tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post8511493891739098382..comments2024-03-29T13:30:56.758+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: O Little Town of WellingtonPeter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-67608895363589428562013-04-11T16:14:47.180+12:002013-04-11T16:14:47.180+12:00Once again, Shawn, we are on the same page! I have...Once again, Shawn, we are on the same page! I have been eschewing "localised", and I am not sure what to make of "literal" Presence, but at the end of the day for me Christ is present fully and really in the celebration of the Eucharist and the partaking of Communion. The exact mechanics as to how and the various theological interpretations are not overly important to me.<br /><br />Christ is risen!<br /><br />Boscoliturgyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11822769747947139669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-30530905552130668272013-04-11T10:45:12.394+12:002013-04-11T10:45:12.394+12:00Hi Bosco,
Yes, I understand your point here. I wo...Hi Bosco,<br /><br />Yes, I understand your point here. I would point out that while it Is not consistent with my own theology I nevertheless understand it and I understand that many find in the spirituality of a localised "literal" Presence a powerful way to experience Christ. And as I said I am happy to be in communion with those who believe and practice this particular interpretation of the Eucharist.<br /><br />My primary objection was to the claim being made by one commentator that this view is the only true "catholic" view, the only view that affirms Christ's presence, and the mainstream Anglican position. None of those claims are true imo. The implication of those claims is that those of us who take a Reformed Anglican view are somehow bereft of the experience of Christ on the Eucharist, or are not really catholic in the broad sense of that term, or are ignoring what Jesus said at the last supper.<br /><br />At the end of the day for me Christ is present fully and really in the celebration of the Eucharist and the partaking of Communion. The exact mechanics as to how and the various theological interpretations are not overly important to me.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-42061435885752084932013-04-11T01:15:34.601+12:002013-04-11T01:15:34.601+12:00Peter, I'm sure they believe Jesus is present ...Peter, I'm sure they believe Jesus is present among them ("Whenever two or three are gathered together in my name, I will be in the midst of them"), but they don't believe that he is "more present" in the bread and wine/grape juice, or that he is "more present" at services with communion than without.<br /><br />This, by the way, isn't my view, which is closer to Article XVIII. Paul Powershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04833212693999583069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-79558723779113112362013-04-10T21:10:47.547+12:002013-04-10T21:10:47.547+12:00Thanks, Shawn.
We appear to be on the same page ...Thanks, Shawn. <br /><br />We appear to be on the same page in your description about the Bible. My point was, as I hope was obvious, that your responses are a model of what for many is the reality in the understanding of the Eucharist. I respect that this may not be a way of meeting Christ for you currently, just as others struggle to encounter Christ in an icon. I think there is a great deal of value in the old maxim – all may, some should, none must.<br /><br />Christ is Risen!<br /><br />Boscoliturgyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11822769747947139669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-54875897586899177372013-04-10T17:13:26.556+12:002013-04-10T17:13:26.556+12:00But, Paul, when 'commemorative' Protestant...But, Paul, when 'commemorative' Protestants hold a eucharist, do they think Jesus is with them, present among them?Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-3661127603172994062013-04-10T16:06:55.957+12:002013-04-10T16:06:55.957+12:00"I cannot think of any Protestants who think ..."I cannot think of any Protestants who think Jesus is not present in the eucharist."<br /><br />Actually, there are a number of Protestant denominations in the U.S. (most notably the Southern Baptists) that hold that the Lord's Supper is purely commemorative. I suspect that this position is very rare among Anglicans. Paul Powershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04833212693999583069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-47514410998950245762013-04-10T14:15:03.018+12:002013-04-10T14:15:03.018+12:00Hi Ron,
