When Archbishop Thomas Cranmer wrote "A Defence of the True and Catholick Doctrine of the Sacrament" in the reign of Edward VI, he started with an entirely positive summary of the New Testament texts about the Lord's Supper, declaring the doctrine about the sacrament and the grace of God. The need of sinful man for God, described in both testaments as hunger and thirst, is felt only by God's grace, and the need is provided only by God's grace. The entire Gospel message is summarized as part of the teaching he presents about the sacrament of Holy Communion.
After his New Testament summary and teaching, which is fairly brief, he takes on the doctrine of Transubstantiation, showing both from Scripture and from the Fathers of the Church, that it was not the doctrine of ancient Christianity. In addition to Christ and St. Paul, he calls as his witnesses Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Cyprian, Eusebius Emissenus, Hilary, Epiphanius, John Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine, Gelasius and Theodoret.
His collection of quotations leaves room neither for the Vicentian Canon nor for Newman's Theory of Doctrinal Development, as a resource to affirm the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Yet, what he takes on at that point is not the presence of Christ, but the absence of bread of wine as having been abolished and replaced, or as a mere "accident" disguising the "substance." And, lest his reasoning be dismissed as mere religious controversy for its own sake, he explains the danger of Christological errors that may result from this "real absence" of the substance of bread and wine, the loss of a sign that "overthroweth the nature of a sacrament."1
Transubstantiation in the sixteenth century had but one meaning, universally understood as a correct definition. It was declared again after Cranmer's death, and set in stone at the Council of Trent, Session 13, chapter iv:
...a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation.
Based on Aristotelian concepts, this requires division of reality into accidents and substance. To hold the belief defined at Trent, it is necessary to say that the accidents of bread and wine have become a mere appearance that disguises the substance, the reality. The Roman Catholic doctrine, defined there, is that bread and wine are no longer present at all once the words of Christ are repeated by the priest, even though these substances appear to be present. That this contradicts the words of Jesus and St. Paul 2, as well as the teaching of the early Fathers, leads Cranmer to sound his warning.
The papastical doctrine is against all our outward senses called our five wits...Christ never made no such article of our faith. Our faith teacheth us to believe things that we see not, but it doth not bid us, that we shall not believe that we see daily with our eyes, and hear with our ears, and grope with our hands. For although our senses cannot reach so far as our faith doth, yet so far as the compass of our senses doth usually reach, our faith is not contrary to the same, but rather our senses do confirm our faith. Or else what availed it to St. Thomas, for the confirmation of Christ's resurrection, that he did put his hand into Christ's side, and felt his wounds, if he might not trust his senses, nor give no credit thereto?
And what a wide door is here opened to Valentinianus, Marcion and other heretics which said, "that Christ was not crucified, but that Simon Cyrenaeus was crucified for him, although to the sight of the people it seemed that Christ was crucified?" or to such heretics as said, that "Christ was no man, although to men's sights he appeared in the form of man, and seemed to be hungry, dry, weary, to weep, sleep, eat, drink, yea, and to die like as other men do." For if we once admit this doctrine, that no credit is to be given to our senses, we open a large field, and give a great occasion unto an innumerable rabblement of most heinous heresies.
Cranmer shows that the doctrine of Transubstantiation requires us to consider God a deceiver, "a juggler" who fools us by our senses. If this is so, we have no witnesses to the Resurrection of Christ and no fellowship with God through the Incarnation. Gone is the Gospel itself, replaced by the tricks of an illusionist. Modern readers cannot always appreciate why Cranmer used the title Antichrist in reference to this teaching, because they associate it with an eschatological figure who will possess imperial powers, and they associate him with the beast of Revelation. But, more likely, Cranmer intended to use the word "Antichrist" as the Bible actually uses it, appearing only in the Epistles of St. John. There, especially in the fourth chapter of his First Epistle, it signifies false teachers, especially those who deny the Incarnation.
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. 3
It is likely that Archbishop Cranmer thought specifically of this passage, suggesting that the implication of division between accidents and substance, robs us of faith in the central doctrine of Christianity, that "the Word was made flesh." 4 The Faith as proclaimed in the Gospel rests on the eyewitness accounts of those who trusted their five senses, 5 and did not believe that God used those senses to trick them with illusions; but that he confirmed Christ's real bodily presence as a man, and his resurrection through those same senses. Cranmer, therefore, saw great danger in opening wide the door of Christ as "juggler" or showman, showing bread and wine, but taking away its substance, fooling the senses and showing them liars.
If modern readers consider Archbishop Cranmer to have been extreme in this matter, or to have overstated his case, it is no doubt because the Roman Catholic Church managed not to fall into the trap, but rather to retain a solid belief in the Incarnation and bodily resurrection of Christ. The division of accidents and substance has the potential to lead into the very errors Cranmer warned against; but, if only through the force of the Creeds, it was avoided.
Archbishop Ratzinger
In the twentieth century, while he was Archbishop of Munich (before he was a Cardinal), Joseph Ratzinger, who is now Pope Benedict XVI, was simply too educated and intelligent to present the same old Aristotelian concepts. He was aware of modern physics, and therefore of the fact that all matter is essentially the same stuff, organized energy. He has always been too much of a philosopher and theologian to recite old formulas without considering them thoroughly. The result, as we have seen before, is that he gave the word Transubstantiation a definition that bridges a gap between Rome and Anglicanism regarding the mystery we call Holy Communion.
In the book, God is Near Us, 6 a collection of sermons from his time as Archbishop of Munich, we come across the homily, "The Presence of the Lord in the Sacrament." In the portion we have quoted before, you may read the larger context (as linked above). The words that matter most are these:
Whenever the Body of Christ, that is, the risen and bodily Christ, comes, he is greater than the bread, other, not of the same order. The transformation happens, which affects the gifts we bring by taking them up into a higher order and changes them, even if we cannot measure what happens...The Lord takes possession of the bread and the wine; he lifts them up, as it were, out of the setting of their normal existence into a new order; even if, from a purely physical point of view, they remain the same, they have become profoundly different.
It is that little phrase, "even if, from a purely physical point of view, they remain the same," that offers us the hope of reconciliation between the Reason that Cranmer brought to the subject, and the Church of Rome. Pope Benedict has abandoned the idea of Christ's Body and Blood replacing the bread and wine, of God as the grand illusionist, and of faith as contrary to the senses and, therefore, to Reason. By his paradigm the potential danger of antichrist teaching, denial of the Incarnation, is finally removed from the realm of possibility, assuming his definition will prevail. His idea of Christ as present in the sacrament is based on a spiritual transformation, not a physical change that amounts to sleight of hand. It is not a material change, but a union between the Matter of the sacrament and the Incarnate Christ. And, that is entirely consistent with Cranmer, Hooker and the Book of Common Prayer including what the Thirty-Nine Articles say on the subject.
Mere precedence and Tradition
However, as good as it is to read the words of Pope Benedict XVI in that old homily, one thing is obvious, and to Anglican readers something that may be admitted. What Pope Benedict XVI has described with the words, "even if, from a purely physical point of view, they remain the same," does, in fact, contradict the words of the Council of Trent in their plain meaning.
...a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation.
In fact, to believe that "a conversion is made of the whole substance" has to mean that "from a purely physical point of view" they are no longer bread and no longer wine. As long as the words of Trent stand, the words of the current pope are secondary and on trial.
Because the Roman Catholic Church cannot alter or correct a past error, but must treat all precedents of doctrine as equal to the Catholic Tradition, acceptance of the Ratzinger definition has to undergo an Orwellian procedure, changing the past to control the future. It is necessary, in their world, to call what he teaches by that same name, Transubstantiation. It must be so called, even though he has given the word a new definition that contradicts the plain meaning of Trent, and has taught a concept that really cannot be called Transubstantiation. It can be called Real Presence, as long as by that we mean a spiritual rather than physical reality, accepted and appreciated only by faith on the part of the one who receives the sacrament.
For us, the idea of throwing away a bad piece of conciliar definition, as was done many times in the First Millennium (leaving only Seven of numerous councils with the title Oecumenical), is perfectly reasonable, bringing the witness of Scripture and Antiquity to bear to keep doctrine pure. Rome cannot do this, but must keep everything as infallible, even when "infallible" doctrines contradict each other. We can only pray that the Ratzinger definition wins out, and the dangers inherent in Trent's definition vanish away.
1. Article XXVIII
2. e.g. I Cor. 10:16
3. I John 4:1-3
4. John 1:14
5. I Cor. 15:1-11
6. Pope Benedict XVI, God is Near Us, 2003 Ignatius Press, San Fransisco
His collection of quotations leaves room neither for the Vicentian Canon nor for Newman's Theory of Doctrinal Development, as a resource to affirm the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Yet, what he takes on at that point is not the presence of Christ, but the absence of bread of wine as having been abolished and replaced, or as a mere "accident" disguising the "substance." And, lest his reasoning be dismissed as mere religious controversy for its own sake, he explains the danger of Christological errors that may result from this "real absence" of the substance of bread and wine, the loss of a sign that "overthroweth the nature of a sacrament."1
Transubstantiation in the sixteenth century had but one meaning, universally understood as a correct definition. It was declared again after Cranmer's death, and set in stone at the Council of Trent, Session 13, chapter iv:
...a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation.
Based on Aristotelian concepts, this requires division of reality into accidents and substance. To hold the belief defined at Trent, it is necessary to say that the accidents of bread and wine have become a mere appearance that disguises the substance, the reality. The Roman Catholic doctrine, defined there, is that bread and wine are no longer present at all once the words of Christ are repeated by the priest, even though these substances appear to be present. That this contradicts the words of Jesus and St. Paul 2, as well as the teaching of the early Fathers, leads Cranmer to sound his warning.
The papastical doctrine is against all our outward senses called our five wits...Christ never made no such article of our faith. Our faith teacheth us to believe things that we see not, but it doth not bid us, that we shall not believe that we see daily with our eyes, and hear with our ears, and grope with our hands. For although our senses cannot reach so far as our faith doth, yet so far as the compass of our senses doth usually reach, our faith is not contrary to the same, but rather our senses do confirm our faith. Or else what availed it to St. Thomas, for the confirmation of Christ's resurrection, that he did put his hand into Christ's side, and felt his wounds, if he might not trust his senses, nor give no credit thereto?
And what a wide door is here opened to Valentinianus, Marcion and other heretics which said, "that Christ was not crucified, but that Simon Cyrenaeus was crucified for him, although to the sight of the people it seemed that Christ was crucified?" or to such heretics as said, that "Christ was no man, although to men's sights he appeared in the form of man, and seemed to be hungry, dry, weary, to weep, sleep, eat, drink, yea, and to die like as other men do." For if we once admit this doctrine, that no credit is to be given to our senses, we open a large field, and give a great occasion unto an innumerable rabblement of most heinous heresies.
Cranmer shows that the doctrine of Transubstantiation requires us to consider God a deceiver, "a juggler" who fools us by our senses. If this is so, we have no witnesses to the Resurrection of Christ and no fellowship with God through the Incarnation. Gone is the Gospel itself, replaced by the tricks of an illusionist. Modern readers cannot always appreciate why Cranmer used the title Antichrist in reference to this teaching, because they associate it with an eschatological figure who will possess imperial powers, and they associate him with the beast of Revelation. But, more likely, Cranmer intended to use the word "Antichrist" as the Bible actually uses it, appearing only in the Epistles of St. John. There, especially in the fourth chapter of his First Epistle, it signifies false teachers, especially those who deny the Incarnation.
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. 3
It is likely that Archbishop Cranmer thought specifically of this passage, suggesting that the implication of division between accidents and substance, robs us of faith in the central doctrine of Christianity, that "the Word was made flesh." 4 The Faith as proclaimed in the Gospel rests on the eyewitness accounts of those who trusted their five senses, 5 and did not believe that God used those senses to trick them with illusions; but that he confirmed Christ's real bodily presence as a man, and his resurrection through those same senses. Cranmer, therefore, saw great danger in opening wide the door of Christ as "juggler" or showman, showing bread and wine, but taking away its substance, fooling the senses and showing them liars.
If modern readers consider Archbishop Cranmer to have been extreme in this matter, or to have overstated his case, it is no doubt because the Roman Catholic Church managed not to fall into the trap, but rather to retain a solid belief in the Incarnation and bodily resurrection of Christ. The division of accidents and substance has the potential to lead into the very errors Cranmer warned against; but, if only through the force of the Creeds, it was avoided.
