Defiling the Eucharist

My next door neighbor who earned a masters degree in Philosophy just recently showed up one Sunday morning for mass in the Anglican church in which my wife, son and myself belong to. It kind of shocked me because he is pretty much a dyed in the wool Evangelical Christian of some kind. he seemed to being doing pretty well through the readings, Fr. Andrew’s sermon, the Nicene Creed and everything of course leading up to the Eucharist and its concecration. It was then that I was blown away by what he said. As our priest was consecrating the bread and wine, my neighbor leaned over and said to me in a low voice, “if he was using a Snickers bar and a Coke, it would be the same exact thing”. I told him afterward that I was greatly offended by this and we haven’t spoken since. What are some of your thoughts on this?

That he is both a clod, and wrong.

Personal opinion on the first.

GKC

They’re everywhere!

Immature. Inconsiderate. And patient. He sat through a whole Mass just to make this stupid comment.

Jay Leno’s job is secure. :wink:

So you were at an Anglican Mass? Are you Catholic?

Hello again CAS.

How come for some evangelicals their opposition of the Eucharist goes beyond mere opposition and dips into ridicule and disrespect? For some reason it seems that (for some) just saying that they deny the Real Presence is not enough. :shrug:

As our priest was consecrating the bread and wine, my neighbor leaned over and said to me in a low voice, “if he was using a Snickers bar and a Coke, it would be the same exact thing”. I told him afterward that I was greatly offended by this and we haven’t spoken since. What are some of your thoughts on this?

I have to ask… Did he take communion?

God bless

He said that he is Anglican. While Catholics don’t believe that Anglicans have a valid Eucharist (and thus no Real Presence), I’m a far way from believing that an Anglican Eucharist is ‘exactly the same thing as using a Snickers Bar and a can of Coke’.

LilyM-
Fair enough. I was just wondering what the exact Anglican belief is on the Eucharist. I am in no way saying that the Anglican faith teaches that Communion is the same as a snickers bar. However, what are their teachings regarding what it is? Do they believe in consubstantiation? Once again, no disrespect meant.

I am just wondering if it isn’t truly the body and blood of our Lord, is it just a piece of bread? A symbolic piece of bread? Is there meaning only when I believe it is there? Is there an ontological change in the bread? Does is become part of Jesus? Just looking for some clarification into Angelican belief.

Thanks. I will post again tomorrow siting some more questions concerns. I am very sad that the “philosopher” was so rude.

Newman on the definition of a gentleman- “If he be an unbeliever, he will be too profound and large-minded to ridicule religion or to act against it; he is too wise to be a dogmatist or fanatic in his infidelity.”

Sorry to hear he was not a gentleman.

Anglicans believe in the Real Presence, unsure if they subscribe to consubstantiation though. I am not sure if this is a good Anglican web-site or not but it does have the Anglican 39 articles on it. From the articles:

XXVIII. 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.

  • Bold mine *

The Lords Supper is also considered a Sacrament in the Anglican faith:

XXV. Of the Sacraments.
Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God’s good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him.

There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.

Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.

The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith.

anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html

I am just wondering if it isn’t truly the body and blood of our Lord, is it just a piece of bread? A symbolic piece of bread? Is there meaning only when I believe it is there? Is there an ontological change in the bread? Does is become part of Jesus? Just looking for some clarification into Angelican belief.

I would say that an Anglican believe it is truly the Body and Blood of our Lord. I will let an Anglican clarify though as to what they believe.

God bless

When I was an anglican for awhile I maintaned a belief in the real presence but, the controversy of consubstatiation or transubstatiation depends on whom you ask

A nice scandalous quote to make in return comes from Martin Luther when he debated John Calvin declared that when he went to communion he expected to “recieve a piece of Christ’s hairy thigh.” Rather blunt but to the point!

if this so called philosopher felt that way why did he bother to attend a communion service at all? Reminds me of that story about Flannery O’Connor at a coctail party in New York when the hostess a former catholic ask if Flannery still participated in that “pious ritual” (the mass) responded with if it was just a pious ritual I wouldn’t bother!

