V6M@PSUVM.BITNET (03/04/85)
<>> 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 <is> when talking about the Body and Blood of Christ, rather than <like> 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