Know church history well but stay protestant

Root of Jesse · May 13, 2021

Paidiske said:
Exactly right. And the same is true of Anglicans. We reject the word (and the particular metaphysics underpinning it) but not the mystery.

So, then, tell me how Christ becomes truly present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in your Eucharist?

Albion · May 13, 2021

Root of Jesse said:
Baloney. Prove it.

How about you proving your claim that it was the faith of the early church?

Root of Jesse · May 13, 2021

Albion said:
How about you proving your claim that it was the faith of the early church?

Done that already. You said you don't think it explains it. Maybe not to you, but oh, well!

What this reply means is that you cannot prove that the early Church didn't believe that the Eucharist was really the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus under the appearance of bread and wine.

Albion · May 13, 2021

Root of Jesse said:
No, you have valid orders because of apostolic succession. Episcopal and Anglican do not, because their authority is handed down from Henry VIII.

LOL

Henry was not ordained himself and could not pass on Apostolic Succession to anyone, nor did he attempt to do so.

More than 300 years later, the Papacy decided that the English church did not have valid Apostolic Succession, allegedly because the consecrations of bishops which took place during the Reformation used a slightly different script during the ceremony. (It was the same one as had been used for Roman Catholic bishops prior to the Reformation, meaning that Rome's own bishops would be invalid, too, if that form was defective!) Then too, no one knows what wording was used on the Apostles and their successors in the first century where it all started!

Anyway, the late 1800s was a time when the Popes were fast losing what was left of the political and religious influence that they once enjoyed. Socialism, Secularism, national independence movements, Constitutionalism, and popular democracy were on the rise.

Trying to stem the decline, the Catholic Church reacted by issuing brave decrees on politics and other matters, but she also announced a new dogma--Papal Infallibility. Doing that resulted in the departure of the 'Old Catholic' churches and some of Rome's best theologians. And, as said before, the Church also announced that she had decided that Apostolic Succession had been lost in the Church of England.

None of those grand gestures strengthened the Catholic Church, nor did denouncing the state of Italy as illegitimate for having incorporated some of the Pope's territory in central Italy into the new state during the national unification movement there.

After doing that the Popes went into seclusion, sulked, and plotted, hoping there might be some international alliance of nations willing to volunteer to go to war on behalf of the Pope. None did, and those 50 or so years are the time when the Popes were said to be the "prisoners of the Vatican."

In the 1920s, that era ended when the Papacy made a deal with the Fascist dictator of Italy, Benito Mussolini, in which the Pope got a square mile or so inside the city of Rome in which he, the Pope, could claim to be a real ruler of a genuine nation (Vatican City) again. It was like the good old days! Sort of.

As for the decree against Anglican priests and bishops, theologians debated for years what it really, really meant, and today most Roman Catholic priests are willing to admit that the decree invalidating Anglican Orders is unimportant and probably defective. Besides, in the years since that pronouncement, the lines of succession of almost all Anglican bishops include the lines of other churches whose lines of Apostolic Succession are officially accepted by the Catholic Church as valid.

Paidiske · May 13, 2021

Root of Jesse said:
So, then, tell me how Christ becomes truly present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in your Eucharist?

Because the Holy Spirit makes it so. To attempt to define it beyond that, gets us into speculation at best.

GreekOrthodox · May 14, 2021

Root of Jesse said:
No, you have valid orders because of apostolic succession. Episcopal and Anglican do not, because their authority is handed down from Henry VIII.

My comment is directed to that fact that the EOC does not agree with the philosophical term transubstantiation as related in this discussion:

Paidiske said:
Exactly right. And the same is true of Anglicans. We reject the word (and the particular metaphysics underpinning it) but not the mystery.

Root of Jesse said
In my opinion, I think you miss a lot.

tz620q · May 14, 2021

Paidiske said:
Because the Holy Spirit makes it so. To attempt to define it beyond that, gets us into speculation at best.

I can appreciate your position. An argument from (Please pardon the word) ignorance really allows a multiplicity of explanations being valid. As I have stated before, I agree with your thought that the mystery is beyond the human minds ability to understand. So in some regards, all arguments about the how of it become arguments from ignorance. What has mystified me though is the logic (not used by you) that it is a mystery. We cannot know how it occurs; but I know for a fact that it cannot be transubstantiation. At best one holding the "leave it as a mystery" stance has to allow for transubstantiation as one possible explanation.

The other most common line of argument against transubstantiation seems to be along the lines of it is presumptive of us to try to explain something that God has made a mystery. This is based on the thought that God has hidden certain knowledge from us while we inhabit this world. It is my opinion that God has given us a thirsty mind to try to come to a better knowledge of Him. To me, this includes the Eucharist. So attempts to explain the Eucharist should not be discouraged.

I suppose the counter to that is why should they be enforced. In my opinion, without enforcement, a church will diverge into many competing opinions on this most central of Christian doctrines.

