Who can administer the Eucharist?

With respect I find the above post hard to believe without some Biblical evidence.

I thought the keys were given to Peter (singular)not Bishops(plural).

Again I can't find any evidence of this

If this is true where is it written that The Apostles redelegated this function to Bishops and where do we read That Paul and the Apostles are charged to be "Christs after his resurrection?

So are those Baptists, Prebyterians,Assembly of God,etc not getting the real deal if they have holy Communion?

 

Glad to hear from you Gordon, Happy New Year to you and your family and friends!

Most of our understanding about Christ and the Incarnation comes from Holy Tradition! To say nothing of the Holy Ghost. This ,'tradition,' we're talking about was set by the early church, The Body of Christ. It stems from either the Apostolic College or the very early Bench of Bishops and it is the custom of Catholics to follow them! Otherwise we fall in to the unhappy situation where every man is his own bishop, this to my mind results in Chaos.

 

Blessings Brother...

Yes I understand that we as Catholics have a Church based on customs and tradition and that in my older years is what I find comforting and challenging. My reason for getting involved with this discussion is that when I read posts where someone says "Jesus said that", or "The Bible says" without a reference to the scripture that they asserting, that raises a red flag and I ask for a reference. Most times I get a valid reference, but this time I knew that it is not written anywhere in scripture that Jesus said this class of person can only celebrate the Eucharist was not correct.

In my opinion there is no problem with a Church having traditions that were introduced after the NT was written but lets say that is the case and not try to justify something in scripture that isn't there.

 

No, it does not.

 

When support for something can't be found in scripture, I guess that leaves "tradition" and words of mere men.

 

(See part I put in bold). And you shouldn't believe it because there is absolutely no Biblical evidence. It is made up by church hierarchy to tie the laity to the clergy's coattails and deny the laity their Christian, scriptural birthright of spiritual equality as priests before God.

 

I don't believe there is anything wrong with tradition, tradition helps to add substance and solid foundation to a Church or institution. The early Apostles like Paul were mere men, but it doesn't mean that they were not inspired by the Holy Spirit even to this day mere men could be inspired by the Holy Spirit.

 

In Anglicanism, scripture is the primary and final authority, not "Catholic Tradition" nor any tradition.

 

LOL the exclusivist views are expressed here quite a lot, not just here either - I decided it is best to not even try and engage in a serious conversation with people that think that way...

 

Tradition is a secondary source and is acceptable when used as such; it is not equal to scripture in authority. In this sense, it can be helpful. For example, I love the writings of the early church fathers, but when they contradict scripture, I go with scripture.

 

Yeah, I've seen it on Baptist and other forums. Everybody thinks they are closest to God and everyone else is defective. Sometimes I hate denominations.

 

You won't get an argument from me on that...

 

We have Psalms to help us get anger, and frustration off our chest... one of my favourites is Psalm 88:3-9...

 

I said on our first meeting that I believed people who thought like you and others of that ilk were not traditional Anglicans, but Neo Anglicans! How can you claim membership of the Church when you don't believe in it?

 

It is I who hold to the Anglican position on the authority of scripture, and not you. It is you and others of that ilk who want to make tradition equal with scripture and even elevate it above scripture; that's the only way to maintain your unscriptural and anti-scriptural views. That is a Roman Catholic position. The Anglican position is that the scriptures are primary. How can you claim membership of the Anglican Communion when you don't believe its position on the scriptures? If you were honest, you would go join the RCC posthaste.

 

"All these which were taught by the Apostles and have been, by a whole Universal Consent of the Church of Christ Tradition ever since that time, taught continually and taken for true, ought to be received, and accepted and kept as a perfect doctrine ,'Apostolic,'... And in the same book it is declared that all Christians must take the Articles of the Creed and interpret all the same thing , according to the self same sentence and interpretation which the records of scripture do signify and the Holy approved
Doctors of the Church do agreeably entreat and defend.
( '. By the Anglican Bishops.) A necessary Doctrine....' published 1537 & 1543.

This is the Official Doctrine as far as I can tell. Anglican that is.
Where have I said or implied that Tradition is anywhere on a level with Scripture? That is a fabrication. Christ's Revelation in Scripture interpreted, explained and completed by the Bishops of the Seven Ecumenical Councils & guided by the Holy Ghost as per His intervention, as recorded in scripture!
This is more or less the classical Anglican position,

 

As an Anglican, I was taught that the Bishop is the descendant of the Apostolic College and an apostle of the day, in his own right! That is bishops in the Apostolic Succession!

 

Where does this statement of yours leave The Gospel according to Celtic 1?

 

I was going by your propensity to fall back on quoting from "Church Tradition" to defend your positions rather than doing so from scripture first.

 

I'm not sure what you're asking. Please explain.

BTW, look: I have no desire to get into a position of trading insults. I love vigorous debate, but are we not able to do so in a civil and respectful manner?