The Anglicans here inform me that they do not believe that the bread in their eucharist is truly Christ's Body, or that the wine is truly His Blood. One of them said she wished she believed it, but that's now what she was taught. It's a memorial, it's symbolic, but it isn't the real thing.
That's odd, because when I was Episcopalian, I was indeed taught the doctrine of the True Presence.
"So what do you mean when you speak of the 'consecration?'" I inquired. They didn't quite know.
I concluded, aloud with a regretful shrug, that maybe they were right; maybe they really didn't have Christ's Body and Blood in their eucharist.
That's odd, because when I was Episcopalian, I was indeed taught the doctrine of the True Presence.
"So what do you mean when you speak of the 'consecration?'" I inquired. They didn't quite know.
I concluded, aloud with a regretful shrug, that maybe they were right; maybe they really didn't have Christ's Body and Blood in their eucharist.
4 comments:
When I was a high-church Anglican, and attended confirmation classes, we were most definitely taught about the Real Presence of Christ in Holy Communion......... but those in parishes which tend to the low-church evangelical end of the Anglican spectrum would be far less likely to be taught this, as far as I can see.
This is the problem of Anglicanism; you can believe pretty much whatever you please and still be "in communion" with the larger Anglican Communion.
several years ago I read in a book about different Christian doctrines that the Episcopalians and Anglican's took the "whatever you want to believe about the Eucharist is okay" stance. The book was written in the early 20th century.
This is a long-standing, well-known problem in the Anglican tradition. It's a shame :-(
When I was catechized in the ECUSA in 1992 I was told "whatever you think the eucharist is, that's what it is for you..." Sigh.
Post a Comment