Eucharistic Theology in the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox & Anglican Church

Aymn27 · Sep 9, 2006

Ravenonthecross said:
I believe the first three points that a_ntv so eloquently stated here are the criteria of which you're looking for. In addition, some of the Anglican Church, have adopted the practice of permitting and ordaining women priests, counter to the all-male priesthood Christ established for his church, thus nullifying the validity of the priesthood for those parishes that accept it, being as they changed a doctrine that Christ himself founded, they've put themselves in error, or Heresy as one would say.

Brother Raven,
I understand quite well the "catholic" standard, and I would argue that all points were met under the Edwardian Ordinal. However, that still does not address the point of "sacredotal" priesthood - what does it mean? where is it in the NT and earliest church fathers? And is such an understanding necessary to remain "catholic" if it cannot be proven from Tradition that such an understanding has always been believed. What are the parameters for "sacredotal" ministry? The following is the ordination rite in question:

And then the Bisshop shal saye to the people.
GOOD people, these bee they whome we purpose God wyllyng, to receyve this daye, unto the holye offyce of Priesthode. For after due examinacion, we fynd not the contrary but that they be lawfully called to theyr function and ministery, and that they be persones mete for the same: but yet yf there be any of you whyche knoweth any impediment, or notable cryme in any of them, for the whyche he oughte not to bee receyved into this holy ministery, nowe in the name of God declare the same.
¶ And yf any great cryme or impediment be objected, &c. Ut supra in Ordine Diaconatus usque ad finem Litanie cum hac Collecta.
ALMYGHTIE GOD, gever of all good thinges, which by thy holy spirit has appoynted dyverse orders of Ministers in thy church, mercifully behold these thy servantes, now called to the Office of Priesthode, and replenish them so wyth the trueth of thy doctryne, and innocencie of lyfe, that both by worde and good example, they may faythfully serve thee in thys office, to the glorye of thy name, and profyte of the congregacion, through the merites of oure saviour Jesu Christ, who lyveth and reygneth, wyth thee and the holy Ghoste, worlde wythout ende. Amen.

