tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29191589.post116820365424726967..comments2023-10-25T04:22:54.910-07:00Comments on An Anglican Priest: The Ruminations of a Canterbury Cap Catholic: Rev. Dr. Hasserthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14350737386756722887noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29191589.post-20218974053451404772007-03-03T16:52:00.000-08:002007-03-03T16:52:00.000-08:00Seraph,I appreciate your thanks and comments. Whil...Seraph,<BR/><BR/>I appreciate your thanks and comments. While Cranmer's views have been argued to be all over the theological map (and outsiders sometimes believe that Anglicans are 'Cranmerians'), the Prayer Book and the Articles are fairly clear in their teaching, and they were embraced and defended by bishops, priests, and theologians well versed in the theology of the ancient Church. My main point here is that the Article teaching that "the wicked" do not eat the Body of Christ cannot be used to support a Zwinglian notion, unless we want to make the same accusation against Augustine and Aquinas. <BR/><BR/>In another post you asked about Fr. Schmemman's views. I think I have some older posts on that, and I'll try and repost them.<BR/><BR/>AC+Rev. Dr. Hasserthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14350737386756722887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29191589.post-28405333951529765702007-03-03T14:16:00.000-08:002007-03-03T14:16:00.000-08:00This is really an eye-opener. I had thought for y...This is really an eye-opener. I had thought for years that Cranmer was a Zwinglian and that a Reformed denial of the Real Presence was par for the course in early Anglicanism. I am very glad to see I was wrong!<BR/><BR/>Of course, that also means Pope Leo XIII hadn't the foggiest idea of what he was talking about when he claimed Anglicans didn't intend to continue the priesthood.<BR/><BR/>Many, many thanks.Seraphhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06216177538549223181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29191589.post-1170012486489151142007-01-28T11:28:00.000-08:002007-01-28T11:28:00.000-08:00Welshman,I agree.AC+Welshman,<BR/><BR/>I agree.<BR/><BR/>AC+Rev. Dr. Hasserthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14350737386756722887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29191589.post-1170008470371701382007-01-28T10:21:00.000-08:002007-01-28T10:21:00.000-08:00Anglican Cleric:I would think that any Christian, ...Anglican Cleric:<BR/><BR/>I would think that any Christian, especially Protestants, should hold a view of the Real Presence which requires the fewest assumptions. When I balance the Incarnation against the Ascension, when I consider that Jesus promised to send us a Comforter in the Person of the Holy Spirit, when I read John 6 and I Corinthians 11:20-34 in light of each other, I find myself again and again drawn to something like the "spiritual presence". I find that Scripture teaches that Our Lord has a real, localized human body which is safely ensconced in glory at the right hand of the Father, and thus free from all indignities, and yet the saints enjoy a real, objective communion of the substance of his Body and Blood. That much, I think, is not disputed by anyone. As a matter of private opinion, it seems that I can reconcile a "spiritual" (albeit real and substantial) presence to the Scriptural "data" more easily than is possible for a corporeal presence. I just seems to be the plain meaning of Scripture.<BR/><BR/>welshmanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29191589.post-1169921613191553252007-01-27T10:13:00.000-08:002007-01-27T10:13:00.000-08:00Welshman,Very kind words; thanks again. Your point...Welshman,<BR/><BR/>Very kind words; thanks again. Your points about the Spirit are very good, and are similar to those made by Father Schmemann. I would highly recommend his book "The Eucharist" published by Saint Vladimir's Seminary Press.