|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Reserving the Sacrament - Knock! Knock! Who's There?
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
My info could be wrong. Anyway, having just contributed to an "I'll show you my martyrs if you show me yours" discussion, does everyone agree that they're incredibly, incredibly pointless?
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Yes. I'm just a bit anal about such things, I'm afraid ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
"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
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
My info is definitely wrong then. Apologies to all the Baptists for tarring you with that particularly unlovely brush ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
I have heard that in the West Indies, Benediction is very well attended, primarily by women who are cohabitating often on a frequent serial basis. They are unwilling to confess and amend these arrangements, but they wish to avoid making this a matter of public speculation by refraining from Holy Communion at Mass.
They feel, however, that they can receive a measure of Eucharistic blessing, albeit not sacramental grace, at Benediction. In their view, that is simply the best that they can hope for under the circumstances. Jesus in the monstrance blesses them in spite of their not being in a state of grace.
Greta
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
Yes...its incredibly pointless, but...lets face it...kinda fun. As a Catholic attending a Baptist church (really), I must admit I'm still pretty un-martyred...
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
quote:
Jesus in the monstrance blesses them in spite of their not being in a state of grace.
That sort of mind-set was evident with the Anglicans we encountered, too. Confessions were heard every week, but those who could not dare to go to confession (because they'd have to admit what they were doing) hesitated to receive Holy Communion anyhow, in spite of the Anglican "General Confession" with its approximation of a "general absolution". They were really "erring on the side of caution" in their own view, lest they receive unworthily--plus there were aspects of their own lives that they truly believed could never change. Of course, it was all an experience from nearly half a century ago in my own life, a sort of "culture shock" before anyone ever heard of "inculturation". The spiritual problem we encountered had to do with people's dependence on a kind of side-religion that people practiced in their homes--for want of a better term, voodoo or "Santería". But it was ingrained in the culture, so what could we do, especially in view of the fact that the whole problem about giving up what was perceived as sin, was rooted in
a) faulty catechesis
and
b) overworked priests unable because of sheer numbers of people to do in-depth pastoral work among the church members.
We others were just helpers; we had no "authority" and didn't really want any "authority". We had come there only to love and to serve. We did the best we could. And we learned right away that there are some things that are very difficult, if not impossible, to change.
I still pray for them all every day. I hope that God will forgive whatever I failed to do for them, and that they will be waiting for me at the gate of heaven.
Best wishes,
Mary
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433
|
Posted
[possibly tangential, possibly morinbuntantly equine]
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
That sort of mind-set was evident with the Anglicans we encountered, too. Confessions were heard every week, but those who could not dare to go to confession (because they'd have to admit what they were doing) hesitated to receive Holy Communion anyhow, in spite of the Anglican "General Confession" with its approximation of a "general absolution".
(Happy belated birthday wishes, by the way, LM ![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif) )
In my teaching I try to steer away from the idea that 'the Anglican "General Confession" with its approximation of a "general absolution" ' is a substitute for personal oracular confession. I see the general confession as a statement of participation in the whole human web of sin, and the first person plural as an acknowledgement of the universality of sin. The absolution therefore becomes a word of eschatological hope - God's eschatological forgiveness breaking in and infiltrating the present just as the Holy Communion is (in part) an in-breaking, a foretaste of the eschatological banquet.
I make it that clear in my sermons, too ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
[/possibly tangential, possibly morinbuntantly equine]
[ 17. February 2007, 23:28: Message edited by: Zappa ]
--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/
Posts: 18917 | From: "Central" is all they call it | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
Zappa, I like your style! Yes, we all want the Real, we accept no substitutes! Bravo! Behold a good priest in whom is no guile!
(and thank you kindly for the kind wishes on my birthday!) ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
My birthday greetings came, this year, from shipmates and from my next-door neighbours (who are from Taiwan!) My sister and my best friend forgot.
I deserve it, for my sins, no doubt.
Mary
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
LM,
Yes. There was and still may be a problem with participation in non-Christian rites and practices. I think that the reluctance to formally marry (particularly on the part of the men) was also primarily cultural.
I have even met a few gay men in the U.S. who attended Benediction rather than Mass because they felt that they could not in good conscience properly confess their sexual activity. This in a church where the majority of the congregation was gay and lesbian and the standard was "don't ask...don't tell" {although it was certainly safe to assume).
Greta
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
How can we do a better job of catechesis so that people will see better how to live this Christian life of ours, Greta?
It's repentance, not righteousness, that opens the heart to Christ, isn't it?
M
"Wash me with my tears, and purify me with them, O Word. Forgive my sins and grant me pardon. Thou knowest the multitude of my evil-doing; Thou knowest also my wounds and seest my sores. But Thou knowest too my faith; Thou seest mine intent; Thou hearest my sighs...."
--from a Prayer before Communion by St. Simeon Metaphrastes, found in the Old Orthodox Prayer Book, published by the Russian Orthodox Church of the Nativity of Christ (Erie, PA: 2001), p. 313.
