Protestant Communion?

[GKC]

In some Protestant sects; you will find that people believe there is no presence of any sort in their Communion, and that is the teaching.
In such a case, Communion only becomes a symbolic gesture, and I don’t really understand that (especially when a plate of crackers and grape juice is simply passed around like bread rolls on an airplane).

Catholics differ from the more mainstream Protestant streams in believing the Eucharist IS the Body and Blood of Jesus, and that Jesus is Really, Truly and Substantially present*, such that only the accidents of Bread and Wine remain. You could liken this in a way that God used these accidents to make Jesus more palatable for us, in the same way that mother’s milk for her child comes in a highly nutritious, palatable appearance for her child.

Now, to offer a “better grounded” discussion on what others believe, I have retrieved a book (in poor condition, but nonetheless). “The Prayer Book, As Proposed in 1928.” It is from the Anglican Church (strong Anglican family roots), and would appear to have been in the hands of a “Rev. R.J.F Molyneux.” It contains much of the prayers used in the Anglican service of the time. And also the “Articles of Religion,” which I will now quote from.
Please be aware that this is the Anglican position on Communion, not mine, nor the Catholic Church’s. I kindly request you keep this in mind.

XXVIII:

In the page before this is stated, the Anglican Church does claim authority to teach the truth. And there is also a claim that purgatory is “repugnant of the scripture,” which might happen when one excludes 7 books of the Bible…

Again, I hope no offense was caused by me posting that. But seeing as I had access to it, I wanted to share it so that we can have a sensible discussion here on CAF

*This sounds similar to what our Anglican and Lutheran brethren are describing.

What you have in hand there is not a formal Anglican Prayer Book, but one proposed for use in the Church of England. It was never adopted, though much of it was incorporated into other liturgies in the CoE. Point not really related to your overall point, but even so.

The Articles are not formally binding on Anglicans, generally, save only, in a technical sense, the clergy of the Church of England, IAW the Parliamentary Act of Subscription of 1571. Anglicans, in general, may adopt a variety of attitudes toward them, from total acceptance, to cutting them from the book and using them to kindle the new fire at Easter.

The attitude toward the real presence in the Eucharist amongst Anglicans varies from symbolic/memorial to acceptance of Trent, Session XIII. Including transubstantiation.In other words, there is no “Anglican position on Communion”. This is true of most things in Anglicanism. Purgation, for example.

Generally speaking, if you attempt to generalize about Anglicans, you will, generally, err.

The word is “motley”.

 

[CuriousMike]

What you have in hand there is not a formal Anglican Prayer Book, but one proposed for use in the Church of England. It was never adopted, though much of it was incorporated into other litugies. Point not really related to your overall point, but even so.

The Articles are not formally binding on Anglicans, generally, save only, in a technical sense, the clergy of the Church of England, IAW the Parliamentary Act of Subscription of 1571. Anglicans, in general, may adopt a variety of attitudes toward them, from total acceptance, to cutting them from the book and using them to kindle the new fire at Easter.

The attitude toward the real presence in the Eucharist amongst Anglicans varies from symbolic/memorial to acceptance of Trent, Session XIII. Including transubstantiation.In other words, there is no “Anglican position on Communion”. This is true of most things in Anglicanism. Purgation, for example.

Generally speaking, if you attempt to generalize about Anglicans, you will, generally, err.

The word is “motley”.

Now, where is the emoticon that shows I am confused and that my mind has “broken down” in a fit of steam?

That is very interesting. So the book, despite being labelled as a “Prayer Book,” was meant for use in the Anglican Liturgy, at some point?

The comments on the Articles of Faith are interesting.
Does this meant to say they merely set a guideline on what the Church of England believes, or what believers “should” believe?

What you say in regards to the view being at either ends of the spectrum reminds me about another Anglican that was describing to me “Why we don’t need confession.” This person wasn’t very impressed when I pointed out the Church of England still makes provision for this; although it isn’t advertised very much today*

I like the thing about erring there. To do so is human. And the same caveat applies to another non-Catholic group, I would imagine.

Thanks for your thoughts. I learnt something quite interesting from your post.

*My assumption being that Anglicanism has perhaps shifted in its core beliefs over the years, and this has simply become a vestigial part of their faith.

 

[GKC]

Now, where is the emoticon that shows I am confused and that my mind has “broken down” in a fit of steam?

That is very interesting. So the book, despite being labelled as a “Prayer Book,” was meant for use in the Anglican Liturgy, at some point?

The comments on the Articles of Faith are interesting.
Does this meant to say they merely set a guideline on what the Church of England believes, or what believers “should” believe?

