|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Anglican Shippies: What are your own views regarding the nature of the Eucharist?
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
I reiterate that I'm an RC interloper in my local Episcopal parish, albeit a constant one because of my marriage.
I think that one of the most important things about the Eucharist is that it allows us to have God among us to see, touch, taste, and worship in a way that seems much more real to us than some idea of Him in Heaven or some vague notion of Him surrounding us in our fellow humans and in the beauty of creation (unless you believe in pantheism or panentheism, you can't worship your neighbors and the natural world, just "God in them" - the Consecrated Elements are God, so worshiping them is much simpler and more sensorily real). Humans want a visible and tactile God to tremble and prostrate themselves before. Many "pagan" religions have this. Ancient Judaism had something similar (but not exactly tactile) in the Holy of Holies of the Temple. Christianity has it wherever the Eucharist is celebrated, reserved, or taken to someone sick or frail at home or in a hospital.
The same is true with sacrifice. Jesus' offering of Himself upon the cross was a bloody rite of human sacrifice - and the Eucharist is that exact same sacrifice, not a repetition, complete with cannibalism and vampirism.
The Eucharist allows humans to act like pagans worshipping an idol and participating in rites of human sacrifice and cannibalism - but it makes it all ok and holy because it is nothing other than Jesus offering himself as victim to the cruelty of humankind in order to destroy cruelty and death forever. That is why when the Eucharist is celebrated (or reserved) without people trembling in awe, falling down before it, etc., I feel so cold and empty, because God is there before me - sacrificed and given to me as food no less - and no one seems to be acting like it - which tempts me to think it's all just a stupid game.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
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. ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
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.
This equally concerns me in respect to Anglicans and the various magisterial protestant bodies. It's also why SoF isn't a representative sample of the man and woman in the pew -- the folks here are theologically interested and usually have some degree of theological literacy, at least regarding their own tradition. I suspect that in the average Anglican parish church, people simply don't think about what is happening and what they are doing in the Eucharist (I'm aware that CL and others of his Communion would say that basically nothing supernatural is happening in our celebrations of the Eucharist - the dry well analogy: you can go through the motions of priming the pump and pumping the handle, but nothing is going to be brought forth; however, that's a DH issue I think). Unfortunately some of our clergy likely try to avoid shocking people's sensibilities by presenting them with explicit statements of the Real Presence. In many Lutheran parishes, the practice used to be to put your name on a little communion card in the pew rack and hand it to the sidesman on one's way to the rail. The card stated that you confessed your belief that Christ is truly present in, with, and under the bread and wine of the Eucharist. Thus if one payed any attention, this was an immediate reminder of what one was doing in the Eucharist, as well as a way for your reception of the Sacrament to be tracked, arguably not a bad thing either. I fear that in actual practice, the reception of Holy Communion may often be a thoughtless act, just "something we do". On a TEC parish website, I once saw the Eucharist described as a "simple meal of bread and wine," a most unsatisfactory and anemic way of putting things, no doubt meant to not offend anyone -- but it offended me.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caissa
Shipmate
# 16710
|
Posted
Most of the doctrines around the eucharist are simply human constructions made out of various degrees of whole cloth. It's bread and wine for God's sake and no degree of theological machinations are going to change that fact.
Posts: 972 | From: Saint John, N.B. | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
Most of the doctrines around the eucharist are simply human constructions made out of various degrees of whole cloth. It's bread and wine for God's sake and no degree of theological machinations are going to change that fact.
It's not so much 'theological machinations' as what we (believers in the Real Presence) believe Christ instituted. And consubstantiation does not change the fact of it being bread and wine at all - Christ is present, but it is still bread and wine.
--------------------
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
|
|
Caissa
Shipmate
# 16710
|
Posted
In my mind it is an obvious triumph of literalism over metaphor.
Posts: 972 | From: Saint John, N.B. | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Of course it's bread and wine, Caissa. None of us here, apart from some RCs perhaps, are saying that it isn't.
