tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post3445973979132438546..comments2024-03-24T15:19:06.377-04:00Comments on The Continuum: Prayer Book CatholicismFr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-25782785325154432852022-02-13T16:46:09.772-05:002022-02-13T16:46:09.772-05:00I really doubt that there is any significant diffe...I really doubt that there is any significant difference. Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-39897023142287438572022-02-10T01:06:05.507-05:002022-02-10T01:06:05.507-05:00What is the difference between Central (Old High C...What is the difference between Central (Old High Church) churchmanship and Prayer Book Catholicism?FGdsads gjynrewogshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12522385121572765142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-59860876667841090422010-03-29T00:12:22.042-04:002010-03-29T00:12:22.042-04:00Amen!
DH+Amen!<br /><br />DH+Rev. Dr. Hasserthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14350737386756722887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-89345582441962127272010-03-28T07:43:05.726-04:002010-03-28T07:43:05.726-04:00Second, having read most, if not all, of Moss'...<i>Second, having read most, if not all, of Moss' works, I think I can say that Moss did oppose non-communicating Masses and sacramental reservation in the High Medieval style for the purposes of adoration in such services as Benediction and Exposition.</i><br /><br />"For purpose of" and "resulting in among the people" are not the same thing.<br /><br /><i>...non-communicating Masses...</i><br /><br />Valid orders or not, a priest who celebrates with the purpose of not communicating the laity when they are present and willing to receive, lacks sacramental Intention. A non-communicating Mass is not valid. It is, more likely, a sacrilege.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-83750865810094555312010-03-28T00:58:34.363-04:002010-03-28T00:58:34.363-04:00I think that, apart from his disdain for Fr. Hart&...I think that, apart from his disdain for Fr. Hart's rhetorical practices, the commenter, Alan, is upset with a point from one of C.B. Moss's and, perhaps, E. J. Bicknell's writings. From there, this thread has gotten very much bogged down in a confusing and debate. I hope the following three points cast some light:<br /><br />First, Bishop Robinson's post (not Fr. Hart's) is not a claim that C.B. Moss (or Bicknell) is an infallible authority. Rather, Bishop Robinson simply points out the Moss epitomizes Prayer Book Catholicism, and in so doing, does not implying that everything Moss equals everything Prayer Book Catholic ("PBC"), much less equals everything true.<br /><br />Second, having read most, if not all, of Moss' works, I think I can say that Moss did oppose non-communicating Masses and sacramental reservation in the High Medieval style for the purposes of adoration in such services as Benediction and Exposition. And, this is in fact a generally held PBC position and is motivated by a concern that eucharistic adoration had become a communication substitute and thus defeated the sacrament.<br /><br />Third, if Alan is contending that, by holding this moderate position on sacramental reservation, PBCs have ipso facto repudiated the doctrine of the Real Presence, and therefore that PBCism is itself defective, then I will only say that he is strong and true son of Trent!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-26945625573839629102010-03-28T00:16:06.749-04:002010-03-28T00:16:06.749-04:00Thank You, Father Hart.
