|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: I went to a catholic mass for the first time
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
quote:
[I} would be fascinated to attend an orthodox service but i think the language barrier would be a problem.
It would not necessarily be so. There are many Orthodox parishes in English-speaking countries which conduct their services in English. This is true regardless of the 'ethnic' modifier (Greek, Russian, etc.).
Call ahead to find out, and you'd have no issues.
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Luther once said even the Devil could celebrate the sacraments as long as the Devil used the right words. In other words, it is not the person that conveys the validity of the sacraments, but the words used in the sacrament that makes it valid.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galloping Granny
Shipmate
# 13814
|
Posted
I think that RUTB is simply doing what most of us who come aboard the ship are doing: discovering other christians' viewpoints and having them explained, observing and pondering rituals and beliefs – some of which we share while others remain incomprehensible – reexamining our own practices and learning to respect those of others.
We each have a concept of, and relationship with, God, and find our own place in the spectrum of religious practice, where we can. The ritual that enables one person to be caught up in adoration of the most holy is to another an alien culture and an obstacle. The rationale behind one person’s worship style may be interpreted quite differently by another’s church. But that’s okay: we’re all different persons, and there are ‘many mansions’ to accommodate us.
As a Presbyterian and a theological progressive I’m comfortable in a congregation whose style has developed and evolved over the decades that I’ve been a part of it. I’m not the only one who enjoys occasionally combining with the Anglican church down the road and joining in the familiar words of the liturgy. If I went to a High Church mass I suspect I’d respond as to a dramatic performance; I can immerse myself if a Quaker meeting. I may marvel at the worship of others, but I don’t criticise.
Redunderthebed, may your enquiries and explorations bring blessings and give you a deeper understanding of your own faith and that of others – as I hope is true for the whole company of the Ship.
GG
[ 27. December 2012, 03:28: Message edited by: Galloping Granny ]
--------------------
The Kingdom of Heaven is spread upon the earth, and men do not see it. Gospel of Thomas, 113
Posts: 2629 | From: Matarangi | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
There are Orthodox services in English, but you'd probably best do a bit of homework before attending one.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
Of course an act of worship isn't just words, it is actions (ritual if you prefer) and silence.
And the same goes for prayer.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosa Winkel
Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by redunderthebed:
Its good to discover other christian traditions i would be fascinated to attend an orthodox service but i think the language barrier would be a problem.
I first attended an Orthodox divine liturgy (in English, though with bits of Greek) during a year when I attended most of the confessions in Chester. For me they and the Quakers stood out, in fact, I had a similar feeling in both. Both were worship-focussed, whether in the words or liturgy with icons, candles and incense. In both I could sense an inner peace, an inner communion with God.
I ended up arguing with the Priest about various differences of belief and ecclesiology (I was young and arrogant then, well, more arrogant than now) ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
I now attend a Russian Orthodox church where I understand very little. For me the worship is not about understanding all the words but the simply trust that God is there, is being worshiped, and I join in via standing, via crossing myself, via bowing, via prostrating myself, lighting candles and kissing icons. It's not so much an intellectual exercise.
[ 27. December 2012, 09:31: Message edited by: Rosa Winkel ]
--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project
Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Of course an act of worship isn't just words, it is actions (ritual if you prefer) and silence.
And the same goes for prayer.
Ritual can be very helpful. We have an Italian lady come to our church when she's over here visiting her daughter. She doesn't speak a word of English, but knows exactly what's happening during the service due to the familiar ritual.
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think there's a lot in what Rosa Winkel says, and that it works both ways, as it were, both up-and-down the candle.
I once attended an Orthodox service where they venerated a particular Russian icon that was 'on tour' of the UK as it were. I decided to pitch in and do everything the Orthodox did even though the muscles of my Protestant sensibilities were stretched beyond the pain barrier at times ...