It is bread and wine and it is, in some mysterious way, the Body and Blood of Christ at one and the same time.
Even if we treat it in a Zwinglian memorial sense it's still signicant because symbols point beyond themselves to something more significant.
--------------------
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
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
Most of the doctrines around the eucharist are simply human constructions made out of various degrees of whole cloth. It's bread and wine for God's sake and no degree of theological machinations are going to change that fact.
theological machinations may not but the Holy Spirit can.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Back to my small-town TEC parish (the former hardcore conservative A-C one, now a liberal pro-gay (and increasingly less catholic) one in an otherwise hardcore conservative (as in not pro-gay at all) A-C diocese). A few years ago, the high altar was still the only altar, with a small tabernacle to its side that was used but that people didn't pay much attention too (people just bowed to the high altar but didn't genuflect or do anything when they moved from the high altar into the sacristy and passed the tabernacle).
Last year, a tiny (because that is all that would fit) and portable free standing altar was installed in the crossing so that the Eucharist could be celebrated versus populum. Because there is no room and people still like to kneel, the consecrated elements are taken back to the high altar to be given to people at the kneeling rail there. Since its installation and dedication by the bishop (moveable altars can't be consecrated), no one has ever bowed to the new altar in passing and everyone continues to bow to the high altar for everything even though this altar is no longer used at all.
Therefore, no one bows to where consecration occurs (the new altar), the tabernacle where the Blessed Sacrament is reserved remains ignored as it was before, and the only place people bow is where people kneel to receive the sacrament (how receptionist is that!). People probably only bow to it out of habit, or because it is the place that looks prettiest and most important. Sigh.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@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.
Well Gamaliel - you know us Baptists of old: 2 of us and you get 3 opinions even if we agree. I made/make no claim to an exclusive understanding - it's just how it might be presented or considered in the New Jerusalem aka my neck of the woods.
[ 25. June 2014, 18:22: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
GCabot
Shipmate
# 18074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I reiterate that I'm an RC interloper in my local Episcopal parish, albeit a constant one because of my marriage.
I think that one of the most important things about the Eucharist is that it allows us to have God among us to see, touch, taste, and worship in a way that seems much more real to us than some idea of Him in Heaven or some vague notion of Him surrounding us in our fellow humans and in the beauty of creation (unless you believe in pantheism or panentheism, you can't worship your neighbors and the natural world, just "God in them" - the Consecrated Elements are God, so worshiping them is much simpler and more sensorily real). Humans want a visible and tactile God to tremble and prostrate themselves before. Many "pagan" religions have this. Ancient Judaism had something similar (but not exactly tactile) in the Holy of Holies of the Temple. Christianity has it wherever the Eucharist is celebrated, reserved, or taken to someone sick or frail at home or in a hospital.
The same is true with sacrifice. Jesus' offering of Himself upon the cross was a bloody rite of human sacrifice - and the Eucharist is that exact same sacrifice, not a repetition, complete with cannibalism and vampirism.
The Eucharist allows humans to act like pagans worshipping an idol and participating in rites of human sacrifice and cannibalism - but it makes it all ok and holy because it is nothing other than Jesus offering himself as victim to the cruelty of humankind in order to destroy cruelty and death forever. That is why when the Eucharist is celebrated (or reserved) without people trembling in awe, falling down before it, etc., I feel so cold and empty, because God is there before me - sacrificed and given to me as food no less - and no one seems to be acting like it - which tempts me to think it's all just a stupid game.
See, I take a completely different view here. That the Eucharist provides us with something tangible of God makes it more prone to abuse. As you say, it allows people to act like pagans do, which is extremely dangerous, in my mind. It is too easy to enter into idolatry if we place unnecessary emphasis on the physicality of God within the Eucharist, and we lose part of our sense of sacred mystery in His being. I think there is a very good reason why God commanded us to not make graven images, because our human nature is all too tempted to defer to what our eyes can see. Yet, God could never be constrained to such a meager existence. By focusing worship on the intangible, we affirm both His divine nature and the necessity of faith.
