Thread: Purgatory: Reserving the Sacrament - Knock! Knock! Who's There? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000620
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
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.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
how does one even begin to answer when there is so much loaded language to wade through first?
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
TT, all language is loaded, eg the title 'anabaptist' given by catholics to my tradition, or indeed the term of abuse 'Christian'
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
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.
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
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.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
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.
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
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.
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
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.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
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.
Posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture (# 10614) on
:
"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.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
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?
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
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.
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
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..."
Posted by Liverpool fan (# 11424) on
:
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.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
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..."
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
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.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
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.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
Yes, that's perfectly true. I'm with Paul on this. There's a problem if the 'plain man' can't say amen.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
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.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
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.)
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
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.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
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...?
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
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
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
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.
.
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
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.
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
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?
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on
:
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.
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on
:
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.
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
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.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
Pardon?
Posted by Liverpool fan (# 11424) on
:
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.
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on
:
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.
Posted by caty the southerner (# 11996) on
:
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)?
Posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture (# 10614) on
:
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.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
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.
Posted by Malin (# 11769) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
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
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
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.
Posted by caty the southerner (# 11996) on
:
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.)
Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on
:
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.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
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.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
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.
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on
:
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.
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
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.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
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 ]
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on
:
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.
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
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.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
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 ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
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.
Lay ministers have lunch to go to and hospital visitng hoursdon't always fit.
Many housebound like a regular weekday meeting - they like to fuss around making tea for me so it becomes a pastoral visit as well as sacramental.
Sure, it used to placate archdeacons but nobody in the hierarchy seems to object to reservation these days.
I like benediction very much but people in this benefice sometimes like the aumbrey as a focus for prayer. Others like an icon.
Whatever 'helps' people should be welcomed.
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
Whilst I'm an easy go lucky sort who thinks there are no wrong questions, I just don't think any question of the form 'How much God...?' can make any sense. God is not the kind of thing which admits of quantity, not least because God is no kind of thing whatsoever. The question Christians have asked about the Incarnation is not 'How much God is there in Jesus?' but rather 'How can we explain our conviction, expressed in worship, that Jesus is God?'
Or rather, the only people who have framed 'How much' questions have been the kind of people who end up denying both Jesus' humanity and his divinity. How much of a suitably kenotically reduced deity can we cram into the space where Jesus' human psychology would normally go? Once God admits of quantity, she starts competing for space with other quantifiable entities.
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
TT's question is
quote:
God be present in the whole universe but also present and localised in Jesus?
It's the phrase "localised in Jesus" that is the problem. It makes Jesus sound like part of the created order. There wasn't a larger or smaller dose of God in Jesus, John says, literally, that "God was the Word". Talk of localising God in Jesus sounds perilously close to adoptionism, which was most certainly condemned as heretical by the pre-catholic church. So it's a "when did you stop beating your wife?" question because, whatever answer you give, you have incriminated yourself. The correct catholic understanding is hypostatic union, not localising a high concentration of the divine in a human Jesus.
And, if you take hypostatic union seriously, I can't see how anything that involves foodstuffs can in any way compare with the incarnation. You'd need to postulate that the Jesus of the Eucharist has a divine and a starch-based nature, and that the divine was indivisible from the starch, or something.
[x-posted with DoD]
[ 15. February 2007, 16:13: Message edited by: Melon ]
Posted by caty the southerner (# 11996) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
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?"
To which I would add some points relating to (3). The passages which come to mind are 'do this in remembrance of me' (showing it to be a commemorative or memorial act) and Hebrews 10:12 'when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God' (all the necessary sacrifices have been completed already).
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
You'd need to postulate that the Jesus of the Eucharist has a divine and a starch-based nature, and that the divine was indivisible from the starch, or something.
Who is this 'Jesus of the Eucharist'? Do we suppose he is someone different from Jesus of Nazareth, risen and glorified? Because if we don't then the 'nature' hypostatically united to the logos is that of a human being (a rationally animate living body, to use wildly fashionable terms). We don't postulate some additional union between foodstuffs and the logos. If we did then we would not have the presence of Jesus. We would have another Incarnation. Rather, the claim is that this Jesus, the man who is the logos is present in a unique and miraculous mode of presence under the signs of bread and wine.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
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.
I accept this but don't agree that belief in the incarnation requires catholic beliefs about the Eucharist.
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
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?
(3) IMHO it is neither required by nor consistent with the plain teaching of scripture. Jesus' words are very graphic but I don't see any convincing evidence that they were taken as literally true about the material substance of the bread and wine. (1) It does defy the evidence of the senses - but that is not an obstacle in itself. (2) It is probably not impossible on scientific/ philosophical grounds. (4) ISTM that it can lead to consequences that are objectionable, and in light of my response to (3) above I don't feel this is a case where the 'abuse/non-use/right use' tag applies.
All that said I certainly wouldn't (as far as it lay with me) want to let attitude to the sacrament per se stand as a barrier to love and fellowship between me and a brother or sister in Christ.
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Who is this 'Jesus of the Eucharist'? Do we suppose he is someone different from Jesus of Nazareth, risen and glorified?
Well for me, he's the risen and glorified Jesus of Nazareth we remember whenever we have a meal together, which does seem to make things a whole lot simpler, but...
quote:
Rather, the claim is that this Jesus, the man who is the logos is present in a unique and miraculous mode of presence under the signs of bread and wine.
So the wafer contains both natures of the hypostatic union?
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
Thank you FCB, DOD and Callan. You have grasped my point precisely and amplified it correctly.
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
Strictly speaking there is no 'wafer'. What we have is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity present under a unique mode of presence. If we're working with the kind of metaphysics where no particular thing is more than one particular kind of individual substance, then something is not both 'bread' and 'the Body of Christ'. But, if your question is, is Jesus qua God and man present in the Eucharist, then, yes. And I personally couldn't see the point of the whole shebang were he not! I can encounter the logos without getting out of bed on a Sunday morning.
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
You have grasped my point precisely and amplified it correctly.
It's pretty crucial to grasp it precisely and amplify it correctly, because, as you have demonstrated, the doctrine dissolves into heresy unless you get exactly the right form of words, which isn't really ideal. quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
But, if your question is, is Jesus qua God and man present in the Eucharist, then, yes. And I personally couldn't see the point of the whole shebang were he not! I can encounter the logos without getting out of bed on a Sunday morning.
Well, if nothing else, you've solved the mystery of why I always struggle to get out of bed on a Sunday.
To head back towards the OP, my understanding is that it's the Holy Spirit who Jesus says will mediate his presence to us. And I'm happy to entertain the possibility that the Holy Spirit is especially active when we take part in the meal that Jesus invited us to take in memory of him. The way I read John 14, Jesus cannot be with all of us all the time, because he is truly man, and geographical constraints are an intrinsic part of what it means to be human. So it seems odd to me to postulate that the human Jesus is present all over the world at the same time. Even the risen Christ only cooked fish on one beach at a time...
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
While and perhaps because I am, with Hans Kung, Schillebeeckx and others, a transignificationist rather than a transubstatiationist, I would suggest analogy, mudfrog, with cotton and flags. The community of a nation imbues (I think that's the right word) a certain pattern of colours and shapes with enormous significant. Generally if I burnt the flag of your nation or mine, someone would take offence. Yet surely it is no more than cotton and dye?
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
Originally posted by FCB:
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?
(1) Yes - it's bread/wafer and wine/juice, not human meat - in sensation it tastes, feels and is digested differently
(2) I don't think it can be scientifically proved - what if scientists checked out the DNA of the wafer? There would never be any evidence of its inheritance. But philosophically there are loads of philosophical concepts and so it would fit in there quite easily, even if it is a specific philosophical idea.
(3) There have been scriptural quotes already and I agree with the teaching to remember Jesus. Also, his disciples didn't become cannibals in Jesus' presence before he died - it must have been a metaphor, a memorial for them.
(4) Yes again - I see it as idolatory, but a mistake, not a sin.
(5)Probably...
(6) Some kind of grandiosity dumped on the people who have to do the special prayers, as opposed to the other bit of the same universal church which says we can all share the bread and wine, can all talk and pray about "remembering Jesus"
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
So it seems odd to me to postulate that the human Jesus is present all over the world at the same time. Even the risen Christ only cooked fish on one beach at a time...
And if Jesus were present in the Eucharist in the way that human beings are normally present to one another in this present age then not only would that (as Cranmer rightly concludes, wrongly believing it to be Roman belief) be 'repugnant to the nature of a sacrament', it would also be nonsense. That is why the catholic belief is precisely that Christ is not present in such a way. His risen presence is mediated in a unique way.
Daisymay, I'm fascinated to learn that wafers have DNA. Must have been asleep during that lecture. As should be clear from what I have been saying, nothing in catholic belief suggests anything other than the conclusion that were we to, sacreligiously, place a Host in a mass spectroscope, we would find anything consistent with anything other than bread.
Actually this presence under the form of signs foreshadows a day when we shall all be universally (and bodily) present one to another. A state of affairs we call the Kingdom. And then sacraments shall cease.
[ 15. February 2007, 17:51: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
That is why the catholic belief is precisely that Christ is not present in such a way. His risen presence is mediated in a unique way.
So TT's question about the localisation of Jesus is a red herring?
quote:
Daisymay, I'm fascinated to learn that wafers have DNA.
Really? Wafers are made from plant tissue, aren't it? I doubt if the DNA is in very good shape, but I'm sure it's there. quote:
Actually this presence under the form of signs foreshadows a day when we shall all be universally (and bodily) present one to another. A state of affairs we call the Kingdom. And then sacraments shall cease.
I think the historical creeds offer us a bodily resurrection, and I don't see why you would expect those bodies to be less spacially specific than Jesus' resurrection body. Your heavenly hope sounds more like nirvana to me. (Hmm, maybe Eutychus is right and I have been talking to too many JWs...)
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
It's the phrase "localised in Jesus" that is the problem. It makes Jesus sound like part of the created order.
Jesus certainly was (and, indeed, is) part of the created order, by virtue of the humanity he assumed. If we want to start thowing heresy accusations around here, this statement could certainly be taken in a docetic way.
quote:
most certainly condemned as heretical by the pre-catholic church.
The what?
quote:
The correct catholic understanding is hypostatic union, not localising a high concentration of the divine in a human Jesus.+
Only a very large dose of hermeneutical spite would lead someone to take TT's question in that way.
quote:
And, if you take hypostatic union seriously, I can't see how anything that involves foodstuffs can in any way compare with the incarnation. You'd need to postulate that the Jesus of the Eucharist has a divine and a starch-based nature, and that the divine was indivisible from the starch, or something.
Which is why Catholics do not claim that Jesus' divine nature is hypostatically united to bread and wine. Catholic belief about the sacraments is related to Catholic belief about the incarnation; it is not identical with it.
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
That is why the catholic belief is precisely that Christ is not present in such a way. His risen presence is mediated in a unique way.
So TT's question about the localisation of Jesus is a red herring?
quote:
Daisymay, I'm fascinated to learn that wafers have DNA.
Really? Wafers are made from plant tissue, aren't it? I doubt if the DNA is in very good shape, but I'm sure it's there. quote:
Actually this presence under the form of signs foreshadows a day when we shall all be universally (and bodily) present one to another. A state of affairs we call the Kingdom. And then sacraments shall cease.
I think the historical creeds offer us a bodily resurrection, and I don't see why you would expect those bodies to be less spacially specific than Jesus' resurrection body. Your heavenly hope sounds more like nirvana to me. (Hmm, maybe Eutychus is right and I have been talking to too many JWs...)
Point-by-point:
TT was using language of 'location' given him by a prior poster. I would be astonished if he didn't agree with me on this.
Wafers may contain DNA molecules. They do not, I suggest, contain anything answering to the description 'the DNA of the wafers'.
I do not feel at liberty to speculate too much about the nature of our resurrection bodies, or indeed the nature of spatiality in the new heaven and new earth. I do take it as axiomatic, however, that all that impedes communication between human beings will be abolished. The very fact that I am talking about distinct 'human beings' who can 'communicate' ought to be enough to demonstrate that I do not have 'nirvana' in mind.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Transubstantiation is good enough for me.
What the logos did once in the historical jesus, he now does in bread and wine.
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
That is your belief. It is not, however, aptly described as 'transubstantiation'. What you describe is the Incarnation of God as bread and wine.
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
quote:
most certainly condemned as heretical by the pre-catholic church.
The what?
It certainly wasn't the Roman Catholic church at that point.
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
quote:
The correct catholic understanding is hypostatic union, not localising a high concentration of the divine in a human Jesus.+
Only a very large dose of hermeneutical spite would lead someone to take TT's question in that way.
Only a chronic inability to decentre from a RC world view would lead someone to assume that everyone naturally reads theological statements from a RC viewpoint.
TT's questions all try to show that God is more present in some places than others, which, apparently, leads to conclusions about the Eucharist. Treating Jesus as a place is not a good plan. As for how much Jesus is present in my heart, mind and body, do I have to accept that anthropology before I answer? And what if I believe that it's rather the Spirit who is with me, and that this Spirit is a person more than a fluid, and that trying to imagine him sitting on a little stool above my left ventricle or snuggled up to my frontal lobe is therefore not helpful?
I can't answer TT's questions without conceding what I consider to be the issues we are discussing. It's as fair as demanding that TT answer the question "What was the single biggest benefit of replacing the Holy Spirit with the pope?"
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
Only a chronic inability to decentre from a RC world view would lead someone to assume that everyone naturally reads theological statements from a RC viewpoint.
Um, the basic classical theistic belief that God's presence doesn't vary quntifiably is one shared by, say, many Calvinists, or Muslims and Jews. 'RC world view'?!
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on
:
Leaving aside the theological, phisophical and scriptural arguments there's another reason I find this so difficult, and that's that I don't naturally relate to a wafer and some wine as if it were a person. It feels like someone presenting me with a ham sandwich and telling me it's the reincarnation of my dead grandmother and expecting me to somehow interact with the sandwich as if that were true*.
This is why I'm always surprised when some wax lyrical about how the very physicality of the elements gives them more of a sense of the presence of Jesus, a better appreciation of the Incarnation, than simply "remembering" Him would. For me, however, the very incongruity of trying to appreciate something that for all the world looks like one thing as something - someONE - else entirely, well that distances me from Jesus rather than draws me close.
(*I realise that analogy may cause offence. I regret that, but in a way if it's not ridiculous enough to cause that kind of offence it wouldn't communicate the strong sense of strangeness and wrongness that the idea of has for me.)
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on
:
Melon,
You win.
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
Re-reading, TTs original post; yeah, actually.
But, whatever, there is not 'more' God in Jesus.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
That is your belief. It is not, however, aptly described as 'transubstantiation'. What you describe is the Incarnation of God as bread and wine.
The 'substance' of the Logos took the 'accidents' if the historica Jesus. Noe he takes bread and wine.
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
And, I repeat, that is not the doctrine of transubstantiation. It is a doctrine of Incarnation.
Can you explain why, on your view, the Blessed Sacrament is the Body of Christ? A body of the logos more like.
Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Start with those, think about the implications of the incarnation and you will begin a crash course in sacramentality.
I always enjoy Triple Tiara's posts, but did wish to comment that I found this one particularly excellent. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
that is not the doctrine of transubstantiation. It is a doctrine of Incarnation.
Actually, it's a doctrine of impanation.
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
Which is a subset of doctrines of Incarnation in my opinion. Well sort of. If you think being bread is being 'carnate'. Which it probably isn't. But hey.
Anglo-Catholics seem particularly prone to it. I blame Betjeman. 'God was man in Palestine. And lives today in bread and wine.'
Posted by adso (# 2895) on
:
A quick tangent back to Eutychus' question re "Where two or three are gathered...". According to Michelle Guinness ("Child of the Covenant") a Jewish audience would have expected a quota of ten people present to make an act of public worship valid. Jesus is reducing this requirement - he promises to be present at any meeting of his followers, however small.
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
Melon:
quote:
TT's questions all try to show that God is more present in some places than others, which, apparently, leads to conclusions about the Eucharist. Treating Jesus as a place is not a good plan. As for how much Jesus is present in my heart, mind and body, do I have to accept that anthropology before I answer? And what if I believe that it's rather the Spirit who is with me, and that this Spirit is a person more than a fluid, and that trying to imagine him sitting on a little stool above my left ventricle or snuggled up to my frontal lobe is therefore not helpful?
This is something that makes sense to me; Jesus told his disciples he was leaving, and sending the Holy Spirit to them all.
As "The Trinity", present in the whole world, the whole universe, both immanent and transcendent, this is a different kind of presence to squeezing Self into lots of tiny bits and pieces and being eaten....
God is everywhere; we may not always remember that, or experience that, or be going through a "Dark Night" where God's light is so bright we see only darkness and may be feeling God is not with us; the "Remembrance" of Jesus is useful and extra useful for many of us in that we can remember and thank God whenever we eat bread, or chapattis, or matzos...
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
But we're not talking about the presence of 'God', we're talking about the presence of Jesus, qua human being.
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Anglo-Catholics seem particularly prone to it. I blame Betjeman. 'God was man in Palestine. And lives today in bread and wine.'
Interesting. I was speaking several months ago with an young(ish) Anglo-Catholic patristics scholar who teaches at a Catholic university and he told me that he had been teaching his students that the Catholic view was that just as there was a union without separation or confusion between Christ's humanity and divinity, so too there was a union without separation or confusion between Christ and the bread and wine. He seemed quite shocked to learn that this is not the Catholic view of the Eucharist, and slightly embarrassed that he had been misleading his students. I figured that, given the poor state of catechesis these days, it was probabably a higher view of the Eucharist than many of them held previously.
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
But we're not talking about the presence of 'God', we're talking about the presence of Jesus, qua human being.
Are you saying that the "presence of Jesus" in wafers etc, is a physical, human thing, and not God? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
[Are you saying that the "presence of Jesus" in wafers etc, is a physical, human thing, and not God?
While not a "physical" presence (i.e. a matter of atoms and molecules) it is very much a human thing.
Pretty freaky, huh?
