Thank you for a fascinating article, I have learnt a lot and look forward to your article about Catholicism. I am thinking of seeking sanctuary from modern Anglicanism in the RC church.
Karen, prayers for you on your spiritual journey. Just know the grass is definitely not greener in the RC Church. Modernism plagues most parishes. Godspeed!
That is very kind, thank you. I have embarked on instruction in my local RC church and will be needing all the prayers I can get, I am quite sure. It is surprisingly hard to make this journey.
One of our co-hosts officially joined the Catholic Church last week after a long, messy and complex conversion process that included encountering the Anglican faith in the Church of England (at Durham Cathedral) and then worshipping in the Anglican Church of Canada before pursuing graduate studies at Canada's leading Anglican seminary (Trinity College at the University of Toronto) where he first encountered proper Catholicism. You can see more here about his journey: https://www.cofcomcat.com/post/we-ve-come-home-to-rome
If he were to give you advice, it would be to pursue the truth and follow it where it leads.
Spot-on Fr. Calvin! I've been attempting to present the very same facts to a number of Roman Catholics I know, and the replies I get are just short of diabolical. We who have fully vetted the history of the Church IN Brittania, know that they predated the Church OF England, and, in fact, predated the Church of Rome. After all, we do see the bishops of England at the Council of Nicaea long before the Roman Catholic Church took over leadership of the the Church in England.
Diabolical = Anglican 39 Articles of Religion; Article XXV, Article XXVIII and XXXI. It is not God's fault you are a fake Priest giving out fake Holy Communion. Jesus Christ's Eucharist instructions are simple to understand so how about reading them again without Protestant bias: John 4:7-14 & 31-36, John 6:22-63 and Lord's Supper.
Not at all. If you read Jesus Christ's infallibly correct Eucharist instructions above on how to identify the Eucharist by Its substance; Jesus Christ removes ignorance very quickly and permanently. That is, if one is not being biased and possesses at least basic comprehension skills. Jesus Christ taught me what substance the Eucharist is in Scripture before I decided to go to Church for the Eucharist. I agreed with Apostle St. Paul’s advice “but test everything; hold fast to what is good.” Comprehending Jesus Christ’s instructions makes it as simple as playing snap after that to identify who is not obeying Jesus Christ’s Eucharist instructions.
There is only one Eucharist. If a Christian picked at random one of the five different Christian Eucharists on offer from Christian Authorities = 80% chance of fake Holy Communion. Don't obey Jesus Christ's Eucharist instructions in full (“Do this”) = no Eucharist. Simple as that.
At the end of the day, who wants Christians receiving fake Holy Communion? a) God and Christians b) Satan.
Four out of five Eucharists on offer to Christians are nothing but Satan’s illusion. Which is a perfect reason never to deviate from Jesus Christ’s instructions on how to identify the Eucharist by Its substance. Just being able to identify at the standard that say a Strawberry and Cream Eucharist is obviously fake, is not the high standard required to lift the veil on Satan’s illusion.
Protestant Authorities intend to supply Christians with four different types of Eucharist between them, each intended to be brought about without a change in substance to the bread and wine. Orthodox and Catholic Authorities have one Eucharist between them, intended to be brought about with a change in substance to the bread and wine.
Protestants = four different Eucharists, no-change in substance. Catholic and Orthodox = one Eucharist, change in substance. Simply, if Jesus Christ changed the substance at the Lord’s Supper then all four Protestant Authority Eucharists disobey Christ’s Eucharist instructions = fake Lord’s Supper.
At the first Lord’s Supper, AFTER blessing what was in the cup, Jesus Christ instructed “Drink from it all of you; for this is My Blood.” (Matt 26:27-28). Before Christ’s blessing, the substance in the cup was not Christ’s Blood; but after Christ’s blessing the substance in the cup is Christ’s Blood. Therefore, Christ did change the substance at the first Lord’s Supper.
The Trinity can read that each Protestant Authority instructs that Christ did something evil if He changed the substance at the Lord’s Supper. For example, your Anglican Article XXVIII, instructs Christ has been “repugnant to the plain words of Scripture” for “the change of the substance of bread and wine in the Supper of the Lord.”
Jesus Christ instructed us five times that physically eating and drinking the Living Water/Bread of Life/Lord’s Supper gives eternal life and Christ will abide in them and they in Him (John 4, 6 and Lord’s Supper).
Orthodox and Catholic substance instructions: “But [he is present] truly and really, so that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, the bread is transmuted, transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord… and the wine is converted and transubstantiated into the true Blood Itself of the Lord… Further [we believe] that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, there no longer remains the substance of the bread and of the wine, but the Body Itself and the Blood of the Lord, under the species and form of bread and wine; that is to say, under the accidents of the bread.” (Orthodox Church’s Ecumenical and dogmatic Decree 17, paragraph 1 & 2, “Council of Dositheus”, 1672 A.D.) . https://www.crivoice.org/creeddositheus.html
Jesus Christ instructs the Eucharist is a Physical and Spiritual feeding on Him: “53…Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; 55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.” (John 6:53-58). The Jews, including, Apostles, correctly comprehended a physical feeding on Christ “How can this man gives us his flesh to eat?”. The Jews who walked away, and later Judas, did not believe Jesus could give His flesh and blood to eat and drink.