--------------------
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
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I reiterate that I'm an RC interloper in my local Episcopal parish, albeit a constant one because of my marriage.
I think that one of the most important things about the Eucharist is that it allows us to have God among us to see, touch, taste, and worship in a way that seems much more real to us than some idea of Him in Heaven or some vague notion of Him surrounding us in our fellow humans and in the beauty of creation (unless you believe in pantheism or panentheism, you can't worship your neighbors and the natural world, just "God in them" - the Consecrated Elements are God, so worshiping them is much simpler and more sensorily real). Humans want a visible and tactile God to tremble and prostrate themselves before. Many "pagan" religions have this. Ancient Judaism had something similar (but not exactly tactile) in the Holy of Holies of the Temple. Christianity has it wherever the Eucharist is celebrated, reserved, or taken to someone sick or frail at home or in a hospital.
The same is true with sacrifice. Jesus' offering of Himself upon the cross was a bloody rite of human sacrifice - and the Eucharist is that exact same sacrifice, not a repetition, complete with cannibalism and vampirism.
The Eucharist allows humans to act like pagans worshipping an idol and participating in rites of human sacrifice and cannibalism - but it makes it all ok and holy because it is nothing other than Jesus offering himself as victim to the cruelty of humankind in order to destroy cruelty and death forever. That is why when the Eucharist is celebrated (or reserved) without people trembling in awe, falling down before it, etc., I feel so cold and empty, because God is there before me - sacrificed and given to me as food no less - and no one seems to be acting like it - which tempts me to think it's all just a stupid game.
See, I take a completely different view here. That the Eucharist provides us with something tangible of God makes it more prone to abuse. As you say, it allows people to act like pagans do, which is extremely dangerous, in my mind. It is too easy to enter into idolatry if we place unnecessary emphasis on the physicality of God within the Eucharist, and we lose part of our sense of sacred mystery in His being. I think there is a very good reason why God commanded us to not make graven images, because our human nature is all too tempted to defer to what our eyes can see. Yet, God could never be constrained to such a meager existence. By focusing worship on the intangible, we affirm both His divine nature and the necessity of faith.
God incarnated, among many other reasons, for us to have something tangible and physical to worship (and to be present with us). The Eucharist allows God to be just as (or nearly as) present for us to worship, post the Ascension of our Lord. The Blessed Sacrament is not a graven image. It is not a man-made depiction of God. It is God.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
What are my views regarding the nature of the Eucharist?
It's all good.
.
.
.
Reminds me of a question I put to someone I met once that said they were a Christian.
"Oh really?" I said. "What kind of Christian?"
"A good one" she said.
pwnd
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
Most of the doctrines around the eucharist are simply human constructions made out of various degrees of whole cloth. It's bread and wine for God's sake and no degree of theological machinations are going to change that fact.
It's bread and wine in which one may (if one chooses) perceive God's immediate dynamic presence. One may perceive God's immediate dynamic presence in other things too, not exclusively in bread and wine.
Real flesh real blood? In what meaning. The original "this is my body, my blood" was stated by a very much alive and whole man, so whatever was being referred to was NOT cannibalism, not chomping on human cellular material.
Jesus regularly used words in ways not how we use them, occasionally translating (sleep/death) and other times not. This is a time he did not, that he wasn't talking physical flesh and physical blood was too obvious!
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Belle Ringer, just to clarify, didn't you reject TEC in which you were brought up, and are now Methodist or something else?
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
Most of the doctrines around the eucharist are simply human constructions made out of various degrees of whole cloth. It's bread and wine for God's sake and no degree of theological machinations are going to change that fact.
It's bread and wine in which one may (if one chooses) perceive God's immediate dynamic presence. One may perceive God's immediate dynamic presence in other things too, not exclusively in bread and wine.
