Eucharistic Theology in the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox & Anglican Church
- Thread starter She
- Start date
- Status
E
eoe
Guest
For what that used to say. I promised myself I would stay the h-e- double hockey sticks away from this thread but I caved and posted something I probably should not have and then promptly removed it. I think it was there for about 10 seconds....
I am going to resume my prior stance that this is a topic that I am not going to touch with a stick.
Upvote
0
Aymn27
Radical Reformationist
- Feb 12, 2005
- 2,820
- 165
- 51
- Faith
- Anabaptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
An Article in defense of and explanation for Anglicanism:
http://www.katapi.org.uk/index.html
a short read that is well composed regarding Anglicanism.
In RE to this thread the article says, "The Anglican Communion has been accused of rejecting the doctrine of the Eucharistic sacrifice and of the priesthood.
In reality all that it has rejected is the medieval theory that the Sacrifice of Christ availed only for original sin and had to be supplemented by the Sacrifice of the Mass for the forgiveness of actual sin.
This is the true meaning of Article 31."
No doubt the rejection of heterodox teaching during the Middle Ages, possibly not the official teaching of the RCC, but one that was widespread enough to warrant correction!
http://www.katapi.org.uk/index.html
a short read that is well composed regarding Anglicanism.
In RE to this thread the article says, "The Anglican Communion has been accused of rejecting the doctrine of the Eucharistic sacrifice and of the priesthood.
In reality all that it has rejected is the medieval theory that the Sacrifice of Christ availed only for original sin and had to be supplemented by the Sacrifice of the Mass for the forgiveness of actual sin.
This is the true meaning of Article 31."
No doubt the rejection of heterodox teaching during the Middle Ages, possibly not the official teaching of the RCC, but one that was widespread enough to warrant correction!
Upvote
0
Aymn27
Radical Reformationist
- Feb 12, 2005
- 2,820
- 165
- 51
- Faith
- Anabaptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
and yet more to clarify Anglican teaching:
Finally something must be said about the medieval doctrine of Merit, which aroused the wrath of Luther;
and about the problem that it was intended to solve.
It is now recognized by all parts of the Church that we are saved by the merits of Christ and not by our own.
Nothing good that we do can save us.
But though the Church recognizes this,
it is by no means recognized by popular sentiment.
The belief that our own goodness deserves reward is deeply rooted in the individualist and Pelagian English character.
It is taken for granted by most conventional and uninstructed people.
The Roman Communion teaches,
not that we can be saved by our own merits,
but that when we have been saved from eternal death by the merits of our Lord,
the temporal punishment of our sins has still to be paid
by ourselves or others
in this life or the next.
This doctrine sprang from the system of canonical penalties in the ancient Church.
A man who had committed a grave sin was excommunicated.
Even when he had repented,
he was excluded from communion for a fixed time,
sometimes for as much as twenty years.
The Church through the bishop, however, might shorten this time.
In the course of time this power of remitting canonical penalties came to be exercised if the man would perform some work of piety according to the ideas of the age such as a pilgrimage or a Crusade.
Moreover, with the growth of belief in Purgatory,
it came to be held that the Church could remit not only penalties in this life,
but also the time to be spent after death in the flames of Purgatory.
Further, it came to be universally held,
when medieval conditions made anything approaching the Christian life difficult,
that to become a monk or a nun was a "counsel of perfection",
not indeed necessary to salvation but bestowing much greater chances of salvation.
Thus a distinction was made between "precepts" binding upon all Christians,
and "counsels" (especially poverty, celibacy, and obedience)
which were not binding upon all
but which were highly desirable
and gained much merit for those who accepted them.
This distinction was based on I Cor.7 in which St. Paul recommends,
but does not command, celibacy,
and II Cor.8.8-10 in which he recommends poverty;
also on Matt.19.12 and 16-22, where the rich young ruler was bidden to sell all that he had and give the proceeds to the poor.
The Schoolmen of the thirteenth century worked these ideas into a system based on the "treasure-house of the Church", the heavenly bank.
All good works done by the faithful, which were not binding on all but were of "counsel", earned merit, which was stored up in the bank.
