Author Topic: Anglican/Episcopal understanding of Eucharist  (Read 17678 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline John Larocque

  • Catholic
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 529
Re: Anglican/Episcopal understanding of Eucharist
« Reply #45 on: February 12, 2010, 01:01:56 PM »
Here's the ARCIC statement on the Eucharist.

http://www.pro.urbe.it/dia-int/arcic/doc/e_arcic_eucharist.html

Probably as "anglo-Catholic" as you'll ever get with them, but it is kind of official.

Offline Alveus Lacuna

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,413
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: Anglican/Episcopal understanding of Eucharist
« Reply #46 on: February 12, 2010, 01:08:05 PM »
Here's the ARCIC statement on the Eucharist.

http://www.pro.urbe.it/dia-int/arcic/doc/e_arcic_eucharist.html

Probably as "anglo-Catholic" as you'll ever get with them, but it is kind of official.

Well, "on paper" is one thing.  The real world is another.  Anyway, this joint statement with the Roman Catholics is hilarious, since the Roman church maintains that the Anglican clergy are utterly without apostolic succession and thus their orders null and void.  Their Eucharist has no sacramental grace by RC standards.

Offline John Larocque

  • Catholic
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 529
Re: Anglican/Episcopal understanding of Eucharist
« Reply #47 on: February 12, 2010, 03:04:04 PM »
Dialog with Anglicans for the purpose of full communion is kind of a futile exercise, but from an ecumenical perspective, consider it "training wheels" for its dialog with the East.

This caught my interest:

Quote
The word transubstantiation is commonly used in the Roman Catholic Church to indicate that God acting in the eucharist effects a change in the inner reality of the elements. The term should be seen as affirming the fact of Christ's presence and of the mysterious and radical change which takes place. In contemporary Roman Catholic theology it is not understood as explaining how the change takes place.

I suspect that everyday Anglicans are closer to the 39 Articles than the Anglo-Catholics or ARCIC on the real presence.

The Anglican holy orders issue is one of those things where the Roman church should have stayed agnostic. "We don't know about grace over there, we only know about grace over here." Aparently there will be conditional re-ordinations for Anglican clergy entering the Anglican ordinariate. There are some parellels with the Orthodox and their various policies of rebaptising converts from other Chritsian confessions. What needs to be reminded is that while we (that is, the various confessions) are not in unity of faith, it makes no sense to pretend that there is one.

Offline Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,017
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South (OCA)
Re: Anglican/Episcopal understanding of Eucharist
« Reply #48 on: February 12, 2010, 03:16:07 PM »
Perhaps many of us confuse "agreement" on some issues with "unity"?

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,480
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Anglican/Episcopal understanding of Eucharist
« Reply #49 on: February 12, 2010, 04:43:57 PM »
Where I'm attending no explanation of what happens to the bread-like substance and wine is given.

Probably to avoid disagreement... that tends to be the Anglican way.

Would I be wrong in saying that the Orthodox are avoiding disagreement by also saying it's a mystery??

We say it's a mystery because it really is a mystery. You can't specify something that is simply beyond human comprehension. Nevertheless, we know that the bread and wine truly become the body and blood of Christ and we openly proclaim the same.

If I may add to Iconodule's wonderful post, we believe this because our Lord Himself identified the wine with His blood and the bread with His body. We have no choice but to proceed on that basis.  As St. John of Kronstadt said ""There are a great many mysteries in nature which my mind cannot grasp, although they have concrete forms, yet they exist, with their mysteries. So also, is this Sacrament of the life-giving Body and Blood, it is a mystery for me, how the bread and wine are made into the Body and Blood of the Lord Himself - but the mystery of the Body and Blood really exists, although it is incomprehensible to me."

And that's exactly how I understand it as well.

I don't see the need to portray Anglicans as somehow avoiding disagreements when my perception is that it's exactly the way the Orthodox understand it.