Archbishop Ratzinger
In the twentieth century, while he was Archbishop of Munich (before he was a Cardinal), Joseph Ratzinger, who is now Pope Benedict XVI, was simply too educated and intelligent to present the same old Aristotelian concepts. He was aware of modern physics, and therefore of the fact that all matter is essentially the same stuff, organized energy. He has always been too much of a philosopher and theologian to recite old formulas without considering them thoroughly. The result, as we have seen before, is that he gave the word Transubstantiation a definition that bridges a gap between Rome and Anglicanism regarding the mystery we call Holy Communion.
In the book, God is Near Us, 6 a collection of sermons from his time as Archbishop of Munich, we come across the homily, "The Presence of the Lord in the Sacrament." In the portion we have quoted before, you may read the larger context (as linked above). The words that matter most are these:
Whenever the Body of Christ, that is, the risen and bodily Christ, comes, he is greater than the bread, other, not of the same order. The transformation happens, which affects the gifts we bring by taking them up into a higher order and changes them, even if we cannot measure what happens...The Lord takes possession of the bread and the wine; he lifts them up, as it were, out of the setting of their normal existence into a new order; even if, from a purely physical point of view, they remain the same, they have become profoundly different.
It is that little phrase, "even if, from a purely physical point of view, they remain the same," that offers us the hope of reconciliation between the Reason that Cranmer brought to the subject, and the Church of Rome. Pope Benedict has abandoned the idea of Christ's Body and Blood replacing the bread and wine, of God as the grand illusionist, and of faith as contrary to the senses and, therefore, to Reason. By his paradigm the potential danger of antichrist teaching, denial of the Incarnation, is finally removed from the realm of possibility, assuming his definition will prevail. His idea of Christ as present in the sacrament is based on a spiritual transformation, not a physical change that amounts to sleight of hand. It is not a material change, but a union between the Matter of the sacrament and the Incarnate Christ. And, that is entirely consistent with Cranmer, Hooker and the Book of Common Prayer including what the Thirty-Nine Articles say on the subject.
Mere precedence and Tradition
However, as good as it is to read the words of Pope Benedict XVI in that old homily, one thing is obvious, and to Anglican readers something that may be admitted. What Pope Benedict XVI has described with the words, "even if, from a purely physical point of view, they remain the same," does, in fact, contradict the words of the Council of Trent in their plain meaning.
...a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation.
In fact, to believe that "a conversion is made of the whole substance" has to mean that "from a purely physical point of view" they are no longer bread and no longer wine. As long as the words of Trent stand, the words of the current pope are secondary and on trial.
Because the Roman Catholic Church cannot alter or correct a past error, but must treat all precedents of doctrine as equal to the Catholic Tradition, acceptance of the Ratzinger definition has to undergo an Orwellian procedure, changing the past to control the future. It is necessary, in their world, to call what he teaches by that same name, Transubstantiation. It must be so called, even though he has given the word a new definition that contradicts the plain meaning of Trent, and has taught a concept that really cannot be called Transubstantiation. It can be called Real Presence, as long as by that we mean a spiritual rather than physical reality, accepted and appreciated only by faith on the part of the one who receives the sacrament.
For us, the idea of throwing away a bad piece of conciliar definition, as was done many times in the First Millennium (leaving only Seven of numerous councils with the title Oecumenical), is perfectly reasonable, bringing the witness of Scripture and Antiquity to bear to keep doctrine pure. Rome cannot do this, but must keep everything as infallible, even when "infallible" doctrines contradict each other. We can only pray that the Ratzinger definition wins out, and the dangers inherent in Trent's definition vanish away.
1. Article XXVIII
2. e.g. I Cor. 10:16
3. I John 4:1-3
4. John 1:14
5. I Cor. 15:1-11
6. Pope Benedict XVI, God is Near Us, 2003 Ignatius Press, San Fransisco
76 comments:
A close friend of mine, deacon in the RCC and charged with training permanent deacons for the Archdiocese of Vienna, has an interesting explanation: when the ancients (and following them, Trent) talked of "substance", they did not mean "physical substance" in a modern sense, but rather the essential nature of a thing, the "essence".
But it seems to me that this does not solve the christological problem Fr Hart raises, that if God should be in the habit of presenting to us things whose appearance ("accident") is radiacally different from their essence, then eye witness testimony such as we find in Scripture becomes utterly meaningless.
You are quite wrong to pit Cardinal Ratzinger against Transubstantiation. Transubstantiation is just one way (the preferred way in the Catholic Church) to express the fact of Christ's presence in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. He uses a different way of saying the same thing. Cranmer, on the other hand, denies the Real Presence in both the Aristotelian sense(which he seems not to really understand)and in Ratzinger's sense. he is, simply put, a heretic!
Very well done, Father Hart. I have always felt that those Anglicans who rushed to embrace Roman definitions and doctrines were precisely those who could not handle real philosophy or real theology.
So now we have regressed from 'lazy journalism' to 'lazy theology.' It is good, indeed very good, to see you slay the dragons of both.
It would certainly seem that H.H. Benedict XVI (being a world-class theologian in his own right) has found a way forward in stating the doctrine of the Real Presence. But comparing his writing on this topic to that of Trent (and to old-fashioned popular RC presentations) is reminiscent of their revisionism on Justification. While some of the more notorious Tiber-swimmers tell us we should not be stuck on a "wooden" (i. e., literal) reading of Trent, I am quite wary of making key doctrines into a wax nose. If it is possibly to revise one doctrine, it is possible to revise another. Why cannot the Church simply say, "We erred and need to be Reformed?" Perhaps the more profound error is the notion of an infallible Church.
LKW
This is total sophistry.
The real sophistry was shot down by Abp. Cranmer.
Excellent article Fr. Hart. Pope Benedict is indeed a first class theologian, which makes his position as Pope all the more intriguing. He seems to have similar adjustments or nuances on solafidianism, as expressed in a general audience from Nov. 2008. But, as you state, Trent stands unaltered as official RCC doctrine on these matters.
In an interview from a few months ago, Dr. Michael Horton (Professor of Theology and Apologetics at Westminster Seminary California) had these complimentary and interesting comments regarding the Pontiff.
If you could have a one-hour discussion with any living person in the world today, who would it be?
Pope Benedict XVI. He's a very interesting theologian whom I've quoted in my book on justification in the covenant and eschatology series. I interact extensively with Pope Benedict; it's amazing--he really is the best theologian the Papacy has seen since I don't know when, and he loves covenant theology. He has read a lot of the same authors Reformed theologians have read, and he even comes to the conclusion: I can see how the Reformation happened; I can see how the Reformers made the conclusions they did.
Well, thank you, Pope Benedict, too bad it's now been five hundred years, but what is your conclusion from all that? If you say you agree with the exegesis, does dogma trump exegesis? It would be very enjoyable to have a conversation with him, not adversarial but to ask him some questions. I just endorsed a book Scott Hahn wrote on the Pope's biblical theology. By "biblical theology," I don't necessarily mean that it's biblically accurate! Biblical theology is a sub-discipline that follows the development of a doctrine or biblical motif from Genesis to Revelation. Pope Benedict does a lot of that and even when I disagree (quite often!), it's serious and well-argued.
1. W N Paul wrote: "A ... deacon in the RCC ... has an interesting explanation: when the ancients (and following them, Trent) talked of 'substance', they did not mean 'physical substance' in a modern sense, but rather the essential nature of a thing, the 'essence'."
What is "interesting" is that this explanation is not immediately recognized for what it is. I suppose the reason is the general neglect of philosophy in modern curricula.
The Viennese deacon is correctly summarizing Aristotle's theory of "substance" vs. "accidents" where "substance" is, in essence, the Platonic "form" or ideal, the nature of the thing in itself, and "accident" is a mere outward appearance, capable of apprehension by human senses.
2. Cherub wrote, "Cranmer ... denies the Real Presence in both the Aristotelian sense (which he seems not to really understand) and in Ratzinger's sense. He is, simply put, a heretic!"
Cranmer was a 16th-Century university professor, in a day when basic philosophy was an essential of the undergraduate curriculum. As such, he was perfectly well acquainted with both Plato's and Aristotle's formulations.
Nor did Cranmer in any way deny the Real Presence. Instead, he began his argument with that truth, derived directly from Scripture, and on that basis laid out elegantly the essential error in the Tridentine conception.
John A. Hollister+
Thank you again, Jack Miller! Wouldnt it be wonderful to eavesdrop on a conversation between Pope Benedict and Michael Horton?
Horton is one of my top favorite theologians. In his "Covenant and Salvation," he devotes an appreciative five pages to Benedict's "Many Religions---One Covenant," written before he was elevated to the Chair of Peter. Horton waxes enthusiastic over Bendict's handling of the Biblical doctrine of covenant, while he goes to great lengths to refute N.T.Wright's work on the same topics.
What makes this all very interesting is that Horton has been identified with the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals and would be far from sanguine on "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" or the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. But Horton is, like the Holy Father, a world class theologian and his school (WTSC) is the finest theological institution I know of. If we only had the equivalent!
LKW
Dear Fr. Hart,
In trying to explain legitimacy of Henrician doctrine, especially as it may pertain to the aspects of the Mass, I would give light weight to B16. Rome is notorious for her studied nuances, being very prudent to give herself sufficient 'maneuvering' room without changing dogmatic theology. I would not get too giddy as this reminds me of the so-called 'break-through progress' made between Lutherans and Romans over Justification by Faith. The real 'breakthrough' was not so much a new understanding, but Lutherans forgetting their own confessional faith. Somehow I suspect B16 is operating and taking advantage of a similar milieu.
While I think the Henrician certainly cannot be called 'complete' in its theology (too much was implicit), I recently read an earlier comment you made regarding Henry, agreeing most readily with the consequences of not understanding Henry's high views, "The right reason for mentioning the Henrican period is to put limits on the idea of endless theological speculation, and the result should be greater fidelity to the doctrine of the Elizabethans. These are not contradictory, though without the Henrican foundation, the Elizabethan structure colapses. "
This indeed might be a strong statement, but too often historians and theologians (especially those standing outside the Anglican Way)treat Henry as a reactionary, somehow not fitting within the reformation period, as if it really took hold under Edward or Elizabeth. Glossing over Henry (especially his doctrinal and disciplinary veiws) invokes a tremendous deficiency, and while Henry hedged the implications of Augustinian soteriology away from the medieval Mass, one cannot understand Elizabethan theology without him. Henry does provide an interpretative foundation for later reform which Elizabeth and her divines were careful not to overthrow but build upon, with Cranmer provided the general vector.
However, I don't see B16 or Rome's studied ambiguities really clarifying classical Anglican sacramentology. Nonetheless, your earlier statement is actually very true, and springing from it is better than quoting B16 with respect to the ugly 'T'-word.
Charles:
Actually, I am not afraid that Rome will ever go back to thinking about Transubstantiation the old way, simply because modern physics rules out the distinction between "accidents" and "substance" as having any meaning. Form has meaning, not the old Aristotelian concept. From what I see, the Ratzinger definition is the only way to make the old "T" word palatable. What we can see, from the perspective of distance, is that their doctrine is not, therefore, really consistent in the manner they pretend. This would not be a problem except for the enormous weight they impose on themselves by their claims, and which they seek to impose on the rest of us.
Furthermore, I would not want either Rome or Anglicans to be stuck in the 16th century. They have grown into better understanding with our help (not that they admit it), as have we with more thorough knowledge of Antiquity.
But, too often we dismiss our own fathers. We should appreciate the good qualities in such Reformers as Cranmer, especially in terms of his learning and grasp of the Bible, the languages, and the Fathers. The martyred Archbishop wrote his book to defend "the true and Catholick doctrine" just as later Queen Elizabeth would define the goal of the English Reformation in its second secession, to abide by the teaching of "the most ancient Catholic doctors and bishops."
I was sent this in email by Archbishop Haverland:
Real Presence
Father Hart’s main point seems to be that the Eucharistic theology of Benedict XVI is better than that of late medieval Catholic thought or of later Roman Catholic theologians who felt obliged to defend late medieval thought. Father Hart uses parallels between Christology and Eucharistic theology to support Benedict’s ideas, which Father Hart sees as having affinities with Anglican thought on the matter. Father Hart objects to many traditional formulations of Transubstantiation by suggesting that they either imply a Docetic denial of the reality of Christ’s humanity or imply the fundamental unreliability of the human senses. Either possibility, Father Hart suggests, in turn undermines the gospel. While no one has mentioned the Athanasian creed in the present discussion, what Father Hart sees in Benedict is something similar to the creed's idea that in the hypostatic union God becomes man ‘not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking the Manhood into God’. This divinization of the human, without abolishing its proper qualities, is something we can only partly explain or understand yet is true.
