Michael Voris and the Blessed Sacrament
#11
(01-12-2011, 03:50 PM)Gilgamesh Wrote: Perhaps a theologian could weigh in this one, but how to make sense of Voris at 1:38—“to deny the Real Presence is to deny the Divinity of Christ”?

An Anglican will deny the real presence (consubstantiation vs transubstantiation notwithstanding), but he or she will also confess that Christ was both fully human and fully divine.  The two things don't seem as interdependent as M.V. likes to make them out.

I think it's, "if you deny that Christ cannot make bread into His Body, then how is He divine?"

Why would a God ever say "This is My Body", but then really only be speaking mysterious and shadowy?  Wouldn't the bread then be His Body?  It's jumping through hoops to make the bread NOT His Body.

As to Anglicans denying...  so?  It's not like Anglicanism is logical or consistent.
Reply
#12
If Anglicans made sense they would be Catholic  :laughing:
Reply
#13
(01-12-2011, 04:01 PM)Petertherock Wrote: If Anglicans made sense they would be Catholic  :laughing:

This is so true.  Anglicanism is such a preposterous joke.  Historically, theologically, contemporariliy, whatever.  The question is not whether or not Anglicanism makes sense, but rather, why anyone would bother with Anglicanism.
Reply
#14
I'm not asking how wrong Protestants are on the Eucharist.  There's no question that they differ from the Church. 

By Voris' logic, though, a Protestant denies the Divinity of Christ ipso facto his or her sacramental views.  It seems, however, that they believe Christ to have been divine without Him having exclusively founded the Roman Catholic Church.

It's non consistent with Catholicism, but it's consistent with a belief in Jesus' Divinity.
Reply
#15
(01-12-2011, 04:03 PM)WhollyRoaminCatholic Wrote:
(01-12-2011, 04:01 PM)Petertherock Wrote: If Anglicans made sense they would be Catholic  :laughing:

This is so true.  Anglicanism is such a preposterous joke.  Historically, theologically, contemporariliy, whatever.  The question is not whether or not Anglicanism makes sense, but rather, why anyone would bother with Anglicanism.

Actually, of all Protestant denominations, I think that conservative Anglicanism ("Prima Scriptura" with a place for ecclesiastical traditions) is the one that makes more sense, with Lutheranism coming as a close second.
Reply
#16
(01-12-2011, 03:50 PM)Gilgamesh Wrote: An Anglican will deny the real presence (consubstantiation vs transubstantiation notwithstanding),

A great surprise to me eh? I haven't changed my Eucharistic Theology one bit from the Thomistic, Tridentine doctrine I was taught in the Anglican Church as a young man 50 years ago.
Reply
#17
(01-12-2011, 05:51 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(01-12-2011, 03:50 PM)Gilgamesh Wrote: An Anglican will deny the real presence (consubstantiation vs transubstantiation notwithstanding),

A great surprise to me eh? I haven't changed my Eucharistic Theology one bit from the Thomistic, Tridentine doctrine I was taught in the Anglican Church as a young man 50 years ago.

Oh.  Well, in that case, we can take consubstantiation into account as well.  I don't know that Richard Hooker was a strict Thomist, but he didn't deny the “real presence” either.  And then there's Article 28.  Indeed, John 6:53 can be midrashed a variety of ways.  With due respect to the fact that Anglicans are a diverse bunch, might we agree that their prevailing sacramental theology of the Eucharist has been out of accordance with the Roman?
Reply
#18
(01-12-2011, 06:18 PM)Gilgamesh Wrote:   With due respect to the fact that Anglicans are a diverse bunch, might we agree that their prevailing sacramental theology of the Eucharist has been out of accordance with the Roman?

Accepted with the proviso that the 'Anglo-Catholics' have, since at least the late 19th century, been solidly Thomist and Tridentine in their Eucharistic theology. The other branches range all the way from transubstation through consubstantiation to reveptionism.
Reply
#19
(01-12-2011, 06:23 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(01-12-2011, 06:18 PM)Gilgamesh Wrote: With due respect to the fact that Anglicans are a diverse bunch, might we agree that their prevailing sacramental theology of the Eucharist has been out of accordance with the Roman?

Accepted with the proviso that the 'Anglo-Catholics' have, since at least the late 19th century, been solidly Thomist and Tridentine in their Eucharistic theology. The other branches range all the way from transubstation through consubstantiation to reveptionism.

Surely.

The question remains, then: is a denial of the real presence (as per Michael Voris), an ipso facto denial of the Divinity of Christ?  Is the (apparent) point of theological agreement between the Anglicans and the Romans—“Jesus was fully human and fully divine”—not actually a point of agreement at all, depending on Eucharistic theology?

I contend that Voris is, as usual, letting his passion trump his reason.  But as a showman he requires some obligatory sneering and limp-wristed pencil twirling.
Reply
#20
(01-12-2011, 03:26 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: Secondly, they don't know their history, just as HK always points out. Their idea of "tradition" is Catholicism in the American Midwest, 1950s. And before anybody thinks I'm putting down the 50s, I'm not.. but the Church is much bigger than that, of course..

The problem is inherent in the architecture.  A tabernacle on a free-standing altar does not make sense.  The NO has a free standing altar, and they moreover want churches in the round.  If you do this, a tabernacle on the altar is clearly not appropriate.

But if you don't have a table, and instead have a fixed altar, the tabernacle on the main altar makes sense, at least in the way of appropriateness.

Beyond the architecture, there are other reasons to remove the tabernacle from the main altar.  If they start opening churches up 24/7 like they used to be, then, yes, it is probably imprudent not to have the Tabernacle in a more secure place.

Some of this stuff comes down to 'what's the best reason".  Given the arguments for and against having the Tabernacle on the main altar, my weighing of the issue is that in most cases the best reasons are for having the Tabernacle on the altar, and I think a lot of the arguments against are easily dismissed.

One argument I hear is that during Mass we should be concentrating on the Sacrifice, not the Tabernacle.  True.  But that implies that people were at one time concentrating on the Tabernacle instead of the Mass, which I find difficult to believe.  I mean, there's the priest and servers singing and moving around - chances are people are looking at that and thinking about that, not the Tabernacle.  This is just creating a problem that didn't exist to justify a solution that isn't warranted.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)