indriķis 
|
Iesūtīts:
2010.05.04 19:52:05
Gribētos noskaidrot, ko mūsdienu normāli anglikāņi - episkopāļi ( ne ši Latvijas anglikāņu karikatūra ) māca par Svēto Vakarēdienu un Kristus klātbūtni tā elementos?
Lūdzu, Jūsu informāciju! |
|
indriķis |
# Iesūtīts: 2010.05.04 19:52:35
Gribētos noskaidrot, ko mūsdienu normāli anglikāņi - episkopāļi ( ne ši Latvijas anglikāņu karikatūra ) māca par Svēto Vakarēdienu un Kristus klātbūtni tā elementos?
Lūdzu, Jūsu informāciju! |
Aivars  |
# Iesūtīts: 2010.05.04 20:01:48
indriķis
Nu viens variants ieskatam varētu būt N.T. Wright "Surprised by Hope" 273-276 lpp (2008 gadā pirmizdevums)
Nav gan ļoti izvērsts |
indriķis |
# Labojis indriķis: 2010.05.05 08:54:46
Zināms, ka anglikāņu ticības tēvs Krānmers Eiharistijā bija kalvinists, atkāpdamies no sākotnēji luteriskās izpratnes.
Tāpat , zināms, ka pēc reformācijas anglikāņi atradās komūnijā ar Ženēvu.
Un 39. artikuli šai jautājumā, kā jau tika minēts, ir divdomīgi un tie neesot autoritatīvi šodienas anglikāņiem.
Tāpēc vēlētos tādu oficiālāku artikulu, šodienas anglikāņu baznīcas mācību.
|
Aivars |
# Iesūtīts: 2010.05.05 09:38:33
indriķis
Lai nav jāpļāpā tāpat vien. Speciāli tev ieskanēju to anglikāņu bīskapa Raita tekstu, Gan jau kaut ko par anglikāņu Sv. V. izpratni tas pasaka. Nezinu vai gluži to, ko Tu sagaidi dzirdēt. |
Aivars |
# Iesūtīts: 2010.05.05 09:38:58
Eucharist
From baptism we move naturally to the Eucharist. Let me sketch three views of the Eucharist and show how the theology of new cre¬ation, coming forward to meet us in the present, enables us to see more clearly what`s going on.
For many Christians, the sacraments have been all too close to the performance of sympathetic magic. A holy person, a shamanlike figure, mumbles the magic words and does the magic deeds; a won¬derful conjuring trick is performed in which ordinary food is turned into the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ; once again evil is warded off, atonement is made, God is appeased, prayers are offered with special efficacy, social power and control are reinforced, every¬one is happy. A caricature, of course, of what real theologians actu¬ally believed, but this is how things have often appeared to many ordinary folk. And at that level the church`s sacraments are little bet¬ter than pagan ritual.
Until, of course, the Reformation, at which point the entire sys¬tem was challenged. One extreme of Reformation theology, deter¬mined to resist anything that smacked of magic or paganism or that confirmed the power of the priestly class, insisted on denying every¬thing that Rome taught. Thus the radical Swiss Reformers regarded the Eucharist as a bare sign, a simple reminder, of the historic fact that Christ had died for our sins. Meditate on that fact, they said, and you would get just as much spiritual benefit as you would from eating the bread—indeed, much more than if you ate it without -such meditation.
In between the quasi-magic ritual, on the one hand, and the bare memory, on the other, a more historically grounded view re minds us of how the Jewish sacred meals (not least the Passover from which the Eucharist takes its point of origin) were thought to function. To this day, when Jews celebrate Passover they don`t sup¬pose they are essentially doing something different from the original event. "This is the night," they say, "when God brought us out of Egypt." The people sitting around the table become not the dis-tant heirs of the wilderness generation but the same people. Time and space telescope together. Within the sacramental world, past and present are one. Together they point forward to the still-future liberation.