I do not think myself that there is much value in attempting to formulate the strongest possible Anglican position by reposing much confidence in Thomas Cranmer’s theology or in that of the earlier Tudors. But neither should we forgot that the Reformation was correct in saying that the Eucharist is primarily about faithful Communion rather than uncommunicating spectacle (though He didn’t say we could have both at times). For Anglican Catholics the main question is not what Cranmer believed but what the great central tradition of Christendom believes. For the purpose of answering that question we must look to Scripture, the Fathers, and the living consensus of the Churches of the East and the West. The Tudors, who were so deeply focused on their debates with Rome, did look to Scripture and the Fathers, but had much less understanding than we do of the great Churches of the East. The Tudors sometimes rejected as medieval or Roman corruptions things which in fact are part of the consensus of the Faith: e.g., the intercession of the saints.
It seems clear that Catholic and Orthodox Christians believe in a Real Presence that is objective and that is in some way connected to a transformation in the Eucharistic oblations through consecration. That is to say, the Presence is not merely a psychological reality in the faithful communicant. Nor is the Presence merely connected to the Eucharistic elements accidentally, as if by a kind of Nestorian (to extend the Christological parallel) external conjunction of God’s grace and the outward elements of the sacrament. That is to say, the consecrated oblations do not merely signify the Body and Blood of Christ (‘transsignification’), but are the Body and Blood of Christ in an unbloody, inexplicable, mysterious, but real manner.
The simplest way to note the reality of the Real Presence is to teach that the unworthy recipient receives the Body and Blood of Christ, though to his spiritual downfall: I Corinthians xi. The Body and Blood are present even if not perceived or received by faith. Those who reject this objective Presence part company with both Saint Paul and with the great tradition of the East and West, which Pope Benedict articulates.
+MDH
I believe that the last paragraph is consistent with the meaning of Article XXIX; for, it was about the grace of the sacrament, using the phrase "partakers of Christ." They used the word "partake" as they used the word "communion," both to refer back to the Greek word κοινωνία (koinōnia).
It seems to me that in Abp. Haverland's remarks he may have meant to say, "though He didn’t say we could not have both at times." I suspect the word "not" was missing by a typo.
Hello Fr. Hart,
I tend to think the 16th century was too tumultuous to point to a definite or finished Anglican way. Buxton, in his history of the English Eucharistic prayer and Words of Insitution, identifies the (re)formative period between 1559 to 1718. On here Bp. Peter identified it between 1559 and 1688. But I see Buxton's point, namely it wasn't until usagers formalized the main components in their revision of 1662/37 that a 'second' strain of Anglican eucharist theology arose, culminating in the Scottish 1764. The American reconciles the English and Scottish rites in surprising ways. The term 'usager' is an important qualification because not all non-jurors agreed with Brett and Deacon. Meanwhile, these currents are indeed important, including the errors of Rome, because they live with us today, and how we deal with such will, in large part, determine fortunes of Continuuing anglicanism in NA. Anyway, after 1718, if not 1688, you see a very stable form of Anglicanism that persists for two centuries. The stability of it is often treated as tupor, unfortunately. So, I am more inclined to point to English and Scottish use mid-18th century than 16th, and, of course, the subscription to Articles remained confessionally ex animo from 1604 canon.
Dear Fr. Hart,
After reading AB Haverland's response to your post, I don't understand why anyone would try say Cranmer 1548 Catechism or anything coming from a single Anglican divine is representative. We know Cranmer changed his views, and this ought to be a consideration, but one would have to read the broad gamut of literature approved by the Crown or published by University to get a more distinct picture. By the 17th and 18th centuries you get something more settled, approximating a consensus, where Waterland's Review probably sums eucharist theology the best according to English standards. The Scottish kind of set another trajectory, and I believe this is whay AB Haverland really identifies with because of its influence by the East. Nonetheless, I think Cranmer as a sole authority (or the travails of the 16th century) is a bit of a strawman.
Ab Haverland said:
"It seems clear that Catholic and Orthodox Christians believe in a Real Presence that is objective and that is in some way connected to a transformation in the Eucharistic oblations through consecration."
,
If we consider the Anglican majority opinion from 1559 to 1831 (before the Oxford movement), the 'transformation' of the bread and wine is according to their 'use' not 'substance'. Waterland is representative of majority English opinion, holding closest to historic BCP and Articles. It was the Usagers and later Tractarians who began forming a second opinion.
Nonetheless, I think Cranmer as a sole authority (or the travails of the 16th century) is a bit of a strawman.
Charles:
What does that have to do with the reasoning of his argument? He made some very good points in his book, and I am more than willing to highlight them. His work is part, indeed an important part, of the overall picture in helping to take us back to the most ancient Catholic doctors and bishops.
I consider the RCC's Transubstantiation, as it was defined and understood in the 16th century, to be every bit as contrary to the ancient Catholic consensus as Memorialism, though it is the opposite kind of real absence.
I tend to think the 16th century was too tumultuous to point to a definite or finished Anglican way.
But, if we do not make the theology of that period part of our learning, we will have a big hole in our knowledge. Furthermore, when Anglo-Catholics get embarrassed by the 16th century portion of their heritage, and try to hide from it, they 1)fail to learn the language of the period and the Anglican arguments in light of the times; As a consequence they 2)promote misinformation about the actual Anglican heritage itself, in turn 3)assisting Roman efforts to create a series of false charges against our patrimony and validity.
Does every serious look at Cranmer, Hooker, the Articles, etc., have to be given some Anglo-Catholic disclaimer? I have no intention of hiding my eyes from the old family photographs, or failing to see the good wherever and whenever it was.
Fr. Hart wrote:
His work is part, indeed an important part, of the overall picture in helping to take us back to the most ancient Catholic doctors and bishops.
and...
Does every serious look at Cranmer, Hooker, the Articles, etc., have to be given some Anglo-Catholic disclaimer? I have no intention of hiding my eyes from the old family photographs, or failing to see the good wherever and whenever it was.
Thank you Fr. Hart for these and all your words in the post and comments. I am a "Johnny-come-lately" to the Anglican branch of the Church, after many years of a gradual traveling towards "Cantebery." When I began interacting with the BCP I found the law. I found repentance and confession. I found the gospel. I found justification by faith in Christ's merits alone. I found the grace of God reigning. I found an out-pouring of thanksgiving and gratitude unto Him who bestowed upon sinners such salvation. I found the Lord's Supper, the Eucharist, as a sacramental partaking of Christ, the Gospel culmination of the Church's worship and God's visible proclamation of Christ's death and resurrection on our behalf. Fed through word and sacrament. And it is the 16th century English reformers and teachers (Cranmer, Hooker...) who set this direction for the Church. Cranmers' theology is intimately interwoven into our Christ centered liturgy.
Sorry, sometimes I get carried away a little...
I wrote:
And it is the 16th century English reformers and teachers (Cranmer, Jewel, Hooker...) who set this direction for the Church.
I want to amend that sentence by changing the ending phrase, "who set this direction for the Church", to "who reformed and redirected the Church back to her Scriptural and patristic roots." They were and are several of the many needed sign posts for us moderns.
Those who reject this objective Presence part company with both Saint Paul and with the great tradition of the East and West, which Pope Benedict articulates.
Expressing his own faith, in the same book, Cranmer speaks simply and directly about the bread and wine being "changed," saying "sacramentally changed into the body and blood of Christ." His only caution was to avoid the idea of transubstantiation as it was commonly understood.
If you read Cranmer's book on the sacrament of the Lord's Supper and his Rejoinder to Bishop Gardiner, you will see , that he saw the presence of Christ in the ministration and not in the bread and wine.
J.M.J.
Father Hart wrote:
"... His only caution was to avoid the idea of transubstantiation as it was commonly understood."
So also, as the Council of Trent addressed. The abuse being taught at Oxford, which was decried in the 39 Articles, was also denounced by the Council of Trent.
I often think that those who so adamantly deny Transubstantiation, would do well to heed some advise of the Council of Trent as contained in its Catechism:
"According to the admonition so frequently repeated by the holy Fathers, the faithful are to be admonished against curious searching into the manner in which this change is effected. It defies the powers of conception; nor can we find any example of it in natural transmutations, or even in the very work of creation. That such a change takes place must be recognised by faith; how it takes place we must not curiously inquire.
No less of caution should be observed by pastors in explaining the mysterious manner in which the body of our Lord is contained whole and entire under the least particle of the bread. Indeed, discussions of this kind should scarcely ever be entered upon. Should Christian charity, however, require a departure from this rule, the pastor should remember first of all to prepare and fortify his hearers by reminding them that no word shall be impossible with God."
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Eucharist.shtml
Faithfully,
Sean W. Reed
Dear Fr. Hart,
Well, Father... Cranmer did write the canon! I think the intent of the author is very important, and what the Settlement established, later Anglican divines defended. So, Cranmer and his intent is very important, and I believe did not change much aside from some minor emphases after his martyrdom.
AB Haverland said we should not repose much confidence in Cranmer's theology but take its general meaning and sensibility. How can you argue this? We may give a certain weight to Cranmer, but do we base our entire doctrine on sacrament upon any single divine? But, AB Haverland also said this, "The Tudors, who were so deeply focused on their debates with Rome, did look to Scripture and the Fathers, but had much less understanding than we do of the great Churches of the East."
Why is the East so frequently invoked? Why not instead use the term 'primitive'? This better draws the line according to certain doctrine ('four councils, five centuries'). It is often said in the Continuum, the commotion of the 16th century makes it 'unreliable', then why don't we go to the late 17th or 18th century where a sure equilibrium and consensus for the Settlement exists? My point is if you want to find a fully formed and settled Anglicanism, rather than stoking Eastern or Roman ecumenicalism, go back to our own tradition which is abundantly competent, more primitive, and likely superior. I think some Continuers have things backwards when it comes to sources for true catholicism. When will self-negating Anglicanism end?
Sean Reed:
The Council of Trent had not met when Abp. Cranmer wrote the book. If anything, they tried to put some caveats on the old definition. Nonetheless, they changed not a word of it, and made it into dogma. It stands, historically, between Cranmer and Pope Benedict XVI.
Robert Ian Williams:
Obviously, I have read the book, and everything I have drawn from it is easily proved. Yes, the Reformation emphasis was on receiving the sacrament, and this restored "the true and Catholick doctrine" that Rome had failed to teach for centuries. Hence, "to be sought in the worthy receiver" as the more important emphasis, especially after centuries of the particular abuse they were correcting.
Nonetheless, if you read the book, you will discover that "sacramentally changed into the body and blood of Christ" is a quotation of Cranmer's exact words about what happens.
When will self-negating Anglicanism end?
When modern Anglo-Catholics become more like the original article.
However, the value of better knowledge of the East (which was acquired in the days of Andrewes, by Andrewes, better than anything Rome could boast of) helps because they also have a useful perspective on Antiquity that gives balance to the Western assumptions. The debate about what is truly ancient is no longer merely between Rome and us; there is a third party to the discussion. Among useful things was their affirmation of the Anglican view of Eucharistic sacrifice against the Roman version (as was clearly stated in writing to Abp. Cosmo Lang by the Ecumenical Patriarch, and is in our archives).
But, the Eastern Orthodox also have innovations of their own, and also are weighed down by confusing precedent and the Tradition.
Charles wrote, "Cranmer did write the canon! I think the intent of the author is very important, and what the Settlement established, later Anglican divines defended."
This is to confuse apples and oranges, despite the fact that both are (quite different) forms of fruit.
What Cranmer may or may not have had in mind when he wrote is, most emphatically, NOT what "the Settlement established". What the Settlement, as an action of the Church, established is what the Church meant when it adopted and promulgated certain writings, regardless of who drafted them or what the drafters themselves, as matters of subjective intent, thought those writings should mean.
Let me illustrate this by an example from my own past. I spent the calendar year 1979 as one of three law clerks to the Chief Justice of one of our states' Supreme Courts. The Chief himself but one of seven Justices of that Court. During that year, I drafted somewhere around 5% of all the opinions it issued, which was quite a large number because, in those days, all felony convictions were automatically appealed directly to the Supreme Court, bypassing the Court of Appeals.
However, even when the Chief Justice accepted one of my drafts (and, by half-way through my year, I had learned enough about his preferences that he accepted almost all of them) and circulated it to his colleagues, it meant nothing unless at least three other Justices signed onto it. If they did, it became not my opinion but the opinion of the Court.