And my experience was exactly as Rosa Winkel described - it went way beyond the purely intellectual ... although I never lost sight of the fact that we were singing an Akathist that had been translated (badly it would seem) from Russian into English and where much of the poetry had been lost and that I didn't believe for five minutes that the icon itself had been found in the roots of a tree and had miraculously appeared there in the 12th century rather than painted in any conventional way.
But at a gut-level I felt I'd connected in some way with centuries of Russian devotion ... if only for a few minutes - and beyond that to events that had taken place in Palestine in the first century.
These things aren't restricted or constrained to any one tradition of course, I'm sure that Trisagion and IngoB, for all their wariness of aspects of the other traditions, would fully accept that grace can be found in all the Christian traditions - and beyond. St Cyprian's view of baptism is an indication of that.
That's not to pretend that differences don't exist. I'm told that were I to attend a Mass at my local RC Church - which I've only visited once for an ecumenical non-eucharistic service - I might be offered communion, even as a Protestant. I'm told that they are fairly cool about that. To be honest, I'm not sure I'd accept ... not because I object to the Mass or have any churlish reaction to the fact that they might include me, but because I understand that the official line would be not to permit to do so - and I would respect that.
I do appreciate the fact that the Orthodox will give visitors a piece of the bread they use for communion - the antidoron (?) - which they set aside to munch on after they've received the bread and wine from the chalice (they mix it together as a kind of paste). This pre-consecrated bread is available for all and I've found it very moving when Orthodox brothers and sisters have come over and shared it with me - or the priest has singled me out afterwards and shared a piece.
I know feelings and impressions aren't reliable guides in and of themselves, but I once experience d a very profound sense of the numinous at a Baptist communion service in South Wales - and in a setting that would have been very 'memorialist' in its approach. The reality and enormity of what we were celebrating came home to me very strongly in a way I can't explain. It was an epiphany.
I think it does help to do one's homework whenever one is visiting a church outside of one's immediate tradition or experience ... otherwise it's easy to get the wrong end of the stick. I've known this happen in very plain, unadorned uber-Protestant style settings as much as in precipitous, highly sacramental settings - only over different issues.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosa Winkel
Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think it does help to do one's homework whenever one is visiting a church outside of one's immediate tradition or experience ... otherwise it's easy to get the wrong end of the stick.
I was brought up attending a MOR Anglican church. My Mum had Pentecostal friends and we occasionally attended their services, which involved healings and messages and all that. For me that was normal.
I started attending my local church in Chester, I chose it as it had a choir and I wanted to sing in it. It was however High-Anglican, with prayers to Mary and incense. I refused to say the Angelus, and during the Regine Coeli would sing "Joy to thee O King of heaven" instead of "Queen". There I would argue for "Bible lessons" and had in my heart desire that we go and convert people.
One Holy Friday I found myself watching people going to kiss the feet of Jesus on a cross. I was shocked by this and said out loud to the choir members by me "what a load of rubbish".
It was going to Taize that got me into icons and the veneration of them. Now I'm right the candle, and, as I say, go to a Russian Orthodox church. It also helped that the choir master and reader in the church put together a guide to Holy Week and the Triduum, explaining all the elements of the services.
Having an Evangelical Guilt deep in my heart I did believe that kissing icons and praying to Mary were idolatrous. As I learn more and more, the socialisation we have in our families as well as in our national cultures massively impress upon us.
In GB there are still residuals of anti-Roman Catholicism that still create the sort of suspicion seen in the op and as I have had. In Taize some others from my British group said that "I like the services, but some things are too Catholic". It would be arrogant to assume that we approach all things of a Christian bent without prejudice, what with the way in which we were formed, consciously and unconsciously.
--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project
Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Emendator Liturgia:
Actually, AB, us humble Anglicans hold to an understanding whereby the terms transubstantiation and Real Presence are not the one and the same, though linked. Transubstantiation is the teaching that during the Mass,the elements of the Eucharist, bread and wine, are transformed into the actual body and blood of Jesus and that they are no longer bread and wine, but only retain their appearance of bread and wine. Real Presence, on the other hand, is the teaching that at the time of consecration the bread and wine, while maintaing their original form, now contain the reality of Christ's mystical presence.
