Unity in the Eucharist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SteveVH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
joe370 said:
The bold part is spot on in my opinion, specifically the sacrifice of the Mass, something believed by no one in the non-Catholic sphere.
Click to expand...
Really?

And yet you know that Anglicans are a motley crew.

OTOH, I don’t consider Anglicans such as myself in the non-Catholic sphere so, maybe you are correct

GKC
 
GKC said:
Really?

And yet you know that Anglicans are a motley crew.

OTOH, I don’t consider Anglicans such as myself in the non-Catholic sphere so, maybe you are correct

GKC
Click to expand...
Anglo Catholic?
 
JonNC said:
Mary,
There are different human expressions of the real presence, but only one real presence.

Jon
Click to expand...
Pretty sure that is what she means. That is what I meant but just used bad wording. 🤷
 
JonNC said:
I gottcha, pop. Again, I want things to be quite clear about Lutheran belief on the matter of the real presence.

Jon
Click to expand...
Jon…Does it very any between each Synod?

Luther’s conclusion was not that the bread actually becomes the physical body of Christ, but that the physical body of Christ is present ‘in, with, and under’ the bread of the Lord’s Supper.

Consider also Robert Reymond in his A New Systematic of the Christian Faith (note the heading and then the first statement which follows):
  • “The Lutheran View—Consubstantiation
While Lutherans do not call their view ‘consubstantiation’ or ‘with the substance,

Lutherans, following Luther who was concerned that the ordinance was being trivialized into an empty symbol by Zwingli, teach that while the bread and wine remain bread and wine, yet Christ, through a real physical union with the elements, is really corporally present ‘in, with, and under’ the bread and wine.” (960)*

Is that fair to say on his behalf? I only have the ELCA and LCMC view of the Eucharist. 🤷
 
joe370 said:
The bold part is spot on in my opinion, specifically the sacrifice of the Mass, something believed by no one in the non-Catholic sphere.
Click to expand...
Are you sure?

Two Anglican Divines on the Eucharistic Sacrifice:

++John Bramhall…

‘You say we have renounced your Sacrifice of the Mass. If the Sacrifice of the Mass be the same with the same Sacrifice of the Cross, we attribute more unto it than yourselves; we place the whole hope of salvation on it.’

(Answer to M. de la Milletiere)

++John Bramhall…

‘We acknowledge an Eucharistical Sacrifice…a re-presentative Sacrifice, or a re-presentation of the Passion of Christ before the eyes of His Heavenly Father…an aplllicative Sacrifice, or an application of His Merits unto our souls. Let him that dare go one step further than we do; and say that it is a suppletory sacrifice, to supply the defects of the Sacrifice of the Cross. Or else let them hold their peace and speak no more against us in this point of sacrifice for ever.’

(Bramhall’s Replication)

+Jeremy Taylor…

‘There He sits, a High Priest continually, and offers still the same one perfect Sacrifice; that is. still represents it as having once finished and consummate, in order to perpetual and never failing events. And this also His ministers do on earth. They offer up the same Sacrifice to God, the Sacrifice of the Cross…Our very holding up the Son of God and re-presenting Him to His Father is the doing an act of mediation and advantage to ourselves in the virtue and efficacy of the Mediator. As Christ is a Priest in Heaven forever and yet does not sacrifice Himself afresh nor yet without a Sacrifice could he be a Priest, but by a daily ministration and intercession re-presents His Sacrifice to God and offers Himself as sacrificed, so he does upon earth by the ministry of His servants. He is offered to God; that is, He is by prayers and the Sacrament re-presented or offered up to God as sacrificed, which in effect is a celebration of His Death, and the applying it to the present and future necessities of the Church…It is ministerially and by application and instrument propitiatory; it is eucharistical; it is an homage and an act of adoration; and it is impetratory and obtains for us and the whole Church all the benefits of the Sacrifice, which is now celebrated and applied.’

(The Great Exemplar)
 
GKC said:
Anglicanus-Catholicus, as I often say.

And the Eucharist is the re-presentaion of the One Sacrifice, as time and eternity intersect at the altar, at the hands of the *alter-Christus *.