Please take greater care with your asserti...Hi Ron,<br />Please take greater care with your assertions about Protestants. You drive a wedge between them and the apostolic and orthodox Catholic Anglicans, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. Might I remind you that in the reality of eucharistic understanding (at least perceptions thereof) neither Roman Catholics nor Eastern Orthodox officially and routinely welcome any Anglican of any adjectival description to communion.<br /><br />I would also remind you of the singular contribution to the understanding of the eucharist which Protestant greats, such as Calvin, Luther and Cranmer have made to the understanding of the eucharist. Personally I also laud Zwingli as a contributor to our understanding but I am not expecting you to stretch your theological tolerance to agree on that one. But might you acknowledge that on the eucharist, Calvin, Luther and Cranmer were good theologians, pressing out the reasonable diversity of how we who follow Christ might understand the eucharist?Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-85163482964705470552013-04-10T14:10:28.936+12:002013-04-10T14:10:28.936+12:00Hi Shawn,
In publishing Ron's comment above I ...Hi Shawn,<br />In publishing Ron's comment above I took his assertion at face value: neither critiquing 'all' Protestants, nor specifying any particular Protestants in his statement (e.g. yourself and Martin). If I had thought either was the case I would not have published the comment. His statement is still objectionable (I cannot think of any Protestants who think Jesus is not present in the eucharist).Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-48199616815525783992013-04-10T13:36:03.596+12:002013-04-10T13:36:03.596+12:00Hi Bosco,
Please, please, if I have misunderstood...Hi Bosco,<br /><br />Please, please, if I have misunderstood your post in any way, it is not intentional, and I am honestly trying to respond fairly. If I get anything badly wrong tell me, and I will happily retract the statement.<br /><br />"Yes, producing and using icons, praying in the presence of the Sacrament reserved, using a candle to focus in prayer, and placing the Bible in a significant position are all obviously idolatry, and the church is dying in the West because bishops are not condemning such practices and removing the licenses from clergy who allow such idolatry in church-financed contexts."<br /><br />Well I have not said anything remotely like that, I think. However, speaking solely for myself that is not the case, and I may be getting my wires crossed here with your conversation with Martin. It is sometimes hard to keep up with who said what to whom, especially on a multi-thread blog.<br /><br />My wife is a very good traditional icon painter by the way. After all, as Calvin said, the whole world is an icon of God's glory.<br /><br />"But what I really don’t understand - why isn’t anyone even attempting to answer my questions"<br /><br />Time perhaps? Also sometimes following two or three conversations means (again speaking solely for myself) that I don't always catch every post.<br /><br />That said, I am happy to have a go.<br /><br />"Is the Bible the Word of God if it is poorly translated?"<br /><br />It would depend on how poorly, but certainly if the actual meaning of entire chapters and books was so distorted by a seriously bad translation than I would say no. <br /><br />"Is it the Word of God if it is in the original language but there is a single error somewhere in the book?"<br /><br />Yes. A single error would make no difference.<br /><br />"Is a page open of the Bible, the Word of God?"<br /><br />Yes.<br /><br />"If so – how many words need to be present on the page for it to be the Word of God?"<br /><br />Enough to make a coherent sentence, or at least a coherent part of a sentence.<br /><br />Let me attempt an explanation. If I say the word "and" on it's own, it means nothing as a statement. But, if I say "Bobby and Sally sitting in a tree, K.I.S.S.I.N.G" then the single word "and" acquires meaning in the overall sentence.<br /><br />Thus when Scripture makes a coherent statement or proclamation, whether literal or metaphorical, whether through part of a sentence, a whole sentence, or a paragraph, then that is the Word of God.<br /><br />"Is it the Word of God when the Bible is closed?"<br /><br />Yes, because the meaning and proclamation remain.<br /><br />"Is it only the Word of God when it is read?" <br /><br />No, for the same reason mentioned, because the meaning and proclamation remain.<br /><br />"When it is read with faith and the Holy Spirit by a Christian?" Or in the Christian community?"<br /><br />Yes, but I would say it remains the objective Word of God regardless of who reads it and regardless of their faith or lack of it.<br /><br />"What if it is misunderstood?"<br /><br />It still remains the Word of God even if misunderstood, because the objective meaning remains true.<br /><br />If you don't find that a satisfactory explanation, or would like more fully fleshed out answers to some questions, I would be happy to try again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-89108716404263169242013-04-10T12:49:35.648+12:002013-04-10T12:49:35.648+12:00"The number of clergy in N.Z. now required ma..."The number of clergy in N.Z. now required make an oath of specific 'obedience' to the 39 Artifacts is nil"<br /><br />Not true. The 39 Articles may not be specifically referenced in the oath, but the oath is to the whole body of NZ Anglican teaching, and the 39 Articles are explicitly stated as being part of that heritage.