Eucharistic difference between Anglican/Catholic

[Indifferently]

Motley is great word to describe Anglicans. That being the case, I think it is important to point out that those on the extreme ends of the spectrum (Calvinist to Anglo-Papist) are not a very good representation of the whole of Anglicanism. I would think that a majority of Anglicans tend to fall in the “via media” camp when it comes to protestant and catholic and they tend to avoid the extremes. Many may lean a bit to the protestant side or lean a bit to the catholic side, but they would still fall within the via media.

Not really. Some of us “extremists” hold to the Anglican formularies and others like to make it up as they see fit (episcopalian congregationalists).

 

[seanman611]

Not really. Some of us “extremists” hold to the Anglican formularies and others like to make it up as they see fit (episcopalian congregationalists).

What the Church of England might have been or leaned towards for a moment in its history, in regards to a decisively Calvinist vision of the church (which was brief and not universally accepted), cannot be used to define what “true” or “pure” Anglicanism is. The Church of England was influenced by Calvinism during this period, but at no point was the Church of England decidedly Calvinist. This is a living church not a church that died in the 16th century. Furthermore, it is funny that you keep mentioning the formularies, Prayer Book, and the Articles. If these things are so totally and completely Reformed, then why did the Puritans fight tooth and nail against all of them???

 

[Per_Crucem]

What the Church of England might have been or leaned towards for a moment in its history, in regards to a decisively Calvinist vision of the church (which was brief and not universally accepted), cannot be used to define what “true” or “pure” Anglicanism is. The Church of England was influenced by Calvinism during this period, but at no point was the Church of England decidedly Calvinist. This is a living church not a church that died in the 16th century. Furthermore, it is funny that you keep mentioning the formularies, Prayer Book, and the Articles. If these things are so totally and completely Reformed, then why did the Puritans fight tooth and nail against all of them???

Weren’t they fighting tooth and nail more so over the form of the liturgy and other “popish” hold overs?

 

[seanman611]

Weren’t they fighting tooth and nail more so over the form of the liturgy and other “popish” hold overs?

Yes, but they also fought to remove the Prayer Book (too Catholic) and the historic episcopate in a bid to establish Presbyterianism (others wanted congregationalism) in England. They also wanted the Articles to take a clear and articulated Reformed theology, not the vague and ambiguous Articles that we ended up with.

The Puritans thought that the Prayer Book, Articles, and the historic episcopate were too Catholic.

 

[Contarini]

What the Church of England might have been or leaned towards for a moment in its history, in regards to a decisively Calvinist vision of the church (which was brief and not universally accepted), cannot be used to define what “true” or “pure” Anglicanism is. The Church of England was influenced by Calvinism during this period, but at no point was the Church of England decidedly Calvinist. This is a living church not a church that died in the 16th century. Furthermore, it is funny that you keep mentioning the formularies, Prayer Book, and the Articles. If these things are so totally and completely Reformed, then why did the Puritans fight tooth and nail against all of them???

It depends on what you mean by “Reformed.”

I would say that the Puritan controversy was, at least initially, a controversy within the Reformed tradition. For much of the sixteenth century the Reformed tradition was pretty broad–it was the consensus of all the “magisterial” reformers who didn’t agree with Luther on the Real Presence and a few other points. In other words, you had the radicals on one hand who rejected infant baptism, the state church, etc., and on the other hand you had the emerging “confessional Lutheranism,” which condemned anyone who didn’t believe clearly in the bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The Reformed tradition was everything in between.

But the Reformed tradition was experiencing its own move toward “confessionalization,” toward tightening the definitions and narrowing the boundaries. The Arminian controversy of the early 17th century would complete that process. The established Church of England resisted that narrowing process, and by doing so eventually found itself outside the parameters of the Reformed tradition strictly defined. But there were always Reformed elements in Anglicanism.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

The term “Anglican” as we understand it now is a very recent coinage. The religion of Henry VIII was essentially a version of Roman Catholicism, with the power of the pope instead vested in the secular ruler, King Henry VIII. It’s clear the Reformation was still underway in the church of England, and had not reached stability until the Elizabethan settlement. Remarkably, the 1662 revision was more or less a word-for-word restatement of Elizabeth, over-against different levels of innovation.

