Validity of Anglican Orders?

[ICTHUS]

[quote]Either it is bread, or it is Christ.[/quote] Begs the question by assuming that transubstantiation is the only true doctrine.

[quote]  Either the Church is true or there is no truth.[/quote] Yep - the Church is true, but she is not perfect - yet. Nor is she infallible, as the Roman Catholic Church claims.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]Begs the question by assuming that transubstantiation is the only true doctrine.
[/quote]

No it doesn't beg the question, either it is bread or it is Christ, if Consubstantiation occurs then the bread is still bread, and when you aare not actively recieving the bread it is simply bread, if it is purly symbolic then it is Bread, the only way it ceases to be bread is if it becomes something else, consubstantiation specifily denies thet the bread itself becomes something else., As hyper said it is either bread or it is Christ.

Frankly you need to refresh yourself on logical fallacies because that doesn't even come close to begging the question, the statement explicitly gives one an option other than the idea that Hyper would be argueing ( that it is Christ) namely that it is bread. To beg the quetion means one assumes the Truth of the thing being questioned, that statemetn does not in anyway do that.

Edited December 29, 2004 by Don John of Austria

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Dec 29 2004, 04:38 AM']
No it doesn't beg the question, either it is bread or it is Christ, if Consubstantiation occurs then the bread is still bread, and when you aare not actively recieving the bread it is simply bread, if it is purly symbolic then it is Bread, the only way it ceases to be bread is if it becomes something else, consubstantiation specifily denies thet the bread itself becomes something else., As hyper said it is either bread or it is Christ.[/quote]
I'm not (necessarily) arguing for consubstantiation. I'm arguing for real presence. I'm arguing that Christ is present, and we receive Him in the Eucharist, and that it is dangerous to go beyond saying merely this.

It's worthwhile to note that if consubstantiation occurs, then we receive Christ alongside the Elements, so it is not just bread.

Also worthwhile to note is that if Christ is present Spiritually, then we still receive Christ, not carnally, but by faith.

[quote]Frankly you need to refresh yourself on logical fallacies because that doesn't even come close to begging the question, the statement explicitly gives one an option other than the idea that Hyper would be argueing ( that it is Christ) namely that it is bread. To beg the quetion means one assumes the Truth of the thing being questioned, that statemetn does not in anyway do that[/quote] Fine, then, it presents a false dilemma that does not accurately describe the position I am arguing for, which is simply 'real presence' and not 'transubstantiation'.

I don't see why this is so hard for you to understand.

Edited December 29, 2004 by ICTHUS

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Dec 29 2004, 02:54 AM'] I'm not (necessarily) arguing for consubstantiation. I'm arguing for real presence. I'm arguing that Christ is present, and we receive Him in the Eucharist, and that it is dangerous to go beyond saying merely this.

It's worthwhile to note that if consubstantiation occurs, then we receive Christ alongside the Elements, so it is not just bread.

Also worthwhile to note is that if Christ is present Spiritually, then we still receive Christ, not carnally, but by faith.

Fine, then, it presents a false dilemma that does not accurately describe the position I am arguing for, which is simply 'real presence' and not 'transubstantiation'.

I don't see why this is so hard for you to understand. [/quote]
What do you mean by [i]spiritually[/i] present and what do you mean by [i]carnally[/i] present? What do you mean by [i]real presence[/i]? Is the faith of the communicant the cause of the change of the elements into the body and blood of Christ? What do you understand the word [i]transubstantiation[/i] to signify? How does the dogma of [i]transubstantiation[/i], which by definition concerns a substantial and not a chemical or physical change in the elements, lead to a carnal presence?

ICTHUS, a Catholic has no problem saying that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is [i]spiritual[/i], unless by this term the person means to convey some notion of unreality. The Church, both East and West, holds to an objective change of the elements into the body and blood of Christ, and in order to affirm this change, which is not perceptible to the senses, it has used the terms [i]transubstantiation[/i] and [i]metousiosis[/i]. Now because Christ is essentially or substantially present in the Eucharist it follows that the sacrament truly unites the communicant with the Lord in more than a merely subjective sense, while the Lord's essential presence also allows one to adore Him in the sacrament. Once again the Church's teaching is meant to avoid a subjectivist understanding of the nature of the mystery of the Eucharist as a means for conveying grace by affirming the objective reality of the grace that is present in it.

As far as the notion of [i]consubstantiation[/i] is concerned, Christ never said, "This bread is My body"; instead, He said, "This is My body." The idea that the Eucharist is still bread, while it is simultaneously the body of Christ does not fully reflect the faith of the Church. But it should also be noted that the Church has no problem saying that there is an [i]earthly[/i] element to the sacramental signs, i.e., the physical and chemical properties of the bread and wine that remain after the consecration. The change that occurs is a change in the underlying reality of the bread and wine, and this essential change does not effect the outward appearances of the elements. The Eucharist is an example of where faith supplies for what the senses fail to perceive.

God bless,
Todd