By Robin G. Jordan
It is sometimes argued that the retention of certain Medieval Catholic practices are harmless because a particular congregation no longer associates with them the unscriptural Medieval Catholic doctrines with which they have had a long association. This argument fails to consider that while one congregation may not make this association, other congregations and their clergy in the same Anglican body or in another denomination do make the association. New clergy may exploit the congregation’s retention of the practices to introduce the doctrines with which they have been long associated. Since the nineteenth century clergy who hold these doctrines have utilized these practices to introduce the doctrines to their congregations. Their retention will also reinforce the association in the minds of the new congregants who have been taught to associate them with these doctrines. The retention of these practices is far from harmless.
No practice is completely neutral. It communicates an idea or a cluster of ideas. While the practice itself may not be prohibited by Scripture, the message that it conveys may not be consonant with Scripture. It may conflict or be incompatible with what Scripture teaches.
Take for example eucharistic vestments, in particular the chasuble and the stole. These vestments have a long association with the Medieval Catholic beliefs in the essential role of priests as intermediaries between the people and God, the conversion of the eucharistic elements into Christ’s body and blood, and the eucharist as a reiteration or representation of Christ’s sacrifice. None of these beliefs find support in Scripture. The New Testament teaches that we have direct access to God through Jesus. He is the only mediator that we need. Jesus in the Institution Narratives refers to the wine as fruit of the vine, which he had moments before referred to as his blood of the new covenant, shed for many for the remission of sins (Matthew 26:29, Mark 14:25). With his death on the cross at Calvary Christ made full and complete atonement for our sins. These Medieval Catholic beliefs are in conflict with the plain meaning of Scripture and the classical Anglican formularies, which are themselves grounded in Scripture.
Even if the clergy of a congregation does not espouse these Medieval Catholic beliefs, their use of eucharistic vestments is a visible reminder of the doctrines. The wearing of eucharistic vestments also communicate the idea that the person wearing them is different from the other people in the Christian assembly. He is more important. He is special. Whatever gifts God has given him sets him apart from the rest of the gathered church. In New Testament we again find no support for such ideas. In New Testament we find nothing that backs up the idea that modern-day Anglican ‘priest’ is a successor to the priest of the Tabernacle and the Temple of the Old Covenant. The Aaronic priesthood was hereditary. Christ’s sacrifice on the cross eliminated the need for the Aaronic priesthood. The priesthood of Melchizedek is Christ’s alone. The only priesthood to which a modern-day Anglican ‘priest’ belongs is the common priesthood of all believers. The New Testament does not countenance the idea that one person’s spiritual gifts are more important than another’s: all manifestations of the Holy Spirit are given for the upbuilding of the Body of Christ. The term ‘priest’ in The Book of Common Prayer is not a reference to a sacerdote, or sacrificing priest, but a contraction of the Greek word presbyter, or elder. Clearly the message that the wearing of eucharistic vestments conveys is at odds with the plain meaning of Scripture and the classical Anglican formularies.
The English Reformers might have completely done away with any particular dress for clergy during church services. Even John Jewel was at one point ready to dispense with vestments all together. For a time a number of clergy conducted church services in street clothes. Eventually the wearing of a surplice would be prescribed for clergy during divine service; the wearing of a cope would be permitted in cathedrals and college chapels on the major festivals of the church year. The latter practice quickly fell into desuetude.
By the seventeenth century the surplice was the only vestment worn in divine service. A black preaching gown might be worn during the sermon but the sermon was not considered a part of the service. The surplice was, however, to be worn during the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Holy Communion.
The surplice was tolerated because it was not associated with the Medieval Catholic beliefs with which the stole and the chasuble were associated. It was a choir vestment. Both clergy and laity had worn it. The more extreme of the Puritans, however, objected to its use, regarded the wearing of any kind of vestment as Popery and without warrant of Scripture.
