|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Eucharist
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I have no idea, I simply used him as an example of a theologian within your tradition who seemed to be doing some serious and hopefully original thinking.
But we weren't talking about the existence of original thinkers. My claim was "Our dogma does not evolve" not "We have no original thinkers." Your response was 99% irrelevant.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
In other words we all do it, nobody really imagines that their set of interpretations are eternally set in concrete and have never changed, and the fact that there is not a unitary, objective authority to appeal to in cases of disagreement as to what is and is not a genuine case of "more truth breaking forth" is just something we have to live with.
So? What conclusion are you hoping we'll draw from this?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
It beggars my imagination to think that the apostles of the apostles -- people who sat at the feet of Peter, James, John etc., could have completely and unanimously changed the church quite against all they learned and against the leading of the Holy Spirit. It's a huge charge, and one without any evidence at all except that some latter day exégètes have reinterpreted some bible passages to fit their presuppositions. They piped, and the Apostolic Fathers didn't dance.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
In other words we all do it, nobody really imagines that their set of interpretations are eternally set in concrete and have never changed, and the fact that there is not a unitary, objective authority to appeal to in cases of disagreement as to what is and is not a genuine case of "more truth breaking forth" is just something we have to live with.
So? What conclusion are you hoping we'll draw from this?
"Hoping" doesn't come into it.
When historical facts are put out there, inevitably some people accept them and others, for reasons of their own, don't.
'Twas ever thus.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It beggars my imagination to think that the apostles of the apostles -- people who sat at the feet of Peter, James, John etc., could have completely and unanimously changed the church quite against all they learned and against the leading of the Holy Spirit. It's a huge charge, and one without any evidence at all except that some latter day exégètes have reinterpreted some bible passages to fit their presuppositions. They piped, and the Apostolic Fathers didn't dance.
Cultural shift explains it all.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
That works both ways, of course, Kaplan.
For 'reasons of their own', Protestant exegetes and commentators attempt to dislocate the scriptures and the early Church from Big T Tradition. For other reasons RCs and Orthodox insist on congruence in exactly those areas.
One could argue that 'historical fscts' are overlooked or manipulated on both sides.
The issue I have with the 'It all went to pot and became gradually more Catholic from the second century onwards' position is that it's so darn selective.
It's a kind of evangelical parallel of the uber-liberal Protestant view that this Jesus bloke was alright but then that nasty old Paul came along and ruined everything and then look what happened ...
Are you claiming that you have incontrovertible historical facts and historical truth on your side of the equation? That's a bold claim. Just as bold a claim that the RCs or Orthodox make from their respective positions.
I can see what you are getting at, but if we take Mudfrog's 'What would have happened had the lovely Jerusalem Church not disintegrated' thing to it's logical conclusion then we end up with Christianity only being 'kosher' as it were for a generation at the most.
As soon as the last of the Apostles was dead then the whole thing was stuffed.
Ah - but wait - there's a godly man over there with a Bible. More light and truth pours forth from God's most holy word. Alleluia! We're saved ...
I mean, c'mon. Is that really how it works? The reformer in the white hat riding to the rescue, the lone law man with the sheriff's star and the six gun?
--------------------
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
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... Ah - but wait - there's a godly man over there with a Bible. More light and truth pours forth from God's most holy word. Alleluia! We're saved ...
I mean, c'mon. Is that really how it works? The reformer in the white hat riding to the rescue, the lone law man with the sheriff's star and the six gun?
Gamaliel, there are times when I wish the ship provided us with a 'like' button.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
When was it ever not at pot?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Blush, blush ...
As well as a delete button at times ...
On the transubstantiation thing ...
I can understand Kaplan's squeamishness about that and his openness to 'sacramental positions' that avoid defining things in those terms.
However, it's been pointed out to me over the years that in some ways the medieval transubstantiation position was adopted in a philosophical attempt to stave off the kind of superstition that has emerged in popular eucharistic devotion - the tales of bleeding Hosts and so on.
On one level it was an Aristotelian attempt to 'lift' people's understanding beyond the crude and the overly literal - and to define things in a Thomist kind of way - although the term itself predates all that and emerges around 1215 I think - with the Lateran Council.