But, exactly. Excuse me a...Thank You, Father Hart.<br /><br />But, exactly. Excuse me all, but if one only reads the prayer book and the greats, the English and Scot divines whom the writers of the Tracts quoted, you have no choice. But, even more, if you only perform the liturgy as they intended without wincing at how un-Tridentine it is, you just may find your heart suddenly warmed by overwhelming love and adoration of Him who loved you, especially you, before the those first words in Genesis were spoken.Canon Tallishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05182884929479435751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-79958640555206770492010-03-27T22:54:18.348-04:002010-03-27T22:54:18.348-04:00...you can't do their liturgy in strict accord...<i>...you can't do their liturgy in strict accord with the rubrics with adoration of the species.</i><br /><br />Would I be correct that this was a typo, and was meant to say "without"?Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-35964482641198925632010-03-27T21:46:29.847-04:002010-03-27T21:46:29.847-04:00I am with Fathers Kirby and Hart on this one. Take...I am with Fathers Kirby and Hart on this one. Take 1552, 1559 and 1662 and do them precisely as ordered in the rubrics and you will find yourself involved in Eucharistic Adoration during the singing or recitation of the Gloria in excelsis deo. And don't think that the framers of same didn't realize exactly what they were doing. Communion was the most important thing but it is equally plain that you can't do their liturgy in strict accord with the rubrics with adoration of the species.<br /><br />That said, the real Church of Scotland and I don't mean the Presbyies have always specifically allowed reservation and there are English authorities who will tell you that it was never forbidden. It was probably discouraged because of the fear of misuse of the sacrament, i.e., witchcraft, black masses and things like that. As late as the 1960's several prominent churches and cathedrals in Germany and Italy had their tabernacles vandalized and the sacrament stolen for who knows what use. It was probably for such reasons that the most common form of reservation in Northern Europe was either the hanging pyx or the tabernacle in the North wall of a chapel or the sacrament house.Canon Tallishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05182884929479435751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-18312523753169309822010-03-27T13:15:51.019-04:002010-03-27T13:15:51.019-04:00Of course, the outward, visible, touchable aspect ...<i>Of course, the outward, visible, touchable aspect of the Sacrament can only be honored or venerated, but no theologian has ever claimed we could worship the sacramentum ("outward part") itself, in isolation from or as distinct from the res ("inward part").</i><br /><br />Trying to explain this to critics has always been, in my experience, a waste of time. If they insist on believing that some of their brethren are worshiping bread, it is right only to say that no one does that or approves of that.<br /><br />Questions of popular piety never spring from hierarchical legislation, but from the laity in devotions. The right question for some practices is not whether or not they are found in Anglican rubrics somewhere, but simply, may it be practiced to someone's edification, and free from error? If yes, leave it alone; do not disturb it.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-12312321762346468992010-03-27T06:02:11.079-04:002010-03-27T06:02:11.079-04:00I am rather confused by this debate. I think I dis...I am rather confused by this debate. I think I disagree with both sides, but I am not sure.<br /><br />While we can all agree that the primary purpose of reservation of the Most Holy Sacrament is for the emergency requirements of the sick and dying, an assertion you will find among Roman authorities too, by the way, this does not mean no other devotional use is possible. We can also agree that the EOC has not developed such devotional use outiside the Divine Liturgy, but it cannot be denied that the EO do in fact practice Eucharistic Adoration within the Divine Liturgy and that Bp Kallistos Ware long ago noted that there seems to be no fundamentally theological reason why such devotions outside the liturgy could not exist in the EOC.<br /><br />More to the point, Eucharistic Adoration within the Eucharistic service itself is manifestly supported by the Fathers. None of them, not one, to my knowledge, ever forbade it outside the liturgy, but nor did they commend it earlier because that devotion had not evolved until the later Patristic period, as effectively shown above by Bp Mead.