Eucharist In different denominations

Radagast said:

The Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles (no. 28) specifically rules out the Catholic view of "transubstantiation." It goes on to see "The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith." That certainly sounds like the spiritual view (#2) and, in fact, echoes the language of earlier Calvinist documents.

In practice, however, many Anglicans have, over the centuries, held to some version of #1.

Click to expand...

The part in red above is receptionism, which implies that the person receiving the Eucharist, is complicate in the real presence. Confessional Lutherans disagree with this; it is what it is. Our confessions clearly state that Word and Sacrament remain efficacious even when administered by evil men. Same goes for those receiving it. Even those with no faith, if they partake, they eat and drink Christ's body and blood.

Albion said:

How so?

Click to expand...

Birds of a feather flock together <g>.

MarkRohfrietsch said:

The part in red above is receptionism, which implies that the person receiving the Eucharist, is complicate in the real presence.

Click to expand...

I didn't quite understand all that, but I don't think so.

Radagast said:

I didn't quite understand all that, but I don't think so.

Click to expand...

Sure sounds like it, if the elements only become the body and blood for the faithful, that is "receptionism"; receptionism is a good excuse to justify open communion. Confessional Lutherans, Orthodox and Catholics reject receptionism, and all have retained closed communion.

MarkRohfrietsch said:

Sure sounds like it, if the elements only become the body and blood for the faithful, that is "receptionism"

Click to expand...

I don't think it says that. As I read it, it's implying that the benefits are received only by the faithful.

I think that this article is explicitly influenced by the Calvinist view, spelled out in detail in e.g. the Belgic Confession.

MarkRohfrietsch said:

receptionism is a good excuse to justify open communion

Click to expand...

The Calvinist view is traditionally associated with closed communion.

As I said, I think the article is explicitly influenced by the Calvinist view, but I'm aware that some Anglicans practice open communion.

MarkRohfrietsch said:

Sure sounds like it, if the elements only become the body and blood for the faithful, that is "receptionism";

Click to expand...

...which, however, is not the Anglican belief.

Albion said:

...which, however, is not the Anglican belief.

Click to expand...

Maybe one of the reasons that most Anglicans don't really rely on the 39 Articles as a confessional document the way that Confessional Lutherans do the Unaltered 1580 edition of the Book of Concord.

MarkRohfrietsch said:

Maybe one of the reasons that most Anglicans don't really rely on the 39 Articles as a confessional document the way that Confessional Lutherans do the Unaltered 1580 edition of the Book of Concord.

Click to expand...

It is hard to say how many Anglicans rely upon the Articles. They are the norm in my church and affirmed as such. All round, I would guess that a significant percentage of Anglicans accept them as authoritative and a significant number look upon them as the Anglo-Catholic/Oxford Movement people did and do...or else think of them as an historical document that was relevant in its day but that day has passed. That is basically the same kind of situation as we find with Roman Catholics and Confessional Lutherans, too.

Albion said:

It is hard to say how many Anglicans rely upon the Articles. They are the norm in my church and affirmed as such. All round, I would guess that a significant percentage of Anglicans accept them as authoritative and a significant number look upon them as the Anglo-Catholic/Oxford Movement people did and do...or else think of them as an historical document that was relevant in its day but that day has passed. That is basically the same kind of situation as we find with Roman Catholics and Confessional Lutherans, too.

Click to expand...

While some members, and a very odd clergyman may; such is not the case in our Synod. Certainly, every clergyman and Church worker ordained in our synod vows to uphold the BoC in it's entity. When they are installed in a parish, they again vow to uphold it.

In Catholicism, the Catechism is it presently.

MarkRohfrietsch said:

While some members, and a very odd clergyman may; such is not the case in our Synod.

Click to expand...

Sure, it is. That is the case in almost every denomination. The denomination itself may have strong standards, but if the members are questioned on what they are supposed to be believing--which has been done--the results show a remarkable diversity of results.

Oh, yes, 85% or so of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod and its Canadian affiliate say that they believe in the more obvious things like the infallibility of the Bible or that salvation is by faith or that Jesus was born of a virgin. But get into trickier points--all duly spelled out in the church's official statements of belief, to be sure--and it is a different story. Take the meaning of the sacrament of the altar, for instance, and the number of people departing from the synodical stance is something to behold.

Albion said:

Sure, it is. That is the case in almost every denomination. The denomination itself may have strong standards, but if the members are questioned on what they are supposed to be believing--which has been done--the results show a remarkable diversity of results.

Oh, yes, 85% or so of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod and its Canadian affiliate say that they believe in the more obvious things like the infallibility of the Bible or that salvation is by faith or that Jesus was born of a virgin. But get into trickier points--all duly spelled out in the church's official statements of belief, to be sure--and it is a different story. Take the meaning of the sacrament of the altar, for instance, and the number of people departing from the synodical stance is something to behold.

Click to expand...

I appreciate your thoughts, but the Catechesis, and those pastors coming out of our sems these past 30+ years, are the motivation of a renaissance or Lutheran Orthodoxy; as has been the Lutheran service book.

Did you know that many Lutheran Churches world wide have left the Lutheran world federation (liberal synods) and have joined the Lutheran World Council as they return to the confessions. Our Churches use our confessions in their Bible studies; we use them in the Daily Office, we retain them.

MarkRohfrietsch said:

I appreciate your thoughts, but the Catechesis, and those pastors coming out of our sems these past 30+ years, are the motivation of a renaissance or Lutheran Orthodoxy; as has been the Lutheran service book.