Such works were called "works of supererogation".
The Pope held the keys of this bank and could bestow out of its treasures remission of the penalties, which people would otherwise have had to pay for their sins not only in this life but also in Purgatory.
The cheques that conveyed these remissions were called indulgences.
Before the Reformation
indulgences were often hawked about and sold in the open market.
It was the sale of indulgences by Tetzel in order to provide money for the building of St. Peter’s at Rome that aroused the protest of Luther and was the immediate cause of the outbreak of the Reformation.
The Council of Trent checked the abuses of the sale of indulgences,
but it gave its irrevocable sanction to the system of indulgences itself which forms to this day a very large element in the popular religion of all Romanist countries.
An indulgence is of no use to the recipient unless he is in grace;
[That is, baptized,
in communion with the Church,
and not in unrepented mortal sin.]
but on this condition one can get an indulgence for reading the Bible,
for taking the pledge,
for performing various acts of devotion,
for hearing Mass at what is called a "privileged altar" on certain days,
for climbing on one’s knees the steps of the Santa Scala at Rome
(supposed to have been the staircase up which our Lord was taken at His trial),
and so on.
There is hardly any popular devotion in the Roman Communion which is not accompanied by "spiritual favors",
indulgences to be obtained by those who practice it;
and these indulgences may be applied
for the benefit of one’s departed friends in Purgatory,
so that the offer of indulgences to the faithful appeals to natural affection as well as to self-preservation.
The Schoolmen distinguished between
merits "de congruo", earning reward "by fitness",
and merits "de condigno", earning reward by right.
The former were the merits of good men outside the Church,
the latter the merits of Christians living in grace.
This distinction is referred to in Articles 12 and 13.
The doctrine of Merit, with all its consequences, is entirely rejected by the Anglican Communion, and indeed by the whole of Christendom outside the Roman Communion.
Our Lord said (St. Luke 17:10),
When ye have done all the things that are commanded you, say,
We are unprofitable servants;
we have done that which it was our duty to do.
(compare Isa.64.6:
All our righteousnesses are as a polluted garment).
St. Paul teaches that our salvation is wholly of faith, not of works.
Even St. James does not suggest that our good works can earn merit in God’s sight.
There are no works of supererogation.
The very utmost that we can do is nothing
in comparison with what God has done for us,
and everything good that we do
is due wholly at every stage to the work of the Holy Ghost within us.
We reject also the doctrine that our sins are a debt, which has to be paid off.
There is no quid pro quo [Return for services rendered.] relation between God and man.
Whatever suffering we have to endure in this life or the next is intended to reform us.
God is not like a creditor demanding the payment of a debt,
but like a surgeon operating on a malignant growth,
or like a father teaching his children by punishment the danger and folly of sin.
The English Church was right, therefore, in denouncing the "sacrifices of masses"
(the chantry system in which men endowed a chaplaincy,
that masses for their souls might be said for ever to get them out of Purgatory)
as "blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits" (Article 31).
This sentence, forming as it does part of the Article on the sufficiency of Christ’s one Offering, does not deny that the Holy Eucharist is the principal means by which we are united in that offering, or that the prayers offered at the Holy Eucharist for both the living and the dead have their effect (James 5.16).
an excerpt from the webpag above..under the heading of justification and merit.
Finally something must be said about the medieval doctrine of Merit, which aroused the wrath of Luther;
and about the problem that it was intended to solve.
It is now recognized by all parts of the Church that we are saved by the merits of Christ and not by our own.
Nothing good that we do can save us.
But though the Church recognizes this,
it is by no means recognized by popular sentiment.
The belief that our own goodness deserves reward is deeply rooted in the individualist and Pelagian English character.
It is taken for granted by most conventional and uninstructed people.
The Roman Communion teaches,
not that we can be saved by our own merits,
but that when we have been saved from eternal death by the merits of our Lord,
the temporal punishment of our sins has still to be paid
by ourselves or others
in this life or the next.
This doctrine sprang from the system of canonical penalties in the ancient Church.
A man who had committed a grave sin was excommunicated.
