|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Reserving the Sacrament - Knock! Knock! Who's There?
|
AdamPater
Sacristan of the LavaLamp
# 4431
|
Posted
quote:
"fat on the hips of the bride of Christ"
Surely that's a tee-shirt marketing opportunity!
--------------------
Put not your trust in princes.
Posts: 4894 | From: On the left of the big pink bit. | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caty S.
I read, therefore I am.
# 11996
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 2119 | From: Devon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Metapelagius
Shipmate
# 9453
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Rec a archaw e nim naccer.
y rof a duv. dagnouet.
Am bo forth. y porth riet.
Crist ny buv e trist yth orsset.
Posts: 1032 | From: Hereabouts | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
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
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Metapelagius
Shipmate
# 9453
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Rec a archaw e nim naccer.
y rof a duv. dagnouet.
Am bo forth. y porth riet.
Crist ny buv e trist yth orsset.
Posts: 1032 | From: Hereabouts | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Metapelagius
Shipmate
# 9453
|
Posted
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'.
--------------------
Rec a archaw e nim naccer.
y rof a duv. dagnouet.
Am bo forth. y porth riet.
Crist ny buv e trist yth orsset.
Posts: 1032 | From: Hereabouts | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
CuppaT
Shipmate
# 10523
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Stand at the brink of the abyss of despair, and when you see that you cannot bear it any longer, draw back a little and have a cup of tea.
~Elder Sophrony
Posts: 919 | From: the edge of the Ozarks | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
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
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
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).
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
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
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cor ad cor loquitur
Shipmate
# 11816
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Quam vos veritatem interpretationis, hanc eruditi κακοζηλίαν nuncupant … si ad verbum interpretor, absurde resonant. (St Jerome, Ep. 57 to Pammachius)
Posts: 1332 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
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
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
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...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
Melon quote:
Please do post your pictures of anabaptists persecuting catholics.
Ian...
Paisley...
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
Melon quote:
Please do post your pictures of anabaptists persecuting catholics.
Ian...
Paisley...
He's a paedobaptist...
--------------------
When someone is convinced he’s an Old Testament prophet there’s not a lot you can do with him rationally. - Sine
Posts: 1090 | From: En lieu sûr | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
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
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
When someone is convinced he’s an Old Testament prophet there’s not a lot you can do with him rationally. - Sine
Posts: 1090 | From: En lieu sûr | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
*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*
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
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
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
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
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
You're very welcome, Metapelagius. I'm glad to be of some use to somebody. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
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.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
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
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
My info could be wrong. Anyway, having just contributed to an "I'll show you my martyrs if you show me yours" discussion, does everyone agree that they're incredibly, incredibly pointless?
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Yes. I'm just a bit anal about such things, I'm afraid
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
My info is definitely wrong then. Apologies to all the Baptists for tarring you with that particularly unlovely brush ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
I have heard that in the West Indies, Benediction is very well attended, primarily by women who are cohabitating often on a frequent serial basis. They are unwilling to confess and amend these arrangements, but they wish to avoid making this a matter of public speculation by refraining from Holy Communion at Mass.
They feel, however, that they can receive a measure of Eucharistic blessing, albeit not sacramental grace, at Benediction. In their view, that is simply the best that they can hope for under the circumstances. Jesus in the monstrance blesses them in spite of their not being in a state of grace.
Greta
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
Yes...its incredibly pointless, but...lets face it...kinda fun. As a Catholic attending a Baptist church (really), I must admit I'm still pretty un-martyred...
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
quote:
Jesus in the monstrance blesses them in spite of their not being in a state of grace.
That sort of mind-set was evident with the Anglicans we encountered, too. Confessions were heard every week, but those who could not dare to go to confession (because they'd have to admit what they were doing) hesitated to receive Holy Communion anyhow, in spite of the Anglican "General Confession" with its approximation of a "general absolution". They were really "erring on the side of caution" in their own view, lest they receive unworthily--plus there were aspects of their own lives that they truly believed could never change. Of course, it was all an experience from nearly half a century ago in my own life, a sort of "culture shock" before anyone ever heard of "inculturation". The spiritual problem we encountered had to do with people's dependence on a kind of side-religion that people practiced in their homes--for want of a better term, voodoo or "Santería". But it was ingrained in the culture, so what could we do, especially in view of the fact that the whole problem about giving up what was perceived as sin, was rooted in
a) faulty catechesis
and
b) overworked priests unable because of sheer numbers of people to do in-depth pastoral work among the church members.
