The Episcapol Church and the Eucharist

[Servant1]

arnulf:

As a convert to Catholicism from the Episcopal Church, I have very much enjoyed the sophisticated discussion of the theological issues by Servant1 and others.

However, here is a practical example of how some Episcopalians view Real Presence: While assisting in the sacristy in the last Episcopal church I attended, I was instructed to pour the leftover consecrated wine back into the wine bottle, and to put the leftover consecrated hosts back into the container with unconsecrated hosts. This experience was pivotal and I was soon on a path that led into the Catholic church.

Arnulf -

That is a sad fact to have to relate, IMHO. While I do not doubt the veracity of it, I know that there are many Anglican/Episcopal churches in which such an action would have been held in as much disdain as you rightly held it.

But, as you note, that is evidence of the wide latitude in believs and practices that is part of the problem. Although, upon reflection, I must note from what I have read here on this forum about liturgical abuses - most of which I have fortunately avoided - I wouldn’t be at all surprised to hear the same story from a Catholic who spent some time in his/her own church’s sacristy

Kyrie eleison!

 

[GKC]

Servant1,

You:“Looking to the “39 Articles” is not particularly useful in other trhan a historical context. It is MY UNDERSTANDING that it is included in current prayer books as a historical document rather than as a definitive standard of current Anglican faith or praxis. I don’t have a personal inside track on the thinking when the newest prayer book was produced, but that is what I’ve been told by some that I believe know”.

Your understanding is quite correct. In the 1979 Prayer Book, the Articles are placed in a section titled " Historical Documents of the Church"; one of the few praiseworthy features I find in that book.

And you are correct that it is not a guide to Anglican praxis or faith. Indeed, it never was, Anglicanism being creedal, not confessional. The Articles are statecraft as religion; one of the means by which Elizabeth I decided to rule her decided unruly Church, ambiguously worded to permit a range of interpretation, binding on no one but the clergy of the CoE, and not Anglicanism in general, due to the Erastian nature of the CoE.

The Articles are a mixed bag, some of them being absolutely unexceptional, for me or for you. But no Anglican need worry about about them, one way or the other, save for those clergy caught in the Erastian situation. Given the historic range of belief in Anglicanism, I don’t doubt you can find those who affirm each and every one of them. But I also know of Anglicans who carefully excise them from their 1928 Book of Common Prayer and use them to kindle the new flame at Easter.

GKC

 

[Servant1]

GKC:

Servant1,

You:“Looking to the “39 Articles” is not particularly useful in other trhan a historical context. It is MY UNDERSTANDING that it is included in current prayer books as a historical document rather than as a definitive standard of current Anglican faith or praxis. I don’t have a personal inside track on the thinking when the newest prayer book was produced, but that is what I’ve been told by some that I believe know”.

Your understanding is quite correct. In the 1979 Prayer Book, the Articles are placed in a section titled " Historical Documents of the Church"; one of the few praiseworthy features I find in that book.

And you are correct that it is not a guide to Anglican praxis or faith. Indeed, it never was, Anglicanism being creedal, not confessional. The Articles are statecraft as religion; one of the means by which Elizabeth I decided to rule her decided unruly Church, ambiguously worded to permit a range of interpretation, binding on no one but the clergy of the CoE, and not Anglicanism in general, due to the Erastian nature of the CoE.

The Articles are a mixed bag, some of them being absolutely unexceptional, for me or for you. But no Anglican need worry about about them, one way or the other, save for those clergy caught in the Erastian situation. Given the historic range of belief in Anglicanism, I don’t doubt you can find those who affirm each and every one of them. But I also know of Anglicans who carefully excise them from their 1928 Book of Common Prayer and use them to kindle the new flame at Easter.

GKC

GKC - Your last line gave me a REAL big laugh! I love it - and thank you for the occasion of laughter!

I also appreciate your review of what I wrote - not just because you agreed with me - but because you gave it a look-see with another set of eyes and another brain and gave me the opportunity to be EITHER arrirmed or corrected.

Your whole post here said what I was trying to say - and said it very well. Thanks - I believethat will help illuminate others who had questions but who may have been confused by what I typed. The point aout Anglicanism being creedal rather than confessional is well made.

ALso - what a wonderful set of initials you have for a Catholic Christian!

Yours in His diakonia.

 

[GKC]

Servant1:

GKC - Your last line gave me a REAL big laugh! I love it - and thank you for the occasion of laughter!

I also appreciate your review of what I wrote - not just because you agreed with me - but because you gave it a look-see with another set of eyes and another brain and gave me the opportunity to be EITHER arrirmed or corrected.