¶ Then the Bisshop shal minister unto every of them the othe, concerning the Kinges Supremacie, as it is set oute in the ordre of Deacons. And that done, he shall saye unto them, which are appoynted to receyve the sayde Office, as hereafter fotoweth.
YOU have hearde brethren, as well in youre private examinacion, as in the exhortacion, and in the holy lessons taken out of the Gospel, and of the writinges of the Apostles, of what dignitie, and of how great importaunce thys offyce is, (whereunto ye be called). And nowe we exhorte you, in the name of oure LORDE Jesus Christe, to have in remembraunce, into howe hyghe a dignitie, and to howe chargeable an offyce ye bee called, that is to saye, to be the messengers, the watchemen, the Pastours, and the stewardes of the LORDE to teache, to premonisshe [=warn], to feede, and provyde for the Lordes famylye: to seeke for Christes shepe that be dispersed abrode, and for hys children whiche bee in the myddest of thys naughtye worlde, to be saved through Christe for ever. Have alwayes therfore printed in your remembraunce, howe great a treasure is committed to your charge, for they be the shepe of Chryste, whiche he boughte with hys death, and for whom he shed his bloud. The churche and congregacion whom you must serue, is his spouse and hys body. And if it shall chaunce the same churche, or any membre therof, to take any hurt or hinderaunce, by reason of youre negligence, ye knowe the greatnesse of the faulte, and also of the horrible punishment which will ensue. Wherfore, consider with yourselves the end of your ministery, towardes the chyldren of God, towarde the spouse and body of Christ, and see that ye never cease your laboure, your care and dilygence, untill you have doen all that lieth in you, accordynge to your bounden dutie, to bryng all suche as are, or shalbe commytted to youre charge, unto that agremente in faith, and knowledge of God, and to that ripenes, and perfectnesse of age in Christe, that there be no place left emong them, either for errour in Religion, or for viciousnesse in lyfe.
Then, forasmuche as your office is both of so greate excellencye, and of so great difficultie, ye se with howe greate care and study ye oughte to apply yourselves, as well that you maye shewe yourselves kinde to that Lorde, who hath placed you in so high a dignitie, as also to beware, that neyther you yourselves offende, neither be occasion that other offende. Howbeit, ye cannot have a mynde and a wyll thereto of yourselves, for that power and abilitie is geven of God alone. Therfore ye se how ye ought and have nede, earnestly to praye for hys holy spirit. And seyng that ye cannot by any other meanes compasse the doyng of so weightie a woorke perteining to the salvacion of man, but with doctryne and exhortacion, taken out of holy scripture and with a life agreable unto the same. Ye perceyve how studyous ye oughte to be in readyng and learnyng the holy scriptures, and in framyng the maners, both of yourselves, and of them that specially partein unto you, accordyng to the rule of the same scriptures. And for this selfesame cause, ye see how you oughte to forsake and set aside (as much as you maye) all worldly cares and studyes.
We have a good hope, that you have well weighed and pondred these thynges with yourselves, long before thys tyme, and that you have clerely determyned, by goddes grace, to geve yourselves wholy to this vocacyon, wherunto it hath pleased God to call you, so that (as muche as lieth in you) you apply youreselves wholy to this one thing, and drawe al your cares and studies this way, and to thys ende. And that you wyll continually praye for the heavenly assistaunce of the holy goste, from God the father, by the mediacion of our only mediatour and saviour Jesus Chryste, that by dayly readyng and weighing of the scriptures, ye may waxe riper and stronger in your ministerie. And that ye may so endevour yourselfes from time to time to sanctifie the lives of you and yours, and to fashion them after the rule and doctrine of Christ. And that ye maye be wholesome and godly examples and paternes, for the reste of the congregacyon to folowe. And that this present congregacion of Christ here assembled, may also understande youre myndes and wylles, in these thynges: And that this your promes, shall more move you to doe your dueties, ye shal answer plainly to these thinges, whiche we in the name of the congregacyon shal demaunde of you, touchyng the same.
Doe you thynke in your heart, that you be truly called accordyng to the will of our Lorde Jesus Chyrste, and the ordre of this Churche of Englande, to the ministerie of Priesthode?
Aunswere. I thinke it.
The Bishoppe. Be you perswaded that the holy Scriptures contein sufficiently al doctrine required of necessitie for eternal salvacion, throughe faith in Jesu Christe? And are you determined with the saied scriptures, to enstructe the people committed to your charge, and to teache nothyng, as required of necessitie, to eternal salvacion, but that you shalbe perswaded may be concluded, and proved by the scripture?
Aunswere. I am so perswaded, and have so determyned by Gods grace.
The Bishoppe. Will you then geve your faythfull dylygence alwayes, so to mynister the doctryne and Sacramentes, and the discipline of Christ, as the lord hath commaunded, and as thys realme hath received the same, accordyng to the commaundementes of God, so that you may teache the people committed to youre cure and charge, with al diligence to kepe and observe the same?
Aunswere. I wil so doe, by the helpe of the Lord.
The Bishoppe. Wil you be ready with al faithful diligence, to banishe and drive away al erronious and straunge doctrines, contrarye to gods worde, and to use both publyke and private monycyons [=warnings] and exhortacyons, as well to the sicke as to the whole, within youre cures, as nede shall require and occasion be geven?
Aunswere. I wyll, the Lorde beyng my helper.
The Bisshoppe. Wil you be diligent in praiers, and in reading of the holy scriptures, and in such studies as help to the knowledge of the same, laying aside the study of the world and the fleshe?
Aunswere. I wyll endevour myself so to doe, the Lord beyng my helper.
The Bisshoppe. Wil you be diligent to frame and fashion youre own selves, and your families, according to the doctrine of Christe, and to make bothe youreselves and them (as muche as in you lieth) wholsome examples and spectacles to the flocke of Chryst?
Aunswere. I wyll so apply myselfe, the lorde beyng my helper.
The Bisshoppe. Wil you maintein and set forwardes (as much as lieth in you) quietnes, peace, and love emonges al christian people, and specially emong them that are, or sha be committed to your charge?
Aunswere. I will so do, the Lorde being my helper.
The Bisshoppe. Will you reverentlye obeye your Ordinarie, and other chiefe ministers, unto whom the governement and charge is commytted over you, folowing with a glad mynde and will, their godly admonicion, and submyttyng youreselves to theyr godlye judgementes?
Aunswere. I wyll so doe, the Lorde beyng my helper.

¶ Then shal the Bisshoppe saye.
ALMIGHTIE god, who hath geven you this wyl to doe al these thynges, graunt also unto you strength and power to performe the same, that he may accomplishe his worke which he hath begon in you, until the tyme he shal come at the latter day, to judge the quicke and the dead.
¶ After this, the congregacion shalbe desired, secretly in their praiers, to make humble supplicacions to God for the foresaied thinges ; for the whiche praiers, there shalbe a certaine space kept in silence.

That doen, the Bisihoppe shall praye in this wyse.
[THE Lorde be with you.
Aunswere. And with thy spirite.]*
* omitted in 1552.

¶ Let us praye.
ALMIGHTIE god and heavenly father, which of thy infinite love and goodnes towardes us, hast geven to us thy onely and moste deare beloved sonne Jesus Christe, to be our redemer and aucthour of everlasting life: who after he had made perfecte our redempcion by hys death, and was ascended into heaven, sent abrode into the worlde hys Apostles, Prophetes, Evangelistes, Doctours and Pastours, by whose labour and ministere [ministry], he gathered together a greate flocke in al the partes of the worlde, to set furth the eternal praise of thy holy name. For these so greate benefites of thy eternal goodnes, and for that thou hast vouchsafed to cal these thy servauntes here present, to the same office and ministerie of the salvacion of mankynde; we render unto thee moste hartie thankes, we worship and praise thee, and we humbly beseche thee by the same thy sonne, to graunt unto al us which either here, or elswhere cal upon thy name, that we maye shewe ourselves thankefull to thee for these and all other thy benefites, and that we maye daily encrease and goe forwardes, in the knowledge and faith of thee, and thy sonne, by the holy spirite. So that as well by these thy ministers, as by them to whom thei shalbe appointed ministers, thy holy name may be alwaies glorified, and thy blessed kyngdom enlarged, throughe the same thy sonne our Lorde Jesus Christe; which liveth and reigneth with thee, in the unitie of the same holy spirite, world without ende. Amen.
¶ When this praier is done, the Bisshoppe with the priestes present, shal lay theyr handes severally upon the head of every one that receiveth orders. The receivers humbly knelyng upon their knees, and the Bisshop saying.
RECEIVE the holy goste, whose synnes thou doest forgeve, they are forgeven: and whose sinnes thou doest retaine, thei are retained: and be thou a faithful despensor of the word of god, and of his holy Sacramentes. In the name of the father, and of the sonne, and of the holy gost. Amen.
1549:

Aymn27 · Sep 9, 2006

The Bisshop shall deliver to every one of them, the Bible in the one hande, and the Chalice or cuppe with the breade, in the other hande, and saying.1552:
The Bisshop shall deliver to every one of them, the Bible in his hande, saying.

TAKE thou aucthoritie to preache the word of god, and to minister the holy Sacramentes in thys congregacion, where thou shalt be so appointed.
¶ When thys is doen, the Congregacyon shall syng the Crede, and also they shal goe to the Communion which at they that receive orders shal take together, and remaine in the same place where the handes were layd upon them, untyl suche time as thei have received the Communion.
¶ The Communion beyng doen, after the last Collecte, and immediatly before the benediccion, shalbe sayed thys Collecte.
MOST mercifull father, we beseche thee so to sende upon these thy servauntes thy heavenly blessyng, that they maye be cladde about with all justice, and that thy worde spoken by theyr mouthes may have such successe, that it may never be spoken in vain. Graunt also that we may have grace to heare, and receive the same as thy moste holy worde and the meane of our salvacion, that in all our wordes and dedes we may seke thy glory, and the encrease of thy kingdom, thorow Jesus Christ our lord. Amen. ¶ If the orders of Deacon and Priesthood, be geven both upon one day, then shal the Psatme for the Introyte and other thinges at the holy Communion, be used as they are appointed at the orderyng of Priestes. Saving that for the Epistle, the whole thirde Chapiter of the first to Timothe shalbe read, as it is sette out before in the order of Priestes. And immediatly after the Epistle, the Deacons shalbe ordered. And it shall suffice, the Letany to be sayed once.