Best I can tell, you just said the same thing twice, merely in slightly different words. I'm serious, I do not see the difference that you apparently tried to indicate there. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Surely transubstantiation is a doctrine about how the bread and wine becomes the body and blood of Christ, rather than that it does.
The doctrine of the real presence is precisely that - Christ is truly present in the elements - rather than a particular explanation of how.
But i am not sure this is an Anglican distinction.
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
But i am not sure this is an Anglican distinction.
Well it certainly isn't a Catholic distinction.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emendator Liturgia
Shipmate
# 17245
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Then the priest was lying to you, was acting outside hos authority or was ignorant. I hope it made you feel better and I hope the priest was just poorly educated but don't kid yourself that the act was a travesty and a scandal.
I feel sorry for you, Trisagion, and sad for any whom you might persuade with your Council of Trent like pronouncements, encapsulating such a medieval, closed-off view of the church.
For your information, one of the parish priests I mentioned as at the time the Administrator of the Cathedral in country NSW; and another was a diocesan bishop - neither of whom could be classed as uninformed, uneducated, or an idiot! Add to that a number of experiences at both Jesuit and Benedictine monasteries/convents over the past 25 years where we were all invited to participate in God's sacrament of grace and share in eucharist as friends and brothers/sisters.
These honourable and dedicated servants of Godsimply care more for pastoral sensitivities than dogmatic intransigence. The bishop I mentioned held 1-2 heads of church's gatherings each year at which, after a panel disccussion or guest lecturer, we all gathered and celebrated the Eucharist together, at which all were accorded courtesy at the open altar. The bishop was the chief celebrant at each - after all, it was his cathedral! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Don't judge all Anglicans in Sydney by prevailing Diocesan standards!
Posts: 401 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clemency
Shipmate
# 16173
|
Posted
I think ones attitudes towards the differing traditions change as one goes along; if you look at things from the point of view of how much we agree on rather than disagree, things change. In our neck of the woods there are local Anglican, Methodist and RC churches and we do a lot together; the words of the Communion service are virtually the same... I no longer think it is useful to raise the problems unless there might be a useful practical outcome' lets celebrate our commonalities, and also enjoy our differences in style. Sure from where I stand at the moment I would disagree with the Pope on a few things, and next time he rings me up to ask my opinion, I will give it, in a friendly manner. Until then....
--------------------
Who knows where the Time goes?
Posts: 90 | From: Northumberland, UK | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
But i am not sure this is an Anglican distinction.
Well it certainly isn't a Catholic distinction.
1374 The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. . . . "This presence is called 'real' . . . because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."
1376 . . . this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."
Catechism of the Catholic Church
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
Corvo, I see what you are getting at. Paul VI picked this up in 1965 when a number of Catholic theologians were trying to make the distinction between the Real Presence and the way it comes about. He wrote an encyclical Mysterium Fidei in which he sought to explain that Transubstantiation wasn't a process, so much as a description of the mode of presence. He wrote, in paragraph 46:
quote:
To avoid any misunderstanding of this type of presence, which goes beyond the laws of nature and constitutes the greatest miracle of its kind, we have to listen with docility to the voice of the teaching and praying Church. Her voice, which constantly echoes the voice of Christ, assures us that the way in which Christ becomes present in this Sacrament is through the conversion of the whole substance of the bread into His body and of the whole substance of the wine into His blood, a unique and truly wonderful conversion that the Catholic Church fittingly and properly calls transubstantiation. As a result of transubstantiation, the species of bread and wine undoubtedly take on a new signification and a new finality, for they are no longer ordinary bread and wine but instead a sign of something sacred and a sign of spiritual food; but they take on this new signification, this new finality, precisely because they contain a new "reality" which we can rightly call ontological. For what now lies beneath the aforementioned species is not what was there before, but something completely different; and not just in the estimation of Church belief but in reality, since once the substance or nature of the bread and wine has been changed into the body and blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and the wine except for the species—beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in His physical "reality," corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place.
