Michael Voris and the Blessed Sacrament
#21
(01-12-2011, 02:43 PM)Stubborn Wrote: Those dang Arians! He must be reading FE  :)

Where's Nic...... and Jayne?

Stubborn, I am shocked that you are watching Michael Voris videos.  He thinks the Novus Ordo is valid so you must think that he is not a true Catholic.
Reply
#22
(01-12-2011, 06:37 PM)Gilgamesh Wrote: 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 really don't see how a denial of the Real Presence is a denial of Christ's Divinity.  It seems to me that an orthodox Christology is necessarily antecedent to a proper Eucharistic theology; however, one could have a perfectly sufficient conception of Christ's Divinity without taking the next step to transubstantiation and the Real Presence. 

You used the example of Anglicans, Gilgamesh, but, as you know, this is a deeply fraught example because of the sheer diversity of theological opinions to be found among Anglicans.  (I, for example, am an Anglican, yet I fully embrace the doctrine of transubstantiation.)  A better example for your point might be a denomination such as the Southern Baptists with a purely memorialist understanding of the Eucharist.  I'm sure most Southern Baptists could accede fully to an orthodox Christology,* yet they would still refuse to accept the Real Presence.  They're still heterodox, just not in their Christology.

I think the closest I can come to understanding Voris' claim sort of echoes CollegeCatholic's earlier post:  if a proper Eucharistic theology is a ramification of a proper Christology, then perhaps heterodox Eucharistic theology might indicate heterodox Christology.  However, I'm still inclined to see the problem as unidirectional in a sense.  That is, one can retain a correct Christology and still not achieve a correct Eucharistic theology, yet not vice-versa.

Not sure if that helps.



*At least, I think this is correct.  I'm not overly familiar with Southern Baptist Christology.  However, I am inclined to believe that if you sat an average Southern Baptist down with the Chalcedonian definition of Christ, he could at least accept the propositions of that definition, if not its binding authority on the Church.

Reply
#23
(01-12-2011, 07:02 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: 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. 

I agree with you that you can't have a tabernacle on a free-standing altar, and for those century old churches (like ours) that have both a free-standing altar and the old HIGH altar, they should leave the tabernacle front and center. I agree with you that it does NOT take away concentration from the Sacrifice. It never did before.. so why should it now?

But when building a NEW church, it is not necessarily a liberal plot to have a free-standing altar and a separate chapel for the Blessed Sacrament reserved. As pointed out, cathedrals and basilicas, including St. Peter's in Rome, have always had this.  But like you, I don't like new round churches, and I can understand Voris' concern about removing tabernacles in old churches that were there for centuries. No wreckovations! However, he doesn't present a thorough view of history, in many of his rants. He doesn't do his homework, imo. 
Reply
#24
(01-12-2011, 07:38 PM)EcceQuamBonum Wrote: I think the closest I can come to understanding Voris' claim sort of echoes CollegeCatholic's earlier post:  if a proper Eucharistic theology is a ramification of a proper Christology, then perhaps heterodox Eucharistic theology might indicate heterodox Christology.

Right, but Voris didn’t undertake the fancy dancing that CollegeCatholic was willing to do.  His was an “if X, then Y” statement.  And his tone has an absolutist brook-no-dissent tinge to it.

(01-12-2011, 07:38 PM)EcceQuamBonum Wrote: I'm not overly familiar with Southern Baptist Christology.

Neither am I.  I used your Anglican Communion as example because it’s the only Protestant strain I’m familiar with.  I’m aware that there exist pockets of resistance to Article 28, but surely you’d agree that the common and traditional Anglican conception is, well,—Protestant.  My dad is an Anglican, and I have taken down from my bookshelf a 1950s catechism from his childhood called The Religion of the Prayer Book.  I’d wager this is emblematic:
Quote:He is present in the Holy Communion in a special and perfect way.  How He is present we cannot tell.  How Bread and Wine can remain Bread and Wine, and yet be truly the Body and Blood of our Saviour is a mystery to human minds.  No one has ever explained the Consecration satisfactorily.  Men have tried again and again, and always failed.

Without denying a “real presence,” this still cuts pretty firmly against transubstantiation.  And I don’t think it’s unfair to hold it up as the typical Anglican understanding.  It’s at least a little more fair than saying Anglicanism is “such a preposterous joke,” no?  I’m actually willing to take the Church of England seriously; I just need to be able to hold up the rule of their Eucharistic theology for the purposes of this discussion—not the exception.

