HillsboroMom
Active member
How do people here feel about sharing pulpit and altar with the ELCA? What about other denominations?
XXIX. Of the Wicked, which eat not the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord's Supper.
The Wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as Saint Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ; yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ: but rather, to their condemnation, do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing.
“I reckon them all as belonging together (that is, as Sacramentarians* and enthusiasts), for that is what they are who will not believe that the Lord’s bread in the Supper is his true, natural body, which the godless or Judas receive orally as well as St. Peter and all the saints. Whoever, I say, will not believe this, will please let me alone and expect no fellowship from me. This is final.”
Most of the founding Anglican leaders agreed with Calvin's idea instead of Luther's.
For a long time I mistakenly assumed that since many Episcopalians are at least as "high church" in form as Lutherans and think of themselves as a middle way between Protestantism and Catholicism, then the Anglican Church would take the Lutheran and Catholic interpretation of an objective Presence in the Eucharist. On another Christian forum, some Anglicans corrected me on this point.Most of the founding Anglican leaders were Roman Catholic, and therefore would have believed in transubstantiation...
I don't know who taught you this gross misinterpretation, but whoever it was, I suggest you discard everything they taught you...
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.
Anglicans Online | The Thirty-Nine Articles
anglicansonline.org
The adversaries of this [Anglican] doctrine are The Ubiquitaries, both Lutheran and popish; they saying the very body of Christ, at the Lord's supper, is eaten as well of the wicked as of the godly; these affirming, that all communicants, bad and good, do eat the very and natural body of Christ Jesus; they saying that the true and real body of Christ, in, with, under the bread and wine, may be eaten, chewed, and digested, even of Turks, which never were of the Church...
Jointly we withstand the adversaries thereof whosoever... The Synusiasts or Ubiquitaries [Rodger's name for Lutherans], which think the body of Christ so is present in the supper, as his said body, with bread and wine, by one and the same mouth, at one and the same time, of all and every communicant, is eaten corporally and received into the belly.
For Davies it seems that there can be no real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, in the sense that Christ’s body is ‘in or under’ the forms of bread and wine. He adopts what is essentially a cranmerian position, arguing for the presence of Christ’s body in heaven alone in an empirical sense, without any suggestion of a presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the elements in a mystical or spiritual, but nonetheless real sense. It is this empirical separation of the body of Christ in heaven from the bread and wine of the Eucharist that expresses an underlying nominalism in the eucharistic theology of Davies and in many Anglicans within the Diocese of Sydney and explains why liturgical worship seems to be less valued than what is seen to be other more essential aspects, such as the words of Scripture and the preaching of Scripture.
- “Everyone is excited about moving forward as brothers and sisters in Christ. However there was also a recognition that there are differences over our understanding of the Holy Communion. The Lutheran position is that Christ’s presence in Holy Communion is ‘in or under’ the forms of bread and wine while the Anglican position understands Christ’s body is in heaven and that we eat and drink after a ‘heavenly and spiritual manner’” (Glenn Davies, Bishop of North Sydney, 2001b: 2)
III. The Spiritual Presence.
German writers acknowledged two main divisions in Protestant Christianity, the Lutheran and the Reformed... From the sixteenth century [the German scholar Mosheim] groups together under the latter name the Swiss, Belgic, French, English, and Scotch Churches, the dividing line being manifestly their adherence to the spiritual as against the corporal presence. The reception of this doctrine in the English Church was due in the first place to Ridley, who satisfied himself by independent historical and scriptural enquiry as to its antiquity and truth By his influence Cranmer was led to study, and ultimately to adopt, the same opinion.
...
With these views the confessions of the principal Reformed Churches the Swiss, Dutch, Scotch Presbyterian, and the Church of England will be found to be in substantial accordance. For example, the Confession of Faith of the Established Church of Scotland thus sets forth the doctrine of the presence :
- Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified and all benefits of his death :
Let me help illustrate this more clearly.