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
We speak of Christ bodily ascended and now reigning in heaven. We speak of the church as the Body of Christ. And we speak of the Blessed Sacrament as the Body of Christ. According to Fr. Reid of S. Clement's Church (in a fine Corpus Christi sermon two years ago) these three instances of the Body of Christ are related, and in this manner: by partaking of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament, which contains the Body of Christ in heaven, the church becomes the Body of Christ on earth. Sorta like a trickle-down theory, but it's a sensible explanation to me.
A sense of the Real Presence is a venerable tradition of the church which is probably based on experience, and it was long unquestioned. Furthermore, I like the company it keeps.
Although the delicate wording of the 39 Articles allows for receptionism or memorialism, the liturgy in the Book of Common Prayer refers to the elements as the Body and Blood of Christ.
Reservation of the Blessed Sacrament is an ancient practice. Laypeople would even take the Sacrament home and partake of it through the week, somewhat as devout people now do with holy water.
I can imagine that in the 16th century, people could justifiably see the Roman Catholic Church the way we would see an evil, monopolistic, domineering conglomerate corporation, and call for radical divergence from traditional thinking in reaction thereto. But now that the precipitating problems have receded, this and other radical changes no longer seem so compelling. This is true especially when the traditional views are of ancient rather than medieval origin, perhaps even antedating the canon of the New Testament. I find it simply silly to appeal to scripture against practices and beliefs in the church that were standard at the time she defined scripture and remained undisturbed by that definition throughout the era.
If the church at the time was not authoritative, then the canon of the New Testament itself could well be a chimera.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
First, Jesus is the Divine person of the Son/Logos with two natures, human and Divine. So there simply can be no question here that in meeting Jesus Personally I meet "more" of God than if I meet for example Melon personally. Melon is not a Divine Person, Jesus is. Interacting with Melon's humanity, shaking his hand and talking with him, allows me to access his human personality - and through that God as far as Melon is an image and likeness of God and walks in faith to God, and of course also as far as God is present in all creation, even in a stone. But interacting with Jesus' humanity, shaking His hand and talking with Him, allows me to access His Divine Personality - true God from true God, without qualifications. That's undoubtedly "more", and for this very reason all Christians cherish the gospel and the witness of the first apostles: because what Jesus did and said is "more God" than what any human person can possibly say or do.
Second, what was important about "God with us"? Was it just that Jesus said and did certain things? This we have handed down to us in the gospel, and while these texts are necessarily sketchy and we would have loved to walk with Him instead, we can validly claim to have been given enough. It is a very "enlightened" point of view to claim that what counts about Christ is only this "message" he gave to us. But when I sit with a friend watching the sunset, he may not do anything, he may not say anyhting - and yet there is value to me in his quiet presence. There is a gut-level importance to literally being with each other. Jesus was among them, not just by His words and deeds, as important as they may have been. He was there. John could rest his head on Jesus' chest. That may well have plenty of "spiritual" meaning, but it also has simply the meaning it has: John was able to rest his physical head on God's physical chest - and who among us does not feel the sense of intimacy in this, which just is not possible without physical presence?
Third, God acts as leaven in the bread. Jesus gave us access to His words and deeds through scripture and through the apostolic church. This is, one would have to admit, in one way not quite as good as being with Jesus Himself. A scriptural text can never have the nuance of a discussion with a Divine Person: we do not see the body language, and we only have few words where there would have been many. Also, even if one holds the highest opinion of the authority given to the Church, as I do, her authority is not quite on the same level: He could slice through our difficulties in seconds where we may discuss and fight for centuries. In another way though it is actually better as it is. Blessed are those who believe without having seen. God sees value in our ability to follow this trace of Christ in history we call Church. And Jesus has, so I believe, seen it fit that He only plants the mustard seed, but we grow the tree. It is precisely our working things out as a community which is so pleasing to God.
Now then, just as scripture and Church relate to Christ's words and deeds in Palestine, so I think the "real presence" relates to Christ's bodily presence in Palestine. The "real presence" is truly Christ before me, yes. That's why I bow my knee. Just as scripture and Church truly tell me what Christ said and did. Just like Christ is the Head of the Church (and her scripture), truly but mysteriously, so consecrated bread and wine are His body and blood, truly but mysteriously. However, it cannot be denied that I cannot rest my head on the chest of this "real presence", as John did. My senses do not report Jesus sitting next to me while I watch the sunset together with consecrated bread and wine through the Church window. In some way this "real presence" is thus less than what was encountered in Palestine, just like in some sense scripture and Church are just a trace of Christ. In another sense however it is precisely the leap of faith stepping in for the senses that is pleasing to God, it is precisely our communal adoration and care which makes the mustard seed of Jesus, the man walking in Palestine, become the tree of Jesus, really present all over the world through all times to His faithful.
And at the end of times these two will meet: the words, deeds, and presence of that Divine man in Palestine, and the words, deeds and presence carried through the ages by a human community, expanded and glorified until He has become "all in all". It is thus precisely in the "silliness" of adoring "Jesus in the box", here, there and everywhere that His kingdom is being raised up, that His presence to all is starting to be fulfilled: practically, pragmatically, here and now for you and me. Every consecrated host a brick in the walls of New Jerusalem... So, go to a Church and sit some time quietly with Christ, as good friends do. (I'll bring the beer... )
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
Beautifully said, IngoB. And this, I think, is the thing: Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar can only be known to us through the combination of faith, obedient belief, and the action of adoring prayer.
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
But we're not talking about the presence of 'God', we're talking about the presence of Jesus, qua human being.
Are you saying that the "presence of Jesus" in wafers etc, is a physical, human thing, and not God?
A human thing and God. And God precisely in being that human thing.
Ingo, I agree with that, I think. But I think we can get rid of the word 'more', even in scare quotes. It is not that Jesus is 'more' God than Melon. Jesus is God. Melon isn't. End of story. It matters, I think, because the glory of the Incarnation is that we see divinity and humanity working in harmony, each according to their proper bring. Part and parcel of divinity is that it is not the kind of 'thing' that admits the qualification 'more'. Hence the need to watch our language.
Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on
:
Posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
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.
So you don't believe in the efficacy of the sacraments, ie, the objective grace they convey regardless of the worthiness of the minister - or the state of heart of the worshipper...
Interesting, because the last time I checked, there was an Article about that, too.
Although I concede that receptionism is an historically acceptable position for an Anglican to hold.
My own opinion is that sometimes we get altogether too hung up on words which are loaded with the baggage of entrenched traditional positions. Jesus said, "This is my Body, this is my Blood." Somehow one's theology has to grapple with what that means. For myself, the only way to deal with it with integrity (personal, and within the text) is a belief that, when we as the gathered people of God engage in Eucharist, and obey our Risen Lord's command to "do this in memory of me", he is present in the bread and wine.
My problem with "transubstantiation" is that it comes from within a dialectic of accidence and substance. I think we've moved beyond that philosophically. And anyway, Aquinas himself would be the first to concede the complete inadequacy of language. And there lies the rub: no label is really sufficient, and the reality lies beyond what language can describe. But that doesn't mean it's not actual and real.
Christ is truly present in the eucharist. In it, we are present to the Last Supper, to Calvary, and to the eschatological banquet which will be the consummation of all things. In it, we are made again the Body of Christ, united to our head, each of us more intimately connected to him than we can conceive. It is an wholistic thing. We receive Christ himself, and our union is effected (or a foretaste thereof), on every level.
I can see no other way in which this can be understood than in a belief in Jesus' real presence in the sacrament.
The ancient church sent deacons out after the eucharistic celebration to take the sacrament to the sick. Extended communion and reserved sacrament is a logical development from this ancient practice. The sacrament being reserved should be appropriately housed***; it's been set aside from ordinary use. And if it's placed in a church, in a convenient recepticle, it is appropriate that God's people should come and reflect again on their unity with Christ; I know for myself that prayer in the presence of the sacrament helps me remember, and keeps me in check.
***Having said that, there have been times when I have taken extended communion to people, and Jesus has sat on the top shelf of the bookcase in the living room in his ciborium until I've managed to get back to the church.
Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on
:
IngoB, beautifully said.
quote:
So, go to a Church and sit some time quietly with Christ, as good friends do. (I'll bring the beer... )
There were many times as a teenager that I'd visit the chip shop, and then duck across to the local RCC place, and "share my chips with the Big Guy"**, on my way home from school.
**One day a parishioner noticed me and made this comment.
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
IngoB, beautifully said.
quote:
So, go to a Church and sit some time quietly with Christ, as good friends do. (I'll bring the beer... )
Reading through this thread I did think that a number of people were getting far too hung up on the "accidents" of the bread and wine.
Look, the Real Presence in the Eucharist is about being with Jesus, with God, with the Trinity as friends are and as God and his faithful are and as God and all of his Church are. That's why the Real Presence is a mystery, in the sense that the more we look at it the deeper and richer the lived experience of faith is. The more we ponder it the more there is to ponder - because we are humans and we have only our senses and our minds and hearts and souls to try to understand the concept of the Real Presence. We can only do the best we can with what we have. Signs and symbols help us to focus on that Real Presence but they neither confine nor detract from what that Real Presence truly is. Aided by the Holy Spirit, the Bible helps us to understand and to focus on that Real Presence,the final revelation of God in Jesus. The Bible illuminates the nature of the Real Presence but cannot confine or detract from what the Real Presence means.
God isn't pinned down in a box or a monstrance - and yet he is there and also in the hearts of his believers and everywhere. It doesn't mean that some moiety of God is present in a wafer or that Jesus is a moiety of God - we are talking about the whole deal. Really Present - the One God in Three Persons.
But then God is Really Present everywhere, Really Present in the Eucharist and Really Present when even two or three are gathered together in Jesus' name - because he said so and he doesn't go back on his promises. Thus he is worthy of our worship and reverence wherever he is - even if that happens to be in a box or a monstrance. Not because he is taking a particular form or is pinned down to a location, but because he is God.
So,absolutely the Real Presence in the Eucharist is about the Incarnation, God who became man and came among us. But the celebration of the Eucharist is also directly about the Sacrifice - offered once, for all time and always being offered once and for all time. But in the end it's pre-eminently about God's grace freely extended to all.
So for us the sacrament of the Eucharist is about God's grace active in his Church, about the Incarnation, the Passion and the promise of salvation. St Thomas Aquinas said "Therefore a sacrament is a sign that commemorates what precedes it - Christ's Passion; demonstrates what is accomplished in us through Christ's Passion - grace; and prefigures what that Passion pledges to us - future glory."STh III, 60, 3.
I certainly haven't explained this very well. Mysteries are impossible to grasp fully and thus very difficult things to explain. I'm hoping that one day that God will give me the full explanation. When that day comes, through grace, I'll hope to be able to understand it.
Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on
:
Another beautiful post, Duo.
Posted by Davy Wavy Morrison (# 12241) on
:
Christ's body is present at the right hand of the Father. His body is asent from earth (some people actually celebrate the Ascension). He is present with Christians through the Holy Spirit, and is in their midst throught the Holy Spirit when they meet in his (Jesus') name. he is not pesent in bread and wine and the idea of "reserving the sacrament" can only lead to superstitious ideas and practices.
Now there's an authentic Anglican view for you!
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Davy Wavy Morrison:
Christ's body is present at the right hand of the Father. His body is asent from earth (some people actually celebrate the Ascension). He is present with Christians through the Holy Spirit, and is in their midst throught the Holy Spirit when they meet in his (Jesus') name. he is not pesent in bread and wine and the idea of "reserving the sacrament" can only lead to superstitious ideas and practices.
Now there's an authentic Anglican view for you!
I can think of a number of Anglicans who would strongly disagree with you. Indeed some of them have already posted here.
You seem to be confining Jesus or rather his body to a specific locus ie Heaven, while allowing the Holy Spirit free rein to be everywhere the faithful meet, except not in bread or wine.
Where's Jesus then? And how do you interpret Matthew 26:26-29? Or come to think of it, 2 Corinthians 6:16 quote:
For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people."
So given God is everywhere and always with his people - why not in bread and wine, should he choose?
[ 16. February 2007, 06:17: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
Posted by AdamPater (# 4431) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Davy Wavy Morrison:
Christ's body is present at the right hand of the Father.
Wasn't this at the centre of one of Luther's arguments? I think it's in the Book of Concord. Christ is indeed at the right hand of the Father, but why do you then say that the Father is absent from us? The psalmist, at least, suggests otherwise.
quote:
Originally posted by Davy Wavy Morrison:
he is not pesent in bread and wine ...
Absolutely not. He was likely a carpenter, a tradesman, not a peasant in any form.
quote:
Now there's an authentic Anglican view for you!
Reformed, perhaps, but not particularly Anglican.
Posted by Davy Wavy Morrison (# 12241) on
:
Forgive my typografical erors.
The body of Christ on earth is his people when they are gathered together. That is not his physical resurrection body and that body of people is the one we have to discern. As an evangelical I don't believe everything in the Bible is to be taken literally. We use common sense and when Jesus said that the bread and wine were his body he was obviously speaking figuratively, just as when we point to a photo and say "that's Uncle Joe" we don't mean it literally.
Eating the bread and drinking the wine (yes, the elements in BOTH kinds forms an important part of the celebration) is a reminder of Christ's death and reminds us of statements in John 6. There it is obviously not an actual eating and drinking of food that is meant but true faith in and commitment to the Lord Jesus Christ.
Posted by AdamPater (# 4431) on
:
There are quite a few things that you say are obvious that don't seem to be obvious to many of your coreligionists! And very early church writings (Justin Martyr?) support common belief being against yours.
"Both... and...", however, is very Anglican. Orthodox too, I think.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
IngoB's post and Duo Seraphim's post both resonate with me. I know there is more to bread and wine than memorial. It is a meeting place. It is something I knew from conversion onwards, when I had precious little understanding to explain it. God was Man in Palestine and lives today in bread and wine. I dont claim to know how. But I do know it. It is not the only way I know His presence. But it is undoubtedly a special way.
Going back a page to Melon's comment here , the key phrase in his post is "I would argue that". Indeed it can be so argued, but it is not conclusive that scripture taken as a whole supports that argument. As an evangelical it seems to me important to recognise that the scripture does not in itself justify either a metaphorical view of Christians as the body of Christ or a metaphorical view of feeding through bread and wine. It is a judgment that it says that. I relate my experiences to such judgments all the time and say "there is more to this than we have believed".
The last time I posted something like this a Shipmate suggested that I must be heading for Rome! Well, that isn't going to happen. I'm a nonconformist. On this issue I see a good reason to be an irritant to the community I belong to. After 30 years, I've earned it.
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Melon is not a Divine Person
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
As an evangelical it seems to me important to recognise that the scripture does not in itself justify either a metaphorical view of Christians as the body of Christ or a metaphorical view of feeding through bread and wine.
I need some help unpacking this. The "discern the body" passage is preceded by concerns about divisions in the church and followed by Paul's pythonesque "UDI for noses" passage on unity and complementarity.
The choice isn't between whether the bread is literally the body or the church is literally the body. I take "You are the body of Christ" as literally (or not) as "This is my body broken for you". The question is surely which analogy Paul is using in the "discern the body" passage, and I can't see any textual reason to assume that he suddenly switches from community concerns to real presence and back to community concerns.
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
But we're not talking about the presence of 'God', we're talking about the presence of Jesus, qua human being.
Are you saying that the "presence of Jesus" in wafers etc, is a physical, human thing, and not God?
A human thing and God. And God precisely in being that human thing.
That's one of the things that concerns me - Jesus present as a human being just puts cannibalism in my mind.
Duo,
Your post sounds very spiritual, even when it's not the place I find myself.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
It continues to strike me as odd that for some people their own reading of scripture is far more important than the lived experience of the Church since before those Scriptures were composed. These particular questions of the Eucharist are virtually absent from the first 1500 years of the Church's life.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
So you don't believe in the efficacy of the sacraments, ie, the objective grace they convey regardless of the worthiness of the minister - or the state of heart of the worshipper...
Interesting, because the last time I checked, there was an Article about that, too.
The worthiness of the minister yes, but not regardless of the state of heart of the worshipper:
quote:
XXV. Of the Sacraments.
The Sacraments... in such only as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect or operation...
quote:
XXVI. Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacraments.
... Neither is the effect of Christ's ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God's gifts diminished from such as by faith, and rightly, do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ's institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.
(italics mine)
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
that is not the doctrine of transubstantiation. It is a doctrine of Incarnation.
Actually, it's a doctrine of impanation.
See. Melon was right. You can't decentre your Romanism. If you had been able to you would have said impanation and invination.
(There really ought to be old Greek doctrines of enoinosis and enoiniosis)
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
Oh very good indeed ken!
There's a lot of thought to be given to the sacramentality of the Blood of Christ - especially by those who like to talk about being "washed in the Blood".
Posted by Saint Bertelin (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
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)?
As long as you have as your starting point the idea that something needs to happen in order for it to be right and good, then you won't understand. You need to shed this idea first.
Posted by Saint Bertelin (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:
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...'.
This isn't accurate.
There are Orthodox Churches that have Benediction - sometimes in the ciborium and sometimes ina monstarnce, usiang leavened bread that has been specially moulded for the purpose.
(Sorry for posting sporadically like this, but I'm slowly working my way through the thread, responding to posts as I work down the pages).
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
I think where I am ATM is that the nature of the presence of Christ in the elements is (and will remain) a mystery. I am very happy with the idea that the elements once consecrated are treated with proper respect (and what that means may vary from one person or tradition to another). But bread is made to be eaten and wine to be drunk - and Christ's command is about eating and drinking and I find the whole concept of reservation for the purposes of worship (as opposed to reservation for subsequent administration) hard to relate to. I don't have such a problem with what one might call incidental reverence paid in the place where elements reserved for subsequent administration are kept - though it is not where I find myself.
Incidentally why is it the bread that is so often the focus of worship and not the wine - or are there monstrances for wine as well?
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
It continues to strike me as odd that for some people their own reading of scripture is far more important than the lived experience of the Church since before those Scriptures were composed. These particular questions of the Eucharist are virtually absent from the first 1500 years of the Church's life.
