B
Brendan_64
Guest
The bread and wine is converted into the Body and Blood of Christ, or the Body and Blood of Christ coexists with the bread and wine? Is that not a significant difference in belief?
Why are high Chuch Anglicans not allowed to receive Communion in a Catholic Church but the Eastern Orthodox are?
- Status
Q
QContinuum
Guest
Le sigh. Amateur hour around here.
Point 1 - Consubstantiation is primarily a Lutheran doctrine, not Anglican, although some Anglicans hold to it.
Point 2 - Transubstantiation is a term which originated in the Latin church, and until relatively recently, is not one the Eastern Orthodox would even use. See the link for more details.
https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orth...of-transubstantiation-in-the-orthodox-church/
Point 3 - As GKC will frequently remind you, Anglicans are motley. But as much as one position may be commonly held amongst us it is simply that we hold to the Real Presence. Most of us don’t feel the need to define the whys or hows of the process.
Point 1 - Consubstantiation is primarily a Lutheran doctrine, not Anglican, although some Anglicans hold to it.
Point 2 - Transubstantiation is a term which originated in the Latin church, and until relatively recently, is not one the Eastern Orthodox would even use. See the link for more details.
https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orth...of-transubstantiation-in-the-orthodox-church/
Point 3 - As GKC will frequently remind you, Anglicans are motley. But as much as one position may be commonly held amongst us it is simply that we hold to the Real Presence. Most of us don’t feel the need to define the whys or hows of the process.
Last edited:
Q
QContinuum
Guest
I mean, a lot of opinions but few experts. Remember Timon from Disney’s The Lion King? “Sit down before you hurt yourselves. Amateurs.”
It was a joke.
Why is this board so serious?
It was a joke.
Why is this board so serious?
Last edited:
Q
QContinuum
Guest
No harm, no foul. My humor is too Anglican.
M
Maximilian75
Guest
I mean… the Nature of the Most Holy Eucharist is up there in terms of seriousness
Q
QContinuum
Guest
Which would be relevant if my humor was pointed to that subject. Alas, it wasn’t. It was a joke on others here.
M
Maximilian75
Guest
Valid point 
pax
pax
Q
QContinuum
Guest
Eh, as I said. It was just a joke.
Pretend the first few lines didn’t exist, and you’ll still get relevant information regarding Eucharistic theology.
Pretend the first few lines didn’t exist, and you’ll still get relevant information regarding Eucharistic theology.
Q
QContinuum
Guest
Not annoyed. Perplexed.
P
Pup7
Guest
Lol.
Nothing but great minds thinking alike.
Nothing but great minds thinking alike.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Anglicans do not agree among themselves as to what constitutes the Eucharist. They accept a diversity of views. Therefore, agreement between Catholics and Anglicanism (taken as a whole) is pretty much impossible. At the same time though, for MOST Anglicans, their theology of the Eucharist is mostly the same as Catholic theology. This is not an insurmountable obstacle. I’ll provide a link to some relevant documents, including exactly what you asked about “joint declarations” on the Eucharist.UpUpAndAway:
Honestly, these two beliefs do not seem to me to be insurmountably irreconcilable. As Catholics, we believe that the Eucharist remains “bread and wine” in “accident” or “appearance” - so in a way, the bread and wine DO co-exist with the body and blood of Christ, at least physically speaking. Metaphysically and “really” the bread and wine cease to exist - but my point is physically they do still exist. I believe it would be possible to reconcile transubstantiation with consubstantiation and synthesize them in a way acceptable to both Catholics and Anglicans.
I think if Anglican and Catholic theologians got together and hammered out this issue, we could probably come to a common declaration of faith regarding the Eucharist.
@FrDavid96 Does a declaration like this exist already?
The real obstacle is not the theology of Eucharist. The obstacle is the question of what constitutes valid apostolic succession.
We agree that only a validly ordained priest can consecrate the Eucharist. Where we disagree is the question of “who is a validly ordained priest?”
Here is that link
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/sub-index/index_anglican-comm.htm
F
FrDavid96
Guest
P
Paul71
Guest
It may have something to do with the fact that Eastern Orthodox have valid Holy Orders, while Anglicans do not. Therefore, Eastern Orthodox bishops and priests validly celebrate the sacrament of the Eucharist, while Anglican bishops and priests cannot.
Last edited:
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Yes. That’s exactly the reason.
D
dochawk
Guest
More succinctly: the EO are churches; the Anglicans are a lay group.
Catholic and EO agree on practically everything, except whatever bit the speaker (usually incorrectly) says the other believes that is wrong.
hawk
G
guanophore
Guest
The main difference for Luther was that he rejected the sacrifice of the Mass. He had to coin some other framework to be rid of this concept.
S
semper_catholicus
Guest
WHAT? Since when are the EO allowed to receive communion in the Catholic Church? I’ve never heard of such a thing. We aren’t allowed to receive communion at their church, are we?
G
guanophore
Guest
Yes, the Latin Catholics are permitted, but most EO priests would not accommodate them. There are circumstances where Roman Catholic live or are married to Orthodox where it is permitted on a case by case basis.
D
dochawk
Guest
It’s “black letter” canon law. Look it up.
There are a handful of agreements in some regions for EO clergy of particular churches to administer to Catholic faithful in the absence of their own, and vice versa. I think they’re more common with OO than EO, but I’m not certain.
hawk
blackforest
Well-known member
For whatever it’s worth, I was baptized and confirmed in the ACC. With the priest’s permission, I was allowed to receive Eucharist at my Roman Catholic school. This was over 20 years ago.
- Status