I always knew what I intended when I wrote each such draft but, as the Justices' opinion conferences were confidential, I never knew what motivated them to vote for or against a particular draft. So as far as divining what the Court's intentions were with regard to any published opinion, all I could do was what everyone else could do: read the opinion as published and try to see what a dispassionate reader could deduce from its text.
That is the problem facing the hostiles who like to point to Cranmer's very human and somewhat wavering personal opinions. All we know for certain is what he said and did at the very last moments of his life, as he stood in the pile of flaming faggots in the ditch outside Oxford.
Even those words and actions, however, do not tell us what was in the mind of the Church when it adopted and promulgated any writings which he had drafted for and proposed to it. Only the texts of those writings can speak to us regarding those institutional intentions.
This, of course, is a sword that cuts two ways. It is no fairer to judge the Church of England by the vacillations of Thomas Cranmer than it would be to judge the Church of Rome by the personal, subjective values of Roderigo Borgia.
John A. Hollister+
"pards"
Two statements in this thrad strike me as unusually fine and worthy of emphasis:
The first:
"I do not think myself that there is much value in attempting to formulate the strongest possible Anglican position by reposing much confidence in Thomas Cranmer’s theology or in that of the earlier Tudors. .... For Anglican Catholics the main question is not what Cranmer believed but what the great central tradition of Christendom believes."
The second:
"It is no fairer to judge the Church of England by the vacillations of Thomas Cranmer than it would be to judge the Church of Rome by the personal, subjective values of Roderigo Borgia."
Thanks to both writers!
LKW
Dear Fr. Hollister,
I agree, but I did not think I was comparing apples and oranges? Earlier I said, "I don't understand why anyone would say Cranmer's 1548 Catechism or anything coming from a single Anglican divine is representative. We know Cranmer changed his views, and this ought to be a consideration, but one would have to read the broad gamut of literature approved by the Crown or published by University to get a more distinct picture... Nonetheless, I think Cranmer as a sole authority (or the travails of the 16th century) is a bit of a strawman."
Oh well... I guess B16 is more Anglican than we realize.
Fr Hart,
You stated: "Transubstantiation in the sixteenth century had but one meaning". I beg to differ. The history of the mediaeval Church reveals that, in many of the details, different "Schoolmen" explained Transubstantiation different ways. This was inevitable given that some were moderate Realists like Aquinas, and others were Nominalists. Given that this would mean different understandings of what "substance" was, it would affect the doctrine we are considering considerably.
You also state the following: "Based on Aristotelian concepts, this requires division of reality into accidents and substance. To hold the belief defined at Trent, it is necessary to say that the accidents of bread and wine have become a mere appearance that disguises the substance, the reality." This contains two errors. First, Trent did not in fact commit itself dogmatically to Aristotelian Hylomorphism in all its details. We can say this because the Tridentine decrees nowhere mention the word "accidents". Instead they refer to the outward reality of the sacramental Elements as species, form, appearances or phenomena. Second, it is not true that Trent teaches that this outward aspect is "a mere appearance", as that would make them an illusion. Instead, the constant teaching has been that these physical properties are real outside the mind of human perceivers.
You also make the following claim about how Trent must be interpreted, as part of a wider claim that Pope Benedict's theology of Transubstantiation is a wonderful innovation, somehow dragging the mediaeval doctrine away from its Tridentine connotations towards something more orthodox.
"In fact, to believe that "a conversion is made of the whole substance" has to mean that "from a purely physical point of view" they are no longer bread and no longer wine."
This is to ignore the fact that, even in strict Aristotelian-Thomist Transubstantiation, substance is defined more metaphysically than physically (in the modern scientific sense). So is the term "matter", by the way. Too, the refusal to commit to full-blown Aristotelianism in understanding the term substance in Transubstantiation is seen not only at Trent (see above), but in many theologians through the centuries since then, long before Papa B16 was around! One finds such qualifications in RC theologians cited and quoted in Darwell Stone's great work, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, published in 1909.
So, what is the irreducible content of the word "substance" to which the RCC is committed? St Thomas himself had noted the substance was perceived by the intellect alone, not the senses. The Latin word substance had been used as the equivalent of the Greek word "ousia" (essence) previously in Christological debates. The essence of something is that which makes it what it is fundamentally, gives it its true identity. Thus one can also use the Latin term "quidditas" as a synonym, as long as it is understood as the quidditas (what-is-ness) as actually existing (and not just as in the mind), following Aquinas' presentation. So, the substance is 'that which gives something its fundamental identity and objective reality', whatever that is. Aquinas had a theory about what did that, but, as shown above, this theory binds no-one inside or outside the RCC.
This means Transubstantiation as dogma requires only that one affirm that the Bread is changed as to its fundamental identity and reality, as to what is essentially is, to becoming the Body of Christ. That exactly such a change or "becoming" is taught by the Fathers is very clear, and abundantly demonstrated in Stone's magnum opus cited above.
That transubstantiation does not posit a naive materialism, where bread's quantity of matter is swapped for or turned into Christ's quantity of matter, is obvious from the fact that Trent specifically teaches that every part of the form of Bread contains "under" it the whole Body (Thirteenth Session, Chapter III). (Which is also explicitly taught in one of the rubrics at the end of our 1549 Eucharistic Liturgy.) In materialistic terms the "substance" of both Bread and Body have extension and location and are thus divisible spatially. Yet transubstantiation, whether Thomist or Tridentine, says the Real Presence is not local (such that Christ occupies the space occupied by the Sign), nor natural, nor carnal.
It is, therefore, not true that Trent necessitates of itself an unorthodox, materialistic doctrine of the Eucharist. That the doctrine had increasingly come to be thought of in such terms by some theologians is undeniable, and the deficiencies of Aristotelianism and advance of Nominalism contributed to this in the late middle ages. It was this movement and the beginnings of scientific conceptions that made it difficult for early Anglicans to interpret Transubstantiation other than carnally, as much of their writing shows.
Fr. Kirby:
First, Cranmer wrote pre-Trent; and the point about Trent is that it merely set in conciliar stone (to RCs) the old fixed notion. Until Pope Benedict XVI (Abp. Ratzinger as then known) and those who may think him, what has been taught is the RC version of Real Absence, that it is in no sense truly bread and wine after consecration. This kind of Real Absence carries the dangers Cranmer pointed out. And, though the opposite Real Absence from Zwingli's Memorialism, it is just as wrong. Neither is the teaching of the Holy Catholic Church in Antiquity.
That both views are wrong is and always has been the Anglican position.
"Fundamental change" and Cranmer's "Sacramental change," may have come together had he not been murdered by the cruelty of Queen Mary. In a perfect world, he would have been recognized as ABC and present at Trent, not that it necessarily would have been called in a perfect world.
What is wrong, then, with Aquinas' explanation in its details? He relies on the distinction between substantial and accidental forms. The former are essential to identity, the latter can vary without changing what something is fundamentally.
Applied to bread and wine, since all of their properties (mass, volume, chemical composition, temperature, location, colour, phyical state, texture, etc.) can vary within certain ranges without bread and wine ceasing to be bread and wine, none of them, individually or as a group, can be the substantial form as such, so all are "accidents", according to Aquinas. The mistake here is a kind of negative "fallacy of composition" combined with a negative "false continuum" fallacy. While it is true that all the physical properties of Bread and Wine can vary quite a bit, they cannot vary to an unlimited degree without the objects being something else. And the fact that none of these properties is sufficient on its own to render an object bread or wine does not mean that the set of properties taken as a whole is not sufficient. So, none of the properties are really accidental at all, especially if we are talking not about bread and wine generically, but about a particular piece of bread or cup of wine. Indeed, if one could somehow plot all the properties multidimensionally and graphically, the "substantial form" of the bread, for example, would simply be represented by a region in this abstract space, and thus be reducible to the so-called "accidents" considered as an integrated whole. In other words, the substantial form is not, at least in these circumstances, really distinct from the accidental form.
I believe the situation may be different for human persons, where something independent of purely physical characteristics is determinative of fundamental identity. Also, substance is not substantial form alone, but substantial form as subsisting really and so constituting a particular substance with a particular identity. Therefore, even if the Bread and Wine undergo no change in any physical aspect of their being, they could still become a different substance by coming to subsist or have their reality "upheld" not fundamentally "in" mere matter, but "upon" the underlying foundation of Christ's Body and Blood in some ineffable manner. To put it another way, perhaps in the Consecration the power and action by which Christ makes "all things consist" in Himself (Colossians 1:17) is elevated in quality, intensified and focussed by a more intimate connection between the Person of Christ and the Sacramental Elements. The ongoing divine Creative/Preserving act becomes a Divine-Human "taking possession" and incorporation at the ontological level by the God-Man. Maybe this is another way the Eucharist is a foretaste: it is a glimpse of the creation of the New Heavens and Earth, where the whole Cosmos is transformed in Christ and his bodily Resurrection.
Fr Hart,
You state: "what has been taught is the RC version of Real Absence, that it is in no sense truly bread and wine after consecration." I think this is an overstatement. What has been taught is that the bread and wine are no longer bread and wine as to fundamental identity and reality, due to a transformation at the deepest level. However, it has long been accepted that they remain bread and wine in a phenomenological, scientific, positivist and empirical sense, and that these outward "forms" of bread and wine remaining are physically and independently real, not mental states.
By the way, I am unpersuaded by Cranmer's criticism on the basis of God's purported deception of the senses (which criticism is not repeated in the Formularies). After all, a baptised baby would probably show no outward signs whatever of being a truly regenerated person with a renewed nature and a new fundamental identity. Yet we accept it has undergone such a radical transformation by faith in Divine Revelation. Is the baby even physically unchanged, given the lack of physical evidence of any change? Not according to St Paul, I think. His teaching seems to be that baptism introduces an incipient "spiritualisation" of the body from the very beginning, that is, that it does not merely renew the soul, but affects with the power of the Resurrection in some mysterious way the body too (e.g., 1 Cor. 6:19, 2 Cor. 4:10-11), though only imperfectly, awaiting the completion at the Parousia.
What is wrong, then, with Aquinas' explanation in its details?
Cranmer does not attack Aquinas' ideas, but rather what most of the "Papists" were teaching in his day and age, and therefore what most of the people believed as a result of that teaching.
Indeed, if one could somehow plot all the properties multidimensionally and graphically, the "substantial form" of the bread...
Is this Thomas Aquinas, or you? Nonetheless, how relevant are these arguments to what the people were being taught from Rome? (How much of this is relevant today in light of Physics, as I said in the essay?) Nice theories for the academy, but nothing to do with the pastoral issue Cranmer addressed. I think that with all his years as a 16th century priest and bishop, he knew what the need of his own day and age really was. The issue he addressed was "whole substance" understood by just about everybody exactly as he described. Those who argued with him did not follow your line of reasoning, which means they tried to defend the very thing he criticized-which shows that he hit his target.
The ongoing divine Creative/Preserving act becomes a Divine-Human "taking possession" and incorporation at the ontological level by the God-Man.
Let's extend the principle of Medieval through 19th century Transubstantiation a little further: How right would it be to think of the Incarnation as a conversion of the whole human substance into Divinity? Not right at all. That this has been the kind of confusion that has resulted (which I know it has) is a more realistic concern than your advanced theories.
(continued below)
You state: "what has been taught is the RC version of Real Absence, that it is in no sense truly bread and wine after consecration." I think this is an overstatement.
It is an overstatement; but, it is not my overstatement; it is theirs. I have heard this argued by RC spokesmen within these first few years of the 21st century.
However, it has long been accepted that they remain bread and wine in a phenomenological, scientific, positivist and empirical sense, and that these outward "forms" of bread and wine remaining are physically and independently real, not mental states.
Yes, by Pope Benedict XVI; and, why do you think he felt the need to argue this point? What and whom did undertake to correct? But, please do not say that this modern perspective was relevant to what Cranmer addressed. It wasn't.
By the way, I am unpersuaded by Cranmer's criticism on the basis of God's purported deception of the senses (which criticism is not repeated in the Formularies). After all, a baptised baby would probably show no outward signs whatever of being a truly regenerated person...
Cranmer applied his argument to baptism, not about the person who is baptized, but properly, that is, about the sacramental matter. He made the point that the water does not transubstantiate into the Holy Spirit who is the real Agent of regeneration. That more is present than what the senses can see is part of his argument; for, in nothing about baptism are we asked to deny what our senses do tell us. Or, have you forgotten the words of his argument already, even though I quoted them?
