But, Hugh what if God’s sovereignty is measured out in a divinely protected sacred tradition called the Word of God..then you are in potential deep trouble.
I want to apologize for the unnecessarily gruff nature of my last post.
Getting, though, to the questions raised in your last posts---My answer to Bishop Guest’s initial objections to Article 29 is stated in my previous post (namely he had an initial objection for the previously cited reasons, but withdrew this initial objection within a few days).
St. Augustine’s teaching contained in the 29th Article is not taken out of context at all--please see my above quotes from St. Augustine’s Tractate 26 on the Gospel of John which show the quote of the 29th Article in its immediate context--And here is the link to Tractate 26 (which I managed to forgot to put in my previous post) :
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701026.htm
As far as St. Augustine is concerned—based on all I have read I think that he did hold to an “objective"/"moderate realist” presence along the lines of Bishop Guest --and I certainly do not believe St, Augustine’s teaching (namely, that the wicked do not feed on Christ in the Sacrament, though they eat the outward element) was a denial of this “spiritual, heavenly” presence of Christ in the Sacrament (although many have understood him as holding to a “receptionist”/”virtualist” view (as J.N.D. Kelly noted) including a large portion of the Anglican Divines--and this is not a very unreasonable position to come to regarding St. Augustine’s theology of Holy Communion).
As for St. Augustine’s understanding of the presence of Christ in Holy Communion (regardless of the varying positions on whether his teaching was “receptionist”/”virtualist” or objective) and his teaching on the “Sacrifice” which occurs in Holy Communion-the Anglican Divines specifically affirmed his teachings—even as they affirmed the partristic consensus on the matter (with St. Augustine being viewed for a number of reasons as the chief representative of the patristic consensus on the Sacrament). Of course, their affirmation of the patristic teaching on the “Sacrifice” in Holy Communion was made while denying fiercely the Romish “Sacrifice of the Mass” (please see my earlier post which quotes from Jewel’s response to the Roman Catholic Harding in The Defense of the Apology as regards the English Reformers explicit affirmation of the Church Father’s teaching on the “Sacrifice” in Holy Communion--and I can produce numerous other quotes, if need be, which demonstrate this fact).
I would particularly recommend that you look at Rathumnus’ writing on the Holy Communion, which I linked to previously, to see how the English Reformers came to many of the positions they maintained on this matter according to the Historic faith of the Church.
In addition to the points menitoned in my last post I would like to note the following:
The “receptionist”/”virtualist” position within the Anglican Church—is within the “catholic” faith of the Church—particularly in affirming the same effect of the Sacrament as is maintained with a more “objective”/”moderate realist” understanding of Christ’s presence (namely, that a sure feeding on Christ, which is “generally necessary for Salvation,” occurs through worthily receiving the Sacrament--and likewise regarding the ill effect of unworthily receiving the Sacrament).
And as far as the nature of Christ’s presence, in relation to the consecrated elements is concerned, the “receptionist”/”virtualist” position is not necessarily against the “catholic” faith at all—and even closely parallels some Eastern Orthodox positions on the real presence. All of this said--the sure effect of the Sacrament (which is maintained clearly in the Articles/BCP/Homilies) is far more important (from a “catholic” and above all Scriptural perspective) than the exact nature of Christ’s presence in relation to the Sacramental elements between the time of consecration and the receiving of the Sacrament (Christ’s presence in Holy Communion being a “mystery,” after all).
[It should also be noted, in regards to the official teaching in the BCP that Bishop Overall, who wrote the portion of the Anglican Catechism in the BCP which relates to the Sacraments, maintained a more “objective"/"moderate realist” versus “receptionist"/"virtualist" position regarding the presence of Christ in Holy Communion (The section of the Catechism on the Sacraments was added to the 1559 BCP’s Catechism in 1604). ]
Blessings in Christ.