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cor ad cor loquitur:
I'm not implying, for a second, that someone who can't acknowledge the real presence of Christ in the eucharist can't acknowledge the presence of God in Jesus, or in his neighbour. But the doctrine of the real presence seems perfectly human and normal to me (though it is far more than that). And, once you've swallowed the camel of God himself being born in Nazareth, dying and rising on the third day, it seems odd to strain at the gnat of the idea that he could be deeply present in the sacrament of the altar.
As someone who has already said I strain at that particular gnat let me try to explain why. The best was I can explain it is by analogy with what Douglas Adams' detective Dirk Gently said about Sherlock Holmes. Sherlock Holmes famously said that if you eliminate the impossible whatever is left, however improbable, had to be the truth. Dirk Gently said it was foolish to rule out that which appears impossible in favour of the improbable, because the improbable goes against what we know whereas the impossible merely suggests that there is something we don't know.
So the fact that I don't understand how God can become human means there is something (a lot!) I don't know about God. The idea that a man can become bread and wine goes against what I know of bread, wine and human beings. In fact it appears on the face of it as nonsense, and it's only respect for the sincerity of people who hold that belief that I don't dismiss it out of hand.
That's why it's not only not "odd" that I fail at this point of belief but natural for me. To accept it would be "odd".
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Gosh, An Anglican practice I'd never heard of before. It has never occured to me that anyone since the Reformation would replace Communion with adoring the sacrament. Though I have occasionally seen some adults just go up to the rail for a blessing rather than take the bread and wine themselves.
It sounds like they need another Reformation. Gordon Cheng's sort of Sydney Anglicanism is a lot more orthodox than the Anglo-Catholic behaviour being descibed here.
Aside - people are confusing Anabaptists with Baptists here. If Paisley's people refuse to baptise children that makes them Baptists, not Anabaptists. Anabaptists (in the original sense rather than as the name of a Christian tradition) would be people who did not recognise the baptisms of other churches and insisted on rebaptism before membership.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Aside - people are confusing Anabaptists with Baptists here. If Paisley's people refuse to baptise children that makes them Baptists, not Anabaptists. Anabaptists (in the original sense rather than as the name of a Christian tradition) would be people who did not recognise the baptisms of other churches and insisted on rebaptism before membership.
Here is one description of how anabaptists define themselves historically. This PDF points out that the "where are the anabaptists" question does not have an easy answer, but suggests that it does have quite a lot to do with modern English baptists (which is why Britain's largest baptist theological college runs a graduate degree programme in anabaptist studies).
I suppose that Matt's "Radical reformation" is another option, but I've never heard anyone choose to apply that term to themselves.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
Originally posted by Ken:
quote:
Anglo-Catholic behaviour being described here.
(as if it were a shock to learn about such things.... and it was, to me, when I first encountered it)
Well, as Greta and I both probably still think, it's an exception rather than the rule, but nevertheless, attempting to cope with such behaviour as a "cultural phenomenon" and trying to deal with it with by means of "multiculturalism", moral and theological "relativism", etc., doesn't seem to have got us any forrader, does it?
I don't think a "reformation" is called for, but I do think that catechesis that's overly flexible, the sort of elasticised catechesis that attempts to attract "bums in pews" rather than active Christians engaged with Christian life and Christian example in solidarity with all Christ's flock, is what's going to help in the longer run. In other words, acceptance and inclusion are passive, but Mission that is active, pro-active and indeed retroactive is what we need.
People really do seek, in my humble opinion, some sort of secure dogmatic grounding--a faith they can learn, and then learn to defend-- rather than the "if it feels good, do it" approach, but maybe that's just me.... Can we provide that kind of foundation for faith?
I talk mighty big, but I know full well that whatever efforts I made in the Caribbean all those years ago didn't accomplish a whole lot, if anything.
Mary
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
Ken I think you're half-right. Any idea that that the Eucharist is there primarily for anything other than food needs knocking on the head. As does an overly scrupulous approach to the sacrament. On the other hand, people might not receive communion at any given Eucharist for a number of reasons. Before now I've been to Mass and not received: either because I was feeling very uncharitable towards someone else, or because I wasn't complying with my discipline regarding the eucharistic fast, or because I'd already received twice in the day and didn't want communicating to become too 'routine'. I think we're wise to leave people to their own consciences regarding whether or not to receive. And it makes perfect sense, to a believer in RP, to focus on the Eucharistic Presence, even at Masses where they don't receive.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
Hi Neil. I hope you're ok.
Thank you. Generally very much improved, except for a vicious dose of flu in January. ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
quote:
I've been doing a bit more hunting and come across this on the blog of the Western Rite Sub-deacon mentioned earlier. It seems that the use of this rite is not free from objection even within Orthodoxy. Having re-read the comments in response to that post, it would appear that I myself commented there some time ago. I recognise the words and sentiment as my own but have no recollection whatsoever of actually posting it.
