I wonder if, for many Episcopalians, this could be an accurate summary of what we understand about Holy Communion.
Consider how many priests now announce, week after week, that because the Holy Table belongs to God and not to anyone else, all people — regardless of whether they are baptized — are welcome to partake. I note only in passing the chutzpah of presuming that God’s will for the Holy Table was thwarted, rather than honored, as far back as the Didache.
Perhaps it fulfills the saying that misery loves company for me to feel relief that another portion of the Anglican Communion must contend with innovations at the Holy Table. That this innovation comes from Australia’s most vigorously Reformed diocese only makes the humor richer.
I am no advocate of lay presidency. I believe that both it and the policy of communing the unbaptized reflect an incomplete theology of what occurs during Holy Communion. Both innovations make us the center of attention: In the United States, we say, “Come one, come all to receive, even if you don’t understand or care about what you’re receiving.” In Sydney, should lay presidency ever gain the approval of Archbishop Peter Jensen, Australians will say, “Come one, come all (Anglicans)” to the role of presider.
TEC will of course do its own thing. But some people I hold in high regard have addressed this subject in the past.
St. John of Damascus writes: “With all our strength let us beware lest we receive Communion from or give it to heretics. ‘Give not what is holy to the dogs,’ says the Lord. ‘Neither cast ye your pearls before swine’, lest we become partakers in their dishonour and condemnation.” Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, IV, 13.
St. Maximus the Confessor said: “Even if the whole universe holds communion with the [heretical] patriarch, I will not communicate with him. For I know from the writings of the holy Apostle Paul: the Holy Spirit declares that even the angels would be anathema if they should begin to preach another Gospel, introducing some new teaching.” The Life of St. Maximus the Confessor.
“Chrysostomos loudly declares not only heretics, but also those who have communion with them, to be enemies of God.” St. Theodore the Studite, Epistle of Abbot Theophilus.
“Some have suffered final shipwreck with regard to the faith. Others, though they have not drowned in their thoughts, are nevertheless perishing through communion with heresy.” St. Theodore the Studite.
“All the teachers of the Church, and all the Councils, and all the Divine Scriptures advise us to flee from the heterodox and separate from their communion.” St. Mark of Ephesus.
Under the mercy,
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
An [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj4pUphDitA]Orthodox [/url] Christian
Key sentence: “I note only in passing the chutzpah of presuming that God’s will for the Holy Table was thwarted, rather than honored, as far back as the Didache.”
This, in a nutshell, is the madness of ECUSA: it – 2,000 years later, completely disconnected from the culture and society from which Christianity sprang and blatantly driven by secular imperatives – has it all right, but the apostles and their successors had it all wrong. If you really believe ECUSA can do better under those conditions, you may as well be an atheist, because the reliability of anything we’ve received becomes as questionable as me telling you what vintage wine Christ served at the Last Supper.
Why would he expect Anglicanism to have anything other than an “incomplete theology” of communion? From day one they never decided what they believed, and have been denying that and any other belief to this day. It means whatever they want it to mean, and so it means nothing. Feed it to the cat, feed it to anything else unbaptized. There is no connection whatever the the Church that wrote the Didache. The teaching in the Didache on communion is no more relevant to an Anglican than its teaching on abortion.
There is something more bizarre than these two innovations: It is priests who have a high doctrine of the Eucharist while maintaining a low Christology.
No. 4 – It would be interesting if you could furnish an example. Another thought, the Sydneyites don’t believe that the eucharist the bread and wine become anything else after consecration. That’s even granting that consecration has any meaning for them. These issues are more important than the gay issue.
#5
You are so right.
#3:
Our Anglican forebears were exceptionally clear regarding their theology of Holy Communion. From the lips of the good Archbishop Cranmer:
“For they teach, that Christ is in the bread and wine, but we say, according to truth, that He is in them that worthily eat and drink the bread and wine. They say that He is received in the mouth, and entereth in with the bread and wine. We say that He is received in the heart and entereth in by faith.”
Then, some fifty years later, the good doctor Hooker opined similarly:
“The real presence of Christ’s most blessed body and blood is not to be sought in the sacrament, but in the worthy receiver of the sacrament.”
I would suggest that while we’re re-reforming the church, let’s also re-embrace a more classical and biblical understanding of the sacraments as well. Cranmer and Hooker, building upon the Good Book make sturdy supports for our sacramental theology.
