Can anyone explain the different views of the Eucharist?

[rhartsc]

Can anyone who is knowledgeable compare and contrast the Anglican view/purpose of the Eucharist vis a vis the RC, EO, and Lutheran positions?

 

[ContraMundum]

Can anyone who is knowledgeable compare and contrast the Anglican view/purpose of the Eucharist vis a vis the RC, EO, and Lutheran positions?

Got an hour?

 

[Timothy]

Can anyone who is knowledgeable compare and contrast the Anglican views/purposes of the Eucharist vis a vis the RC, EO, and Lutheran positions?

FIFY

 

[Albion]

Got an hour?

My immediate thought, too, CM.


Perhaps we could just put it this way for our friend:

RC--bread and wine change into Christ's flesh and blood.

EO--generally same as RC but no explanation about the mechanics of change

Lutheran--bread and wine TAKE ON the nature of C's f and b without ceasing also to be bread and wine.

Anglican--it's a real change, but spiritual (not merely symbolic)..

 

[Sean611]

Father Jonathan, writer of the Conciliar Anglican blog, has a great post on Anglican Eucharistic theology. In it, he says that people tend to believe that the spiritual is somehow less real than the physical, but spiritual food is real food and we really do receive Christ's body and blood.

Here is the good excerpt from the blog:

"The Body and Blood of Christ that comes to us in and through the consecrated bread and wine is a glorified body, a spiritual body. It requires a glorified spirit to be able to properly receive it and feed on it. But that does not mean that Christ is not really, truly present, in an objective way, by His own free gift of Himself. The spiritual nature of the Body does not make the Body any less of a real Body. Nor does our need to feed spiritually, through faith, make any difference in the reality of the gift that is given in the sacrament."


"Spiritual food is real food. There is only one way to eat it and only one chef who prepares it. Blessed are we to be called to keep the feast."


On The Eucharist: Spiritual Food Is Real Food | The Conciliar Anglican

 

[Deegie]

Perhaps we could just put it this way for our friend:

RC--bread and wine change into Christ's flesh and blood.

EO--generally same as RC but no explanation about the mechanics of change

Lutheran--bread and wine TAKE ON the nature of C's f and b without ceasing also to be bread and wine.

Anglican--it's a real change, but spiritual (not merely symbolic).

I agree with most of that. Here is my understanding:

The Roman Catholic position, often called transubstantiation, is typically characterized as a material change from bread and wine to the body and blood of Christ. It was affirmed by the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215, although its roots go back much farther. Through the medieval period, it included an understanding that one's senses still perceived bread and wine but were being fooled. I believe there is now a little more nuance and mystery involved but I haven't read as much about modern Catholic eucharistic theology as I have the scholastics.

The Eastern Orthodox position is also one of Real Presence. Christ is physically present in the elements, but they tend to leave the mechanism as a mystery.

The Lutheran position is often called consubstantiation, even though Luther never used the term. Consubstantiation suggests that the body and blood of Christ join to the bread and wine without transforming them. Luther spoke of Christ being "in, with, and under" the elements. Wayne Grudem uses the helpful analogy of a wet sponge to explain this. The sponge soaks up water but does not cease to still be a sponge. Everywhere there is water, there is also sponge and vice versa. Luther referred to this as a "spiritual union", which is different from consubstantiation in technical detail.

Finally, to Anglican eucharistic theology. I must caveat this with the normal disclaimer that there is great diversity in Anglican belief and this is one of the issues on which we happily agree to disagree. Going back into history, Hooker and Cranmer and most of the early Anglican divines believed in a form of receptionism. This means that they believed that Christ was really present, but inside the faithful communicant and not in the actual elements themselves. However, I would suggest that Anglican eucharistic theology has evolved significantly since then. Perhaps due to lingering effects of the Oxford Movement, there are many who believe that Christ is really and physically present in the consecrated elements. Others would go more with the spiritual presence that Albion mentions. But, either way, Christ is present in the elements of Holy Communion.

I should also quote from the Anglican-Roman Catholic Agreed Statement on the Eucharist, which was accepted by the Lambeth Conference: "Communion with Christ in the Eucharist presupposes his true presence, effectually signified by the bread and wine which, in this mystery, become his body and blood". This is about as good a statement as I could find. I guess the official Anglican position is along the lines of affirming Real Presence without trying to undermine the mystery of it all.