What happens in the Eucharist is that through the death and res-urrection of Jesus Christ, this future dimension is brought sharply into play. We break this bread to share in the body of Christ; we do it in remembrance of him; we become for a moment the disciples sitting around the table at the Last Supper. Yet if we stop there we`ve only said the half of it. To make any headway in understanding the Eucharist, we must see it as the arrival of God`s future in the pres-ent, not just the extension of God`s past (or of Jesus`s past) into our present. We do not simply remember a long-since dead Jesus; we celebrate the presence of the living Lord. And he lives, through the resurrection, precisely as the one who has gone on ahead into the new creation, the transformed new world, as the one who is himself its prototype. The Jesus who gives himself to us as food and drink is himself the beginning of God`s new world. At communion we are like the children of Israel in the wilderness, tasting fruit plucked from the promised land. It is the future coming to meet us in the present.
This perspective is a far more helpful way to talk about the pres-ence of Christ in the Eucharist than trying to redefine the old lan-guage of transubstantiation. The problem with the old language was not that it was the wrong answer but that it was the right answer to the wrong question. It was right to insist on the true presence
of Christ but wrong to explain that presence in terms of the phi-losophies of the time, the Aristotelian distinction between substance and accident, and the supposed power of the priest to alter the "sub¬stance" (the inner, invisible reality of an object like a piece of bread) while leaving the "accidents" (its outward properties like weight, color, chemical makeup) apparently untouched. That was one way Of saying what needed to be said in language that some people in the Middle Ages could understand, but it has produced all kinds of misunderstandings and abuses.
A far better way is provided by the New Testament`s language about new creation. Take Romans 8 as a good starting point: cre¬ation is groaning in travail as it waits for redemption. But one part of the old creation has already been transformed, is already liberated from bondage to decay, namely, the body of Christ, the body that died on the cross and is now alive with a life that death can`t touch. Jesus has gone ahead into God`s new creation, and as we look back to his death through the lens he himself provided—that is, the meal he shared on the night he was betrayed—we find that he comes to meet us in and through the symbols of creation, the bread and the wine, which are thus taken up into the Christ story, the event of new creation itself, and become vessels, carriers, of God`s new world and the saving events that enable us to share it.
Within this framework, that of a true Easter understanding of creation and new creation, we can understand the Eucharist most fully as the anticipation of the banquet when heaven and earth are made new, the marriage supper of the Lamb. (Some liturgies have tried to express this but sadly have often collapsed back into mere talk of heaven, which is precisely not the point.) It is the breaking in of God`s future, the Advent future, into our present time. Every Eu¬charist is a little Christmas as well as a little Easter.
This is not magic. Magic seeks to gain by cunning, and for per¬sonal power or pleasure, what God gives by grace, to faith, to pro¬mote holiness and love. The resurrection of Jesus and the promise of a world made new provide the ontological. epistemological, and
above all eschatological framework within which we can understand the Eucharist afresh. Let us not rob ourselves of the hope that comes forward from God`s future to sustain us in the present. God`s new world has begun. If we don`t see it breaking into the present world, we are denying the energizing foundation of Christian life.
|
indriķis |
# Iesūtīts: 2010.05.05 09:58:53
Teoloģija ap- un -apkārt Eiharistiju būtu tīri normāla, bet vai nav kaut kas vairāk tieši par Iestādījuma elementiem?
Kā pie mums - Kristus Miesa un Asinis - par mūsu grēku piedošanu.
Bīskapu Montefiori palasīju, atkal tā pati nekonkrētība. |
Aivars |
# Iesūtīts: 2010.05.05 10:05:37
indriķis
Jesus has gone ahead into God`s new creation, and as we look back to his death through the lens he himself provided—that is, the meal he shared on the night he was betrayed— we find that he comes to meet us in and through the symbols of creation, the bread and the wine , which are thus taken up into the Christ story, the event of new creation itself, and become vessels, carriers, of God`s new world and the saving events that enable us to share it.
Neteiktu, ka te ir klasiskā Krusta upura baudīšana, drīzāk eshatoloģiski transubstanciatīvais simbolisms  |
indriķis |
# Labojis indriķis: 2010.05.05 10:18:35
No tā es arī visvairāk baidījos, ka pa vidu teoloģiskai dzejai tiek pazaudēta Eiharistijas būtība.
Atliek vien Kentrberijas arhibīskapam pavaicāt tiešā tekstā. |
Aivars |
# Iesūtīts: 2010.05.05 10:30:08
Tel: 020 7898 1200
contact@lambethpalace.org.uk
Kad viņš Tev būs sirdi izkratījis, pastāsti, vai esi rekrutēts viņas majestātes Baznīcā.  |
indriķis |
# Labojis indriķis: 2010.05.05 19:12:46
Search.com reference-
The historical position of the Anglican Communion is found in the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1571, which state "the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ"; and likewise that "the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ" (Articles of Religion, Article XXVIII: Of the Lord`s Supper) and that "Transubstantiation is repugnant to Holy Writ". The fact that the terms "Bread" and "Wine" and the corresponding words "Body" and "Blood" are all capitalized may reflect the wide range of theological beliefs regarding the Eucharist among Anglicans. However, the Articles also state that adoration, or worship per se, of the consecrated elements was not commanded by Christ and should not be practiced. It also stated that those who receive unworthily do not actually receive Christ but rather their own condemnation.
Anglicans generally and officially believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but the specifics of that belief range from transubstantiation, sometimes with Eucharistic adoration (mainly Anglo-Catholics), to something akin to a belief in a "pneumatic" presence, which may or may not be tied to the Eucharistic elements themselves (almost always "Low Church" or Evangelical Anglicans). The normal range of Anglican belief ranges from Objective Reality to Pious Silence, depending on the individual Anglican`s theology. There are also small minorities on the one hand which affirm transubstantiation, or on the other hand, reject the doctrine of the Real Presence altogether.
Anglican belief in the Eucharistic Sacrifice (Sacrifice of the Mass) is set forth in the response Saepius officio of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to Pope Leo XIII`s Papal Encyclical Apostolicae curae. Anglicans and Roman Catholics declared that they had "substantial agreement on the doctrine of the Eucharist" in the Windsor Statement on Eucharistic Doctrine from the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Consultation and the Elucidation of the ARCIC Windsor Statement. |
Aivars |
# Iesūtīts: 2010.05.06 10:00:12
2008 gadā Rovans Viljams par Sv. V. raksta, šķiet, Kalvina tradīcijā, kur Kristus miesas klātbūtne tiek drīzāk attiecināta uz draudzi, ne uz hostijām.
What I miss in the lower-key accounts of unity is just that conviction of how we need each other so as to receive this communication of life. From the beginnings of Christian faith, Christians have seen this as literally embodied in the central act of worship, in the Eucharist. We come together to be fed – fed by a reality wholly other to us yet made wholly accessible to us; fed so that we can feed one another. The Eucharist isn`t an occasion when we set out to celebrate our togetherness and to encourage each other by the degree of our warm fellowship and close agreement. It is as we meet that we are fed by Christ, and because we are fed by him that we become able to feed each other. Somehow, no account of unity that doesn`t bring us to this place is going to be adequate.
And this is where the uncomfortable questions begin, the questions that lead us beyond a simple affirmation of each other`s good faith. To meet at the Eucharist so as to be fed by Christ means meeting in the confidence that our assembly is more than the gathering and action of one local community celebrating its sense of spiritual fellowship. It assumes that there are answers to questions about how a celebration of the Lord`s Supper is `open` not only to the universal dimension of the communion of Christ`s Body but also to the transcendent reality of Christ himself in the Spirit. If Christians can recognise in each other`s celebrations the ways in which these concerns are acknowledged and met, they are recognising Christ in each other – not only that recognition of Christ in the other which may happen with any individual of good faith touched by the Spirit, but the recognition of Christ specifically at work in and as his Body.
My point is twofold: first, that sharing in the Eucharist is the right and proper goal for all ecumenical endeavour, since it is there that we see fleshed out the fundamental reality of a community in which people are `feeding` each other, communicating life to each other, because they are fed by Christ; second, that this inevitably entails some complex reflection and questioning about how Eucharistic life in its fullness may be recognised in this or that community. Because we are rightly wary of the mechanical and juridical categories of ministerial validity which used to accompany this sort of question, we tend to fight shy of some of these questions about how we recognise in one another the full and abundant life of Christ in the Body. But to raise these matters is really just a way of asking whether we are doing justice to the full richness of the biblical understanding of unity.
When the Lima statement on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry appeared in 1982, there was, I think, a real feeling that we were moving forward in sketching out a common language for talking about these great themes. The same holds for the early ARCIC documents, especially the one on ministry. The sadness is that some of the impetus behind texts like these has faded, so that we are in danger of losing a common conversation about the essential tools of recognition – recognition conceived not in a legalistic framework but as a necessary aspect of how we open ourselves to the communication of life. Along with the rest of my Anglican ecclesial family, I don`t agree with the official Roman Catholic (and Orthodox) teaching which sees eucharistic communion as depending entirely on the attainment of a comprehensive agreement on doctrine. But I must also grant that this discipline at least shows that what is understood by the Eucharist (and thus, by extension, the recognised ministry of the eucharistic president) is to do with very basic aspects of faith as an activity of the Body, not of the individual.
Bet vispār Raksts pats par sevi tīri interesants - http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1527?q=Eucharist |
Voldemārs  |
# Iesūtīts: 2010.05.06 10:16:31
Jā... grūti ir atrast, kur anglikāņi skaidri izteiktos par savu Vakarēdiena mācību. Pie viņiem, kā rādās, tas ir zem "slepenības grifa" 
Pamēģināju oficiālo pāvestiešu anglikāņu dialoga (ARCIC) sadaļu par Vakarēdienu (http://www.prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/arcic/doc/e_arcic_elucid_euch.html). Neparādās tur Kristus klātbūtne, bet gan runas ap to.
Luteriskā izpratne ļoti skaidri runā par Kristus klātbūtni, un, lai izvairītos no pārpratumiem, jautājums ir par to, vai arī neticīgie saņem patiesu Kristus miesu (manducatio impiorum). Vai tādas lietas anglikānismā kāds var atrast? Ja var, tad varam sākt runāt par mūsu (proti, luterāņu un anglikāņu) izpratņu saskaņu. Pretējā gadījumā, jāpiekrīt tiem, kas anglikāņu izpratni raksturo kā kalvinistisku. Atcerēsimies, arī Kalvinam Vakarēdienā bija patiesā klātbūtne, tikai viņš ar to saprata gaužām citu lietu
Lai nerastos pārpratumi, te runa nav par atsevišķu indivīdu izpratni, kas anglikāņu gadījumā svārstās no pāvestiskās transubstanciācijas līdz reālprezences pilnīgam noliegumam, bet gan par oficiālo baznīcas mācību (norma normata). |
Galva Deg |
# Iesūtīts: 2010.05.06 11:14:13
Papildinot Voldemāru - ne jau katra dalībnieka ticība un izpratne nosaka Vakarēdiena realitāti, bet Kristus iestādījuma vārdi un tas, kā baznīca tos tic, māca un apliecina (praktizē). Mana ticība un izpratne man vairāk par vienkāršu maizi un vīnu nesagādās, ja to iešu baudīt pie tiem, kas kā baznīca neapliecina Kristus miesas un asiņu reālprezenci. |
Aivars |
# Iesūtīts: 2010.05.06 11:31:55
Galva Deg
Nu te jau arī tie teksti nav no Rovana Atkinsona, bet Viljamsa, kas gan jau nedaudz orientējas anglikānismā. |
indriķis |
# Labojis indriķis: 2010.05.06 12:07:53
Wikipēdijas artikuls par anglikāņu Eiharistijas teoloģiju-
Most low church Anglicans do, in fact, believe in the Real Presence but merely deny that the presence of Christ is carnal or can be localised in the bread and wine. Some high church or Anglo-Catholic Anglicans hold closely to the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, first promulgated by Scholastic theologians in the Middle Ages which understands the Eucharist as a re-presentation (not representation) of Christ`s atoning sacrifice, with the elements transubstantiated into Christ`s Body and Blood.
---
Some Anglicans, however, implicitly or explicitly adopt the Eucharistic theology of consubstantiation, first articulated by the Lollards, or Sacramental Union, first articulated by Martin Luther. Luther`s analogy of Christ`s Presence was that of the heat of a horseshoe thrust into a fire until it is glowing. In the same way, Christ is present in the bread and the wine.
---
Consubstantiation or sacramental union
Thomas Cranmer, principal author of the first Book of Common Prayer, wrote on the Eucharist in his treatise On the True and Catholic Doctrine of the Lord`s Supper that Christians truly receive Christ`s "self-same" Body and Blood at Communion--but in "an heavenly and spiritual manner". He also maintains in Article XXIX of the 39 Articles that the "wicked" only consume the elements and do not receive Christ.
This view has tended to predominate in Anglican Eucharistic theological discourse and practice. A maxim in Anglicanism concerning Christ`s presence is that "it may not be about a change of substance, but it is about a substantial change."[4] This view is expressed in the allied but metaphysically different doctrines of consubstantiation and sacramental union. In sum, both views hold that Christ is present in the Eucharistic elements spiritually. Such spiritual presence may or may not be believed to be in bodily form, depending on the particular doctrinal position. It may in fact be a mystical, yet still physical, Body of Christ, as some Anglican hold, or a superphysical reality "superimposed"in, with, and under the Bread and Wine. Although this is similar to consubstantiation, it is different, as it has a decidedly mystical emphasis.
Many contemporary Anglicans would concur with the views of the 19th century divine Edward Bouverie Pusey, who argued strongly for the idea of sacramental union. In this doctrine, the bread and wine do not disappear at the consecration, but that the Body and Blood become present without diminishing them.
---
Patristic view on Eucharistic Presence
According to Canon A5 Law of the Church of England, "the doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures." Since both Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation and Memorialism are theological views developed in Western Europe in the Middle Ages (but also built off of the writings of the Church Fathers, incarnational theology, and the Bible) many Anglicans prefer to express their Eucharistic theology in other ways, similar to the Eastern theology before the Middle Ages. |
Voldemārs |
# Iesūtīts: 2010.05.06 14:44:36
wikipedia gan nebūs nekāds akadēmsikais avots Citiem vārdiem, ņemot vērā kā tur var ievietot šķirkli, Tu varēji tik pat labi rakstīt "viena tante teica" |
+Jean [89.207.243.23] |
# Iesūtīts: 2010.05.06 17:35:31
Vai, Indriķis, jau lūkojas uz anglikāņu pusi? Varbūt tur kādu siltu vietiņu atradīs? Galvenais ielauzīties viņu valodā (I mean teoloģiskajā valodā) un tad jau būsi gana labs . Nav pat svarīgi vai pats ticētu tam, ko sludinātu.. |
Mārtiņš  |
# Iesūtīts: 2010.05.06 23:33:20
Voldemārs
wikipedia gan nebūs nekāds akadēmsikais avots Citiem vārdiem, ņemot vērā kā tur var ievietot šķirkli, Tu varēji tik pat labi rakstīt "viena tante teica"
Vai ar akadēmisku parakstu drukātas grāmatas būtu uzticamāki informācijas avoti? |
indriķis |
# Labojis indriķis: 2010.05.07 09:34:24
Un kur Jeans domā pavadīt savu ticības dzīvi?
Vai joprojām nošķīries pasaku virtualitātē?
Voldemār , ko wikipēdija pateica?
To, kam anglikāņi tic diskusijas temata sakarā.
Māksla nav akadēmiķi atrast, māksla ir pateikt tā, ka visi saprot.
Man prieks, ka daudzi anglikāņi tomēr turas pie Svēto Rakstu patiesības Eiharistijā.
|
Aivars |
# Iesūtīts: 2010.05.07 09:54:03
indriķis
Voldemārs laikam gan vairāk aizrādīja, ka vikipēdiju var rediģēt jebkurš, neriskējot ar savu labo vārdu un akadēmisko reputāciju, tā kā var arī pilnīgas baumas un aplamības sarakstīt, jaunus šķirkļus izveidot, kamēr kāds neizlabo.
Līdz ar to jābūt piesardzīgiem un jāpārbauda divreiz.
http://lv.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indri%C4%B7is_Parastais&action.. =edit&redlink=1
Pagaidām jau ārpus vikipēdijas taču neesi uzgājis pašu anglikāņu tekstu, kas apliecinātu luterisko sakramentoloģiju, vai ne?
|
:: Pievienot komentāru
|