What you say in regards to the view being at either ends of the spectrum reminds me about another Anglican that was describing to me “Why we don’t need confession.” This person wasn’t very impressed when I pointed out the Church of England still makes provision for this; although it isn’t advertised very much today*

I like the thing about erring there. To do so is human. And the same caveat applies to another non-Catholic group, I would imagine.

Thanks for your thoughts. I learnt something quite interesting from your post.

*My assumption being that Anglicanism has perhaps shifted in its core beliefs over the years, and this has simply become a vestigial part of their faith.

No, I was using “liturgies” in the general sense of forms of worship approved, in this case, for use in the CoE. It was a “draft” book, passed by the necessary Church agencies, not passed or approved by Parliament. And, the CoE being erastian, Parliament got to do that. The proposed 1928 Book was never formally approved for use in the CoE. But much of it was incorporated into alternate forms or supplemetal litugies, and did get used.

In Anglicanism ('ware generalizing!) the approved Prayer book(s) are the collection of the approved liturgies. When the phrase Book of Common Prayer was used, in the old days, that was even more true. Now, more than one Book may be approved, or supplemented (as from the Anglican Missal), in various Anglican jurisdictions. Commonality is hard to find.

To make that a little more confusing, there certainly is another 1928 Book, that was approved and used for years in the Episcopal Church, here. It still is used in my Continuing Anglican Parish. Anglicans are, as one might say, motley. If you want to know what one of them believes/affirms, it is best to ask him.

The Articles are still often proclaimed as doctrine, in the CoE, but not enforced, even to the extent that the Act of Subscription prescribed: that the clergy (not the laity) affirm them, and not oppose them. It is a dead technical letter, but most of the CoE have no problem looking at them as a framework of doctrine. But they are not an Anglican Confession. Anglicanism is creedal. But, motley.

You are very welcome. This subject is one I have posted on here, many, many times, over the years. I expect to continue that. Anglicans, being motley, are confusing.

 

[Thorolfr]

*This sounds similar to what our Anglican and Lutheran brethren are describing.

According to the Augsburg Confession (Article 10), Lutherans believe that the body and blood are “truly and substantially present,” not just spiritually present.

 

[bobnj]

According to the Augsburg Confession (Article 10), Lutherans believe that the body and blood are “truly and substantially present,” not just spiritually present.

And the Roman Catholic reply from the Augsburg Confession:

To Article X.

“The tenth article gives no offense in its words, because they confess that in the Eucharist, after the consecration lawfully made, the Body and Blood of Christ are substantially and truly present, if only they believe that the entire Christ is present under each form, so that the Blood of Christ is no less present under the form of bread by concomitance than it is under the form of the wine, and the reverse. Otherwise, in the Eucharist the Body of Christ is dead and bloodless, contrary to St. Paul, because “Christ, being raised from the dead, dieth no more,” Rom. 6:9. One matter is added as very necessary to the article of the Confession - viz. that they believe the Church, rather than some teaching otherwise and incorrectly, that by the almighty Word of God in the consecration of the Eucharist the substance of the bread is changed into the Body of Christ. For thus in a general council it has been determined, canon Firmiter, concerning the exalted Trinity, and the Catholic faith. They are praised therefor, for condemning the Capernaites, who deny the truth of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.”

 

[pablope]

That’s not even true according to Catholic teaching. Catholic teachings is that the EOs and OOs also have valid Eucharists.

Correct…because they have retained apostolic succession, have not ditched the sacrament of Holy Orders as the Lutherans (maybe Anglicans too) have…and have retained what the Early Church intended…the sacramental nature of the Divine Liturgy.

 

[Contarini]

Despite what the above posters may tell you and what they may falsely believe, Our Lord Jesus is NOT present in Protestant “communion” in any way whatsoever. This is because they reject the Truth of transubstantiation from bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ and do NOT have the valid apostolic succession necessary in order for the consecration to take place.

Only in the Holy Catholic Church can transubstantiation truly occur and only in the Holy Catholic Church is the Holy Eucharist truly Jesus.

May God bless you all abundantly and forever and guide you to the Light of His Holy Catholic Church!

Richard White, you seem to leap from “transubstantiation does not take place” to “Christ is not present in any way whatever.” Since these two statements are not the same at all, you really have not done anything so substantiate the much stronger claim.

I have read in Catholic authors the claim that Christ may well be present in Protestant Eucharists in a spiritual manner, essentially in the same way that those of a “Calvinist” Eucharistic persuasion (which would include the Wesley brothers and most Methodist and Reformed intellectuals of my acquaintance, though alas not as many of the rank and file in those traditions) believe He is present.

Can you explain to me what Catholic doctrine is violated by such a supposition?

I am as certain that Christ is spiritually present in Protestant Eucharists as I am that the Christian faith is real in the first place. This is, in fact, one of my relatively few remaining serious obstacles to becoming Catholic–one of the major reasons I yet again dropped out of RCIA last year. (It’s connected to women’s ordination for obvious reasons–many of the Eucharists at which I have experienced Christ’s presence have been presided over by women.)

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

*My assumption being that Anglicanism has perhaps shifted in its core beliefs over the years, and this has simply become a vestigial part of their faith.

The reverse. For some centuries it was not a regular part of Anglican practice, and it was revived in the 19th century to great opposition. As a regular, private practice (as distinct from “unburdening one’s soul” at the point of death or as part of pastoral counseling), it has never caught on among the majority of Anglicans, and it is quite likely that the frequency of its use has declined in recent decades (ironically, in the U.S. context, given that only in the 1979 BCP was it officially provided for), as it has among Catholics as well.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

It is proven through the very words of Christ. If you can’t believe Jesus then there is not much stopping you from being an atheist.

That’s a strange statement.

Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc., are atheists?

Edwin

 

[Della]

Is Christ Spiritually Present in Protestant Communion?

To answer your question plainly and simply, Protestant communion may be spiritual but it cannot be sacramental. Christ is everywhere spiritually, but he is only sacramentally present when the bread and wine are confected into the body and blood, soul and divinity of Christ by a priest with proper apostolic succession.

 

[Della]

the nice thing about being raised and educated catholic-- is when you have a born again experience -and recognize the presence of the holy spirit
then you are not deceived by ceremony and reticial

The only way the bread and wine can be confected into the body and blood, soul and divinity of Christ is through the power of the Holy Spirit. The Church is led by the Holy Spirit, protected by the Holy Spirit and empowered by the Holy Spirit so that all the sacraments are effective means of obtaining Christ’s graces. The sacraments are the most powerful action the Holy Spirit does in this world. We reject that power to our own loss.

 

[JonNC]

Despite what the above posters may tell you and what they may falsely believe, Our Lord Jesus is NOT present in Protestant “communion” in any way whatsoever. This is because they reject the Truth of transubstantiation from bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ and do NOT have the valid apostolic succession necessary in order for the consecration to take place.

Hi Richard,
I believe you are correct in the professing the Catholic understanding that because of the Catholic belief that our ordinations are not valid, neither are our sacraments. I suspect, however, that many Catholic disagree regarding the presence of our Lord Jesus in our sacraments. If I may:

1. Catholic judgment on the authenticity of Lutheran ministry need not be of an all-or-nothing nature. The Decree on Ecumenism of Vatican II distinguished between relationships of full ecclesiastical communion and those of imperfect communion to reflect the varying degrees of differences with the Catholic Church.164 The communion of these separated communities with the Catholic Church is real, even though it is imperfect. Furthermore, the decree positively affirmed:

Our separated brothers and sisters also celebrate many sacred actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each church or community, and must be held capable of giving access to that communion in which is salvation.165

Commenting on this point, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation on the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote in 1993 to Bavarian Lutheran bishop Johannes Hanselmann:

**I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord [Heilschaffende Gegenwart des Herrn] in a Lutheran [evangelische] Lord’s Supper.**166

If the actions of Lutheran pastors can be described by Catholics as “sacred actions” that “can truly engender a life of grace,” if communities served by such ministers give “access to that communion in which is salvation,” and if at a eucharist at which a Lutheran pastor presides is to be found “the salvation-granting presence of the Lord,” then Lutheran churches cannot be said simply to lack the ministry given to the church by Christ and the Spirit. In acknowledging the imperfect koinonia between our communities and the access to grace through the ministries of these communities, we also acknowledge a real although imperfect koinonia between our ministries.

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/koinonia-of-salvation.cfm

Now, I don’t think Cardinal Ratzinger is drawing an equality here, nor do Lutherans feel the necessity of Catholic recognition of our orders or sacraments, but I believe the idea that the Catholic Church teaches “Our Lord Jesus is NOT present in Protestant ‘communion’ in any way whatsoever,” is contrary to what one reads from its leaders.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

the nice thing about being raised and educated catholic-- is when you have a born again experience -and recognize the presence of the holy spirit
then you are not deceived by ceremony and reticial

So, which ceremony do you believe Catholic Christians are deceived by?

Jon

 

[7_Sorrows]

So, which ceremony do you believe Catholic Christians are deceived by?

Jon

I think she is referring to the Mass - most criticism I hear of Catholicism is that it is ritual and ceremony, but they have no understanding of what the Mass is.

