Unity in the Eucharist?

[SteveVH]

There have been more than a few threads that concern the unity of Christians. And while the topic has been addressed in these threads it is for the most part brushed aside. Attemptes are usually made to define the minimal standards on which all Christians must agree; the Trinity, belief in Jesus as one’s Savior, acceptance of God’s grace, etc…

It occurs to me, however, that the Catholic Church does not claim the doctrine of the Trinity as the source and summit of its faith, but rather the Eucharist. Yet this, most important of all things Christian, according to Catholic belief, is so easily dismissed. It is my contention that there will never be unity between Christians until there is unity in belief and practice of the Eucharist. It is, after all, the purpose of the Eucharist; to bring unity between God and man in Jesus Christ, which is the entire mission of the Church.

Is this a deal breaker as far as your faith tradition is concerned?

 

[Christy_Beth]

Going through RCIA several years ago (I entered the Church in 1997), I remember the class being told that if we go to some other Church other than Catholic, then we can’t receive their communion. Nor they in ours. This is because of the disparity of differences that come up here. Some Protestant churches don’t give out communion at every service. And I don’t know of any (correct me if I’m wrong) that consider it as the flesh and blood of Jesus. They may say it represents him, but that it isn’t him.

 

[SteveVH]

Going through RCIA several years ago (I entered the Church in 1997), I remember the class being told that if we go to some other Church other than Catholic, then we can’t receive their communion. Nor they in ours. This is because of the disparity of differences that come up here. Some Protestant churches don’t give out communion at every service. And I don’t know of any (correct me if I’m wrong) that consider it as the flesh and blood of Jesus. They may say it represents him, but that it isn’t him.

There are several that are very close to Catholic belief, especially Lutheran and Anglican (for the most part). They do proclaim to believe in the real presence but refrain from explaining it (thus most have a difficult time with Transubstantiation). Other than the liturgical Protestat communities, however, you are correct. The concept of a sacrament has (along with the authority to confect and administer one) been lost over the years since the Reformation and they are left with nothing more than symbols.

The question is, however, is the Catholic belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist the final stumbling block to unity with our separated friends?

 

[JonNC]

There have been more than a few threads that concern the unity of Christians. And while the topic has been addressed in these threads it is for the most part brushed aside. Attemptes are usually made to define the minimal standards on which all Christians must agree; the Trinity, belief in Jesus as one’s Savior, acceptance of God’s grace, etc…

It occurs to me, however, that the Catholic Church does not claim the doctrine of the Trinity as the source and summit of its faith, but rather the Eucharist. Yet this, most important of all things Christian, according to Catholic belief, is so easily dismissed. It is my contention that there will never be unity between Christians until there is unity in belief and practice of the Eucharist. It is, after all, the purpose of the Eucharist; to bring unity between God and man in Jesus Christ, which is the entire mission of the Church.

Is this a deal breaker as far as your faith tradition is concerned?

Not from a Lutheran standpoint. In fact, belief in the real presence is a major agreement between us, though we differ on how we express it.

prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_eucharist.html

Catholic and Lutheran Christians together confess the real and true presence of the Lord in the Eucharist. There are differences, however, in theological statements on the mode and therefore duration of the real presence.

In order to confess the reality of the eucharistic presence without reserve the Catholic Church teaches that "Christ whole and entire"34 becomes present through the transformation of the whole substance of the bread and the wine into the substance of the body and blood of Christ while the empirically accessible appearances of bread and wine (accidentia) continue to exist unchanged. This “wonderful and singular change” is “most aptly” called transsubstantiation by the Catholic Church.35 This terminology has widely been considered by Lutherans as an attempt rationalistically to explain the mystery of Christ’s presence in the sacrament; further, many suppose also that in this approach the present Lord is not seen as a person and naturalistic misunderstandings become easy.

The Lutherans have given expression to the reality of the Eucharistic presence by speaking of presence of Christ’s body and blood in, with and under bread and wine�but not of transsubstantiation. Here they see real analogy to the Lord’s incarnation: as God and man become one in Jesus Christ, Christ’s body and blood, on the one hand, and the bread and wine, on the other, give rise to a sacramental unity. Catholics, in turn, find that this does not do sufficient justice to this very unity and to the force of Christ’s word “This is my body”.

The ecumenical discussion has shown that these two positions must no longer be regarded as opposed in a way that leads to separation. The Lutheran tradition agrees with the Catholic tradition that the consecrated elements do not simply remain bread and wine but by the power of the creative Word are bestowed as the body and blood of Christ. In this sense it also could occasionally speak, as does the Greek tradition of a “change”.36 The concept of transsubstantiation for its part is intended as a confession and preservation of the mystery character of the Eucharistic presence; it is not intended as an explanation of how this change occurs37 (see the appendices on “Real Presence” and “Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist”).

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Going through RCIA several years ago (I entered the Church in 1997), I remember the class being told that if we go to some other Church other than Catholic, then we can’t receive their communion. Nor they in ours. This is because of the disparity of differences that come up here. Some Protestant churches don’t give out communion at every service. And I don’t know of any (correct me if I’m wrong) that consider it as the flesh and blood of Jesus. They may say it represents him, but that it isn’t him.

Lutherans do, as do Anglicans.

Jon

 

[SteveVH]

Not from a Lutheran standpoint. In fact, belief in the real presence is a major agreement between us, though we differ on how we express it.

Jon

Yes, a major agreement between us. Can you, as a Lutheran, imagine a unified Christianity absent the Eucharist?

 

[jrtrent]

Is this a deal breaker as far as your faith tradition is concerned?

Probably because I’ve been to so many different churches, I find myself pretty open to a wide range of beliefs, as long as they can be scripturally supported. For example, I was and am fine with the position of the Baptist church I attended as a kid that the Lord’s Supper is a purely symbolic ordinance rather than a sacrament, but it also doesn’t bother me to go as far as the position of my Anglican church which teaches that there is a real, though spiritual, presence of Christ, and that it is more than just a way to remember what Christ has done for us, but is also a means whereby God works in us to enliven, strengthen, and confirm our faith. I couldn’t go as far as transubstantiation; that would be a “deal-breaker” for me.

Lutherans do, as do Anglicans.

For Anglicans, at least those following the 39 Articles and the rubric on kneeling as found in the Church of England’s prayer book (and I know from this board that there are some Anglicans who don’t), there is a real presence but not in anything more than a spiritual sense.

Article XXVIII - Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner.

Rubric on Kneeling - yet, lest the same kneeling should by any persons, either out of ignorance and infirmity, or out of malice and obstinacy, be misconstrued and depraved: It is here declared, that thereby no Adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental Bread or Wine there bodily received, or unto any Corporal Presence of Christ’s natural Flesh and Blood. For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored; ( for that were Idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians and the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of Christ’s natural Body to be at one time in more places than one.

 

[SteveVH]

Probably because I’ve been to so many different churches, I find myself pretty open to a wide range of beliefs, as long as they can be scripturally supported. For example, I was and am fine with the position of the Baptist church I attended as a kid that the Lord’s Supper is a purely symbolic ordinance rather than a sacrament, but it also doesn’t bother me to go as far as the position of my Anglican church which teaches that there is a real, though spiritual, presence of Christ, and that it is more than just a way to remember what Christ has done for us, but is also a means whereby God works in us to enliven, strengthen, and confirm our faith. I couldn’t go as far as transubstantiation; that would be a “deal-breaker” for me.

For Anglicans, at least those following the 39 Articles and the rubric on kneeling as found in the Church of England’s prayer book (and I know from this board that there are some Anglicans who don’t), there is a real presence but not in anything more than a spiritual sense.

Article XXVIII - Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner.

Rubric on Kneeling - yet, lest the same kneeling should by any persons, either out of ignorance and infirmity, or out of malice and obstinacy, be misconstrued and depraved: It is here declared, that thereby no Adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental Bread or Wine there bodily received, or unto any Corporal Presence of Christ’s natural Flesh and Blood. For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored; ( for that were Idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians and the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of Christ’s natural Body to be at one time in more places than one.

Thanks for this. Sounds like the Anglicans are much further away from the Catholic position than are Lutherans. I feel like I should have known that.

 

[jrtrent]

Thanks for this. Sounds like the Anglicans are much further away from the Catholic position than are Lutherans. I feel like I should have known that.

But as GKC is fond of pointing out, there is a broad range of Anglicans, and I’m sure some are practically Roman Catholic in their view of the Eucharist.

Sorry about missing the “wink” in my quote. The text of the kneeling rubric has semicolons and parentheses together in ways that make those little faces pop up, and I missed one.

 

[GKC]

But as GKC is fond of pointing out, there is a broad range of Anglicans, and I’m sure some are practically Roman Catholic in their view of the Eucharist.

I had just typed the same thing.

GKC

 

[SteveVH]

But as GKC is fond of pointing out, there is a broad range of Anglicans, and I’m sure some are practically Roman Catholic in their view of the Eucharist.

Sorry about missing the “wink” in my quote. The text of the kneeling rubric has semicolons and parentheses together in ways that make those little faces pop up, and I missed one.

Okay. I was wondering how I could have been so far off.

 

[GKC]

Okay. I was wondering how I could have been so far off.

Depends on which Anglicans you are speaking of.

Lots of variety in Anglicans.

GKC

 

[PRmerger]

Probably because I’ve been to so many different churches, I find myself pretty open to a wide range of beliefs, as long as they can be scripturally supported.

Curious, this.

Are you open, then, to the beliefs professed by the Reverend Fred Phelps who uses Scripture to support his views that “God laughs when a f*g dies”?

(Note: he cites Psalm 2:4 to “scripturally support” this view.)

 

[gcnuss]

Lutheran doctrine is found in the Augsburg Confession:

Article X: Of the Lord’s Supper.

Of the Supper of the Lord they teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed to those who eat the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise.

 

[Christy_Beth]

Curious, this.

Are you open, then, to the beliefs professed by the Reverend Fred Phelps who uses Scripture to support his views that “God laughs when a f*g dies”?

(Note: he cites Psalm 2:4 to “scripturally support” this view.)

Geez, did you have to mention that horrible man? It’s bad enough that I have to try and ignore the man here. On the bus, I go right by his “Church.” He does, or at least used to, a lot of picketing around here. A couple of times he has even picketed in front of my church. He’s a horrible little man.

 

[Symphorian]

Summary of the Anglican-Roman Catholic Agreed Statement. (ARC-USA, 1994)
Taken from the Anglican-Roman Catholic joint statement on the Blessed Sacrament.
At the Lambeth Conference in 1988, the full joint statement was adopted as an official teaching on Eucharistic Doctrine for the Anglican Communion worldwide.

Summary:

We affirm that in the Eucharist the Church, doing what Christ commanded his apostles to do at the Last Supper, makes present the sacrifice of Calvary.

We affirm that God has given the Eucharist to the Church as a means through which all the atoning work of Christ on the Cross is proclaimed and made present with all its effects in the life of the Church.

We affirm that Christ in the Eucharist makes himself present sacramentally and truly when under the species of bread and wine these earthly realities are changed into the reality of his body and blood.

Both our Churches affirm that after the Eucharistic celebration the body and blood of Christ may be reserved for communion of the sick.

Episcopalians recognize that many of their own Church members practice the adoration of Christ in the reserved sacrament.

We affirm that only a validly ordained priest can be the minister who, in the person of Christ, brings into being the sacrament of the Eucharist and offers sacramentally the redemptive sacrifice of Christ which God offers us.

In the full Statement we read:

The elements are not mere signs; Christ’s body and blood become really present and are really given.

Through this prayer of thanksgiving [the Eucharistic Prayer] the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ by the action of the Holy Spirit, so that in Communion we eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood.

 

[JonNC]

Yes, a major agreement between us. Can you, as a Lutheran, imagine a unified Christianity absent the Eucharist?

It is hard to imagine Christianity, divided or not, without the Eucharist, or Baptism, or Absolution, or the word. But to answer your question, no. As Luther said, “ist ist ist.”

Jon

 

[jrtrent]

At the Lambeth Conference in 1988, the full joint statement was adopted as an official teaching on Eucharistic Doctrine for the Anglican Communion worldwide.

“The Resolutions passed by a Lambeth Conference do not have legislative authority in any Province, until they have been approved by the provincial synod of the Province concerned. The Lambeth Conference is not an executive which imposes doctrine or discipline but it is a forum where the mind of the Communion can be expressed on matters of controversy.”
archbishopofcanterbury.org/pages/lambeth-conference.html

The Lambeth Conferences have come up with many interesting ideas, but I don’t know where to find out which Provinces have actually accepted some of their resolutions. Do you know if their decisions are generally adopted by most Anglicans that have formal relations with the See of Canterbury? The little Anglican group I belong to is not in the Communion, and for reasons including some of the resolutions passed by past Lambeth Conferences that were adopted by the Episcopal church (if I’m remembering what GKC had mentioned in an older thread). I’m afraid there’s a pretty long list of Anglicans “not in the Communion.”
anglicansonline.org/communion/nic.html

 

[GKC]

“The Resolutions passed by a Lambeth Conference do not have legislative authority in any Province, until they have been approved by the provincial synod of the Province concerned. The Lambeth Conference is not an executive which imposes doctrine or discipline but it is a forum where the mind of the Communion can be expressed on matters of controversy.”
archbishopofcanterbury.org/pages/lambeth-conference.html

The Lambeth Conferences have come up with many interesting ideas, but I don’t know where to find out which Provinces have actually accepted some of their resolutions. Do you know if their decisions are generally adopted by most Anglicans that have formal relations with the See of Canterbury? The little Anglican group I belong to is not in the Communion, and for reasons including some of the resolutions passed by past Lambeth Conferences that were adopted by the Episcopal church (if I’m remembering what GKC had mentioned in an older thread). I’m afraid there’s a pretty long list of Anglicans “not in the Communion.”
anglicansonline.org/communion/nic.html

I am not sure that Lambeth has caused any movement to the Continuum, not that I can recall, but the RCIA statement does reflect part of the range of Anglican belief in this area. One that is certainly acceptable within the narrower range of Continuing Anglicans, if not without exception. Certainly Anglicans such as myself have no issue with it. I’ve served during a Eucharistic Benediction and Adoration myself.

GKC

 

[JonNC]

Lutherans do, as do Anglicans.

Jon

To my Anglicans friends, as one who often corrects when non-Lutherans speak for us, my apology for presuming to speak for you here. After all this time, one would think GKC’s message of “motley” would have stuck in my head a bit better.

Apologies,
Jon