In John 6:63 Jesus Christ clarified “The words that I have spoken to you are spirit (Spiritual feeding – abide in Me, and I in them) and life (Physical feeding – Christ’s Living Flesh and Blood). According to Jesus Christ, Physically eating and drinking Christ’s Living Physical Flesh and Blood is not useless. Further, Jesus Christ pointed out the obvious in Luke 24:39 “for a spirit does not have flesh”.
In Scripture alone, Jesus Christ and Apostles never used the word “wine” to drink for the Eucharist. Yet Protestants drink wine for the Eucharist. Jesus Christ explicitly instructs “this is My Blood” and Protestants tell Jesus Christ He instructed “this is wine” to drink. The old change the meaning of words confusion tactic to sow the Devil’s doubt.
Another oral tradition instituted by Christ; is that Christ, at the First Lord’s Supper, imparted to Apostles, a Gift of God the Light of the Holy Spirit/Sacred Power/Apostolic Succession that He used to consecrate the bread and wine. No Sacred Power to consecrate = no Eucharist.
These first Bishops could consecrate and pass this Sacred Power on hands on for other men to consecrate. Jesus Christ instructed “Do this” and if the “this” is not done then no Holy Communion. Simply, Jesus Christ consecrated the elements at the First Lord’s Supper, so if Jesus Christ is not consecrating for the Lord’s Supper then “Do this” is not being done = Lord’s Supper not re-presented = no Holy Communion in the present. This Sacred Power, for a Priest to act in the person of Christ, is essential for it to be Christ standing at the Altar consecrating. This Apostolic Succession is and passed on hands on at the Sacrament of Holy Orders into the Priesthood by a Bishop/s of Apostolic Succession.
At Catholic and Orthodox Sacrifice of the Mass: the Lord’s Supper is re-presented in order to provide the Lord’s Supper to eat and drink in the present (“Do this”); the Priest, acting in the person of Christ, consecrates the substance of bread and wine to become, by the Power of the Holy Spirit, the substance of Christ’s Living Flesh and Blood (Physical) with His Soul and Divinity (Spiritual). This plays snap with Scripture.
God can read. Your ordination intended you to provide a Eucharist that does not exist and without the Gift of the Holy Spirit essential to provide, by the Power of the Holy Spirit, the Eucharist that does exist.
Further, your Article XXV demonizes the Sacrament of Holy Orders as a “corrupt following of the Apostles”. Thereby, demonizing God the Light of the Holy Spirit for His Gift of God the Light of the Holy Spirit, essential for consecrating by the Power of God the Light of the Holy Spirit.
Do you know what blasphemy against the Holy Spirit entails?
Further, your Article XXVIII demonizes Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit for changing the substance of bread and wine - “or the change of the substance of bread and wine… is repugnant” and “superstitions”.
Further, your Article XXVIII instructs that upon eating physical bread and wine the Soul enters Heaven and feeds on Christ Spiritually, then back to earth – “an heavenly and spiritual manner.”
Further, your Article XXXI demonizes Jesus Christ’s Sacrifice of the Mass as “blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.”
Your Lord’s Supper Article, four paragraphs, never quotes a Scripture passage once. Yet instructs that the Anglican Church can prove, using Scripture passages alone, that Jesus Christ did not change the substance of bread and wine at the First Lord’s Supper, and a Spiritual only feeding in Heaven. The Lord’s Supper Article claims there is proof of this in Scripture but has no idea where in Scripture. All mouth and no action. Your Lord’s Supper Article is four paragraphs of all sales and no-substance emotional bullying.
I point you to God's Eucharist instructions in Scripture to put side by side with Anglican Eucharist instructions, and in reply, you also avoid using Scripture. Instead, you reply that I must be ignorant and high, to conclude that Jesus Christ’s instructions in Scripture prove you were ordained with the intention not to obey them. All sales and no-substance emotional bullying Mr Jones, just like your Articles of Religion.
“You are walking in complete ignorance. My Holy Orders as a priest are perfectly in tact. Stop drinking the Kool-aid.” (Richard Jones).
Your Anglican Articles tell God that God’s gifts are evil quite a few times e.g. the Eucharist is evil, Blessed Virgin Mary’s sinless life is evil, Purgatory is evil, intercession of Saints by their prayers or relics is evil and Holy Icons are evil. According to God’s evidence your Articles of Religion instruct a pack of evil lies about God.
You think yourself a Priest but swore an oath to God at ordination not to provide Christians with Christ’s Living Flesh and Blood with His Soul and Divinity, but bread and wine instead = fake Priest. Using the devils doubt tactic of changing the meaning of the word Priest makes no difference. A devil’s doubt tactic: when Jesus Christ instructed “this is my blood” to drink, He instructed “this is wine” to drink.
Protestantism = conspiracy to defraud Christians of eating and drinking Christ’s Living Flesh and Blood with His Soul and Divinity.
There is, by the grace of God, the Catholic Ordinariate for Protestant Ministers to become Priests.