We others were just helpers; we had no "authority" and didn't really want any "authority". We had come there only to love and to serve. We did the best we could. And we learned right away that there are some things that are very difficult, if not impossible, to change.
I still pray for them all every day. I hope that God will forgive whatever I failed to do for them, and that they will be waiting for me at the gate of heaven.
Best wishes,
Mary
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433
|
Posted
[possibly tangential, possibly morinbuntantly equine]
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
That sort of mind-set was evident with the Anglicans we encountered, too. Confessions were heard every week, but those who could not dare to go to confession (because they'd have to admit what they were doing) hesitated to receive Holy Communion anyhow, in spite of the Anglican "General Confession" with its approximation of a "general absolution".
(Happy belated birthday wishes, by the way, LM ![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif) )
In my teaching I try to steer away from the idea that 'the Anglican "General Confession" with its approximation of a "general absolution" ' is a substitute for personal oracular confession. I see the general confession as a statement of participation in the whole human web of sin, and the first person plural as an acknowledgement of the universality of sin. The absolution therefore becomes a word of eschatological hope - God's eschatological forgiveness breaking in and infiltrating the present just as the Holy Communion is (in part) an in-breaking, a foretaste of the eschatological banquet.
I make it that clear in my sermons, too ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
[/possibly tangential, possibly morinbuntantly equine]
[ 17. February 2007, 23:28: Message edited by: Zappa ]
--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/
Posts: 18917 | From: "Central" is all they call it | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
Zappa, I like your style! Yes, we all want the Real, we accept no substitutes! Bravo! Behold a good priest in whom is no guile!
(and thank you kindly for the kind wishes on my birthday!)
My birthday greetings came, this year, from shipmates and from my next-door neighbours (who are from Taiwan!) My sister and my best friend forgot.
I deserve it, for my sins, no doubt.
Mary
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
LM,
Yes. There was and still may be a problem with participation in non-Christian rites and practices. I think that the reluctance to formally marry (particularly on the part of the men) was also primarily cultural.
I have even met a few gay men in the U.S. who attended Benediction rather than Mass because they felt that they could not in good conscience properly confess their sexual activity. This in a church where the majority of the congregation was gay and lesbian and the standard was "don't ask...don't tell" {although it was certainly safe to assume).
Greta
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
How can we do a better job of catechesis so that people will see better how to live this Christian life of ours, Greta?
It's repentance, not righteousness, that opens the heart to Christ, isn't it?
M
"Wash me with my tears, and purify me with them, O Word. Forgive my sins and grant me pardon. Thou knowest the multitude of my evil-doing; Thou knowest also my wounds and seest my sores. But Thou knowest too my faith; Thou seest mine intent; Thou hearest my sighs...."
--from a Prayer before Communion by St. Simeon Metaphrastes, found in the Old Orthodox Prayer Book, published by the Russian Orthodox Church of the Nativity of Christ (Erie, PA: 2001), p. 313.
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cor ad cor loquitur:
I'm not implying, for a second, that someone who can't acknowledge the real presence of Christ in the eucharist can't acknowledge the presence of God in Jesus, or in his neighbour. But the doctrine of the real presence seems perfectly human and normal to me (though it is far more than that). And, once you've swallowed the camel of God himself being born in Nazareth, dying and rising on the third day, it seems odd to strain at the gnat of the idea that he could be deeply present in the sacrament of the altar.
As someone who has already said I strain at that particular gnat let me try to explain why. The best was I can explain it is by analogy with what Douglas Adams' detective Dirk Gently said about Sherlock Holmes. Sherlock Holmes famously said that if you eliminate the impossible whatever is left, however improbable, had to be the truth. Dirk Gently said it was foolish to rule out that which appears impossible in favour of the improbable, because the improbable goes against what we know whereas the impossible merely suggests that there is something we don't know.
So the fact that I don't understand how God can become human means there is something (a lot!) I don't know about God. The idea that a man can become bread and wine goes against what I know of bread, wine and human beings. In fact it appears on the face of it as nonsense, and it's only respect for the sincerity of people who hold that belief that I don't dismiss it out of hand.
That's why it's not only not "odd" that I fail at this point of belief but natural for me. To accept it would be "odd".
