Eucharistic difference between Anglican/Catholic

[Indifferently]

There are heresies that even the archbishop of Sweden voices concerning the Virgin Birth of Jesus. But I never hear doubts concerning the Real Presence among Anglicans. To me, it is not important what the Christian believes so long as they continue to come to church. Anglican and Lutherans are in full communion and the ELCA is in full communion with Reformed. Not that we ever doubt the Real Presence but more important that we come to holy Communion together.

I certainly agree. There is a much higher obligation in my view on teachers than on members of the church body in general to know the doctrines of the faith - hence why our church only requires subscription to our formularies from its clergy.

We admit all baptized Christians who are regular communicant members of another church, and trust Christ alone for salvation, to feast with us at the Lord’s Table. It’s important for Christ to be the locus, not some confession or bishop, when it comes to Holy Communion.

 

[andrewstx]

I used to buy into this, I really did.

The Anglican doctrine concerning the Lord’s Supper is plainly and succinctly laid out. I believe in it. Other alleged Anglicans don’t, just as some people who call themselves Roman Catholic don’t believe in Rome’s clearly stated doctrines concerning the Eucharist.

Have to call nonsense on that. I suppose that everyone who does not agree with the Calvinism in a handful of CofE members are 'alleged Anglicans"?

No the 39 articles and BOCP liturgy for the Mass is Anything but specific.

Due to the comprehensive and ‘motley’ nature of Anglicanism a nosebleed Anglo Catholic and a Calvinist can and do receive Holy Communion at the same altar rail.

I am aware of the people who fled to Geneva during “Bloody Mary’s” reign and brought back too much Calvinism. But their time was over and done about three centuries ago.

 

[Indifferently]

Have to call nonsense on that. I suppose that everyone who does not agree with the Calvinism in a handful of CofE members are 'alleged Anglicans"?

No the 39 articles and BOCP liturgy for the Mass is Anything but specific.

Due to the comprehensive and ‘motley’ nature of Anglicanism a nosebleed Anglo Catholic and a Calvinist can and do receive Holy Communion at the same altar rail.

I am aware of the people who fled to Geneva during “Bloody Mary’s” reign and brought back too much Calvinism. But their time was over and done about three centuries ago.

If ACs read the BCP they would understand quite clearly that their worship of the consecrated Bread is considered by that book to be idolatry. So although I may be coming to the same rail as someone that our formularies claim is a creature-worshipper, it is he who is in defiance of the formularies, not I.

 

[andrewstx]

If ACs read the BCP they would understand quite clearly that their worship of the consecrated Bread is considered by that book to be idolatry. So although I may be coming to the same rail as someone that our formularies claim is a creature-worshipper, it is he who is in defiance of the formularies, not I.

I am Anglo Catholic no more, now I am Eastern Orthodox who still retains a certain interest in Anglicanism.

The “black rubric” which I assume is what you are talking about was abolished many, many, years ago. At least in the American branch of the Anglican communion, and I think in the CofE. It is irrelevant to this discussion since it no longer exists.

The black rubric is much more important to Calvin and Calvinism. It had it’s brief time until and immediately after the Civil War. But the restoration of Charles II soon took care of that.

And to me it is not ‘bread’, it is the body and blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord, God, and Saviour Jesus Christ.

 

[Indifferently]

I am Anglo Catholic no more, now I am Eastern Orthodox who still retains a certain interest in Anglicanism.

The “black rubric” which I assume is what you are talking about was abolished many, many, years ago. At least in the American branch of the Anglican communion, and I think in the CofE. It is irrelevant to this discussion since it no longer exists.

The black rubric is much more important to Calvin and Calvinism. It had it’s brief time until and immediately after the Civil War. But the restoration of Charles II soon took care of that.

And to me it is not ‘bread’, it is the body and blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord, God, and Saviour Jesus Christ.

