It is time for Rome to open up the Lord's Supper
This is likely to be His Grace's last full day as the temporary successor of St Peter. If not today, then tomorrow. Having dealt with the chronic divisions within the Church of Rome which arise from 'Papal Infallibility'; mandatory clerical celibacy; the absence of lady cardinals, and its centralising and authoritarian tendencies, it is time to turn to 'the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ'.
Michael Gove and Chris Bryant got into a spat last month arguing over the exclusion of non-Roman Catholics from Mass. They were speaking at cross purposes, unfortunately, and neither was actually hearing what the other was saying or meaning. They reduced the Lord's Supper to party politics. All Christians may participate in a Roman Catholic Mass (indeed, anyone may attend). But ordinarily only Roman Catholics may eat the flesh and drink the blood, and in many Roman Catholic churches the blood isn't even available. Their Catechism notes:
Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite.These 'pastoral reasons' are basically ease of distribution and the protection of the wine-blood from profanation: you can easily pick up a dropped wafer, but getting red wine out of a carpet is like getting blood out of a stone. So, it's wafers only. The Catechism goes on to note:
..the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly.This is the usual form of receiving Holy Communion. There are diverse beliefs about the sacrament or mystery of the bread and wine which His Grace will not rehearse here. Readers and Communicants are free to Google 'Transubstantiation', 'Consubstantiation', 'Real Presence', 'Sacramental Union', 'Spiritual Presence', 'Receptionism', 'Memorialism', 'Symbolism', etc., etc. And neither must one forget the Quaker/Salvation Army view that the Eucharist is not a necessary obligation at all.
It doesn't help to hurl the term 'blasphemy' around, so we'll move on from talk of the 'Popish Mass', the 'abomination of Antichrist' and 'the heinous errors of the papists'. His Grace wishes simply to deal with the claim of the Roman Church to catholicity while enforcing exclusivity in Holy Communion - the very means by which all men and women may be stirred to friendship, love and concord. It is a symbol of brotherly and sisterly affection; of unfeigned love between members of the Body of Christ.
The Roman Catholic Church considers certain Christian groups deficient in holy orders: Anglicans (for example) 'have not retained the proper reality of the eucharistic mystery in its fullness'. We 'commemorate His death and resurrection in the Lord's Supper'; we 'profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ'. But commemoration, signs and symbolism are inadequate. Therefore we are barred for our own sakes from taking bread and wine in Roman Catholic churches.
His Grace was at St Peter's in Rome a few years ago, and participated in the Mass. That participation was full and complete. It was in the 'extraordinary form' (Tridentine) and His Grace knew the plainest meaning of every word spoken. As he approached the altar to receive the Host, he knelt and thanked God for feeding him.
Had he disclosed his Anglican heresy, no doubt the elements would have been denied him. The participation was contingent upon deception. Yet in his heart he knew Christ. With Tertullian, writing against Marcion, he believes: 'Jesus taking bread, and distributing it amongst his disciples, made it his body, saying "This is my body"; that is to say, a figure of my body.' And St Cyprian, the holy martyr, said: "Christ's blood is showed in the wine, and the people in the water that is mixed with the wine: so that the mixture of the water to the wine signifieth the spiritual commixtion and joining of us to Christ.' And St John Chrysostom talked of 'bread and wine for a similitude of his body and blood'.
And St Augustine displayed His Grace's belief more clearly: 'Therefore, as after a certain manner of speech, the sacrament of Christ's body is Christ's body, the sacrament of Christ's blood is Christ's blood', but later '...by baptism we be buried with him into death'. He did not say 'we signify burial', but plainly that 'we be buried'. So the sacrament of so great a thing is not called but by the name of the thing itself.
This post is not a disputation on Transubstantiation: it is a plea for the church that calls itself Catholic to welcome Christians of all denominations to participate fully in the Lord's Supper, should they themselves wish. Roman Catholics are most welcome to the Anglican Eucharist, but there is no reciprocity. We are excluded, deficient, outcast. Our theological beliefs about bread and wine excommunicate us along with adulterers, practising homosexuals and abortionists. Our rejection is the 'medicinal penalty' intended to invite us to repent, change our beliefs and amend our ways.
It is indeed kind of the Roman Catholic hierarchy to care for His Grace's soul to the extent that he is excommunicated. But it is a matter for his own conscience: every man and woman repenting of his or her offences may yield wholly to God, and often come to the Holy Supper which our Lord and Saviour Christ has prepared. You may believe that you eat literally the flesh and the blood: His Grace eats and drinks spiritually, remembering the death, thankful for the benefits, and looking for no other sacrifice at no priest's hands for remission of his sins.
So, paraphrasing the words of Ronald Reagan to Mikahil Gorbachev: "Your Holiness, if you seek peace; if you seek unity for the Catholic Church; if you desire that all Christians may be one, come here to this altar. Your Holiness, open up the Lord's Supper to all believers for us to feed on Him by faith. Your Holiness, tear down this wall of transubstantiational dogmatism."
posted byArchbishop Cranmer at 11:10 am Permalink
43 Comments:
"contingent upon deception". Correct.
"excommunicate us along with adulterers, practising homosexuals and abortionists". Imcorrect. If "us" is the Anglican Church, then the "you" includes adulterers, etc. You are not excommunicated "along with". You are excommunicated "for being".
"medicinal penalty". Correct.
You are a fine writer when it comes to identifying the spiritual essence of the human creature.
Brother Ivo has similarly participated as a deliberate principled acceptance of Christ's gift, and to challenge an inconsistent hierarchy.
It was at the time when Tony Blair was regularly attending Mass with his family and John Paul II made an ostentatious point that he should be refused communion.
Brother Ivo was going to Rome and his then friend and fine theologian priest urged " Go to a Catholic Church and take communion". This he did at St Peter's. He joined the line to receive with many others and no attempt was made to challenge.
It seemed highly inconsistent that the Catholic Church was content to place the growing pastoral relationship between an individual and his priest at risk by such a public remonstrance, whilst remaining content to leave the altars at its principle Chuch "unprotected".
Had Brother Ivo been challenged and politely refused he would have been saddened but not offended.
There is a reason we are called Protestants. We share much with our fellow Christians but true friendship is predicated upon a willingness to reprove with kindness and honesty. That right/duty is of course a two way street.
Brother Ivo is fond of Queen Elizabeth I response to once murderous controversies over the Eucharist.
" The Word it was that spake it
He took the bread and break it
And whatsoe're He make it
That I believe - and take it"
Archbishop Cranmer
There are so many problems with this post I scarcely know where to begin.
1. Your presentation is fundamentally Protestant. You are assuming that Roman Catholics approach Communion in the same way as a Protestant. They don't. To accept this argument they would first have to become Protestant.
2. Transubstantiation is a secondary issue compared to the Doctrine of the Mass and the continued re-presentation of the sacrifice on the Cross. Communion in the RCC is genetically connected to the Roman doctrine of justification. The whole point of the mass is for the priest to call the Son of Man down from heaven and offers Him once again for the sins of the faithful. It makes of the Cross a sacrifice which never truly forgives sin. Instead it becomes the repeated sacrifices offered in the OT temple - sacrifices that could never truly cleanse. This is why no Protestant should ever participate in the Mass. It is at its root a denial of the sufficiency of grace.
3. It is profoundly disresepctful to RCs to secretly impose your own understanding of their faith onto their doctrines. They tell you that you should not partake. It is not for you to decide that you know better.
4. This means that there is no Communion between Protestant and Catholic. We are not different expressions of the same thing. We represent and preach fundamentally different gospels. Let's be clear. The RCC is to a Protestant as a Mormon is to a Protestant. That difference is on display in Communion. It is your responsibility to display that difference by refusing the show of false unity.
carl
Mr Jacobs,
His Grace isn't Protestant: he is Anglican.
Your third point applies equally to the Calvinist seeking to instruct Anglicans in their own understanding of doctrine.
Archbishop Cranmer
Anglican refers to a denomination. Calvinism refers to a theology of justification. It is independent of denomination. That's why there are Anglican priests who are Calvinists. When I travel, I frequently attend an Anglican church whose vicar is a Calvinist. He would affirm everything I just said.
As for Anglican understanding of doctrine, I was not aware that there was any coherent understanding on which to be instructed. There are at least three mutually exclusive churches in the Anglican Communion - which is why it is disintegrating into dust. Should I listen to Sydney? Should I listen to TEC? Should I listen to the "Can't we all just get along" theology of Lambeth? Even so, which of the 39 Articles have I violated?
The only reason I am not in an Anglican church is because there isn't an Anglican church within 150miles of my house that isn't liberal. I did not disrespect you. I told you that you were wrong. There is a difference.
carl
His Grace isn't Protestant: he is Anglican.
In a sincere spirit of enquiry could you please explain what the difference is between a Protestant and an Anglican because I do not understand it. Surely Cranmer was part of the Protestant Reformation ?
Would HG rip the jihab from a Moslem woman's head?
Stuff pork down the throat of a Jew?
Drag his menstruating wife into a Hindu Temple?
Probably.
Receiving the consecrated host is tantamount to the same thing in Catholicism.
Shame on you!
Cranmer, you are far more erudite, educated & knowledgeable than I am on these things. And this post gives plenty of interesting arguments.
However, the general tenet of your last few posts seems to have been that Roman Catholicism would be better if it rejected those things which are distinctive to Roman Catholicism and adopted Anglicanism instead.
I say this being neither a Roman Catholic or an Anglican - I think Anglicanism would be better if it re-discovered more of it's Roman Catholic heritage.
His Grace wishes simply to deal with the claim of the Roman Church to catholicity while enforcing exclusivity in Holy Communion - the very means by which all men and women may be stirred to friendship, love and concord. It is a symbol of brotherly and sisterly affection; of unfeigned love between members of the Body of Christ.
It is a symbol of nothing; it is exactly what It is presented as - the body of Christ. Look at it this way: Protestants (and let's have none of this affected difference between Protestant and Anglican) see communion as a beginning; Catholics see it as an end. Before you reach the end, you have to jump through certain hoops in order to achieve a state of grace. It's the merit system, Cranmer, and you haven't built up any points.
What you did in Rome, we would consider a mortal sin, and if you don't purge it, your soul is in danger. This is the reason we don't give communion to heretics, and yes, patronising as it sounds, we're trying to protect you from yourself. I suggest you consider taking an RCIA course.
The taking of the Consecrated Host by those of other Christian faiths is dealt with by Canon 844, and the section pertaining to the Anglican Church is section 4 of that Canon
Section 4 applies mainly to Protestants, though that term, like "Eastern Orthodox," is not used in canon law. This Section says that "if the danger of death is present or other grave necessity," and if the diocesan bishop approves, Catholic ministers may give the three sacraments to Christians who are neither Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox. Such people must not be able to approach a minister of their own community, must ask for the sacraments on their own (again, there is to be no general invitation to non-Catholics to "come up and receive Communion"), must be in the state of grace, and must "manifest Catholic faith in these sacraments."
This means their understanding of the Real Presence, for example, must be the Catholic understanding.
But it must also be noted that in Canon 912, which says that “any baptized person who is not prohibited by law must be admitted to Holy Communion.” This canon is directly related to another (canon 213) which codified the fundamental right of all Christians to receive help from the spiritual goods of the church, especially the sacraments:
"The Christian faithful have the right to receive assistance from the sacred pastors out of the spiritual goods of the Church, especially the Word of God and the sacraments."
Both canons 912 and 213 use the word Christian and not Catholic as the descriptive of the subject of communion. This reflects the constant theology that the Eucharist is a fundamental right of all the baptized, not only those who are official members of the Catholic church. (Cf. Lumen Gentium 37).
In practice, the law encourages a presumption of the good will and honest faith of the one asking to receive the Eucharist.
Perhaps Your Grace in this matter is best guided by this quote which should need no introduction.
""Therefore if any of you be a blasphemer of God, an hinderer or slanderer of his Word, an adulterer, or be in malice, or envy, or in any other grievous crime, repent you of your sins, or else come not to that holy Table; lest, after the taking of that holy Sacrament, the devil enter into you, as he entered into Judas, and fill you full of all iniquities, and bring you to destruction both of body and soul."
God knows what is in the human heart. And God alone judges. Those who approach him in love, reverence and hope will only find love waiting.
Well, Your Grace, I'm with you - except I'll never go near an RC church again, not even for another look at the Pieta, the Ceiling, or those Apostles on the Roof.
As I see it, at least Anglicans embraced the metaphoric nature of the ceremony. So doing, we accepted its rejection of two terrible human habits: Child Sacrifice and Cannibalism.
I can't help but wonder if transubstantiation isn't part of the RC mindset. I've met soooo many who believe in extending it into daily life: by spiritual murder, and by feeding off the victims... and then there's the other thing.
Thank goodness YG is safely out of there. Welcome home.
Carl Jacobs wrote:
"This means that there is no Communion between Protestant and Catholic. We are not different expressions of the same thing."
A very good summary of the vital differences beyween Rc's and all other biblical expressions of the Protestant faith.
As you say, there is, and can never be, mutual "communion" whilst RC doctrines remain and constitute "another gospel"
Well said.
But you did not partake, did you.
You committed a deception.
Rather like Tony Banks crossing his fingers during the Queens Oath.
I suspect that you are in a spiritual struggle. Why on earth would you go to St Peters and partake in a Tridentine Mass?
Just do it Cranmer.
You know it makes sense.
After all there is precious little left to keep you in the CofE.
Your Grace
As you have quoted from the early church fathers, the notion of transubstantiation would be thought as an heretical nonsense.
Yet here we are talking about Rome and it's false calls for unity etc when it seeks nothing of the sort...Our house, our rules is the reality and yet people can not see behind the obvious double speak.
After all the lovely, charming comments you have received about partaking in communion with a piece of wafer, Ernst joyfully declines all invites to swim across the Tiber and join in foolish nonsense.
The idea of platting me own excrement seems a more sensible use of me time left here than unifying with those who refuse to examine themselves or repent once the deficiencies are found.
Ernst 'excommunicated and lovin it' Blofeld
A Protestant is defined by the giving assent to the Five Solas of the Reformation.
Sola Scriptura - Scripture Alone
Solus Christus - Christ Alone
Sola Gratia - Grace Alone
Sola Fide - Faith Alone
Soli Deo Gloria - The Glory of God Alone
They define the battle with Rome over essentials. There is no middle ground on these issues.
The problem with Anglican taxonomy is that Anglicanism has no theological center. There are "Protestant" Anglicans and "Catholic" Anglicans and "Liberal" Anglicans. The unity is organizational and extends no deeper than words on the page. This is why Anglicanism is deconstructing itself into its constiuent parts. Different religions cannot coexist in the same organization.
carl
Absolutely Archbishop, Christ should be, must be, available to all who come to him in church. Let nothing stand in the way of the soul meeting the son of our creator. Let it not be ‘born againism’ (…that’s for you, Len…) or a protestant who has a different interpretation of the word, and most especially, a protestant who lives and breathes sectarianism (…that’s for you, Carl…). If it could be this was,, then it really would fit in with the meaning of ‘Catholic’ !
Transubstantiation is somewhat different. We’ll just have to accept that it is a dogma of the RCC. This man, who has yet to fully grasp the Trinity, has no problems throwing it in the mysteries box. So much in faith is not for public view or understanding, so two more mysteries won’t be out of place…
More thought from the Inspector. Is he alone in condemning this business of non Catholic and non Protestant within Christianity as disgusting, though alas typical of man’s blindness. Denying the host to non humans – now, there’s merit in that, but non Catholics – get out of here !
You blind people do realise you will ALL be asked to justify your stance before almighty God. Get your defence ready now, though one is impressed that some of you are word perfect at it as it is. Remember, you don’t have to convince yourselves, merely the divine tribunal. Rather you than the Inspector, what !
Right then, considering the great threat aggressive secularism is out there, conveniently personified on this site by David B, how about some unity in Christendom, fellows…
"Touto estin to soumo mou"
Not "Oustos"
You see, Jesus is really and truly corporealy present under the accidents of bread and wine.
If you do not believe that you should not take communion in a Catholic church.
Sorry but its not an extension of tea and biscuits.
The Eucharist is a sacrament of unity, so why wouldn't Catholics encourage Protestants to receive the Eucharist so that the divisions in the Body of Christ might be healed?
The Catholic Church longs for unity because division is contrary to the will of Christ. She understands herself to be the one Church that Jesus founded, the locus of Christian unity and prays that all people might be reconciled to her and, through her, to Christ.
At the same time, the Church regards all those who have been baptised as brothers and sisters in Christ and recognizes that God is at work in Protestant communities but that they are "separated brethren." While great strides have been made in mutual understanding and reconciliation between Catholic and non-Catholic Christians, the longed-for unity is not yet a reality.
Catholic teaching that Protestants ought not receive Catholic Communion is born, not out of an insensitive desire for exclusivity, but primarily out of love.
Paul wrote to the Corinthians:
“So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.”
(1 Corinthians 11:27-30)
Protestants are not the only ones who ought not receive the Eucharist at Mass. Catholics are not to receive Communion if they are conscious of having committed any serious sins which they have not confessed in the sacrament of reconciliation. To receive the Eucharist in such a state of sin is, itself, a serious sin. There are many Catholics today who, through life style choices, myself included, are also precluded from receiving Communion.
Your Grace (and no longer temporary Holiness):
As a gross heretic, I have enjoyed attending RC services with an old Anglican friend who converted. When the time for Communion arises, I sit still because it would dishonest to God to do otherwise. I am then usually invited by some other member of the congregation to go up for a blessing. There is no rejection but a welcome for outsiders. As a heretic, I think it only right and "honest to God" to stay in my seat (as I also do in other churches) but I appreciate the invitation and the warmth that it displays.
Cressida @ 13.19, not so many years ago I attended the funeral of a man who had been a good friend and mentor to me in my city job. He took a paternal interest in my career, I visited him in hospital when he was dying and I had got to know his children and his wife.
The requiem mass in a small Catholic church inevitably got to the stage of taking bread, and wine for the priest. As an Anglican I held back. But the family said, come on join us, it is important to us that you do. So I did.
Was that wrong? If so why?
If eggs had three ends I could refer to Dean Swift regarding what these different views of communion look like to an outsider.
David
I'm with the Inspector. In the face of a common enemy, What unites us is greater than what divides us.
But secularism is your friend. It guarantees freedom of belief, though no special privileges for one religion over another, or religion over no religion.
In the absence of secular values, watch out for the stonings and burnings at the stake, between religions and between sects of the same religions.
We saw it between Protestants and Catholics, and see it between Sunnis and Shiites.
Secularism is good for all of us, atheist and religious alike.
David
Yeah, the state is your friend. Ask any Russian old enough to remember the Soviet Union.
David B. But secularism is your friend. It guarantees freedom of belief, though no special privileges for one religion over another, or religion over no religion.
This kind of talk is rather evident in pre revolutionary socialist thinking. Of course, come the revolution, it all changes. You really should bone up on the Stalinist show trials of the 1930s, when what was left of the revolutionary Bolshevik leadership was tied to a post...
And make no mistake, what you are advocating will take a revolution of sorts...
It depends on what 'secular' means. If by secular he means 'non-sectarian' then he is correct. The problem is that we read 'secular' and translate it as 'non-theistic philosophical materialism.' That is a problem because it becomes an established non-theistic state religion. Confer with the Soviet Union.
carl
Archbishop Cranmer: Anglican Calvinist here!
Also, don't forget that the fundamental issue which led to the execution of most of the Marian martyrs was their refusal to accept the Roman Catholic understanding of the Lord's Supper. Ridley, Hooper, Latimer and indeed your Grace (although that one's a bit more complicated), so they certainly didn't see it as adiaphora.
Inspector, it isn't sectarian to point out the fundamental and irreconcilable differences between Rome and Geneva//Zurich/Wittenburg (depending on your view of the Eucharist). It's simple honesty- Catholics or Protestants (or both) are seriously wrong about the gospel.
Thomas K, one deprecates the term sectarian strictly when used by the scurrilous who would use the dived church of Christ to propagate their own nefarious aims. When used in a genuine academic dissertation of one’s beliefs, then go ahead sir, be sectarian...
erm...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5pKrwnn_2s&list=UU2-3Cf7Hw10b3NW05p2Z7IA&index=38
(you have to keep watching past the "credits")
OldJim: I enjoyed the satire. However, I presume you don't need me to rehearse the hermeneutical consequences of taking its point to its logical extreme? I'll give you a clue, it involves hinges, and possibly wool. (Also, aware that your basic point was that we shouldn't share the apple. Agree with that.)
The Roman Catholic organisation has the doctrinal understanding to realise that their Mass, and the Protestant Lord's Supper, are two different things - symbols of two different doctrines of salvation.
Thus it's rather sad to see a professed Protestant missing this and begging to be allowed in.
Begging to be let in, Mr. Anderson? You have to be joking!
You really can't grasp that we reject Romanism, can you?
Why you all come to this site, trying to force your straitjackets on us, beats me. A herd of elephants couldn't drag me to an RC site.
The Catholic Church is either the most delusional, presumptuous and hubristic organisation on earth, or it is correct.
There can be no compromise with Rome on the nature of the Mass or the Eucharist. As hurtful as it might appear, who may or may not licitly receive Christ's body and blood, without bringing judgement on themselves, is clearly stated in Canon Law and in the Cathecism of the Church.
What a tragedy that the perfect gift of unity given to mankind is a source of so much disunity and acrimony amongst Christians.
I am a Catholic convert. It cost me - an ex Anglican Rector - ten years on the dole to be able to become a true Catholic.
Worth every minute!
@ Peter Damian
"The Catholic Church is either the most delusional, presumptuous and hubristic organisation on earth, or it is correct. "
Oh I don't know. At least the RCC, or the bulk of it, anyway, takes on the idea that the earth and universe are old, that evolution happens (even if that is coupled with dubious metaphysics), and does not claim the sort of biblical inerrancy that many fringe Protestant groups do.
I would say that it doesn't even get on the podium of most delusional groups. It doesn't even get through to the final!
Look, for example, at the Latter Day Saints, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Islamic theocracies, the Answers in Genesis crowd, the group I was involved in, Transcendental Meditationists, the Church of Scientology, and, leaving a lot of the runners and riders out, but perhaps the favourites for the gold medal, the Rapture Ready crowd.
Note that the proponents of all the above, and others, seem to be equally convinced that they are right, and everyone else is more or less wrong, and further note that only one at most can be right, and hence all the others must be more or less wrong.
Of course all the organisations and belief systems which have metaphysics necessarily involving the supernatural and/or space aliens could be wrong.
Some of us, in my opinion the most sensible and best informed, take this as their working hypothesis.
David
The Orthodox and the Catholics see communion as the sign of unity and therefore communicate only those who believe as they do. Those who practice deception deceive only themselves.
Your Grace you said you took the Catholic Eucharist but did you believe you were receiving the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ? Do you in fact believe in the Real as opposed to the metaphorical presence? It is good to get these issues out into the open and your blog has sparked another useful discussion
Shacklefree,
His Grace believes with all his heart and soul and mind the very words of Christ:
And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
Your Grace, Your words indicate that you do believe in the Real Presence as expressed by the words of Jesus you quoted and by his other words such as “my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink”. Your intention clearly is not to demean the holy sacrifice but to proclaim the true Catholic doctrine. I do not have any theological training such as you have had and I hesitate to make pronouncements about the rights or wrongs but I would ask “Why not join the Ordinariate?” If I had the option between an Ordinariate mass and a novus ordo mass, I’d go for the Ordinariate.
I would say however that the Catholic Eucharist should not be given to Protestants and that Protestants should not receive until they come back to the unity of the One True Church
One quite sees why they're sitting merrily on the Treaties of Rome and Lisbon, Your Grace.
Those unholy Romans never give up! But then, neither do anti-Romans.
Mr Keningley,
Indeed, I wouldn't found an argument for the Real Presence on the use of the word "is". If I were using a piece of scripture to do so, I would be much more likely to refer to the disgust of the disciples in John 6:60, and I'm sure you would respond with Jesus' words in John 6:63. And so we would reach a scriptural stalemate, and have to look at the theologies and the Church history that underlies our positions.
But all this is beside the point, my intention in posting the video was:
1)as you rightly observe, we should not share the apple
2)it amused me
3)I liked that here was a protestant saying it; it is not, as His Grace seems to believe, a matter of the prejudices of those (Catholics) who hold a belief in the Real Presence; rather, all those who hold a belief in the Real Presence (Lutherans included) practice closed Communion: it is a corollary of the belief itself.
Post a Comment
<< Home