www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Mar Thoma (Anglican) Church

http://www.marthomachurch.com/Heritage-Mission/reformation-malankara.htm

Link "justifying" why the Mar Thoma Church became an Anglican Church. Really sad. Right on the page they show how they dropped references to transubstantiation and the Real prescence, Virgin Mary, etc. So there is no hope for their apostolic succession ("unbloody sacrifice" changed to "prayer" for example)


anastasios

Dear Dustin,

Yes, but I wouldn't trade Mor Ephrem for anything!

Alex

Dear Dustin,

Now you know why I am leaving the Mar Thoma Church, to enter either the Orthodox or the Catholic Church.

I read everything (and I mean everything) on that website once, when I was desperately trying to find a way of "being comfortable" by not leaving. But increasingly I found I had to. I wrote priests, telling them of my doubts, and why if I wasn't "shown the error of the Orthodox/Catholic ways", I would have to enter the Church. I never received any replies.

Couple that with my personal hearing of one leading Mar Thoma bishop answering a lady's question of which church was the original church by saying "the Catholic Church", and I pretty much have my marching orders. For "Syro-Anglicans" to say it was the Orthodox Church would be one thing, but to go all out in favour of Peter is quite another. I ask for your continued prayers and, if you have any more, guidance.

And I'm happy you wouldn't trade me for someone else, Alex. I try to be of use to God and His Church. It's good to be appreciated.

Just one more thing. It's not completely fair to say that there are no references to the Real Presence. One of the reasons I was shocked we didn't believe in it was that in the Mar Thoma Qurbana, the prayers before the Communion all seem to indicate transubstantiation. So the actual teaching of consubstantiation was a shock.

And we do have references to the Virgin Mary. But they aren't ones asking her prayers. The beginning of the public celebration in the original Syrian goes something along the lines of "Mary who bore Thee, and John who baptised Thee, will intercede for us. Do thou have mercy on us." The Mar Thoma liturgy changes this to "Lord Jesus Christ, born of Mary, baptised by John, have mercy upon us." Similarly, in the Canons after the Epiclesis, there is a commemoration of the Virgin and the saints, but only she is mentioned by name by the deacon.

I suppose if you believe in consubstantiation, there is no question of sacrifice. It's like you say, Dustin. It's really sad.

I believe the Catholic-Lutheran Dialogue and the Catholic-Anglican dialogue have resolved these differences and this is no longer a point of contention. Much like many of the difficulies between east and west.

K.

Kurt, I believe the dialogue focused more on the theological dispute of faith and works, but there is no compromise that I can see being achieved on this issue of the Eucharist. Without going into Western terminology, the simple question needs to be asked: Is there bread and wine on the altar after the canon or isn't there? That's the point of difference between the Catholic/Orthodox Churches and the Protestants who still retain some understanding of the Eucharist (consubstantiation being the most precise clarification of this position, at least according to the Lutherans). No amount of Byzantine arguments is going to achieve a unified understanding unless one party accepts fully the view of the other.

Those are my two cents. I'm open for any clarification of the matter.

In IC XC
Samer

Samer,

My understanding is that while continued dialogue on the theology of the Eucharist continues with the Lutherans and Anglicans, the issue of transubstantiation and consubstantiation are now on the dustbin of history. The former differences where based on a common acceptance of Aristolian physics (something of which belief in is not neccesary for salvation). Catholic and Lutheran agree that the elements of the Eucharist have all of the attributes of bread and wine. Formerly though the question was asked "Yes, but IS IT BREAD?". Aristole was say every object has a "essense" that is self-existing. Utilitarian physics would say use make an object what it is (a chair is a chair because it can be used as a chair, not because the object has the essence of chair). Other schools of physics have other answers.

The bottom line is this latin overdefiniation has been recognized as no longer a valid differences between the Catholic Church and the Christian communions of the Lutheran and Anglican tradition.

K.

Not exactly the same, closer to the Orthodox, but they have good relations with the Mar Thoma Church (Anglican). I'd like to hear your opinions of this church:
http://freespace.virgin.net/phillip.tovey/

Dear Mor Ephrem,

Has this Church glorified Mar Koorilose I a Saint as their front page contains a picture of him with a halo?

