. The RCC has 'placed the cart in front of the horse.' Anglicans (and Protestants) hold Scripture as their guide first and foremost, but the Romans hold Tradition in first place.

You say that other parts of the CCC explain away the words I've quoted. But the words I've quoted are still present, and their patently erroneous nature is still glaring us in the face. Of course, in the grand and massive architectural marvel of the RC doctrinal pathway, it is easy enough for the individual to overlook a few imperfections, is it not? This brings us to one other serious flaw in the RC belief system. The Roman Church has over-codified and over-specified every jot and tittle of doctrine, in an attempt to set every last detail of Christian belief into hardened concrete. And now, gazing upon the majestic paved pathway of Roman doctrine and dogma, all the imperfections are visible to any who would get down and look closely enough, but they who 'never change their doctrines' are stuck with defending the pavement as "perfectly smooth."

 

I hope we can have this conversation without mutual polemics... I am interested in seeing this conversation between the two camps

 

The question I would want to ask DJIndy is, do you accept the new change in the CCC wrought by Pope Francis, of capital punishment now being never morally permissible?

This is (now) a core doctrinal difference between the Romans and the Anglicans, for we certainly do hold that capital punishment is morally permissible... we do not change depending on what the Archbishop of Canterbury today proclaims

 

If I offended anyone's sensibilities with my passion, I apologize.

 

Thanks for the warm welcome. I'll probably have to break up some responses here as a decent bit as been said already.

I hope the same, though I'll say I'm probably not particularly robust among my fellows for this kind of apologetics. I know a few things and have studied other sects, religions, etc. a bit but my focus is more usually on either internal concerns, or sometimes on dialogue with atheists. A lot of my considerations there happen to be fairly influenced by C.S. Lewis related works (Mere Christianity, Miracles, The Problem of Pain, etc) and G.K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy (written while he was still an Anglican, prior to his conversion). So, in that sense, I certainly hold some appreciation for such Anglicans.

Moving along:

This is an interesting idea I hear talked about among the Orthodox churches as well. Last I've heard though, it's unclear whether this particular concept would have made much sense to the ancients, given their understanding of an ordered society and community and the background of offices in ancient Israel in particular, or whether it's more of a later novelty. I can't say too strongly one way or the other right now as I haven't seen a whole lot of the argument in favor of it to judge.

We are in agreement. Catholics do not understand the Pope to have the authority to change matters of faith. Indeed, if something is a Truth, it is impossible to change.

In fact, if ever the Pope even appears to say or do something that could be construed as a real change in the faith, there is significant internal controversy, because if he were to do so it would go contrary to our understanding of his role as outlined in Vatican I and elsewhere.

- As for the Vicar of Christ title, that term has been used with varying senses throughout history as far as I'm aware. In general, we actually can use it to speak of all Bishops, since the Bishop is head of their diocese and oversees it on behalf of Christ (Vatican II speaks of all bishops as such Vicars). But, the Pope is the foremost of these, as he has universal jurisdiction (not limited to just his own diocese), including such jurisdiction over the Bishops themselves (by virtue of Christ's prayer that Peter should even renew and encourage his brothers, his office as holder of the keys, numerous other matters I'm guessing you've heard before and probably have some of your own ideas about). We happen to not grant this language to priests as we do not grant priests the same kind of magisterial authority and they do not have the capability to, for instance, ordain priests and such, but that's a matter of connotation. Apparently, one of the early uses of the term actually referred to the Holy Spirit in a somewhat different sense.

- Honestly, I wouldn't expect anyone else to accept the authority and infallibility doctrines of the Pope who isn't a Catholic (or a schismatic, I suppose). If you did, I'm not sure how much sense it would make to not simply join full communion under the Pope. To be clear though, it's significantly rare for the Pope to actually make infallible statements. Infallibility does not apply to everything the Pope says, only very narrowly defined matters. A council doesn't necessarily even make a difference for us (with some nuance).

- I'm not sure what the difference is that you see between the Transubstantiation and the way it is expressed in Laudato Si. I haven't even heard anyone suggest before there could be any disconnect whatsoever on that point.

