I'm very scrupulous on women in orders, the eucharist, church history... Help me decide this

Consular,
Rome does not sacrifice Christ again during the Eucharist.

See:
The Institution of the Mass
The Catholic position
"The Church teaches that the Mass is the re-presentation of the sacrifice of Calvary, which also is invariably misunderstood by anti-Catholics. The Catholic Church does not teach that the Mass is a re-crucifixion of Christ, who does not suffer and die again in the Mass."

"Once for all"
"The Catholic Church specifically says Christ does not die again—his death is once for all. It would be something else if the Church were to claim he does die again, but it doesn’t make that claim. Through his intercessory ministry in heaven and through the Mass, Jesus continues to offer himself to his Father as a living sacrifice, and he does so in what the Church specifically states is "an unbloody manner"—one that does not involve a new crucifixion."

________________________________________________________________________

Also see:
CONSTITUTION ON THE SACRED LITURGY SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUMSOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI ON DECEMBER 4, 1963


CHAPTER I
GENERAL PRINCIPLES FOR THE: RESTORATION AND PROMOTION OF THE SACRED LITURGY
. . . .For that reason, on the very day of Pentecost, when the Church appeared before the world, "those who received the word" of Peter "were baptized." And "they continued steadfastly in the teaching of the apostles and in the communion of the breaking of bread and in prayers . . . praising God and being in favor with all the people" (Acts 2:41-47). From that time onwards the Church has never failed to come together to celebrate the paschal mystery: reading those things "which were in all the scriptures concerning him" (Luke 24:27), celebrating the eucharist in which "the victory and triumph of his death are again made present" [19], and at the same time giving thanks "to God for his unspeakable gift" (2 Cor. 9:15) in Christ Jesus, "in praise of his glory" (Eph. 1:12), through the power of the Holy Spirit. . . . .

CHAPTER II
THE MOST SACRED MYSTERY OF THE EUCHARIST
. . . .47. At the Last Supper, on the night when He was betrayed, our Saviour instituted the eucharistic sacrifice of His Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the Cross throughout the centuries until He should come again, and so to entrust to His beloved spouse, the Church, a memorial of His death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity [36], a paschal banquet in which Christ is eaten, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us [37]. . . . .

 

Consular,
You ignored Romans Chapter 11.
Anna

 

Lol, i'm beginning to think I have superhero powers, I can make my posts on message boards invisible!

Seriously though, the link to that document is not just some obscure statement made by Anglo-Catholics, as it was suggested earlier on the other thread, it's an official Anglican teaching on the Eucharist. The document states:

At the 1988 Lambeth

Conference the Primates, Archbishops, and diocesan Bishops of the Anglican Communion world-wide adopted

this Agreed Statement as an official teaching on Anglican Eucharistic doctrine. The following are excerpts

from that joint statement.

 

Anna, I was listening to Rev. John Stott in a sermon from 2001 a few minutes ago, and he suddenly began expounding on Romans 11. He did it in such a way that I found myself ashamed of how I have carried on this conversation between us.

I exploded in a fit of despair about the Church; in order to justify continuing that, I extended the despair beyond the Church and to the Jews. I see that Romans 11 contradicts my fears. Please accept my apologies for having wasted your time.

Of course, now that you've shifted to the topic of the Sacrifice of the Mass, it's time for another scuffle! Don't worry; this is on topic, as it's one of the primary reasons I tend to worry that God must have abandoned Rome for this perfidious teaching.

You quoted Sacrosanctum Concilium, which is echoed in Eucharisticum Mysterium of 1967, but look beyond your second quote to this:

the Mass, the Lord's Supper, is at the same time and inseparably:

• A sacrifice in which the Sacrifice of the Cross is perpetuated;
• A memorial of the death and resurrection of the Lord, who said "do this in memory of me" (Luke 22:19);
• A sacred banquet in which, through the communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord, the People of God share the benefits of the Paschal Sacrifice, renew the New Covenant which God has made with man once for all through the Blood of Christ, and in faith and hope foreshadow and anticipate the eschatological banquet in the kingdom of the Father, proclaiming the Lord's death "till His coming."

The Sacrifice of the Cross cannot be 'perpetuated' at the Lord's Supper because it was instituted before the Cross was even raised on Calvary. This chronology makes no sense. More importantly, Hebrews 9:22 says that without shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins. The Eucharist is classically claimed by Rome to be a propitiatory sacrifice for sins, as a perpetuation of the Cross, and yet no blood is shed ("a bloodless sacrifice"). This is just contradiction, not even blasphemy.

To both you and Sean: "The Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches began official ecumenical discussions in 1970 and quickly discovered that they hold the same doctrine of the Eucharist."

That's either a lie or ignorance of Roman Catholic transubstantiation. If Anglicanism really holds the same doctrine of the Eucharist as Rome, I can't stay.

 

Update, in case anyone's already replying: the document says "In contemporary Roman Catholic theology [transubstantiation] is not understood as explaining how the change takes place." - but that's what the word means! The transit of substances from Christ into bread and bread into Christ is the "how". Wow, Rome really did herself in with this one! Yet another turn-around of doctrine thanks to Vatican II.

 

Here is the link to the agreement for those who haven't read it:

http://stpaulsparish.org/education/documents/004_ARCIC_euch.pdf

The Anglican Church and RRC state:

We [the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches] believe that we have reached substantial agreement

on the Doctrine of the Eucharist. It is our hope that in view of the agreement which we have reached

on Eucharistic faith, this doctrine will no longer constitute an obstacle to the unity we seek.

 

Sean, the Vatican II mentality which produced that document will die soon enough. I've seen young traditionalists coming up in the Church with my own eyes. They are vehemently anti-Protestant and believe our Eucharistic spiritual presence is absolutely a heresy. This cosy little ecumenical agreement is worthless in the eyes of history. It's like the Munich Agreement.

I don't mean to be harsh toward you at all, a good and honest person, but I don't like deception and I think Roman apologists love employing strategic casuistry even today.

 

Rome was a hateful and unreliable source for hundreds of years, then... now it's more cuddly with Vatican II, so it's more acceptable.

 

In the same post, I quoted from the Vatican website, but Cranmer did not respond to that source.

Anna

 

Consular,
I'm glad to hear this. You did not waist my time.
Anna

 

Yes, and Sean posted it on the grievances thread; but I guess no one saw it coming from the "Invisible Anglican."

From the Vatican website:
A STATEMENT BY THE CO-CHAIRMEN OF THE ANGLICAN/ROMAN CATHOLIC INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION (ARCIC) ARCIC'S CLARIFICATIONS OF CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE AGREED STATEMENTS ON EUCHARIST AND MINISTRY (September 1993)

The Response of the Holy See states that the Catholic Church rejoices because the members of the Commission were able to affirm together "that the eucharist is a sacrifice in the sacramental sense, provided that it is clear that this is not a repetition of the historical sacrifice". In the mind of the Commission the making present, effective and accessible of the unique historic sacrifice of Christ does not entail a repetition of it. In the light of this the Commission affirms that the belief that the eucharist is truly a sacrifice, but in a sacramental way, is part of the eucharistic faith of both our Communions. As has been stated in the Elucidation on Eucharistic Doctrine 5; "The Commission believes that the traditional understanding of sacramental reality, in which the once-for-all event of salvation becomes effective in the present through the action of the Holy Spirit, is well expressed by the word anamnesis. We accept this use of the word which seems to do full justice to the semitic background. Furthermore it enables us to affirm a strong conviction of sacramental realism and to reject mere symbolism".
(bold emphasis is mine)

From anglicancommunion.org
Unity Faith and Order - Dialogues - Anglican Roman Catholic Agreed Statement on Eucharistic Doctrine 1971

II. The Eucharist and the Sacrifice of Christ
Christ's redeeming death and resurrection took place once and for all in history. Christ's death on the cross, the culmination of his whole life of obedience, was the one, perfect and sufficient sacrifice for the sins of the world. There can be no repetition of or addition to what was then accomplished once for all by Christ.

Any attempt to express a nexus between the sacrifice of Christ and the eucharist must not obscure this fundamental fact of the christian faith[1]. Yet God has given the eucharist to his church as a means through which the atoning work of Christ on the cross is proclaimed and made effective in the life of the church. The notion of memorial as understood in the passover celebration at the time of Christ?i.e. the making effective in the present of an event in the past?has opened the way to a clearer understanding of the relationship between Christ's sacrifice and the eucharist. The eucharistic memorial is no mere calling to mind of a past event or of its significance, but the church's effectual proclamation of God's mighty acts. Christ instituted the eucharist as a memorial (anamnesis) of the totality of God's reconciling action in him. In the eucharistic prayer the church continues to make a perpetual memorial of Christ's death, and his members, united with God and one another, give thanks for all his mercies, entreat the benefits of his passion on behalf of the whole church, participate in these benefits and enter into the movement of his self-offering.

 

As nice as all this agreement sounds, I don't believe it will be retained once a more conservative pope or set of cardinals is in charge. This age is one of false hopes and fluttery promises, disappearing rapidly like the sounds of the guitar strings upon which these hymns of peace are accompanied. Sorry, I'm a cynic.

All this nitpicking about the Eucharist is my fault, and I'd rather it not be the center of focus. Let me (try to) end this now by saying, with Bishop Bramhall: "Christ said 'This is My Body'; what He said, we do steadfastly believe". That's that.

My real worry has always been that the Anglican Communion isn't (part of) "The Church", but rather is (an attempt at being) "a church", and a foundering, confused one at that. Rome taught me that when the Lord Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would lead the apostles into "all truth", it was an imparting of unending infallibility. This extends to the successors of the Apostles as well, and most especially to the "Rock", Peter (they said). The argument is that if every little detail of pure doctrine is not preserved in exactly the fashion that it came to us in A.D. 33, the Church would not be the Church, and thus it would be destroyed.

Since Anglicanism is apparently in chaos ? and its leaders don't act at all like the Fathers - or even like anyone who believes anything at all - Rome sometimes seems right in its critique. Such conscience gnaw at me, saying "don't go; they're just heretics! you'll go to Hell if you try to follow that mad crowd! stick with the sure foundation who never errs"!

The Catholic arguments against the Anglican plurality do miss an important point, I must add: Rome has its own inner streams, conflicts, and 'theologies'. Rahner, Gilson, Garrigou-Lagrange, de Chardin, and von Hildebrand all vie against each other. Rome's in as much chaos as Anglicanism is accused of being in... it just doesn't let on, and is better at hiding it with its confident hierarchy, than Anglicans are.

 

This is the Final Report on anglicancommunion.org. It is more detailed and addresses criticisms and concerns raised, from the Anglican side, about the statements and language used in the joint agreement.

Arcic I. The Final Report ANGLICAN/ROMAN CATHOLIC JOINT PREPARATORY COMMISSION PREFACE TO THE FINAL REPORT

 

I'll respect your request and end the discussion of the Eucharist.

Consular,
You seem to be going back and forth on a number of issues, including the right Church. This is, of course, a decision that only you can make.

I pray that you will find your place, and the peace of our Lord to comfort you.
Anna

 

I know I keep coming back to this point but brother I think you spend way too much time in your head about religion, let it go for a while and pray to God you can find your spot - what is the old saying? Let go and let God....

 

Anna, it's difficult for someone with O.C.D. to make clear-headed choices at times. I am sorry. Both sides have a sense of 'order' behind them. Depending on the circumstances of the day, or whichever side seems more zealous or convicted at the time, my mind is shifted back and forth. Numbers, arguments, possibilities, statistics, theologies...

Gordon, I have such a mind that is unable to focus on mystical and spiritual things easily. For me, the systematic and legal structures are much easier to cope with and judge. I try to pray to God every day for my spiritual 'place' to be found, and some days it seems more obvious than others.

In all this, the Star Wars analogy somewhat helps. Not to commit blasphemy, but look at the Force and compare it to the Holy Spirit of God. Both are said to guide us, both are with us when we meditate rightly, and both can bring peace in the truth. For the S.W. galaxy, the Force is the revelation of God as the Holy Spirit, a distant truth but a real one. If God can even be found in a fictional universe made up by a non-religious person, He will speak in this true universe for sure. We just have to ask, and be sincere - but sincerity is the hardest bit of all.

 

That is fine my brother I understand what you are saying. I will continue to point you in that direction and hopefully you will find in your own good time.

Blessings, Gordon

 

Consular,
This explains a lot--especially the back and forth on issues and the Church. I will lift you up in prayer. When you can, try to be still and listen to the voice of God.

Peace and blessings,
Anna

 

Thank you!

 

I feel for you Consular, I sometimes get caught up in the same worries. Sometimes discerning where God wants us to best serve him can be very difficult. Sometimes, we can be our own worst enemies and get in the way of what God wants for us and what he is trying to tell us. For me, after I left the baptist church, I tried out many churches and found something "wrong" with everyone of them and refused to stay. After about a year of this torment and constant worrying, I pleaded to God that there is no perfect church and that i'm finding fault/error in all of them. At that point, I realized that there is no such thing as a church without error or fault and that I need to put my faith in God and not in myself and what I want. After a very short time, I was visited my local Anglican parish and i've been there ever since. Despite my reservation about the state of Anglicanism, I felt a strong pull and immediately felt at home there.

My advice is this, if you feel that you are being led to Anglicanism and feel at home in your local Anglican parish, despite your reservations, i'd carefully examine that call and try not to get in the way of God (like I did at times).