Bread Worship

[Matt Black]

Where was I? Oh yes..


3. More of a difficult one - most Anglicans don't give two hoots about
Mary, but those higher up the candle (Anglo-Catholics) do tend to go in for devotion to her, although a lot would regard the way the Catholics and Orthodox do it as a bit OTT and vulgar.

4. Again, more difficult to pin down. Unofficially, in Anglican pews you can find a range of opinions from full-blown Tridentine transubstantiation to Zwingliian symbolism. But the official line is that we do believe in a Real Presence, albeit not a physical one, being somewhere between Lutheran sacramental union and Presbyterian spiritual receptionism. The official line can be found in the Articles, the Homilies and the Book of Common Prayer, eg:

XXVIII. Of the Lord's Supper.
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]You might also wish to check out the Homily on Common Prayer and the Sacraments and also the Homily on the worthy reception of the Sacrament and in particular:[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

But thus much we must be sure to hold, that in the Supper of the Lord, there is no vaine Ceremonie, no bare signe, no vntrue figure of a thing absent (Matthew 26.26): But (as the Scripture saith) the Table of the Lord, the Bread and Cup of the Lord, the memorie of Christ, the Annuntiation of his death, yea the Communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord, in a marueilous incorporation, which by the operation of the holy Ghost (the very bond of our coniunction with Christ) is through faith wrought in the soules of the faithfull, whereby not onely their soules liue to eternall life, but they surely trust to win their bodies a resurrection to immortalitie (1 Corinthians 10.16-17). The true vnderstanding of this fruition and vnion, which is betwixt the body & the head betwixt the true beleeuers and Christ, the ancient Catholike Fathers, both perceiuing themselues, and commending to their people, were not afraid to call this Supper, some of them, the salue of immortalitie and soueraigne preseruatiue against death: other, a deificall Communion: other, the sweet dainties of our Sauiour, the pledge of eternall health, the defence of Faith, the hope of the Resurrection: other, the food of immortalitie, the healthfull grace, and the conseruatorie to euerlasting life (Irenaeus, Bk. 4, Chap. 34; Ignatius, Epis. ad Ephes.; Dionysius?; Origen, Optat. Cyp. de Cana Domini; Athanasius, De Pec. in Spir. Sanct.). All which sayings both of the holy Scripture and godly men, truely attributed to this celestiall banket and feast, if we would often call to minde, O how would they inflame our hearts to desire the participation of these mysteries, and oftentimes to couet after this bread, continually to thirste for this food?

[/FONT]

The Book of Common Prayer Communion Liturgy has this to say:

We do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table. But thou art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy: Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood, and that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen.
ALMIGHTY God, our heavenly Father, who of thy tender mercy didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious death, until his coming again; Hear us, O merciful Father, we most humbly beseech thee; and grant that we receiving these thy creatures of bread and wine, according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ's holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood: who, in the same night that he was betrayed, (a) took Bread; and, when he had given thanks, (b) he brake it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, Take, eat, (c) this is my Body which is given for you: Do this in remembrance of me. Likewise after supper he (d) took the Cup; and, when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of this; for this (e) is my Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins: Do this, as oft as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of me. Amen.
THE Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving.
THE Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Drink this in remembrance that Christ's Blood was shed for thee, and be thankful.

ALMIGHTY and everliving God, we most heartily thank thee, for that thou dost vouchsafe to feed us, who have duly received these holy mysteries, with the spiritual food of the most precious Body and Blood of thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ; and dost assure us thereby of thy favour and goodness towards us; and that we are very members incorporate in the mystical body of thy Son, which is the blessed company of all faithful people; and are also heirs through hope of thy everlasting kingdom, by the merits of the most precious death and passion of thy dear Son. And we most humbly beseech thee , O heavenly Father, so to assist us with thy grace, that we may continue in that holy fellowship, and do all such good works as thou hast prepared for us to walk in; through Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom, with thee and the Holy Ghost, be all honour and glory, world without end. Amen.

(to be continued...)

