Identify?

[gitlance]

Hey guys (and gals)!!!!

Could you please tell me what kind of Eucharistic theology you think the following statement is advocating?

All baptized Christians participate in the Eucharist (from the Greek, meaning “Thanksgiving”) or as it is also called “Holy Communion,” “the Lord’s Supper,” or “The Mass.” The Eucharist was instituted, according to the Bible, by Jesus himself on the night of his arrest, before he was crucified. During the Eucharist, bread and wine are blessed as symbols of Christ’s body and blood. The bread is broken and shared, and then the cup of wine is passed among the worshipers as a sign of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross and resurrection. The Eucharist is a continual remembrance of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection until he comes again.

[ContraMundum]

Hey guys (and gals)!!!!

Could you please tell me what kind of Eucharistic theology you think the following statement is advocating?

Zwinglian. (From what we can see here at least)

[gitlance]

Thanks, Contra!

Any other takers?

[Fish and Bread]

I know where this description is from, so I'm not saying a word. :)

[Filia Mariae]

I know where this description is from, so I'm not saying a word. :)

:wave:

[Fish and Bread]

:wave:

:) :wave:

[gitlance]

LOL. So far I get a Zwinglian, a "I'm not saying anything" and then a bunch of cute waves back and forth!

Hahaha.

But I'm sure you are right in saying where you know it comes from.... ;)

[Thomas2618]

Pardon moi, if I am ignorant, but where does that come from?
It seems to be one small step above the Baptist view that I grew up with...

[gitlance]

Pardon moi, if I am ignorant, but where does that come from?
It seems to be one step above the Baptist view that I grew up with...

I am NOT telling yet!!! Hush! And John better not tell either! ;)

[Fish and Bread]

I am NOT telling yet!!! Hush! And John better not tell either! ;)

My lips are sealed. :)

[pjw]

PLEASE, tell me where it's from. it appears to be a zwinglian view of the Lord's Supper, it is definitely not the usual Reformed, Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox, or Lutheran view of the Lord's Supper, so...

[pjw]

i googled it, i know where it's from, and i was VERY surprised!

[AlaskaFan]

I also say zwinglian

[TomUK]

It just seems like your average Protestant view to be honest.

[karen freeinchristman]

I googled it, too, and I find the answer to be disheartening.:sigh:

[Mick116]

My first guess was that it was some kind of liberal Catholic theologian's description of "transignification" or similar.

[Mick116]

I agree with Tom, it's the standard Protestant/evangelical point of view.

[Mick116]

BTW, AlaskaFan, I like your avatar.

[Filia Mariae]

My first guess was that it was some kind of liberal Catholic theologian's description of "transignification" or similar.

What is 'transignification'?

[gitlance]

Ladies and Gentleman, the place where that statement comes from will give you one of the reasons why I no longer feel welcome in ECUSA. This is incredibly sad to me, and it really does break my heart.

That statement came from the Visitor's Center of ECUSA's main webpage.

http://ecusa.anglican.org/visitors_16999_ENG_HTM.htm

[gtsecc]

Hey guys (and gals)!!!!

Could you please tell me what kind of Eucharistic theology you think the following statement is advocating?
Zwinglian

[gtsecc]

It just seems like your average Protestant view to be honest.
Sure.
But, is it a view we can say meshes with historic Christianity.

[pmcleanj]

Ladies and Gentleman, the place where that statement comes from will give you one of the reasons why I know longer feel welcome in ECUSA. This is incredibly sad to me, and it really does break my heart.

That statement came from the Visitor's Center of ECUSA's main webpage.

http://ecusa.anglican.org/visitors_16999_ENG_HTM.htm
From the Visitor's Centre. A page full of short one-paragraph explainations to help visitors understand the terms that they encounter, using words that are in common use among such unchurched Americans as don't already know what a "Eucharist" is, and without making a theological argument for one churchmanship over another. It does not say "only a symbol", and even high sacramentalists agree that a sacrament must also symbolize the grace that it effects.

[cathromang]

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which, in his goodness, the Father raised . . ."
St Ignatius of Antioch 110 AD


For we do not receive these as common bread and common drink; but just as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have learned that the food over which thanks has been given by the prayer of the word which comes from him, and by which are blood and flesh are nourished through a change, is the Flesh and Blood of the same incarnate Jesus.
St Justin Martyr 155 AD

[Inside Edge]

Ladies and Gentleman, the place where that statement comes from will give you one of the reasons why I know longer feel welcome in ECUSA. This is incredibly sad to me, and it really does break my heart.
I really hope something like this statement ranks really low on your "why I can't be Anglican anymore" scale. Otherwise, you're in for a rough go if summarized blurbs on the internet affect your religious identity so much.

Consider the audience. That statement wasn't written for you. I'm pretty certain that you would get an answer satisfactory to your personal opinion and outlook if you asked a priest, bishop, or an Anglican professor here or there.

Guess what? I've heard Roman Catholic clergy say the exact same thing.

Dude, the internet is no place to put your faith-compass to work.

[ContraMundum]

Ladies and Gentleman, the place where that statement comes from will give you one of the reasons why I know longer feel welcome in ECUSA. This is incredibly sad to me, and it really does break my heart.

That statement came from the Visitor's Center of ECUSA's main webpage.

http://ecusa.anglican.org/visitors_16999_ENG_HTM.htm

Yeah, like I said...Zwinglian.

Anyway- Pam does have a point too....this is from the Visitor's Centre, not Lambeth Palace. It's just badly written by some flunky some where and will probably be re-written again, and again, and again.....and again....

Not to worry.

[gtsecc]

I really hope something like this statement ranks really low on your "why I can't be Anglican anymore" scale. Otherwise, you're in for a rough go if summarized blurbs on the internet affect your religious identity so much.

Consider the audience. That statement wasn't written for you. I'm pretty certain that you would get an answer satisfactory to your personal opinion and outlook if you asked a priest, bishop, or an Anglican professor here or there.

Guess what? I've heard Roman Catholic clergy say the exact same thing.

Dude, the internet is no place to put your faith-compass to work.

Sure, but this isn't just the internet.
It is the flippin "official" web page of ECUSA - you would think ECUSA could find someone with better Eucharistic Theology.

Actually, no you wouldn't... You would think this was actually unusually conservative for ECUSA.

[higgs2]

Ladies and Gentleman, the place where that statement comes from will give you one of the reasons why I know longer feel welcome in ECUSA. This is incredibly sad to me, and it really does break my heart.

