Unity in the Eucharist?

[GKC]

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

No problem. Insert “some” before “Anglicans” for precision.

GKC, of the motley crew.

 

[Symphorian]

“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

I gather that the Primates, Archbishops and Diocesan Bishops of the Anglican Communion world-wide adopted the Agreed Statement and that whilst some Provinces sought clarification on certain points, no Province rejected the statement. The Agreed Statement was deemed ‘consonant with the Anglican faith’.

 

[benjohnson]

If I understand human nature, if there’s is going to by unity in the Christian church it will probably look a lot like Anglicanism - where varying practices (and perhaps dogmas) are generally tolerated under one umbrella.

For myself, I would say a understudying of the pivotal nature of the Eucharist would be a litmus test for a unified church. That could perhaps encompass some really traditional Calvinist thoughts (as I understand it) where the true body and true blood are not present on this earth, but the soul of the believer is moved to where it exists in the true blood and body are present.

 

[jrtrent]

I gather that the Primates, Archbishops and Diocesan Bishops of the Anglican Communion world-wide adopted the Agreed Statement and that whilst some Provinces sought clarification on certain points, no Province rejected the statement. The Agreed Statement was deemed ‘consonant with the Anglican faith’.

Thanks. As I read through the notes on the 1988 Lambeth Conference, it seems that the statement had already been discussed by the Provinces, then was discussed at the conference.

“While we respect continuing anxieties of some Anglicans in the areas of “sacrifice” and “presence”, they do not appear to reflect the common mind of the provincial responses, in which it was generally felt that the Elucidation of “Eucharistic Doctrine” was a helpful clarification and reassurance.”

I must be in one of the “low-church” branches of the Continuing Anglican movement. That there are great differences among Anglicans is shown rather clearly by the Affirmation of St. Louis, which stated, “We affirm that the Anglican Church of Canada and the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, by their unlawful attempts to alter Faith, Order and Morality (especially in their General Synod of 1975 and General Convention of 1976), have departed from Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.”

That document originally affirmed continued relations of communion with the See of Canterbury; however, a note was inserted by some Continuing Anglicans later that reads, “Because of the action of General Synod of the Church of England, Parliament, and the Royal Assent, the College of Bishops of the Anglican Catholic Church is obliged no longer to count the See of Canterbury as a faithful part of the Anglican Communion.”

I’m relatively new to Anglicanism, though what I heard enticed me enough to join. For me, Anglicanism is defined by the 39 Articles and the Books of Homilies referred to in Article XXXV, because that’s the kind of Anglican group I belong to. I’ve been shocked at some of the things I’ve read in this forum by Anglicans of a different stripe. My eyes are opening further as I read Marginal Catholics and bounce around in John Moorman’s book on the history of the church in England (two books recommended to me by GKC). It’s hard to believe that such diverse doctrines can exist in the same church, and perhaps the ongoing splintering of Anglican churches is an indication that it can’t.

 

[benjohnson]

If I understand human nature, if there’s is going to by unity in the Christian church it will probably look a lot like Anglicanism - where varying practices (and perhaps dogmas) are generally tolerated under one umbrella.

For myself, I would say a understudying of the pivotal nature of the Eucharist would be a litmus test for a unified church. That could perhaps encompass some really traditional Calvinist thoughts (as I understand it) where the true body and true blood are not present on this earth, but the soul of the believer is moved to where it exists in the true blood and body are present.

 

[GKC]

Thanks. As I read through the notes on the 1988 Lambeth Conference, it seems that the statement had already been discussed by the Provinces, then was discussed at the conference.

“While we respect continuing anxieties of some Anglicans in the areas of “sacrifice” and “presence”, they do not appear to reflect the common mind of the provincial responses, in which it was generally felt that the Elucidation of “Eucharistic Doctrine” was a helpful clarification and reassurance.”

I must be in one of the “low-church” branches of the Continuing Anglican movement. That there are great differences among Anglicans is shown rather clearly by the Affirmation of St. Louis, which stated, “We affirm that the Anglican Church of Canada and the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, by their unlawful attempts to alter Faith, Order and Morality (especially in their General Synod of 1975 and General Convention of 1976), have departed from Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.”

That document originally affirmed continued relations of communion with the See of Canterbury; however, a note was inserted by some Continuing Anglicans later that reads, “Because of the action of General Synod of the Church of England, Parliament, and the Royal Assent, the College of Bishops of the Anglican Catholic Church is obliged no longer to count the See of Canterbury as a faithful part of the Anglican Communion.”

