|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Anglican Shippies: What are your own views regarding the nature of the Eucharist?
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Various topics that have come up of late in Purgatory, Eccles, and on my Facebook newsfeed have motivated me to try to get some sort of representative sample of contemporary views of the Eucharist held by individual Anglican laity and clergy. While one might argue that the habitual posters on SoF are hardly a representative sample of anything, you're the best I got.
So the question: how do you Anglican shipmates view the Eucharist? Please address the question and manner of Real Presence (or alternative understandings), the sacrificial character of the Eucharist, and the relationship of the Eucharist to the Church at a corporate level. It would also be helpful to me if you would identify your particular national province of the Anglican Communion (or Continuing Church body if that's where you are).
So, I'll start. As to the nature and presence of Christ in the Eucharist, I subscribe to the Real Presence in a way that I would say approximates the basic understanding of transubstantiation, albeit without the Thomist language and metaphysical categories. I would say that clearly the accidents of bread and wine remain in their physical manifestation right down to a molecular level. However, post-consecration, the accidents are superficial "appearance" and utterly insignificant in terms of deep meaning and inner reality. What is real and significant, veiled behind the outward forms of bread and wine, is the Risen Christ in the fullness of his being.
I affirm the sacrificial character of the Eucharist, in that in the Mass we unite our prayer with the eternal self-oblation of Christ before God the Father, with this one true oblation and sacrifice once offered in time but eternally offered within the economy of the Godhead being re-presented on the altar, made sacramentally present for us in the here-and-now, in union with which we - the Church - offer our prayer and pleading.
Thus, in the Eucharist, the Church as the corporate body of the faithful is effectually infused with and incorporated into the Living Christ, both through the offering of the holy sacrifice and by the transfusion of Christ into ourselves through the act of Holy Communion.
Much more can always be said, but that's one way of putting my views into a nutshell. I am a communicant of the Episcopal Church (USA).
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
So here are the vies of one Church of England Anglican:
The faithful recipient of the bread and wine at communion truly partakes in the body and blood of Christ through the sacrament. No sacrifice is offered to God in the Eucharist itself which looks to the "…(one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world". Indeed the eucharist is, in the act of communion, God's gracious offering of himself. Although,using 'sacrifice' in the more general sense of 'offering', the worshippers offer a sacrifice of thanks and praise, and indeed offer themselves to be a living sacrifice.
The elements remain what they were before consecration, and bread dropped is not Christ's body dropped nor wine spilt his blood soaked into the carpet. Christ is not located in them apart from the act of their being faithfully received.
However, having been consecrated, i.e. set aside for a holy purpose, they are then treated with due respect, used only for the purpose for which they were consecrated or reverently deposed of.
Corporately, in the Eucharist the whole church affirms its identity founded in the self-offering of Christ upon the Cross, and its fundamental unity in that fact "we and all thy whole Church", "we who are many are one body because we all share in one bread", "with Angels and Archangels and all the company of heaven". It is a unity which transcends time and space, and any divide between physical and spiritual.
[ 24. June 2014, 13:10: Message edited by: BroJames ]
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
This CoE Anglican's views are best summed up by: quote:
Here our humblest homage pay we,
here in loving reverence bow;
here for faith's discernment pray we,
lest we fail to know thee now.
Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!
Thou art here, we ask not how.
Thou art here, we ask not how.
Full lyrics here.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
What BroJames said....
.....and that from someone who started off in a con-evo church and is now ministering (with some reservations!) in a Forward-in-Faith A-C parish!
I have a sneaking suspicion that I'm really a Lutheran at heart. If the good ol'C of E ceased to exist, that's where I'd go.
Ian J.
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
A [mystical] memorial.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
(Australian Anglican, raised Baptist.)
I proclaim both Real Presence and the Priesthood of All Believers. That is, I believe that "two or three gathered together" is the basic requirement for a consecrated sacrament, and that if a group, with or without an official "priest", gets together to take communion, then God honours that and blesses the elements.
While I believe that Christ is present in the bread and wine, I'm not sure how that works, and am willing to leave the details a mystery.