Real flesh real blood? In what meaning. The original "this is my body, my blood" was stated by a very much alive and whole man, so whatever was being referred to was NOT cannibalism, not chomping on human cellular material.
Jesus regularly used words in ways not how we use them, occasionally translating (sleep/death) and other times not. This is a time he did not, that he wasn't talking physical flesh and physical blood was too obvious!
It's obvious that the consecrated elements do not have any of the physical properties of human cellular material - but that does not mean that they are not literally Jesus' Body and Blood and that be consuming them we are actually doing the equivalent of going up to Jesus and biting a chunk out of his flesh. (Except that every chunk you bite out of Him would contain all of Him.)
If the Father and the Spirit can be contained fully in the Son (and so on with all other permutations of the persons of the Trinity), then why can't all of Jesus, Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity, Humanity, be contained in every crumb and drop of the consecrated elements? Reason is only useful in religion once you've agreed what arbitrarily irrational things you are going to believe no matter what. Some people think that the real fleshly presence is not one of those arbitrary irrational things you just believe, but they are fine with the Trinity. This makes me sad. I'm not so concerned with what others believe, but I do worry about how people treat the bodily sinews and fluids of Our Lord and Savior thinking that it's just very special bread and wine.
By the way, Jesus did say in John 6 that his Body and Blood are real food and drink - but you can say that that is not literal language, either (it is the Gospel of John). It's like the Trinity. Either you take the leap of faith and believe it or you don't. I think you should. (The generic "you," not you personally.)
[ 26. June 2014, 16:58: Message edited by: stonespring ]
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
Here is how I understand it:
Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist.
Precisely how this works and all that it means, I don't know. Not pinned down specifically to transubstantiation, consubstantiation, etc.
I am OK with not fully understanding this. As Lewis put it, the command was "take, eat," not "take, understand."
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]
to gnaw, to chew
We had a sermon on that a couple of years or so ago - and very effective it was, too.
My own position is very close to that of the OP, remembering that "sacrifice" does not just mean a giving up, but still carries its original meaning of a sacred action or work; so at the end of the Eucharist, when "we offer ourselves as a living sacrifice" our offering is to act as best we can to "live and work "to [God's] praise and glory".
How does it happen? Our sermon last week said that the miracle was not that the bread and wine became Christ, but that Christ became the bread and wine. But either way, it is a miracle beyond our understanding.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
Lutheran priest here. Just a few comments.
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
What BroJames said.... …
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.
Well, as a Lutheran priest I wouldn’t say that BroJames’s approach sound very Lutheran. A Lutheran would never say that Christ is only present in the Eucharist in “the act of their being faithfully received.” Although Luther and the Lutheran Reformers were skeptical, sometimes perhaps even hostile, to the then contemporary practice of Eucharistic adoration, it was not because they believed Christ ceased to exist after the service, or that Christ was only present in the reception.
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
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).
Are you suggesting, then, that we should change the Creed and say that not only is Christ ‘truly God, truly man’ but ‘truly God, truly man, truly bread and truly wine’?
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Lutheran priest here. Just a few comments.
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
What BroJames said.... …
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.
Well, as a Lutheran priest I wouldn’t say that BroJames’s approach sound very Lutheran. A Lutheran would never say that Christ is only present in the Eucharist in “the act of their being faithfully received.” Although Luther and the Lutheran Reformers were skeptical, sometimes perhaps even hostile, to the then contemporary practice of Eucharistic adoration, it was not because they believed Christ ceased to exist after the service, or that Christ was only present in the reception.
Agree. As a Presbyterian, I'd say BroJames's views sound very Reformed, not Lutheran.
--------------------
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
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
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.
This strikes me as a fair formulation of the 'classical' Anglican position: one that would be endorsed by Hooker, Lancelot Andrews and Archbishop Laud.
