I'm not prejudiced against R.C.s BUT...

Well Ok I am prejudiced but not in way that is extreme, moderate, or likely to lead to any kind of action. I think when I was a kid I lived in the last vestages of anti Popery. I didn't know what all the neighbourhoods fathers did for a job for example, but I knew who all the R.C. families were. There was a vague unease about them and the feeling they weren't quite "us". Children still use to take their Guys around on trollys in the morning ,singing songs about him and collecting donations. Of course the Guy got thrown on a bonfire that night when the fireworks got let off. It is of course all anti R.C. but someone has to keep up these traditions. Six days before Guy Faulkes night I tell trick and treaters they will get $10 if they come around with a Guy later on.

I resent the way R.C.s in their local and Gov't electionering pamphlets put down educated at St. whatevers school saying in effect they are R.C.s. No one else does this sort of thing, the school they went to being considered irrelevant.

I resent the R.C.s teaching whatever it is to lead an R.C. at work to proclaim that the Pope was God's representative on earth.

I resent the R.C.s prohibitation on contraception, which I see as just an attempt to increase the number of R.C.s. They are allowed natural contraception, probably because even the church couldn't find an arguement against it. Unfortunately for the Pope they have got very good at natural contraception ( or more likely used other methods) and they are now told to have "a morally acceptable" number of children.

I resent R.C.s saying that Anglican orders are invalid What gives them the God given right to say this? I suspect they think God gave them this right.

I resent that they think their church is above all other churches and that there is no salvation outside their church or if there is it is only because their church doles out salvation powers to other churches to use unbeknown to them.

My biggest gripe against R.C.s is they hold their meetings on Friday nights when we go to get our takeaways and all the parks are taken. Every time we go up I sing a little song about " Bloody bloody bloody bloody bloody Roman Catholics, they should never have got rid of those laws against them" and my wife then tells me to shut up and says " at least they are going to church"

 

I'm sorry that you have met obnoxious or even disrespectful Catholics (God forbid), but the reason why Catholics say that Anglican sacraments are invalid is simply because our churches have different beliefs on the Eucharist, you must understand.

I don't know the Anglican beliefs, but Catholics believe in transubstantiation and Lutherans believe in consubstantiation.

 

I do not resent Roman Catholics for their beliefs. Similarly, I do not resent Jehovah's Witnesses. I wish many Anglicans were as firm about their faith. I, personally, see no point in belonging to a church and not believing it is not correct in its teachings. Why would you belong to a church that was not?

I may not agree with what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. That is why I am not a Roman Catholic. I have no problem with them saying we Anglicans are wrong. I know we are right. It seems to me there would be no point in being a Roman Catholic if you are going to say we have it all wrong and those Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, [insert church of your choice] are right. If you are a Roman Catholic and think that Anglicans have it right then why would you still be a Catholic?

 

I don't resent RC people. RC parishioners are just folks making their way through life the way they've been taught.

It's the RCC hierarchy, the organization, and the errors it has embraced, that I find fault with. The RCC isn't teaching pure truth, and that causes many parishioners to be misled. The worst way they're misled is, they are encouraged to hold great trust in the RCC, its clergy, its sacraments, and its pronouncements for their salvation, as opposed to placing all their trust in the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

I can only assume this was intended as satire.

 

Anglican believe in the Real Presence. In the Thirty Nine Articles you will find these statements.

XXVIII. Of the Lord's Supper.
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

​

XXIX. Of the Wicked, which eat not the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord's Supper.
The Wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as Saint Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ; yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ: but rather, to their condemnation, do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing.

XXX. Of both Kinds.
The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people: for both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament, by Christ's ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike.​

XXXI. Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross.
The Offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.​

I hope that helps

 

Yes, this explains it nicely.

All I know, as for Catholics, is that individuals say their own prayers after receiving, and this might include prayers for the Holy Souls in purgatory.

I really don't know how to explain this without boasting, being rude or condescending.

The souls in purgatory are not forgotten, that is accepted as fact by me and other Catholics.

