Talk:Eucharist in Anglicanism

message: A new WikiProject focussing on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion has just been initiated:  WikiProject Anglicanism.  Our goal is to improve and expand Anglican-reltaed articles.  If anyone (Anglican or non-Anglican) is interested, read over the project page and consider signing up.  Cheers! Fishhead64 06:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Anglicanism

message: Hmmmm. A cursory glance at the eBook from New Zealand (which was removed as adspam) suggests to me that it may in fact be a useful companion to the Eucharistic liturgy. Carolynparrishfan 14:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted link

message: The author includes the following sentence:  In still others, the option of juice is offered, usually in consideration of recipients who may be alcoholic (although it is perfectly acceptable and valid to receive the sacrament only in one kind, i.e., the bread, pace the rubrics of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer).  I cannot locate the specific rubrics of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer referenced, and it seems that not receiving the wine runs a little contrary to Article XXX of the Articles of Religion.  Am I missing something?  Thank you for an excellent article.Anglican444 (talk) 02:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A pragmatic answer is (i)it is one thing to deny the cup to the laity, it is another to offer an alternative where there is reasonable cause; (ii) this is was not a problem in Cranmer's time or indeed in 1662 hence it did not make it to the rubrics; (iii) in any case, situations of this type are normally dealt with by some sort of canonical regulation rather than written into the rubrics; (iv) 1662 may no longer be binding in the Province where this occurs.  If you want to work out Cranmer's probable reaction have a careful look at the service for the Communion of the Sick and the provision for "spiritual communion".  I hope this helps, even if belatedly. --Jpacobb (talk) 19:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Of Both Kinds 

message: Having printed out the contents of this page and read both them and the article several times I have come to the conclusion that there is a lot of work to be done here. Both the "From Elsewhere" and "High-Church Bias" sections are positively thought-provoking and, taken together, I think point towards the need to restructure and rewrite.  I have not got time to tackle the task at the moment, but I have pulled together a few ideas to launch a discussion:
:1) The presentation should be strictly historical and descriptive, the main-line being tentatively: Cranmer to Hooker; the Caroline authors & non-jurors; the 18th century High Church and Evangelical tendencies; the Oxford Movement and Ritualism/Anglo-catholicism (with reactions); 1900 (approx) to 1950; ARCIC I.  This will permit the elements of change and development to be handled adequately.
:2) The lead would need to be totally rewritten.  At present, it gives of transubstantiation a prominence which unbalances the article.
:3) The last sections which deal with the rite should be transfered to a separate Article, they have virtually no theological content.
:4) Statements about the degree of support for a particular view should be avoided and, if made, should be of the "so-and-so states that ..." variety.  (I know of no reasonably trustworthy data.)
On a more detailed level, the following points among other will need sorting out.
:a) The BCP of 1662 and the 39 Articles are no longer highly authorative in many Provinces of the Anglican Communion - even when they have retained certain status, they may be seen as historical reference points rather than definitive statements.
:b) The material on "consubstation" must be properly sourced.  (I myself have doubts about its accuracy.)
:c) The term "Broad Church" at least in the UK is normally used of a 19th Century "party" which later mutated into "modernism".  Does anyone know if it is currently used elsewhere as a label for "non-extreme Anglicanism" which is some times labelled Central Churchmanship?
:d) ARCIC I. I include this because its report is the one reasonably contemporary document which, given its approval by Lambeth 1988, might be understood to point towards an Anglican consensus.  If taken in conjunction with Anglican reactions to it (see Anglicans and Roman Catholics: The Search for Unity - SPCK) it gives a responsible current overview.  It should be realised that the Anglican members was a representative group - Henry Chadwick wrote "It is not as if the Anglican team was packed with Anglo-Catholics"  having previously described it as "nine reasonably literate Anglicans, standing in a traditions shaped by Augustine and Hooker but above all by the Book of Common Prayer."
Jpacobb (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  And the Next Step? 