 

[JustaServant]

the nice thing about being raised and educated catholic-- is when you have a born again experience -and recognize the presence of the holy spirit
then you are not deceived by ceremony and reticial

You planning on backing this up? Or are you just another hit and run poster?

 

[JonNC]

You planning on backing this up? Or are you just another hit and run poster?

Who knows. He/she was probably talking about the deceiving ceremony on Maundy Thursday.

Jon

 

[Thorolfr]

So, which ceremony do you believe Catholic Christians are deceived by?

Jon

Some Baptists and other evangelical born again Protestants who think that communion is only an act of remembrance and do not have any ritual to consecrate the bread and wine would probably consider the Catholic Mass to be an irrelevant ritual or ceremony.

 

[masuwerte]

From “An Outline of the Faith, Commonly Called the Catechism,” found in the current Book of Common Prayer:

The Holy Eucharist
Q. What is the Holy Eucharist?
A. The Holy Eucharist is the sacrament commanded by Christ for the continual remembrance of his life, death, and resurrection, until his coming again.

Q. Why is the Eucharist called a sacrifice?
A. Because the Eucharist, the Church’s sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, is the way by which the sacrifice of Christ is made present, and in which he unites us to his one offering of himself.

Q. By what other names is this service known?
A. The Holy Eucharist is called the Lord’s Supper, and Holy Communion; it is also known as the Divine Liturgy, the Mass, and the Great Offering.

Q. What is the outward and visible sign in the Eucharist?
A. The outward and visible sign in the Eucharist is bread and wine, given and received according to Christ’s command.

Q. What is the inward and spiritual grace given in the Eucharist?
A. The inward and spiritual grace in the Holy Communion is the Body and Blood of Christ given to his people, and received by faith.

Q. What are the benefits which we receive in the Lord’s Supper?
A. The benefits we receive are the forgiveness of our sins, the strengthening of our union with Christ and one another, and the foretaste of the heavenly banquet which is our nourishment in eternal life.

Q. What is required of us when we come to the Eucharist?
A. It is required that we should examine our lives, repent of our sins, and be in love and charity with all people.

 

[masuwerte]

While I believe that the Episcopal Church maintains Apostolic Succession, and therefore valid sacraments, I might also add that the almighty and merciful Lord, seeing the sincere belief of a congregation without AS, might bless them with his presence anyway.

 

[KjetilK]

Is Christ Spiritually Present in Protestant Communion?

Yes, we believe in the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist.

Well, there seems to be two questions here that are being confused. IGotQuestions asks a objective question – “Is Christ Spiritually Present in Protestant Communion?” – and gets a subjective answer – “Yes, we believe in the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist.”

The question, of course, is not what people believe, but if what they believe (or perhaps, what they don’t believe*) is actually a reality. To answer the question in the OP, we need to first ask this questions “What is meant by Protestant”?

The reason for this is that the word ‘Protestant,’ though it was useful when first introduced, as it referred merely to those Christians who protested the Holy Roman Emperor’s enforcement of the Edict of Worms, restricting their religious freedom, it has now – especially among certain Roman Catholic apologists – become a meaningless catch all phrase that simply means ‘anyone who is Christian but which happens not to be Roman Catholic or Orthodox.’

Since this makes the question in the OP impossible to answer, I will stick to Lutheranism, and my own Church.

Traditionally, and by that I do not mean ‘in the olden days,’ a sacrament is deemed valid if it is performed by a valid valid minister (in the case of Eucharist, a properly ordained or consecrated priest or bishop), using valid matter (in the case of Eucharist, grape wine and wheat bread), with valid intent (, ‘to do what the Church does’facere quod facit ecclesia), using a valid form (a valid liturgy). Note that the intent is not that the priest or bishop must intend what the Church intends, or believe what the Church believes, just intend to do what the Church does. This is assumed valid by what he does (the valid form) and what he does it with (the valid matter).

To answer your question, then, Christ is present in any given ‘Protestant Communion’ if that is performed by a validly ordained or consecrated priest or bishop, using a valid liturgy and valid matter, with the intent to do what the Church does.

Is that to be found? I maintain that it is, but that has been discussed here several times already.

• What I mean by this is that personal beliefs – positive or negative – do not affect the objective character of a sacrament in any way, except, perhaps, the person’s receptivity of that sacrament. As Dom Gregory Dix put it, discussing the personal, and pretty radically Protestant, views of Cranmer and his people on the sacraments: “It is a commonplace of all theology, Roman or Anglican, that no public formulary can be or ought to be interpreted by the private sense attached to it by the compilers.” (Dom Gregory Dix, The Question of Anglican Orders (Dacre Press 1956): 30.)