Having thought a little more about my response above regarding Christminster, Benediction doesn't appear in The Saint Colman Prayer Book, which is the Western Rite Orthodox prayer book reflecting the Use of ROCOR rather than that of our Antiochian friends. The Use of Christminster was deliberately included in this book, and so it is fair to assume that they do not use it there. I am currently in touch with their abbot and so may ask him directly if anybody is interested enough in finding out.
I have been looking more closely at the rubrics to the western rite service in the link that you provided:
quote:
[Service title] Veneration of the Blessed Sacrament
The term “veneration” is usually used for the reverence or devotion (dulia) that can be given to a human person or a created thing. The term “adoration” is usually used for the full-weight worship (latria) that can be given to God alone. There is a vitally important difference here, and without it the church lapses into idolatry.
So I would suggest that based on the rubrical terminology, the western rite (WR) Orthodox do indeed hold that it is wholly inappropriate to give divine worship (latria) to the reserved sacrament. It would appear that despite the outward similarity of the liturgy, the WR Orthodox viewpoint differs markedly from the RC position, as far as I understand it. Is that really what the WR are trying to say?
quote:
[Rubrical heading]
This service is dedicated to the Presence of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the bread and wine. It is a time for enjoying the presence of God, and it is also an act of thanksgiving for the Holy Eucharist.
Devotion to the Blessed Sacrament in the West parallels devotion to the icon in the East. Both devotions are based upon the same Incarnational theology, and the same desire of the faithful to “come and see”, to have a devotional point of contact with Jesus.
Here I would suggest that the thinking gets even more confusing. In the first paragraph they explicitly talk about “a service dedicated to the presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the bread and the wine”, although the Orthodox liturgies talk rather of “the precious and holy Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ” and “the precious and holy Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ” as one approaches the sacrament to eat it and drink it.
The rubrics then explicitly draw an analogy with devotion to an icon. However, to my knowledge no one has ever suggested that the real-life subject of an icon in somehow “really present” within the material of the icon, or that the icon contains the “soul and divinity” of the divine persons represented thereon, or that the icon should be given full-weight worship (latria).
Perhaps this is the whole point of the analogy, but if so, it would again appear to explicitly deny the RC viewpoint, as far as I understand it. In that case, why do the WR Orthodox continue to follow this error of the late medieval west with all its potential for confusing people and misleading them into idolatry?
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Metapelagius
Shipmate
# 9453
|
Posted
He certainly waved a wafer about, but there was no way of telling whether it was consecrated or not just by looking at it. It was a long time ago (1968?) so the details that I recall are bound to be a bit hazy. I think the point that he was trying to make was that (to his way of looking at things, at least) the idea that someone could `turn this into a bit of God' was so much mumbo-jumbo. I do not recall his breaking it up and scattering it about; I was with an RC friend and certainly remember how shocked and hurt he was by Paisley's gimmick. I also recall that one of the other speakers in the debate was a young woman, doubtless a devout soul, but who made a toe-curlingly sentimental speech about how lovely she thought the RC church was. It didn't do much to counter Paisley.
Perhaps Paisley was not so famous/notorious in those days. The CoS chaplain to the university was warned by the PCI of his impending visit; the PCI people wanted to make it absolutely clear that Paisley was nothing to do with them!
--------------------
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
|
|
cor ad cor loquitur
Shipmate
# 11816
|
Posted
Sadly, this sort of false, evil invective is still being spread around, many years after the 1960s.
--------------------
Quam vos veritatem interpretationis, hanc eruditi κακοζηλίαν nuncupant … si ad verbum interpretor, absurde resonant. (St Jerome, Ep. 57 to Pammachius)
Posts: 1332 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cor ad cor loquitur:
Sadly, this sort of false, evil invective is still being spread around, many years after the 1960s.
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
It doesn't matter a jot how much of this tripe Chick and his like churn out - Jesus is still present in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar.
Ian J.
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cor ad cor loquitur:
Sadly, this sort of false, evil invective is still being spread around, many years after the 1960s.
It is well known (on these boards at least) that Jack Chick is offensively way over the top, but nevertheless he has reminded me to look up what the Council of Trent says here.
quote:
[Page 79 - Chapter V] Wherefore, there is no room left for doubt, that all the faithful of Christ may, according to the custom ever received in the Catholic Church, render in veneration the worship of latria, which is due to the true God, to this most holy sacrament.
quote:
[Page 82 - Canon VI] If any one saith, that, in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship, even external of latria; and is, consequently, neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in processions, according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of holy church; or, is not to be proposed publicly to the people to be adored, and that the adorers thereof are idolators; let him be anathema.
Did Vatican 2 alter any of this teaching? Are there any more recent RC declarations on this subject?
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
No FS, it is still the teaching of the RC Church.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bernard Mahler
Shipmate
# 10852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
So the fact that I don't understand how God can become human means there is something (a lot!) I don't know about God. The idea that a man can become bread and wine goes against what I know of bread, wine and human beings
It may be splitting hairs, but perhaps this is an important hair to split. No real presence theology I am aware of holds that Jesus becomes bread and wine; the bread and wine become His body and blood.
