|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Reserving the Sacrament - Knock! Knock! Who's There?
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
15 February, 2007 09:24
This OP has come about because of a long thread in Ecclesiantics about a webcam that just watches over an altar in front of a place where the sacrament is reserved.
Now, being the lowest of the low in regard to Sacraments (except that Quakers are probably sub-terranean in this respect and we Salvationists at least have a theology of atonement) I have no particular knowledge or experience about reserving sacraments - except that communion was done in the elderly care hom,e where I was a chaplain and was done with wine that was consecrated in church a couple of days previously.
But what is the justification for the idea that Jesus is in the little box in the wall, or is to be adored when slotted into a monstrance for all the faithful to see.
How does this square with the idea that Jesus, by his Spirit, is already dwelling within my heart and life - as promised by Jesus himself; and the fact that according to Paul, the mystery of faith is 'Christ in you, the hope of glory'.
Why does Jesus need to be kept in a tabernacle and 'brought out' for adoration when he is present in our hearts (not temples made by human hands)?
[ 08. May 2007, 01:51: Message edited by: Professor Kirke ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
15 February, 2007 09:44
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Now, being the lowest of the low
Mudfrog, you shouldn't take all those hell threads to heart! ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif) .
Just to say that you sometimes get the equivalent oddness in churches that, in theory, have a symbolic view of the sacraments. In one church we attended, my daughter picked up one of the little cups of grape juoice after the service. The pastor snatched it from her hand, ran out to the vestry and returned with the grape juice carton from which the cups had been filled, which my daughter was allowed to drink. I'm still trying to work out what he thought was different about the grape juice in the little cups.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
15 February, 2007 10:45
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) how does one even begin to answer when there is so much loaded language to wade through first?
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
15 February, 2007 10:47
TT, all language is loaded, eg the title 'anabaptist' given by catholics to my tradition, or indeed the term of abuse 'Christian'
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
15 February, 2007 10:51
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
how does one even begin to answer when there is so much loaded language to wade through first?
It's good to see you are so committed to dispelling wrong ideas about your tradition.
There is a genuine question about how Christ can be "extra present" in the elements when he has already promised his presence in the life of the church which I, for one, would love an answer to.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
15 February, 2007 10:54
Is the question "What is the justification for believing Our Lord to be truly present in the Blessed Sacrament?" or "Accepting arguendo that Our Lord is truly present in the Blessed Sacrament, what is the justification for holding that he can be worshipped there?"?
To me, the second seems obvious - we can worship Christ wherever he is present and worshipping him in the Sacrament does not preclude us from worshipping him in his Church or wherever.
The first is a familiar discussion.
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
15 February, 2007 10:57
What's this then - all the prots come out to play at the same time? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
But let's make a small start and get over the antics.
Tell me, how could God be present in the whole universe but also present and localised in Jesus?
How is Jesus "present" in your heart?
How is Jesus present to your mind?
How is Jesus present to your Body?
Start with those, think about the implications of the incarnation and you will begin a crash course in sacramentality.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
15 February, 2007 11:10
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Tell me, how could God be present in the whole universe but also present and localised in Jesus?
You've lost me already. Sounds like adoptionist christology to me, which I thought we all agreed was heretical.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
15 February, 2007 11:10
Last Corpus Christi, the Sermon preached at the Mass I attended drew attention to the use of incense during the service. The congregation are incensed - because Christ is present amongst his people. The Gospel book is incensed - because Christ is present in the Sacred Scriptures. And the Sacrament is incensed - because Christ is present here too.
As an Anglican, I don't know that I would try to enter into too much detail as to why each of these 'presences' differs from each other... or how any differs from the immanent presence of the Triune God throughout the whole created order. Still less would I ever suggest that the Real Presence means that Christ is absent anywhere else.
Still, I am willing to take it on trust that Christ knew what He was doing when He said - my Body, my Blood. On trust, and on the witness of all of those - including many Saints, as well as my sinful self - who have found Grace through the Adoration of Christ in the Sacrament.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
15 February, 2007 11:14
Maybe a verse of scripture may help, Mudfrog. Here is 1 Cor 11 v 29.
