Talk:Eucharist in Anglicanism

From elsewhere

This is largely a consolidation of the Anglican sections at Real Presence and Eucharistic theologies contrasted. Please add to it. Carolynparrishfan 14:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Done! Phew. Fishhead64 21:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't this article come down to "Whatever some Anglicans believe about the Eucharist is flatly denied by other Anglicans, and so there is really no Anglican Eucharistic theology"? 212.205.246.227 20:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is called "Anglican comprehensiveness." There is actually broad agreement. In fact, the article attempts (I hope) to convey the view that there is a vast middle ground of consensus encompassing the views of consubstantiation and sacramental union. The transubstantiationist and exclusively memorialist perspectives are decidedly minority ones. Fishhead64 20:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I would query this claim of broad agreement on a number of grounds. First, no disrespect to you as a priest in the Anglican Church of Canada, but the Anglican Communion is a very large worldwide body without a magisterium to give official statements of Anglican theology and I find it very unlikely that any one contributor to Wikipedia would have experience of Anglicanism in all its guises across the world to speak with any authority in this regard. Most of us don't know what's *really* going on in the Anglican church in other parts of our own country (especially if we're from large countries such as Australia, Canada or the USA), let alone on other continents where Anglicans come from a vastly different cultural (and linguistic) backgrounds. A Canadian Anglican is unlikely to know what Anglicans in Nigeria, Brazil, the Congo, the West Indies etc etc etc actually think about the presence of the Lord in the Eucharist or vestments or whether it's properly called an 'altar' or 'the Lord's Table'. Your consensus may in fact only be one of White Anglophone Anglicans. Secondly, I would even doubt a consensus of white Anglophone Anglicans. Your so-called consensus may dominate in the USA and Canada (and even then I'm not so sure), but I strongly doubt that this is the case in the Anglican Church of Australia and the Church of England. Taking my native Australia as an example, the article (as does Wikipedia in general) tends to dismiss the views of Sydney Anglicans (and implicitly of like-minded evangelical Anglicans elsewhere) as aberrant and peripheral. Yet Sydney Diocese is numerically the largest diocese in Australia. On any given Sunday there are more Anglicans in church in Sydney than the rest of Australia combined. What does that do to your so-called consensus? Sydney Anglicans -- and hence a majority of church-going Australian Anglicans -- would reject Sacramental union/ consubstantiation in favour of a Calvinist or Zwinglian view. And the situation is not too dissimiliar in other parts of the Anglican world such as the Church of England. Although Liberals and Anglo-Catholics may dominate Synod and Diocesan appointments, as far as 'bums on seats' in church go, Low Church Evangelicals who (in all likelihood -- I haven't bothered to take a survey!) hold views contrary to your so-called consensus of sacramental union/ consubstantiation outnumber its adherents.

Moreover, I sympathise with the comment above about the article coming down to there being no Anglican Eucharistic theology. That is not to say that there isn't an Anglican Eucharistic theology, but merely that the Article doesn't present it. Any treatment of "Anglican Eucharistic Theology" necessarily has to expound official Anglican sources such as the 39 Articles and the BCP in light of historical controversy (eg the Reformation, Puritanism, Rationalism, the Oxford Movement etc) and how differnt parties within Anglicanism view these sources differently. This Article describes a range of eucharistic theologies and practices found within Anglicanism but doesn't adequately expound upon official Anglican sources. Low Church Anglicans (well at least those of a conservative Evangelical bent) would say that the 39 Articles and the BCP were clear and binding and forbid many Anglo-Catholic eucharistic practices (such as reservation, adoration, vestments, belief in the corporal presence etc), denouncing them as idolatry even. Most Anglo-Catholics on the other hand would suggest that the 39 Articles and the BCP are not so clear in their denunciation of these practices or say that these documents stem from the time of the Reformation and the Church has moved on from then. This sounds a lot like "Whatever some Anglicans believe about the Eucharist is flatly denied by other Anglicans" to me. Apodeictic 00:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I have combined reactions to this section and to High-Church Bias in a new section called The Next Step, see below. Jpacobb (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Anglicanism

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)

Deleted link

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)

Good article

This is a very nice article! I'd like to nominate it as a Good article, but first it needs inline citations of sources. Angr 18:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

==High-Church Bias== I think the article is a good start at a very difficult subject, but it still has a strong feel of anti Low-Church bias to me. Granted, this subject is notoriously difficult to write upon briefly without expressing bias, but a number of points need to be made here:

1. Transubstantiation. The statement that "Anglicans and Roman Catholics declared" substantial agreement is at best vague and at worst highly tendentious. To the unknowing reader this would suggest that the Anglican Communion and the Church of Rome reached agreement when nothing could be further from the truth. A very few Anglicans and Roman Catholics who made up ARCIC may have declared that, but the views of ARCIC are hardly representative of official Anglican (or Roman Catholic for that matter) doctrine. By its very nature ARCIC is inhabited by Anglo-Catholics sympathetic to reunion with Rome and anything it says has to be read in light of this and understood to represent Anglo-Catholicic views rather than broadly Anglican views.

