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

I cannot find a gif of it right now, but, in a Spongebob episode, there's a purple doctor fish that holds a giant syringe of anesthetic and states "Yes, everyone needs to relax."

 

I don’t know how you can say it’s Christ but say you don’t worship it…

Im sorry, but the Anglican Church is not United in doctrine. I have seen posts from other people here that verge on memorialism.
Everyone is also pretty much prickling like a cactus when the worship of the Eucharist comes up.
I have never seen orthodox have a doctrinal issue with this, and going as far as calling it idolatry.
It’s because they don’t have an issue with it. They worship the Eucharist. It’s pretty obvious with the liturgy of the presanctified gifts.
If you claim you believe it’s Christ, but don’t worship it, we have a very very big difference In our understanding of the Eucharist.
And like I already said, there are many strands of Anglicanism. You seem Anglo catholic leaning. But the anglican evangelical in the pew next to you will interpret the ambiguous 39 (or is it 29 I forget lol) articles as being more memorialist, and no matter what liturgy prayers they’ll shove memorialism in too. Simply because it’s allowed.
So while we may have some things in common, my church would never allow this varied belief, or deny that the sacrament is to be worshipped.
Neither would the orthodox churches.

 

You’re not Anglican either. What makes you think that everyone other than you is a doctrinal Anglican? I’ve seen people of all stripes here. Sometimes it will be Anglicans and Orthodox who join together to argue down a baptist; sometimes it could be an Anglican and someone else together arguing down a roman catholic (as in your case).

It absolutely does not prove that, because the council you cite happened before Gratian’s canon law was first gathered.

Now Gratian did finally gather the first code of canon law, in the Middle Ages. Except … there was no canon for “depositing a Pope who became a heretic”.

And even if there was, it wouldn’t help you because Gratian’s decretals and the mess of canon law around them were scrapped in 1912 by Pius X, and the entire body of canon law for the first time was put together into a single system. In other words everything written and issued before then became obsolete. In that resulting code of canon law there was no canon for “depositing a Pope who became a heretic”.

And even if there was, it wouldn’t help you because In 1987 the canon law of Pius X was scrapped, and a whole new body of canon law was written up from scratch by John Paul II. In other words everything written and issued before then became obsolete. In that resulting new code of canon law… you guessed it… there is no canon for “depositing a Pope who became a heretic”. Thus there is ZERO canonical provision for what you are saying, in ANY of the codes of canon law thst were ever promulgated.

But what there is in canon law is the heresy of conciliarism, one which you are consistently committing (and will have to confess to your priest):

https://akacatholic.com/heresy-of-conciliarlism-kramer/

It is claimed by some that a true and certain pope can be judged for heresy, but cases of heresy, since they are concerned with matters of faith can only be settled with finality by an infallible papal judgment. Only the pope, because he succeeds Peter not merely as an apostle in the manner that other bishops are successors of the Apostles, but because he succeeds Peter as Cephas in his function as the infallible Rockfoundation of the Church, and as head of the Church over all the bishops, possesses the singular power to judge infallibly, which even all the bishops together without the pope do not possess; for which reason judgments in matters of faith are ultimately reserved to him alone, and his definitive judgment is final.

An imperfect council is incapable of judging on a matter of faith infallibly, and therefore cannot definitively judge with finality whether a pope’s opinion is heresy, and from there determine that the pope is indeed a contumacious heretic. The definitive and final settling of cases involving matters of faith and morals are reserved to the pope’s infallible judgment; and before such final judgment is made, the case remains without a definitive judgment.

If an “imperfect council” presumes to judge a true and validly reigning pope guilty of heresy, the pope as supreme judge possesses the right and the power to overrule the council and judge the matter with infallibility and finality. No council can arrogate the power to itself to nullify or suppress the pope’s right of primacy to judge the case as the supreme, final, and infallible judge, and then presume to arrogate to itself the supreme power to judge the pope’s opinion heretical with finality, and command the pope with coercive juridical force to submit to the judgment of the Council

 

It is the Anglican position that the Eucharist elements after consecration become the body and blood of Jesus (He is really present in the Eucharist), but at the same time the bread and wine do not cease to be bread and wine. Let's see what some of the early fathers wrote.

