G
GKC
Guest
Not exactly, re: your first para. But I’m leaving the house for a while. Back later.
GKC
- Status
GKC
M
mschrank
Guest
Transubstantiation is the scholastic philosophical mechanism by which the ‘real presence’ is explained in terms of its day-to-day look and feel. What it means is its ‘it-ness’ is changed (trans-substance) and pertains to something called “hylomorphism” which was taken from Aristotle by St. Thomas Aquinas.
A eucharistic miracle is not strictly speaking “trans-substance”, it’s literally there in both form (the hylo part) and matter (the morph part). So, you would not use transubstantiation to explain them because it’s not supposed to be used in that context.
G
GKC
Guest
G
GKC
Guest
Legislate, it could. In theory, it could promulgate dogma; it’s an Erastian Church, which is why it could legislate. In practice, it could not. But in Henry’s day, it certainly could. I refer you to the Six Articles.
Just passing through, not really here.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
I’ve studied history, yes, In general, very widely, and specifically, here and there. It was history that first started me moving toward Catholicism, back in college, and political history as much as anything.
I’ve studied history in the niches that interest me most particularly; such niches as the background of Apostolicae Curae. I know who, what, when, where and esp. why, from the first meetings of Halifax and Portal, in the winter of 1890, on the island of Madeira, to the last faint echoes of the sad affair, in the Malines Conversations in 1925. And I know the history of Henry VIII’s search for a decree of nullity, and the system that prevailed in the 16th century anent such things, similarly. What I conclude might not be totally what you expect.
I study these things both because they are interesting in themselves (the same reason I’ve collected and studied Chesterton for over 40 years, for example), and because, while I have a great respect for the *magisterium, *I don’t have the sort of respect that you have, nor for the same reason. In order to understand these matters, I have to know these matters. And so I do. I discuss them here regularly. Too regularly, perhaps. I start to sound familiar.
I agree, re: the Eucharist. I agree with you on what the Eucharist is. I disagree with you as to whether I receive it, from the opinion you must hold, following Apostolicae Curae. IOW, I’m not dubious. Nor should you be.
No, I’m not expecting any move toward a corporate reunion. The last time for that passed, with Paul VI, and Archbishop Michael Ramsey. What I am is a Catholic, in the Anglican tradition, receving valid sacraments (that would be 7, including the Body and Blood in the Eucharist), within a shrinking remnant of orthodoxy in Anglicanism. If you agreed with any of that, I’d correct you.
And, incidentally, a pleasure speaking with you. I don’t try to make anyone think like an Anglican, but I somtimes try to explain how some Anglicans think. And in those cases where folks wave cardboard cutouts, in my niche areas, I sometimes reply with history. As I understand it, of course.
Pax, frater.
GKC
C
Claire_from_DE
Guest
GKC,
If it were possible, would you wish for a reunion between the shrinking remnant of orthodoxy in Anglicanism and the Roman Catholic Church?
Have you ever visited an Anglican use Roman Catholic parish?
If it were possible, would you wish for a reunion between the shrinking remnant of orthodoxy in Anglicanism and the Roman Catholic Church?
Have you ever visited an Anglican use Roman Catholic parish?
M
MrStain
Guest
I just want to say that I am fascinated by your posts and I appreciate your honesty. You are not the first Anglican I have seen on-line who says they are “Catholic”, and from what I can tell you would make a great Catholic – in the union with Peter sense. We need more like you. When are you going to sign up?
G
GKC
Guest
For those who can take that route, I actively encourage it. I can’t, for a couple of doctrinal issues.
Yes, sort of … and no. There was an AU parish in my home town. Its foundation was about half of a group of orthodox Anglicans who split from the Episcopal Church in the 80s, over the usual things. The other half of that group of orthodox Anglicans formed my own traditionalist (Continuing, if you are familiar wih the term) Anglican parish. We were, in effect, sister parishes, with mutual friends.
As is the case with almost all AU parishes, which are not intended to continue as such for very long (the trophy Texas parishes are an exception) that parish transformed into a NO parish, before I returned from the AF. Otherwise, I most certainly would have attended. That parish was later the TLM indult parish for the area (most of the state, in fact, though it’s a very small building) and I did attend an TLM (not my first; I know how to behave) there. The music for that Mass was provided by our Anglican parish organist. The church was so crowded that I felt guilty taking up a communicant’s place, and I didn’t attend again. So, I attended a service in a former AU church, but not an AU service.
The AU is based on the Rite one from the 1979 book that the Episcopal Church uses. The 1928 Book of Common Prayer would have been a better choice, but the 1979 is a little closer to the NO. But it still a good service. And to drop one last point, I know the guy who designed the frontispiece for the AU Book of Divine Worship.
GKC
*posterus traditus Anglicanus *
G
GKC
Guest
You are very kind. I fear I’d make as inadequate a RC as I do an AC, though.
