Unity in the Eucharist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SteveVH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Anna_Scott said:
Crazzeto,

No one could accuse you of being too subtle. :rotfl:That would be a fast track to unity; and there is an Anglican Ordinariate here in Houston. Just can’t get past the Pope issue (topic for another thread, and there have been many.)

Glad you are back on the forums. 😃

Anna
Click to expand...
God works in subtle ways, I’m not God =)
 
JonNC said:
Crazzeto,
Where’s the link to the Lutheran Ordinariate? 😃

Jon
Click to expand...
Man if Pope Benedict XVI had not retired it might be on its way 😉 Now we’ll have to see the spirit of Pope Francis, which I suspect might be as open to the idea.
 
crazzeto said:
Man if Pope Benedict XVI had not retired it might be on its way 😉 Now we’ll have to see the spirit of Pope Francis, which I suspect might be as open to the idea.
Click to expand...
That would be interesting, considering (if I recall correctly), he is a Jesuit.

It would, however, be interesting to see what a Lutheran Ordinariate would look like (read Confessio Augustana).

Jon
 
JonNC said:
That would be interesting, considering (if I recall correctly), he is a Jesuit.

It would, however, be interesting to see what a Lutheran Ordinariate would look like (read Confessio Augustana).

Jon
Click to expand...
I’ll be honest, I almost selfishly pray for an Anglican Ordinate (any Anglicans in Raleigh NC area care to oblige?) so I can experience a Mass in the Anglican use =) I’d also be curious to try such a Lutheran service.
 
JonNC said:
That would be interesting, considering (if I recall correctly), he is a Jesuit.

It would, however, be interesting to see what a Lutheran Ordinariate would look like (read Confessio Augustana).

Jon
Click to expand...
Jon,

I suppose Lutherans are left out at this point. Though, a Lutheran Ordinariate would seem logical, since Lutherans are dealing with some of the same liberal issues as Episcopalians.

In the next decade, we may all be fleeing to Rome. 😃

Anna
 
Anna_Scott said:
Jon,

I suppose Lutherans are left out at this point. Though, a Lutheran Ordinariate would seem logical, since Lutherans are dealing with some of the same liberal issues as Episcopalians.

In the next decade, we may all be fleeing to Rome. 😃

Anna
Click to expand...
Fortunately, we in the LCMS were granted a reprieve of sorts, with the election of Matthew Harrison as synod president, as he is solidly conservative and confessional. But if the seeds of “church-growth”, planted before him, take root, you may be right - Rome, or East.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
Fortunately, we in the LCMS were granted a reprieve of sorts, with the election of Matthew Harrison as synod president, as he is solidly conservative and confessional. But if the seeds of “church-growth”, planted before him, take root, you may be right - Rome, or East.

Jon
Click to expand...
Jon,

Yes, Rome or East. That is the consideration of many, whether or not it is being voiced.

It’s interesting how this thread, regarding Unity in the Eucharist, led to. . . well. . .a greater discussion about unity.

Anna
 
SteveVH said:
Except that the Church to which Christ gave his own authority did express it, in no uncertain terms, just as she expressed that the texts within the Bible are the inspired word of God and just as she expressed the doctrine of the Trinity. I don’t know how one can accept the Church’s judgment on Scripture and fundamental doctrines such as the Trinity, and then reject the judgment of the Church on Transubstantiation.
Click to expand...
Transubstantiation is a doctrine of great complexity which, it seems to me, even some Catholics misunderstand or misrepresent. The concept of substance upon which the meaning of transubstantiation depends is a difficult one which has a long and controversial history and is subject to a variety of interpretations. The Aristotelian distinction between substance and accidents also gives rise to problems and its validity was and is far from being universally recognised.

In the early Church, the* fact* of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist was generally accepted but there was little if any speculation as to the manner. Certainly, by the 4th century there was some speculation about this and the relation of Christ’s humanity to his Deity and this was expressed in terms of change. In Christ, God became Man, and so by Christ’s action through the Holy Ghost in the Eucharist, bread and wine become His Body and Blood. As Anglicans we do not deny the preposition* trans* and we agree that the elements are changed but we go no further than this.

