Eucharist

**+Donny** · 10-05-2002, 10:54 PM

what are your views? Zwinglian? Calvinist? Lutheran? Catholic?

SccHarpGirl · 10-05-2002, 10:56 PM

Catholic. Obviously

joslar15 · 10-05-2002, 11:03 PM

Well, I'm a 42 y/o Cradle-Catholic, recently returned to practicing just over a year ago. Up until last month, I had never really given much thought to this, one way or the other. During my Walk to Emmaus, I didn't realize transubstantiation was a strong belief. Though I know the Holy Spirit was there during Holy Communion, the knowledge that it was only a symbolic representation of the body and blood of Christ left me somewhat unfulfilled.

Superman · 10-05-2002, 11:43 PM

I adhere to Paul's admonitions in 1st Corinthians. Basically, I believe it should be done on some form of regular basis (I do it once a year) and in total reverance to Him. Weed out the wrong you may have done to another, and seek Christ. It's to Him for His glory. That's all it's for, and all we should think of. Forgive each other as often as we need to be forgiven (all the time) and partake of His body.

Pennypacker11 · 10-06-2002, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SCCHarpGirl
Catholic. Obviously

me too

Mike Graham · 10-06-2002, 08:31 PM

We have reached the point where we are beyond my theological lexicon. I am not a transubstantiationist, wherever it puts me, but I do believe it is taken way too lightly and that it is just about the most serious, if not the most serious thing we should do. Not to say it is the most important, but I think it requires the highest or almost highest reverance level. I consider God to be my best friend, so when I am talking to Him, of course I might throw in a little humor now and then. If you do not think God has a sense of humor, turn on animal planet

! Would a God without a sense of humor possibly make a single person who would ever watch that channel,

. But in all seriousness, we are talking about Yeshua's (figurative) Body and Blood, this is different then salvation or baptism, which are things that are to be partying about. But, to conclude my aimless ramblings, though the Lord's Supper is an occasion for rejoycing, it is not one for joking.

**Chrysostom** · 10-06-2002, 09:24 PM

(Donny) what are your views? Zwinglian? Calvinist? Lutheran? Catholic?

(Me) Heh... I think you know the answer of we "nasty" Presbyterians

(Superman) I believe it should be done on some form of regular basis (I do it once a year)

(Me) (not debating) lol we do it once a week. I guess our conceptions of a "regular basis" differ

However, your yearly position is somewhat historic (Easter only/Passover Feast).

Acquinas · 10-06-2002, 09:45 PM

What are Lutheran, Calvinist, Zwinglian, and Catholic ideas, and how come three of them come from the same period of like 40 years? I'm more interested in the historic use than Reformation ideas. For example, what did Augustine, Tatian, Justin or someone like that have to say about Eucharist?

Glenn

Bryan · 10-06-2002, 09:48 PM

the baptist church generally does it once a quarter.

joslar15 · 10-07-2002, 01:53 AM

Quote:

I'm more interested in the historic use than Reformation ideas. For example, what did Augustine, Tatian, Justin or someone like that have to say about Eucharist?

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

1345 As early as the second century we have the witness of St. Justin Martyr for the basic lines of the order ot the Eucharistic celebration. They have stayed the same until our own day for all the great liturgical families. St. Justin wrote to the pagan emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161) around the year 155, explaining what Christians did:

On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place.

The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits.

When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things.

Then we all rise together and offer prayers for ourselves... and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation.

When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss.

Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren.

He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks (in Greek: eucharistian) that we have been judged worthy of these gifts.

When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying: 'Amen.'

When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the "eucharisted" bread, wine and water and take them to those who are absent.

**Ridley's Own** · 10-07-2002, 09:50 AM

The general rule for Anglicans is that we do it at least once a week (though some low churches alternate it with Morning Prayer).

The 1969 canons of the CofE stipulate that all cathedrals are to have Eucharist once a week. Don't ask why I know or need to know that. I just do.