- Not sure what you are referring to on the Theotokos either (I know what the Theotokos is, certainly). You prefer that term as opposed to what for Mary?

- There's a decent bit of evidence that by the time of the First Council of Constantinople, there was already understood to be at least a Church that is united, with particular reference and honor given to the Bishop of Rome for settling certain matters (including, for instance, who is the real Bishop over some other area), and 'others', such that certain Church Fathers remarked that when entering a city if you happen upon one of the heretics or other sects, asking where the Catholic gathering is would lead you to the right place, as opposed to asking where the followers of Christ were or Christians, etc (since, gnostics, montanists, and others would think themselves part of the one and not the other). How that extends to situations by the 11th of 16th Century is, of course, a rather core matter of dispute.

- On the last point we can certainly agree, and happily. I've sometimes been a bit disappointed to find some Christians no longer think such unity among Christians, and beyond that of all people into Christianity, to even be a desirable goal. But if we truly believe we have found the Truth that leads to eternal life and happiness, how can we not desire this in love for everyone? Certainly, the task is hard and long, but the goal is good.

I fear this post has already gone on pretty long (and I saw the rules discourage being too lengthy), so I'll leave it at that for now and try to get back to other matters brought up by Rexlion and anglican74 soon.

 

"The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome because Constantinople is New Rome."​

So clearly the Bishop of Rome has the prerogative of honour - however that is clearly not the same as absolute authority, and that must surely rest of the foundation of Scripture:

When the ten heard this, they began to be angry with James and John. So Jesus called them and said to them, ‘You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all. For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.’
Mark 10:41-45​

I am sure you were not wondering what I was pointing at here, but the matter of the inclusion of the filioque into the Creed. At best it is a very poor way to express the theology of double procession and is very open to missing the truth as expounded in the Creed in the first place. I understand that when the Roman liturgy is celebrated in Greek the filioque is not inserted as it is considered heresy in Greek. I believe in 1014 the Pope exceeded his authority in allowing this change, which his predecessors on a number of occasions had refused to do. I know this places me in an odd situation as an Anglican, however the Lambeth Council has called on three occasions for it to be dropped. Please not I am not rejecting a theology of double procession, however I do feel it needs better expression, and that it does not belong in the Nicene Creed.

Mater Dei. The intent in the term to to translate the Greek theotokos. The difficulty is that this often gets lost in translation. The term theotokos perhaps translates not especially elegantly as God Bearer, which seems to have the right balance in terms of the specific nature of the role of Mary in the mystery of our redemption. The term Mother of God holds for me and for many a notion of source or origin or alpha point, not of which is true as we see that connected to the Holy Trinity and quite probably most closely allied to the monarchical integrity of the Father. Let me hasten to add I in no way support the term Christokos which is a thoroughly Nestorian term and to be avoided. The Angelus forms part of my routine, so I clearly use the term 'Mother of God' however I am very clear in my understanding of its meaning.

I hope that sets some of what I was thinking more clearly.

 

Unfortunately it’s not that simple for Rome. The problem is this: what is true is itself determined by the magisterium. You have no way of saying that a truth you discover (through study, or history) stands before what the church decides (the magisterium). No, for you, the magisterium always has to stand before what you have discovered on your own. Thus, for you the magisterium is what determines what is true.

The Church of Rome has no way of establishing Truth apart from the Magisterium.

 

Getting back to the question posed by the OP (differences between Anglican and RC theology, here is another difference. Let's ponder the Anglican view of sin and its effect. In Essential Truths for Christians, author John H. Rodgers states that all sins are deadly and mortal in the eyes of God. He cites James 2:10, For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. Stealing a stapler at work will condemn the nonbeliever as quickly as murder, rape or adultery. In Anglican thought, the fallen human nature causes the Christian to be drawn toward sin like filings to a magnet. Augustine said that grace 'tips the scales' and makes the believer able "to recognize the full weight of the case for choosing" (Christian Theology, an Introduction, by Alister E. McGrath) the proper path. But even so, man tends to live in a state of making frequent wrong choices and committing frequent sins, and we aren't always even fully conscious of all the sins we're doing. These sins do not interrupt grace (they do not cause God to withdraw His grace or the Holy Spirit to withdraw His presence from us) and the believer will not lose eternal life were he to die with unconfessed sin on his conscience. Augustine said that "humanity is justified as an act of grace. Even human good works are the result of God working within fallen human nature" (Ibid). As Karl Barth put it, the inevitable consequences of sin which are "rejection and condemnation and death" were borne by Jesus Christ at the cross.