Some Lutheran congregations keep sacramental bread and wine on a credence table or a shelf to be distributed to the sick and homebound. A small number of Lutheran congregations have an aumbry, a box attached to the wall on one side of the altar to house the reserved sacrament. Some maintain the practice of placing a clear encased light near the eucharistic elements.
The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.
Anglicans Online | The Thirty-Nine Articles
anglicansonline.org
In every Anglican and Episcopalian church I've ever visited or even heard of, the same is true.Let me help illustrate this more clearly.
In Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, and Eastern Orthodoxy, we have what is called "reserving" the host. <snip>
How do people here feel about sharing pulpit and altar with the ELCA? What about other denominations?
ELCA and EPUSA adopted an agreement on full communion in 1999:Seriously? Not a chance in Hades.
And that no man hereafter shall either print, or preach, to draw the Article aside any way, but shall submit to it in the plain and full meaning thereof: and shall not put his own sense or comment to be the meaning of the Article, but shall take it in the literal and grammatical sense.
Articles of Religion | The Church of England
Articles of Religion, from The Book of Common Prayer (1662). Cambridge University Press, 2006 edition.www.churchofengland.org
“I reckon them all as belonging together (that is, as Sacramentarians and enthusiasts), for that is what they are who will not believe that the Lord’s bread in the Supper is his true, natural body, which the godless or Judas receive orally as well as St. Peter and all the saints. Whoever, I say, will not believe this, will please let me alone and expect no fellowship from me. This is final.”
ELCA and EPUSA adopted an agreement on full communion in 1999:
Agreement of Full Communion - Called to Common Mission – The Episcopal Church
An Agreement of Full Communion – Called to Common Mission A Lutheran Proposal for a Revision of the Concordat of Agreement As amended and adopted by a more than two-thirds […]www.episcopalchurch.org
Which Anglican Church do you belong to (if any)?I appreciate your point of view.
Then there is 'Apostolicae Curae' [Pope Leo XIII - 1896] .... through apostolic succession, Catholics and Orthodox would be the only ones with the Eucharist.The Biblical and Early Christian idea appears to me to be that the Eucharist bread was actually Christ's body in some way. There are a lot of reasons that show this, from Paul's warning that "discerning" the body in the Eucharist can lead to physical sickness, to Jesus' insistence that believers must both "eat" and "chew" his Body in John's Gospel, to the early Christian writings outside the Bible that repeatedly take the food to be actually His body. The bread actually being His body seems to go against people's earthly "common sense", but the early Christians had a lot of other beliefs that did, like the apostles' clothes or shadows healing people in Acts.
The apostles appointed bishops to oversee the Christian Community (Church). But I don't know how early the practice came of denying people communion for rejecting the authority of those bishops or for having serious "heresies." Probably this was the case at least by Augustine's time. Judging by some of the early Christian polemics about categories of sinners or heretics, it could have been already in the 1st century.
My own personal impression would be lukewarm in terms of whether the Eucharist bread actually turns into or contains Jesus' body, because on one hand I sympathize in a modern way with Calvin's claim that "Natural Laws" rule it out. On the other hand, since we are talking about God's miracles, the supernatural, and the spirit realm, it appears possible to me within the laws of reality.
I was raised in a Protestant Church that has intercommunion, so my personal preference is sympathetic to the principle of Open Communion, especially if we are talking about churches that teach an objective presence. On the other hand, I don't get to make the rules for what Christianity or Church Tradition teaches.
Some breakaway "Continuing Anglican" or "Anglo-Catholic" churches teach an Objective presence.
The question of whether from a Lutheran perspective one would want to commune in an Anglican Church that is under the Articles of Religion presents a dilemma for me, because the Articles are internally contradictory on the issue of a direct Presence. If you read the following sentence in the Articles literally like their Prologue demands, then to the degree that people receive it with faith, the bread is "literally" Jesus' body:
"...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".