2. Memorialism. This section lumps together Zwinglian and Calvinistic views of the Lord's Supper. These theologies are actually very different and it is not correct to describe a Calvinistic theology of the Lord's Supper as 'memorialist'. In fact elsewhere (in the introduction) the article attempts to do this by stating that most Low Church Anglicans believe in the Real Presence but that it is not carnal, which would tend to include Calvinists. Also, the discussion of rejection of reservation and adoration of the sacrament under this head is somewhat puzzling (an instance of High Church bias?) given that the 39 Articles and the rubrics to the Order for Holy Communion in the 1662 BCP arguably forbid these practices. In other words, while memorialists (and Calvinists!) may in fact reject reservation and adoration of the sacrament, this still leaves the question of whether the Articles (specifically Article 28) and the rubrics to the Order for Holy Communion forbid these practices. As presently written the article suggests that objection to reservation and adoration is merely a memorialist quibble, when in fact official Anglican sources are directly on point (although no doubt controversial in their application given the diversity of views in practice!)

3. Consubstantiation or Sacramental Union. From my comments above, I would doubt that there is such a 'consensus' position within Anglicanism. Secondly, a clear majority preference for a particular theology or practice is not entirely relevant. If the 39 Articles and the BCP espouse A (and not B) and a majority of Anglicans believes B (and not A), then our so-called consensus (A not B) is nothing more than a majority of Anglicans holding an inauthentically Anglican theology. In other words the majority of Anglicans believing A does not make A authentic Anglican theology. Thirdly, I'm not sure you can claim Cranmer in support of consubstantiation/ sacramental union. In fact I would argue that Cranmer's 'Defence of the True and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ' (along with the 39 Articles and the 1662 Order for HC along with the rubrics) basically rejects any bodily presence of Christ at the Eucharist. The Black Rubric denies the Lutheran doctrine of ubiquity stating that Christ's body is in heaven and that is "against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be at one time in more places than one."

In the Preface to his Defence, Cranmer states (page xii, c, of the 1999 Berith Publications reprint of the 1907 edition): "Moreover, when I say and repeat many times in my book, that the body of Christ is present in them that worthily receive the sacrament; lest any man should mistake my words, and think that I mean, that although Christ be not corporally in the outward visible signs, yet he is corporally in the persons that duly receive them, this is to advertise the reader, that I mean no such thing; but my meaning is, that the force, the grace, the virtue and benefit of Christ's body that was crucified for us, and of his blood that was shed for us, be really and effectually present with all them that duly receive the sacraments: but all this I understand of his spiritual presence, of the which he saith 'I will be with you until the world's end;' and, 'wheresoever two or three be gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them;' and, 'he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him.' Nor no more truly is he corporally or really present in the due ministration of the Lord's Supper, than he is in the due ministration of baptism; [that is to say, in both spiritually by grace. And whersoever in the scripture it is said that Christ, God, or the Holy Ghost is in any man, the same is understood spiritually by grace.]"

Admittedly there is some doubt about the bracketed passage at the end of the quotation. My edition brackets it and footnotes it as only being found in the edition of 1580. But even without this gloss I think the impetus is clear. Jesus is no more corporally present in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper than he is corporally present in the sacrament of baptism -- i.e. he is in no way corporally present in the Lord's Supper. Cranmer is hardly a support for sacramental union/ consubstantiation.

4. Customary of the Rite. The word 'altar' frequently appears here yet this word is not once found in the Prayer Book of 1662. The Prayer Book refers to the Lord's Table (or the Table of the Lord). While High Church Anglicans may like to offer the 'sacrifice' of the 'mass' at an 'altar', Anglicans of a more Reformed persuasion 'partake of' the Lord's Supper (a 'fellowship meal') at 'the Lord's Table'. I find the use of the word 'altar' problematic throughout, but particularly when used in relation to Low Church practice. Most theologically informed Low Church Anglicans would object to the use of the word 'altar'.

