Michael Voris and the Blessed Sacrament
#31
(01-13-2011, 12:42 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: I think you're oversimplifying the Anglicans as a protestant group.

At the risk of continuing to hurt the feelings of the former and current Anglicans on this board, I don’t think it’s a misnomer to call Anglicanism Protestant.  It is.  It’s surely the least Protestant of all the Protestant sects, but nevertheless there it is.  How often does Cardinal Newman refer to the times of “when I was a Protestant” in his memoirs?  Lots.  Because he was a Protestant when he was an Anglican.

Most Anglicans don’t accept transubstantiation, and that’s been the historical fact of the matter since Edward.  They do accept the Divinity of Christ, and that’s my point regarding Michael Voris.  My sincerest apologies to all the Anglo-Catholics who prefer transubstantiation, but I’m just trying to speak generally.
Reply
#32
I think you're right, Gilgamesh. I have an Anglican friend who considers himself "Anglo-Catholic." He personally accepts transubstantiation (while saying that no one can know for sure), and he certainly believes in the divinity of Christ. But he does not accept Papal infallibility - that's the line they do not cross.
Reply
#33
I think this is one of the rare acceptable forms of "noble simplicity": 

 [Image: Sanctuary-CRW_0696.jpg]


The Altar at the chapel at Thomas Aquinas College.
Reply
#34
Someone needs to buy those guys at TAC a few paint cans and an altar frontal. Too much white.

Admittedly far better than most contemporary churches, though.
Reply
#35
What is the basis for the denial of the real presence when you assume the literalness of "This is my Body?" Keep in mind that even the serious Protestants bring Biblical literalism -- as a starting point for their hermeneutic --  to the table. So with a presumption of literalness what is the basis for doubting it? As far as I can see, the only basis is empiricism -- it doesn't LOOK like the substance has changed in the host after the consecration, therefore Christ couldn't have literally meant what he said. But this is an attack on the divinity of Christ by limiting the possibilities of his actions to that which could be observed.
Reply
#36
Anglican orders are "absolutely null and utterly  void" anyway, so even if they believe in transubstantiation aren't they just worshipping bread? And Michael Voris is right, our Lord should be front and center in the church.
Reply
#37
(01-13-2011, 07:38 PM)Master_P Wrote: Anglican orders are "absolutely null and utterly  void" anyway, so even if they believe in transubstantiation aren't they just worshipping bread?

Yes, but that doesn't mean they are personally culpable of idolatry.

Reply
#38
(01-12-2011, 09:18 PM)Gilgamesh Wrote:
(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.

You're right.  I think both CC and I were trying at least to explain the logic underpinning the broader claim.  However, I agree that there was no such nuance to Voris' iteration thereof.  In that regard, his version makes even less sense.

(01-12-2011, 09:18 PM)Gilgamesh Wrote:
(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

Yes, this is absolutely correct, and you are right to point to the passage from the catechism as emblematic.  All of my eucharistic catechesis in the Episcopal Church always taught that, though we know Christ to be present under the species of bread and wine in the Eucharist, the mechanisms of that Presence are beyond us.  I think this is the typical Anglican understanding, though there are pockets within Anglicanism that would reject that (on one side or the other--either transubstantiationalism or memorialism).

All of this is neither here nor there, of course, because your initial point still stands, regardless:  it is possible to have a correct Christology and an incorrect eucharistic theology.

(01-13-2011, 01:12 PM)Gilgamesh Wrote: At the risk of continuing to hurt the feelings of the former and current Anglicans on this board, I don’t think it’s a misnomer to call Anglicanism Protestant.  It is. 

At least from the standpoint of a current Anglican, no offense taken.  Anglicanism is protestant.  I make no defense of the consistency of Anglican theology; of course, I'm on FE at least in part because I find much of Anglicanism profoundly problematic.  Like jovan in his Anglican days, I would not consider myself to be personally protestant.  I'm a weird Anglican, though:  I even accept papal infallibility.  :P
Reply
#39
(01-13-2011, 11:08 PM)EcceQuamBonum Wrote: I'm a weird Anglican, though:  I even accept papal infallibility.   :P

So how do you remain an Anglican then?
Reply
#40
(01-12-2011, 09:32 PM)Gilgamesh Wrote: No, no.  If you really want to get people fornicating, nothing works so well as condemnation and hellfire. 

Ehh, how so?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)