As for God becoming man - there is some phrase in the Athanasian Creed that refers to 'the manhood being taken up into God'.
--------------------
"What does it matter? All is grace" Georges Bernanos
Posts: 622 | From: Auckland New Zealand | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
I think we're wise to leave people to their own consciences regarding whether or not to receive.
Of course. It was the suggestion that was these folk's regular practice that seemed wrong.
quote:
And it makes perfect sense, to a believer in RP, to focus on the Eucharistic Presence, even at Masses where they don't receive.
I have witnessed with my own eyes, this very evening, evangelical Anglicans of a mildly-charismatic Alpha sort sit and meditate in silence for about ten minutes in front of a table with bread and wine on it, with no intention to consume.
I was late to the service and missed most of it, I don't know for sure what the priest thought they were doing. I suspect that it was more of a "why don't we try something different, alt.sowrhip, Isn't it Cool We Are All Into Spirituality, we don't need no archdeacon, we dont need no thought control" kind of thing than any develped idea of Real Presence.
I also suspect that the bread and wine may not have been consecrated - though I did see wine from the communion service earlier in the day taken away in a small flask rather than consumed there and then, which struck me as odd. I assumed at the time that it must have been intended for a sick church member at home, which struck me as odd as its not the sort of thing I thought that parish does. But maybe it was being kept for the evening service. Which strikes me as even odder.
And yes, it ws white sliced.
[ 18. February 2007, 22:00: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290
|
Posted
Local Spar must've run out of prawn cocktail crisps, I guess.
--------------------
“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
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
You know ken, you are as low as a snake's belly and all that, and I'm one of them prawn-cracker worshipping papists and all that, but I do enjoy reading your descriptive images of nouvelle religion! Thanks for giving me a real belly-laugh from time to time.
ETA: was to ken, crossposted with jahlove, for whom another
[ 18. February 2007, 23:45: Message edited by: Triple Tiara ]
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Davy Wavy Morrison
Shipmate
# 12241
|
Posted
The Council of Trent may say that I'm anathema because of my views on the Lord's Supper, but the Bible doesn't say so. I know which I would rather believe. That of course goes for any extra-Biblical material, be it the Westminster Confession, the Thirty-Nine articles, etc., if and where they are seen to be in disagreement with the Bible.
Most of us, including Protestants, are so bound up with tradition that we must regularly go back to Scripture to make sure we are not transgressing in important things.
Posts: 406 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Davy Wavy Morrison
Shipmate
# 12241
|
Posted
Don't forget, folks, that the Lord Jesus Christ has a human body and it is said to be located at God's right hand. You have to talk fast to convince some people that his (whole) body would also be in thousands of places at the same time, and only in a particular place after a priest says certain words. Anything is possible with God, but those beliefs appear to go right against the intention of Bible teaching.
But still, as an anathema, I suppose my belief doesn't count.
Age has mellowed me in may ways but there are some things...
Posts: 406 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nunc Dimittis
Seamstress of Sound
# 848
|
Posted
quote:
Don't forget, folks, that the Lord Jesus Christ has a human body and it is said to be located at God's right hand. You have to talk fast to convince some people that his (whole) body would also be in thousands of places at the same time, and only in a particular place after a priest says certain words.
So where, then is "the right hand of the Father"? Where is heaven?
I think you're pushing your metaphysics too far, and forgetting that our Lord's resurrection body is an exalted immortal human body - which is of an altogether different order to our own mortal bodies. And we don't really understand how it works; witness the Emmaus experience, and the Risen One's ability to walk through doors.
As several people have pointed out, the purpose of the eucharist is not "to make loads of little round flat white crispy Jesuses", as though consecration in order to "make" the elements Christ's body and blood was an aim in and of itself. The eucharist is for us, for the Body of Christ. By consuming we are consumed and are reunited to our Head. It is, at the end of the day, a mystery as to what actually happens, and what it really means. Books and books and books have been written about the significance of the eucharist, and yet none of them even sound the depths of the mystery.
And you're forgetting the old meaning of anamnesis, translated "in memory". The idea of anamnesis is that an event is "re-membered" in such a way that the participants are as if they were actually there, whether the event is past, present or future. The forerunner of the Lord's Supper was the Passover meal, the anamnetic event par excellance of the Jewish people.
In anamnetically remembering the death of our Lord, it is as though we were present at Calvary, at the Last Supper (the eucharist IS in this sense, the last supper), and we participate in anticipation in the great Banquet of the Lamb, the eschatological fulfillment of all things when God will be all in all. All eucharistic celebrations are therefore carried up/united to/part of the One Sacrifice which extends through time and space; for a moment, we experience a "thinness" in the time-continuum, a moment in which all moments are redeemed and glorified. [In writing this paragraph, my language is stretched to the absolute limit, and what I've said actually is inadequate to describe experienced reality...]
It's not for nothing that we Anglicans have always had the words of administration in our prayer books: "The Body/Blood of Christ preserve your body and soul to eternal life."
