Transubstantiation

[SeenAndUnseen]

Transubstantiation is what some Christians believe occurs during the consecration of the Holy Eucharist: it is the belief that the bread and wine actually, physically are transformed into the flesh and blood of Jesus, but appear to our senses to remain bread and wine. I am curious to know how many of us here hold that belief, since there are bound to be a few.

[TomUK]

I voted not transubstantiation but the real presence, which isn't exactly true. I'm more than open to the possibility of transubstantiation but believe it is better if we leave it in the realm of theology and mystery.

[artrx]

I have read conflicting views on the definitions of consubstantiation and real presence. Some consider them the same, others find a fine differentiation between them-that, frankly, still leaves me confused. I would love to hear anyones thoughts on the issue.

[Mysterium_Fidei]

Transubstantiation. :)

[SeenAndUnseen]

I do believe in Transubstantiation. I was RC before, and I go through stages sometimes where certain things in Anglicanism seem hard for me to come to terms with because of my ingrained theology from before -- and I tend to get over them fine after discussion with others and searching my soul -- but the Big T is something I still fervently believe. As TomUK said, I don't believe we should claim to know precisely how it occurs, there ought to be an allowance for mystery. But believing it as I do, I sometimes find it hard to tolerate the handling of the consecrated hosts by people who do not believe it. My old Catholic side winces when I read posts like the one about birds getting the Eucharist, or hosts made of honey and barley.

[PaladinValer]

There are a number of Eucharist beliefs:

1. Transubstantiationism (Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity under the form of bread and wine in which the former substance goes bye-bye and is instead replaced by the new substance) (VCs)
2. Objective Reality (Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity under the form of bread and wine but how and when it left as a Mysterty) (EOs and OOs)
3. "In, Under, and With" Presence (often called "Consubstantiationism" - Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity and also bread and wine. How and when is left a Mystery) (Lutherans and Moravians)
4. Pious Silence (It is a Mystery...the whole thing.) (Wesleyan Traditions mainly)
5. Pneumonic Presence (eating the bread is like eating the Body, likewise for the wine with the Blood. Still bread and wine...almost like a "spiritual-only presence") (Calvinists)
6. No Presence (just plain bread and wine) (Radical Reformationists and Zwinglians)
7. Suspension (we don't practice Eucharist) (Other Radical Reformationists, like the Quakers or the Salvation Army)

[Polycarp1]

I have read conflicting views on the definitions of consubstantiation and real presence. Some consider them the same, others find a fine differentiation between them-that, frankly, still leaves me confused. I would love to hear anyones thoughts on the issue.

Without playing favorites on anyone's views here, let me answer that as best I can:

The Doctrine of the Real Presence is an assumption that in some real way the Body and Blood of Christ are conveyed to the communicant in the reception of the consecrated Bread and Wine, that they are in some meaningful sense "present" in the Elements.

The most devout Catholic will accede to the fact that chemically, biologically, and physically the bread and wine remain identical before and after consecration. Their apparent nature, the phenomena, do not change.

At the same time, any Methodist will accede to the fact that in an equally real but spiritual manner, the Body and Blood of Christ become present to us as spiritual realities in the consecration of the elements.

The Orthodox are prepared to leave the means by which these two facts are able to be reconciled as a Holy Mystery. So are the official statements of the Methodists, Lutherans, and Anglicans.

The Vatican Catholics pin down the mechanism by reference to Thomistic philosophy, founded on Aristotelian metaphysics.

Observe this dog, they say. You would define a dog as a hairy four-legged animal with a tail, which barks. But if you shave off all its hair, amputate all four limbs and tail, and the poor creature comes down with laryngitis so it cannot bark, it still remains a dog. It has an inner nature of "dogness" which changing its attributes does not affect.

Those attributes: hairiness, quadrupedness, caudateness, ability to bark, are under the Thomistic/Aristotelian terminology accidents. The interior nature of "dogness" is its substance.

If God transformed that dog into a walrus, without changing any of its external characteristics, it would still look like a dog, but would in actuality be a walrus.

What happens in the Eucharist, they say, is much the same thing: without changing the external attributes, the accidents, of the bread and wine, God changes the substance, the internal reality, of the elements into the Body and Blood of Christ. Hence it is not a transformation which would change the exterior attributes, but a transubstantiation which changes the interior substance while leaving the exterior form intact.

[Albion]

I do believe in Transubstantiation. I was RC before, and I go through stages sometimes where certain things in Anglicanism seem hard for me to come to terms with because of my ingrained theology from before -- and I tend to get over them fine after discussion with others and searching my soul -- but the Big T is something I still fervently believe. As TomUK said, I don't believe we should claim to know precisely how it occurs, there ought to be an allowance for mystery. But believing it as I do, I sometimes find it hard to tolerate the handling of the consecrated hosts by people who do not believe it. My old Catholic side winces when I read posts like the one about birds getting the Eucharist, or hosts made of honey and barley.
If that is your view, then it is. However, as I read your message, it sounds as though you are really oriented towards the Real Presence, not Transubstantion per se. It sounds as if you are standing in opposition to the elements being considered as Christ's body and blood only in a symbolic way, or only if received by a communicant with faith.

As I said, I could be wrong about that, but would you reject the idea that the elements are indeed the genuine body and blood of Christ...along with wheat paste and wine?

[SeenAndUnseen]

If that is your view, then it is. However, as I read your message, it sounds as though you are really oriented towards the Real Presence, not Transubstantion per se. It sounds as if you are standing in opposition to the elements being considered as Christ's body and blood only in a symbolic way, or only if received by a communicant with faith.

As I said, I could be wrong about that, but would you reject the idea that the elements are indeed the genuine body and blood of Christ...along with wheat paste and wine?

My belief is that the elements actually become the true Body and Blood of Christ at the moment of consecration -- and that of the bread and wine, only the accidents remain.

[AngCath]

No Trans. but totally Real Presence best described as a Holy Mystery

[artrx]

Thank you Polycarp1 and PaladinVader. I guess the distinctions between Objective Reality and Consubstantiation seem a bit fussy to me. I agree those inner workings are a Holy Mystery, but it's an interesting conceptual discussion.

[Tetzel]

There are a number of Eucharist beliefs:


3. "In, Under, and With" Presence (often called "Consubstantiationism" - Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity and also bread and wine. How and when is left a Mystery) (Lutherans and Moravians)


Lutherans don't claim that consubstantiation is what happens, but rather that it is just as plausible an explanation as transsubstantiation. The crucial point for Lutherans on this matter is that the Eucharistic mystery should not be tied to Aristote's ideas of matter. Forcing people to accept something like this which is neither part of scripture or tradition is inappropriate for the church.

[Thomas2618]

The accidents of the Bread and Wind remain, but the substances changes to the Body and Blood.

[ContraMundum]

Transubstantiation is what some Christians believe occurs during the consecration of the Holy Eucharist: it is the belief that the bread and wine actually, physically are transformed into the flesh and blood of Jesus, but appear to our senses to remain bread and wine. I am curious to know how many of us here hold that belief, since there are bound to be a few.

I voted against transubstantiation of course. It is not an argument from the Christian tradition but rather an intrusion from philosophy.

I do believe, however, in the real presence. I believe that somehow God has communed the elements of bread and wine to the Body and Blood of the Lord. "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?", as the Apostle teaches.

This is perhaps closest to the Lutheran understanding, but I would argue that it is actually the scriptural explanation of the mystery of the real presence.

[ContraMundum]

There are a number of Eucharist beliefs:

1. Transubstantiationism (Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity under the form of bread and wine in which the former substance goes bye-bye and is instead replaced by the new substance) (VCs)
2. Objective Reality (Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity under the form of bread and wine but how and when it left as a Mysterty) (EOs and OOs)
3. "In, Under, and With" Presence (often called "Consubstantiationism" - Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity and also bread and wine. How and when is left a Mystery) (Lutherans and Moravians)
4. Pious Silence (It is a Mystery...the whole thing.) (Wesleyan Traditions mainly)
5. Pneumonic Presence (eating the bread is like eating the Body, likewise for the wine with the Blood. Still bread and wine...almost like a "spiritual-only presence") (Calvinists)
6. No Presence (just plain bread and wine) (Radical Reformationists and Zwinglians)
7. Suspension (we don't practice Eucharist) (Other Radical Reformationists, like the Quakers or the Salvation Army)

Often the Zwinglian view is called the "real absence". This view of course makes no sense, because even Zwingli himself believed in the omnipresence of God. Luther pointed out to him that if God is everywhere, to affirm that and deny His presence in the Eucharist was a contradiction. I think Luther stopped short of Unbiquitarianism though.

You haven't given a position that is Anglican.

Also, I hate to be fussy, but option 2 as stated above is really overstating the case for the real presence option, and if it is meant to represent the position of some Anglicans I would beg to differ. It says far more than is traditionally spoken in Anglican theology. Anglicanism has never defined the real presence with such language as "body soul and divinity", and indeed, no ecumenical council had ever ruled on the real presence or otherwise as necessary to salvation. The Anglican position is in step with the most ancient tradition, and is probably closer to a cross between the real presence and "pious silence" than the first two options you have given. But even that's not defined terribly strictly in Anglicanism.

Interesting also, that Bishop Gore pointed out that transubstantiation is a form of monophysitism, since only the accidents of bread and wine remain, and this corresponds to the Christology of monophysitism, where the Lord's human nature was not really human when united with His Divinity, although it appeared so.

[PaladinValer]

Anglicans are required to believe in the Real Presence. I think options 1 through 3 qualify that title. Four is too vague and the rest have problems. As I myself edited the Wikipedia article on the Eucharist, Anglicans believe in the "Real Presence with Optinion"

Incidentially, I never declared my position.

Also incidentally, Anglican divines usually do agree with the EO Eucharistic theology. Many recent (ie: within 40 years) official Anglican papers and reports show this to be so. They are papers and positions that I personally agree with (and now you know my position).

As for transubstantiationism, I never said that there weren't problems with it. I agree that it could very well be guilty of monophysitism, just as options 5 and 6 are also guilty of the same (in the completely opposite way, of course).