"The papastical doctrine is against all our outward senses called our five wits...Christ never made no such article of our faith. Our faith teacheth us to believe things that we see not, but it doth not bid us, that we shall not believe that we see daily with our eyes, and hear with our ears, and grope with our hands."
Fr Hart,
You seem to misunderstand my question as a rhetorical flourish which implies there are no problems with the details of the Thomist approach. It was in fact a question I went on to answer by listing the errors I perceive in the Aristotelian-Thomist Hylomorphic analysis in this context. So the reference to how a graphical representation of all the accidents taken together could in fact sufficiently qualify bread as possessing the Substantial Form of bread was me, not Aquinas. The point being I am denying the (Thomist) strict differentiation between the substantial form and the accidents as applied to bresad and wine.
I then go on to show how this does not necessitate rejection of transubstantiation, since substance is not just substantial form, but substantial form actually subsisting. Modern science has nothing to say against this categorisation, which is metaphysical rather than physical, yet which fits in nicely with the mathematical (cf. form) and empirical (cf. substantial) nature of fundamental physics. It may be less comfortable with the division of substance into Form and Matter if the latter is understood simplistically, but the positing of Prime Matter, for example, and the identifying of "matter" with a literal physical material substrate is not necessary to my analysis or to the doctrine of transubstantiation. What reifies (makes real) a form?. Is it its inherence in matter interpreted as physical "stuff" of some sort? It is doubtful even Thomism necessitates this. Or is it the simple fact that God wills it to exist? Whatever the case, we know by revelation that every created entity's existence is somehow perpetually dependent on Christ. It may be that a change in the nature of this dependence such as I outlined occurs at Consecration. If this is the case, the whole substance of the bread and wine would in fact be changed despite retaining all physical properties.
Fr Hart,
Again, your claim that B16 was staking out completely new ground is quite incorrect. As I noted above, affirmation of the objective reality of the accidents and acceptance that the elements may be called bread and wine after consecration in some sense is found commonly in the RCC long before B16, and even before Cranmer for that matter.
Cranmer applied his argument to baptism, not about the person who is baptized, but properly, that is, about the sacramental matter. He made the point that the water does not transubstantiate into the Holy Spirit who is the real Agent of regeneration. That more is present than what the senses can see is part of his argument; for, in nothing about baptism are we asked to deny what our senses do tell us. Or, have you forgotten the words of his argument already, even though I quoted them?
"The papastical doctrine is against all our outward senses called our five wits...Christ never made no such article of our faith. Our faith teacheth us to believe things that we see not, but it doth not bid us, that we shall not believe that we see daily with our eyes, and hear with our ears, and grope with our hands."
And my point was that in baptism a new person is born/created. The baptised, we are asked to affirm, is a new identity, changed fundamentally. This is more than an addition to what our senses tell us, for they would imply for us that the person is the very same one. Also, Cranmer misses an essential point, which is that we are not asked to deny what our senses tell us in either case, properly speaking, since our senses have only the "accidents" or physical properties as their proximate objects, which in both cases all acknowledge to be retained, maintained in reality. It is the intellect which infers from these sensations, normally, that what we see is bread (or the same person, but now wet, in the case of baptism). And, as I mentioned above, St Thomas reminds us that substance is not perceived by the senses, but by the intellect. And it is the intellect which has the benefit of Divine Revelation to tell it that a radical transformation has in fact occurred. So, there is no deception at any level required by the essential doctrine of transubstantiation and Cranmer's argument fails.
This is more than an addition to what our senses tell us, for they would imply for us that the person is the very same one.
But, that is certainly not a refutation of Cranmer's position, in light of his words, "Our faith teacheth us to believe things that we see not, but it doth not bid us, that we shall not believe that we see..."
Also, Cranmer misses an essential point, which is that we are not asked to deny what our senses tell us in either case, properly speaking, since our senses have only the "accidents" or physical properties as their proximate objects, which in both cases all acknowledge to be retained, maintained in reality.
Cranmer's point was that the transubstantiation of his day and age makes God into an illusionist. He applies what he says directly to the Incarnation and the eyewitness accounts of the resurrection. Would you say that either fundamentally changed the substance of human nature? Transformation by grace so that we partake of the Divine nature, such transformation as a seed springing to the fullness of the life within it, yes.
It is the intellect which infers from these sensations, normally, that what we see is bread (or the same person, but now wet, in the case of baptism).
So, was it merely the intellect that perceived Christ as fully human, or as physically risen from the dead? Was he in fact not fully human? Did the intellect merely perceive that the risen Christ had a body of flesh and bones, as they saw He had? Do you not also leave open a wide door "to Valentinianus, Marcion and other heretics"?
So, there is no deception at any level required by the essential doctrine of transubstantiation and Cranmer's argument fails
No,it does not fail. The purely academic stuff you trot out here has nothing to do with what the people were being taught. You have not addressed his argument, let alone defeated it. You have confirmed how right he was. To a degree, you have replaced his objection with a straw man, and shot down your own handiwork; but, even so, you show that he was right. Cranmer was dealing with the doctrinal confusion of his own day as a responsible pastor. He did not "miss" anything.
And, look again at the collage at the top, and at my caption.
I wrote:
Transformation by grace so that we partake of the Divine nature, such transformation as a seed springing to the fullness of the life within it, yes.
I meant this to be in contrast to a replacement of the created nature with a different substance. The perfection of the created nature by grace is a transformation, but one consistent with the substance and reality of human nature as created, with its potential to be realized only through grace.
Fr. Kirby, let me ask a direct question. Do you believe that what we eat and drink is, physically speaking only, bread and wine? If yes, your argument is not with Cranmer.
Cranmer's point was that the transubstantiation of his day and age makes God into an illusionist. He applies what he says directly to the Incarnation and the eyewitness accounts of the resurrection. Would you say that either fundamentally changed the substance of human nature?
The Incarnation, no. The Resurrection, yes in a sense, as the glorified body could fairly be described as substantially different though continuous in identity with the pre-Resurrection body. St Paul describes it as a spiritual body as compared to our present natural body. But there is no question of replacement here, whether for Jesus or us at the Parousia.
The point is that Jesus' body looked outwardly the the same in some post-Resurrection appearances, but was clearly inwardly transformed. The change in the sacramental bread and wine must be greater, however, because of the difference in terminus a quo (starting point), despite the identity of the terminus ad quem (finishing point).
So, was it merely the intellect that perceived Christ as fully human, or as physically risen from the dead? Was he in fact not fully human? Did the intellect merely perceive that the risen Christ had a body of flesh and bones, as they saw He had? Do you not also leave open a wide door "to Valentinianus, Marcion and other heretics"?
The intellect correctly perceived the truly resurrected body of Christ, based on inference from the true physical properties of that body detected by the senses. Your analogy, taken from Cranmer, is a false one, however. In the resurrection, there was no concomitant divine revelation to tell the disciples their natural inference from their sensations would be inadequate. (Unless one takes Christ's respose to Mary Magdalene's attempt to hold on to him as a hint of an inadequate understanding of the full nature of the glorified body being corrected.) There is a Divine Revelation to Christians that, despite appearances, the bread and wine are changed as to fundamental identity and deepest reality, and in a way not shown outwardly. So, the senses receive real sensations from real, extramental or objective physical causes/properties, according to Trnasubstantiation as traditionally defined. No deception there. The natural inference by the intellect would be inadequate and misleading, but there is no deception here due to the correcting Revelation.
We are not being called upon to disbelieve our senses, as their proper object in their functioning here is considered real. We are being called to not draw the natural or normal inference, but transcend it.
The purely academic stuff you trot out here has nothing to do with what the people were being taught.
But wasn't you original article a claim that it was Trent itself, rather than popular or vulgar understandings, that were erroneous or grossly materialistic? You may be right about aspects of popular teaching at the time, but I understood you to be purportedly identifying heresy in the Tridentine definition of Transubstantiation. Given that the definitions of Transubstantiation found in the Scholastic theologians and at Trent are very "academic" indeed, how else can one fairly analyse them but with such "academic stuff"?
Fr. Kirby, let me ask a direct question. Do you believe that what we eat and drink is, physically speaking only, bread and wine? If yes, your argument is not with Cranmer.
Yes and no.
Yes in the sense that what we eat and drink is bread and wine from the scientific perspective and from the "everyday" or "common-sense" perspective.
No in that the transformation therein is not irrelevant to the "physicality" of the bread and wine. Why not? Two reasons. First, I believe that the way in which the Bread and Wine exist materially has changed. Second, I believe their basic identity and reality has become the Bread of Life himself, including and especially in his physical human nature, after consecration. Needless to say, the mode of the presence of this Body and Blood is not natural, spatially local, or physical in the scientific sense. But it is the physical Body and Blood that are not only mystically present, but the true innermost reality of the Elements themselves.
Why are you skirting around the actual argument Cranmer made? The resurrection is a matter of eyewitness accounts, and those eyewitness accounts are part of the Gospel. If God deceives the eyes and other senses, in the matter of bread, then the eyewitness accounts mean nothing, and the Gospel is overthrown. That is the wide door Cranmer warns of. Twice now, in this and in baptism, you have argued in such a manner as to ignore Cranmer's words,which I now quote to you the third time in this exchange. "Our faith teacheth us to believe things that we see not, but it doth not bid us, that we shall not believe that we see..." Please stop arguing as if was asking us not to believe what is beyond sight, and face the words he said. Your argument is irrelevant to his, rather than a refutation.
And, yes the argument does apply to the Incarnation (I John 1:1f).
We are not being called upon to disbelieve our senses, as their proper object in their functioning here is considered real.
The teaching Cranmer refuted, however, was that there remains no real bread and wine. The people in his time were being taught to disbelieve their senses. Why are you arguing a completely different point that has nothing to do with the subject?
Better question; why don't you simply say that you accept the current's Pope's definition of the T word, as Cranmer himself would have if it had been taught in his time?
Fr.Kirby answered:
Yes and no.
The "yes" is good enough (and the "no" is meaningless in terms of this discussion, since "more than" can't mean "other than"). You agree with Cranmer, and are ashamed of it. Five years ago you would not have been, back when you made a lot more sense than you do today. In those days you wrote an excellent and substantive essay that applies to this topic no less than to any, and you, of all people, should have seen in Pope Benedict's definition what I have seen.
Fr., please dwell on these words of Cranmer: "Our faith teacheth us to believe things that we see not, but it doth not bid us, that we shall not believe that we see..." After thinking about his words, ask yourself why you have made these comments. You have not refuted him at all.
You have refused to grant that he knew what people meant by the T word in his day, as if your knowledge of 16th century church teaching is somehow more accurate and relevant to that era than his, which is impossible. If his grasp of the times was not accurate, why did the other side brand him a heretic and murder him? They fought back for the thing he refuted. They did not say, "Oh dear Archbishop, you misunderstand us." They acknowledged that he understood them well, or else they would have had a polite academic discussion instead of gathering wood.
If God deceives the eyes and other senses, in the matter of bread, then the eyewitness accounts mean nothing, and the Gospel is overthrown. That is the wide door Cranmer warns of.
There is no question of God deceiving anybody. You continue to miss the point, which is that the substance/identity of something is not detected by the senses, but inferred by the intellect based on what is detected by the senses. Senses respond to physical properties. Since in Transubstantiation the physical properties are real and objective, not illusions, there is no deception here. At the higher level of intellect it is true that God expects us not to draw the natural, normal inference from the properties as to the underlying and basic identity/reality, but there is no deception here either, since God has Revealed what this is. Cranmer it would seem did not know this distinction, or did not recognise its relevance, or did not accept it. But it is a distinction centuries old by his time. It means that in the matter of the Real Presence, faith does not ask us to disbelieve what we see, but to accept that what we see, the visual properties of bread and wine, does not correspond to the same underlying identity/reality anymore. So, Cranmer's argument does not succeed in undermining Transubstantiation properly understood.
The teaching Cranmer refuted, however, was that there remains no real bread and wine. The people in his time were being taught to disbelieve their senses. Why are you arguing a completely different point that has nothing to do with the subject?
The people were being taught, at least insofar as the Thomist or Tridentine teaching was being properly communicated, that the Elements are no longer, as to their underlying, basic identity and reality, bread and wine. That is what Transubstantiation means. It is this doctrine which is found in somewhat different terminology in many of the Fathers. It is perfectly orthodox.
why don't you simply say that you accept the current's Pope's definition of the T word, as Cranmer himself would have if it had been taught in his time?