Posts: 9515 | From: Delta Quadrant | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Davy Wavy Morrison:
The Council of Trent may say that I'm anathema because of my views on the Lord's Supper, but the Bible doesn't say so. I know which I would rather believe. That of course goes for any extra-Biblical material, be it the Westminster Confession, the Thirty-Nine articles, etc., if and where they are seen to be in disagreement with the Bible.
Well duh. That's not the issue. The issue is that you see them in disagreement with the Bible, where others do not. THEN how do we decide who's right? The Bible won't tell us whose interpretation of the Bible is right. Who then? How can we judge between two claims that both produce oodles of Biblical evidence?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim
Ubi caritas et amor
# 256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Davy Wavy Morrison:
The Council of Trent may say that I'm anathema because of my views on the Lord's Supper, but the Bible doesn't say so. I know which I would rather believe. That of course goes for any extra-Biblical material, be it the Westminster Confession, the Thirty-Nine articles, etc., if and where they are seen to be in disagreement with the Bible.
Most of us, including Protestants, are so bound up with tradition that we must regularly go back to Scripture to make sure we are not transgressing in important things.
Why? Why are you ignoring the Tradition of the Church preserved from earliest times - that same Tradition which among other things enabled the Church fathers to discern which were the true accounts of the life of Christ out of the welter of writings and accounts preserved by various faith communities and which were the true teachings of the Church, out of the welter of early Christian writings?
You are, whether you like it or not, by referring to the Bible, also referring to Tradition. So let's get past the self-labelling and the anathema. It isn't impressive and it isn't convincing.
But let's assume for a moment that you can separate out Tradition or tradition and just concentrate on the Bible to find a justification of the Real Presence.
I asked earlier why God couldn't be present in bread and wine. No-one took me up on this.
I also said earlier that the Real Presence was both Incarnational and Sacrificial. Actually the New Testament has a fair bit of support both for Real Presence and physical things becoming holy and a means both of transmission of the grace of God and as being a real mediation of the presence and power of God.
The Church is described as the Body of Christ (1 Cor 12:27, Eph 1:22-3, 5:30). I've already mentioned the presence of Christ "when two or three are gathered together" in his name. In Acts 9:5 the resurrected and ascended Jesus says to Saul "Why do you persecute me?", not "Why are you persecuting my followers?", which seems a pretty direct reference to the presence of Jesus in his Church.
As for physical things becoming holy or becoming capable of mediating or even representing God's power and presence, consider the woman who was healed by coming into contact with the fringe of Jesus' garment (Mt 9:20-22) - Jesus knew because he felt "power go out of him". Then there is the deaf man healed by Jesus as a sign and an exercise of grace, using saliva mixed with dirt (Jn 9:5 ff., Mk 8:22-25). Water as a thing can become a sign of the operation of God's grace - take the baptismal significance of the water from the pool of Siloam (Jn 9:7) and baptism as a symbol of regeneration Acts 2:38, 22:16, 1 Pet 3:21 (cf. Mk 16:16, Rom 6:3-4), 1 Cor 6:11, Titus 3:5. Then there is the whole question of physical touch - the laying on of hands for the purpose of ordination and commissioning (Acts 6:6, 1 Tim 4:14, 2 Tim 1:6) and to facilitate the initial outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:17-19, 13:3, 19:6). The breath of God could convey the Holy Spirit - "He breathed on them and said "Receive the Holy Spirit". There was physical touch for healing (Mk 6:5, Lk 13:13, Acts 9:17-18). Even Peter's shadow had healing power(Acts 5:15) as did Paul's handerchiefs to heal the sick (Acts 19:12).
We accept these things as the exercise of God's power, of God's grace. They happen to be the exercise of God's grace by way of physical objects or physical touch.
So I repeat - why can't God be Really Present in bread and wine, if he is present in his believers and thus in his Church? And once consecrated, the Body and Blood remain sacred and worthy of reverence and worship. It's one of the ways of encountering God. Not the only way to be sure - but a vital way of feeding our souls.
Otherwise you are suggesting that God leaves his Church if there is no-one around to see.
--------------------
Embrace the serious whack. It's the Catholic thing to do. IngoB
The Messiah, Peace be upon him, said to his Apostles: 'Verily, this world is merely a bridge, so cross over it, and do not make it your abode.' (Bihar al-anwar xiv, 319)
Posts: 7952 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
Duo Seraphim:
quote:
So I repeat - why can't God be Really Present in bread and wine, if he is present in his believers and thus in his Church? And once consecrated, the Body and Blood remain sacred and worthy of reverence and worship. It's one of the ways of encountering God. Not the only way to be sure - but a vital way of feeding our souls.
Otherwise you are suggesting that God leaves his Church if there is no-one around to see.
I've been thinking of this discussion - (and maybe even dreaming about it last night) and going back to thinking about what we were definitely taught as teenagers.
It was definitely about the Presence of God being everywhere and not in reliance of us.