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
If that's what Laud thought about the Eucharist, even less reason to mourn his losing his head.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Belle Ringer, just to clarify, didn't you reject TEC in which you were brought up, and are now Methodist or something else?
Or something. I've wandered back to TEC because that's where most of my friends are, but still do some activities with the Methodists, like the music for VBS.
Anyway, I was explicitly taught in ye old Protestant Episcopal Church that a member can believe or disbelieve whatever they want, and the local TEC says the same, so I don't know the relevance of your question.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Belle Ringer, I asked because I was specifically trying to find out the attitude of practicing Anglicans. And NO you can't just believe whatever the fuck you want. As a bare minimum, the Nicene and Apostles Creeds define our faith.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lucia
Looking for light
# 15201
|
Posted
Interesting to read this. I have worshiped in Anglican churches ever since my teens so I guess I count as an Anglican although I tend to see denominational designations as secondary. However Anglicanism is my home but I realise that the low church evangelical British Anglicanism that I have mainly been part of sounds quite different to the apparently higher liturgical style of TEC. My early years were spent in a more formally liturgical village church though and I retain an appreciation of liturgy which if anything has come back to me in mid-life.
Anyway on to the OP question. I'm not sure if I can pin down what I think happens during the Eucharist. To me there is a mixture of remembrance/memorial of Christ's death and resurrection, a sense of his presence in taking the elements, that what he did was for me and that as I take communion there is a sense of intimacy and connectedness with Christ. I find the sense of connectedness to others in community important too, the words "we are all one body because we all share in one bread" are important to me. As we speak them I look around our church full of people of different ethnic backgrounds and cultures, people with different opinions and experiences, yet sharing communion reminds me that despite our differences we are united as the body of Christ.
I don't think of the elements as actually being the body and blood of Christ in any physical way however I do have a sense that consecrated elements should be treated respectfully. In our church we have both a chalice with wine and small cups of juice available as we have a mix of people with different traditions. I sometimes help clear up after the communion and I know that some would simply pour the juice away out of any of the unused cups. It doesn't feel quite right to me and I usually pour them all into a glass and drink it! But I wouldn't get upset over spilt wine or dropped breadcrumbs, to me they are representatives of something to be treated reverently because of what they represent but are still essentially bread and wine.
I certainly prefer a communion service to one that doesn't include communion, it feels special for the reasons I have listed. I prefer communion done with the liturgy I am familiar with. I will happily receive communion in a church that does things differently or doesn't have the same theology of ordination etc. I'm happy to share communion within groups where no priest is present. What I'm not sure about is whether I perceive any difference in the significance of communion when it is presided over by a priest compared to other situations. Certainly it doesn't make a big difference to me but maybe there is something... I will have to think further on that.
[ 27. June 2014, 23:01: Message edited by: Lucia ]
Posts: 1075 | From: Nigh golden stone and spires | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I was explicitly taught in ye old Protestant Episcopal Church that a member can believe or disbelieve whatever they want
I just have to ask: does that include disbelieving that a member can believe or disbelieve whatever they want?
[ 28. June 2014, 01:16: Message edited by: FCB ]
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Are you suggesting, then, that we should change the Creed and say that not only is Christ ‘truly God, truly man’ but ‘truly God, truly man, truly bread and truly wine’?
Well in a way, that's not far off. Human bodies receive their nourishment from food after all, so in a biological sense, the human body of Christ was made up of bread and wine, and other food.
In seminary, one writer once made the point that it is only be feeding on Christ, that we understand what bread and wine really mean, as in the food we partake is a shadow of the reality of being fed by the Word of God incarnate in Jesus Christ.
[ 28. June 2014, 03:12: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Philip Charles
Ship's cutler
# 618
|
Posted
I too value the quotation of Liz I.
I was prompted by "... effectual sign (of grace) .." in Article XXV of the XXXIX.
How more Anglican can one get?
Effectual sign - effective symbol.