Polycarp1 · Sep 9, 2006

Ravenonthecross said:
Also, and I've heard that the Anglican Communion believes that the Eucharist is contains the "real Prescence" of Jesus Christ within it. I'd think it be better to state, that for all to know it is the real and true body and blood of Christ Jesus, when consecrated by the priest. To deny this is to put oneself into heresy.
Does the Anglican Church affirm that the Eucharist is truly 100% the real body and blood of Christ Jesus, and not just in spirit or in a "symbolic" manner? If they cannot affirm this for all Anglicans, those who espouse doctrines counter to believing that the Eucharist are in fact the true 100% Body and Blood of Christ Jesus once consecrated, are to be considered Heretics.

I draw your attention to the Eucharistic Prayers of Anglicanism, each of which explicitly refers to the consecrated elements as the Body and Blood of Christ. Using the US 1979 Book, which is handy for me:

And we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us; and, of thy almighty goodness, vouchsafe to bless and sanctify, with thy Word and Holy Spirit, these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine; that we, receiving them according to thy Son our Savior Jesus Christ's holy institution,
in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood. (Epiclesis, Euch Pr I)

...humbly beseeching thee that we, and all
others who shall be partakers of this Holy Communion, may worthily receive the most precious Body and Blood of thy Son Jesus Christ, be filled with thy grace and heavenly benediction, and made one body with him, that he may dwell in us, and we in him. (Self-oblation, Euch Pr I)

The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith, with thanksgiving.

The Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Drink this in remembrance that Christ's Blood was shed for thee, and be thankful. (Words of Administration)

And we earnestly desire thy fatherly goodness to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, whereby we offer and present unto thee, O Lord, our selves, our souls and
bodies. Grant, we beseech thee, that all who partake of this Holy Communion may worthily receive the most precious Body and Blood of thy Son Jesus Christ, and be filled with thy grace and heavenly benediction.... (Self-oblation, Euch Pr II)

Sanctify them by your Holy Spirit to be for your people the Body and Blood of your Son, the holy food and drink of new and unending life in him. (Epiclesis, Euch Pr A)

We pray you, gracious God, to send your Holy Spirit upon these gifts that they may be the Sacrament of the Body of Christ and his Blood of the new Covenant. Unite us to your Son in his sacrifice, that we may be acceptable through him, being sanctified by the Holy Spirit. (Epiclesis, Euch Pr B)

And so, Father, we who have been redeemed by him, and made a new people by water and the Spirit, now bring before you these gifts. Sanctify them by your Holy Spirit to be the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ our Lord. (Epiclesis, Euch Pr C)

Lord, we pray that in your goodness and mercy your Holy Spirit may descend upon us, and upon these gifts, sanctifying them and showing them to be holy gifts for your holy people, the bread of life and the cup of salvation, the Body and Blood of your Son Jesus Christ. (Epiclesis, Euch Pr D)

There is much more I could quote, direct from the liturgy, including the Post-Communion thanksgivings, but that should demonstrate adequately what we mean by Real Presence.

Now, perhaps you would care to explain why the Catholic Church is not in heresy for, for several hundred years, denying the laity the Cup?

Aymn27 · Sep 9, 2006

Ravenonthecross said:
Good to see you too, Aymn! Haven't talked to you in awhile. I hope all's well with you.

hey brother - yes, it has been a while - how are you? I am extremely busy with work and family - very little time for CF between soccer games, horse riding lessons, etc...

Virgil the Roman · Sep 9, 2006

I'll get back to on that, Polycarp.

Virgil the Roman · Sep 9, 2006

I've been ok. Sometimes, CF, especially here in GT is very gruesome, so for the most part I tend to stick to the congregational forums, so for the most part i tend also not to debate much either, as I'm only an amateur, but I'll admit when I don't know something.

Aymn27 · Sep 9, 2006

Ravenonthecross said:
Also, and I've heard that the Anglican Communion believes that the Eucharist is contains the "real Prescence" of Jesus Christ within it. I'd think it be better to state, that for all to know it is the real and true body and blood of Christ Jesus, when consecrated by the priest. To deny this is to put oneself into heresy.
Does the Anglican Church affirm that the Eucharist is truly 100% the real body and blood of Christ Jesus, and not just in spirit or in a "symbolic" manner? If they cannot affirm this for all Anglicans, those who espouse doctrines counter to believing that the Eucharist are in fact the true 100% Body and Blood of Christ Jesus once consecrated, are to be considered Heretics.