GKC
Click to expand...
Ahh ok…Half of my family are Anglo-Catholic that are not in full communion with Rome! I have not had the chance to attend a Mass with them as of now. It will be wonderful when I am able to make it back down. Now we can all partake in Holy Eucharist!
 
aidanbradypop said:
Ahh ok…Half of my family are Anglo-Catholic that are not in full communion with Rome! I have not had the chance to attend a Mass with them as of now. It will be wonderful when I am able to make it back down. Now we can all partake in Holy Eucharist!
Click to expand...
I’m not sure how you are using “Anglo-Catholic” here. It is a term used for a portion of the Anglican community who are influenced by, among other things, the Tractarians and the Ritualist movements in the Church of England in the 19th century. It does not mean “in communion with Rome”, though I have seen folks who were in the Anglican Use, and some who have joined the Ordinariate, use it in that sense. How can you all partake of the Eucharist now?

I am not in communion with Rome. And yet I affirm the sacrifice in the Eucharist.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus, posterus traditus Anglicanus
 
GKC said:
No, you misunderstand the term Anglo-Catholic. It is a term used for a portion of the Anglican community who are influenced by, among other things, the Tractarians and the Ritualist movements in the Church of England in the 19th century. It does not mean “in communion with Rome”, though I have seen folks who were in the Anglican Use, and some who have joined the Ordinariate, use it in that sense.

Which is to say, I am not in communion with Rome. And yet I affirm the sacrifice in the Eucharist.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus, posterus traditus Anglicanus
Click to expand...
No you misunderstood me 😉

Many in my family were part of the Anglican Communion in the Anglo-Catholic Church. They have now since joined the Ordinariate and have come into full communion with Rome. 🙂
 
aidanbradypop said:
No you misunderstood me 😉

Many in my family were part of the Anglican Communion in the Anglo-Catholic Church. They have now since joined the Ordinariate and have come into full communion with Rome. 🙂
Click to expand...
I see. Not being sure of what you had meant, I changed my post. But I see what you are saying now.

But I am not sure what the Anglo-Catholic Church is. Is it a formal jurisdiction, like the Anglican Catholic Church? Or are you referring to the Anglican Catholic Church? They were the Continuing Anglicans most associated with formal union with the RCC, as was made possible through the Ordinariate.
GKC
 
GKC said:
I see. Not being sure of what you had meant, I changed my post. But I see what you are saying now.

But I am not sure what the Anglo-Catholic Church is. Is it a formal jurisdiction, like the Anglican Catholic Church? Or are you referring to the Anglican Catholic Church? They were the Continuing Anglicans most associated with formal union with the RCC, as was made possible through the Ordinariate.
GKC
Click to expand...
Yes.

Anglo-Catholic, Anglican Catholic or Catholic Anglican. lol
 
GKC said:
I’m not sure how you are using “Anglo-Catholic” here. It is a term used for a portion of the Anglican community who are influenced by, among other things, the Tractarians and the Ritualist movements in the Church of England in the 19th century. It does not mean “in communion with Rome”, though I have seen folks who were in the Anglican Use, and some who have joined the Ordinariate, use it in that sense. How can you all partake of the Eucharist now?

I am not in communion with Rome. And yet I affirm the sacrifice in the Eucharist.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus, posterus traditus Anglicanus
Click to expand...
GKS I really enjoy your posts. I don’t comment much because I don’t really know
Anglicans I speak to about doctrine so I am learning more.
Peace,
Mary.
 
GKC said:
I see. Not being sure of what you had meant, I changed my post. But I see what you are saying now.

But I am not sure what the Anglo-Catholic Church is. Is it a formal jurisdiction, like the Anglican Catholic Church? Or are you referring to the Anglican Catholic Church? They were the Continuing Anglicans most associated with formal union with the RCC, as was made possible through the Ordinariate.
GKC
Click to expand...
GKC,

I’ve come across websites in which Anglicans who have entered Communion with Rome are calling themselves Anglican Catholic. It’s confusing.

Anna
 
Symphorian said:
Are you sure?

Two Anglican Divines on the Eucharistic Sacrifice:

++John Bramhall…

‘You say we have renounced your Sacrifice of the Mass. If the Sacrifice of the Mass be the same with the same Sacrifice of the Cross, we attribute more unto it than yourselves; we place the whole hope of salvation on it.’