Emendator Liturgia (sic), save your crocodile tears and patronising smugness for someone who gives a damn. Your conciliar referencing, however, is wide of the mark and as much in need of correction as your Latin. I suggest you read the Documents of the Second Vatican Council and particularly Lumen Gentium, where you will encounter the teaching of the Catholic Church. As for Bishops riding a coach and horses through that self-same teaching: tell me something new. As I said, I'm glad it made you feel better but don't kid yourself that it represents the truth.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Corvo, I see what you are getting at. Paul VI picked this up in 1965 when a number of Catholic theologians were trying to make the distinction between the Real Presence and the way it comes about.
The Real Presence/transubstantiation distinction goes beyond just the transubstantiation/transignification/transfinalization debate, and predates it. The Real Presence position is that Christ is really (meaning "materially," from Lat. res) present in the bread and wine. Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, all hold to this. Transubstantiation holds that what exactly this means is that the accidents of the bread and wine remain, but that the substance becomes the substance of the body and blood ("accident" and "substance" being words with specific meanings in Aristotelian philosophy). Luther objected to importing extra-scriptural philosophical categories in this way, and put forward his own view. So the easiest way to look at it is that transubstantiation is one sub-set of Real Presence views, while consubstantiation, sacramental union, and so on are others.
The confusion in Emendator Liturgia's initial description came, I think, from the absence of the language of "accident" and "substance," which removed some of the distinctness of transubstantiation.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Corvo, I see what you are getting at. Paul VI picked this up in 1965 when a number of Catholic theologians were trying to make the distinction between the Real Presence and the way it comes about. He wrote an encyclical Mysterium Fidei in which he sought to explain that Transubstantiation wasn't a process, so much as a description of the mode of presence. He wrote, in paragraph 46:
quote:
To avoid any misunderstanding of this type of presence, which goes beyond the laws of nature and constitutes the greatest miracle of its kind, we have to listen with docility to the voice of the teaching and praying Church. Her voice, which constantly echoes the voice of Christ, assures us that the way in which Christ becomes present in this Sacrament is through the conversion of the whole substance of the bread into His body and of the whole substance of the wine into His blood, a unique and truly wonderful conversion that the Catholic Church fittingly and properly calls transubstantiation. As a result of transubstantiation, the species of bread and wine undoubtedly take on a new signification and a new finality, for they are no longer ordinary bread and wine but instead a sign of something sacred and a sign of spiritual food; but they take on this new signification, this new finality, precisely because they contain a new "reality" which we can rightly call ontological. For what now lies beneath the aforementioned species is not what was there before, but something completely different; and not just in the estimation of Church belief but in reality, since once the substance or nature of the bread and wine has been changed into the body and blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and the wine except for the species—beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in His physical "reality," corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place.
Thanks, Trisagion, but I am still a little puzzled.
Paul VI does not seem to use the word 'process' (in order to exclude it). He says "the way in which Christ becomes present in this Sacrament is through the conversion of the whole substance of the bread into His body and of the whole substance of the wine into His blood, a unique and truly wonderful conversion that the Catholic Church fittingly and properly calls transubstantiation."
So transubstantiation seems to refer to the "conversion", the "way" in which it happens - which sounds to me like a process.
On the other hand the real presence is defined as "ontological".
Help me here.
[ 27. December 2012, 13:58: Message edited by: Corvo ]
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
The point that Paul VI was making was that "transubstantiation" refers to the "what" of the Real Presence, not the "how". That is to say that it is the "substantia" that has changed, not what is signified or or its purpose: in that sense it is properly ontological.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
The point that Paul VI was making was that "transubstantiation" refers to the "what" of the Real Presence, not the "how". That is to say that it is the "substantia" that has changed, not what is signified or or its purpose: in that sense it is properly ontological.