I will argue 2 being the best answer for four chief reasons:

1. It does, as you point out, avoid a possible monophysite problem
2. It does agree with what the Early Church taught (Real Presence)
3. It does agree with Anglican divines' conclusions
4. It leaves how the Eucharist is literally Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity a Mystery. Note that what I said about it says nothing about the bread in terms of whether it is bread or not anymore. Is it? Is it not? How and in what way for each? I don't know for all three. All I do know is that Jesus is literally there, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. That's all I need to know.

[ContraMundum]

Anglicans are required to believe in the Real Presence.

Says who? I wish it were so, but there is no place to sign a paper or state publically that one must believe in the real presence to receive communion in the Anglican tradition broadly speaking.

Actually, some Anglicans are Calvinist in their beliefs, so the liturgy is interpreted in that manner.

Also incidentally, Anglican divines usually do agree with the EO Eucharistic theology. Many recent (ie: within 40 years) official Anglican papers and reports show this to be so. They are papers and positions that I personally agree with (and now you know my position).

I wish I could concur with what has been said in the last 40 years, but I believe the underlying modus of the modern divines is iconoclasm. They will agree with the EO on some parts of the faith and flatly deny other parts. As long as the agenda is reached, they will say whatever they have to.

I will argue 2 being the best answer for four chief reasons:

1. It does, as you point out, avoid a possible monophysite problem
2. It does agree with what the Early Church taught (Real Presence)
3. It does agree with Anglican divines' conclusions

....only in the last fourty years, and then only the ones you like. :). The true Anglican Divines said no such thing as is outlined in point 2, although perhaps privately they could agree with it.

4. It leaves how the Eucharist is literally Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity a Mystery. Note that what I said about it says nothing about the bread in terms of whether it is bread or not anymore. Is it? Is it not? How and in what way for each? I don't know for all three. All I do know is that Jesus is literally there, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. That's all I need to know.

Why not just say "whatever He saith and doth make it, I must merely partake it"?

[Naomi4Christ]

Anglicans are required to believe in the Real Presence.

What happens to those who don't?

[Simon_Templar]

Real presence is a broad term which includes any view of the eucharist in which Jesus Christ's body and blood are "really" and truly present in some form in the consecrated bread and wine.

To be honest, although I know the distinction between con and transsubstantiation, I think that the difference is almost entirely semantic. To say that the elements change substance, but the accidents remain (which means the bread and wine literally change into blood and body, BUT the physical "accidents" of alcohol, grape, flour etc are still there... Is this really any different than saying both substances are present...

Personaly I don't think it is. All your doing is using a different label, "accidents" for the bread and wine.


As for those who react against the scholastic origins of transubstantiation... to say that this injecting philosophy where it doesn't belong is something like saying that the use of bread is injecting cooking where it doesn't belong, or the use of wine is injecting the raising of grapes where it doesn't belong.

philosophy is inolved because thought and belief are involved. Furthermore, aristotelian 'philosophy' is primarily, at its core, simply a methodology for reasoning, a method of logical reasoning.. hence the term "aristotelean logic". To say this doesn't belong in christianity is basicly saying that "ordered thought processes don't belong in christianity".

[SirTimothy]

Actually, some Anglicans are Calvinist in their beliefs, so the liturgy is interpreted in that manner.

The saddest eucharist I've ever attended was by a Calvinistic anglican priest, who openly didn't believe it, but is required by law to use Common Worship or the 1662 BCP. He was using CW despite the fact that he evidently didn't believe it, and modified it to suit his beliefs.

Timothy

[Simon_Templar]

Also, a point of accuracy.

Eastern Orthodox do hold to transsubstantiation, however, they choose not to define it as thouroghly as RC's do. One of the Eastern Orthodox councils of Jerusalem (15th or 16th century if memory serves) actually even used the term "transsubstantiation" to describe the orthodox belief.
In any case even in the greek fathers the elements were described as "changing substance" which is the core of transsubstantiation.

[ContraMundum]

As for those who react against the scholastic origins of transubstantiation... to say that this injecting philosophy where it doesn't belong is something like saying that the use of bread is injecting cooking where it doesn't belong, or the use of wine is injecting the raising of grapes where it doesn't belong.

While I understand what you are saying, it is important to know what I am saying too. The revelation of God has come through a family of people- the Jews, and that revelation has its own boundaries, set out in Jewish revelatory writings. Greek philosopers were never privy to the oracles of God in the same manner that the Jews were. So, the distinction between accidents and elements, which is founded on the ancient Greeks, may in fact be a completely uninspired way of looking at the world for a start. This is why such a epistemology may in fact be an intrusion into the revelation of God, and I would argue it is. Such imaginary divisions in reality led to almost all the Christological errors.

philosophy is inolved because thought and belief are involved. Furthermore, aristotelian 'philosophy' is primarily, at its core, simply a methodology for reasoning, a method of logical reasoning.. hence the term "aristotelean logic". To say this doesn't belong in christianity is basicly saying that "ordered thought processes don't belong in christianity".

Actually, I think there is more to it than that. The idea that things have essence and substance is more than a process of thought, it's based on an unseen, unscientific idea- after all, we're not talking dialectical materialism here, but a kind of religious way of making sense of nature based on abstractions. In fact, it is precisely this method of endless unproven speculation in philosophy that led to the reaction of materialism. It is much more than a process, it's a process based on a statement of belief not founded in science, and therefore it treads the same path as theology- without God.

[Naomi4Christ]

double post

[Naomi4Christ]

The saddest eucharist I've ever attended was by a Calvinistic anglican priest, who openly didn't believe it, but is required by law to use Common Worship or the 1662 BCP. He was using CW despite the fact that he evidently didn't believe it, and modified it to suit his beliefs.

Timothy

Did he fulfil the other major purpose of Holy Communion?

- To reach across to one another in Christian unity?

[Albion]

The saddest eucharist I've ever attended was by a Calvinistic anglican priest, who openly didn't believe it, but is required by law to use Common Worship or the 1662 BCP. He was using CW despite the fact that he evidently didn't believe it, and modified it to suit his beliefs.



Can't imagine why he wouldn't use the BCP if allowed to.

:(

[SirTimothy]

Can't imagine why he wouldn't use the BCP if allowed to.

Me neither. The BCP would still be uncomfortable theologically with him (We're talking extreme calvin/zwinglism here, not just where you and I stand) but probably better. But I guess as the church has been a contemporary language church since way before he came, they would not let him.

Timothy

[karen freeinchristman]

The revelation of God has come through a family of people- the Jews, and that revelation has its own boundaries, set out in Jewish revelatory writings. Greek philosopers were never privy to the oracles of God in the same manner that the Jews were. So, the distinction between accidents and elements, which is founded on the ancient Greeks, may in fact be a completely uninspired way of looking at the world for a start. This is why such a epistemology may in fact be an intrusion into the revelation of God, and I would argue it is. Such imaginary divisions in reality led to almost all the Christological errors.

Interesting post, ContraMundum. :thumbsup:

[PaladinValer]

Says who? I wish it were so, but there is no place to sign a paper or state publically that one must believe in the real presence to receive communion in the Anglican tradition broadly speaking.

Oh, says the BCP.

Actually, some Anglicans are Calvinist in their beliefs, so the liturgy is interpreted in that manner.

Which is historically against Anglican practice and belief.

I wish I could concur with what has been said in the last 40 years, but I believe the underlying modus of the modern divines is iconoclasm.

Totally wrong. As is your second.

And for one who supposedly is so broad, it is hypocritical to say who are "true" divines. Just a thought.

Why not just say "whatever He saith and doth make it, I must merely partake it"?

That implies a physical presence. He said "this is my Body/Blood." It is what saved Elizabeth's neck from Mary I's wrath.

[karen freeinchristman]

What happens to those who don't?
Hi Naomi :)

I would like to try and understand your view of what is happening in the Holy Communion. I sense you have a strong experience of the communal unifying aspect of it. But do you feel that there is anything that happens during HC which could involve some kind of presence of Jesus? Even if not in the actual bread and wine?
I am well aware of the differences in the C of E styles of churchmanship, but I also know that many evangelicals do believe in a presence, even if wanting to simply keep it as a mystery instead of defining it.

(I would just ask the others on this thread to allow Naomi to express herself without everyone jumping on her about it, please!)

[Naomi4Christ]

I can't think of ever having had any teaching of what happens during Holy Communion, therefore it ranges from nothing to something mystical (we don't have teaching in the sermons on this, and I have not had any in midweek groups. I have participated in Confirmation classes within the last 10 years and am fairly certain there was no teaching on this then).

We definitely hold to HC being a source of unity between us (in that it is hard to be out of sorts with someone you share The Peace and HC with) - we say in our liturgy that 'we are one body because we share in one bread'.

Other than that, we solidly hold to Christ being present when two or three are gathered in his name, which means that he is definitely present (in a real spiritual sense) during Holy Communion as he is in any church service, small group, prayer meeting etc.

No one here will convince me that Christ is materially present during HC - this all happens with in the spiritual world, folks. This is so in Roman Catholic masses too - it's a spiritual thing!

[SirTimothy]

Did he fulfil the other major purpose of Holy Communion?

- To reach across to one another in Christian unity?

No, not really, he just sounded like he didn't mean a word he was saying. Rather sad I thought.

Incidentally, if your church uses CW (which I bet it does), these words come in Order one:

"Draw near with faith, recieve the body of our Lord Jesus Christ which he gave for you, and his blood which he shed for you. Eat and drink in rememberance that he died for you, and feed on him by faith in your hearts with thanksgiving."

If that's not Real Presence somewhere down along the line, I don't know what is. Or how about BOTH the Prayers of Humble access:

We do not presume
to come to this your table, merciful Lord,
trusting in our own righteousness,
but in your manifold and great mercies.
We are not worthy
so much as to gather up the crumbs under your table.
But you are the same Lord
whose nature is always to have mercy.
Grant us therefore, gracious Lord,
so to eat the flesh of your 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.

(or)

Most merciful Lord,
your love compels us to come in.
Our hands were unclean,
our hearts were unprepared;
we were not fit
even to eat the crumbs from under your table.
But you, Lord, are the God of our salvation,
and share your bread with sinners.
So cleanse and feed us
with the precious body and blood of your Son,
that he may live in us and we in him;
and that we, with the whole company of Christ,
may sit and eat in your kingdom.
Amen.