5. References. The reference works cited tend to be from a high-church camp. Maybe we could expand the list to make it less narrow in its churchmanship.

6. Nowhere does the article attempt to expound the teaching of the 39 Articles and the Prayer Book on the Eucharist. All it does is outline some of the divergent theological views and practices of Anglican parties. Readers may be interested in knowing why these difference exist and how to go about judging whether the various positions are true to Scripture, the 39 Articles and the Book of Common Prayer. Apodeictic 00:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right. It is being leapt on by that camp, I suspect. There are unsubstantiated statements like the one that "most Anglicans believe in Real Presence". (I removed it. That was reversed. I had not claimed the opposite as I have no citations.) I know countless Anglicans, clergymen and laymen, without any single one of them ever suggesting a belief in anything but the "memorialist" position and in accordance with the Thirty-Nine Articles! If there are different opinions, both must be given to make the article what it claims to be, but at the moment one is pushing the other out.

Do you know of any quotes from, say, Tom Wright or Alister McGrath? Anything before the Oxford Movement fouled the waters should be worthwhile too.

Howard Alexander (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course, we have the Caroline divines. It's going to be difficult when you use terms like fouled the waters, and claim that no Anglican formulary uses the word "Altar". In any case, take a look at "the Eucharist: sacrament of unity" published by the English House of Bishops in 2001. "Belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is clearly taught in the Church of England's eucharistic theology". [1]. Tb (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe you have misread what the lead says. It does not say that memorialism is wrong, but says that--if it is taken to deny the Real Presence--it is contrary to Anglican formularies. It goes on to express the conviction that most low-church memorialists do in fact believe the Real Presence, but in a non-corporeal and non-localizable way, and for that reason, are in accord with the Articles and so forth. Tb (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I have never made any secret of which way I lean when the cudgels are out between the wings of the Church of England, nor of what I think of the Oxford Movement. I would hope that articles on The CofE and Anglicanism in general do not mirror my ideas, but instead should ensure that all ends of the debates are given, properly to describe the Church as it is, not how it arguably ought to be. We must not hide the Oxford-leaning ideas, the Geneva-leaning ideas or indeed the liberal (Islington-leaning?) ideas. All are part of the theology found in the Anglican communion and so part of what an encyclopaedia should list.

The link to The Eucharist: sacrament of unity was helpful. Thank you. No one could disagree with the line you have quoted. It does show how we can trip over words. Christ is present in the Eucharist without doubt. By saying "Real Presence" though does the speaker mean Christ is present among us as He said "when two or three are gathered together in my name"? Does he mean instead that Christ is confined just within the bread and the wine as real suggests from the Latin, (as in "in rem")? Thus we are trapped in undefined definitions; we all agree a phrase but we cannot agree what it means!

Unagreed definitions will always be a problem in these articles, and why care must be taken. Sometimes I think we fight over words because of what somebody else thinks they mean, so we find other words and then argue over whether we should be using the old ones.

I will always contend that the Church of England is Protestant by any normal definition. However I also agree that the word is only of relevance when someone gets into an external argument, which is not the natural state of worship. It is unnecessary within the Church itself, hence a proper reluctance to use it. ("Protestant" is not found in the Book of Common Prayer" or "Common Worship", any more than "altar", and is nor to be expected.) One cannot say better than that same document, that "It is not a characteristic of Anglicanism to proclaim its credentials or to make comparisons with other churches. The Church of England simply states that it is a true and apostolic church of Christ."

We need perhaps a section on "via media". It needs an explanation the origin or the phrase (Richard Hooker) and what Hooker meant by it. Then how it was picked up and interpreted by the Tractarians, with the commentaries for and against leftto speak for themselves. I would be nervous about you or I doing it though!

Howard Alexander (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

So then, the article is not biased when it reports that there is agreement on the term, and disagreement about its meaning, which is pretty much what it says. Tb (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The word "bias" was perhaps loaded. There is no bias in stating that there is disagreement, and the article sets the various positions out pretty well. This is more of a warm-up to a barney about the main "Anglicanism" article.

I believe the concern (and I didn't start this!) appears to be with the lead and perhaps the tone. Using a loaded term in the lead and stating there, without anything to back it, that most Anglicans believe in Real Presence and that the Thirty-Nine Articles assert it is a red rag to a Calvinist.