Irenaus: “And therefore the oblation of the Eucharist is not a carnal one, but a spiritual; and in this respect it is pure. For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have perfected the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these may obtain remission of sins and life eternal. Those persons, then, who perform these oblations in remembrance of the Lord, do not fall in with Jewish views, but, performing the service after a spiritual manner, they shall be called sons of wisdom. ”

Irenaeus also wrote: "For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.” For the Eucharist to consist of the earthly reality, the bread and wine must remain bread and wine; otherwise there would only be the heavenly reality in the Eucharist.

Hippolytus of Rome: “Then the deacons shall immediately bring the oblation. The bishop shall bless the bread, which is the symbol of the Body of Christ; and the bowl of mixed wine, which is the symbol of the Blood which has been shed for all who believe in him.”

Clement of Alexandria: "The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes–the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food- that is, the Lord Jesus–that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified…”
More from Clement: “Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: ‘Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood;’ describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise...”
And again: “Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk.”

Athanasius: "For here also He has used both terms of Himself, flesh and spirit; and He distinguished the spirit from what is of the flesh in order that they might believe not only in what was visible in Him, but in what was invisible, and so understand that what He says is not fleshly, but spiritual. For how many would the body suffice as food, for it to become meat even for the whole world? But this is why He mentioned the ascending of the Son of Man into heaven; namely, to draw them off from their corporeal idea, and that from thenceforth they might understand that the aforesaid flesh was heavenly from above, and spiritual meat, to be given at His hands. For ‘what I have said unto you,’ says He, ‘is spirit and life;’ as much as to say, ‘what is manifested, and to be given for the salvation of the world, is the flesh which I wear. But this, and the blood from it, shall be given to you spiritually at My hands as meat, so as to be imparted spiritually in each one, and to become for all a preservative to resurrection of life eternal."

On the subject of the Eucharist, Athanasius said, “Unto how many men could Christ’s body have sufficed, that he should be the food of all the world ? Therefore he made mention of his ascension into heaven, that he might withdraw them from corporal and fleshly understanding.”

Ambrose: “In eating and drinking” (the Eucharist) “we signify the body and blood of Christ that was offered for us.”
“Seek the things that be above, and not the things that be upon earth. Therefore we must seek thee neither upon the earth, nor in the earth, nor according to the flesh, if we list to find thee.”

Gelasius of Rome: “By the Sacraments we are made partakers of the divine nature, and yet the substance and nature of bread and wine do not cease to be in them.”

John Chrysostom wrote: “He showed us in a Sacrament bread and wine, after the order of Melchisedech, to be the likeness of the body and blood of Christ.”
“The very body of Christ it self is not in the holy vessels, but the mystery or Sacrament thereof is there contained.”
“The nature of bread remaineth in the Sacrament.”

Origen: “There is also in the new Testament a letter which killeth him that doth not spiritually understand those things which are spoken. For if he follow this after the letter, where it is said, Except ye eat my flesh, and drink my blood ; this letter killeth.”
“The meat which is sanctified by the word of God & by prayer, as touching the material substance thereof, goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the privy.”

Augustine: “Our Lord doubted not to say, This is my Body, when he gave a token of his body.”
“Christ took Judas unto his table, whereat he gave unto his Disciples the figure of his body.”
“Unless Sacraments had a certain likeness of the things of which they be sacraments, then indeed they were no Sacraments. And of this likeness oftentimes they bear the names of the things themselves that are represented by the sacraments.”
“In sacraments we must consider, not what they be,” ( in substance and nature, ) “but what they signify.”
“It is a dangerous matter, and a servitude of the soul, to take the sign instead of the thing that is signified.”
“If it be a speech that commandeth, either by forbidding an horrible wickedness, or requiring that which is profitable, it is not figurative: but if it seem to require horrible wickedness, and to forbid that is good and profitable, it is spoken figuratively. Except ye eat (saith Christ) the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. He seemeth to require the doing of that which is horrible, or most wicked: it is a figure, therefore, commanding us to communicate with the passion of Christ, and comfortably and profitably to lay up in our remembrance, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us.”
“It is a more horrible thing to eat man’s flesh, than to kill it: and to drink man’s blood, than it is to shed it.”
“According to the flesh that the word received : according to that he was born of the Virgin : according to that he was taken of the Jews : according to that he was nailed to the Cross : according to that he was taken down, and lapt in a shroud, and laid in the grave, and rose again, and showed himself. In this respect it is true that he said : Ye shall not evermore have me with you.”
“Until the world be ended, the Lord is above: yet notwithstanding even here is the truth of the Lord. For the body wherein he rose again must needs be in one place.”
“Believe in Christ, and thou hast eaten Christ. For, believing in Christ, is the eating of the bread of life.”
“Whoso eateth of this bread shall not die,” saith thus : Quod pertinet ad virtutem sacramenti, non quod pertinet ad visibile sacramentum. Qui manducat intus, non foris : qui manducat in corde, non qui premit dente : “That pertaineth to the virtue and effect of the Sacrament, not that pertaineth to the visible sacrament. He that eateth inwardly, and not he that eateth outwardly : that eateth with his heart, not that bruiseth (the Sacrament) with his tooth.”