Or the post-eucharistic prayers:

Almighty God,
we thank you for feeding us
with the body and blood of your Son Jesus Christ.
Through him we offer you our souls and bodies
to be a living sacrifice.
Send us out
in the power of your Spirit
to live and work
to your praise and glory.
Amen.

(or)

Father of all,
we give you thanks and praise,
that when we were still far off
you met us in your Son and brought us home.
Dying and living, he declared your love,
gave us grace, and opened the gate of glory.
May we who share Christ’s body live his risen life;
we who drink his cup bring life to others;
we whom the Spirit lights give light to the world.
Keep us firm in the hope you have set before us,
so we and all your children shall be free,
and the whole earth live to praise your name;
through Christ our Lord.
Amen.


Timothy

[Naomi4Christ]

If that's not Real Presence somewhere down along the line, I don't know what is. Or how about BOTH the Prayers of Humble access:

Timothy

You are a lot closer to English lessons than me, Timothy, so I am sure you can appreciate symbolism and metaphor.

It's not like we take scripture literally, is it?

Eating communion bread is completely different from steak tartare....(in my experience, anyway). Whatever the explanation of 'accidents' clearly admits that this is something of the spiritual world and not the physical world. Once you accept that, there is no scope for one-upmanship between denominations or parts of denominations.

[Albion]

All that is ruled out by the various liturgies we use is that the elements are only memorials which represent Christ's body and blood. There is room for about five different varieties of "Real Presence" concepts, Transubstantiation being the most extreme of them.

[PaladinValer]

If the Presence is Real, then it truly must be there. The pneumonic "presence" of Calvinism doesn't cut it.

[Naomi4Christ]

It cuts it for calvinists!!

[SirTimothy]

It's not like we take scripture literally, is it?

Of course we do. I know I do, certainly... if we don't take scripture literally, there was no death, no resurrection, no glorious asenscion, and no possibility that we may be raised.

All that is ruled out by the various liturgies we use is that the elements are only memorials which represent Christ's body and blood. There is room for about five different varieties of "Real Presence" concepts, Transubstantiation being the most extreme of them.

Of course. I absolutely agree, and believe there should be that freedom. I do not, however, see any place in authorised eucharistic liturgies for memorialistic eucharistic theology.

Timothy

[Albion]

I do not, however, see any place in authorised eucharistic liturgies for memorialistic eucharistic theology.

Timothy

Yes. Absolutely. Real Presence can be apprehended in a number of ways-just not representationalism. Unfortunately, the misconceptions die hard and often seem to be argued primarily in order to divide Anglicans.

[Naomi4Christ]

Of course we do. I know I do, certainly... if we don't take scripture literally, there was no death, no resurrection, no glorious asenscion, and no possibility that we may be raised.


Alongside a 7-day Creation, no doubt


Of course. I absolutely agree, and believe there should be that freedom. I do not, however, see any place in authorised eucharistic liturgies for memorialistic eucharistic theology.

Timothy

"Do this is remembrance of me"

[Albion]

"Do this is remembrance of me"

Fortunately, EVERYONE accepts that part of what Jesus told the Apostles at the Supper.

:)

[gtsecc]

Are there any writings in the known Universe, accepted by any part of the church, any time during the first 1,500 years, that deny the Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

[Thomas2618]

"Do this is remembrance of me"

I have heard the literal greek translation of that line, though I don't remember the exact words, it conveys something that is actually done often, not something that is simply brought to mind or "remembered".

[karen freeinchristman]

I have heard the literal greek translation of that line, though I don't remember the exact words, it conveys something that is actually done often, not something that is simply brought to mind or "remembered".
Not very convincing, IMV, if you can't remember the exact words to show us...

[TomUK]

I have heard the literal greek translation of that line, though I don't remember the exact words, it conveys something that is actually done often, not something that is simply brought to mind or "remembered".

Even if that were the case then how does it affect the issue of the real presence?

[Thomas2618]

Even if that were the case then how does it affect the issue of the real presence?

I was saying that because many of my friends who don't believe in the Real Presence like to quote that line as meaning that it is just a symbolic memorial.

[TomUK]

To be honest, taking that line in isolation does seem to conclude that 'communion' is simply a memorial of Christ's sacrifice- certainly he is not present in the body and blood.

Fortunately we have 2000 years of Church history and tradition to go by, not skewed readings of single sentences!

:clap:

[Servant4Yeshuah]

Dear Friends
I believe in the real prescence. Yeshuah said, this IS my body....
That's enough for me.

[Albion]

Are there any writings in the known Universe, accepted by any part of the church, any time during the first 1,500 years, that deny the Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

Does it matter?

[karen freeinchristman]

Dear Friends
I believe in the real prescence. Yeshuah said, this IS my body....
That's enough for me.
nice to have your contribution, Servant4Yeshuah! :)

[Simon_Templar]

While I understand what you are saying, it is important to know what I am saying too. The revelation of God has come through a family of people- the Jews, and that revelation has its own boundaries, set out in Jewish revelatory writings. Greek philosopers were never privy to the oracles of God in the same manner that the Jews were. So, the distinction betwe accidents and elements, which is founded on the ancient Greeks, may in fact be a completely uninspired way of looking at the world for a start. This is why such a epistemology may in fact be an intrusion into the revelation of God, and I would argue it is. Such imaginary divisions in reality led to almost all the Christological errors..

The ironic thing in all that is that the Jews almost universally rejected the culmination of all the oracles that God had given them, Jesus Christ and the new covenant, while the greeks accepted it. The philosophy/thought of plato was regarded by much of the early church as a for-runner of the gospel among the pagans and the core of that philosophy was very much compatible with christian though based out of Judaism.

In fact the single most defining difference between hebrew thought and platonic philosophy was that the hebrews, like pretty much all other near eastern peoples did not think in abstract terms, while the greek philosophers made use of abstract reasoning.

Thus if you want to distance yourself from the influence of the greeks the first thing you would have to do is cast aside your abstract symbolisms and 'spiritualized' metaphors. Such things are every bit as much a product of greek influence in our thought processes as anything in transsubstantiation.



Actually, I think there is more to it than that. The idea that things have essence and substance is more than a process of thought, it's based on an unseen, unscientific idea- after all, we're not talking dialectical materialism here, but a kind of religious way of making sense of nature based on abstractions. In fact, it is precisely this method of endless unproven speculation in philosophy that led to the reaction of materialism. It is much more than a process, it's a process based on a statement of belief not founded in science, and therefore it treads the same path as theology- without God.

I'm amused by the way you toss around the word "unscientific" as though it were some sort of deathknell to any idea... sadly, all metaphysical thought is technically "unscientific" because science only deals with concrete reality that can be tested, controled and reproduced. So you can apply the label unscientific to everything in the realms of philosophy and theology no matter where it comes from.
That said, philosophy is tied up with logic. Logic is the "science" of the metaphysical world. Correctly applied, logic is a method of reasoning which provides verifiable certainty or strong probability (deductive and inductive respectively).

The idea that things have essence and substance is more than a thought process. It is a virtual certainty arrived at by a thought process. Indeed, I would go step further and say that the idea is demonstrable fact. You can say that this idea is based on the "unseen" but this is only partly true. That things have substance is a visible fact. An undeniable visible fact. That things have essence can not be seen with the eye, but it is demanded by the very way in which our minds concieve of things. This is not a constructed theory, so much as a simple recognition of how our mind works in concieving and percieving the world around us.

This idea is religious in the sense that it is a necessary part of a religious world view, and it certainly has religious implications and results. I would argue that this idea is part of the biblical christian world view. While you draw a distinction between the oracles of God contained in scripture and this "greek" idea, I am firmly convinced that this idea is implicit in the oracles of scripture and what they tell us about the nature of creation and the creator.

Charging aristotelean or platonic philosophy with causing the reaction of materialistic philosophy is probably a bit over stated, as materialism is very probably much more a reaction to all supernatural views, rather than any one in specific. However, this charge is a positive not a negative. The fact that wicked and unredeemed people react against an idea which challenges their self centered and rebellious existence speaks well for the idea in my opinion.

The statement that this idea leads into theology (as opposed to science) is partly correct.. although technically aristetelean logic and reasoning lead directly to the birth of modern science...
the statement that it leads to theology without God is absolutely false. This idea, or view, or system of belief lead those greeks who followed it to a belief that there must be one supreme creator God. This view points directly to God a fact that was recognized by the church both during the early era (primarily platonic philosophy was studied then) and in the medieval era (when aristotle was more influential).

[SirTimothy]

Alongside a 7-day Creation, no doubt

I fail to see the problem? I fully accept that that may indeed have happened. I prefer to leave what happened at Creation up to God, and just ignore it... that each day was a literal 24 hours is quite debatable biblically speaking, but that it was 7 lengths of time... well... the bible says it, so it must be so! I'm afraid this mamby-pamby post-modern picking and choosing of what the bible says, taking bits in and out of context drives me absolutely crazy.

Timothy

[Mysterium_Fidei]

I'm just a lone Six Articles Anglican it looks like, :-P
Seriously though, my parish has a huge amount of Anglo-Catholic influence, which may be why I feel a tad different than some of you do. We acolytes receive on the tongue, for instance.

[gtsecc]

Does it matter?

Sure, if you can't find evidence of the practice in Christianity for 1,500 years, you can't really claim now it is suddenly accepted Christina Practice can you?

Maybe for minor things, but sacraments?

[ContraMundum]

In fact the single most defining difference between hebrew thought and platonic philosophy was that the hebrews, like pretty much all other near eastern peoples did not think in abstract terms, while the greek philosophers made use of abstract reasoning.

I don't agree with that at all. This could get lengthy. Should we bother?

Thus if you want to distance yourself from the influence of the greeks the first thing you would have to do is cast aside your abstract symbolisms and 'spiritualized' metaphors. Such things are every bit as much a product of greek influence in our thought processes as anything in transsubstantiation.

I don't agree here either. I can't even begin to tell you how much I think this is barking up the wrong tree.

