Eucharistic difference between Anglican/Catholic

[Indifferently]

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

1. I didn’t realize that Samuel Johnson was infallible.
2. The Roman Catholics believe that the consecrated wafer is itself, in its very substance, Christ our God. If they believe that, and we believe that Christ is communicated in the Lord’s Supper but is not physically present in the elements, and that no substantial change takes place, we are not to worship the consecrated elements, because we do not conflate them with God.

Thereflore, we must conclude the practice of Rome (which also holds “adoration” services where worship is rendered to the bread, as transubstantiation says that this is no longer bread but God) is idolatry. Rome however must say that failing to worship consecrated bread (“God”) is a dereliction of Christian devotion.

1. Protestants are “clearly wrong”. And your infallible proof of this is what, Samuel Johnson? Weren’t you making excuses about your continued membership of the Episcopal church until about 5 minutes ago?

 

[Peter_J]

I’mI was wondering what is the differrnce befween Catholic and Anglican eucharist?I The Anglican belief is that the elements remain the same they look, taste, and smell like bread and wine. So they remain bread and wine. The change is in the substance where it can’t be seen. I think the Catholic belief is after consecration nothing remain of the elements they are now the body and blood of Christ. Are we saying the same thing? We see the elements but know the substance is Christ.You see the bread and the same way we do but you claim it isn’t bread and wine. How can you say it isn’t there if you see withyour eyes? We agree on the same thing that the substance has charge. NOW I have no disrespect for your belief I just want to know why all the fuss is

Don’t know, but you might try asking your fellow Anglicans why they don’t come into communion with Rome (aka become Catholic).

 

[Contarini]

1. I didn’t realize that Samuel Johnson was infallible.

Not infallible. Just a man of good sense

1. The Roman Catholics believe that the consecrated wafer is itself, in its very substance, Christ our God.

Nonsense. If you make such a hash of Catholic doctrine as that, no wonder you think it’s idolatrous.

The substance of the bread, in Catholic teaching, is transformed into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ. Hence, to say that the “wafer” is “itself, in its very substance, Christ our God” gets it completely wrong.

Catholics worship Jesus. You should too

If they believe that, and we believe that Christ is communicated in the Lord’s Supper but is not physically present in the elements, and that no substantial change takes place, we are not to worship the consecrated elements, because we do not conflate them with God.

Clearly the presence isn’t physical. You clearly don’t understand what substantial change means, or you wouldn’t have spoken as you did above. Probably no one understands it:shrug:

Thereflore, we must conclude the practice of Rome (which also holds “adoration” services where worship is rendered to the bread, as transubstantiation says that this is no longer bread but God) is idolatry.

No one worships bread. You admit this yourself, above. As Dr. Johnson said, Catholics believe the substance of the bread is no longer present. Hence, even if you think they are wrong, you can’t reasonably accuse them of idolatry.

Rome however must say that failing to worship consecrated bread (“God”) is a dereliction of Christian devotion.

Oh, that’s not what bothers me. What bothers me about Catholic teaching is that strictly speaking they agree with you about what we Anglo-Catholic types (I’m not an A-C ecclesiologically, but I certainly am Catholic in my practice of the Faith) are doing when we worship Christ in the Blessed Sacrament! And this isn’t about Anglican Orders per se, but about questioning the validity of any sincere worship (which is why I’m not an Anglo-Catholic although I act like one).

1. Protestants are “clearly wrong”. And your infallible proof of this is what, Samuel Johnson?

Of course not. Dr. Johnson just saw the point about Catholic worship not being idolatry. Protestants are wrong because they broke with the historic Christian faith under the influence of Renaissance spiritualism, which they falsely thought to be Biblical religion.

Weren’t you making excuses about your continued membership of the Episcopal church until about 5 minutes ago?

I don’t know. Was I?

I’m not interested in excuses any more.

And of course the Episcopal Church is wrong. All churches are wrong, even (maybe even especially) Rome. That doesn’t take away our obligation to seek communion with Rome, nor does it necessarily contradict infallibility (since I’m using “wrong” more broadly than Rome does).

Edwin

 

[steido01]

And of course the Episcopal Church is wrong. All churches are wrong, even (maybe even especially) Rome. That doesn’t take away our obligation to seek communion with Rome, nor does it necessarily contradict infallibility (since I’m using “wrong” more broadly than Rome does).

Edwin

Eureka! This is the simplest and most well-spoken truth I’ve read today. Sometimes I become frustrated with this site, but then, I’m reminded that others seek that same fullness in their ‘Mere Christianity.’ Thank you, Edwin.

 

[GKC]

Eureka! This is the simplest and most well-spoken truth I’ve read today. Sometimes I become frustrated with this site, but then, I’m reminded that others seek that same fullness in their ‘Mere Christianity.’ Thank you, Edwin.

That’s my man.

GKC

 

[dcana]

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.

Jesus Christ is right. He said “THIS IS MY BODY” AND “THIS IS MY BLOOD.” So, if He came to you right now, as He did to the Apostles and many others after His Resurrection, in his flesh and blood, would you bow down and worship Him? Or would you say it would be idolatry to do so?

