Episcopalians and Real Presence?

[marimagi]

I don’t want to speak for Anglicans, but I can see how that might seem like a trap. The wording of the question makes it sound like, if someone considers the Eucharist to be the Body and Blood of Christ, but does not believe in transubstantiation, then they must only believe that “Christ’s spirit enters the Host” (i.e. they really don’t consider the Eucharist to be the Body and Blood of Christ after all).

I just didn’t want someone to think I was going to bash them for their answer,

 

[GKC]

It’s not really specific. It talks about an “inward and spiritual grace” which could be taken to mean a “dynamic” presence or a “pneumatic” presence. The details seem to be missing from the catechism.

I’m not Episcopalian, so I can’t speak to how Episcopalians read this. If this as specific as official pronouncements get, I can see why there are several different views on this topic among Anglicans.

I think you may be looking at this a little askew. The definition of a sacrament is the outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace. The outward sign in the Eucharist is bread and wine, the inward spiritual grace is the Body and Blood. The inward and spiritual grace is not, then the inward and spiritual grace.

GKC

 

[marimagi]

On a side note, marimagi, I noticed that you style yourself as “Catholic and Orthodox”. Not that I have a problem with that – I’m a pretty stronger supporter of creativity in the “Religion” field of the profile – but may I ask you: are you *officially *Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, or none of the above? Just wondering.

I was Baptized and Confirmed Catholic. Later, I left the Catholic Church for a little while, and was Chrismated in the Orthodox Church. For reasons I won’t go into, I eventually went back to Roman Catholicism. Probably should change my religious status here, but I really love both Churches. Just can’t do both at the same time or I would.

 

[Jotto]

Among Episcopalians, as with Anglicans in general, beliefs about the eucharist range from transubstantiation to the Zwinglian mere memorial meal.

Me thinks any who actually try to find an Episcopalian bishop or priest who profess belief in the Zwinglian understanding of the Eucharist will have to look a very long time and probably will not succeed. As for the laity, as with most Christian Churches, including the Roman Catholic Church, there are undoubtedly many whose understanding of Real Presence is more Zwinglian than Catholic.

 

[cheezey]

Maybe GKC or another Anglican can correct me if I’m wrong?

It sounds like the articles essentially say:

*If it is taken rightly, worthily, and with faith, the Sacrament is the Body of Christ and the Blood of Christ.
*Transubstantiation (the Catholic teaching) is wrong. Presumably, this means that the bread does not actually change and the wine does not actually change;
*But the Body of Christ is taken and eaten by faith after a “spiritual manner.” Therefore, they spiritually, but not physically, become the body and blood of Christ.

It seems similar to Calvin’s position.

thank you for the response…!

 

[Peter_J]

I was Baptized and Confirmed Catholic. Later, I left the Catholic Church for a little while, and was Chrismated in the Orthodox Church. For reasons I won’t go into, I eventually went back to Roman Catholicism. Probably should change my religious status here, but I really love both Churches. Just can’t do both at the same time or I would.

Oh I see. It can get a little confusing since there are groups called, for example, “Anglo-Orthodox”.

 

[Jotto]

thank you for the response…!

Me thinks you are attributing meanings to these Anglican words which their writers intended not. Wishing to avoid Aristotelian cosmology, in denying a physical transformation, they are simply asserting the Catholic doctrine that the accidents (the materiality of the bread and wine) remain unchanged. And that in the Eucharist, one does receive the person of Christ into oneself in a non-material manner, i.e." spiritually." In the worldview expressed here “physical” equals “accidents.” And “spiritual” equals “substance.”

Any observation of an Episcopal Eucharist makes it quite clear that what is being done is not perceived by the participants to be simply what is generally understood in our culture to be a “symbolic” action (though theologically speaking it is indeed a “symbolic” action, i.e. an action in which that which points to a reality contains the reality to which it is pointing - sym = with and bol = thrown.

 

[ltwin]

I think you may be looking at this a little askew. The definition of a sacrament is the outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace. The outward sign in the Eucharist is bread and wine, the inward spiritual grace is the Body and Blood. The inward and spiritual grace is not, then the inward and spiritual grace.