For anyone who eats and drinks without recognising the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself (NIV)
In the ARCIC discussions over Eucharist which you can find here, it is worth looking in particular at paras 6-12. And maybe for nonconformists with a high view of scripture (like you and me) this statement requires serious consideration.
quote:
The Lord's words at the last supper, "Take and eat; this is my body", do not allow us to dissociate the gift of the presence and the act of sacramental eating. The elements are not mere signs; Christ's body and blood become really present and are really given. But they are really present and given in order that, receiving them, believers may be united in communion with Christ the Lord.
The 1 Cor 11 scripture and its context provide two separate responsibilities for those who participate in the Eucharist.
1. Folks should examine themselves. (An individual responsibility)
2. Careless and ignorant participation will bring not blessing but judgment. (An individual and corporate responsibility.)
Of course I recognise that this is a long way from the full Orthodox or Catholic understanding of Eucharist but I am trying to build a bridge. It is clear enough from the scriptures that the celebration of the Eucharist requires both reverence and care over the distribution. "How much care" is something we argue about. But one can hardly argue that the care taken over the reserved host does not have a sound basis.
I grew up in a church which had an extremely informal attitude to the bread and the wine, but as I've got older, I've recognised that was a classical nonconformist attitude which was suspicious of priests, sacraments, and anything which might be seen as "magical". I now think we were wrong to be so informal.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
15 February, 2007 11:19
"But what is the justification for the idea that Jesus is in the little box in the wall, or is to be adored when slotted into a monstrance for all the faithful to see"
Go into a Catholic Church and pray before the reserved sacrament - that should convince you there is something special about it.
Its probably something more to be absorbed and let flood over you then something to understand in a descriptive sense.
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
15 February, 2007 11:25
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
There is a genuine question about how Christ can be "extra present" in the elements when he has already promised his presence in the life of the church which I, for one, would love an answer to.
Maybe you can answer my son's latest question about how Jesus seems to promise that he will be "extra present" when two or three are gathered together in his name, when God is supposed to be omnipresent anyway?
Is there any stripe of christian out there who doesn't in effect believe that God is more present in some places and situations than others?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
15 February, 2007 11:25
I think that if we look at our own relationship with God, to use an overused expression, many of us will know times in which God has seemed extremely close, when we have felt ourselves in His hand, when we have seemed to have heard His voice. There are of course moments when the converse is true: 'my child, that was when we hopped'. Now the thing is God is always close to us, we are always in His hand, we always (if we will but listen) hear his voice, but that is not reason to belittle those moments when through grace* he makes himself more apparent to us.
Now I think the point of sacramental religion is that it does not make this awareness of God dependent on the subjective consciousness of the individual. God makes Himself more apparent to us in the sacraments, whatever our state of mind. I think I've had half a dozen moments of the type described above, but I've been to Mass or genuflected before the sacrament thousands of times. Thank God for Mass is what I say.
*I realise that some Christians may never have had such experiences and I am not saying anything negative about the state of their souls. But I think that if one does have an awareness of the presence of God it is through grace and not nature.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
15 February, 2007 12:03
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Maybe a verse of scripture may help, Mudfrog. Here is 1 Cor 11 v 29.
For anyone who eats and drinks without recognising the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself (NIV)
In the ARCIC discussions over Eucharist which you can find here, it is worth looking in particular at paras 6-12. And maybe for nonconformists with a high view of scripture (like you and me) this statement requires serious consideration.
But this nonconformist with a high view of Scripture would argue that the immediate context of "the body of the Lord" is 1 Co 11:21:
quote:
When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk.
The verse you refer to is the direct response to that problem. There's nothing in the context to suggest that it has anything to do with believing that something funny happens to the bread and the wine, and indeed Paul manifestly isn't talking about a ritualistic 10-calorie eucharist service anyway. I read v29 as saying "Whoever takes part in an agape meal without realising that he does so as part of the body of Christ..."