I believe that "Real Presence" for most Anglicans is to be understood as that we are receiving the body and blood of the Lord without adhereing to transubstantiation. I think most Anglicans would call it a "Holy Mystery" like our EO brothers do - and attempt not to explain it. But before too much is directed at Anglicanism - remember that they were attempting to remain Catholic while protesting against Roman abuses at the same time. So the Anglican Church would be more of a Reformed Catholic Church, than an Orthodox-Catholic Church - I think the question should lie on when does a church fail to reman "catholic"...

Virgil the Roman · Sep 9, 2006

I'll have to look further into the Sacredotal nature of the Priesthood. I'm removing myself from this debate. I grow weary of debating, and I'll leave it up to better minds than myself. I may come back later, after I've done a bit more research.
Dominus Vobiscum!

Virgil the Roman · Sep 9, 2006

Aymn27 said:
I believe that "Real Presence" for most Anglicans is to be understood as that we are receiving the body and blood of the Lord without adhereing to transubstantiation. I think most Anglicans would call it a "Holy Mystery" like our EO brothers do - and attempt not to explain it. But before too much is directed at Anglicanism - remember that they were attempting to remain Catholic while protesting against Roman abuses at the same time. So the Anglican Church would be more of a Reformed Catholic Church, than an Orthodox-Catholic Church - I think the question should lie on when does a church fail to reman "catholic"...

I understand what you're saying.

a_ntv · Sep 9, 2006

Aymn27 said:
I believe that "Real Presence" for most Anglicans is to be understood as that we are receiving the body and blood of the Lord without adhereing to transubstantiation. I think most Anglicans would call it a "Holy Mystery" like our EO brothers do - and attempt not to explain it. But before too much is directed at Anglicanism - remember that they were attempting to remain Catholic while protesting against Roman abuses at the same time. So the Anglican Church would be more of a Reformed Catholic Church, than an Orthodox-Catholic Church - I think the question should lie on when does a church fail to reman "catholic"...

Transubstantiation: a word that any one hate: it simply means that the Bread is changed in Body, while the aspect of bread remain bread (that is obvous). Transubstantation do NOT give any explanation of how it happens, it simply describes sinteticly it. Anyway, for love of ecumenism, let us kill this word. (it is anyway also the time that protestants and orthodoxes stop to attack any tipical words of catholic theology without knowing the actual meaning, ad instance if I go on some othrodox sites I read so many falsities about this word...)

Which word can we use? 'Real Presence' ?
Real Presence can means:
a) presence of Chirst because: For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (Mat 18:20)
b) a feeling of Christ in my heart when I eat the Consacrated Bread
c) a certain intimacy with Christ because we eat together
d) presence of Christ in the Bread, because I believe in that (or beacuse I eat the Bread)
e) a actual change in the bread&wine on the altar, due to the priest consacration, and that so the bread&wine becames the actual One Very Touchable Body and Blood of Chirst.
f) like above point e), but adding that the Real Presence is the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross focused on the Eucharist for us.

All above points are "Holy Mystery", something that cannot be understood by the reason. To say "it is Mystery", cannot be equal to say: "I dont know that, so I dont mind that"

As far as I know the teaching of the Anglican Church on that is always been very deliberately vague and ambiguous, to cover both who have the very same understanding of catholics (from the Oxford movement) and who believe that the 'is' means 'simbolizes'

But perhaps I'm wrong. So I ask my Anglican friends, which is in my above points the more near to your idea of Eucharist ?

Polycarp1 · Sep 9, 2006

To the best of my knowledge, a_ntv, Anglicanism has always taught the Real Presence (as opposed to the symbolic presence of Zwingli-ism and much of modern Protestantism). It may have the character of a loaf of bread (or pressed wafers of bread) and red wine, but it "is" in some very real sense the Body and Blood of Christ, present under the form of bread and wine. The old 39 Articles rejected "transubstantiation" -- not as Trent defined it; Trent was years in the future when they were written -- but what the medieval abuses of the Sacrament had done to the popular understanding of it. Quite simply, what Aquinas (whose Eucharistic hymns we continue to sing) had intended as clarification of how the Real Presence comes to be, had been turned into a sort of Magick, a holiness-by-contagion where the laity did not consume the elements but were merely blessed by the reenactment of the sacrifice.