<br /><br />Now that said, I am perfectly happy to co-exist in the same church with Anglo-Catholics even if I have some strong disagreements with aspects of their theology.<br /><br />And it should be noted that there are many High Churchmen and women who have a high understanding of liturgy and sacrament but do not venerate the elements or pray to saints, so Anglo-Catholics do not have a monopoly on what "Anglican and catholic" might mean.<br /><br />What I DO object to is being told that I am not truly Anglican or catholic if I do not share the specific beliefs of Anglo-Catholics, or that I do not believe that Jesus is present in the celebration of the Eucharist unless I believe in either con or tran substantiation.<br /><br />As I said, and you somehow managed to overlook, Sacramental Union is the Protestant Lutheran doctrine which affirms real presence without affirming an exclusively localised presence.<br /><br />And Orthodox Calvinists believe in real spiritual presence.<br /><br />Thus your claims that all Protestants reject the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, or that we are ignoring what Jesus Himself said, is totally wrong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-26430686938719247102013-04-10T12:34:28.345+12:002013-04-10T12:34:28.345+12:00Hi Ron,
"I do realise of course that many so...Hi Ron,<br /><br />"I do realise of course that many so-called 'Protestants' apparently do not believe that Christ is present in the Eucharist."<br /><br />Rubbish. Did you actually read what Martin and I wrote?<br /><br />I am clearly saying that Christ IS present. The "mechanics" as to HOW He is present are not important to me.<br /><br />For what it is worth I take the Reformed Protestant approach that He is present spiritually. Real Spiritual Presence is STILL presence.<br /><br />"and therefore cannot be expected to actually believe that what Jesus said about the Eucharist Himself is actually true."<br /><br />Jesus did not say what you claim. Jesus also says He is the bread of Life and the True Vine. Am I to take it that therefore He is a loaf of bread and a vine? At the same time?<br /><br />"he once - as ABC - led a pilgrimage to the Shrine of Our Lady at Lourdes. "<br /><br />Praying to mere human beings is forbidden by Scripture, thus is idolatry.<br /><br />Semper Reformanda means bringing the Church back to the Word of God and to true Biblical religion, not to take it back to medieval Roman paganism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-37579671096210840662013-04-10T10:13:33.225+12:002013-04-10T10:13:33.225+12:00". I have met numerous Anglican clergy from t...". I have met numerous Anglican clergy from these country (sic) and not one (I am sure) believes in localised presence via con- or transubstantiation." - Martin - <br /><br />Could this be, Martin, because you do not choose to meet with the sort of catholic Anglicans that I meet with?<br /><br />I guess such understandings are pretty subjective - for all of us.<br /><br />I was recently in the company, in Aotearoa/New Zealand, with a recent Archbishop of Canterbury who is not only aware of the "Presence of Christ in the Eucharist", he once - as ABC - led a pilgrimage to the Shrine of Our Lady at Lourdes. This is one of the signs of catholicity that I, and many other Anglicans can relate to.<br /><br />The number of clergy in N.Z. now required make an oath of specific 'obedience' to the 39 Artifacts is nil - as far as I know, However, I cannot be sure about ordinations in the Nelson Diocese. They seem to have a direct filial connection with the Sydney Diocese - for whom this may be a canonical requirement.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-27606530414643731262013-04-10T10:01:37.019+12:002013-04-10T10:01:37.019+12:00I do realise of course that many so-called 'Pr...I do realise of course that many so-called 'Protestants' apparently do not believe that Christ is present in the Eucharist. <br /><br />However, as a catholic Anglican - along with all other catholic Anglicans who believe according to the Catholic and Apostolic Faith of the Church - and every Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian - we have inherited this orthodoxy from our roots in Christendom.<br /><br />I also realise that many Christians have no tradition in this matter, and therefore cannot be expected to actually believe that what Jesus said about the Eucharist Himself is actually true. <br /><br />This is probably why they are unable to understand the healing power of the Eucharist that Jesus instituted with the words (recorded in Scripture): "This IS My Body; This IS My Blood". Do this to remember Me! - An invitation to share in His Incarnate Life while here on earth!<br /><br />Christ is Risen, Alleluia!<br />He is Risen indeed, Alleluia, Alleluia!Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.com.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-91392518475681336262013-04-10T09:33:32.211+12:002013-04-10T09:33:32.211+12:00Easter Season Greetings
