Ship of Fools: Anglican Shippies: What are your own views regarding the nature of the Eucharist?

Thread: Anglican Shippies: What are your own views regarding the nature of the Eucharist? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027428

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

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).

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

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 ]

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

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.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

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.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

A [mystical] memorial.

Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :

(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.

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

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.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

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.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

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.

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

It is only symbolic in my view.

Posted by blackbeard (# 10848) on :

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).

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

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 ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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]

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

....or 'it's a holy mystery'!

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

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

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

(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.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

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)

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

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.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

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.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

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.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

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'

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

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.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

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.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

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.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

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.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

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 ]

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

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.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

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.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

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.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

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.

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

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.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

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.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

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]

.

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.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

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.

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :

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 ]

Posted by OfficeSinger (# 15700) on :

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!

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

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.)

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

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.

Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :

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.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

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.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

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.

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

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]

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

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.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

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.

Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :

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.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

@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.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

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.

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

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.

Posted by TomM (# 4618) on :

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?

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

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.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

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.
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.

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

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.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

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.

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

In my mind it is an obvious triumph of literalism over metaphor.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

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.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Perhaps because you are the one who is overly literal ...

[Biased]

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

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.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

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 ]

Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :

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.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

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.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

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

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

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!

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

Belle Ringer, just to clarify, didn't you reject TEC in which you were brought up, and are now Methodist or something else?

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

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 ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
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).

The Gree4k suggests something substantially literal

to gnaw, to chew

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

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."

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

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.

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

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’?

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

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.

Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :

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.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

If that's what Laud thought about the Eucharist, even less reason to mourn his losing his head.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

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.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

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.

Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :

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 ]

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :

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 ]

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

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 ]

Posted by Philip Charles (# 618) on :

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]

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

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.

Posted by Laud-able (# 9896) on :

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.’

Posted by Hilda of Whitby (# 7341) on :

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."

Posted by Try (# 4951) on :

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.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

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.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

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.

Posted by Laud-able (# 9896) on :

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.

Posted by Try (# 4951) on :

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.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

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.

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

Whatever about the end of Episcopal government in the Church of Scotland, I am certainly glad that the Scottish Episcopal Church exists.

Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :

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.

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

CofE priest here. The mainstream understandings of the Western Catholic Church - probably best set out today in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

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.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

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

Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :

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.

Posted by Paul 2012 (# 17402) on :

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.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

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.

Posted by Banner Lady (# 10505) on :

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.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0