Valid sacraments

[joanofarc2008]

OK back to the Eucharist question -

If we are speaking about the Anglicans and the Lutherans - their doctrine/dogma (and I had this explained so despite the individual thinks this is what their Churches believe) do believe in the real presence however they believe in consubstantiation not transubstantiation. This means that while we believe and the Orthodox believe that at the Mass the priest in persono Christi changes the bread into the flesh and the wine into the Precious Blood they believe that the bread and the wine actually become spiritutually the same being in two places. Pay attention to this word - you will see it again in the new translation used correctly in the Nicene Creed. The point of what I am saying is that due to this belief these faiths are still taking spiritually and not physically despite what they may believe due to the intent of the priest and the Church doing the consecration.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

OK back to the Eucharist question -

If we are speaking about the Anglicans and the Lutherans - their doctrine/dogma (and I had this explained so despite the individual thinks this is what their Churches believe) do believe in the real presence however they believe in consubstantiation not transubstantiation. This means that while we believe and the Orthodox believe that at the Mass the priest in persono Christi changes the bread into the flesh and the wine into the Precious Blood they believe that the bread and the wine actually become spiritutually the same being in two places. Pay attention to this word - you will see it again in the new translation used correctly in the Nicene Creed. The point of what I am saying is that due to this belief these faiths are still taking spiritually and not physically despite what they may believe due to the intent of the priest and the Church doing the consecration.

Just a couple of things. A priest acts in persona Christi.

Also, while Lutherians and Anglicians may believe this, consubstantiation, they do not have a valid priesthood to confect the Eucharish.

I also believe that consubstantiation states that the Eucharist ceases to be the Eucharist at the end of the Mass. That it only retains the Divine presence during the Mass and becomes regular bread and wine at the conclusion of the Mass, this is why it is not retained afterwards the way Catholics and Orthodox do.

 

[joanofarc2008]

Just a couple of things. A priest acts in persona Christi.

Also, while Lutherians and Anglicians may believe this, consubstantiation, they do not have a valid priesthood to confect the Eucharish.

I also believe that consubstantiation states that the Eucharist ceases to be the Eucharist at the end of the Mass. That it only retains the Divine presence during the Mass and becomes regular bread and wine at the conclusion of the Mass, this is why it is not retained afterwards the way Catholics and Orthodox do.

Thank you my Latin was misspelled:

1548 In the ecclesial service of the ordained minister, it is Christ himself who is present to his Church as Head of his Body, Shepherd of his flock, high priest of the redemptive sacrifice, Teacher of Truth. This is what the Church means by saying that the priest, by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, acts in persona Christi Capitis:23

It is the same priest, Christ Jesus, whose sacred person his minister truly represents. Now the minister, by reason of the sacerdotal consecration which he has received, is truly made like to the high priest and possesses the authority to act in the power and place of the person of Christ himself (virtute ac persona ipsius Christi).24

This does also serve to show the importance of the Holy Orders as well. Secondly I did not want to necessarily take away from the argument that the Anglicans and Lutherans did not have valid Holy Orders - they do not and I apologize as this was not my intent - but merely to add that even if they did reinstate their Holy Orders - unless their dogma/doctrine were also to change then they do not have the same Real Presence. That was very interesting information about the bread changing back after mass. It leaves to wonder how Anglicans attempt adoration?

 

[Phemie]

Just a couple of things. A priest acts in persona Christi.

Also, while Lutherians and Anglicians may believe this, consubstantiation, they do not have a valid priesthood to confect the Eucharish.

I also believe that consubstantiation states that the Eucharist ceases to be the Eucharist at the end of the Mass. That it only retains the Divine presence during the Mass and becomes regular bread and wine at the conclusion of the Mass, this is why it is not retained afterwards the way Catholics and Orthodox do.

I think the Lutherans believe that but not the Anglicans since they do reserve what they believe to be the Blessed Sacrament in tabernacles in their churches.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I think the Lutherans believe that but not the Anglicans since they do reserve what they believe to be the Blessed Sacrament in tabernacles in their churches.

Do all Anglicans reserve it? Both High and Low Church? There is a wide disparity of belief within the Anglican Communion.

 

[Phemie]

Do all Anglicans reserve it? Both High and Low Church? There is a wide disparity of belief within the Anglican Communion.

I’m not sure I know the difference between High and Low Church. The local Anglican community’s communion service, which I’ve only attended once and where the celebrant was the Primate of the Anglican Church in Canada, is as I recall almost identical to our Mass with the exception of the position of the Sign of Peace. They have a tabernacle in their church and reserve.

When the Chaplain on the military Base was an Anglican, he had an Adoration Chapel built and there, too, there was a tabernacle and reservation. He was a former Catholic so that might have had something to do with it – in fact, sadly, his celebrations were more Catholic than our priests’.

 

[1ke]

Do all Anglicans reserve it?

No, not all branches of the Anglican Communion have the same belief or practices regarding the species. The Episcopal Church I grew up in taught the real presence but did not reserve the host.

Everthing was consumed during the service and then the vessels washed and the water placed in the piscina (sacrarium).

 

[zdon011]

Do all Anglicans reserve it? Both High and Low Church?

Yes, in a majority of the Anglican churches I’ve visited, though usually not in a recognizable tabernacle or aumbry. The funny thing is that several have sanctuary lamps lit even when the sacrament is not present! Sometimes there’s just a pyx stuck in a convenient corner of the sacristy.
I find myself nodding when pass the churches of our Roman brethren, but hesitating to do the same when passing churches of my own communion. I simply can’t be sure whether the sacrament is there for me to acknowledge, nor can I be sure that it was not ‘reserved’ by a ‘priestess.’ It’s this type of niggle that pushes me toward ‘Poping’