But what he says is:
"[Transubstantiation] is the way in which Christ becomes present in this Sacrament . . .
[Transubstantiation] is the conversion of the whole substance of the bread into His body and of the whole substance of the wine into His blood . . ."
Just trying to get my mind round it.
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Emendator Liturgia:
I feel sorry for you, Trisagion, and sad for any whom you might persuade with your Council of Trent like pronouncements, encapsulating such a medieval, closed-off view of the church.
This seems a whole lot more personal than the subject requires. I remind you, in Purgatory we engage the argument, not the person.
--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
The Latin text of Mysterium Fidei, of the Catechism and the Tridentine decree make clear that the "what" is the change of substance and the "how" is the miracle by which that is accomplished. The process is "miracle": what has happened is "transubstantiation".
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Trisagion: what I would be interested to know is if, for a Catholic, it is essential to accept Thomist/Platonist (?) philosophical categories in order to believe truly in the Real Presence. I think many of us would say that way of expressing it isn't necessarily relevant or maybe even appropriate, but that Christ is truly present in the Blessed Sacrament nevertheless. It's the classic Queen Elizabeth I view: don't ask me how, I just know he is.
I've heard transubstantiation described in a way that makes perfect sense, so no way do I dismiss it, and if I was asked to sign up to it as a matter of faith I would and could do. I just don't see that it matters as long as one believes in the Real Presence.
--------------------
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
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
The key, Angloid, is the words used by Paul VI to describe the doctrine is that it is called convenientur et proprie, which might be translated as "fittingly and properly", Transubstantiation. Trent used the same language. This suggests to me that it is not a term that can't be improved upon as a fitting and proper name for the change that takes place.
BTW, it's really St Thomas's reworking of Aristotle rather than Plato from which the expression comes, although it isn't entirely wedded to those philosophical categories.
[ 27. December 2012, 16:01: Message edited by: Trisagion ]
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Thanks, O Thrice Holy One.
--------------------
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
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
The Latin text of Mysterium Fidei, of the Catechism and the Tridentine decree make clear that the "what" is the change of substance and the "how" is the miracle by which that is accomplished. The process is "miracle": what has happened is "transubstantiation".
Thank you. The ARCIC Agreed Statement is helpful:
The word transubstantiation is commonly used in the Roman Catholic Church to indicate that God acting in the eucharist effects a change in the inner reality of the elements. The term should be seen as affirming the fact of Christ's presence and of the mysterious and radical change which takes place. In contemporary Roman Catholic theology it is not understood as explaining how the change takes place.
But it does suggest there was once a time when transubstantiation was understood as explaining the change.
[ 27. December 2012, 16:22: Message edited by: Corvo ]
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
But it does suggest there was once a time when transubstantiation was understood as explaining the change.
There were certainly schools in late-medieval Catholicism who argued so - Nominalism for example- but it was not the mainstream Thomist position and, in adopting St Thomas's language, when it defined the teaching, Trent certainly did not.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
So, a final question (or three).
'Transubstantiation' is an affirmation that the bread and wine have become the body and blood of Christ, rather than that the latter are merely 'present' in the former? The term 'Real Presence' is therefore dangerously ambiguous to Catholic ears?
Transubstantiation does not necessarily mean a change in substance (though not in accidents) in an Aristotelian sense?
[ 27. December 2012, 16:51: Message edited by: Corvo ]
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
So, a final question (or three).
'Transubstantiation' is an affirmation that the bread and wine have become the body and blood of Christ, rather than that the latter are merely 'present' in the former?
Yes.
quote:
The term 'Real Presence' is therefore dangerously ambiguous to Catholic ears?
No, not necessarily. It is a term we use all the time but it is a term that can be used in a manner that does not fittingly and properly describe, as far as is ever possible with mysteries, the fullness of our belief. The Lutheran notion of consubstantiation, for example, certainly describes a mode of Christ's presence that could be called "real presence" but not in a way that would adequately convey the Catholic doctrine.
quote:
Transubstantiation does not necessarily mean a change in substance (though not in accidents) in an Aristotelian sense?
Insofar as Aristotelian categories are a helpful way of understanding the physical and metaphysical then it could be used in that way. However, there are well understood limitations to Aristotle's ontology, particularly in the light of our current understanding of the physical world. Transubstantiation, which originates in the Thomist reworking of Aristotle, is a term that, as Paul VI said conveys the understanding that:
quote:
...what now lies beneath the aforementioned species [of bread and wine] is not what was there before, but something completely different; and not just in the estimation of Church belief but in reality, since once the substance or nature of the bread and wine has been changed into the body and blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and the wine except for the species—beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in His physical "reality," corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
[HOSTING]
Emendator Liturgia & Trisagion, as per commandment 4:
quote:
4. If you must get personal, take it to Hell
If you get into a personality conflict with other shipmates, you have two simple choices: end the argument or take it to Hell.
So be civil, or take it elsewhere.
[/HOSTING]
Doublethink
Purgatory Host
(Oops - missed Tom Clune's post when I was scrolling through, imagine I am an echo.)
[ 27. December 2012, 20:33: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Of course an act of worship isn't just words, it is actions (ritual if you prefer) and silence.
And the same goes for prayer.
Ritual can be very helpful. We have an Italian lady come to our church when she's over here visiting her daughter. She doesn't speak a word of English, but knows exactly what's happening during the service due to the familiar ritual.
I trust you've made it quite clear to her that yours is an Anglican church and not a Catholic one. You wouldn't want to live down to a negative stereotype.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
Is it only CL's avatar that makes him(?) seem so negative?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
'Ulster says, NO!'
It looks like CL is living up to a negative stereotype ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I don't feel that added much to the debate.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
Apologies.
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
I trust you've made it quite clear to her that yours is an Anglican church and not a Catholic one. You wouldn't want to live down to a negative stereotype.
Of course he isn't. Spike's an Anglican, CL.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by redunderthebed:
Cheers guys your posts have being very informative. Its good to discover other christian traditions i would be fascinated to attend an orthodox service but i think the language barrier would be a problem.
Many Orthodox churches have liturgies entirely or partially in the local language. In the US I'd say it is now a majority even in very ethnic jurisdictions such as ROCOR and the Greek Archdiosis. My primary church usually has two liturgies on a typical Sunday: one in English and one in Slavonic. On holidays and other special occasions when only one liturgy is held, it's a mix if the two languages, with English dominating.
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
We have a very common understanding of Holy Baptism, and in many cases a Protestant baptism would be recognized by Roman Catholic authority.
Uhh, what? That the baptism of heretics is valid if performed in the right manner and with right intention was famously defended by Pope St Stephen I against St Cyprian of Carthage in 256 AD in the Novatian rebaptism controversy; and the pope then stated "If any one, therefore, come to you from any heresy whatever, let nothing be innovated (or done) which has not been handed down, to wit, that hands be imposed on him for repentance; since the heretics themselves, in their own proper character, do not baptize such as come to them from one another, but only admit them to communion.". Thus the pope defended the validity of the baptism of heretics, and even their baptismal practice, against one of the most influential figures of the Church back then, St Cyprian (who was sometimes called the "African pope"). The latest date one can set for the universal acceptance of this Roman judgement is the Collation of 411 AD, where St Augustine defeated the remaining Donatists in a public debate over the issue. Ever since there has been no doubt about the general validity of heretic baptisms in the RCC, in the slightest. The Council of Trent, hardly known for pulling any punches concerning Protestants, declared: "CANON IV. - If any one saith, that the baptism which is even given by heretics in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church doth, is not true baptism; let him be anathema." Those who doubt the validity of the "normal" Protestant baptism (i.e., what you find among most Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, ...) are literally cast out from the RCC there. This has been the consistent teaching of the RCC for at least 1,500 years, and has been infallibly set into stone as Catholic dogma for almost 500 years. I think we can consider this as a long settled issue...
Sigh. In your zeal for a lengthy harangue, you misread my post, which admittedly I shortened by merging paragraphs together. In any event, I'm sure redunderthebed is much comforted with the knowledge that Catholic issues with church authority date back well over a thousand years. In all seriousness, IngoB, put your talents to good use in figuring out how to let people in, rather than turning them away.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Of course an act of worship isn't just words, it is actions (ritual if you prefer) and silence.
And the same goes for prayer.
Ritual can be very helpful. We have an Italian lady come to our church when she's over here visiting her daughter. She doesn't speak a word of English, but knows exactly what's happening during the service due to the familiar ritual.
I trust you've made it quite clear to her that yours is an Anglican church and not a Catholic one. You wouldn't want to live down to a negative stereotype.
Until recently we had a female priest so she probably worked that one out for herself! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I was sure there is somewhere when St Paul mentions kneeling for prayer, but I've tried to find it in the Unbound Bible website, and it's not there. There are only four uses of the word "kneel" all in the OT, and one a reference to the camels of Abraham's servant.
A friend who was in the Salvation Army many years ago told me that the prayer session before a public ministry was called "knee drill", confirming that that least sacramental (though highly ritualized) Christian body thought kneeling highly appropriate.
Are you thinking of the hagiography around St. James and his nickname - camel knees, due to the scabs formed on his knees by so much prayer done on his knees?
- Sorry if someone has answered this already, I haven't yet read all the posts...
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
Hello Sergius. Sorry don't get the reference to St James. There are only four uses of the word "knee" in the RSV according the web site I used, and one is to the knees of camels.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Hello Sergius. Sorry don't get the reference to St James. There are only four uses of the word "knee" in the RSV according the web site I used, and one is to the knees of camels.
Sorry I misread your post about camels and prayer... too much cheese and wine over Christmas has befuddled my brain... thinking it had made refrence to St. Paul and him having camel knees, which then sparked my response...
But anyway, there is, in the unwritten tradition/stories, the tale that St. James was nick-named 'camel knees' because he spent so much time down on those knees in prayer, although not scriptural, it is a nice thought about the simple piety that a figure at prayer on their knees generates...
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
I went to a Catholic requiem mass today, for the first time. The atmosphere was warm and welcoming. There were no provisos extended as to who may take communion and who may not. We were simply invited to receive communion or a blessing. As I consider myself to be a Christian in communion with all Christian churches, I took it. God blessed me through it, in the same way as God has blessed me through communion in other churches.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
As I consider myself to be a Christian in communion with all Christian churches
In what does that communion consist? What do you mean when you say you consider yourself to be "in communion"?
quote:
God blessed me through it
How do you know this?
quote:
in the same way as God has blessed me through communion in other churches.
Have you any idea how insulting and hurtful this statement is to a Catholic? What a disgraceful way to respond to the warmth of the welcome you received. You go to a Church where the locals believe themselves to be receiving the very body and blood, soul and divinity of the Son of God and so being intimately united to him both bodily and spiritually, you take communion and you then claim that you were blessed "in the same way" as when you have gone to other churches who don't believe that they're receiving anything of the sort.
[ 28. December 2012, 17:03: Message edited by: Trisagion ]
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
The best people to judge if they are insulted would be the Roman Catholics who encouraged or at least allowed Raptor Eye to communicate.
It is indeed not for me or Raptor Eye to say which churches consider me or him in communion with them. I imagine I would be excluded from communion with the Wee Frees, and I would respect them taking the sacrament so seriously.
He was indeed receiving the body and blood of Christ under forms of bread and wine, the same as anyone else.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
The best people to judge if they are insulted would be the Roman Catholics who encouraged or at least allowed Raptor Eye to communicate.