I'm amused by the way you toss around the word "unscientific" as though it were some sort of deathknell to any idea... sadly, all metaphysical thought is technically "unscientific" because science only deals with concrete reality that can be tested, controled and reproduced.

Ummm...hardly. I wasn't "tossing around the word unscientific as though it were a deathknell" at all. I'm just calling it like it is. I'm not even trying to be polemic.

So you can apply the label unscientific to everything in the realms of philosophy and theology no matter where it comes from.

Of course.

The idea that things have essence and substance is more than a thought process. It is a virtual certainty arrived at by a thought process.

No, it's not. It's a belief arrived at by a thought process.

Indeed, I would go step further and say that the idea is demonstrable fact. You can say that this idea is based on the "unseen" but this is only partly true. That things have substance is a visible fact. An undeniable visible fact. That things have essence can not be seen with the eye, but it is demanded by the very way in which our minds concieve of things. This is not a constructed theory, so much as a simple recognition of how our mind works in concieving and percieving the world around us.

*sigh*...it's one possible way of conceiving the world around us. That's why there's diverse schools of philosopy, no???

This idea is religious in the sense that it is a necessary part of a religious world view, and it certainly has religious implications and results. I would argue that this idea is part of the biblical christian world view. While you draw a distinction between the oracles of God contained in scripture and this "greek" idea, I am firmly convinced that this idea is implicit in the oracles of scripture and what they tell us about the nature of creation and the creator.

Fine.

Now, apply it to historical theology. You will come up blank until the Middle ages.

Charging aristotelean or platonic philosophy with causing the reaction of materialistic philosophy is probably a bit over stated, as materialism is very probably much more a reaction to all supernatural views, rather than any one in specific.

Well, most of the materialists I've read see them as the source, so I'm just agreeing with them.

By the way....what are you trying to say?

[Albion]

Sure, if you can't find evidence of the practice in Christianity for 1,500 years, you can't really claim now it is suddenly accepted Christina Practice can you?

Maybe for minor things, but sacraments?

You mean like Transubstantiation, which only originated during the High Middle Ages?

But the point is, is it not, what is true? Not merely what is old.

[gtsecc]

You mean like Transubstantiation, which only originated during the High Middle Ages?

But the point is, is it not, what is true? Not merely what is old.
No, I mean RP.

And, I mean Christian.

Weather or not it is True is a different matter, but it certainly is the Christian view to the point I would have to question weather someone could not hold to the RP and still be Christian.

[Albion]

No, I mean RP.

And, I mean Christian.

Weather or not it is True is a different matter, but it certainly is the Christian view to the point I would have to question weather someone could not hold to the RP and still be Christian.

So where does such narrowness lead? Can one still be a Christian if he, for example, thinks baptism must be by immersion?

Can one be a Christian in your thinking if he, say, is a Postmillennialist? Premillennialist? Amillennialist?

Isn't being a follower of Christ more than this? This doesn't mean that every doctrine is equally correct, you know, just that to be a Christian is not defined like that.

On the other hand, let's follow up your idea. Since private interpretation of the Bible is not to be considered, where do you come by that idea of what makes one not a real Christian?

[karen freeinchristman]

So where does such narrowness lead? Can one still be a Christian if he, for example, thinks baptism must be by immersion?

Can one be a Christian in your thinking if he, say, is a Postmillennialist? Premillennialist? Amillennialist?

Isn't being a follower of Christ more than this? This doesn't mean that every doctrine is equally correct, you know, just that to be a Christian is not defined like that.

On the other hand, let's follow up your idea. Since private interpretation of the Bible is not to be considered, where do you come by that idea of what makes one not a real Christian?

Good points, Albion.

[Simon_Templar]

I don't agree with that at all. This could get lengthy. Should we bother?

to go into the debate might be interesting, but probably boring to erveryone else and a waste of their time. I am, however, curious in which way you disagree with the statement.. do you think that hebrew thought was not concrete as opposed to abstract, or do you think that there was some other difference which was more important?


I don't agree here either. I can't even begin to tell you how much I think this is barking up the wrong tree.

Your free to disagree, however, the entire model of classical western thought is heavily based on platonic and aristotelean philosophy. If you want to discredit and toss that out of the christian reasoning, then you must go the whole way and not just pick out the particular bits you don't like.
I should say, if you wish to toss it out precisely because of its greek origins. You could disagree with portions of it for other reasons but to disagree with one because it is greek and thus some how foreign to christianity, yet accept the rest is not consistant.
The point is that all the philosophy/theology of western civilization is heavily influenced by platonic and aristotelean thought. This includes calvinism as much as scholasticism.

Many of the very ideas we in the west hold as basic to theology are founded in greek philosophy. Ideas like 'eternity' 'creation ex nihilo' 'infinte' those ideas simply do not exist in near eastern thought in the same way that we have them from greek abstract philosophy. This is true to the point that most near eastern languages, including hebrew, didn't even have words for those ideas before they came in contact with greek culture. Examples of this in hebrew, the original meaning of the hebrew word which is now translated "created" meant essentially "to fatten up". Likewise the word now translated eternity originally meant "over the horizon". They had no concept of something being without end because that was too abstract from their experience, rather they used a word and a concept which originally meant simply the end is out of sight.

In fact there is a reasonable argument to be made that this is one of the reasons that the hebrew people failed to correctly understand and see God's plans for them. In the new testament if you examine closely the quotations of old testament verses the interpetation given is in most cases significantly different than the traditional jewish understanding. In many cases the difference can be argued to be the result of abstracting from a literal story, a spiritual or prophetic meaning.


Ummm...hardly. I wasn't "tossing around the word unscientific as though it were a deathknell" at all. I'm just calling it like it is. I'm not even trying to be polemic.

I misinterpeted your tone. That is often a weakness of online discussion.. so much is lost from vocal tone and body language that it is hard to tell in what way people mean what they are saying.
However, I still fail to see the point of labeling anything in the discussion as "unscientific" when everything in the discussion is technically unscientific, and science doesn't even apply positively or negatively to the discussion.



No, it's not. It's a belief arrived at by a thought process.


Yes it is a belief. Belief doesn't mean that something is uncertain. The existence of God is a belief, yet after having examined the logical arguments for and against I'd have to say that the existence of God is a virtual logical certainty.
The fact that people disagree also does not equal uncertainty. The nature of humanity is such that I would be willing to bet that there is no idea in existence that someone somewhere does not disagree with.



*sigh*...it's one possible way of conceiving the world around us. That's why there's diverse schools of philosopy, no???

Yes, there are always many options to choose from. The point is that some options are good choices and others are bad choices, and there are probably some that are floating somewhere in the middle. The point here is that this view can be shown to be logically valid and supported by observation of the physical world, and observation of the way we think.



Fine.

Now, apply it to historical theology. You will come up blank until the Middle ages.

No I won't. There are several of the important early church writers who were students of greek philosophy and applied the things they learned to christianity. In fact, it is evident from some of the things Paul said that he was familiar with the writings of at least some of the greek philosophers. Justin Martyr was a student of greek philosophy and used that training in his apologetics and dialogues. Clement of Alexandria said that philosophy acted as a schoolmaster to the greeks to prepare them for Christ and advocated its study, Tatian, Athenagoras, Gregory Nazianzus, Jerome, Augustine of Hippo, all of these were students of greek philosophy and actively made use of that training in their writings and many of them actively passed it on either as tutors or in several cases by establishing christian schools. They are also all prior to 500 AD.



By the way....what are you trying to say?

I'm trying to point out that the ideas in question are often denegrated because they were originaly stated by greek philosophers. They are depicted as some how foreign to christianity. This is simply not true. These are ideas that were recognized by many early christians as true, as revelation from God given to the gentile greeks to prepare them for the gospel. These ideas are not pagan, infact they lead the philosophers who discovered them away from paganism and were constantly at odds with greek pagan religion.
they are appropriate to christianity because they are true. Many fathers of the church recognized this and that is why they have been integral parts of stating theology since the very beginning of the church.

[Simon_Templar]

You mean like Transubstantiation, which only originated during the High Middle Ages?

But the point is, is it not, what is true? Not merely what is old.

Yes, the point is what is true... part of that is, if it was true in 300 AD, it can't be something different today and still be true. If a doctrinal position did not exist until the last few hundred years it is very likely (to the point of near certainty) to be false, UNLESS nothing was ever said about the issue it addresses to begin with. Now the fact is that many disagreements have been around for thousands of years... infant baptism has been disagreed upon since the very beginning, up until around the time of augustine.. so people at least have a leg to stand on when they disagree with that.
On the issue of eucharist in particular, I'm not familiar with anyone prior to the reformation suggesting anything other than real presence. Which would very strongly suggest that the idea was simply made up at the time of the reformation because the church held one truth on that issue with no visible disagreement for the first 1500 years. Thus, if it was true then, it must be true now.

Incidentally transsub. may have been first formally stated in the middle ages, yet the concept behind it was not new at all. The early greek fathers that wrote about eucharist used the term 'metaousious' to describe what happens in the consecration. This term literally means change of substance and if translated into latin would be "transsubstantiation".
What was stated in the middle ages as 'transsubstantiation' was primarily an argument about HOW the transsub. takes place.. the fact that the transsub takes place has never been disagreed with by the orthodox because it is clearly stated in the writings of the church fathers.

Now, in your post after this one you make a point about what this means for people being christian or not being christian. I hold firmly to the view that the minimum requirements for a person to be considered a christian are contained in the apostles and nicean creed.
There is nothing in those creeds which makes a statement about eucharist or eucharistic theology, therefore I don't think that can be used to disqualify people as christians. However, the communion is for christians, just what the name suggests. The unity of the church is built around communion (or broken around it) and thus I think the issue is very important. i think those who lack the full understanding (and honestly I'm probably in that group still) are missing out on great benefits from God that are meant to be key parts of our faith. I think we do need to try and bring people back to at least some form of real presence because I think it is essential for the life of the church and the believer individually.

You mention post, pre, and A-mil eschatological positions, presumably because most people assume that topic to be somewhat superfluous especially as a reason for division in the church. I would point out that some eschatological positions are heretical because there are eschatological statements in the creeds and those must be adhered to.

