On 23/09/2009 15:10, "Charlie J. Ray" <cranmer1959@gmail.com> wrote:
Re: Classical Anglicanism and the Real Presence of Christ...
The theological errors committed in this piece are too numerous to answer in a mere comment at the end of the page. However, for starters Article 29 clearly forbids any idea of real presence in, with, or under the elements. In other words, the bread and wine are not consubstantially the body and blood of Christ as this author mistakenly asserts.
Second of all, Calvin does not assert what the author asserts that he asserted. In fact, anyone reading the introductory remarks of Calvin in the Institutes on the topic will note immediately that Calvin views the reception to be by faith, i.e. "in" the believer and NOT in the elements:
"First, we must attend to what a sacrament is. It seems to me, then, a simple and appropriate definition to say, that it is an external sign, by which the Lord seals on our consciences his promises of good-will toward us, in order to sustain the weakness of our faith, and we in our turn testify our piety towards him, both before himself, and before angels as well as men. We may also define more briefly by calling it a testimony of the divine favour toward us, confirmed by an external sign, with a corresponding attestation of our faith towards Him."
Calvin, J., & Beveridge, H. (1996). Institutes of the Christian religion (electronic ed.) (IV, xiv, 1). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems.
A sacrament, according to Calvin, is a matter of attesting our faith towards God and it is an external sign that "seals on our CONSCIENCES" and sustains "the weakness of our faith." How in the world someone can twist this around to support "real presence" as Anglo-Catholics and others contend is beyond me!
Calvin further particularizes his view as a "spiritual eating" and which is very similar to Cranmer's Zwinglian view:
"The sum is, that the flesh and blood of Christ feed our souls just as bread and wine maintain and support our corporeal life. For there would be no aptitude in the sign, did not our souls find their nourishment in Christ. This could not be, did not Christ truly form one with us, and refresh us by the eating of his flesh, and the drinking of his blood. But though it seems an incredible thing that the flesh of Christ, while at such a distance from us in respect of place, should be food to us, let us remember how far the secret virtue of the Holy Spirit surpasses all our conceptions, and how foolish it is to wish to measure its immensity by our feeble capacity. Therefore, what our mind does not comprehend let faith conceive—viz. that the Spirit truly unites things separated by space. That sacred communion of flesh and blood by which Christ transfuses his life into us, just as if it penetrated our bones and marrow, he testifies and seals in the Supper, and that not by presenting a vain or empty sign, but by there exerting an efficacy of the Spirit by which he fulfils what he promises. And truly the thing there signified he exhibits and offers to all who sit down at that spiritual feast, although it is beneficially received by believers only who receive this great benefit with true faith and heartfelt gratitude."
Calvin, J., & Beveridge, H. (1996). Institutes of the Christian religion (electronic ed.) (IV, xvii, 10). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems.
Furthermore, the position of the Articles and the 1662 Prayer Book is not one of real presence in the elements themselves but rather the Zwinglian view which our friend above misunderstands as a "empty" sign. The sign is only "empty" if one does not have real faith, as Calvin states above. It is only beneficial to those who have genuine faith. But Calvin says it is not mere faith in Christ and merely an external sign but it is a faith that spiritually feeds upon the virtual body and blood of Christ, which the bread and wine "signify".
Cranmer himself is even more direct:
"But let all these papists together show any one authority, either of Scripture, or of ancient author, either Greek or Latin, that saith as they say, that Christ called not bread and wine his body and blood, but individuum vagum; for my part I shall give them place, and confess that they say true."
"And if they can show nothing for them of antiquity, but only their own bare words, then it is reason that they give place to the truth confirmed by so many authorities, both of Scripture and of ancient writers, which is, that Christ called very material bread his body, and very wine made of grapes his blood."
"Now this being fully proved, it must needs follow consequently, that this manner of speaking is a figurative speech: for in plain and proper speech it is not true to say, that bread is Christ's body, or wine his blood. For Christ's body hath a soul, life, sense, and reason: but bread hath neither soul, life, sense, nor reason."
"Likewise in plain speech it is not true, that we eat Christ's body, and drink his blood. For eating and drinking, in their proper and usual signification, is with the tongue, teeth, and lips to swallow, divide, and chaw in pieces: which thing to do to the flesh and blood of Christ, is horrible to be heard of any Christian."
"So that these speeches, "To eat Christ's body," "and drink his blood," "To call bread his body," "or wine his blood," be speeches not taken in the proper signification of every word, but by translation of these words, "eating" and "drinking," from the signification of a corporal thing to signify a spiritual thing; and by calling a thing that signifieth, by the name of the thing which is signified thereby: which is no rare nor strange thing, but an usual manner and phrase in common speech."
[Archbishop Thomas Cranmer. A Defense of the True and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Our Saviour Christ. (East Essex: Focus Ministries Trust, 1987). Reprint.