Posts: 3690 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Gosh, An Anglican practice I'd never heard of before. It has never occured to me that anyone since the Reformation would replace Communion with adoring the sacrament. Though I have occasionally seen some adults just go up to the rail for a blessing rather than take the bread and wine themselves.
It sounds like they need another Reformation. Gordon Cheng's sort of Sydney Anglicanism is a lot more orthodox than the Anglo-Catholic behaviour being descibed here.
Aside - people are confusing Anabaptists with Baptists here. If Paisley's people refuse to baptise children that makes them Baptists, not Anabaptists. Anabaptists (in the original sense rather than as the name of a Christian tradition) would be people who did not recognise the baptisms of other churches and insisted on rebaptism before membership.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Aside - people are confusing Anabaptists with Baptists here. If Paisley's people refuse to baptise children that makes them Baptists, not Anabaptists. Anabaptists (in the original sense rather than as the name of a Christian tradition) would be people who did not recognise the baptisms of other churches and insisted on rebaptism before membership.
Here is one description of how anabaptists define themselves historically. This PDF points out that the "where are the anabaptists" question does not have an easy answer, but suggests that it does have quite a lot to do with modern English baptists (which is why Britain's largest baptist theological college runs a graduate degree programme in anabaptist studies).
I suppose that Matt's "Radical reformation" is another option, but I've never heard anyone choose to apply that term to themselves.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
Originally posted by Ken:
quote:
Anglo-Catholic behaviour being described here.
(as if it were a shock to learn about such things.... and it was, to me, when I first encountered it)
Well, as Greta and I both probably still think, it's an exception rather than the rule, but nevertheless, attempting to cope with such behaviour as a "cultural phenomenon" and trying to deal with it with by means of "multiculturalism", moral and theological "relativism", etc., doesn't seem to have got us any forrader, does it?
I don't think a "reformation" is called for, but I do think that catechesis that's overly flexible, the sort of elasticised catechesis that attempts to attract "bums in pews" rather than active Christians engaged with Christian life and Christian example in solidarity with all Christ's flock, is what's going to help in the longer run. In other words, acceptance and inclusion are passive, but Mission that is active, pro-active and indeed retroactive is what we need.
People really do seek, in my humble opinion, some sort of secure dogmatic grounding--a faith they can learn, and then learn to defend-- rather than the "if it feels good, do it" approach, but maybe that's just me.... Can we provide that kind of foundation for faith?
I talk mighty big, but I know full well that whatever efforts I made in the Caribbean all those years ago didn't accomplish a whole lot, if anything.
Mary
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
Ken I think you're half-right. Any idea that that the Eucharist is there primarily for anything other than food needs knocking on the head. As does an overly scrupulous approach to the sacrament. On the other hand, people might not receive communion at any given Eucharist for a number of reasons. Before now I've been to Mass and not received: either because I was feeling very uncharitable towards someone else, or because I wasn't complying with my discipline regarding the eucharistic fast, or because I'd already received twice in the day and didn't want communicating to become too 'routine'. I think we're wise to leave people to their own consciences regarding whether or not to receive. And it makes perfect sense, to a believer in RP, to focus on the Eucharistic Presence, even at Masses where they don't receive.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
Hi Neil. I hope you're ok.
Thank you. Generally very much improved, except for a vicious dose of flu in January. ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
quote:
I've been doing a bit more hunting and come across this on the blog of the Western Rite Sub-deacon mentioned earlier. It seems that the use of this rite is not free from objection even within Orthodoxy. Having re-read the comments in response to that post, it would appear that I myself commented there some time ago. I recognise the words and sentiment as my own but have no recollection whatsoever of actually posting it.
Having thought a little more about my response above regarding Christminster, Benediction doesn't appear in The Saint Colman Prayer Book, which is the Western Rite Orthodox prayer book reflecting the Use of ROCOR rather than that of our Antiochian friends. The Use of Christminster was deliberately included in this book, and so it is fair to assume that they do not use it there. I am currently in touch with their abbot and so may ask him directly if anybody is interested enough in finding out.
I have been looking more closely at the rubrics to the western rite service in the link that you provided:
quote:
[Service title] Veneration of the Blessed Sacrament
The term “veneration” is usually used for the reverence or devotion (dulia) that can be given to a human person or a created thing. The term “adoration” is usually used for the full-weight worship (latria) that can be given to God alone. There is a vitally important difference here, and without it the church lapses into idolatry.