I’m relatively new to Anglicanism, though what I heard enticed me enough to join. For me, Anglicanism is defined by the 39 Articles and the Books of Homilies referred to in Article XXXV, because that’s the kind of Anglican group I belong to. I’ve been shocked at some of the things I’ve read in this forum by Anglicans of a different stripe. My eyes are opening further as I read Marginal Catholics and bounce around in John Moorman’s book on the history of the church in England (two books recommended to me by GKC). It’s hard to believe that such diverse doctrines can exist in the same church, and perhaps the ongoing splintering of Anglican churches is an indication that it can’t.

You are in one of the low church branches of the Continuum, yes.

After the St. Louis meeting, the Statement of St. Louis was the opening of a process which hoped to establish a formal alternate Anglican Church that would (eventually) be recognized by the Anglican Communion. It was called (ironically) the Anglican Church of North America (having representatives from Canada). Ironically, because the current entity known as the Anglican Church in North America is aiming at the same thing. The original Anglican Church of North America fractured soon after its establishment, partially because of the range of doctrine brought over from the Episcopal Church (reformed/Anglo-Catholic, high/low, etc), though this range was less pronounced than in Anglicanism as a whole. The fractures were the origin of the Continuum, properly called. See Bess, DIVIDED WE STAND.

The note you quote cannot have been added by the Anglican Catholic Church to the original St. Louis Statement since the ACC was one of the follow-out Churches of the split of the original ACNA.

Historically, the flavors of official Anglicanism engaged in strenuous internecine strive, but did so within a fairly common umbrella of mere Anglican Christianity, as Lewis might have said. The disintegration began with the abandonment, in large part, of creedal Christianity.

And here we all are.

GKC

 

[TristanH]

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.

I do know that the Anglican church I attend has a Eucharist Adoration service, fwiw.

 

[GKC]

I do know that the Anglican church I attend has a Eucharist Adoration service, fwiw.

There’s another one.

GKC

 

[jrtrent]

The note you quote cannot have been added by the Anglican Catholic Church to the original St. Louis Statement since the ACC was one of the follow-out Churches of the split of the original ACNA.

Hmm, maybe it’s not the original Affirmation they have on their website. I quoted the relevant section below. It’s too bad they didn’t date it. It would be interesting to know just when they made that insertion.

The Continuation of Communion with Canterbury

We affirm our continued relations of communion with the See of Canterbury and all faithful parts of the Anglican Communion. [Note: Because of the action of General Synod of the Church of England, Parliament, and the Royal Assent, the College of Bishops of the Anglican Catholic Church is obliged no longer to count the See of Canterbury as a faithful part of the Anglican Communion.]

WHEREFORE, with a firm trust in Divine Providence, and before Almighty God and all the company of heaven, we solemnly affirm, covenant and declare that we, lawful and faithful members of the Anglican and Episcopal Churches, shall now and hereafter continue and be the unified continuing Anglican Church in North America, in true and valid succession thereto. anglicancatholic.org/the-affirmation-of-st-louis

Their website shows them to be linked with The Anglican Province of Christ the King and the United Episcopal Church of North America, but neither of those churches includes the text of the Affirmation at their websites. The latter includes this statement, “We maintain the Reformation heritage of the Anglican Communion, and in particular our clergy assent to the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion (1571/1801) as being in accordance with Holy Scripture. We also accept the Affirmation of St Louis (1977) as a roadmap to safeguarding our Anglican heritage.”

 

[GKC]

Hmm, maybe it’s not the original Affirmation they have on their website. I quoted the relevant section below. It’s too bad they didn’t date it. It would be interesting to know just when they made that insertion.

Their website shows them to be linked with The Anglican Province of Christ the King and the United Episcopal Church of North America, but neither of those churches includes the text of the Affirmation at their websites. The latter includes this statement, “We maintain the Reformation heritage of the Anglican Communion, and in particular our clergy assent to the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion (1571/1801) as being in accordance with Holy Scripture. We also accept the Affirmation of St Louis (1977) as a roadmap to safeguarding our Anglican heritage.”

The original part of your quote appears in the original Declaration (1977) in the second para. It does not have the added note. The Declaration is Appendix A in Bess’ DIVIDED WE STAND.

I used to be much better on the history of the Continuum, and probably won’t try to recover that. A draft copy of DIVIDED WE STAND, which is just such a history, was sent to a member of my parish, for vetting, and I read it before publication. Details are hard to recall.

