Episcopalians and the Eucharist

[a_cermak]

Regardless of what the Anglicans/Episcopalians believe, have believed, consider relevant etc. we know one thing for sure-they aren’t in Communion with the Holy See and as far as the Holy See is concerned (and thus all Catholics) they have invalid orders.

Thus, no matter how “catholic” the Anglican, we cannot allow intercommunion.

I don’t think anyone is arguing that you can. The Catholic Church gets to set the rules for the Catholic Church period.

 

[THutch04]

This is not to knock the Episcopal Church, however it is true that in the 1890s the Catholic Church after an investigation said that Episcopal priests do not have valid orders, which would mean that during their services the bread and wine do not become the body and blood of Christ. If someone says that this occurs or that there is no real practical difference in this regards, this is not compatable with the Catholic view. I have heard, however, that some Episcopal priests received valid orders in the Twentieth Century from bishops in churches that have valid orders such as the Orthodox. This would be my own one qualification, though I doubt that there are many of these. I presume that when Episcopal priests become Catholic priests, they receive conditional ordination.

Not really from the Orthodox. Someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that in Orthodoxy, if a Bishop ordains someone from a separate communion, he loses his ability to ordain.

What you are probably referring to is the Bishops from the Old Catholic Church, who were in communion with the AC for many years. Since the Old Catholic Bishop would have valid Orders, that would effectively restore Apostolic Succession, if everyone were in agreement that the Anglican Liturgy itself contained valid form. The mere presence of an Old Catholic bishop would not make any difference if the form that was used was defective in some way.

 

[AJV]

The acceptance of the Eucharist in a Catholic Church is more than just accepting the concept of Real Presence.

It is the acceptance of the Real Presence as the Catholic Church teaches it, the Eternal unbloodied Sacrifice accomplished in persona Christi by the priest.

And that the Substance of the offering is well and truely changed, and remains changed as long as the accidents remain.

Anglican and Lutheran theology generally holds that the change in substance occurs in response to the faith of the assembly, not due to any special character of the celebrant. They also hold that the Substance reverts to bread and wine after the departure of the assembly (and thus no history of Eucharistic Adoration in those communities)

I wonder if there is indeed something like “Anglican theology”. Certainly one can speak of the theology at the time of the ‘Reformation’ but nowadays the Anglicans comprise of such diverse beliefs, I don’t know whether something can truely be characterised as Anglican theology.

 

[rr1213]

I agree that contemporary Anglicanism is all over the place, but historically Anglican teaching denies transubstantiation and adoration of the host. It is ambiguous as to the Real Presence. In my experience in the US, which may not be typical, conservative evangelical Episcopalians (yeah, there’s a few) tend to be more believers of a symbolic Eucharist. Still, there are plenty of exceptions and the Book of Common Prayer is purposefully ambiguous enough to support various interpretations. See quotes from the 39 Articles below:

carm.org/creeds/39.htm

"Article XXVIII
Of the Lord’s Supper
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."

 

[chris_molter]

One of the main reasons I became a Catholic was the vagueness of Episcopal sacramental theology. When folks at my church had no problem pouring out consecrated wine or didn’t see any problem with the host being dropped, I was aghast. Either the bread and wine are Jesus or they aren’t. If they are, then all the Catholic rubrics, adoration, etc are not only appropriate but entirely needed. If not, then why the heck should I care if they pour the wine down the regular sink? Since it’s obvious what the beliefs of the Apostolic Church were and are, it was almost a no-brainer that I had to start swimming the Tiber asap!

It’s wondrous knowing with absolute certainty that I’m physically in Christ’s presence at every Mass. Such a great gift for God’s people!

 

[Chatter163]

One of the main reasons I became a Catholic was the vagueness of Episcopal sacramental theology. When folks at my church had no problem pouring out consecrated wine or didn’t see any problem with the host being dropped, I was aghast. Either the bread and wine are Jesus or they aren’t. If they are, then all the Catholic rubrics, adoration, etc are not only appropriate but entirely needed. If not, then why the heck should I care if they pour the wine down the regular sink? Since it’s obvious what the beliefs of the Apostolic Church were and are, it was almost a no-brainer that I had to start swimming the Tiber asap!

It’s wondrous knowing with absolute certainty that I’m physically in Christ’s presence at every Mass. Such a great gift for God’s people!

Very nicely put, and this was precisely what led me to make the same one-way pilgrimage. My Episcopal parish never did the things described in the above post, but many others did, and there was no true theology, Catholic or otherwise. I swam the Tiber 22 years ago, and have never regretted it, Deo gratias.

Even when witnessing abuses in the Catholic Church now, I know that these are in defiance of the Church, and not due to its vagueness.