Right. And you can tell the story that way if you want to–as the formation of a confessional body with broadly Reformed theology called “Anglicanism.”

Or you say say that Anglicanism is the “Ecclesia Anglicana,” the Catholic Church in England and other bodies throughout the world deriving from it, in continuous existence at least since the coming of St. Augustine of Canterbury in the late sixth century (the Celtic Church is a trickier subject so I’ll leave it aside).

Explain to me how one of these is more historically accurate than the other? They are just two different ways of defining “Anglicanism.”

I stand entirely with you against the version of Anglo-Catholicism that minimizes the doctrinal changes of the Reformation. That is why I have never called myself an Anglo-Catholic. But all it takes is the flexibility to recognize that identity can persist even through significant doctrinal change, and the second definition of Anglicanism remains entirely valid.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

Yes, but they also fought to remove the Prayer Book (too Catholic) and the historic episcopate in a bid to establish Presbyterianism (others wanted congregationalism) in England. They also wanted the Articles to take a clear and articulated Reformed theology, not the vague and ambiguous Articles that we ended up with.

The Puritans thought that the Prayer Book, Articles, and the historic episcopate were too Catholic.

The Hampton Court Conference (1604) led to the Authorized Version of the Bible, at the insistence of the more reformed Churchmen, who wanted a replacement for the Bishops Bible, and petitioned King James I for a translation more in line with their understanding. They were unhappy with the result.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Right. And you can tell the story that way if you want to–as the formation of a confessional body with broadly Reformed theology called “Anglicanism.”

Or you say say that Anglicanism is the “Ecclesia Anglicana,” the Catholic Church in England and other bodies throughout the world deriving from it, in continuous existence at least since the coming of St. Augustine of Canterbury in the late sixth century (the Celtic Church is a trickier subject so I’ll leave it aside).

Explain to me how one of these is more historically accurate than the other? They are just two different ways of defining “Anglicanism.”

I stand entirely with you against the version of Anglo-Catholicism that minimizes the doctrinal changes of the Reformation. That is why I have never called myself an Anglo-Catholic. But all it takes is the flexibility to recognize that identity can persist even through significant doctrinal change, and the second definition of Anglicanism remains entirely valid.

Edwin

You don’t even have to deal with the Celtic Church, to get the existence of the Church in England back to sometime in the 3rd century.

GKC

 

[seanman611]

It depends on what you mean by “Reformed.”

I would say that the Puritan controversy was, at least initially, a controversy within the Reformed tradition. For much of the sixteenth century the Reformed tradition was pretty broad–it was the consensus of all the “magisterial” reformers who didn’t agree with Luther on the Real Presence and a few other points. In other words, you had the radicals on one hand who rejected infant baptism, the state church, etc., and on the other hand you had the emerging “confessional Lutheranism,” which condemned anyone who didn’t believe clearly in the bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The Reformed tradition was everything in between.

But the Reformed tradition was experiencing its own move toward “confessionalization,” toward tightening the definitions and narrowing the boundaries. The Arminian controversy of the early 17th century would complete that process. The established Church of England resisted that narrowing process, and by doing so eventually found itself outside the parameters of the Reformed tradition strictly defined. But there were always Reformed elements in Anglicanism.

Edwin

Agreed and I am not denying the Reformed influence on the Church of England, just trying to point out that it wasn’t extreme in nature and the results weren’t even close to what the Puritans wanted. I tend to accept some reformed ideas like single predestination. I accept the Real Presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist, without having to philosophically define the process.