Even when he had repented,
he was excluded from communion for a fixed time,
sometimes for as much as twenty years.
The Church through the bishop, however, might shorten this time.
In the course of time this power of remitting canonical penalties came to be exercised if the man would perform some work of piety according to the ideas of the age such as a pilgrimage or a Crusade.
Moreover, with the growth of belief in Purgatory,
it came to be held that the Church could remit not only penalties in this life,
but also the time to be spent after death in the flames of Purgatory.
Further, it came to be universally held,
when medieval conditions made anything approaching the Christian life difficult,
that to become a monk or a nun was a "counsel of perfection",
not indeed necessary to salvation but bestowing much greater chances of salvation.
Thus a distinction was made between "precepts" binding upon all Christians,
and "counsels" (especially poverty, celibacy, and obedience)
which were not binding upon all
but which were highly desirable
and gained much merit for those who accepted them.
This distinction was based on I Cor.7 in which St. Paul recommends,
but does not command, celibacy,
and II Cor.8.8-10 in which he recommends poverty;
also on Matt.19.12 and 16-22, where the rich young ruler was bidden to sell all that he had and give the proceeds to the poor.
The Schoolmen of the thirteenth century worked these ideas into a system based on the "treasure-house of the Church", the heavenly bank.
All good works done by the faithful, which were not binding on all but were of "counsel", earned merit, which was stored up in the bank.
Such works were called "works of supererogation".
The Pope held the keys of this bank and could bestow out of its treasures remission of the penalties, which people would otherwise have had to pay for their sins not only in this life but also in Purgatory.
The cheques that conveyed these remissions were called indulgences.
Before the Reformation
indulgences were often hawked about and sold in the open market.
It was the sale of indulgences by Tetzel in order to provide money for the building of St. Peter’s at Rome that aroused the protest of Luther and was the immediate cause of the outbreak of the Reformation.
The Council of Trent checked the abuses of the sale of indulgences,
but it gave its irrevocable sanction to the system of indulgences itself which forms to this day a very large element in the popular religion of all Romanist countries.
An indulgence is of no use to the recipient unless he is in grace;
[That is, baptized,
in communion with the Church,
and not in unrepented mortal sin.]
but on this condition one can get an indulgence for reading the Bible,
for taking the pledge,
for performing various acts of devotion,
for hearing Mass at what is called a "privileged altar" on certain days,
for climbing on one’s knees the steps of the Santa Scala at Rome
(supposed to have been the staircase up which our Lord was taken at His trial),
and so on.
There is hardly any popular devotion in the Roman Communion which is not accompanied by "spiritual favors",
indulgences to be obtained by those who practice it;
and these indulgences may be applied
for the benefit of one’s departed friends in Purgatory,
so that the offer of indulgences to the faithful appeals to natural affection as well as to self-preservation.
The Schoolmen distinguished between
merits "de congruo", earning reward "by fitness",
and merits "de condigno", earning reward by right.
The former were the merits of good men outside the Church,
the latter the merits of Christians living in grace.
This distinction is referred to in Articles 12 and 13.
The doctrine of Merit, with all its consequences, is entirely rejected by the Anglican Communion, and indeed by the whole of Christendom outside the Roman Communion.
Our Lord said (St. Luke 17:10),
When ye have done all the things that are commanded you, say,
We are unprofitable servants;
we have done that which it was our duty to do.
(compare Isa.64.6:
All our righteousnesses are as a polluted garment).
St. Paul teaches that our salvation is wholly of faith, not of works.
Even St. James does not suggest that our good works can earn merit in God’s sight.
There are no works of supererogation.
The very utmost that we can do is nothing
in comparison with what God has done for us,
and everything good that we do
is due wholly at every stage to the work of the Holy Ghost within us.
We reject also the doctrine that our sins are a debt, which has to be paid off.
There is no quid pro quo [Return for services rendered.] relation between God and man.
Whatever suffering we have to endure in this life or the next is intended to reform us.
God is not like a creditor demanding the payment of a debt,
but like a surgeon operating on a malignant growth,
or like a father teaching his children by punishment the danger and folly of sin.