 

[dcana]

Do you claim He is “really present” in the Anglican communion but refuse to worship Him in the Eucharistic species? It seems to me that those who do this don’t REALLY believe in the REAL Presence because they act as if He is not REALLY there, i.e. by not offering Him the Latria that is due to God alone and that we must give Him and how much more so if He is just a few feet from us?

It seems that you can tell what a person really believes concerning their church’ host and wine/grape juice (if they have a “Lord’s Supper” at all) by the way they act towards it. If they believe that it is just an “it” they will dispose of the species in any way (in the garbage, down the sink, whatever), could care less if a host fell on the ground or what happens to pieces or crumbs that may come off, and would never, NEVER, get down on their knees to adore Him. There wouldn’t be such things as Adoration chapels, Eucharistic processions, or reserving the hosts in a special place where the faithful can come to visit Him any time they like, as He, indeed, wishes: “I will be WITH YOU, even to the end of the age.” Why don’t they do these things? Because they don’t believe He’s REALLY there, possibly in spite of the fact that they profess to believe in a “real presence.” But not really.

But if Jesus is God, isn’t He REALLY present everywhere? In a manner of speaking, yes, He is present everywhere in His Divinity. Even in hell. Even in the tree in my backyard, since He holds it in existence. But would I worship the tree in my backyard? No - it’s just a tree. Could I worship the Divine Presence in the tree? I suppose. Theological refinement is needed here and I’ll be the first to admit, I have none. It seems that many of the psalms do something similar, if not identical. But is God’s Presence in the tree the SAME as it is in Heaven? No. No Christian would (hopefully) say so. He’s present in those two places and “where two or three are gathered in His name” and “in his brothers and sisters”, as He says in Matthew 25. He was present in the burning bush and in the Jerusalem temple as well. But His presence in all these places is not the same. It is qualitatively different. When we say Jesus is “really present” in the Holy Eucharist, we mean that He is fully, wholly, completely, and substantially present, in His complete personhood as God and man, that is to say, as He exists RIGHT NOW in Heaven. Still, the mode of presence is different, but He is still fully, wholly, and completely present, as per His own words. I choose to believe Him, not 16th century heretics, and thank Him for the faith, which is His gift, to do this.

 

[dcana]

I noticed a least one Anglican referring to Jesus’ “body and blood” in the Eucharist, as opposed to His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. Is it an Anglican (at least some Anglicans) belief regarding their communion that He is present only in His Body and Blood and not in His Soul and Divinity as well? I should hope not, because where Jesus’ flesh and blood are NOW, His soul, which animates that flesh, and His Divinity, which was united to that flesh in the Incarnation, are certainly there as well.

 

[GKC]

I noticed a least one Anglican referring the Jesus’ “body and blood” in the Eucharist, as opposed to His “Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity.” Is it an Anglican belief regarding their communion that He is present only in His Body and Blood and not in His Soul and Divinity as well? I should hope not, because where Jesus’ flesh and blood are NOW, His soul, which animates that flesh, and His Divinity, which was united to that flesh in the Incarnation, are certainly there as well.

It depends on which Anglican you ask.

I usually reply in the words of Trent, Session XIII, canon 1.

Other Anglicans may vary. Anglicans are motley

But, as a short answer, Body and Blood are not that unusual, since they are related to the unconsecrated Eucharistic elements: “this is…this is”

GKC

 

[dcana]

God bless, everyone. Have a great Feast of the Assumption of Our Lady, when Jesus took her to Heaven to be with Him, body, blood, and soul.

“Such a good Son I have!” she must say. Should we expect Him to do any less for His own Mother?

David

 

[dcana]

It depends on which Anglican you ask.

I usually reply in the words of Trent, Session XIII, canon 1.

Other Anglicans may vary. Anglicans are motley

But, as a short answer, Body and Blood are not that unusual, since they are related to the unconsecrated Eucharistic elements: “this is…this is”

GKC

Thank you for your response.

Just in case anyone is interested, I looked up Trent, Session XIII, canon 1:

If any one denies, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but says that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

 

[GKC]

Thank you for your response.

Just in case anyone is interested, I looked up Trent, Session XIII, canon 1:

If any one denies, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but says that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

Yep.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

I noticed a least one Anglican referring to Jesus’ “body and blood” in the Eucharist, as opposed to His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. Is it an Anglican (at least some Anglicans) belief regarding their communion that He is present only in His Body and Blood and not in His Soul and Divinity as well? I should hope not, because where Jesus’ flesh and blood are NOW, His soul, which animates that flesh, and His Divinity, which was united to that flesh in the Incarnation, are certainly there as well.

No. But the presence of the Divinity of Christ isn’t controversial, and we all agree that His body is present as dead flesh, so His soul is present wherever the Body and Blood are present.