Whether it was successful in doing so is a moot point, of course. But it's a mistake, I think, to regard the RC position on this as some kind of crudely superstitious literalism.
That said, I don't pretend to understand the RC position but I can see their approach as a worthy and well-meaning attempt to define the indefinable.
That's about as far down that route as I feel I can go.
There can seem to be a kind of reverse fundamentalism going on in the more sacramental traditions / Traditions ... including proof-texting at times.
But at the same time I get the impression that there's more to it and more going on at a rational and an affective level than Protestant detractors will acknowledge.
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I like the 'lift'. This is a great story of what we bring to the party. Protestant counter claims included. What an unholy mess!
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
When historical facts are put out there, inevitably some people accept them and others, for reasons of their own, don't.
Let me try again. You missed it.
Accept them and draw what conclusion from them?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
As soon as the last of the Apostles was dead then the whole thing was stuffed.
Ah - but wait - there's a godly man over there with a Bible. More light and truth pours forth from God's most holy word. Alleluia! We're saved ...
I mean, c'mon. Is that really how it works? The reformer in the white hat riding to the rescue, the lone law man with the sheriff's star and the six gun?
You are rather c0lourfully overreacting to a simple and obvious point which I think you actually agree with: it is a historical fact that no Christian tradition can claim a seamless process of development during which they never changed something because they thought it needed to be brought into line with an earlier truth or ideal.
And even if such an example could be found, it still wouldn't be any sort of evidence that such attempts are inherently wrong.
To paraphrase John Maynard keynes, "When I am persuaded I am wrong, I change my mind. What do you do?"
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
it's a mistake, I think, to regard the RC position on this as some kind of crudely superstitious literalism.
Sometimes it is.
It can also be an attempt to deal with the sort of problem we discussed upthread, of the clash between the doctrinal and the logical (such as Jesus being one hundred per cent divine and one hundred percent human at the same time), and which in this case takes the form of the possibility of substance without accident.
My basic objection to transubstantiation is neither exegetical/hermeneutical (ie hyperliteralism) nor scholastic/ philosophical, but theological.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Stoic29:
It seems to me, for discussion purposes, that there can be two broad answers:
1) The Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Christ. As to how this happens, we don't truly know. Regardless of how, we know that it truly is Christ Himself.
or
2) The Eucharist is a memorial supper and we do not consider the Eucharist to be truly the Body and Blood of Christ Himself.
surely 3?
1) transubstantiation
2) consubstantiation
3) memorial supper
4) unnecessary (eg Salvation Army approach AIUI)
Following on from this. How much does it matter to you if people have different understandings from you?
My faith tradition was memorialist but I have been welcomed in RC eucharists even though I have found an RC authorised website that says I should not be because my lack of belief in transubstantiation means that I am eating and drinking unworthily.
Personally, I welcome anyone as I see that is the spirit of communion. I find it sad when communion is used to divide rather than unite.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
It is wrong,Mudfrog, to think that you are eating or drinking unworthily.
However if you do not accept the Catholic understanding of the eucharist,there is no need for you to participate fully in something which you do not believe ,apparently,to be the case.
None of us is really worthy to participate fully in the eucharist but Jesus invites us,all the same ,to do so.
But if we don't believe that the Church is what it claims to be,nor that the Eucharistic bread is what the Church claims it to be,then there is no need to participate fully in the mystery.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
It is wrong,Mudfrog,
Latchkey Kid here.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
I don't think I am participating unworthily, that was the view stated on the website which does not concern me except to be aware of what others might think.
I do think the spirit of Matt 5:23-24 should be recontextualised to the eucharist.
quote:
So when you are offering your gift at the altar, if you remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother or sister, and then come and offer your gift
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
... I do think the spirit of Matt 5:23-24 should be recontextualised to the eucharist.
quote:
So when you are offering your gift at the altar, if you remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother or sister, and then come and offer your gift
I've always assumed that and assumed everyone else does. However, it's just occurred to me that there might be extreme Prods who are so het up by the word 'altar' that they don't allow that connection. Does anyone know if such an extreme position exists?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
On the John Maynard Keynes thing, Kaplan, yes, of course.
Which is why I've changed/am changing my mind and position from a memorialist one to what might be seen as a more 'realised' one.