 

What is your view of purgatory? What do you think it's like and what do you think its purpose is?

Anglicans do not believe in purgatory, and I'll explain why, but first I'd like to hear your understanding of it.

 

I would rather not want to debate this, but because we are mature here, I will continue.

In my own words, without looking in my catechism book, I think purgatory is a place of suffering maybe with fire, in order to cleanse souls with venial sins on their way to Heaven.

If I break a vase, I may be forgiven verbally, but the fact is that the temporal punishment remains, I will still have to pay the price after death.

In Ecclesiasticus 3:30, I was reading in my Bible today, it says "As water quenches a blazing fire, so almsgiving atones for sin."

So I kind of think that purgatory can be avoided with specific works with the intention of obtaining an indulgence without pride or attachment to sin, for oneself or a dead friend or loved one or even stranger.

Maccabees says "It is a wise and holy thought to pray for the dead". So I do believe that partial suffering of holy souls in purgatory can be lessened with my prayers.

There is a lot of wisdom in Ecclesiasticus, especially verses about taking care of parents.

Again, this is mature conversation, not meant to be taken or understood "casually".

 

Good description, @Ernesto Jardim

That is how I've heard it described as well (though I am not RC).

Here's a link to the entry on Purgatory in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2N.HTM

 

Having kindly cited the relevant Articles, would you be happy to say what you understand by Real Presence?

Fot the avoidance of doubt I am not attempting to start an argument about what the 'Real Presence' is; does transubstantiation happen; do we receive the Body and Blood of Christ spiritually or physically, too; etc. I am attempting only to garner opinions. To prove I have no interest in an argument and seek opinions only I am not going to give my beliefs on the matter.

 

Thankyou @PDL I do understand the question, and I did not answer that outright as I am aware that there is a bot of a zone in which Anglican Eucharistic theology falls, as against the precision implied in the RCC Doctrine of Transubstantiation.

The first thing I understand by Real Presence, is that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is Real. Now having said that I should also explain that I don;t believe physical is the only way to be real, and indeed at times the physical can be a poor representation of the real.

The Hebrew people celebrated Passover, and as the did they ate, standing up, with their heads covered, ready for the journey, with unleavened bread, bitter herms and lamb, and at the end of the meal, the youngest would ask the oldest, why is it we have eaten in great haste standing, with our heads covered ... and the elder would reply, and give an account of the liberation of the people from Egypt, and the crossing of the Red Sea and the journey into Palestine. At the end of this account he would conclude 'tonight we have come out of Egypt'. The word used to describe this was anamnesis which is sometimes translated as remembrance, but the force of it is not so much as going back in time, but rather of calling history into the present.

In the institution accounts in the gospels we find Jesus says 'Do this as my anamnesis'. For me, we do a disservice when we translate this as 'do this in remembrance of me'. The next words of Jesus seem to underline what I am saying, when Jesus says 'and lo, I am with you to the end of the age'.

So what I mean by Real Presence is that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is REAL. My difficulty with The RCC Doctrine of Transubstantiation is that by focussing on the physicality of the elements, it does not express so much of the depth. I have read a few more modern RCC theologians and in some I find an effort to re-imagine the RCC doctrine, in a way that moves much closer to the Anglican Position that I understand. I was going to not answer you, possibly for the same reason you have not answered, because I don't wat to debate the matter especially, however I am prepared to lay out my position and to give and account of the hope that is within me.

 

Would you say I’m correct in understanding that you feel Christ is physically present in the Eucharist but His presence is more than just His physical presence? Would you say what we consume at Communion is not the same thing brought up to the altar at the offertory? I’m not attempting to lure you into the trap of transubstantiation as RRCs believe it: bread, wine and water have become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. I would like to understand if you believe some change is effected. If a change is effected would you consider the Eucharist containing the Real Presence worthy of some kind of reverence. I’m not getting into ideas of exposition or benediction. However, do you think if the Eucharist is the Real Presence that a genuflection or bow made to it on the altar during Holy Communion/Lord’s Supper/Mass is appropriate?