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosa Winkel
Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424
|
Posted
15 February, 2007 12:14
Speaking as a Quaker cum Anglo-Catholic, who loves a bit of Reserved Sacrament adoration, I can say the following:
It can be easy to forget the nearness of God in his mystery and in all things. Kneeling before the Sacrament can stand as a time in the week that brings home to me the nearness of God, like as a reminder.
I also find that I find it easier to concentrate on God, the holy being of light who can bring good out of me and reduce the evil in me, when I have something to look at; as opposed to what can become self-indulgent thinking during a Quaker Meeting.
That's my personal take and is not to be seen as authoritive on being a Quaker or Anglo-Catholic or anything.
--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project
Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
15 February, 2007 12:17
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
how does one even begin to answer when there is so much loaded language to wade through first?
You will tend to get that kind of language from the low end of the candle simply because many of those at that point reject the idea of any kind of Real Presence as being in some way heretical; for some it borders on the idolatrous. I think it was Trisagion who put it well some weeks back when he said something to the effect that "If you (the Protestants) are right about disbelieving the Real Presence then what we Catholics do each Mass is indeed a form of gross idolatry but if on the other hand we are correct..."
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
15 February, 2007 12:37
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
Go into a Catholic Church and pray before the reserved sacrament - that should convince you there is something special about it.
I accept that this may well be true, and like Barnabas, I have come to hold a more sacramental view of the eucharist than is common in my denomination. But I have strong and negative memories of a service of benediction I went to as a teenager, when we were all invited to venerate a wafer.
It wasn't my tradition. I was used to bread not wafers. I was put off by trivia such as the glitzy monstrance and the traveller's caravan look of the church. Had it been a hunk of wholemeal on a pewter plate from my Baptist chapel I might have done better. But as the famous 'plain person' who wanders in to worship, it did seem that we were being invited to pay undue attention to a bit of edible paper.
If the worshipping community obeying the 'do this' has an uncontroversial assurance of the presence of God in Christ during the celebration of the eucharist, it is unremarkable to transfer some of that sense of wonder to the bread itself and be careful about its disposal. It's not surprising if people even think of the table as special, the vessels as being reserved or set apart, even the words and liturgy as not to be mucked about with. But to take some of the bread out of context, not to break and eat it but to raise it up, is a longer step. What next? Veneration of the monstrance? Of the circular depression in the altar cloth where the chalice stood? Of the dust brushed from the shelf where the polish to clean the monstrance is kept?
The more elaborate worship is, the clearer will be the associations. As a Baptist I'm used to it being simple. It's what we're accustomed to. But isn't there a significant point about staying in touch with the thoughts and understandings of those who aren't used to church? If we do stuff that looks utterly bizarre to an outsider, that needs lots of explanation and justification, we're taking a greater risk of rejection.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
15 February, 2007 12:41
To pick up on your last paragraph, no more explanation is needed than is needed for sticking hands up in the air in worship or gabbling in strange tongues , which is what some of us at the lower end of the candle do in church.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
15 February, 2007 13:08
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
What's this then - all the prots come out to play at the same time?
But let's make a small start and get over the antics.
Tell me, how could God be present in the whole universe but also present and localised in Jesus?
How is Jesus "present" in your heart?
How is Jesus present to your mind?
How is Jesus present to your Body?
Start with those, think about the implications of the incarnation and you will begin a crash course in sacramentality.
The answer to those questions is easy - it's the Holy Spirit; who to my mind is pushed out by the high sacramental theology of Roman Catholicism.
How can you 'receive Jesus' in the mass when he is already within by his Holy Spirit who has filled and baptised you with his love and power?
[ 15. February 2007, 12:09: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
15 February, 2007 13:17
I'm happy (ish) with the idea that heaven seems a little closer in some situations, and I accept that for many people (including those with a symbolic view), communion is one of those situations. It's when, for example, Ratzinger writes that faith not sacramentally mediated is "self-invented faith", or again,
quote:
The church is celebration of the Eucharist; the Eucharist is the church. These two do not stand next to one another, but rather are the same
that I despair.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
15 February, 2007 13:18
But Mudfrog, I think part of what TT was getting at was - if Jesus is "in your heart" then how, for example, by your logic, can he also be interceding for us at the right hand of the Father (as Scripture attests he is)?
