The Episcapol Church and the Eucharist

[Flower_Charity]

The Anglican Communion has always held to the Historic Episcopate and its hierarchy has verifiable Apostolic Sucession despite RC claims. The CEC certainly has Apostolic Sucession and bishops whose role is to guard and proclaim the Christian faith. What we do not have… is any claim to having an infallible Pope. This RC claim, in my view, unfounded in Scripture and the tradition of the Undivided Church, is a major stumbling block in the road to unity among “catholic” Christians. As for the gates of hell …we agree they will not prevail against the Church… that includes us and all Christians.

Sarafin,
I think it’s great that you can appreicate tradition in your faith. Answer me this: what is your authority on matters of faith and morals? Is it based on private interpretation, or a confession of faith? You really need to stop looking at infalliblity as a stumbling block but as a cause of unity. you can’t have unity without an infallible teaching source. that is why we have a million fractions of christianity, everyone thinks their interpretation is correct. the only thing these separated christian churches have in common is that they don’t believe in papal infalliblity.

Luke 22:31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan desires to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for you, that your faith fail not: and when you are converted, you will strengthen your fellow believers.

John 17:20 "I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 21 so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. 22 And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one,

two things to note here: Peter is a cause for unity and that Jesus wants unity in his church. It seems to me that Peter and his succesors have been selected by God to have a role of authority and leadership in the church. You might interpret it differently. Do you see the problem? someone has to be right, or the truth can’t be known.

 

[Irish_Melkite]

Chief:

I do know that several minor Eastern Churches are now in communion with Rome, but the 4 big patriarchates (Jerusalem, Constantinople, Antioch and Alexandria) remain in schism.

ByzCath:

Actually, the Patriarch of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church full title is Patriarch / Batiryark of the cities of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem, of Cilicia, Syria, Iberia, Arabia Mesopotamia, Pentapolis, Ethiopia, of all of Egypt and the entire East, Father of Fathers, Pastor of Pastors, Bishop of Bishops, the Thirteenth of The Holy Apostles.

So you can see, there is a Catholic Patriarch of Antioch.

David,

Actually, that styling, which I think comes from an unofficial Melkite site run by a very nice, but sometimes overzealous lady on the West Coast, is a bit pretentious.

Chief,

The official title of my Patriarch, His Beatitude Gregorios III (Laham), is: Patriarch of Antioch and All the East, of Alexandria, and of Jerusalem of the Byzantine Melkite Greek-Catholics

Additionally, the patriarchal sees of both the Maronite and Syriac Catholic Patriarchs are also styled as being of Antioch.

The Coptic Catholic Patriarch is Patriarch of Alexandria.

There is also a Latin Rite Patriarch of Jerusalem (the only remaining Latin Rite Patriarchate that is not solely honorific).

In deference to the Ecumenical Patriarch, there is no Patriarch of Constantinople within the Catholic hierarchy.

There are actually 22 Eastern Churches and several of us would not deem ourselves minor, particularly the Byzantine Ukrainians (4.25M), the Syro-Malabarese (3.5M), the Maronites (3.0M), and the Byzantine Melkites (1.25M).

Many years,

Neil

 

[Serafin]

Flower_Charity:

Sarafin,
I think it’s great that you can appreicate tradition in your faith. Answer me this: what is your authority on matters of faith and morals? Is it based on private interpretation, or a confession of faith? You really need to stop looking at infalliblity as a stumbling block but as a cause of unity. you can’t have unity without an infallible teaching source. that is why we have a million fractions of christianity, everyone thinks their interpretation is correct. the only thing these separated christian churches have in common is that they don’t believe in papal infalliblity.

Luke 22:31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan desires to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for you, that your faith fail not: and when you are converted, you will strengthen your fellow believers.

John 17:20 "I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 21 so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. 22 And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one,

two things to note here: Peter is a cause for unity and that Jesus wants unity in his church. It seems to me that Peter and his succesors have been selected by God to have a role of authority and leadership in the church. You might interpret it differently. Do you see the problem? someone has to be right, or the truth can’t be known.