William Scott
p.s. It will probably be later this week or possibly next week before I am able to provide any more real responses on this thread (and when I do I’ll plan on responding to any other previously unanswered questions from the previous posts as far as I am able within time limitations)
Dear William.. I did not regard your last posting as gruff but fascinating. I tried to start a continuity debate ( currently being debated in the Church Times), bu it has no takers on this blog. A very sad fact, as I am afraid it will have consequences for many souls.
Augustine is of course taken and read out of context...but that also the same for his other Catholic positions.
There is a wealth of quotes from the Engish reformers discounting a real objective presence and not just transubstantiation....go to the Church Society web site.
As regards Jewell and Harding… I feel you should examine this quote. from Jewell…
Tertullian saith, And we being laymaen, are we not priests?...the authority of the Church...hath made a difference between the lay and the clergy. yea and be there but three together, and though they be laymen, yet is there a Church..... ( Works vol 3 , p 355) he states that even if all the bishops had fled to the continent ( Louvain ..where the faithfdful remanant ofEnglish Catholic clergy gathered) , the Church of England would still be a Church.
Jewell in Defence of his apology ( ibid 322) states that episcopacy or succession is not needed for the continuance of God’s truth.
So you see far from disproving Sydney’s fidelity to the English Reformation...it confirms it,,as could equal quotes from Hooker.
I have been deliberately succinct , so good people like Bob Cameron can follow this.........
But, Hugh what if God’s sovereignty is measured out in a divinely protected sacred tradition called the Word of God..then you are in potential deep trouble.
Well Robert, remember what it says in Hebrews 1:1-4.
Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.
In other words, God has spoken through his Son, and as Jesus says in John
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.
And again a little later in John, Jesus continues
“I did not say these things to you from the beginning, because I was with you. But now I am going to him who sent me, and none of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’ But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
Which I take as the Spirit bringing God’s scriptures to mind, and particularly the words of Jesus, so we continue in the faith that we have been called into, and not some other man made invention or tradition. Remember the Pharisees were hot for the tradition of Moses (plus), but Jesus called them what?
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness.
So I think I’m on solid ground with what scripture actually says, as opposed to what tradition purports its says. I’ll vote for a more literal reading of scripture over any church council, ordained priest, minister, self professed prophet or sage any day.
On Christ the solid rock I stand, all other ground is sinking sand.
And as Forest Gump would say, ‘And that’s all I have to say about that.’
Augustine is of course taken and read out of context...but that also the same for his other Catholic positions.
I appreciate your congenial spirit Robert. I would suggest, though, before making statements such as this that you examine closely Augustine’s teachings on Holy Communion--Article 29 is completely faithful to what he has stated on the matter.
There is a wealth of quotes from the Engish reformers discounting a real objective presence and not just transubstantiation....go to the Church Society web site.
I agree--a good deal of the Anglican Divines were “receptionist"/"virtualist" in their understanding of the real presence. I’m afraid the “receptionist” Eastern Orthodox positions would likewise deny an “objective” presence as you understand it.
As regards Jewell and Harding… I feel you should examine this quote. from Jewell…
Tertullian saith, And we being laymaen, are we not priests?...the authority of the Church...hath made a difference between the lay and the clergy. yea and be there but three together, and though they be laymen, yet is there a Church..... ( Works vol 3 , p 355) he states that even if all the bishops had fled to the continent ( Louvain ..where the faithfdful remanant ofEnglish Catholic clergy gathered) , the Church of England would still be a Church.
Jewell in Defence of his apology ( ibid 322) states that episcopacy or succession is not needed for the continuance of God’s truth.
So you see far from disproving Sydney’s fidelity to the English Reformation...it confirms it,,as could equal quotes from Hooker.
And I agree with Jewel. The historic Anglican position always affirmed the validity of the Church without Apostolic Succession in the case of necessity (which “necessity” they considered, rightly or wrongly, to include the “necessity” of a non-Historic Episcopate Church Government if the Civil Authorities required it). And, of course, they justified their fellow reformers for a good while on this position--i.e. that their lack of the Historic Episcopate was the result of necessity. And as far as the “Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” which we confess in the Creed is concerned--the continuance of the “Apostolic Faith” is far more important than the continuance of “Apostolic Succession.”