The restoration of Charles II and the subsequent Prayer Book (still the Church of England’s Prayer Book to this day) does include the Black Rubric, which states the following:
Whereas it is ordained in this office for the Administration of the Lord’s Supper, that the Communicants should receive the same kneeling; (which order is well meant, for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgement of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy Receivers, and for the avoiding of such profanation and disorder in the holy Communion, as might otherwise ensue) yet, lest the same kneeling should by any persons, either out of ignorance and infirmity, or out of malice and obstinacy, be misconstrued and depraved: It is here declared, that thereby no Adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental Bread or Wine there bodily received, or unto any Corporal Presence of Christ’s natural Flesh and Blood. For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored; ( for that were Idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians) and the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of Christ’s natural Body to be at one time in more places than one.
So the 1662 Prayer Book is plain. Though sacramentally speaking the consecrated Bread and Wine now make us partakers, by the Holy Spirit and in faith, of the Body and Blood of Christ, they still remain in their natural substances, and so worshipping them is - again, according to the Church of England’s doctrine as expressed in her authoritative liturgy - idolatry.

You say that this is more apparently about Calvin and Calvinism. As far as I know, Calvin was never a member of the Church of England.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

The restoration of Charles II and the subsequent Prayer Book (still the Church of England’s Prayer Book to this day) does include the Black Rubric, which states the following:
Whereas it is ordained in this office for the Administration of the Lord’s Supper, that the Communicants should receive the same kneeling; (which order is well meant, for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgement of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy Receivers, and for the avoiding of such profanation and disorder in the holy Communion, as might otherwise ensue) yet, lest the same kneeling should by any persons, either out of ignorance and infirmity, or out of malice and obstinacy, be misconstrued and depraved: It is here declared, that thereby no Adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental Bread or Wine there bodily received, or unto any Corporal Presence of Christ’s natural Flesh and Blood. For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored; ( for that were Idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians) and the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of Christ’s natural Body to be at one time in more places than one.
So the 1662 Prayer Book is plain. Though sacramentally speaking the consecrated Bread and Wine now make us partakers, by the Holy Spirit and in faith, of the Body and Blood of Christ, they still remain in their natural substances, and so worshipping them is - again, according to the Church of England’s doctrine as expressed in her authoritative liturgy - idolatry.

You say that this is more apparently about Calvin and Calvinism. As far as I know, Calvin was never a member of the Church of England.

I am baffled by this rubric since it seems so contrary to what is actually done in an Anglican Eucharist. The elevation, bowing/ genuflecting at the altar while the faithful kneel during the eucharistic prayer is the norm in Anglican churches, right?

 

[porthos11]

The restoration of Charles II and the subsequent Prayer Book (still the Church of England’s Prayer Book to this day) does include the Black Rubric, which states the following:
Whereas it is ordained in this office for the Administration of the Lord’s Supper, that the Communicants should receive the same kneeling; (which order is well meant, for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgement of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy Receivers, and for the avoiding of such profanation and disorder in the holy Communion, as might otherwise ensue) yet, lest the same kneeling should by any persons, either out of ignorance and infirmity, or out of malice and obstinacy, be misconstrued and depraved: It is here declared, that thereby no Adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental Bread or Wine there bodily received, or unto any Corporal Presence of Christ’s natural Flesh and Blood. For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored; ( for that were Idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians) and the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of Christ’s natural Body to be at one time in more places than one.
So the 1662 Prayer Book is plain. Though sacramentally speaking the consecrated Bread and Wine now make us partakers, by the Holy Spirit and in faith, of the Body and Blood of Christ, they still remain in their natural substances, and so worshipping them is - again, according to the Church of England’s doctrine as expressed in her authoritative liturgy - idolatry.

You say that this is more apparently about Calvin and Calvinism. As far as I know, Calvin was never a member of the Church of England.

And Anglicanism being what it is, it’s perfectly permissible for other communities and individuals within the Anglican Communion to disregard the Black Rubric and the Thirty-Nine. You’re clearly a BCP guy, but you will find Anglicans who are BAS or CW-only, both of which do NOT contain the Black Rubric. And yet they are fully Anglican. There are Anglo-Catholics who are part of the Anglican Communion that still use the English Missal (I’m not talking about TAC-type communities), refuse to ordain women AND believe in Transubstantiation, and are fully accepted as Anglicans.