Root of Jesse · May 14, 2021

Albion said:
LOL

Henry was not ordained himself and could not pass on Apostolic Succession to anyone, nor did he attempt to do so.

More than 300 years later, the Papacy decided that the English church did not have valid Apostolic Succession, allegedly because the consecrations of bishops which took place during the Reformation used a slightly different script during the ceremony. (It was the same one as had been used for Roman Catholic bishops prior to the Reformation, meaning that Rome's own bishops would be invalid, too, if that form was defective!) Then too, no one knows what wording was used on the Apostles and their successors in the first century where it all started!

Anyway, the late 1800s was a time when the Popes were fast losing what was left of the political and religious influence that they once enjoyed. Socialism, Secularism, national independence movements, Constitutionalism, and popular democracy were on the rise.

Trying to stem the decline, the Catholic Church reacted by issuing brave decrees on politics and other matters, but she also announced a new dogma--Papal Infallibility. Doing that resulted in the departure of the 'Old Catholic' churches and some of Rome's best theologians. And, as said before, the Church also announced that she had decided that Apostolic Succession had been lost in the Church of England.

None of those grand gestures strengthened the Catholic Church, nor did denouncing the state of Italy as illegitimate for having incorporated some of the Pope's territory in central Italy into the new state during the national unification movement there.

After doing that the Popes went into seclusion, sulked, and plotted, hoping there might be some international alliance of nations willing to volunteer to go to war on behalf of the Pope. None did, and those 50 or so years are the time when the Popes were said to be the "prisoners of the Vatican."

In the 1920s, that era ended when the Papacy made a deal with the Fascist dictator of Italy, Benito Mussolini, in which the Pope got a square mile or so inside the city of Rome in which he, the Pope, could claim to be a real ruler of a genuine nation (Vatican City) again. It was like the good old days! Sort of.

As for the decree against Anglican priests and bishops, theologians debated for years what it really, really meant, and today most Roman Catholic priests are willing to admit that the decree invalidating Anglican Orders is unimportant and probably defective. Besides, in the years since that pronouncement, the lines of succession of almost all Anglican bishops include the lines of other churches whose lines of Apostolic Succession are officially accepted by the Catholic Church as valid.

It wasn't later that it was decided, any more than we didn't believe in the Real Presence until 12th century. But you're right, Henry wasn't ordained, so didn't have valid faculties, which is exactly the point I'm making.

Root of Jesse · May 14, 2021

tz620q said:
I can appreciate your position. An argument from (Please pardon the word) ignorance really allows a multiplicity of explanations being valid. As I have stated before, I agree with your thought that the mystery is beyond the human minds ability to understand. So in some regards, all arguments about the how of it become arguments from ignorance. What has mystified me though is the logic (not used by you) that it is a mystery. We cannot know how it occurs; but I know for a fact that it cannot be transubstantiation. At best one holding the "leave it as a mystery" stance has to allow for transubstantiation as one possible explanation.

The other most common line of argument against transubstantiation seems to be along the lines of it is presumptive of us to try to explain something that God has made a mystery. This is based on the thought that God has hidden certain knowledge from us while we inhabit this world. It is my opinion that God has given us a thirsty mind to try to come to a better knowledge of Him. To me, this includes the Eucharist. So attempts to explain the Eucharist should not be discouraged.

I suppose the counter to that is why should they be enforced. In my opinion, without enforcement, a church will diverge into many competing opinions on this most central of Christian doctrines.

I agree with you, but just as "Trinity" doesn't adequately describe our belief, Transubstantiation is the same way, and yet the word Trinity is widely used, and believed by most Christians.

I have said so myself. In fact, most of those you'd hear on Catholic radio don't even use the word. They talk about the Real Presence. Transubstantiation is a technical term that attempts to explain how, when no how is necessary. The doctrine of Real Presence is necessarily contained in the doctrine of Transubstantiation, but the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not necessarily contained in the doctrine of the Real Presence.

Paidiske · May 14, 2021

tz620q said:
What has mystified me though is the logic (not used by you) that it is a mystery. We cannot know how it occurs; but I know for a fact that it cannot be transubstantiation. At best one holding the "leave it as a mystery" stance has to allow for transubstantiation as one possible explanation.

Transubstantiation isn't really an explanation, though. It's a description of (one view of) what changes, but it does not posit how that change occurs. The problem with its description is that it relies on a metaphysic which we apply to basically nothing else in contemporary life, ever. It's as if I tried to describe a miracle of healing with reference to medieval ideas about the body's humours. That'd be pretty meaningless in the face of contemporary medical understanding.

Root of Jesse · May 14, 2021

Paidiske said:
Transubstantiation isn't really an explanation, though. It's a description of (one view of) what changes, but it does not posit how that change occurs. The problem with its description is that it relies on a metaphysic which we apply to basically nothing else in contemporary life, ever. It's as if I tried to describe a miracle of healing with reference to medieval ideas about the body's humours. That'd be pretty meaningless in the face of contemporary medical understanding.