The Roman Catholic doctrinal stance holds that some sins (mortal) are more serious than others (venial). If a person commits a mortal (serious) sin, the Holy Spirit and saving grace depart from him; should he die before he confesses this sin to the priest, receives absolution, and performs the required acts of penance, he will go straight to hell.

While reading McGrath's Christian Theology today, I was reading the comparison McGrath draws between Augustinianism and Pelagianism. One of the comparative differences struck me as pertinent to this issue of sin and grace. Augustine held that we are justified and made righteous by God's grace and not by our merits. Pelagius, on the other hand, argued that man is justified on the basis of his merits: "Human good works are the result of the exercise of the totally autonomous human free will, in fulfillment of an obligation laid down by God. A failure to meet this obligation opens the individual to the threat of eternal punishment." (Ibid, P. 432).

So when Roman Catholic theology states that an unconfessed mortal sin is spiritually fatal, to me this sounds rather similar to Pelagius' view. In other words, (taking for example a man who has just skipped Mass,) the man in this situation does not merit eternal life because he has not yet confessed, done penance, and received absolution; he has failed to 'fulfill the obligation laid down by God' to keep the Commandment to keep holy the Lord's Day. I could be reading too much into it; I'm not sure. Be that as it may, this area of doctrine is one more significant difference between the two groups.

 

As you are such a good ,clear Anglican writer,Rexlion, how would you justify Alistair McGrath, or John H.Rogers as being Anglican authorities ? You quote Karl Barth who was certainly not an Anglican ? I'm just interested in what you believe are sources of Anglican Moral Theology. Henry McAdoo, the late Archbishop of Dublin wrote a lot about Classical Anglican Moral Theology; but I wonder how many would take him as a "real" source for belief and practice ? I don't know, but I am interested.

Common sense as well as a sense of sin will tell us that some sins are more serious than others; it is clear that if I tell you a lie about what I have eaten for breakfast it is relatively unimportant ( still a sin ,of course) compared to telling a lie about you to your employer which results in you losing your job. Moral theology classes sins according to "grades"; a mortal sin needs: Full Knowledge, Grave Matter (it must be something very serious) and Freedom of the will (a clear choice). If I "skip Mass" as you put it, it must be a clear decision; i.e. I must be able to go to Mass freely (not sick, the car will work, a church reasonably near) ; these are the categories that Moral Theologians will discuss and write about.

If I realise that I have clearly committed a Mortal Sin, I should make an act of contrition (a prayer of Love-Sorrow) and then go to Sacramental Confession. If I am killed by a 'bus on the way or have a massive heart attack and die, my sorrow is sufficient to put me into God's Grace. Catholic theology avoids extremes and it is always the interplay of our freedom, our will and God's Grace that leads us.

" the man in this situation does not merit eternal life because he has not yet confessed, done penance, and received absolution; he has failed to 'fulfill the obligation laid down by God' to keep the Commandment to keep holy the Lord's Day."

Your words, above, make it sound that the man is condemned because he has not gone to confession, rather, it is because he has deliberately and freely rejected God's love and commandment, putting something else (comfort/an extra hour in bed) in place of God. Most of the commandments, or infringements of the commandments, are idolatry [placing something or someone in place of God] or stealing [taking something by violence of some kind].
But, I am not a catholic moral theologian and all I offer is the "basic" catechism teachings !!!!!

 

While McGrath’s description of St Augustine is correct, nowhere does he dismiss confession and absolution in the way you do.

The issue we are having here boils down to the fundamental issue of free will. In the scheme Rexlion outlined, there is no room for man’s choices in his own salvation. That is not the doctrine of St Augustine, and therefore it is not the Anglican doctrine.