The ACC and the APCK were originally 2 of the 4 Dioceses of the first ACNA. I don’t recall the original name of the ACC, as a ACNA diocese, but a schism from it formed the ACA. The APCK and the ACC were more Anglo-Catholic, the United Episcopal Church, though I’d have to research its antecedents, is more reformed/low. Such folk exist.

Complicated/confusing, ain’t it.

GKC

Note: even more so than I thought. While the original Declaration was as noted, a fast look at Bess seems to say that the ACC name came about as a change to the original ACNA name, before the organization split, the ACC portion as it exists now retaining that new name. Still no way I see that the added note was a part of the Declaration. I agree a date would be good.

Wow. Complicated.

 

[SteveVH]

If I understand human nature, if there’s is going to by unity in the Christian church it will probably look a lot like Anglicanism - where varying practices (and perhaps dogmas) are generally tolerated under one umbrella.

For myself, I would say a understudying of the pivotal nature of the Eucharist would be a litmus test for a unified church. That could perhaps encompass some really traditional Calvinist thoughts (as I understand it) where the true body and true blood are not present on this earth, but the soul of the believer is moved to where it exists in the true blood and body are present.

I don’t think the Calvinist view on the Eucharist would ever be remotely accepted by the Catholic Church. It is precisely Christ’s true presence in the Eucharist that makes it the source and summit of our faith.

 

[JonNC]

I don’t think the Calvinist view on the Eucharist would ever be remotely accepted by the Catholic Church. It is precisely Christ’s true presence in the Eucharist that makes it the source and summit of our faith.

Confessional Lutherans, such the LCMS, take precisely the same position, and we take some heat for it from the open-communion folks.

Jon

 

[Porknpie]

-]I don’t think/-] the Calvinist view on the Eucharist would never be -]remotely/-] accepted by the Catholic Church. It is precisely Christ’s true presence in the Eucharist that makes it the source and summit of our faith.

Steve, I just had to tweak the above…IMHO

 

[jrtrent]

I don’t think the Calvinist view on the Eucharist would ever be remotely accepted by the Catholic Church. It is precisely Christ’s true presence in the Eucharist that makes it the source and summit of our faith.

Nor would Calvin’s view be acceptable to most Baptists, who typically take a Zwinglian view of the Lord’s Supper. However, I saw a quote at one site by a Baptist who was also able to say that he believes “the Lord’s Supper . . . is the very heart of Christian Worship.”
internetmonk.com/archive/the-baptist-way-the-lords-supper

Good article on Calvin’s view here:
ligonier.org/learn/articles/calvins-doctrine-lords-supper/

 

[Porknpie]

Nor would Calvin’s view be acceptable to most Baptists, who typically take a Zwinglian view of the Lord’s Supper. However, I saw a quote at one site by a Baptist who was also able to say that he believes “the Lord’s Supper . . . is the very heart of Christian Worship.”
internetmonk.com/archive/the-baptist-way-the-lords-supper

Good article on Calvin’s view here:
ligonier.org/learn/articles/calvins-doctrine-lords-supper/

Excerpted from the article above. When Zwingli interprets the bible, removed from the Church upon which was written by, for and from he gets an understanding of the Lord’s Supper that would have shocked those whose writings compose the bible and the early Church that canonized the bible. How one can separate the bible from the Tradition from which it came is quite remarkable. For Zwingli to have espoused a symbolic, commemorative Lord’s Supper is to have created a new Gospel, one unheard of in the Church, both in apostolic tradition and in the Bible. “Presumptuous and Foolish” is to follow a Gospel different from what Christ taught the apostles and from what the apostles taught to their successors.

Unity can only occur when there is the proper understanding of Christ being present body, soul and divinity in the Eucharist…and not of a new Gospel where it is a commemorative meal.

Dr. Tom Nettles, professor of Church History at Southern Seminary, has an essay on “Baptists and the Ordinances” with a good summary of the classical Baptist view of the Lord’s Supper. Note especially Nettle’s comments on Zwingli’s so-called “bare symbolism.”