It's not like that. At all.

Paidiske · May 14, 2021

Root of Jesse said:
It's not like that. At all.

How so? Both examples use culturally outmoded ways of thinking about the material world to describe experiential phenomena.

Root of Jesse · May 14, 2021

Paidiske said:
How so? Both examples use culturally outmoded ways of thinking about the material world to describe experiential phenomena.

Who says they're "culturally outmoded"?

Paidiske · May 14, 2021

Root of Jesse said:
Who says they're "culturally outmoded"?

Neither of them (neo-Aristotelian metaphysics of substance and accidents, and medical ideas of "humours") are the way that people in our culture think about what they experience in the world, the physical properties of the objects around them, etc. Outside very particular and rarefied niches in philosophy and theology, they are irrelevant.

Root of Jesse · May 14, 2021

Paidiske said:
Neither of them (neo-Aristotelian metaphysics of substance and accidents, and medical ideas of "humours") are the way that people in our culture think about what they experience in the world, the physical properties of the objects around them, etc. Outside very particular and rarefied niches in philosophy and theology, they are irrelevant.

So, short answer, you think so. I think it is important to understand what Jesus said and did.

Paidiske · May 15, 2021

Root of Jesse said:
I think it is important to understand what Jesus said and did.

Sure. But I don't think "transubstantiation" helps us do that. Or helps us proclaim the good news to the world.

tz620q · May 15, 2021

Paidiske said:
Transubstantiation isn't really an explanation, though. It's a description of (one view of) what changes, but it does not posit how that change occurs. The problem with its description is that it relies on a metaphysic which we apply to basically nothing else in contemporary life, ever. It's as if I tried to describe a miracle of healing with reference to medieval ideas about the body's humours. That'd be pretty meaningless in the face of contemporary medical understanding.

I guess for me no modern experience prepares one to understand the Eucharist adequately. Our modern need to dissect and understand everything scientifically makes us poorer for allowing mystery in our lives, especially supernatural mysteries.
If you don't like the metaphysics, strip it out; but at least state doctrinally that the bread and wine truly become the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ in both a physical and spiritual way. In Session 13 of the Council of Trent, to defend the true belief in the real presence from the many false beliefs that had been proposed by various "wicked men", one can find the following on Transubstantiation in Chapter 4:
"CHAPTER IV
TRANSUBSTANTIATION

But since Christ our Redeemer declared that to be truly His own body which He offered under the form of bread, it has, therefore, always been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy council now declares it anew, that by the consecration of the bread and wine a change is brought about 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. This change the holy Catholic Church properly and appropriately calls transubstantiation."

For me this means that the doctrine is in the real change and not in the word. To infer metaphysics into the word one has to go beyond Trent to Aquinas. I can see how this would be an easy leap; but too often that leap is done polemically to argue against the metaphysics while ignoring the bedrock doctrine. Without a stake in the ground, whether that definition has a lot of metaphysical baggage or not, the individual is left to believe what they will on something their mind cannot grasp. How is that preaching the good news? By the way I like your dedication to the evangelium, I just see the Eucharist as a central part of that and not a tag along left over of a ritualistic church?

Paidiske · May 15, 2021

tz620q said:
I guess for me no modern experience prepares one to understand the Eucharist adequately. Our modern need to dissect and understand everything scientifically makes us poorer for allowing mystery in our lives, especially supernatural mysteries.

By no means am I advocating for a sort of materialist reductionism.

tz620q said:
If you don't like the metaphysics, strip it out; but at least state doctrinally that the bread and wine truly become the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ in both a physical and spiritual way.

Well, I would have problems with that. I can affirm Real Presence. Going beyond that tends to get us into trouble really quickly.

4UallPraise · May 15, 2021

It seems to me that like baptism ritual the assumption of the essence through the washing of the water/blood becomes physically and spiritually a true part of one’s soul. Preserved as another way of alluding wood becoming stone. It must be washed in the minerals of a stream until it becomes petrified wood. It’s all a permeating of the spirit in the exercising of it.

I don’t believe the bread becomes truly Him. Satan told Him to turn the bread into food, but who knows. I still think April Fool’s is His birthday.

Another thought is that while we are going about the Father’s business that inflow is very much the food that is not with held

Dorothy Mae · May 16, 2021

Root of Jesse said:
Nope. That's a misconception of what an indulgence is, and how you would obtain one.

It’s such a common thought that is not corrected by those who think it’s a misconception that the damage is the same.

Know church history well but stay protestant

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Facilitator

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Facilitator

Clara bonam audax

Psalti Chrysostom

Regular Member

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Clara bonam audax

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Clara bonam audax

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Clara bonam audax

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Clara bonam audax

Regular Member

Clara bonam audax

disabled entertainment

Well-Known Member

Similar threads