We were taught that we acted totally undecorated, simply, in every way, so that nothing we did made a block, big or small, betweeen us and the Presence of God.
One aspect of that was the way a church was done totally simply - plain walls, no pictures, no stained glass, no talking to each other when we entered.
And another was that the church was locked during the week, and we were taught that we worshipped and were conscious of God, in God's Presence, when we weren't at services, at home, at work, out of doors, in the fields, in factories, ill or healthy etc etc.
So there is a huge difference between the way some people use physical bits and pieces of the world to help them have awareness of the Presence of God and others avoid doing that even though they may experience the awareness of the Presence through physical bits and pieces that are just there.
How much of this might be ethnic or cultural difference as opposed to only theological difference, I would be interested to know - maybe a guess would make the more northern and more southern cultures do things differently, even though it's not quite got walls between them.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
It's not for nothing that we Anglicans have always had the words of administration in our prayer books: "The Body/Blood of Christ preserve your body and soul to eternal life."
Well actually not always. You're forgetting 1552. Which is why, however much some of us are devoted to the Real Presence we are in no position to pronounce anathemas on those who aren't. (Not implying that you want to, Nunc, nor criticising the Council of Trent for doing so. Necessarily.)
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
It's not for nothing that we Anglicans have always had the words of administration in our prayer books: "The Body/Blood of Christ preserve your body and soul to eternal life."
Well actually not always. You're forgetting 1552. Which is why, however much some of us are devoted to the Real Presence we are in no position to pronounce anathemas on those who aren't. (Not implying that you want to, Nunc, nor criticising the Council of Trent for doing so. Necessarily.)
I think you are being too hard on 1552. Firstly, it maintained the prayer of Humble Access. In 1552 it runs as follows (with old spellings):
quote:
We doe not presume to come to this thy table (O mercyfull Lorde) trustinge in our owne righteousnesse, but in thy manifolde and greate mercies: we bee not worthye, so much as to gather up the crommes under thy table: but thou art the same Lorde whose propertie is alwayes to have mercye: graunt us therfore (gracious lord) so to eate the fleshe of thy dere sonne Jesus Christe, and to drinke his bloud, that our synfulle bodyes maye be made cleane by his body, and our soules wasched through his most precious bloud, and that we may evermore dwel in him, and he in us. Amen.
Secondly, the second post-communion prayer in 1552, also retained from 1549, says (with old spellings):
quote:
ALMIGHTIE and everliving God, we most hartely thank thee, for that thou dooest vouchsafe to fede us, whiche have duely receyved these holye misteries, with the spirituall foode of the most precious body and bloud of thy sonne our saviour Jesus Christ....
The language here, with its reference to "these holy mysteries", is very patristic, and the phrase "most precious body and blood" comes from the ancient Orthodox liturgies. The 1552 BCP may have altered the words of distibution, but otherwise it maintains a robust sacramental theology.
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cor ad cor loquitur
Shipmate
# 11816
|
Posted
There was a time when I had a strong sense of the priest's gestures and ritual actions during the eucharist, as well as the appearance of the host (leavened, unleavened, large wafer, small, etc.) and chalice. Of course this all became more tangible when altars were moved and priests turned to face the congregation -- a change I'm deeply grateful for.
But I have changed over time: for some time now at most masses I have found myself almost compelled to bow my head and close my eyes during much of the canon and especially at the prayers of consecration. Something mysterious and powerful is happening at the altar. I don't need to inspect (or, God forbid, critique) the priest's actions, and find that I am able to stay more recollected with head bowed and eyes closed.
(This is the only way in which I can make much sense of the Orthodox iconostasis or of Tridentine services where many of the ritual actions are hidden from the people. Otherwise, both seem to alienate the people from the eucharistic action.)
And it's for all of these reasons that adoration -- and yes, that's what it is: adoration, worship, latria -- of Christ in the blessed sacrament can be so wonderful; I find it quieter, more peaceful, less dynamic than the action of the mass. Sitting at Jesus' feet rather than at the last supper? Choose your metaphor; but I think there is a difference.
--------------------
Quam vos veritatem interpretationis, hanc eruditi κακοζηλίαν nuncupant … si ad verbum interpretor, absurde resonant. (St Jerome, Ep. 57 to Pammachius)
Posts: 1332 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
Precisemundo, cor ad cor loquitur! I too have been a "shut-eye" for quite a few years now.
The fewer distractions, the better.
Best wishes,
Mary
[ 19. February 2007, 14:24: Message edited by: Leetle Masha ]
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:
He certainly waved a wafer about, but there was no way of telling whether it was consecrated or not just by looking at it. It was a long time ago (1968?) so the details that I recall are bound to be a bit hazy. I think the point that he was trying to make was that (to his way of looking at things, at least) the idea that someone could `turn this into a bit of God' was so much mumbo-jumbo. I do not recall his breaking it up and scattering it about; I was with an RC friend and certainly remember how shocked and hurt he was by Paisley's gimmick. I also recall that one of the other speakers in the debate was a young woman, doubtless a devout soul, but who made a toe-curlingly sentimental speech about how lovely she thought the RC church was. It didn't do much to counter Paisley.