However, I just get tired of hearing about the Reformed influence at the expense of everything else. This church is more than the 16th century. The Church in England was influenced and has contained a lot of elements over the centuries, from Celtic Christianity to Benedictine to Augustine. I would argue that Benedictine spirituality has had a huge influence on the Church in England, as well as the writings of Julian of Norwich and St. Anselm.

 

[Indifferently]

Choose to believe what you like. Like I say, episcopal congregationalists vs history.

 

[andrewstx]

Not really. Some of us “extremists” hold to the Anglican formularies and others like to make it up as they see fit (episcopalian congregationalists).

Indifferetly, one thing you fail to notice or mention is the fact that your beloved 39 articles is not a paen in praise of only Calvinism (or reformed as you like to call it). The articles are from the Lutheran and Calvinist points of view.

As always a compromise. That is the reason I left the Episcopal church. All compromise no firm stands on anything.

Of course had I swallowed the Calvinist idea of Anglicanism I would have hastend my departure even more.

 

[Gorgias]

Indifferently,

You seem to be laboring under a number of misunderstandings of what the Catholic Church teaches. Please allow me to help you recognize what the Church actually teaches…

Indifferently:

As for the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Roman Church teaches that the offering of the Mass can propitiate God’s wrath against the quick and the dead for their sins.

I appreciate that you’re quoting from Denzinger, but that citation is from a profession of faith; it doesn’t work well if it’s the sum total of your understanding of the Mass. It is propitiatory – that is, an atoning sacrifice – but to claim that it’s only about ‘wrath’ and ‘sins’ is too naive an outlook. The Mass “is also offered for the faithful departed who ‘have died in Christ but are not yet wholly purified’” (CCC 1371) – so, it takes on the character of working for purification of those whose sins are already forgiven. It is also related to those already in heaven: “to the offering of Christ are united… also those already in the glory of heaven” (CCC 1370). It is also a sacrifice of the Church herself: “the Church which is the Body of Christ participates in the offering of her Head”, through which the Church “herself is offered whole and entire” through which “the lives of the faithful, their praise, sufferings, prayer, and work are united with those of Christ and with his total offering, and so acquire a new value” (CCC 1368). So, it’s much more than you claim here; yet, is it true that the offering of the Mass is for the atonement of sin? Well, yes and no: unforgiven venial sin is absolved through participation in the Mass (cf the quote from Denzinger given at CCC 1366), but unforgiven mortal sin cannot be atoned for by the Mass (cf GIRM #51).

This is in keeping with the whole Roman Catholic soteric system, where “justification” is a process of renewal of the sinner into the image of Christ, which may not be completed in this life and may require temporal punishments in purgatory

This is not a Catholic understanding of ‘justification’. Justification is not a ‘process’, but rather, follows from baptism (cf CCC 1987ff). Perhaps you’re thinking of ‘salvation’, which is a process that is initiated with the reception of God’s grace in baptism, and concludes (hopefully) with our attainment to eternal life in heaven.

the process [of justification]… may not be completed in this life and may require temporal punishments in purgatory to settle the account and finish the subjective process.

Again, no. “All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven. The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect” (CCC 1030, 1031). This is not a ‘settling of the account’ or a ‘finishing of a process’ – subjective or not – but rather, a means of purification of a person bound for heaven.

The word “satisfaction” carries with it precisely the meaning of the settling of an account - the view that our debt due to God for our sins requires that we be sufficiently punished to “satisfy” God’s justice.

Perhaps, in a secular context, it means “settling the account;” however, that’s not the definition we’re utilizing in the context you’re addressing – that is, the teaching of the Catholic Church. Rather, “Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused. Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must “make satisfaction for” or “expiate” his sins” (CCC 1459). Satisfaction, then isn’t primarily about making others whole; it’s about making ourselves whole from the “injur[ies] and weak[nesses] [of] the sinner himself” and restoring relationships “with God and neighbor” (CCC 1459). This isn’t a satisfaction that’s punishment vis-a-vis God’s justice, but a rehabilitation of the forgiven sinner who wishes to reconcile with God.