Transubstantiation is a 12 century definition of the manner of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Is it not sufficient, to accept the Real Presence as the early Church did or as the Orthodox do? The Anglican position is expressed rather well in the words of the 11th century Norman Abbot, Durandus:

“Verbum audimus, motum sentimus, modum nescimus, prsesentiam credimus.”
“We hear the word, we perceive the motion, we know not the manner, but we believe the presence.”

Whilst we appreciate that the Doctrine of Transubstantiatiion is an attempt to affirm and safeguard the reality of Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist, as Anglicans, we do not suppose that any definition of such as divine mystery of Christ’s Presence in the Eucharistic Elements can be wholly adequate or entirely satisfactory.
 
Symphorian said:
Transubstantiation is a doctrine of great complexity which, it seems to me, even some Catholics misunderstand or misrepresent.
Click to expand...
Which says nothing of its validity.
Symphorian said:
The concept of substance upon which the meaning of transubstantiation depends is a difficult one which has a long and controversial history and is subject to a variety of interpretations.
Click to expand...
The only interpretation that should be used is the one intended by the author.
Symphorian said:
The Aristotelian distinction between substance and accidents also gives rise to problems and its validity was and is far from being universally recognised.
Click to expand...
There are many Church teachings which are not universally recognized. Seeing as we do not arrive at truth by a vote of the people, however, it really makes little difference. Truth is not dependent upon how many people accept it.
Symphorian said:
In the early Church, the* fact* of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist was generally accepted but there was little if any speculation as to the manner. Certainly, by the 4th century there was some speculation about this and the relation of Christ’s humanity to his Deity and this was expressed in terms of change. In Christ, God became Man, and so by Christ’s action through the Holy Ghost in the Eucharist, bread and wine become His Body and Blood. As Anglicans we do not deny the preposition* trans* and we agree that the elements are changed but we go no further than this.
Click to expand...
I don’t really disagree with anything you have said here, but not all faith traditions come this close. As you are aware the definition was given in response to the denial of the real presence by some of the so-called “reformers”. It was imperative that a definition be given that was beyond question, as to the belief always held by the Church which was being denied. To simply leave it at “we believe he is present” opens the doors to many and varied positions on exaclty what this means, and therefore opens the door to error. A very specific defintion had to be made.
Symphorian said:
Transubstantiation is a 12 century definition of the manner of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Is it not sufficient, to accept the Real Presence as the early Church did or as the Orthodox do? The Anglican position is expressed rather well in the words of the 11th century Norman Abbot, Durandus:

“Verbum audimus, motum sentimus, modum nescimus, prsesentiam credimus.”
“We hear the word, we perceive the motion, we know not the manner, but we believe the presence.”
Click to expand...
With all due respect, I think this definition is insufficient to prevent error from entering into the dogma.
Symphorian said:
Whilst we appreciate that the Doctrine of Transubstantiatiion is an attempt to affirm and safeguard the reality of Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist, as Anglicans, we do not suppose that any definition of such as divine mystery of Christ’s Presence in the Eucharistic Elements can be wholly adequate or entirely satisfactory.
Click to expand...
Any human explanation of a divine event is going to fall short. So while we may not be able to grasp the infinite with our finite minds, the question is are we in error? Because of the promised guidance of the Holy Spirit I have to believe that the Church is not in error, but that the substances of wine and bread are changed substantially into the body and blood of Christ. I do not depend upon the wisdom of man in this case, but rather the unfailing promises of Christ to send his Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all truth. Since this is a doctrine of our Church, I believe it falls under this protection.
 
Anna_Scott said:
Indeed, GKC, a sense of humor is absolutely essential. Your ears must have been burning when I used your “motley crew.” 😃

Anna
Click to expand...
I actually opened that up to general use, a while back, hoping it would be widely disseminated.

GKC
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top