Belief in the real presence

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Only some Anglicans believe in the Real Presence. The infamous Black Rubric in the 1552 and 1662 editions of the BCP, which was removed from the Elizabethan prayer book and was never present in the liturgy of the Scottish Episcopalians or the Episcopal Church USA, was intended to prohibit a belief that our Lord was physically present in the Eucharist, and it is still in the official BCP of the C of E, since the greatly improved 1928 BCP was obstructed despite most Anglican members of Parliament supporting it, by an alliance between the dissenting Protestant MPs and the minority of low church Anglicans (who by that time represented a minority both in the Church of England and in most Anglican provinces, one of the few exceptions being the Church of Ireland which was known for its low churchmanship, or at present the Archdiocese of Sydney. But within Anglican provinces like the C of E or the Episcopal Church, some areas, for instance, in the US, Virginia and certain other areas of the Atlantic Coast, with some exceptions, are known for being largely low-church Anglicans, as my friend @Shane R can confirm).

Methodists tend to be vague about what occurs on the altar, to use the exact words of a United Methodist friend of mine, due to the influence of creeping Pietism triggered by the remark of John Wesley to George Whitefield that they might agree to disagree. However there are high church Methodists such as the Epworth Chapel on the Green in Boise Idaho who clearly believe in the Real Presence.

Sorry, I missed this reply earlier.

As you mentioned, there is quite a variation is belief within Anglicanism the varies from Catholic Transubstantiation, Lutheran Sacramental Union, to Receptionism, to a memorialization devoid of the means of Grace and forgiveness of sins.

According to a few Anglican Priests I have spoken to, a receptionist view is most widely held, and in our conversations, was used to justify "Open Communion" practices.

We Confessional Lutherans, Catholics and Orthodox practice "closed" or "Close" Communion to protect those who have not been instructed, and may not be able to discern Christ's body and blood. We take the Scriptural admonitions regarding the Eucharist very seriously, and Closed/Close Communion is the only tool we have to protect those who might inadvertently (or even intentionally) sin regarding receiving in an unworthy manner.

In conversations regarding the practice of Open Communion vs. our Lutheran Closed Communion, both of those Priests used "Receptionism" as a justification for this practice; and that this receptionism is the official position of the Anglican Church of Canada.

So, this leads to another question; if Receptionism is a valid position, is it really a belief in the "Real Presence", since the body and blood only become present when consumed by the person receiving it? Does this not then point as much to self as it does to Christ? In my mind this teaching contains a lot of holes regarding both the plain teaching of scripture regarding both the Eucharist and the nature of sin; it could lead one to believe that sin is only sin if done intentionally.

Another question that seems unanswerable is fellowship between Presbyterians and Anglicans; do Receptionist Anglicans receive the body and blood of Christ despite the Zwinglian Presbyterian theology denies both the RP and the Efficacy of the means of grace?

Many questions that, in light of Scripture that seem at odds with Scripture.

 

[RileyG]

I just ordered Heaven on Earth: The Gifts of Christ in the Divine Service by Arthur Just, even though I have far too much reading material, at the moment. Now, I need to get very busy devouring my TBR pile

God bless

 

[okay]

There are those in our congregation that are uncomfortable receiving the Lord's blood from the common Chalice so we provide individual cups so that we can accommodate them

Dietary restrictions / allergies are another good reason to offer individual cups.

My elder daughter has celiac disease so medically requires a super strict gluten-free diet - cross-contamination that isn’t even visible to the naked eye can make her sick. She cannot use a shared chalice, and would likely get sick if the priest touched the gluten-free host after handling the gluten-full host (unless they scrubbed their hands in-between…). The ability to safely take communion was a large factor in her selection of the Episcopal parish she attends.

 

[RileyG]

Dietary restrictions / allergies are another good reason to offer individual cups.

My elder daughter has celiac disease so medically requires a super strict gluten-free diet - cross-contamination that isn’t even visible to the naked eye can make her sick. She cannot use a shared chalice, and would likely get sick if the priest touched the gluten-free host after handling the gluten-full host (unless they scrubbed their hands in-between…). The ability to safely take communion was a large factor in her selection of the Episcopal parish she attends.

In my diocese, those with celiac disease receive the chalice only or low gluten hosts. The chalice is almost never offered to the faithful, unless on Holy Thursday or the feast of Corpus Christi.