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
Although I am an Anglo-Catholic, I do not see the Eucharist as anything other than a very solemn and meaningful memorial of what Christ did for me in giving up His life. I have never believed in transubsantiation. However, participation in the Eucharist is an important part of my Christian faith and journey and I feel as though something is missing in my life if I am prevented by unavoidable circumstances such as illness from receiving the sacrament.
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
My very limited experience of TEC seems to indicate that aside from some parishes and dioceses that what to maintain their legacy as shrines of certain types of theology, there seem to be fewer and fewer Episcopalians who hold to the OP's view (and fewer who hold to the lowest-church polar opposite view) and more and more who would espouse BroJames' viewpoint or some other "via media."
I think TEC, as much as it embodies and embraces diversity, is looking for some kind of common identity, so a lot of the "new" Episcopalians (other than the ones who were drawn to the "shrines" for their particular ways of doing things) want to be able to point to certain practices (usually Roman ones like monstrances or deep concern about what happens to crumbs, etc.) as something "different" from what they believe in. That's why, I think, the local parish which certainly used to be an Anglo-Catholic shrine in a particularly (conservative) A-C diocese, now no longer has elevation or benediction, and hardly anyone pays any respect to the tabernacle at all, although people still kneel reverently to receive.
This particular church is a bit unusual, though, in that it is vocally gay-friendly in a non-gay friendly diocese (one of the few such dioceses left in TEC), so I think the newer members of the parish associate more Catholic theology with social conservatism or with "the past" in some way.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I agree with BroJames and BishopsFinger. I'd also say that by receiving the bread and wine we do indeed become partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood.
I also agree with Queen Elizabeth I who said,
quote:
"Christ was the word that spake it.
He took the bread and break it;
And what his words did make it
That I believe and take it."
That is a profound statement and not the equivocation it is so often interpreted as being.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caissa
Shipmate
# 16710
|
Posted
It is only symbolic in my view.
Posts: 972 | From: Saint John, N.B. | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
blackbeard
Ship's Pirate
# 10848
|
Posted
A fervent personal view from someone who has been a member of the Church of England for about the last (mumble) (50+) years:
There is absolutely NOT one single correct view. Rather, there are a number of views, and of these many hold some part of the truth.
Of the whole entire truth, only God knows. We are able to know some part. If we say we understand completely, then we say our understanding is equal to God's. Anyone here claim to be THAT smart?
One of the things I like about being Anglican is that no one (who has any chance of being listened to) can tell me that, to be an Anglican, I have to agree with this view or that. I can argue with him, more likely I will depart knowing that he is not as clever as he thinks he is.
As to which view is best; which do you find most meaningful, or most helpful, for you? run with that one. But don't assume it's the most helpful for someone else. If you are really smart, of course, you may hold more than one view, realising that views may be different without necessarily contradicting each other.
I realise that is not the answer you asked for. Maybe it is the answer you should have asked for. But if you really want the definitive official answer, there are 39 articles which might give some clue (more honoured in the breach than in the observance, I know).
Posts: 823 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
I would hold to real presence, that the Eucharist must be carefully guarded and the elements once consecrated, treated with respect. I believe in the agency of the Holy Spirit, but exactly how I am disinclined to convey - partly because I don't know (to be quite honest) and partly because I'm not so sure words, language and theology can ever really fully explain it. I believe that in the epiclesis that the bread and wine are changed, from everyday food to a spiritual food, to convey the real presence of God with us and that this same epiclesis happens within us as we meet around this sacred and holy meal.
I see the sacrificial nature as not being a re-presentation, but as being part of that ever-giving sacrifice of Christ as well as the giving of himself on the cross and that we too participate in this sacrifice, both in terms of what it has done for us, wrought in us and will bring to our world.
At least, I think that's what I believe. I probably haven't put it terribly well.
[ 24. June 2014, 14:57: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
A friend of mine whose father was an Anglican priest says that the 'genius' of Anglicanism can be summed up in his father's answer to most questions of a theological nature:
'It depends.'
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
....or 'it's a holy mystery'!
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
It is only symbolic in my view.