[karen freeinchristman]

Now, in your post after this one you make a point about what this means for people being christian or not being christian. I hold firmly to the view that the minimum requirements for a person to be considered a christian are contained in the apostles and nicean creed.
There is nothing in those creeds which makes a statement about eucharist or eucharistic theology, therefore I don't think that can be used to disqualify people as christians. However, the communion is for christians, just what the name suggests. The unity of the church is built around communion (or broken around it) and thus I think the issue is very important. i think those who lack the full understanding (and honestly I'm probably in that group still) are missing out on great benefits from God that are meant to be key parts of our faith. I think we do need to try and bring people back to at least some form of real presence because I think it is essential for the life of the church and the believer individually.

Good post, Simon, especially this part.

[gtsecc]

If you call upon the name of Christ, you are a Christian.

If you don't believe in the RP, you are still a Christian, but the doctrine you hold about the Eucharist is not Christian.

[Albion]

If you call upon the name of Christ, you are a Christian.

If you don't believe in the RP, you are still a Christian, but the doctrine you hold about the Eucharist is not Christian.

Hi, G.

I like what you've written here better, but really, its not possible to say that one Christian view of the sacrament makes one a real Christian and that others don't. Besides, you probably would call the RP of some of us not your kind of RP, so does your thinking apply there as well?

And why is it that this one item of doctrine is the touchstone of determining? Why not some other doctrinal controversy?

I would, BTW, agree if the issue were the identity of Christ--even though there are self-described Christians who consider him to be something other than God in the flesh. But my reason for saying that this would be a line in the sand for me is that unless one is following the actual person who is Christ, it's hard to say that one is actually a follower. IOW, you can't make up a new identity for that person and say that you are a genuine disciple.

Or so my own thinking goes.

[gtsecc]

Answers 3 and 4 on the survey are totally incompatible with the accepted Christian view for 1,500 years.
You may worship the hind legs off of Jesus, and have a fish on your car - but your Eucharistic views aren't Christian.
You could make the case that answer 1 isn't Christian either, but I think this is quibbling.
And why is it that this one item of doctrine is the touchstone of determining? Why not some other doctrinal controversy?
This is the topic being discussed in this thread.
And why is it that this one item of doctrine is the touchstone of determining? Why not some other doctrinal controversy?

I would, BTW, agree if the issue were the identity of Christ--even though there are self-described Christians who consider him to be something other than God in the flesh. But my reason for saying that this would be a line in the sand for me is that unless one is following the actual person who is Christ, it's hard to say that one is actually a follower. IOW, you can't make up a new identity for that person and say that you are a genuine disciple.
Or so my own thinking goes.
Sure, but to some degree, can you radically change Eucharistic Theology and claim to be the same religion?
How far can you go before you ought to call yourself something different?

[Albion]

Yes, the point is what is true... part of that is, if it was true in 300 AD, it can't be something different today and still be true.

So far, so good. "If" the point were "true."

If a doctrinal position did not exist until the last few hundred years it is very likely (to the point of near certainty) to be false, UNLESS nothing was ever said about the issue it addresses to begin with.

All right. "Likely."

Now the fact is that many disagreements have been around for thousands of years... infant baptism has been disagreed upon since the very beginning, up until around the time of augustine.. so people at least have a leg to stand on when they disagree with that.
On the issue of eucharist in particular, I'm not familiar with anyone prior to the reformation suggesting anything other than real presence. Which would very strongly suggest that the idea was simply made up at the time of the reformation because the church held one truth on that issue with no visible disagreement for the first 1500 years. Thus, if it was true then, it must be true now. Incidentally transsub. may have been first formally stated in the middle ages, yet the concept behind it was not new at all. The early greek fathers that wrote about eucharist used the term 'metaousious' to describe what happens in the consecration. This term literally means change of substance and if translated into latin would be "transsubstantiation".
What was stated in the middle ages as 'transsubstantiation' was primarily an argument about HOW the transsub. takes place.. the fact that the transsub takes place has never been disagreed with by the orthodox because it is clearly stated in the writings of the church fathers.

That's partially correct. The Greek meaning you are referring to does not, inflexibly, carry with it what modern believers in Transs. believe. It is open to a broader understanding so long as the elements are transmuted, i.e. changed but with several possible meanings to that change. Therefore, we are left to say that some kind of RP is very old and something like Transs. may have been around from early times, but that is not enough to "prove" the "truth" of any particular view.

Now, in your post after this one you make a point about what this means for people being christian or not being christian. I hold firmly to the view that the minimum requirements for a person to be considered a christian are contained in the apostles and nicean creed.

That's good thinking.

There is nothing in those creeds which makes a statement about eucharist or eucharistic theology, therefore I don't think that can be used to disqualify people as christians. However, the communion is for christians, just what the name suggests. The unity of the church is built around communion (or broken around it) and thus I think the issue is very important. i think those who lack the full understanding (and honestly I'm probably in that group still) are missing out on great benefits from God that are meant to be key parts of our faith. I think we do need to try and bring people back to at least some form of real presence because I think it is essential for the life of the church and the believer individually.

I don't see any major disagreement so far.

You mention post, pre, and A-mil eschatological positions, presumably because most people assume that topic to be somewhat superfluous especially as a reason for division in the church. I would point out that some eschatological positions are heretical because there are eschatological statements in the creeds and those must be adhered to.

Actually, I mentioned them just as examples of doctrinal differences that divide Christians who may otherwise agree--for instance on the nature of the Eucharist.

But on the main point about age vs. truth.... It is very hard if not impossible to show that most of our doctrines (Catholic or Protestant) indeed do have an unbroken history of being the norm in Christianity for 2000 years, not even in the case of those churches that say this is the reality and say that their teachings are verified in this way. Mostly, we are dealing there with something old but not original. That gives very little room for claiming, "Ours is 1400 years old, yours only 500, so we are right and you are not."

Whether it is a belief that has been believed for 1800 years, or 1500 years, or if only some people believed it in early times, that matters not at all unless it was the norm from the absolute beginning until now. Conversely, if it is something that the institutional churches got wrong in earlier years, only to straighten it out and get correct later, that also does not detract at all from the rightness of them.

[Albion]

Answers 3 and 4 on the survey are totally incompatible with the accepted Christian view for 1,500 years. [quote]

As a historical note, that's interesting and correct. As a way of defining what makes one a Christian, it's not.

[quote]
You may worship the hind legs off of Jesus, and have a fish on your car - but your Eucharistic views aren't Christian.
I'd agree if sawing off the hind legs of Jesus were the issue. It's not.


This is the topic being discussed in this thread.
And why is it that this one item of doctrine is the touchstone of determining? Why not some other doctrinal controversy?

Right, but I was interested in your way of thinking.


Sure, but to some degree, can you radically change Eucharistic Theology and claim to be the same religion?
How far can you go before you ought to call yourself something different?

When it comes to Eucharistic Theology, you can go quite a way.

(Since you asked ;) )

[gtsecc]

When it comes to Eucharistic Theology, you can go quite a way.
(Since you asked )



But they would be holding a different idea about the Eucharist than held by Christians for thousands of years.

How can anyone say a different belief is the same belief called Christianity?

If I call myself Buddhist, and if I have a Buddha sticker on my car, but my belief are different that those held by Buddhists – why couldn’t we all be honest about it and say – you are a nice person, but not a Buddist?

You would say someone is not Christian for a Christological heresy, but a Eucharist one is fine?
I am not trying to hold anyone in or out of salvation, I think almost everyone is saved – Hindus, pagans, etc…maybe even a few Charismatics.
But, if someone has made up a new Eucharistic theology – different from Christianity, can’t we just say that? Do we have to say well, now that thousands of these people who follow some televangelist believe X about the Eucharist, X is now a valid Eucharistic belief?

[gtsecc]

Albion, if you are that liberal in your Eucharistic theology - are you going to apply that same liberal view to Affirming Catholics?
They want to change marriage way less than you are allowing the Eucharist - the sacrament of sacraments to change.

[Albion]

Albion, if you are that liberal in your Eucharistic theology - are you going to apply that same liberal view to Affirming Catholics?
They want to change marriage way less than you are allowing the Eucharist - the sacrament of sacraments to change.

I've never been called a liberal before, and for good reason. Also, "my Eucharistic theology," being an affirmation of the Real Presence, is hardly "liberal."

Is that just a useage anglo-catholics employ against every other Anglican?? Not "us," therefore...liberal?

What do you do with the REAL liberals then?

[Albion]

But they would be holding a different idea about the Eucharist than held by Christians for thousands of years.


Well, let's not get carried away. If what is believed was OK in the Apostolic Age, and of it squares with the Bible, it's not beyond the pale.


How can anyone say a different belief is the same belief called Christianity?


That would depend upon what that "different" belief is, wouldn't it?

If call myself Buddhist, and if I have a Buddha sticker on my car, but my belief are different that those held by Buddhists – why couldn’t we all be honest about it and say – you are a nice person, but not a Buddist?


But you are not facing that. You're upset because hundreds of millions of Christians who are considered Christian by just about everyone else and who reflect views many centuries old don't agree with you on a fine point...so you want to deny that they are Christians. I just think that's extreme.

I'm not saying that you can't call them wrong on this belief, but if you're warming to the thought of a new Spanish Inquisition, I can't see it. (just kidding, of course)


You would say someone is not Christian for a Christological heresy, but a Eucharist one is fine?


Possibly. But not because it's a "Christological heresy." I was speaking of someone defining Jesus of Nazareth as a totally different being (Michael the Archangel, for instance). And even then, that wouldn't be a matter of rejecting a heretic, just that he's not a follower in any way of Jesus, but rather of some figment of his imagination that he calls Jesus. It's just a thought, nothing fixed. I was trying to show you some contrast to your thinking, to say that there is a line somewhere. Obviously, it didn't succeed.

Let's say that I'd think the argument holds more water (in my way of thinking) than the one animating you. Yours, by the way, rules any Anglican out from being a Christian so long as he believes what the Church has as its only official statement of belief (39 Articles). Are you sure you want to say that? Reformed Episcopalians, for example, are not even Christians to you?


I am not trying to hold anyone in or out of salvation, I think almost everyone is saved – Hindus, pagans, etc…maybe even a few Charismatics.


And you called ME a "liberal?" :scratch:


But, if someone has made up a new Eucharistic theology – different from Christianity, can’t we just say that?


We weren't talking about "someone has made up a new Eucharistic theology," were we? We were just talking about your idea that unless a Christian accepts your view of the Eucharist, he's not a Christian. Evangelical Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, most of the churches that ECUSA has been negotiating union with -- all relegated to the status of non-Christian because their understanding of the Eucharist is not yours. Are you really going with that?


Do we have to say well, now that thousands of these people who follow some televangelist believe X about the Eucharist, X is now a valid Eucharistic belief?


No. I've already commented that we are not talking about whose belief concerning the Eucharist is right, just if taking one that you don't personally endorse makes that person a
non-Christian.

You're perfectly able to argue from any angle that you think reasonable, that your view of the Eucharist is correct.

[Simon_Templar]

That's partially correct. The Greek meaning you are referring to does not, inflexibly, carry with it what modern believers in Transs. believe. It is open to a broader understanding so long as the elements are transmuted, i.e. changed but with several possible meanings to that change. Therefore, we are left to say that some kind of RP is very old and something like Transs. may have been around from early times, but that is not enough to "prove" the "truth" of any particular view.

I agree with this. I think most people today get the idea that the scholastic RCC statement of transsub. was an innovation because it suggested that the elements actually changed substance. That is what I was always taught until I began to study it myself. In fact the idea that the substance changes seems to have always been there, it is the details of how, and to what extent, that were stated as an innovation by the scholastics of the middle ages.

As I said earlier, personally I don't think there is a worthwhile difference between con. and trans. if con is understood as a physical rather than simply spiritual presence.



But on the main point about age vs. truth.... It is very hard if not impossible to show that most of our doctrines (Catholic or Protestant) indeed do have an unbroken history of being the norm in Christianity for 2000 years, not even in the case of those churches that say this is the reality and say that their teachings are verified in this way. Mostly, we are dealing there with something old but not original. That gives very little room for claiming, "Ours is 1400 years old, yours only 500, so we are right and you are not."

Whether it is a belief that has been believed for 1800 years, or 1500 years, or if only some people believed it in early times, that matters not at all unless it was the norm from the absolute beginning until now. Conversely, if it is something that the institutional churches got wrong in earlier years, only to straighten it out and get correct later, that also does not detract at all from the rightness of them.

this is the big question, and its a debate I regularly have with my brother. We both came out of the non denom, charismatic church, I went to the traditional model, and he is hanging somewhere in the middle not really willing to accept either and unable to find a church.

It is very difficult to prove originality to a sceptical audience on any doctrine at all. The only document written by the apostles themselves, and therefore, original, is the bible itself. Thus doctrines which are primarily interpetations of scripture are nearly impossible to prove originality on. The question comes down to how much faith you put in the church fathers.

When Ignatius and Polycarp give a doctrine, do you believe it was original because they were direct students of the apostles.

How about when St. Basil says that the liturgy was passed down verbally by the fathers from the apostles.. do you believe him, 300 years after the fact?

Many people from my background believe essentially that the church fell so completely into error by about 80-90 AD that nothing of the fathers can really be trusted and the 'true' christianity was not rediscovered until the last few hundred years... is this credible?? My father tends to believe this, even if he wouldn't say it, he holds most of the doctrines laid out by those early fathers to be skewed and in error.


Much of church Tradition, infact probably most of it depends entirely upon believing the fathers when they say "this was passed down to us verbally in an unbroken chain from the apostles".
Which fathers do we believe... is it determined by the doctrine they say it about, the time they said it at?? This claim can't be proven because of the fact that it was (or wasn't) passed on verbally for the first few years (in early cases like Ignatius and Polycarp) or even up to hundreds of years in later cases.

At some point, if you are going to have even the idea that a valid/correct position can be known, you have to believe that God provided a way to ensure the protection and passing on of pure doctrine. What you believe that way was/is. Most of the non denominational protestants (probably most protestants in general) believe that the way God provided is simply personal revelation or personal reasoning. The traditional churches vary between "church councils" "the bishops" "the magesterium" and so on (basicly all shades of the same idea).

So in order to pursue this kind of discussion with anyone, in anything resembling a productive worthwhile manner, you first have to ask those questions...

What do you think is the authority, or method God provided to protect and pass on pure doctrine?

Do you think the church fathers are trust worthy? if so to what degree? at what time period do they stop being trust worthy??

[gtsecc]

Is that just a useage anglo-catholics employ against every other Anglican?? Not "us," therefore...liberal?

No, people who deny the RP are liberal.


What do you do with the REAL liberals then?

Like Hillary Clinton?
I don’t think she is Anglican or Christian for that matter.

Like the Anglo-Catholic ones in ECUSA and England?
They have my sympathies.
They want to offer the world the Eucharist and tolelrance.
However, I think they are disobedient and should wait for the Church before they do things.
In many ways they are really problematic because to some extent people, the dean of Wycliffe Hall for example, now think all Anglo-Catholic are affirming Catholics.

Like Evangelicals/charismatic?
I am not sympathetic to much at all about them.
They are not tolerant, and they don’t believe in the Eucharist or the liturgy.

[karen freeinchristman]

Like Evangelicals/charismatic?
I am not sympathetic to much at all about them.
They are not tolerant, and they don’t believe in the Eucharist or the liturgy.

I can't comment about any of the other stuff you said, but I do think that this statement is a misguided generalisation, and offends me greatly. You certainly like to paint with a wide brush, gtsecc. :sigh:

[AngCath]

getting back to the original question...
I'm not a believer in trans because a Sacrament is the use of ordinary matter (water, wine, bread..) for Divine purposes. trans means the turning of ordinary matter into the divine which seems to violate this principle.
I believe very strongly in the Real Presence and believe just as strongly in our inability to describe it.

[SirTimothy]

Karen, in the UK I'd presume to say that there's much more inter-church stuff than we ever found in the USA. We attended one church in colorado, and as a church they never spoke to anyone else in other churches. We found it horrific--our anglican church back home has strong links with local baptist, pentecostal and elim churches along with links with pretty much every church in some way in the area, including doing a building swap with the elim church.

Timothy

[gtsecc]

I can't comment about any of the other stuff you said, but I do think that this statement is a misguided generalisation, and offends me greatly. You certainly like to paint with a wide brush, gtsecc. :sigh:
Why?
Are you denying the RP in the Eucharist?

[karen freeinchristman]

Why?
Are you denying the RP in the Eucharist?
I do not deny the RP in the Eucharist. I also know lots of evangelical Anglicans over here that also do not deny the RP. And they are not all intolerant. That's why I did not appreciate your generalisation.

I understand why you might think that way, as per SirTimothy's explanation and perhaps other examples you have come across.
I just ask that you not colour all evangelical/charismatic Anglicans the same.

My own theology about transubtantiation is similar to AngCath's, and he says it well:

getting back to the original question...
I'm not a believer in trans because a Sacrament is the use of ordinary matter (water, wine, bread..) for Divine purposes. trans means the turning of ordinary matter into the divine which seems to violate this principle.
I believe very strongly in the Real Presence and believe just as strongly in our inability to describe it.

[Albion]

No, people who deny the RP are liberal.
Then, labelling me as one can only mean that you're really confused.

Like Hillary Clinton?

I was thinking of religious liberals, since that is the context in which we've been speaking.


Like the Anglo-Catholic ones in ECUSA and England?
They have my sympathies.

So......when you called me one, you were really greeting a comrade-in-arms?

They want to offer the world the Eucharist and tolelrance.

Tolerance? They are probably the least tolerant of the factions in Anglicanism and Christianity generally.

However, I think they are disobedient and should wait for the Church before they do things.

Yes, that is indeed the history of both liberal Christianity and the anglo-catholic movement.

In many ways they are really problematic because to some extent people, the dean of Wycliffe Hall for example, now think all Anglo-Catholic are affirming Catholics.

Yeh, the lines are becoming very blurry. I agree to that.


Like Evangelicals/charismatic?
I am not sympathetic to much at all about them.
They are not tolerant, and they don’t believe in the Eucharist or the liturgy.

I'm not comfortable with the charismatic movement in general, but that's partly because of other theological implications in that movement. Still, I know some who value the Eucharist very highly, so your comments there I consider to be both unfortunate and incorrect.

Charismatics often have a certain self-righteousness about them, but no worse, I figure, than other factions in the Church. As for the tolerance aspect, they don't seem less tolerant than other Christians. In fact, they are sometimes criticized for being too broadly welcoming of other Christians since if one has, allegedly, been baptised with the Holy Ghost, other doctrinal concerns are played down.

[gtsecc]

So, Albion, what is your problem with an Anglo-catholic parish that isn't liberal?

[Simon_Templar]

I'm evangelical, and charismatic.

I generaly don't get too offended when people "come down" on the evangelicals or charismatics because as one, I can still see the problems present in both camps and they are many. I have no trouble agreeing with that.

I must point out, in chorus with others thus far, that being evangelical and charismatic does not mean that you deny the sacrements or liturgy necessarily. It is true that many in the "protestant" community do. Honeslty these groups have a form of sacrament but they would never view it as that themselves and probably would revolt at the idea. Most, however, despise the idea of scripted services and prayers and view such a thing as chief among the evils of the catholic church. (thats especially true of charismatics).

These groups do also have their witch hunts on things like harry potter and dungeons and dragons.. but by and large they are more liberal than either the RC and the EO, since most among them openly embrace and laud women pastors and teachers.

The idea that "liberalism" is tolerant is one of the great hoaxes of our time. Liberals are among the most intolerant people in the world (and most people are pretty intolerant). If you don't believe me.. try disagreeing with one some time.

[GarethV]

The idea that "liberalism" is tolerant is one of the great hoaxes of our time. Liberals are among the most intolerant people in the world (and most people are pretty intolerant). If you don't believe me.. try disagreeing with one some time.

Aint that the truth. As a new anglican, our Vicar recently came round and spoke with us, and he mentioned a phrase which may be old hat to many of you but I was quite taken with it. It was this: 'both and' and I guess that's how I feel.

I'm certainly more evangelical than liberal, but I have liberal elements.

I noticed a post miles back that said the Salvation Army practiced 'suspension' (no communion) that's not true at all, they definitly have communion, but usually with juice.

For the record I'm with real prescense.

[gitlance]

I'm evangelical, and charismatic.

I generaly don't get too offended when people "come down" on the evangelicals or charismatics because as one, I can still see the problems present in both camps and they are many. I have no trouble agreeing with that.

I must point out, in chorus with others thus far, that being evangelical and charismatic does not mean that you deny the sacrements or liturgy necessarily. It is true that many in the "protestant" community do. Honeslty these groups have a form of sacrament but they would never view it as that themselves and probably would revolt at the idea. Most, however, despise the idea of scripted services and prayers and view such a thing as chief among the evils of the catholic church. (thats especially true of charismatics).

These groups do also have their witch hunts on things like harry potter and dungeons and dragons.. but by and large they are more liberal than either the RC and the EO, since most among them openly embrace and laud women pastors and teachers.

The idea that "liberalism" is tolerant is one of the great hoaxes of our time. Liberals are among the most intolerant people in the world (and most people are pretty intolerant). If you don't believe me.. try disagreeing with one some time.

I, also, consider myself charismatic -- and in fact you cannot be fully historically Catholic if you are not charismatic. It's interesting that for at least the first 600 years or so, the bishops told the baptismal candidates to expect miraculous giftings when he laid his hands on them to give them the gift of the Holy Spirit. I'm afraid that the Church has neglected this for far too long. That is not to say, however, that protestant charismaticism does not have its flaws -- it most certainly does, and I believe their flaws come from the fact that they are not under the apostolic authority of the Church.

And yes, the extreme liberals are not tolerant. They are pushing out the orthodox Catholics in their midst, because they feel that we hold on to too many "narrow" views that are "antiquated" and "medieval".

Well call them medieval if you want, but they are historically Christian. I, for one, do not wish to have to wake up every morning and wonder what new teaching my Church is going to come out with next. I want solidarity.

[higgs2]

No, people who deny the RP are liberal.




Like Hillary Clinton?
I don’t think she is Anglican or Christian for that matter.

Like the Anglo-Catholic ones in ECUSA and England?
They have my sympathies.
They want to offer the world the Eucharist and tolelrance.
However, I think they are disobedient and should wait for the Church before they do things.
In many ways they are really problematic because to some extent people, the dean of Wycliffe Hall for example, now think all Anglo-Catholic are affirming Catholics.

Like Evangelicals/charismatic?
I am not sympathetic to much at all about them.
They are not tolerant, and they don’t believe in the Eucharist or the liturgy.
She's a Methodist! THey are Christian!!

[gitlance]

She's a Methodist! THey are Christian!!

LOL. Do you happen to know if she is a practicing Methodist, or is it one of those "in-name-only" kinda things?

It would probably be hard to practice any religion as the Senator of New York. Poor thing.

[higgs2]

LOL. Do you happen to know if she is a practicing Methodist, or is it one of those "in-name-only" kinda things?

It would probably be hard to practice any religion as the Senator of New York. Poor thing.
She is a practicing Methodist.

[Fish and Bread]

And yes, the extreme liberals are not tolerant. They are pushing out the orthodox Catholics in their midst, because they feel that we hold on to too many "narrow" views that are "antiquated" and "medieval".

There are some intolerant folks in every group, and that includes liberals. However, it's notable that liberals were willing to join ECUSA when it was more conservative and even is to some extent perhaps still more conservative than they might like. On the other hand, as soon as women priests were ordained, a lot of conservative folks left, and it looks like one homosexual bishop being consecrated might prompt a schism. So, I think, on the whole, it would be a fair statement to make that liberals are *generally*, but not always, more tolerant than conservatives in Episcopalian circles, with exceptions, of course.

[gitlance]

She is a practicing Methodist.

That is indeed a good thing.

Though I am not the most liberal of persons in many areas, to the shock of many here I do actually like Ms. Clinton quite a bit...

[gitlance]

There are some intolerant folks in every group, and that includes liberals. However, it's notable that liberals were willing to join ECUSA when it was more conservative and even is to some extent perhaps still more conservative than they might like. On the other hand, as soon as women priests were ordained, a lot of conservative folks left, and it looks like one homosexual bishop being consecrated might prompt a schism. So, I think, on the whole, it would be a fair statement to make that liberals are *generally*, but not always, more tolerant than conservatives in Episcopalian circles, with exceptions, of course.

Well, while I agree that there are truly intolerant people in every group, I think the conservatives who left decided that they were tired of trying to get the liberals to accept their positions -- so instead of staying and fighting, they left. Unfortunately, if all the conservatives leave, there will be no more traditional conservatives in the Church in 20 years.

[Simon_Templar]

Fish and Bread,

I'm sorry, I really just don't consider it "tolerant" to join a group and then try to take it over and change it into your image. If I became a budhist even though I disagree with their views and then attempted to change budhism to fit my views and force everyone to conform to my views.. I wouldn't consider myself tolerant.

To be blunt, I consider joining a group and trying to divorce them from their historical traditional heretige to be dishonest and subversive, not tolerant.

Now, I don't pretend to be tolerant. When I think someone is wrong, I tell them so. I don't feel it necessary to include people in my church who avowedly disagree with what my church believes and practices.
However, I've had civil and productive, even friendly converstations with people from many different religions and view points. I have always gotten along with just about everyone, most people I know have never seen me heated or angry, including even family members. I'm well known for being "laid back".

In my long experience of debate and conversation I have found that the majority of liberals are closed minded and intolerant. Keep in mind I'm not saying that conservatives are, I'm not even saying that I am.. but then I don't claim to be, and liberals do.. infact they build most of their platform on it.
You see the thing is that liberals will often say things like "well I wouldn't do that myself but I would never tell others they couldn't do it".. they will say that until you touch something that they actually care about. Something that is close to home, that is one of "their issues". Liberals are only tolerant about things that they really don't care about and don't affect them personaly. Once you hit an issue that does, watch out.

Also there seems to be about three different levels of liberal when it comes to handling disagreement. The first level, which is becoming more and more common are those who can not handle any disagreement and view all disagreement as personal attack.
Secondly there is the group (and this is by far the largest group) that can allow you to disagree so long as your disagreement isn't threatening (ie as long as your argument isn't compelling or "winning" the discussion). Once you begin to logically defeat their reasonings they become hostile and accusatory, resorting to strawman and ad hominem arguments.

the last group is pretty rare. Most of the ones I've encountered have been on this board.. this group are relatively good at handling disagreement.

[Fish and Bread]

I'm sorry, I really just don't consider it "tolerant" to join a group and then try to take it over and change it into your image. If I became a budhist even though I disagree with their views and then attempted to change budhism to fit my views and force everyone to conform to my views.. I wouldn't consider myself tolerant.

Anglicanism has historically been in flux to some extent since the Reformation. Under Elizabeth I, there was to an extent at a via media between Catholicism and Protestantism and the pendulum has swung back and forth ever since. Progressivism is to an extent something new, but it's within the historic bounds of Anglicanism to try to welcome in a broad diversity of belief -- what is changing is simply one of how much diversity and in what areas.

Further, people who have questioned orthodoxy have been intentionally recruited over the years. There's been a big effort to reach out to them. Most of the liberal Episcopalians converts I've met who weren't born into it were recruited and told they'd be welcome. I don't think there's really been an effort to say "Let's all become Episcopalian and change it into something we like better.", it's been "People told us to join and be full participants and said they don't mind that we're not real traditional.". The life of the church has been broadened by the church. It's not a takeover, it's new blood being welcomed, and much of the old blood changing views with suceeding generations. It's a natural shift. Now, of course, something being natural does make it *right*, necessarilly, but I don't see any ill-intent here per say.

[Albion]

There are some intolerant folks in every group, and that includes liberals. However, it's notable that liberals were willing to join ECUSA when it was more conservative and even is to some extent perhaps still more conservative than they might like. On the other hand, as soon as women priests were ordained, a lot of conservative folks left, and it looks like one homosexual bishop being consecrated might prompt a schism. So, I think, on the whole, it would be a fair statement to make that liberals are *generally*, but not always, more tolerant than conservatives in Episcopalian circles, with exceptions, of course.

I have to disagree about that being an accurate overview of the situation.

Liberals were able to join because of the tolerance of the conservatives. Certainly the Church would not have been a welcoming place for them if the conservatives had not been welcoming. There are many denominations in which those holding some of the views of these liberals would have been required to conform to the church's stated beliefs a prerequisite for them to hold membership. Not so ECUSA when it was more traditional than it is now.

This says little about any toleration on the part of the liberals. They, after all, were the beneficiaries, not those being called upon to extend toleration to the conservatives. And that they did not generally do, working steadily to alter the face of the church rather than leave it as a "Middle Way" church.

But also, since it is a tenet of religious liberalism that "anything goes" or almost so, there is much less for them to tolerate than those who take very seriously the church's Constitution and Canons, the Articles of Religion, the Bible as we have always understood it, or Tradition.

When the conservatives, having tolerated several generations of the faith being altered and the Constitution being ignored, were forced to choose between fidelity to principle and the church that they had loved, they reluctantly left rather than remain in a church that had lost valid orders (in their opinion).

Because that is not a problem for the liberals, they naturally are not going to be a mirror image of the conservatives.

And this doesn't even touch the intollerance that has driven the most recent refugees from the church. Those leaving now are not motivated as much by the Continuing Churches' concerns but by the raw political power being used against them by the (now liberal) establishment.

[karen freeinchristman]

Liberals were able to join because of the tolerance of the conservatives.

So, would you say that at one time, there were no Christians with liberal views? I find that hard to swallow. I believe there have been liberal Christians from the start. I don't think they all suddenly descended upon the conservative church, which then so lovingly welcomed them in. The liberal movement surely must have begun small, and simply has grown to a noticeable entity.
No?

[Naomi4Christ]

I would say that the Church of England has to be reasonably liberal in that it ministers to all residents of the parish, Christian or not. But we also have standards to uphold and objectives to meet - for the nation.

In my own church, we welcome everyone and will happily share The Peace and HC with anyone who loves the Lord. We will go alongside anyone, wherever they are on their journey. Where we draw the line is in positions of leadership in the church - we will not have, for example, someone who is living with someone they are not married to, as a youth leader, Alpha leader, PCC member, or whatever. If they get their lives in order, then fine - but until then....

Rightly or wrongly, that's the way it is.

[ContraMundum]

She is a practicing Methodist.

So they tell you. I don't believe it one iota.

[higgs2]

So they tell you. I don't believe it one iota.
well of course you don't.

[Simon_Templar]

Anglicanism has historically been in flux to some extent since the Reformation. Under Elizabeth I, there was to an extent at a via media between Catholicism and Protestantism and the pendulum has swung back and forth ever since. Progressivism is to an extent something new, but it's within the historic bounds of Anglicanism to try to welcome in a broad diversity of belief -- what is changing is simply one of how much diversity and in what areas.

Further, people who have questioned orthodoxy have been intentionally recruited over the years. There's been a big effort to reach out to them. Most of the liberal Episcopalians converts I've met who weren't born into it were recruited and told they'd be welcome. I don't think there's really been an effort to say "Let's all become Episcopalian and change it into something we like better.", it's been "People told us to join and be full participants and said they don't mind that we're not real traditional.". The life of the church has been broadened by the church. It's not a takeover, it's new blood being welcomed, and much of the old blood changing views with suceeding generations. It's a natural shift. Now, of course, something being natural does make it *right*, necessarilly, but I don't see any ill-intent here per say.


Your going to have to make up your mind... in your first post you portrayed an image in which the liberals, because they were tolerant of conservatism joined the church and then the church became more liberal and all the intolerant conservatives left...

Now in this post you paint an image in which the church was very tolerant and deliberately invited the liberals in, in order to ensure the church's diversity etc.

the two views don't really mesh.


Now going back into the history of the church. It is correct to say that the church came to rest in a "via media". From Henry VIII and for a few hundred years after the church swung back and forth between rigid Roman Catholicism, and radical Protestantism, entirely depending on who was in control of the government. Each side persecuted the other when they had the upper hand. The whole time the people of england, by and large, remained strongly in the middle not really wanting to be Roman Catholic, but also not wanting to give up orthodox worship for the extreme radical protestantism. This didn't all completely settle down until the 18th and 19th centuries resulting in the "classical" anglican via media.

Now, what your doing in this post is something which commonly happens as a result of misunderstanding of terms. Its true that the Anglican church swung back and forth between "liberal and conservative" and that it eventually settled on a via media in the past. However, what those terms meant then is nothing remotely like what they mean now. Conservative is an entirely relative term (which is one reason I don't like to use it much) because conservative only has meaning relative to what is the "status quo" or traditional views of society.. thus in two different societies it can mean two totally diferent things. Liberal has more potential for more definet meaning but it is used relatively as well because in general usage it means simply the opposite of conservative.. thus both liberal and conservative change completely depending on the society in question.

The point being that "liberal" today is so far from "liberal" at any point in the history of the anglican church before the 20th century (even before the 1950's probably) that to attempt to equate liberal today with liberal at any other point in the hsitory of the church creates a wildly inaccurate connection. The connection is really a logical non sequiter
It is quite literally making a logical argument that because the anglican church allowed variance of form in the celebration of orthodox worship and did not dogmaticly define Real Presense, therefore we should now join in celebration with worship of other gods and allow that other religions are valid beliefs and are other paths to God. (not to mention the things that are unmentionable).

[Simon_Templar]

So, would you say that at one time, there were no Christians with liberal views? I find that hard to swallow. I believe there have been liberal Christians from the start. I don't think they all suddenly descended upon the conservative church, which then so lovingly welcomed them in. The liberal movement surely must have begun small, and simply has grown to a noticeable entity.
No?


There have always been liberal christians... its just that until recently they were more well known as heretics J/K!!! :D I'm sorry, I'm just kidding, when I saw this post I couldn't resist making a little joke.. hopefully not too offensive!


Seriously tho Karen, I refer back to my previous post. Society has shifted so far to the left in the last few decades that what is considered moderately liberal by many today even 50-60 years ago would have been so far out on the fringe that it would not have been acknoledged as part of any orthodox church. Think about this one :) in pretty much any other age of the church, I, and most of the other conservatives on this board would have been considered liberal.. probably very, or even extremely liberal.
Actually, looking back on my own sojourn of faith in the last few years.. given my beliefs growing up and what I believed until about 2 years ago, I would have been considered a heretic through out much of the church's history.

[Simon_Templar]

I would say that the Church of England has to be reasonably liberal in that it ministers to all residents of the parish, Christian or not. But we also have standards to uphold and objectives to meet - for the nation.

In my own church, we welcome everyone and will happily share The Peace and HC with anyone who loves the Lord. We will go alongside anyone, wherever they are on their journey. Where we draw the line is in positions of leadership in the church - we will not have, for example, someone who is living with someone they are not married to, as a youth leader, Alpha leader, PCC member, or whatever. If they get their lives in order, then fine - but until then....

Rightly or wrongly, that's the way it is.


Sorry for three posts in a row. There is just so much to respond to.

Naomi,

There is room for freedom and some "liberality" within the church. The original meaning of liberal was "having to do with liberty" One of the teachings of christianity is that Jesus came to set us free and whom the Son sets free, is free indeed.
I'm not arguing here that form is unimportant, and that orthodox teachings should be fudged. Rather that there should be room in the church for all true believers. The creeds of the faith leave a great deal of wiggle room as to how people worship and things like that.

Actually, shocking as it may be to all you liberals :P the reason I love the anglican tradition, and am not a RC or an EO is because christianity in order to be true, must be free and loving. The openness and warmness of the Anglican tradition is why I chose anglicanism over the other two.

The problem, from my point of view, is that the freedom and openness of the Anglican church has been exploited to allow in false teachings. You see as much as Truth depends upon Love and Freedom... Love and Freedom also depend upon Truth.

C.S. Lewis (if memory serves) said something to the effect that "the very idea of freedom supposes an absolute law." This is very true. Absolute law is necessary for the idea of freedom to even exist. I believe the crisis in the church right now (and really its not just the anglican church, its all over) is that the absolute laws which are born of God's very nature are being cast aside. The result is that the very nature of God, and people's understanding and image of God is changed... and as AW Tozer said in "knowledge of the Holy" when people have false beliefs about God, they are really worshiping a different God and it is idolatry.
This is why the beliefs touching the trinity and the nature of christ were so central and so touchy to the early church... this is why those doctrines are the center of all the creeds.

[Albion]

So, would you say that at one time, there were no Christians with liberal views? I find that hard to swallow.

I don't know exactly how to respond to an "at one time" question, Karen. We all were thinking of the liberal-conservative divide of the past several generations that is unique in the history of our church. The terms don't even fit the patterns of thought we associate with people from before the 18th century, for example, even if some observers want to use "lberal" and "conservative" for proponents and opponents of some issue or other from some earlier time in church history.

[ContraMundum]

well of course you don't.

You don't find the rather convenient claims to both her and her husband's "Christianity" somewhat politically motivated, and not backed up by the facts of their lives? I find it hard to accept what the political press tell me.

Look, I'm not fond at all of their political adversaries either, so don't think I'm a wingnut. I'm not. I wouldn't vote for the other guys even if I lived in North Korea and they were running against Kim Jong Il.

[higgs2]

You don't find the rather convenient claims to both her and her husband's "Christianity" somewhat politically motivated, and not backed up by the facts of their lives? I find it hard to accept what the political press tell me.

Look, I'm not fond at all of their political adversaries either, so don't think I'm a wingnut. I'm not. I wouldn't vote for the other guys even if I lived in North Korea and they were running against Kim Jong Il.
I don't find it hard to believe. I can't read her heart but from what I understand she is a practicing Methodist. I accept that Pat Robertson is a Christian too, but I think the facts of his life, for example, are much more contrary to that fact than hers. We just don't know, do we?

I'm glad to hear you are not a wingnut :)

[ContraMundum]

I don't find it hard to believe. I can't read her heart but from what I understand she is a practicing Methodist. I accept that Pat Robertson is a Christian too, but I think the facts of his life, for example, are much more contrary to that fact than hers. We just don't know, do we?

Ok, I can go with that- they can be "practicing" Christians but I guess they do it with varying success. Just like all of us.

I'm glad to hear you are not a wingnut :)

Me too. :)

[higgs2]

Ok, I can go with that- they can be "practicing" Christians but I guess they do it with varying success. Just like all of us.



Me too. :)

Practicing, yes. Well said! Every once in a while we get it right, but we are all practicing aren't we? :)

[ContraMundum]

Practicing, yes. Well said! Every once in a while we get it right, but we are all practicing aren't we? :)

Too true- and some of us get it right less often than others. Me especially. I realise that I'm too much of a rebel to "fit in" to the norm. In fact, just this morning I didn't put any sugar in my tea. It felt so ...liberating.

[gitlance]

Too true- and some of us get it right less often than others. Me especially. I realise that I'm too much of a rebel to "fit in" to the norm. In fact, just this morning I didn't put any sugar in my tea. It felt so ...liberating.

Sugar!! In tea?!? IS OUTRAGE!!!!!

:wave:

[ContraMundum]

Sugar!! In tea?!? IS OUTRAGE!!!!!

:wave:

I just laughed so hard I injured myself by hitting my knee, then my elbow on the desk, followed by twisting my back.

Very funny, git.:thumbsup:

[gitlance]

I just laughed so hard I injured myself by hitting my knee, then my elbow on the desk, followed by twisting my back.

Very funny, git.:thumbsup:

Actually, the funny thing is, I am from the South!!!! And we are usually NOTORIOUS for putting sugar in our tea.

[TomUK]

Actually, the funny thing is, I am from the South!!!! And we are usually NOTORIOUS for putting sugar in our tea.

Lord Jesus, come quickly!

[SirTimothy]

Heck, I liked Bill Clinton. A politician's moral life should have no affect on his political life, and Bill Clinton was the best diplomat and politician that America has had as a president in decades.
Look, the