Theologically, Anglicans have always tried to find a middle way betwixt the Roman Catholic/Lutheran philosophical understanding (an actual change in substance) and the Zwinglian understanding (we are remembering Christ's command to pretend this saltine is his body).

The first BCP's sentance of administration was fairly clear on what communion is and what is supposed to happen: "The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life."

The 2nd BCP was also fairly clear on what communion is and what is supposed to happen, though it took the completely opposite track: "Take and eat this in remeberance that Christ died for thee and feed on him in your heart, by faith, with thanksgiving."

The final form completely muddled the whole situation, and so thoroughly confused anyone that by the restoration of the BCP, they simply said, "What the hell?" and combined the two sentances. Confusion over the matter is probably what lead to the preponderance of Morning Prayer services in Anglican churches until the Oxford Movement.

I think the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission signed something to the effect stating that Christ is really present in the Eucharist, but beyond that we remain permanently confused, wandering aimlessly through the woods of Eucharistic theology.

**Athanasius** · 10-07-2002, 03:05 PM

I am definately Calvinist in my understanding of the Eucharist. Trans/Con-Substantiation doesn't make any sense...as Jesus has already been the Sacrifice...it doesn't need to be done over and over again.

Historically, Anglicans have been Calvinist in their view of the Eucharist (until Newman and the Oxford movement) ... In fact, Cramner would be turning over in his grave if he heard all these Anglicans calling the table an altar

From the 39 Articles (From us "confessional" Anglicans)

Article 28: Of the Lord's Supper

The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves, one to another, but rather it is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ, and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith

The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

Ha! I love that last line...

**Ridley's Own** · 10-07-2002, 04:13 PM

Bob,

Ahh... Blessed be the 39 that giveth such anger to Newman and Pusey...

No one Anglican I know of has actually said, "Its transubstantiated," and it should be noted that Cranmer's theology on the eucharist flipped-flopped so many times that I'm not convinced he knew what he was talking about.

You can blame Altar v. Table on Wm. Laud, incidentally.

I prefer the word 'mensa' over and above 'table' or 'altar. Its in Latin, and everyone knows Latin is preferable to English when you're trying to sound smart, snobby and erudite.

I would imagine the most pertinent recent Anglican thinking on the Eucharist would be the ARCIC agreement. I've read it several times, and I'm convinced that those invovled are following in Cranmer's footsteps, neither knowing or not knowing what they're talking about.

I also like the last line... I have visions of priests in flowing vestments walking throughout town, 'carrying about' a wafer...

By the way, the Prayer Book Society is, if I recall, a fairly low organization. If you think that article was was bad, take a look at: http://www.societies.anglican.org/anglocatholic/

joslar15 · 10-07-2002, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bob_The_Veggie
I am definately Calvinist in my understanding of the Eucharist. Trans/Con-Substantiation doesn't make any sense...as Jesus has already been the Sacrifice...it doesn't need to be done over and over again. Historically, Anglicans have been Calvinist in their view of the Eucharist (until Newman and the Oxford movement) ... In fact, Cramner would be turning over in his grave if he heard all these Anglicans calling the table an altar

Yes Jesus has already been the sacrifice, but it's not in the way Chick likes to frame it, that we pull Him down over and over. Until I participated in a protestant celebration of Holy Communion last month, I never gave the comcept of transubstantiation much thought. However, as I participated with the understanding of their faith tradition, it left me somewhat unfulfilled. Perhaps as a good Catholic, I need the wine

**Athanasius** · 10-07-2002, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by joslar15
Yes Jesus has already been the sacrifice, but it's not in the way Chick likes to frame it, that we pull Him down over and over. Until I participated in a protestant celebration of Holy Communion last month, I never gave the comcept of transubstantiation much thought. However, as I participated with the understanding of their faith tradition, it left me somewhat unfulfilled. Perhaps as a good Catholic, I need the wine

Yo Jo!
You need a good Episcopal service!

What kind of church were you visiting?