I do believe that our Lord desires unity, and that the Petrine ministry properly defined can be a point of unity among all Christians. However infallibility of the Pope apart from the Church and the bishops in Council seems to be beyond what the Lord intended.

As far as truth, the Church seemed to be able to ascertain it for a millenium before said dogma polarized Christianity even more…that had been the role of Ecumenical Councils whose authority most Christians accept to this day.

Also remember the role of the laity in knowing and maintaining Christian truth. During the iconoclast controversy it was lay people of the time that kept icons …the true keepers of Orthodoxy.

We do not believe in Papal infallibility because it is not true as far as we can tell. Had all of Peter’s sucessors given his example, or that of the present Holy Father we might not be in this present state…may God help us all.

Blessings

Serafin

 

[Serafin]

Hi Flower:

Answer me this: what is your authority on matters of faith and morals? Is it based on private interpretation, or a confession of faith?

The Holy Scriptures, where it is silent Catholic tradition, the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the Creeds of the Church and of course reason!

Blessings

Serafin

 

[Serafin]

the only thing these separated christian churches have in common is that they don’t believe in papal infalliblity.

Hi Flower:

You know that is just not true! Most separated Christians hold a set of core beliefs in common which can probably be summarized in the Creed. Even Baptists who are non creedal would affirm the statemets it contains. There is also a great deal we hold in common with RC’s, we are not a different religion from you, we are Christians. When so many of us disagree with you over this particular interpretation you have dogmatized…you should litsen!

Blessings

Serafin

 

[Catholic_Girl_9]

Serafin:

Hi Flower:

You know that is just not true! Most separated Christians hold a set of core beliefs in common which can probably be summarized in the Creed. Even Baptists who are non creedal would affirm the statemets it contains. There is also a great deal we hold in common with RC’s, we are not a different religion from you, we are Christians. When so many of us disagree with you over this particular interpretation you have dogmatized…you should litsen!
Blessings
Serafin
Serafin,

I disagree, most christians can’t agree on how to get saved let alone what to believe about abortion, stem-cell research, contraceptives,… etc. JW don’t believe Jesus was God. 7th day Adventist don’t worship on sunday. Some don’t believe in sacraments. We have things in common, but one thing all these separated christians can agree upon is that the pope isn’t infallible.

You still haven’t explained why you believe in the "Holy Scriptures, where it is silent Catholic tradition, the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the Creeds of the Church and of course reason! "

Catholics first believe in the authority of the church he died for, everything stems from that. It is obvious in scriptures and history that this church can trace itself back to Jesus himself.

Why would you believe in only seven ecumenical councils and not just the first three? Or why do you believe in Holy Scriptures and not the Koran? Reason doesn’t explain the trinity or the incarnation. You have to explain why you believe in all these things separately. It sounds to me you’re making up your own religion.

 

[Serafin]

Hi Catholic girl!

Serafin,

I disagree, most christians can’t agree on how to get saved let alone what to believe about abortion, stem-cell research, contraceptives,… etc.

If recent surveys are to be believed this includes most Roman Catholics as well! As far as to how to get saved … just ask your friendly neighborhood Evangelicals … I assure you you will get consistent answers!

I have yet to see a conservative, Bible based Evangelical Christian denomination say abortion is just a matter of “choice”. Be informed that more Evangelical Christians agree with your Churches stand on abortion than actual RC’s including prominent politicians. Contraceptives…well that is another matter!

JW don’t believe Jesus was God. 7th day Adventist don’t worship on sunday.

Please do not lump us all in the same category…

Some don’t believe in sacraments. We have things in common, but one thing all these separated christians can agree upon is that the pope isn’t infallible.

No, we have Jesus in common, the Virgin Birth, the death on the Cross for our sins, the Resurrection, the Ascention, the Holy Spirit and are all members of the body of Christ…yes we also hold in common that no man is infallible!

You still haven’t explained why you believe in the "Holy Scriptures, where it is silent Catholic tradition, the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the Creeds of the Church and of course reason!

"
For the same reasons we all should …I would suppose.