I have never understood why Catholics feel the need to say “Soul and Divinity,” when that isn’t the controversial part. I suspect that the phrasing developed precisely in order to refute the charge of cannibalism, to emphasize that the whole living, glorified Christ is present and not just “flesh.” But the fact that Anglicans and other sacramental Protestants don’t use that phrasing certainly doesn’t indicate a lack of belief that the soul and divinity of Christ are present–simply that the body and blood are what the debates are about.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

No. But the presence of the Divinity of Christ isn’t controversial, and we all agree that His body is present as dead flesh, so His soul is present wherever the Body and Blood are present.

I have never understood why Catholics feel the need to say “Soul and Divinity,” when that isn’t the controversial part. I suspect that the phrasing developed precisely in order to refute the charge of cannibalism, to emphasize that the whole living, glorified Christ is present and not just “flesh.” But the fact that Anglicans and other sacramental Protestants don’t use that phrasing certainly doesn’t indicate a lack of belief that the soul and divinity of Christ are present–simply that the body and blood are what the debates are about.

Edwin

Yep.

GKC

 

[Starrsmother]

Yep.

GKC

My husband was raised in the First Christian Church and converted when we married 46 years ago. We got into this very discussion about 6 months ago and I said something about how I’d gone to a protestant service with a friend a couple of years ago and how I didn’t see what they got out of it. The service I attended consisted of people singing song after song with a teleprompter in front to help with the words. There were many kids running around and the noise level was just short of a bomb exploding. Anyway, in the back of the church was a table with a coffee pot on it as well as little cups of Kool-Aid and small cookies. Well, I sat there until I got bored and then stood up, went to the back and took a cup of the Kool-Aid and a couple of cookies and returned to my seat to eat them. I noticed that some of the people looked at me kind of funny but that was it. My husband started laughing and told me that I’d received communion in this protestant church. I was aghast and said “Is that how protestants do communion? I’d never have guessed in a million years!” He responded that it is in some churches–not so in others. He also said that some protestant churches believe in the real body and blood and others believe it is just a ceremony literally done in memory of what Jesus did at the Last Supper. I didn’t quite believe him as I’d never ran into a protestant who believed they were receiving the real body and blood at their “communion” so I asked an apologist on this site. Sure enough, my husband was correct–there are a few denominations that believe in the real body and blood—but these churches don’t have communion at every service—which confused me again cause if they actually did believe it was the true body and blood of Our Lord, why wouldn’t they cut out a song or two and offer communion at every service? My husband laughed at me again and said that I wouldn’t make a very good protestant! I believe he’s probably right!

 

[GKC]

My husband was raised in the First Christian Church and converted when we married 46 years ago. We got into this very discussion about 6 months ago and I said something about how I’d gone to a protestant service with a friend a couple of years ago and how I didn’t see what they got out of it. The service I attended consisted of people singing song after song with a teleprompter in front to help with the words. There were many kids running around and the noise level was just short of a bomb exploding. Anyway, in the back of the church was a table with a coffee pot on it as well as little cups of Kool-Aid and small cookies. Well, I sat there until I got bored and then stood up, went to the back and took a cup of the Kool-Aid and a couple of cookies and returned to my seat to eat them. I noticed that some of the people looked at me kind of funny but that was it. My husband started laughing and told me that I’d received communion in this protestant church. I was aghast and said “Is that how protestants do communion? I’d never have guessed in a million years!” He responded that it is in some churches–not so in others. He also said that some protestant churches believe in the real body and blood and others believe it is just a ceremony literally done in memory of what Jesus did at the Last Supper. I didn’t quite believe him as I’d never ran into a protestant who believed they were receiving the real body and blood at their “communion” so I asked an apologist on this site. Sure enough, my husband was correct–there are a few denominations that believe in the real body and blood—but these churches don’t have communion at every service—which confused me again cause if they actually did believe it was the true body and blood of Our Lord, why wouldn’t they cut out a song or two and offer communion at every service? My husband laughed at me again and said that I wouldn’t make a very good protestant! I believe he’s probably right!

I didn’t make a very good protestant, either. For that matter, I’m not a very good Anglo-Catholic.

On the other hand, I attend the 1030 Mass at my parish, every Sunday. Where I receive the Body and Blood of Our Lord.

GKC

 

[Indifferently]

Jesus Christ is right. He said “THIS IS MY BODY” AND “THIS IS MY BLOOD.” So, if He came to you right now, as He did to the Apostles and many others after His Resurrection, in his flesh and blood, would you bow down and worship Him? Or would you say it would be idolatry to do so?

He also said, “I am the vine. You are the branches.” Is he a vine? “I am the door” is he a door?

 

[Indifferently]

Seems like a lot of people here subscribe to the heresy of Eutyches. Jesus Christ’s body and blood are in heaven.

 

[GKC]

He also said, “I am the vine. You are the branches.” Is he a vine? “I am the door” is he a door?

If he held up a vine or a door, and told the apostles “This is me”, the comparison might be apt.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Seems like a lot of people here subscribe to the heresy of Eutyches. Jesus Christ’s body and blood are in heaven.

They’re some form of Monophysites?

The Real Presence doesn’t require bits of Christ’s body to fly out of heaven and land in ciboria and chalices all over the world. It means the bread/wine there substantially become His body. Easy enough for the Creator of all,ex nihilo. However that act is accomplished.

GKC