I have no problem with what the Pope said, as you must have noticed in what I said above. It's just that I don't agree with you that it contradicts Trent. As for Cranmer, I hope you are right, but my reading of large slabs of his words is that the only transformation he believed in was symbolic. That is why he said "Christ changed the name and called the bread by the name of the flesh and the wine by the name of blood not in reality of fact but in the significance of mystery, that we should not consider what they are but what they signify". These and other statements of his lead me, and the vast majority of other Anglo-Catholic scholars (and High Church scholars of the past who were not Anglo-Catholics in the normal sens of the term), to the opinion that Cranmer did not just deny Transubstantiation but also anything that may be called a genuinely Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence.
The "yes" is good enough (and the "no" is meaningless in terms of this discussion, since "more than" can't mean "other than"). You agree with Cranmer, and are ashamed of it.
This is, perhaps, where our substantial (if you'll pardon the unintended pun) disagreement may lie. "More than" in this case does lead to real change, not just addition. The bread and wine are other than what they were at the deepest level, and in a way that is not separated from their "physicality". As for Cranmer, what I have said immediately above should be sufficient to show that I do not agree with Cranmer and have no shame in this whatsoever.
Five years ago you would not have been, back when you made a lot more sense than you do today. In those days you wrote an excellent and substantive essay that applies to this topic no less than to any, and you, of all people, should have seen in Pope Benedict's definition what I have seen.
Your perception of a change in my position is puzzling, to say the least. Especially since, ironically, the article you cite contains this:
"I don't claim the RCC erred at a dogmatic level. I don't believe they did go that far, which is why they could improve things later. But, then, neither did Anglican Churches (despite their own long list of failings, ambiguities and outright heresies in particular teachers) definitively deny true ecumenical dogmas or make erroneous doctrinal statements at a binding or dogmatic level: until, that is, the ordination of women" [emphasis added].
Other statements from my apologetics could be quoted to the same effect, denying any heresy being binding doctrine in the RCC, and accepting that material heresy was not uncommon among Anglican bishops and other divines (though not binding among us either). Indeed, over two years ago I wrote these words, in a post you said in comments you wanted "preserved in a book":
'Anglican Churches also tolerated or even encouraged at various times much material heresy among their bishops, clergy and laity, despite also not "dogmatising" the heresies by imposing manifest error on their officially binding formularies. They allowed the corruptions of latitudinarian indifference to infect their faith and practice, such deficiencies being no less destructive than the corruptions within the Roman communion. Anglican theologians were often slow to admit the logical deductions from their principles and separate Patristic and Catholic wheat from the chaff of certain Western mediaeval excesses. They also did not sufficiently discriminate in their criticisms between common opinion and true doctrine in the RCC, and did not always interpret those doctrines with a just or charitable eye.'
Too, I have never condemned the doctrine of Transubstantiation itself, though I did once post an article here almost 4 years ago criticising certain mediaeval excesses and a modern explication of it by a pious RC priest who seemed out of his depth and noting that it was just these kinds of misrepresentations of the doctrine that led to the reaction against it. However, I also wrote this:
"Now, if anyone wants to make the point that this is not an accurate representation of Transubstantiation, he’ll get no argument from me. Concomitance has flown out the window here with respect to the presence of the Divine Essence, as have the Angelic Doctor’s careful qualifications, such as denying the mode of the presence is corporal or local and affirming that the species or accidents of the Elements are real outside the mind and continue to exist as proximate objects of the senses." This is no different to what I have said here.
You have refused to grant that he knew what people meant by the T word in his day, as if your knowledge of 16th century church teaching is somehow more accurate and relevant to that era than his, which is impossible. If his grasp of the times was not accurate, why did the other side brand him a heretic and murder him? They fought back for the thing he refuted. They did not say, "Oh dear Archbishop, you misunderstand us." They acknowledged that he understood them well, or else they would have had a polite academic discussion instead of gathering wood.
Cranmer was killed because he was considered a heretic in what he denied and in what he affirmed. That is, it was believed he denied the bread and wine became the Body and Blood in any real sense and affirmed that any such claim was erroneous and caused idolatry. I believe the "diagnosis" was correct, though the "treatment" was obviously wrong.
If you re-read the post I cited above on what the Reformers faced as common teaching ("Did we put up straw men") you will see that I agree there were distortions in common teaching and in some scholastic speculations. And that these distortions caused the Reformers to interpret Transubstantiation as carnal, despite the presence of a better and older tradition of understanding the word which avoided these pitfalls, a tradition the Council of Trent in no way rejected. There is no essential difference between what I wrote in that article and what I have said here, in particular this:
"It is, therefore, not true that Trent necessitates of itself an unorthodox, materialistic doctrine of the Eucharist. That the doctrine had increasingly come to be thought of in such terms by some theologians is undeniable, and the deficiencies of Aristotelianism and advance of Nominalism contributed to this in the late middle ages. It was this movement and the beginnings of scientific conceptions that made it difficult for early Anglicans to interpret Transubstantiation other than carnally, as much of their writing shows."
Neither what I wrote then nor what I have written now condemns Transubstantiation properly understood or condemns Anglicans for reacting against transubstantiation as it was commonly understood then. Quite the contrary. And my opinion that Eucharistic doctrine was often deficient among early Anglican divines can be found back then too: "Only a minority, it is true, of Anglican Divines in earlier centuries fully and unambiguously affirmed the Real Objective Presence" is what I said at that time, with not the slightest protest in comments.
Finally, as I think enough is enough on this, the idea, implicit in your post and comments, that Transubstantiation was a uniform and monolithic doctrine in Cranmer's day that he fully understood and correctly represented is not historically accurate in my opinion. The period had great deal of tolerated variety theologically and presuppositionally within the western Catholic Church which affected this doctrine and others greatly. Was Cranmer "on top of" all of this? I seriously doubt it. It would not have been hard for even decent theologians and bishops back then to get lost in the maze.
Fr. Kirby:
It is pointless to give the T word a definition you prefer, as if that is relevant to the actual error Cranmer was refuting. And, if you see the change as physical, you have overthrown the nature of a sacrament by removing the sign. The idea of waxing overly philosophical about the matter strikes me as dangerous.
You wrote:
Needless to say, the mode of the presence of this Body and Blood is not natural, spatially local, or physical in the scientific sense. But it is the physical Body and Blood that are not only mystically present, but the true innermost reality of the Elements themselves.
At best, this becomes too academic to be of any value at all, and greatly exceeds the revelation given to the Church. It depends on Aristotelian philosophy, and the kind of "wisdom" St. Paul warns against. At worst, if applied to Christology (always relevant to sacramental theology as the source), one could begin to think that the physical and fully human nature of Jesus was itself transformed and no longer human in "the true innermost reality." So, I warn against being too complicated, and confusing the physical and spiritual dimensions. In fact, it is exactly the sort of thing Cranmer saw as a danger. And, you are walking right into it. Your version of T is just as scary, it seems, as what Cranmer opposed.
On another comment, thank you for pointing out what some of the scholars were supposed to teach as opposed to what they taught. And, yes, Anglo-Catholic scholars have, inexcusably and inexplicably, ignored Cranmer's actual words (which is another reason I never call myself an Anglo-Catholic):
"Even so doth the substance of bread and wine remain in the Lord's Supper, and be naturally received and digested into the body, notwithstanding the sacramental mutation of the same into the body and blood of Christ. Which sacramental mutation declareth the supernatural, spiritual and inexplicable eating and drinking, feeding and digesting, of the same body and blood of Christ, in all them that godly and according to their duty, do receive the said sacramental bread and wine...And [St. Ambrose] concludeth the whole matter in these few words: 'If there be so much strength in the words of the Lord Jesu, that things had their beginning that never were before, how much more be they able to work, that those things that were before should remain, and also be changed into other things!' Which words do show manifestly, that notwithstanding this wonderful sacramental and spiritual changing of the bread into the body of Christ, yet the substance of the bread remaineth the same that it was before." Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, A Defence of the True and Catholick Doctrine of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ, Book II chapter XIII
Am I supposed to be impressed with ignoring his true position? He did not, as you say, see the sacrament as symbolic. He was among the first to condemn Zwingli's view that it was.
Has it not occurred to you that affirmation of the Thomist idea, and of earlier statements that explain what could be said to define transubstantiation differently from what was commonly perceived and taught, is actually fairly consistent with Cranmer's words? That it was forgotten in his day?
He argued against the idea that bread and wine is replaced, carnally and physically, with the substance of Christ's flesh and blood merely disguised. In some comments you appear also to reject that idea; if so, why do you condemn Cranmer for agreeing with you?
You have accused the chief producer of our Prayer Book of heresy, and yet have not argued at all with his position. You have actually affirmed his position, but have lost yourself in the Oxford Maze of your own words.
His aim was not to have an academic discussion dragging on forever, but to help the people of England have faith in the Gospel, and regarding the sacrament, to receive it with faith. It was to serve their pastoral need. To this end he quoted scripture and great, large portions of the writings of many Church Fathers, to assure them that he was teaching the Faith of the universal Church. Your criticisms of his book have struck me as irrelevant to what he said, and to the practical pastoral effort he was making.
It is pointless to give the T word a definition you prefer, as if that is relevant to the actual error Cranmer was refuting.
The definition I effectively gave, that "T" means the physical properties are retained but the quidditas is genuinely transformed, and in a way that is not separated from the Elements physical existence, though it cannot be understood in natural or carnal ways, is the essence of the Tridentine and Thomist doctrine. I am not the first scholar to put it in terms like this, and nor is the present Pontiff. The only thing I added that was personal speculation was a very broadbrush idea of how this change in the quidditas might be understood in terms of Christ's role as Creator etc.
And, if you see the change as physical, you have overthrown the nature of a sacrament by removing the sign.
Not really, since the sign remains as the outward form of bread and wine, which are objectively and physically real, and may be considered to be bread and wine in certain senses, even though they have fundamentally changed their identity.
The idea of waxing overly philosophical about the matter strikes me as dangerous. ... It depends on Aristotelian philosophy, and the kind of "wisdom" St. Paul warns against.
But people made (and still make) the very same kinds of criticism against the orthodox use of words like consubstantial or hypostasis in explaining the Trinity and the Incarnation. Sometimes we borrow language from philosophy simply to express ourselves as precisely as possible. If it was OK for the ancient Church and Fathers, it was and is OK for the later Church.
At best, this becomes too academic to be of any value at all, and greatly exceeds the revelation given to the Church.
I disagree heartily. The Real Presence cannot be correctly understood unless we constantly remind ourselves that Jesus did not say "This represents my body" or "contains" or "is attached or added to" or "communicates" or "promises as a title deed" or anything like this. He said "is". By using the verb of identity he taught that the Elements become what they were not before, his body and blood. And that he is referring to his real, physical body and blood is clear from the context and from the patristic consensus. Nevertheless, the mode of this transformation, relationship of identity, and presence is beyond naturalistic or scientific categories, as our own senses and John 6:62-63 tell us. Nothing I have said in the section you quote goes beyond this. And this view is certainly very well represented in the Fathers, as reading Darwell Stone's work reveals.
At worst, if applied to Christology (always relevant to sacramental theology as the source), one could begin to think that the physical and fully human nature of Jesus was itself transformed and no longer human in "the true innermost reality."
No, one couldn't, because there is no divine word saying "The flesh became the Word", no occasion where Jesus said "This flesh [pointing to his body] is the very form of God [cp. Ph. 2:6]". It is important to remember that the consecrated Elements are not to the Body and Blood of Christ as His Human Nature is to His Divine Nature. There is no reason to a priori make such an equivalence of relationship. The Incarnation is related to what happens at Consecration, but it is not an identical process, and this is hardly surprising.
As for Cranmer, you criticise me and multitudinous others for not paying attention to his words, despite the fact that I quoted his very words. (Ironically, given your "Oxford Maze" dig at me, he spoke those words at Oxford.) If he had only said the things you quoted, I would agree with you by the way (and thus with Cranmer), which may mean very little separates us when it comes down to it. But, unfortunately, he said many other things on the subject which persuade me that what he meant by a sacramental and spiritual change was the change of the elements into God-ordained sacred signs only, which would indirectly have spiritual effects due to the faith they evinced in recipients as they received. It is not the words you quote that bother me. (As an aside, I think the words you quote and the reference to the elements as "holy mysteries" in the Exhortations in the BCP Communion service are sufficient to fulsomely disprove the old accusation that Cranmer rejected all idea of Consecration.)
Can we simply agree to disagree on Cranmer? Can you accept that I have not come to this opinion of his position because of ignorance or malice?
