Know church history well but stay protestant

[Root of Jesse]

They reject the word, but not the mystery.

 

[Paidiske]

They reject the word, but not the mystery.

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]

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

In my opinion, I think you miss a lot.

 

[Root of Jesse]

But the Church did not always believe that neo-Aristotelian metaphysics was the way to understand what happens in the Eucharist. We can demonstrate this easily by noting that the Orthodox, also, reject that framing of it.

"We don't know how," is exactly right. The Orthodox would say the same; it is a holy mystery. One that we cannot adequately explain or describe in terms of transubstantiation.

I don't think you know that the church did not believe something. We do know that the Church believed that the Eucharist is Jesus.

 

[Paidiske]

In my opinion, I think you miss a lot.

But it is demonstrable from our liturgical texts that Anglicans believe in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

I don't think you know that the church did not believe something. We do know that the Church believed that the Eucharist is Jesus.

We know that the Church did not articulate its belief in terms which it later insisted that all accept as the way to understand the Real Presence.

 

[Root of Jesse]

But it is demonstrable from our liturgical texts that Anglicans believe in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

maybe, but no valid faculties to make it so.

We know that the Church did not articulate its belief in terms which it later insisted that all accept as the way to understand the Real Presence.

No, what we know is they didn't have a word for what they believed. Just as there was no word for God in three persons for quite a while, but once again, is it really adequate?

 

[Paidiske]

maybe, but no valid faculties to make it so.

So you say. We who experience the grace of Christ in the sacraments don't need your agreement to make it so.

No, what we know is they didn't have a word for what they believed.

The issue is not with finding a word for what they believed. The issue is insisting that a particular metaphysical framework (neo-Aristotelianism) is the right way to understand it.

but once again, is it really adequate?

Is what really adequate? Is it really adequate to say, we know Christ is present to us, and we trust God to be at work through that?

Seems adequate to me.

 

[tz620q]

So you say. We who experience the grace of Christ in the sacraments don't need your agreement to make it so.



The issue is not with finding a word for what they believed. The issue is insisting that a particular metaphysical framework (neo-Aristotelianism) is the right way to understand it.



Is what really adequate? Is it really adequate to say, we know Christ is present to us, and we trust God to be at work through that?

Seems adequate to me.

As someone who has studied theology, I think you realize that the concept of the Eucharist is defined in many complex ways. Even those who say it is a mystery and therefore beyond complete human understanding (and yes, metaphysical reduction to neo-Aristotelian explanation) do not leave it as a complete mystery and try to define it in some ways. For instance, is the Eucharist merely a general manifestation of the all-encompassing God/Holy Spirit that pervades our world always in some ritualistic act of giving homage to that general presence or is the Eucharist a localized presence of God that is therefore more intimate and powerful than a general presence? Does that localized presence happen in merely a symbolic way as a memorial of a past existence or does this presence represent the true presence of the risen Lord in the current place and time? Is this true presence purely a spiritual presence under the unchanging elements of the Eucharist or is there both a physical and spiritual presence? The last question, and maybe for you the bridge too far, is how does this change to physical and spiritual presence occur? There is a whole further set of questions on what the Eucharist does for us and how that happens; but these are not pertinent to this discussion. The one thing that seems to me to be the break in the chain here is that if you do not believe in a physical presence of the Lord in the elements, then Transubstantiation seems like so much hocus pocus. I ask these questions not to debate; but to discuss the beliefs that are hard rock for all Anglicans or is there a plurality of beliefs about this within the Anglican community?

 

[Root of Jesse]

So you say. We who experience the grace of Christ in the sacraments don't need your agreement to make it so.



The issue is not with finding a word for what they believed. The issue is insisting that a particular metaphysical framework (neo-Aristotelianism) is the right way to understand it.



Is what really adequate? Is it really adequate to say, we know Christ is present to us, and we trust God to be at work through that?

Seems adequate to me.

Because of succession, which you practice, you know that it requires valid ordination to be able to confect the sacrament, so it is Christ's agreement, not ours.
The Eucharist is what it is. The word doesn't matter, really. Transubstantiation is a technical term. We know the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ.
Since you chop up the post, you lost track. Bye.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

then Transubstantiation seems like so much hocus pocus.

I see what you did there

 

[Paidiske]

The one thing that seems to me to be the break in the chain here is that if you do not believe in a physical presence of the Lord in the elements, then Transubstantiation seems like so much hocus pocus. I ask these questions not to debate; but to discuss the beliefs that are hard rock for all Anglicans or is there a plurality of beliefs about this within the Anglican community?