I see a ten dollar note as an effective symbol. On physical analysis it is ink on plastic film, but everyone I know forgets this and sees this a money to be spent - as an effictive symbol. I see the consecrated elements in the same way. I forget the physical bread and wine and and receive effective symbol of the Body and Blood.
To me the Eucharist keeps me united with Christ in an objective way when I am feeling unholy, uncharatable and dry.
I am Hahi Mihinare. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
--------------------
There are 10 kinds of people. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
Posts: 89 | From: Dunedin, NZ | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
Are you suggesting, then, that we should change the Creed and say that not only is Christ ‘truly God, truly man’ but ‘truly God, truly man, truly bread and truly wine’?
Well in a way, that's not far off.
I guess we disagree there.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laud-able
Ship's Ancient
# 9896
|
Posted
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras wrote:
quote:
If that's what Laud thought about the Eucharist, even less reason to mourn his losing his head.
Laud wrote:
'And [St Roberto] Bellarmine, after an intricate, tedious, and almost inexplicable discourse about an “adductive conversion” a thing which neither divinity nor philosophy ever heard of till then, is at last forced to come to this: "Whatsoever is concerning the manner and forms of speech, illud tenendum est, ‘this is to be held,' That the conversion of the bread and wine into the Body and the Blood of Christ is substantial, but after a secret and ineffable manner, and not like in all things to any natural conversion whatsoever.” Now, if he had left out “conversion,” and affirmed only Christ's “real presence” there, after a mysterious, and indeed an ineffable, manner, no man could have spoken better.'
Laud’s view sits easily with the view attributed to Elizabeth I: the Sacrament is the Body and the Blood of Christ, but we are not concerned as to how it is so.
Thus at our place the words of administration are:
‘The Body of Christ: the Bread of Heaven.’ and ‘The Blood of Christ: the Cup of Salvation.’
--------------------
'. . . "Non Angli, sed Angeli" "not Angels, but Anglicans"', Sellar, W C, and Yeatman, R J, 1066 and All That, London, 1930, p. 6.
Posts: 279 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hilda of Whitby
Shipmate
# 7341
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
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.
Here's the writer Flannery O'Connor's take on this. In one of her letters, she described a dinner party she attended at the writer Mary McCarthy's house. McCarthy had left the RC Church. From the letter:
"We went at eight and at one, I hadn’t opened my mouth once, there being nothing in such company for me to say.... Having me there was like having a dog present who had been trained to say a few words but overcome with inadequacy had forgotten them. Well, toward the morning the conversation turned on the Eucharist, which I, being the Catholic, was obviously supposed to defend. Mrs. Broadwater [Mary McCarthy] said when she was a child and received the Host, she thought of it as the Holy Ghost, He being the most “portable” person of the Trinity; now she thought of it as a symbol and implied that it was a pretty good one. I then said, in a very shaky voice, “Well, if it’s a symbol, to hell with it.” That was all the defense I was capable of. I then said, in a very shaky voice, “Well, if it’s a symbol, to hell with it.” That was all the defense I was capable of."
--------------------
"Born with the gift of laughter and a sense that the world is mad."
Posts: 412 | From: Nickel City | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Try
Shipmate
# 4951
|
Posted
I am with Luther, Andrews and Laud, broadly speaking. I believe that Christ is objectively and physically present in the elements, but that they do not cease to be bread and wine. I think that the elements should be either immediately consumed or reserved- scattering them on the ground for the birds shows insufficient reverence and it needs to stop. That's Methodist or Presbyterian, not Episcopalian.
OTOH I am not quite comfortable with benediction in Anglican churches either. I would rather take Communion than look at it. I would like to use substantial bread rather than wafers. I am glad that there is no grape juice in TEC.
I am TEC and came into TEC from the UMC relatively recently in part because I believed in the Real Presence.
--------------------
“I’m so glad to be a translator in the 20th century. They only burn Bibles now, not the translators!” - the Rev. Dr. Bruce M. Metzger
Posts: 852 | From: Beautiful Ohio, in dreams again I see... | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
If that's what Laud thought about the Eucharist, even less reason to mourn his losing his head.
Whatever his views on the Eucharist, they weren't the reason why Archbishop Laud was attainted and executed. That was for running the ecclesiastical parallel to Strafford's Thorough policy and being a bossy little man who got up a lot of important peoples' noses.
It's very puzzling from this side of the Atlantic how, why or when he seems to have become a symbolically revered figure in the US TEC.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Enoch. Laud was taken on as a Ritualist saint in the US in much the same way as Charles I. IMHO both may have had elements of personal holiness, but both were more than awful in their public-political roles, and frankly I don't think either is a suitable object for a cultus of veneration.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laud-able
Ship's Ancient
# 9896
|
Posted
The veneration may be found also in Australia: the Archbishop (10 January) and the King (30 January) are included as Martyrs in the Calendar of A Prayer Book for Australia. Further, in the Diocese of Melbourne there is an annual Commemoration of Charles, King and Martyr, and at our place a window to Archbishop William Laud, Martyr, was installed early in the last century.
--------------------
'. . . "Non Angli, sed Angeli" "not Angels, but Anglicans"', Sellar, W C, and Yeatman, R J, 1066 and All That, London, 1930, p. 6.
Posts: 279 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Try
Shipmate
# 4951
|
Posted
Laud is officially on the TEC calender on January 10. Any celebrations of "St. Charles" are unofficial, though General Convention has given churches permission to celebrate local saints. Both men are paradocical figures to American Episcopalians. Their theology was correct, and furthermore they opposed the Puritains. We Episcopalians endured persection from the Puritains in New England, both before and after the Revolution, so naturally we are in sympathy with them. On the other hand we can't approve of absolute monarchy. I think the reason why Laud is officially on the calender and Charles I isn't is that Laud's execution was unquestionably a judicial murder and involved a bill of attainder, while Charles had lost a war and was constantly plotting.
--------------------
“I’m so glad to be a translator in the 20th century. They only burn Bibles now, not the translators!” - the Rev. Dr. Bruce M. Metzger
Posts: 852 | From: Beautiful Ohio, in dreams again I see... | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
The cult of Charles the Martyr is alive and well in various advanced Anglo-Catholic parishes in TEC, which will have a shrine and observe his traditional feast day as designated in the 1662 BCP. In such circles he's typically credited with having saved apostolic episcopacy in the CofE and hence for the Anglican diaspora. This is ironic, since he could just as well be accused of having nearly lost the apostolic succession in the CofE -- indeed if not for the eventual Restoration, the episcopal succession in Ecclesia Anglicana would have been lost permanently. Charles I had no sense of the politically allowable, of compromise or the space in which he had to operate politically. He may have possessed personal virtues, but he was a bad monarch, infected with continental notions of his supposed divine rights, and his political stupidity nearly destroyed the Church of England, and did destroy historic episcopacy in the Church of Scotland.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ronald Binge
Shipmate
# 9002
|
Posted
Whatever about the end of Episcopal government in the Church of Scotland, I am certainly glad that the Scottish Episcopal Church exists.
--------------------
Older, bearded (but no wiser)
Posts: 477 | From: Brexit's frontline | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
GCabot
Shipmate
# 18074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
God incarnated, among many other reasons, for us to have something tangible and physical to worship (and to be present with us). The Eucharist allows God to be just as (or nearly as) present for us to worship, post the Ascension of our Lord. The Blessed Sacrament is not a graven image. It is not a man-made depiction of God. It is God.
This is where we shall have to disagree.
First, I see no evidence for the assertion that God's incarnation was meant in any way to provide us with something physical and tangible to worship.
Second, I disagree with your characterization on the Blessed Sacrament. I do not believe in transubstantiation, which would indeed make the Blessed Sacrament itself God. Rather, I believe in the Real Presence, i.e., that Christ is present in the Blessed Sacrament, not that He is the Blessed Sacrament. Hence, my concerns regarding idolatry.