Your ignorance concerning the subject of the 39 Articles is beyond the pale. First, I must inform you, is that the 39 Articles are not a statement of faith for Anglo-Catholics. They are an historical document meant to inform. Much of the 39 Articles are simply a poor reaction to Roman Catholic practices that were considered corrupted. As an Anglo-Catholic I can, and do, argue against several of the 39 Articles which can be biblically refuted. Second is your misinformed notion of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. As Aquinas points out, the creatures of bread and wine do not change, but the mystical substance does. Most Anglo-Catholics understand that the change which takes place at the Epiclesis is hypostatic. Just as Christ joined himself to human flesh at the Incarnation. 100% God and 100% man. The issue with Roman Catholics is that they try too hard to intellectually explain what happens at the Epiclesis, rather than accept the simpler understanding of the mystery of the hypostasis between the body and blood of Christ, with the the creatures of bread and wine. All one has to do is to look at the theology of the Incarnation, and you will see a clear type of union between the body and blood of Christ with the creatures of bread and wine, thus bringing Grace to those who partake of the Divine nature hypostatically joined together with the bread and the wine.
Facts: You were ordained to provide the Eucharist without a change in substance and without the Gift of God the Light of the Holy Spirit essential to provide the Eucharist using a change in substance. And you don’t believe you were told a pack of heretical lies and therefore end up giving out fake Holy Communion to God’s Christians.
So now your falsely accusing St. Aquinas of being ignorant enough to think he had the Authority to put the words ‘bread’ and ‘wine’ into the mouth of Jesus Christ’s instructions on what to physically eat and drink for the Lord’s Supper. And you falsely accuse the Catholic Church of being ignorant enough to canonize someone who instructed the heresy that Jesus Christ never changed the substance of bread and what was in the cup for the Lord’s Supper New Covenant.
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): “Some have held that the substance of the bread and wine remains in this sacrament after the consecration. But this opinion cannot stand: first of all, because by such an opinion the truth of this sacrament is destroyed”. (Summa Theologica, Part III, Question 75, Article 2)
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): “for the whole substance of the bread is changed into the whole substance of Christ’s body, and the whole substance of the wine into the whole substance of Christ’s blood. Hence this is not a formal, but a substantial conversion; nor is it a kind of natural movement: but, with a name of its own, it can be called "transubstantiation.”" (Summa Theologica, Part III, Question 75, Article 4)
Don’t obey Jesus Christ’s Eucharist instructions in full = no Eucharist.
Protestantism = conspiracy to defraud Christians of physically eating and drinking Christ’s Living Physical Flesh and Blood with His Living Spiritual Soul and Divinity.
There is, by the grace of God, the Catholic Ordinariate for Protestant Ministers to become Priests.
As someone who, with my church, gradually separated from the Episcopal Church after the ordination of Gene Robinson as bishop in 2003, I’ve had way too much experience of separation in the Church. We aligned with the African Anglican Church (Nigeria, if I’m remembering correctly) and eventually became part of a diocese in the Anglican Church in North America. But communion with heretics continues to be a problem, now that the Archbishop of Canterbury seems to be supporting the blessing of homosexual relationships.
But wasn’t the early church constantly battling over heretical departures from Christian doctrine? There was Gnosticism, Pelagianism, Arminianism, and no doubt many others. It seems the battle for the true faith will not end until Christ returns and all things are put under His feet. In the meantime, I’m thankful for you and the others whose devotion to truth and facts and history keep the rest of us grounded.
Thank you for your insights on this. Not all Roman Catholics have such a binary view of Henry VIII. Sadly I believe you are right that the matter of his annulment was decided on the basis of politics rather than the basis of prudence and wisdom that the Holy Father should have considered. I was shocked when in college, my professor (a fellow proud Roman Catholic) defended Henry VIII regarding his treatment by Rome! I was very surprised to learn so much about this period in history of which I was ignorant.
I hope we can one day see greater unification between England and Rome, and a renewed reverence and protection for the many sacred Cathedrals and Monasteries that have shaped the character and spirituality of your country for centuries. I look forward to seeing your thoughts about Catholicism in your forthcoming article.
I am glad that you are defending the catholicity of the Anglican Church because that is a door into acknowledging the catholicity of the Reformed church in Scotland (Presbyterian), in the Netherlands, in France, etc. I come from the Dutch Reformed tradition which speaks of the catholic nature of the church and the apostolicity of her doctrine. If you look at the historical background of the Synod Dort (which produced the Canons of Dort) in Dordtrecht, Netherlands, there were a variety of Anglican representatives there, who also played a role in formulating Reformed doctrine in contradiction to the errors of Jacobus ARminius. If you read the intent of many of the Reformers they saw these various national churches as an expression of the catholic faith against the charges of schism by Rome.
Well done, Father Calvin! Your command of history and theological matters is very instructive. I especially like to hear you and Laurence Fox debate on "Fox and Father." Yours is the voice of reason and firm conviction.
Thanks for this thoughtful contribution to Christian unity. I'm a Catholic (in full communion with Rome), but I grew up Evangelical Protestant with a one-year stop in the Episcopal (U.S.) Church during college (or at university, as you folks say). Anyway, Christian unity is near and dear to my heart, and I have a great love for Anglican aesthetics and tradition.