See this is my problem. It is ALL (Life, the universe, everything) symbolic.
So for me the heart of it is a symbol/story of the greatest act of love, the Cross. The breaking, betrayal, pain, sacrifice, redemption, courage, despair, powerlessness (that brings such power) and redemption. The losing to win, the chancing it all for all. The dance that needed to be nailed down to be stopped but only made the dance more perfect. All in only a bit of bread and wine.
We are only symbols, it is only a symbol, but oh my! What a symbol.
Fly Safe, Pyx_e
transignification rings a bell
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I recently asked a very liberal Anglican vicar this question and his answer was interesting ... because he did believe that in some mysterious way whenever he celebrated the eucharist he was 'entering into the narrative'.
He found it hard to define/explain but he enlikened it to an actor playing Hamlet, say, who for that time 'embodied' the tradition of playing Hamlet. Or a musician playing a Beethoven sonata who, in the act of pressing his or her finger on a particular string in a particular sequence on their violin was somehow 'linked' with everyone else who had ever played that same piece.
This might not be mystical enough or 'realised' enough for some people but for him it went beyond 'mere memorialism' in the Zwinglian sense and yet didn't get into Thomist sophistry either.
As for myself ... I'm becoming increasingly 'sacramentalist' in my approach but I'm not sure I'd want to attempt to define how these things work - save to acknowledge that it is 'real' spiritual food and spiritual drink and that somehow both eternity and events in 1st century Palestine with a particular person - the God-Man Jesus Christ - break into our current space/time continuum.
Beyond that, in the words of Dylan Thomas, 'I am dumb to ...' say anything else.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
(Ordained in C of E, now ministering in Anglican Church of Canada)
BroJames has my support as well. As we receive the bread and wine, so we receive the life of Christ. "... that we may evermore dwell in him and he in us."
The only thing I would add is that I increasingly see no reason to exclude any from receiving communion if they want to. A completely open table.
In terms of variation within the C of E, the vicar in a next door parish some years back was very much of the "this is just a memorial" persuasion. Sort of Zwinglian, but he'd never heard of Zwingli.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
I believe more or less the same stuff as in the OP.
Transubstiantion - just as Christ's divinity and humanity are for ever united, so is the real presence in the bread and wine so if someone spills it and claims 'if he is clever enough to get into it, he's clever enough to get out.' then i disagree.
Eucharistic sacrifice - not just a case of 'our thanks and praise' nor even 'our selves...' but a uniting into the perpetual offering of Christ to the father which started on Calvary and continues to the end of time.
It is beneficial to visit the Blessed Sacrament. It is appropriate to worship it in Devotions and to receive Benediction.
(Province of Canterbury)
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
I'm a Roman Catholic layperson interloper in TEC, although I certainly do a lot of interloping due to my marriage.
I think it all boils down to lex orandi, lex credendi. Reservation, eucharistic adoration, benediction, and getting nervous not to drop, pour down into the sewer, or otherwise disrespect the sacred elements once consecrated have never been required in Anglicanism and in some places are still prohibited. Basically you can split Anglicans into ones who treat the Sacrament reverently but not as if the elements are literally the Body and Blood, those who do treat them like the literal Body and Blood but believe that they revert to "normal" after the service (or that they should be completely used up in the service to prevent this kind of question from coming up), and those who treat them like the Body and Blood all the time after consecration. I don't care what people believe, but within any Anglican parish a decision has to be made which of these three camps the worship (and reservation) practices of the congregation will belong to. You have to decide whether the sacred elements are something you adore (which means worship) or not, and whether they continue to be after the service. As much of a mystery that it is, you can't avoid making this decision whether you only do so implicitly or not.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
In thinking about my OP, I worry that some might read into it a form of transignification rather than true Real Presence. Although I may speak of "meaning" and "inner reality", I want to underscore my belief in the objective nature of the Presence, not at all dependent on the state of mind of the particular human who encounters the Eucharist. First of all, when I worship Christ in the form of the consecrated Host, I am worshipping the Host as Christ, and not somehow Christ symbolized by a bit of bread. But Christ's presence in the Eucharist doesn't depend on my faith. Rather, the question - in my view - is whether or not one discerns the true Body and Blood under the form of the consecrated elements.
