Thinking About the Eucharist
I found this site thanks to another fellow Anglican blogger:
Anglican Eucharist Theology. Well worth reading. The most recent article on Dix is very interesting. The BCP is therein classified as Nominalist, yet I think it can be read as a Realist document as well - the article on Doyle gives evidence of that fact. We are "partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood" and "made one body with him". After all, we are talking about the via media here.
I was especially glad to read the ARCIC article, which includes statements by the Roman representative that are contrary to "immoderate realism," which is what the Reformers really hated. It gives me hope that we can some day remove the transubstantiation barrier between the Protestant and Roman Churches.
Anglican Eucharist Theology. Well worth reading. The most recent article on Dix is very interesting. The BCP is therein classified as Nominalist, yet I think it can be read as a Realist document as well - the article on Doyle gives evidence of that fact. We are "partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood" and "made one body with him". After all, we are talking about the via media here.
I was especially glad to read the ARCIC article, which includes statements by the Roman representative that are contrary to "immoderate realism," which is what the Reformers really hated. It gives me hope that we can some day remove the transubstantiation barrier between the Protestant and Roman Churches.
1 Comments:
David,
Thanks for your reference to my blog site. You might also be interested in the more extensive web site at:
http://web.mac.com/brian.douglas, where this is much more detailed case study material.
Can I say that I understand the BCP to be realist in many parts and not classified as nominalist as your comment suggests in relation to the Dix post. I think the BCP is very capable of a realist interpretation as well as a nominalist interpretation. This seems to be one of the BCP most notable characteristics, that is, capable of different interpretations.
I also have trouble describing Anglicanism as a via media. My own work suggests that Anglican eucharistic theology at least is multiform and not uniform in some middle way. If we are argue that we are a via media it really requires us to all move to some middle position which has no substance. The unity of Anglicanism, I am therefore suggesting is in fact its multiformity. I am also arguing that the sort of discourse we should be having in Anglicanism is one which engages the multiformity rather than prosecuting a particular party line.
Glad that there was material on the site that you found useful.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home