Ignatius: “It is one bread which is broken for all.”

Cyprian: “Our Lord at the Table, whereas he received his last Supper with his Disciples, with his own hands gave bread and wine: but upon the Cross he gave his own body, by the hands of the soldiers, to be wounded.”
The Body of Christ, Cyprian wrote, “is meat for the mind, not for the belly.”

Bertram:“Touching the substance of the creatures (of bread and wine) they abide the same after, as they were before the consecration.”

Vigilius: “The flesh of Christ when it was in earth, was not in heaven : and now, because it is in heaven, doubtless it is not on earth.”

-------------------

John Jewel describes the Eucharist better than I can:

The Sacrament bread is bread, it is not the body of Christ. The body of Christ is flesh, it is no bread. The bread is beneath, the body is above : the bread is on the table, the body is in heaven : the bread is in the mouth, the body in the heart. The bread feedeth the outward man, the body feedeth the inward man. The bread feedeth the body, the body feedeth the soul. The bread shall come to nothing ; the body is immortal, and shall not perish. The bread is vile, the body of Christ glorious. Such a difference is there between the bread, which is a Sacrament of the body, and the body of Christ itself. The Sacrament is eaten as well of the wicked as of the faithful : the body is only eaten of the faithful. The Sacrament may be eaten unto judgment : the body cannot be eaten but unto salvation. Without the Sacrament we may be saved : but without the body of Christ we have no salvation, we cannot be saved.​

 

Do you know what it is? Part of the reason I'm considering Anglicanism is that it does consider tradition. It is liturgical.

The Byzantine church remains agnostic about the Assumption of Mary and believes in her dormition.
I myself remain agnostic as to whether the Saints can actually hear prayers, and believe that the invocations thereof should not be called prayers if they can, because it's too easy to conflate with latreia. (This is technically not Anglican, but Anglo-catholic).

You'll have noticed that they're not in communion with Rome, and Rome considers them outside of the Church(tm). They don't actually like Rome either. They protested Roman failures too.

I don't think that it did cleanse the church. That's why I'm upset that Rome didn't do its job. Again. I never said that the Reformation was perfect, and the Reformers didn't just throw out every piece of tradition.

I'm beginning to think that it is you who have an axe to grind, perhaps with Augsburg.

At least they didn't proclaim Archbishop Cranmer to be infallible.

Very many of the Roman doctrines are novel and aberrations. Why don't you go on the Orthodox forum and ask them if they think that Rome introduced novel concepts. I'll bet you they do.

Hate to bust your bubble, but it certainly doesn't line up with the Roman Church either.

I don't believe in the Great Apostasy. I believe that they introduced practices that ought not to have been introduced. They're still Christians.

Don't put all your eggs in the basket of the similarities between the so-called 'Apostolic Churches'.

In a sense, all sin is idolatry. The devil takes a truth and perverts it. There's a place for images, just like there's a place for sex. I'm pretty charitable in my opinion of the Eastern Churches. I myself will have trouble making the distinction between douleia and latreia, and thus do not practice such piety. No such thing should be a mandatory practice of the universal church.

You're conflating every single issue here. I'm not saying that everything in the Reformation is gold. Have seen what people say here about Presbyterianism and Calvinism? The Roman Church did err. You want to bet? Do you know what this is?
https://divinacommedia.weebly.com/inferno-canto-xix.html
This, o defender of the Papacy, is Dante's inferno. In it are simoniac popes, who literally sold church offices to the highest bidder. Protestants did not make this up. Churchmen selling offices literally happened. When it is memorialized in the greatest work of post-classical Western literature, you know you have a problem.

