The article says a church is not a church without a valid eucharist as if that is the main distinction between us and you. That is not the main distinction. The claimed authority of the pope is a bigger distinction for one, in my humble opinion.
The claimed authority of the pope is a bigger distinction for one, in my humble opinion...
...Popes come and go, and some are better than others and are so judged by the faithful...the ‘claimed authority’ you deride proceeds from a direct line of apostolic succession that we believe in and cherish...on the other hand, the presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist is forever and inviolate, and is the reason for for celebrating the Mass...the symbolism evident in the Protestant communion couldn’t possible constitute a more major distinction....
What we got here (try this suggestion) is so radical a difference in ecclesiology that we can't even agree what the difference is. I love it!
I understand Shea to say that because we filthy papists acknowledge the "churchiness" of the "Orthodox" therefore, at least functionally, the obvious distinguishing mark is the sacrament. The "Orthodox" got it, but you ain't got it - and don't even want it. So that makes it the "flag" or whatever.
It seems to me he can't believe that with great theological rigor. If an Arian showed up and said "Oh yes, we believe in the real presence and all that; we just don't believe Jesus is Divine," My guess is Shea would say, "Oh yeah, that too."
But you, DM, are saying that for YOU, the real deal is that we have a notion of what I propose we call "authoritative revelation" which differs profoundly from the "protestant" notion.
It's kind of a version of the word v. sacrament controversy that also divides us! Shea is saying we're apart because of a difference about THE sacrament, and you're saying we're apart because of a difference about "authoritative revelation" or "the Word".
What made me cheer for Shea was not so much the Sacrament as the only opinion which divides us but his presentation of the problem that it seems that if a bunch of people say,"The RCs are wrong," that's considered a good thing, while if the RC's say, "Well, no actually, we think you're wrong," that's considered the Nazi Pope dragging the Church back into the dark ages and "hyper-denominationalism" and blah blah. And his, I thought, appropriate trashification of the "Can't we all just get along" side of ecumenism by saying that adoring the sacrament aor asking Mary for intercessions for the "poor souls in Purgatory", quite expectedly and unremarkably gives our protestant brethren the heebie-jeebies.
Mirabile dictu is it almost tolerable outside this evening. It has been vicious!