Catholics first believe in the authority of the church he died for, everything stems from that. It is obvious in scriptures and history that this church can trace itself back to Jesus himself.

The Church of Rome is but one of several Christian communities that can trace its origins to the church Jesus founded…that is obvious from history. No one has the authority to legitimize what God has not!

Blessings

Serafin

 

[Catholic_Girl_9]

If recent surveys are to be believed this includes most Roman Catholics as well! As far as to how to get

saved … just ask your friendly neighborhood Evangelicals … I assure you you will get consistent answers! I have yet to see a conservative, Bible based Evangelical Christian denomination say abortion is just a matter of “choice”. Be informed that more Evangelical Christians agree with your Churches stand on abortion than actual RC’s including prominent politicians. Contraceptives…well that is another matter!
Evangelicals and main line protestants can believe in completely different things when it comes to faith and morals. Many liberal protestants think abortion is ok, some do not. Some doubt the resurrection and the virgin birth. On salvation, some believe in predestination, others saved by faith alone, others believe you can loose justification. They may be all christian, but they all can’t be right. Who’s to say who’s right and wrong? You can’t answer this because basically every one of these groups believes in the right of self interpretation. Everyone is their own pope and church. This is scandalous to God and makes christianity less able to bring non-christians into the faith.

The Church of Rome is but one of several Christian communities that can trace its origins to the church Jesus founded…that is obvious from history. No one has the authority to legitimize what God has not

There is only one church, the Catholic Church who has been entrusted with the fullness of faith. This can be shown historically but this is another topic.

For the same reasons we all should …I would suppose

You haven’t answered this simple question because you can’t. You believe in the absolute right of self interpretation. This leads to fragmentation and division in the church. It all comes down to authority, either you accept it, or make yourself the sole rule of authority. i.e., you’re a protestant.

 

[Serafin]

Evangelicals and main line protestants can believe in completely different things when it comes to faith and morals. Many liberal protestants think abortion is ok, some do not.

The same can be said about liberal R Catholics my dear!

Some doubt the resurrection and the virgin birth. On salvation, some believe in predestination, others saved by faith alone, others believe you can loose justification. They may be all christian, but they all can’t be right. Who’s to say who’s right and wrong?

A little variety just spices up the salad, but I doubt any real Christians deny the Resurrection and Virgin Birth! Difficult as it may sound to you non RC Christians do have standarts for Orthodoxy basically contained in the Creeds! As for the rest and who has it just exactly right, God will let us all know when we see him. “In the essentials unity in the nonessentials liberty, always charity”.

On a positive note, the good old days of religious persecution and Inquisitions on the side of Protestants and Catholics are bygone… Aleluya. For that marvelous bonus it is worth putting up with a little heresy! Dont you think?

Everyone is their own pope and church. This is scandalous to God and makes christianity less able to bring non-christians into the faith.

Agreed, our divisions which began with the 1054 scism are sad and scandalous…and they affect Christian witness, may God help us and heal us. As far as “popes” you may be right, but you are the only ones with an “infallible one”.

There is only one church, the Catholic Church who has been entrusted with the fullness of faith. This can be shown historically but this is another topic.

I agree, the Church we are all made part of by the virtue of our baptism, as can be shown by Scripture and history.

You haven’t answered this simple question because you can’t. You believe in the absolute right of self interpretation. This leads to fragmentation and division in the church. It all comes down to authority, either you accept it, or make yourself the sole rule of authority. i.e., you’re a protestant.

Ouch! Ouch! well maybe so…! Do you think the Orthodox Protestant as well? They do not accept many papal perrogatives or the newer dogmas.

I have already stated that as a Christian I accept the testimony of the Holy Scriptures, the Councils of the Undivided Church, the teaching authority of the Bishops including the Bishop of Rome …what I do not believe is that any Christian is excluded from the right of interpretation of Scripture! Christ spoke to simple people not to theologians! Where “authority” contradicts or seems to contradict Scripture, Christians should be praying, reading, questioning, not bowing in submission!

" Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true" Acts 17:11

:bowdown:

Blessings

Serafin

 

[tudie]

Episcapols are a joke to me now. Gay marriage. Next will be pedophile marriage. Get real.