(Answer to M. de la Milletiere)

++John Bramhall…

‘We acknowledge an Eucharistical Sacrifice…a re-presentative Sacrifice, or a re-presentation of the Passion of Christ before the eyes of His Heavenly Father…an aplllicative Sacrifice, or an application of His Merits unto our souls. Let him that dare go one step further than we do; and say that it is a suppletory sacrifice, to supply the defects of the Sacrifice of the Cross. Or else let them hold their peace and speak no more against us in this point of sacrifice for ever.’

(Bramhall’s Replication)

+Jeremy Taylor…

‘There He sits, a High Priest continually, and offers still the same one perfect Sacrifice; that is. still represents it as having once finished and consummate, in order to perpetual and never failing events. And this also His ministers do on earth. They offer up the same Sacrifice to God, the Sacrifice of the Cross…Our very holding up the Son of God and re-presenting Him to His Father is the doing an act of mediation and advantage to ourselves in the virtue and efficacy of the Mediator. As Christ is a Priest in Heaven forever and yet does not sacrifice Himself afresh nor yet without a Sacrifice could he be a Priest, but by a daily ministration and intercession re-presents His Sacrifice to God and offers Himself as sacrificed, so he does upon earth by the ministry of His servants. He is offered to God; that is, He is by prayers and the Sacrament re-presented or offered up to God as sacrificed, which in effect is a celebration of His Death, and the applying it to the present and future necessities of the Church…It is ministerially and by application and instrument propitiatory; it is eucharistical; it is an homage and an act of adoration; and it is impetratory and obtains for us and the whole Church all the benefits of the Sacrifice, which is now celebrated and applied.’

(The Great Exemplar)
Click to expand...
👍 👍
 
SteveVH said:
Anna, thanks for all your posts. I realize that there are many Anglicans who are very close in belief to the Catholic postition. It seems, however that there are many who don’t hold this view.

While I am not surprised that it has been those in the liturgical fatith traditions which have responed, I was hoping to hear more from the Evangelical/Fundamentalist crowd as far as a jusification for rejecting the Eucharist. The idea for the thread came as a result of many non-Catholic statements on other threads that seem to place the Eucharist in the non-essential column as far as what it means to be a Christian.

It seems we have not heard from any of these folks thus far. To the Catholic, the Eucharist is so essential that we would not have a Church without it. That seems to be a pretty wide gulf to cross before unity can be considered.
Click to expand...
Anna_Scott said:
Steve,
I hope they will enter the discussion. For some reason, it’s difficult to find Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christians willing to engage in discussion regarding the Eucharist, especially when John Chapter 6 is on the table.

Back in Feb. of 2010, I started a thread entitled, Baptists, Does Scripture point to the Catholic Lord’s Supper/Eucharist?. As you know, many of my posts over the last 4 years read like a diary of my spiritual journey (which is still in progress). I did start as a Southern Baptist. Seems like a Century ago.

As I stated in my last post on the Baptist/Eucharist thread, “I gave an invitation to Baptists to discuss John Chapter 6. Sadly, only one Baptist actually posted on this Thread, and he did not address John Chapter 6.”

I was very disappointed, but remain hopeful for this thread. 🙂
Click to expand...
Hoping for more Protestant Participation, as is our OP.

Anna
 
Anna_Scott said:
GKC,

I’ve come across websites in which Anglicans who have entered Communion with Rome are calling themselves Anglican Catholic. It’s confusing.

Anna
Click to expand...
Its not really confusing. If the LCMS ever decided to come into full communion with Rome, I am pretty sure they would call themselves Evangelical Catholic. Just a hunch 🤷

The Anglo or Anglican Catholics that joined in full communion with Rome were Anglo Catholics just as you are and GKC. 😉 They just decided for full communion with the Holy See is all.

M uncle explains it as Catholic in faith and Anglican in patrimony
 
aidanbradypop said:
Its not really confusing. If the LCMS ever decided to come into full communion with Rome, I am pretty sure they would call themselves Evangelical Catholic. Just a hunch 🤷

The Anglo or Anglican Catholics that joined in full communion with Rome were Anglo Catholics just as you are and GKC. 😉 They just decided for full communion with the Holy See is all.

M uncle explains it as Catholic in faith and Anglican in patrimony
Click to expand...
aidanbradypop,

My Irish Catholic friend, I applaud your understanding and clarity in description. :clapping:

Anna
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top