--------------------
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
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
CofE priest here. The mainstream understandings of the Western Catholic Church - probably best set out today in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
My position would have to be moderate realism if I were to be pinned down. Usually, though, I try to resist overthinking it and merely affirm the Real Presence in the Sacrament. Not that I reject transubstantiation, it's just not a very helpful explanation for me of how the mystery works.
The Eucharist is not itself a re-sacrificing of Christ (even RCs don't believe this), but an anamnesis and re-presentation of Christ's sacrifice to the Father. It is propitiatory insofar as it participates in that sacrifice.
I'm a priest in the APCK, a moderately to extremely Anglo-Catholic continuing jurisdiction.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
Jesus said "do this in remembrance of me", and that's reason enough to take communion.
Seems that everyone agrees that the bread and wine remain chemically bread and wine.
Tthat their meaning is the body and blood of Christ, and that Christ is spiritually present where two or three are gathered in His name, are gifts of God, that we take as acts of trust in His Word.
Anything beyond that is human philosophy of an unreliable and dubious kind - speculation about the "nature" of things, or whether spiritual presence is a matter of degree
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mama Thomas
Shipmate
# 10170
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
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 ).
TEC priest, ordained in the ACOM basically I am one with Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras said in the OP.
Most definitely believe in the objective real presence of Christ, might as well say transubstantiation though through the centuries that term is loaded. This is effected by a validly ordained priest using a valid Eucharistic prayer. The consecrated elements are His most precious body and blood.
Yes, the Mass is the Holy Sacrifice because through the Mass we participate in the death of Christ on Calvary and partake in his risen life through the Spirit of God.
The Mass creates the Body of Christ the Church as the Church, the Body of Christ, celebrates the Mass.
Like Frank Sinatra said, you can't have one without the other.
--------------------
All hearts are open, all desires known
Posts: 3742 | From: Somewhere far away | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul 2012
Apprentice
# 17402
|
Posted
Talken with the plainly devout language used by Elizabeth I to tell us her view on the nature of the eucharist, the boldly reassuring words of Cranmer et al's prayer of humble access express anglican eucharistic belief very clearly.
We do not presume
to come to this thy table, O merciful Lord,
trusting in our own righteousness,
but in thy manifold and great mercies.
We are not worthy
so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy table.
But thou art the same Lord,
whose property is always to have mercy:
grant us therefore, gracious Lord,
so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ,
and to drink his blood,
that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body,
and our souls washed through his most precious blood,
and that we may evermore dwell in him,
and he in us.
--------------------
"A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another."
Posts: 6 | Registered: Oct 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
Here is an interesting article from 2009 which explains the classical Anglican view of the Real Presence. Within Anglicanism, every view from RC Transubstantiation to Zwinglian "real absence" can be found, but the Caroline divines settled on a form of Real Presence, much less defined than the RC, but one of affirmation nine the less. It's interesting that all of the possibilities have been expressed on this thread.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Banner Lady
Ship's Ensign
# 10505
|
Posted
As Wesley said:
'Tis mystery all: th' Immortal dies!
Who can explore his strange design?
In vain the firstborn seraph tries
to sound the depths of love divine.
For me, the eucharist is a Holy Mystery on many levels.
That it is simply bread and wine, nothing but a commemoration for some, is part of that mystery too.
That we become part of something that embraces other dimensions of life and spirit through time and space (the communion of saints) is mystery.
That the bread and the wine, like the word, "lives" or gives life to me, to my spirit, is mystery.
Is the eucharist completely explainable to the satisfaction of all here? No. That's part of the mystery. My sincere sympathies to all who feel a NEED to have this explained. By definition, a Holy Mystery can never be completely fathomed by human intellect.
I suspect some of us will keep trying though.
--------------------
Women in the church are not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be enjoyed.
Posts: 7080 | From: Canberra Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