Sorry guys…I know you are having a real discussion here…but I just wanted to say that the whole “gay” thing is really just a perversion. I had a friend who was Eposcapol and she asked me to have sex. No Catholic friend ever pulled that filth.

Having gay marriages is like allowing men and women to cheat and say it is ok.

 

[Serafin]

http://home.comcast.net/~jture/corpus04/bened5.JPG

Anglican Church of the Advent- Adoration and Benediction

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Holy Eucharist- CEC Church of the Messiah

http://freepages.family.rootsweb.com/~dschafer/01062002t.JPG

Anglican Church of the Advent- Eucharist

Now, let me get this straight, despite the words of Jesus pronounced at the consecration, despite the prayer to the Holy Spirit to come upon the gifts of bread and wine, depite the Orthodox belief of these and other Episcopal - Anglican parishes…you believe their Eucharists are invalid and God lets them go through the motions?

Curious

Serafin

 

[GKC]

It’s Apostolicae Curae, Serafin.

All RCs must affirm that judgement.

Can’t blame them for following the rules.

Nice pics. The Church of the Advent is a CEC parish? Located where?

GKC.

 

[Serafin]

Hi there:

Yes but they are allowed to think and have their own opinions aren’t they?

I wish Church of the Advent was CEC! It is an Anglo-Catholic parish in New England. The bottom picture I mislabeled …sorry…is of the Anglican Chuch of the Epiphany ! Both may be still ECUSA. Church of the Messiah is CEC, nice celebration but not as grand.

Blessings

Serafin

 

[GKC]

Serafin:

Hi there:

Yes but they are allowed to think and have their own opinions aren’t they?

I wish Church of the Advent was CEC! It is an Anglo-Catholic parish in New England. The bottom picture I mislabeled …sorry…is of the Anglican Chuch of the Epiphany ! Both may be still ECUSA. Church of the Messiah is CEC, nice celebration but not as grand.

Not when the RCC has spoken, no. *Apostolicae Curae * is not an ex cathedra pronouncement, but it was reaffirmed not long ago. Given the goings on in ECUSA, I’m not surprised.

I have met RCs who are willing, nay glad, to look at the theoretical question of possible reevalaution of some Anglican Orders, esp. of the Continuing Anglican variety, but what the RCC saith, good RCs affirm.

Church of the Advent looks very nice. My parish, not so ornate, had Benediction earlier this month. Looked a lot like that, humeral viel, monstrance (and Blessed Body, of course).

And by coincidence, my parish is the Anglican Church of Epiphany. Definitely not ECUSA.

GKC

 

[Catholic_Girl_9]

Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true" Acts 17:11
How does this support sola scriptura? if anything it only supports the veracity of the Old Testament. The message here is not that the Bereans were more noble because they practiced the right of self interpretation but because they recieved the messege from the church with great eagerness. The gospel fullfils the old testament- called typology. They went back and read the old testament under the interpretation of the church, or what they recieved from Paul.

Those pictures are ok but why worship a piece of bread? If you don’t believe in transubstantiation, you’re worshiping bread and that is idolatry. Without valid orders, all the good intention in the world will not transform it into the body and blood of Jesus. (this is not to say that there may be some valid ordinations by orthodox or old catholics).

What I find amusing is that you’re trying so hard to be catholic without admitting Anglicanism/protestantism is inhieratrantly flawed. You’re not Catholic no matter how hard you try to look if you’re not in communion with the See of Peter. How many more anglican churches are there needed before you recognize nobody has the absolute right of self interpretation? People only have the right of interpretation in sofar that it dosn’t contradict the teachings of the Catholic Church.

p.s. contraceptives are always wrong, even in marriage, and there is no such thing as a divorce. Notice how not one anglican church teaches this - I wonder why???

Cyprian of Carthage "The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). … On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair cathedra

], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. *If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (*The Unity of the Catholic Church *4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

 

[ZoeTheodora]

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.

Funny you should mention that.