Yes, producing and using ...Easter Season Greetings<br /><br />Yes, producing and using icons, praying in the presence of the Sacrament reserved, using a candle to focus in prayer, and placing the Bible in a significant position are all obviously idolatry, and the church is dying in the West because bishops are not condemning such practices and removing the licenses from clergy who allow such idolatry in church-financed contexts.<br /><br />Let’s also ignore my point that a purely localised presence of Christ in the Sacrament is contrary both to classical theological understanding and actual devotional practice.<br /><br />Let’s ignore that many encounter Christ’s presence in a variety of ways: nature, God’s creation, where two or more are gathered in His name, when reading the Scriptures alone or together, in sacramental actions, in worship alone or together, in heaven seated at the right hand of the Father, in love, in marriage … and let’s reduce Christ’s presence down to just one. <br /><br />But what I really don’t understand - why isn’t anyone even attempting to answer my questions: Is the Bible the Word of God if it is poorly translated? (All translations have limitations!) Is it the Word of God if it is in the original language but there is a single error somewhere in the book? Is a page open of the Bible, the Word of God? If so – how many words need to be present on the page for it to be the Word of God? Is it the Word of God when the Bible is closed? Is it only the Word of God when it is read? When it is read with faith and the Holy Spirit by a Christian? Or in the Christian community? What if it is misunderstood?<br /><br />Christ is Risen!<br /><br />Boscoliturgyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11822769747947139669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-89855101226665239472013-04-09T20:00:48.825+12:002013-04-09T20:00:48.825+12:00"Actually, only some, and I suspect a minorit..."Actually, only some, and I suspect a minority, have actually rejected Cranmer and the 39 Articles. Most Anglicans today do not, and most do not believe in any kind of localised presence via con or transubtantiantion."<br /><br />That certainly fits in with my experience, tho' I confess I don't have any direct experience of the places where the great majority of "modern Anglicans" live, viz. Nigeria, Uganda, and Kenya. I have met numerous Anglican clergy from these country and not one (I am sure) believes in localised presence via con- or transubstantiation. Not that I believe that truth is decided by a majority vote, either. "The whole earth groaned to discover it was Arian" - a crisis that rumbled on for centuries after Nicea.<br />MartinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-53340136713019566972013-04-09T18:09:31.103+12:002013-04-09T18:09:31.103+12:00"Precisely! And that is one of the reasons mo..."Precisely! And that is one of the reasons modern Anglicans no longer refer to the 39 Artifacts"<br /><br />Actually, only some, and I suspect a minority, have actually rejected Cranmer and the 39 Articles. Most Anglicans today do not, and most do not believe in any kind of localised presence via con or transubtantiantion.<br /><br />A purely localised presence is contrary to Scripture, to reason, to the Anglican tradition, and to the principles of the Reformation. Luther himself rejected a localised presence is favour of Sacramental Union (and not Consubstantiation as is sometimes claimed).<br /><br />The Word is present where two or three are gathered in His name. That is all we need to know. <br /><br />While reserving the sacrament for the sick and the elderly is fine, the veneration of the elements is at total odds with Anglican tradition and the teaching of Scripture, and I believe, a form of idolatry.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-91666514057415561792013-04-09T09:24:37.825+12:002013-04-09T09:24:37.825+12:00"Reformed Anglicanism from Cranmer's time..."Reformed Anglicanism from Cranmer's time, and very explicitly in the 39 Articles, has always denied a localised presence of the body and bloood of Christ in the bread and wine, apart from faithful reception."<br /><br /> - Martin -<br /><br />Precisely! And that is one of the reasons modern Anglicans no longer refer to the 39 Artifacts as the 'basis of our faith'. Understanding - of the Church and the world - has moved on from Cranmer. <br />"Semper Reformanda!"<br /><br />"Christ is RISEN from the dead". He is no longer in the tomb. Alleluia!Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.com.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-66770674302851367242013-04-08T20:12:51.521+12:002013-04-08T20:12:51.521+12:00Helpful insights, thank you, Bosco!