<br /><br />If one's doctrine of the Real Presence does not allow for the Adoration of Christ present "beneath a veil" of the outward signs, it is not the Patristic doctrine of the Real Presence. Of course, the outward, visible, touchable aspect of the Sacrament can only be honored or venerated, but no theologian has ever claimed we could worship the <i>sacramentum</i> ("outward part") itself, in isolation from or as distinct from the <i>res</i> ("inward part"). That our worship is to be given to Christ as perceived by faith rather than by mere flesh is clear from the <i>Tantum ergo</i> of St Thomas Aquinas:<br />"Faith, our outward sense befriending,<br />Makes our inward vision clear." (Hymn 234 of the Book of Common Praise)<br /><br />So, the only question left is whether, given that Eucharistic Adoration is the Catholic practice and that reservation is permitted and encouraged by East and West, the twain can ever meet edifyingly. Most of the Western Church has said yes for a very long time. The Eastern Church is not really opposed to it, even though it did not develop this practice itself. In fact, Western-Rite Orthodox have been known to practise Benediction with official approval, as I understand it. But if adoration of Christ really present "in" the Sacrament is orthodox, as Bp Lancelot Andrewes taught, and reservation is also orthodox, the fact that the two took a while to become systematically associated seems no more problematic than the much later innovation of Sunday Schools for children.<br /><br />PS: The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is due to a real change in the fundamental identity and being or inner essence of the Elements, so that they become, mysteriously, the real, physical Body and Blood that were offered up for us. (Not some other body and blood nominally related to Christ's physical reality, as Moss quirkily taught.) So, insofar as it is the <i>Corpus</i> that is really present, as the Fathers believed, the presence is corporal. However, as St Thomas himself explicitly taught, the presence is <b>not</b> local and <b>not</b> according to a corporal (physical) mode, but a spiritual one. Corporal one way and not another.Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-80248247020467716622010-03-26T20:26:37.284-04:002010-03-26T20:26:37.284-04:00Ah! Fr. Hart! You are wiser than a serpent. Now ...Ah! Fr. Hart! You are wiser than a serpent. Now I get it, Alan is a sock puppet.Fr. Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18097549748468739701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-85940744027392283952010-03-26T18:54:05.448-04:002010-03-26T18:54:05.448-04:00Fr.Hart:I too think that some of the contributors ...Fr.Hart:I too think that some of the contributors to this thread are attempting to saddle you with views that you do not hold.Fr.Jas.A.Chantler TOSAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-4689479274690254972010-03-26T16:44:26.072-04:002010-03-26T16:44:26.072-04:00Bishop Robinson wrote:
Now if you happen to be Me...Bishop Robinson wrote:<br /><br /><i>Now if you happen to be Memorialist, or believe in bleeding hosts, then we might have to have a little chat with one another. Should we not rather rest content with Our Lord's Institution and his words to us that the Bread is His Body; the Wine His Blood?</i><br /><br />And, that is the Anglican position, the only one we may teach with certainty. The key that unlocks everything the Anglican Reformers taught, everything in the BCP including the Articles, the Homily on Worthy Receiving, the writings of Cranmer and Hooker, and the Catechism, is to limit ourselves to what we can know by revelation, and <b>to receive</b> the sacrament. The mystery is in the Anglican emphasis on κοινωνία, as is clear from the Anglican name, from Scripture, of the service: Holy Communion.<br /><br />The rest is the sort of fuss Hooker, drawing from Cranmer, considered immaterial. And, yes, the pun is intended.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-60959698583229165352010-03-26T16:34:16.523-04:002010-03-26T16:34:16.523-04:00(cont. from above)
Moss also points to Gore, Puse...(cont. from above)<br /><br />Moss also points to Gore, Pusey and Holland (p379) as objecting to the practice so it is not as if I am misunderstanding something here as you assert; it is you who are dancing around the mulberry bush. Moss goes on to state: "Archbishop Parker expressly permitted reservation, so long as it was not accompanied by the MEDIEVAL (emphasis mine) acts of WORSHIP, such as carrying the Host in procession"... "unknown in England before the Reformation".<br /><br />So no Fr. I am not satisfied with your answer because you continue to answer something neither Charles or I object to and you have not addressed directly Moss and Bicknell's assertions which speak to antiquity and innovation.<br /><br /><b>No. What you want is for me to make an argument I do not even agree with, as if it were my position. I don't have the time to engage in any RPG (Role Playing Game).</b><br /><br />If Anglicanism has become a place where every faction can pick and defend it's own innovation on personal preference than we have no claim to Catholicism. All I have received here by requesting objective proof strikes me as "Simon Says".