The English Church was right, therefore, in denouncing the "sacrifices of masses"
(the chantry system in which men endowed a chaplaincy,
that masses for their souls might be said for ever to get them out of Purgatory)
as "blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits" (Article 31).
This sentence, forming as it does part of the Article on the sufficiency of Christ’s one Offering, does not deny that the Holy Eucharist is the principal means by which we are united in that offering, or that the prayers offered at the Holy Eucharist for both the living and the dead have their effect (James 5.16).
an excerpt from the webpag above..under the heading of justification and merit.
Upvote
0
Aymn27
Radical Reformationist
- Feb 12, 2005
- 2,820
- 165
- 51
- Faith
- Anabaptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Ok..and last one I promise!
The word propitiation (ἱλασμός
occurs in the New Testament only twice (I John 2.2, 4.10),
and the similar word ἱλαστήριον once (Rom.2.25).
If we are to understand it,
we must go behind the Latin and even the Greek
to the Hebrew the language in which both St. Paul and St. John thought.
It represents the Hebrew "kapper"
which means, not to induce one who is angry to relent
(which is what we usually mean by propitiation),
but to change from outside that which causes anger.
Our Lord is the propitiation for our sins (I John 2.2)
that is, God is angry with us because of our sins,
but our Lord takes away our sins
so that His Father will be angry with us no more.
He does this, as we have seen in the last chapter,
by breaking the power of sinful habit (the flesh),
sinful association (the world),
and sinful control over us (the Devil),
and by building up in us,
by means of the Holy Ghost,
His new and risen life.
He changes, not God, who does not change,
and who loves us perfectly in spite of all our sins,
but US, so that we no longer incur God’s anger but become fit for union with Him.
But all this is not what we commonly mean by propitiation,
and it is most unfortunate that this word should have become the recognized translation of ἱλασμός.
It was commonly taught in the Middle Ages that our Lord’s Death was intended to propitiate God, to offer Him something in compensation for what He had lost through our sin; and the sacrifice of the Mass which became so dominant in popular religion was regarded as a propitiation in this sense, almost such a propitiation as the King of Moab made when he offered his son as a sacrifice to Chemosh to drive away the invaders of his country (II Kings 3.27).
Against such a notion the Reformers were right to protest.
But no intelligent Christian today believes that either the death of Christ or the Eucharist is a propitiation in this sense.
Unfortunately, many ill-informed people still think that this is what the Mass means.
It is this that they reject when they reject the Mass (see, for instance, Bishop E. A. Knox, Sacrament or Sacrifice).
The attack upon "the sacrifices of Masses" in Article 31 (see the note at the end of the last chapter) depends on the word "wherefore".
Because it is by Christ’s offering only that we are saved and our sins are removed, the idea that we need also to "propitiate" or bribe God by offering the Eucharist in order to obtain redemption is false and dangerous.
It is in this sense only that the Anglican Communion rejects "the sacrifices of Masses".
The Council of Trent defined the Eucharist as
"a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice".
This definition is true if "sacrifice" means offering (not immolation or slaying),
and if "propitiatory" means removing the sins of men;
for the Eucharist of Mass is the means by which the faithful on earth are enabled to share in the perpetual self-offering of our Lord in heaven. But it is very doubtful whether the Council of Trent or its representatives today would accept this interpretation.
It is precisely because the Anglican Communion rejects the belief in sacrificing priests in the popular medieval sense, and has carefully removed the references to sacrifice from the Ordinal in order to avoid that sense, that the Papacy says that it refuses to recognize Anglican ordinations (the real reason is probably one of policy rather than of doctrine: see p. 399).
The last chapter contained a summary of several theories of the way in which our Lord by His death and resurrection freed us from the power of sin.
But we also have to be freed from the guilt of sin.
The word propitiation (ἱλασμός
occurs in the New Testament only twice (I John 2.2, 4.10),and the similar word ἱλαστήριον once (Rom.2.25).
If we are to understand it,
we must go behind the Latin and even the Greek
to the Hebrew the language in which both St. Paul and St. John thought.
It represents the Hebrew "kapper"
which means, not to induce one who is angry to relent
(which is what we usually mean by propitiation),
but to change from outside that which causes anger.