I might add that the Declaration of Principles of the REC do likewise condemn ANY real presence IN the bread or wine, WHATSOEVER. Anyone reading the historical documents of the REC at "objective" historical websites can see this plainly. The trouble is the REC has sold out to the Anglo-Catholics and have now adopted the postmodern revisionism hermeneutic to make their own Declaration of Principles say what they PLAINLY DO NOT SAY! It is this sort of dishonesty that eventually leads to saying homosexuality is a "gift" of God rather than a curse of the sinful nature!
How long will it be before the REC and the ACNA start to question the immorality of homosexuality? How long before they begin to endorse what they now oppose? I give it maybe 30 years at most. Before long the ACNA and TEC will be one again. They will be asking each other why there was a split?
The fact of the matter is this: when ministers and theologians have to lie and dissimulate to justify a doctrine (real presence) it will not be long before that same approach is applied to other issues, including Scriptural authority on justification by faith alone. All of this, I would contend, leads inevitably to the precipice of theological relativism and compromise.
It truly is amazing how often the author refers to secondary sources or makes empty assertions about Zwingli, Calvin, and Cranmer without giving any references to firsthand or original sources at all.
This sort of dishonesty is why I am no longer a minister with the REC!
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Charlie
<http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/comment_edit.php?com_itemid=11186&com_order=0&com_mode=flat&com_id=111728>
<http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/comment_reply.php?com_itemid=11186&com_order=0&com_mode=flat&com_id=111728>
cranmer59 <http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/userinfo.php?uid=7711> Posted: 2009/9/23 11:55 Updated: 2009/9/23 11:55
Not too shy to talkJoined: 2008/12/1
From: Casselberry, Florida
Posts: 39
Re: Classical Anglicanism and the Real Presence of Christ...
In another place Cranmer says:
"By these words of Cyril appeareth his mind plainly, that we may not grossly and rudely think of the eating of Christ with our mouths, but with our faith, by which eating, although he be absent hence bodily, and be in the eternal life and glory with his Father, yet we be made partakers of his nature, to be immortal, and have eternal life and glory with him.
"And thus is declared the mind as well of Cyril as of Hilarius.
"And here may be well enough passed over Basilius, Gregorius Nyssenus, and Gregorius Nazianzenus, partly because they speak little of this matter, and because they may be easily answered unto by that which is before declared and often repeated, which is, that a figure hath the name of the thing whereof it is the figure, and therefore of the figure may be spoken the same thing that may be spoken of the thing itself.
"And as concerning the eating and drinking of Christ's flesh and drinking of his blood, they spake of the spiritual eating and drinking thereof by faith, and not of corporal eating and drinking with the mouth and teeth.
"Likewise Eusebius Emissenus is shortly answered unto; for he speaketh not of any real and corporal conversion of bread and wine into Christ's body and blood, nor of any corporal and real eating and drinking of the same, but he speaketh of a sacramental conversion of bread and wine, and of a spiritual eating and drinking of the body and blood. After which sort, Christ is as well present in baptism (as the same Eusebius plainly there declareth) as he is in the Lord's table: which is, not carnally and corporally, but by faith, and spiritually. But of this author is spoken before more at large in the matter of transubstantiation.
"And now I will come to the saying of St. Ambrose, which is always in their mouths. 'Before the consecration,' saith he, as they allege, 'it is bread; but after the words 'of consecration it is the body of Christ.'
"For answer hereunto, it must be first known what consecration is.
"Consecration is the separation of any thing from a profane and worldly use unto a spiritual and godly use.
"And therefore when usual and common water is taken from other uses, and put to the use of baptism, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, then it may rightly be called consecrated water, that is to say, water put to a holy use.
"Even so when common bread and wine be taken and severed from other bread and wine, to the use of the holy communion, that portion of bread and wine, although it be of the same substance that the other is from which it is severed, yet it is now called consecrated or holy bread and holy wine.
"Not that the bread and wine have or can have any holiness in them, but that they be used to an holy work, and represent holy and godly things. And therefore St. Dionyse calleth the bread holy bread, and the cup an holy cup, as soon as they be set upon the altar to the use of the holy communion.
"But specially they may be called holy and consecrated, when they be separated to that holy use by Christ's own words, which he spake for that purpose, saying of the bread, This is my body; and of the wine, This is my blood.
"So that commonly the authors, before those words be spoken, do take the bread and the wine but as other common bread and wine; but after those words be pronounced over them, then they take them for consecrated and holy bread and wine.
"Not that the bread and wine can be partakers of any holiness or godliness, or can be the body and blood of Christ; but that they represent the very body and blood of Christ, and the holy food and nourishment which we have by him. And so they be called by the names of the body and blood of Christ, as the sign, token, and figure is called by the name of the very thing which it showeth and signifieth."
[Works, Book III, Chapter XV].
See: http://reasonablechristian.blogspot.com/2009/02/cranmer-on-eating-and-drinking-body-and.html
<http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/comment_edit.php?com_itemid=11186&com_order=0&com_mode=flat&com_id=111729>
<http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/comment_reply.php?com_itemid=11186&com_order=0&com_mode=flat&com_id=111729>
cranmer59 <http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/userinfo.php?uid=7711> Posted: 2009/9/23 12:05 Updated: 2009/9/23 12:05
Not too shy to talkJoined: 2008/12/1
From: Casselberry, Florida
Posts: 39
Re: Classical Anglicanism and the Real Presence of Christ...