<br /><br /><b>Actually, you have not paid attention to my comments at all. You want proof of something I would never try to prove, and my refusal to play the role you want me to play has disappointed you, it seems.</b><br /><br />If you like sometime I'd be glad to teach you the difference hay and straw- best learned here on the farm baling.<br /><br /><b>I prefer to know the difference between those and precious stones. </b>Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-60708150201610820712010-03-26T16:33:58.731-04:002010-03-26T16:33:58.731-04:00Alan has sent this comment, and I am going to resp...<b>Alan</b> has sent this comment, and I am going to respond by posting my own responses within it.<br /><br />Fr. Hart<br />"I have found no one to be able to demonstrate that going from reservation for the sick to worship of the elements is ancient or Scriptural.<br /><i>Glad to hear it. Why would anyone want to?</i>"<br /><br />A flip answer from Fr Hart! Because you cannot offer anything substantive in defense of Moss' and Bicknell's point. For that matter why would anyone want to disprove WO?<br /><br /><b>My point, which I thought was clear, is that reservation is not for the sake of worship. This is a straw man, and we all have had enough of it.</b><br /><br />All you have done is explain away what Moss and Bicknell cite. You have not addressed how they came to their conclusions or even really addressed the clear distinction they make between reservation for the sick (universal) and Aadoration and Worship (innovation from Rome- a particular church at a particular time).<br /><br />Explaining away is explaining nothing. What you fail to do is offer any evidence that reservation for the purpose of Adoration and Worship as both Moss and Bicknell point out cannot be found as universal prior to 11th or 12th centuries. Or that it was ever treated in such a fashion in the first 1000 years. It fails the test of Vincent. Period.<br /><br /><b> Again, why would I want to? Let me decide what I am willing to argue for. Reservation <i>for the sake of worship</i> is not one of those things. This ought to be obvious</b><br /><br />As to your use of the Orthodox to discredit claims of OTC by the Romans and also referring to them from time to time as one way to measure if a practice is ancient we have all seen it plenty here.<br /><br /><b>No. What you have seen is a demonstration that certain doctrines have never been universally accepted, despite the claims of Rome. The difference is not all that subtle.</b><br /><br />"You did indeed state that you interpret Moss as follows: "<br />Interpret? your spinning dear Fr.! I interpreted nothing- Moss is quite direct and clear in what he states and you have presented no answer that defeats his time line or assertion for the innovation. In fact all that has been accomplished here (by way of the remark about reserving perpetually for pestilence) is what Bicknell goes on to describe: "when the special circumstances that give rise to a ritual practice have passed away, the practice itself remains, and in order to justify it a new and mystical explanation is invented". p 307. Bingo.<br /><br />"...it would be on a specific point." Then answer the specific point instead of avoiding it by referring to what neither Moss or Bicknell are concerned with, and what I haven't made an issue about (reservation for the sick),- that point being the late development of "Benediction, Adoration and Worship". A practice seemingly in harmony with Newman's own Doctrinal Development.<br /><br /><b>That is because it is a late development; why would I argue against a fact? Am I bound to take the position you imagine for me, rather than my own? Of course we have a duty to prevent misplaced λατρεία, a danger man is susceptible to. That is a given.</b> <br /><br />"I hope, Alan, that you are starting to get the real point of reservation. "<br />I have gotten the point- you refuse to address it. Your position is to dismiss the point by shifting focus and stating that there is no difference in reservation for the sick and the Roman focus of worship and Moss and Bicknell clearly define that it is not. I would add this can be verified by simply listening to the apologetic and behavior of the Continuing clergy who Adore and Worship the reservation.<br /><br /><b>Come to think of it, I did run into one bishop once who said weird things-a man in Tulsa. I did not get the impression he was worshiping the reserved sacrament as much as trying to confine the Lord to a box where He could be controlled. But, that is an isolated case.</b><br /><br />(cont. below)Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-38866410883971068162010-03-26T12:02:30.908-04:002010-03-26T12:02:30.908-04:00Charles said:
The RCC says "a substantial pre...Charles said:<br /><i>The RCC says "a substantial presence". That is theological nomenclature for 'physical'.</i><br /><br />Entirely false. Substance is not a synonym for "physical." Certainly not when used in the proper Thomistic sense.RC Colanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-90036875441616949472010-03-26T09:27:06.950-04:002010-03-26T09:27:06.950-04:00Dear Father Hart,
Yes, I guess it's beating ...Dear Father Hart, <br /><br />Yes, I guess it's beating a dead horse. But when looking at the period following William and Mary, 'transubstantiation' was perhaps a boogy-man which all public officers (not only clergy and teachers, but judges, parliament, even military) had to give an oath against alongside Supremacy of the Crown. <br /><br />Defining Anglicanism's eucharist theology is not easy. A book written by the later Alcuin Society, printed 1974, tried 'pinning it down'. While an 'objectivity' has been insisted, it's not a corporal but spiritual presence, identified with the elements as real mediums but not complete until 'swallowed' by faith. It's a kind of 'high virtualism'. <br /><br />When ritualists began 'perpetual reservation', central churchmen, like Dearmer, objected, partly on the grounds of how the sacrament might be perceived, partly on canon law. However, there is always expediency when 'your neighbor's ox is stuck in a ditch', or as +Peter says, sharing the truth so the heathen, heretic, Muslim might be converted. I guess in the old days the 'sacrament controversies' were a big deal, but today we are dealing more with creation debates and basic morals against the tide of secular culture.charleshttp://www.anglicanrose.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-60013150047761021752010-03-26T01:49:14.364-04:002010-03-26T01:49:14.364-04:00Having once waded through Cranmer "On the Lor...Having once waded through Cranmer "On the Lord's Supper" I came to the conclusion that by 1551Cranmer's Eucharistic theology was closest to that of Martin Bucer. However, neither the Articles nor the BCP tie us to Cranmer's, or anyone else's, theories. Instead, they rule out the two extreme positions - Zwinglian Memorialism and some of the grosser conceptions of Transubstantiation. What we are left with are the various permutations of "Thou art here, we know not how." Personally, I tend to the Non-Juror concept of Virtualism, but I am not going to start piling faggots because someone happens to disagree with me on the niceities of the doctrine of the Real Presence. Now if you happen to be Memorialist, or believe in bleeding hosts, then we might have to have a little chat with one another. Should we not rather rest content with Our Lord's Institution and his words to us that the Bread is His Body; the Wine His Blood? I very much doubt that this sort of squabbling converts one atheist, heretic, or Muslim to the Truth!<br /><br />+PDR+ Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15593635840263637835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-55250552203666151942010-03-26T01:08:01.660-04:002010-03-26T01:08:01.660-04:00Charles wrote:
Anyway, I do not know how perpetua...Charles wrote:<br /><br /><i>Anyway, I do not know how perpetual reservation squares with the Prayer Book together with the 39 Articles.</i><br /><br />Perpetual reservation? Food spoils, as in, it cannot be reserved perpetually. As I said above; it is consumed within a short space of time if only to be properly reverent. But, that does not mean we fail to replace it so that some reserved sacrament is available for use. That we treat it with reverence (more so than in RC churches usually), as we do the altar, is only fitting. That is hardly what we would mean by the word "worship."<br /><br />So, Alan and Charles: Are you satisfied with the answers, or are there more straw men to shoot at? I believe it has been honest questions, but straw men nonetheless.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-65729416164847469532010-03-26T00:05:53.052-04:002010-03-26T00:05:53.052-04:00Sean Reed:
In Tract 90, Newman cited the abuse of...Sean Reed:<br /><br />In Tract 90, Newman cited the abuse of stories by RC teachers, and it is that very sort of thing so largely accepted in the past that made the Anglicans reject everything that the word "Transubstantiation" appeared to mean, suggest or imply. Furthermore, I do believe that, as he was known then, Archbishop Ratzinger (pre-Cardinal) corrected the popular notion as it continued to be in popular imagination, and bridged the gulf between us to a large degree.<br /><br />Objections stand, nonetheless, if we say that the substance of bread and wine is replaced by a new reality, for that "overhtroweth the nature of a sacrament." It cannot effect what it signifies, and signify what it effects, if there is no sign. Also, the Aristotelian notion of accidents and substance is simply outdated by modern physics. Finally (and this is what Cranmer and Hooker objected to) it is both unnecessary and beyond the truth that Christ revealed, to apply this Aristotelian philosophy to what Jesus said.<br /><br />I would add that in trying, beyond reasonable measure, to understand the mystery itself, we have lost sight of the Jewish context in which the sacrament was given to us, and all that it means in terms of the Covenant. This is despite the fact that Jesus alluded directly to Jeremiah 31:31-34, speaking of the New Covenant in his blood as he held the cup.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-25546013275531127962010-03-26T00:00:43.993-04:002010-03-26T00:00:43.993-04:00Dear Sean,
