tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post6295131165898185128..comments2024-03-24T15:19:06.377-04:00Comments on The Continuum: Fr Wells' Bulletin InsertsFr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-16663188493823978562011-06-27T19:22:43.256-04:002011-06-27T19:22:43.256-04:00To quote Fr. Hart from one of his essays:
No one ...To quote Fr. Hart from one of his essays:<br /><br /><i>No one can fully and adequately explain "Real Presence" in the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper, thus making it (i.e. the Lord's Supper) a perfect fit for one of the "mysteries" or the term sacrament.</i><br /><br />My meager brief attempt at approaching this mystery; certainly open to other's input:<br /><br />Jesus, offered on the cross, presented his physical body broken and his physical blood shed as the means for the pardon of sins and the redemption of sinners. God accomplished salvation for man through these physical bodily elements of our Lord. In the Lord's Supper God likewise offers to believers the same Christ crucified - truly his body broken and blood poured out, received spiritually by faith in physical elements: that of bread and wine- as heavenly food of the effectual grace of his saving cross.Jack Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18281378425270530573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-28493293649069490472011-06-26T20:39:51.726-04:002011-06-26T20:39:51.726-04:00I grasp the problem of the phrase "real prese...I grasp the problem of the phrase "real presence." Nowadays almost everybody is using it, particularly RC's who (other than the Anglo-papalist JMJ types) seem embarrassed by the term Transubstantiation. There may even be Quakers who are willing to talk about "real presence" in some ethereal and detached manner, without nailing it down to concrete things like bread and wine.<br />Would "Special Eucharistic Presence" be an improvement? That also would require some parsing, since it is necessary to state with utmost clarity the objective and permanent relationship between bread/Body, wine/Blood.Fr. Wellshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00842080747345893229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-32905353569308511052011-06-26T20:03:54.755-04:002011-06-26T20:03:54.755-04:00There is no clear Biblical doctrine on Real Presen...There is no clear Biblical doctrine on Real Presence beyond St. Paul's teaching in I Cor. 11. There he speaks of an objective reality of "the Lord's body." Furthermore, either complicating or more deeply mystifying, he ties this in to the Body of Christ, the Church, by clear and strong implication. Those who fail to discern the Lord's body have failed to discern an objective reality in both the sacrament and in the Church.<br /><br />If not for St. Paul's words in that chapter, we would have no idea whether the Lord's words of Institution, or in John 6, were in any way literal or merely metaphorical. Either reading would make sense. <br /><br />This is not an "an eggregious affront to right reason." It is a devastating humiliation to the pride of human intellect. The same is true of every such mystery, including the Trinity, the Incarnation, as well as most everything to do with sacraments. No explanation has been revealed (despite Rome's attempt to create an exact definition). Hence, the Bible uses the word μυστήριον (<i>mystērion</i>) quite often. <br /><br />Sometimes the meaning of a μυστήριον is revealed, and sometimes not. This is one of those things, the exact nature of which, that remains a μυστήριον. You seem to require an answer, and that answer has never been revealed.<br /><br />It sort of puts us in our place, doesn't it?Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-79079487698742970362011-06-26T10:56:55.689-04:002011-06-26T10:56:55.689-04:00I believe in the Real Presence, but the problem is...I believe in the Real Presence, but the problem is that each denomination has its own take on what that means, and some denominations have several takes within the denomination (e.g. The Anglican communion!). I'm sorry, and I really don't mean to be combative, but that is entirely unsatisfactory and an eggregious affront to right reason.RC Colanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-40491532359507568572011-06-25T22:47:45.839-04:002011-06-25T22:47:45.839-04:00Right you are Fr.Hart !
I like this too:
His was...Right you are Fr.Hart !<br /><br />I like this too:<br /><br />His was the word that spake it,<br />He took the bread and brake it,<br />And what His word doth make it,<br />That I believe and take it.<br /> Elizabeth IFr.Jas.A.Chantlernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-32619220373160031352011-06-25T21:52:31.311-04:002011-06-25T21:52:31.311-04:00RC Cola wrote:
What to do?
Take, eat...drink thi...RC Cola wrote:<br /><br /><i>What to do?</i><br /><br />Take, eat...drink this...do this in remembrance of me."<br /><br />That is enough.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-10720423005677136252011-06-25T21:09:33.555-04:002011-06-25T21:09:33.555-04:00Real Presence is such a vague term. How is Christ&...Real Presence is such a vague term. How is Christ's presense real? In what sense? What of the bread and wine? It would be nice if there was a single word that would describe the change affected in the sacrament and yet did not remove the mystery from the mystery. Ideally the word would indicate exactly what Christ indicated when he said, This <i>is</i> my body, etc. It is obvious that he was not speaking metaphorically, nor using any other trope, but rather very literally. So what can we say to show that we know that the bread is not bread, but his body, and the wine not wine, but his blood? And furthermore, how would we be able to express such an idea so that only fools would mistake it for a physical/ chemical change, but the faithful would understand that the change is indeed real, yet not bound by the limits of modern science, which has not the capability of recognizing what the body and blood of Christ really are? After all physics and chemistry don't have faith. So I'm deeply troubled by those who can only think in physical terms and consider the Eucharist as idolatry. But I'm even more troubled by those who claim to have faith that the body and blood of Christ is real, yet are lulled into faithlessness by modern science, which hasn't the capability of telling us anything worthwhile about the sacrament. What to do?RC Colanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-59325197912046031962011-06-25T13:19:07.769-04:002011-06-25T13:19:07.769-04:00"Like Holy Cross Day and a couple of other fe..."Like Holy Cross Day and a couple of other feasts we celebrate in this parish, it is not a Prayer Book holy day."<br /><br />FYI<br />Fr.Wells already knows this but for the benefit of others who read this blog who may not be aware: his comment above only refers to the BCP 1928 of the American Church.The Kalendars of several traditional BCPs (in use in the Continuum)do indeed include the observance of Holy Cross Day.The reason Corpus Christi is not found in the traditional BCPs Kalendars is it was thought to be something of a duplication of what we celebrate on Maundy Thursday.This is similar to the situation regarding the Feast Of Christ The King which traditionally was considered to be Ascension Day.Still I have no beef with those who wish to keep the modern kalendar as long as these particular feasts remain optional.Fr.Jas.A.Chantlernoreply@blogger.com