If on the other hand you allow that Jesus can be in your heart and at the Father's right hand at the same time, then logically you must allow that there is a possibility he might be present also in the sacrament.
Also, far from being "pushed out" by sacramental theology, it is only the Holy Spirit who enables the sacraments to work. In fact, in most theologies of the Eucharist*, some form of epiclesis - the "calling down" of the Holy Spirit on the bread and wine - is deemed essential.
(* The notable exception, of course, being the CofE's Book of Common Prayer, but let's pretend we didn't notice that.)
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
15 February, 2007 13:20
Just quickly looked up a bit of Anglican doctrinal teaching which you might recognise:
XXV. Of the Sacraments. of God.
The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them.
XXVIII. Of the Lord's Supper. of the Blood of Christ.
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.
The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.
The bread and wine is NOT the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. neither does it have mystical qualities; neither is it diffused with divinity that would make us worship it.
I have received communion many times and know the blessing that can come but I would assert most strongly that it is a question of 'deep calling unto deep'. The communion elements only mean anything subjectively when I am already communing with the Spirit of Jesus in my own heart.
I would also say that the exact same grace that is experienced in communion can be received by faith with no outward sacrament whatever - simply because by faith the Holy Spirit dwells within.
Christians need no tabernacle in which to put a consecrated wafer, thereby placing Jesus in a localised place, simply because, as St Paul satys, our own body is a temple of the Holy Spirit.
According to Christ's own promise, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit dwell within my heart, my life itself is sacramental and I need no man-made altar upon which to display my Saviour.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
15 February, 2007 13:23
There ought to be a version of Godwin's Law that applies to the invocation of the 39 Articles!
The CofE does not require its laity or its clergy to believe the 39 Articles. In our oaths and declarations, clergy merely have to acknowledge them as one of the "historic formularies" of the Church.
On with the discussion...?
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
15 February, 2007 13:24
quote:
Originally posted by Liverpool fan:
Speaking as a Quaker cum Anglo-Catholic, who loves a bit of Reserved Sacrament adoration, I can say the following:
It can be easy to forget the nearness of God in his mystery and in all things. Kneeling before the Sacrament can stand as a time in the week that brings home to me the nearness of God, like as a reminder.
I also find that I find it easier to concentrate on God, the holy being of light who can bring good out of me and reduce the evil in me, when I have something to look at; as opposed to what can become self-indulgent thinking during a Quaker Meeting.
That's my personal take and is not to be seen as authoritive on being a Quaker or Anglo-Catholic or anything.
Yes, God is everywhere, but being weak humans that can easily slip to God is nowhere. By worshipping him under the species of the bread and wine, we hopefully learn to recognise him elsewhere.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
15 February, 2007 13:24
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Maybe you can answer my son's latest question about how Jesus seems to promise that he will be "extra present" when two or three are gathered together in his name, when God is supposed to be omnipresent anyway?
If a child asked me that (well, a clever child, or an older one) I'd think about using the old analogy of an artist and a picture.
An artist is present in every brushstroke of the picture they have painted. But they are also present in a different way in a self-portrait. And both kinds can happen in the same picture. An artist can paint many figures into a painting, one of which represents themself.
The way God as creator is omnipersent is in some ways a bit like the way an artist is present all through their artwork.
The way God as incarnate in Jesus was present at a particular time in history and a particular place in Syria is in some ways a bit like the way an artist is present in a self-portrait.
.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
15 February, 2007 13:26
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
According to Christ's own promise, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit dwell within my heart, my life itself is sacramental and I need no man-made altar upon which to display my Saviour.
Much as I hate to get in the way of a good rant against sacramentalism, I'm not convinced that "Jesus/the Holy Spirit living in my heart" is the only or indeed the main way the NT talks about the Holy Spirit. He is variously described as a wind and a person, and, while his presence seems to be required for regeneration, there are cases where first-generation Christians seem to "receive the Spirit" more than once. In other words, there seems to be a paradox here, that the Spirit is both with us reliably and personally and blowing everywhere unpredictably, and "Jesus in my heart", while in one sense true, doesn't capture all the richness of what the NT describes.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
15 February, 2007 13:28
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
There ought to be a version of Godwin's Law that applies to the invocation of the 39 Articles!
