Thomas Aquinas passage refuting transubstantiation

I was mostly trying to say that I've seen arguments of that kind of circular nature used to support the Byzantine Church. I don't think anybody here is overly concerned about Roman approval.

c-c-c-c-c-Coptic martyrs say otherwise.

Are all the other Roman councils required, then?

The etymology of priest is the word presbyteros, elder.

Nah fam. The biggest reason that the Church of England wasn't recognized for the past four centuries is that it was yet another abrogation of the authority of the Supreme Pontiff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confraternity_of_the_Blessed_Sacrament
And the Anglo-catholics?

 

I am sure you could be more offensive if you tried. I believe Pope Francis and Archbishop Welby have issue a statement saying that our division is a scandal and a shame. As children of grace we are called to be at least a little gracious.

 

Just for posterity, or anyone else looking at this thread, here are some relevant passages from the thirty-nine articles, and not the word of an RC on the internet:

https://cofec.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/The-39-Articles-of-Religion.pdf

 

It

It seemed to me like you were saying Catholics are apathetic and anglicans care about what Catholics think…. I mean isn’t that what you said?

As for the orientals. The belief is literally almost the same at this point I think. Even the easterners recognize this.


Your logic doesn’t work because Rome recognizes the Assyrian oriental and eastern ministries and they all reject the pope.
The reason why your sacraments are rejected is precisely because the BCP changed the propitiatory sacrifice of the Eucharist for the living and the dead to mean just a sacrifice of thanksgiving given by us. Even invictus said so.
It shouldn’t matter to you who rejects your sacraments anyway.
I’m just telling you Romes reasoning. It is NOT the pope. The orthodox are viewed as having valid sacraments and Catholics can partake of them if in dire need. They don’t accept the pope.

Anglo Catholics are a strand within Anglicanism, but it doesn’t matter because the official pronouncements of the Anglican Church reject the Eucharistic sacrifice.
Frankly I think Anglo Catholics are going against their own church’s beliefs on this.

 

I really don’t see where I said anything mean. It’s just a fact that the Anglican Church denies the Eucharistic sacrifice. Anglicans should have no problem saying this if they are convinced it’s a wrong view of the atonement or the sacrament.
I also gave the reasoning why Rome rejects it.
I’m not too fond of glossing over things and pretending like we don’t have differences.
We do, and that’s why we are in a different church, wouldn’t you agree ?
It’s a scandal any Christian church is divided yet here we are…

 

This just confirms why Rome rejected Anglican sacraments.
I’m not saying this to be mean, just explaining the “why.”
You shouldn’t care Rome rejected them if you think the Eucharist sacrifice is a wrong doctrine.
I’m just telling you why, again, Rome rejected Anglican sacraments. It’s not the pope.
This would actually go against catholic theology of the sacraments, which I’m not going to get into here, but suffice to say rejecting the pope doesn’t make them invalid. The papacy is a church governance issue not a sacramental one

 

In the latter post, I was talking about the claim to Catholicity in general, and arguments used in support thereof. The Anglicans care about Rpman theology, in many respects, but will not abide their ecclesiology.

The Copts and a couple of other ones have joint statements with the Antiochians and a couple others on the Byzantine side; they're still not happy about Chalcedon. You said that Chalcedon was important for catholicity.

But doesn't Rome reject their catholicity? They are considered to be outside of the OHC&A Church, be their sacraments valid or not.

Very well.

Again, I was mostly talking about Catholicity, but you're right, I was conflating these two issues here.

Well, there are continuing Anglicans who can kind of make their own pronouncements - so that will put Rome in a pickle.

 

Yes. Although, as we discussed in the last thread, there is the infallibility (doctrinal) issue, but I digress.

 

Good night anyway - I'm sure the conversation will resume in the morning.

 

Anyone outside of communion with the pope is considered to not be part of the one true church by Catholics.
I would say the orientals have “catholicity,” because they don’t deny the veneration of icons and are not monotheletists (however you spell that) as far as I know. From what I’ve read the big issue the orientals have is their Saints being anathematized as heretics and all the persecution they’ve had has certainly made them bitter towards the chalcedonians (rightfully so).
I would also say the orientals and Assyrians can’t be catholic because they’re not universal. I would say the same thing about the Anglican Church.
Maybe my argument about Chalcedon isn’t too good.


But again, why does it matter who recognizes your catholicity?
The orthodox don’t believe Catholics are catholic , and we don’t believe they’re really the Catholic Church because they’re schismatic to us.
There should only be one Catholic Church not many.


If you care about Roman theology I suggest starting with the Eucharistic sacrifice. Truly sad anglicans deny this beautiful doctrine of the church.

 

You’re still just repeating internet propaganda and making no effort to see from outside your own chosen perspective. Your statements are also littered with factual errors that the smallest amount of effort would prevent. This is a waste of time. I’m out.

 

Anglicans do not care whether the RCC recognizes the catholicity of Anglicanism. We Anglicans are secure in the knowledge that we are a part of the one, holy, catholic (meaning 'universal'), apostolic church which is the body of Christ on earth.

Anglicans look to the perfect scriptures as our incontrovertible source of doctrine. We also look to the the first 4 councils and the first 500 years of the church's writings to glean insight into the scriptures and to how the early fathers understood things to be, but we recognize that those writings are not equal to the word of God.

The RCC places Tradition and the decisions of their Magisterium on an equal (and sometimes, in practice, greater) footing relative to the written word of God. The results can readily be seen: doctrines of purgatory, transubstantiation, required auricular confession and penances, latria of the host, and many other doctrines and practices which the Bible does not teach. We also see their fruits in the simony, the selling of indulgences, the violent hostility toward dissenting Christians, the times in which two or even three popes competed for control, the injustices carried out in the crusades, the political and economic aspirations of the RC hierarchy, the rampant sexual deviances, and so on.

There are some RCs who are enthusiastic about their denomination, and that is normal. Such people are welcome to come here to socialize and to learn about Anglicanism. However, proselytization is a violation of this forum's terms, and any RC will do well to observe and take care to abide by this fact.

 

(!)... or not. In any case good morning, and as a consolation prize, we can all say we learned about Thomas Aquinas’ views on the Eucharist. So have a good rest of your day, @BedtimePrayers .

 

The church fathers all believed in purgatory and prayer for the dead as efficacious. All 4 apostolic churches affirmed this until Luther.
I wonder how far back you have to drive the clock until you can get to a “pure” religion?
Protestants seems to think purgatory is some weird innovation, but many church fathers mention prayers for the dead, and so do the early church liturgies who offer the Sacrifice for those in purgatory. The Bible DOES speak of purgatory in Maccabees , which Protestants reject. You make it seem like we’re magicians pulling doctrines out of a hat. It’s not a coincidence all 4 apostolic churches believe in purgatory and hold Maccabees as scripture, and Protestants who deny purgatory do not hold it as scripture.
The claims about evil people and sinners in the church somehow making it a false church is not true to the very words of Christ, who told Jews to obey the hypocritical Pharisees, whom he called a brood of vipers, because they sat in Moses’ seat.
Before the doctrine of the trinity was pronounced in the ecumenical council of nicea which you say you hold, it was determined that re baptism was not necessary if you were baptized by a heretic or a priest committing adultery. The efficacy of the grace of the church is not diminished by sinners within it, because grace comes from God himself.
The Anglican Church likewise has allowed sin, not just in its clergy, but has actually taught sinful doctrine
The episcopal churches near me bless gay “marriage.”
ACNA ordains women. (This is even a bigger innovation than purgatory, btw, and completely unknown to the early church OR the scriptures which you proclaim as your sole authority).
The Anglican Church also allows for the unrestricted use of contraception.
I really don’t want to hear about how degenerate my church is from someone who’s own church doesn’t have it together.
I have not once in any of my comments attacked the behavior of the clergy of anglicans, and there is A LOT to critique. Simple videos of “lgbt affirming” transexual priests would do.
I have to do it now though, since you seem to think your church is spotless. My church may be filled with a bunch of sinners and degenerates, but at least it doesn’t teach sinful doctrine which goes against scripture.