Alex

Dear Alex,

To be honest with you, I don't know (I've heard that phrase too many times in the last couple of days...you probably know of what I refer to).

I don't know much about this church other than what I've read on the site. I haven't seen him referred to as a saint, but my guess is that he was, in one way or another, canonised by this church. I haven't heard of him as recognised by a bigger church, such as the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch (I haven't seen him in any list of saints).

Dear Mor Ephrem,

No matter, everyone can and will canonize their own saints!

I came across one group that considered itself a Western Orthodox Rite of Knights Templars.

They canonized Jacques de Molay, Geoffroi de Chancey and all the Templars who died at the hands of both the Inquisition and the Saracens.

Feast days and all.

Is there someone whom you would like to see canonized because of their relevance to you personally?

Alex

>My understanding is that while continued dialogue on the theology of the Eucharist continues with the Lutherans and Anglicans, the issue of transubstantiation and consubstantiation are now on the dustbin of history. The former differences where based on a common acceptance of Aristolian physics (something of which belief in is not neccesary for salvation). Catholic and Lutheran agree that the elements of the Eucharist have all of the attributes of bread and wine. Formerly though the question was asked "Yes, but IS IT BREAD?". Aristole was say every object has a "essense" that is self-existing. Utilitarian physics would say use make an object what it is (a chair is a chair because it can be used as a chair, not because the object has the essence of chair). Other schools of physics have other answers.<

Could you direct me to some official documents regarding this topic? I would be very interested in reading what the Catholic-Lutheran dialogue has said on the topic.

The topic of physics isn�t really germane, in my opinion. Mostly because no matter what physics theoretical system you are dealing with, it can only DESCRIBE the APEARANCE of what is PHYSICALLY going on. So I am not really sure as to your point in bringing the natural sciences up�

>The bottom line is this latin overdefiniation has been recognized as no longer a valid differences between the Catholic Church and the Christian communions of the Lutheran and Anglican tradition.<

Again, I would be very interested in OFFICIAL statements to this effect, and not statements that are misread like the Joint Declaration on Justification was a couple of months back.

PS
I was unaware that the issue of Transubstantiation/Consubstantiation was even a topic of discussion. Neither the Lutherans nor the Anglicans can confect the Eucharist as far as Rome AND Constantinople are concerned.

EXACTLY. And once you have accepted this, the differences between the theories of Transubstantiation/Consubstantiation evaporate. Ignatius, you are a true scholar and ecumenist.


Both the USCC/NCCB and the Franciscan Friars of the Atonement distibute copies of the official Catholic-Lutheran Dialogue. The Vatican website is another resource.


Oh yes, it has been a very important topic in the discussion. I have not read anything by Orthodox authorities. The Catholic Church has no official teaching on the Anglican eucharist, but still searches for unity and common understanding as they are our brothers and sisters in Christ and a valid church community.

K.

>>I was unaware that the issue of Transubstantiation/Consubstantiation was even a topic of discussion. Neither the Lutherans nor the Anglicans can confect the Eucharist as far as Rome AND Constantinople are concerned.<<

>Oh yes, it has been a very important topic in the discussion. I have not read anything by Orthodox authorities. The Catholic Church has no official teaching on the Anglican eucharist, but still searches for unity and common understanding as they are our brothers and sisters in Christ and a valid church community.<

The Orthodox wouldn't say the Anglicans' and the Lutherans' sacraments are without grace? Strictly speaking, both denominations are materially heretical.

The Catholic Church may not have issued anything formal on the Anglican's eucharist, but they have no ministerial priesthood, ergo no valid sacraments besides Baptism and Marriage.

As for Lutherans, well, the ones that believe in ordination freely admit that it is a discipline of the Church and not a sacrament instituted by Christ.

While we have been able to settle the issue of con/trans, which we mistakenly once thought divided us, we have also found great common agreement on the ministerial priesthood. Our discussion has been limited to our theology, but a strong private agrument can be made against Anglican Orders, though other faithful Catholics take a contrary view.

Nevertheless, we are all one in Christ.


K.