Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pjpqr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-28T05:57:56.240Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Critique Of Reason For Anglican Eucharistic Theology: Dialogue Approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Brian Douglas
Brian Douglas*
Affiliation:
Charles Sturt University, Australia
*
brian.douglas@mac.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article provides a critique of reason for Anglican eucharistic theology. It examines the mutliformity of theological and philosophical assumptions underlying that theology and recognises the difficulty created in the discourse of the Anglican eucharistic tradition where hermeneutic idealism operates in an exclusive manner. Further, the article uses the insights of Habermas, arguing for a critique of reason for the tradition through a dialogue approach based on the intersubjectivity of communicative action where there is distinction between ‘lifeworld’ and ‘system paradigm’ and where there is subject-subject relationship.

Type
Original Article
Information
New Blackfriars , Volume 96 , Issue 1061 , January 2015 , pp. 90 - 107
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 The Dominican Council

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Cocksworth, Christopher, ‘Eucharistic Theology’, in Stevenson, Kenneth and Spinks, Bryan (eds), The Identity of Anglican Worship (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Moorehouse, 1991), p. 49Google Scholar; Douglas, Brian and Lovat, Terence, ‘The Integrity of Discourse in the Anglican Eucharistic Tradition: A Consideration of Philosophical Assumptions’, The Heythrop Journal 51 (2010), pp. 847–861CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Douglas, Brian, A Companion to Anglican Eucharistic Theology (2 Volumes) (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2011)Google Scholar.

2 This term is used by Thomas McCarthy, ‘Translator's Introduction’, in Habermas, Jurgen, Theory of Communicative Action: Reason and the Rationalization of Society, Volume 1 (Boston: Beacon, 1984), p. xxviGoogle Scholar. See also Lovat, Terence and Douglas, Brian, ‘Dialogue Admidst Difference in Anglican Eucharistic Theology: A Habermasian Breakthrough’, Australian eJournal of Theology, 9 (March 2007), pp. 1–11Google Scholar. Lovat and Douglas define the term in the following way: ‘Hermeneutic idealism is that conceptualizing of reality that is totally dependent on one's own (or one's communal groups’) beliefs, values and interpretations, whilst at the same time remaining blind to their causes, background and those wider connections that would contextualize them and help those holding them to see that they are in fact just one set of beliefs, values and interpretations in a sea of related and unrelated sets’, Ibid., p. 4.

3 See the case studies in Douglas, A Companion to Anglican Eucharistic Theology, Volumes 1 and 2, where many examples of hermeneutic idealism are detailed from the Reformation to the present.

4 For comment on realism in the Anglican eucharistic tradition see Douglas and Lovat, ‘The Integrity of Discourse in the Anglican Eucharistic Tradition’, pp. 848–850 and Douglas, A Companion to Anglican Eucharistic Theology, Volume 1, pp. 20–25.

5 Ibid.

6 See Loux, Michael, Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction (London and New York: Routledge, 2002), pp. 20–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Armstrong, David, A World of States of Affairs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Williams, Rowan, Tokens of Trust: An Introduction to Christian Belief (Norwich: Canterbury Press, 2007), p. 116Google Scholar.

9 Armstrong, David, Nominalism and Realism. Universals and Scientific Realism Volume 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), p. 42Google Scholar.

10 Armstrong, David, Universals: An Opinionated Introduction (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1989), p. 94Google Scholar.

11 Armstrong, A World of States of Affairs, p. 27.

12 Ibid., p. 29.

13 Armstrong, Nominalism and Realism, p. 111.

14 Williams, Tokens of Trust, p. 116.

15 Forbes, William, A Moderate and Peaceful Consideration of the Present Very Serious Controversy Concerning the Sacrament of the Eucharist, (2 volumes) (ed. Forbes, G.H.) (Oxford: Parker, 1856), II, p. 421Google Scholar.

16 See Douglas and Lovat, ‘The Integrity of Discourse in the Anglican Eucharistic Tradition’, p. 857 and Douglas, A Companion to Anglican Eucharistic Theology, Volume 1, pp. 57–58.

17 See Douglas and Lovat, ‘The Integrity of Discourse in the Anglican Eucharistic Tradition’, p. 856–857 and Douglas, A Companion to Anglican Eucharistic Theology, Volume 1, pp. 55–57.

18 The metalinguistic analysis adopted by nominalists argues that talk about universals which are capable of multiple exemplification or localization is really only talk about particulars as separated entities. In such an account bread and wine are on earth in the Eucharist and Christ's body and blood are in heaven without any participation in or instantiation of one in the other. See Loux, Michael, Metapaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction (London and New York: Routledge, 2002), p. 54 and pp. 73–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 Zahl, Paul, A Short Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 29Google Scholar.

20 Anglican Diocese of Sydney, Better Gatherings – Learning from the Communion Service – Modern Revisions. Online at: http://www.bettergatherings.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=52&Itemid=82. Accessed 31 July, 2012.

21 Presumably the 1662 Book of Common Prayer.

22 Dix, Gregory, The Shape of the Liturgy (London: A and C Black, 1986), p. 161Google Scholar.

23 Peter Jensen, ‘Come to the Supper of the Lord's table to share a meal’, p. 1. Online at http://sydneyanglicans.net/seniorclergy/archbishop_jensen/79a Accessed 31 July, 2012.

24 Ibid., p. 1.

25 Ibid., p. 1.

26 ibid., p. 2.

27 See the many case studies in Douglas, A Companion to Anglican Eucharistic Theology, which illustrate the pervasive nature of this distinction in the Anglican tradition from the Reformation to the present. The presence of both moderate realist and nominalist assumptions is shown in all eras of the Anglican eucharistic tradition.

28 Habermas, Jürgen, (trans. McCarthy, Thomas) The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume 1. Reason and Rationalization of Society, (Boston: Beacon, 1984)Google Scholar and Habermas, Jürgen, (trans. McCarthy, Thomas) The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume 2. Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason, (Boston: Beacon, 1989)Google Scholar.

29 White, Stephen, ‘Reason, modernity and democracy’, in White, Stephen (ed), The Cambridge Companion to Habermas, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), p. 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume 2, p. 151.

31 Ibid., p. 152.

32 Ibid., p. 124.

33 Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume 1, p. 108.

34 McCarthy, ‘Translator's Introduction’, p. xiv.

35 Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume 2, p. 125.

36 Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume 1, p. 102.

37 Ibid., p. 335.

38 Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume 2, p. 126.

39 Ibid., p. 131.

40 Ibid., p. 133.

41 McCarthy, ‘Translator's Introduction’, p. ix.

42 Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume 1, p. 86.

43 Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume 2, p. 126.

44 Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume 1, p. 8.

45 Ibid., p. 106.

46 Ibid., pp. 17–18.

47 Ibid., p. 287.

48 Ibid., p. 10.

49 Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume 2, p. 137.

50 Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume 1, p. 11.

51 Ibid., p. 102.

52 Ibid., p. 14.

53 Ibid., p. 15.

54 McCarthy, ‘Translator's Introduction’, p. xxxvi.

55 Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume 1, p. 112.

56 Ibid., p. 136.

57 Ibid., p. 286.

58 Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume 2, p. 2.

59 Ibid., pp. 10–12.

60 Ibid., pp. 24–25.

61 Ibid., p. 77.

62 Ibid., p. 89.

63 Ibid., p. 90.

64 Ibid., p. 90.

65 Garrigan, Siobhan, Beyond Ritual: Sacramental Theology After Habermas (Aldershot, Hampshire: Ashgate, 2004), p. 72Google Scholar.

66 Ibid., p. 73.

67 Ibid., p. 76.

68 Douglas, A Companion to Anglican Eucharistic Theology, Volumes 1 and 2.

69 Silk, David, The Holy Eucharist. Alternative and Additional Texts for use with the Order of the Eucharist in AAPB and APBA (Ballarat: Anglican Diocese of Ballarat, 1995 and 2002)Google Scholar.

70 Archbishop of Sydney's Liturgical Panel, Common Prayer: Resources for Gospel-Shaped Gatherings (Sydney: Anglican Press Australia, 2011)Google Scholar.

71 The Church of England in Australia, An Australian Prayer Book (Sydney: AIO Press, 1978)Google Scholar and Anglican Church of Australia, A Prayer Book for Australia (Sydney: Broughton Books, 1995)Google Scholar.

72 Silk, The Holy Eucharist 1995, p. 198.

73 Silk, The Holy Eucharist 2002, p. 8.

74 Ibid., p. 138.

75 Silk, The Holy Eucharist 1995, p. 111.

76 Archbishop of Sydney's Liturgical Panel, Common Prayer, p. 4.

77 Archbishop of Sydney's Liturgical Panel, Sunday Services. A Contemporary Liturgical Resource (Sydney: Anglican Press Australia, 2001)Google Scholar.

78 Archbishop of Sydney's Liturgical Panel, Sunday Services. A Contemporary Liturgical Resource, p. 115.

79 For a more detailed analysis of these Eucharistic liturgies in the Australian context see Douglas, Brian, ‘The Development of Eucharistic Liturgies in the Anglican Church of Australia: Part 1 – A Case Study in Multiformity up to 1995’, Questions Liturgiques/Studies in Liturgy, 94 (2013), pp. 175–195Google Scholar and Douglas, Brian, ‘The Development of Eucharistic Liturgies in the Anglican Church of Australia: Part 2 – A Case Study in Multiformity – 1995 to the present’, Questions Liturgiques/Studies in Liturgy, 94 (2013), pp. 196–219Google Scholar.