The RCC says "a substantial pre...Dear Sean, <br /><br /> The RCC says "a substantial presence". That is theological nomenclature for 'physical'. <br /><br />Anyway, I do not know how perpetual reservation squares with the Prayer Book together with the 39 Articles. I understand the 'in extremis' arguments, but the danger is when people take the 'irregular' for the 'norm', and I think this is what any prohibition would hope to curb...what is 'normally' done in public worship.?charleshttp://www.anglicanrose.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-60620741877038773702010-03-25T23:51:28.057-04:002010-03-25T23:51:28.057-04:00Cont. from above:
I have not seen the sacrament r...Cont. from above:<br /><br />I have not seen the sacrament reserved as an object of worship (λατρεία). That is not what the tabernacle is about. Furthermore, everyone everywhere teaches that the reserved sacrament needs to be consumed within a short space of time; not because the consecration is not permanent (which it is), but because it is irreverent to keep it too long. It is replaced immediately so that it is easily available when needed. If this is mistaken for keeping it around for long periods of time, or to be worshiped (λατρεία), chalk it up to ignorance.<br /><br />I hope, Alan, that you are starting to get the real point of reservation. And, I would say that our reverence for the sacrament makes more sense than the Orthodox inordinate (as in, a bit too much at times) veneration of icons.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-54458623007992793692010-03-25T23:44:07.386-04:002010-03-25T23:44:07.386-04:00St. Thomas addresses in Summa the type of presence...St. Thomas addresses in Summa the type of presence, and it is not physical, in fact, he addresses what to do in the case of Eucharistic Miracles:<br /><br />Article 8. Whether Christ's body is truly there when flesh or a child appears miraculously in this sacrament?<br /><br />“...I answer that, Such apparition comes about in two ways, when occasionally in this sacrament flesh, or blood, or a child, is seen. Sometimes it happens on the part of the beholders, whose eyes are so affected as if they outwardly saw flesh, or blood, or a child, while no change takes place in the sacrament. And this seems to happen when to one person it is seen under the species of flesh or of a child, while to others it is seen as before under the species of bread; or when to the same individual it appears for an hour under the appearance of flesh or a child, and afterwards under the appearance of bread. Nor is there any deception there, as occurs in the feats of magicians, because such species is divinely formed in the eye in order to represent some truth, namely, for the purpose of showing that Christ's body is truly under this sacrament; just as Christ without deception appeared to the disciples who were going to Emmaus. For Augustine says (De Qq. Evang. ii) that "when our pretense is referred to some significance, it is not a lie, but a figure of the truth." And since in this way no change is made in the sacrament, it is manifest that, when such apparition occurs, Christ does not cease to be under this sacrament.<br />But it sometimes happens that such apparition comes about not merely by a change wrought in the beholders, but by an appearance which really exists outwardly. And this indeed is seen to happen when it is beheld by everyone under such an appearance, and it remains so not for an hour, but for a considerable time; and, in this case some think that it is the proper species of Christ's body. Nor does it matter that sometimes Christ's entire body is not seen there, but part of His flesh, or else that it is not seen in youthful guise. but in the semblance of a child, because it lies within the power of a glorified body for it to be seen by a non-glorified eye either entirely or in part, and under its own semblance or in strange guise, as will be said later (XP, 85, 2,3).