Since it wasn't to them that he made his claim, then it is unlikely that they would have opportunity to react to it. Furthermore, since the Catholic Church is one, any Catholic who reads his comments has just as much right to react to them as the people at the Requiem.
quote:
It is indeed not for me or Raptor Eye to say which churches consider me or him in communion with them. I imagine I would be excluded from communion with the Wee Frees, and I would respect them taking the sacrament so seriously.
Your consideration and the respect for the other that it implies is commendable.
quote:
He was indeed receiving the body and blood of Christ under forms of bread and wine, the same as anyone else.
That wasn't the point. He said he was blessed in the same way as elsewhere. When he rocks up at a memorialist church and receives bread and wine, believed and understood to be bread and wine and not the body and blood, soul and divinity of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine, he claims he is blessed in the same way as he was today. I'd call that pretty insulting - actually to both places. Either to the Catholic he is saying there's nothing different going on at Mass than down the road at the memorialist Lord's Supper or to the memorialist he's saying what you think is a memorial of the Last Supper is, in fact, amongst other things the unbloody representation of the sacrifice of Calvary and the reception of the real presence of Christ. There are three other options, I suppose: we don't know what it is, or it doesn't matter, or you're both wrong. Pretty bloody insulting all round whichever it is.
[ 28. December 2012, 17:38: Message edited by: Trisagion ]
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
And that is, after all, all that Raptor Eye- or any one of us in a similar position- can sensibly say.
[ 28. December 2012, 19:01: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
Surely transubstantiation is a doctrine about how the bread and wine becomes the body and blood of Christ, rather than that it does.
The doctrine of the real presence is precisely that - Christ is truly present in the elements - rather than a particular explanation of how.
But i am not sure this is an Anglican distinction.
It's a very Anglican distinction.
"T'was God the word that spake it,
He took the bread and brake it:
And what the word did make it;
That I believe and take it."
Queen Elizabeth I, Supreme Governor.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Well, this Catholic doesn't feel particularly insulted by Raptor Eye commenting on these matters in a way that expresses his own opinion on communion.
However, the request to come for communion or blessing was of course short for "come for communion if Catholic (and not in mortal sin), for a blessing otherwise". If Raptor Eye was aware that this is the case, and disregarded it because of his own opinions on communion, then I do have a serious issue with that. I firmly believe that if one accepts an invitation to someone's house, one should play by the rules of that house (and if one finds that one can't, then one should leave). It means to disrespect the host and the invitation if one consciously breaches house rules. And it is irrelevant that quite likely this offence against the host went undetected.
I hope to attend traditional Orthodox and Jewish, and perhaps Muslim, services at some point in my life. When I do, one thing I will make sure of is to inform myself of their rules (in particular as pertaining to visitors), and stick to them while being on their turf. This is not really a question of religious conviction, but of manners and basic decency.
--------------------
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
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
That's not how I see it, Trisagion (not that you would be surprised). I firmly believe that God, in Jesus Christ, makes himself present in the elements of the Eucharist. I don't think this depends on the particular beliefs of the community celebrating. It's God's eucharist, not (except by extension) the Church's. So if I were to accept the hospitality of a church that claimed to believe it was just a memorial, I would receive (if invited) and believe that God was nevertheless present in the bread and wine. I'm sure that when I celebrate the eucharist many of those who receive have all sorts of beliefs, but it doesn't depend on what people believe.
I would respect the discipline of churches, like the RCC, that normally would not invite me to receive. But in practice, you must know, Trisagion, many Catholics interpret the rules quite freely and I have received at Catholic masses many times (and felt it would be rude to refuse, having been personally invited). Even on the strictest interpretation of canon law, Anglicans and others unable to attend their own church (because of distance, for example) are welcome to communicate in Catholic churches. There is a joint statement of Catholic and Anglican bishops in France to this effect.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