There's a plurality of beliefs in practice, wider than our doctrinal statements would give scope for. (That's probably true for most churches, though).

The difficulty when it comes to talking about physical presence, transubstantiation, and so on, is how we understand those terms. I do not believe that the carbohydrate molecules (for example) of the bread become a different sort of molecule or change their chemical composition. But I believe Christ is present in a uniquely physically localised way within the consecrated bread and wine.

But that is my attempt to articulate my understanding within a metaphysics that makes sense to me - one which doesn't deny the actual chemistry and physics of the material world - rather than a metaphysics which is no longer a shared way of framing our understanding of the world.

Because of succession, which you practice, you know that it requires valid ordination to be able to confect the sacrament, so it is Christ's agreement, not ours.

I just don't think you - or your church - get to so glibly declare that others' ordinations aren't valid.

The word doesn't matter, really.

Of course it matters. Words matters. Language matters. In this case, the word is loaded with the freight of a whole way of thinking about the world.

 

[Root of Jesse]

There's a plurality of beliefs in practice, wider than our doctrinal statements would give scope for. (That's probably true for most churches, though).

The difficulty when it comes to talking about physical presence, transubstantiation, and so on, is how we understand those terms. I do not believe that the carbohydrate molecules (for example) of the bread become a different sort of molecule or change their chemical composition. But I believe Christ is present in a uniquely physically localised way within the consecrated bread and wine.

But that is my attempt to articulate my understanding within a metaphysics that makes sense to me - one which doesn't deny the actual chemistry and physics of the material world - rather than a metaphysics which is no longer a shared way of framing our understanding of the world.



I just don't think you - or your church - get to so glibly declare that others' ordinations aren't valid.

you're right, I don't. But it isn't me, or even the Church, that makes that true, but Christ Himself.

Of course it matters. Words matters. Language matters. In this case, the word is loaded with the freight of a whole way of thinking about the world.

Concepts and definitions matter. Words used to define them don't. Why? Because people change definitions.

 

[Paidiske]

you're right, I don't. But it isn't me, or even the Church, that makes that true, but Christ Himself.

Well, clearly if I agreed with that, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. But I doubt it's fruitful to pursue it any further.

Concepts and definitions matter. Words used to define them don't. Why? Because people change definitions.

I can't agree with you here. Words matter. The way we understand words also matters. Language does change, but we can't just empty a word of its meaning and connotations and then berate others for not using it the way we think they should.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Well, clearly if I agreed with that, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. But I doubt it's fruitful to pursue it any further.



I can't agree with you here. Words matter. The way we understand words also matters. Language does change, but we can't just empty a word of its meaning and connotations and then berate others for not using it the way we think they should.

You can disagree, but you're disagreeing with Christ. If definitions are constant, then the words matter.

 

[Paidiske]

You can disagree, but you're disagreeing with Christ.

Yeah, no. The constant "It's not me you're disagreeing with, it's God/Christ/the Bible" which gets bandied about in various discussions, ends up coming across more like a way to claim some sort of superiority than any solid contribution to the discussion. Would you please just drop it?

If defi n idiots are constant, then words matter.

Definitions do change over time, but they have a degree of agreed meaning at any point in time. Which is how we're able to converse and understand one another. I don't think you can empty "transubstantiation" of so much of its meaning as to claim that what it has meant should no longer be disputed.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Yeah, no. The constant "It's not me you're disagreeing with, it's God/Christ/the Bible" which gets bandied about in various discussions, ends up coming across more like a way to claim some sort of superiority than any solid contribution to the discussion. Would you please just drop it?



Definitions do change over time, but they have a degree of agreed meaning at any point in time. Which is how we're able to converse and understand one another. I don't think you can empty "transubstantiation" of so much of its meaning as to claim that what it has meant should no longer be disputed.

When the definition came 1200 years before the term, no. And in religious matters, the very reason for the split is often because some want a different definition.

 

[Albion]

When the definition came 1200 years before the term, no.

But as has already been noted, it did not.

The ancient church believed in Real Presence but not Transubstantiation.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

In my opinion, I think you miss a lot.

So that implies that we Orthodox miss a lot too?

 

[Root of Jesse]

But as has already been noted, it did not.

The ancient church believed in Real Presence but not Transubstantiation.

Baloney. Prove it.

 

[Root of Jesse]

So that implies that we Orthodox miss a lot too?

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