I agree with your approach of taking a hard look at apostolic succession. I can affirm what you've said about Apostolicae Curae not possessing the charism of infallibility (and I can't imagine any Catholic claiming that it does). Nor is it a teaching concerning the deposit of faith — it couldn't be, since it concerns events centuries after the death of the apostles. Instead, it's a classic example of a prudential judgment as a function of the Church's governing authority. In this way, it's similar to an annulment. The Church can rarely know for certain whether a marriage or an ordination are valid, but she makes the best judgment she can based on the evidence. It's entirely possible that Apostolicae Curae could someday be overturned as the fruit of new evidence and considerations.
Regardless, from what I understand, for those CoE clergy who have an unbroken chain of succession from Eastern or Old Catholic ordinations, I see no reason to conclude that their ordinations are invalid. The amplification of this practice within the Anglican Communion could go a long way toward greater Christian unity.
Ultimately, though, I find the historical and biblical arguments for papal supremacy to be entirely convincing. We can only achieve full unity through the Bishop of Rome. That said, full communion does not necessarily require direct governance, as the various sui iuris Eastern Catholic churches demonstrate. We may pray that the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham may some day be given such a status.
I've made a realization since my original comment, which may contribute somewhat to the discussion. I am no expert on Apostolicae Curse or the arguments on which it depends, but female ordination is an additional development which I think ought to be taken into account.
To my knowledge, the separated bishops whose ordinations Rome has never questioned, such as in the Eastern, Armenian, and Coptic churches, have never attempted female ordination. Perhaps this is a fruit of their apostolic charism. The same cannot be said of Anglican bishops, so that may tell us something about their own validity to the extent that we can judge a communion of alleged bishops by its fruit. It's not definitive proof, but it does give me pause.
If Modern Catholicism wasn't in such shambles, you'd have a fantastic argument here. But the post-Vatican II Church is weak, ineffectual, and lacks authority.
I disagree. Modern Catholicism is in shambles in many ways, but I would suggest that so are all Christian Churches as long as Christian Churches remain divided among themselves. Modern Catholicism encompasses all Catholics, so I would also ask, Rob, if you are referring specifically to the Roman Catholic Church, or are you also including the other Latin Rites and all the Eastern Rites? I don't think it's completely fair to say that the Catholic Church lacks authority, as the Pope and the Bishops who are all united with him constitute the teaching authority of the Church (i.e. the Magisterium). I also disagree that the Catholic Church is ineffectual. There may be many parishes that you might consider ineffectual, but there are many dioceses and parishes that are effective. What do you think?
This is going to come down to personal experience. I've seen how two or so generations have been largely lost due to poor formation at the seminary and catechetical level, but this is the blink of an eye in the span of Church history. It's also a largely regional phenomenon. The Catholic Church has been growing like wildfire under string leadership in Africa and Asia. Even in the United States, a recent revival is bearing some serious fruit, from apostolates like Word on Fire, Ascension, the St Paul Center, the Augustine Institute, FOCUS, The Pillar, Hallow, and Catholic Answers, to name a few. We're building churches in my diocese, which seems to be typical in the West and South of the U.S.
These cycles of corruption and renewal are the common theme of the history of the Church, and the history of God's people, Israel, for that matter.
Fair comment. I would note that most to all churches, Anglican and Catholic, trinitarian and likely unitarian, are growing rapidly in the Global South.
But your original comment does have merit. You do not find female priestess developments among the Coptics or Armenians, for example. It's something to ponder.
Thankyou Calvin for this article it has helped fill in a lot of factual gaps. I'm only a novice in these matters, but it would be interesting to explore how these same chronological facts might be interpreted with more nuance through the lens of the Sensus fidei (Lumen Gentium 12; CCC 92) over the period. Perhaps at grass roots level the imaginative draw and sacramental experience of being part of the mystical body of Christ; each person a uniquely colourful character in the 'Christian Story', was 'heavily edited' as a result of the events you outline, and the gaps filled by rhetoric and black and white thinking, leading to the continued polarisation we still see today, even in parts of this thread. Sorry if this doesn't make much sense.. I'm still trying to understand what it is I'm trying to say :)
Great essay. I would have liked a mention of St Alban, the powerful Pelagians who some scholars see as a sign of independence and the still-extant Romano-Briton church protected from invaders by St Germanus of Auxerre.
I cannot thank you enough for this text. I think it is going to teach me so so much, it is wonderful. Lots for a person like me to learn and this is magistral.
Thank you for a fascinating article, I have learnt a lot and look forward to your article about Catholicism. I am thinking of seeking sanctuary from modern Anglicanism in the RC church.
I would not blame you at all. In fact, I will pray for you on your spiritual journey.
Thank you so much 🙏
Karen, prayers for you on your spiritual journey. Just know the grass is definitely not greener in the RC Church. Modernism plagues most parishes. Godspeed!
That is very kind, thank you. I have embarked on instruction in my local RC church and will be needing all the prayers I can get, I am quite sure. It is surprisingly hard to make this journey.
One of our co-hosts officially joined the Catholic Church last week after a long, messy and complex conversion process that included encountering the Anglican faith in the Church of England (at Durham Cathedral) and then worshipping in the Anglican Church of Canada before pursuing graduate studies at Canada's leading Anglican seminary (Trinity College at the University of Toronto) where he first encountered proper Catholicism. You can see more here about his journey: https://www.cofcomcat.com/post/we-ve-come-home-to-rome
If he were to give you advice, it would be to pursue the truth and follow it where it leads.
