=====================

As I recall reading, back in the 60s before I was born, Paul VI and Canterbury agreed that the argument over Transubstantiation v. Real Presence was an exercise in semantics and that in essence both positions meant precisely the same thing.
I further recall JPII saying that the Cramner ordinations were probably invalid but that since the Oxford movement of the mid-nineteenth century virtually all CofE priests and bishops had insured the validity of their orders via conditional reconsecration and reordination through Orthodox and Old Catholic lines of Apostolic succession. American Episcopal clergy who could likewise demonstrate Apostolic succession were recognized by Rome as well. Most Anglican priests are considered valid but not in communion with Rome. Which brings us to another interesting point. A few years back JPII invited Anglicans who professed belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist to receive the Sacrament in RC masses when no Anglican church was reasonably convenient. These points were confirmed to me by the late Basil Cardinal Hume, OSB when I was studying in England and would from time to time serve his Mass at Westminster Cathedral and also by Fr Tracy SJ and Fr Beattie SJ provincial superiors of the Jesuits where I used to serve the Latin High Mass at Farm Street Church (the Church of the Immaculate Conception, Jesuit HQ for England).
Cardinal Hume used to say that Anglicans were not really Protestants but were "seperated bretherin" and not seperated by all that much. He went on to say that reconcilliation beter served Christ's intentions than confrontation since the price of redemption was paid by Jesus for all, not just for some.

Actually, many if not most Anglicans would consider Anglicanism a bridge between Protestantism and Catholicism -- sort of a "both" and "neither."

ETA:Opps. Just read dekeguys posy above, which puts it better than I did.

Now, I'm not trying to take it out of context, but I don't quite remember anywhere in the New Testament where Jesus says, "Say a prayer to my mother and ask her to pray for you" nor do I recall any passages about the saints - I would assume 'cuz there weren't any at the time? And as MysticCat explained to me once about my own religion: "The older Protestant groups -- the Lutherans, Presbyterians and Anglicans -- all teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are received in the Sacrament. They may disagree with each other (and with the Catholic Church) about how this happens, but they do teach that it does happen."

So I guess I've always been confused how men who made these rules and said they are the "truth of God revealed through Christ" came up with the rules when they aren't really discussed in the Bible? Like, did Jesus ever say, "Do not ordain women" or is it just that women weren't given any respect back then so they never got a mention? I also don't recall the Scripture of the Last Supper saying, "Do this in rememberance of me - but only if you are Catholic and have had your First Communion". I'm no biblical scholar, so maybe it's somewhere and I just don't remember it? :confused:

Seeing as though I'm dating a Protestant, I have a lot of heated discussions about religion. So much so, in fact, that I have a searchable copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church as my very first bookmark on my computer. Anyway, I searched for FRIDAY to discuss this fasting issue, and this is what I came up with:

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c2a4.htm#1438

However, I go to a pretend Catholic university and am also apparently a pretend Catholic, so what do I know? ;)

Nice of you to remember. :)

And I could add that the Eastern Orthodox tend to the think we Western Christians (Catholic and Protestant) are chasing our own tails trying to come up with any explanation about exactly "how" the Real Presence happens. They would just say that debating transubstantiation vs. "in, with and under" vs. "whatever" is useless and misses the point. It's a mystery that we can't understand or explain -- we should just accept it and move on.

I am really enjoying this discussion. I’m a Protestant, but I have always held a fascination with Catholicism.

I’m having trouble understanding how you can be Catholic without accepting the prevailing doctrine and beliefs. I am aware of the doctrine and beliefs of my religious group. I accept them. Does accepting them as truth mean that I always adhere to them? No. For instance, my doctrine sets forth that premarital sex is wrong. Do I believe that? Yes. Do I always adhere to that? No. However, the difference is, I am constantly trying to. I believe that we are all sinners who are constantly striving to do better.

If you do not believe in the basic doctrines and beliefs of your religion, why do you still belong to that group? Tradition?

I think you hit on an important point - specifically that belief and adherance are two seperate things. Some would argue that belief is all that is necessary to be considered a member of a faith (well that and the rituals that may have been involved); while others hold that it is adherance that is determining factor of faith... to me you can believe, but be a "bad, lapsed, or failed" member of a faith because of lack of adherance - but you still believe and to me thats what matters.

Some of the arguements in this thread touching on doctrines and beliefs are a littled flawed - in that what is recognized as a belief, a doctrine, a practice, or a tradition may not be seen as the same by members within the RCC... herein is where the heart of the arguements and debates lie - what is a belief and what is a teaching? (believe me even with in the Church one is more binding than the other).... or as someone else pointed out what is a practice and what is a tradition?

Plus you are a liberal, so there's really no saving you!!! :p

And I can't say I don't agree with that!!!! :)

My priest gave a similar homily last night. He has a track record for not voting for the winning president in every election since the 60s. And he shared that he didn't vote for Bush. Does this make him less of an American?

Ok... so maybe it depends on who you ask... bad example. ;) :D

His point was that there are many who don't agree with the appointment of the new Pope. But it shouldn't make them less of a Catholic. (I'm slowly trying to bring up the Pope topic that disappeared on page 2 or so.)

And I've heard about fasting on Fridays during Lent only... but not year round. Don't know many that do observe that. And I've heard all sorts of combinations of fasting. You can eat meat after sunddown on Fridays during Lent... you can engage in your given up thing for Lent on Sundays... etc. I couldn't do food fasting for health reasons.

Perhaps my fast should be giving up GC on Fridays... :rolleyes:

I love my sorority alot. But, I would never compare my faith/religion to it. But since you brought it up, let's run with that. I love Alpha Kappa Alpha. I believe in the mission and ideals on which we were founded and stand. IF I didn't, I would not have expressed interest in AKA in the first place. As a member, as there rules that I do not care for? Yes. However, those are rules that may be changed and there are systems in place to allow for change. So, I would liken church beliefs and doctrines to the principles of my org, and policies to common practices.

Thanks for the feedback RACopper. I think I will have to do more research on beliefs/doctrine vs. tradition in the Catholic church

===============

May I add something here? In the RC church Scripture and Tradition are the bases of Doctrine. Tradition which traces back to the origin of the Faith is considered as valid as Scripture considering that the written word dates to about AD 100 and before that time there was no written New Testament. So, all New Testament scripture comes from Tradition anyway. It was word of mouth for some time before it was fully written down. This is one of the reasons why RCs believe the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit but is not the literal word of God. Also, since it has been translated several times into several different languages an exact translation was impossible. RCs believe that the Bible contains the message of God without being couched in His exact words. Tradition is viewed as equally valid for the same reasons.

THANKS!