All of this said, Bishop Jewel defends strongly the valid maintaining of the Historic Episcopate in the English Church (against rumors brought forward by Harding)--although Jewel rightly refused to unchurch any of those in the Reformation who lacked the Historic Episcopate.
Blessings in Christ,
William Scott
p.s. Fortunately your post was brief enough for a brief response, but any further serious responses from me will, again, likely have to wait until later this week or next week.
[Quick addition to my last post.] It should be noted that, to my knowledge, the Historic Church never unchurched the Church in Alexandria (or counted its Communion invalid) on the basis of it having, apparently, abandoned for a time the Historic Episcopate (with the Priests in Alexandria apparently , for a period of time, ordaining a new Bishop whenever the previous Bishop had died).
I do feel that Augustine is stripped of his context, and this distorts what he said. He certainly believed in a real objective presence, and the Eucharistic sacrifice.From this evidence we clearly see the following from St. Augustine, I found on the web --
(1) The bread having been sanctified “IS THE BODY OF CHRIST”
(2) The wine having been sanctified “IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST”
(3) We know Christ in the breaking of the bread; and not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ “BECOMES CHRIST’S BODY.”
(4) When Christ said “THIS IS MY BODY” He carried “HIS OWN BODY” in “HIS OWN HANDS”
(5) Christ is “IMMOLATED” (sacrificed in an unbloody manner) in the Eucharist every day (this is not a re-crucifixion but a re-presentation or “making present” before the Father for our benefit and application of His one and only Sacrifice)
(6) Christ is Priest and Victim OFFERING Himself and in the daily Sacrifice His Body the Church OFFERS herself through/with Him
(7) All who wish to have eternal life must take as food and drink the Blood of Christ’s Sacrifice in Holy Communion
(8) The souls of the dead in Christ find relief through the Sacrifice of the Mediator OFFERED for them and through the prayers of the living Body of Christ on earth
(9) The WHOLE Church observes this practice handed down from the Fathers—the prayers of the Holy Church, the salvific Sacrifice, and alms and works of piety and mercy are offered for those who have died “in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ” so that the Lord might deal more mercifully with their sins
(10) Christ gave us His own flesh “to be eaten unto salvation” and no one eats that flesh unless He ADORES (worships) it in the Holy Eucharist since Christ is truly present and took flesh in the Incarnation
“How this [’And he was carried in his own hands’] should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. FOR CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS OWN HANDS, WHEN, REFERRING TO HIS OWN BODY, HE SAID: ‘THIS IS MY BODY.’ FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS.” (Psalms 33:1:10)Again, how much more Roman Catholic can you get?
The fact is the virtual receptionist Anglican Divines were the mainstream and led the Anglican reformation...Read Cranmer on the Eucharist , page 37/....Guest was the exception...and is no more representtaive than Gene Robinson is of Anglicanism. today
The Eastern Orthodox Communion also teaches an objective presence. Indeed in reaction to the non- Jurors plea for unity it affirmed its teaching that transubstantiation is orthodox teaching at the Synod of Bethlehem.
.
William, you may find this helpful........DOSITHEUS AND COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM (1672)
Thirty years later, under Dositheus, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, another council was held at Bethlehem where the Confession of Cyril Lucar ( a Patriarch who imbibed Calvisnism )was again considered. This Council reads on the Eucharist --
“In the celebration of this we believe that our Lord Jesus Christ is present, not figuratively, or in an image, or by superabundant grace, as in the other mysteries, nor by a simple presence, as some of the Fathers have said concerning Baptism, nor by conjunction, as that the Deity of the Word is personally united to the bread of the Eucharist which is set forth, as the LUTHERANS MOST IGNORANTLY AND MISERABLY THINK; but really and actually, so that after the consecration of the bread and the wine the bread is changed, TRANSUBSTANTIATED, transmade, and reordered, into the real body of the Lord itself, which was born in Bethlehem of the Ever-Virgin, was baptized in Jordan, suffered, was buried, rose, ascended, sitteth at the right hand of God the Father, and will come on the clouds of heaven; and the wine is transmade and TRANSUBSTANTIATED into the real blood of the Lord itself, which was poured forth for the life of the world when He hung on the cross.
