Do you think it's wrong to take a consecrated host from church?

[Naomi4Christ]

Naomi,

Thank you for the information. I neglected to say in my experience, there are definite variations within the southern region's dioceses, but that they were always considered "low church" when I was growing up. Dangerous putting labels on things sometimes.

Again, thanks for the information. I am very interested in how things are same or different in the UK and other places. I just wondered if there was an historical trend. I have been thinking about this a lot since learning about Sydney Anglicans and their practices.

Had to read up on exactly what a deanery was though!

If you think of Hooker's legacy - scripture, reason, tradition - you find the full breadth of Anglicanism. How that plays out in England is that you find churches with more emphasis on one of these values, but within a small geographical area (a deanery), everything is covered. These values translate to the three types of churchmanship - evangelical, broad church, and catholic, respectfully. Regardless of the dominant churchmanship, each church should value, and make room for, the other two.

As for historical trends, I suppose there are fads and corrections all the time. A lot of people may assume evangelicalism to be new because it also tends to be more modern - but it has been around since the earliest days of the church. Since tradition takes the back burner, it is able to morph and meet people where they are without diluting the core message of the life transforming power of Jesus Christ.

 

[Seek 2 Pray]

Naomi, thank you for the further clarification regarding the geographical and historical trends.

Yes, you are right the evangelical aspect is part of our Anglican tradition, and I have actually had a discussion regarding this in the last two years with new coworkers.


I have had two colleagues who noticed I almost always wear a small cross/crucifix or other religious pendant (some are larger and bolder though ). They both made startled comments when they noticed and that startled me!

They were new to the town (as I was 12 years ago), and I suspect they thought I was a non-believer as I had not pressed them to attend religious services with my congregation the minute they moved there. This gave me a chuckle. I had to confess to them that I have to drive 45 to an hour to find an Episcopalian/Anglican church.

I also told them that I don't like to push people, I listen to people and if I hear they are unhappy with their church or in the market to try something different, then I let them know I belong to a different tradition and willingly answer their questions if they have any and encourage them to visit a service and see what it is like. But, I do not like being pushed too hard, so I don't push others. I do enthusiastically share information regarding my religious tradition though, because it has brought me such peace and joy! (Here in the Bible belt the majority are active believers in Christ, so more of my experiences regard opening another person towards the Anglican tradition, rather than towards the Christian gospel).

They were not able to make the hour drive, but commented that they found it refreshing to not get the pushy invitations to visit my church. I believe they had been Presbyterians, and alas, there is not a Presbyterian church here either. Hmm, they may be future Anglicans after all...

Again, thanks!

 

[kiwimac]

Not only is consubstantiation not the belief of the Anglican Church, your definition of it is totally incorrect.

According to the Thirty-Nine Articles, specifically Articles XXVIII and XXIX:

The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves, one to another, but rather it is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ, and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

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. The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

The wicked and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as S. Augustine saith) the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ, but rather to their condemnation do eat and drink the sign or sacrament of so great a thing.​

Consubstantiation believes that Christ is present "in, with, and under the forms" of Bread and wine and most Anglicans would agree with that definition.

Further had you bothered to read my following post where I corrected an error you would have been aware that I added some words so my post should have read:

"Further I would argue that The bread / wine becomes IN OUR EXPERIENCE the body and blood of Christ, it does not become inhabited by Christ."

 

[mark46]

As Brother George (my Baptist mentor) taught me long ago, we are are called to be fishers of men, not to move fish around from one aquarium to another. I agree that it is not reasonable to try to get folks to move from one church tradition to another. We are always witnessing (with words if we must), and we should always be prepared to tell folks the reason for our Hope. But there is no reason to attack every new person who comes to town or work.

Naomi, thank you for the further clarification regarding the geographical and historical trends.

Yes, you are right the evangelical aspect is part of our Anglican tradition, and I have actually had a discussion regarding this in the last two years with new coworkers.


I have had two colleagues who noticed I almost always wear a small cross/crucifix or other religious pendant (some are larger and bolder though ). They both made startled comments when they noticed and that startled me!

They were new to the town (as I was 12 years ago), and I suspect they thought I was a non-believer as I had not pressed them to attend religious services with my congregation the minute they moved there. This gave me a chuckle. I had to confess to them that I have to drive 45 to an hour to find an Episcopalian/Anglican church.

I also told them that I don't like to push people, I listen to people and if I hear they are unhappy with their church or in the market to try something different, then I let them know I belong to a different tradition and willingly answer their questions if they have any and encourage them to visit a service and see what it is like. But, I do not like being pushed too hard, so I don't push others. I do enthusiastically share information regarding my religious tradition though, because it has brought me such peace and joy! (Here in the Bible belt the majority are active believers in Christ, so more of my experiences regard opening another person towards the Anglican tradition, rather than towards the Christian gospel).