God bless you on your faith journey!
Travis, does your friend have any thought on Pope Francis' controversies, such as the Pachamama veneration?
Thank you. I will follow the link you provided. 🙏
Spot-on Fr. Calvin! I've been attempting to present the very same facts to a number of Roman Catholics I know, and the replies I get are just short of diabolical. We who have fully vetted the history of the Church IN Brittania, know that they predated the Church OF England, and, in fact, predated the Church of Rome. After all, we do see the bishops of England at the Council of Nicaea long before the Roman Catholic Church took over leadership of the the Church in England.
A very good point.
Tertullian, ~200 AD, wrote "the places of the Britons not reached by the Romans but subject to Christ" adding, "Christ's name reigns."
Roman Catholics are diabolical? Not only is that false, it's not charitable.
I did NOT say they were diabolical. I said many were just short of that. In other words, many were mean spirited about it and quite uncharitable.
Sorry I misread your earlier post. Mea Culpa.
Diabolical = Anglican 39 Articles of Religion; Article XXV, Article XXVIII and XXXI. It is not God's fault you are a fake Priest giving out fake Holy Communion. Jesus Christ's Eucharist instructions are simple to understand so how about reading them again without Protestant bias: John 4:7-14 & 31-36, John 6:22-63 and Lord's Supper.
God bless you
You are walking in complete ignorance. My Holy Orders as a priest are perfectly in tact. Stop drinking the Kool-aid.
Not at all. If you read Jesus Christ's infallibly correct Eucharist instructions above on how to identify the Eucharist by Its substance; Jesus Christ removes ignorance very quickly and permanently. That is, if one is not being biased and possesses at least basic comprehension skills. Jesus Christ taught me what substance the Eucharist is in Scripture before I decided to go to Church for the Eucharist. I agreed with Apostle St. Paul’s advice “but test everything; hold fast to what is good.” Comprehending Jesus Christ’s instructions makes it as simple as playing snap after that to identify who is not obeying Jesus Christ’s Eucharist instructions.
There is only one Eucharist. If a Christian picked at random one of the five different Christian Eucharists on offer from Christian Authorities = 80% chance of fake Holy Communion. Don't obey Jesus Christ's Eucharist instructions in full (“Do this”) = no Eucharist. Simple as that.
At the end of the day, who wants Christians receiving fake Holy Communion? a) God and Christians b) Satan.
Four out of five Eucharists on offer to Christians are nothing but Satan’s illusion. Which is a perfect reason never to deviate from Jesus Christ’s instructions on how to identify the Eucharist by Its substance. Just being able to identify at the standard that say a Strawberry and Cream Eucharist is obviously fake, is not the high standard required to lift the veil on Satan’s illusion.
Protestant Authorities intend to supply Christians with four different types of Eucharist between them, each intended to be brought about without a change in substance to the bread and wine. Orthodox and Catholic Authorities have one Eucharist between them, intended to be brought about with a change in substance to the bread and wine.
Protestants = four different Eucharists, no-change in substance. Catholic and Orthodox = one Eucharist, change in substance. Simply, if Jesus Christ changed the substance at the Lord’s Supper then all four Protestant Authority Eucharists disobey Christ’s Eucharist instructions = fake Lord’s Supper.
At the first Lord’s Supper, AFTER blessing what was in the cup, Jesus Christ instructed “Drink from it all of you; for this is My Blood.” (Matt 26:27-28). Before Christ’s blessing, the substance in the cup was not Christ’s Blood; but after Christ’s blessing the substance in the cup is Christ’s Blood. Therefore, Christ did change the substance at the first Lord’s Supper.
The Trinity can read that each Protestant Authority instructs that Christ did something evil if He changed the substance at the Lord’s Supper. For example, your Anglican Article XXVIII, instructs Christ has been “repugnant to the plain words of Scripture” for “the change of the substance of bread and wine in the Supper of the Lord.”
Jesus Christ instructed us five times that physically eating and drinking the Living Water/Bread of Life/Lord’s Supper gives eternal life and Christ will abide in them and they in Him (John 4, 6 and Lord’s Supper).
Orthodox and Catholic substance instructions: “But [he is present] truly and really, so that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, the bread is transmuted, transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord… and the wine is converted and transubstantiated into the true Blood Itself of the Lord… Further [we believe] that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, there no longer remains the substance of the bread and of the wine, but the Body Itself and the Blood of the Lord, under the species and form of bread and wine; that is to say, under the accidents of the bread.” (Orthodox Church’s Ecumenical and dogmatic Decree 17, paragraph 1 & 2, “Council of Dositheus”, 1672 A.D.) . https://www.crivoice.org/creeddositheus.html
Jesus Christ instructs the Eucharist is a Physical and Spiritual feeding on Him: “53…Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; 55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.” (John 6:53-58). The Jews, including, Apostles, correctly comprehended a physical feeding on Christ “How can this man gives us his flesh to eat?”. The Jews who walked away, and later Judas, did not believe Jesus could give His flesh and blood to eat and drink.