That statement came from the Visitor's Center of ECUSA's main webpage.

http://ecusa.anglican.org/visitors_16999_ENG_HTM.htm
Oh for heaven's sake. I saw this one coming. Git, what is your purpose in starting this thread? You have openly and dramatically declared you are leaving ECUSA for another denomination, you have changed your icon, you are posting on another board and no longer self identifying as an Anglican. Why are you compelled to come back and continue to tell us of your "broken heart" over the ECUSA? For your own mental and emotional health, I really think you should move on and embrace your new church. We all still love you, and wish you the best. Let it be.

[gtsecc]

Oh for heaven's sake. I saw this one coming. Git, what is your purpose in starting this thread? You have openly and dramatically declared you are leaving ECUSA for another denomination, you have changed your icon, you are posting on another board and no longer self identifying as an Anglican. Why are you compelled to come back and continue to tell us of your "broken heart" over the ECUSA? For your own mental and emotional health, I really think you should move on and embrace your new church. We all still love you, and wish you the best. Let it be.
He has a compeltely valid point - and from his perspective ECUSA left him. Everythign Lance stands for can be backed up as Christian. Everything ECUSA stands for takes a lot more wrangling to fit into Christianity. That is fine and I can live with it, but we have to be honest about ECUSA and Anglicanism.

[ContraMundum]

He has a compeltely valid point - and from his perspective ECUSA left him. Everythign Lance stands for can be backed up as Christian. Everything ECUSA stands for takes a lot more wrangling to fit into Christianity. That is fine and I can live with it, but we have to be honest about ECUSA and Anglicanism.

Good point. Most Continuers feel that way too.

One of the things I used to lament before I joined the Continuum way back in the stone age was how the church I joined, by choice, after much investigation, got up and walked off to the wild blue yonder, leaving me sitting there thinking "wait guys, I just got here, and you're leaving?". I wish it was like it used to be, the church I fell in love with.


Nowadays, I am a little smarter, I know that they will be back.

Why? Two things, first of all, all the liberal bishops are in their 50's. Hardly any of the next generation of bishops are really liberal. The pendulum will swing, it always does.

Secondly, one of the great lessons in the Bible is how people get what they want but lose what they have. eg. Adam got the fruit he wanted but lost the relationship he had with God. The more people leave traditional Anglicanism for whatever reason, either from within or departing, whether it be liberalism, Romanism, Orthodoxy, Pentecostalism or whatever, the more they lament losing all the great things they had. Right now, the church is just starting to realize what it has lost, and where it can get it again.

[karen freeinchristman]

Oh for heaven's sake. I saw this one coming. Git, what is your purpose in starting this thread? You have openly and dramatically declared you are leaving ECUSA for another denomination, you have changed your icon, you are posting on another board and no longer self identifying as an Anglican. Why are you compelled to come back and continue to tell us of your "broken heart" over the ECUSA? For your own mental and emotional health, I really think you should move on and embrace your new church. We all still love you, and wish you the best. Let it be.


You've got a good point, here, higgs.

[higgs2]

He has a compeltely valid point - and from his perspective ECUSA left him. Everythign Lance stands for can be backed up as Christian. Everything ECUSA stands for takes a lot more wrangling to fit into Christianity. That is fine and I can live with it, but we have to be honest about ECUSA and Anglicanism.
Regarding the Visitor's Center sign, please read Pamela's post.

ECUSA has not gone anywhere. The liguistic gymnastics to say that it has "left" people are hyperbole. Life is full of choices, choosing Rome is a valid choice, showing more integrity than most of those (network) who keep on about ECUSA "leaving them".

We have increased the membership of our local ECUSA parish by about 15% in the last couple of years, that does not include births.

[gtsecc]

Regarding the Visitor's Center sign, please read Pamela's post.

ECUSA has not gone anywhere.
Pamela's post is great, but ECUSA has changed.
ECUSA may be right to change (that is a whole different thread), but you can't be intelelctually honest about things and say they haven't changed.

[pmcleanj]

Pamela's post is great, but ECUSA has changed.
ECUSA may be right to change (that is a whole different thread), but you can't be intelelctually honest about things and say they haven't changed.
In fact, ECUSA (and most of the Anglican Provinces) have undergone tremendous change since the Liturgical Reform movement of the 1970's. Lex Orandi, Lex Credi, right? So the introduction of Rite I versus Rite II -- a choice of prayer rather than common prayer; of Eucharistic Prayers A through E -- even more choice; of a three-year lectionary rather than the carefully calender-regulated (but more limited) one-year Eiucharistic lectionary; the re-dating of traditional Collects; the introduction of litany-styled Prayers of the People -- all these things introduced radical, liturgy-shaking, doctrine-shaking change that's been reverberating through the communion for thirty-odd years.

It seems odd to me for those who never experienced the old Common Prayer in their lifetime; who were baptized in a service that replaced the old rolling phrase "Manfully to fight under his banner against sin, the world and the Devil" with giving a candle; who see the paraphernalia of Anglo-Catholicism as a norm rather than a recent trend of the late twentieth century -- to complain about how the Church has changed. It's like someone riding a roller-coaster complaining about how much they liked the right-sloping ride and how the swerve-left is an unexpected change! Guys, that right-sloping ride is part of a whole pattern of change that fits into a larger stable and well-anchored whole.

[AngCath]

I think the Church has changed. I think overall it has been a change for the positive. But, being honest, we have some things that have changed for the worse. But I still love this Church. I know some of us have mixed feelings about it and if they decide to worship with the Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, Methodists, etc.: Great! May God bless you abundantly!
But I do take offense when someone who has left our Church but still chooses to come to us and describe to us our challenges and obstacles. We know. We struggle with them daily. I think it would be more fruitful if you came back to us to share how Christ has blessed you, or offered prayers, or gave encouragement for those of us who still choose to adore our Lord in an Episcopal church.
I just needed to say that. I am not one who usually uses CF for conflict, but I had to get that out.

[TomUK]

What really is the purpose of this thread?

Lance- like others have said, the quote you mention is from the visitors section of website of the ECUSA. It is not designed to be some theological exposition of the sacrament; rather its purpose is to introduce visitors to some of the broad concepts in the Church. I have yet to find a definition which would be accessible to all, and the example on the ECUSA's website serves its purpose well.

I do wonder however why you chose to bring this up now. :scratch:

[Naomi4Christ]

I fail to see what is wrong with the description

[AlaskaFan]

If not, what are the differences?

[AngCath]

High/Low Church refers to the style of worship. One being an Anglo-Catholic or not is a theological claim of being just as Catholic as the Romans and Orthodox.

[gitlance]

I really hope something like this statement ranks really low on your "why I can't be Anglican anymore" scale. Otherwise, you're in for a rough go if summarized blurbs on the internet affect your religious identity so much.

Consider the audience. That statement wasn't written for you. I'm pretty certain that you would get an answer satisfactory to your personal opinion and outlook if you asked a priest, bishop, or an Anglican professor here or there.

Guess what? I've heard Roman Catholic clergy say the exact same thing.