message: I reverted the recent addition by 74.178.17.16 of the words "or High Church" to the title of the sub-section Anglo-Catholic in Customary of the rite because, while the rite described in the subsection is clearly Anglo-Catholic, the term "High Church" covers a far broader spectrum of theology and practice.  (This distinction is made in the opening of the lead section.)  There seem to be two ways forward.  One is to include a new subsection "High Church".  The other is to expand the current section and call it "Anglo-Catholic and High Church Rites" Jpacobb (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect there's enough overlap between the two that having two sections would introduce a lot of redundancy. I'd suggest a single section for High Church, which includes Anglo-Catholic. Angr (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anglo-Catholic / High Church 

message: This section has two references (both peripheral ones) and about fifteen "citation needed" or similar tags.  It may be my British insularity and/or the deficiencies of my library, but I can't find anything which enables me to give references and, in fact, in all my conversations / reading etc. over the years these themes have never come up in the terms described in this sub-section. (I have found one reference to "sacramental union" in Crockett's essay in The Study of Anglicanism--p.275--", that is "between the elements and the reality signified by them" which seems rather different to the meaning of "sacramental union" given in the article with that title since Crockett remarks a little later that only the faithful recipient receives the res thus denying the manducatio indignorum). I suggest we remove the sub-section, at least until someone manages to put it into proper shape, and, at the same time, extend the section on "receptionism" and include something on the closely allied doctrine of "virtualism". Jpacobb (talk) 01:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove sub-section "Consubstantiation / Sacramental Union"? 

message: With regard to this sentence: "Anglo-Catholics and High Church Evangelicals hold to a belief in the real objective presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but maintain that the details of how He is present remain mystery of faith,[2][3] a view also held by the Orthodox Church and Methodist Church.[9][10]"
(1) Would it also be fair to say that this is basically the Lutheran view too, or does sacramental union amount to an explanation of "the details of how he is present"? It seems Lutherans still vehemently reject philosophical explanations like transubstantiation and consubstantiation. Luther himself, contra Zwingli, thought the biblical text “this is my body” settles the matter, while opposing post-Scriptural philosophical explanations of it (i.e. transubstantiation) (White, J. F. (1989). Protestant worship: traditions in transition. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, pg. 39, 58-59). He did say, however, that he would rather drink pure blood with the pope than mere wine with [Zwingli et al] (Maxwell Johnson, pers. comm.)
(2) Shouldn't "Orthodox Church" be pluralized? Assuming that this statement is true of all of the various Orthodox churches...
Elcalebo (talk) 11:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real presence but explanation a mystery - Lutheran? Pluralize Orthodox? 

message: Substituted at 20:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: "For the vast majority of Anglicans, the Eucharist ..., is the central act of gathered worship: the appointed means by which Christ can become present to his church."
In 2005 Evangelicals (who would not believe that the Eucharist is the central act of gathered worship) made up 40% of the C of E in the UK. Surely with dwindling congregations among liberal and broad Anglican churches that percentage cannot have gone down.
I would suggest changing 'vast majority' to simply 'many'.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fulgentian (talk • contribs) 10:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The vast majority?!? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Anglican eucharistic theology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5Prjkilh0?url=http%3A%2F%2Fanglicansonline.org%2Fbasics%2Fthirty-nine_articles.html to http://anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929083934/http://www.anglicanjournal.com/opinion/029/article/dealing-with-eucharistic-leftovers-can-cause-deep-offence/ to http://www.anglicanjournal.com/opinion/029/article/dealing-with-eucharistic-leftovers-can-cause-deep-offence/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Adumbrativus (talk) 07:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Anglican eucharistic theology →  – For greater consistency with the rest of the other Christian denominations that carry the same introduction of the title, "Eucharist in in the Catholic Church", "Eucharist in Lutheranism" Rafaelosornio (talk) 06:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Christianity has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Garnet Moss (talk) 03:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 1 February 2024