GKC

Me thinks you are attributing meanings to these Anglican words which their writers intended not. Wishing to avoid Aristotelian cosmology, in denying a physical transformation, they are simply asserting the Catholic doctrine that the accidents (the materiality of the bread and wine) remain unchanged. And that in the Eucharist, one does receive the person of Christ into oneself in a non-material manner, i.e." spiritually." In the worldview expressed here “physical” equals “accidents.” And “spiritual” equals “substance.”

Any observation of an Episcopal Eucharist makes it quite clear that what is being done is not perceived by the participants to be simply what is generally understood in our culture to be a “symbolic” action (though theologically speaking it is indeed a “symbolic” action, i.e. an action in which that which points to a reality contains the reality to which it is pointing - sym = with and bol = thrown.

Thanks for your insight. Theological statements, especially those from other traditions, can seem very vague sometimes.

 

[cheezey]

Me thinks you are attributing meanings to these Anglican words which their writers intended not. Wishing to avoid Aristotelian cosmology, in denying a physical transformation, they are simply asserting the Catholic doctrine that the accidents (the materiality of the bread and wine) remain unchanged. And that in the Eucharist, one does receive the person of Christ into oneself in a non-material manner, i.e." spiritually." In the worldview expressed here “physical” equals “accidents.” And “spiritual” equals “substance.”

Any observation of an Episcopal Eucharist makes it quite clear that what is being done is not perceived by the participants to be simply what is generally understood in our culture to be a “symbolic” action (though theologically speaking it is indeed a “symbolic” action, i.e. an action in which that which points to a reality contains the reality to which it is pointing - sym = with and bol = thrown.

ok…thanks fo another translation

 

[cheezey]

Me thinks you are attributing meanings to these Anglican words which their writers intended not. Wishing to avoid Aristotelian cosmology, in denying a physical transformation, they are simply asserting the Catholic doctrine that the accidents (the materiality of the bread and wine) remain unchanged. And that in the Eucharist, one does receive the person of Christ into oneself in a non-material manner, i.e." spiritually." In the worldview expressed here “physical” equals “accidents.” And “spiritual” equals “substance.”

Any observation of an Episcopal Eucharist makes it quite clear that what is being done is not perceived by the participants to be simply what is generally understood in our culture to be a “symbolic” action (though theologically speaking it is indeed a “symbolic” action, i.e. an action in which that which points to a reality contains the reality to which it is pointing - sym = with and bol = thrown.

no, just trying to learn. Thank you for this information.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

Here are the Words of Institution and the Epiclesis from the 1928 Book of Common Prayer (BCP) which was the standard of Anglicanism in America until 1979. As you can see, it discusses sacrifice and partaking his body and blood.

ALL glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou, of thy tender mercy, didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue,*a perpetual memory of that his precious the death and sacrifice, until his coming again: For in the night in which he was betrayed, he took Bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, Take, eat, this is my Body, which is given for you; Do this in remembrance of me. Likewise, after supper, he took the Cup; and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of this; for this is my Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you, and for many, for the remission of sins; Do this, as oft as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of 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 Saviour Jesus Christ’s holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood.

 

[GKC]

Here are the Words of Institution and the Epiclesis from the 1928 Book of Common Prayer (BCP) which was the standard of Anglicanism in America until 1979. As you can see, it discusses sacrifice and partaking his body and blood.

ALL glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou, of thy tender mercy, didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue,*a perpetual memory of that his precious the death and sacrifice, until his coming again: For in the night in which he was betrayed, he took Bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, Take, eat, this is my Body, which is given for you; Do this in remembrance of me. Likewise, after supper, he took the Cup; and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of this; for this is my Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you, and for many, for the remission of sins; Do this, as oft as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of 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 Saviour Jesus Christ’s holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood.

Precisely as I heard it today.

GKC

 

[Jotto]

Here’s the irony. Anglican dogma no longer applies. For confessional folk, it would be great if updated/ amended. On the other hand, Lutherans instinctively believe in the Real Presence yet some parishes use shot glasses over fear of disease!

Shot glasses? Yes, unfortunately many Lutheran do out of fear that drinking from a common cup, as almost all Episcopalians do, might transmit an infection. (That a metallic cup containing wine (the accidents of wine if you wish) can transmit microbes is very unlikely). This usage appears to be fading among Lutherans in favor of intinction. In my congregation those who wish to receive through actually drinking from the chalice, are allowed to do so but are encourage to come at the end of the line or the last table.