Dude, the internet is no place to put your faith-compass to work.
This is BY NO MEANS the reason I am leaving. In fact, it is rather insignificant. However, it does stand to reason that there are some problems with that statement. Further, when I first went to that same website about 3 years ago, their statement on the Eucharist was much different. As I recall, it even used the phrase "real presence" to describe a pretty broad-church view, but which included that idea that in some way Christ was actually present.

That said, however, I just noticed that statement on there yesterday, and my mind has been made up for awhile now due to other facts.

[gitlance]

He has a compeltely valid point - and from his perspective ECUSA left him. Everythign Lance stands for can be backed up as Christian. Everything ECUSA stands for takes a lot more wrangling to fit into Christianity. That is fine and I can live with it, but we have to be honest about ECUSA and Anglicanism.
This is exactly how I feel. Thank you for saying that.

I did not want to make this decision, but given the circumstances I feel that there is no other choice. I just wanted to make sure everyone knew that it wasn't for personal reasons, but rather for doctrinal reasons, that I am making this decision. I love everyone here very much.

[gitlance]

I apologize if this has started a war. That was not my intention. I just felt that some people were a little confused about why I am leaving (guess I haven't officially left, yet, since I'm not yet confirmed Catholic).

I presume that statement has been there for awhile, and of course it never affected my theology or probably anyone else's in the Church. My concern, I suppose, is for those (like I did) who have their first interaction with the Church through that webpage.

Now, of course the Church has never officially held the view of transubstantiation or some such thing. But, if we were to go back to the articles or to the BCP, we would find an historic Anglican belief in at least a spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I suppose that statement just disturbed me a bit when it doesn't seem to take into account any sort of presence of Christ.

I apologize for causing strife.

[PaladinValer]

From the Visitor's Centre. A page full of short one-paragraph explainations to help visitors understand the terms that they encounter, using words that are in common use among such unchurched Americans as don't already know what a "Eucharist" is, and without making a theological argument for one churchmanship over another. It does not say "only a symbol", and even high sacramentalists agree that a sacrament must also symbolize the grace that it effects.



Basically, this is about what I'd say.

I'd also say "Fallacy of Appealing to Ignorance." It doesn't say it is only a symbol, as Pam says. It doesn't say that it is truly God's BBSD, but it doesn't say that it isn't either.

Lance, I'm sorry, but this really was a cheap shot and deep down, you know it too. I have a feeling that a bunch of us know the real reasons why you left Anglicanism, and if that is really the reason you want to use, sobeit. If those in OBOB knew them, however, they'd probably ask you to think harder and more logically before you do anything rash.

As they often say, "it is better to be a good non-(V)Catholic than a bad (V)Catholic." To that, I would have to agree.

[higgs2]

I apologize if this has started a war. That was not my intention. I just felt that some people were a little confused about why I am leaving (guess I haven't officially left, yet, since I'm not yet confirmed Catholic).

I presume that statement has been there for awhile, and of course it never affected my theology or probably anyone else's in the Church. My concern, I suppose, is for those (like I did) who have their first interaction with the Church through that webpage.

Now, of course the Church has never officially held the view of transubstantiation or some such thing. But, if we were to go back to the articles or to the BCP, we would find an historic Anglican belief in at least a spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I suppose that statement just disturbed me a bit when it doesn't seem to take into account any sort of presence of Christ.

I apologize for causing strife.
I don't think you have caused any strife here, don't feel bad about that. I just pray that you will find some peace.

[gitlance]

Basically, this is about what I'd say.

I'd also say "Fallacy of Appealing to Ignorance." It doesn't say it is only a symbol, as Pam says. It doesn't say that it is truly God's BBSD, but it doesn't say that it isn't either.

Lance, I'm sorry, but this really was a cheap shot and deep down, you know it too. I have a feeling that a bunch of us know the real reasons why you left Anglicanism, and if that is really the reason you want to use, sobeit. If those in OBOB knew them, however, they'd probably ask you to think harder and more logically before you do anything rash.

As they often say, "it is better to be a good non-(V)Catholic than a bad (V)Catholic." To that, I would have to agree.
If I were to publicly give every single reason why I am leaving, I am afraid it would cause some people to feel ostracized. That is not my intent. I refuse to make anyone here think that I have a personal problem with any Episcopalian. So, I have refrained from publicly giving every reason, so as to not make some people feel uneasy.

[higgs2]

If I were to publicly give every single reason why I am leaving, I am afraid it would cause some people to feel ostracized. That is not my intent. I refuse to make anyone here think that I have a personal problem with any Episcopalian. So, I have refrained from publicly giving every reason, so as to not make some people feel uneasy.

I think people are okay with not knowing your reasons, please don't worry. You are not making people uneasy and you have not started a war. I wish you joy in the Roman Catholic church. :hug:

[pmcleanj]

Um, Higgs? Have you been into the peroxide?

[higgs2]

Um, Higgs? Have you been into the peroxide?

um :blush:...

yes:cool:

[gtsecc]

I fail to see what is wrong with the description
But, that is because you don't see any need to know much about eucharistic theology. That is perfectly fine, but you should be aware you are arriving there from a position of ignorance, not from one who has read really anything at all about Eucharistic theology. If you are genuinely currious, I would suggest Schemann's For The Life of the World.

[cathromang]

Does anyone remember that first breakup with someone?
That first love?
How you thought I will never ever love anyone again?
Then you think about how, man if things could just be different we could be together again?

Both of you went on to better things - usually.
But that break is HARD.

You grow to love a church and it's people. But sometimes things change, and just like in a relationship you come to realize no matter how much you love someone or something you realize that things have changed, you can't live with the change, and it's best for the break-up.

Git could be feeling some of that. I know, cause I'm currently one of those "hanging by a thread" Anglicans (as I think some of you are aware by some of my "hysteria".) I don't know what Git's reasons are, mine came when in 03 when they voted down the motion to continue following S,T, and R.

As someone stated earlier, the pendulum could swing back the other way - but that's a symptom of a bipolar disorder :) .

For Git though do me a favor. Love him and try to show support for him and realize that this is a type of heartache for him. I know, I'm there too.

If he can't talk to you guys about it, who can he talk to? He's not trying to flame the church, but just explain some of his reasonings - kind of thinking out loud, if I don't miss my guess.
Besides, I'm the one always going off - not Git.

I'll write something soon I'm sure, as I sit here wearing my brand new Caterpillar cap. :)

Git, my prayers for you brother:crossrc:

[Aymn27]

I fail to see what is wrong with the description
roflmao!! I knew you wouldn't!!! LOLOL.....I love ya Naomi (even though I don't agree with ya always!!)

[higgs2]

roflmao!! I knew you wouldn't!!! LOLOL.....I love ya Naomi (even though I don't agree with ya always!!)