It's very much worth noting, and a disagreement between us that may give ammo to the "invalid orders" argument, that Anglicanism has held fast to the doctrine that Christ's Atoning Sacrifice was finished on Calvary on Good Friday: Tetelestai!. What the Eucharist/Mass/Divine Liturgy comprises is a participation in that One Completed Sacrifice, and "a sacrifice of [our] praise and thanksgiving."

a_ntv · Sep 9, 2006

Polycarp1 said:
To the best of my knowledge, a_ntv, Anglicanism has always taught the Real Presence (as opposed to the symbolic presence of Zwingli-ism and much of modern Protestantism). It may have the character of a loaf of bread (or pressed wafers of bread) and red wine, but it "is" in some very real sense the Body and Blood of Christ, present under the form of bread and wine. The old 39 Articles rejected "transubstantiation" -- not as Trent defined it; Trent was years in the future when they were written -- but what the medieval abuses of the Sacrament had done to the popular understanding of it. Quite simply, what Aquinas (whose Eucharistic hymns we continue to sing) had intended as clarification of how the Real Presence comes to be, had been turned into a sort of Magick, a holiness-by-contagion where the laity did not consume the elements but were merely blessed by the reenactment of the sacrifice....

There are very diferent ways to understand the 'Real Presence', even if you thnk that "is" means "is" (ad instance many protestants believe that there is the real presence of Christ in the Bread, simply because they believe in that).

Perhaps it is easier to understand it from the practice:
- does Episcopal Chuch teach you to kneel in adoration of the Body of Christ?
- what is the custum about the renmants of the Consacrated Bread after the Mass? Are kept or throw away?

And the council of Trent stated the old standard believe and practice of the Church: it is not true at all that Eucharist was believed as a sort of Magick, a holiness-by-contagion: Nor now, nor in the XVI century. That is a protestant propaganda slander. Please support your statment with some official reference of the Catholic Magisterium.

Polycarp1 · Sep 9, 2006

Your pardon: I was not saying that that "Magick" thing was ever Catholic doctrine, but rather that that is what Eucharistic veneration had been reduced to in much of popular piety prior to the Reformation and Trent. And I said this, not to condemn Catholicism, but as an explanation of something that is often taken out of context to serve as divisive -- the 39 Articles's condemnation of "transubstantiation." They were not condemning the Aquinas teaching but its misunderstanding by the common people.

Aymn27 · Sep 9, 2006

Polycarp1 said:
Your pardon: I was not saying that that "Magick" thing was ever Catholic doctrine, but rather that that is what Eucharistic veneration had been reduced to in much of popular piety prior to the Reformation and Trent. And I said this, not to condemn Catholicism, but as an explanation of something that is often taken out of context to serve as divisive -- the 39 Articles's condemnation of "transubstantiation." They were not condemning the Aquinas teaching but its misunderstanding by the common people.

Polycarp - we agree completely on something!!! Indeed, the faithful felt not worthy to receive the body and blood but only good enough to "gaze" upon it...which is where the populare devotion of eucharistic adoration developed. This is not some "made up" propoganda by protestants - and it was certainly never "doctrine" - but sometimes praxis is not exactly in line with doctrine. Catholic historians and theologians would assent to your statement - because, well, it was true at the time. The reforms of subsequent RC councils have dealt with these issues and put them in their proper place according to individual piety. But, yes, it is true that abuses were occuring and that many stances of the reformers were to deal with those abuses - and sometimes they may have perpuated an "over correction"...which if you read the 39 Articles, you will see - in my opinion.

a_ntv · Sep 10, 2006

Polycarp1 said:
Your pardon: I was not saying that that "Magick" thing was ever Catholic doctrine, but rather that that is what Eucharistic veneration had been reduced to in much of popular piety prior to the Reformation and Trent. And I said this, not to condemn Catholicism, but as an explanation of something that is often taken out of context to serve as divisive -- the 39 Articles's condemnation of "transubstantiation." They were not condemning the Aquinas teaching but its misunderstanding by the common people.

I appreciate you answer, even if the popular pity was not always and everywhere so low.

And anyway, now, Anglicans cannot justify their very ambiguous position on the Eucharist because of a possible low understanding of the Eucharist by some folks almost 500 years ago.

As far as I know Anglican Church was built on a very protestant base by Mr Cranmer, and only in the XIX century there was a re-new interest in the catholic position.