They were not able to make the hour drive, but commented that they found it refreshing to not get the pushy invitations to visit my church. I believe they had been Presbyterians, and alas, there is not a Presbyterian church here either. Hmm, they may be future Anglicans after all...

Again, thanks!

 

[MKJ]

According to the Thirty-Nine Articles, specifically Articles XXVIII and XXIX:

The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves, one to another, but rather it is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ, and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

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. The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

The wicked and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as S. Augustine saith) the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ, but rather to their condemnation do eat and drink the sign or sacrament of so great a thing.​

Consubstantiation believes that Christ is present "in, with, and under the forms" of Bread and wine and most Anglicans would agree with that definition.

Further had you bothered to read my following post where I corrected an error you would have been aware that I added some words so my post should have read:

"Further I would argue that The bread / wine becomes IN OUR EXPERIENCE the body and blood of Christ, it does not become inhabited by Christ."

What the articles are describing is much more general than consubstantiation. Consubstantiation would be compatible with what the articles are saying, but there are other understandings that are as well. Consubstantiation, further, is a Catholic term that Catholic theologians developed to describe what they understood to be the Lutheran position. Most lutheran theologians, however, would say that they misunderstood the Lutheran position.

Your further explanation is also not consubstantiation - it sounds like a form of receptionism, which is not clearly compatible with the article, and if you look at Anglican practice with regard to the Eucharist, it doesn't really suggest that it favours a receptionist position. Receptionism has also been often ascribed to Lutheranism, but this too has been frequently repudiated by Lutheran thinkers.

Further, what is meant by something being spiritually present is actually very difficult to pin down. Does it mean spiritually present, as in, in our imagination? Probably not, that would not really be a very likely way for the framers of the articles to understand it. Does it mean in the sense of a spirit/flesh duality? Or in the sense Paul uses it, as a spirit/flesh unity? This is a more difficult question, and one that can be very tricky when reading any of the Reformers - possibly because thy themselves were not very clear on the issue. But in any case, if we understand it as a spirit/fles unity, then it comes very close indeed - perhaps indistinguishable - from saying it is really the Body and Blood.

And finally, Anglicans are not bound to these articles, and Eucharistic theology of the Reformation is something that has had a lot of thought since then. The English Reformers were in a sense reactionary - they wanted to repudiate a certain kind of superstition and questionable practices found in Catholisism, and they wanted to avoid imposing Aristotalian terms which were out of place as dogmatic statements. To use the articles alone as a source for Anglican theology on this subject is unwise - they are probable not even that clear about what the people who wrote them thought.

 

[file13]

Consubstantiation believes that Christ is present "in, with, and under the forms" of Bread and wine and most Anglicans would agree with that definition.

The definition in the Articles is the Reformed view, not the Lutheran view of consubstantiation. The key issue has to do with if there's a physical change in the host or not and the differences in the views has to do with if there's a physical change, a spiritual one, both, or none? The RCC and EO both believe there's not only a spiritual presence but a real physical change to the host. The Lutheran view also believes in a spiritual presence, but also insists that although the host does not outwardly change, there is also a physical presence (substance) in the way you quoted from above (ie, in with, and under). The Reformed view (which is in line with the Articles in their "true, usual, literal meaning") rejects any physical change, but believes in a spiritual presence. In other words, nothing physically happens to the host, but Christ is present spiritually and the Eucharist is thus, not simply an empty ritual. This is why the Articles emphasize the rejection of "the change of the substance of Bread and Wine" (i.e. there is no physical change to the host) and that the Eucharist is given and taken "only after an heavenly and spiritual manner."

In other words, Christ is present spiritual in the Eucharist and it's not something we partake of lightly. But the traditional view rejects any physical or substantial change in the host and is thus in line with the Reformed view. Thus, the Articles reject consubstantiation.

"Further I would argue that The bread / wine becomes IN OUR EXPERIENCE the body and blood of Christ, it does not become inhabited by Christ."

What you said there sounds like you're asserting a spiritual presence. If so, then I don't see your dispute. However, if you're saying (either in addition to or if this was your entire point) that Christ subjectively decides to become spiritually present in the Eucharist based on the believer's view, then we (Anglicans who accept the Articles) would have to reject it. This makes the Eucharist about us and our subjective beliefs.

That being said, are you really suggesting that Christ being spiritually present is dependent on a believers belief that He is spiritual present?