I do not (of ...Helpful insights, thank you, Bosco!<br /><br />I do not (of course) wish to caricature any Christian devotion.<br /><br />Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-78944106481585644712013-04-08T19:53:36.714+12:002013-04-08T19:53:36.714+12:00"Receptionism is a model with very good pedig..."Receptionism is a model with very good pedigree (“…the faith of the recipient means that the mysteries are duly honoured, Christ is received and so forth…”) but it can be complemented by other models. In our denomination, as you know, we have agreements of practice that guard the piety of a variety of models"<br /><br />Bosco, one "can" do anything with "models" if one pleases, and the chief goal is to "get along" with others and not upset their piety (however soundly this is based), but the only question that matters is: is this "model" actually true? Reformed Anglicanism from Cranmer's time, and very explicitly in the 39 Articles, has always denied a localised presence of the body and bloood of Christ in the bread and wine, apart from faithful reception. One can ask the same questions, mutatis mutandis, which you do about the Bible (e.g., if mice or birds eat the elements, do they eat 'the Body of Christ'? - a serious question in some quarters!), to which I reply: Not unless they have believing faith, which I consider fairly unlikely, notwithstanding the avian sermons of St Francis of Assisi. None of this means that unused elements should be treated with disdain or indifference, anymore than I would casually discard pictures of my late mother. The bread and the wine have become holy symbols and should be respected as such. But "reserving" them or displaying them was never a part of apostolic worship, and this was Cranmer's point. At some point in the Middle Ages, scholastic theology followed through the logic of transubstantiation (whether or not it used this word) and this is the theological foundation for Reservation, Benediction in monstrance, Processions etc. All of which drew the Reformers' protest that bread and wine are for consuming, not contemplating.<br />All of which means you can't escape defining what you mean by 'real' when you talk about 'Real Presence'. 'res' had a specific meaning in scholastic theology that is often misunderstood today.<br /><br />MartinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-46553293280251694982013-04-08T18:00:01.933+12:002013-04-08T18:00:01.933+12:00Easter Season Greetings!
We would both know, I su...Easter Season Greetings!<br /><br />We would both know, I suspect, and in my case I certainly know, Godly people whose intimacy with Christ is intimately tied to deep prayer in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament reserved. God has a variety of ways through which he can draw us to intimacy with Him, and reverence for the Blessed Sacrament is certainly one that has been with the church for a very long time, and across much of Christianity currently.<br /><br />I think, Peter, you are encircling your point carefully, but I think it is also worth picking up part of your point to see that it is not stretched too far:<br /><br />“But while the reserved sacrament lies in the vestry, whether in a box dignified with a special name or in a plastic container, the reserved sacrament is not the body of Christ in the sense that (for example) by popping into the vestry to collect the laundry, one is closer to Christ's 'real presence' than if one were out in the cemetery mowing the grass between the graves.”<br /><br />Receptionism is a model with very good pedigree (“…the faith of the recipient means that the mysteries are duly honoured, Christ is received and so forth…”) but it can be complemented by other models. In our denomination, as you know, we have agreements of practice that guard the piety of a variety of models.<br /><br />Your section I quoted can be read towards a parodying perspective. Classically, within the Real Presence model, “Christ is not in the sacrament as in a place and is not moved when the sacrament is moved”. I do not think that those sitting in the back of a church where the Sacrament is reserved perceive themselves as further from Christ to those sitting in the front.<br /><br />One could make a similar caricature of the Bible. I hold to the Bible as the Word of God. But one can over-intellectualise this: Is it the Word of God if it is poorly translated? (All translations have limitations!) Is it the Word of God if it is in the original language but there is a single error somewhere in the book? Is a page open of the Bible, the Word of God? If so – how many words need to be present on the page for it to be the Word of God? Is it the Word of God when the Bible is closed? Is it only the Word of God when it is read? When it is read with faith and the Holy Spirit by a Christian? Or in the Christian community? What if it is misunderstood? <br /><br />I would be the last to mock someone who has the Bible placed (open or closed; whatever the version) giving it pride of place with flowers and/or a candle and/or icon in their room – as a sign and expression and extension of their devotion and living of the Bible as God’s Word to them day by day.