In the Anglican doctrine of free will, we avoid the error of Pelagius by saying that man cannot save himself by himself. But we do absolutely affirm that our choices play a role in our salvation. Without God’s grace our choices are indeed fallen, so we rely on God to provide prevenient grace, but then we need to make choices that follow God.

We must confess our sins (else why would our Lord institute it! God doesn’t waste our time with empty words).

We must take his Body and Blood, or we won’t be saved: “He who does not eat my Body has no life in him.”

In short, we must “work out our salvation with fear and trembling.”

A pure Calvinistic theology makes rubbish of many sacred lines of the New Testament which were so cherished by our Divines. Just as Roman theology is wrong, so is Calvin. Anglicanism is the answer.

S. Augustine was a big believer in penance, confession and absolution, all the constituent parts and actions of a holy life. His doctrine of Grace did not contradict his doctrine of Holy Choices. Nor should it for us.

 

I admit, I am new to Anglicanism. But I am not new to Christianity. Nor am I 'new' to RC teachings, having been to virtually all the Catechism classes offered from K-12 years; however after 25+ years I may have forgotten one or two of the finer points.

In my example, I mean to propose that the man has purposely skipped Mass and has not yet made an act of contrition. He dies before doing so.

In RC theology, he goes to hell. Is this not correct?

In Anglican theology, first off my understanding is that choosing to miss the service is not an unforgivable sin or a sin unto death or anything of the sort. Second, my understanding is that if the man were to die before fully repenting of every sin he's committed since the last time he's repented, this does not cause him to be removed from God's grace or God's family or to lose the promise of eternal life. If this is actually not true (if I have misunderstood Anglican theology), then perhaps I am in the wrong church. Because virtually NO ONE ever dies lily-white sinless. Oh, you happened to have a lustful thought cross your mind an instant before getting hit by a bus. You just committed adultery in your heart... off you go to hell!!!! We are such fallen people, who could ever be saved under such a theology?

 

By the way, I assume that Rodgers and McGrath are reasonably accurate 'Anglican authorities' because my Anglican pastor provided both of those books for me to read in my study of Anglican theology! I find it interesting that the one suggesting they are don't know what they are writing about is a RC.

 

This sounds very Roman. What about the Christian who interprets those words allegorically? (The RC theologians interpret so many things in the Bible allegorically, you know.) There is reason to believe that Jesus was not referring in any way to Eucharist when He spoke those words recorded in John 6.

 

Thank you. Yes RCC church teaches that an unrepented Mortal Sin, deliberate,full knowledge,full consent, will lead to hell, but,of course, we do not know what happens at the moment of death or dying. Lives of mischief of the venial kind will be cleansed in Purgatory.

"Between the stirrup and the ground,mercy he sought and mercy he found". I'm glad that our Lord and Father God is the perfect judge and not some RCs I know.

Beware ! Anglican Pastors can offer all sorts of books; my question is how do you know what is correct,authoritative Anglican theological teaching ?
It's just a polite question . There are many contributors to this excellent Forum, all Anglicans, who will disagree on many things; indeed when asked about what is Anglican Theology have said that they are not too sure. I can't remember which thread. C.B.Moss The Christian Faith is very different to Abp.Lord (Rowan) Williams's TOKENS OF TRUST , and both are Anglican writers in good standing.I am not criticising any of the writers mentioned above but I am keen to know what can be considered authoritative sources ; but I won't know for a while as I am away from the internet for a while ! Thanks for fascinating responses.

 

I don't know; what's Roman about it? This interpretation goes all the way back, it wasn't invented in the middle ages. I guess I need to see what's wrong with the face value interpretation of the verse.

Here is what the 1662 Prayerbook has us say, after the reception of the Body and Blood:

ALMIGHTY and everliving God, we most heartily thank thee, for that thou dost vouchsafe to feed us, who have duly received these holy mysteries, with the spiritual food of the most precious Body and Blood of thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ; and dost assure us thereby of thy favour and goodness towards us

In other words, not just the invisible Body, but even the visible reception, is something that speaks of our salvation.