That makes sense.Then there is 'Apostolicae Curae' [Pope Leo XIII - 1896] .... through apostolic succession, Catholics and Orthodox would be the only ones with the Eucharist.
There is an argument to made for head coverings and not wearing head coverings. Honestly, I don't think this minutia is essential to the gospel of Jesus Christ. I have never considered it to be an issue of moral superiority. Just a bit of side issue, I'm all for the return of women wearing hats, but more out a fashion sense. I don't believe that God is going to pass judgment on me where I wear a British fascinator to church, or not. LOLWhich Anglican Church do you belong to (if any)?
Offhand, the only issue that comes to mind that would be a theological problem that you might be considering "far left" is the aspect of same sex sexual relations.
Men and women being equal or unequal does not directly seem like a big theological issue per se. I can see different aspects of that.
In other words, if someone thinks men and women should be treated equally or unequally, it doesn't seem to conflict majorly with theology and there are different aspects in which both of those are true. Currently in the Orthodox Church, people have different opinions on whether women should be required to wear head coverings in Church. Most parishes in the US don't require it. Plus, wearing a head covering is not a sign of moral inferiority or superiority.
The CofE is becomung appostate, but the Anglican Communion is pretty sound... mainly because the book of common prayer is.How do people here feel about sharing pulpit and altar with the ELCA? What about other denominations?
The CofE is becomung appostate, but the Anglican Communion is pretty sound... mainly because the book of common prayer is.
What do the ELCA believe?
Differences between the ELCA and the Episcopal Church | Similarities between the two churches | |
---|---|---|
Leadership | In the ELCA they're called "Pastors." In the EC they're called "Priests." | The pastor/priest of a church has about the same authority, and is called by a congregation in much the same way. Oh, and they can be married, unlike RCC. |
Polity | The ELCA has "synods," the EC has "dioceses" | They are of roughly the same size and geography, many overlap. Both are led by bishops. The bishops of each have similar duties and authority within their synod/diocese. |
International organization | There is no single authority over all Lutherans internationally. The EC is a member of the "Anglican Communion" which loosely governs internationally. | Lutherans do share doctrinal beliefs with other Lutherans internationally. In most non-English-speaking countries, the Lutheran church is called "Evangelische" or some variation on that. |
Worship | There are some minor differences: The EC has a set number of canticles. The Lutheran Worship book incorporates music and text into one book, while the EC has one book of prayer and a separate hymnal. Lutheran Worship offers several pre-made mass settings and other services; BCP is a mix-and-match, build your own worship. In the ELCA, the Confession happens at the beginning of worship, following the Catholic mass. In the EC, it precedes Communion, so you can confess before you partake. | Both are unapologetically liturgical. The Eucharist worship follows the structure of the traditional Mass. Almost all celebrate Eucharist weekly (or more often), and may have other worship services such as Evening Prayer (Vespers), Morning Prayer (Matins) and many others. Most churches in both utilize and honor traditional hymnody, although a growing number incorporate new praise music into worship, either as an "alternative" worship service or into blended worship. |
Sacraments | The ELCA (as other Lutherans) recognize only two sacraments (see below), but recognizes the others as important rites, not sacraments. The EC recognizes the two as "The Great Sacraments" and the other 5 as "spiritual markers in our journey of faith that can serve as means of grace." | Both recognize the two as most important, because they're the only two which Jesus commanded: "Go out and baptize," and "Eat this bread, drink this cup." (If anyone is wondering, the other 5 are: Confirmation Confession Matrimony Holy Orders Unction |
Communion | The ELCA teaches consubstantiation: Jesus' body and blood is present "in, with, and under" the earthly elements of bread and wine. The EC teaches "Real Presence" and doesn't try to explain it beyond that, simply saying "it's a mystery." | Both reject saying that it's "just a symbol." They both know it's more than that. Both reject the Catholic belief of transubstantiation, that it becomes something else, that it's no longer bread and wine, because science, dude. Obviously it's still wine and bread, bruh. Most congregations in both churches usually use real (alcoholic) wine (some offering a non-alcoholic alternative as a 2nd option), and wafers. |
