Anglican & Lutheran Eucharistic miracles

[dizzy_dave]

Do the Anglican/Episcaples and Lutherans claim to have any Eucharistic miracles like we as Catholics have? I have never heard of any but I’m curious.

Also what about incorrupt bodies of protestants, anything on that subject?

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Do the Anglican/Episcaples and Lutherans claim to have any Eucharistic miracles like we as Catholics have? I have never heard of any but I’m curious.

Also what about incorrupt bodies of protestants, anything on that subject?

I have never heard of them claiming any. It of course would not make any sense for them to do so to me either. The purpose of Eucharistic miracles is to confirm the Transubstantiation of the bread and wine.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I am curious of they claim to have any miracles where the Eucharist took on the accidents of flesh and blood.

 

[GKC]

I am curious of they claim to have any miracles where the Eucharist took on the accidents of flesh and blood.

I am not aware of any.

And I do affirm both transubstiation, the Real Presence, and the validity of Anglican orders.

Yes, I know. But I’m Anglican.

GKC

 

[mschrank]

There wouldn’t be because they don’t believe in transubstantiation. To them, Jesus kinda hangs out with the bread, and then goes away, depending on if you believe or not (is that correct?).

GKC: What? I was raised “High Anglican” and we were told explicitly that it was “consubstantiation”.

 

[GKC]

There wouldn’t be because they don’t believe in transubstantiation. To them, Jesus kinda hangs out with the bread, and then goes away, depending on if you believe or not (is that correct?).

GKC: What? I was raised “High Anglican” and we were told explicitly that it was “consubstantiation”.

Amongst Anglicans a lot of things are said. I know more than a few of them who think that you can ordain or confirm a female. You have to watch them all the time.

No Anglican doctrine makes a definitive statement on the nature of the Eucharist. Therein lies the problem. You can’t pin Anglicans down to affirming even the Creeds as de fide, any more, let alone the nature of the Eucharist. But almost no Anglican believes the transformation is not lasting. It’s why we have a tabernacle, and reserve the Sacrament, and a piscina, communicating wiith consecrated ground.

Even so, amongst orthodox Anglo-Catholics, it is routine to affirm transubstatiation, if an explanation of the “how” of the Real Presence is needed. Many other Anglicans just affirm the “what”, the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord.

GKC

*Anglicanus Catholicus *

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Great answers

Thanks!

 

[CentralFLJames]

I am not aware of any.

And I do affirm both transubstiation, the Real Presence, and the validity of Anglican orders.

Yes, I know. But I’m Anglican.

GKC

That is not doctrinal to Anglican belief and theologically speaking Catholics, per Pope Leo XIII’s Apostolicae Curae not only do not accept Anglicans as having valid Priestly Orders but deny them that authority through the binding and losing authority of The Church. Sorry, but Anglicans have NO authority nor ability to transform bread and wine into Holy Eucharist - even if some individual Anglicans actually mistakenly believe that is what the Anglican dogma affirms (and it does not). So, Anglicans exercise in fact a symbolic ritual through men who are self appointed in a role that is only a symbolic priesthood.

Get the real thing - become Catholic.
On the Nullity of Anglican Orders Apostolicae Curae Promulgated September 18:

Orignal Info Here: Apostolicae Curae

1. Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the pontiffs, our predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by our authority, of our own initiative and certain knowledge, we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void.

James

 

[GKC]

That is not doctrinal to Anglican belief and theologically speaking Catholics, per Pope Leo XIII’s Apostolicae Curae not only do not accept Anglicans as having valid Priestly Orders but deny them that authority through the binding and losing authority of The Church. Sorry, but Anglicans have NO authority nor ability to transform bread and wine into Holy Eucharist - even if some individual Anglicans actually mistakenly believe that is what the Anglican dogma affirms (and it does not). So, Anglicans exercise in fact a symbolic ritual through men who are self appointed in a role that is only a symbolic priesthood.

Get the real thing - become Catholic.

James

Yes, I know. As I said. I know Apostolicae Curae, and it’s history better than anyone you will meet today, I warrant, unless you happen to meet Joe. Joe knows more than I do about it. All RCs should affirm what you say about it. But I’m Anglican. As I said.

And there is no Anglican dogma on the nature of the Eucharist. Bet you a nickle.

GKC

 

[angelusm]

I am not aware of any.