In John 6:63 Jesus Christ clarified “The words that I have spoken to you are spirit (Spiritual feeding – abide in Me, and I in them) and life (Physical feeding – Christ’s Living Flesh and Blood). According to Jesus Christ, Physically eating and drinking Christ’s Living Physical Flesh and Blood is not useless. Further, Jesus Christ pointed out the obvious in Luke 24:39 “for a spirit does not have flesh”.
In Scripture alone, Jesus Christ and Apostles never used the word “wine” to drink for the Eucharist. Yet Protestants drink wine for the Eucharist. Jesus Christ explicitly instructs “this is My Blood” and Protestants tell Jesus Christ He instructed “this is wine” to drink. The old change the meaning of words confusion tactic to sow the Devil’s doubt.
Another oral tradition instituted by Christ; is that Christ, at the First Lord’s Supper, imparted to Apostles, a Gift of God the Light of the Holy Spirit/Sacred Power/Apostolic Succession that He used to consecrate the bread and wine. No Sacred Power to consecrate = no Eucharist.
These first Bishops could consecrate and pass this Sacred Power on hands on for other men to consecrate. Jesus Christ instructed “Do this” and if the “this” is not done then no Holy Communion. Simply, Jesus Christ consecrated the elements at the First Lord’s Supper, so if Jesus Christ is not consecrating for the Lord’s Supper then “Do this” is not being done = Lord’s Supper not re-presented = no Holy Communion in the present. This Sacred Power, for a Priest to act in the person of Christ, is essential for it to be Christ standing at the Altar consecrating. This Apostolic Succession is and passed on hands on at the Sacrament of Holy Orders into the Priesthood by a Bishop/s of Apostolic Succession.
At Catholic and Orthodox Sacrifice of the Mass: the Lord’s Supper is re-presented in order to provide the Lord’s Supper to eat and drink in the present (“Do this”); the Priest, acting in the person of Christ, consecrates the substance of bread and wine to become, by the Power of the Holy Spirit, the substance of Christ’s Living Flesh and Blood (Physical) with His Soul and Divinity (Spiritual). This plays snap with Scripture.
God can read. Your ordination intended you to provide a Eucharist that does not exist and without the Gift of the Holy Spirit essential to provide, by the Power of the Holy Spirit, the Eucharist that does exist.
Further, your Article XXV demonizes the Sacrament of Holy Orders as a “corrupt following of the Apostles”. Thereby, demonizing God the Light of the Holy Spirit for His Gift of God the Light of the Holy Spirit, essential for consecrating by the Power of God the Light of the Holy Spirit.
Do you know what blasphemy against the Holy Spirit entails?
Further, your Article XXVIII demonizes Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit for changing the substance of bread and wine - “or the change of the substance of bread and wine… is repugnant” and “superstitions”.
Further, your Article XXVIII instructs that upon eating physical bread and wine the Soul enters Heaven and feeds on Christ Spiritually, then back to earth – “an heavenly and spiritual manner.”
Further, your Article XXXI demonizes Jesus Christ’s Sacrifice of the Mass as “blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.”
Your Lord’s Supper Article, four paragraphs, never quotes a Scripture passage once. Yet instructs that the Anglican Church can prove, using Scripture passages alone, that Jesus Christ did not change the substance of bread and wine at the First Lord’s Supper, and a Spiritual only feeding in Heaven. The Lord’s Supper Article claims there is proof of this in Scripture but has no idea where in Scripture. All mouth and no action. Your Lord’s Supper Article is four paragraphs of all sales and no-substance emotional bullying.
I point you to God's Eucharist instructions in Scripture to put side by side with Anglican Eucharist instructions, and in reply, you also avoid using Scripture. Instead, you reply that I must be ignorant and high, to conclude that Jesus Christ’s instructions in Scripture prove you were ordained with the intention not to obey them. All sales and no-substance emotional bullying Mr Jones, just like your Articles of Religion.
“You are walking in complete ignorance. My Holy Orders as a priest are perfectly in tact. Stop drinking the Kool-aid.” (Richard Jones).
Your Anglican Articles tell God that God’s gifts are evil quite a few times e.g. the Eucharist is evil, Blessed Virgin Mary’s sinless life is evil, Purgatory is evil, intercession of Saints by their prayers or relics is evil and Holy Icons are evil. According to God’s evidence your Articles of Religion instruct a pack of evil lies about God.
You think yourself a Priest but swore an oath to God at ordination not to provide Christians with Christ’s Living Flesh and Blood with His Soul and Divinity, but bread and wine instead = fake Priest. Using the devils doubt tactic of changing the meaning of the word Priest makes no difference. A devil’s doubt tactic: when Jesus Christ instructed “this is my blood” to drink, He instructed “this is wine” to drink.
Protestantism = conspiracy to defraud Christians of eating and drinking Christ’s Living Flesh and Blood with His Soul and Divinity.
There is, by the grace of God, the Catholic Ordinariate for Protestant Ministers to become Priests.