Your whole post here said what I was trying to say - and said it very well. Thanks - I believethat will help illuminate others who had questions but who may have been confused by what I typed. The point aout Anglicanism being creedal rather than confessional is well made.

ALso - what a wonderful set of initials you have for a Catholic Christian!

Yours in His diakonia.

Servant1,

You are very welcome, and I also thank you for your posts, very informed, and irenically constructed. And I really have heard of fellow Anglo-Catholics who made just such constructive use of the Articles, not so much because there is so much in them that is contrary to the Catholic faith, but because the general image of them as in some definitive sense normative for Anglicans prompts that sort of corrective gesture. As you note, it is the sort of thing that gets remembered, which was the point.

I thank you again for your remarks, in the thread, and to me. I first posted to a board about 4 years ago, specifically to help some honest, but bewildered RCs on a RC board, who were struggling manfully with the maze that is Anglicanism, trying to fit in the Archhbishop of Canterbury as the Anglican Pope analogue and wondering whether Anglicans were more likely to offer dulia or hyperdulia to the Sovereign (part of the preceding is exaggerated).
I started posting then, and that board is now my home base. And nothing is as likely to get me to post as another chance, not to try to make folks think like Anglicans, but to show how Anglicans think.

Or maybe something related to Chesterton or Belloc or Lewis or others of my areas of book collecting. Your words there, about my choice of a board name, are most generous and certainly reflect how I see myself as an Anglo-Catholic.

Ah…you did know I was Anglo Catholic, yes?

Very nice to meet you.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[Servant1]

GKC:

Ah…you did know I was Anglo Catholic, yes?

Very nice to meet you.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

Well, I didn’t “know” it, but I seemed to put it together somewhat rationally It surely doesn’t surprise me. I enjoy the irenic tenor of your posts, as well. I think religion fora in general could do with a heftier dose of irenic thought prior to hitting the send key. I am grateful that is highly encouraged on this forum.

Meeting you is MY pleasure!

Charis kai eirene!

 

[GKC]

Servant1:

Well, I didn’t “know” it, but I seemed to put it together somewhat rationally It surely doesn’t surprise me. I enjoy the irenic tenor of your posts, as well. I think religion fora in general could do with a heftier dose of irenic thought prior to hitting the send key. I am grateful that is highly encouraged on this forum.

Meeting you is MY pleasure!

Charis kai eirene!

We are agreed on much.

GKC

 

[MiddleBear]

Pope Leo XIII has stated that the Anglican Communion has not maintained the Apostolic Succesion and does not have valid Holy Orders and Eucharist… The Vatican has reaffirmed this many times. Thus all the communities originating from the Protestant Reformation do not have the Eucharist as the Catholic Church does.

This remids me of a quote from Saint Pio…

Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since She alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blesed Sacrament.

St. Pio of Pietrelcina (Padre Pio)

 

[GKC]

MiddleBear:

Pope Leo XIII has stated that the Anglican Communion has not maintained the Apostolic Succesion and does not have valid Holy Orders and Eucharist… The Vatican has reaffirmed this many times. Thus all the communities originating from the Protestant Reformation do not have the Eucharist as the Catholic Church does.

.

Yes. That would be in Apostolicae Curae, in 1896. Anglicans don’t agree with it, and make various arguements against it. They get to do that. They’re Anglicans.

(snip)

GKC

Anglican

 

[Serafin]

GKC:

.

Yes. That would be in Apostolicae Curae, in 1896. Anglicans don’t agree with it, and make various arguements against it. They get to do that. They’re Anglicans.

(snip)

GKC

Anglican

Amen!

Serafin

 

[GKC]

Serafin:

Amen!

Serafin

And Amen.

OTOH, and though I don’t agree that the judgement in Apostolicae Curae was a valid one, (though not a totally illogical one), it is perfectly correct for the RCC to decide whose orders it will recognise as valid, and why. Certainly we Anglicans do. And when the Holy Father speaks in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, on a closely related subject, we listen.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[Serafin]

GKC:

And Amen.

OTOH, and though I don’t agree that the judgement in Apostolicae Curae was a valid one, (though not a totally illogical one), it is perfectly correct for the RCC to decide whose orders it will recognise as valid, and why. Certainly we Anglicans do. And when the Holy Father speaks in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, on a closely related subject, we listen.

GKC
Anglicanus Catholicus

1. It is certainly the prerogative of any Christian community to decide whose orders they will recognize! Of course when one thinks about the possible reunification of the Church, some of those judgements are less than helpful even if logical.
2. If Anglicans were to be more faithful to their own tradition, there would be little that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis would remind us of. As it is, I agree with you.