Bro. James's viewpoint strikes me as receptionist in nature, though perhaps I'm missing some nuance in his post and in those who affirm his stated view (?)
I agree that at the end of the day we cannot define too precisely how it is that Christ becomes and is present in the consecrated element. Many of the theories are complementary rather than absolutely conflicting. What I would say, however, is that Christ is locally and specifically present under the sacramental species once they have been offered and consecrated in the holy sacrifice of the Eucharist, and that for me this belief in the objective Presence is De Fide and non-negotiable if we are to consider ourselves to practice the faith of the historic Church of the Fathers.
Moreover, I wouldn't see an isolated emphasis on individual reception of Holy Communion as adequately defining what the Mass is for or all about. Like other sacraments, the Mass is an act of the Church, though in a sense it is the act of the Church par excellence, the constitutive act of the Church in which she corporately is united with Christ and in his eternal sacrifice. It is in its corporate character that the Eucharist has its principal meaning and function.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Stonespring, call me naive, but in the modern context I'm personally unaware of American Episcopalians who don't think the consecration effects a permanent change in the nature of the elements. Of course, I don't go around interviewing Anglicans at parishes I'm visiting, and as to my own places of worship, those are pretty much always Anglo-Catholic or at the least places with Anglo-Catholic clergy.
Having said that, the receptionist view suggested by some posters here would certainly be congruent with the idea that the bread and wine are merely vehicles operative during the liturgy itself.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Looking at his article in Wikipedia I find it hard to distinguish between a Spiritual Presence theology and Receptionism.
With Enoch, I like the words attributed to Queen Elizabeth I. I am chary of any further definition.
Tentatively I might propose the thought that in receiving the elements Christ's presence is real, but not corporeal. Rather it is spiritual, although in contemporary English that often carries connotations of 'not real' which I would reject. (Looking back at the Wikipedia article again, I see that is indeed the thinking propounded by Cranmer and listed under 'Spiritual Presence'
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Stonespring, call me naive, but in the modern context I'm personally unaware of American Episcopalians who don't think the consecration effects a permanent change in the nature of the elements. Of course, I don't go around interviewing Anglicans at parishes I'm visiting, and as to my own places of worship, those are pretty much always Anglo-Catholic or at the least places with Anglo-Catholic clergy.
Having said that, the receptionist view suggested by some posters here would certainly be congruent with the idea that the bread and wine are merely vehicles operative during the liturgy itself.
My experience has been pretty highly idiosyncratic, depending on the congregation, priest, and influential people in the vestry. One parish that seemed to have a very Anglo-Catholic liturgy had a rector not too long ago that would feed the leftover consecrated hosts to the birds outside (not sure what theology that represented). I like to think that the local parish reserves (the candle by the tabernacle is always lit during services - not sure about at other times), uses its sacrarium instead of a normal sink, and disposes of any stale consecrated hosts (not that any should be allowed to become stale) by eating, burying, or burning them, etc. But the truth is I don't know, and I worry that the same contingent on the vestry, encouraged by the outgoing rector, that eliminated references to the BVM and specific Saints in the service, got rid of elevations and genuflections and bows to the consecrated elements, and built an embarrassingly-small free-standing altar in a cramped space for consecration while still having people walk past it to the altar rail in front of the old high altar to kneel to receive (and that had the priest receive after everyone else), would be very happy with a receptionist view, with the proviso that the reception is still valid with consecrated elements taken to a sick person by a lay eucharistic visitor.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
Real presence but not exclusively in just certain bits of "bread" and wine.
Also, Jesus gladly walked (and wrote in) the soil, no need to "protect" and bread or wine from touching the world he made and called good.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
It is a means - ordained by The Lord Jesus - by which forgiveness of sins and "every other benefit of his passion" might be spiritually received by faith with thanksgiving through the operation of the Holy Spirit. In this sense it is a sacrament in and through which the same Christ by faith meets the particular, unique and individual needs of each of his followers by the power of his Holy Spirit.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
One parish that seemed to have a very Anglo-Catholic liturgy had a rector not too long ago that would feed the leftover consecrated hosts to the birds outside (not sure what theology that represented).