Are they, though? Granted the ECFs (Ignatius, Justin etc) wrote in terms of some kind of a Real Presence but were they stating this as a 'given' or as a 'contrary' to another position? Also, what if they were <shock horror!> wrong on the point?
Posted by Saint Bertelin (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by caty the southerner:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
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?"
To which I would add some points relating to (3). The passages which come to mind are 'do this in remembrance of me' (showing it to be a commemorative or memorial act)...
Only if you are content to make do with the necessarily incomplete rendering due to shortcomings of the English language.
The fact is that anamnesis does not simply mean remembering where you've left you're filofax.
Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on
:
quote:
There are Orthodox Churches that have Benediction - sometimes in the ciborium and sometimes ina monstarnce, usiang leavened bread that has been specially moulded for the purpose.
St B.
Thank you for this. The source for my assertion was Bp Kallistos, not personal experience. But is the practice one of "western Rite" Orthodoxy, or is it more general?
So you can put a muffin in a monstrance .... ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
It continues to strike me as odd that for some people their own reading of scripture is far more important than the lived experience of the Church since before those Scriptures were composed. These particular questions of the Eucharist are virtually absent from the first 1500 years of the Church's life.
Isn't that because your church burned anyone who disagreed, along with their books? This is what the Roman version of ecumenical dialogue looked like in the area where I live, starting 300 years before the reformation. And one of the specific issues for the Waldensians was the right to celebrate communion among themselves.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Ah yes, I'd forgotten about the Waldensians. So, at least from c1160, questions about the Eucharist were certainly not absent from the Church's life...
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
And the Roman church was very happy to support the Waldensians as long as they were preaching against the Albigensians (because their preaching was rather more effective than the Inquisition), and then they promptly slaughtered the Waldensians once the Albigensians had been dealt with.
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
It continues to strike me as odd that for some people their own reading of scripture is far more important than the lived experience of the Church since before those Scriptures were composed. These particular questions of the Eucharist are virtually absent from the first 1500 years of the Church's life.
Isn't that because your church burned anyone who disagreed, along with their books?
Protestant churches, on the other hand, have been a model of peace and love towards their ideological opponents throughout their history.
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
[qb] So you don't believe in the efficacy of the sacraments, ie, the objective grace they convey regardless of the worthiness of the minister - or the state of heart of the worshipper...
It is perfectly orthodox Catholic doctrine, issuing from Augustine, that the effect of a sacrament turns on the state of being (surely not just state of mind) of the person receiving it. St Thomas compares the unworthy person consuming the sacrament to a mouse, accidently nibbling at a Host. They consume the Body of Christ, but do not receive it in a 'spiritual' sense. And there's the rub; saying that the recipient's disposition affects the power of the sacrament to transform of the sacrament says nothing about it affecting the reality of the sacrament. The contents of the chalice* are really the Blood of Christ. And we can really be indifferent to him, like so many scribes and Pharisees in Palestine.
Daisymay, the 'cannibalism' question is why it is important to stress that Catholic belief is that Christ is not present in a 'natural' way.
*Nods to Ken.
[ 16. February 2007, 11:11: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
It continues to strike me as odd that for some people their own reading of scripture is far more important than the lived experience of the Church since before those Scriptures were composed. These particular questions of the Eucharist are virtually absent from the first 1500 years of the Church's life.
Isn't that because your church burned anyone who disagreed, along with their books?
Protestant churches, on the other hand, have been a model of peace and love towards their ideological opponents throughout their history.
Putting to one side the unfortunate Munster episode, when has anyone from the Radical Reformation(Anabaptist, Baptist etc) tradition burnt or killed other Christians?
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Ah yes, I'd forgotten about the Waldensians. So, at least from c1160, questions about the Eucharist were certainly not absent from the Church's life...
So for those of us who look to the testimony of the undivided Church of the first millennium on such matters...
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
Matt, leaving aside the 'unfortunate Munster episode'* you may well be right, which is why I talked about 'Protestant churches' not 'churches of the radical Reformation'.
*I have images here of student Trotsykists talking about the 'unfortunate Konstadt incident'
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Protestant churches, on the other hand, have been a model of peace and love towards their ideological opponents throughout their history.
No, but, in terms of systematic suppression of dissident views, the Inquisition literally wrote the book, and that's why TT can't see lots of different views on the sacraments during the dark ages. Most of what we know about the theology of these dissident groups comes from the inquisitors.
Also, the anabaptist tradition, like the Waldensian one, has been explicitly non-violent for pretty much its entire history (the only exception I can think of is quite recent developments in the US).
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
(But that was really Tukhachevsky's fault, wasn't it? )
Callan, I don't think the Waldensians, like Luther, saw themselves initially as anything other than part of the undivided church, until the Catholic half of that church excommunicated them, as with Luther.
[cp with Melon]
[ 16. February 2007, 11:22: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
So for those of us who look to the testimony of the undivided Church of the first millennium on such matters...
Donatism anyone?
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
Melon, so what about Callan's point about the really Early Church?
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Melon, so what about Callan's point about the really Early Church?
Do you mean early as in what Paul is describing in 1 Corinthians (ie a meal that is sufficiently meal-like for people to get drunk, display gluttony or go home hungry)? Or do you mean post-constantinian early, by which time donatism was already in full flow? By the time that had been stamped out, it was almost time for various churches to start excommunicating each other. You might be able to make a case for total consensus somewhere in the second half of the first millenium, if you ignore the rise of the Christian sect now known as islam, but 1500 years of consensus on the Eucharist is patent nonsense.
Posted by Robertus Liverpolitanae (# 12011) on
:
or paten nonsense
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
I'm not Melon, but I'll have a stab at answering this one. First off, I refer you to my earlier post, viz just because the ECFs endorsed a particular Eucharistic POV does not mean it was the only one knocking around, that their view doesn't in any case amount to transubstantiation and they could have been wrong. On the last point - and I think we had this out about a year ago on another thread, the name of which escapes me - and secondly, as it were, just because someone lived closer in time to the Incarnation than we do doesn't necessarily make them more likely to be right than us; Arius was around 1700 years earlier than us and I think pretty much all of us here agree that he got it rather spectacularly wrong.
[reply to DOD]
[ 16. February 2007, 11:44: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
I'm not claiming total consensus. That would, indeed, be nonsense. I'm claiming a curious absent of Zwinglian/ memorialist type viewpoints. The question seems to be 'how is Christ present?'
Matt, I'm not sure on what basis you can claim that Arius was wrong. His view seems to sit OK with sola scriptura. Indeed, on a charitable reading, it is a commendable effort to prevent unscriptural and pagan language (homoousion sullying the discourse of the Church. I rather suspect that, were Arius alive today, he would be in Reform.
[ 16. February 2007, 11:48: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robertus Liverpolitanae:
or paten nonsense
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
I'm guessing that Melon's point is that the undivided church of the first millenium may not be univocal in its testimony.
I would have said that there is perhaps more than one way of interpreting the testimony of the Fathers, and the witness of the undivided Church of the firs millennium.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
You're raising a slightly different point there, if I may say so - I could respond to this by admitting that this is of course a weakness of sola Scriptura, particularly in the Radical Reformation tradition. But the point I was making - and which I think is borne out by the existence of Arius and others - is that the antiquity of a view does not correlate with the correctness of it.
[Reply to DOD again]
[ 16. February 2007, 11:59: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
I'm claiming a curious absent of Zwinglian/ memorialist type viewpoints.
There was also a curious absence of the sort of society and church within which that viewpoint makes any sense. After the catholic church's first attempt at genocide, the Waldensians around here went to mass because it was a crime not to. They seem to have lost their appetite for memorialism at that point, which, of course, was the whole idea.
In a context where mass is conducted in Latin because it is of none of the common people's business, there is no place for memorialism. It's only when you have believers' church rather than state-monopoly church that the community angle on communion starts to gain traction. The catholic view of eucharist is a good fit with clericalism, where the clergy are effectively the 'real' church*, and a hopeless fit with gathered church. In that sense, Ratzinger is right: you can't talk about sacraments independently of their ecclesiological context. And the christendom context is collapsing across the world...
* I owe this definition of clericalism to Dulles, another Catholic writer. Who knows what would happen if I started reading some non-catholic authors...
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Melon:
quote:
In a context where mass is conducted in Latin because it is of none of the common people's business, there is no place for memorialism. It's only when you have believers' church rather than state-monopoly church that the community angle on communion starts to gain traction. The catholic view of eucharist is a good fit with clericalism, where the clergy are effectively the 'real' church*, and a hopeless fit with gathered church. In that sense, Ratzinger is right: you can't talk about sacraments independently of their ecclesiological context. And the christendom context is collapsing across the world...
So why no evidence for Zwinglian/ memorialist views when Christendom hadn't been thought of, Mass was in the vernacular (and celebrated in civvies) and the Church was pretty much confined to believers because going to Mass carried the death penalty? I'm sorry, I don't buy this epiphenomenon of Constantianism as an explanation of belief in the Real Presence because the Real Presence was around when Christians were being thrown to the lions.
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Putting to one side the unfortunate Munster episode, when has anyone from the Radical Reformation(Anabaptist, Baptist etc) tradition burnt or killed other Christians?
I'm woefully uninformed here, so hopefully somebody can help me out. I admire the stance taken by those of this tradition, but when has anyone from that tradition actually been in a position to start such persecutions and get away with it?
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
So why no evidence for Zwinglian/ memorialist views when Christendom hadn't been thought of, Mass was in the vernacular (and celebrated in civvies) and the Church was pretty much confined to believers because going to Mass carried the death penalty? I'm sorry, I don't buy this epiphenomenon of Constantianism as an explanation of belief in the Real Presence because the Real Presence was around when Christians were being thrown to the lions.
As I've said, I don't think that real presence leaps off the pages of Scripture. What's the evidence for real presence in the first couple of centuries? Here's one hopeful list. I got bored quite quickly, but the first few quotes don't say anything about real presence and others seem ambiguous, even before you wonder about the neutrality of the translators. This analysis, googled at random, says
quote:
A survey of the early Church Fathers indicates that the earliest documents and Fathers such as the Didache and Justin Martyr don't assert the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the sacrament. Ignatius comes closer when he protested of his Gnostic opponents that "they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead." However, by the time of Irenaeus you find statements that the bread and wine are strictly Christ's body and blood, in an argument against the Docetists about the reality of Christ's earthly body. Tertullian and Cyprian sometimes used terms that indicate a symbolic understanding of the body and blood....
There is another strain as well that used symbolic vocabulary to refer to the elements of the Lord's Supper. Serapion refers to the elements as "a likeness." Eusebius of Caesarea on the one hand declares, "We are continually fed with the Savior's body, we continually participate in the lamb's blood," but on the other states that Christians daily commemorate Jesus' sacrifice "with the symbols of his body and saving blood," and that he instructed his disciples to make "the image of his own body," and to employ bread as its symbol. The Apostolical Constitutions use words such as "antitypes" and "symbols" to describe the elements, though they speak of communion as the body of Christ and the blood of Christ.
Other Fathers who mix Real Presence vocabulary with symbolic terms include Cyril of Jerusalem , Gregory of Nazianzus and Macarius of Egypt (died c. 390 AD). Athanasius clearly distinguishes the visible bread and wine from the spiritual nourishment they convey. The symbolic language did not point to absent realities, but were accepted as signs of realities which were present but apprehended by faith.
Looks as clear as mud to me. It's enough to make one run back to the Canon! And it suggests that there's a link between the rise of real presence teaching and concerns about christology, which tends to confirm my pet theory that almost everything is the fault of the Greeks really.
Oh, and what was the doctrinal position of the church that transmitted and preserved such documents?
[ 16. February 2007, 12:49: Message edited by: Melon ]
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
The catholic view of eucharist is a good fit with clericalism, where the clergy are effectively the 'real' church*, and a hopeless fit with gathered church.
The phrase rhymes with rollocks, and refers to testicles.
One could perfectly well logically separate belief in the Real Presence from belief in an ordained priesthood. One could think that any lay person in a right relationship with the Lord could break bread on behalf of the Church, and Christ would thereby be (truly and substantially) present. I don't, but one could.
And there were plenty of people in the early centuries who didn't believe that Christ was present in the Eucharist. Many of these people thought the doctrine made no sense. Some saw it as altogether sinister. These people were called pagans.
And, if we're doing social theory about churches: Protestantism is not some some of universalised love-fest. It is the natural ecclesiastical expression of the desire of the bourgeoisie to cut itself free from the apron strings of the feudal aristocracy. A clash between two contenders for the status of ruling class. Ordinary people, as so often, don't enter into the equation. The only saving grace is that God is on the side of ordinary people. And he, as executed political prisoner, gives himself to them in the form of a solidarity meal.
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
I'm woefully uninformed here, so hopefully somebody can help me out. I admire the stance taken by those of this tradition, but when has anyone from that tradition actually been in a position to start such persecutions and get away with it?
Probably not often, but that's because those of such traditions tended to take themselves off to remote parts of the world where they would be left in peace. It's not that they lost the elections that would have given them control of the armies, they didn't want any part of that system in the first place. They didn't raise armies, and they had heated arguments about whether a man could use a stick to defend his family.
I think you could argue that recent American politics have something to do with Free Church militarism, but I haven't heard anyone suggesting any form of coercion against other Christian groups. Religious pluralism has been the friend of anabaptists (see another thread).
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
Oh, and the day jesuswalk.com is a reliable source of patristics scholarship is the day Jade Goodie presents Mastermind.
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
The phrase rhymes with rollocks, and refers to testicles.
And, as I pointed out, the sweet meat is provided in this case by a Jesuit.
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
One could perfectly well logically separate belief in the Real Presence from belief in an ordained priesthood.
Yes, if you like dropping modernistic anachronisms into pre-modernism.
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
And there were plenty of people in the early centuries who didn't believe that Christ was present in the Eucharist. Many of these people thought the doctrine made no sense. Some saw it as altogether sinister. These people were called pagans.
See my reply to Callan: some of them were called Church Fathers.
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
And, if we're doing social theory about churches: Protestantism is not some some of universalised love-fest. It is the natural ecclesiastical expression of the desire of the bourgeoisie to cut itself free from the apron strings of the feudal aristocracy. A clash between two contenders for the status of ruling class. Ordinary people, as so often, don't enter into the equation.
As is traditional in such discussions, you are conflating first and second reformation and the entirely separate anabaptist tradition. I look forward to your demonstration of how the Pilgrim Fathers were ruling class bourgeoisie.
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Oh, and the day jesuswalk.com is a reliable source of patristics scholarship is the day Jade Goodie presents Mastermind.
So far no-one else has presented any patristic scholarship that goes beyond "Yes Cyprian loves me and he knows I'm right".
Posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture (# 10614) on
:
The Catholic Church tolerated the followers of Valdo until their doctrines strayed from those of the Church. Many other groups doing the same thing at the same time and remained official ie: St Francis who came from exactly the same circumstances as Valdo, and preached almost exactly the same message.
In the middle ages there was wide ranging discussion about the Eucharist and the real presence actually - Berengar of Tours is the obvious example advocating some form of memorialist/spiritual presence. The majority of theologians happened to reject this view.
Posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture (# 10614) on
:
The Catholic Church tolerated the followers of Valdo until their doctrines strayed from those of the Church. This twaddle about them preaching against Albigensians is just not right. St Dominic founded his order for that - what the Church disapproved of ultimately with the Waldensians before their doctrine shifted was that they were in favour of itinerant preaching. If you consider the itinerant preachers who ended up founding nutty crusades like the Childrens Crusade which ended in disaster for example, you can see the Church's reasons for being concerned in an age of very high spiritual intensity.
Many other groups doing the same thing at the same time and remained official ie: St Francis who came from exactly the same circumstances as Valdo, and preached almost exactly the same message.
In the middle ages there was wide ranging discussion about the Eucharist and the real presence actually - Berengar of Tours is the obvious example advocating some form of memorialist/spiritual presence. The majority of theologians happened to reject this view.
NB: Apologies for the double post - I tried to post once and was told I had to wait 120 seconds whilst actually, in reality it did post ! This second one followed up on my assumption that it was my first one - obviously this NB was included as an Edit once I realised.
[ 16. February 2007, 13:12: Message edited by: Vesture, Posture, Gesture ]
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
The Catholic Church tolerated the followers of Valdo until their doctrines strayed from those of the Church. Many other groups doing the same thing at the same time and remained official ie: St Francis who came from exactly the same circumstances as Valdo, and preached almost exactly the same message.
How did the Waldensian's message change between their first audience with the pope and their condemnation decades later for heresy?
It has been argued that the Franciscan movement was a response to the challenge of poverty movements such as the Waldensians. The main difference between the two groups was that the Franciscans submitted to the pope's authority, which is how we end up with a gold shrine for St Francis (Küng is eloquent on this).
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
Melon. You have not provided any patristic evidence that people did not believe in the Real Presence*. You have provided evidence that people talked, quite rightly, of the eucharist as symbolic.
And, if you really can't grasp that people can hold ideas which both express and further the interests of a particular class, without themselves belonging to that class, I can only suppose that is because you live in France, and are therefore spared the pleasure of meeting readers of the Sun on a regular basis.
*Whether a belief thus described was present in early Christianity is precisely the question at issue here. So I obviously disagree that the description is anarchronistic. I would agree, by contrast, that talking of belief in 'transubstantiation' in the early Church is anachronistic.
[ 16. February 2007, 13:24: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
The catholic view of eucharist is a good fit with clericalism, where the clergy are effectively the 'real' church*, and a hopeless fit with gathered church.
So why did the Taborites of Bohemia, in many ways abiout as radical as you can get, insist - sometimes to the point of dying for it - on admitting children to Communion in both kinds? What can a baby of three weeks old remember of Jesus at a memorialist service?
I think you confuse two different questions. First the ecclesiological one of looking at priests and monks or specially holy people as the "real" church and the rest of us as hangers-on, first and second-class Christians. That's something the mediaeval catholics were very vulnerable to. (Some Reformed groups have been as well - it was an English Puritan who wondered why some "Presbyteriall Ministers" managed to exclude half theior congregations from the Lord's table while still baptising their children)
Second the question of a memorial Commnunion vs, the real presence, which is also something that divides churches regardless of their political situation. Plenty of Anglicans are out-and-out memorialists. Though it has never been the official teaching of the Church of England - the BCP deliberatly and very carefully allows for both views. As I said the Taborites - the "extreme" party of the Hussites - were in agreement with their Utraquist neighbours about the Real Presence.