Baptism | Baptism tends to be less important in the EC, though they're more likely to reserve it to specific feast days: Pentecost, the Baptism of Jesus, or Holy Saturday / Vigil (night before Easter). The ELCA tends to make a bigger deal out of baptism. | Both practice infant baptism, but will baptize adults as well. Both recognize baptism not as something we do, but something God does to us. Just like birth, we didn't choose our parents. We don't have to understand pre-natal biology before we can pass through our mother's uterus and take that first breath. God chose us, without any knowledge or action of our own. Now, what we DO with that gift of grace is something else, but both churches recognize baptism as GOD'S work, not ours. Otherwise, why did the first Christian's call it "re-birth"? |
Women | I don't think there are any differences | Women are allowed full ordination in both churches |
Deacons | The ELCA recognizes lay leadership within each individual congregation. The EC has ordained deacons who go through seminary training and are called to a specific ministry within the Church. | Both recognize the importance of lay leadership. However, both seem only to pay lip-service to anything resembling a "priesthood of all believers" because both churches teach that the church, and only the church, has authority to accept -- or deny -- individuals to a leadership position within the church. |
Political leanings | The ELCA is almost universally left-leaning in most political questions -- they accept homosexual marriage, eco-friendly, anti-war, pro-immigration, etc. The EC has a wider umbrella. While there are Episcopalians who are as far left (or further), there are also Episcopalians who are significantly more conservative. This is because in the U.S., you can be Lutheran and Conservative, and belong to one of 3 other churches (LCMS, WELS, or the new LCC), but until recently, there was only one Anglican church in the US, and even now, the more conservative branch isn't particularly strong. | Both churches uphold to traditional church teachings: the Trinity, the divinity of Christ (in other words, while individuals within the church may say "Jesus was just a really nice guy," the official church teaching is that he was divine and the son of God). Both churches accept Scripture as Truth, though not always literal. In fact, both churches tend to down-play literal interpretations in favor of more symbolic ones. This is the more traditional way of understanding Scripture, as it is how Jesus and his disciples did, and how the Church always did, for the first 1800+ years of its existence. So religiously and theologically, I would say both churches are conservative (compared to many other denominations, and non-denominational churches). But both churches tend to lean to the left, politically -- social justice, loving one's neighbor, etc. Teaching that sin is personal but justice is corporate (as opposed to the other way around, as many evangelical churches in the US seem to do). So it kind of flip-flops, in my mind. |
Under differences in Communion, you have:Do you mean what does the ELCA believe in regards to shared communion with the Episcopal Church?
The EC teaches "Real Presence" and doesn't try to explain it beyond that, simply saying "it's a mystery."
While I am personally sympathetic to this argument from "obviousness" and "science," it doesn't prove as a matter of basic Christian theology that Transubstantiation is incorrect.Both reject the Catholic belief of transubstantiation, that it becomes something else, that it's no longer bread and wine, because science, dude. Obviously it's still wine and bread, bruh.
The EC in the Articles of Religion does try to explain it beyond just calling it a mystery.
Not so sure about that. I believe Bishops at ordination do still affirm the 39 articles and to uphold them, they are included in the book of common prayer and cannon law expects all Anglicans to respect themThere are no "Articles of Religion" for the Episcopal Church.
You may be thinking of the 39 Articles which the Church of England wrote in the 16th century. The Church of England -- which is the Anglican Church in England -- required clergy to subscribe to these articles until the mid 20th Century (roughly around the time of V2). The Episcopal Church has never required subscription to the Articles, nor have many Anglican churches outside of England in over 100 years.
Other than that, your post makes sense to me.
Not so sure about that. I believe Bishops at ordination do still affirm the 39 articles and to uphold them, they are included in the book of common prayer and cannon law expects all Anglicans to respect them
The Episcopal Church has never required subscription to the Articles.