“Further, we believe that after the consecration of the bread and the wine the SUBSTANCE of the bread and the wine NO LONGER REMAINS, but there is the body itself and the blood of the Lord in the species and form of the bread and the wine, that is to say, under the ACCIDENTS of the bread. Further, that the all-pure body itself and blood of the Lord are distributed and enter the mouth and stomach of the communicants, both pious and impious, only they convey to the pious and worthy remission of sins and eternal life, but they involve to the impious and unworthy condemnation and eternal punishment.
“Further that the body and the blood of the Lord are severed and divided by the hands and teeth by way of ACCIDENT, that is, in the ACCIDENTS of the bread and the wine, in which they are acknowledged to be visible and tangible, while in themselves they remain altogether unsevered and undivided. Wherefore also the Catholic Church says, ‘He is separated and distributed who being separated is not divided, who is ever eaten and never consumed, but sanctifies those who partake’ [from the Liturgy of St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom], that is, worthily.”
“Further, that in every part and the smallest fragment of the changed bread and wine there is not a part of the body and blood of the Lord, for that would be blasphemous and wicked, but the whole Lord Christ wholly in SUBSTANCE, that is, with His soul and Godhead, perfect God and perfect Man. Wherefore, though there may be many celebrations in the world at one and the same hour, there are not many Christs or many bodies of Christ, but one and the same Christ is present really and actually, and His body and His blood are one in all the several churches of the faithful; and this not because the body of the Lord which is in heaven descends on the altars but because the bread which is offered and set forth in all the several churches, being transmade and TRANSUBSTANTIATED, becomes and is after the consecration one and the same as that which is in heaven. For the body of the Lord is one in many places, and not many bodies....
“Further, that the body itself and the blood of the Lord which are in the mystery of the Eucharist ought to be honored in the highest way, and WORSHIPPED WITH DIVINE ADORATION. For the WORSHIP of the Holy Trinity and of the body and blood of the Lord is ONE. Further, that it is a REAL AND PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE offered for all the orthodox living and dead, and for the benefit of all....Further, that before the use immediately after the consecration and after the use that which is kept in the holy pyxes for the reception of those who are about to depart is the real body of the Lord, and not in any respect different from it; so that before the use after the consecration, in the use, and after the use, it is altogether the real body of the Lord.
“Further, that by the word TRANSUBSTANTIATION the manner in which the bread and the wine are transmade into the body and blood of the Lord is not explained; for this is altogether incomprehensible and is impossible except for God Himself; and attempts at explanation bring Christians to folly and error. But the word denotes that the bread and the wine after the consecration are changed into the body and blood of the Lord not figuratively or by way of image or by superabundant grace or by the communication or presence of the Deity alone of the Only Begotten. Neither is any ACCIDENT of the bread and of the wine transmade in any way or by any change into any ACCIDENT of the body and blood of Christ; but REALLY AND ACTUALLY AND SUBSTANTIATIALLY the bread becomes the real body of the Lord itself, and the wine the blood of the Lord itself, as has been said above.” (Stone, page 180ff)
The decrees of the Council of Jerusalem of 1672 have remained ever since the authorized statements of the doctrine of the Greek Orthodox Church.
NON-JURORS AND BISHOPS OF THE GREEK CHURCH (1716-1725)
For about ten years a lengthy correspondence took place between the English and Scottish Non-jurors and the Bishops of the Greek Church in hopes of a re-union. The Eucharist was one of the subjects discussed.