I wonder what the Moravians think of it? (They are their present-day ecclesial decendants of the Hussites)
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Putting to one side the unfortunate Munster episode, when has anyone from the Radical Reformation(Anabaptist, Baptist etc) tradition burnt or killed other Christians?
I'm woefully uninformed here, so hopefully somebody can help me out. I admire the stance taken by those of this tradition, but when has anyone from that tradition actually been in a position to start such persecutions and get away with it?
Parts of the US during it's history; Rhode Island in the 17th Century springs to mind.
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
So why did the Taborites of Bohemia, in many ways abiout as radical as you can get, insist - sometimes to the point of dying for it - on admitting children to Communion in both kinds? What can a baby of three weeks old remember of Jesus at a memorialist service?
I know nothing about the Taborites, but I'm all in favour of children participating in symbolic communion. "Memorialist" as a label doesn't capture all that people labelled as memorialists believe (cf howls of protest along similar lines whenever I type "paedobaptist").
[ETA: Yes, you are probably right that I'm mixing up issues, but that's the trouble with trying to discuss a doctrine that plays a different role in different traditions as if it's a "petrol or diesel?" choice when buying a Ford Fiesta. Anabaptist concerns tend sound absurd when dropped one at a time into a RC worldview, and vice versa.]
[ 16. February 2007, 13:38: Message edited by: Melon ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Putting to one side the unfortunate Munster episode, when has anyone from the Radical Reformation(Anabaptist, Baptist etc) tradition burnt or killed other Christians?
I'm woefully uninformed here, so hopefully somebody can help me out. I admire the stance taken by those of this tradition, but when has anyone from that tradition actually been in a position to start such persecutions and get away with it?
Well, there is the Baptist War of 1831, though that was the oppressed rising up against their oppressors, so you might not count it. You might also say the same for the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda. Or you might use the No True Scotsman argument against them. (i.e, "they can't really be radicl Christians because they are so unpleasant")
There have been plenty of times in history when people claiming to be radical Christians have broken out into extreme violence. Its quite common really. One minute you are saying that the Pope is the Great Whore of Babylon, next that all property is to be held in common, and before you know it you are ushering in the Rule of the Saints by roasting the unbelievers alive. It happened at Tabor. Munster was a rather more violent action replay of that, bits of the German Peasant's Revolt that Luther hated so much tended that way. There was a strong strain of it in the English Civil Wars. Ranters and Levellers weren't all as nice as the Diggers and some of the early Quakers behaved in ways that their later spiritual descendents thoroughly disapproved. Some French Reformed churches got pretty nasty in the late 16th century, though maybe they weren't radical enough for Melon. Its happened again and again in Uganda for some reason. But the most violent of all was the Taiping Rebellion in China - almost unknown in the West, but combined with the Hakka wars which were going in in the same place and at the same time it is probably the third most destructive war in history, beaten only by our European Great War and World War Two. And largely started by people who claimed to be radical Christians.
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on
:
Wow.
Reading Melon's Catholic-hating, funhouse-mirror account of history is going to save me a ton of money on hallucinogenic drugs.
I'm sorry that those of you who don't share my Romocentric perspective won't get quite the same effect.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
Oh please Melon, you are scraping the barrel. Talk about reducing discussion to cheap shots. But just for kicks, here's what the protestant reformation looked like in my part of the world. Religious persectutions and violence of one Christian group against another is a sorry blight on our collective copy-book, and to marshal this in support of an unrelated argument is a poor show.
But please, continue to assert that small obscure and esoteric exclusivist groups came up with the real truth, no the really really real truth. And that the Catholic Church was so shocked by this, had so much to be scared of, that it had to go and slaughter those who proclaimed it. And has to go on doing so.
Da Vinci Code anyone?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
The catholic view of eucharist is a good fit with clericalism, where the clergy are effectively the 'real' church*, and a hopeless fit with gathered church.
I still don't see the connection. Plenty of gathered churches have a doctrine of the Real Presence. After all it proves that you are the Real Church.
What about the authors of these verses?
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
In a context where mass is conducted in Latin because it is of none of the common people's business, there is no place for memorialism.
I think your argument fails to take into account the experience of the Church in the East.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
The catholic view of eucharist is a good fit with clericalism, where the clergy are effectively the 'real' church*, and a hopeless fit with gathered church.
I still don't see the connection. Plenty of gathered churches have a doctrine of the Real Presence. After all it proves that you are the Real Church.
But the Real Presence may not be so exclusively in the bread and wine.
The church is there, for gathered church folk, when the congregation gathers. Christ is present in his people as they meet, listen, read the scriptures, and live and work together under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That's the sort of thing we say.
At the Lord's Supper he is more clearly present. We wouldn't use the term Real Presence, but many of us think his presence is real. However, it isn't necessarily in the actual bread and wine. He is present at the table, among the people, his Body, in the serving, the liturgy, the eating and drinking.
This is not a presence you can reserve and put in a wall safe. That doesn't mean it isn't real, or that prayers and hymns don't stress its reality.
This understanding means that when I take communion to someone who is housebound, I don't take some of Sunday's bread and wine, I take fresh. But what I do take is a person or two from the congregation!
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
he church is there, for gathered church folk, when the congregation gathers. Christ is present in his people as they meet, listen, read the scriptures, and live and work together under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That's the sort of thing we say.
That's almost a direct quotation from the General Instruction to the Roman Missal! Which rather suggests it might not be an either/ or thing.
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
But the Real Presence may not be so exclusively in the bread and wine.
Yes, because believers in the RP believe Christ can be present ONLY in the bread and wine. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
The minister turning up doesn't add anything, though. The minister's job is to enable the church to function as the church and to be a link with the episcopate, which I would understand to be located in the wider Church to which we are connected, denominationally and inter-denominationally.
But a priest has to be there for mass to happen. He adds something. And the focus can hardly not be on what he enables to happen, which is the consecrated wafer.
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
But a priest has to be there for mass to happen. He adds something. And the focus can hardly not be on what he enables to happen, which is the consecrated wafer.
Which is the body of Christ. Who damned well OUGHT to be the focus of our worship.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
But the Real Presence may not be so exclusively in the bread and wine.
Yes, because believers in the RP believe Christ can be present ONLY in the bread and wine.
Well, correct me. Do you think (we had a thread about this several years back) that Christ is present in the eating and drinking, in the serving and being served, as well as in bread and wine?
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
But a priest has to be there for mass to happen. He adds something. And the focus can hardly not be on what he enables to happen, which is the consecrated wafer.
Which is the body of Christ. Who damned well OUGHT to be the focus of our worship.
Many Baptists are uncomfortable with the idea that the bread is the body of Christ, if taken in a strictly literal sense. It's often suggested that in 'this is my body,' this refers to more than the bread, and includes the breaking and giving, the invitation, and indeed embraces the whole worshipping congregation - which is, of course, his body.
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
I've been thinking about the connection, and I think it all depends on your starting point.
If you are into real presence, then what matters about sacraments is that, basically, they are magic, and if someone denies that they are magic you lose the very essence of the sacraments. The nature of church and the place of the clergy in that church has nothing to do with how magic the sacraments are. And memorialism, in my opinion, is a term that places the emphasis on what isn't believed about the sacraments. Viewed that way, memorialism is a loss, because it makes Eucharist less magic.
But if you start with the community of believers, as anabaptists tend to do, both communion and clericalism are viewed through the same community lens. It becomes highly significant that the clergy do their own private magic thing in Latin, not because it's magic or in Latin, but because the process is not owned by the congregation.
Clericalism therefore divides the body of the Lord in the same way that differences in affluence divided the body of the Lord in 1 Corinthians 11. "When you come together, a few of you chat away in Latin and the rest are excluded, and don't even get to drink the wine". That sort of dynamic can never fit within anabaptist-type ecclesiology.
So, from the anabaptist perspective, that sort of communion is a meal with all the meal taken out. It doesn't symbolise anything about the living, breathing body of Christ present in the room, and it doesn't in any way prefigure the great banquet at which all will be invited to drink the wine. Recovering the symbolism of a prophetic meal is not "mere" symbolism, it's a statement about everything that is important to anabaptists, ie a community of believers with Christ at the centre.
I guess you could postulate real presence theology within an anabaptist framework, but I've never seen it. You tell me, can you have real presence with random members of the congregation dishing out the elements? And it doesn't work the other way around because, as per my Ratzinger quote above, the magic bit of Eucharist is the very essence of his definition of church.
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
But the Real Presence may not be so exclusively in the bread and wine.
Yes, because believers in the RP believe Christ can be present ONLY in the bread and wine.
Well, correct me. Do you think (we had a thread about this several years back) that Christ is present in the eating and drinking, in the serving and being served, as well as in bread and wine?
Christ is in the people who do all those things. To say "Christ is in the eating" makes no sense at all to me. How can Christ be in a verb?
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
But a priest has to be there for mass to happen. He adds something.
Even if he fits in the mass between the brothel and the tavern?
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
If you are into real presence, then what matters about sacraments is that, basically, they are magic, and if someone denies that they are magic you lose the very essence of the sacraments. The nature of church and the place of the clergy in that church has nothing to do with how magic the sacraments are. And memorialism, in my opinion, is a term that places the emphasis on what isn't believed about the sacraments. Viewed that way, memorialism is a loss, because it makes Eucharist less magic.
You do realize, of course, that using "magic" in this way is very offensive to RP folks? Just a point of information.
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
But a priest has to be there for mass to happen. He adds something.
Even if he fits in the mass between the brothel and the tavern?
That the mass depends on the moral qualities of the priest is an ancient and long-denounced heresy.
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
Repeatedly telling people like me that our own practises are worthless is also unlikely to win the Dale Carnegie Winsome Wording Award. What one-word non-religious description would you prefer to describe the proposed mechanism underlying RP?
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Am I correct therefore in thinking that, for Hatless and Melon (and quite possibly for me too), a doctrine of the "Real Presence in the Bread and Wine" limits both the Incarnation and the concept of sacramental encounter to a particular locus in quo too much?
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
Repeatedly telling people like me that our own practises are worthless is also unlikely to win the Dale Carnegie Winsome Wording Award. What one-word non-religious description would you prefer to describe the proposed mechanism underlying RP?
And I've done that so much.
Grace? Inspiration? Or you could use the one we do, Epiclesis.
[ 16. February 2007, 15:16: Message edited by: MouseThief ]
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
That the mass depends on the moral qualities of the priest is an ancient and long-denounced heresy.
Um, yes, that's why I asked the question. It's pretty obvious what drives the heresy, though. If the sincere and devout anabaptist is not doing communion, but the manifestly corrupt and cynical guy who happens to have had hands laid on by his brother-in-law bishop is, you have to expect right-thinking people to scratch their heads from time to time. At the Lord's supper, it matters to me at least that the bread was broken by Jesus rather than Judas.
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
Any anabaptist who believes he's sincere and devout is guilty of the sin of pride.
Matt, that might be true if we limit Christ's presence to bread and wine. Which we don't.
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
Grace? Inspiration? Or you could use the one we do, Epiclesis.
Which of those words is non-religious? Magic is the best sociological description I can think of for how RP functions, but I'm happy to use a better term if there is one.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
'Miracle'? (For those who believe it at least.)
MT, in what way does the RP outwith the Divine Liturgy elements differ for the Orthodox from that within?
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
Any anabaptist who believes he's sincere and devout is guilty of the sin of pride.
In my sentence, it was third parties who did the judging. quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Am I correct therefore in thinking that, for Hatless and Melon (and quite possibly for me too), a doctrine of the "Real Presence in the Bread and Wine" limits both the Incarnation and the concept of sacramental encounter to a particular locus in quo too much?
I think I agree with that, but my main concern is that it seems to boil down to something the clergy do to the congregation, rather than something that comes from the life of the entire community. Jesus is present because believers are gathered in his name, not because some bloke at the end of a long line of hand-laying-on gives us Jesus on the tip of our tongues.
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Am I correct therefore in thinking that, for Hatless and Melon (and quite possibly for me too), a doctrine of the "Real Presence in the Bread and Wine" limits both the Incarnation and the concept of sacramental encounter to a particular locus in quo too much?
That's one of the worries I'd have about it; I would not think it was simple to be constantly aware of God's powerful, perfect, presence within me, around me, and others in the Community, if I had to go to a place where a "Reserved Scarament" was locked up or on display, or even dished out to be eaten and sipped, if that was how to make sure I experienced God's presence.
It feels to me, and I think about it, that it takes away something essential in God.
[ 16. February 2007, 15:30: Message edited by: daisymay ]
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
MT, in what way does the RP outwith the Divine Liturgy elements differ for the Orthodox from that within?
Huh?
(Miracle is a good word too -- but why does it have to be a single word? You protties and your damned minimalism! )
[ 16. February 2007, 15:33: Message edited by: MouseThief ]
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
Melon, I have lost patience. You keep throwing in excessively loaded words and suggestions which are intended to denounce while portraying you as the innocent. It has damned this discussion to polemics.
Posted by Henry Troup (# 3722) on
:
I had an interesting experience a few months back. I was attending an Alpha training event at a big Anglican church. As we were singing, I had the distinct impression of a focus of the presence of God in the aumbry/tabernacle. That's not usual for me; but I guess you could call it spontaneous Benediction.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Melon:
quote:
It becomes highly significant that the clergy do their own private magic thing in Latin, not because it's magic or in Latin, but because the process is not owned by the congregation.
This would be a terribly relevant objection if the only people who believed in the Real Presence were the Latin Mass Society and the Society of St Pius X. For Anglicans, most Catholics since Vatican II, the Orthodox and those protestants who believe in the RP (I know a few Methodists who'll cough to it, for example) this isn't remotely useful as a critique of our position.
It would really help if we could move past the whole 'Impious Errors Of The Papists Triumphantly Exposed And Refuted And Shewn To Be A Doctrine Of Anti-Christ' bit. This isn't the sixteenth century and hasn't been for some time.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Am I correct therefore in thinking that, for Hatless and Melon (and quite possibly for me too), a doctrine of the "Real Presence in the Bread and Wine" limits both the Incarnation and the concept of sacramental encounter to a particular locus in quo too much?
Not limits but defines.
The thing I constantly come back to is a conviction that we mustn't be too sure about things in the vicinity of God. We should always be aware of our dependence. We are not in control, we are recipients.
So minister and people should, I think, come to the table to receive, and come in the hope of receiving, but aware that unworthiness and injustice can obstruct them. Christ is our great high priest, it is his table, his bread and wine.
A proper concern that things should be done in good order becomes, it seems to me, the claim that if they are done in the right way (apostolically ordained priest, correct words, etc.) then God will turn up, and the elements will transmute. It's then a short step to keeping a bit of the bread and wine back for later.
At this point, though, it feels to me like there is an attempt to control God, even down to locking him in a metal strongbox. We can put God in the box and walk away and leave the church, and when we come back he'll still be in there. We've got the key! It's like the sin of the Israelites when they wanted to keep some manna overnight instead of trusting that there would be fresh in the morning.
So it's about overdefining the presence, about controlling it and claiming it and keeping it. God comes to us in grace in Jesus Christ. That is the miracle that faith rests on. And I mistrust any move away from the dependent moment of that unequal but lovely encounter.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
There is a general misconception that has bedevilled things from the start of this thread.
There is no suggestion anywhere that Christ is present ONLY in the consecrated species. Why do some people insist on believing that the Catholic Church is intent on locking God up in a box and taking away the full worship due to him? If it's not replacing God with Mary then it's replacing the Holy Spirit with the pope or confining Jesus to a box or oppressing and brainwashing the faithful so they don't get their hands on the fulness of God himself. Let me state it plainly - WE DON'T BELIEVE ANY OF THAT.
The Constitution on the Liturgy of the Second Vatican Council Sacrosanctum Concilium) even spelt out some of the VARIOUS ways Christ is present at the Mass: in the gathered assembly, in the priest presiding, in the Word proclaimed, and in the sacrament itself. (SC no.7 - go here if you want to read it in full.
This idea that you can cut the presence of Christ up into quantifiable bits is a parody made not by those who hold to the ancient belief, but by those who don't.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
But then why would you reserve the sacrament? Christ is present as he gives himself when we gather at his table. There is a sort of reflected presence in the ceremony and the table itself, and a residual presence in the left overs, but these are poor substitutes for the real thing, which is the people of God doing as he said. Why have a service of benediction when you could have a mass?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Davy Wavy Morrison:
Forgive my typografical erors.
The body of Christ on earth is his people when they are gathered together. That is not his physical resurrection body and that body of people is the one we have to discern. As an evangelical I don't believe everything in the Bible is to be taken literally. We use common sense and when Jesus said that the bread and wine were his body he was obviously speaking figuratively, just as when we point to a photo and say "that's Uncle Joe" we don't mean it literally.
Eating the bread and drinking the wine (yes, the elements in BOTH kinds forms an important part of the celebration) is a reminder of Christ's death and reminds us of statements in John 6. There it is obviously not an actual eating and drinking of food that is meant but true faith in and commitment to the Lord Jesus Christ.
That's an odd reading of John 6 - the verb 'to eat' is 'trogeo' which means 'to chew' - pretty literal, not symbolic.
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on
:
I'd just like to point out that having clergy does not necessarily equal "clericalism." I don't even think that having some things that only clergy can do is necessarily clericalism.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
And, I repeat, that is not the doctrine of transubstantiation. It is a doctrine of Incarnation.
Can you explain why, on your view, the Blessed Sacrament is the Body of Christ? A body of the logos more like.
Christ is inseparable from the Logos.
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Melon, I have lost patience. You keep throwing in excessively loaded words and suggestions which are intended to denounce while portraying you as the innocent. It has damned this discussion to polemics.
