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."

Context & Priorities

Q: How do we address Romans 1:24 while still being a loving, accepting Christian community?

When contemplating how I was going to respond to this, I wanted to make sure that I was able to teach in the midst of giving a source of reflection. Scripture is a struggle sometimes, as we search for meaning and application to our own lives and situations. I don’t feel that any one verse in any book of scripture is meant to stand alone. Indexing and versing is only a convenient means that we use to find our place. Therefore, I took the verse before the verse in question and the verse after and compared three different translations. Here they are: (I put verse 24 in italics so that it would be identifiable.)

Romans 1:22-25 (KJV)

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Romans 1:22-25 (NRSV)

Claiming to be wise, they became fools; and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

Romans 1:22-25 (The Message)

They pretended to know it all, but were illiterate regarding life. They traded the glory of God who holds the whole world in his hands for cheap figurines you can buy at any roadside stand. So God said, in effect, “If that’s what you want, that’s what you get.” It wasn’t long before they were living in a pigpen, smeared with filth, filthy inside and out. And all this because they traded the true God for a fake god, and worshiped the god they made instead of the God who made them—the God we bless, the God who blesses us. Oh, yes!

If you isolate verse 24, I can instantly see why one would consider it to be problematic. Especially in the King James version. Read by itself, it seems that God has given up on those who lust in uncleanness and dishonor their bodies. It’s pretty condemning to those who may not fit conveniently in a conservative biological anatomical description, specifically our LGBTQ brothers and sisters. Which may be the underlying reason for this question in the first place. 

Put into context, one can see that the Romans passage referenced is not necessarily about lust and sex at all. In context, the passage seems to address the larger issue of right relationship with God. We must understand that God is always more about how we live in relationship and less about how our biological parts fit together. The people of Rome were being exhorted by the Apostle Paul for failing to get their priorities right. They were not putting the ONE true living God first.

We should remember that Christianity, at the time of the letter to the Romans, was a new way and most of the Romans that Paul was writing to were once pagan and followed many gods, usually formed in some likeness of an animal or humanoid figure. These "fake" gods were often associated with public orgy festivals, and other acts of debauchery. If the people of Rome were now professing to believe and follow the ONE true God of Israel in the way of Jesus, then those other “fake” gods needed to be given up, as well as the practices that are degrading to good healthy relationships.

The correct priority would be to honor and acknowledge the way of Jesus Christ that Paul is trying to teach. Those who “profess to be wise” or “know it all” will often end up thinking that they have it all figured out by themselves and can save themselves. They think that there is no need for Jesus, let alone church, spiritual development, Christian education, sacraments, etc… Unfortunately, even today society is full of those who “profess to be wise” and therefore don’t need Jesus. If we choose to live in our "filth" and not put God before "fake idols," then God will surely let us.

God commands us to love one another, and to love God. However, God never forces us to love. We will always have free-will to do as we please. But when we do as we please, we end up acting like the “know it all” and straying from the ways of Christ and following too much the devices and desires of our own hearts. If we turned away from God, it's guaranteed that we are going to mess it up, and God’s not going to keep us from messing it up. We make other things in our life idols and end up worshiping them, because we pay attention to them more than we are nurturing our relationship with God.

To me, Romans 1:24 does not get in the way of being a loving, accepting Christian community. It does call us into making sure that we continue to put God first and not rely on ourselves or replace God with a fake. 

Significant Saints

Q: Which saint hold special significance for you, Father Ken and why?

I had to think about this one for a while. I would like to think that all “saints” have a special significance for me because they show us how they kept the faith through the trials and tribulations of their own life. I heard one of my mentors one time say that the reason that they depict saints on the stained glass windows is because they let the light shine through. I’ve also heard saints referred to as keyholes through which we may view the Christian life. I guess those statements and images have always resonated with me.

If I had to pick one, it would be extremely difficult. Because I am drawn to the English mystics overall, I guess I would choose Julian of Norwich. Dame Julian had a very simple way of expressing the majesty and power of God, making it relational and very accessible. Her writings, composed in a work called “Showings” or “Revelations of Divine Love” tell of a time when she was very sick, near death. In the midst of this sickness, she says that she had an encounter with Jesus who revealed to her that she would be ok, that her sickness experienced through the lens of Jesus suffering and the evils of this world were all relative to human understanding.

Julian had a way of expressing God that was different and non-traditional. She took the relational aspects of God to another extreme. God was both father and mother and Jesus was nurturer (often a descriptive reserved for women). Julian often used feminine language to describe the divine. In her time, late 14th century, this was just not done.

I think that I am attracted to Julian for other reasons, too. One is the fact that she could be such an influential figure and introduce us to ways of thinking about God and yet, we’re not even sure that Julian is her real name. Not uncommon for a woman in that age to be “unknown” or not given credit. It was considered unimportant.

All we know (and assume) is that the anchoress at the cathedral of St. Julian in Norwich wrote a work that included sixteen mystical visions and contemplation on universal love and hope. This was all done in a time when England faced the plague, religious reforms, and war. Her work was published in 1395, and it is the first published book in the English language to be written by a woman.

2 of my favorite quotes from Julian of Norwich:

“God, of your goodness, give me yourself; you are enough for me, and anything less that I could ask for would not do you full honor. And if I ask anything that is less, I shall always lack something, but in you alone I have everything'.” ― Julian of Norwich

“And in this he showed me a little thing, the quantity of a hazel nut, lying in the palm of my hand, as it seemed. And it was as round as any ball. I looked upon it with the eye of my understanding, and thought, ‘What may this be?’ And it was answered generally thus, ‘It is all that is made.’ I marveled how it might last, for I thought it might suddenly have fallen to nothing for littleness. And I was answered in my understanding: It lasts and ever shall, for God loves it. And so have all things their beginning by the love of God. In this little thing I saw three properties. The first is that God made it. The second that God loves it. And the third, that God keeps it.” ― Julian of Norwich

Sin and Forgiveness

Q: Does Jesus reward all who repent? No matter the sin or crime?

I am glad you phrased the question this way. You could have asked about “all who ask forgiveness” which is totally different than being penitent or repenting. The word “repent” implies a change or a ‘turning around’ and going in another direction. In scripture, the Greek word μετάνοια (metanoia) is often translated as repentance.  This kind of change is not about regret, guilt or shame; it is a true change of heart. It implies making a conscious decision to turn around, to face a new direction.

It’s also interesting that you said “reward” rather than “forgive.” I feel that the reward to those who repent is restoration. Those who change their heart and turn back to God (repent), rather than away from God are restored to right relationship with God. They pursue a new path of love and community rather than a path of destruction and division.

I would say that repentance also implies making amends or “paying penance.” To me, just because you repent of the sin or crime and start leading a new life doesn’t mean that you get to erase the past. I don’t feel that it works that way. The path to restoration is sometimes a difficult one. It requires intentional hard work and struggle every day to live with a penitent heart.

In scripture, we are assured that those who turn to Jesus are dead in their wrongdoings (Ephesians 2:4-10). We are a “new creation” in Christ… part of the new order in the restoration of the world (2 Corinthians 5:17). The pathway to connection with God is never closed for those that desire it. So, I would say that the only thing that would keep anyone from that relationship is the outright rejection of God.

So, it is my opinion that yes, Jesus rewards and restores to right relationship (with God) those who turn their heart and change their ways, no matter the sin or crime. However, this doesn’t mean that they don’t require some amends to others or society for the wrongs they have done.