Artolatry?

My dear N.:

Please forgive me, I can be silent on this point no longer. Are you implying that I am an idolater because I believe that our Lord's Precious Body and Blood are truly, really, and objectively present under the form of bread and wine in the Blessed Sacrament, and that, therefore, I believe I am bound to adore our Lord Jesus Christ wherever and however He may be present, being God? If so, then I am most certainly an idolater, as is 9/10 of the Christian world (including all of Old Catholicism, Oriental Orthodoxy, Chalcedonian Orthodoxy, the Assyrian Church, and Roman Catholicism) which believes in the Real Objective Presence of the True Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. The universality, antiquity, and catholic consent of the whole Church affirm the presence of the Divine Master in the Holy Mysteries. The accusation against those who worship the Lord Jesus Christ is this manner is eerily similar to the apologetic of Arius of Alexandria. Orthodox Christians adore the Lord Jesus because He is 'one of the Holy Trinity,' God - they also believe He is really present in the Blessed Sacrament and, therefore, is to be worshipped wherever He is present, including in the Blessed Sacrament. Catholics are not guilty of violating the Second Commandment unless Jesus Christ is not God - and that is precisely the accusation made against the orthodox Church by the Arians. Please understand I am not saying you are an Arian, God forbid. But you appear to be employing an apologetic which was used by Arianism in the fourth century, albeit for a different purpose. Your point is however well taken - Eucharistic adoration is artolatry only if the eucharistic species are merely bread and wine and Christ is not present in them in any objective way. And thus the delineation between catholic eucharistology and protestant eucharistology is clear. For the orthodox catholic Christian, the sacred Host is the sacramental Body of Christ, mystically, supernaturally, really, objectively. For others, It is a piece of bread. I believe such is the conclusion to which the lines of argument heretofore presented lead. It is precisely this point which separates those who hold to the Great Tradition from those who do not. Now Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament is an extra-liturgical devotion not integrally connected to the public liturgy of the Church, which is focussed on the Mass and Offices. Apart from the question of devotions or extra-liturgical practices regarding the Holy Sacrament, that fact that the Church Catholic has always believed in the Real Presence demands that Christians adore our Lord Who is actually present therein.We can debate the merits or problems of Benediction; Anglicans have never agreed on this and never will - I for one do not see a direct or explicit condemnation of Benediction in the Articles of Religion, nor do I believe the practice is in any way wrong, sinful, or unscriptural. Were it so the entire Western Church could never have countenanced it in the way in which she has continued to so do through the centuries: it began in the 12th century and has continued until today. Eucharistic devotion is in fact the ultimate audiovisual aid to faith and belief in the Real Presence and in the entire Sacramental System of the Church. It points to the Incarnation of the Word made Flesh, which is prolonged and extended in the Sacraments. The Articles state that the principal purpose for the Sacraments is their due administration and use according to the mind and institution of Christ. There is no absolute prohibition of devotions to Our Lord in the Sacrament. What do the Articles say? 'The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them.' And again, 'The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.' The Lord gave us the Sacraments in order to use them - and as means of grace this is their primary purpose. How literal is the instruction in this case? Because the Sacrament was not by Christ's institution 'carried about,' the only way the celebrant could possibly observe the letter of the Article is to lick the Blessed Sacrament from paten or chalice without picking It up, while veiling one's face so as not to 'gaze upon' the Sacrament while receiving It. In turn, so as to avoid 'lifting up' the Sacrament or 'carrying it about,' communicants would also have to file up to the Altar to lick the Sacrament, all the while covering their eyes to make sure it is not seen. All this would, of course, be absurd. The central point of the Articles is to remind the reader of the initial and essential reason for Our Lord's institution of the Blessed Sacrament, which is Communion in His Most Precious Body and Blood - and not extraneous devotion. But extraneous devotion is not for that reason outrightly forbidden or condemned. If that were intended, such would have been said unambiguously and unquestioningly. Our Church does indeed offer Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament as a special service on appointed feast days and other days of particular celebration; it is indeed always announced well in advance and always held at an hour convenient for those who wish to come, but is in no way compulsory. If offered after a Holy Day Mass, time is always allotted for those who wish to leave to do so. Normally, Benediction is given on a Sunday or Wednesday night. People are free to attend or not attend as they wish. The same applies for devotions to Our Lady, including the Rosary, which is always offered on the first Saturday of the month.

NB: Yes, it is true, I have contended that full-blown TULIP Calvinism is incompatible with Anglicanism, and I must confess that the Prayer Book continues still to compel me to hold that view. Others disagree. Calvinists there may be in Anglicanism, but Anglicanism is an Apostolic Church, not a Calvinist theological system. The beauty is that we are free to disagree with each other and still love each other as loyal churchmen. We belong to the Church, not a system or sect.