Yes, it's your perception, but is it everyone else's perception? And if someone else had a different perception (say, that the eucharist is a memorial), would he be any less of a true Anglican for it?
“Steel isn't strong, boy, flesh is stronger! That is strength, boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?  Contemplate this on the tree of woe.” - Elder Thulsa Doom of the Mountain of Power

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Come look at my lame blog

Offline Doubting Thomas

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 887
  • Anglican (but not Episcopagan)
Re: Anglican/Episcopal understanding of Eucharist
« Reply #50 on: February 16, 2010, 01:34:36 PM »
I am in the Anglican Catholic Church (one of the traditional continuing Anglican jurisdictions which started in the late 1970s when the PECUSA began to go in a decidely more liberal direction with WO, etc), and we believe in the 'Real Presence' of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist.  Though we don't dogmatically define the 'how' of the mystery, we certainly do not believe in memorialism or receptionism, and I believe some Anglican Catholics hold to a form of 'transubstantiation' as a private opinion.
"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Anglican/Episcopal understanding of Eucharist
« Reply #51 on: February 19, 2010, 07:24:24 PM »
Where I'm attending no explanation of what happens to the bread-like substance and wine is given.

Probably to avoid disagreement... that tends to be the Anglican way.

Would I be wrong in saying that the Orthodox are avoiding disagreement by also saying it's a mystery??

No, it's to avoid over dogmatizing on points where the Apostolic faith did not proclaim anything explicit.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Anglican/Episcopal understanding of Eucharist
« Reply #52 on: February 19, 2010, 09:45:45 PM »
Where I'm attending no explanation of what happens to the bread-like substance and wine is given.

Probably to avoid disagreement... that tends to be the Anglican way.

Would I be wrong in saying that the Orthodox are avoiding disagreement by also saying it's a mystery??

We say it's a mystery because it really is a mystery. You can't specify something that is simply beyond human comprehension. Nevertheless, we know that the bread and wine truly become the body and blood of Christ and we openly proclaim the same.

If I may add to Iconodule's wonderful post, we believe this because our Lord Himself identified the wine with His blood and the bread with His body. We have no choice but to proceed on that basis.  As St. John of Kronstadt said ""There are a great many mysteries in nature which my mind cannot grasp, although they have concrete forms, yet they exist, with their mysteries. So also, is this Sacrament of the life-giving Body and Blood, it is a mystery for me, how the bread and wine are made into the Body and Blood of the Lord Himself - but the mystery of the Body and Blood really exists, although it is incomprehensible to me."

And that's exactly how I understand it as well.

I don't see the need to portray Anglicans as somehow avoiding disagreements when my perception is that it's exactly the way the Orthodox understand it.

The official positions may very well be similar for "orthodox Anglicans" and Eastern Christians, but the motivations behind this are none the less very different. Historically the Eastern Christian churches have refrained from making as many clear definitions as the Western churches primarily because we are interested not only in preserving the faith from error but also from over dogmatizing. We make a distinction between the solidity of those definitions that are strictly based on the revelation of what was delivered to the Apostles and what the Church defines beyond what was explicitly delivered. The Roman Church, on the other hand, has had no issue with seemingly infinite dogmatic definition. To us this sort of approach is not only dangerous because the reliability of such speculations is less so than what was explicitly found in the Apostolic deposit, but also because it seems to drain the spiritual and mystical reality of the faith. The primary reason that Anglicans likewise refrain from making so many doctrinal definitions, however, is not the same. The primary reason in the Anglican tradition is political compromise. Since day 1 Anglicans have been primarily interested in the visible cohesion of their Church and keeping as many people "in communion" with each other as they possibly can, while not compromising certain supposed "fundamentals". This was the purpose of the original schism. This was the purpose of the Elizabethan Settlement. Even today this is the approach of the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams. And this is why Anglicans have the similar ambiguous Eucharistic theology. Now, that's not to say that the Imperial Church was never similarly motivated. It was at certain times. But throughout our history, mystical concerns have dwarfed this as the primary motivator.