My words are no more loaded than yours, it's just that your camp has had 17 centuries to get used to controlling the vocabulary. That's what I tried to explain on page one, but in the end a demonstration is worth a thousand arguments. If I use your words, you then get to patronise me whenever I don't use them the way you think they should be used. That's why I prefer the objective term "magic" to a term dreamed up by some dead white Greek.
Callan, my more recent posts were responding to critiques of this post which was in response to your and DoD's invocation of early church history.
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
Indeed. How does that entail that anything which bears a relationship to the logos bears that same relationship to Christ qua human being?
[Responding to Leo, not to Friend Melon Prudence-Jeroachim]
[ 16. February 2007, 16:11: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
But then why would you reserve the sacrament? Christ is present as he gives himself when we gather at his table. There is a sort of reflected presence in the ceremony and the table itself, and a residual presence in the left overs, but these are poor substitutes for the real thing, which is the people of God doing as he said. Why have a service of benediction when you could have a mass?
Hatless, there are already far too many Catholics who think there is no worship if there is no Mass. I sometimes think Mass for Catholics is like chips for the English - you know, "chips with everything".
Christ in the tabernacle is not a replacement for receiving him in communion, neither is Benediction or Adoration a replacement for Mass.
As has already been pointed out, reservation has its origins in keeping some of the elements for communion of the sick and housebound. Prayer before the sacrament reserved is often about thanksgiving for the sacrament received. It's the ancient custom that one receives only once a day. Times of Prayer before the Blessed Sacrament have nothing to do with depriving the people of receiving the sacrament and eating it.
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
But then why would you reserve the sacrament? Christ is present as he gives himself when we gather at his table. There is a sort of reflected presence in the ceremony and the table itself, and a residual presence in the left overs, but these are poor substitutes for the real thing, which is the people of God doing as he said. Why have a service of benediction when you could have a mass?
But that's like saying, "Why would you look for God speaking in the Bible? God speaks by the Holy Spirit" or "Why preach a sermon when you could pray to discern God speaking?" We encounter the presence of Christ is many different ways. Different liturgical actions give us the opportunity to engage with different 'types' of encounter. The experience of Benediction is different to the experience of Mass, and both are helpful.
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
It really is baffling to understand why, on Hatless' view, so many people keep pictures of their marriage partner, speak to them on the telephone, write them letters, send them flowers, email them, or otherwise enter into communication with them when they could be having sex with them.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
MT, in what way does the RP outwith the Divine Liturgy elements differ for the Orthodox from that within?
Huh?
(Miracle is a good word too -- but why does it have to be a single word? You protties and your damned minimalism! )
My question was really asking the following: if Christ is Really Present in places and ways other than the communion wafers and wine for the Orthodox, how if at all is this different from how He is Really Present in communion taken during the Divine Liturgy.
(It's Melon who has the fixation on single-word expressions, not me; I'm just playing to his gallery whilst trying to avoid the more loaded 'magic'. Personally, I think one-word terms are rather inadequate for what we're trying to describe here and they can result in us all talking past each other even more than usual...)
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
Again, this goes back (I hope) to the question asked starting in the OP.
What is the reason, Triple Tiara, for the focus on the "Presence" in such a specific place, way of words etc?
Is it to do with the responsibility of the clergy for providing Something, somewhere specific, for the rest of the Church Community?
Is there believed to be something that only they can do?
It is not believing the same sort of idea that some of us have; we are all equal, all in God's service, all in God's presence?
Is there a belief that God is more present in the bread and wine once it's been prayed over and blessed, than the Presence that we can meet at all times and in all places? That sounds a bit disappointing to me, if so.
On completely another bit of discussion earlier on, I'm more into thinking that we each make our own decisions at every moment in our present lives, than just accept what other people, academics or deeply spiritual people, may have written or passed on years ago; they may make spiritual, emotional, thoughtful contac with us, but it happens now, now, now, to each one of us.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
TT, there are Baptist churches that practise something similar to reserving the sacrament. At a communion service, following the prayer of thanksgiving, some of the bread and wine will be taken from the church by deacons to share immediately (after a short car journey) with housebound members.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Before the crucifixion Jesus said he had to go away so that the Holy Spirit could come.
If Jesus is literally present in the bread and wone, does that mean the Holy Spirit has to go away again?
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
That's an odd reading of John 6 - the verb 'to eat' is 'trogeo' which means 'to chew' - pretty literal, not symbolic.
[Andy Pipkin voice] Yeah I know[/Andy Pipkin voice]. But in that case, why did the people there not try to take a bite out of Him there and then? (Just trying to think that one through.) ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
My words are no more loaded than yours, it's just that your camp has had 17 centuries to get used to controlling the vocabulary.
... and yours has used all the time since to condemn us and shriek at us in that "holier than thou" way.
Och, we can both play this game and keep playing ad infinitum. Post another picture of your martyrs and I'll post another picture of ours. Or just stop it and address the issues rather than hurling misguided missiles intended to cause destruction rather than discussion.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
But the Real Presence may not be so exclusively in the bread and wine.
Yes, because believers in the RP believe Christ can be present ONLY in the bread and wine.
No we don't. He is in the Word and its preaching, in the faithful as they assemble and, lest we forget, in the poor.
The famous Bishop Of Zanzibar's final address to the anglo-catholic congress contained the words:
'if you are prepared to fight for the right of adoring Jesus in his Blessed Sacrament, then you have got to come out from before your Tabernacle and walk, with Christ mystically present in you, out into the streets of this country, and find the same Jesus in the people of your cities and your villages. You cannot claim to worship Jesus in the Tabernacle, if you do not pity Jesus in the slum.....you have begun to get your Tabernacle. Now go out into the highways and hedges where not even the Bishops will try to hinder you. Go out and look for Jesus in the ragged, in the naked, in the oppressed and sweated, in those who have lost hope, in those who are struggling to make good. Look for Jesus. And when you see him, gird yourselves with his towel and try to wash their feet. '
The full speech is at http://anglicanhistory.org/weston/weston2.html
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
(1.) As has been discussed to the point of tedium above, there is no necessary correlation between belief in the RP and belief that onyl priests can celebrate the Eucharist. Catholics, in fact, believe both. Others (some Methodists, for example) believe on the first.
(2.) As has been discussed to the point of tedium above, we are talking about the presence of Jesus as a human being, not simply the presence of God. Moreover the claim is that we have the 'real' presence in the eucharist - perhaps analogous to physical contact with my spouse, rather than looking at her photo. So, yes, I'll bite the bullet and say that we have a closer presence here. But not one which diminishes the others. Nor one which is an end in itself. Christ comes to us in the eucharist to enable us to anticipate his unveiled presence in the Kingdom, and to enable us to make him present in the world through mission. We meet him, and then we are sent out, so that others can meet him.
[Responding to Daisymay]
[ 16. February 2007, 16:21: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
It really is baffling to understand why, on Hatless' view, so many people keep pictures of their marriage partner, speak to them on the telephone, write them letters, send them flowers, email them, or otherwise enter into communication with them when they could be having sex with them.
I would never send my wife an email if sex was an option!
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
[Andy Pipkin voice] Yeah I know[/Andy Pipkin voice]. But in that case, why did the people there not try to take a bite out of Him there and then? (Just trying to think that one through.)
And why, when the disciples left Him, didn't He run after them shouting "Guys, come back! Verily I say unto you that I was just using a figure of speech! Sheesh! You guys can be so literal!"?
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
Daisymay, I shall come back to your post later - it raises good questions. As it happens, I am due at the altar in a few minutes. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
It really is baffling to understand why, on Hatless' view, so many people keep pictures of their marriage partner, speak to them on the telephone, write them letters, send them flowers, email them, or otherwise enter into communication with them when they could be having sex with them.
I would never send my wife an email if sex was an option!
And I wouldn't go to Benediction rather than Mass on Sundays. But I do sometimes go to Benediction. Just as you may well sometimes send your wife emails.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Before the crucifixion Jesus said he had to go away so that the Holy Spirit could come.
If Jesus is literally present in the bread and wone, does that mean the Holy Spirit has to go away again?
If Jesus speaks to us in the Scriptures, does that mean the Holy Spirit has gone away again?
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
Perhaps we believe in the Trinity?
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
Indeed, DoD, and the majority of Baptist services are 'preaching services' without communion - what Calvin called ante-communion.
There are many ways of responding to the presence of God in Christ, but the use of a communion wafer does suggest something of a fixation on the actual bits and pieces of the eucharist.
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
We are 'fixated' on said bits and pieces because we believe that they are Jesus, albeit under a unique mode of presence. We think Jesus is a Good Thing to be fixated on, not least because we hope to spend eternity being fixated on him.
You do not believe that they are Jesus. You think he may be present to us through them, even as your wife may be present to you in an email. But that is hardly unique. So you are not fixated on them.
We are both responding appropriately to our beliefs, it seems to me.
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Post another picture of your martyrs and I'll post another picture of ours.
Please do post your pictures of anabaptists persecuting catholics.
quote:
Or just stop it and address the issues rather than hurling misguided missiles intended to cause destruction rather than discussion.
Well, when the issue of what the church fathers taught was raised (or rather stated as "they all agree with me" as fact), I posted links to two summaries that suggested a more complicated picture. DoD said he didn't like the links, but no-one has pointed out which of the quotes supporting memorialism from the church fathers were inaccurate. At that point everyone's taste for early church history appeared to dry up.
Then someone else said that the Waldensians were only condemned when they became heretical. This being about the only bit of church history that I have ever studied from primary sources, I asked what changed in their doctrine after an earlier pope failed to condemn them (clue: the answer is "nothing at all"). Another dead end...
I'd never choose to stand on church history as the basis of an argument. The whole question of how to do exegesis on the basis of random bits of history is not something my theological tradition offers much help with.
But I do have to say that I'm finding your "poor little catholic church, downtrodden by nasty mean pacifist sects" routine extremely entertaining in a surreal sort of way.
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
has pointed out which of the quotes supporting memorialism from the church fathers were inaccurate.
That is because you posted no such quotes. You posted quotes claiming that the eucharist is a memorial and that it is a symbol. Aquinas himself would have wholeheartedly agreed.
Memorialism is the doctrine that the eucharist is a memorial of the Christ-event in the same way that Burns Night is a memorial of a poet.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
We are 'fixated' on said bits and pieces because we believe that they are Jesus, albeit under a unique mode of presence. We think Jesus is a Good Thing to be fixated on, not least because we hope to spend eternity being fixated on him.
You do not believe that they are Jesus. You think he may be present to us through them, even as your wife may be present to you in an email. But that is hardly unique. So you are not fixated on them.
We are both responding appropriately to our beliefs, it seems to me.
That seems about right. I think Jesus Christ is specially and characteristically present in communion, and I might even say 'uniquely' if I had a good lawyer by my side to nod that it was OK. But, no, I don't think a communion wafer really is Jesus.
(And, as I said several pages ago, though I accept that this is your sincere belief, I think it's an evangelistically unhelpful one. There is little chance of explaining what the 'unique mode of presence' is (I still don't get it) before incredulity drives the plain woman or man back out of the church.)
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
Christians are in the business of saying things which stay just this side of nonsense. But, I would never greet someone with an account of eucharistic theology. I would invite them to worship with me. If they started asking how it might be anything other than nonsense that we meet the Lord there, then I might start with the theology.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
Actually, second thoughts. If I thought the wafers really were Jesus, I'd want to fill my pockets with them. I'd want huge overconsecration so I could plaster them all over the walls of my house. I'd give them away to bemused passers by, just on the off chance. And how shocking that would be! To treat God in Christ as a commodity.
Posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture (# 10614) on
:
"Then someone else said that the Waldensians were only condemned when they became heretical. This being about the only bit of church history that I have ever studied from primary sources, I asked what changed in their doctrine after an earlier pope failed to condemn them (clue: the answer is "nothing at all"). "
Lets have some secondary source names please. Waldensians did have that many doctrines in the beginning. They supported the vita apostolica ie: lots of poverty etc like St Francis et al and it was only after they started trying to give sermons themselves that they were condemned. Once they were condemned, they began developing heretical theology - any half decent book on Medieval Heresy or Popular Religion argues more or less, from what I remember, as I did.
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Actually, second thoughts. If I thought the wafers really were Jesus, I'd want to fill my pockets with them. I'd want huge overconsecration so I could plaster them all over the walls of my house. I'd give them away to bemused passers by, just on the off chance. And how shocking that would be! To treat God in Christ as a commodity.
Ah, but there's the subtlety. Jesus is there, but he's there for a particular purpose. To be our food.
Commodifying the eucharist is always a danger. Terry Eagleton once wrote a brilliant, albeit slightly barmy, article to the effect that some ways of celebrating Benediction did just this. On the other hand, commodifying Jesus is a more general danger in a capitalist society. Have you accepted Jesus as your Personal Saviour who will sort out your problems and transform your lifestyle? Come to Our Church and find out how!
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
As an evangelical it seems to me important to recognise that the scripture does not in itself justify either a metaphorical view of Christians as the body of Christ or a metaphorical view of feeding through bread and wine.
I need some help unpacking this. The "discern the body" passage is preceded by concerns about divisions in the church and followed by Paul's pythonesque "UDI for noses" passage on unity and complementarity.
The choice isn't between whether the bread is literally the body or the church is literally the body. I take "You are the body of Christ" as literally (or not) as "This is my body broken for you". The question is surely which analogy Paul is using in the "discern the body" passage, and I can't see any textual reason to assume that he suddenly switches from community concerns to real presence and back to community concerns.
OK, here is an attempt to unpack. I suppose your view would be fine, taking 1 Cor 11 in isolation. But Paul has already provided this equally well-known quotation on the nature of the Lords supper and the nature of the body of Christ (in 1 Cor 10 v 15-17)
quote:
15. I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say.
16. Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?
17. Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.
The body (of Christ) and the meal are intimately linked in this illustration of Pauline thought. We "koinoneo" (share, communicate, distribute, partake) the body and blood of Christ. It is hardly stretching a point to say that that thought is reinforced in I Cor 11 v 29. Not just about the church as the body of Christ but about the bread and the wine. In the above quote, there is exact equivalence between the bread and the body, the cup and the blood.
Melon, it seems to me to be at the very least arguable this way. Paul was pointing out that the behaviour of the Corinthians was "dissing" both the church, the body of Christ, and the bread and the wine. And that both "dissings" were wrong and subject to judgment. I am saying that, from the very beginning, there was reverence towards the bread and the wine and you can see it here.
I'm in the throes of moving house at present and my mind is on lots of other things, but I hope this has at least clarified where I'm coming from. It hasn't had as much thought as I would have liked to give it.
[ 16. February 2007, 17:11: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
I don't believe that anyone here has cited a type of reservation of the MBS that was practised widely in early patristic times, during the persecutions of the Church. Many Christians carried on their persons little silver boxes that contained consecrated bread -- the sacramental Body of Christ -- and at least one authority (Gregory Dix) has asserted that in some times and places the majority of communions that a Christian was able to make would be from this reserved Sacrament, in isolation, alone, secretly. The discovery of these little caskets and their contents in one's possession was prima facie evidence of the illegal practise of Christianity and could easily amount to a death sentence.
Although this practice was a response to a particular exigency, it implies belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament (the sacramental element in one kind only still conveyed grace outside of the immediate celebration of the Eucharist in which it was consecrated).
I'm sure that the voices here who are determined to oppose the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar will find this historical precedent irrelevant or unconvincing. I don't think so. But at last, belief and adoration of Jesus in the Most Holy Sacrament comes down to faith and to obedience to what the Holy Catholic Church has ever taught and believed (IMO).
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
quote:
Quoth Melon: , Well when the issue of what the church fathers taught was raised (or rather stated as "they all agree with me" as fact), I posted links to two summaries that suggested a more complicated picture. DoD said he didn't like the links, but no-one has pointed out which of the quotes supporting memorialism from the church fathers were inaccurate. At that point everyone's taste for early church history appeared to dry up.....I'd never choose to stand on church history as the basis of an argument. The whole question of how to do exegesis on the basis of random bits of history is not something my theological tradition offers much help with.
Nope, actually, it was presented as "I agree with all of them". What you are doing is adopting a position and trying to find backing for it. That is exegesis on the basis of random bits of history. Finding the coherent thread and the whole picture certainly would help you in your struggle.
quote:
But I do have to say that I'm finding your "poor little catholic church, downtrodden by nasty mean pacifist sects" routine extremely entertaining in a surreal sort of way.
And I am finding your self-righteous tone surreal. So?
I have said very little, if anything, about your church or tradition. I am not even sure I know what "nasty mean pacifist sect" you belong to. You have gone on endlessly in less than charitable terms about the Roman Catholic Church. You just cannot stop yourself.
May I add that I think the Roman Catholic Church has behaved abominably in many times and in many places, that I don't approve of corrupt popes or burnings at the stake, and before it comes up, of child-abusing priests. So can we move on now?
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
Lets have some secondary source names please.
"The Waldesian Dissent", by Gabriel Audisio, generally recognised as one of the world authorities on the history of the Waldensians (and not, to my knowledge, any kind of anabaptist). On page 10, he quotes the inquisitor Bernard Gui's history of the movement, which identifies poverty, vernacular translations of Scripture, and that "they dared preach the gospel in the streets" as the hallmarks of the movement. That's all from day one (1170), according to the inquisition.
They were condemned as "schismatic", but not as heretics, in 1184. "As late as 1190 and 1207, some bishops agreed to join in debates with them, proving that they did not see them as staunch heretics who should simply be eliminated" (p16).
"Drawing on Durand of Huesca's treatise Liber antiheresis... K-V Selge has clearly shown that Vaudès and his fellows did not only remain orthodox, but also had no intention of doing otherwise" (idem).
Anathema was not pronounced until 1215.
Some Waldensians believed some more or less wonky things about various subjects, including the sacraments, but that doesn't seem to have been the main issue for the church. "The only contention remained the question of preaching" (p14). They petitioned the pope in 1179, received his oral blessing, and were allowed to preach "so long as they first presented themselves to the local priest so he could issue the appropriate licence" (idem). The final straw, thinks Audisio, was the decision of the Waldensians to hear confessions and offer the sacraments when a catholic priest was not available (and amenable to deal with those disposed towards the Waldensians). Lots of catholic politics around the edges which I'll skip to avoid offending the poor, persecuted catholics here.
