Replies

The issue is the validity of the sacrament.

Catholics and Orthodox don't have intercommunion one with another because of our disagreements in the past. It is a matter of discipline that can, and has, been waived in certain circumstances. But we believe that each other's sacraments are valid.

(For example, I believe the official position of the Church is that we may receive communion, if the Orthodox priest is willing to distribute it to us, if there is not a Catholic church within a reasonable distance)

However, with the other Western ecclesiastical communitites, we do not believe that their communion is a valid sacrament. There is no transubstantiation in any of their rites. This is because we do not believe that there is a valid apostolic succession and, thus, no valid sacrament of Holy Orders. Reception of bread and wine/juice in any of the worship services of those communities would be a public scandal, as it would indicate that we accept the validity of their ceremonies.

As to the beliefs of the schismatic western communities (protestants), I believe that Anglicans think there is transubstantiation, while the Lutherans believe in something called "consubstantiation" -- that the body and blood are 'spiritually' there, in addition to the physical presence of the bread and wine. I also think that the Lutherans believe that the spiritual presence of Christ leaves immediately when the service is over. I believe that the other groups simply consider it to be a symbolic thing...they are doing it to recreate the last supper.

(Having said that, I'm no expert on the theologies of various protestant groups, so if somebody wants to correct me about my statements on them, I'll accept the correction gladly)

Not that it matters but I'm fairly confident that you're mistaken about the Lutherans and I know you're mistaken about the Anglicans. I think "consubstantiation" meant that there was not so much a change of substance as the addition of substance. So it was definitely about a substantial presence of our Lord. How far that thinking extends across the various modern varieties of Lutheranism I do not know.

While Henry VIII fancied himself a theologian, and a conservative one at that, the break happened as continental reform was hitting its stride. Cranmer, I think, just didn't have a philosophical system to support coherently what he thought the sacrament was. (Though he was courageously content to be burned for his incoherence. He's a very interesting guy.) But in general I think a receptionism ("real presence in the believer") or Zwinglian virtualism rapidly dominated ONE strand of English thought. However many persisted in holding to Transubstantiation or in any event to a "Real presence in the consecrated elements" view while not troubling themselves with working out the philosophical underpinnings for such a view. Queen Elizabeth was reportedly firmly pro Real Presence, and the following rhyme is attributed to her:
'Twas God the word that spake it,
He took the bread and brake it,
And what the word did make it,
That I believe and take it.

But by the middle of the 17th century the idea that Jesus was in the Sacrament was so offensive that when the 1662 prayer book prescribed kneeling to receive the "black rubric" was inserted to make clear that "just 'cause we're kneeling doesn't mean we think He's in there, so relax!" (I think they used different words though.) The whole Anglican thing was, pretty much, believe what you want, but treat the thing with the greatest respect -- the "Settlement" which provided words and ceremonies which admitted or were compatible with a belief in the real presence, but did not prescribe a theology one way or the other.

This might have worked in England, but in the US have seen priests pour consecrated wine down a common drain or in the flowers, and heard of one who fed "left over" consecrated hosts to a dog. Episcopal Clergy just don't play well with others, and think being ordained frees them from any obedience.

Eucharistic Theology and liturgics was a big deal with me.