#5 Rob K, I disagree. Not believing that there is a change in the bread and wine of Eucharist is not a salvation issue. Its erroneous doctrine, but one will still be saved in the end. Believing, preaching and teaching that people can live however they like regardless of what the Tradition of the church states, is a salvation issue.
The blame for all the confusion around the Eucharist stems from very poor Christian education in the churches. Churches continue to give substandard instruction on most doctrines, so it’s no wonder there is so much confusion and diversity of opinion on the issue. Also, the belief that we can have diverse doctrinal views, yet still come together at the communion table is simply wrong, IMHO.
Fellowship is the main reason for our gathering together on Sundays. The chief illustration of that fellowship is the Eucharist. The church, the Body of Christ is realized through the joint participation of believers in the bread and wine. As St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.†At consecration, the bread and wine materially remain bread and wine, however the ‘change’ is that the bread and wine are no longer regular bread and wine, but take on a very real spiritual component. As Irenaeus wrote, “But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, [u] consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; [/u] so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.†The unbaptized (=unbelievers) cannot participate, because they are not in the Spirit. They cannot participate in the Eucharist because the once offered sacrifice of Christ that is re-presented in the Eucharist has not been applied to them because they have not been united to Christ in baptism.
In the gathering together of believers, we come together in one place for this time of fellowship. Paul stressed this with the Corinthians in chapters 11 and 14 of the first letter he wrote to them. The leadership of the church would have been present and they would have been the ones offering the Eucharist, or the gifts. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, stated that without the bishop, presbyters and deacons, no church is called. Also, Clement of Rome, in writing to the Philippians about the dismissing of their presbyters also states that one of the duties of the presbyters were to present the offerings. Clement also uses Old Testament Temple imagery to illustrate that all believers have a proper place within the church, he states, “Those, therefore, who present their offerings at the appointed times, are accepted and blessed; for inasmuch as they follow the laws of the Lord, they sin not. For his own peculiar services are assigned to the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministrations devolve on the Levites. The layman is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen.†Each ‘order’ from bishop to laymen is equally important and equally participates in liturgical worship and the consecration of the bread and wine according to their order.
Clearly there is a need for sound biblical and patristic instruction in our Christian formation classes. If Christians truly understood their roles within the Church and the correct theological ideas behind the liturgy, much of the liturgical and theological nonsense would dissipate.
Vincent
“This is my body.” So said one more authoritative than ++Cranmer or Hooker. It is sufficiently clear for me.
I agree, Steve #7 – only, let’s use a definition of “classical” that means what the apostles and their immediate successors thought, not political actors 1,500 years later. And, by “biblical,” let’s take what Christ says at His word, instead of reading metaphors into His teaching.
My primary purpose in posting was to address the assertion that Anglican have from day one never decided what they believed.
That is demonstrably false – the quotes above are but illustrative of a long witness to an Anglican understanding of the sacraments (let’s not forget the 39 Articles)
Now, y’all may wish to debate the literal/metaphorical words of Christ. I’m not overly interested in restating what has been stated throughout church history. I am interested in noting the genesis and genius of Anglicanism in our formularies. We are protestant. We are reformed. Since we’re re-reforming, let’s be consistent with who/what we were created to be. The muddled thinking regarding Holy Communion, Baptism and the other sacramental acts emerged as we’ve left our moorings and tolerated abberant theologies.
Steve,
I would assert that we “left our moorings” when some of the English Reformers swallowed too much of Swiss influence. Anglicanism has been correcting that problem since through the Caroline Divines and the Oxford Movement, thank God.
Evan, interesting you mention the Caroline Divines, have you read +Fitz Allison’s analysis of them (agressively not favorable). Perhaps you cited poorly.
Steve,
No, I’ve not read his analysis. I admire +Allison very much and he is a brilliant man. However, he is very protestant and I am Anglo-Catholic so we certainly have our areas of disagreement.
Our Lord did say “..this is my body..” and “..this is my blood..” but then summed it up with “..do this in Remembrance of me …”.
Thanks Evan & Phil. I’m in a hurry now, but I’ll have a few things to say soon.
Hopper,
[blockquote] On the other hand, I refrain from receiving in any Church that does not make explicit my welcome to Communion. If there is any ambiguity … I remain in the pew. As I see it, if I cannot respect the rules of a particular tradition’s doctrine … there is no point in my pretending to worship with them. [/blockquote]
A very sensible and respectful rule which strikes me as common sense, but which does not seem to be all that commonly observed.