Can we both agree that the bread and wine genuinely become the real, physical Body and Blood of Christ, but only in a unique, spiritual mode, rather than as the result of some pseudo-scientific matter-swap? Can you accept that neither the Tridentine nor the Thomist definitions of "T" necessitate rejecting the position just stated?
The definition I effectively gave, that "T"means the physical properties are retained but the quidditas is genuinely transformed...
...was irrelevant. If you want to take on Cranmer's work then accept the fact that he argued against a specific and predominant (in his day) school of thought, one that relied on the outrageous notion of individuum vaguum, that no real substance remained at all. Your arguments have nothing to do with the real debate.
...the outward form of bread and wine...have fundamentally changed their identity...The Incarnation is related to what happens at Consecration, but it is not an identical process, and this is hardly surprising.
But that is not the point. The point is the wide door we open if once we say that God changes things in such a manner that our senses deceive us (not that they see all, but what they see is truly what it appears to be). So, that part of he argument makes the Incarnation quite relevant, that human nature was taken without becoming something else; and that the appearance of the Risen Christ was what it seemed to be.
But people made (and still make) the very same kinds of criticism against the orthodox use of words like consubstantial or hypostasis in explaining the Trinity and the Incarnation.
We are not talking about a word, but about ideas. Furthermore, T is not a universal doctrine of the Church, and never was.
(continued)
Nothing I have said in the section you quote goes beyond this.
The whole subject of T goes beyond the revelation. And, frankly, we have no business considering the meaning of "this is my Body...this is my Blood..." until we think in terms Jewish enough (as his disciples most certainly did) to grasp "my blood of the New Covenant." The fact that we discuss this sacrament without the covenant meaning taking its right place in the discussion, is itself ridiculous.
And this view is certainly very well represented in the Fathers, as reading Darwell Stone's work reveals.
No one has ever made more, and more thorough, use of the works of the Church Fathers than did Cranmer in this book of his. Furthermore, he deliberately quoted great large sections of their works to make the context of each quotation abundantly clear.
As for Cranmer, you criticise me and multitudinous others for not paying attention to his words, despite the fact that I quoted his very words.
But I also quoted his exact words. Only, I quoted Cranmer in Cranmerian fashion, I did so in the larger context, ruling out misinterpretation.
...are sufficient to fulsomely disprove the old accusation that Cranmer rejected all idea of Consecration.
As is everything he said about consecration, and about the role of the priest in administration.
Can we both agree that the bread and wine genuinely become the real, physical Body and Blood of Christ, but only in a unique, spiritual mode, rather than as the result of some pseudo-scientific matter-swap?
No, because you crossed the fence twice, between matter and spirit. "Real" yes, but make up your mind about whether it is "physical" or "only in a unique, spiritual mode."
Can you accept that neither the Tridentine nor the Thomist definitions of "T" necessitate rejecting the position just stated?
No, because the idea of conversion of the whole substance still carries all the caveats Cranmer warned against. Transubstantiation, as it must involve that wording, is an unfortunate idea that has never produced a single benefit.
(Individuum vagum was used as short way to teach that "the accidents by miracle remaining without substance" because of the story of one man-hence the name- who removed the sacrament from his mouth and found he held only ashes. They taught that once chewed it ceased to be the Body of Christ, but could not return to the "accident" of bread. The specific version of T Cranmer was up against taught that what was eaten and drunk had, upon being received, no substance at all. This overthroweth the nature of a sacrament by any measure. It turns sacramental theology into a joke through sophistry upon sophistry.)
irrelevant. If you want to take on Cranmer's work then accept the fact that he argued against a specific and predominant (in his day) school of thought, one that relied on the outrageous notion of individuum vaguum, that no real substance remained at all. Your arguments have nothing to do with the real debate.
Unfortunately, your claim that he basically addressed a particularly carnal understanding of Transubstantiation, not the version I represented, is false. Gardiner, in his defence of the Catholic doctrine, said the following:
"we say Christ's body to be not locally present nor by manner of quantity, but invisible, and in no sensible manner, but marvellously in a Sacrament and mystery truly, and in such a spiritual manner as we cannot define and determine, and yet by faith we know His body present ... The word 'corporally' may have an ambiguity ... one is to the truth of the body present, and so it may be said, Christ is corporally present in the Sacrament; if the word 'corporally' be referred to the manner of the presence, then we should say, Christ's body were present after a corporal manner, which we say not, but in a spiritual manner ... exceeding our capacity to understand the manner 'how'."
Cranmer refused this undeniably orthodox explanation and contended that "Christ is not there, neither corporally nor spiritually, but in them that worthily eat and drink the bread and wine. He is spiritually and corporally present in Heaven." Your implication that I have quoted Cranmer out of context is false. One could quote many pages to the same effect if one had the time and combox space, but there is no need when the resources are widely available to confirm the nature of his opinions, and he made his meaning so very clear.
And there is no question but that the commonest scholarly opinion was that the "accidents" or outward "form" of the Elements (what we would call the physical properties) were real, external and objective to the senses and not illusory. Nothing in Trent contradicts this.
You seem to think that the word substance must be understood in a carnal, quantitative and materialistic way, both then and now. This is also false, not only in the modern context, but in the centuries leading up to Trent, as is seen by looking at the philosophical underpinnings and what many of the defenders of the doctrine have said over the centuries. That the word substance can be and has been understood naively is true, and the use of the word "appearances" has also led to misunderstandings. But none of this excuses us pretending such interpretations are necessitated by the Thomist or Tridentine teaching.
The point is the wide door we open if once we say that God changes things in such a manner that our senses deceive us (not that they see all, but what they see is truly what it appears to be).
And again I reply that the charge of deceit is false because God has explicitly revealed what the Bread and Wine have become as to their new, true identity or quidditas, and has retained the immediate objects of the senses in their reality. Without this revelation we would normally accept the natural inference of our senses (but even then not always, as the existence of optical illusions shows). In the case of the Incarnation and Resurrection, the earliest Disciples had both the divine word and their senses telling them the same thing.
We are not talking about a word, but about ideas. Furthermore, T is not a universal doctrine of the Church, and never was.
You seem to have shifted the goalposts here. First you objected to the importation of philosophical terminology, then when I showed the Church had long done this legitimately, you talk about consent and make a vague distinction between importing words and ideas. Do you really think that the philosophical terms imported by the Church anciently bore no resemblance in meaning (underlying idea) of the words as used in the source philosophical tradition? Are you unaware that the term Transubstantiation has been widely used and accepted as orthodox by the Eastern Orthodox Church, despite the fact it refuses to accept the full Aristotelian paradigm, which acceptance the RCC has noted is not necessary anyway?
Do you really believe the EOC would accept Cranmer's final position on the Eucharist as orthodox? Are you willing to take the appeal to the wider Church to its logical conclusion?
we have no business considering the meaning of "this is my Body...this is my Blood..." until we think in terms Jewish enough (as his disciples most certainly did) to grasp "my blood of the New Covenant." The fact that we discuss this sacrament without the covenant meaning taking its right place in the discussion, is itself ridiculous.
This is sufficiently vague to be impossible to argue with. I am content to accept that the commonest interpretation of the Fathers as appropriated by both the RCC and EOC, which says the Bread and Wine are truly converted into the actual Body and Blood of Christ, while retaining their properties and status as outward signs, is true. In essence, this is all Transubstantiation says.
No, because you crossed the fence twice, between matter and spirit. "Real" yes, but make up your mind about whether it is "physical" or "only in a unique, spiritual mode."
Gardiner's distinctions above should be sufficient answer to this charge. The Body and Blood that are truly present and, indeed, are the underlying reality (sub-stantia) of the Elements, are physical. Their mode of presence here is spiritual, supernatural. Not only can both be true, both must be true. If we are not talking about the Real Presence of the Body that actually and physically suffered and died and rose again for us, we are not talking about the Real Presence at all. (Nevertheless, when referring to the change that is "T", we are not talking about a "physical change" in the sense generally meant at all. This should be obvious, even from Trent on its own. We are talking metaphysically, not scientifically.)
Too, in the light of St Paul's words about the nature of the Resurrection body, we should be cautious making spiritual and physical absolutely separate.
As for individuum vagum, this concept, as the story you pass on implies it to be, is not taught at Trent nor in the Angelic Doctor, who affirmed that consecrated Hosts had real nutritional value, for example. Therefore its falsity is irrelevant to analysing and assessing RC dogma.
I am sorry that my olive branches outstretched at the end of the last series of comments were not sufficient to bring some basic agreement. However, I have read enough to know that my belief accords with that well established within the patristic tradition, the area of agreement between the RCC and EOC, and the teaching of such great Anglican theologians who have interacted ecumenically with the Eucharistic doctrines of the other branches of the Catholic Church such as as Forbes and Mascall.
A last word on Cranmer. I believe there is overwhelming evidence, especially when reading what he said in official discussion with the other English Bishops and later in the Disputation at Oxford, that in reacting to popular misconceptions he over-reacted and threw out the baby with the bathwater. I do not claim he was a formal heretic, as he believed himself to be following the Scriptures and the consensus of the Fathers and to be willing to submit his ideas to a General Council.
Unfortunately, your claim that he basically addressed a particularly carnal understanding of Transubstantiation, not the version I represented, is false. Gardiner, in his defence of the Catholic doctrine, said the following...
Which is part of what Cranmer complained of. They taught the people one thing, and discussed another among themselves. You seem unaware of the Indiduum Vagumargument. They taught the people that after consecration no substance remained.
But, by taking this little bit of Gardiner's arguments, you make him appear to agree with Cranmer completely. If this were all there were, they would have had no argument about doctrine, but only about emphasis.
Your implication that I have quoted Cranmer out of context is false.
It was more than an implication. And, you have done so again (if what you wrote here may even be called a quotation). Cranmer made it clear that he was using the classical approach, that is, using this method of speech to state, in fact, a comparison. By comparison, he was stating that Christ's presence in the believer is what matters most. He made that very clear in the early arguments. My quotations of Cranmer have included his words about the "wonderful and spiritual change," but only of value to those with faith.
What do you mean? I just reloaded and got all I remembered seeing before, including your latest. The number up the top seems right too. I have just saved them locally to make sure none are lost.
And again I reply that the charge of deceit is false because God has explicitly revealed what the Bread and Wine have become as to their new, true identity or quidditas, and has retained the immediate objects of the senses in their reality. Without this revelation...
But, we are without that revelation, for revelation it is not. It is merely philosophical speculation, not doctrine. Cranmer made clear the doctrine he was opposing, and you are practicing the old "switch."
Do you really think that the philosophical terms imported by the Church anciently bore no resemblance in meaning (underlying idea) of the words as used in the source philosophical tradition? Are you unaware that the term Transubstantiation has been widely used and accepted as orthodox by the Eastern Orthodox Church, despite the fact it refuses to accept the full Aristotelian paradigm, which acceptance the RCC has noted is not necessary anyway?
The Orthodox Church has never used the RCC formula, nor has Latin been their language of choice ever, and between 1922 and 1976, they were content with Anglican doctrine. Please quote Orthodox authority that recites the same formula as Trent repeated. For the most part, they are simply critical of western scholasticism, seeing the discussions as failure to accept mystery.
Do you really believe the EOC would accept Cranmer's final position on the Eucharist as orthodox? Are you willing to take the appeal to the wider Church to its logical conclusion?
If I thought you knew accurately what Cranmer's doctrine was, I could safely answer the question.
First you objected to the importation of philosophical terminology, then when I showed the Church had long done this legitimately, you talk about consent and make a vague distinction between importing words and ideas.
What I objected to was your attempt to treat the word Transubstantiation as if it were on the same level as homoousios, or hypostasis, or as if what we were debating was the acceptance of a word rather than an idea.
This is sufficiently vague to be impossible to argue with.
So, to you the covenantal meaning of the Lord's Supper is vague, but all this philosophical jazz of trying to figure out the mystery is the real issue? That is truly fascinating. If my words were vague to you, you need to learn the ABCs all over again. Can such an important concept, as the ancient Jewish disciples would have understood it, be missing from your understanding? How could that be?
Gardiner's distinctions above should be sufficient answer to this charge...
No, because he did not cross the fence as you did, but remained consistent (in that little bit you quoted). You did not. Actually, the force of that brief quotation should be that he agreed with Cranmer, which shows what happens when a small portion is trotted out.
If we are not talking about the Real Presence of the Body that actually and physically suffered and died and rose again for us, we are not talking about the Real Presence at all.