And you're right, I do agree with your point about all Christian traditions adjusting or deveping their positions - but I feel more comfortable where such developments are agreed collegially and conciliarly rather than by some unilateral voice or someone in a white hat with a star in their chest and a six gun - as I expressed it. Obviously, it depends on the issue and how 'serious' it is.
That doesn't mean I subscribe to 'group-think' but it does mean I am wary of running after novelty for novelty's sake - I've seen enough of that in my time.
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
“It is customary to blame secular science and anti-religious philosophy for the eclipse of religion in modern society. It would be more honest to blame religion for its own defeats. Religion declined not because it was refuted, but because it became irrelevant, dull, oppressive, insipid. When faith is completely replaced by creed, worship by discipline, love by habit; when the crisis of today is ignored because of the splendor of the past; when faith becomes an heirloom rather than a living fountain; when religion speaks only in the name of authority rather than with the voice of compassion--its message becomes meaningless.”
― Abraham Joshua Heschel, God in Search of Man: A Philosophy of Judaism
Says it all really, as it does on the 'Hi, I'm the Bishop of Blackburn and I'm not listening.' thread and many others.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
roybart
Shipmate
# 17357
|
Posted
Great quote with much truth to it. Thanks, Martin.
--------------------
"The consolations of the imaginary are not imaginary consolations."
-- Roger Scruton
Posts: 547 | From: here | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
... I do think the spirit of Matt 5:23-24 should be recontextualised to the eucharist.
quote:
So when you are offering your gift at the altar, if you remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother or sister, and then come and offer your gift
I've always assumed that and assumed everyone else does. However, it's just occurred to me that there might be extreme Prods who are so het up by the word 'altar' that they don't allow that connection. Does anyone know if such an extreme position exists?
I'd thought that people may think the passage does not apply because you do not offer your gift at the eucharist. I have known several occasions where the passage would be relevant to a communion which is not in this spirit, but the passage has never been raised as a reminder.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
such developments are agreed .... by some unilateral voice or someone in a white hat with a star in their chest and a six gun
novelty for novelty's sake
Could you provide some examples?
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I don't know about others. But I had to stay away from communion for this reason a couple weeks ago. Couldn't stop wanting to rip the head off a sister in Christ.
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
I have certainly not taken communion for that reason. Please note it is not me having something against my brother/sister but them having something against me.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
I'd thought that people may think the passage does not apply because you do not offer your gift at the eucharist. I have known several occasions where the passage would be relevant to a communion which is not in this spirit, but the passage has never been raised as a reminder.
Isn't Matthew 5:23–24 one reason that some liturgies position the Peace prior to the offertory—i.e., the offering of our gifts of bread and wine?
And I do have some recollection that some of the old "fencing of the Table" exhortations in the Reformed Tradition referenced this passage, if not explicitly, then at least in meaning.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Kaplan ... Examples?
I can think of plenty at a micro and praxis level ...
I was once part of a church where one of the elders decided that it'd be a good idea not to meet on a Sunday but to meet regionally mid-week leaving the weekends free for us to get involved with other stuff and get to know people we could then invite to church ...
It was a complete disaster. The church never really recovered from that.
I could cite other examples.
If you want larger scale, theological examples then how about dispensationalism?
I think that's enough to be going on with and to rest my case.
--------------------
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
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday: quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I'd say it was worked out 1850 years ago; the West just became dissatisfied with how it was worked out.
That might or might not be true of Luther and Calvin, but it certainly does not apply to Zwingli's memorialist position.
I'm not so sure of that. The question to me is whether anyone would have advocated a memorialist position to start with had the West not gone down the path it did in the preceding centuries. Zwingli's memorialist position can, I think, be seen as a direct reaction (and some might say over-reaction) to the sacramental understanding of the Western Church in his time.
Perhaps we are talking past one another.
I am not questioning the fact that the church adopted a transubstantiationist (or proto-transubstantiationist) position quite early, but asking whether (Vincentian Canon notwithstanding) it was the correct one, and whether it was never thereafter validly interrogated.
Then I think we may indeed be talking past each other, as I'm not really seeing much difference in what you say here and what I said above.
I'm certainly not suggesting that various views shouldn't be taken seriously, nor am I suggesting that established views can never be questioned. I am Reformed, after all.