You yourself express a Reformed slant within your Anglicanism, and you’re an Anglican in good standing. But as GKC said, you don’t get to place “scare quotes” around the word “Anglican”, that is to say, you don’t get to define who and what an Anglican is. Your choice to delineate Anglican orthodoxy to the BCP is arbitrary and is not congruent with general Anglican thought.

 

[GKC]

And Anglicanism being what it is, it’s perfectly permissible for other communities and individuals within the Anglican Communion to disregard the Black Rubric and the Thirty-Nine. You’re clearly a BCP guy, but you will find Anglicans who are BAS or CW-only, both of which do NOT contain the Black Rubric. And yet they are fully Anglican. There are Anglo-Catholics who are part of the Anglican Communion that still use the English Missal (I’m not talking about TAC-type communities), refuse to ordain women AND believe in Transubstantiation, and are fully accepted as Anglicans.

You yourself express a Reformed slant within your Anglicanism, and you’re an Anglican in good standing. But as GKC said, you don’t get to place “scare quotes” around the word “Anglican”, that is to say, you don’t get to define who and what an Anglican is. Your choice to delineate Anglican orthodoxy to the BCP is arbitrary and is not congruent with general Anglican thought.

Yep.

GKC

 

[GKC]

I am baffled by this rubric since it seems so contrary to what is actually done in an Anglican Eucharist. The elevation, bowing/ genuflecting at the altar while the faithful kneel during the eucharistic prayer is the norm in Anglican churches, right?

Depends on which Anglican Church.

GKC

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Depends on which Anglican Church.

GKC

Are there any ‘Black Rubric’ Anglican/ Episcopal parishes in north America?

 

[GKC]

Are there any ‘Black Rubric’ Anglican/ Episcopal parishes in north America?

If there are any who regularly use the 1662 Book, it would be visible to them, at least. I, for one, have never seen it, in its natural habitat. Like most things that get discussed, re: Anglicans, it represents a compromise (not in itself; the compromise was between it, and the majority of changes that were made in the 1662 book, which were more Catholic-flavored). The return of the Rubric (modified slightly from the one that was excised from Queen Bess’s Book, in the classic Elizabethan Compromise) was the olive branch to the reformed side, in the hopes of getting some doctrinal peace again. Didn’t work too well.

Those in the CoE would have to determine just what practical impact it might theoretically have for them. For those of us in other jurisdictions, it’s a data point or two in history.

GKC

 

[EvangelCatholic]

If there are any who regularly use the 1662 Book, it would be visible to them, at least. I, for one, have never seen it, in its natural habitat. Like most things that get discussed, re: Anglicans, it represents a compromise (not in itself; the compromise was between it, and the majority of changes that were made in the 1662 book, which were more Catholic-flavored). The return of the Rubric (modified slightly from the one that was excised from Queen Bess’s Book, in the classic Elizabethan Compromise) was the olive branch to the reformed side, in the hopes of getting some doctrinal peace again. Didn’t work too well.

Those in the CoE would have to determine just what practical impact it might theoretically have for them. For those of us in other jurisdictions, it’s a data point or two in history.

GKC

Thanks

My sense is that the rubric draws attention, perhaps obscure, to eucharistic expression that slows down ecumenical efforts with Catholics.

 

[Indifferently]

Elevations are a Ritualist innovation which would not have even been done by the majority of Anglo-Catholics well into the 20th century. At my parish we do not elevate the eucharistic elements. Even so, such actions do not necessarily suggest adoration of the communion elements.

As for “arbitrary”, the English Missal has never been authorized anywhere in the Anglican communion, and only now is it allowed in some of the ultra-revisionist Anglo-Catholic “continuum” churches. It is the product of men who liked Rome but didn’t fancy giving up their wives, and nothing more.

