Importance of Holy Eucharist

How important is the Eucharist to the Episcopal faith in general? To your faith specifically?

The Episcopal Church holds that a celebration of the Holy Eucharist is the principal act of Christian worship. This means that all the rites and rituals of the Church should be conducted with the reception of the sacraments of bread and wine at the center. This is the way Jesus is present with us in our worship. This is how we are nourished by his presence in this life and in the life to come. On Sundays and feast days, we celebrate the Eucharist. I always encourage the celebration at Burials and Weddings, though it’s not always done.

For me, specifically, receiving the Eucharist is of utmost importance to my faith. I feel that it is how we are “in communion with” God and each other. It’s how we connect with each other by sharing in the broken bread and cup, which is Christ.

Communion and "Real Presence"

Please discuss how the following terms either comply or oppose official Episcopal teachings on the eucharist: transubstantiation, consubstantiation, real presence, and receptionism. 

I know many folks that are still trying to figure this out. I think that throughout the Episcopal Church you will find people all over the map with regard to what they believe about the Eucharist. As far as official? I think that “Real Presence” describes it best. See https://www.episcopalchurch.org/glossary  

Transubstantiation - The belief that the substance (essence) of Christ's body and blood replaces the substance of the eucharistic bread and wine, although the appearances (known as “accidents” or “species”) of the bread and wine continue outwardly unchanged. This eucharistic theology is based on the philosophical categories of Aristotle, elaborated at length by medieval Latin theologians, and regarded as definitive in the Roman Catholic tradition. The term is derived from the Latin trans “across” or “over,” and substantia, “substance.” The classical explanation of transubstantiation was presented by Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica. Transubstantiation was also defended by the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and the Council of Trent (1545-1563). Article XXVIII of the Articles of Religion rejects transubstantiation as “repugnant” and unscriptural, asserting instead that Christ is present in the eucharist in a “heavenly and spiritual manner” (BCP, p. 873). The English Test Act of 1673 required a Declaration Against Transubstantiation by all persons holding civil or military office. Some nineteenth-century Tractarians, such as John Henry Newman, found transubstantiation compatible with their understanding of the Eucharist. But the concept of transubstantiation has generally been avoided and excluded from Anglican theologies of the Real Presence of Christ's body and blood in the eucharist.

Consubstantiation - Doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist associated with the theology of Martin Luther. It teaches that after the consecration, the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ and the substance of the bread and wine coexist in union with each other. The doctrine was formulated in opposition to the doctrine of transubstantiation, which held that the substance of the consecrated bread and wine no longer existed, but their accidents (external form) were sacramentally united to the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ. This doctrine was condemned by Luther in The Babylonian Captivity. Transubstantiation was believed by the Reformers generally to overthrow the nature of a sacrament by denying the reality of the external sign. 

Real Presence – Discussed Above.

Receptionism - The belief that the eucharistic elements of bread and wine are unchanged during the prayer of consecration but that the faithful believer receives the body and blood of Christ in receiving communion. This was the prevailing eucharistic theology in the Reformation era of Anglicanism. The Articles of Religion state that the bread and wine of the eucharist are the body and blood of Christ “to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same. . . .” Article XXVIII, Of the Lord's Supper (BCP, p. 873). Thomas Cranmer held a receptionist understanding of the eucharist, which informed his work on the 1549 and 1552 Prayer Books. This historic receptionistic language is still retained in Eucharistic Prayer I of Rite 1. However, Anglican eucharistic theology has tended to hold in balance both an objective change of some kind in the eucharistic elements to become the body and blood of Christ and the subjective faith of the believer who receives the sacrament. The words of administration of the 1559 Prayer Book joined language from the 1549 BCP that identified the sacrament as the body and blood of Christ with more receptionistic language from the 1552 BCP that urged the communicant to receive the sacrament “in remembrance” of Christ's sacrifice. This combination was continued in the 1662 BCP, and in subsequent American Prayer Books (see BCP, p. 338). The balance of objective and subjective theologies of the eucharist is also presented by the Catechism, which states that “The inward and spiritual grace in the Holy Communion is the Body and Blood of Christ given to his people, and received by faith” (BCP, p. 859). The receptionistic language of Eucharistic Prayer I in Rite 1 is not found in the other eucharistic prayers of the BCP.

Differing Beliefs

Do the beliefs of the laity differ from official Episcopal teaching?
If so, what is the significance of this issue?

I’m not sure I understand the questions. I’m sure that different folks have different ways of believing (lay and ordained). Do I think everyone in the laity is in line with the “official teaching” of the church? I would have to say no. But I would also say that also goes for the rest of Christianity. Faith and belief differ. There may be things outside the “official teaching” that people don’t agree with. There are many wrinkles in religion. Being Christian means that we follow Jesus who is the Christ. To me, that means that Jesus is Lord, and he is the incarnation of God. Faith in Christ is the thing we strive for. 

I feel that the Episcopal Church offers a broad umbrella under which to exercise that faith. Other than the Holy Scripture and the Book of Common Prayer, we rely on apostolic tradition and reason through the Holy Spirit to lead us into faith and into right relationship with each other and with God. 

If you need something other than this, please e-mail me again. Maybe rephrase or restate the question. I may be misunderstanding you here.

Episcopal Church and the Eucharist

What is the official Episcopal teaching on the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist?

Taken directly from our catechism, which can be found in the Book of Common Prayer, 1979, The Holy Eucharist is the sacrament commanded by Christ for the continual remembrance of his life, death, and resurrection until his coming again. It’s called a sacrifice because the Eucharist, the Church’s sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, is the way by which the sacrifice of Christ is made present and in which he unites us to his one offering of himself. We believe a sacrament is an outward and visible sign of inward and spiritual grace. The outward and visible sign in the Eucharist is bread and wine, given and received according to Christ’s command. The inward and spiritual grace in the Holy Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ given to his people and received by faith. The benefits we receive are the forgiveness of our sins, the strengthening of our union with Christ and one another, and the foretaste of the heavenly banquet, which is our (viaticum – food for the journey) nourishment in eternal life.

What we mean when we say that Jesus is “present” in the Eucharist is because when he gave us the mandate to continue breaking the bread and sharing the cup until his coming again, he said that he would be present with us always, even to the end of the ages. The 1991 statement of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission notes, “The elements are not mere signs; Christ’s body and blood become really present and are really given. But they are “really present” and given so that, receiving them, believers may be united in communion with Christ the Lord.” A classic Anglican statement attributed to John Donne (or to Queen Elizabeth I) and included in The Hymnal 1982 (Hymn 322) is “He was the Word that spake it, he took the bread and brake it, and what that Word did make it, I do believe and take it.” In Eucharistic Prayer A of Rite 2, the celebrant prays that God the Father will sanctify the gifts of bread and wine “by your Holy Spirit to be for your people the Body and Blood of your Son, the holy food and drink of new and unending life in him” (Book of Common Prayer, p. 363). The Catechism notes that the inward and spiritual grace in the eucharist is “the Body and Blood of Christ given to his people and received by faith” (Book of Common Prayer, p. 859). Belief in the “real presence” does not imply a claim to know how Christ is present in the eucharistic elements. Belief in the real presence does not imply a belief that the consecrated eucharistic elements cease to be bread and wine. 

Like I've said before, “physical things, like bread, wine, water, oil, etc… become the vehicles God uses to share the power and presence of Jesus Christ, through the workings of the Holy Spirit. The presence of the risen Christ in the Eucharist is ultimately an inexhaustible mystery that the Church can never fully explain in words or philosophical ideologies."