As to when I’ll sign, up, I note again that I’ve collected, studied and read Gilbert Keith Chesterton for going on 44 years now. I figure that if my man Gilbert can’t get me across the river in that length of time, there might not be anything in the mundane world that can.
Couold be wrong, I guess.
Thanks again, and nice meeting you.
GKC
M
MrStain
Guest
G
GKC
Guest
There’s a few of us over here.LOL… You’ve got a good point and now I get the GKC moniker you’ve chosen. I’m sure others are now saying outloud, “DUH MrStain!”
You must be a tough nut to crack if old GK cannot penetrate your shell. Well, it’s good to know we have a good Catholic in the Anglican ranks.
GKC
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
You’re correct, with bells on . It follows that transubstantiation is incompatible with that Lanciano stuff, so the best thing to do with the latter would be, to burn it. If the Lanciano thing is true, then it must be false - because it cannot be evidence of transub’ion without making transub’ion a lie in the process. But if it makes trans’ion a lie, it has destroyed itself.
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
The purpose of Eucharistic miracles is to confirm the Transubstantiation of the bread and wine.
Since the Body and Blood of Christ exist under the appearances of bread and wine, one it ceases to look like bread and wine, it’s no longer the Body and Blood of Christ.
Since the Body and Blood of Christ exist under the appearances of bread and wine, one it ceases to look like bread and wine, it’s no longer the Body and Blood of Christ.
C
Claire_from_DE
Guest
Not so. Transubstantiation takes place at the consecration. That’s true. It always happens. It’s a sacrament. It’s a mystery.You’re correct, with bells on
As for as the Eucharistic miracles, why is it so difficult to believe that Jesus, already there, should do a miracle to change one of the hosts? Perhaps to make drops of blood come from It or totally change the appearance of bread and wine into that of a slice of human heart muscle. He does it to increase the faith of the priest or someone there, or for His own reasons. This has nothing to do with the mystery of transubstantiation which has already taken place.
You know, ‘transubstantiation’ is just a word we use to describe what happens at the consecration (and I believe it as the teaching of the church), however, just because we can define it does not mean we really comprehend the enormity of what happens there, of what the presence of our risen Lord really means.
Think of how Jesus was with the disciples after the resurrection. He cooked for them; He ate with them. He had no need to eat fish to nourish His glorified body but He did it anyway. Does this disprove that His body was glorified? No, it was just an extra something to bring home to them that it was really Him and He was there with them. Maybe it’s the same with Eucharistic miracles.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
That’s certainly true of Rites which have a consecratory moment. That apart, how does the relation between the consecration & its effects go against the post quoted ?
If it undermines transubstantiation, by being incompatible with it, it has everything to do with it. 
Divine omnipotence is not the issue - what the Church teaches about the conversion of the sacred species, is very definitely the issue. Whatever makes that teaching false must be rejected. The Lanciano “miracle” (& other such phenomena) is a temptation against faith - as well as implying that the condemned error of ultra-realism is true. We can indeed not comprehend it - if we could, it would be untrue.
ISTM the two things are very different.
C
Claire_from_DE
Guest
Eating was an extra something the Jesus did. He didn’t need to do it to prove the resurrection, just to increase their faith. So to with the Eucharistic miracles.That’s certainly true of Rites which have a consecratory moment. That apart, how does the relation between the consecration & its effects go against the post quoted ? ## If it undermines transubstantiation, by being incompatible with it, it has everything to do with it.
At some point in all the rites the transubstantiation occurs. Then a separate miracle occurs. My point is that it doesn’t undermine transubstantiation and is not incompatible with it because transubstantiation has taken place first.
Divine omnipotence is not the issue - what the Church teaches about the conversion of the sacred species, is very definitely the issue. Whatever makes that teaching false must be rejected. The Lanciano “miracle” (& other such phenomena) is a temptation against faith
I feel no need for Eucharistic miracles and used to be uncomfortable with them, but I have spoken to some people who have experienced them and it has only confirmed their faith, not tempted them not to believe. They have become even more devout. So I judge this by its fruits.
- as well as implying that the condemned error of ultra-realism is true.
You feel this implication, others don’t. We know any condemned error isn’t true.We can indeed not comprehend it - if we could, it would be untrue. ## ISTM the two things are very different.
Well, my point is that transubstantiation and Eucharistic miracles are two different things but one does not disprove the other. Transubstantiation always happens, an additional miracle sometimes but very rarely takes place according to God’s will.
I believe Eucharistic miracles have happened, I guess you think they are from Satan? Then why do they always seem to confirm and increase the faith and love of God in those who experience them?
M
mbd1475
Guest
Speaking as an Episcopalian who believes in the Real Presence, let me say, that’s utterly disgusting. If there are any “miracles” going on that resemble that sort of business, count me out. I’m not swimming the Tiber for that, ever. Shudder.
H
Huguenot
Guest
I also find it quite … disgusting …
but anyway I don’t believe in the real presence at all, for me the bread and wine are symbols …( ever heard of a Swiss guy called Zwingli ??? lol )
- Status