 

[Albion]

Finally, to Anglican eucharistic theology (the one in which I must respectfully disagree with the poster I quoted). I must caveat this with the normal disclaimer that there is great diversity in Anglican belief and this is one of the issues on which we happily agree to disagree. It is true that Hooker and Cranmer and most of the early Anglican divines believed in a form of receptionism. This means that they believed that Christ was really present, but inside the faithful communicant and not in the actual elements themselves (thus the poster is correct to say it's spiritual but not just symbolic). However, I would suggest that Anglican eucharistic theology has evolved significantly since then. Perhaps due to lingering effects of the Oxford Movement, there are many (including myself) who believe that Christ is really and physically present in the consecrated elements. In my experience, I would call it the majority position. (But, of course, I tend to associate with communities that share my theology...so experience is very deceiving in such issues.)

I should also quote from the Anglican-Roman Catholic Agreed Statement on the Eucharist, which was accepted by the Lambeth Conference: "Communion with Christ in the Eucharist presupposes his true presence, effectually signified by the bread and wine which, in this mystery, become his body and blood". This is about as good a statement as I could find. I guess the official Anglican position is along the lines of affirming Real Presence without trying to undermine the mystery of it all.

Well, when answering inquiries about "the Anglican" belief, I always go with the Articles of Religion and the prayerbook, not what is "evolving" in individual members' minds or church committees. There is no other way of giving an answer that is at all official--and that's what is always being asked for.

 

[Deegie]

Well, when answering inquiries about "the Anglican" belief, I always go with the Articles of Religion and the prayerbook, not what is "evolving" in individual members' minds or church committees. There is no other way of giving an answer that is at all official--and that's what is always being asked for.

Drats. You caught me before my edit. Oh, well.

I beg to differ. I think, at least in terms of TEC's polity, there is clear precedent for dividing positions into "core doctrine" and then other beliefs. The former would be described as those things which make us Christian, that reflect the apostolic kerygma, and that are unchanged through time. The latter are things that can and do change over time. These are given official weight only when pronounced by an authorized council of the church. Eucharistic theology falls into the latter category.

And, on a more philosophical level, I don't think a discussion of the "official" is nearly as useful as a discussion of what people actually believe. I think to answer the OP's question without leaving room for those who believe in a physical/material change to the elements is not doing it justice. Just my opinion.

 

[Albion]

Drats. You caught me before my edit. Oh, well.

Don't you just hate it when that happens? I know how you feel.

I beg to differ. I think, at least in terms of TEC's polity

Let's pause right there. If the question were about TEC, all bets would be off, wouldn't they?

And, on a more philosophical level, I don't think a discussion of the "official" is nearly as useful as a discussion of what people actually believe.

Possibly, but when people ask questions about Anglicanism, I answer about Anglicanism. If they ask "What do Episcopalians (or Anglicans) believe?," that would call for a somewhat different reply IMO.

Anyway, that was my answer to the inquirer, and it was meant to be summary. We all know that there is more that could be said with regard to all the churches asked about if we wanted to go into it. Well, I guess you did just that.

 

[rhartsc]

Thanks everyone for your posts. It seems that we all agree that we are truly receiving Christ's Body and Blood, we just explain/understand it in slightly different ways. I don't agree with transubstantiation but I do not doubt that RC have a valid Eucharist.

I guess my next question has to do with viewing the Eucharist as a sacrifice or the use of sacrificial language. For example RCC speaks of the "Sacrifice of the Mass" and EO speak about a "spiritual and bloodless sacrifice" but it seems that Anglicans do not view the Eucharist in this way?

 

[Albion]

Thanks everyone for your posts. It seems that we all agree that we are truly receiving Christ's Body and Blood, we just explain/understand it in slightly different ways. I don't agree with transubstantiation but I do not doubt that RC have a valid Eucharist.

I guess my next question has to do with viewing the Eucharist as a sacrifice or the use of sacrificial language. For example RCC speaks of the "Sacrifice of the Mass" and EO speak about a "spiritual and bloodless sacrifice" but it seems that Anglicans do not view the Eucharist in this way?

You are prepared for a range of opinions on this one, I presume?

In answering this one, I will no doubt be more traditional than other good Anglicans who will speak for themselves, but I say that we offer, during the Lord's Supper, only ourselves and our sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving. Christ is neither sacrificed or "re-presented" as a sacrifice. Again, I refer to the Articles of Religion and the BCP as official statements of our church.

 

[Deegie]

Let's pause right there. If the question were about TEC, all bets would be off, wouldn't they?

Absolutely, and just to be clear, I wasn't trying to speak for all of Anglicanism in my discussion of "core doctrine" and how positions can change over time. But it is still a representation of how one branch of Anglicanism views the question.

 

[Deegie]

In answering this one, I will no doubt be more traditional than other good Anglicans who will speak for themselves, but I say that we offer, during the Lord's Supper, only ourselves and our sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving. Christ is neither sacrificed or "re-presented" as a sacrifice. Again, I refer to the Articles of Religion and the BCP as official statements of our church.