God bless you
Your ignorance concerning the subject of the 39 Articles is beyond the pale. First, I must inform you, is that the 39 Articles are not a statement of faith for Anglo-Catholics. They are an historical document meant to inform. Much of the 39 Articles are simply a poor reaction to Roman Catholic practices that were considered corrupted. As an Anglo-Catholic I can, and do, argue against several of the 39 Articles which can be biblically refuted. Second is your misinformed notion of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. As Aquinas points out, the creatures of bread and wine do not change, but the mystical substance does. Most Anglo-Catholics understand that the change which takes place at the Epiclesis is hypostatic. Just as Christ joined himself to human flesh at the Incarnation. 100% God and 100% man. The issue with Roman Catholics is that they try too hard to intellectually explain what happens at the Epiclesis, rather than accept the simpler understanding of the mystery of the hypostasis between the body and blood of Christ, with the the creatures of bread and wine. All one has to do is to look at the theology of the Incarnation, and you will see a clear type of union between the body and blood of Christ with the creatures of bread and wine, thus bringing Grace to those who partake of the Divine nature hypostatically joined together with the bread and the wine.
Facts: You were ordained to provide the Eucharist without a change in substance and without the Gift of God the Light of the Holy Spirit essential to provide the Eucharist using a change in substance. And you don’t believe you were told a pack of heretical lies and therefore end up giving out fake Holy Communion to God’s Christians.
So now your falsely accusing St. Aquinas of being ignorant enough to think he had the Authority to put the words ‘bread’ and ‘wine’ into the mouth of Jesus Christ’s instructions on what to physically eat and drink for the Lord’s Supper. And you falsely accuse the Catholic Church of being ignorant enough to canonize someone who instructed the heresy that Jesus Christ never changed the substance of bread and what was in the cup for the Lord’s Supper New Covenant.
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): “Some have held that the substance of the bread and wine remains in this sacrament after the consecration. But this opinion cannot stand: first of all, because by such an opinion the truth of this sacrament is destroyed”. (Summa Theologica, Part III, Question 75, Article 2)
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): “for the whole substance of the bread is changed into the whole substance of Christ’s body, and the whole substance of the wine into the whole substance of Christ’s blood. Hence this is not a formal, but a substantial conversion; nor is it a kind of natural movement: but, with a name of its own, it can be called "transubstantiation.”" (Summa Theologica, Part III, Question 75, Article 4)
Don’t obey Jesus Christ’s Eucharist instructions in full = no Eucharist.
Protestantism = conspiracy to defraud Christians of physically eating and drinking Christ’s Living Physical Flesh and Blood with His Living Spiritual Soul and Divinity.
There is, by the grace of God, the Catholic Ordinariate for Protestant Ministers to become Priests.
God bless you
1 Cor 1:31 Therefore, as it is written, 'Let him who boasts boast in the Lord.
Thank you for this.
As someone who, with my church, gradually separated from the Episcopal Church after the ordination of Gene Robinson as bishop in 2003, I’ve had way too much experience of separation in the Church. We aligned with the African Anglican Church (Nigeria, if I’m remembering correctly) and eventually became part of a diocese in the Anglican Church in North America. But communion with heretics continues to be a problem, now that the Archbishop of Canterbury seems to be supporting the blessing of homosexual relationships.
But wasn’t the early church constantly battling over heretical departures from Christian doctrine? There was Gnosticism, Pelagianism, Arminianism, and no doubt many others. It seems the battle for the true faith will not end until Christ returns and all things are put under His feet. In the meantime, I’m thankful for you and the others whose devotion to truth and facts and history keep the rest of us grounded.
Precisely. There have been divisions since the dawn of the Church.
Fascinating read. Thank you for sharing!
Thank you for reading. 👍
Thank you for your insights on this. Not all Roman Catholics have such a binary view of Henry VIII. Sadly I believe you are right that the matter of his annulment was decided on the basis of politics rather than the basis of prudence and wisdom that the Holy Father should have considered. I was shocked when in college, my professor (a fellow proud Roman Catholic) defended Henry VIII regarding his treatment by Rome! I was very surprised to learn so much about this period in history of which I was ignorant.
I hope we can one day see greater unification between England and Rome, and a renewed reverence and protection for the many sacred Cathedrals and Monasteries that have shaped the character and spirituality of your country for centuries. I look forward to seeing your thoughts about Catholicism in your forthcoming article.
God bless you. I am with you on this. 🙏
I am glad that you are defending the catholicity of the Anglican Church because that is a door into acknowledging the catholicity of the Reformed church in Scotland (Presbyterian), in the Netherlands, in France, etc. I come from the Dutch Reformed tradition which speaks of the catholic nature of the church and the apostolicity of her doctrine. If you look at the historical background of the Synod Dort (which produced the Canons of Dort) in Dordtrecht, Netherlands, there were a variety of Anglican representatives there, who also played a role in formulating Reformed doctrine in contradiction to the errors of Jacobus ARminius. If you read the intent of many of the Reformers they saw these various national churches as an expression of the catholic faith against the charges of schism by Rome.
Thanks for reminding us of history some would like us to forget.
Off topic, I hope you post your address at the upcoming Colson conference. I have so many travels, I don't think it doable for me to be there.
Well done, Father Calvin! Your command of history and theological matters is very instructive. I especially like to hear you and Laurence Fox debate on "Fox and Father." Yours is the voice of reason and firm conviction.
Thank you! 🤩
Thank you for the article. Very insightful and encouraging.