In 1549 Cranmer Ordinal of Mass, not only is there no clear mention of sacrifice, of consecration, of priesthood, of the power to consecrate and offer sacrifice, but every trace of these and similar things remaining in such prayers of the Catholic rite as were not completely rejected, was purposely removed and obliterated.

Cranmer 1549 Ordinal could be interpreted for what it was intended to be, for what the Continental Reformers intended their communion service to be, "nothing else than a communion or synaxis". By a synaxis, they meant an assembly of the people gathered together under the presidency of the presiding minister to celebrate the memorial of the Lord in a commemorative supper where He would be present in the sense that He is always present where two or three are gathered together in His name.

As Cranmer explained: "Christ is present whensoever the church prayeth unto Him, and is gathered together in His name. And the bread and wine be made unto us the body and blood of Christ (as it is in the book of common prayer), but not by changing the substance of the bread and wine into the natural substance of Christ's natural body and blood, but that in the godly using of them they be unto the receivers Christ's body and blood . . . "

This wrong Cranmer idea of Eucharist is miles far form Catholic doctrine (and also of EO, as far as I know). It is more or less the option d) on a above post of mine.

Now Anglican and Episcopalian shall exit from their ambigous position and choose whether reject openly Cranmer thought or allign themself in the sea of protestantism. This choice is very important for the Catholic Church, because from that depends two completly different forms of ecumenism.

Xpycoctomos · Sep 11, 2006

I thought Catholics believed they were participating in the once-and-for-all sacrifice on Calvary too? I know thye are often accused of believing they are re-sacrificing Christ every Mass but this isn't what they believe at all (correct me any OBOBer who knows otherwise). This really has nothing to do with if one believes that Christ's physical body is truly present at every Liturgy. Orthdoox don't believe He is being resacraificed at all... but they believe His body is truly present because they (we) belive that the Liturgy is outside of time and that we are... participating in that once and for all sacrifice on Calvary... It is finished.

By the way, just because Orhtodox do not adhere to Transubstantiation, it does not mean at all that it is UNorthdoox... it is just that we blieve it to be UNorthdoox to dogmatize HOW the mystery takes place. So, although we do not dogmatize HOW it happens, we do dogmaize WHAT it is. It is not just SOMEHOW present for the Orthodox... it is truly present and is they very body and blood of Christ. In with under the bread (Luther's words) or not... whatever... it's His body and Blood. Period. (that is, form the OC POV)

John

Aymn27 · Sep 11, 2006

And anyway, now, Anglicans cannot justify their very ambiguous position on the Eucharist because of a possible low understanding of the Eucharist by some folks almost 500 years ago.

Anglicans have every right to justify their ambiguous position - they are trying to maintain unity within a church body that is diverse and which seeks to not divide the body over "catholic" and "protestant" tenants. The middle way has held the church together this long on this doctrine. What is the point of "theologizing" this doctrine. Does not Scripture say not to argue over such matters?

As far as I know Anglican Church was built on a very protestant base by Mr Cranmer, and only in the XIX century there was a re-new interest in the catholic position.

Protestant, yes, but at the same time trying to remain catholic by maintaining the three-fold ministry. Being protestant and being catholic are not mutually exclusive from our POV.

In 1549 Cranmer Ordinal of Mass, not only is there no clear mention of sacrifice, of consecration, of priesthood, of the power to consecrate and offer sacrifice, but every trace of these and similar things remaining in such prayers of the Catholic rite as were not completely rejected, was purposely removed and obliterated.

Hmm...am I not correct in thinking that all these things need not be said for an actual eucharist to take place. Perhaps my Roman upbringing is incorrect, but I thought that the only thing "necessary" for communion was that the priest call down the Spirit upon the bread and cup and say the words of institution...am I wrong - I certainly may be.

When I get home I will post you a link to a defense of Anglicansim - in it, it says that at the time of Cranmer there was a teaching of the RCC that said Christ's death did not take away all sins, but only "original" sin - and that each mass was a participation in the sacrifice of Christ that dealt with actual sins. Again we cannot look at these ideas or statements without knowing the exact context of the time.

Cranmer 1549 Ordinal could be interpreted for what it was intended to be, for what the Continental Reformers intended their communion service to be, "nothing else than a communion or synaxis". By a synaxis, they meant an assembly of the people gathered together under the presidency of the presiding minister to celebrate the memorial of the Lord in a commemorative supper where He would be present in the sense that He is always present where two or three are gathered together in His name.