Perhaps Paisley was not so famous/notorious in those days. The CoS chaplain to the university was warned by the PCI of his impending visit; the PCI people wanted to make it absolutely clear that Paisley was nothing to do with them!
Thanks - I am reassured.
My version of the event is obviously based on an urban myth.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Davy Wavy Morrison
Shipmate
# 12241
|
Posted
D S asked why God could not be in bread and wine. I have no doubt he could be. I simply find no reason to believe he is.
Posts: 406 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Davy Wavy Morrison
Shipmate
# 12241
|
Posted
An error in a previous post of mine- the quotation should have been, in full, from the 1662 Anglican Prayer Book, "Take and eat this in remembrence that Christ died for thee,and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving". That seems to me to be a very clear statement of official Anglican doctrine on the matter. Those words are defining what is meant by the first half of the words where the "Body of our Lord Jesus Christ" is to preserve one's "body and soul unto everlasting life". The words are repeated similarly with "Blood" instead of "Body".
We feed on him in our hearts, by faith. It couldn't be much clearer than that. We can disagree with it of course.
Posts: 406 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
Why are you presuming everyone is an Anglican and takes 1662 BCP seriously?
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Why are you presuming everyone is an Anglican and takes 1662 BCP seriously?
Or that every Anglican takes 1662 seriously.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ecce Quam Bonum
Shipmate
# 10884
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Davy Wavy Morrison:
An error in a previous post of mine- the quotation should have been, in full, from the 1662 Anglican Prayer Book, "Take and eat this in remembrence that Christ died for thee,and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving". That seems to me to be a very clear statement of official Anglican doctrine on the matter. Those words are defining what is meant by the first half of the words where the "Body of our Lord Jesus Christ" is to preserve one's "body and soul unto everlasting life". The words are repeated similarly with "Blood" instead of "Body".
We feed on him in our hearts, by faith. It couldn't be much clearer than that. We can disagree with it of course.
"Official Anglican doctrine"? Now there's a contradiction in terms if I ever heard one. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
If you're going to use the example of the words of ministration of the 1662 BCP, it might be helpful to understand from where exactly they are derived.
The 1549 BCP has the words of ministration as follows:
quote:
The Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul into everlasting life.
Now, 1552 rolled around, Edward VI and the Protestant Reformers desired to change this wording, which obviously implied the Real Presence. They changed the previous version to this:
quote:
Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee and feed on him in your hearts by faith with thanksgiving.
The Edwardian Prayer Book also introduced the "Black Rubric," part of which read:
quote:
And as concerning the natural body and blood of our saviour Christ, they are in heaven and not here. For it is against the truth of Christ's true natural body, to be in more places than in one, at one time.
Now, this was taken out in the 1559 Elizabethan Prayer Book, but was then added in at the last moment to the 1662. But what is most important is that the Elizabethan Prayer Book combined both the 1549 and the 1552 words of ministration--an editorial move that was preserved in the 1662 BCP. I would hold that if you're going to argue based on the words of ministration, you at least should acknowledge that the sentence is more of a compromise for the sake of blissful ambiguity regarding the Real Presence than anything. It appeals to both sides, and, I would claim, was made to do so.
Furthermore, the Black Rubric also would not constitute any sort of "official Anglican doctrine" for all the provinces around the world that do not use the 1662 BCP. The 1789 Prayer Book here in America dropped the thing. Common Worship doesn't include it either. So where, exactly, is the "official Anglican doctrine"?
--------------------
"And it is folly—it is madness—to suppose that you can worship Jesus in the Sacraments and Jesus on the Throne of glory, when you are sweating him in the souls and bodies of his children. It cannot be done."--+Frank Weston, "Our Present Duty"
Posts: 168 | From: Sewanee, TN | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim
Ubi caritas et amor
# 256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Davy Wavy Morrison:
D S asked why God could not be in bread and wine. I have no doubt he could be. I simply find no reason to believe he is.
I'd have thought that Luke 22:17-20 and I Corinthians 22 23-25 are pretty strong arguments for believing precisely that God is present in the Body and Blood. They certainly are utterly convincing to me.
In the same way that John 17 20-26 speaks powerfuly to me of the Real Presence: the union of God and his believers as close, as loving and as real as the union between the Father and the Son.
--------------------
Embrace the serious whack. It's the Catholic thing to do. IngoB
The Messiah, Peace be upon him, said to his Apostles: 'Verily, this world is merely a bridge, so cross over it, and do not make it your abode.' (Bihar al-anwar xiv, 319)
Posts: 7952 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim
Ubi caritas et amor
# 256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
It was definitely about the Presence of God being everywhere and not in reliance of us.
