|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Reserving the Sacrament - Knock! Knock! Who's There?
|
Bernard Mahler
Shipmate
# 10852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
So the fact that I don't understand how God can become human means there is something (a lot!) I don't know about God. The idea that a man can become bread and wine goes against what I know of bread, wine and human beings
It may be splitting hairs, but perhaps this is an important hair to split. No real presence theology I am aware of holds that Jesus becomes bread and wine; the bread and wine become His body and blood.
As for God becoming man - there is some phrase in the Athanasian Creed that refers to 'the manhood being taken up into God'.
--------------------
"What does it matter? All is grace" Georges Bernanos
Posts: 622 | From: Auckland New Zealand | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
I think we're wise to leave people to their own consciences regarding whether or not to receive.
Of course. It was the suggestion that was these folk's regular practice that seemed wrong.
quote:
And it makes perfect sense, to a believer in RP, to focus on the Eucharistic Presence, even at Masses where they don't receive.
I have witnessed with my own eyes, this very evening, evangelical Anglicans of a mildly-charismatic Alpha sort sit and meditate in silence for about ten minutes in front of a table with bread and wine on it, with no intention to consume.
I was late to the service and missed most of it, I don't know for sure what the priest thought they were doing. I suspect that it was more of a "why don't we try something different, alt.sowrhip, Isn't it Cool We Are All Into Spirituality, we don't need no archdeacon, we dont need no thought control" kind of thing than any develped idea of Real Presence.
I also suspect that the bread and wine may not have been consecrated - though I did see wine from the communion service earlier in the day taken away in a small flask rather than consumed there and then, which struck me as odd. I assumed at the time that it must have been intended for a sick church member at home, which struck me as odd as its not the sort of thing I thought that parish does. But maybe it was being kept for the evening service. Which strikes me as even odder.
And yes, it ws white sliced.
[ 18. February 2007, 22:00: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290
|
Posted
Local Spar must've run out of prawn cocktail crisps, I guess.
--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain
Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
You know ken, you are as low as a snake's belly and all that, and I'm one of them prawn-cracker worshipping papists and all that, but I do enjoy reading your descriptive images of nouvelle religion! Thanks for giving me a real belly-laugh from time to time.
ETA: was to ken, crossposted with jahlove, for whom another
[ 18. February 2007, 23:45: Message edited by: Triple Tiara ]
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Davy Wavy Morrison
Shipmate
# 12241
|
Posted
The Council of Trent may say that I'm anathema because of my views on the Lord's Supper, but the Bible doesn't say so. I know which I would rather believe. That of course goes for any extra-Biblical material, be it the Westminster Confession, the Thirty-Nine articles, etc., if and where they are seen to be in disagreement with the Bible.
Most of us, including Protestants, are so bound up with tradition that we must regularly go back to Scripture to make sure we are not transgressing in important things.
Posts: 406 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Davy Wavy Morrison
Shipmate
# 12241
|
Posted
Don't forget, folks, that the Lord Jesus Christ has a human body and it is said to be located at God's right hand. You have to talk fast to convince some people that his (whole) body would also be in thousands of places at the same time, and only in a particular place after a priest says certain words. Anything is possible with God, but those beliefs appear to go right against the intention of Bible teaching.
But still, as an anathema, I suppose my belief doesn't count.
Age has mellowed me in may ways but there are some things...
Posts: 406 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nunc Dimittis
Seamstress of Sound
# 848
|
Posted
quote:
Don't forget, folks, that the Lord Jesus Christ has a human body and it is said to be located at God's right hand. You have to talk fast to convince some people that his (whole) body would also be in thousands of places at the same time, and only in a particular place after a priest says certain words.
So where, then is "the right hand of the Father"? Where is heaven?
I think you're pushing your metaphysics too far, and forgetting that our Lord's resurrection body is an exalted immortal human body - which is of an altogether different order to our own mortal bodies. And we don't really understand how it works; witness the Emmaus experience, and the Risen One's ability to walk through doors.
As several people have pointed out, the purpose of the eucharist is not "to make loads of little round flat white crispy Jesuses", as though consecration in order to "make" the elements Christ's body and blood was an aim in and of itself. The eucharist is for us, for the Body of Christ. By consuming we are consumed and are reunited to our Head. It is, at the end of the day, a mystery as to what actually happens, and what it really means. Books and books and books have been written about the significance of the eucharist, and yet none of them even sound the depths of the mystery.
