Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 6/4/83; site PSUVM.BITNET
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!psuvax1!psuvm!v6m
From: V6M@PSUVM.BITNET
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: More on the words of consecration
Message-ID: <1629V6M@PSUVM>
Date: Mon, 4-Mar-85 15:31:46 EST
Article-I.D.: PSUVM.1629V6M
Posted: Mon Mar  4 15:31:46 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 7-Mar-85 03:57:32 EST
Lines: 25

<>>

Thanks....so here goes.

We stress the words of Christ in our multiple consecrations. This is where
all of them return and then wander off again, which why that particular
posting was so hard to follow.

NOT being a theologian (really there are days I'm lucky to be a Christian)
I don't see a large difference in the meaning of your consecration than
ours because you do use word  when talking about the Body and Blood
of Christ, rather than  the Body and Blood.

Your interpretation of Real Presence vs Transubtantiation, as you said,
is the key.  But the Anglican words seem stronger to me than their
interpretation.

You know a sacrament is VALID if the external signs are valid and the minister
is valid.  After reading your prayers of consecration, I think the Roman
Church could accept them in principle if the problem of Apostolic succession
weren't there.

Maybe I'm reading to much into the problem.....

Vince