At least Bob has it half right. There is no real presence in the bread and wine but the real presence takes place by faith IN the worthy receiver, who is worthy only by faith and not by his own merits.
I must say this is the most honest comment I have ever seen Bob make. He has given me cause to think there might be hope for him after all. If he could just move the real presence from the bread and wine to where it belongs we might have something to talk about. After receiving it? No, the real presence is always by faith and in the receiver, not in the elements.
If only Anglicans would believe the plain teaching of Scripture, the Articles and the 1662 BCP! (In that order!)
In Christ,
Charlie
<http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/comment_edit.php?com_itemid=11186&com_order=0&com_mode=flat&com_id=111731>
<http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/comment_reply.php?com_itemid=11186&com_order=0&com_mode=flat&com_id=111731>
cranmer59 <http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/userinfo.php?uid=7711> Posted: 2009/9/23 12:35 Updated: 2009/9/23 12:35
Not too shy to talkJoined: 2008/12/1
From: Casselberry, Florida
Posts: 39
Re: Classical Anglicanism and the Real Presence of Christ...
Selected Works: Cranmer on the Lord's Supper:
http://books.google.com/books?id=mFgYAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=thomas+cranmer&lr=#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Please read the original and primary sources.
"We acknowledge but one altar, the Cross of Calvary. We know but one priest, even the "Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." We restore the simple table of the Lord. We proclaim the elements of bread and wine to be only symbols, tokens, "pledges of His love." We commemorate the one perfect, finished sacrifice. We adore Him with unmeasured love. We feed on Him only in our hearts, by faith."
Bishop George D. Cummins
First Bishop of the Reformed Episcopal Church
Quoted at: Redemption Traditional Reformed Episcopal Church <http://www.redemptiontrec.org/Paged.html>
Reasonable Christian: Cranmer On Eating and Drinking the Body and Blood of Christ <http://reasonablechristian.blogspot.com/2009/02/cranmer-on-eating-and-drinking-body-and.html>
<http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/comment_edit.php?com_itemid=11186&com_order=0&com_mode=flat&com_id=111732>
<http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/comment_reply.php?com_itemid=11186&com_order=0&com_mode=flat&com_id=111732>
cranmer59 <http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/userinfo.php?uid=7711> Posted: 2009/9/23 12:38 Updated: 2009/9/23 12:38
Not too shy to talkJoined: 2008/12/1
From: Casselberry, Florida
Posts: 39
Re: Classical Anglicanism and the Real Presence of Christ...
At last we agree on something, Mathman!
<http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/comment_edit.php?com_itemid=11186&com_order=0&com_mode=flat&com_id=111733>
<http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/comment_reply.php?com_itemid=11186&com_order=0&com_mode=flat&com_id=111733>
cranmer59 <http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/userinfo.php?uid=7711> Posted: 2009/9/23 13:01 Updated: 2009/9/23 13:01
Not too shy to talkJoined: 2008/12/1
From: Casselberry, Florida
Posts: 39
Re: Classical Anglicanism and the Real Presence of Christ...
This view is called "receptionism", and it is rejected in the Thirty-nine Articles. Article XXVIII teaches: "The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper," (italics added). Despite the teachings of Scripture and of Article XXVIII, receptionism historically has had influence among Anglicans.
The author stated the above without putting the full quote which is:
The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.
Article 28 <http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/articles/articles.html#28>
Furthermore, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer likewise places the eating of the true body and blood of Christ in the heart of the believer by faith:
THE Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving.
Feed on Him WHERE? FEED ON HIM IN THY HEART BY FAITH with thanksgiving.
The Lord's Supper, 1662 Book of Common Prayer <http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/communion/index.html>
The Alice In Wonderland method of exegesis and interpretation is rampant in Anglo-Catholic circles these days. What a word plainly means no longer plainly means what it plainly means!
To quote Gillis Harp:
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it
means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you CAN make words mean so many
different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that?s all."
(from Through the Looking Glass)
Churchman: Recovering Confessional Anglicanism, by Gillis J. Harp <http://www.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_116_3_Harp.pdf>
If Novak's article proves anything, it is the utter dishonesty and dissimulation rampant in the Reformed Episcopal Church which has adopted the Anglo-Catholic method of interpreting Scripture, the 39 Articles, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and their own Declaration of Principles!
Sincerely in Christ,
Charlie
From: http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=11186&com_id=111735&com_rootid=111735&com_mode=flat&com_order=0#comment111735
The Fifteenth Sunday after Trinity
The Collect.
KEEP, we beseech thee, O Lord, thy Church with thy perpetual mercy: and, because the frailty of man without thee cannot but fall, keep us ever by thy help from all things hurtful, and lead us to all things profitable to our salvation; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment