tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6601056345219122672.post7448246232253213862..comments2022-03-26T13:59:23.053-07:00Comments on Anglican Music: Blessed is HeJ.Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00248876387772558074noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6601056345219122672.post-29208625482798304842009-03-22T07:37:00.000-07:002009-03-22T07:37:00.000-07:00Luther's stance on Holy Communion depends greatly ...Luther's stance on Holy Communion depends greatly upon whom he was debating. The Roman Catholic Church was contending transubstantiation. So Luther took an extreme position to the other side saying that the Christ's body was present spiritually. BUT, Calvin and Zwingli argued that Christ's body wasn't present at all, so Luther took an extreme position (but not as extreme as transubstantiation) stating that we truly eat Christ's body and blood.<BR/><BR/>Here's how it boils down in Lutheran theology: Christ's body and blood are really, truly present in Holy Communion. When we eat and drink the bread and the wine we also eat and drink Christ's body and blood. It's not that we receive the bread and wine physically and Christ's body and blood spiritually. We receive both physically. But this happens in a spiritual way.<BR/><BR/>We don't question the Word of God. Jesus says it's His body. Therefore, it's His body. He didn't leave us a treatise explaining how it happens. That's just the way it is.<BR/><BR/>The "Blessed is He" was not viewed as worship of the elements and thus it was not stricken from the mass of the Lutheran Reformation.<BR/><BR/>Considering "Blessed is He" existed even before the Great Schism and even before any real semblance of the Roman Catholic Church, it is correct to say that this is not a patristic teaching.<BR/><BR/>And considering that "Blessed is He" were the words spoken before Jesus Christ as He was physically entering Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, the usage of these words in the mass can be interpreted in no other way than to reference the physical presence of Jesus among us as He comes in the Sacrament.<BR/><BR/>To say anything else leads to receptionism. It is what it is: bread and wine, body and blood.Josh Osbunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17906913610780375868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6601056345219122672.post-26709614009544961142009-03-21T11:32:00.000-07:002009-03-21T11:32:00.000-07:00SineNomine,Thank you for your long and thoughtful ...SineNomine,<BR/><BR/>Thank you for your long and thoughtful comments. Love your signin name.<BR/><BR/>On the question of Real Presence, I would certainly agree that Calvin, Zwingly and presumably Knox see communion as symbolic. I've not read Wesley so I'd defer there.<BR/><BR/>I don’t see how you can say Real Presence is contrary to the 39 Article. Article 28 says "the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ." It doesn't get any more clear than that.<BR/><BR/>If Vicar Josh (like other LCMS pastors I know) says that Lutheran doctrine ascribes Real Presence (without benefit of Transubstantiation), then I'm inclined to believe him. My quick perusal of the Google book <I><A HREF="http://books.google.com/books?id=AsYnAAAAYAAJ" REL="nofollow">Luther on the Sacraments</A></I> would support that view.<BR/><BR/>BTW, CFW Walther was a German-ordained Lutheran minister who founded the LCMS in 1847. So in American terms, they go back a ways. I don't know how they compare to German Lutheran doctrine of the day, and of course with the Nazi-created EKD German doctrine is now a bit of a mess.<BR/><BR/>9.WestJ.Westhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00248876387772558074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6601056345219122672.post-65548014830259355982009-03-21T09:41:00.000-07:002009-03-21T09:41:00.000-07:00I believe the difficulty in "Blessed is he who com...I believe the difficulty in "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord" historically comes from a Protestant and Catholic disagreement. Vicar Osbun said that he would not consider "Blessed is he" patristic (papist), but that the reformers only wanted to eliminate the abuses of the mass--so "Blessed.." is not problematic. He goes on to say that "Blessed is he" refers to the the physical coming of Jesus in the sacrament. This is most definately patristic.<BR/><BR/>And, this is where the reformers had (and still have) a problem. Luther, Calvin, Knox, Zwingli, Wesley, in the past and the reformed theologians of today all agree that Christ is not physically present in the sacrament. They generally agree that Christ is spiritually present in the sacrament.<BR/><BR/>Thus "Blessed is he" appears to be worship of the sacrament (i.e. Christ is there, let's worship). This theology was rejected during the reformation, is in opposition to the 39 Articles, is not evident in the theology other Anglican-derived denominations (Presbyterians, Methodists). When the Anglican/Episcopal church again begins to recognize the physical presence of Christ in the sacrament (and venerate the sacraments), they have returned (even if only partially) to Catholicism <BR/><BR/>Note: The ECUSA 1940 Hymnal uses the same formula for the Sanctus as the Methodist Hymnal through the 80s--without "Blessed is he". I cannot speak to the LCMS, but they are a newer division (1900s) within the Lutheran church and in some trappings more CatholicJonathan Hartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09852933749457221950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6601056345219122672.post-78053269626710235752009-02-04T07:31:00.000-08:002009-02-04T07:31:00.000-08:00Dear Vicar Josh,Thank you for your perspective as ...Dear Vicar Josh,<BR/><BR/>Thank you for your perspective as a trained theologian. I would certainly agree that something in the Liturgy of St. James is about as close to "apostolic" as the written record provides to us 1000 (or 1600) years later.