"How wude!-Jar Jar Binks

He might very well not have realized just how offensive what he was saying was to you. I know some protestants just see the eucharist as a symbol, but still bother in their own way to perform it as a ritual of some sort. Evangelicals sometimes have some very odd theology about the eucharist that seems to deviate even farther away from orthodox belief. I remember one night catching one of those evangelical pastors on TV saying something similar- that you could just as well use a cup of Sprite and a Snickers bar! He explained how what you’re doing is proclaiming “the Lord’s death till He comes.” He seemed to think this was the important thing and linked it to some sort of ‘personal empowerment’ drivel.

You should probably just ask him what he meant in saying what he did and let him explain. Let him know how and why it was offensive to you and hopefully you guys can get past it. :slight_smile:

What Anglicans believe depends on which Anglican you ask. But Anglicans are not bound by the XXXIX Articles, except (technically) ordinands of the Church of England.

GKC

unbelivable. :eek:

They are still humiliating, insulting, and hurting the Flesh of Christ like they did 2000 years ago! I can`t really say that the Angelican Eucharist is the Real Presense unless they are in some way tied to the Catholic Church like some non-Catholic denominations are.

Pray that this man repents it is YOUR duty. He is your brother afterall and you know his evil mindset. Try to offer him evidence from the Bible perspective and show him that throughout history the very first Christians before evengicals even existed believed in the Real Presense. Remember, you know what this person has done, you have a responsible to help him out.

may God bless both of you.

:thumbsup:

responsibility*

Well the calorie count would certainly be higher.

But think about this. I bet Church attendance would increase significantly if it became known that you got a Snicker’s bar after sitting through the ceremony. This could in fact be the key to revitalizing the Church in Europe.

No, because the secularists would then accuse the Church of adding to societal obesity rates.
Wait! that might be a good thing for government-run healthcare systems.

Jon

Hello again GKC,

And I thought backing up my opinion with the Articles would be a sure fire way of proving my opinion. Why do you Anglicans have to be so slippery? :wink:

Would you be willing to hazard a guess as to whether or not the Real Presence is affirmed within the Anglican communion more than it is denied?

If you don’t mind me asking, are you one who affirms or denies the Real Presence.

God bless

Anglicans started out slippery and got worse. I blame Elizabeth I. She’s why the Articles are, as they are, incidentally.

At a guess, I am not sure. But, I’l do it anyway. I would guess that most would affirm some form of the Presence, without speculating on how it came to be.

It is why (where such Anglicans are) you’ll find the sanctuary lamp, the tabernacle, the reserved sacrament, reverencing of the altar, genuflecting on entering the sanctuary, and why no one not in orders may touch the consecrated elements. No EMs, that is.

And, from time to time, you will find a service where the Blessed Body is reverenced, usaully referred to as Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament.

You will note that not all Anglcains will do this, of course.

Me, personally, I’m an adherent of Trent, Session XIII, canon 1.

GKC

RE: the Articles
They were written with confusing language as a compromise between the High Church party and the puritans. There’s one I forget the number that talks about Purgatory relics and processions of the blessed sacrement being “vainly invented and repugnant to the word of God” on asking an Anglican priest about that he said but, there’s nothing in there that says you can’t do it.
The reason I left was a laissez faire attitude about celebration of the Eucharist,(morning prayer would periodically replace the eucharist because Father didn’t want to do it or was on vacation) slippery slope dogma and praxis, we could distribute the cup as lay persons but not the hosts. The final straw was being asked to clean the tabernacle which I had been venerating and finding it to be quite empty- no reserve sacrement at all, this despite the perpetual candle I had to diligently replace every week!
Apparently there are some protestant churches where reverence for the church and altar are almost non-existant. I can give two examples. 1) I was waiting in a Catholic hospital chapel for a friend of mine who when she appeared brought a coke into the chapel and proceeded to set it down on the altar!:bigyikes::tsktsk: The second one equally as bad. I was wating for a John Michael Talbot concert in a church when this lady:( waltzed in made herself at home in the reserved section for community members only and pulled out her lunch and began to eat it while waiting right before the woship space thank God it wasn’t in a catholic church! I thought Viola, John’s wife was going to faint being an ex Poor Clare nun:nun1:!

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.