Thomas Aquinas passage refuting transubstantiation

I guess…
But the Anglican branch theory is a novelty

 

So was the homoousion of the Nicene Creed.
So is the universal ordinary jurisdiction and infallibility of the Pope.
Just because it’s a “novelty” doesn’t mean it’s false, wouldn’t you agree?

 

But you're not actually clarifying the confusion, if you yourself don't know the subject matter. Earlier you said, you don't care to think too much about Aristotelian metaphysics.

I think all you're doing here is peacocking and defending the honor of the Roman church. I respect that, we all should defend the honor of that which we think is honorable, but the thing is, I'm doing the same thing here in defending the honor of the Anglican church. So therefore we are at an impasse.

The only way through is for us to be willing to accept we are wrong (in principle), and then walk together in looking at the available evidence, in order to arrive at a mutual conclusion, without pride or prejudice. Are you doing that here?

How is it a novelty? Literally every branch of the Catholic Church, even the non-trinitarian branches like the Assyrian churches, trace themselves to the very beginning, to the 1st century. That's what we are doing. You can challenge us on orthodoxy, but you can't challenge us on our lineage.

 

Honestly, both the Byzantine and Roman churches are petrified of this thing, "branch theory"; they talk about it much more than do the Anglicans. If you were to look up "branch theory" right now, or just even the Wikipedia page thereabout, you would discover that it is little more than a group of Byzantines trying to assure themselves that they are the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church.

 

Huh?

Not that wikipedia is fabulous, but...

 

Agreed. The “branch” theory is a bit of a misnomer. Every diocese headed by a legitimately consecrated bishop in apostolic succession that adheres to the original Nicene Creed is a True Particular Church. The collection of all the True Particular Churches throughout the world is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. That some of these Particular Churches claim jurisdiction within each others’ territory - which is a problem within Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism and not just between them and other apostolic Churches - and that some of these Particular Churches deny Eucharistic fellowship with members of other Particular Churches - an endemic problem within Eastern Orthodoxy as well - is a moral failing, not a metaphysical truth.

 

The Assyrians are Trinitarian, and most are in communion with Rome now.

 

My personal standpoint is that I was born and raised RC. I was taken to catechism all the time by my mom, so I got the 'right version of the doctrine' all through my childhood and adolescence. Yet I left the RCC when in my late 20s because it had so poorly prepared me for life as a real Christian.... a believer with the indwelling Holy Spirit providing guidance, comfort, and assurance of having been made a redeemed child of God.

At age 18, in a rented room of a boarding house, I became convinced that God and Satan are both real, and I asked God to keep me safe from the evil one and to fill me up with His Spirit. I didn't expect any bells or whistles. I'd prayed to God before and didn't feel or hear anything. But on this day, before I could finish my prayer, I felt the awesome Presence of God in me and with me. I suddenly felt clean on the inside like never before. He communicated to me in rapid-fire thought pictures for a brief time. I knew I was changed, and I was giddy with joy. But I thought there was something wrong or freakish about me; why ever would Almighty God stoop to even notice me, let alone talk to me? I feared to tell anyone of my experience because I thought they would laugh at me or tell me I was crazy or imagining things. The RCC's religious instruction and rigid ceremonialism did not prepare me one bit to understand a conversion experience; in fact, this went totally against everything they'd taught me, about how we are Christians because we've been baptized and made our First Communion and had the bishop's hand on us in Confirmation. The RCC led me to think that the Holy Spirit had been indwelling me since baptism, and caused me to think that God was too mighty and too far above us ant-like humans to ever deign to interact with us.

I felt like the Holy Spirit was leading me to leave the RCC and find another church, but the RCC was all I really knew. I'd been taught (from approved texts and from the priest's lectern) that if I left the RCC, having known the "true RC faith" and then having rejected it, I'd be damned to hell. So I stayed... and my faith gradually withered like a flower kept out of sunshine, because the RC Masses weren't teaching me what I needed to know about my right standing with God by grace through faith, how to be led by the Spirit of God, and all the things that help a Christian to grow up spiritually. I married a 'good RC girl' and then I almost destroyed our marriage in my carnality and selfishness. It took a "divine appointment" in the middle of nowhere, when we ran into my wife's spirit-filled aunt and uncle and wound up camping and visiting together, to rekindle my desire for obedience to and intimate fellowship with God.

My wife and I began watching Christian TV (TBN) and listening to Christian radio programs. We grew in Bible knowledge rapidly and learned things we'd never heard in church, things that helped us save our marriage and strive to live for God instead of just for our selves. The RCC was at that time promoting meetings called "Renew," so we started going to those.... and they were like an icy cold shower! The priest had his printed materials with certain scriptures to read and certain points to make; when we enthusiastically agreed with what was being read and began quoting similar scriptures that built upon the point being made, all the other attendees looked at us like we were green men from Mars! The priest wasn't the least bit enthused, either, but at least he was polite. Sharing our excitement about our faith with all of them was about as effective as banging one's head on a brick wall. After attending some Renew meetings that all went like this, my wife and I said to each other, there's no renewal going on at all here. Spiritually the meetings (and the whole parish, really) seemed dead. That was when we finally left the RCC and became regular, involved members of a Protestant church in the same small town. We have no regrets about that. Eventually, after almost 30 years in Protestant churches, the Holy Spirit led me to a specific ACNA Anglican parish (we are now in a large metro area, and this parish isn't even the one closest to our house); that was about 3 years ago.

