" The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon or to be carried about, but we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same they have a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily purchase to themselves damnation as Saint Paul saith."I'm guessing the part that the Anglo-Catholics bristle at is the part that says that the Sacraments were not ordained to be gazed upon or to be carried about. Well, in fact, they weren't were they? Indeed we, as Catholic Christians, do indeed worship Christ as present in the elements, and in the Eucharistic Adoration we adore Christ, not the Sacrament itself. I would say that Eucharistic Adoration is but hollow unless there is a true devotion to the Christ present. Also, I would say that processing about with the Blessed Sacrament is but an acknowledgment of the power of that singular Sacrament on all who partake of it worthily.
He who worthily partakes of the Sacrament with a humble and contrite heart will receive blessing from God, and will manifest the fruit of his salvation in his own living. When such a person participates in the Eucharistic Adoration he is not worshiping the cookie, he is worshiping Christ. The Blessed Sacrament provides a visual image and point of focus for our worship.
More on the Articles later.
Posts
3 comments:
I think the part that Anglo-Catholics bristle at is, "The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshiped."
Indeed, the Sacrament is not to be worshiped unto itself. However, even the most Low Church of parishes reserve it, and many "carry it about" and "lift it up."
A minor point, true. I agree with about 98%* of what the Articles say. Still, there's always that 2% or so that requires (perhaps dishonest?) re-interpretation of the text.
(To be specific, I wholeheartedly embrace all of them, with slight reservations on 15, 17 and 18.)
Remember that the 39 Articles in England function as a document of political unity, and the CofE's requirement to abide by them has to be understood in a different, specifically English light than universal academic theology.
The question here is, "What is 'pure Anglicanism'?" A question intentionally denied an answer since the time of Elizabeth.
Anglicanism is less of a confessional church, more of a creedal and conciliar church.
Sorry for the novel, it's just something I've been thinking about lately haha.
Guess what I'm trying to say is, the Articles of Religion can only be used, as you write as a "formulary for Anglican doctrine and belief." They are useful instruments, and a lens through which to see Anglicanism, but not a binding contract.
You've probably read it, but check out the Six Articles of the King:
http://anglicanhistory.org/henry/book/
They were used as formularies for the formularies. Rather Catholic, but still an interesting read.
Eric, I do believe you're quoting from the American Episcopal Version and not the 1662 Prayerbook Version ;)
My position is that the standard formulary prayer-book is the 1662 Prayer Book. And I do agree that it is a formulary, and not dogma, but I also think that we ought not stray from it lightly.
Post a Comment