In the Reformed tradition, at least—and the views expressed by many Anglicans in this thread would be right at home in a Reformed context—feeding the bread to birds has long been considered a reverent and appropriate way to dispose of left-over communion bread.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Do prople shy away from the concept of sacrifice in the offering of Mass because they believe - erroneously AIUI - that this implies a belief that Christ is immolated anew on the altar, with all the associated notions such as the "multiplication of masses"? As far as I know, such ideas were never proper Catholic theology, even if they once had popular currency.
[ 24. June 2014, 17:46: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras, I'm with you in the opening post.
I'm also with Pyx_e. Today we've reduced the content of symbol to that of a mere cipher. Of course Jesus is a Symbol. Of course the Eucharist is a Symbol. Of course the Church is a Symbol. Eschatalogical Symbols whose constant unfolding lead us deeper and deeper into the mystery that we shall behold someday face to face.
Beyond that: Ya are what ya eat! Seriously.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I recently asked a very liberal Anglican vicar this question and his answer was interesting ... because he did believe that in some mysterious way whenever he celebrated the eucharist he was 'entering into the narrative'.
I would have a similar understanding in that via sacramental union, we are united back to the moment at which Christ made his (once for all) sacrifice for our sins.
With the bread and wine, we receive the body and blood of (the whole) Christ. Whilst the bread and wine are not transformed into the body and blood themselves - they are formerly common things which have been put to a sacred use and should be treated as such.
As Luther said; I'd rather take flesh and blood with the Papists than bread and wine with the enthusiasts.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I recently asked a very liberal Anglican vicar this question and his answer was interesting ... because he did believe that in some mysterious way whenever he celebrated the eucharist he was 'entering into the narrative'.
I would have a similar understanding in that via sacramental union, we are united back to the moment at which Christ made his (once for all) sacrifice for our sins.
With the bread and wine, we receive the body and blood of (the whole) Christ. Whilst the bread and wine are not transformed into the body and blood themselves - they are formerly common things which have been put to a sacred use and should be treated as such.
As Luther said; I'd rather take flesh and blood with the Papists than bread and wine with the enthusiasts.
I do not think, however, you are describing the Lutheran doctrine of sacramental union, by which Christ is understood to be truly present in, with, and under the bread and wine. In the Lutheran doctrine of the Eucharist, Christ makes himself truly present in the sacred species by his word of promise, This is my body. . This is my blood, which Luther and Melancthon understood quite literally.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Anglican for all of my Christian life (admittedly not all that long but coming up to 10 years now) in various forms.
I'm with BroJames and Bishop's Finger here.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
I used to be fascinated with the idea of the real presence. If we want to be faithful to scripture we have to accept that Jesus' body is food and his blood drink, and if that offends us that's tough.
But getting into details can lead to some strange concepts, and I would have thought a typical Anglican view is to see it as a means of being strengthened, each according to his belief, without over-zealously trying to impose what that should be.
Simone Weil has a good word on this: True transubstantiation is when our bread and wine is made into the body and blood of the outcast.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Cradle CofE, but now a wee piskie. I certainly believe that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, that the consecrated elements are his body and blood. Precisely what, when and how it happens is beyond me (though I have no objection to transubstantiation), and I have a soft spot for the Elizabethan formula quoted earlier. As for the sacrifice, I would say that each celebration is a direct participation (not a memorial) in the one sacrifice Christ made for us, in that first communion in an upper room almost 2000 years ago. Each time we celebrate and receive we are partakers of that same feast with the disciples. To share in that feast is the privilege and duty of every believer, and we should not deny participation due to differences of belief or affiliation among Christians.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Can someone explain how "feed on him in your heart by faith with thanksgiving" can be interpreted in a Catholic (ie, the bread and wine really become the Body and Blood and stay that way after Mass, regardless of who consumes them) way? I know that the intent of the author was to promote belief in receptionism. But Anglicanism has long been all about interpreting texts far beyond the intent of the authors ![[Smile]](smile.gif) .