Cranmer quoted several of the Fathers to answer what you have said. The presence of Christ in the sacrament is seen by Cranmer as the same presence of Christ in his Church (and so says St. Paul too), which presence is that of His Divine nature which can be present everywhere at once. To support this he quoted several Fathers, such as Augustine, Jerome, etc. (nonetheless, you will continue to charge that he was at odds with the very Fathers whose words instructed him).
Also, Cranmer's objection was not about Christ's presence, but about the Papist practice of denying a lesser real presence, of bread and wine in their physical properties. The papist real absence is not as distressing as Zwingli's Real Absence; but, it is just as wrong, and it is dangerous in different ways (as I said).
As for individuum vagum, this concept, as the story you pass on implies it to be, is not taught at Trent nor in the Angelic Doctor, who affirmed that consecrated Hosts had real nutritional value, for example. Therefore its falsity is irrelevant to analysing and assessing RC dogma.
I don't care if it was not taught by Thomas or at Trent. This only shows that you are not facing reality. Cranmer lived in his own time and place, unlike you who did not. He knew what the Papists of his day were teaching. Why do you keep refusing to acknowledge what it was he argued against? I don't care if it is an accurate view of Thomism or not, and the fact that Thomas Aquinas' view had become irrelevant at that time was not Cranmer's doing. Again, have you not considered that the English Reformers helped to revive it?
(Nevertheless, when referring to the change that is "T", we are not talking about a "physical change" in the sense generally meant at all. This should be obvious, even from Trent on its own. We are talking metaphysically, not scientifically.)
Then why are you arguing at all with Cranmer's position? Remember, he did not live to see Trent finished (which, as far as I am concerned, even after all your arguments, is self-contradictory on the matter).
However, I have read enough to know that my belief accords with that well established within the patristic tradition...
I don't think it does. I think you need to read Cranmer's book if only to shake your self-confidence, for no one has ever quoted large portions of the Fathers more than he did. If you think you have a better grasp of Patristic literature than he did, I must take issue.
...the area of agreement between the RCC and EOC...
Now that is vague, if agreement it is.
...and the teaching of such great Anglican theologians who have interacted ecumenically with the Eucharistic doctrines of the other branches of the Catholic Church such as as Forbes and Mascall.
Mascall as consistent with the emphasis of the English Reformers is the subject of one of my upcoming essays. You may not enjoy that one when you read it.
we are without that revelation, for revelation it is not. It is merely philosophical speculation, not doctrine.
"This is my body" is a revelation that the bread really becomes, albeit mysteriously and in a spiritual mode, the true body of Christ. St Paul calling it bread as well, and the consistent evidence of our senses are sufficient to show it remains bread outwardly, or in terms of physical properties. What I said and what Thomas and Trent said simply explicate this in metaphysical terminology to guard against the errors of the various versions of the Doctrine of the Real Absence and Pretend Presence. These claim the bread is only changed as to "use" and "significance", not as to their true nature, so they do not really become what Christ said.
The Orthodox Church has never used the RCC formula, ... Please quote Orthodox authority that recites the same formula as Trent repeated.
I am genuinely surprised you are not aware of the explicit affirmations of T in: The Confession of Peter Mogila (1643); The Confession of Dositheus (1672); and The Longer Catechism of The Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church, also known as the Catechism of St. Philaret (1830). These are all works of high authority in the EOC, the first two having been offically approved for centuries by the four great Patriarchates of the East. The third is I believe the one used by Palmer in his famous Tractarian paper showing the essential agreement between the EOC and the Anglican tradition, especially as represented in the Scottish Epicopal Church (http://anglicanhistory.org/palmer/mag/harmony/). For other examples, see http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num31.htm .
The EOC was keen to note also that they did not consider T a way of explaining how the transformation occurs, but the the same can be said of the RCC, as they have said all the way from the Catechism of the Council of Trent to ARCIC.
"Do you really believe the EOC would accept Cranmer's final position on the Eucharist as orthodox? Are you willing to take the appeal to the wider Church to its logical conclusion?"
If I thought you knew accurately what Cranmer's doctrine was, I could safely answer the question.
But the question is not about what I think of Cranmer's doctrine at all, whether my opinion is right or wrong, but what the EOC would think about it. What you think of my opinions is irrelevant to this question.
So, to you the covenantal meaning of the Lord's Supper is vague, but all this philosophical jazz of trying to figure out the mystery is the real issue? That is truly fascinating. If my words were vague to you, you need to learn the ABCs all over again. Can such an important concept, as the ancient Jewish disciples would have understood it, be missing from your understanding? How could that be?
To quote an Australian expression, "C'mon, fair go, mate!"
Wasn't it reasonably obvious that I was by no means implying the New Covenant or its meaning are vague, but that your extremely brief reference to it, as if such reference somehow manifestly refuted what I had said, was vague? You have since said more. You would probably be surprised how little I disagree with of what you have said recently on this. All I would say is that the Eucharist, which in one sense IS the New Covenant, both sums up and transcends the old covenants. It also gives a foretaste of the New Creation.
Is it really fair to criticise me for expanding on the mode of the Presence and using philosophical terminology when that was the subject of the original post? After all, you effectively claimed that Trent was heretical and based on false philosophy. If I disagreed, how was I to avoid detailed discussion of the mode of the Presence and Tridentine philosophical terms?
No, because he did not cross the fence as you did, but remained consistent (in that little bit you quoted). You did not. Actually, the force of that brief quotation should be that he agreed with Cranmer, which shows what happens when a small portion is trotted out.
Your talk of crossing the fence suffers from a lack of argument, and seems mere assertion. You have failed to identify any error in what I said. There may be error, but you have not shown this. I said that what is present is the true and therefore physical Body and Blood, but that how it is present is according to a unique spiritual mode that involves a transformation in the inner reality of the Bread and Wine. This is indistinguishable from Gardiner.
I speculated that this transformation could involve a change in "the way in which the Bread and Wine exist materially", which involves (as it does for all material objects) Christ according to Scripture even before Consecration, but I think involves Him differently and more intimately after Consecration. The way in which they exist materially is to do with the mode of subsistence, not whether the material properties of the Elements are real (they are) or their materiality annihilated (it isn't). You don't seem to realise that this is about ontology, not chemistry or quantum physics.
Cranmer quoted several of the Fathers to answer what you have said. The presence of Christ in the sacrament is seen by Cranmer as the same presence of Christ in his Church (and so says St. Paul too), which presence is that of His Divine nature which can be present everywhere at once. To support this he quoted several Fathers, such as Augustine, Jerome, etc. (nonetheless, you will continue to charge that he was at odds with the very Fathers whose words instructed him).
Are you saying that the Real Presence is not the presence of the real Body and Blood, but of the Divine Nature only? Or that we get the Body and Blood by a kind of reverse concomitance because of the presence of the Divine Nature "in" the Elements? Do you really think this is the Patristic Consensus? Or are you saying that it is only because of the Divine Nature of Christ that the Body and Blood are present? The latter is not only uncontroversial, but obvious.
As for the Fathers, you continue to implicitly claim I do not know their teaching, nor that of the Reformers. But anybody with access to Darwell Stone's work and that of other Anglican scholars like him, who takes the trouble to closely study them will get a very good grounding indeed in these authors. And I suspect they will get a more accurate overview than Cranmer too, by the way. Patristics did "take off" after his time and gain more data and understanding, and Anglicans were deeply involved in this. I am far from infallible nor omniscient, but I have made a reasonably in-depth study of patristic, scholastic and Anglican teaching. I have studied what Cranmer and Ridley taught in their own words, even if I have not read every word they wrote. Many other Anglican scholars have read what you and I have read and have come to basically the same conclusions I have. Even if we were wrong and you were right, are you really convinced that none can disagree with your interpretation without being ignorant or foolish? The degree of disdain and the resort to sweeping statements certainly gives that impression sometimes.
I don't care if it was not taught by Thomas or at Trent. This only shows that you are not facing reality. Cranmer lived in his own time and place, unlike you who did not. He knew what the Papists of his day were teaching. Why do you keep refusing to acknowledge what it was he argued against?
You have forgotten that I did in fact mention above more than once that carnal understandings were present and that the Reformers reacted against them. However, Cranmer not only opposed these errors, he went further and argued against orthodox interpretations as well. When I quote just some of the many words that explicitly show this, you explain them away as if he did not mean them literally, but was only trying to shift the "emphasis". I do not find this exegesis very persuasive.
As one more attempt at an eirenicon, I will quote from Pusey's Eirenicon:
'With regard to the term "Transubstantiation,” there must be a real difference between the meaning which it had in the minds of the Schoolmen, and that which it must now have since the Catechism of the Council of Trent. For it is there taught with authority, that “the Eucharist has been called bread, because it has the appearance, and still retains the quality, natural to bread, of supporting and nourishing;” but the Schoolmen thought, that with the “change of substance” that power of nourishing ceased. Yet this being granted, I know not what can be included in our term “substance,” which the English Church affirms to remain, which is not also included in the Roman term “accidents,” which they also affirm to remain. Clearly the doctrine which the Church of England rejects under the term “Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine,” is only one which “overthroweth the nature of a sacrament,” in that the sign and the thing signified became the same. This was so, according to the doctrine of the Schoolmen, in which “substance” was equivalent to “matter.” The meaning of the word “substance” being changed, the Roman doctrine must be so far changed too. Archbishop Plato, in the Greek Church admits the term μετουσιωσις in a sense which, if proposed to it, the English Church must accept. “The Eastern and Greek-Russian Church admits the word ‘Transubstantiation,’ in Greek μετουσιωσις, not that physical and carnal transubstantiation, but the sacramental and mystical, and receives that word Transubstantiation in the same sense in which the oldest fathers of the Greek Church received the words μεταλλαγη, μεταθεσις, μεταστοιχειωσις." A sacramental or a hyperphysical change no English churchman, who believes the Real Presence as his Church teaches, could hesitate to accept.'
With the exception of Pusey's assumption that all the Schoolmen made the same materialistic errors regarding T, I think this passage excellent.
Dear Fr. Kirby:
The EOC was keen to note also that they did not consider T a way of explaining how the transformation occurs, but the the same can be said of the RCC, as they have said all the way from the Catechism of the Council of Trent to ARCIC.
Do you realize that none of what they addressed has anything to do with the teaching Cranmer opposed, except the approval of the T word itself? This merely takes us away from Cranmer's period and prepares us for Joesph Ratzinger and modern Anglicans. In other words, so what?
In all these comments, you have made only two remarks at all relevant to the only doctrinal matter under dispute in Cranmer's day.
The way in which they exist materially is to do with the mode of subsistence, not whether the material properties of the Elements are real (they are) or their materiality annihilated (it isn't).
You fail to grasp the obvious, that no matter what Thomas Aquinas had taught centuries earlier, Thomas Cranmer was actually up against people who did, in fact, teach that bread and wine is "materiality annihilated." If you refuse to acknowledge that this was, essentially, the issue under dispute, you are incapable of understanding Cranmer, Hooker or the 39 Articles, or any part of the debate. Cranmer argued against X, so it is no good answering him with arguments for Y and Z. Therefore, most of your remarks seem a terrible waste of e-ink.
As for the Fathers, you continue to implicitly claim I do not know their teaching...
What I see is that you refuse to grant the fact the Cranmer did know the Fathers quite well, and that he more than proved it.
But anybody with access to Darwell Stone's work and that of other Anglican scholars like him, who takes the trouble to closely study them will get a very good grounding indeed in these authors.
Really? Cranmer knew "these authors" by reading "these authors," which is why he so masterfully quoted "these authors." He managed to know the Fathers without Darwell Stone's help, mainly by reading the Fathers.
Have you read Cranmer's book? That is what you seem not to have read.
The degree of disdain and the resort to sweeping statements...
And, charges of heresy are somehow acceptable? Cranmer never departed from true Catholic teaching about the sacrament at all. He guarded the Incarnation and the Resurrection from the implications of annihilation and substantial substitution, and the implicit idea that we should disbelieve our senses. If you consider that irrelevant to the debate as it is today, or was centuries earlier with God's "Dumb Ox," fine. But, Cranmer identified clearly what it was he disputed.
However, Cranmer not only opposed these errors, he went further and argued against orthodox interpretations as well.
Well, no he did not. If you keep both his words and the words of his opponents in their historical context instead of going backwards to Thomas Aquinas's day, or jumping to more recent history, he never opposed orthodox doctrine. I do not want to be limited to his teaching only, but neither would I throw it away.
Post a Comment