 

[Indifferently]

Thanks

My sense is that the rubric draws attention, perhaps obscure, to eucharistic expression that slows down ecumenical efforts with Catholics.

The truth matters. From your frequent postings on here I think you often express a want for a form of ecumenism when we just disregard things that divide us and “get along” anyway. But the truth matters. If we believe as Anglicans that what Roman Catholicism teaches, which is that latria (divine worship) can be ascribed to consecrated communion bread to be idolatry, and Roman Catholic dogma says it is not only seemly but necessary, then the truly ecumenical thing to do is not to sweep the matter under the carpet, but to find out who is right and who is wrong.

 

[GKC]

Elevations are a Ritualist innovation which would not have even been done by the majority of Anglo-Catholics well into the 20th century. At my parish we do not elevate the eucharistic elements. Even so, such actions do not necessarily suggest adoration of the communion elements.

As for “arbitrary”, the English Missal has never been authorized anywhere in the Anglican communion, and only now is it allowed in some of the ultra-revisionist Anglo-Catholic “continuum” churches. It is the product of men who liked Rome but didn’t fancy giving up their wives, and nothing more.

The number of Anglo-Catholics in the CoE who would have included the elevation is not something I would know how discern. The number who, after the Royal Commission of 1906, would have been ignored for doing so, is, all of them.

The English Missal ( or the American Missal) use, both of which predate the Continuum, does not need to be authorized, anywhere in the Communion, unless there is some local governing strictures on which Book can be used. Governing strictures in erastian Churches, such as the CoE, can be more binding, in theory, having the force of law. Otherwise, less so.

The tone that may creep into discussions like these is illustrative of the reason a Church which is directly tied to the national polity and governance will naturally seek to restrict the extremes of such sectarian expressions. Back in the day, such expressions often took a more physical form, which could be unsettling to the secular powers. Hence one got things like Articles of Peace.

And what is illustrated in these exchanges is the 500 year old spectrum of Anglicanism, which has wrestled with itself since the beginning… I have a place on the spectrum, others have another place. I would prefer that all things were done in accordance with my beliefs. Others do likewise, I suppose. But that is not the reality. The plurality is. Pouting will not change that.

GKC

 

[porthos11]

Elevations are a Ritualist innovation which would not have even been done by the majority of Anglo-Catholics well into the 20th century. At my parish we do not elevate the eucharistic elements. Even so, such actions do not necessarily suggest adoration of the communion elements.

As for “arbitrary”, the English Missal has never been authorized anywhere in the Anglican communion, and only now is it allowed in some of the ultra-revisionist Anglo-Catholic “continuum” churches. It is the product of men who liked Rome but didn’t fancy giving up their wives, and nothing more.

Doesn’t matter. Their choice to adopt an English Missal is arbitrary too, just as is your determination that the 1662 BCP or whatever is “pure” Anglicanism. Both you and they are simply doing what Anglicanism allows. You may not like what the Ritualists do but they’re simply exercising the same rights you are. The same is true with the Episcopalians who have now decided to elect a female presiding bishop, and with the Canadian Anglicans who would prefer to use the BAS rather than the BCP.

That those men liked Rome but didn’t want to give up their wives was something just fine within Anglicanism which is what allows them to be fully Anglican, no less than you.

You may be comfortable in your beliefs, but you don’t get to determine what “pure” Anglicanism is.

 

[Gorgias]

But there’s no biblical evidence for your speculation.

Indifferently:

As for the other bit, you are confused. You make an assertion but fail to back it up. I just quoted from the Roman Catholic catechism.

Indifferently:

And to the two previous posters: both of you essentially restated my Tridentine language in the more genteel vocabulary of the CCC.

What a wonderful game you’re playing, here! Quote from the catechism when it suits your needs – and then castigate others who quote from the catechism to disprove your interpretations of the catechism! Then, when one quotes to you from the catechism, refuse to accept them and ask for biblical evidence! What beautiful sophistry! :clapping:

You can’t say “no” to what I’ve said and then confirm exactly that.