There is no such thing as a perfect church (obviously, because once a human being becomes part of that church, it's no longer perfect! ). So if you really know that the Lord led you to where you are now, that's fine. Just know that it doesn't mean you've reached the ultimate pinnacle church or anything like that, and be open to His leading if and when He starts leading you toward some other church (I'd say, 'hopefully an Anglican church,' but maybe I'm biased). Our lives have seasons... sometimes more than 4 of 'em.

 

I’m going to have to use that sometime. What a profound thought!

 

I always thought this matter to be rather stupid; if the Byzantine church could schism without loosing sacramental validity, there is no reason whatsoever for the Anglicans to lose such validity either.

 

I have tried my best to clarify it.
I think I have tried to show you that we catholics do recognize as st Thomas teaches that the Eucharist is not local presence of Christ . I tired to link you to the websites because they express it better than me. The whole premise of this thread is basically that Thomas who is the backbone on the teaching on transubstantiation denies it because he says the presence of Christ isn’t local…
If you look at the websites I linked, they show that we DO follow this teaching of St Thomas.
Wether this is enough to convince you is another thing, but I have tried to clear up the confusion to the best of my ability.
I also have tried to show you guys that the Eucharistic sacrifice was believed by the early church, and that it’s not this horrible scary thing but the sacrifice of Christ being remembered on our altars for all time and the work of our redemption continually being carried out by the power of God.
If this isn’t enough to convince you either I can’t do anything about it. But you and some others refuse to acknowledge this because you have your own interpretation of the texts or whatnot.
This one subject matter I’m not very learned on (frankly don’t care much for thomistic metaphysics and the like) but the other stuff especially about the Eucharist I know pretty well.


Are you proposing we both admit we are wrong and reach some conclusion together?
I doubt you’re going to change your mind, and I’m not going to change mine lol

I just feel like a lot of the stuff I said about the Eucharistic sacrifice was completely obvious to me but people glossed over it. Especially the liturgies I posted are quite clear about what is going on. I have more book recommendations about this but I’m sure no one here is going to take up the offer.
I actually have read Anglican works on the Eucharist, and I assume they’re Anglo catholic, as they speak of the Eucharistic sacrifice.

I feel like at least you should recognize Thomas did believe in transubstantiation. I think the answer invictus gave was a good one

 

I

I think the reason was precisely the Eucharistic sacrifice as well as something about holy orders, I think.
Does the BCP still have the offertory of the Eucharist ? If not, this is most likely one of the reasons.
The orthodox still have the offertory.
“To you we offer your own, in all and for all.”

 

Why is the nicene creed the only creed required?
The other councils are important. The 7th being the main one anglicans reject

 

The issue is that the Byzantine Orthodox affirm that the Eucharist is a propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead, which the Anglicans deny. Thus, when Rome redefined the threefold ministry as a sacrificing priesthood, the separated Orthodox got in through the backdoor while the Protestants were locked outside the gate, so to speak. Even so, the Orthodox are still considered by Rome to be schismatic and therefore not as a whole part of the universal Church.

 

Because whoever accepts the original Nicene Creed accepts in principle the Trinity and the Incarnation, and therefore also has a correct understanding of creation, grace, and man’s destiny.

 

But there is more to catholicity than basic doctrines

 

Yes, like being in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. How do we know that we are in said church? Because, silly, we affirm these doctrines: /s

This is what the Byzantine Church does. That's why its claim to catholicity flies about as far as a lead balloon.

 

Indeed. That’s why I earlier defined catholicity as:

• triune God (shorthand for all that is contained in the Nicene Creed),
• threefold ministry,
• threefold rule of prayer.

 

The Orthodox Church is recognized as catholic because it accepts the Eucharistic sacrifice, worships Christ in the sacrament, and doesn’t have the reformed theology of the 39 articles. The Anglican Church also seems to deny icon veneration and praying to Saints. Rome considers these all heresies.
If you want Rome to recognize you then just go over to the Anglican ordinariate.


If not just stay in the Anglican Church.
Im still a bit confused as to why anglicans would care about Rome recognizing them as catholic?
You deny the papacy anyway, so even if you did adopt all the right doctrines you would be in schism at best. Why do you need validity from a church you believe is false?
We should all be confident that our church is the one true church without needing others to affirm it for us.

 

Chalcedon is also an important one. So are all the other 5 ecumenical councils.
Also Anglican ministry is questionable. You don’t even call you priests priests right? Just rector ?
The Anglican Church denies the priestly sacrificial part of priest so obviously Rome can’t recognize the Anglican ministry there. I think that’s really the biggest reason why your church is not recognized as catholic and your sacraments as not valid. We just have a way too different understating of the Eucharist
Rome didn’t come up with the sacrificial priesthood bit. It was true since Pentecost