I think the text can mean "may faith bring you forward to receive this Sacrament, rather than any bad motivation (and rather than fear preventing you from coming forward)." It's a stretch, but it helps me with my cognitive dissonance, so I like it.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I do not think, however, you are describing the Lutheran doctrine of sacramental union, by which Christ is understood to be truly present in, with, and under the bread and wine. In the Lutheran doctrine of the Eucharist, Christ makes himself truly present in the sacred species by his word of promise, This is my body. . This is my blood, which Luther and Melancthon understood quite literally.
Yes, I have no problem with that description.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Can someone explain how "feed on him in your heart by faith with thanksgiving" can be interpreted in a Catholic (ie, the bread and wine really become the Body and Blood and stay that way after Mass, regardless of who consumes them) way?
Actually, it's perfectly compatible with Aquinas's distinction between "sacramental eating" and "spiritual eating." That is, one can receive the Eucharist and eat Christ's body and blood as present in the sacrament, but only those who have faith, hope, and love feed on him "in their hearts" and receive the benefits of union with him. In fact, those who eat only sacramentally eat judgement upon themselves.
For those who want the gory details, see here.
[ 24. June 2014, 23:32: Message edited by: FCB ]
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
OfficeSinger
Apprentice
# 15700
|
Posted
American Episcopalian since 1966 (and will stay there for the time being), Baptist before that (or nothing, because it didn't speak to me). Transubstantiation!
Posts: 2 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
It is enough to say it comforts me?
And as a side note, that I think there's something to the levelling and gathering of the community, where all receive the elements the same way, whether high fallutin rich person, homeless unemployed, young earth creationist, and sceptical unsure questioner?
(40 years or so an Anglican, deliberately chosen to be in teen years; it's a small minority denomination here.)
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
I think sacramental union would be the best term to describe my position.
My only issue with transubstantiation is the notion that the elements cease being bread and wine. Aquinas' argument to my recollection was that two things cannot co-exist simultaneously, so something cannot be both bread and the body of Christ. I disagree with Aquinas, because the Incarnation is all about two things existing equally (the divine and human nature of Christ joined in a single person).
I believe upon consecration, that the the bread and wine are united with the living reality of the risen Christ in that the people do truly feed on his body and blood. Through faith, the people of God receive the benefits of the divinity and the glorified humanity of the one Christ.
Moreover, it is through the feeding of the body of Christ, that the Church becomes the body of Christ in the world. The Eucharist is the lifeblood of the Church. It is through feeding on Christ, that the Church discovers who she is, the body of Christ.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
GCabot
Shipmate
# 18074
|
Posted
In regards to the nature and presence of Christ in the Eucharist, I believe in the Real Presence. I guess that my specific view would be close to that of the Methodists; I believe that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, but as to how/in what way, it is a holy mystery. I do not believe we have the evidence to make a definitive conclusion on this matter beyond His presence, and honestly, I do not bother myself much with trying to parse out the fine details. I do not believe the exact nature of His presence has particular spiritual importance. I do believe that the Real Presence is sufficient to warrant practice of benediction, although I do not believe this should necessarily be a universal practice, due to its inherent dangers to the poorly informed. When doing so, I am not worshipping Christ as the consecrated Host, but rather Christ who is present within the consecrated Host. Furthermore, the Eucharist should be treated reverently, but not neurotically, lest it edge towards idolatry.
As for the concept of sacrifice, I have never truly understood the distinctions between the various viewpoints. I believe that Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross is the sole oblation and all that is necessary and sufficient for the forgiveness of sins. I do not believe that Holy Communion is an oblation in and of itself. I believe that Communion is just that – an invitation of Christ into us, thus connecting us to Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross. Effectively, this serves as a replacement for the priestly intercession necessary prior to Christ’s death. Through the act of communion, we come the closest we can on Earth to interacting directly with the Divine, now through our Mediator and Advocate, Jesus Christ.
This is as an Anglo-Catholic Episcopalian.