Of course since the inquisition destroyed almost all the Waldensians' own documents, it's hard for anyone to be certain on the details, but it's a fact that a period of several decades passed between the time they were first noticed by the catholic hierarchy and their excommunication, and it's hard to make a serious case for a radical change in doctrine during that period. Audisio suggests that the real issue was clericalism, not the sacraments.
"Halfway-decent medieval histories" tend to be less than sympathetic to anabaptist groups, and it's much easier to write the history from the side of the groups who had armies and didn't have all their writings burned.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
quote:
Lots of catholic politics around the edges which I'll skip to avoid offending the poor, persecuted catholics here.
Like I said, you just can't stop yourself.
Posted by Saint Bertelin (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:
quote:
There are Orthodox Churches that have Benediction - sometimes in the ciborium and sometimes ina monstarnce, usiang leavened bread that has been specially moulded for the purpose.
St B.
Thank you for this. The source for my assertion was Bp Kallistos, not personal experience. But is the practice one of "western Rite" Orthodoxy, or is it more general?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
It's certainly practised in Western Rite parishes under the Patriarchate of Antioch. As for ROCOR, I can only speak definitively of one of our monasteries. St Petroc Monastery and the missions, parishes, and study groups attached to it follow the more English traditions (along the lines of Sarum), and so don't have Benediction, as it was never part of that tradition. Christminster, on the other hand, is of a more continental tradition and so would be the more likely ROCOR candidate for Benediction, but the reality is that I know very little about their monastic liturgical Use except for their Divine Liturgy. There is a group of Western Rite parishes in France, using a version of the Gallican Liturgy. They used to be under the Patriarchate of Romania and are currently in discussion with Serbia to be received by them. I know virtually nothing about their Use and so cannot comment either way. I'm sorry not to be of much use.
I don't think the Benediction features in the Eastern Rite at all but I'm happy to be corrected.
quote:
So you can put a muffin in a monstrance ....
Indeed you can.
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
it's a fact that a period of several decades passed between the time they were first noticed by the catholic hierarchy and their excommunication, and it's hard to make a serious case for a radical change in doctrine during that period.
Why is it hard to make this case? By your own account they had a radical change at least in practice -- i.e. lay people ministering the sacraments. Often shifts in practice reflect shifts in doctrine.
Also, perhaps I simply have lost the thread here, but what is the case of the Waldensians supposed to be evidence of?
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Nope, actually, it was presented as "I agree with all of them". What you are doing is adopting a position and trying to find backing for it.
No, you are talking rubbish. My summary was "Clear as mud". Callan and DoD announced that the early church believed in RP. They reminded me several times to make sure I addressed their point. The decision to throw the church fathers around was theirs, not mine. My only innovation was looking at what the church fathers actually said and asking how it supported their claim. I'd still be interested in an answer.
Your problems with language appear to have started with the OP, since you first complain about it in the third post of the thread. I couldn't put my hand on the recent post on another thread where you referred to "shitty little protestants" or similar, maybe you could jog my memory?
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
It's Melon who has the fixation on single-word expressions, not me
I wouldn't say I have a fixation, I used the word 'magic' in one post, which caused MT to have a coronary. In that one post, using a one-word description was pretty crucial to the argument. Using theological language would have got in the way of describing two incompatible theological world views, and expanding the definition each time would have resulted in something like
quote:
If you are into real presence, then what matters about sacraments is that, basically, they are a way in which the grace of God can be experienced in a supernatural but in no way superstitious way oh no although it doesn't make a lot of rational sense but then why should faith be judged by modernist criteria I ask you, and if someone denies that they are are a way in which the grace of God can be experienced in a supernatural but in no way superstitious way oh no although it doesn't make a lot of rational sense but then why should faith be judged by modernist criteria I ask you you lose the very essence of the sacraments.
which somehow doesn't seem quite as pithy.
Posted by Henry Troup (# 3722) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Actually, second thoughts. If I thought the wafers really were Jesus, I'd want to fill my pockets with them. I'd want huge overconsecration so I could plaster them all over the walls of my house. I'd give them away to bemused passers by, just on the off chance. And how shocking that would be! To treat God in Christ as a commodity.
Jesus did several things to demonstrate God's abundance. The amount of wine at Cana, feeding five thousand ... Why do we not practice from abundance today? Why do we make rules and keep things close for the few we know?
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
Why is it hard to make this case? By your own account they had a radical change at least in practice -- i.e. lay people ministering the sacraments. Often shifts in practice reflect shifts in doctrine.
Audisio says that these practises had "only been intended as an answer to a critical situation and to pressing needs". But the most convincing argument is that the inquisition condemns them for stuff that they were doing on day one, and inquisition records were nothing if not thorough. If the inquisition doesn't think their doctrine changed, it probably didn't change.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
quote:
I couldn't put my hand on the recent post on another thread where you referred to "shitty little protestants" or similar, maybe you could jog my memory?
You can't put your hands on it because I have never said any such thing, ever, anywhere.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I'm sure that the voices here who are determined to oppose the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar will find this historical precedent irrelevant or unconvincing. I don't think so. But at last, belief and adoration of Jesus in the Most Holy Sacrament comes down to faith and to obedience to what the Holy Catholic Church has ever taught and believed (IMO).
Determined to oppose? A curious turn of phrase. And when DoD was saying that we just have different beliefs, I found myself wondering if that is actually so.
I wonder if belief in the Real Presence isn't actually an assertion, a claim. To disbelieve is not just to understand these things differently, but to oppose the Holy Catholic Church. It is to refuse obedience. It's not just a question of what we happen to believe, but of our disposition towards or against the RCC.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Actually, second thoughts. If I thought the wafers really were Jesus, I'd want to fill my pockets with them. I'd want huge overconsecration so I could plaster them all over the walls of my house. I'd give them away to bemused passers by, just on the off chance. And how shocking that would be! To treat God in Christ as a commodity.
Jesus did several things to demonstrate God's abundance. The amount of wine at Cana, feeding five thousand ... Why do we not practice from abundance today? Why do we make rules and keep things close for the few we know?
Good question. Lack of faith, I'd say. Fear that grace and love will run out.
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
quote:
I couldn't put my hand on the recent post on another thread where you referred to "shitty little protestants" or similar, maybe you could jog my memory?
You can't put your hands on it because I have never said any such thing, ever, anywhere.
Mea culpa, it has been pointed out to me that it was PaulTH. Sorry.
In the process of looking for it, I did read all your posts on the sister churches thread, from which
quote:
We need to be aware of how we use words, and of how we understand words. It may be uncomfortable or unpleasant for the Tudor Church and others that they are not recognised by the Italian Mission as "sister" churches, but there is a very specific reason for that.
Wise counsel indeed. And it may be uncomfortable or unpleasant for the Italian Mission that the descendants of schismatic sects consider their doctrine of the Eucharist to look a lot like magic, and that they find hiding crisps in little cupboards to be downright odd, but there is a very specific reason for that too.
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
But the most convincing argument is that the inquisition condemns them for stuff that they were doing on day one, and inquisition records were nothing if not thorough. If the inquisition doesn't think their doctrine changed, it probably didn't change.
OK, I'm really trying to get this: so are you saying that the Inquisition documents say that the Waldensians didn't hold the Catholic view of the sacraments from day one?
If so:
1) I'm not quite so willing to believe Inquisitorial documents as you are. There is plenty of reverse-engineering of heresy.
2) I'm still not sure I see the relevance of the Waldensian example. What exactly does this prove?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
"As late as 1190 and 1207, some bishops agreed to join in debates with them, proving that they did not see them as staunch heretics who should simply be eliminated" (p16).
[...]
Anathema was not pronounced until 1215.
They should go back to teaching history as a matter of battles and dates and things. Less of this touchy-feely stuff.
What happened in 1209, people?
That's right, the Albigensian Crusade. Simon de Montfort. Raymond of Toulose. Siege of Beziers.
There was a war on. All of a sudden what is now Southern France and the adlacent parts of Spain and Italy were full of refugees, people running away from the war. Some of them really were heretics. Some of them really were heavily armed heretics who had been fighting against the Catholics. Some of them really were anonymous heavily armed heretics who had been fighting against the Catholics and were now in hiding. Some of them really were anonymous heavily armed heretics who had been fighting against the Catholics and were now in hiding and who remembered seeign their friends and family and neighbours butchered by Catholic armies.
So all of a sudden there is no place for peaceful but slighly dodgy schismatics. Because who knows what wolves might be hiding among the sheep in their mountain pastures?
In the 1210s the war turned against the Catholics briefly and things got really nasty. That was when the Waldensians were unjustly anathematised.
And then the drastic and bloody victory of the Catholics and France in the 1220s, followed by the gradual reduction of the Catalan country up to 1255, then the long slow rooting out of the last remnants of Catharism right up to the 1330s. (As described micro-historically in Montaillou and fictionally in The Name of the Rose both books set just after the end of the process)
So the Waldensians, and later the Spiritual Franciscans, and half a dozen less well-known but mostly harmless and generally innocent groups of Christians who seemed to have little in common other than lay leadership, opposition to the ruling class, and a tendency to talk a lot, all got picked on big-time. Not their fault.
But also no real reason to find them the theological or spiritual ancestors of the anabaptists of three hundred years later - that story probably starts in England with Wyclif and goes through the Hussites and the Taborites. Except that the sorts of things the early Anabaptists did, and even more the sorts of things they were unjustly accused of, are in a sense the sorts of things that emerge naturally whenever there is a sudden collapse of government and religion, because people are like that.
And nothing at all to do with the idea of the Real Presence, because some of these people believed it and some didn't. I don't think there is a strong connection. Did you read those verses I posted in Ecclesiantics and linked to?
Posted by Professor Kirke (# 9037) on
:
Overall, I don't think that I believe in Real Presence. As I continue to read on through this thread, however, I'm disgusted and frankly somewhat ashamed to be included in that group.
To me, and only to me, Real Presence is just unnecessary. None of my other beliefs depend on that belief, and I can see no specific gain or benefit to me or anyone else by my believing it. It doesn't mean I won't ever believe, and it certainly says nothing about anyone else's belief--it's just not something I've experienced as true.
In fact, I think Real Presence is a lot like tongues in this way. There is biblical support for both sides of the argument as well as reasons, complete with detailed anecdotal evidence and historical figures for and against, to believe either way. Some of the descriptions of the Real Presence on this very thread have been extremely enlightening to me, from people like DOD and FCB and Ingo and others. It makes a lot of sense to see why and how they have experienced the Eucharist. And I hope (and would expect) that they would see some value in my own experiences of Communion, though they may differ from theirs.
What I don't understand is an OP situated in dismissive terminologies that oversimplify and don't show the slightest desire to understand or learn. I don't understand tossing aside hundreds of years of experience and discussion because a few anabaptists didn't believe the same way. I don't understand throwing loaded terms like "magic" around and expecting them to further the discussion rather than derail or distract it. And I don't understand why we, as Christians, would so often rather dismiss and deride other traditions and experiences rather than engage in a respectful discussion of the differences.
(Lest I'm accused of any self-righteousness, I admit that I am quick to dismiss and deride in many cases, even if Real Presence isn't my hot button.)
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Professor Kirke:
And I hope (and would expect) that they would see some value in my own experiences of Communion, though they may differ from theirs.
Of course.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
In the process of looking for it, I did read all your posts on the sister churches thread, from
And it may be uncomfortable or unpleasant for the Italian Mission that the descendants of schismatic sects consider their doctrine of the Eucharist to look a lot like magic, and that they find hiding crisps in little cupboards to be downright odd, but there is a very specific reason for that too. [/QB]
This really is some of the most inflamatory, disrespectful and arguably blasphemous language I've seen lately on the Ship (given that I almost never read or participate in Hell threads). Even more so, given the overall tone and previous posts of the radical iconoclastic protestant argumentarians who gleefully carry out this attack on the historic Catholic Christian religion. ISTM that those who have explained and upheld the historic doctrine of the Church Catholic have done so in a reasonable, uplifting, charitable spirit. By contrast, two or three anti-Catholics respond in willfully offensive terms.
Posted by Liturgy Queen (# 11596) on
:
I'm sure I've said this before, but my primary problem with memorialism is this:
1) Christ promised that those who ate his flesh and drank his blood would be united with him.
2) Presumably he meant this either in some manner on the literal spectrum (from Aquinas to Calvin) or figuratively.
3) The figurative meaning of the phrases "to eat someone's flesh" and "drink their blood" in Aramaic in first-century Israel was to revile and insult someone.
4) Our Lord was presumably not promising to abide with those who reviled and insulted him.
On second thought, that's an intriguing possiblity.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
Professor Kirke, I don't often do this but Thank you for your post.
"hiding crisps in little cupboards" is not what we are discussing. But I promised a reply to Daisymay so here goes.
quote:
What is the reason, Triple Tiara, for the focus on the "Presence" in such a specific place, way of words etc?
It's much the same as the reason for a focus on the words of Scripture. How does God communicate with us? What did Jesus himself instruct? What are the implications of Jesus giving us this instruction?
If you begin with the idea that Jesus meant this like a parable, alongside some of his other references to himself as door, light etc, that the eucharist is a symbolic act of remembering him, or the Zwinglian idea that receiving communion is to show others that you are a Christian, for example, then you have no need to proceed further about what the bread and wine are. So no need for reservation, honour, benediction and so on. Indeed, it would be contradictory.
But if you start at the other end, and see the eucharist about taking Jesus literally, then you have to start working out all sorts of implications. If a change is wrought in the elements, could one possibly dispose of them without much concern? To say yes would be contradictory to this viewpoint.
So what do you do then? Okay, one answer is eat it all up there and then, and it's a logical answer. But then what of the sick and housebound and those unable to come to Mass? So keep some for them. Okay where? And how do you treat the bit you have kept? Just ignore it until you have to use it? So we keep it in church, where the Church gathers, where the Body of Christ is with the Body of Christ.
And if you do take the words literally, and you do start to think of the implications, you start to try and work out just how literal this is, and what Jesus was wanting us to do. So is it just his body without any of his divine essence? Body-food therefore for our bodies? And what sort of doctrine of body and soul do you then end up with? That surely cannot be right. Surely he means to be feeding more than our bodies with this food?
So if he is feeding us spiritually through our bodily eating of his body, then there must be something of his divinity, himself, in the sacrament. So you start to see other implications of how you should treat the elements.
And when you feed on him and know his giving of himself to you in such an intimate way, then you have to ask what his presence in the sacrament means. And praying before that sacrament becomes as natural as eating it. It's about communicating with Jesus, being united with him, being at one with him. It's never about trying to lock him up and keep him hemmed in!
(By the by, belief in this transformation of the bread and wine is not very hard for those who do believe in taking Jesus literally. As St. Ambrose said: "If the word of the Lord Jesus is so powerful as to bring into existence things which were not, then a fortiori those things which already exist can be changed into something else" (De Sacramentis, IV, 5-16). )
None of which is to say that he is only found there. But it is the only way he is present in matter, in "accidents". So how we treat that matter matters. Because those accidents are not the only part of the story, for their "substance" is something much more important.
quote:
Is it to do with the responsibility of the clergy for providing Something, somewhere specific, for the rest of the Church Community? Is there believed to be something that only they can do?
Yes, it is believed that there is something specific only the ordained can "do". That's a very long and intricate discussion, which might get us bogged down. It has to do with the Church understanding herself as being ministered to by Christ the priest, whose priestly sacrifice of himself on Calvary is still ministered to his people in a priestly way.
But that was not the first part of your question. I had to read and re-read to try and figure out what you were asking. But then I got it by reading what you next wrote:
quote:
It is not believing the same sort of idea that some of us have; we are all equal, all in God's service, all in God's presence?
One cannot make such a separation of priests and people - they go together. Priests without people are redundant, in the same way that people without priests are not a priestly people. Recent teaching documents on the Liturgy, such as Sacrosanctum Concilium of the Second Vatican Council, or The General Instruction on the Roman Missal are at pains to point out the dynamic interaction between priests and people, constituting the whole Body of Christ, in making this act of worship. Yes, we are equal, all in God's service, all in God's presence. But obviously we are not all the same. As you well know, there are many diverse ministries and ways of serving a la 1 Cor 12: 27-29
BUT, this sacrament is not important because the priests have to do it - that would be a strange idea to try and justify.
quote:
Is there a belief that God is more present in the bread and wine once it's been prayed over and blessed, than the Presence that we can meet at all times and in all places? That sounds a bit disappointing to me, if so.
It's not about God being more present here than there. Rather, this sacrament is about celebrating the fruits of the Lord's Passion, death and resurrection in the way he himself gives us. That must make it hugely important for starters. Secondly, because the consecrated bread and wine are the only forms of his presence discernible to the senses, that gives them a different standing in the normal order of things. So yes, they are special, yes they are highly significant, yes the Lord is present to us in a unique way. But still, that does not mean it is the ONLY way he is present to us.
quote:
On completely another bit of discussion earlier on, I'm more into thinking that we each make our own decisions at every moment in our present lives, than just accept what other people, academics or deeply spiritual people, may have written or passed on years ago; they may make spiritual, emotional, thoughtful contac with us, but it happens now, now, now, to each one of us.
I can only refer you to another post on another thread about this, rather than overdo things here! It's on the sentire cum ecclesia thread
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Professor Kirke:
What I don't understand is an OP situated in dismissive terminologies that oversimplify and don't show the slightest desire to understand or learn.
The OP is by a member of the Salvation Army. Can someone point me to the places where the Roman Catholic church shows a desire to learn from them?
quote:
Originally posted by Ken:
But also no real reason to find them the theological or spiritual ancestors of the anabaptists of three hundred years later - that story probably starts in England with Wyclif and goes through the Hussites and the Taborites.
Whoever said that they were the ancestors of the anabaptists? It has been claimed that they had a lot in common with such groups, and they did, particularly in their "back to the Bible" hermeneutics (and their vernacular Bible must have been one of the first in Europe). In the end, they threw their lot in with the Swiss reformers, were massacred a second times for their pains, and their descendants can still be found as part of the Methodist church in Tuscany.
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
But the most convincing argument is that the inquisition condemns them for stuff that they were doing on day one, and inquisition records were nothing if not thorough. If the inquisition doesn't think their doctrine changed, it probably didn't change.
1) I'm not quite so willing to believe Inquisitorial documents as you are. There is plenty of reverse-engineering of heresy.
2) I'm still not sure I see the relevance of the Waldensian example. What exactly does this prove?
If we don't believe the inquisition documents, there is virtually nothing else to go on. By memory we have about 3 pages of documentation by the Waldensians themselves. My comments on this were in response to
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
The Catholic Church tolerated the followers of Valdo until their doctrines strayed from those of the Church.
when, in fact, the Catholic Church tolerated the followers of Valdo for as long as it was politically expedient. They believed more or less the same sort of thing when they were preaching against the Albigensians with the pope's blessing as when they were excommunicated.
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
ISTM that those who have explained and upheld the historic doctrine of the Church Catholic have done so in a reasonable, uplifting, charitable spirit.
I think you mean the Church Roman Catholic, unless the explanation was on behalf of all of us.
However reasonable, uplifting and charitable TT's explanation of why protestants lost out by leaving Rome (when in fact Luther was thrown out against his will), and, elsewhere, why TT's church is bigger than anyone else's church, it still tends to stick in the throat. Dialogue appears to mean that TT and others educate us theologically illiterate bastard offspring of The Reformation (sic). If you have gained the impression that I'm not up for that sort of dialogue, we are on the way to understanding each other.
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on
:
I don’t think anyone is saying that Grace, the Love of God, the experience of Christ, the provision of the nourishing strength to live one’s faith in one’s daily life cannot happen via the practices of churches whose doctrine does not insist on belief in Transubstantiation. I’m also aware that some of the Churches of the Reformation have members who believe this as well as those who don’t and both are accommodated.
Back along, when Noah was a teenager (page 1), Vesture, Posture, Gesture posted
quote:
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.
And for me, also, it became important to be part of a worshipping community that DOES, de fide, subscribe to the Transubstantiated Real Presence of the SotA.
Personally, I would never say to anyone that *your* experience of the presence of the Lord in your life via communion isn’t real or true because you don’t believe it is truly the Body & Blood of Christ - if others can find the fulness of faith here, fine - I didn’t. I do find it interesting that some of those who do not subscribe to Transubstantiation are so vehement in the need to insist that it is untrue and superstitious rubbish.
As Ken says, the history of the Albigensian-Waldensian-Perfect-Rome conflict is by no means black-and-white and I am not sure that the invocation of centuries-old blood-letting in the course of power-struggles and doctrinal disputes is terribly relevant to whether, TODAY, a belief in Transubstantiation is a valid position. Surely most decent people are properly appalled at these, as they are of more modern atrocities perpetuated in the name of secular and religious ideologies.
To return to the reason for the start of this discussion: The Blessed Sacrament Webcam - the majority of the posters on the Eccles thread, whether or not they belong to a tradition that insists on Transubstantiation, seem basically sympathetic to what the Florida Monks are trying to achieve. I believe it but am not averse to a bit of gentle ribbing (as against vicious satire and parody) - maybe because it is still a bit *strange* to have it available via this new, virtual technology developed over the last - what - 20 years.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
Melon, take it to Hell or drop it. This wheezing diatribe and determination to show to the world how evil we blackhearted papists are, and me in particular, really doesn't belong here.
[ 16. February 2007, 21:22: Message edited by: Triple Tiara ]
Posted by Professor Kirke (# 9037) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
quote:
Originally posted by Professor Kirke:
What I don't understand is an OP situated in dismissive terminologies that oversimplify and don't show the slightest desire to understand or learn.
The OP is by a member of the Salvation Army. Can someone point me to the places where the Roman Catholic church shows a desire to learn from them?
Completely irrelevant and a total avoidance of the question and problem. Much of the "argument" on this thread has had the flavor of a playground fight, and there's no exception here.
Posting here on a public forum is about individuals interacting with other individuals, not whole institutions. If a Roman Catholic had started this thread with a dismissive post showing little respect for low-church theology, I'd have written with similar disgust.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
On second thoughts, Melon, I think you are the one who deserves to be called to Hell.
Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on
:
[Keeping head down from heavy artillery above]
Many thanks for your illuminating reply, St B. Bp Kallistos does say that the Eastern Rite does not have a form of Benediction; as for the Antiochenes I shall have to ask a friend in that grouping, though those I know are not, I am pretty sure, western rite. I have to admit that I have not heard of Christminster - except in the novels of Hardy, that is; but how would the counter-reformation rite of Benediction fit with the use of a Gallican liturgy?
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on
:
All this talk of ceremony is making me think of Confucius, who lived during a time of considerably civil war in ancient China.
He really didn't care for gods, but he felt that if you just would do the ceremony correctly, and with an honest heart, and respected the authorities, then good things would come about as naturally as the moon follows the sun across the sky.
Does ceremony, as action, have intrinsic value regardless of the symbols associated?
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
That's one of the things that concerns me - Jesus present as a human being just puts cannibalism in my mind.
In regular eating, I take the bread, eat it and thereby turn the bread into my body: through digestion it will be bring energy to my cells and fat on my hips. But in sacramental eating, I take the bread, eat it and thereby turn me into the consecrated bread, which is the body of Christ: through digestion I will bring spiritual energy to the cell of the body of Christ that is me, and in due time will become fat on the hips of the bride of Christ in heaven.
In regular eating, I eat the bread, in sacramental eating, I'm eaten by eating the consecrated bread. The higher absorbs the lower in eating: I'm higher than regular bread, so I consume it. But Christ is higher than me so in eating Him I'm consumed. Sacramental eating is thus offering yourself to Christ: as He enters my body and is digested, I enter Him in the spirit and am renewed. It shows the unity of "body and soul", but now on a communal level: something greater than me is being built up here as I together with others nourish myself on Christ, as we extract the grace from His bloodstream that we need to survive as cells of His body. Sacramental eating here on earth is an image and likeness of that mystical union in heaven, when Christ will be all in all, in spirit and body.
So eating Christ is no more cannibalism than your cells drawing nourishment from your bloodstream is cannibalism on their part. He is our Sustenance, the Bread of Life, so we eat Him to become part of Him, to partake in His eternal life.
(None of the above is original, btw, it's ancient Catholic thought. For example, St Augustine is strong on this IIRC.)
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
Meta-p, you are NOT keeping your head down from the heavy artillery when you deliberately interject a discussion with the Orthies into papist-prot gunfight.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
TT, alhtough your reply a few posts back was to Daisymay rather than to me, I'm nevertheless grateful for it. I suppose I'm coming more from the position described by you thus:-
quote:
If you begin with the idea that Jesus meant this like a parable, alongside some of his other references to himself as door, light etc, that the eucharist is a symbolic act of remembering him, or the Zwinglian idea that receiving communion is to show others that you are a Christian, for example, then you have no need to proceed further about what the bread and wine are. So no need for reservation, honour, benediction and so on. Indeed, it would be contradictory.
Having said that, I do accept some kind of Divine Presence at communion, similar to but different from that which exists "where two or three are gathered together", or in the evangelical practice of 'daily quiet time', and I suppose at heart I'm more of a Cranmerian receptionist than a strict memorialist (even most of the latter I've encountered, when pressed, will admit to "something special happening at communion" or some such words and will observe it with a fair amount of solemnity); after all, if it's just about remembering Christ's death, then we don't need bread and wine for that, do we?
Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on
:
Minime uero, reuerende Pater tiarae triplicis ...
As I understand it, the Church of the East and the unreformed Church of the West (trying to find terms as neutral as possible) have from a very early date had the custom of reserving consecrated bread for the purpose of giving communion those of the faithful sick, housebound or otherwise unable to be present at the liturgy. The Easterners still do just that; the Westerners have developed habits of devotion focused on the reserved bread, culminating in Corpus Christi processions, Benediction and the like. The difference in practice is interesting, and some consideration of it would shed some light on the OP.
Not so much fun as a good old papish-prod knockabout, I must admit, but perhaps in the long run a tad less futile
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:
quote:
The Easterners still do just that
However, we make deep prostrations when approaching the chalice, and in Great Lent, at the Presanctified Liturgy when the sacred elements (consecrated on the previous Sunday) for that celebration are brought in procession into the church to be received by the faithful in Holy Communion, we kneel and put our foreheads on the floor.
In that gesture of reverence, we are very close indeed with everyone else who beholds the Mystery.
M
[ 16. February 2007, 23:33: Message edited by: Leetle Masha ]
Posted by Athanasius+ (# 11978) on
:
I believe in the Real Presence, based on a straight reading of Jesus's words in the Gospels. I also find it helpful to worship and adore our Saviour in the Reserved Sacrament.
But I find it unhelpful to attempt to tie the RP down to any particular explanation. For me, the mystery of the Real Presence is not just a useful metaphor for the mystery of God, but an essential part of my understanding of how the Holy Trinity is greater than and above all human understanding (which isn't to say that we can understand nothing of God or that we shouldn't attempt to understand).
I'm a little nervous of posting in Purgatory, especially on such a subject, but I think I'm trying to say that I approach my Saviour in childlike (but not childish) love, awe and adoration, just wishing to thank Him for his sacrifice, even though I cannot intellectually apprehend it fully in this life.
As another poster wrote,it all flows from how we read Jesus's words in the Gospel accounts. To me, my belief is in accordance with what most Christians at most times have believed, and logical and consistent, but then, we all tend to think that, don't we ...
Posted by Davy Wavy Morrison (# 12241) on
:
I don't think many "memorialists" would say that the Lord's Supper is "just about remembering Christ's death". Take away "just" and the idea becomes better. The wedding ceremony when my wife and I were married was not "just" a coming together of two people. A wedding anniversary celebration or a war memorial service is not "just" a remembrance. These things are all REMEMBRANCES, sometimes of a very deep and moving kind, just like the Lord's Supper can be (or Lord's Dinner if we want to use current English). There is no need to have some kind of "real presence" view to make a remembrance very worthwhile.
It possible to remember Christ's death other than at the communion, and that may sometimes be (during a sermon, singing a song, in private or corporate times of prayer etc) just as moving and with a sense of Christ's presence (at times) more real than in a communion service.
When I disagree with Roman Catholics it is because I believe they have misread the very Bible which their Church regards as the inspired Word of God. Protestants have exactly the same New Testament (and I frequently use a grammatical analysis of the Greek New Testament produced by the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome). I have learnt much from Roman Catholics.
I believe in robust argument of vital theological issues, in love, and because of love.
On a tangent, some posters have pointed out that Martin Luther was forced out of the church against his will. Maybe, but his burning of the excommunication bull didn't help him get back in.
Posted by caty the southerner (# 11996) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
That's one of the things that concerns me - Jesus present as a human being just puts cannibalism in my mind.
In regular eating, I take the bread, eat it and thereby turn the bread into my body: through digestion it will be bring energy to my cells and fat on my hips. But in sacramental eating, I take the bread, eat it and thereby turn me into the consecrated bread, which is the body of Christ: through digestion I will bring spiritual energy to the cell of the body of Christ that is me, and in due time will become fat on the hips of the bride of Christ in heaven.
In regular eating, I eat the bread, in sacramental eating, I'm eaten by eating the consecrated bread. The higher absorbs the lower in eating: I'm higher than regular bread, so I consume it. But Christ is higher than me so in eating Him I'm consumed. Sacramental eating is thus offering yourself to Christ: as He enters my body and is digested, I enter Him in the spirit and am renewed. It shows the unity of "body and soul", but now on a communal level: something greater than me is being built up here as I together with others nourish myself on Christ, as we extract the grace from His bloodstream that we need to survive as cells of His body. Sacramental eating here on earth is an image and likeness of that mystical union in heaven, when Christ will be all in all, in spirit and body.
So eating Christ is no more cannibalism than your cells drawing nourishment from your bloodstream is cannibalism on their part. He is our Sustenance, the Bread of Life, so we eat Him to become part of Him, to partake in His eternal life.
(None of the above is original, btw, it's ancient Catholic thought. For example, St Augustine is strong on this IIRC.)
This I find really interesting - the 'cannibalism' aspect is something that has crossed my mind in the past, and this answers a number of my questions.
The thought crossed my mind that there is some kind of parallel here with the sick woman who touches Jesus' cloak in Luke 8 - direct physical contact with Him changed and healed her. Indeed, when we hear of Jesus encountering anyone who is ceremonially unclean, contact with Him makes that person clean where contact with a normal person would spread the uncleanliness to the formerly clean.
Or have I got the wrong end of the stick competely? I can't think clearly at 1.20am.
Does anyone know where in St Augustine's writings I could find more on this?
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
Athanasius+ posted:
quote:
I think I'm trying to say that I approach my Saviour in childlike (but not childish) love, awe and adoration, just wishing to thank Him for his sacrifice, even though I cannot intellectually apprehend it fully in this life.
You are in good company there, Athanasius+, with Ste. Thérèse of Lisieux and with St. Jean Vianney, a patron saint of priests, who said
quote:
"If we really knew what happens in the Mass, we would die...."
Mary
[French orthographie]
[ 17. February 2007, 00:25: Message edited by: Leetle Masha ]
Posted by caty the southerner (# 11996) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Davy Wavy Morrison:
I don't think many "memorialists" would say that the Lord's Supper is "just about remembering Christ's death". Take away "just" and the idea becomes better. The wedding ceremony when my wife and I were married was not "just" a coming together of two people. A wedding anniversary celebration or a war memorial service is not "just" a remembrance. These things are all REMEMBRANCES, sometimes of a very deep and moving kind, just like the Lord's Supper can be (or Lord's Dinner if we want to use current English). There is no need to have some kind of "real presence" view to make a remembrance very worthwhile.
Agree that a commemoration/memorial (which seems to be the sense conveyed by 'do this in remembrance') is more than just 'remembering'. In my experience, there is a strong identification between those receiving communion and the body and blood of Christ "given/shed for you". That is, the bread and wine are symbolic, but there is specific recognition that the body and blood given on the cross are real.
There is a reverent attitude towards the bread and wine, and contemplation of their symbolic significance, even though the actual bread and wine are still considered to be just bread and wine.
There is also an awareness that the sacrament is performed in the presence of the omnipresent Trinitarian God - even where that presence is not believed to differ either quantitatively or qualitatively from an act of corporate worship where communion is not celebrated. God has not left the building.
(And if my brain was foggy an hour ago, it is even worse now. I hope that all makes sense.)
Posted by Davy Wavy Morrison (# 12241) on
:
Yes. It makes sense. I think it's roughly what I think. And it's about 2:00 p.m. here which means that even I can more or less think clearly.
Posted by Saint Bertelin (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:
[Keeping head down from heavy artillery above]
Very wise.
Sadly, I don't share your wisdom and am in some state of disbelief that Melon has had the boldness to make that accusation against Triple Tiara, have it pointed it that it was a false accusation and then consider it acceptable to post a reply to the thread without proffering anything approaching an apology.
quote:
Many thanks for your illuminating reply, St B.
You're very welcome.
quote:
Bp Kallistos does say that the Eastern Rite does not have a form of Benediction;
He will know much better than I do. I worship in the Eastern Rite and have never come across it, either in practice or in our Book of Needs (which is essentially a Rituale and liturgical customary in one).
quote:
...as for the Antiochenes I shall have to ask a friend in that grouping, though those I know are not, I am pretty sure, western rite.
Sub-deacon Benjamin Anderson of St Mark's, Denver, may be a good person to ask. He is an Antiochian Western Riter who is involved with the Lancelot Andrewes Press, which publishes much of the stuff to accompany the Western Rite as used in Antioch. He may be able to tell you whether Benediction features in their official prayer book or whether it is just an additional devotion used by soem of their parishes.
quote:
I have to admit that I have not heard of Christminster - except in the novels of Hardy, that is;
They're only small, but they are a Benedictine monastery in Rhode Island under ROCOR, carrying on the spiritual traditions of what was the monastic community of Our Lady of Mount Royal, which started life as an Old Catholic monastery but was received into Orthodoxy in the 1960s under the leadership of Dom Augustine (Whitfield), its then Abbot. He is still alive, although quite elderly and poorly, and the only other surviving member of the community is the former Prior, Dom James (Deschene), who is now the Abbot of Christminster.
quote:
...but how would the counter-reformation rite of Benediction fit with the use of a Gallican liturgy?
It does seem to be a little mis-matched, doesn't it? I don't know whether they use it at all, but I wouldn't worry too muchy if they did. In resuscitating the Western Rite in Orthodoxy, which began in the late 19th century, the attempt was never to take a reconstructionist approach. Many of the Western liturgies lived on in Catholicism, Old Catholicism and, to some degree, in Anglicanism. While the starting point has largely been to look to the pre-schism Western Liturgies, the Orthodox recognise that liturgy and spirituality develop (indeed as they have in the East) and so adopt some of these developments that they feel will be spiritually beneficial to their people, provided that those developments are consonant with Orthodox Faith.
Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on
:
Posted by Athanasius+:
quote:
But I find it unhelpful to attempt to tie the RP down to any particular explanation. For me, the mystery of the Real Presence is not just a useful metaphor for the mystery of God, but an essential part of my understanding of how the Holy Trinity is greater than and above all human understanding (which isn't to say that we can understand nothing of God or that we shouldn't attempt to understand).
And IngoB:
quote:
In regular eating, I take the bread, eat it and thereby turn the bread into my body: through digestion it will be bring energy to my cells and fat on my hips. But in sacramental eating, I take the bread, eat it and thereby turn me into the consecrated bread, which is the body of Christ: through digestion I will bring spiritual energy to the cell of the body of Christ that is me, and in due time will become fat on the hips of the bride of Christ in heaven.
thankyou for expanding what I was trying to say a few pages back. (Although the "fat on the hips of the bride of Christ" made me a bit queasy. )
Posted by AdamPater (# 4431) on
:
quote:
"fat on the hips of the bride of Christ"
Surely that's a tee-shirt marketing opportunity!