:thumbsup: :D I know, isn't she great? :D

[Naomi4Christ]

:thumbsup: :D I know, isn't she great? :D

:o

:)

[Fish and Bread]

Hey, someone's awake. :) How is your morning going, Noami? It's still evening hereabouts. Well, 2:25am, which I suppose is technically morning, but it's dark. :)

[Naomi4Christ]

Hey, someone's awake. :) How is your morning going, Noami? It's still evening hereabouts. Well, 2:25am, which I suppose is technically morning, but it's dark. :)

I'm catching some Olympic action and about to get everyone ready to be out the door for church.

[Fish and Bread]

I'm catching some Olympic action and about to get everyone ready to be out the door for church.

For some reason, I've never really been a big fan of the Olympics. I think it's because whenever I find an Olympic sport that I'm vaguely interested in, such as basketball, baseball, or hockey, the coverage goes something like this: Five minutes of action, followed by seven minutes of commericals even though there is only a one minute break in play, followed by a cutaway to ballroom dancing or some such, followed by seven more minutes of commercials, etc. In the end, I can only see a very small portion of the games I want to watch, because of all the cutaways to other events I don't want to watch and commercial breaks that overlap with the action. So, I gave up on the Olympics around 1992. :) Hopefully the coverage overseas is a bit better!

[Naomi4Christ]

For some reason, I've never really been a big fan of Hopefully the coverage overseas is a bit better!

It's not hard to be better than US coverage!

We are very blessed with TV coverage of major sporting events. The BBC, which is commercial free, covers everything and you virtually watch what you want via the interactive TV (as many as 8 different live feeds). We also have Eurosport which is fairly comprehensive.

[higgs2]

:o

:)

:wave: :wave: :wave:

:kiss:

:cool:

[Naomi4Christ]

But, that is because you don't see any need to know much about eucharistic theology.

Correct. There is no need to know anything about theology or any other form of knowledge in order to be saved. The key thing is faith. I'm sorry that you find faith in reading just about any academic reference book, and not in the Bible itself.

That is not to say that I have read nothing about the Christian faith outside of the Bible. I have a reasonable bookshelf, if I say so myself. But I don't need to read these books for my own faith, although I do find them useful in my teaching ministry. There is a big difference between needing and wanting.

If you are genuinely currious, I would suggest Schemann's For The Life of the World.

And I recommend to you, Evangelical Eucharistic Thought in the Church of England by Christopher Cocksworth

[gtsecc]

And I recommend to you, Evangelical Eucharistic Thought in the Church of England by Christopher Cocksworth
Ok.
I'll make you a deal.
You read
For the Life of the World: Sacraments and Orthodoxy (Paperback)
by Alexander Schmemann (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author-exact=Alexander%20Schmemann&rank=-relevance%2C%2Bavailability%2C-daterank/103-7729036-4187023)
and I'll read Evangelicals Eucharistic Thought in the Church of England.

[Wiffey]

The Schmemann book is a good read. gtsecc, you'd also probably enjoy Lossky. I know that (on the Eastern end of things) folks usually reference & recommend Kallistos Ware, but I think some of his writings are a little bit introductory and basic for folks who are used to meatier fare.
I like to read a wide variety of books from across the theological spectrum, so I'll keep a lookout at the bookstore for that Cocksworth book, Naomi!

[gtsecc]

I have read a few pages from Vladamir Lossky's The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, but it did nto grab me immediately. However, I will go back and read it because it is supposed to be really great. Of the modern Orthodox Theologians, I prefer Breck, Schmemann, and Ware.

[karen freeinchristman]

What a great idea for us to all try and understand 'the other' side! :thumbsup:

[AngCath]

I have read a few pages from Vladamir Lossky's The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, but it did nto grab me immediately. However, I will go back and read it because it is supposed to be really great. Of the modern Orthodox Theologians, I prefer Breck, Schmemann, and Ware.

A great book. I have read it several times.

[TomUK]

What a great idea for us to all try and understand 'the other' side! :thumbsup:

Around a year ago i read 'evangelicalism: the future of Christianity' at the same time as i read 'evangelical is not enough'. It was fascinating to read them both in tandem and helped me understand both traditions in greater depth.

[gtsecc]

What a great idea for us to all try and understand 'the other' side! :thumbsup:

I have read plenty on the other side.
I think it is important to know these sort of things so we have all views presented.

Now, I have a huge group of Christian friends, but I do see one thing that is a bit strange. The more orthodox folks have read all the evangelical stuff. However, the evangelicals, have not read any of the more orthodox stuff like Chesterton or Schemmann or Ware or Athanasius. Why is that?

[Yahweh Nissi]

I have read plenty on the other side.
I think it is important to know these sort of things so we have all views presented.

Now, I have a huge group of Christian friends, but I do see one thing that is a bit strange. The more orthodox folks have read all the evangelical stuff. However, the evangelicals, have not read any of the more orthodox stuff like Chesterton or Schemmann or Ware or Athanasius. Why is that?

I am an evangelical and I have read three books by Chesterton (Everlasing Man, Orthodoxy and biography of Francis Assisi, an overview of EO theology (written by a Protestant, but from a very sympathetic angle) - the author index of which has more references to Schmemmann, Ware and Lossky then anyone else, and I am currently reading a translation of "On the Incarnation" by Athanasius, so :P

;)

However, you do bring up a valid point, I have noticed that, in general, evangelicals can tend to be a bit clossetted in their reading. But whilst being widely read does have benefits, and I think people should try to make an effort build their understanding of other traditions/views/etc, as Naomi says, it is not all that important. Building our relationship with God, living a Godly life, reaching out with the Gospel, loving our brothers and sisters and all our neighbours the world over (if you think I have missed anything then I am probably including them in the above) are the crucial things. Reading books from a wide variety of views can certainly aid these aims, but there is a danger of 'a broad view' becoming an end in itself and distracting from the important matters. Pride in my learing and looking down on less 'intelectual' brothers and sisters, who in all things that matter to God usually put me to shame, is a sin that I often have to battle against and flee from temptation to feel like this.

God bless,
love YN.

[Naomi4Christ]

Building our relationship with God, living a Godly life, reaching out with the Gospel, loving our brothers and sisters and all our neighbours the world over (if you think I have missed anything then I am probably including them in the above) are the crucial things. Reading books from a wide variety of views can certainly aid these aims, but there is a danger of 'a broad view' becoming an end in itself and distracting from the important matters. Pride in my learing and looking down on less 'intelectual' brothers and sisters, who in all things that matter to God usually put me to shame, is a sin that I often have to battle against and flee from temptation to feel like this.

God bless,
love YN.

It never fails to amaze me the amount of wisdom we have among the young people on this board. Great post, YN.