ICXC NIKA
John
Even they who do not believe in the objective Real Presence of Christ in the eucharistic elements will benefit from that Real Presence, even as they partake of it while not realizing. I’m glad that Christ’s presence is always there and not dependent on my spiritual athleticism. It is still medicine for the soul. Go back and read Aquinas and other medieval commentators. There you will understand that Christ’s natural Body and Blood are present in the species, but in a non-natural, sacramental way. Transubstantiation does not authorize belief in a carnal presence. Maybe that is a lot to try to wrap your mind around, but Transubstantiation was mischaracterized by many Reformers for polemical purposes. I think that at least some of them knew better. But the important thing to keep in mind is that the Presence of Christ’s Body and Blood in the mass is objective, brought about by the worshipping church with a priest consecrating the species, and is not dependent on my, or your faith. If Cranmer believed otherwise he held a heretical belief.
#15, How does the second part nullify the first? Catholics, AngloCatholics, and Orthodox all “do this in remembrance” and believe fervently that “This is my body” and “this is my blood”.
Chris,
Bingo! We have a complete understanding of the Eucharist. The puritans have only a partial understanding. I would ask those who deny the real presence what the point of consecrating the elements is, if “nothing” happens to them?
Evan,
Here’s what happens at the consecration (thanks to Hugh Latimer and John Stott):
Stott writing: “As we saw in an earlier chapter, the sacraments have been given to us in order to stimulate our faith. In fact, they are means of grace mainly because they are means to faith. And the Lord’s Supper is a means to faith because it sets forth in dramatic visual symbolism the good news that Christ died for our sins in order that we might be forgiven. Hugh Latimer, the great preacher of the English Reformation, explained this symbolism during his trial in Oxford, before going to the stake:
[b]‘There is a change in the bread and wine, and such a change as no power but the omnipotency of God can make, in that that which before was bread should now have the dignity to exhibit Christ’s body. And yet the bread is still bread, and the wine is still wine. For the change is not in the nature but the dignity.’[/b]
This is sometimes called [b]‘transignification’[/b], in distinction to ‘transubstantiation’, [b]for the change which is in mind is one of significance, not of substance.[/b] As the officiant offers the bread and wine to our bodies, so Christ offers his body and blood to our souls. Our faith looks beyond the symbols to the reality they represent, and even as we take the bread and wine, and feed on them in our mouths by eating and drinking, so we feed on Christ crucified in our hearts by faith. The parallel is so striking, and the corresponding words of administration are so personal, that the moment of reception becomes to many communicants a direct faith-encounter with Jesus Christ.”
Personally, I’m fine with a more Roman Catholic/Orthodox view of the Eucharist. Let not pretend, though, that it is Anglican. It is not. It’s a corruption and overturning of the clear teaching and theologies of those who created Anglicanism. It is akin to the revisionists today who seek to re-make Anglicanism in their mold. Newman was right, a high view of the Eucharist is incompatible with Anglicanism.
rob k
“if Cranmer believed otherwise . . .” [b]You don’t know?[/b] You might want to know since he authored the book so many worship and helped to found the expression of faith currently under contention.
Frankly, I think Latimer was splitting hairs. The most sensible explanation of what happens to the elements in the eucharist is consubstantiation. I would submit that a high view of the Eucharist is very Anglican, just not that of some of the early reformers. That’s why the language of the BCP is sufficiently comprehensive as to accommodate both the simple memorialist and those who believe in the real presence.
since he got killed for it, that’s one heck of a hair Latimer split.
#25
I agree.
The fact is, the Eucharist is a holy mystery and to try to too closely describe it as the Church of Rome does, or to deny the real presence in the elements as the puritans did (do) is a mistake. Though in truth I see nothinig about transubstantiation that contradicts “This is my body.” I just think it goes rather too far. To deny the real presence in the elements, however, is to contradict the words of Christ himself.
Evan, I also see nothing wrong with Transubstantiation as a theory explaining the Real Presence of Christ’s Body and Blood. However one drawback of it is that it may be too “intellectualized”. Steve, Cranmer left just enough room in the liturgies that he actually influenced to provide for objective Real Presence. But He and Latimer, though martyrs, nevertheless were too influenced by the heretical views of the continental Reformers. Another point, the Anglican Reformers themselves claimed they were not “founding” a church. To speak of them as if they were is not correct.
#27
Rob K,
I agree completely. that’s what I was attempting to say.
Evan, do you agree with my assertion near the end of the thread about Bishop Chane’s letter to his diocese? You will find that thread just a few threads subsequent to this one. Thx.
Rob K,
Absolutely.