--------------------
The child that is born unto us is more than a prophet; for this is he of whom the Savior saith: "Among them that are born of woman, there hath not risen one greater than John the Baptist."
Posts: 285 | From: The Heav'n Rescued Land | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
CofE, Pusey House schooled Res ABC but not card carrying FiF member.
As with several above, I find it very difficult to improve on Elizabeth I's words. My own (when cornered like a rat in a trap) view is basically that of the RC church. The fact that the RCC would be unsure that the CofE was doing that is DH territory, but through a mixture of branch theory and Dutch-touch that's what I think is happening.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
Ex CofE now in a Baptist Church].
Christ is present when we share communion. The bread and wine do not change but in meeting and sharing together, we change. It is a remembering not simply in recalling a past event, but in the sense of re-membering: that is, reconciliation to one another and God. It is a renewed connection in the body of Christ.
The presence of Christ enables us to communicate with God as the Spirit works in and through us.
Christ is not sacrificed. He died once for all upon the cross: his work was sufficient and is efficient.
The bread and wine are as consecrated as anything that God makes, including us. It's not to be treated lightly but with reverence and then only after prayer, self examination, confessing our sins and putting right any wrongs or division.
It is the Lord's Table - all who know, love and wish to follow Jesus as Lord (in control of our life) and Saviour (giving us life in the first place) are invited to share. Any barriers are man made and, potentially blasphemous given Christ's invitation.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Although I am an Anglo-Catholic, I do not see the Eucharist as anything other than a very solemn and meaningful memorial of what Christ did for me in giving up His life. I have never believed in transubsantiation. However, participation in the Eucharist is an important part of my Christian faith and journey and I feel as though something is missing in my life if I am prevented by unavoidable circumstances such as illness from receiving the sacrament.
An Anglo-Catholic Zwinglian... Now I've heard it all. ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
I'm another who'll happily subscribe to Queen Elizabeth's little ditty. I think it's sometimes possible, and often tempting, to over-theologise the Eucharist, and as I said recently in an Ecclesiantics thread, quote:
you don't have to subscribe to an Aristotelian system of 'substance' and 'accidents' to believe that in Holy Communion a change comes about whereby Christ becomes truly present among his people in bread and wine.
I believe that the consecrated bread "is" Christ's Body, and the wine "is" his Precious Blood, and I'm not going to spend years tying myself in knots over what I think "is" means.
As to the consecration, I believe that the whole liturgy of the Eucharist is consecratory, and that there's no particular moment we can point to and say that a change has taken place. That said, the eucharistic prayer has obvious significance.
As to the sacrifice, I believe that Christ's sacrifice is "once, only once, and once for all": there is no sacrifice of the Eucharist apart from Christ's own sacrifice. But I believe the word anamnesis to be much stronger than it's sometimes held to be, and that by our act of anamnesis Christ's sacrifice becomes present here and now.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
Anglican, brought up and most of my life C of E, currently Scottish Episcopalian.
I don't know what happens. I think I believe in the real presence of Jesus in some mode - saying spiritual just means we don't understand how. I also believe in the continuing presence of the bread.
I believe it is celebrated by the priest acting as representative of the congregation, rather than by the priest in his or her own person. (The priest may be a congregation of one though that would not be ideal.)
As it is the only religious ritual in which I or anyone else I know partakes that could be called a 'sacrifice' I don't think it's useful to say whether it is a sacrifice or not. The bread and wine are taken by the priest and made holy - 'sacrifice' means 'make holy', so probably they are sacrificed.
I'm probably clearer about the practical and liturgical elements. Whether the conjunction of these is defensible I don't know.
1) I draw the line at burning clothes that the wine has spilt on.
2) I'm ok with reserving elements and treating them with reverence.
3) Monstrances may be an aid to prayer for some people, but no more so than any other religious artwork.
4) Some ringing of bells and liturgical reverence in the Eucharistic prayer ought to happen when the words 'this is my body' and 'this is my blood' are said.
5) A eucharistic prayer without the epiclesis (the calling upon the Holy Spirit to come) is not worth doing.