The Anglican Tradition relies on the traditions of the earliest church fathers. It relies on the same scripture and it relies on the same, great Almighty God. We worship the One Risen Lord, Jesus Christ. They do so to the best of their abilities, in light of the failure of Rome in the West. You'll recall that when they had departed from Roman governance, the latter was still condemning and anathematizing all of your so-called 'Apostolic Churches' as heretics, and yet you blame them for doing so later.

Sochira koso - the same to you.

Neither are you. Or the Byzantines for that matter. Have you heard of the Thomists and Molinists? Have you heard of the movements like SSPX? About the conflicts between monks while trying to convert Japan, between the Dominicans, Franciscans and Jesuits? Have you seen how actual Roman practice differs from actual Roman doctrine? There is no doctrinal unity in the Roman Church, and that goes for the self-styled 'Orthodox' as well. Their doctrinal unity is an absolute myth. Rome's efflorescence of doctrines is so excessive that it cannot possibly enforce them all.

 

NGL, some of those quotes make the 39 articles look positively tame and cute.

 

Again, they'd be hard pressed to enforce it. Cultural Catholicism is real. Cutlural Orthodoxy is real. Protestantism might have collapsed in the developed West because of its schisms, but you'd better read things like Amoris Laetitia. It's coming for you, too. The Church in Rome is always ensnared in contemporary issues, be it feudalism, usury, or whatever postmodernism is coming our way.

 

Nope. They believed Mary was assumed into heaven after she fell asleep

 

Botolph said: ↑
The issue is objectifying the Holy Sacrament. It is not the Holy Sacrament we worship, but the abiding presence of Christ in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar. Tanto ergo Sacramentum - Therefore we before him bending, this most holy sacrament revere. The facts are plain, Anglicans are not Memorialists, I urge you to ponder upon the Prayer of Humble Access.​

You have nailed the answer in the quote. Objectifying Christ. We don't worship any 'it' we worship him. So yes, we do revere the sacrament, and we worship Christ who is really present in the sacrament.

My orthodox friends bristle with talk of transubstantiation as the believe it robs the eucharist of its ineffability. I am not a big fan of labels, and I don't describe myself as Anglo-Catholic which I would see as a specific movement in the wake of the Oxford Movement. I did catch one of my friends telling someone I was Anglidox recently which I didn't really mind, as it is a label without a box or preconceptions.

In the end it does not really matter what I think, or the Anglican Evangelical in the next pew thinks, what ultimately matters is that we are reconciled to God by the redeeming sacrifice of Christ made once for all upon the cross. This Eucharist we celebrate, as he asked us to, as his anamnesis. Now some want me to believe that that is as a remembering what happened, but I don't, because I have enough Greek, and I have enough understanding to know that anamnesis describes the making of history alive in the present moment. Here we share in the twelves basketfuls left over.

In the mind of most Anglicans the Prayer of Humble Access will be more familiar than any of the articles.

WE do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord,

trusting in our own righteousness,
but in thy manifold and great mercies. ​

We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table.
But thou art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy:
Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ,

and to drink his blood, ​

that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body,

and our souls washed through his most precious blood, ​

and that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen.​

 

Do you see what you're saying? You're saying that you worship it, the physical Eucharist element. And that's the problem. RCs see the host and they worship the host as Almighty God, even though the host was mixed from flour and baked by human hands. Worshiping that thing is idolatry, it's sickening.

You treat the wafer as Jesus Christ in all His glory and divinity.... and yet, if your wafer god should fall, it cannot stop itself from falling or pick itself up. RCs worship a very small god IMO when they worship the wafer.

 

OCA seems to call the Catholic tradition 'misguided.'
https://www.oca.org/reflections/fr.-john-breck/dormition-or-assumption

 

Immorality doesn’t = false doctrine.
Protestantism has not found a single apostolic church which shares its doctrines.
Protestantism is divided within itself.
I honestly suggest you join orthodoxy. They have preserved the true doctrine of the faith about most things.


Again, you should read the books I recommended. I really think you will find them interesting. It doesn’t take that long to read the first one about the Eucharistic liturgies. It starts with the 2nd century I’m pretty sure

 

Did you read they admitted they believe in the assumption?
That website is written by ex Protestants who try and make it seem like the Orthodox Church believes in completely different things from the catholic.
I suggest you go over to an Orthodox Church, or at least a forum, and ask them what they believe about the assumption.