It is unfortunate that the clear intent of Jesus, as one can see through his words transmitted to us through Paul, is often ignored in the practice of the Church. His intent was that we should eat of one loaf broken and drink of one cup shared. As Paul makes clear (I Cor. 10:16), it is the action of our SHARING the bread and the cup that is central to the meaning of the Sacrament. Having each communicate receive a little individual piece of bread and his/her individual little cup obfuscates what the Sacrament is intended to communicate.

 

[JonNC]

Shot glasses? Yes, unfortunately many Lutheran do out of fear that drinking from a common cup, as almost all Episcopalians do, might transmit an infection. (That a metallic cup containing wine (the accidents of wine if you wish) can transmit microbes is very unlikely). This usage appears to be fading among Lutherans in favor of intinction. In my congregation those who wish to receive through actually drinking from the chalice, are allowed to do so but are encourage to come at the end of the line or the last table.

It is unfortunate that the clear intent of Jesus, as one can see through his words transmitted to us through Paul, is often ignored in the practice of the Church. His intent was that we should eat of one loaf broken and drink of one cup shared. As Paul makes clear (I Cor. 10:16), it is the action of our SHARING the bread and the cup that is central to the meaning of the Sacrament. Having each communicate receive a little individual piece of bread and his/her individual little cup obfuscates what the Sacrament is intended to communicate.

Worse yet is the growing use of a white “alcohol removed” wine along side. I understand the concerns of those with medical conditions or recovery, but the sharing is even more removed.

Jon

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Let’s be honest. There may be legitimate reasons that some may not want to drink from a chalice. Women wearing thick lipstick leave a mark; ever look at purificators after Mass? Also, on the use of non-alcoholic wine. Mistakes happen when too much wine is consecrated and the Eucharistic ministers have to consume it after Mass. I don’t know if clergy are more prone to alcoholism as a result.

 

[Indifferently]

This paper is an excellent insight:
anglicancontinuum.blogspot.co.uk/2009/09/fine-paper-on-eucharistic-theology.html

 

[nicolakirwan]

I rarely (if ever) met an Anglican that thought that communion was “just a symbol”. The Eucharistic prayers belie that notion anyway, though Anglicans are certainly free to believe as they will.

I think you have to look at what is said during the Anglican Eucharistic prayers as the starting point, which get you to a notion of the Real Presence, even if it is not the same notion that the Catholic Church attaches to the concept.

I am, however, unsure that at the end of the day one can make a meaningful distinction in anything other than a purely theoretical sense. Regardless of one’s belief in Transubstantiation, the host does not (absent a miracle) become flesh physically (human tissue), nor could anyone with any of their 5 senses perceive it as flesh rather than bread, and definitely not the actual flesh that Jesus of Nazareth walked this earth in. And so, in what sense is it the Body of Christ?

I think that practical Anglican theology, and Anglican liturgical theology simply accepts the mystery without requiring people to believe more than that. It is bread, and yet it is the Body of Christ truly. You can meet Christ there. That is the practical belief.

It seems that the Catholic belief in validity of orders (per the Catholic Church) being necessary to consecrate the Eucharist is a larger dividing line than actual Eucharistic theology.

 

[Indifferently]

As a subscriber to the Articles as they were originally intended:

The rejection of the doctrine called “transubstantiation” is that the whole physical substance of the bread and wine change. This would be to conflate the sign (bread and wine) with the thing signified (the body and blood of Christ). It is not a denial of the Real Presence.

That they are “given, taken and eaten” after "an heavenly and spiritual manner"is simply to reject the idea that they are taken in a carnal and physical manner, which would require us to rend the Lord with our teeth and expel Him into the privy. Spiritual Food is Real Food.

Here is the Prayer of Humble Access:

We do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table. But thou art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy: Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood, and that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen.

 

[cath4alltime]

Does anyone know what the Episcopalian understanding is regarding the Real Presence? Do they believe in the Real Presence, or is it a symbol?

For us in the CEC (Charismatic Episcopal Church) we believe in the Real Presence, as my Bishop said the Holy Eucharist is Transubstantiation

 

[ChurchSoldier]

Here is the Prayer of Humble Access:

We do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table. But thou art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy: Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood, and that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen.

One of the most beautiful and meaningful prayers in the Anglican faith - (My opinion - ymmv)