Click to expand...

Yeh, that's fine, but I was speaking of the rank and file member, the man in the pews, who, because he is a member in good standing, supposedly holds to every jot and tittle of a very detailed synodical or denominational statement of beliefs...but actually does not.

Please know that I am not jabbing the Lutheran Church--Canada. The Confessional Lutheran churches are well ahead of almost all other denominations when it comes to uniformity in fact, rather than just in theory.

Albion said:

Yeh, that's fine, but I was speaking of the rank and file member, the man in the pews, who, because he is a member in good standing, supposedly holds to every jot and tittle of a very detailed synodical or denominational statement of beliefs...but actually does not.

Please know that I am not jabbing the Lutheran Church--Canada. The Confessional Lutheran churches are well ahead of almost all other denominations when it comes to uniformity in fact, rather than just in theory.

Click to expand...

Yes, that has been my own observation regarding confessional Lutheran denominations, as well. There is a very strong doctrinal uniformity among them, which is no mere coincidence.

MarkRohfrietsch said:

The part in red above is receptionism, which implies that the person receiving the Eucharist, is complicate in the real presence. Confessional Lutherans disagree with this; it is what it is. Our confessions clearly state that Word and Sacrament remain efficacious even when administered by evil men. Same goes for those receiving it. Even those with no faith, if they partake, they eat and drink Christ's body and blood.

Click to expand...

MarkRohfrietsch said:

Sure sounds like it, if the elements only become the body and blood for the faithful, that is "receptionism"; receptionism is a good excuse to justify open communion. Confessional Lutherans, Orthodox and Catholics reject receptionism, and all have retained closed communion.

Click to expand...

I don't think it is receptionism, exactly. I agree with Albion that it's affirming a real presence but rejecting transubstantiation, and that the benefits of that real presence are received by faith.

And we can see that in part by the fact that our Articles also insist that the unworthiness of the minister does not hinder the effect of the sacraments.

As for open communion; I gather that different provinces in the global Anglican communion have adopted different practices, but where I am, the table is not open to everyone.

As for the 39 Articles, we do still rely on them here, but I am not sure that they were ever intended to be a confessional statement in quite the same way as Lutherans use confessional statements. I understand them more as setting out some boundaries; "You must keep your ministry, preaching and teaching within the limits here defined," rather than the much more developed doctrinal statements in the Book of Concord.

Paidiske said:

I don't think it is receptionism, exactly. I agree with Albion that it's affirming a real presence but rejecting transubstantiation, and that the benefits of that real presence are received by faith.

And we can see that in part by the fact that our Articles also insist that the unworthiness of the minister does not hinder the effect of the sacraments.

As for open communion; I gather that different provinces in the global Anglican communion have adopted different practices, but where I am, the table is not open to everyone.

As for the 39 Articles, we do still rely on them here, but I am not sure that they were ever intended to be a confessional statement in quite the same way as Lutherans use confessional statements. I understand them more as setting out some boundaries; "You must keep your ministry, preaching and teaching within the limits here defined," rather than the much more developed doctrinal statements in the Book of Concord.

Click to expand...

This brings back an interesting memory. Many years ago I visited a classmate and his family in a different state. They were (and are) active Episcopalians. On Sunday I attended their, quite large, church with them and, respectfully, abstained from communion. They were quite perplexed that I did not partake with them.

The general practice in my diocese is that the table is open to baptised people who are communicants in good standing in their own church. In practice, that is of course hard to police.

I would not knowingly give communion to an unbaptised person, which is I think what happens in some Anglican churches elsewhere.

Paidiske said:

The general practice in my diocese is that the table is open to baptised people who are communicants in good standing in their own church. In practice, that is of course hard to police.

I would not knowingly give communion to an unbaptised person, which is I think what happens in some Anglican churches elsewhere.

Click to expand...

Yes, that does seem to be the case. As you say, it is a difficult practice that is hard to police. Our church, which is now limited to meetings of no more than ten, is much more manageable, which might be the only positive thing I can say about the coronvirus pandemic.

Paidiske said:

I don't think it is receptionism, exactly. I agree with Albion that it's affirming a real presence but rejecting transubstantiation, and that the benefits of that real presence are received by faith.

Click to expand...

Why wouldn't you call this belief "receptionist?" It sounds like Lutherans rejecting the term "consubstantiation" while their doctrine is indistinguishable from "consubstantiation."

Andrewn said:

Why wouldn't you call this belief "receptionist?" It sounds like Lutherans rejecting the term "consubstantiation" while their doctrine is indistinguishable from "consubstantiation."

Click to expand...

Indeed; anything that relies on the faith of the one receiving the Eucharist to ensure the validity of that Sacrament is "receptionism". We also reject "consubstantiation" in that it implies an equal measure of both the elements and Christ's body and blood. Rather, "Sacramental Union" or "Homeostasis"; "in with and under the bread and wine". Consubstantiation implies a 3rd substance that consists of both the physical elements and the body and blood of our Lord. Again, Scripture calls it both, but not at the same time. Human nature has a need to explain everything rather than simply accepting a miracle.

Andrewn said:

Why wouldn't you call this belief "receptionist?" It sounds like Lutherans rejecting the term "consubstantiation" while their doctrine is indistinguishable from "consubstantiation."

Click to expand...

It's not Receptionism. Receptionism means that it is the body and blood of Christ only upon being received by the communicant. Note that, in the wording you asked about and quoted, it said "and that the benefits of that real presence are received by faith.