<BR/><BR/>I've read Lutheran books on the Eucharist which come very close to saying that Aquinas was too receptionistic and "spiritual" concerning the Real Presence and that only Luther got it right in standing firm on the coporeal presence. Keep in mind that only the confessional Lutherans affirm this doctrine; some Orthodox do as well, but not all, so it is not dogma. Aquinas does not, and neither does Calvin. <BR/><BR/>This raises some other issues and questions: What is the nature of Christ's glorified Body? Most questions of the manner of the Presence in the Eucharist circle around this issue. If He maintains the properties of a human body, then He cannot divide Himself physically. However, if His glorified state allows it, perhaps He can be in all things and in all places both in His divinity and His humanity. Aquinas and Calvin assert that Christ cannot be locally in Heaven and in the Eucharist after the "manner of a body" given His full humanity. Aquinas instead asserts a complete transformation of the substance of the bread into the substance of the Body of Christ, but not that He is localized to the Bread. The Caroline divines come very close to Aquinas but deny that the bread ceases to be bread in its substance. In many instances they come close to the Lutheran position, but without affirming a physical presence. The Roman Catholic doctrine is substantial Presence, not physically local or coproral. However, many Roman Catholics have never read Aquinas, which is still the offical doctrine.Rev. Dr. Hasserthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14350737386756722887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29191589.post-1169919512735584392007-01-27T09:38:00.000-08:002007-01-27T09:38:00.000-08:00Anglican Cleric:I've read and puzzled quite a bit ...Anglican Cleric:<BR/><BR/>I've read and puzzled quite a bit about the "Institution v. Epiclesis" debate. Frankly, I don't see how it's such an either/or proposition. It seems rather like the whole relationship between Christ as the Word of God and the Holy Spirit; i.e., the Holy Spirit moves men to speak as God directs, thus communicating the Word of God to mankind. The Holy Spirit even overshadowed the Virgin to bring the Incarnate Christ into the world. So wouldn't the action of the Holy Spirit in the Eucharist sort of "speak" the Words of Institution? My understanding is that Luther in particular opposed any kind of epiclesis, because it suggested that somehow Christ's words were not enough to effect the Real Presence. I just don't see why there has to be a tension. I have to admit, though, that I'm very, very new to all this.<BR/><BR/>Also, my understanding is that the Lutherans believe that the Reformed concept of "spiritual presence" is invalid because when we say "This is My Body" we really take the words to mean, concerning the elements themselves, "This is not My Body." That is the reason they give for saying that the Reformed Eucharist is altogether void. Do I rightly understand their position? <BR/><BR/>I should tell you that I'm coming to all this from a fundamentalist/Baptist background. You've really made it possible for me to begin see these "catholic" ideas as Biblical and Scriptural teachings, as not purely as the creations of tradition. I've really been able to answer some very difficult questions, and for that I really thank you.<BR/><BR/>welshmanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29191589.post-1169876984065614932007-01-26T21:49:00.000-08:002007-01-26T21:49:00.000-08:00Welshman,Thanks for lurking, reading, and commenti...Welshman,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for lurking, reading, and commenting. Sorry for delayed reply--I've been ill the past week. <BR/><BR/>You raise a good question--if we don't believe in a localized bodily presence within the elements themselves, what is the role of the consecration? Indeed, what constitutes the consecration? <BR/><BR/>Here of, course, we must realize that the Caroline divines are in agreement that Christ is truly, really, personally present "through and under" the elements in a substantial and sacramental manner. The elements are channels of divine grace, of Christ's sacramental presence. He is Really Present. It is not a figure only. However, He is not present in the same manner He is present in Heaven, and here we can make recourse to Aquinas to support the traditional Anglican position. The only area where they disagree with Rome is the issue of transubstantiation. Therefore, the prayer of consecration is usually highlighted as the "cause" of this sacramental presence. If the elements are exhausted before the whole congregation has made communion new elements must be consecrated. It must be given before it is received and partaken of. <BR/><BR/>But what "makes" the consecration? The Roman Church, some Anglicans, and the Lutherans pinpoint the source of consecration as being the Words of Institution (notice that in the 1662 only Christ's words are needed for more of each element to be consecrated), while the Orthodox and many Anglican divines place the emphasis on the Invovation of the Holy Spirit (C.B. Moss calls the 1662 prayer irregular, but not invalid; Bishop Seabury called it "no consecration at all"--but I think he was being polemic). <BR/><BR/>However, others, such as the Russian theologian Alexander Schmemann say that to look for a "causal point" in either place is to disect the Eucharist in a way foreign to the life of the Church's worship. The whole celebration of the Eucharist needs to be taken as just that, an integrated whole. I'll post more on this later. . .a very important question, but one with may people in disagreement.