Many moons ago, as an undergrad, I spent a semester in Italy. During part of that time, we were studying Italian at the Universita per Stranieri in Perugia. One of our fellow students was an ex-Anglican clergyman, from England, who had converted to Catholicism and was now en route to Rome to study for the Catholic priesthood there.

He related a similar story, which was also the final straw for him: He saw the ladies of the altar guild pour the leftover consecrated wine down the kitchen sink! That incident impelled him out of the Church of England.

I’m a revert from High Church Anglicanism, and I’d like to add my two cents’ worth if I may. During the years I was Anglican, I could never take the High Anglican Eucharist completely seriously. I was never sure how I was supposed to regard it–or how I even did regard it–at least partly because I was well aware that Anglican belief about it was all over the map.

It all seemed terribly subjective to me: Was the Eucharist merely a symbol in a low-church parish like Christ Church (Zero Garden Street, Cambridge, Mass.) but literally Christ’s Body and Blood in a high-church setting such as Church of the Advent (Beacon Hill, Boston)? The same words were spoken over the elements in both settings; did the reality differ depending on whether the particular parish believed it was merely symbolic or the literal Body and Blood? Obviously not…so what was the truth? Absent a clear answer. I just couldn’t take the Anglican Eucharist all that seriously. It never crossed my mind to adore the Anglican sacrament, even when it was reserved (as it sometimes is in high-church parishes).

Moreover, certain words in the liturgy confused and bothered me. (I now realize they were elements of Zwinglianism which had crept into the original BCP.) Why, for instance, did the priest say, as he gave me the bread and cup, “feed on Him in your heart by faith”? That sounded like a dodge. I mean, big whoop–we can always feed on Him in our hearts by faith. But the Eucharist is supposed to be His objective Presence–an objective reality, not merely one appropriated subjectively “by faith.”

Anyway…hope this helps. Gotta run.

Blessings,

ZT

 

[Contarini]

:Those pictures are ok but why worship a piece of bread?:

Because it is the Body of Christ.

: If you don’t believe in transubstantiation, you’re worshiping bread:

Arguably that is true in some sense, unless of course we simply object to what we see as the philosophical baggage of transubstantation, which is true of many Anglicans (whether such objections have substance is another issue). But worshipping Jesus Christ in his natural body would be worshipping a hunk of meat, by that logic.

: and that is idolatry.:

Nonsense. If the bread and wine are the Body and Blood of Christ, then worshipping Christ under the forms of bread and wine cannot be idolatry. This is an artificial objection that some Catholics come up with because you can’t prove the necessity of transubstantiation by better arguments.

:How many more anglican churches are there needed before you recognize nobody has the absolute right of self interpretation?:

You make a great fuss about the fact that there are a number of tiny Anglican groups that are not part of the Anglican Communion. With all due respect to my friend GKC (quem omni honore saluto), all of the Continuing groups together might populate one diocese of the Anglican Communion. That is not to say that they are to be ignored or dismissed, only that to say “Anglicanism has split into hundred of groups” lacks perspective.

Besides, who said we believe in the absolute right of self interpretation (whatever that is)? Suppose you stop telling us what we believe, and let us tell you. Isn’t that common courtesy? Anglicans do not believe in an absolute right of self-interpretation. We don’t believe that any institutional embodiment of the Church (except for a General Council, but I would argue that there’s no way to define a General Council in advance so that turns out not to be an exception) is infallible, which certainly allows for more personal interpretation than in Catholicism. But it is anything but an “absolute right.”

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Catholic_Girl_9]

Besides, who said we believe in the absolute right of self interpretation (whatever that is)? Suppose you stop telling us what we believe, and let us tell you. Isn’t that common courtesy? Anglicans do not believe in an absolute right of self-interpretation. We don’t believe that any institutional embodiment of the Church (except for a General Council, but I would argue that there’s no way to define a General Council in advance so that turns out not to be an exception) is infallible, which certainly allows for more personal interpretation than in Catholicism. But it is anything but an “absolute right.”

I feel like i’m taking crazy pills when I read this. What does “there’s no way to define a general council” mean? Absolute right of self interpretation means you can believe whatever you want, especially in reguards to scripture. You’re not held to follow your church, or anyones elses when it comes to faith and morals. For example, if you’re obscure anglican church’s minister said “in light of tradition, you may not use contraceptives in marriage”, you wouldn’t be obligated to listen. You would just leave and go to a dfferent anglican church. There is no central authority!

You have no ultimate authority other than yourself on what you are to believe. You treat councils and the church as a cafeteria, picking and chosing what to believe. I bet your catechism is like two pages, that is if you have one. Nothing is defined.

Optatus of Milevus
“In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church” (*The Schism of the Donatists *2:2 [A.D. 367]).

 

[Catholic_Girl_9]

Schismatic Anglican Churches
African Orthodox Church
African Orthodox Church of the West African Orthodox Episcopal Church
American Episcopal Church
Anglican Mission in America
Anglican Province of Christ the King
Charismatic Episcopal Church Communion of Evangelical Episcopal Churches
Free Church of England
Free Protestant Episcopal Church
Reformed Episcopal Church Southern Episcopal Church
Anglican Church in America

Here are 13 different anglican churches not in communion with each other. Im sure there are a lot more.

 

[GKC]

ZoeTheodora:

Funny you should mention that.

Many moons ago, as an undergrad, I spent a semester in Italy. During part of that time, we were studying Italian at the Universita per Stranieri in Perugia. One of our fellow students was an ex-Anglican clergyman, from England, who had converted to Catholicism and was now en route to Rome to study for the Catholic priesthood there.

He related a similar story, which was also the final straw for him: He saw the ladies of the altar guild pour the leftover consecrated wine down the kitchen sink! That incident impelled him out of the Church of England.

I’m a revert from High Church Anglicanism, and I’d like to add my two cents’ worth if I may. During the years I was Anglican, I could never take the High Anglican Eucharist completely seriously. I was never sure how I was supposed to regard it–or how I even did regard it–at least partly because I was well aware that Anglican belief about it was all over the map.

It all seemed terribly subjective to me: Was the Eucharist merely a symbol in a low-church parish like Christ Church (Zero Garden Street, Cambridge, Mass.) but literally Christ’s Body and Blood in a high-church setting such as Church of the Advent (Beacon Hill, Boston)? The same words were spoken over the elements in both settings; did the reality differ depending on whether the particular parish believed it was merely symbolic or the literal Body and Blood? Obviously not…so what was the truth? Absent a clear answer. I just couldn’t take the Anglican Eucharist all that seriously. It never crossed my mind to adore the Anglican sacrament, even when it was reserved (as it sometimes is in high-church parishes).

Moreover, certain words in the liturgy confused and bothered me. (I now realize they were elements of Zwinglianism which had crept into the original BCP.) Why, for instance, did the priest say, as he gave me the bread and cup, “feed on Him in your heart by faith”? That sounded like a dodge. I mean, big whoop–we can always feed on Him in our hearts by faith. But the Eucharist is supposed to be His objective Presence–an objective reality, not merely one appropriated subjectively “by faith.”

Anyway…hope this helps. Gotta run.

Blessings,

ZT

Greetings, ZT.

The words of adminsitration, as found in the US 1928 BCP, which I’m guessing was where you heard them from, are a combination of those found in the 1549 and the 1552 Prayer Books. The 1549 represents the Henrician doctrine, and reflects the Real Presence. The 1552 is the step in a reformed direction that Cranmer *et all * brought about, and is ambiguous as you say. The 1559, which is what is found in all since, even Rite I in the in the 1979 thing, represent the most obvious example of the famous Elizabethan Compromise. The words of the 1549 Book are, “The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life”. This “The Body of Christ”, as you hear it. The following sentence, from the 1552 book, is totally ambiguous “Take and eat this, in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith, with Thanksgiving”. And that’s the compromise that Anglicans have lived with ever since.

Ladies who did what you report are not fit for the Altar Guild and require remedial cathechising, like RCs who practice ABC. But was the sink a piscina, communicating with consecrated ground? Not that that makes it right, just curious.

GKC