I'm simply saying it at there was indeed consensus in the early church on this matter, and that consensus was based in part on recognizing a mystery rather than trying to get too specific on details. That consensus unquestionably broke down in the West, partially out of a desire to nail down specifics and explain the mystery.
That is what transubstantiation is. It is not synonymous with Real Presence; it is one attempt at explaining or understanding the Real Presence. Others advanced other explanations, including those at the more radical end who advanced a memorialist position. But none of that changes that there was a consensus much earlier.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Indeed, which is why the term 'transubstantiation' is of relatively late coinage. And as Nick Tamen says, it's not coterminous with Real Presence but one attempt to define and specify how it 'works'.
I'm wondering whether we've got something similar going on here to what happened with ideas about the atonement. The Christian East never saw the need to define or explain, whereas the Latin West defined and filleted things to the nth degree.
Not that it's wrong to attempt to define or explain things, but there seems to be a point after which it topples over into angels on a pin-head territory.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Before the epiklesis it's just bread and wine. After the epiklesis it has somehow, through the agency of the Holy Spirit, become the body and blood of Christ? How? In what manner? To quote the great Carl Sagan, "Nnnnnnobody knows."
And we don't have to know. It may be fun to speculate and spin theories, but they're not necessary, and we run the risk of mistaking them for reality, for thinking we've got it all figured out. Then we start hitting people over the head with our dogma clubs because their theories are different.
It's like the Anglicans are so fond of saying, "In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity."
We just have a lot fewer "essentials" than the RCC does. Their 1000 year plan seems to have been to move as many things as possible into the Essentials column.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I can see them moving some stuff back into the inessentials tray at some point ...
As for the Reformers? What has their 500 plan been? To chip away at essentials or to create more inessentials?
What will be the outcome of the Reformation project? Dissipation or genuine reform?
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I can see them moving some stuff back into the inessentials tray at some point ...
I think they're "once a dogma, always a dogma." Although Bingo was of the opinion that the impossibility of remarriage after divorce, although not a dogma, was the defining essential of what differentiated the RCC from the EOC. To paraphrase Tom Petty, they won't back down.
quote:
As for the Reformers? What has their 500 plan been? To chip away at essentials or to create more inessentials?
You'd have to ask them. We can look at the effects. They certainly have tossed out RCC dogmas left and right, of course depending on denomination. And RCC non-dogmas such as married clergy (eastern rite notwithstanding -- if the RCC really liked their eastern rite, there would be a lot fewer American Orthodox saints), remarriage, perpetual virginity of Mary, the Deuterocanonicals as Scripture, Real Presence, over half of the sacraments, infant baptism, and much, much more. Indeed it has been noted, not ironically and by Protties themselves, that they are often more defined by what they DON'T believe/do than by what they do believe/do.
They have also created essentials of their own, again depending on denomination, such as PSA, teetotalism, bans on certain innocuous activities such as reading secular books on Sunday or playing cards, inerrancy/infallibility of Scripture (variously defined), believers' baptism, "dedication" of infants (invented out of whole cloth one might add), and certain political stances (in many churches in the USA if you vote Democratic, you can be outfellowshipped).
quote:
What will be the outcome of the Reformation project? Dissipation or genuine reform?
Both. Already there is a strong movement in the Protestant world, at least in the United States, of people who seek not so much union with God as personal affirmation and a justification for chasing after mammon (think The Prayer of Jabez). This will either remain a subset or continue growing and ultimately swallow the whole, or at least leaving only an insignificant remnant. This should have Protestants with any sense of continuity with the historical gospel sweating. Interesting times are coming for those outside the ancient walls of Rome and Constantinople.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Material for another thread there, perhaps, Mousethief - but even in my full-on restorationist days I'd begun to wonder whether the independent Protestant world - on the one hand - was losing any semblance of connection with the 'grand tradition' and spinning off into subjectivity and individualism writ large ...
Whereas on the other hand, the mainstream Protestants were floating off into a morass of modernist relativism ...
I don't think all is lost though, but I do fear for those groups that are less securely grounded in the 'grand tradirion' and which lack creedal ballast.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think that's enough to be going on with and to rest my case.
Changing the meeting day?
Dispensationalism?
Hmmm. I suspected as much.