Anyway, we agree on Voris.  ;D
Reply
#25
I say it's a preposterous joke.  What's the point?  Divorce?

The whole religion is based on fornicating.  If there's anything that points to a religion that worships itself, that's it.
Reply
#26
(01-12-2011, 09:24 PM)WhollyRoaminCatholic Wrote: I say it's a preposterous joke.  What's the point?  Divorce?

For Henri, perhaps, that was indeed the point.  For the church that evolved, there seems to have been slightly less of that particular preoccupation.

(01-12-2011, 09:24 PM)WhollyRoaminCatholic Wrote: The whole religion is based on fornicating.  If there's anything that points to a religion that worships itself, that's it.

No, no.  If you really want to get people fornicating, nothing works so well as condemnation and hellfire.  Taboo always adds a thrill.  James Joyce wrote a famous mock sermon that maybe only an erstwhile Catholic could. 
Reply
#27
QuisUtDeus Wrote: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.

Not necessarily. A two-volume set of commentary on the 1917 Code I have from the '40s makes mention of tabernacles being built as essentially gilded safes that are ether heavily bolted into an aedicule in the reredo or as part of the reredo itself. It can be done and the Blessed Sacrament is quite safe in either option.
Reply
#28
(01-12-2011, 07:20 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(01-12-2011, 02:43 PM)Stubborn Wrote: Those dang Arians! He must be reading FE  :)

Where's Nic...... and Jayne?

Stubborn, I am shocked that you are watching Michael Voris videos.  He thinks the Novus Ordo is valid so you must think that he is not a true Catholic.

His vids pop up in my email. NOer or not, I learn something from him and you and pretty much everyone - even if sometimes it may be what "not to do", but I always try to learn something.

This is the first one that I've seen where he actually comes right out and tells you to "take your family and leave" - he falls short of telling them exactly where to find Our Lord, but if he keeps this up, he'll get there. This time, he simply said to "go worship Him where they do acknowledge Him". He could have gotten into CITH and EMHCs etc, but maybe next time.

But it was a pleasant and welcome surprise to hear him actually offer a sound solution.

The Tabernacle belongs in the center, that's where I've always seen it regardless if it was an extravagant Cathedral or a makeshift altar in someones basement.
Reply
#29
(01-12-2011, 09:41 PM)Joshua Wrote:
QuisUtDeus Wrote: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.

Not necessarily. A two-volume set of commentary on the 1917 Code I have from the '40s makes mention of tabernacles being built as essentially gilded safes that are ether heavily bolted into an aedicule in the reredo or as part of the reredo itself. It can be done and the Blessed Sacrament is quite safe in either option.

Interesting!
Reply
#30
(01-12-2011, 09:18 PM)Gilgamesh Wrote: Neither am I.  I used your Anglican Communion as example because it’s the only Protestant strain I’m familiar with.  I’m aware that there exist pockets of resistance to Article 28, but surely you’d agree that the common and traditional Anglican conception is, well,—Protestant.  My dad is an Anglican, and I have taken down from my bookshelf a 1950s catechism from his childhood called The Religion of the Prayer Book.  I’d wager this is emblematic:
Quote:He is present in the Holy Communion in a special and perfect way.  How He is present we cannot tell.  How Bread and Wine can remain Bread and Wine, and yet be truly the Body and Blood of our Saviour is a mystery to human minds.  No one has ever explained the Consecration satisfactorily.  Men have tried again and again, and always failed.

Without denying a “real presence,” this still cuts pretty firmly against transubstantiation.  And I don’t think it’s unfair to hold it up as the typical Anglican understanding.  It’s at least a little more fair than saying Anglicanism is “such a preposterous joke,” no?  I’m actually willing to take the Church of England seriously; I just need to be able to hold up the rule of their Eucharistic theology for the purposes of this discussion—not the exception.

I spent years as an Anglican and never thought of myself as a protestant, but of course the Anglican catechism I learned (published by one of the 'Anglo-Catholic' religious Orders) taught nothing but solid Catholic doctrine on every point except the Papacy. I think you're oversimplifying the Anglicans as a protestant group. Even Lord Fisher of Lambeth, late 'Archbishop' of Canterbury and a 'low churchman', once said 'The Anglican Church exists to propagate the Catholic Faith of the Catholic Church, enshrined in the Catholic Creeds'. He was wrong, of course, but he meant his comment seriously and believed it.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)