6) There is a definite distinction between a eucharist celebrated by a priest on behalf of a congregation, and any other religious ritual or meal in which bread and wine are consumed in memory of Jesus.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228
|
Posted
Hmmm ... one could write a whole thesis.
I would use Kantian categories, rather than Aristotle's. In the Eucharist, the "thing in itself" changes, while the appearance remains the same. Kant (if I remember correctly) uses this concept to explain how we can be righteous before God, yet still appear sinful to the human eye.
So I believe in transnoumenation - the bread and the wine, by God's will, are now Christ's body and blood: a change in what they are in God's view (the thing in itself beyond our understanding and perception), not how they appear to us (e.g. as scientific phenomena).
I also think the Eucharist is an offering. We hold the bread and cup (in the presence of God) as we pray - as Christ did at the Last Supper, and as priests did in the temple when they held up loaves before the altar, and then handed them back to the worshippers to be eaten in a holy place. Paul also conceives the Eucharist as being the Christian equivalent to pagan sacrifices in 1 Cor 10-11. I think an ancient person would regard this sacred holding of bread and cup before God in prayer, then consuming it, as an offering.
The "memory" aspect of the Eucharist, I believe, is about God remembering us, remembering Christ, remembering his covenant and his mercy. There is good OT support for God being the primary one who does the remembering, in the context of the covenant. So we come before God that he may remember his chosen, his covenant with the Son in whom he is well pleased - so that we may be renewed in the Eucharist as his covenant people. As the thief said Christ: "Jesus, remember me when you come in your kingdom". Moses asked God to remember Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Exodus 32:13), and the Psalmist asked God to remember David (Ps 132.1); we ask God to remember his son and all that he did for the Father's sake.
So I see the Eucharist as a memorial offering (bringing before God his Son and the covenant promises through Christ) in which bread and wine are "transnoumenated" into Christ's body and blood, as a result of which we are renewed as the consecrated covenant people of God.
But each of these points would need a lot more expansion than is possible here ....
While my Anglicanism started in Sydney, it is hardly representative of the place ... especially nowadays.
--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade
Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@ExclamationMark - as someone who has been a member of a Baptist church in the past, I'd say that it's all of that and more.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Although I am an Anglo-Catholic, I do not see the Eucharist as anything other than a very solemn and meaningful memorial of what Christ did for me in giving up His life. I have never believed in transubsantiation. However, participation in the Eucharist is an important part of my Christian faith and journey and I feel as though something is missing in my life if I am prevented by unavoidable circumstances such as illness from receiving the sacrament.
An Anglo-Catholic Zwinglian... Now I've heard it all.
I'm not going to look for a reference/link at the moment, and this has been discussed on SoF before, but a survey of American Roman Catholics done in recent years showed that a sizable percentage (may have been a majority -- can't recall) believed in a mere memorialist position. It's easy to attribute that to bad catechesis, but I suppose it may also represent a deliberate rejection of Church doctrine.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Although I am an Anglo-Catholic, I do not see the Eucharist as anything other than a very solemn and meaningful memorial of what Christ did for me in giving up His life. I have never believed in transubsantiation. However, participation in the Eucharist is an important part of my Christian faith and journey and I feel as though something is missing in my life if I am prevented by unavoidable circumstances such as illness from receiving the sacrament.
An Anglo-Catholic Zwinglian... Now I've heard it all.
I'm not going to look for a reference/link at the moment, and this has been discussed on SoF before, but a survey of American Roman Catholics done in recent years showed that a sizable percentage (may have been a majority -- can't recall) believed in a mere memorialist position. It's easy to attribute that to bad catechesis, but I suppose it may also represent a deliberate rejection of Church doctrine.
The majority aren't either interested enough or theologically literate enough to deliberately reject the Church's eucharistic theology. It's bad catechism plain and simple, the Lord knows I suffered enough of it myself as a child here in Ireland.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
5) A eucharistic prayer without the epiclesis (the calling upon the Holy Spirit to come) is not worth doing.
What about the Roman Canon - whose only explicit mention of the Holy Spirit is in the doxology at the end?
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