Both are trivial, and neither is remotely as important as the Eucharist, Reformed challenges to the traditional understanding of which were prompted by serious scriptural and theological (including soteriological) concerns.
They are simply not in the same league.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I'm simply saying it at there was indeed consensus in the early church on this matter, and that consensus was based in part on recognizing a mystery rather than trying to get too specific on details. That consensus unquestionably broke down in the West, partially out of a desire to nail down specifics and explain the mystery.
We are agreed that there was a consensus.
You appear to think that the breakdown of that consensus was prompted primarily by intellectual and philosophical theological motives.
These no doubt came into play, but I would suggest that the motivation instead was primarily theological, soteriological and pastoral.
In other words, rightly or wrongly, those who questioned the traditional view of the Eucharist before and during the Reformatin genuinely believed that it was biblically wrong, and that it was implicated in wrong views of salvation and a human being's relationship with God.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I didn't say they were on the same level, Kaplan. You asked me for examples of novelty for novelty's sake. I gave them. Trivial examples? Yes. But bloody disastrous for all that.
I don't think that the radical reformed emphasis on memorialism is novelty for novelty's sake. I think it is the result of serious reflection and a serious attempt to reach a theological position.
But I'm afraid I'm now of the opinion that it loses something in the process.
I'm afraid I'm coming to the conclusion that much of evangelicalism has lost its way and become trite and trivial. A loss of confidence in the eucharist is part and parcel of that.
--------------------
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
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's like the Anglicans are so fond of saying, "In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity."
Not just Anglicans.
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas" was actually coined by an early seventeenth century heretical Roman Catholic archbishop.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I simply cannot accept the view that the Church, like some stately Galleon, sails through the centuries driven by the wind of the Spirit, progressing further towards the Kingdom with hardly the need for even a single nudge of the tiller to correct her course.
Yes, I do believe that the church has been steered on a wrong course in many different ways and by many different people.
And it's not restorationists (of which I am not one) liberals and evangelicals that might be accused of looking down a well and seeing their own reflection; neither is it just revivalists who look to the Apostolic church and see all their beliefs there. Can we say that the church started to go wrong in the first century? Well Luther evidently felt the Church had moved a bit!
And actually, so did the Apostle Paul! Much of his teaching in his epistles was to correct doctrinal and ethical deviance in the churches in the 50s and 60s.
And when you get to the letters in Revelation in the 90s you can a lot of references to leaving the truth and entertaining heresy.
Do we really think that when central apostolic control was dissipated, until that central authority reappeared, that the churches didn't fall even further in many ways from the simple apostolic faith once received?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Do we really think that when central apostolic control was dissipated, until that central authority reappeared, that the churches didn't fall even further in many ways from the simple apostolic faith once received?
Do we really think that at no time between 33 AD and 1492, nobody fixed anything? The Church was just stewing in error until the brave Reformers came to save the day?
And further that even though everybody before 1492 had the same Scriptures that Luther and Calvin and so forth did, they were unable to see things that were just right there in plain view waiting to be found?
[ 25. February 2017, 22:29: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Do we really think that when central apostolic control was dissipated, until that central authority reappeared, that the churches didn't fall even further in many ways from the simple apostolic faith once received?
Do we really think that at no time between 33 AD and 1492, nobody fixed anything? The Church was just stewing in error until the brave Reformers came to save the day?
And further that even though everybody before 1492 had the same Scriptures that Luther and Calvin and so forth did, they were unable to see things that were just right there in plain view waiting to be found?
Well, the Reformers evidently thought so!
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Do we really think that when central apostolic control was dissipated, until that central authority reappeared, that the churches didn't fall even further in many ways from the simple apostolic faith once received?
Do we really think that at no time between 33 AD and 1492, nobody fixed anything? The Church was just stewing in error until the brave Reformers came to save the day?
And further that even though everybody before 1492 had the same Scriptures that Luther and Calvin and so forth did, they were unable to see things that were just right there in plain view waiting to be found?
Well, the Reformers evidently thought so!
Which is one of the reasons I find them a bunch of flakes.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
We all fall short, Mudfrog.
If I understand the Big T Traditions correctly, they aren't saying that everything is perfect nor that things don't need to be rectified, but there is a confidence there - whether we agree with it or not - that the Holy Spirit will keep things on track. We aren't talking pietistic perfectionism here, though.