Our Lord is the propitiation for our sins (I John 2.2)
that is, God is angry with us because of our sins,
but our Lord takes away our sins
so that His Father will be angry with us no more.
He does this, as we have seen in the last chapter,
by breaking the power of sinful habit (the flesh),
sinful association (the world),
and sinful control over us (the Devil),
and by building up in us,
by means of the Holy Ghost,
His new and risen life.
He changes, not God, who does not change,
and who loves us perfectly in spite of all our sins,
but US, so that we no longer incur God’s anger but become fit for union with Him.
But all this is not what we commonly mean by propitiation,
and it is most unfortunate that this word should have become the recognized translation of ἱλασμός.
It was commonly taught in the Middle Ages that our Lord’s Death was intended to propitiate God, to offer Him something in compensation for what He had lost through our sin; and the sacrifice of the Mass which became so dominant in popular religion was regarded as a propitiation in this sense, almost such a propitiation as the King of Moab made when he offered his son as a sacrifice to Chemosh to drive away the invaders of his country (II Kings 3.27).
Against such a notion the Reformers were right to protest.
But no intelligent Christian today believes that either the death of Christ or the Eucharist is a propitiation in this sense.
Unfortunately, many ill-informed people still think that this is what the Mass means.
It is this that they reject when they reject the Mass (see, for instance, Bishop E. A. Knox, Sacrament or Sacrifice).
The attack upon "the sacrifices of Masses" in Article 31 (see the note at the end of the last chapter) depends on the word "wherefore".
Because it is by Christ’s offering only that we are saved and our sins are removed, the idea that we need also to "propitiate" or bribe God by offering the Eucharist in order to obtain redemption is false and dangerous.
It is in this sense only that the Anglican Communion rejects "the sacrifices of Masses".
The Council of Trent defined the Eucharist as
"a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice".
This definition is true if "sacrifice" means offering (not immolation or slaying),
and if "propitiatory" means removing the sins of men;
for the Eucharist of Mass is the means by which the faithful on earth are enabled to share in the perpetual self-offering of our Lord in heaven. But it is very doubtful whether the Council of Trent or its representatives today would accept this interpretation.
It is precisely because the Anglican Communion rejects the belief in sacrificing priests in the popular medieval sense, and has carefully removed the references to sacrifice from the Ordinal in order to avoid that sense, that the Papacy says that it refuses to recognize Anglican ordinations (the real reason is probably one of policy rather than of doctrine: see p. 399).
The last chapter contained a summary of several theories of the way in which our Lord by His death and resurrection freed us from the power of sin.
But we also have to be freed from the guilt of sin.
Upvote
0
What you listed is (and was) NOT the teaching of the CC (and nor the correct practice), nor now nor in the middle age. Give me any prooves form the teaching of the Magisterium about that.
Anyway now passed 500 years and now you know perfectly the (never changed) doctrine of the CC about the Eucharist.
If 500 years ago the Anglicans wanted simply to cancel some misunderstandings about the Eucharist, now they could return to the CC doctrine about the Eucharist.
(but from the Mr Cranmer excerpts I read, I think that the roots of Anglicanism are even more protestant than Luthernans hemself)
So now the Anglican Communion cannot play with vagueness and ambiguity.
I would like to lissen from your Archbishop of Canterbury something like: "we agree with CC understanding of the Eucharist", or "we agree with Lutheran understanding of the Eucharist" or "we agree with Calvinist understanding of the Eucharist": three different and exclusive understandings.
Matthew 5:37 But let your communication be, Yes, yes; No, no:.....
Upvote
0
Why should we?
We don't answer to you.
We don't answer to the Bishop of Rome.
We don't answer to the Eastern Orthodox Church.
We don't answer to the Lutherans or the Calvinists either.
So, even if it bothers you that we don't have a position on the matter that you can understand we are not going to feel compelled to adopt one.
Upvote
0
A clear definition of Anglican/Episcopalin understanding of Eucharisty would be appreciated to let the other Churches to define the right ecumenic way to follow.