Baptists practice the Lord’s Supper in conformity with the Zwinglian view of its essence. John Gill states very simply that it is “to Shew forth the death of Christ till he come again; to commemorate his sufferings and sacrifice, to represent his body broken, and his blood shed for the sins of his people.” Any who desires to take it should examine himself to discern if he “has true faith in Christ, and is capable of discerning the Lord’s body.”
The emphasis on commemoration and representation reflect Zwingli’s interpretation of Scripture and his understanding of the distinctive idioms of human nature in conformity with the teachings of the Council of Chalcedon concerning the undivided person of the two-natured Christ. In his Exposition of the Faith sent to King Francis of France, Zwingli argued that “in the Lord’s Supper the natural and essential body of Christ in which he suffered and is now seated in heaven at the right hand of God is not eaten naturally and literally but only spiritually.” The Roman Catholic view of transubstantiation he contended was not only “presumptuous and foolish” but, more importantly, “impious and blasphemous.”
Though this view has been described as “bare symbolism,” for Zwingli it was no more bare than powerful spiritual meditation on the truths of the gospel. “To eat the body of Christ spiritually,” he explained, “is equivalent to trusting with heart and soul upon the mercy and goodness of God.” This meditation may become a spiritual feast and a means of renewed assurance and sanctification. Zwingli sought to make this clear to the Roman Catholic King Francis:
So then, when you come to the Lord’s Supper to feed spiritually upon Christ, and when you thank the Lord for his great favour, for the redemption whereby you are delivered from despair, and for the pledge whereby you are assured of eternal salvation, when you join with your brethren in partaking of the bread and wine which are the tokens of the body of Christ, then in the true sense of the word you eat him sacramentally. You do inwardly that which you represent outwardly, your soul being strengthened by the faith which you attest in the tokens.
The Supper may only be taken by those who are baptized. The major Protestant confessions agree on this…

 

[SteveVH]

Steve, I just had to tweak the above…IMHO

 

[SteveVH]

Nor would Calvin’s view be acceptable to most Baptists, who typically take a Zwinglian view of the Lord’s Supper. However, I saw a quote at one site by a Baptist who was also able to say that he believes “the Lord’s Supper . . . is the very heart of Christian Worship.”
internetmonk.com/archive/the-baptist-way-the-lords-supper

Good article on Calvin’s view here:
ligonier.org/learn/articles/calvins-doctrine-lords-supper/

Interesting. I would like to know what motivates that thought from a Baptist perspective of “the Lord’s supper”.

 

[SteveVH]

Excerpted from the article above. When Zwingli interprets the bible, removed from the Church upon which was written by, for and from he gets an understanding of the Lord’s Supper that would have shocked those whose writings compose the bible and the early Church that canonized the bible. How one can separate the bible from the Tradition from which it came is quite remarkable. For Zwingli to have espoused a symbolic, commemorative Lord’s Supper is to have created a new Gospel, one unheard of in the Church, both in apostolic tradition and in the Bible. “Presumptuous and Foolish” is to follow a Gospel different from what Christ taught the apostles and from what the apostles taught to their successors.

Unity can only occur when there is the proper understanding of Christ being present body, soul and divinity in the Eucharist…and not of a new Gospel where it is a commemorative meal.

Well said. Yes, the real problem is precisely the fact that Sacred Sripture has been divorced from the faith that produced it. The following quote seems appropriate:

Fr, Ronald Knox - Biblical inspiration and Protestantism
“For three centuries the true issue between the two parties was obscured, owing to the preposterous action of the Protestants in admiring Biblical inspiration. The Bible, it appeared was common ground between the combatants, the Bible, therefore, was the arena of the struggle; from it the controversialist, like David at the brook, must pick up texts to sling at his adversary. In fact, of course, the Protestant had no conceivable right to base any arguments on the inspiration of the Bible, for the inspiration of the Bible was a doctrine which had been believed, before the Reformation, on the mere authority of the Church; it rested on exactly the same basis as the doctrine of Transubstantiation.”

 

[benjohnson]

Confessional Lutherans, such the LCMS, take precisely the same position, and we take some heat for it from the open-communion folks.

Jon

Eek! I was wrong…

I’ve done some research and it seems that our Christian brethren who followed Calvin’s teaching seem to even removed from consideration what he was saying. As wrong as Calvin was, it least he did think what was happening was more than bread and wine.

 

[SteveVH]

Eek! I was wrong…

I’ve done some research and it seems that our Christian brethren who followed Calvin’s teaching seem to even removed from consideration what he was saying. As wrong as Calvin was, it least he did think what was happening was more than bread and wine.

Calvin left with the 5000 who could not accept Jesus’ teaching concerning eating his body and drinking his blood. To be honest, I can only imagine that I would have been part of the crowd that left as well, but Calvin had a lot longer to think about it and the true teaching of the Catholic Church which he chose to reject. In my way of thinking, Calvin’s idea of the presence of Christ is no more than me telling my brother in Houston that i will be with him in spirit on his birthday. He missed the mark by a long shot, IMO.