Blessings

Serafin

 

[GKC]

1. It is certainly the prerogative of any Christian community to decide whose orders they will recognize! Of course when one thinks about the possible reunification of the Church, some of those judgements are less than helpful even if logical.

1. If Anglicans were to be more faithful to their own tradition, there would be little that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis would remind us of. As it is, I agree with you.

Blessings

Serafin

Would that it were so.

But even if it were so, I’d still lend an ear to the Primate of the West, when he speaks to an issue of Catholic faith. Might not agree, but then, I didn’t agree with the Spongster, either.

GKC

 

[Servant1]

GKC:

but then, I didn’t agree with the Spongster, either.
GKC

THAT, my friend, is a sure sign of listening to the Holy Spirit!

Doe gratias!

 

[dutch]

1. It is certainly the prerogative of any Christian community to decide whose orders they will recognize! Of course when one thinks about the possible reunification of the Church, some of those judgements are less than helpful even if logical.

1. If Anglicans were to be more faithful to their own tradition, there would be little that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis would remind us of. As it is, I agree with you.

Blessings

Serafin

Serafin,

I really don’t care what you or anyone in the Episcopal Church thinks about the nature of your eucharist. You can believe anything you want. That’s what the Episcopal Church is all about.

Luckily, us Catholics don’t have to worry about this stuff because it isn’t up to us. The church is infallible in faith and morals and has figured it out for us. Transubstantiation is dogma of the church and is therefore true.

You can disagree but I’m supported by 2000 years of tradition and apostlestic succession. Your view are supported by a lose communion of churches who can’t agree to believe in anything. Your faith was started by a fat-king who killed his wives; ours is founded on the rock -Jesus.

Word of advice: Leave that religion of man and join the religion of God -the Catholic Church. If a homo-bishop who divorced his wife, women and openly gay priests isn’t a good enough reason to leave, nothing is.

 

[Servant1]

dutch:

Serafin,

I really don’t care what you or anyone in the Episcopal Church thinks about the nature of your eucharist. You can believe anything you want. That’s what the Episcopal Church is all about.

Luckily, us Catholics don’t have to worry about this stuff because it isn’t up to us. The church is infallible in faith and morals and has figured it out for us. Transubstantiation is dogma of the church and is therefore true.

You can disagree but I’m supported by 2000 years of tradition and apostlestic succession. Your view are supported by a lose communion of churches who can’t agree to believe in anything. Your faith was started by a fat-king who killed his wives; ours is founded on the rock -Jesus.

Word of advice: Leave that religion of man and join the religion of God -the Catholic Church. If a homo-bishop who divorced his wife, women and openly gay priests isn’t a good enough reason to leave, nothing is.

How gracious and inspiring and what a positive example for folks who might ever consider converting!

 

[GKC]

Greetings, Dutch,

I’m not Serafin and I hope I’m not intruding here.

You: “I really don’t care what you or anyone in the Episcopal Church thinks about the nature of your eucharist. You can believe anything you want. That’s what the Episcopal Church is all about.”

I’m not Episcopalian myself, I’m Anglican (can’t speak for Serafin), and, truth be told, we’re generally not overly concerned with what you think of our Orders/sacraments either (fair’s fair), except with respect to any (theoretical) reunion. Though Viscount Halifax admittedly had his feelings hurt, back in 1896.

You: “Luckily, us Catholics don’t have to worry about this stuff because it isn’t up to us. The church is infallible in faith and morals and has figured it out for us. Transubstantiation is dogma of the church and is therefore true.”

With respect to transubstantiation, you may very well be right. Certainly, I don’t argue against it myself. And, sure, Trent Session XIII, Canon 1 is correct.

You: “You can disagree but I’m supported by 2000 years of tradition and apostlestic succession. Your view are supported by a lose communion of churches who can’t agree to believe in anything. Your faith was started by a fat-king who killed his wives; ours is founded on the rock -Jesus.”

Well, apostolic succession is certainly at the heart of
Apostolicae Curae, to be sure, which decision Anglicans consider in error. As I said, Anglicans get to do that. And certainly you believe otherwise. If you didn’t, I’d remind you that you should.

As to Horny and Homicidal Hank and his Hormones, as the fons et origo of the CoE, 'tis a subject I’ve done a little reading on. Would be happy to talk history a little, with you, if you wish.

You: “Word of advice: Leave that religion of man and join the religion of God -the Catholic Church. If a homo-bishop who divorced his wife, women and openly gay priests isn’t a good enough reason to leave, nothing is.”