And here, sir, we are in total agreement. Although I have some definite Anglo-Catholic liturgical leanings, that's one place I will not go. I think you give an accurate summary. I would like to slightly expand with some examples...

To quote the Catechism from the American BCP (1979):

"Why is the Eucharist called a sacrifice? Because the Eucharist, the Church's sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, is the way by which the sacrifice of Christ is made present, and in which he unites us to his one offering of himself."

In the oblations in Eucharistic Prayers A and B in the same BCP, the priest specifically refers to a "sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving". In Prayer C, it is just a "sacrifice of thanksgiving". Prayer D speaks of "offering to you...this bread and this cup". This language comes from Saint Basil and needs to be read in light of the other prayers. Rite I similarly talks of the bread and wine being offered to God.

Turning to the New Zealand Prayer Book (the only other one I have handy just now), there is the same phrase of "our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving".

 

[rhartsc]

You are prepared for a range of opinions on this one, I presume?
Absolutely.

In answering this one, I will no doubt be more traditional than other good Anglicans who will speak for themselves, but I say that we offer, during the Lord's Supper, only ourselves and our sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving. Christ is neither sacrificed or "re-presented" as a sacrifice. Again, I refer to the Articles of Religion and the BCP as official statements of our church.

Is anyone familiar with how this divergence in undertsanding came about between Anglicans and RC/EO?


Now that I started thinking about something I have always taken for granted other questions have sprung up in my head. Perhaps some of you have asked these questions yourself or know of a reasonable answer. For example, why did Jesus give us his body and blood to eat and drink? I can understand that it can forgive sins help us to grow spiritually but surely he could accomplish this by any means He chooses?

 

[Deegie]

I think there is a communal element as well. By gathering together at the table to proclaim and remember Jesus, the church demonstrates both proper worship and fellowship. As we are reconciled to God, we also reconcile with each other.

 

[MKJ]

I think the dividing line between the Roman idea of the Body and Blood being physical and the Anglican idea of it being spiritual is pretty much non-existent, from both directions.

From the Anglican direction, what do we mean by spiritual - presumably we are not heretically trying to divide Christs body from his spirit. This suggests spiritual is mean in a rather more complex or abstract way, one that includes the flesh while not finding us biting into visibly fleshly bits of bread. Perhaps in the sense that Paul talks about the spiritual, as including the body perfected and united to the divine, seemingly without the normal boundaries of time and space.

From the Roman perspective, if you look at the well developed understandings of transubstantiation developed by Thomas which tells us that Christ has no carnal presence in the Eucharist while maintaining that it is his body that is present.

It is rather difficult to spot the difference IMO.

As for sacrifice in the Eucharist - I guess there are a wide variety of Anglican views on this. My own view is that there was one sacrifice, and that each Eucharist service is participating in that one Eucharist, the one we see in the Revelation of St John.

 

[MKJ]

Is anyone familiar with how this divergence in undertsanding came about between Anglicans and RC/EO?


Now that I started thinking about something I have always taken for granted other questions have sprung up in my head. Perhaps some of you have asked these questions yourself or know of a reasonable answer. For example, why did Jesus give us his body and blood to eat and drink? I can understand that it can forgive sins help us to grow spiritually but surely he could accomplish this by any means He chooses?

For the same reason he accomplished what he wanted through the Incarnation.

In the Incarnation God reconciled and united humanity to himself, by bringing it, in its very fleshlyness, into his Divine nature.

It is through the Eucharist that he makes that union available to each of us individually, and physically. We should not be surprised to see God give himself, his grace, to us through the physical - we are physical creatures and we need to be reconciled to him, not only as spirits, but as whole physical beings. We achieve union with God by participating in his nature with our whole selves - if it did not include our physical selves, that would mean we were no longer fully human, as humans by nature have bodies.

 

[Cappadocious]

Christ is neither sacrificed or "re-presented" as a sacrifice.

To quote the Catechism from the American BCP (1979):

"Why is the Eucharist called a sacrifice? Because the Eucharist, the Church's sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, is the way by which the sacrifice of Christ is made present, and in which he unites us to his one offering of himself."

?

 

[rhartsc]

Thanks MKJ for the excellent responses.

 

[ebia]

As for sacrifice in the Eucharist - I guess there are a wide variety of Anglican views on this. My own view is that there was one sacrifice, and that each Eucharist service is participating in that one Eucharist, the one we see in the Revelation of St John.

In Tom Wright terms, in the Eucharist the past event of crucifixion, now, and the future event are telescoped together in time just as the Passover meal telescoped together exodus, 'now' and ultimate release from bondage.