[gtsecc]

it is not all that important. Building our relationship with God, living a Godly life, reaching out with the Gospel, loving our brothers and sisters and all our neighbours the world over (if you think I have missed anything then I am probably including them in the above) are the crucial things. Reading books from a wide variety of views can certainly aid these aims, but there is a danger of 'a broad view' becoming an end in itself and distracting from the important matters. Pride in my learing and looking down on less 'intelectual' brothers and sisters, who in all things that matter to God usually put me to shame, is a sin that I often have to battle against and flee from temptation to feel like this.

God bless,
love YN.

Beign loving and buildign a relationship with God are nto unique to Christinaity.
I can be muslim, Jewish, or Hindu and do all of those things.

[Naomi4Christ]

Beign loving and buildign a relationship with God are nto unique to Christinaity.
I can be muslim, Jewish, or Hindu and do all of those things.

Being a Christian is about being holy - set apart to live the life that God wants for us. We do not conform to the ways of the world, but to God's ways. Being holy is a process that grows from the moment of becoming a Christian.

It's not, in itself, about being nice. Of course, that is what God wants for us but our standard of niceness is so short of his. The key thing is to improve year on year.

[Wiffey]

It's true...we can read every book in the world and have a masterful grasp of every theological concept...and if we have no faith and our hearts are full of hate, then we're lost. We do fall into the trap sometimes of overintellectualizing...when it would do more good to simply be kinder.

Certainly, theological study has its place, but it can never replace worship, repentance, and a loving heart.

[gtsecc]

You can also have a wonderful heart, but not be Christian.
For example, a very loving Jehovah's Witness calls upon the name of Christ.

[Wiffey]

Very true. It takes faith, but I don't think it necessarily takes a master's degree in theology. Example: I used to work with Down's syndrome kids. Very loving kids, very kind. They will probably get to heaven long before me.

The point being that it takes faith, not perfection. If I work to understand the Faith to the best of my ability, but am only 99% correct...will God reject me when I love Him and have tried my best to seek Him and serve Him? Is getting into heaven like taking the SAT's?

Not that theology isn't important...but it isn't the only thing. A vibrant faith and a close relationship with Christ may be more important than being able to define how many angels can dance on the head of a pin...

[Naomi4Christ]

Very true. It takes faith, but I don't think it necessarily takes a master's degree in theology. Example: I used to work with Down's syndrome kids. Very loving kids, very kind. They will probably get to heaven long before me.

The point being that it takes faith, not perfection. If I work to understand the Faith to the best of my ability, but am only 99% correct...will God reject me when I love Him and have tried my best to seek Him and serve Him? Is getting into heaven like taking the SAT's?

Not that theology isn't important...but it isn't the only thing. A vibrant faith and a close relationship with Christ may be more important than being able to define how many angels can dance on the head of a pin...

I agree.

Theology is hard work (and I'm not fick) and you have to be fairly motivated to want to figure your way through it. I don't think it says anywhere in the bible that you have to have an IQ of 140 to enter the kingdom of heaven. The message is a lot simpler than that.

[karen freeinchristman]

edit *first of 9 multi-posts!*

[karen freeinchristman]

edit *multi-post*

[karen freeinchristman]

edit again

[karen freeinchristman]

and again

[karen freeinchristman]

*once more with feelin'*

[karen freeinchristman]

*give it away, give it away now*

[karen freeinchristman]

edit *multi-post*!

[karen freeinchristman]

edit *multi-post*!

[karen freeinchristman]

I don't think it says anywhere in the bible that you have to have an IQ of 140 to enter the kingdom of heaven. The message is a lot simpler than that.

That is certainly true, just think of some of the people God used throughout the OT, and also the Apostles - pretty normal people, without University degrees, etc.

I am thankful that we don't have to be clever to have faith. But I am also one of those people who are kind of like a sponge - I love to read theological books; I soak it all up gladly. (I don't retain it well, though :sigh: )

[karen freeinchristman]

Wow! Something weird happened with my post! :D
Great way to earn blessings, I guess???

Sorry everybody!

[Naomi4Christ]

That's one way to get your post count up!!!

[karen freeinchristman]

That's one way to get your post count up!!!

:D


:blush:


:sorry:

[pmcleanj]

edit *multi-post*!
Try this, just so I know it's not a manifestation of my magical moderating powers.


Click "Edit" for one of the multi-posts. Your post reappears in an edit window.
Click the "Delete" button at the bottom right of the Edit window that appears for your post.
Click the "delete this post" button that appears on the bottom left
Enter a reason if you want to
Click Save.


I was under the impression that with this new software, we can delete our own posts; but maybe it's just me.

[karen freeinchristman]

Try this, just so I know it's not a manifestation of my magical moderating powers.

Click "Edit" for one of the multi-posts. Your post reappears in an edit window.
Click the "Delete" button at the bottom right of the Edit window that appears for your post.
Click the "delete this post" button that appears on the bottom left
Enter a reason if you want to
Click Save.
I was under the impression that with this new software, we can delete our own posts; but maybe it's just me.

I do not see any 'delete this post' button!

[SirTimothy]

Pamela, not to my knowledge. We run this version of vbulletin and I think only mods can delete posts.

Timothy

[gtsecc]

Anyway, this thread is partially about Eucharistic theology, not how much does one love Jesus.

You could be an atheist, and have better knowledge of Eucharistic theology than a lot of Christians.

Isn't it sort of dishonest to sort of weigh in, like one has a theological opinion, then when it is challenged, say I don't have to read theology texts and have a high IQ to be Christian?

Wouldn’t it be better to say either:
“I have no opinion,” (or “I have an uninformed opinion,”) or,
“I have this opinion,” and I can trace it to or back it up with these writers x,y,z?

[TomUK]

*give it away, give it away now*

You listening to the Chilli Peppers, Karen?

[artrx]

I am thankful that we don't have to be clever to have faith. But I am also one of those people who are kind of like a sponge - I love to read theological books; I soak it all up gladly. (I don't retain it well, though :sigh: )

I know the feeling!! The retention powers seem to be diminishing with age.:sigh:

(Also I'm glad I'm not the only one guilty of confused multiposting;) )

[Naomi4Christ]

Anyway, this thread is partially about Eucharistic theology, not how much does one love Jesus.



Let's hope that loving Jesus and striving to be like him is miles ahead of Eucharistic theology.

[gtsecc]

Let's hope that loving Jesus and striving to be like him is miles ahead of Eucharistic theology.
Of course, but you can say that about anything.
Let me give an example:
This could be a thread about how to make cookies, and you could suggest that, but it would be a distraction to the issue brought up. If someone wants to know whether it is 1/2 teaspoon of baking powder or 1 teaspoon, it is great to say Let's hope that loving Jesus and striving to be like him is miles ahead of a batch of cookies. But, it is just a veiled attempt to divert the issue at hand that you don’t want to deal with.


In the end - you seem to be intelligent, but highly resistant to reading or learning things not from your tradition. Weather it is a snippy remark, or whatever your method is, you don't want to read anything that challenges your particular view point.

[karen freeinchristman]

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other."

[gtsecc]

At least I have a true faith that doesn't need dressing up, which is something that no amount of reading Catholic literature will give me. I know what I prefer.

Catholics (Anglicans, Romans, and Orthodox) would reply that the liturgy is what God prefers - what a person prefers is unimportant or antagonistic to God, and that praise music is "dressing" up the liturgy for the pleasure of the congregants. I say this simply in the hopes that you woudl understand the reason others take a differnt approach. I say this in love and good faith. For you to think that Catholics have a faith that doesn't hold unless dressed up, shows that you either don't understand Catholics, or you want to insult them.

[higgs2]

You both need to stop it. Off to your time out corners. Now I want to hear 3 nice things about the other from each of you.

[higgs2]

I don't think I am biased, actually. Or maybe my bias changes back and forth.

Anyhow, I dare you to try to think of 3 nice things to say about Naomi. And I would like to see her do the same about you.

I really like both of you a lot. :)

[higgs2]

And I think your idea about reading each others book recommendations is brilliant, gtsecc. I hope you'll both do it.

[gtsecc]

She is smart.
She is zealous.
She likes Keeping Up Appearances.

[copticorthodoxy]

Real body and real blood for the lord Jesus Christ . Amen !

[higgs2]

She is smart.
She is zealous.
She likes Keeping Up Appearances.
If the third one refers to a television show then I guess you get full credit :)

[gtsecc]

Items Ordered Price 1 : Evangelical Eucharistic Thought in the Church of England (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521891582/103-7729036-4187023?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance) [Paperback]
By: Christopher J. Cocksworth
$29.99
Amazon Prime: Two-Day Shipping is free - 1 item(s) Gift options: None https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/common/buttons/sm-tan-change.gif (https://www.amazon.com/gp/css/order/edit.html/103-7729036-4187023?%5Fencoding=UTF8&ASIN=0521891582&lineItemID=kknkmtpnqrnx&useCase=gift&orderID=103-0700545-2811844&itemID=kknkmtpnqrn)

[higgs2]

Items Ordered Price 1 : Evangelical Eucharistic Thought in the Church of England (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521891582/103-7729036-4187023?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance) [Paperback]
By: Christopher J. Cocksworth
$29.99
Amazon Prime: Two-Day Shipping is free - 1 item(s) Gift options: None https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/common/buttons/sm-tan-change.gif (https://www.amazon.com/gp/css/order/edit.html/103-7729036-4187023?%5Fencoding=UTF8&ASIN=0521891582&lineItemID=kknkmtpnqrnx&useCase=gift&orderID=103-0700545-2811844&itemID=kknkmtpnqrn)
That is so great! Naomi, are you in???

(I wonder if it's past her bedtime, i get confused by the time difference.)

[TomUK]

It's just past midnight here.

[higgs2]

It's just past midnight here.
She's probably sleeping then. And what are you doing up so late, Tom?

[TomUK]

I'm a student (well, trainee teacher). Late nights and alcohol are par for the course!

[karen freeinchristman]

That is so great! Naomi, are you in???



blessed are the peacemakers...

[Yahweh Nissi]

Anyway, this thread is partially about Eucharistic theology, not how much does one love Jesus.

You could be an atheist, and have better knowledge of Eucharistic theology than a lot of Christians.

Isn't it sort of dishonest to sort of weigh in, like one has a theological opinion, then when it is challenged, say I don't have to read theology texts and have a high IQ to be Christian?

Wouldn’t it be better to say either:
“I have no opinion,” (or “I have an uninformed opinion,”) or,
“I have this opinion,” and I can trace it to or back it up with these writers x,y,z?

To be fair, I do not think that anyone said these things as a defense to being unable to back up their ideas about the Eucharist, but in response to your post and the discussion that then followed about reading from a range of traditions.

As to your 'other faiths build a relationship with God and can be nice people' points, other faiths may try to build this relationship and be 'nice' by wordly standards, but I believe (but did not explicitly say in my post for reasons of brevity and had hoped would be assumed) that only through Christ, the way, truth and life, can one have a relationship with God, and only in Him can one be anything other than a sinner and a rebel against God. And the uniquely Christian institution of the Lord's Supper is a normative means by which we recieve grace to do this. Therefore, although I am not exactly sure of the point you were wishing to make, I think that we basically agree?

Regarding the origional point of the thread - it seems to basically be a memorialist position (like that esposed by Zwingli as some have said), that Eucharist is nothing but a commemoration. I certainly disagree with this, and it is not the traditional view of Anglicanism or much of wider Protestantism. The Lutherian view of consubstantiation is not that different to the RC view. The 39 Articles say that something more is going on; "Sacrements ... be not only badges or tokens" (XXV), " ... the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ. ..." (XXVIII). As does the Westminister Confession; "Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrement, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive and feed upon, Christ crucified ... " (Ch 29.7). Wayne Grudem, a Baptist, says in his systematic theology; "Today, most Protestants would say, in addition to the fact that the bread and wine symbolise the body and blood of Christ, that Christ is also spiritually present in a special way as we partake of the bread and wine." (Author's emphasis). "In what way is Christ present then? Certainly there is a symbolic presence of Christ, but it is also a genuine spiritual presence and there is genuine spiritual blessing in this ceremony." (p 995 & 996).

I take what some posters have said about the ECUSA page being for interested newcomers, not a detailed description of the church's eucharistic theology, but it is not unreasonable to expect some indication that something more then just a commemoration is going on.

God bless,
love YN.

[higgs2]

blessed are the peacemakers...
Does one have to be a *successful* peacemaker to be blessed do you suppose? :sigh:

[SeenAndUnseen]

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/19625_14314_ENG_HTM.htm

Eucharist

The sacrament of Christ's body and blood, and the principal act of Christian worship. The term is from the Greek, "thanksgiving." Jesus instituted the eucharist "on the night when he was betrayed." At the Last Supper he shared the bread and cup of wine at a sacred meal with his disciples. He identified the bread with his body and the wine with his blood of the new covenant. Jesus commanded his disciples to "do this" in remembrance of him (see 1 Cor 11:23-26; Mk 14:22-25; Mt 26:26-29; Lk 22:14-20). Christ's sacrifice is made present by the eucharist, and in it we are united to his one self-offering (BCP, p. 859). The Last Supper provides the basis for the fourfold eucharistic action of taking, blessing, breaking, and sharing. Christ's body and blood are really present in the sacrament of the eucharist and received by faith. Christ's presence is also known in the gathered eucharistic community.
In the BCP, the whole service is entitled the Holy Eucharist. The first part of the service is designated the Word of God. It usually includes the entrance rite, the lessons and gradual psalm, the gospel, the sermon, the Nicene Creed, the prayers of the people, the confession of sin and absolution, and the peace. The second portion of the service is designated the Holy Communion. It includes the offertory, the consecration of the bread and wine in the Great Thanksgiving, the communion of the people, and the concluding prayers of thanksgiving and dismissal. A blessing may be given prior to the dismissal.
The eucharist is also called the Lord's Supper, Holy Communion, the Divine Liturgy, the Mass, and the Great Offertory (BCP, p. 859). The Hymnal 1982 includes a section with a variety of hymns for the Holy Eucharist (300-347), including "Come, risen Lord, and deign to be our guest" (305-306), "My God, thy table now is spread" (321), "Now, my tongue, the mystery telling" (329-331), and "I am the bread of life" (335).

To me, Eucharistic theology is a major hurdle. I find the lack of consensus among Anglican laity (as to what we do indeed believe) to be disheartening at times to the point of making me look back at the RC church and wonder if I might really belong there. What I have pasted above comes from the ECUSA website's dictionary of terms, and I assume it represents our "official" belief. Would anyone argue it?

[higgs2]

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/19625_14314_ENG_HTM.htm

Eucharist

The sacrament of Christ's body and blood, and the principal act of Christian worship. The term is from the Greek, "thanksgiving." Jesus instituted the eucharist "on the night when he was betrayed." At the Last Supper he shared the bread and cup of wine at a sacred meal with his disciples. He identified the bread with his body and the wine with his blood of the new covenant. Jesus commanded his disciples to "do this" in remembrance of him (see 1 Cor 11:23-26; Mk 14:22-25; Mt 26:26-29; Lk 22:14-20). Christ's sacrifice is made present by the eucharist, and in it we are united to his one self-offering (BCP, p. 859). The Last Supper provides the basis for the fourfold eucharistic action of taking, blessing, breaking, and sharing. Christ's body and blood are really present in the sacrament of the eucharist and received by faith. Christ's presence is also known in the gathered eucharistic community.
In the BCP, the whole service is entitled the Holy Eucharist. The first part of the service is designated the Word of God. It usually includes the entrance rite, the lessons and gradual psalm, the gospel, the sermon, the Nicene Creed, the prayers of the people, the confession of sin and absolution, and the peace. The second portion of the service is designated the Holy Communion. It includes the offertory, the consecration of the bread and wine in the Great Thanksgiving, the communion of the people, and the concluding prayers of thanksgiving and dismissal. A blessing may be given prior to the dismissal.
The eucharist is also called the Lord's Supper, Holy Communion, the Divine Liturgy, the Mass, and the Great Offertory (BCP, p. 859). The Hymnal 1982 includes a section with a variety of hymns for the Holy Eucharist (300-347), including "Come, risen Lord, and deign to be our guest" (305-306), "My God, thy table now is spread" (321), "Now, my tongue, the mystery telling" (329-331), and "I am the bread of life" (335).

To me, Eucharistic theology is a major hurdle. I find the lack of consensus among Anglican laity (as to what we do indeed believe) to be disheartening at times to the point of making me look back at the RC church and wonder if I might really belong there. What I have pasted above comes from the ECUSA website's dictionary of terms, and I assume it represents our "official" belief. Would anyone argue it?
I wouldn't argue with any of it, looks good to me.

It really doesn't bother me that some anglicans believe in transubstantiation and some believe the Eucharist is more a memorial, neither of which I agree with. I love it that our church is so diverse.

[gtsecc]

It bothers me if they see it merely as a memorial because that a view of the central act of Christianity which isn't a belief held by Christians anywhere for over 1,500 years.

[Fish and Bread]

Christ's body and blood are really present in the sacrament of the eucharist and received by faith.

This sentence is the historic Anglican belief. We tend not to define it beyond that as a community, allowing people to have their own opinions and just agree on the basic premise. The memorial-only stuff is a fairly recent innovation and I don't think I've ever seen a bishop teach it, apart from maybe Bishop Spong (And even there, I'm not sure he's said it explicitly).

[SeenAndUnseen]

It bothers me if they see it merely as a memorial because that a view of the central act of Christianity which isn't a belief held by Christians anywhere for over 1,500 years.

Do you think that this definition of Eucharist (above )indicates only a memorial observance, or something more?

[gtsecc]

Do you think that this definition of Eucharist (above )indicates only a memorial observance, or something more?
I think Christianity has always said it was both:
1. a memorial, and
2. Christ is really present.

Any other position is not compatible with how Christianity was confessed since the beginning, is it?

[Yahweh Nissi]

The deffinition posted by S&U seems fine to me - it is the one posted at the beginning of the thread that seems to suggest a purely memorialist position, which I think gtsecc is right to not be happy about.

[gtsecc]

The deffinition posted by S&U seems fine to me - it is the one posted at the beginning of the thread that seems to suggest a purely memorialist position, which I think gtsecc is right to not be happy about.
Yes.
But why are not ALL Christian firm in this?
Why don't Christians, or at least the ones on this message board, speak with one voice and say this is not a Christian confession since the beggining.

[higgs2]

Yes.
But why are not ALL Christian firm in this?
Why don't Christians, or at least the ones on this message board, speak with one voice and say this is not a Christian confession since the beggining.

We are not all involved in a war to "defend" the faith. It is just okay with some of us that not everyone is completely in agreement on the nature of the Eucharist. And the OP did not say it was *purely* memorial. It could have gone a bit farther about the real presence, I would have preferred that. But it did not break my heart and make me want to become a Roman Catholic.

[gtsecc]

We are not all involved in a war to "defend" the faith. It is just okay with some of us that not everyone is completely in agreement on the nature of the Eucharist. And the OP did not say it was *purely* memorial. It could have gone a bit farther about the real presence, I would have preferred that. But it did not break my heart and make me want to become a Roman Catholic.

I think Anglicans DO have to defend the faith in a way that Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox don't.

It does break my heart, but I would be more likely to go to the EO than the RC.

To some extent, if a belief is not compatible with Christianity, don't you have some obligation to defend it?

[Naomi4Christ]

I think Anglicans DO have to defend the faith in a way that Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox don't.

It does break my heart, but I would be more likely to go to the EO than the RC.

To some extent, if a belief is not compatible with Christianity, don't you have some obligation to defend it?

:confused:

[higgs2]

I think Anglicans DO have to defend the faith in a way that Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox don't.

It does break my heart, but I would be more likely to go to the EO than the RC.