There is nothing in Catholic teaching that makes the Presence of God either reliant on us or dependant on being localised in the one place or one form. The Eucharist is central for us - thanksgiving, anamesis in the sense of making present, here and now, outside of ordinary time that perfect Sacrifice and of the promise of salvation given to us by that Sacrifice. And it is the Presence of Christ right there. A Presence that doesn't go away after communion is received and the Mass is ended. The reserved Host doesn't somehow lose its sacred character after the Mass, for that would imply God withdrawing from his Church. So we do worship, adore...God who is Really Present there in the reserved sacrament. But that is part of our worship and adoration of God, who is also everywhere. It is not separate or different in character.
quote:
We were taught that we acted totally undecorated, simply, in every way, so that nothing we did made a block, big or small, betweeen us and the Presence of God.
To put it in Catholic terms, our natural response to God's grace is to turn to him in love to increase in personal holiness, to co-operate with God's will and his plan, to increase and deepen our continual sense of God's presence.
quote:
One aspect of that was the way a church was done totally simply - plain walls, no pictures, no stained glass, no talking to each other when we entered.
That I do see as a cultural thing.
quote:
And another was that the church was locked during the week, and we were taught that we worshipped and were conscious of God, in God's Presence, when we weren't at services, at home, at work, out of doors, in the fields, in factories, ill or healthy etc etc.
Ora et labora - prayer and work or working and praying or praying by working. St Francis of Assisi would certainly agree that we should be living the Gospel message all the time and thus helping to spread that message through the example of our lives.
Still, I'm on a small campaign to re-open churches outside of worship, as places to pray, to meditate, to focus on God, free of distraction. Sitting in churches quietly,initially as quiet rather historical places where you could simply sit and think was what led me out of atheism.
quote:
So there is a huge difference between the way some people use physical bits and pieces of the world to help them have awareness of the Presence of God and others avoid doing that even though they may experience the awareness of the Presence through physical bits and pieces that are just there.
The Eucharist is special for the reasons I've tried to explain above. A much better explanation why it is special can be found here. It is really key and I cannot over-emphasise this. Outside of the Eucharist,I wouldn't say that it was better or worse to approach God and experience his Real Presence by contemplative prayer in the presence of the reserved sacrament or by practical works of charity or by reading the Bible - provided that we do approach God, that we respond to God's grace in love, that we try our utmost to grow in personal holiness and to increase our union with God as his believers.
quote:
How much of this might be ethnic or cultural difference as opposed to only theological difference, I would be interested to know - maybe a guess would make the more northern and more southern cultures do things differently, even though it's not quite got walls between them.
I can see that there could be cultural differences that may be at work. However I can't help suspecting that some views on the differences in theology are driven by a desire not to be seen as one of those idol-worshipping, wafer munching Catholics. Personally, I find that to be an unimpressive definition of belief by exclusion.
--------------------
Embrace the serious whack. It's the Catholic thing to do. IngoB
The Messiah, Peace be upon him, said to his Apostles: 'Verily, this world is merely a bridge, so cross over it, and do not make it your abode.' (Bihar al-anwar xiv, 319)
Posts: 7952 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nunc Dimittis
Seamstress of Sound
# 848
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Davy Wavy Morrison:
An error in a previous post of mine- the quotation should have been, in full, from the 1662 Anglican Prayer Book, "Take and eat this in remembrence that Christ died for thee,and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving". That seems to me to be a very clear statement of official Anglican doctrine on the matter. Those words are defining what is meant by the first half of the words where the "Body of our Lord Jesus Christ" is to preserve one's "body and soul unto everlasting life". The words are repeated similarly with "Blood" instead of "Body".
We feed on him in our hearts, by faith. It couldn't be much clearer than that. We can disagree with it of course.
And the significant thing is that these words are accompanied by the sacramental action of eating. Feeding on him in our heart by faith with thanksgiving is the concomitant of consuming the elements. They belong together.
Just like the old faith/works misnomer.
Posts: 9515 | From: Delta Quadrant | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nunc Dimittis
Seamstress of Sound
# 848
|
Posted
quote:
Now, this was taken out in the 1559 Elizabethan Prayer Book, but was then added in at the last moment to the 1662. But what is most important is that the Elizabethan Prayer Book combined both the 1549 and the 1552 words of ministration--an editorial move that was preserved in the 1662 BCP. I would hold that if you're going to argue based on the words of ministration, you at least should acknowledge that the sentence is more of a compromise for the sake of blissful ambiguity regarding the Real Presence than anything. It appeals to both sides, and, I would claim, was made to do so.
Anyone for some Anglican Fudge? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 9515 | From: Delta Quadrant | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ecce Quam Bonum
Shipmate
# 10884
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
Anyone for some Anglican Fudge?
A rather delightful--if not sticky--delicacy, I do believe.
--------------------
"And it is folly—it is madness—to suppose that you can worship Jesus in the Sacraments and Jesus on the Throne of glory, when you are sweating him in the souls and bodies of his children. It cannot be done."--+Frank Weston, "Our Present Duty"
Posts: 168 | From: Sewanee, TN | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Naw, Brigittine fudge is better!
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
