I did not agree with his remarks about what the Eucharist is pointing to; that the Eucharist brings us into the upper room. Yes…I agree with him that Chrst is contemporary and that he is with us. Nor do I believe that when Jesus says “Do this in remembrance of me”that Jesus is saying that we will be reliving the upper room experience.

In his notes, Michael reminds us what the BCP teaches – that Christ is truly and really present in the Sacrament. But he is present only sacramentally, that is to say, only by a sign. We eat and drink the signs of Jesus atoning death. They remain nothing but signs. Jesus presence is in his risen power, is due to his promise to be among those who meet in his name and the manner of his presence is the Holy Spirit which he gives to all believers, which is through faith alone in Christ alone. (Articles XXVIIII – And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the supper is by faith.)

I explain to our parishioners that the Eucharist is a physical parable. It is a tangible sign that completely closes the door on the notion that we can contribute to our salvation in any way; that we are saved by the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ alone. And that the Eucharist is a sign of God’s grace only as long as it is understood in the context of the Word of God. In other words, the Word unlocks the meaning of the Eucharist.

Will stop now. Just thoughts from an Aussie Anglican minister.

Thanks for posting it.

What the senses fail to fathom, let us grasp by faith’s consent–Thomas Aquinas.

I prefer to leave it at that.

I think it’s actually up to the rector how the elements are treated after. I think that generally there is the balance of not offending the brethren, so that if a rector doesn’t have as high of a eucharistic theology as some of his anglo-catholic congregants, he still treats it reverently.

I think the big different between Anglican and Catholic theology is that while both view the Eucharist as a sacrifice, Catholics view it as a propitiatory sacrifice (which can be said for souls in purgatory for instance), while Anglicans view it as a thanksgiving sacrifice, an offering of gratitude which we eat in the real presence of the Lord.

In fact, while I was studying all of this, it occurred to me that the basic Anglican vision of worship is that of a thanksgiving sacrifice. Worship is what we offer to God, but mysteriously receive back ourselves. Every part of Anglican worship can be viewed with this lens.

As for transubstantiation vs consubstantiation vs real presence vs symbolic memorial, etc. Most Anglican priests I know, when this question is asked throw up their hands and with a twinkle in their eye say: “It’s a mystery.” That is what I think the 39 articles are getting at, it’s not so much that transubstantiation is outright wrong. It’s that it is soo specific that it becomes misleading.

Again, I’m new to Anglicanism, so take it all with a grain of salt.