But, that’s not what’s been done here. We’ve shown that your characterization of what the catechism teaches is, in fact, a mis-characterization: you presume ‘punishment’ means ‘lack of forgiveness’; you presume that ‘sacrifice’ – as a partial definition – is the extent of a definition.

And purgatory being a place of “punishment” (and not merely a good scrub) is how Trent defines it.

I’m glad you brought this up again. Let me refresh your memory. You claimed:

Indifferently:

No mention in the CCC of purgatory involving “temporal punishment” interestingly, but that is still official Roman Catholic dogma (per the Council of Trent) and thus must be dogmatically held by all the (RC) faithful.

To which I responded, from the catechism:

Gorgias:

CCC 1472 states, “every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the ‘temporal punishment’ of sin.”

Two take-aways here: first, you are objectively wrong when you state that the CCC doesn’t discuss purgatory in the context of the “temporal punishment due to sin.”

Second, you are either greatly mistaken or deliberately mis-stating the teaching of the Church on purgatory; and it’s not simply that you do not subscribe to a “more genteel” way of putting it. The teaching is as follows: there is temporal punishment due to sin; that punishment is satisfied in the purifications of Purgatory. Note the subtle distinction here: the soul in Purgatory is not punished; rather, the punishment is satisfied through the purifications of purgation.

 

[Indifferently]

The teaching is as follows: there is temporal punishment due to sin; that punishment is satisfied in the purifications of Purgatory. Note the subtle distinction here: the soul in Purgatory is not punished; rather, the punishment is satisfied through the purifications of purgation.

That distinction is not subtle, but utterly artificial and superimposed. I suspect a stronger case could be made that this is sophistry, than anything I have said.

(And try not to combine different threads of discussion making different points. I won’t be so foolish as to demand biblical evidence for the doctrines of Trent with which I disagree, because I am fully aware that it is not there, and Trent even admits that some of it must be found in an independent source of revelation called “Tradition”.)

 

[EvangelCatholic]

The truth matters. From your frequent postings on here I think you often express a want for a form of ecumenism when we just disregard things that divide us and “get along” anyway. But the truth matters. If we believe as Anglicans that what Roman Catholicism teaches, which is that latria (divine worship) can be ascribed to consecrated communion bread to be idolatry, and Roman Catholic dogma says it is not only seemly but necessary, then the truly ecumenical thing to do is not to sweep the matter under the carpet, but to find out who is right and who is wrong.

Speaking to the subject of ecumenical relations, I believe both the Provoo Communion [Europe] and similar north American accords between Lutheran and Anglican/ Episcopal do not just try to “get along” as you write. Lutherans are confessional and doctrine does matter. The emphasis with Anglicans has been on episcopacy/ Apostolic Succession as our common heritage. Clearly the Anglican Church is viewed as sufficiently ‘Catholic’ to Lutherans; the importance placed on sharing holy Communion together is an affirmation of our shared view of the Church.

 

[Contarini]

The truth matters. From your frequent postings on here I think you often express a want for a form of ecumenism when we just disregard things that divide us and “get along” anyway. But the truth matters. If we believe as Anglicans that what Roman Catholicism teaches, which is that latria (divine worship) can be ascribed to consecrated communion bread to be idolatry, and Roman Catholic dogma says it is not only seemly but necessary, then the truly ecumenical thing to do is not to sweep the matter under the carpet, but to find out who is right and who is wrong.

Well, the claim that the Catholic doctrine is idolatry is certainly false. Even Samuel Johnson, who didn’t believe the doctrine, said as much

Catholics don’t worship bread. They worship Jesus. And all orthodox Christians ought to confess that Jesus is present. Even if transubstantiation isn’t the best way to explain the Presence, it would not follow that Catholics are committing idolatry.

I agree that it is important to decide who is right and who is wrong on the “idolatry” charge. And Protestants are clearly wrong, and ought to repent.

The more difficult question, for me, is whether the “spiritual presence” understanding is really heretical. . . .

Edwin