And you're forgetting the old meaning of anamnesis, translated "in memory". The idea of anamnesis is that an event is "re-membered" in such a way that the participants are as if they were actually there, whether the event is past, present or future. The forerunner of the Lord's Supper was the Passover meal, the anamnetic event par excellance of the Jewish people.
In anamnetically remembering the death of our Lord, it is as though we were present at Calvary, at the Last Supper (the eucharist IS in this sense, the last supper), and we participate in anticipation in the great Banquet of the Lamb, the eschatological fulfillment of all things when God will be all in all. All eucharistic celebrations are therefore carried up/united to/part of the One Sacrifice which extends through time and space; for a moment, we experience a "thinness" in the time-continuum, a moment in which all moments are redeemed and glorified. [In writing this paragraph, my language is stretched to the absolute limit, and what I've said actually is inadequate to describe experienced reality...]
It's not for nothing that we Anglicans have always had the words of administration in our prayer books: "The Body/Blood of Christ preserve your body and soul to eternal life."
Posts: 9515 | From: Delta Quadrant | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Davy Wavy Morrison:
The Council of Trent may say that I'm anathema because of my views on the Lord's Supper, but the Bible doesn't say so. I know which I would rather believe. That of course goes for any extra-Biblical material, be it the Westminster Confession, the Thirty-Nine articles, etc., if and where they are seen to be in disagreement with the Bible.
Well duh. That's not the issue. The issue is that you see them in disagreement with the Bible, where others do not. THEN how do we decide who's right? The Bible won't tell us whose interpretation of the Bible is right. Who then? How can we judge between two claims that both produce oodles of Biblical evidence?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim
Ubi caritas et amor
# 256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Davy Wavy Morrison:
The Council of Trent may say that I'm anathema because of my views on the Lord's Supper, but the Bible doesn't say so. I know which I would rather believe. That of course goes for any extra-Biblical material, be it the Westminster Confession, the Thirty-Nine articles, etc., if and where they are seen to be in disagreement with the Bible.
Most of us, including Protestants, are so bound up with tradition that we must regularly go back to Scripture to make sure we are not transgressing in important things.
Why? Why are you ignoring the Tradition of the Church preserved from earliest times - that same Tradition which among other things enabled the Church fathers to discern which were the true accounts of the life of Christ out of the welter of writings and accounts preserved by various faith communities and which were the true teachings of the Church, out of the welter of early Christian writings?
You are, whether you like it or not, by referring to the Bible, also referring to Tradition. So let's get past the self-labelling and the anathema. It isn't impressive and it isn't convincing.
But let's assume for a moment that you can separate out Tradition or tradition and just concentrate on the Bible to find a justification of the Real Presence.
I asked earlier why God couldn't be present in bread and wine. No-one took me up on this.
I also said earlier that the Real Presence was both Incarnational and Sacrificial. Actually the New Testament has a fair bit of support both for Real Presence and physical things becoming holy and a means both of transmission of the grace of God and as being a real mediation of the presence and power of God.
The Church is described as the Body of Christ (1 Cor 12:27, Eph 1:22-3, 5:30). I've already mentioned the presence of Christ "when two or three are gathered together" in his name. In Acts 9:5 the resurrected and ascended Jesus says to Saul "Why do you persecute me?", not "Why are you persecuting my followers?", which seems a pretty direct reference to the presence of Jesus in his Church.
As for physical things becoming holy or becoming capable of mediating or even representing God's power and presence, consider the woman who was healed by coming into contact with the fringe of Jesus' garment (Mt 9:20-22) - Jesus knew because he felt "power go out of him". Then there is the deaf man healed by Jesus as a sign and an exercise of grace, using saliva mixed with dirt (Jn 9:5 ff., Mk 8:22-25). Water as a thing can become a sign of the operation of God's grace - take the baptismal significance of the water from the pool of Siloam (Jn 9:7) and baptism as a symbol of regeneration Acts 2:38, 22:16, 1 Pet 3:21 (cf. Mk 16:16, Rom 6:3-4), 1 Cor 6:11, Titus 3:5. Then there is the whole question of physical touch - the laying on of hands for the purpose of ordination and commissioning (Acts 6:6, 1 Tim 4:14, 2 Tim 1:6) and to facilitate the initial outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:17-19, 13:3, 19:6). The breath of God could convey the Holy Spirit - "He breathed on them and said "Receive the Holy Spirit". There was physical touch for healing (Mk 6:5, Lk 13:13, Acts 9:17-18). Even Peter's shadow had healing power(Acts 5:15) as did Paul's handerchiefs to heal the sick (Acts 19:12).
We accept these things as the exercise of God's power, of God's grace. They happen to be the exercise of God's grace by way of physical objects or physical touch.
So I repeat - why can't God be Really Present in bread and wine, if he is present in his believers and thus in his Church? And once consecrated, the Body and Blood remain sacred and worthy of reverence and worship. It's one of the ways of encountering God. Not the only way to be sure - but a vital way of feeding our souls.
Otherwise you are suggesting that God leaves his Church if there is no-one around to see.
--------------------
Embrace the serious whack. It's the Catholic thing to do. IngoB
The Messiah, Peace be upon him, said to his Apostles: 'Verily, this world is merely a bridge, so cross over it, and do not make it your abode.' (Bihar al-anwar xiv, 319)
Posts: 7952 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
Duo Seraphim:
quote:
So I repeat - why can't God be Really Present in bread and wine, if he is present in his believers and thus in his Church? And once consecrated, the Body and Blood remain sacred and worthy of reverence and worship. It's one of the ways of encountering God. Not the only way to be sure - but a vital way of feeding our souls.
Otherwise you are suggesting that God leaves his Church if there is no-one around to see.
I've been thinking of this discussion - (and maybe even dreaming about it last night) and going back to thinking about what we were definitely taught as teenagers.
It was definitely about the Presence of God being everywhere and not in reliance of us.
We were taught that we acted totally undecorated, simply, in every way, so that nothing we did made a block, big or small, betweeen us and the Presence of God.
One aspect of that was the way a church was done totally simply - plain walls, no pictures, no stained glass, no talking to each other when we entered.
And another was that the church was locked during the week, and we were taught that we worshipped and were conscious of God, in God's Presence, when we weren't at services, at home, at work, out of doors, in the fields, in factories, ill or healthy etc etc.
So there is a huge difference between the way some people use physical bits and pieces of the world to help them have awareness of the Presence of God and others avoid doing that even though they may experience the awareness of the Presence through physical bits and pieces that are just there.
How much of this might be ethnic or cultural difference as opposed to only theological difference, I would be interested to know - maybe a guess would make the more northern and more southern cultures do things differently, even though it's not quite got walls between them.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
It's not for nothing that we Anglicans have always had the words of administration in our prayer books: "The Body/Blood of Christ preserve your body and soul to eternal life."
Well actually not always. You're forgetting 1552. Which is why, however much some of us are devoted to the Real Presence we are in no position to pronounce anathemas on those who aren't. (Not implying that you want to, Nunc, nor criticising the Council of Trent for doing so. Necessarily.)
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
It's not for nothing that we Anglicans have always had the words of administration in our prayer books: "The Body/Blood of Christ preserve your body and soul to eternal life."
Well actually not always. You're forgetting 1552. Which is why, however much some of us are devoted to the Real Presence we are in no position to pronounce anathemas on those who aren't. (Not implying that you want to, Nunc, nor criticising the Council of Trent for doing so. Necessarily.)
I think you are being too hard on 1552. Firstly, it maintained the prayer of Humble Access. In 1552 it runs as follows (with old spellings):
quote:
We doe not presume to come to this thy table (O mercyfull Lorde) trustinge in our owne righteousnesse, but in thy manifolde and greate mercies: we bee not worthye, so much as to gather up the crommes under thy table: but thou art the same Lorde whose propertie is alwayes to have mercye: graunt us therfore (gracious lord) so to eate the fleshe of thy dere sonne Jesus Christe, and to drinke his bloud, that our synfulle bodyes maye be made cleane by his body, and our soules wasched through his most precious bloud, and that we may evermore dwel in him, and he in us. Amen.
Secondly, the second post-communion prayer in 1552, also retained from 1549, says (with old spellings):
quote:
ALMIGHTIE and everliving God, we most hartely thank thee, for that thou dooest vouchsafe to fede us, whiche have duely receyved these holye misteries, with the spirituall foode of the most precious body and bloud of thy sonne our saviour Jesus Christ....
The language here, with its reference to "these holy mysteries", is very patristic, and the phrase "most precious body and blood" comes from the ancient Orthodox liturgies. The 1552 BCP may have altered the words of distibution, but otherwise it maintains a robust sacramental theology.
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cor ad cor loquitur
Shipmate
# 11816
|
Posted
There was a time when I had a strong sense of the priest's gestures and ritual actions during the eucharist, as well as the appearance of the host (leavened, unleavened, large wafer, small, etc.) and chalice. Of course this all became more tangible when altars were moved and priests turned to face the congregation -- a change I'm deeply grateful for.
But I have changed over time: for some time now at most masses I have found myself almost compelled to bow my head and close my eyes during much of the canon and especially at the prayers of consecration. Something mysterious and powerful is happening at the altar. I don't need to inspect (or, God forbid, critique) the priest's actions, and find that I am able to stay more recollected with head bowed and eyes closed.
(This is the only way in which I can make much sense of the Orthodox iconostasis or of Tridentine services where many of the ritual actions are hidden from the people. Otherwise, both seem to alienate the people from the eucharistic action.)
And it's for all of these reasons that adoration -- and yes, that's what it is: adoration, worship, latria -- of Christ in the blessed sacrament can be so wonderful; I find it quieter, more peaceful, less dynamic than the action of the mass. Sitting at Jesus' feet rather than at the last supper? Choose your metaphor; but I think there is a difference.
--------------------
Quam vos veritatem interpretationis, hanc eruditi κακοζηλίαν nuncupant … si ad verbum interpretor, absurde resonant. (St Jerome, Ep. 57 to Pammachius)
Posts: 1332 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
Precisemundo, cor ad cor loquitur! I too have been a "shut-eye" for quite a few years now.
The fewer distractions, the better.
Best wishes,
Mary
[ 19. February 2007, 14:24: Message edited by: Leetle Masha ]
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:
He certainly waved a wafer about, but there was no way of telling whether it was consecrated or not just by looking at it. It was a long time ago (1968?) so the details that I recall are bound to be a bit hazy. I think the point that he was trying to make was that (to his way of looking at things, at least) the idea that someone could `turn this into a bit of God' was so much mumbo-jumbo. I do not recall his breaking it up and scattering it about; I was with an RC friend and certainly remember how shocked and hurt he was by Paisley's gimmick. I also recall that one of the other speakers in the debate was a young woman, doubtless a devout soul, but who made a toe-curlingly sentimental speech about how lovely she thought the RC church was. It didn't do much to counter Paisley.
Perhaps Paisley was not so famous/notorious in those days. The CoS chaplain to the university was warned by the PCI of his impending visit; the PCI people wanted to make it absolutely clear that Paisley was nothing to do with them!
Thanks - I am reassured.
My version of the event is obviously based on an urban myth.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Davy Wavy Morrison
Shipmate
# 12241
|
Posted
D S asked why God could not be in bread and wine. I have no doubt he could be. I simply find no reason to believe he is.
Posts: 406 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Davy Wavy Morrison
Shipmate
# 12241
|
Posted
An error in a previous post of mine- the quotation should have been, in full, from the 1662 Anglican Prayer Book, "Take and eat this in remembrence that Christ died for thee,and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving". That seems to me to be a very clear statement of official Anglican doctrine on the matter. Those words are defining what is meant by the first half of the words where the "Body of our Lord Jesus Christ" is to preserve one's "body and soul unto everlasting life". The words are repeated similarly with "Blood" instead of "Body".
We feed on him in our hearts, by faith. It couldn't be much clearer than that. We can disagree with it of course.
Posts: 406 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
Why are you presuming everyone is an Anglican and takes 1662 BCP seriously?
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Why are you presuming everyone is an Anglican and takes 1662 BCP seriously?
Or that every Anglican takes 1662 seriously.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ecce Quam Bonum
Shipmate
# 10884
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Davy Wavy Morrison:
An error in a previous post of mine- the quotation should have been, in full, from the 1662 Anglican Prayer Book, "Take and eat this in remembrence that Christ died for thee,and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving". That seems to me to be a very clear statement of official Anglican doctrine on the matter. Those words are defining what is meant by the first half of the words where the "Body of our Lord Jesus Christ" is to preserve one's "body and soul unto everlasting life". The words are repeated similarly with "Blood" instead of "Body".
We feed on him in our hearts, by faith. It couldn't be much clearer than that. We can disagree with it of course.
"Official Anglican doctrine"? Now there's a contradiction in terms if I ever heard one. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
If you're going to use the example of the words of ministration of the 1662 BCP, it might be helpful to understand from where exactly they are derived.
The 1549 BCP has the words of ministration as follows:
quote:
The Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul into everlasting life.
Now, 1552 rolled around, Edward VI and the Protestant Reformers desired to change this wording, which obviously implied the Real Presence. They changed the previous version to this:
quote:
Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee and feed on him in your hearts by faith with thanksgiving.
The Edwardian Prayer Book also introduced the "Black Rubric," part of which read:
quote:
And as concerning the natural body and blood of our saviour Christ, they are in heaven and not here. For it is against the truth of Christ's true natural body, to be in more places than in one, at one time.
Now, this was taken out in the 1559 Elizabethan Prayer Book, but was then added in at the last moment to the 1662. But what is most important is that the Elizabethan Prayer Book combined both the 1549 and the 1552 words of ministration--an editorial move that was preserved in the 1662 BCP. I would hold that if you're going to argue based on the words of ministration, you at least should acknowledge that the sentence is more of a compromise for the sake of blissful ambiguity regarding the Real Presence than anything. It appeals to both sides, and, I would claim, was made to do so.
Furthermore, the Black Rubric also would not constitute any sort of "official Anglican doctrine" for all the provinces around the world that do not use the 1662 BCP. The 1789 Prayer Book here in America dropped the thing. Common Worship doesn't include it either. So where, exactly, is the "official Anglican doctrine"?
--------------------
"And it is folly—it is madness—to suppose that you can worship Jesus in the Sacraments and Jesus on the Throne of glory, when you are sweating him in the souls and bodies of his children. It cannot be done."--+Frank Weston, "Our Present Duty"
Posts: 168 | From: Sewanee, TN | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim
Ubi caritas et amor
# 256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Davy Wavy Morrison:
D S asked why God could not be in bread and wine. I have no doubt he could be. I simply find no reason to believe he is.
I'd have thought that Luke 22:17-20 and I Corinthians 22 23-25 are pretty strong arguments for believing precisely that God is present in the Body and Blood. They certainly are utterly convincing to me.
In the same way that John 17 20-26 speaks powerfuly to me of the Real Presence: the union of God and his believers as close, as loving and as real as the union between the Father and the Son.
--------------------
Embrace the serious whack. It's the Catholic thing to do. IngoB
The Messiah, Peace be upon him, said to his Apostles: 'Verily, this world is merely a bridge, so cross over it, and do not make it your abode.' (Bihar al-anwar xiv, 319)
Posts: 7952 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim
Ubi caritas et amor
# 256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
It was definitely about the Presence of God being everywhere and not in reliance of us.
There is nothing in Catholic teaching that makes the Presence of God either reliant on us or dependant on being localised in the one place or one form. The Eucharist is central for us - thanksgiving, anamesis in the sense of making present, here and now, outside of ordinary time that perfect Sacrifice and of the promise of salvation given to us by that Sacrifice. And it is the Presence of Christ right there. A Presence that doesn't go away after communion is received and the Mass is ended. The reserved Host doesn't somehow lose its sacred character after the Mass, for that would imply God withdrawing from his Church. So we do worship, adore...God who is Really Present there in the reserved sacrament. But that is part of our worship and adoration of God, who is also everywhere. It is not separate or different in character.
quote:
We were taught that we acted totally undecorated, simply, in every way, so that nothing we did made a block, big or small, betweeen us and the Presence of God.
To put it in Catholic terms, our natural response to God's grace is to turn to him in love to increase in personal holiness, to co-operate with God's will and his plan, to increase and deepen our continual sense of God's presence.
quote:
One aspect of that was the way a church was done totally simply - plain walls, no pictures, no stained glass, no talking to each other when we entered.
That I do see as a cultural thing.
quote:
And another was that the church was locked during the week, and we were taught that we worshipped and were conscious of God, in God's Presence, when we weren't at services, at home, at work, out of doors, in the fields, in factories, ill or healthy etc etc.
Ora et labora - prayer and work or working and praying or praying by working. St Francis of Assisi would certainly agree that we should be living the Gospel message all the time and thus helping to spread that message through the example of our lives.
Still, I'm on a small campaign to re-open churches outside of worship, as places to pray, to meditate, to focus on God, free of distraction. Sitting in churches quietly,initially as quiet rather historical places where you could simply sit and think was what led me out of atheism.
quote:
So there is a huge difference between the way some people use physical bits and pieces of the world to help them have awareness of the Presence of God and others avoid doing that even though they may experience the awareness of the Presence through physical bits and pieces that are just there.
The Eucharist is special for the reasons I've tried to explain above. A much better explanation why it is special can be found here. It is really key and I cannot over-emphasise this. Outside of the Eucharist,I wouldn't say that it was better or worse to approach God and experience his Real Presence by contemplative prayer in the presence of the reserved sacrament or by practical works of charity or by reading the Bible - provided that we do approach God, that we respond to God's grace in love, that we try our utmost to grow in personal holiness and to increase our union with God as his believers.
quote:
How much of this might be ethnic or cultural difference as opposed to only theological difference, I would be interested to know - maybe a guess would make the more northern and more southern cultures do things differently, even though it's not quite got walls between them.
I can see that there could be cultural differences that may be at work. However I can't help suspecting that some views on the differences in theology are driven by a desire not to be seen as one of those idol-worshipping, wafer munching Catholics. Personally, I find that to be an unimpressive definition of belief by exclusion.
--------------------
Embrace the serious whack. It's the Catholic thing to do. IngoB
The Messiah, Peace be upon him, said to his Apostles: 'Verily, this world is merely a bridge, so cross over it, and do not make it your abode.' (Bihar al-anwar xiv, 319)
Posts: 7952 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nunc Dimittis
Seamstress of Sound
# 848
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Davy Wavy Morrison:
An error in a previous post of mine- the quotation should have been, in full, from the 1662 Anglican Prayer Book, "Take and eat this in remembrence that Christ died for thee,and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving". That seems to me to be a very clear statement of official Anglican doctrine on the matter. Those words are defining what is meant by the first half of the words where the "Body of our Lord Jesus Christ" is to preserve one's "body and soul unto everlasting life". The words are repeated similarly with "Blood" instead of "Body".
We feed on him in our hearts, by faith. It couldn't be much clearer than that. We can disagree with it of course.
And the significant thing is that these words are accompanied by the sacramental action of eating. Feeding on him in our heart by faith with thanksgiving is the concomitant of consuming the elements. They belong together.
Just like the old faith/works misnomer.
Posts: 9515 | From: Delta Quadrant | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nunc Dimittis
Seamstress of Sound
# 848
|
Posted
quote:
Now, this was taken out in the 1559 Elizabethan Prayer Book, but was then added in at the last moment to the 1662. But what is most important is that the Elizabethan Prayer Book combined both the 1549 and the 1552 words of ministration--an editorial move that was preserved in the 1662 BCP. I would hold that if you're going to argue based on the words of ministration, you at least should acknowledge that the sentence is more of a compromise for the sake of blissful ambiguity regarding the Real Presence than anything. It appeals to both sides, and, I would claim, was made to do so.
Anyone for some Anglican Fudge? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 9515 | From: Delta Quadrant | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ecce Quam Bonum
Shipmate
# 10884
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
Anyone for some Anglican Fudge?
A rather delightful--if not sticky--delicacy, I do believe.
--------------------
"And it is folly—it is madness—to suppose that you can worship Jesus in the Sacraments and Jesus on the Throne of glory, when you are sweating him in the souls and bodies of his children. It cannot be done."--+Frank Weston, "Our Present Duty"
Posts: 168 | From: Sewanee, TN | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Naw, Brigittine fudge is better! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