Couldn’t improve on your last sentence if I tried.

Nice to meet you, Dutch,and again I apologise if I was intruding.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus

 

[1ke]

Lttlflower24:

Does the Episcapol Church believe in the Eucharist the same way Catholics do? The reason for my question is this: There is an Episcapol “parish” in my neighborhood. It is named after a saint and the sign which posts the Sunday services reads, “Holy Eucharist 8:30 and 10:30 Sundays.” The word parish also appears on the sign, as well. I have heard the Episcapol Church referred to as “Catholic light.” I am most intrigued because by all outside appearances, this looks like a Catholic church, especially with the words Holy Eucharist being used to describe the Sunday services.

Ask 6 Episcopalians and you’ll get 7 answers. The problem is that the Anglican Communion is made up of a confederation of churches that do not all agree on doctrine-- and are free to have their own opinions. Therefore, there can be no definitive answer to this question. You have everything from “low church” (which is very much like Presbyterian or Reformed Church) to “high church” (which is more like Catholicism). You also have those who are self-proclaimed Anglo-Catholic who profess to believe as Catholics do-- without the Pope of course.

Regardless of what they may profess, someone else has already pointed out that only a validly ordained priest can consecrate the Eucharist-- and they do not have validly ordained priests.

 

[Serafin]

dutch:

Serafin,

Word of advice: Leave that religion of man and join the religion of God -the Catholic Church. If a homo-bishop who divorced his wife, women and openly gay priests isn’t a good enough reason to leave, nothing is

Thankyou very much for your charitable advice…but:

1. You are barking up the wrong tree, I am not and have never been Episcopalian, I am Anglican and part of the CEC.
2. I am a Christian and therefore already profess the religion of God - He certainly is not limited to any particular religious institution.
3. Would you have given the same advise to RC’s during the reign of pope Sergius and the Borgias?
4. Lets see…gay bishop in Episcopal liberal diocese far away …pedophile priests in the nearby parish! No thanks I 'll stay where I am for now.

Luckily, us Catholics don’t have to worry about this stuff because it isn’t up to us. The church is infallible in faith and morals and has figured it out for us. Transubstantiation is dogma of the church and is therefore true.

1. I am so glad its all figured out for you…such neatness I find a little disconcerting!
2. For the sake of clarity, could you please explain what “accidents” are and what relation if any they have to modern science?
3. Why does it taste like bread and wine?

You can disagree but I’m supported by 2000 years of tradition and apostlestic succession. Your view are supported by a lose communion of churches who can’t agree to believe in anything. Your faith was started by a fat-king who killed his wives; ours is founded on the rock -Jesus.

1. Thankyou for your permission to disagree, its one of the perks of being an Anglican that I am thankful for.
2. Fat kings are not the only ones with skeletons in their closets if history is to be believed.
3. As far as I am aware we are Christians not “Henrians”, our faith is in Christ alone. I am glad your faith is also founded on the same Jesus.

Blessings

Serafin

 

[GKC]

Greetings, Serafin,

I got a good net-friend who is a CEC priest and Tolkien expert. And there’s a small CEC church about 200 yards from my house.

Me, I’m Continung Anglican.

GKC

 

[JimO]

I hate to jump in late to a lengthy discussion, but I had to make a few comments. First, this thread has gotten rather ugly in places. Even if we differ, we’re all followers of Christ. Before sending a post, let’s ask ourselves “Would Christ be please with this?” I’m not trying to be self righteous because I sent a few humdingers to a couple of atheists on another thread - my bad!

Now to the point. First, I think that we can all agree that a spiritual truth is not going to change no matter how many people believe it is not so and visa versa. Therefore, if the Anglican Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ, then no volume of voices denying would change it. The converse is also true, if it is not, no fervent belief of many sincere believers will make it so. What this really comes down to is a question of authority and who has the authority to speak on behalf of the truth.

I’m a Catholic who has Anglican and Epscopalian friends. The one sincere concern that I have always had is that due to the reasons behind the formation of the Anglican Church (the sinful desires of a king) and Christ’s clear prayer to the Father after the Last Supper that we all remain one as He and the Father are one, the separation of the Anglican Church from the Catholic Church was not in accordance with this prayer. The separation was not in defense of truth, but to accommodate a king’s divorce. King Henry did not have the authority to make that decision, nor did the individual English bishops, nor even the body of bishops of England.

My question is, where did the Anglican Church get the authority to separate, and, subsequently, where does their authority come from to declare the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Christ?