Ad instance, yuo know that CC follows two different ways in ecumenism, one for Churches with 'valid Eucharist, one for Chruches 'without valid Eucharist'.
Upvote
0
Polycarp1
Born-again Liberal Episcopalian
I fail to see what exactly the issue is here: "a clear definition" is exactly what is being given. In the epiclesis, the Priest asks that the Holy Spirit descend upon "the gifts and creatures of bread and wine," which have already been set apart as elements for the reenactment of the Last Supper in the Words of Institution, and that He make them "the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and His Blood of the New Covenant." On the quite reasonable presumption that (a) the Holy Spirit is quite powerful enough to do so, and (b) He is faithful to His promises, the elements become the Body and Blood of Christ, Really Present.
We refuse to nail down a holy mystery by the words of St. Thomas Aquinas or anyone else.
What you appear to be asking, sir, is that we subscribe to your view of what transubstantiation means as the only possible explanation of the Real Presence. And we respectfully refuse to do so. Cf. mysterion -- one of the Orthodox can help explain.
Finally, both Amyn and I have been at pains to say that what the particular Article of Religion rejects is a false medieval understanding of the Eucharist, which Trent itself was at pains to correct. We are not rejecting the teaching of the Magisterium; in 1533 we rejected a false popular conception, which some years later an Ecumenical Council carefully taught proper Eucharistic doctrine in contradistinction to.
If I were to quote a Catholic pamphlet from, say, 1930, stating that the Assumption was a matter of personal piety, meritorious to believe but not required of the faithful -- that pamphlet would not be wrong -- because Pius XII would not define the Dogma of the Assumption for another 20 years.
What the Anglican Church rejected was not what Trent had not yet defined, but the false understand that popular piety had made of Aquinas's teaching.
We refuse to nail down a holy mystery by the words of St. Thomas Aquinas or anyone else.
What you appear to be asking, sir, is that we subscribe to your view of what transubstantiation means as the only possible explanation of the Real Presence. And we respectfully refuse to do so. Cf. mysterion -- one of the Orthodox can help explain.
Finally, both Amyn and I have been at pains to say that what the particular Article of Religion rejects is a false medieval understanding of the Eucharist, which Trent itself was at pains to correct. We are not rejecting the teaching of the Magisterium; in 1533 we rejected a false popular conception, which some years later an Ecumenical Council carefully taught proper Eucharistic doctrine in contradistinction to.
If I were to quote a Catholic pamphlet from, say, 1930, stating that the Assumption was a matter of personal piety, meritorious to believe but not required of the faithful -- that pamphlet would not be wrong -- because Pius XII would not define the Dogma of the Assumption for another 20 years.
What the Anglican Church rejected was not what Trent had not yet defined, but the false understand that popular piety had made of Aquinas's teaching.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Xpycoctomos
Well-Known Member
So (excuse me for my dense-ness here), it is not "proper" for an Anglican to believe that the Eucharist is only a symbol of Christ's Body and Blood. Proper doctrine is to believe that it is truly Christ's body and blood, perhaps not obliterating the constitution of the bread and wine as Catholics are obliged to hold true, but that His Body and Blood are truly and very much so prsent and that it is not JUST a piece of bread up there. It's not just special because people THINK it's special but rather because something mysterious, supernatural, abnormal and real REALLY does happen and that bread and wine is not the same thing it was that morning before Church. And that one is supposed to treat that bread and wine with the utmost respect because it is the Body and Blood of the incarnated God, Jesus. Correct? That's what I am gathering here. This is not meant as a trap. I am just trying to understand. Because a LOT of Anglicans will tell you that it's alright to believe its just a special symbol and that it's not really the Body and blood of Christ - it just represents it ("represents" in the mundane way of understanding that way). Are they wrong? I am not talking about judging them. I am just curious... are they wrong in that in saying that they are not following proper Anglican understanding and doctrine regarding the Eucharist? Because THAT is what is out on the street. It's pretty easy to find an Anglican and especially an Episcopalian who will readily say it isn't really the Body and Blood. But then again, I can find some "Catholics" who will say the same and I am sure I could find some "Orthodox" who would too.
