The Eucharist (blood, churches, dogma, protestants, catholic)

[FerventGodSeeker]

Originally Posted by sojourner

Pgs. 845 - 862 of the Book of Common Prayer. The section on the Eucharist makes no statement about the nature of the Real Presence.

So the whole Book of Common Prayer is Episcopalian dogma, or just those pages?

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by FerventGodSeeker

So the whole Book of Common Prayer is Episcopalian dogma, or just those pages?

No. The BCP is our version of the Missal (sort of). The Outline of Faith is found on those particular pages of the BCP.

[FerventGodSeeker]

Originally Posted by sojourner

No. The BCP is our version of the Missal (sort of). The Outline of Faith is found on those particular pages of the BCP.

Sorry, call me ignorant...what is the BCP, and what is the Missal?

[Victor]

Greek Orthodox Archbishop of Aksum, Methodios Fouyas in his book Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism says,

"Roman and Orthodox teach that by the words spoken in the Holy Eucharist the species of bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, so that although these species have the outward qualities of bread and wine, essentially they are the Body and Blood of Christ." (Fouyas, page 187, footnote refers to Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat 22; John of Damascus, De Fide Orth 4:13; John Chrysostom, Hom 82:4 in Matt as well as the Council of Trent, Session 13)

<snip>

"This is not quite accurate, because the Orthodox Church does not reject the word 'Transubstantiation,' but it does not attach to it the materialistic meaning which is given by the Latins. The Orthodox Church uses the word 'Transubstantiation' not to define the MANNER in which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and the Blood of the Lord, but only to insist on the FACT that the Bread truly, really, and substantially becomes the very Body of the Lord and the wine the very Blood of the Lord. In this sense it is interpreted by St. John of Damascus [Holy and Immaculate Mysteries, Cap 13:7]." (Fouyas, page 188-189, footnote refers also to the Orthodox Councils of Jerusalem [1672] and of Constantinople [1727]…)

<snip>

"In the same manner the majority of the Orthodox theologians used, for the idea of Transubstantiation, a Greek term drawn from the teaching of the ancient Greek Fathers; the terms used include Metousiosis, Metabole, Trope, Metapoiesis, etc, or the Slavonic Presushchestvlenie, equivalent of the Greek Metousiosis. The Slavonic word Sushchestvo corresponds not to substantia, but to ousia (essentia)." (Fouyas, page 189)

<snip>

"The difference between Orthodox and Romans is this: the latter used this word to mean the special theory according to which the change is made, but the Orthodox used it to mean the FACT of the change, according to the Patristic conception." (Fouyas, page 189)

Although I’m still unclear as to what “real presence” means to Anglicans and Episcopalians?

[lunamoth]

For those interested I put the whole catechism from the Book of Common Prayer (BCP) in this thread: Anglican Catechism: An Outline of the Faith

There's also a little other info about the BCP in that thread.

added: on p 4 of the thread is the part about the Eucharist.

Anglicans are united by our form of worship moreso than by dogma, and the BCP outlines our worship. It's an interesting topic which I'm happy to discuss, but not to debate.

FWIW, I would agree with what James posted with repsect to Real Presence in the Eucharist.

[Victor]

Am I safe in noting that the ECUSA has no official position on the Eucharist? Or is this just a case of "it's just not in writing, but we do believe it"?

Thus far, it seems both luna and soj have agreed with James, so I was just wanting to know how close that is to official teaching if it indeed exists?

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Victor

Am I safe in noting that the ECUSA has no official position on the Eucharist? Or is this just a case of "it's just not in writing, but we do believe it"?

Thus far, it seems both luna and soj have agreed with James, so I was just wanting to know how close that is to official teaching if it indeed exists?

There is not an 'official doctrine' on this.

"How Christ comes to us in the Eucharist is far less important than the fact that when we receive the bread and wine, Christ truely comes into our lives."
(Welcome to the Episcopal Church by Christopher L Webber)

[Victor]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

There is not an 'official doctrine' on this.

"How Christ comes to us in the Eucharist is far less important than the fact that when we receive the bread and wine, Christ truely comes into our lives."
(Welcome to the Episcopal Church by Christopher L Webber)

Thanks...

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by Victor

Greek Orthodox Archbishop of Aksum, Methodios Fouyas in his book Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism says,

"Roman and Orthodox teach that by the words spoken in the Holy Eucharist the species of bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, so that although these species have the outward qualities of bread and wine, essentially they are the Body and Blood of Christ." (Fouyas, page 187, footnote refers to Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat 22; John of Damascus, De Fide Orth 4:13; John Chrysostom, Hom 82:4 in Matt as well as the Council of Trent, Session 13)

<snip>

"This is not quite accurate, because the Orthodox Church does not reject the word 'Transubstantiation,' but it does not attach to it the materialistic meaning which is given by the Latins. The Orthodox Church uses the word 'Transubstantiation' not to define the MANNER in which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and the Blood of the Lord, but only to insist on the FACT that the Bread truly, really, and substantially becomes the very Body of the Lord and the wine the very Blood of the Lord. In this sense it is interpreted by St. John of Damascus [Holy and Immaculate Mysteries, Cap 13:7]." (Fouyas, page 188-189, footnote refers also to the Orthodox Councils of Jerusalem [1672] and of Constantinople [1727]…)

<snip>

"In the same manner the majority of the Orthodox theologians used, for the idea of Transubstantiation, a Greek term drawn from the teaching of the ancient Greek Fathers; the terms used include Metousiosis, Metabole, Trope, Metapoiesis, etc, or the Slavonic Presushchestvlenie, equivalent of the Greek Metousiosis. The Slavonic word Sushchestvo corresponds not to substantia, but to ousia (essentia)." (Fouyas, page 189)

<snip>

"The difference between Orthodox and Romans is this: the latter used this word to mean the special theory according to which the change is made, but the Orthodox used it to mean the FACT of the change, according to the Patristic conception." (Fouyas, page 189)

Although I’m still unclear as to what “real presence” means to Anglicans and Episcopalians?

Thanks. That is, of course, what I meant. Some Orthodox do use the term transsubstantiation in English, but not to mean what a Roman Catholic would. The manner of change is left as Mystery - the fact that the bread and wine truly becomne the Body and Blood is affirmed categorically but with no attempt to explain how. It just is. I'd note, though, that whilst you have indeed found a few instances of Orthodox writers using transubstantiation, they are a distinct minority. Most are very wary of the term, not because it is inherently wrong, but because it can cause confusion. We don't agree with the RC view of transubstantiation at all, and that is what most people view as the meaning of the word. Having said that, the difference is small but Orthodox are very cautious about over-rational speculative theology as found in scholasticism (to the point of having anathematised it at the Palamite Councils).

James