Since each sinner requires a different level of purgation, it is obviously subjective (i.e. on a case-by-case basis).

That’s an interesting definition of ‘subjective’; yet, I think I’d respond that each already-forgiven (don’t forget that essential point!) sinner requires the same level of purgation – that is, perfection. There may be more or less to purge, but the goal is the same for all: perfection in the eyes of God, without which we cannot enter into the Beatific Vision.

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.

Interesting claim. Wrong, but interesting. 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.”

 

[Gorgias]

Indifferently,

In the home stretch, now…

Indifferently:

I know perfectly well that Rome teaches that Christ died to take away the eternal punishment for sins, and “Purgatory” can only bring atonement for the venial sins (that is what the Roman church teaches - the Christ I believe in died and was fully punished for all the sins of the elect).

Again, no (sorry ). That view – ‘penal substitution’ – is a Reformation understanding of the theology of salvation. The Catholic view is ‘substitutionary atonement’, which does not entail the notion of a simple ‘business deal’ in which Christ pays our debt to the Father. The net effect, of course, is that our sin is wiped clean, but it’s not a simple matter of “Christ was punished in our place,” as if God were simply an accountant who says “paid in full.”

Moreover, your assertion that “Purgatory can only bring atonement for the venial sins” is partially correct, but I’m concerned that it’s not a complete expression of the doctrine. Among all sins (mortal and venial) that remain unforgiven at death, Purgatory atones only for venial sins; if a person dies in a state of mortal sin, the Church teaches that he is not saved. However, Purgatory is about purgation of the wounds that sin – in particular, sin that itself has already been forgiven – has remained in us. The forgiveness is complete; the healing is not.

It seems to me that your saviour is impotent. He needs your help to save you, and even then his cross and death isn’t the whole of the punishment due to you for your sins. You still have to be punished. And Rome teaches that even confessed sins are punished in purgatory, unless an indulgence is obtained or necessary works of satisfaction are done.

No; it is not the case that “confessed sins are punished in purgatory.” Rather, the lingering effects of (already-confessed) sins are cleansed in the state of purgation. This isn’t punishment, unless you consider getting a good scrubbing after rolling around in the mud ‘punishment’.

 

[GKC]

No; it is not the case that “confessed sins are punished in purgatory.” Rather, the lingering effects of (already-confessed) sins are cleansed in the state of purgation. This isn’t punishment, unless you consider getting a good scrubbing after rolling around in the mud ‘punishment’.

This is certainly the view of C.S. Lewis, inter alia amongst Anglicans.

Though, as he says, it may hurt.

GKC

 

[Duane1966]

I know this is off subject of the op, but on the subject of purgatory I have always felt that (for me anyways) there will also be great sadness. I feel that I will see how my sins affected others, and how it may have caused them to sin. Sometimes I feel like the servant who took the talents God gave him and did nothing with them, and in purgatory I will see what I was meant to be.

 

[Indifferently]

I know this is off subject of the op, but on the subject of purgatory I have always felt that (for me anyways) there will also be great sadness. I feel that I will see how my sins affected others, and how it may have caused them to sin. Sometimes I feel like the servant who took the talents God gave him and did nothing with them, and in purgatory I will see what I was meant to be.

But there’s no biblical evidence for your speculation.

And to the two previous posters: both of you essentially restated my Tridentine language in the more genteel vocabulary of the CCC. You can’t say “no” to what I’ve said and then confirm exactly that. And purgatory being a place of “punishment” (and not merely a good scrub) is how Trent defines it.

 

[Starrsmother]

With all respect to my Anglican brothers and sisters, i am thanknkful—yet again-- to be catholic and thus have these things spelled out!

 

[Indifferently]

With all respect to my Anglican brothers and sisters, i am thanknkful—yet again-- to be catholic and thus have these things spelled out!

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.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

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.

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.

 

[GKC]

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.

But, as oft noted, you, nor those who think like you amongst Anglicans, get to legitimately place " " around Anglicans. Doesn’t work like that.

GKC