<BR/><BR/>On pp. 58-59, his arguments about patristic would match yours. First he notes that Cranmer added the Prayer of Consecration, with the invocation of the Holy Spirit (Epiklesis, borrowing from the Eastern Liturgy of St. Basil -- should make JLee happy) from 4th century sources.<BR/><BR/>Then he rejects as patristic the Words of Institution ("This is my body ... This is my blood.") To quote<BR/><BR/>"This stress was increased in the Middle Ages by new ceremonies such as the Elevation; and consequently there arose the idea that the Eucharist is consecrated merely by the repetition of our Lord's words. Cranmer probably knew that there was no justification for this idea in early Church practice..."<BR/><BR/>Again, I am much further behind you in understand the ancient liturgies, so I appreciate your insights. I am trying to understand how Christian liturgical thought impacts what goes in the hymnal, and the lack of the Benedictus (the name given to that phrase by the Episcopal if not Anglican churches) turns out to be a problem in using the 1st and 2nd edition of the Hymnal 1940 today.J.Westhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00248876387772558074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6601056345219122672.post-56628200405830209182009-02-04T04:27:00.000-08:002009-02-04T04:27:00.000-08:00Thanks for the clarification.Considering the "Bles...Thanks for the clarification.<BR/><BR/>Considering the "Blessed is He" does appear in the Liturgy of St. James (c. 370), I would not consider this to be a patristic rite.<BR/><BR/>That being said, the reformers never wanted to abolish the mass. In fact, they considered it of great necessity to maintain the mass as they were accustomed to seeing it. What they wanted to eliminate were the abuses (adoration of the saints, worship of the Sacrament of the Altar, etc.). And so this would not have been something that they would have considered to be problematic.<BR/><BR/>On top of that, its theological significance at the end of the Sanctus is overwhelming. "Blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord." Who is that apart from our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who is, in fact, physically coming to us in the blessed sacrament?Josh Osbunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17906913610780375868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6601056345219122672.post-49890039307149843172009-02-04T01:07:00.000-08:002009-02-04T01:07:00.000-08:00I am in the odd position of defending a position o...I am in the odd position of defending a position of 75 years ago that I don't fully understand.<BR/><BR/>I assume "apostolic" means Christian tradition not invented by Rome and "patristic" means Papist invention rejected by all right-thinking Protestants.<BR/><BR/>From my reading of the book, it appears that Dearmer's categorization derives from three sources. One, any early documents of 0-500 AD (since there are no written records of liturgy from the true "apostolic" era).<BR/><BR/>Second, evidence of divergence between Eastern and Roman worship that suggests that at least one (if not post) are divergent from the original rite.<BR/><BR/>Third, known changes made in the Roman church — apparently between 1000 and 1549, when there are reasonable records of the start and end point.<BR/><BR/>I realize that interpreting the various evidence is a huge source of controversy — between Catholic and Protestant, among Protestants and of course between East and West.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6601056345219122672.post-91231771101037076852009-02-03T16:25:00.000-08:002009-02-03T16:25:00.000-08:00"The liturgies of St. Peter and St. James do."I ne..."The liturgies of St. Peter and St. James do."<BR/><BR/>I need a grammar checker.Jeffrey Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14341795071490408744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6601056345219122672.post-71574054249338565772009-02-03T16:24:00.000-08:002009-02-03T16:24:00.000-08:00I admit, I'd love to see on what basis the asserti...I admit, I'd love to see on what basis the assertion of apostolicity being to not use the "blessed..." The Liturgy of St. Mark doesn't have it, but the Liturgies of St. Peter and St. James does. Of course the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom has it, but that would be Patristic.Jeffrey Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14341795071490408744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6601056345219122672.post-83695614557840374702009-02-03T13:03:00.000-08:002009-02-03T13:03:00.000-08:00A second clarification that would be helpful is ho...A second clarification that would be helpful is how you are defining "apostolic" and "patristic." I see them mentioned in your quote from Dearmer. Again, I can make assumptions about what you mean by those terms, but, having been involved in enough theological discussions, when in doubt it is best to ask.Josh Osbunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17906913610780375868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6601056345219122672.post-35887833340226332922009-02-03T12:53:00.000-08:002009-02-03T12:53:00.000-08:00We need to get some terminology straight here. "B...We need to get some terminology straight here. "Benedictus" in Lutheran terminology means the Song of Zechariah from Luke 1:68-79. This is used in Matins.<BR/><BR/>By "Benedictus" are you referring to the phrase, "Blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord"? (I assume that's what you mean, but I want to be sure.)Josh Osbunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17906913610780375868noreply@blogger.com