Which version?
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290
|
Posted
15 February, 2007 13:39
Thanks for starting this interesting thread, Mudfrog. I was received into the RCC less than a year ago, so I’m not sure if my view is completely (small ‘o’) orthodox but this is how I would attempt to articulate how I see it (which is obviously going to be inadequate since Mystery cannot, ultimately, be apprehended by the intellect):
We say that God is immanent and yes, Jesus dwells within us by participating in the Sacrament of the Altar; we all share this one body and are thus kin with him and each other. We also say that God is transcendent and there is perhaps a sense of this when we Adore the Body (unbroken) in the monstrance. i.e. outside of us.
posted by hatless
quote:
But to take some of the bread out of context, not to break and eat it but to raise it up, is a longer step.
It is still the Body of the Lord.
quote:
What next? Veneration of the monstrance? Of the circular depression in the altar cloth where the chalice stood? Of the dust brushed from the shelf where the polish to clean the monstrance is kept?
I'd say these are these are made by human hands and therefore not to be worshipped.
posted by Mudfrog
quote:
The bread and wine is NOT the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ.
At least some parts of the rituals of any faith are likely to seem bizarre to observers outside that tradition and simply saying this doesn't make it so for those who believe in transubstantiation.
--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain
Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
15 February, 2007 14:00
TT's series of questions seems to have been largely ignored, which I think is a shame, since he was making the key point that catholic beliefs about the Eucharist flow from belief in the incarnation. The "localization" of God in the Eucharist cannot be addressed apart from the question of the localization of God in the incarnation. One might choose to disbelieve that Christ's words, "this is my body" and "this is my blood," are anything more than metaphor, but the belief that they are literally true seems to me no more difficult to reconcile with the universal presence of God than a statement like "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself" or "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us."
I've always thought Aquinas gave one of the best reasons for thinking that Christ it truly present in the Eucharist: because it is characteristic of friends to be bodily present to each other (or at least to desire to be so), and since Christ calls us "friends" he desires to remain with us in a bodily way. This is not any sort of knock-down argument, but it might help some of our more protestant shipmates to understand the appeal of taking Christ's words at the last supper as something more than metaphor.
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
15 February, 2007 14:07
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
TT's series of questions seems to have been largely ignored
Well, yes, because, for non-sacramentalists, they are phrased in a "when did you stop beating your wife?" way, but I did point out that the first one appears to be heretical.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
15 February, 2007 14:23
Pardon?
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosa Winkel
Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424
|
Posted
15 February, 2007 14:25
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
quote:
Originally posted by Liverpool fan:
Speaking as a Quaker cum Anglo-Catholic, who loves a bit of Reserved Sacrament adoration, I can say the following:
It can be easy to forget the nearness of God in his mystery and in all things. Kneeling before the Sacrament can stand as a time in the week that brings home to me the nearness of God, like as a reminder.
I also find that I find it easier to concentrate on God, the holy being of light who can bring good out of me and reduce the evil in me, when I have something to look at; as opposed to what can become self-indulgent thinking during a Quaker Meeting.
That's my personal take and is not to be seen as authoritive on being a Quaker or Anglo-Catholic or anything.
Yes, God is everywhere, but being weak humans that can easily slip to God is nowhere. By worshipping him under the species of the bread and wine, we hopefully learn to recognise him elsewhere.
Carys
I think that's the first time anyone's agreed with me here. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I am trying to remember whether you are the person I know.
--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project
Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
15 February, 2007 14:26
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
I did point out that the first one appears to be heretical.
Oh yes, I forgot. How charitable of you.
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caty S.
I read, therefore I am.
# 11996
|
Posted
15 February, 2007 14:26
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
"But what is the justification for the idea that Jesus is in the little box in the wall, or is to be adored when slotted into a monstrance for all the faithful to see"
Go into a Catholic Church and pray before the reserved sacrament - that should convince you there is something special about it.