To some extent, if a belief is not compatible with Christianity, don't you have some obligation to defend it?
I don't feel like the faith is attacked. I think things in the ECUSA are going great and those who are being disruptive will either leave or fade away. I don't want to be in a church where everyone is told what to believe like the RC's. If some people think the "real presence" is just spiritual, and others insist on "transubstantiation" then fine. We have a broad church. Not mentioning the real presence on a visitor's web site is not anti-christian. My presbyterian and baptist friends are not anti-christian.

[gtsecc]

My presbyterian and baptist friends are not anti-christian.
Of course not, but you would not say they have the fullness of the faith either, would you?

[higgs2]

Of course not, but you would not say they have the fullness of the faith either, would you?
Gtsecc, "the fullness of the faith" is not a phrase that really every passes my lips. I would say that I think we are "righter" than they are -- *maybe*. Maybe I would say that. If they asked. But I don't feel a need to defend against anything. If they want to eat crackers and drink grape juice and use little tiny cups and have those holes in the back of the pews to store the little tine cups (which is how I grew up btw) then fine. I don't belong to that kind of church, though, because I want to have the Eucharist as it is in ECUSA churches. But why should I have to defend anything "against" them? It's just a different mentality I guess.

[Naomi4Christ]

Of course not, but you would not say they have the fullness of the faith either, would you?

If you think you find fullness of faith in the Lord's Supper, you are sadly mistaken.

[gtsecc]

If you think you find fullness of faith in the Lord's Supper, you are sadly mistaken.
I never said that.
But, do you want to know more, or just quibble with me?
I ordered the book you suggested.
Did you order the one I suggested?

[gtsecc]

Gtsecc, "the fullness of the faith" is not a phrase that really every passes my lips. I would say that I think we are "righter" than they are -- *maybe*. Maybe I would say that. If they asked. But I don't feel a need to defend against anything. If they want to eat crackers and drink grape juice and use little tiny cups and have those holes in the back of the pews to store the little tine cups (which is how I grew up btw) then fine. I don't belong to that kind of church, though, because I want to have the Eucharist as it is in ECUSA churches. But why should I have to defend anything "against" them? It's just a different mentality I guess.
Sure, but it isn't exactly a preference thing is it?
It isn't like you have 31 flavors of Jesus, and you get to pick which one makes you feel the best is it?
We want Anglicans to know that we believe in the real presence, because that is the faith. It isn't a matter of style or personal choice.

[pmcleanj]

If you think you find fullness of faith in the Lord's Supper, you are sadly mistaken.
Could you expand on this, a bit, Naomi? What do you mean by "the fullness of faith" -- is it an emotive experience, an expression of conversion, an action, an intellectual understanding? How does the Lord's Supper fall short?

I am at heart a traditional low-churcher, but I take the Lord's Supper to heart as the most powerful central act of the worshipping community. Certainly, its meaning comes in part from the context of Word, Prayer, Community and Mission in which it is celebrated. Without those, it is relatively useless, like a diamond without a setting. But for me, it is the worship act that unites and centres all those other parts of the Christian Life and places them in their proper context of sacredness and community.

The Eucharist isn't something I get into many debates defending. It simply is -- but participating in it remains far from trivial in my worship life.

[higgs2]

Sure, but it isn't exactly a preference thing is it?
It isn't like you have 31 flavors of Jesus, and you get to pick which one makes you feel the best is it?
We want Anglicans to know that we believe in the real presence, because that is the faith. It isn't a matter of style or personal choice.

Well as usual Pamela expressed it better than I ever could. Her description of the importance, the centrality of the Eucharist as well as her statement in the last 2sentences of the post.

What are we disagreeing about, gtsecc? I'm lost.

[Naomi4Christ]

Could you expand on this, a bit, Naomi? What do you mean by "the fullness of faith" -- is it an emotive experience, an expression of conversion, an action, an intellectual understanding? How does the Lord's Supper fall short?


Well, it was Glen that brought it up. I was merely pointing out that there is far more to the Christian life than one part of a worship act.

[julian the apostate]

Jesus said "take and eat", not take and understand

C.S. Lewis

[gtsecc]

Well as usual Pamela expressed it better than I ever could. Her description of the importance, the centrality of the Eucharist as well as her statement in the last 2sentences of the post.

What are we disagreeing about, gtsecc? I'm lost.


You and I may be agreeing.

I am saying:

What the Eucharist is, isn’t a matter of personal opinion.

What the Eucharist is, is a central tenant of Christianity such that subtle differences are worth arguing about.

[gtsecc]

Jesus said "take and eat", not take and understand

C.S. Lewis
That quote means taht he accepts the real Presence, but that he doesn't fully understand "how."

[pmcleanj]

Jesus said "take and eat", not take and understand

C.S. Lewis
Woooo Hoooo! Julian's back!!:clap:

[gtsecc]

[/color][/size][/font]

Well, it was Glen that brought it up. I was merely pointing out that there is far more to the Christian life than one part of a worship act.

But, I never implied that it was.
I think you know that, but you don't want to answer.

[Naomi4Christ]

That quote means taht he accepts the real Presence, but that he doesn't fully understand "how."

You got all that from those few words?

[higgs2]

You and I may be agreeing.

I am saying:

What the Eucharist is, isn’t a matter of personal opinion.

What the Eucharist is, is a central tenant of Christianity such that subtle differences are worth arguing about.
Okay let me think about this and gather my thoughts.

[pmcleanj]

You and I may be agreeing.

I am saying:

What the Eucharist is, isn’t a matter of personal opinion.

What the Eucharist is, is a central tenant of Christianity such that subtle differences are worth arguing about.
Actually, I wonder if I could shift the focus of that last sentence just a hair.

The Eucharist is the central worship act, which is also a visceral and incarnational act, by which we are formed into a community. Like baptism, it is transformational and grafts us into God's family, because by it we become blood of His Blood and flesh of His flesh.

So, subtle differences are worth understanding and listening to. We might particularly care to understand how each of us is engaged and affected by participation in the Lord's Supper. "Arguing about" it could, I suppose, include that kind of listening discourse that builds understanding. When "arguing about" it starts to build hurt, alienation and misunderstanding, I'd say it destroys the very communion that is the highest manifestation of the Lord's Supper.


=====================

BTW, I think I know why I can't replicate your formatting bug.
In your CF Control Panel "Edit Options", are you using the WYSIWYG option? My guess is, if you set it back to the "enhanced options" setting, your problem might go away. Of course, you also won't have the WYSIWYG feature, but then, you don't really have it now, either, right?

[ChessCastle]

I am saying:

What the Eucharist is, isn’t a matter of personal opinion.

What the Eucharist is, is a central tenant of Christianity such that subtle differences are worth arguing about.

I agree 100%

CC