The practice of wearing eucharistic vestments was not revived in the Church of England and the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States until the nineteenth century. It was accompanied by the reintroduction of Medieval Catholic doctrines in these two churches.
It is also argued that the retention of certain Medieval Catholic practices is what distinguishes the Anglican churches from the churches of other denominations. This argument is fallacious. It is typically used in support of the retention of Medieval Catholic practices that the English Reformers rejected for good reason, and which were not revived in Church of England and the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States until the ritualistic movement of the nineteenth century. This movement sought to undo the reforms of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and to restore the doctrines and practices of the pre-Reformation Medieval Catholic Church. It also sought to introduce the innovations in doctrine and worship of the post-Tridentian Roman Catholic Church, arguing that the English Church would have adopted these innovations if the Reformation had not occurred. It conveniently ignored the fact that a number of the innovations were the result of the Counter-Reformation—the Roman Catholic Church’s reaction to the Reformation. If the Reformation had not occurred, these innovations would in all likelihood have never seen the light of day.
While the retention of these Medieval Catholic practices may characterize churches that maintain continuity with the nineteenth century ritualistic movement, they are not characteristic of all Anglican churches. The Anglican churches in North America in which such practices are found, have been influenced by the Anglo-Catholic movement or the Ancient-Future movement. The Anglo-Catholic movement is the modern-day successor to the nineteenth ritualistic movement while the Ancient-Future movement has been influenced by the writings of the late Robert Webber, a former evangelical turned Episcopalian, who was a strong proponent of ritualism in the second half of the twentieth century. Webber would introduce ritualism to charismatics and evangelicals outside the Episcopal Church while reinforcing ritualistic tendencies in the Episcopal Church, particularly among charismatics and ‘evangelicals’ in that body.
Those who argue that the retention of certain Medieval Catholic practices is a major distinguishing characteristic of Anglican churches intentionally or unintentionally embrace the liberal-Catholic view that Anglicanism is primarily a style of worship. This view of Anglicanism, however, is not supported by GAFCON and The Jerusalem Declaration, which take a confessional view of Anglicanism. Being Faithful: The Shape of Historic Anglicanism Today describes Anglicanism as open to a range of worship styles, which reflect the teaching of Scripture and “an encounter with the culture of a given time and place” (p. 134).
It is further argued that Anglican worship without such Medieval Catholic practices would be colorless, drab, and unattractive. They introduce the elements of movement and pageantry into the liturgy. They engage all the senses in worship—sight, sound, smell, and touch. But the fact is that the retention of these practices is not necessary to make worship multi-sensory. Color and movement and even spectacle can be added in other ways.
The important thing is that none of these elements should be allowed to draw attention away from the reading and exposition of the Scriptures. Their reading and exposition should be a prominent feature of our worship gatherings. Jesus taught us to embrace the words of the Scriptures as the gifts of a loving Father, which he gave to nourish the faith of his people (Being Faithful: The Shape of Anglicanism Today, p. 125)
The Way, the Truth, and the Life, prepared by the Theological Resource Team of the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON), stresses that Christ is the only head of the church. He exercises this authority in the churches by his word through the Spirit. He leads his people today by his word addressed to them as his followers. His Spirit attends his word, transforming lives by that word. He rules by his word through his Spirit. (Being Faithful: The Shape of Anglicanism Today, pp. 119-120)
The Way, the Truth, and the Life goes on to emphasize:
This is seen most clearly in the Scriptures. The Old Testament is the written form of the word of God carried on the breath of God. The apostolic writings share this same character, by virtue of Christ’s promise and commission. The Bible lies at the centre of the church’s life precisely because it is the Spirit-inspired written form of the word of God, by which Christ’s authority is exercised until he returns.(Being Faithful: The Shape of Anglicanism Today, p. 120)
The sacrament of the Holy Communion is itself an enactment of the word (Being Faithful: The Shape of Anglicanism Today, p. 130). It therefore should be kept free of unscriptural ceremonies and ornaments so that the word is not distorted or obscured.
We also should not lose sight of the fact that our worship together on Sundays and other times is only a small part of what should be a life of worship, a life in which Christ is recognizably Lord, directing our life and thoughts, and which is lived in obedience to God’s word.
What practices then are permissible in our corporate worship? Cranmer’s essay ‘Of Ceremonies’ in The Book of Common Prayer offers some guidelines.
--They should be agreeable to Scripture.
--They should edify.
--They should not foster error or superstition.
--They should promote orderliness.
--They should not be unnecessarily burdensome to the conscience without cause.
--They should be alterable.
--They should be understandable to everyone—both their meaning and their use. (‘Of Ceremonies, The Book of Common Prayer, pp. 7-8)
The Book of Common Prayer along with the other foundational documents of Anglicanism—the Thirty-Nine Articles and the Homilies—takes the Bible as the norm by which to judge what may be used or not used in worship. This is why being agreeable to Scripture is listed first. If a practice directly or indirectly not consonant with Scripture, it should be avoided even though it may meet the other guidelines. Determining whether or not it fails to meet this critical guideline calls for prayerful discernment. We can become so devoted to a practice that our attachment to the practice colors our judgment. We must not forget that the human heart is extremely deceitful and prone to evil even in the regenerate. Because of the deep seatedness of our rebellion against God we are apt to manipulate Scripture in our own interests, evading its teaching while giving others the impression that we take it with great seriousness. (Being Faithful: The Shape of Anglicanism Today, pp. 125-126)
Good posting even though I disagree.
ReplyDeleteThe Eucharistic vestments are for taking away and blanketing the personality of the priest who is celebrating Holy Communion not to draw attention to the priest.
Also based on Cranmer's statement that worship is alterable. This does mean that you can reintroduce certain aspects that were dropped as long as they are rightfully understood and agreeable to Scripture. The argument can be made that some of the Holy Communion practices come from the references in Revelation.
By the same thought removing to what you describe as proper worship can lead to superstition just as easily. The view that Holy Communion is just bread and wine and nothing else, which we know is not the case as the 39 articles states. They are not mere signs or tokens.
So again what makes the difference? Education and faithful believers who want to protect Christ's message and spread it through the ends of the earth.
George,
ReplyDeleteDressing someone in special clothes that set him apart from everyone else does not take away and blanket his personality whatever you may have been taught. It focuses attention upon that person. It makes a very clear statement that he is different from everyone else in the room. If the real purpose was to not make him stand out from the rest of the Christian assembly, everyone would dress in bright colored festive robes so that he was indistinguishable from the other members of the assembly.
Where in Revelation?
The Revelation to John, as you may known, is full of symbolism. It is easy for folks to read into passages in Revelation or impose upon passages in Revelation meanings that cannot be read out of those passages. Also, those who seek to manipulate Revelation in support of their own notions typically fail to take into consideration what is written elsewhere in the Bible and expound one passage of Scripture in such a way that it disagrees with another. It is also a gross misuse of Scripture to interpret descriptive passages incidental to the biblical narrative as containing a precedent for a particular practice when the author did not intend that such passages should serve that purpose. Just because the author describes a practice, it does not mean that it was his intent that we adopt that practice. There must be clear evidence that the author described the practice with the intent of setting a precedent for its adoption.
Article 25 says that the sacraments are trustworthy witnesses and effectual signs of God's grace and goodwill to us. By them God works invisibly in us, both arousing and also strengthen and confirming our faith. Article 28 says that those who rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the bread, it is a partaking of the body of Christ and the wine is a partaking of the blood of Christ. Article 29 says that the wicked and those in whom a vital faith is absent are in no sense partakers of Christ. When these articles are interpreted in their plain, natural, and intended sense, this means that the bread and wine are signs that answer their purpose. They do not say that the bread and wine become Christ’s body and blood in any manner other than sacramentally, that is, in their use. Neither is Christ’s body and blood in any form added to them. For the believer receiving the bread and wine is a participation in Christ’s body and blood. However, the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine. I recommend that you read Cranmer’s treatise on the Lord’s Supper and Nowell’s Catechism.
The Way, the Truth, and the Life makes this very important point:
"In the future, Anglican worship should flourish if Anglicans continue to use their worship as an instrument of mission. In many situations, the regular repetition of the Anglican liturgy has been the principal means of teaching the faith in illiterate communities. This reminds us that worship is not dependent upon an elaborate intellectual grasp of the faith, and that the oral heritage of familiar and memorized prayers and texts, that we carry with us throughout our lives, is of the greatest value.” (Being Faithful: The Shape of Historic Anglicanism Today, pp. 134-135)
To continue to be an instrument of mission, Anglican worship must be accessible to everyone, particularly children, as The Way, the Truth, and the Life points to our attention, and it must also be Scriptural and theologically-sound. This includes worship practices and resources used in conjunction with the liturgy as well as the liturgy itself. (Being Faithful: The Shape of Historic Anglicanism Today, p. 135)
God's Word makes clear that the minister is different, and that we must recognize this difference in submitting ourselves unto ministers as unto those who watch for our soul (and I'm sure you would agree with this point).
ReplyDeleteWhile vestments are certainly not necessary in order to accomplish this (and much of my Christian life has been in excellent Presbyterian Churches where no vestments were used), they certainly seem to lend themselves to the purpose of setting apart the Office which God Himself has set apart.
God Bless,
William Scott
p.s. As you would agree, the 39 Articles, Homilies, and 1552/1559/1604/1662 BCPs and Cranmer's works on the Lord's Supper make clear that the bread and wine of Holy Communion are not merely bread and wine, inasmuch as they are Holy Sacraments through which, by faith, Christ feeds us with His very Flesh and Blood in such a manner that it is “generally necessary” for our continued or final Salvation. [i.e. a special salvific sacramental feeding on Christ as distinct from the continual non-sacramental feeding on Christ's Flesh and Blood (which is likewise necessary for our continued and final Salvation) that we have at all times through faith in Christ, and in a special way in the reading and proclamation of His Word in the sacred assembly, etc.]
Note, I'm not advocating one position of the nature of Christ's Presence in relation to the Sacraments here--I'm just looking at the common ground we have--namely on the unique, supernatural, God-given instrumental efficacy of the Sacramental elements when received in faith during Holy Communion. We all hold that this is distinct from bread and wine as consumed ordinarily at the dinner table (or a McDonald's burger and coke for that matter)--although blessed through prayer and received in faith (while trusting in and meditating--as we always should and as I utterly fail to do--on Christ's Body and Blood and all the benefits He has given to us thereby).
And this would hold true even if we think on the bread and wine which we consume at our dinner table in such a manner (as we should) that it was to provoke in us thoughts of Christ's broken body and shed blood and inflame and lift up our faith to feed more richly on Christ and all His benefits (and it certainly would be good to use our ordinary food and everything else in life to increase our meditation on Christ).
As is my trademark--I apologize for the sloppy and unclear writing.
ReplyDeleteGod Bless and have a great Lord's Day,
William Scott
The Lutherans in Scandanavia retained the eucharistic vestments.
ReplyDeleteThe Church of England simply enforced the surplice for Holy Communion.The Chasuble did not reapaper until 1849. it was not legalized until 1964!
Now stoles and albs are prolific in churches of the Methodist and Presbyterian traditions.
That means we should use no vestments by that logic. Anything that makes them "different" draws attention to them. My point was it blankets them from wearing a shirt that has politic statement on it or flashy colors the vestments act as placement of the priest in there purpose in the service and their office within the Church.
ReplyDeleteI understand Revelation is full of symbolism. Why else would I refer to it? The symbolism can be drawn from as what an order service may look like. Revelation speaks of Christ one eternal sacrifice and censing of the "altar" with our prayers. We recite the Gloria in the service of Holy Communion which is taken from Revelation. The vestments that were worn such as white robes and gold come from Revelation. I can go on, but I think I made my point.
So your statement that I am manipulating is inaccurate as well as saying there is no precedent.
I am not going to go further into the Eucharist conversation.
George,
ReplyDeleteNot at all.
In the examples you cite from Revelation, you are making a common hermeneutical error. Because Scripture describes a practice, it does not mean that Scripture is directing us to adopt the practice. Pentecostals, for example, make this error in insisting that the Scriptures teach that speaking in tongues is the only reliable evidence of having received the Holy Spirit. There must be clear evidence in the passage or its context that the author is describing this practice for the purpose that we should adopt it. This is the principle of authorial intent.
For an indepth discussion of the use of incense in Anglican worship I refer you to my articles, "Incense in Christian Worship" at: http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2010/06/incense-in-christian-worship.html
and "The Use of Incense in Anglican Worship: Another View" at:
http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2008/11/use-of-incense-in-anglican-worship.html
I also think that you are taking my comment about the manipulation of Scripture too personally.
William,
ReplyDeleteScripture also teaches that elders should lead by example. Believers are directed to have nothing to do with false teachers. This entails testing what they teach against what Scripture teaches like the Bereans and exercising private judgment.
Ministers have a particular gifting and a particular ministry - pastor-teacher - but this does not justify them dressing in the vestments of a sacerdote, or sacrifing priest.
I would agree if you are saying that the bread and wine do not become something other than bread and wine and nothing is added to them. Rather they undergo a change in use. In that sense, they become a sacrament. Consecration of the bread and wine in the same understanding is the setting apart of the elements for sacramental use. Those who receive the bread and wine rightly, worthily, and with faith partake of Christ’s body and blood but not because Christ is present in or with the bread and wine. Christ is in heaven. It is by the power of the Holy Spirit by whom we are united to Christ that we feed upon Christ. The manner in which we partake of Christ is spiritual and the means by which we partake of Christ is faith.
George,
ReplyDeleteYou stated, "The Eucharistic vestments are for taking away and blanketing the personality of the priest who is celebrating Holy Communion not to draw attention to the priest." If that were true then I'd be all for vestments. But it is not true. The clothing that the "priest" wears is to express a theology. It is not neutral. It is sinister.
Thank you for your response Dr. Jordan.
ReplyDeleteThat's what I'm saying here--that there is agreement by all here (in accordance with Anglican Formularies) on the most important issue of Holy Communion--that is, the incredible gift received by the worthy recipient at the moment they partake in faith on the elements (i.e. a salvific feeding on Christ's Flesh and Blood which is ordinarily needed or "generally necessary" for our continued and final Salvation in Christ).
And this common ground on the salvific receiving of the real spiritual presence of Christ (Body, Soul, and Divinity) in the worthy partaking holds fast, irregardless of what view one takes on the exact relation of the real spiritual presence to the consecrated elements prior to their being worthily received.
God Bless,
William Scott
The point I am making is that just because vestments were associated with Medieval Doctrines that were erroneous doesn't mean we can't still use them. If that were the case the reformers would have thrown everything out. The English Reformers did not. They retain certain aspects and practices, even though they could be associated with Roman views. Hence, we still celebrate Holy Communion, but through the 39 Articles, Catechism, the prayer book etc... The whole church is educated in the proper understanding. Just read Hooker and his explanation on retaining certain practices even though the Puritans that it "popish".
ReplyDeletevestments are sinister? what?
George,
ReplyDeleteAnglicans celebrate the Lord's Supper because our Lord instituted it. Its institution is recorded in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians. They do not celebrate it because the pre-Reformation Catholic Church celebrated Mass.
Perhaps your church celebrates the Holy Communion for that reason but that is not the reason that the English Reformers restored the celebration of the Lord's Supper. The English Reformers abolished the pre-Rormation Medieval Catholic Mass. Thomas Cranmer preserved elements of the earlier orders of service because they communicated gospel truth and expressed them in the vernaculr language of sixteenth century England. This is consistant with the principle that he lays out in "Of Ceremonies," of retaining the old where it may be well-used provided it is consonant with Scripture and does not obscure the truth and breed superstition.
Eucharistic vestments were abolished because they were not consonant with Scripture, obscured the truth, and bred superstition. The pre-Reformation Medieval Catholic beliefs and practices with which they were associated, due to the nineteenth century Tractarian and ritualistic movements, were revived in the Anglican Church and are held in some quarters in Anglican Church in the twenty-first century. They are certainly held in the Independent and Roman Catholic Churches.
These vestments are not doctrinally neutral. They express a particular theology. There is no way around it. The clergy who reintroduced their use in the nineteenth century also reintroduced this theology. They certainly were not blind to the connection between the two. They knew that they went hand in hand.
As I point out in my article 'The Anglican Tradition of Common Prayer—Part 6,' the late Robert Webber, a leading figure in the Ancient-Future or Worship Renewal movement, encouraged the revival of practices of the pre-Reformation Medieval Catholic Church in the worship of contemporary churches in the second half of the twentieth century, seeing their use as a way of enriching the worship of these churches. Webber, however, was not as attentive as he should have been to the differences between the theology behind these practices, the teaching of the Bible and the doctrine of the churches in which he was promoting their revival. The result was the introduction into these churches ceremonies and ornaments that expressed a theology that was at odds with what their clergy and congregations professed to believe.
The failure to maintain the connection between how we worship and what we believe has had tremendous ramifications. It helps to explain why liberalism was able to flourish in the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church. Your insistence that it is harmless is far from the truth.
I didn't say they are harmless and i didn't say they were doctrinally neutral.
ReplyDeleteAny of Anglican practices could be misunderstood and breed superstition. This doesn't mean we throw everything out.
My point of referencing Holy Communion was related to vestments not the meaning of it. The retention of Communion was through the English Reformers restoration of what was proper and orderly as command by Christ through the Gospel. I am not disputing that.
Anglicans maybe prone to RC mistakes or heresy the same can be said about evangelicals falling into Docetism or some other heresy.
It seems your to caught up in refuting anything I say. Than to realize I am emphasizing the fact that faithfulness and education are what make the difference.
George,
ReplyDeleteI disagree with your basic assertion that faithfulness and education are what makes the difference. They certainly play a role. However, there needs to be consistancy between how we worship and what we believe. The English Reformers understood this. So did the nineteenth century ritualists. It matters how we worship. You seem to want to make my disagreement with your views personal but they are not. You could be someone else and I would say the same thing.
One of the characteristics of Cranmerian liturgy is that it is didactic. Cranmer took seriously Paul's teaching that everything should be done for edification. He crafted the liturgy so not only what is said communicates gospel truth but also what is done. The ceremonies and ornaments associated with the doctrines of sacerdotalism, transubstantiation, and eucharistic sacrifice do not communicate gospel truth. They were therefore dropped from the worship of the reformed Church of England. They continue to give expression to theology that is contary to the word of God where they are still used.
I certainly agree that Cranmer made many changes in the liturgy, etc in an attempt to fight against the twin errors of transubstantiation and the propitiatory sacrifice of the mass.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time it must be admitted that Cranmer explictly affirmed the historic catholic teachings of the Church Fathers on the "eucharistic sacrifice."
In his Answer to Gardiner Cranmer shows in what sense the eucharist itself may be referred to as a sacrifice:
"For Epinus saith, "That eucharistia is called a sacrifice, because it is a remembrance of the the sacrifice which was offered upon the cross, and that in it is dispensed the very body and blood, yea, the very death of Christ, (as he allegeth of St Augustine in that place,) the holy sacrifice whereby he blotted out and cancelled the obligation of death, which was against us, nailing it upon the cross, and in his own person won the victory, and triumphed against the princes and powers of darkness." This passion, death, and victory of Christ is dispensed and distributed in the Lord's holy supper, and daily among Christ's holy people. And yet all this requireth no corporal presence of Christ in the sacrament..." pg. 160
[The context of the quote can be seen by clicking the incredibly long link below]
http://books.google.com/books?id=HMQUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA1&dq=cranmer+gardiner+answer&hl=en&ei=e-RuTpDwN4fv0gGT8aWeCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=cranmer%20gardiner%20answer&f=false
Thus, apart from such things as the obvious spiritual sacrifices of praise by all God's people which accompany the celebration of Communion (as Cranmer speaks of elsewhere), Cranmer shows here two senses in which the Eucharist may be called a sacrifice:
1. "Because it is a remembrance of the sacrifice which was offered upon the Cross"
2. Because "in it is dispensed the very Body and Blood of Christ, yea, the very Death of Christ"
God Bless,
William Scott
p.s. The above quote is from my own readings of Cranmer's works and not copied from any secondary sources.
Sorry, it turned out that the link (when copy and pasted) will actually only take you to the first page of the book. You will need to go to page 160 in order to read the section where the quote is taken from.
ReplyDeleteWilliam Scott
William,
ReplyDelete2. Because "in it is dispensed the very Body and Blood of Christ, yea, the very Death of Christ"
It would be helpful to go into how Cranmer himself understood this statement.
I will consider for publication articles that readers submit. They must be 2000 words or less. I do reserve the right to edit an article or to suggest changes. Articles may be submitted to Anglicans Ablaze at heritageanglicans@gmail.com
Hello Dr. Jordan.
ReplyDeleteTo my knowledge, Cranmer meant those words in the sense you described very well earlier in this thread:
"Those who receive the bread and wine rightly, worthily, and with faith partake of Christ’s body and blood but not because Christ is present in or with the bread and wine. Christ is in heaven. It is by the power of the Holy Spirit by whom we are united to Christ that we feed upon Christ. The manner in which we partake of Christ is spiritual and the means by which we partake of Christ is faith."
Also, the book I provided a link to is just an online version of Cranmer's writings and disputations on the Lord's Supper, including his Answer to Gardiner (the sequel to his first work on the Sacrament).
Blessings in Christ.
William Scott
Robin,
ReplyDeleteSo are you opposed to clerical attire in general? For instance, is it your opinion that clergy ought not wear black suits with collars on workdays or visitations, or that they ought to avoid cassocks under the surplice? What about Geneva gowns and preaching tabs?
For my part, I have found that in our post-Christian culture there is a decided benefit for clergy to stand out. When I have been out & about in a collar I find it actually provides me opportunities for evangelism (both in word and in deed) that I wouldn't have otherwise. I have had people that I don't know -- unchurched people -- come to me to ask for prayer or to ask questions about God or the Bible. It has also allowed me -- just by being present around the town -- to be a positive witness to Christ without having to speak a word.
Of course, I live in a wholly post-Christian environment here in Tucson, AZ. The churched population is around 3% of Tucson's total (of around one million). As a result, the missional environment here is rather different from the Bible Belt. One of my seminary classmates, a Ugandan Anglican, once described his setting in "the bush." It was similar to that here, though I would think that even rural Uganda is more churched than Southern Arizona. He, though low church & Reformed, was a vocal advocate of clerical attire, for the same reasons I have found it beneficial. In fact, it was one conversation in particular that we had that led me, a number of years later & while I was still a Presbyterian, to adopt a collar. (I know of a number of conservative, non-PCUSA, Presbyterians who have done the same.)
I would appreciate your thoughts.
Pax,
-A.