Correct me where I am missing something,
Thanks,
John
Correct me where I am missing something,
Thanks,
John
Upvote
0
If you're hoping to find some official statement to the effect that all Anglicans believe X about the Eucharist then I doubt that you will get very far. The Anglican approach has tended to be to simply continue doing what they have always done without unnecessary theologising and dogmatising. So some contest that the Eucharist is, has always been and always will be the Body and Blood of Christ while others contest that it is not, has never been and never will be the Body and Blood of Christ. Who is right?
In my opinion, the closest we can get to an Anglican position on the Eucharist is to look at the words of the liturgy. Which (at least in my province) seem to be supportive of transsubstantiation. For example, these words make it pretty clear what we are supposed to be eating and drinking at the Eucharist:
A Prayer Book for Australia said:
Upvote
0
Aymn27
Radical Reformationist
- Feb 12, 2005
- 2,820
- 165
- 51
- Faith
- Anabaptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Yes, I would agree that one has to look to the various Prayer Books for a "catechetical" position. There is a wide variety of belief just as there is in other traditions - but the prayer books set the standard for belief in Anglicanism. There is also a statement from the English bishops on the matter - I believe- aimed at the ARCIC talks..I will try to find that for you when I have a chance..
Upvote
0
Xpycoctomos
Well-Known Member
I was getting the feeling that there was a specific belief on the topic. I assumed that the Anglican Church orignially never questioned whether Christ's body was truly present or not in the Eucharist and that any derivations from that was recent and not aligned with Anglican Doctrine. I see I was wrong.
Upvote
0
Here is a link to the ARCIC joint statement by the Anglicans and Roman Catholics, concerning the Eucharist:
http://www.prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/arcic/doc/e_arcic_eucharist.html
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Feb 8, 2004
- 9,101
- 397
- 40
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- UK-Conservative
Upvote
0
I'm glad that I started this thread. We have all helped each other to find this important information. It is especially important for me as I have been longing to join the Anglican Church for some time now and this latest information has made firm my resolve to join. I have enrolled myself and my children in classes for confirmation and initiation. For me, this thread has confirmed the validity of the Anglican Church as the Church of Christ on Earth.
Thanks be to God.
Oh happy day.
Thanks be to God.
Oh happy day.
Upvote
0
Aymn27
Radical Reformationist
- Feb 12, 2005
- 2,820
- 165
- 51
- Faith
- Anabaptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
She,I'm glad that I started this thread. We have all helped each other to find this important information. It is especially important for me as I have been longing to join the Anglican Church for some time now and this latest information has made firm my resolve to join. I have enrolled myself and my children in classes for confirmation and initiation. For me, this thread has confirmed the validity of the Anglican Church as the Church of Christ on Earth.
Thanks be to God.
Oh happy day.
When I began looking outside Rome, I never even considered the Anglican Communion b/c I was always taught their Eucharist was invalid - that they were just "playing' with bread and wine. Wanting to be ordained, Eucharistic validity was of utmost importance - I looked at the ICCEC, Old Catholic and other denominations. However, reading tons of articles and views - I eventually began to look at Anglicanism and why it was "invalid". Once you read the Roman argument and the Anglican arguments against - it becomes evident that the Roman position is bunk. Of course, realizing this, leads one to question the entire position of papal infallibility - because this position is "supposed" to be infallible...and if they are clearly wrong on this - what else are they clearly wrong on?
I believe that Anglicanism is the "purest" expression of catholicism within Christianity. I especially like the ability to hold together the more reformed and more catholic bodies.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Contraception? (obviously and, therefore, by logical conclusion, papal infallibility).
Personally, I find this aspect a bit unsettling. There seems to be such a wide range of belief in Anglicanism and that worries me, especially in view of how I bring up my children. They need to be grounded in their faith.
Also, I miss the Rosary and the Hail Mary. I've noticed that the Anglican Mass does not include the Hail Mary. Prayers to saints are also not Anglican (unless I am mistaken). I do miss that too.
I am in no way going back on what I thought earlier about the Eucharist, however. I do believe that the Eucharist in the Anglican Church is a valid sacrament.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