Its probably something more to be absorbed and let flood over you then something to understand in a descriptive sense.
What is different about praying where there is reserved sacrament, as opposed to somewhere where there isn't? Is it just that you are better able to 'tune into' (or feel specifically aware of) the presence of the God who is listening to your prayers wherever they are said? Or is there more to it than that? Given that God can hear us wherever we are, why would physical proximity make a difference? (Genuinely curious!)
I have prayed in a chapel where there was reserved sacrament, and personally didn't experience any greater sense of the presence of God than praying in a quiet chapel without it. I don't believe in real presence or transubstantiation and see the celebration of Holy Communion as symbolic (which I suppose some will say is the explanation for experience of the previous statement) - but questions for those who do:
What is the reason for reserving the sacrament? What is it for? What does it do? What happens differently when you pray before it, as opposed to when you pray elsewhere?
Surely the significance of the bread and wine is within the context of the communion service/mass? What is the function performed by the things I would consider to be 'leftovers' from the service (and therefore to be disposed of reverently but serving no further purpose)?
Posts: 2119 | From: Devon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
15 February, 2007 14:41
One reason why I hope to be received into the Catholic Church this Easter is because in all of the Catholic Churches and services I have been to, be they an utterly empty Cistercian Monastery with the only movement being a flickering sanctuary lamp, a jam packed thousand people strong Old Rite Benediction (ie: the full liturgical kaboodle), a 20 minute rushed novus ordo mass in English in the church that offers the only English Mass in St Petersburg or a straight forward student mass with a 'worship band', I have always felt (and the sacrament is reserved in all these places) the presence of God in a unique way, a way I think which is unique to His presence in the Sacrament.
So yes for me there is a difference between praying in front of it, and praying somewhere else. We are all different ultimately though.
--------------------
An undergraduate proudly told Benjamin Jowett, the great 19th Century Classicist that he was an agnostic. Jowett replied "Young man, in this university we speak Latin not Greek, so when speaking of yourself in that way, use the word ignoramus"
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
15 February, 2007 14:48
In the church of England, we don't reserve in order to adore, we reserve so as to be able to take the sacrament to th sick and housebound. However, seeing as it is so reserved, it is appropriate to reverence.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Malin
Shipmate
# 11769
|
Posted
15 February, 2007 14:51
Am I right in thinking that the reserved sacrament is taken to those who could not be at mass? For example, the housebound and those ill in hospital.
Are there other reasons for having the reserved sacrament put aside? Can it be used in services where a priest is not able to preside over mass?
What other reasons are there for having reserved sacrament? Is it always present to be a blessing to those praying in the church etc? Are there times when there is no reserved sacrament?
Thanks for the help with understanding ... genuinely much appreciated.
[Crossposted with Leo - Am I right in thinking from the above posts that many see the reservation as more than for the reasons Leo mentions...?]
[ 15. February 2007, 13:53: Message edited by: Malin ]
--------------------
'Is it a true bird or is it something that exists within a-'
'It's a thing that is,' said Granny sharply. 'Don't go spilling allegory all down your shirt.' Terry Pratchett
Posts: 1901 | From: Norwich | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
15 February, 2007 15:07
quote:
Originally posted by Malin:
Am I right in thinking that the reserved sacrament is taken to those who could not be at mass? For example, the housebound and those ill in hospital.
Are there other reasons for having the reserved sacrament put aside? Can it be used in services where a priest is not able to preside over mass?
This is allowed in certain circumstances in the CofE at least (and CinW).
quote:
What other reasons are there for having reserved sacrament? Is it always present to be a blessing to those praying in the church etc? Are there times when there is no reserved sacrament?
As it is reserved (for purposes mentioned above) and believed to be Christ's body, it has to be stored somewhere appropriate and it can be a helpful focus for prayer. The main time there will not be any reserved sacrament is between the liturgy on Good Friday and the Easter Vigil (at least not in its normal place if at all).
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
15 February, 2007 15:08
Originally posted by Malin:
quote:
Are there other reasons for having the reserved sacrament put aside? Can it be used in services where a priest is not able to preside over mass?
What other reasons are there for having reserved sacrament? Is it always present to be a blessing to those praying in the church etc? Are there times when there is no reserved sacrament?
There is such a thing as Holy Communion by extension which takes place in Anglican and Methodist services whereby pre-consecrated elements are used where a priest cannot be present. In the liturgy of Good Friday the wafers used are the consecrated wafers from Maundy Thursday. Between Good Friday and Holy Saturday the reserved sacrament is not supposed to be in church because Christ's body is in the tomb. However, in practice a few wafers are put somewhere else in case they are needed urgently (e.g. if someone needs the Last Rites). These are supposed to be consumed before the first Mass of Easter when the reserved sacrament is replenished. (A couple of years ago the then incumbent at our place forgot so, on the Good Friday a year later I found myself having to munch a load of year old Jesus who, we discovered, had occupied the Lady Chapel aumbry in protest against the Iraq war.)
I have to say that I disagree with Leo - we try to send our lay ministers of communion out from a communion service so they can share in the service as it were. It is mainly reserved for purposes of worship. I think the 'we reserve it for the sick, but as it's there lets have solemn evensong and benediction' defence emerged as a way of placating protestantly inclined Bishops and Archdeacons.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caty S.
I read, therefore I am.
# 11996
|
Posted
15 February, 2007 15:32
Home communions with the housebound and (Methodist) Extended Communion, I am certainly familiar with. But wherever it is that the elements are kept between the original communion service and their later use, I don't know. I've never seen it or heard of it kept in a kind of 'public' way.
I'm just really curious about the idea of having it 'on display' and being venerated (not sure if that's the word I really want) and the idea that the simple fact of it's presence changes what you do and experience.
No doubt those who accept real presence would be appalled at the idea of putting Jesus in the vestry cupboard, or whatever it is that we do.
(I'm curious now - I wonder where we do keep it? I shall have to ask the minister when he comes back off holiday.)
Posts: 2119 | From: Devon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Metapelagius
Shipmate
# 9453
|
Posted
15 February, 2007 16:09
I would have hoped that by now we might have had an Orthodox (wit a big O) contribution. IIRC the Orthodox have always had the practice of reservation, but only for the purposes of communion of the sick. They do not 'gaze upon, or carry the sacrament about, but duly use it'. I think + Kallistos says that this is for no other reason than it is just not done. Certainly not out of regard for the 39 Articles ....
The veneration of the MBS is a fairly late development - the procession at Corpus Christi, for instance, dates only from 1320 or so. Benediction is largely a counter-reformation practice. I cannot help wondering if the custom of adoration springs from a growing belief in the middle ages in the Presence localiter rather than realiter in the elements, despite the efforts of Aquinas to correct this error, as alluded to above by FCB.
--------------------
Rec a archaw e nim naccer.
y rof a duv. dagnouet.
Am bo forth. y porth riet.
Crist ny buv e trist yth orsset.
Posts: 1032 | From: Hereabouts | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
15 February, 2007 16:20
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
(A couple of years ago the then incumbent at our place forgot so, on the Good Friday a year later I found myself having to munch a load of year old Jesus who, we discovered, had occupied the Lady Chapel aumbry in protest against the Iraq war.)
You see, it's this sort of thinking that I worry about. Granted that the language used is flippant, the premise is still that the bread and wine is actually the Lord Jesus Christ himself.
I find no warrant at all for believing this; and though not an Anglican, would find myself agreeing that if the bread and wine are somehow spiritually the body and blood of Christ, they are only thus in the actual act of worship and reception during the communion service. Isn't that what you mean when you pray that these gifts will " be to us the body and blood..." and that we 'feed on him in your hearts by faith'.
I simply cannot believe that the bread and wine actually become divine and therefore worthy of veneration, or that they are objectively changed regardless of the state of heart of the worshipper - or the presence of any worshippers for that matter.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
15 February, 2007 16:42
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I find no warrant at all for believing this; and though not an Anglican, would find myself agreeing that if the bread and wine are somehow spiritually the body and blood of Christ, they are only thus in the actual act of worship and reception during the communion service. Isn't that what you mean when you pray that these gifts will " be to us the body and blood..." and that we 'feed on him in your hearts by faith'.
That's my understanding of it, yes; Cranmerian receptionism I believe it's called but I think the Presbyterians and other Calvinists hold to it too, as did many Baptists historically.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
15 February, 2007 16:47
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I simply cannot believe that the bread and wine actually become divine and therefore worthy of veneration, or that they are objectively changed regardless of the state of heart of the worshipper - or the presence of any worshippers for that matter.
I sincerely would be interested in knowing why you simply cannot believe this. (1) Is it because it defies the evidence of the senses? (2) Is it because you think it impossible on scientific/philosophical grounds? (3) Is it because it violates the plain teaching of scripture? (4) Is it because it leads to consequences that are objectionable for theological or spiritual reasons? (5) All of the above? (6) Some other option I have not thought of?
For the record:
(1) I think we believe things all the time that violate the evidence of the senses. (2) I think the philosophical and scientific objections are answerable, at least to the degree that they cannot disprove the Catholic view of the Eucharist (though, of course, neither can science or philosophy prove it). (3) I think the plain-sense reading of scripture tends to support the Catholic view. (4) I obviously have yet to hear a theological or spiritual objection that was compelling. If I did I would have to rethink my belief that the Eucharist is actually Christ -- body and blood, soul and divinity.
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
15 February, 2007 16:48
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Pardon?
Precisely.
My response to your first point is here. Questions about how much God lived in Jesus were ruled heretical about 18 centuries ago.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
15 February, 2007 16:51
FCB, I think the evangelical objection to transubstantiation stem largely from your 4th suggestion and I would hazard a guess that, if one is coming to this issue with a sola fide soteriology, then the 'infused grace/righteousness' concept implicit in transubstantiation would run counter to that and effectively be anathema to that position. So it's really a salvation issue rather than "can bread and wine become Jesus' Body and Blood?"
[ 15. February 2007, 15:52: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
15 February, 2007 16:52
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Pardon?
Precisely.
Questions about how much God lived in Jesus were ruled heretical about 18 centuries ago.
"Questions" are not "ruled heretical." There is nothing heretical in asking how God can be omnipresent and yet present in a distinctive way wherever Jesus is present. But perhaps I'm not understanding you correctly.
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
15 February, 2007 16:58
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
The "localization" of God in the Eucharist cannot be addressed apart from the question of the localization of God in the incarnation.
Indeed. The point about the Eucharist, of course, is that the question people ought to be asking is 'How can it be that the man Jesus is present here?' In the eucharist we encounter Christ's humanity (and, therefore, by virtue of the hypostatic union, his divinity). Any idea that 'God' is some kind of thing which can be spread out more or less thinly across space and time seems to me to be missing a fairly fundamental point.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
15 February, 2007 17:00
Originally posted by Melon:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Tell me, how could God be present in the whole universe but also present and localised in Jesus?
You've lost me already. Sounds like adoptionist christology to me, which I thought we all agreed was heretical.
Isn't adoptionism the view that Christ was born a normal human being and then was divinised at His baptism rather than being the Word made flesh?
I'm not sure that's entirely relevant. The question was 'how can God be in the bread and wine in some special sense when God is everywhere?' The analogy is 'how can God be in Jesus when God is everywhere?'. If the first objection holds so does the second.
quote:
Questions about how much God lived in Jesus were ruled heretical about 18 centuries ago.
Actually questions about how much God lived in Jesus are perfectly licit. They are what Christology is all about. What is heretical is certain answers. Whatever the Church looks like in the twenty fourth century we can know that it will not be Arian or Docetist. But it is just plain wrong to say that you cannot ask 'what do we mean by the Incarnation?' Certain answers have been ruled out of court because they tend, in effect, to a denial of the Incarnation but the question remains.
[ 15. February 2007, 16:00: Message edited by: Callan ]
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