Posted by caty the southerner (# 11996) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
quote:
What is the reason, Triple Tiara, for the focus on the "Presence" in such a specific place, way of words etc?
It's much the same as the reason for a focus on the words of Scripture. How does God communicate with us? What did Jesus himself instruct? What are the implications of Jesus giving us this instruction?
If you begin with the idea that Jesus meant this like a parable, alongside some of his other references to himself as door, light etc, that the eucharist is a symbolic act of remembering him, or the Zwinglian idea that receiving communion is to show others that you are a Christian, for example, then you have no need to proceed further about what the bread and wine are. So no need for reservation, honour, benediction and so on. Indeed, it would be contradictory.
But if you start at the other end, and see the eucharist about taking Jesus literally, then you have to start working out all sorts of implications. If a change is wrought in the elements, could one possibly dispose of them without much concern? To say yes would be contradictory to this viewpoint.
So what do you do then? ....
I managed to miss this when I caught up with the thread last night. Thank you, Triple Tiara, for the helpful explanation in (the whole of) this post.
[ 17. February 2007, 11:28: Message edited by: caty the southerner ]
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Athanasius+:
But I find it unhelpful to attempt to tie the RP down to any particular explanation.
It is probably worth pointing out that transubstantiation doesn't claim to offer an explanation. Much like our talk of God, the doctrine merely marks out territory within which we might speak of mystery without talking nonsense. Far from reducing the Eucharist to something neatly explicable in terms of Aristotle's metaphysics, Aquinas speaks of It in terms which make absolutely no sense in Aristotlean terms. It is quite clear that what we have here is a miracle, a bringing into being ex nihilo, on a par with creation.
Posted by Saint Bertelin (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by me:
Sub-deacon Benjamin Anderson of St Mark's, Denver, may be a good person to ask. He is an Antiochian Western Riter who is involved with the Lancelot Andrewes Press, which publishes much of the stuff to accompany the Western Rite as used in Antioch. He may be able to tell you whether Benediction features in their official prayer book or whether it is just an additional devotion used by soem of their parishes.
I've since found their prayer book online. It may be viewed in PDF format here. Benediction, which goes by the name Veneration of the Blessed Sacrament may be found after the Divine Liturgies of St Tikhon and St Gregory.
Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on
:
Many thanks for this, St B., and your earlier explication. Allowing for some minor verbal changes, it looks at first sight as if the compilers of the book lifted the Benediction text from the English Missal, this itself being, I suppose, a translation of the Roman form. More likely, perhaps, it was translated directly from the Latin rite.
I take your point, Leetle M., with regard to the respect paid to the elements in the context of the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts. That is a particular case; but I have the impression that among Orthodox generally there is not the western custom for the individual to stand / sit /kneel and contemplate the tabernacle/pyx/aumbry as a devotional exercise.
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:
quote:
generally there is not the western custom for the individual to stand / sit /kneel and contemplate the tabernacle/pyx/aumbry as a devotional exercise.
Well, Metapelagius, I don't know what anybody else is doing when the veiled chalice containing the Body and Blood of Christ is carried by on the way to the altar in the Presanctified Liturgy, but Adoring Christ Really Present is exactly what I'm doing, unworthy though I be....
Mary
Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on
:
I don't want to seem to labour the point, Masha, but that is in a particular context, and entirely understandable, but not what I am trying to establish.
A Roman Catholic might go into a church when no service - mass, office, or whatever - is being conducted, and spend some time in prayer / meditation in proximity to, or focussing on, the place where the sacrament is reserved. But would an Orthodox do anything similar? The tabernacle being behind the iconostasis would make some difference, I suppose.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
Is that perhaps to do with a much stronger emphasis on icons? As I have been led to understand it, there is a kind of sacramentality about them, so the connection with the divine they convey makes it less likely to want the sacramental eucharistic presence.
Am I on the right track here?
Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on
:
TT - more than likely. An icon, as I understand it, is not 'just' any old picture, but a uniquely special (quasi-sacramental could be one way of expessing this) link with the person portrayed. In the same way I would hope that even the most ardent `memorialist' would say of the bread of the eucharist that it is not just any old bread, though (s)he would not accept any notion of 'hocus pocus'.
Posted by CuppaT (# 10523) on
:
quote:
But would an Orthodox do anything similar?
I do. Often. I dare say, I might not if our house was a bit quieter and less busy all the time, but as it is I drop by frequently to pray the hours in front of the altar. I am not alone in this habit. Several of us in our parish have keys to the church for this purpose alone, and I know of it in other parishes as well.
CuppaT
Posted by Faithful Sheepdog (# 2305) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
I've since found their prayer book online. It may be viewed in PDF format here. Benediction, which goes by the name Veneration of the Blessed Sacrament may be found after the Divine Liturgies of St Tikhon and St Gregory.
Thank you for the link, but all the same I am disappointed to hear that the western rite Orthodox have adopted the errors of the late medieval west. From my understanding of the early church, this particular kind of devotional practice and its underlying theology didn't exist for over a thousand years. It only developed after the west seperated from the east, and that may well tell us something. The Reformers rightly repudiated this error while in most cases maintaining a robust sacramental theology.
Neil
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by caty the southerner:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
quote:
What is the reason, Triple Tiara, for the focus on the "Presence" in such a specific place, way of words etc?
It's much the same as the reason for a focus on the words of Scripture. How does God communicate with us? What did Jesus himself instruct? What are the implications of Jesus giving us this instruction?
If you begin with the idea that Jesus meant this like a parable, alongside some of his other references to himself as door, light etc, that the eucharist is a symbolic act of remembering him, or the Zwinglian idea that receiving communion is to show others that you are a Christian, for example, then you have no need to proceed further about what the bread and wine are. So no need for reservation, honour, benediction and so on. Indeed, it would be contradictory.
But if you start at the other end, and see the eucharist about taking Jesus literally, then you have to start working out all sorts of implications. If a change is wrought in the elements, could one possibly dispose of them without much concern? To say yes would be contradictory to this viewpoint.
So what do you do then? ....
I managed to miss this when I caught up with the thread last night. Thank you, Triple Tiara, for the helpful explanation in (the whole of) this post.
Wow! I'm just back and what incidents have been happening both in purgatory which I don't believe in and hell that can only be final destruction!
That was a good reply Triple Tiara (I've read the whole lot). I fit in with the above quote.
I do think we have to take on as much understanding of what others believe and why they beieve it - beliefs may sound wierd to those who believe differently - they may have different reasons behind them, which can be interesting.
I've led communion in different ways in different churches, and leading it means that we have to take on board what the receptors are believing.
I've been given communion from just about every denomination, except orthodox, and when that happens, the person receiving is still believing their own beliefs, whatever the leaader believes (which may be kept secret as they may not believe what they are supposed to).
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
That's one of the things that concerns me - Jesus present as a human being just puts cannibalism in my mind.
In regular eating, I take the bread, eat it and thereby turn the bread into my body: through digestion it will be bring energy to my cells and fat on my hips. But in sacramental eating, I take the bread, eat it and thereby turn me into the consecrated bread, which is the body of Christ: through digestion I will bring spiritual energy to the cell of the body of Christ that is me, and in due time will become fat on the hips of the bride of Christ in heaven.
In regular eating, I eat the bread, in sacramental eating, I'm eaten by eating the consecrated bread. The higher absorbs the lower in eating: I'm higher than regular bread, so I consume it. But Christ is higher than me so in eating Him I'm consumed. Sacramental eating is thus offering yourself to Christ: as He enters my body and is digested, I enter Him in the spirit and am renewed. It shows the unity of "body and soul", but now on a communal level: something greater than me is being built up here as I together with others nourish myself on Christ, as we extract the grace from His bloodstream that we need to survive as cells of His body. Sacramental eating here on earth is an image and likeness of that mystical union in heaven, when Christ will be all in all, in spirit and body.
So eating Christ is no more cannibalism than your cells drawing nourishment from your bloodstream is cannibalism on their part. He is our Sustenance, the Bread of Life, so we eat Him to become part of Him, to partake in His eternal life.
(None of the above is original, btw, it's ancient Catholic thought. For example, St Augustine is strong on this IIRC.)
So you are saying that I should realise that you are not just eating it literally without using it as a metaphor to feed your spirit?
How does it compare with the idea that Christ is living within us by the Holy Spirit?
And that our sanctification proceeds (after it's been given us along with our justification), as we continue to commit ourselves to God?
That bit about the Image of Christ within us is also like alchemy, the transformation we experience into gold.
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
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.
Most Christians believe that God is omnipresent, and yet somehow even more present in the man Jesus of Nazareth. This doesn't present any difficulty to most Christians, I should think. Why should a literalist view of Communion?
ETA: I love this image from Daisymay:
quote:
That bit about the Image of Christ within us is also like alchemy, the transformation we experience into gold.
[ 17. February 2007, 19:09: Message edited by: MouseThief ]
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
Cuppa T, just to echo your excellent post above, people also come into my parish church just to pray, and they do so often. Our church is one of the few churches in our area that stay open from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. every day.
Mary
Posted by cor ad cor loquitur (# 11816) on
:
quote:
Be thoughtful, be silent, be reverent:
For this is the House of God.
Before the service speak to God.
During the service let God speak to you.
After the service speak to each other.
I first saw this, not in a RC or Anglican church, but in a Baptist church I often visited whilst a student. It was printed at the top of every worship bulletin. These Baptists treated their church with reverence. It had an aura of holiness even though there was no altar and no reserved sacrament.
Jews treat the scrolls of the law with reverence, kissing them and guarding them in an ark and placing a constantly burning light before the ark to signify that God's word is present there. (I once saw, in the coatroom of a synagogue, a circuit breaker switch labelled "eternal light". But that's another story.) I have been in Buddhist and Shinto shrines in Japan that were clearly holy places. Treating places and things as holy seems to come naturally to us.
I don't think that my Baptist friends would have said that God was "more" in their church than outside it (nor would we Catholics say anything like that); but they felt his presence in a special way when they were in what they called the sanctuary -- we would call it the nave -- of their lovely and peaceful church. Muslims find God in a special way when they make the pilgrimage to Makkah and walk round the Ka'abah, which they call "the house of God".
None of these impressions of holy places and things are forced on us. A church may be the house of God, but at another level it's just a building. You can choose to view the blessed sacrament as "crisps in a cupboard". You can choose to view Jesus as a somewhat irritable Jewish teacher who came to a bad end. You can choose to view your neighbour not as an image of God but as someone with whom you are locked in a bitter and zero-sum competition for resources.
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.
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
I find this hymn just as effective as the Tantum Ergo or the O Salutaris Hostia for purposes of eucharistic adoration:
My Jesus, I Love Thee
I think that the point may need to be made that neither "Adoration and Benediction" nor the formal adoration of the consecrated elements in the Orthodox Church that I outlined above (albeit not to the complete satisfaction of everyone as being parallel to that of the Roman Catholics)--
Neither Form of Adoration is considered by either the Orthodox Church or the Roman Catholic Church as a sacrament in itself . And so, neither form of adoration can be substituted for the Divine Liturgy itself.
I worked with some missionaries in the Caribbean for a few months back in the 1960s. We discovered that the people, all very Anglo-Catholic Anglicans, seemed to believe that it was the same thing to go to Benediction as it was to go to Mass and receive Holy Communion.
Here was the rub, though: As one individual explained to us, "Receiving Holy Communion forgives and washes away all your sins. So if you don't want to stop sinning, you can just go to Benediction instead."
I imagine that is why neither the Orthodox Church nor the Roman Catholic Church advocates merely adoring Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. We should both receive Him and adore Him. The adoration supplements the reception--it's not a substitute.
As for the veneration of icons being some sort of "substitute" for adoration of the presence of Christ in the Holy Mystery, again, I do not think that is the case in the Orthodox Church. There is not a specific, separate Service of Adoration, that's true, but when the Orthodox priest blesses the people right after they've received Holy Communion, he wraps a humeral veil around his shoulders and hands in order to hold the chalice up and make the sign of the cross over them--before all the sacred elements are consumed and the chalice is cleansed--so that looks exactly like what the Roman Catholic priest does with the Monstrance at Benediction, as far as my unlearned eyes can tell.
Mary
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
So you are saying that I should realise that you are not just eating it literally without using it as a metaphor to feed your spirit?
I wasn't using too much metaphor. I meant all that fairly literally...
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
How does it compare with the idea that Christ is living within us by the Holy Spirit? And that our sanctification proceeds (after it's been given us along with our justification), as we continue to commit ourselves to God? That bit about the Image of Christ within us is also like alchemy, the transformation we experience into gold.
That's all very nice, true, and spirit-ual. When you bring it down to earth, when you bring in the body, then it becomes sacramental, incarnational - Catholic...
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on
:
Melon quote:
Please do post your pictures of anabaptists persecuting catholics.
Ian...
Paisley...
Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
Melon quote:
Please do post your pictures of anabaptists persecuting catholics.
Ian...
Paisley...
He's a paedobaptist...
Posted by Faithful Sheepdog (# 2305) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gracie:
He's a paedobaptist...
That was my initial thought, but according to Wikipedia here (if it is to be trusted) the church where he is the moderator is not paedobaptist, despite calling itself "Free Presbyterian".
Neil
Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on
:
The Wikipedia article is unclear, Faithful Sheepdog. Certainly from my memory of people I knew who had been associated with that church they baptised infants.
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on
:
*apologies for kicking off this rather random tangent*
Anyway...Paisley is the son of an independent Baptist minister and was one himself until he set up the Free Ps. Officially the FPs agree to differ on baptism, but I understand (from a biog of Paisley) that that they are effectively baptist.
All of which leaves me wondering why the Fuck I know so much about this. I need to get out more...
*ends tangent*
Posted by Faithful Sheepdog (# 2305) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gracie:
The Wikipedia article is unclear, Faithful Sheepdog. Certainly from my memory of people I knew who had been associated with that church they baptised infants.
It is well known that Wikipedia cannot always be trusted, and the article certainly could be clearer, but here is the relevant section on church doctrine and policy, with my emphasis:
quote:
Doctrinally, the church describes itself as fundamentalist, evangelical, and separatist. Baptism and the Lord's supper are recognised as sacraments of the Free Presbyterian Church. Members are allowed to determine the proper mode (dipping, pouring, sprinkling) and subjects (adult believers) that they prefer, but the church will not sanction Baptismal Regeneration. The Lord's supper is observed monthly, unless a local congregation prefers a more frequent observance. Alongside the Free Presbyterian Articles of Faith, the Westminster Standards are considered doctrinal standards subordinate to the Bible. On account of their additional adherence to the Articles of Faith, and because of their baptismal views, some regard the church as only nominally Presbyterian, and actually nearer to the Baptist Church, and more nearly allied to modern Fundamentalist Christianity than to the Presbyterian and Reformed tradition.
I read this to mean that his church does not baptise infants, but your personal knowledge of the church's practice may, of course, overule this.
Neil
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Paisley IIRC is a Free Presbyterian, not a Baptist, although he started off as the latter, he broke with them when he started the Free Presbies in 1951
Posted by Saint Bertelin (# 5638) on
:
You're very welcome, Metapelagius. I'm glad to be of some use to somebody.
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
I've since found their prayer book online. It may be viewed in PDF format here. Benediction, which goes by the name Veneration of the Blessed Sacrament may be found after the Divine Liturgies of St Tikhon and St Gregory.
Thank you for the link, but all the same I am disappointed to hear that the western rite Orthodox have adopted the errors of the late medieval west. From my understanding of the early church, this particular kind of devotional practice and its underlying theology didn't exist for over a thousand years. It only developed after the west seperated from the east, and that may well tell us something. The Reformers rightly repudiated this error while in most cases maintaining a robust sacramental theology.
Neil
Hi Neil. I hope you're ok.
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. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
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.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Paisley's view of baptism can be found here; it seems to be run-of-the-mill presbyterian covenant-view-of-baptism in line with the Westminster Confession and therefore would include infant baptism
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on
:
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?
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Yes. I'm just a bit anal about such things, I'm afraid
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on
:
My info is definitely wrong then. Apologies to all the Baptists for tarring you with that particularly unlovely brush
Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on
:
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
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on
:
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...
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
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
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
[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
[/possibly tangential, possibly morinbuntantly equine]
[ 17. February 2007, 23:28: Message edited by: Zappa ]
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
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!)
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
Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on
:
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
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
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.
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on
:
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".
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
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.
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
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.
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
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
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
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.
Posted by Faithful Sheepdog (# 2305) on
:
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
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Regarding the mention of Ian Paisely, above, he once gave a speech at the Oxford Uni. Union where he claimed to have a consecrated wafer - he broke it into pieces and threw it into the audience.
Disgusting, whether you believe in the RP or not.
Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on
:
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!
Posted by cor ad cor loquitur (# 11816) on
:
Sadly, this sort of false, evil invective is still being spread around, many years after the 1960s.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
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)
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
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.
Posted by Faithful Sheepdog (# 2305) on
:
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
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
No FS, it is still the teaching of the RC Church.
Posted by Bernard Mahler (# 10852) on
:
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'.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on
:
Local Spar must've run out of prawn cocktail crisps, I guess.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Davy Wavy Morrison (# 12241) on
:
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.
Posted by Davy Wavy Morrison (# 12241) on
:
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...
Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on
:
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."
Posted by Davy Wavy Morrison (# 12241) on
:
And "eat on him in your heart by faith", not by our mouths and stomachs.
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
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?
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on
:
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.
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
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.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
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.)
Posted by Faithful Sheepdog (# 2305) on
:
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
Posted by cor ad cor loquitur (# 11816) on
:
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.
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
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 ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
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.
Posted by Davy Wavy Morrison (# 12241) on
:
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.
Posted by Davy Wavy Morrison (# 12241) on
:
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.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
Why are you presuming everyone is an Anglican and takes 1662 BCP seriously?
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
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.
Posted by Ecce Quam Bonum (# 10884) on
:
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.
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"?
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on
:
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.
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on
:
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.
Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on
:
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.
Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on
:
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?
Posted by Ecce Quam Bonum (# 10884) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
Anyone for some Anglican Fudge?
A rather delightful--if not sticky--delicacy, I do believe.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Naw, Brigittine fudge is better!
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0