<br /><br />Alleluia! Christ is risen!<br /><br />Boscoliturgyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11822769747947139669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-46275926465042844002013-03-23T03:31:37.025+13:002013-03-23T03:31:37.025+13:00I have followed this antipodian Colloquy of Christ...I have followed this antipodian Colloquy of Christchurch with interest..and wondered if either of you had read The Mystery of the Eucharist in the Anglican Tradition by H R McAdoo and Kenneth Stevenson Canterbury Press 1995 very helpful but it seems to have been hardly noticed ot reviewed..Perry ( Canterbury UK)#Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-54964474494551676242013-03-22T21:43:53.261+13:002013-03-22T21:43:53.261+13:00Yes, Peter, the understanding of the Reserved Sacr...Yes, Peter, the understanding of the Reserved Sacrament can be considered a 'novelty - for those who have never been exposed to it - in N.Z. for instance. However, from my own roots, in the Church of England, it has been a reality for at least 150 years. This is the reformed, reformed tradition of the Church of England - very novel to those more than 150 years old! I'm not there yet.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.com.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-68903883915031095342013-03-22T12:40:55.496+13:002013-03-22T12:40:55.496+13:00It is a novelty, as you know Ron, within the refor...It is a novelty, as you know Ron, within the reformed Church of England, for the sacrament to be reverenced, whether or not millions of others are doing so.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-22712755791232548262013-03-22T12:36:34.756+13:002013-03-22T12:36:34.756+13:00"the reserved sacrament is not the body of Ch..."the reserved sacrament is not the body of Christ in the sense that (for example) by popping into the vestry to collect the laundry, one is closer to Christ's 'real presence' than if one were out in the cemetery mowing the grass between the graves."<br /><br /> - Dr. Peter Carrell -<br /><br />As you will by now be perfectly aware, Peter, I, and many millions of Catholic and Orthodox Christians would profoundly disagree with you on this point.<br /><br />In such Anglican, Roman Catho0lic and Orthodoz (by far the majority of Christians in the world) churches - where the Blessed Sacrament is 'Reserved' - it is not 'left in the vestry' but rather given a place of prominence in the sanctuary or side-chapel provided for the specific purpose of easily providing that Presence of Christ' in Whose company one can pray and contemplate the divine reality.<br /><br />In churches where there is no such 'Presence', Catholic and Orthodox Christians may feel an 'absence' that deprives them of the comfort that can be spiritually available in such an authorised provision.<br /><br />Of course, if one is not used to this tradition, the Sacramental Eucharistic Presence may be considered of no spiritual value. <br /><br />I do not criticise anyone for this.<br />I merely am sad that they have no access to what many generations of Christians have long perceived to be a legitimate source of devotion.<br /><br />"There, we, before Him bending, this great Sacrament revere".Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.com.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-139004324187846322013-03-21T21:03:40.278+13:002013-03-21T21:03:40.278+13:00Hi Ron,
Yes, Cranmer is definitely worth a Mass! (...Hi Ron,<br />Yes, Cranmer is definitely worth a Mass! (Just remembrance at Morning Prayer from me, I'm afraid).<br /><br />Of course I know of reserved sacrament, extended communion, why, I have even digested it!<br /><br />The reserved sacrament could be venerated (because it is the body of Christ) but that is neither to my taste nor to my theology. The reserved sacrament is bread and wine consecrated for use on another occasion which is an extension of the communion of one congregation to another (albeit the congregation consist of two person, the sick and the distributor!). On the occasion of such distribution the faith of the recipient means that the mysteries are duly honoured, Christ is received and so forth.<br /><br />But while the reserved sacrament lies in the vestry, whether in a box dignified with a special name or in a plastic container, the reserved sacrament is not the body of Christ in the sense that (for example) by popping into the vestry to collect the laundry, one is closer to Christ's 'real presence' than if one were out in the cemetery mowing the grass between the graves.<br /><br />As for generous nuance: sometimes Scripture admits of that possibility, sometimes it does not. If Christ had said, for instance, 'This bread is a token of my body', I don't think there would be much room for nuance!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.com