Originally posted by DoubleMeatWhopper+May 27 2005, 05:25 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DoubleMeatWhopper @ May 27 2005, 05:25 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-prepstudinsc@May 27 2005, 04:10 AM
The Episcopalian introcutory website, PTTW.org says this:
Transubstantiation vs. mystery
The Episcopal Church does not believe in Transubstantiation, which is documented in the Book of Common Prayer, page 873 in the Articles of Religion.
I stand corrected. I had assumed that since the words of the canon and consecration of the host are identical in the Catholic and High Epicopal liturgies, the doctrine concerning Transubstantiation would be shared by both. Before the establishment of the Church of England, those who eventually converted to Anglicanism definitely believed in Transubstantiation. I know Episcopalians today who believe in it as well, but apparently it is not in accordance with their official doctrine. Thanks for educating me on that point: I had no idea.
Members of Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polich National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own churches. According to RC discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of communion by Christians of these churches. (canon 844-3). Presumably these churches are the ones who hold to the doctrine of transubstantiation.Â
Without question. The bans of excommunication against the Eastern Orthodox and Assyrians were lifted by Pope Paul the VI, and the bans of separation against the Polish National Church were lifted by Pope John-Paul II. The mutual bans of excommunication between the Catholics and Orthodox do not completely work both ways, unfortunately. His All Holiness Athenagoras I pronounced the excommunication of the Catholic Church dissolved, but the patriarchs of the other Orthodox sub-rites refute his declaration and still regard the Church of Rome as heretical. Only those Orthodox under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople (which includes the Greek Orthodox Church of North and South America) accept the validity of the Roman Catholic Church.
[post=315369]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]
Well that leaves me a bit confused. I thought United Methodist beliefs on transsubstantiation were closer to the Catholic doctrine then they appear to be. The United Methodist Church came out of the Church of England and was formed as a church, (The Methodist Movement started much earlier for small groups) becasue of the American Revolution. I knew Methodist doctrine on comunion was the same as the Anglican. I assumed that the Anglican was Transsubstantiation.
I believe that The United Methodist liturgy for Holy Communion is worded identically to the Episcopal and Catholic liturgies. Here is the section where the elements are consecrated. "Pour out your Holy Spirit on us gathered here, and on these gifts of bread and wine. Make them be for us the body and blood of Christ, that we may be for the world the body of Chrsit, redeemed by his blood." And as the Sacraments are given, the words "The Body of Christ broken for you." The blood of Christ shed for you." are said to the communicants at the altar. Sounds like Transubstantiation.
Here appears to be the difference at least in the Methodist Church. In the Catholic Church the consecration of the elements makes the bread and wine be the actual body and blood of Christ. And it would be that way to anyone and everyone to touched or consumed any of it. Furthermore, even after the service is over, any left over would have to be treated as such.
In the Methodist Church the bread and wine are FOR ME and others who are celebrating the Holy Sacrament the body and blood of Christ. But any left over and for non believers the bread and wine is just bread and wine. It only holds that special place as body and blood of Christ during the Sacramental Worship for those who believe and accept it. In the Catholic Church those elements continue to hold that special place as body and blood of Christ as long as those elements exist.
So from a religious standpoint I see no difference. However, at the end of the service the Catholics have to save the host, (bread or body) because it is sacred and is still the body of Christ and the priest must consume the rest of the unused wine or blood of Christ. In short, there is no religious difference to me, but there is a physical difference in the Catholic tradition.
I can see the confussion as the modern liturgy during the consecration and blessing of the elements to be sacraments is word for word the same in the Episcopal, Catholic and United Methodist Churches. The major difference is that the blessing for the Pope is only in the Catholic liturgy and the ringing of the bell to announce the transubastantiation of the bread and wine is not rung during the
Episcopal services. When I say word for word I am talknig about the Great Thanksgiving or Eucharistic Prayer. Some of the responses, interludes between sections is different. Certainly different prayers are used and different prefaces are used according to season and situation. I am only refering to the actual required words of the liturgy that even the low liturgy service would have as a part of celebration of the Sacrament without prefaces, responses hymns, etc.
Again, for me during the celebration of Holy Communion, that is the body and blood of Jesus atoning for my sins and making me perfect so I am in total communion with God and all the saints and people who have died and are with God while I am at the altar receiving the Sacrament of Holy Communion. That is why that Sacrament is so important. It has me in total communion with God even for if it is for just a moment. Humans just don't have the capcity to be in total communion with God here on earth in these physical bodies. God makes it possible.
I suspect that what it does for me is no different than what it does for Jacinto.
And for me that is the bottom line. Perhaps we Methodists could be more respectful and treat the unused consecrated sacraments as the Catholics do. I would have no problem with that.
Now Jacinto, if I have part of it not quite right. do post and say so. I do want to be correct in my understanding of different people's theology.
I think it's maybe vaguely possible that I kinda sorta like you too *squirms*