 

Quote mine with your own memorialist interpretation.
(No offense)
For every quote you gave I can give one of them saying they worship the Eucharist or it’s a sacrifice offered to God.
This means we have different interpretations of quotes and will never agree.

Only thing I have to say is:
Read the books

 

I

I did catch that I said that but didn’t feel like changing jt my bad.
I’m just beyond frustrated tbh…
It’s all the quote mines and obfuscation of “orthodox don’t believe XYZ!”
When they literally do that’s getting to me


Anyways, God bless you.

 

Do you remember that thing where I told you that your 'apostolic' churches have no unity? They don't. There's a paper unity - it doesn't exist. Rome doesn't have a single 'apostolic' church which shares its doctrines either. Do the Copts accept Dyophisitism? No. That's basic Christology. Do the Orthodox accept Papal supremacy? No. They do not. Do the Orthodox like St. Augustine, Rome's favorite doctor? No. Half of them wanted him de-canonized. Do any of the other Apostolic churches have the Filioque? No. They don't. That's triadology. Nobody shares Rome's doctrines. Otherwise, they'd be part of the Roman Church.

Indeed. Better than has the Roman one. I like how it's OK for them to leave Rome's umbrella, but when the Church of England does it, it's dreadful apostasy.

Did you read that they believe she died? I'm not supposed to believe the OCA's own website because it was written by a former protestant? The OCA's own website is a biased source?

 

We also believe she died.
Latin trads may say otherwise but that’s another story. The popes have consistently taught Mary died before she was assumed into heaven

 

Ok let’s talk more about Theodoret. You are still stuck on this word “worship” found in some recent English translations. But here is an 1827 translation of the same passage, and the word “venerate” is used:
https://books.google.com/books?id=1gqVyZz-7NgC&pg=PA185#v=onepage&q&f=true

In this 1864 edition (by a Roman Catholic) the word is translated as “adore”:
https://books.google.com/books?id=E9QsAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA50#v=onepage&q&f=true

Here is the original Latin, where the word is “adorantur”:
https://books.google.com/books?id=schhAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:"Theodoret"&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwidj62z-qX0AhWOknIEHaVkAqYQ6AF6BAgEEAM

However the word you want is not adorare, but latria:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09036a.htm

If Christ were physically present here right now, we would offer him latria. But the text says adorantur, reverence, not worship in the technical sense (as in your Catholic Encyclopedia).

We Anglicans offer adoration and reverence (but not worship). We kneel at receiving the eucharist. It would be inconceivable for an Anglican to trample on a sacrament. It would be impossible to laughingly pour out the sacrament of the blood. As Bishop Ridley says, they sacramentally become Body and Blood to us (although not physically). So we freely espouse utter reverence, we adore the sacraments and other symbols of the Church, but we offer latria only to God. In the eucharist, We receive God spiritually, so it just isn’t possible to offer him Latria. But what we can do is offer reverence and adoration to the eucharist (and to baptism as St Augustine says), and to the baptismal font, and to confirmation, and to the church building, and to the clergy. Etc etc.

This text shows you how St Augustine used “adorantur” to refer to the sacrament of baptism, and St Jerome used adorantur for actions towards kings. Thomas Aquinas is also shown here using it in a secular sense:
https://books.google.com/books?id=DencpOkRF1sC&pg=PA106#v=onepage&q&f=true
(3/4s down the page)

 

Well. There's that doctrinal unity issue again.

 

Well if you look at it this way then christ failed to give us proper doctrine.
The Both the Copts and Assyrians are national churches.
The Eastern Orthodox, I believe, once accepted papal primacy and need to be in communion with Rome very clearly.
That’s neither here nor there though.
You’d be way better off picking an Orthodox Church than a Protestant.
The differences between apostolic churches are wayyyy less than between anglicans themselves.
I think you ought to maybe read orthodox works on what they actually believe. Basic intro to orthodoxy.
I also suggest “his body broken,”
It’s an orthodox perspective on the papacy, and very insightful.

the point is that the orthodox ( only other non national church aside from Catholics)
are in ecumenical talks with Rome and the only difference is the issue of how much power the pope has.
If you really don’t like the pope you can just pick orthodoxy.
I do deeply disagree with the reformation, as it has splintered off into a million sects.
Apostolic Christianity only has 4 churches. That’s a really really small number.
Take orientals and Assyrians off for just being national churches and you’re left with East or west. Either choice is miles better than splintered Protestantism.
No offense to anyone here, genuinely