Throughout, the Easterns adopted the theological position and terminology of the Council of Jerusalem of 1672, and affirmed that the elements are consecrated by the operation of the Holy Spirit; that by consecration they are changed and TRANSUBSTANTIATED into the body and blood of Christ; that the ACCIDENTS remain; that the whole Christ, perfect God and perfect Man, is substantially in every part of the consecrated species; and that the body of Christ present in the consecrated elements is to be WORSHIPPED and ADORED.
They were careful, however, to quote a synodical declaration of 1691 that explained that in using the word TRANSUBSTANTIATION the Easterns had not borrowed from the West but had followed their own Holy Tradition and that they intended no further definition than that in the Sacrament there is a change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. (see Stone, page 183-184)
Apologies to the thread and I promise no more.........
(This is a quickly written response--so please forgive any typos, etc)
I’ve read Cranmer on the Eucharist--And as for Bishop Guest, it is ridiculous to compare him to Gene Robinson. He was a prominent Divine in the Elizabethan Settlement who had a hand in both the revising of the 1552 BCP to the 1559 BCP and in the revising of the 42 Articles to the 39 Articles--as has been noted previously. Although his position on the Sacrament was not the leading position of his day--it was not exclusive to him, and it was even the apparent position of Queen Elizabeth herself (who had Bishop Guest preach in the Royal Court regarding the truth of the “objective” spiritual presence of Christ in the Sacrament).
As for Augustine’s understanding of the Sacrament--his Letter to Boniface is helpful in setting it out more exactly:
9. You know that in ordinary parlance we often say, when Easter is approaching, Tomorrow or the day after is the Lord’s Passion, although He suffered so many years ago, and His passion was endured once for all time. In like manner, on Easter Sunday, we say, This day the Lord rose from the dead, although so many years have passed since His resurrection. But no one is so foolish as to accuse us of falsehood when we use these phrases, for this reason, that we give such names to these days on the ground of a likeness between them and the days on which the events referred to actually transpired, the day being called the day of that event, although it is not the very day on which the event took place, but one corresponding to it by the revolution of the same time of the year, and the event itself being said to take place on that day, because, although it really took place long before, it is on that day sacramentally celebrated. Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? And yet, is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that the man who, being questioned, answers that He is offered as a sacrifice in that ordinance, declares what is strictly true? For if sacraments had not some points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ’s body is Christ’s body, and the sacrament of Christ’s blood is Christ’s blood, in the same manner the sacrament of faith is faith.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102098.htm
As for your other comments--I am well aware of the Eastern Orthodox (EO) Council of Jerusalem in 1672--and of the fact that it is not representative of EO beliefs (though, of course there are plenty of EO who happen to hold, on the matter of the Sacrament, a position similar or equivalent to that laid out in 1672). Of course, no EO position on the Sacrament goes under the name of “receptionism"--but the EO view on the Sacramental presence of Christ includes positions which are “receptionist.”
Hopefully, even though I won’t have the chance to really post for the next little while, I will have the time to really sometime during the next week or two to respond to further comments and give some fuller responses to issues you have raised previously in this thread
Blessings in Christ,
William Scott
p.s. I would again urge you to read Rathrumnus’ writings on the Sacrament--they are very helpful in seeing the issues regarding the Sacraments laid out by Anglican Divines.
And I agree Mark.....but plaase note how I was fighting for Sydney, as the true heirs of the English Reformation.
All I can say it is hard to continue a dialogue with a person who discounts Cranmer as the defininig hand in Anglican doctrine on the Eucharist....its like arguing with a Mormon who does not accept Joseph Smiith. You say that some individuals in he Orthodox Communion teach receptionism is so far from the mark, and as for Rathrammus.. I will stick with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church thank you.
However if you want to keep in touch, do so via the private messages… i do not want to upset persons like Mark..who are out of their depth in this area.