The difference, I think, is that within the historic Churches, there is a tendency to go back to the Tradition - 'Let's return to the rule of St Benedict', say, rather than to innovate - 'Let's start a new church or denomination ...'
The RCs, of course, have tended to innovate more than the Orthodox have - the Franciscans, Ignatius and the Jesuits etc.
I've heard Metropolitan Kallistos Ware say that he firmly believes that at its core Orthodoxy is very simple and direct and an outworking of the simple truths of the Gospel - irrespective of how fussy and complicated it looks from the outside.
I think I can see what he means, for all the floridity that has accumulated over the centuries.
Monastic life looks pretty simple and direct to me, too. Although we can't all walk that particular route, of course.
Whatever tradition we're in we are all trying to love the Lord our God and our neighbours as ourselves.
The idea that the Holy Spirit can be trusted to keep things on track isn't incompatible with us messing things up or failing to live consistent Christian lives.
--------------------
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
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
They have also created essentials of their own... teetotalism, bans on certain innocuous activities such as reading secular books on Sunday or playing cards
Seriously?
These are characteristic of Protestantism?
Talk about (desperately) scraping the bottom of the barrel.
You must have been researching nineteenth century manuals of piety, or gone hunting through Dickens and Gosse and Butler.
Talk about anachronistic.
You could with as much justification characterise Orthodoxy by anti-Semitism, monkish sodomy, and putting out opponents' eyes
quote:
in many churches in the USA if you vote Democratic, you can be outfellowshipped
Many?
Actually, spiritually blackmailing parishioners to vote in a certain direction is historically far more characteristic of Roman Catholicism.
It was done within living memory here in Australia.
quote:
Interesting times are coming for those outside the ancient walls of Rome and Constantinople.
It's always been interesting times for the inmates of both sets of ancient walls, given that both churches claims primacy, and yet differ on fundamentals such as papal authority, and can't both be right.
How can you be sure that you are in the right one?
As for Rome, the old adage "Rome never changes" has been dead since at least Vatican II.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
They have also created essentials of their own... teetotalism, bans on certain innocuous activities such as reading secular books on Sunday or playing cards
Seriously?
These are characteristic of Protestantism?
Where did I say "characteristic"? Go away and come back when you want to engage what I actually said and not your straw man.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I don't think Luther and Calvin were 'flakes', but neither are they infallible Papal figures. They were doing their best, as they saw it, to reform the Church of their time and to correct abuses - of which there were many. The Orthodox have similar misgivings to those they had about aspects of Western Catholicism at that time - indulgences, private masses and so on.
Obviously, the Orthodox believe the Reformers went too far and chucked out some legitimate stuff as well as correcting imbalances.
But then, from an Orthodox perspective, both Rome and the Reformed churches are two sides of the same corrupted coin.
That's not to say that there haven't been reforming movements in Orthodoxy, but where these have taken place they haven't upset the apple-cart as much nor introduced innovative teachings or understandings.
Coming back to the OP and how we regard the eucharist, perhaps those who have adopted a memorialist position might explain why they believe this to be preferable in theological or soteriological terms to some kind of Real Presence position - whether this is understood in RC, transubstantiation terms, in Orthodox terms or in the way that Calvin understood it - in a more 'realised' way, if you like than the radical reformers.
What advantages are conferred by the 'real absence' as it were, rather than the Real Presence. In what way do memorialists benefit that Real Presence proponents don't?
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
That's not to say that there haven't been reforming movements in Orthodoxy, but where these have taken place they haven't upset the apple-cart as much nor introduced innovative teachings or understandings.
As St. Maria of Paris said, the Orthodox Church has been in hunker-down mode for so long, first under the Ottomans and then under the Soviets, that it has forgotten that there was ever any other mode. And if anybody -- God forbid! -- suggests otherwise, they are cut to ribbons.
And of course Athos considers itself the keeper of the Orthodox flame, never mind that they gave the world Joseph Dzugashvili by their inability to keep their pants pulled up and their cossacks pulled down, driving him back to Georgia in disgust. Thanks, guys.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Was that a Freudian slip or was the EOC repressive of those of Khazar descent?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