<BR/><BR/>AC+Rev. Dr. Hasserthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14350737386756722887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29191589.post-1169613644826175552007-01-23T20:40:00.000-08:002007-01-23T20:40:00.000-08:00Anglican Cleric:I've been lurking in the shadows a...Anglican Cleric:<BR/><BR/>I've been lurking in the shadows around your blog for several weeks now, reading with great interest. Your posts about the traditional Anglican understanding of the Real Presence (i.e., "spiritual" does not mean "non-real") compliment those of Jonathan Bonamo nicely. You've both really helped me begin to wade through some of my more difficult questions about the Lord's Supper.<BR/><BR/>Here's my question....does a spiritual understanding of the Real Presence, i.e., "not a presence in the elements" leave us with no real consecration of the elements themselves? <BR/><BR/>I'm thinking that there must be a real consecration, otherwise unworthy eating of the elements would not be a serious sin. I understand that a spiritual presence leaves out the cruder ideas about Christ's Body and Blood being somehow defined or confined to the elements, but surely that doesn't change the fact that the actual elements themselves have been taken into His Body and Blood by way of the the sacramental action; an objective identification, but one that is accomplished and sustained by Christ Himself, and whose parameters are likewise established by Christ. Is that at least partially consistent with Luther's idea that there is no sacrament apart from its divinely appointed use?<BR/><BR/>I hope that last bit doesn't show that I've completely missed your point. Thank you again for your ministry.<BR/><BR/>welshmanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29191589.post-1169490964686759402007-01-22T10:36:00.000-08:002007-01-22T10:36:00.000-08:00D Bunker,Thanks again. As I said, this Article is ...D Bunker,<BR/><BR/>Thanks again. As I said, this Article is usually attacked in straw-man terms, without much consideration of where the language in the Article came from. The same thing is often done to the content of other Articles and the Book of Common Prayer itself. <BR/><BR/>AC+Rev. Dr. Hasserthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14350737386756722887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29191589.post-1169303683673889012007-01-20T06:34:00.000-08:002007-01-20T06:34:00.000-08:00Thank you for an entirely Catholic discussion of t...Thank you for an entirely Catholic discussion of this Article. Sadly there is a current in Anglo-catholicism of late vintage (since 1890 or so) which eschews the careful patristic grounding of the Tractarians for more superficial issues such as ritual (often divorced from any sound theologically-reasoned underpinnings). You have carefully and thoughtfully brought those origins to this discussion and vindicated the catholicity of this Article.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29191589.post-1168615287821762512007-01-12T07:21:00.000-08:002007-01-12T07:21:00.000-08:00Andrew,Thanks for the positive feedback. Oftentime...Andrew,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the positive feedback. Oftentimes people fail to take into account the Scriptural and patristic uses of terms when they question or reject certain doctrinal statements, confusing their use of the terminology with the way the writers intended. A classic symptom of our postmodern era.Rev. Dr. Hasserthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14350737386756722887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29191589.post-1168230181321601302007-01-07T20:23:00.000-08:002007-01-07T20:23:00.000-08:00Dear AC:Thanks for the post. I find it to be immen...Dear AC:<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the post. I find it to be immensely helpful. In the NT (e.g., the Epistle to the Hebrews), "partaking" of Christ often has the connotation of steadfast, reciprocal intimacy- as between friends. Obviously, the Wicked do not partake of Christ (in the Eucharist or otherwise) in this NT sense of the word.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com