Great article, I look forward to your next one about Catholicism.
Much appreciated, Ben. 🙌
fr Calvin, i’m interested in why you are not yet a member of an orthodox church. it seems a natural home for you.
Thanks for this thoughtful contribution to Christian unity. I'm a Catholic (in full communion with Rome), but I grew up Evangelical Protestant with a one-year stop in the Episcopal (U.S.) Church during college (or at university, as you folks say). Anyway, Christian unity is near and dear to my heart, and I have a great love for Anglican aesthetics and tradition.
I agree with your approach of taking a hard look at apostolic succession. I can affirm what you've said about Apostolicae Curae not possessing the charism of infallibility (and I can't imagine any Catholic claiming that it does). Nor is it a teaching concerning the deposit of faith — it couldn't be, since it concerns events centuries after the death of the apostles. Instead, it's a classic example of a prudential judgment as a function of the Church's governing authority. In this way, it's similar to an annulment. The Church can rarely know for certain whether a marriage or an ordination are valid, but she makes the best judgment she can based on the evidence. It's entirely possible that Apostolicae Curae could someday be overturned as the fruit of new evidence and considerations.
Regardless, from what I understand, for those CoE clergy who have an unbroken chain of succession from Eastern or Old Catholic ordinations, I see no reason to conclude that their ordinations are invalid. The amplification of this practice within the Anglican Communion could go a long way toward greater Christian unity.
Ultimately, though, I find the historical and biblical arguments for papal supremacy to be entirely convincing. We can only achieve full unity through the Bishop of Rome. That said, full communion does not necessarily require direct governance, as the various sui iuris Eastern Catholic churches demonstrate. We may pray that the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham may some day be given such a status.
Thank you for your thorough and charitable response. God bless you!
I've made a realization since my original comment, which may contribute somewhat to the discussion. I am no expert on Apostolicae Curse or the arguments on which it depends, but female ordination is an additional development which I think ought to be taken into account.
To my knowledge, the separated bishops whose ordinations Rome has never questioned, such as in the Eastern, Armenian, and Coptic churches, have never attempted female ordination. Perhaps this is a fruit of their apostolic charism. The same cannot be said of Anglican bishops, so that may tell us something about their own validity to the extent that we can judge a communion of alleged bishops by its fruit. It's not definitive proof, but it does give me pause.
If Modern Catholicism wasn't in such shambles, you'd have a fantastic argument here. But the post-Vatican II Church is weak, ineffectual, and lacks authority.
I disagree. Modern Catholicism is in shambles in many ways, but I would suggest that so are all Christian Churches as long as Christian Churches remain divided among themselves. Modern Catholicism encompasses all Catholics, so I would also ask, Rob, if you are referring specifically to the Roman Catholic Church, or are you also including the other Latin Rites and all the Eastern Rites? I don't think it's completely fair to say that the Catholic Church lacks authority, as the Pope and the Bishops who are all united with him constitute the teaching authority of the Church (i.e. the Magisterium). I also disagree that the Catholic Church is ineffectual. There may be many parishes that you might consider ineffectual, but there are many dioceses and parishes that are effective. What do you think?
This is going to come down to personal experience. I've seen how two or so generations have been largely lost due to poor formation at the seminary and catechetical level, but this is the blink of an eye in the span of Church history. It's also a largely regional phenomenon. The Catholic Church has been growing like wildfire under string leadership in Africa and Asia. Even in the United States, a recent revival is bearing some serious fruit, from apostolates like Word on Fire, Ascension, the St Paul Center, the Augustine Institute, FOCUS, The Pillar, Hallow, and Catholic Answers, to name a few. We're building churches in my diocese, which seems to be typical in the West and South of the U.S.
These cycles of corruption and renewal are the common theme of the history of the Church, and the history of God's people, Israel, for that matter.
Fair comment. I would note that most to all churches, Anglican and Catholic, trinitarian and likely unitarian, are growing rapidly in the Global South.
But your original comment does have merit. You do not find female priestess developments among the Coptics or Armenians, for example. It's something to ponder.
*strong leadership
Thankyou Calvin for this article it has helped fill in a lot of factual gaps. I'm only a novice in these matters, but it would be interesting to explore how these same chronological facts might be interpreted with more nuance through the lens of the Sensus fidei (Lumen Gentium 12; CCC 92) over the period. Perhaps at grass roots level the imaginative draw and sacramental experience of being part of the mystical body of Christ; each person a uniquely colourful character in the 'Christian Story', was 'heavily edited' as a result of the events you outline, and the gaps filled by rhetoric and black and white thinking, leading to the continued polarisation we still see today, even in parts of this thread. Sorry if this doesn't make much sense.. I'm still trying to understand what it is I'm trying to say :)
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. 💭
Great article Calvin. I really only knew a brief history of this from school. It's good to know our common roots in our mother church.
Thank you, Liz. 🙌
Great essay. I would have liked a mention of St Alban, the powerful Pelagians who some scholars see as a sign of independence and the still-extant Romano-Briton church protected from invaders by St Germanus of Auxerre.
I cannot thank you enough for this text. I think it is going to teach me so so much, it is wonderful. Lots for a person like me to learn and this is magistral.
Thank you, Catherine. 👍