The lead states that the memorialist view "rejects the Real Presence of Christ, it is at odds with the Thirty-nine Articles and traditional Anglican theology". How? What words of the Thirty-Nine Articles contradict it? Some might discern a discrepancy, but it is not here given just as one argument. The words "do this in remembrance of me" are Christ's own, and repeated every Sunday in the Church of England; they support the memorialist interpretation. We also believe that where two or three are gathered together in His name then Jesus is with us. That is a true presence, not dependent on the Lord's Supper of course. How does it reject a real presence of the Lord?

The Thrty-Nine Articles say "The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner".

I suspect that most Anglicans do not care one way or the other for odd theological arguments over words, as long as they do not get in the way of worship.

"Real Presence" is not mentioned nor defined in the BCP. By choosing our own definitions of "Real Presence" then all can conform, but the lead is not the place for it. It perhaps needs a specific section. (I might add that.)

The problem with the term is that "real" can be read to mean "in the thing", which suggests "confined within the bread and the wine", which most (I believe) do not accept it. If it is just meant for the "true presence" of Christ amongst the congregation, that is another matter. The article has all this. It is not a matter of the material but of its tone and arrangement.

Howard Alexander (talk) 02:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't care much if it raises a "red flag." It is (as the English House of Bishops points out) unquestionably a part of Anglican Eucharistic theology, and taught (though not with those two words) in the 39 articles. If this causes a problem for contemporary Calvinists, Idon't care much about it. The article is pretty clear--right there, in the lead-- that "in the thing" is not the only meaning the term has for Anglicans. Tb (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I have combined reactions to this section and to From Elsewhere in a new section called The Next Step, see below. Jpacobb (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it is a terrible article because it uses so much theological jargon unfamiliar to anyone but a divinity student, and goes on endlessly without ever telling us what the priest actually says when giving the bread and wine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.119.6 (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Of Both Kinds

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)

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)

And the Next Step?

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)

Perhaps the way forward would be to consider such well established but widely different views found in different Anglican Churches as the norm and to approach the article with information from several Anglican Church sites. This would allow the article to approach Anglican Eucharistic theology from both historic and current threads of belief. As a long-time member of The Episcopal Church, otherwise known as the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America, I have known a parish with "all the bells and smells" which was an admitted Anglo-Catholic parish, a fairly Broad Church with a more Protestant but still decidedly Catholic approach to the Eucharist, and even a Low Church almost like the Baptist Church of my youth. Here in America one has only to find the type of parish family that feels the most comfortable. This is the Anglican experience here, a large wide tent where both conservative and liberal can debate the issues and with a large variety of liturgy and theological belief about the Eucharist. I would hope the same is true elsewhere and that this may allow a way forward to include many views in the article without any bias. Sandhillman (talk) 02:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Anglo-Catholic / High Church

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)

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)

Remove sub-section "Consubstantiation / Sacramental Union"?

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)

Real presence but explanation a mystery - Lutheran? Pluralize Orthodox?

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)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Eucharist in Anglicanism/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs referencing per WP:CITE, then could be an excellent article! GA candidate? PMJ 16:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Substituted at 20:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The vast majority?!?

"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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Ackording to the Augsburg confession, the Apology of Augsburg confession and book of concord the Lutherans firmly believe in consubstansiation (contrary to what the article states). However do the Lutherans reject the catholic wiew of transubstansiation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.67.183.245 (talk) 08:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 1 February 2024

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)

---

Anglican eucharistic theology → Eucharist in Anglicanism – 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) ​

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

• Support - Eucharist in the Catholic Church, Eucharist in Lutheranism, checks out. Agreed for consistency. I'd be open to using "Eucharist in the Anglican Communion", but given the ecclesiastical turmoil at the moment... maybe not.

Garnet Moss (talk) 03:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support – meets all WP:CRITERIA (especially WP:CONSISTENT). One theoretical roadblock might be if WP:COMMONNAME argued for the current title, but it turns out not to be the case. There is a huge spike in usage of the current title in 2011, as an ngrams comparison clearly shows (use smooth=0 for best results); the reason why is revealed by searching books for Anglican eucharistic theology, where results #1 and 2 link the publication of Douglas's "Companion to Anglican Eucharistic Theology" in two volumes in 2011 and 2012. Before 2010 and after 2013, the curves for the two titles are neck and neck, and isolating the period since 2014 shows that Eucharist in Anglicanism is now about 4 times as frequent as the current title. Since nothing stands in the way and other criteria are met (including COMMONNAME), this supports a !vote to change the title. Mathglot (talk) 09:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.