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]


[/FONT]

 

[Matt Black]

5. What do you mean by 'authority'? I suppose I could refer you to arts 23 and 26. Broadly speaking, only a priest/minister ordained in Apostolic Succession has the authority to preside at communion and, ordinarily, to baptise (except in an emergency); priests are ministers of Word and Sacrament. Bishops administer confirmation and deacons may administer the sacrament of baptism. In addition, lay Readers may be licenced as ministers of the Word (ie: to preach).

 

[Darron Steele]

The difference between "Tradition"-based approaches and Scripture-based approaches is that the latter go with an authority that is known to have existed from the beginnings of the church. There is no evidence that innovations by later church influencers labeled "Tradition" were extant in the New Testament era. I do, on the other hand, know that the written Word of God was extant and in circulation in the church in its opening century.

Other way round, if anything: the Church existed for a significant amount of time before the NT was enscripturated, and for over 300 years before it was canonised. In the intervening time, there was Apostolic Tradition which we now was around very early on, since St Paul refers to it.

You reasserting a point that has been refuted does not eliminate the refutation.

Again, there is no evidence that the later innovations introduced by church influencers who called them "Tradition" were extant during that time. The NT was enscripturated in the first century -- many innovations claimed to be "Tradition" show no evidence of existing then.

Paul specified what "tradition" was all about at 2 Thessalonians 3:6-7 when it said living unruly lives is contrary to "tradition." The "tradition" in the New Testament era shows all indications of being much simpler than what is called "Tradition" by speculation-infested groups.

2 Thessalonians 3:6-7 shows that "tradition" in the New Testament era was about daily living. It shows no evidence of being a complex mass of distinctly-religious tenets. Taking a religious speculation and calling it "Tradition" does not make it what Paul was referring to. What Paul called "tradition" seems to have been markedly similar to what is in Scripture.

NONE of us are inspired by the Holy Spirit. 2 Timothy 3:16-7, written in the New Testament era, says that the "Scripture" is that.

So, when you read those Scriptures, the Holy Spirit within you snoozes gently??!

I suspect that the Holy Spirit guides me in efforts to understand Scripture to apply it to my own living. I do not believe that my thoughts represent without any inaccuracy God's thoughts. Interesting diversion of topic.

We have redefined "doctrine" to mean church group religious tenets. If one reads 1 Timothy 1:3-10, s/he would see that "doctrine" refers to overall living. In every single instance in the KJV or ASV that I have seen, "doctrine" refers to something that has relevance away from church assembly. As Christians, we all agree on the "major points of doctrine."

The problem is within 1 Timothy 1:3-10, at the portion that says "But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion" (NASB). 2 Timothy 2:23 has “refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels” (NASB). Guess what? Too many in the church have abandoned "love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith" and gone into "speculations" and "fruitless discussion" with the result of "quarrels." Going with just the Bible, doing just as it says, would actually heal the division in the church.

Except it plainly doesn't, as each inividual believes s/he has a God-given right to interpret the Bible for him/herself.

Following what Scripture says to DO would eliminate church division. If those in the church would refrain from prohibited "speculations" and "fruitless discussion" and "quarrels" over topics irrelevant to "love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith" then church division would end.

Every person interpreting Scripture is not the problem. People engaging in prohibited intellectual pursuits is part of the problem. People misusing Scripture by dragging it into prohibited intellectual pursuits is the problem.

Written to DHK:

Further, unlike most of the "Early Christian Fathers," I bet you actually listen carefully to John and Paul, and are willing to study their writings in detail. Among most "Early Christian Fathers," I bet even if they had your resources, they still would have given comparatively little attention to John and Paul.

Proximity does not make an inattentive bystander more useful than a witness to an event. Better a witness 20 meters away watching an event than a person present 2 meters away but paying attention to anything but the event and caring little about it.

A pupil who sits in your lectures, but has every intention of disregarding what you teach at the earliest opportunity, is not a student. S/he may claim to be one if s/he thinks it can advance a private agenda when you are `out of the way,' but s/he is still not a student because s/he has no intention of adopting your teaching.

Hardly likely in the case when the lecturer appoints the pupil as his successor in the lectureship.

Well, again, it depends on what the lecturer knows about the pupil. If the pupil puts on a good enough act, the lecturer may never realize that the pupil is not a student.

Further, it also depends on how well the pupil takes the appointment. If the ego goes to the head, s/he might start thinking s/he knows more than s/he does. S/he might then start disregarding what s/he was taught.

Now, when I said "most," that is what I meant. I believe the letter of the congregation at Rome to the congregation at Corinth, now called "I Clement," was a good writing; the congregation at Rome based their arguments mostly from Scripture and attempting to use it accurately. Polycarp is also good; if you read his epistle, it is little different from what is seen in the New Testament. The epistle of the congregation at Rome was written in the last first century, and Polycarp wrote in the early second century.

Many of the "Early Christian Fathers" were more interested in propogating their own speculations and opinions than in learning from John and Paul.

Really??! And you know this how, exactly? Again, how do you know that?

Easy. I read their works.

Within just 200 years, they had an institution that was much more complicated than the simple church John and Paul helped lead.

Again, how do you know that?

Again, easy: comparing records. The priorities of Paul and John were simple: godly living and a proper esteem of Christ and His work.

However, within a few centuries the church was arguing about such trivialities as when to celebrate Easter. Also, most of the "Early Christian Fathers" were writing their speculative works.

 

[Darron Steele]

Matt,

I know full well you are Anglican.
...
And there are many ultra liberal protestant organisations that are as bad, and in some ways worse, then the RCC...such as the Episcopal group over here, and groups like the Unitarian Universalists.

If the Anglicans on your side of the pond are in as bad a shape as the Episcopols over here...may God have mercy on the Anglicans, and I would highly recommend that you flee them...unless of course you are staying in so you can witness from within. But I have never had that impression. Rather, you seem to be like minded.

Mike

...
No, they're not, and most Anglicans are not. In fact, there's a good chance that TEC could be booted out this year. Not with TEC, I'm not!

I dated an Episcopalian in college -- she worshiped with a biblically conservative congregation. She believed in inerrancy of Scripture, and when I visited her congregation with her, the overall consensus seemed the same.

I have never heard anyone but a liberal emphasize the human role of the origins of Scripture when discussing its authority, as has been done here. In contrast, I never heard the Episcopalian I dated treat Scripture as anything less than God's Book. She had little use for the denomination leadersip.

We have the same problem in my denomination. Our congregations are autonomous. However, the people who coordinate denomination-wide cooperative efforts and make statements for the denomination are ultra-liberals.

Even though they are supposed to be `representatives,' they use the denomination time and resources for their own personal agendas -- often at discordance with the consensus of the denomination. They also use the denomination name to add legitimacy to their own personal opinions, causing a lot of embarrassment.

Our General Manifestation leaders need to be terminated as the unfaithful stewards that they are. I hope your wish for your denomination curtailing its liberal problem is granted.

 

[trustitl]

5. What do you mean by 'authority'? I suppose I could refer you to arts 23 and 26. Broadly speaking, only a priest/minister ordained in Apostolic Succession has the authority to preside at communion and, ordinarily, to baptise (except in an emergency); priests are ministers of Word and Sacrament. Bishops administer confirmation and deacons may administer the sacrament of baptism. In addition, lay Readers may be licenced as ministers of the Word (ie: to preach).

Sounds more like the Constitution or a business flow chart than scripture to me.

 

[Matt Black]

And the SBC's Faith and Message 2000 isn't?

 

[trustitl]

And the SBC's Faith and Message 2000 isn't?

I'm not sure what they are, but I would probably agree. I could even find more if I wanted to. So I guess I would put you all in the same boat to a certain degree.

 

[Matt Black]

Faith and Message 2000 ; so which boat are you in then?

 

[BobRyan]

My problem with sola Scriptura is that ultimately it's sine ecclesia; if all doctrine boils down to "me Jesus and my Bible" then what happens to "when two or three are gathered together, there I Am"? What's the point from a theological POV of meeting with other Christians? If we're all equally inspired by the Holy Spirit, then we would surely agree on all major points of doctrine. Well, we don't, so it plainly doesn't work like that.

There is no "other solution" than God - trusted, His Word -- trusted.. and faulty humans following as God leads - testing everything by the Word of God "Studying the scriptures DAILY to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul WERE SO" Acts 17:11

IF we HAD another solution -- such as "my MAGESTERIUM already agrees with YOUR magesterium so all we have to do is both agree to listen to our respective MAGESTERIUMS on any doctrinal difference and we will ALWAYS agree" -- then we would take it.

But like the Easter Bunny - that solution doesn't actually exist.

Your complaint is that the "Bible solution leaves too much room" for differences. What you fail to accept is that HISTORY has SHOWN that the RCC solution of dictatorship from the top - only works for a while - and EVEN THEN you need to combined it with crimes against humanity such as "torture and murder of the saints" along with "merge of church and state" to hold that house of cards together even for a short while.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Matt Black]

Bob, I know this may come as a newsflash to you and your-fellow RC strawman addicts, but I don't actually agree with the RCC's solution either; I accept the necessity in that regard of the Magisterial Reformation and it's one of the reasons I'm an Anglican not a Catholic.

Darron, I agree that pretty-much all denominations have their liberals and we're likely to have a massive bust-up with them this year - just Google 'Lambeth 2008' and see what comes up...!

 

[BobRyan]

I am not claiming that you are RCC - I am just pointing to the lessons of history showing that the only way they maintained strict conformity was via strict persecution.

My point is that sola-scriptura is really the only option given the fact that every church ALREADY has their OWN magesterium.

Those who claim that we should all just listen to our own Magesteriums are missing the solution entirely.

Those who claim that our individual Magesteriums should go ask the Pope "what to think" are also missing reality by a few miles.

Those who think that ALL magesteriums today that take the ECF documents as "replacement for scripture" are ALL IN AGREEMENT with each other (Lutheran, Anglican, RCC, Eastern Orthodox etc) are simply not paying attention even to THOSE groups.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Matt Black]

And where does your solution leave epistemological certainty?

[ETA - I'm not sure that conformity needs to be or indeed was maintained by persecution: the Church existed for three centuries with the only persecution being done by the Roman Empire and for several centuries after that without doing any persecution of its own, yet there was still a theological consensus]

 

[Matt Black]

Actually I thought the reason you had the Reformation of the Church of England was so Henry VIII could move on to his next wife.

Ah, yes, the Henrician 'Reformation'. Not really a Reformation at all since no doctrine was changed, just authority and control (Pope to King), so more of a schism. For the true Reformation in England you have to wait until Henry dies in 1547 and you get the Edwardian Reformation under Cranmer. Putting it crudely, the Henrician Reformation asked the question "Who runs the Catholic Church", the Magisterial Reformations asked "Where is the true Catholic Church" and the Radical Reformation asked "Why do we need a Catholic Church".

 

[antiaging]

Where was I? Oh yes..


3. More of a difficult one - most Anglicans don't give two hoots about
Mary, but those higher up the candle (Anglo-Catholics) do tend to go in for devotion to her, although a lot would regard the way the Catholics and Orthodox do it as a bit OTT and vulgar.

4. Again, more difficult to pin down. Unofficially, in Anglican pews you can find a range of opinions from full-blown Tridentine transubstantiation to Zwingliian symbolism. But the official line is that we do believe in a Real Presence, albeit not a physical one, being somewhere between Lutheran sacramental union and Presbyterian spiritual receptionism. The official line can be found in the Articles, the Homilies and the Book of Common Prayer, eg:



[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]You might also wish to check out the Homily on Common Prayer and the Sacraments and also the Homily on the worthy reception of the Sacrament and in particular:[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]

The Book of Common Prayer Communion Liturgy has this to say:



(to be continued...)

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]


[/FONT]

1 Corinthians 8:8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.