And I do affirm both transubstiation, the Real Presence, and the validity of Anglican orders.

Yes, I know. But I’m Anglican.

GKC

Anglicanism is a cut off branch.
Anglican “orders” are “illegal” because you have no “copyright”.
There’s no priesthood in Anglicanism so there’s no Eucharist and it doesn’t matter you believe in Real Presence. I am quite aware you had no eucharistic miralces and you won’t have any. Sorry for those painful words but this is what I believe in and, unfortunately for you, that’s how it is.

 

[mschrank]

Easy Tiger… if he converts, then it’ll be his choice working with the will of God, not overzealous anti-Anglicans.

I think the problem with most Anglo-Catholics is they are just too smart for their own good. Tend to overanalyze stuff and find accepting the Church in toto very difficult.

At least they have an idea of what being a Catholic would actually mean!

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Yes, I know. As I said. I know Apostolicae Curae, and it’s history better than anyone you will meet today, I warrant, unless you happen to meet Joe. Joe knows more than I do about it. All RCs should affirm what you say about it. But I’m Anglican. As I said.

And there is no Anglican dogma on the nature of the Eucharist. Bet you a nickle.

GKC

If there were an Anglican dogma/defined doctrine on the nature of the Eucharist, would Anglicans be required to accept it?

 

[GKC]

Anglicanism is a cut off branch.
Anglican “orders” are “illegal” because you have no “copyright”.
There’s no priesthood in Anglicanism so there’s no Eucharist and it doesn’t matter you believe in Real Presence. I am quite aware you had no eucharistic miralces and you won’t have any. Sorry for those painful words but this is what I believe in and, unfortunately for you, that’s how it is.

Which is just what I always remind RCs they should affirm.

No offense taken.

Did I mention that the history, personalities and theology involved in the whole matter leading to *Apostlicae Curae *is a hobby of mine?

GKC

 

[GKC]

Easy Tiger… if he converts, then it’ll be his choice working with the will of God, not overzealous anti-Anglicans.

I think the problem with most Anglo-Catholics is they are just too smart for their own good. Tend to overanalyze stuff and find accepting the Church in toto very difficult.

At least they have an idea of what being a Catholic would actually mean!

IMO, you are partially correct.

GKC

 

[GKC]

If there were an Anglican dogma/defined doctrine on the nature of the Eucharist, would Anglicans be required to accept it?

That is the nature of a dogma, yes.

Who do you suppose would require the acceptance, for Anglicans?

GKC

 

[gcnuss]

There wouldn’t be because they don’t believe in transubstantiation.

I wonder if eucharistic miracles can be explained through transubstantiation. Doesn’t the concept of transubstantiation mean that the outward appearances (accidents) of the bread and wine remain unchanged? If so, it would seem that a belief in transubstantiation would play no part in a eucharistic miracle.

Would you agree or am I completely off-base here?

 

[CentralFLJames]

That is the nature of a dogma, yes.

Who do you suppose would require the acceptance, for Anglicans?

GKC

No one - since everyone is treated as peers. That implies anything goes on a personal level just like protestants. In other words “what you believe” in your own believed to be infallible mind is what is demanded; or so it would appear. The reformation just swapped out the Pope’s infallability for the absurdity of personal infallability through the mechanism of deprived personal conscience.

GKC - why don’t you come into Catholicism? Surely you know the truth if you studied the histories?? We MUST partake of Eucharist to have life within us - why take a chance on the dubious cases against real presence in the Anglican rites??? Are you holding out for cultural and sentimental reasons and hoping Anglicans will be reunited to The Catholic Church? Why take the risk - you should know better…

James

 

[Claire_from_DE]

That is the nature of a dogma, yes.

Who do you suppose would require the acceptance, for Anglicans?

GKC

Queen Elizabeth, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the most recent ecumenical council of Anglican bishops?? Can dogma exist without a defining authority? I didn’t take up your nickel bet.

 

[GKC]

Queen Elizabeth, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the most recent ecumenical council of Anglican bishops?? Can dogma exist without a defining authority? I didn’t take up your nickel bet.

The Queen, and +Cantaur, have no authority over Anglicanism, generally (and precious little over the Church of England). Your last question is the key.

GKC

 

[mschrank]

Parliament can promulgate dogma, if I am not mistaken, not the monarch.