So I would suggest that based on the rubrical terminology, the western rite (WR) Orthodox do indeed hold that it is wholly inappropriate to give divine worship (latria) to the reserved sacrament. It would appear that despite the outward similarity of the liturgy, the WR Orthodox viewpoint differs markedly from the RC position, as far as I understand it. Is that really what the WR are trying to say?
quote:
[Rubrical heading]
This service is dedicated to the Presence of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the bread and wine. It is a time for enjoying the presence of God, and it is also an act of thanksgiving for the Holy Eucharist.
Devotion to the Blessed Sacrament in the West parallels devotion to the icon in the East. Both devotions are based upon the same Incarnational theology, and the same desire of the faithful to “come and see”, to have a devotional point of contact with Jesus.
Here I would suggest that the thinking gets even more confusing. In the first paragraph they explicitly talk about “a service dedicated to the presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the bread and the wine”, although the Orthodox liturgies talk rather of “the precious and holy Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ” and “the precious and holy Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ” as one approaches the sacrament to eat it and drink it.
The rubrics then explicitly draw an analogy with devotion to an icon. However, to my knowledge no one has ever suggested that the real-life subject of an icon in somehow “really present” within the material of the icon, or that the icon contains the “soul and divinity” of the divine persons represented thereon, or that the icon should be given full-weight worship (latria).
Perhaps this is the whole point of the analogy, but if so, it would again appear to explicitly deny the RC viewpoint, as far as I understand it. In that case, why do the WR Orthodox continue to follow this error of the late medieval west with all its potential for confusing people and misleading them into idolatry?
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Metapelagius
Shipmate
# 9453
|
Posted
He certainly waved a wafer about, but there was no way of telling whether it was consecrated or not just by looking at it. It was a long time ago (1968?) so the details that I recall are bound to be a bit hazy. I think the point that he was trying to make was that (to his way of looking at things, at least) the idea that someone could `turn this into a bit of God' was so much mumbo-jumbo. I do not recall his breaking it up and scattering it about; I was with an RC friend and certainly remember how shocked and hurt he was by Paisley's gimmick. I also recall that one of the other speakers in the debate was a young woman, doubtless a devout soul, but who made a toe-curlingly sentimental speech about how lovely she thought the RC church was. It didn't do much to counter Paisley.
Perhaps Paisley was not so famous/notorious in those days. The CoS chaplain to the university was warned by the PCI of his impending visit; the PCI people wanted to make it absolutely clear that Paisley was nothing to do with them!
--------------------
Rec a archaw e nim naccer.
y rof a duv. dagnouet.
Am bo forth. y porth riet.
Crist ny buv e trist yth orsset.
Posts: 1032 | From: Hereabouts | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cor ad cor loquitur
Shipmate
# 11816
|
Posted
Sadly, this sort of false, evil invective is still being spread around, many years after the 1960s.
--------------------
Quam vos veritatem interpretationis, hanc eruditi κακοζηλίαν nuncupant … si ad verbum interpretor, absurde resonant. (St Jerome, Ep. 57 to Pammachius)
Posts: 1332 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cor ad cor loquitur:
Sadly, this sort of false, evil invective is still being spread around, many years after the 1960s.
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
It doesn't matter a jot how much of this tripe Chick and his like churn out - Jesus is still present in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar.
Ian J.
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cor ad cor loquitur:
Sadly, this sort of false, evil invective is still being spread around, many years after the 1960s.
It is well known (on these boards at least) that Jack Chick is offensively way over the top, but nevertheless he has reminded me to look up what the Council of Trent says here.
quote:
[Page 79 - Chapter V] Wherefore, there is no room left for doubt, that all the faithful of Christ may, according to the custom ever received in the Catholic Church, render in veneration the worship of latria, which is due to the true God, to this most holy sacrament.
quote:
[Page 82 - Canon VI] If any one saith, that, in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship, even external of latria; and is, consequently, neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in processions, according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of holy church; or, is not to be proposed publicly to the people to be adored, and that the adorers thereof are idolators; let him be anathema.
Did Vatican 2 alter any of this teaching? Are there any more recent RC declarations on this subject?
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
No FS, it is still the teaching of the RC Church.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
