Question About The Anglican Eucharist

[Sean611]

I have a question about the Anglican Eucharist and the practices of the poster's parishes.

My question is, do Anglicans believe that the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is contained in the Communion Bread?

In many Roman Catholic parishes, especially larger ones, it seems that communicants are offered the Communion Bread only. The RCC teaches that Christ's Body, Blood, and Divinity are all contained in the consecrated bread. That said, some RCC parishes offer both the consecrated wine and bread to the communicant.

All this said, all the Anglican parishes i've seen and services that i've watched online, it seems that the communicant is always offered both the consecrated wine and bread. Do some Anglican parishes ever just offer the consecrated bread to the communicant or is both always offered? Does the size of the parish have any impact on whether your parish offers just the consecrated bread? Is there an Anglican canon teaching that both must always be offered or is our teaching similar to the RCC teaching of the bread containing both body and blood?

Thanks for your help!

 

[Adam Warlock]

The BCP says that both are to be offered to the people, but I've always heard priests say that both the bread and the wine are sufficient for full Communion. I've seen former alcoholics only receive bread, and I've seen gluten-intolerant parishioners receive only the chalice (until the parish was able to obtain hosts for them). In both cases, the priests indicated that receiving in one kind was sufficient to receive the whole Christ. Both kinds are always offered, though.

 

[Albion]

I have a question about the Anglican Eucharist and the practices of the poster's parishes.

My question is, do Anglicans believe that the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is contained in the Communion Bread?

In many Roman Catholic parishes, especially larger ones, it seems that communicants are offered the Communion Bread only. The RCC teaches that Christ's Body, Blood, and Divinity are all contained in the consecrated bread. That said, some RCC parishes offer both the consecrated wine and bread to the communicant.

All this said, all the Anglican parishes i've seen and services that i've watched online, it seems that the communicant is always offered both the consecrated wine and bread. Do some Anglican parishes ever just offer the consecrated bread to the communicant or is both always offered? Does the size of the parish have any impact on whether your parish offers just the consecrated bread? Is there an Anglican canon teaching that both must always be offered or is our teaching similar to the RCC teaching of the bread containing both body and blood?

Thanks for your help!

Anglican churches offer communion in both kinds. Not to do so was considered a great wrong by the Reformers and clearly not in accord with what happened at the Last Supper. I can't imagine any Anglican church not offering the chalice. It would require setting aside not only the Articles of Religion but also the BCP. The rationalizations previously offered by the RCC when the policy was instituted to forbid giving the cup to the laity--"any part of the elements includes all of Christ because he's indivisible" and "flesh must necessarily contain blood" -- are seldom heard in Anglican circles. However, there are very unusual situations in which the chalice is not possible and, in such cases, Anglican priests consider the reception of one form to be a genuine, if irregular, communion.

 

[crimsonleaf]

And just before a Catholic comes and slam-dunks you, they don't believe that the bread and wine contain the body and blood, because that would still leave the bread and wine present. The bread and wine are just the retained appearance of the body and blood.

I know, I know...

 

[Catherineanne]

I have a question about the Anglican Eucharist and the practices of the poster's parishes.

My question is, do Anglicans believe that the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is contained in the Communion Bread?

In many Roman Catholic parishes, especially larger ones, it seems that communicants are offered the Communion Bread only. The RCC teaches that Christ's Body, Blood, and Divinity are all contained in the consecrated bread. That said, some RCC parishes offer both the consecrated wine and bread to the communicant.

All this said, all the Anglican parishes i've seen and services that i've watched online, it seems that the communicant is always offered both the consecrated wine and bread. Do some Anglican parishes ever just offer the consecrated bread to the communicant or is both always offered? Does the size of the parish have any impact on whether your parish offers just the consecrated bread? Is there an Anglican canon teaching that both must always be offered or is our teaching similar to the RCC teaching of the bread containing both body and blood?

Thanks for your help!

Unless there is a ruling relating to a particular health risk, as with a variant of flu a couple of years ago, which led to wine being withheld, Anglicans are generally offered and routinely partake of both elements. Although at Communion the host is referred to as the Body of Christ, and the consecrated wine as the Blood of Christ, strictly speaking, both the Body and Blood (and Divinity) are fully present in both elements.

The norm (flu aside) is for both elements to be offered. The norm is for both elements to be taken. If either is taken alone, that is not a problem. Therefore, as with Catholics, anyone who is only able to partake in one kind, or who prefers to, is nonetheless partaking fully of both elements of the Eucharist.

 

[Albion]

both the Body and Blood are fully present in both elements.

Well yes. Since the presence, although real, is spiritual, such "geographical" considerations are irrelevant.

 

[Catherineanne]

However, there are very unusual situations in which the chalice is not possible and, in such cases, Anglican priests consider the reception of one form to be a genuine, if irregular, communion.

I am not sure there is such a thing as 'irregular communion.' Either there is valid communion or there is not. As I understand it Communion in one kind is fully valid communion within Anglicanism. It may not be the norm, but that does not make it irregular in any way.

 

[Albion]

I am not sure there is such a thing as 'irregular communion.'

The form would be irregular. It's something like an irregular ordination in that sense.

Either there is valid communion or there is not.

Sure, but you questioned "irregular," not "valid."

 

[Catherineanne]

Well yes. Since the presence, although real, is spiritual, such "geographical" considerations are irrelevant.

Certainly it is real, but I am not aware that Anglicanism states more than that. It is a mystery, but it is NOT defined as spiritual only; the question is left unanswered.

It is important, imo, not to define ourselves simply in contradistinction to RC dogma, nor indeed to claim that they are necessarily wrong; we simply do not know. It is better to remember that Rome defines, Orthodoxy and Anglicanism accept mystery and do not define either way beyond Real Presence.

 

[Albion]

Certainly it is real, but I am not aware that Anglicanism states more than that.

Then I'd suggest a reading of the Articles of Religion...or the wording of the Book of Common Prayer. You'll see that it does.

 

[Catherineanne]

The form would be irregular. It's something like an irregular ordination in that sense.

It is not irregular. It is unusual, but not irregular.

Communion in one kind is perfectly valid, and therefore not irregular.

Sure, but you questioned "irregular," not "valid."

See above.

 

[Albion]

It is not irregular. It is unusual, but not irregular.

Communion in one kind is perfectly valid, and therefore not irregular.

You don't know what these terms mean, apparently.

 

[Catherineanne]

You don't know what these terms mean, apparently.

Why, thank you.

How often does a person get a compliment like that?

Topol, Fiddler on the Roof.

 

[Adam Warlock]

Although at Communion the host is referred to as the Body of Christ, and the consecrated wine as the Blood of Christ, strictly speaking, both the Body and Blood (and Divinity) are fully present in both elements.

Anglo-Catholics represent

 

[ebia]

Then I'd suggest a reading of the Articles of Religion...or the wording of the Book of Common Prayer. You'll see that it does.

Cranmer's original liturgy was designed to make that clear. The reality of the deliberate blurring of the ways he did that in the 1662 can be seen as officially leaving the question ambiguous.

 

[seekingsister]

Our parish offers both, with a smaller chalice of non-alcoholic wine for people who can't or don't want to have alcohol. The instructions are to take both, I've never seen anyone just take the bread.