<br />But this seems unlikely. First of all, because Christ's body under its proper species can be seen only in one place, wherein it is definitively contained. Hence since it is seen in its proper species, and is adored in heaven, it is not seen under its proper species in this sacrament. Secondly, because a glorified body, which appears at will, disappears when it wills after the apparition; thus it is related (Luke 24:31) that our Lord "vanished out of sight" of the disciples. But that which appears under the likeness of flesh in this sacrament, continues for a long time; indeed, one reads of its being sometimes enclosed, and, by order of many bishops, preserved in a pyx, which it would be wicked to think of Christ under His proper semblance.<br />Consequently, it remains to be said, that, while the dimensions remain the same as before, there is a miraculous change wrought in the other accidents, such as shape, color, and the rest, so that flesh, or blood, or a child, is seen. And, as was said already, this is not deception, because it is done "to represent the truth," namely, to show by this miraculous apparition that Christ's body and blood are truly in this sacrament. And thus it is clear that as the dimensions remain, which are the foundation of the other accidents, as we shall see later on (77, 2), the body of Christ truly remains in this sacrament...”<br /><br /><br />SWRSean W. Reedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02782194974794706695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-58178032514019115722010-03-25T23:44:07.385-04:002010-03-25T23:44:07.385-04:00Charles wrote:
“...Transubstantiation has to do w...Charles wrote:<br /><br />“...Transubstantiation has to do with the 'physical presence' of Christ in the bread...”<br /><br /><br />Transubstantiation does not deal with a “‘physical presence’ of Christ.”<br /><br />The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:<br /><br />1374 The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend."201 In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained."202 "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."203<br /><br />1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.<br /><br /><br />Cont'dSean W. Reedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02782194974794706695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-84423536582545449812010-03-25T23:42:01.689-04:002010-03-25T23:42:01.689-04:00Alan:
Now that I have let you have your say, it i...Alan:<br /><br />Now that I have let you have your say, it is time to point out a few things.<br /><br />You did indeed state that you interpret Moss as follows: "He says it is a medieval Roman practice and a dangerous one at that- as it assumes(if you page back to 364) the permanent presence of Christ's body in the elements which goes to Transubstantiation and monophysit-ism." <br /><br />Why the use of the word "permanent" if not to suggest reversion back to mere bread and wine? If so, it is a doctrine the Church has never taught.<br /><br />Now, you can quote Bicknell all you want, as I do; but, if I were to disagree with him (which I have not done in my comments here) it would be on a specific point. Inasmuch as we have no infallible individuals, I may find some point of disagreement, which would not contradict my endorsement of his book on the 39 Articles.<br /><br />Reservation among Anglicans was done in a pyx that hangs (I am used to carrying the kind that does not hang). The tabernacle is nothing but the modern version of the same thing. Rome does it too; so what? They also hold services on Sundays, and celebrate Easter, Christmas, and today's feast (The Annunciation). Must we then do otherwise? How un-Roman must we be? Merely within reason, or beyond the limits of reason? I suggest we restrict our Un-Roman ways to matters of genuine disagreement, or to matters where they express a culture we do not share.<br /><br /><i>All in the general cloaking of an incremental agenda preparing the laity for an eventual reunion of some form.</i><br /><br />In some form? See <a href="http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2008/03/hooker-on-unity-with-rome.html" rel="nofollow">this.</a><br /><br /><i>Either reservation in the form of a tabernacle as employed now as a focus of worship is an innovation or it isn't.</i><br /><br />It isn't. So, what's the problem?<br /><br /><i>I have found no one to be able to demonstrate that going from reservation for the sick to worship of the elements is ancient or Scriptural.</i><br /><br />Glad to hear it. Why would anyone want to?<br /><br /><i>So Cramner believed not necessarily what is taught today as Real Presence, if I understand this correctly, but where reservation as a focus of worship is in the BCP or taught universally by the ancient church I cannot find it...</i><br /><br />Didn't he? Perhaps the "focus of worship" bit is where you depart from reality.<br /><br /><i>Because this Blog always sites the EO as a measure to counter the One True Church claims of Rome and as a measure of testing the consistency of claims of antiquity.</i><br /><br />Like hell we do. I have never treated either of the two One True Churches as infallible.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.com