Question about the different understanding of Eucharist

[Inquiry]

I actually quite like the motleyism of Anglicans. I think there can be a multitude of views within a church, as long as the practical implications of worship remain the same. I don’t like the way the CofE is heading now, though.

Is the direction the CofE is headed unrelated to their motleyism, though? I don’t have an answer for that, I’m still trying to figure it out.

I would add this to your comment on the practical implications: By allowing for multiple possibilities of how Christ appears in the Eucharist, it creates a kind of buffet table feeling. It implies there are options about how we can receive him, which is a problem. Christ appears in the Eucharist as he appears, we cannot presume he changes to match the beliefs of those receiving.

That’s probably not an issue for someone who says something like “Consubstantiation makes the most sense to me but I joyfully receive you, Christ, however you appear.” It’s significantly more of an issue if someone says or adds “…but it can’t possibly be Transubstantiation, that’s revolting.” (Insert appropriate understandings or rejections of the Eucharist in the italicized sections). That closes off how they will accept him, which is a problem if that’s how he appears.

 

[BohemianBrother]

You’re right and you I think you hit the nail on its head with this. We cannot presume He changes to the beliefs of those receiving and we can also never truly comprehend how that happens. I think we could gain more respect and appreciation of each tradition through this. I always try look at the implications. Simply put: any explanation which leads to more faithful life and to God has something to it. I sincerely don’t care how you call your doctrine, if you believe there’s really Jesus in there and you act according to it, I can have no objection, because I don’t presume I totally understand it.

However I cannot stand simple memorialism. You can commemorate His sacrifice any time. Depriving oneself of the Sacrament is neither safe nor correct.

And to the motleyism. Of course it causes problems. I don’t think it’s the only cause though, plenty of traditions which were not motley got infected with theological liberalism.

 

[GKMotley]

To recognize the motleydom of Anglicans, as I do, is merely to be descriptive, not approbative.

What’s wrong with the CoE’s current direction?

 

[BohemianBrother]

Motleydom is fine for me, just within certain bounds. For example, the ordination of women and same sex blessings is a step too far. I don’t actually live there, so I don’t claim to perfectly know the situation in the pews in an ordinary country parish.

Otherwise, I love the idea of one day stepping to a low church evangelical service with all the vibrant community and a long comprehensive sermon, and then going to a high church mass on the same day, with all the splendour and solemn reverence for God, and all that within a single church body. That’s where being motley sounds great for me.

(Of course back here in Continental Europe we don’t really have anything like that. It’s just what I heard from my friends and read - I am quite sure I’m not right in everything!)

I understand you might not share my idealistic view!

 

[GKMotley]

As you state it, I don’t have an issue. Anglicanism has had a spectrum of doctrine, under a general umbrella of mere Christianity, ab intio. I chose high church/Anglo-Catholic, exclusively. But in Anglicanism in general, the umbrella of historic orthodoxy is gone. You mention two such points. Motleydom has spread to the roots of belief.

I got idealistic ideas of my own.

 

[mcq72]

His loyal followers

You mean like Judas ? They were loyally following Jesus as what? Miracle man, Bread feeder, Rome ouster ?

 

[mcq72]

Notice that Christ did not say “Hey, come back, you misunderstand! I am speaking symbolically!!”.

Notice Christ did not say, " Hey, come back, you misunderstand! I am speaking about an unbloody eating and drinking."

 

[mcq72]

No, He turned to those who remained and said “Will you also leave me?”

To which they (Peter) replied, " You are the Son of God, and have the flesh and blood of eternal life."?

Or was it “words” of eternal life?

Upon such confession of faith in Christ, Jesus rested His case, mission acomplished, a sort of separating goats from the sheep.

As Augustine wrote, leave your teeth and bellies behind and eat as Peter ate, with such a confession of faith.

 

[TheLittleLady]

As a protestant, I would not expect you to hold the belief in the Real Presence. I will pray that someday we may all come to the same understanding.

 

[BohemianBrother]

Yes, we should leave our bellies behind, the flesh of our Lord is here as our spiritual nourishment, we don’t eat it so that we are not physically hungry, but because we want to bring Jesus inside us and us to Him.

The Eucharist is not a simple thing. If Jesus didn’t mean flesh and blood, He probably wouldn’t repeat it so many times. I don’t really understand how it could be a simple symbolical commemoration. “Look, Jesus died on the cross just like this bread is chewed in your mouth, remember it!” And how would that connect to receiving unworthily?

Of course it is still called the bread and the cup of wine in other places of the Bible, so I think it isn’t unreasonable to prefer a little different description than outright transsubstantiation.

It is always better to be safe than sorry. In this case you could be very sorry.

What is your position anyway?