 

I quite agree with you. I should make it clear it's not individual RCs I have an issue with but their organisation. So Ernesto's comment

is not applicable

No I believe all I said. Umm maybe the bit about parking spaces might not be taken too seriously.

It won't escape peoples notice that this is from a Deuterocanonical book.

Quite right to, one of my ancestors bought a plenary indulgence for himself and all his descendants in 1508. So I'm alright Jack. Ps. the salesman wasn't Tetzel.

I know you're not endorsing this site, but I note it quotes fallible councils, apocryphal books and the Kosher verses don't seem convincing to me.

 

You're right, AA. I do not endorse the CCC. I would point out though that a some Anglo-Catholics, perhaps controversially, believe in a form of purgatory, though not necessarily one advocated by Rome.

In Tract 90 of Tracts for the Times we read this response from the Oxford Movement to Article 22's criticism of "romish doctrines"

P.S. Aren't all councils fallible?

 

Thanks for that. The Anglican stance is summed up in Article 22 of the "Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion":

Article 22 - Purgatory
The Roman [Catholic] doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, worshipping and adoration as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saint, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture; but rather repugnant to the word of God.​

In conjunction with this, Article 6 says, "Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation." Since the "deuterocanonical" books are not considered a part of our Canons of Scripture, they are not viewed in the same light as the books of the OT and NT. The primary supports for the doctrine of purgatory are found in those deuterocanonical books, and there really is nothing in the OT or the NT that truly supports the doctrine.

There is an implication (although not stated directly) in 2 Cor. 5:8-9 that when a Christian becomes 'absent from the body' at death, he will be 'present with the Lord.'

I think these are the main points to be observed about Anglican beliefs on the subject of purgatory.

 

If RCs are a minority and are hoping for RC representatives in government, the candidates listing their RC alma mater seems like the only way to indicate that they're RC. But I do see how non-RCs could easily see it as off-putting.

I'm sorry to hear you've experienced that. I don't know the workplace laws in New Zealand. Where I live, making religious proclamations in the workplace is unacceptable. I'm sure there are some workplaces where people "bring their whole selves to work" and it's understood among those in that workplace to just be how it is there. It's hardly a best practice, though. Most people are just trying to make a living and don't need the workplace hostility.

The RCC teaches that marriage is naturally ordered toward procreation, and that any occasion of sexual activity must be open to procreation. At the personal level, most RCs are probably more concerned about having the kind of intimacy that's best for their marriage, but not having more children than they can handle. Thankfully, the RCC now leaves it to the couple's discretion.

I don't agree with that either. The Anglican Church has apostolic succession.

I've heard several prominent RC apologists say that believe that other Christian have salvation too, but don't have the fullness of the Church that Jesus founded (by which they mean RCC, according to Matthew 16:18). That's probably unavoidable wherever you go, because all denominations believe they arose to correct some error in previous belief or practice. I think it's just more off-putting when it comes from the RCC.

 

You are right.

Even pagans can tell when someone who knows better is out of line.

 

Or when someone is making black-and-white claims in a field of grays. I'm not saying that's you, but that I've seen that happen. Just because someone is Roman Catholic, it doesn't mean they know better.

 

Maybe it's a New Zealand thing, but no one cares or want to know what school you went to, also people don't want to know what religion you are or even if you have a religion. I would guess a majority of our politicians have no religion (like our prime minister).

No there is nothing inappropriate about what he said. It was a private conversation at lunch time in our cafeteria. I'm just amazed at whatever he was taught to suggest the Pope was God's representative on earth.
Another RC (lite or lapsed) at our table said I tell Barry (another worker) that the RC church is the one true church, he then added I only tell him that to wind him up, Barry being a vocal born again AOG member.

I get the impression that the RCC says the couple should have a morally acceptable number of children ie. the churches view of a morally acceptable number, rather than leaving it to the couples discretion.

Well call me ultra liberal if you like but I on occasions engage in sexual activity with my wife that wouldn't lead to procreation. Would the RCC dissaprove of this? If so thank God I'm not an RC.

And as I have pointed out before Peter was married.