As Cranmer explained: "Christ is present whensoever the church prayeth unto Him, and is gathered together in His name. And the bread and wine be made unto us the body and blood of Christ (as it is in the book of common prayer), but not by changing the substance of the bread and wine into the natural substance of Christ's natural body and blood, but that in the godly using of them they be unto the receivers Christ's body and blood . . . "

I find no error in this statement - are you telling me that when we partake of the Catholic Eucharist it is not the Spirit that causes the transformation. We do not eat in a bloody and fleshy manner Christ's body and blood do we - thus "natural substance"

Now Anglican and Episcopalian shall exit from their ambigous position and choose whether reject openly Cranmer thought or allign themself in the sea of protestantism. This choice is very important for the Catholic Church, because from that depends two completly different forms of ecumenism

This is coming directly from a Roman view of eccleisology and doctrine. why is it incumbet for our church to change our view - perhaps you are in error -especially when placing these man-made rules and doctrines under the authority of Scripture - outside of which we need believe nothing for salvation.

a_ntv · Sep 11, 2006

Xpycoctomos said:
I thought Catholics believed they were participating in the once-and-for-all sacrifice on Calvary too? I know thye are often accused of believing they are re-sacrificing Christ every Mass but this isn't what they believe at all (correct me any OBOBer who knows otherwise). This really has nothing to do with if one believes that Christ's physical body is truly present at every Liturgy. Orthdoox don't believe He is being resacraificed at all... but they believe His body is truly present because they (we) belive that the Liturgy is outside of time and that we are... participating in that once and for all sacrifice on Calvary... It is finished.

Very correct: the Liturgy is outside of time and we are... participating in that once and for all sacrifice on Calvary

If you fear about catholic undestanding of the Mass like sacrifice, read the Cathechism of Catholic Church: 1366 The Eucharist is a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross.. 1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice...

But there is a strict relation between sacrifice and presence: because the Eucharist is a real sacrifice, the presence of Christ shall be actual. (this can look unusual to a protestant or to a protestant-covert, but the study of the early anaphoras, before the one of St John ans St Basil, shows that the idea of sacrifice is even more primordial than the idea of presence)

Xpycoctomos said:
By the way, just because Orhtodox do not adhere to Transubstantiation, it does not mean at all that it is UNorthdoox... it is just that we blieve it to be UNorthdoox to dogmatize HOW the mystery takes place. So, although we do not dogmatize HOW it happens, we do dogmaize WHAT it is. It is not just SOMEHOW present for the Orthodox... it is truly present and is they very body and blood of Christ. In with under the bread (Luther's words) or not... whatever... it's His body and Blood. Period. (that is, form the OC POV)

John

Sorry, but 'the Transubstantation like a HOW' is simply a slander. Transubstatation simply describes with poor words the fact, do NOT explain the HOW it happens.
Transubstantation simply means that the bread becames the Body without changing the physical measurable properties of the bread (well, that is quite obvious). How can you tell that this is an explanation of HOW it happens?

Xpycoctomos · Sep 11, 2006

Transubstantation simply means that the bread becames the Body without changing the physical measurable properties of the bread (well, that is quite obvious). How can you tell that this is an explanation of HOW it happens?

I see what you are saying. Good point. I mispoke. From an Orthodox POV, we dogmatize what is said about the true presence of Christ's Body and Blood. What happens with or to the Bread and wine is a matter of semantics and mystery which we probably shouldn't go into here (unless an Anglican wished to take you up on it, but hten that's a completely different POV) but to put it shortly there is no Orthodox dogma on this... just many theologumena regarding the topic of if bread is somehow mysteriously present or not.

Thank you for your correction.

John

eoe · Sep 13, 2006

forgive me...

Eucharistic Theology in the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox & Anglican Church

Radical Reformationist

Radical Reformationist

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian

Radical Reformationist

Young Fogey & Monarchist-Distributist . . .

Young Fogey & Monarchist-Distributist . . .

Radical Reformationist

Young Fogey & Monarchist-Distributist . . .

Young Fogey & Monarchist-Distributist . . .

Ens Liturgicum

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian

Ens Liturgicum

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian

Radical Reformationist

Ens Liturgicum

Well-Known Member

Radical Reformationist

Ens Liturgicum

Well-Known Member

eoe

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency