Anglicans and Lutherans... Can I get your final word on this?

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I am discussing the Real Presence with Evangelical Protestants who tell me that all Protestants believe that communion is symbolic. I offered writings from your Churches on your belief in the Real Presence:

From the Anglican 39 Articles:

Lutheran Book of Concord:

From Luther’s collected works:

From the Augsburg Confession:

I am being told that, despite the obvious writings of your Churches, that you believe Christ is not truly and physically present in the Eucharist. Granted these people are neither Lutheran nor Anglican, but they are telling me that your churches view it a s symbolic and spiritual presence only and not a true physical one.

Can I get the final word on this? When you partake in communion, do you believe you are truly and really eating the flesh and blood of Christ?

Did Luther mean what he said:

Those who wish to turn this into whether or not Anglican and Lutheran communions are valid please don’t do so. That is not what this is about. I am looking for the final word on the Lutheran and Anglican belief… Do you believe you eat the flesh and drink the blood of our Lord?

God bless

It is possible to “eat the flesh and drink the blood of our Lord” - yet not accept Transubstantiation as a truth.​

The issue is not whether the Lord is really present in the Eucharist gifts after the consecration, so much as whether He be substantially present: this latter point is what the Articles of the Church of England reject as “overthrow[ing] the nature of a sacrament” and as “grounded on no sure warranty of Scripture”.

There are other questions, such as the mode of the real Presence, &, to whom it is real: the “dynamic receptionism” (as the idea is called) that is associated with Calvin, is not excluded by the Articles (the English Church under Elizabeth was very receptive to Calvinism; always provided that the stability of the Settlement of 1559 was not threatened). What the Articles do not teach or do not condemn,is as significant for understanding them as what they do teach or condemn.

BTW, though I think I know what you mean, this - “Christ is not truly and physically present in the Eucharist” - is unfortunately phrased. “Physical” can mean what it means in everyday language:

• bodily
• material
• accessible to the senses
• & related meanings

• or it can mean

• having the physis, IOW the nature, of a thing

The Presence of Christ “in” (I prefer “to”, but that is BTW) is not bodily, material, or accessible to the senses; that does not make it any less **real **or substantial - it does mean that it is spaceless, and limited only by being “in” a consecrated Host; & that no power of man can make it perceptible to the senses or their extensions (an unconsecrated Host weighs the same, all things being equal, as a consecrated one, for example).

 

[GKC]

The Vernon Staley book IS great. I have it sitting on my night stand right here. It’s a great read. But it’s fascinating to look at how he strictly viewed the Anglican Church as totally catholic when I know so many that would take exception to that. My former rector, Father James, would’ve said that Anglicanism is Protestant. And I think Staley would be rolling in his grave if he saw the state of Anglicanism today. I’m sure in his time he thought it a magnificent triumph of Catholicism in England…

His book is a great little quasi-catechism of sorts. It reads easily and has great history in it.

Anglicans are a variable lot.

Staley lived at the opening of the greatest period of Anglo-Catholcism. Lasted about 50 years.

GKC

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Humor is fine. Anglicans are humorous.

I am sorry GKC… this is not allowed per the Anglican 39 Articles

Extend the range to include Transubstantiation, Real Presence as per Trent, Session XIII, and you will have a not uncommon Anglo-Catholic position.

Interesting. My fondness of the Anglo-Catholic (church/movement/branch ) increases daily. Do you have any writings from Anglo-Catholics on Transubstantiation?

God bless you GKC

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

It is possible to “eat the flesh and drink the blood of our Lord” - yet not accept Transubstantiation as a truth.​

Hello GoG

This is the point I tried to get across. Denial of Transubstantiation =/= denial of the Real Presence. Acceptance of the Real Presence =/= acceptance of Transubstantiation.

I thought it was a rather easy concept to grasp

God bless you GoG

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Anglicans are a variable lot.

Staley lived at the opening of the greatest period of Anglo-Catholcism. Lasted about 50 years.

GKC

Can you imagine what Staley would have done if you teleported him to the present day and had him sit in at the “Indaba” encounters of Archbishop Rowan Williams at that last Lambeth Conference? lol or if he sat at the new ACNA convocation and listened to Pastor Rick Warren, the megachurch evangelical preacher accompanied by a female ‘priest’ from Pittsburgh? Staley would think he died and went straight to hell! LOL

 

[GKC]

I am sorry GKC… this is not allowed per the Anglican 39 Articles

Interesting. My fondness of the Anglo-Catholic (church/movement/branch ) increases daily. Do you have any writings from Anglo-Catholics on Transubstantiation?

God bless you GKC

That is greatly appreciated.

The 39 what?

I am sure I do, but other than Staley, who only touches on it, I can’t think of any, off hand. Anglicans are slack on formal explication of many doctrines. Transubstantiation, where it is affirmed (and it is, here and there) is often seen as the best attempt, in a manner of approximation, to grasp just how what has happened, has happened. It is, at best, a type of condescension, to our understanding. In what manner the wheels really go around, in the Real Presence, is beyond mundane comprehension. But, after all, as Lewis put it, the command was “Take, eat”, not “Take, understand”. Which is fortunate.

Call Anglo-Catholics a portion of Anglicanism.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Hello GoG

This is the point I tried to get across. Denial of Transubstantiation =/= denial of the Real Presence. Acceptance of the Real Presence =/= acceptance of Transubstantiation.

I thought it was a rather easy concept to grasp

God bless you GoG

If you visited a typical, Anglo-Catholic-flavored parish, and observed Mass, you would likely see a lot of familiar things, even some nostalgic ones. Reverencing the altar, at each approach or crossing (it’s where the Tabernacle, with the reserved Body, is placed), no one not in orders touching the consecrated elements (that is, no Extraordinary Ministers), use of the platen, recipients kneeling at the rail, use of Holy Water and purificators, a piscina in the vestry, communicating with consecrated ground, etc. It would vary, but it would center on those things. For the obvious reasons.

OTOH, if you asked for a show of hands on Transubstantiation, the results would be mixed. And no one would consider it de fide.

GKC

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

That is greatly appreciated.

The 39 what?

I am sure I do, but other than Staley, who only touches on it, I can’t think of any, off hand. Anglicans are slack on formal explication of many doctrines. Transubstantiation, where it is affirmed (and it is, here and there) is often seen as the best attempt, in a manner of approximation, to grasp just how what has happened, has happened. It is, at best, a type of condescension, to our understanding. In what manner the wheels really go around, in the Real Presence, is beyond mundane comprehension. But, after all, as Lewis put it, the command was “Take, eat”, not “Take, understand”. Which is fortunate.

Thanks GKC I have saved Staley’s book onto my Amazon wish list. Coincidentally it is there with the last book you recommended Chesterton and the Romance of Orthodoxy. I assure you that it is a matter of funds and nothing personal Both books sound extremely interesting.

Call Anglo-Catholics a portion of Anglicanism.

GKC

I make no promises but I will try to remember that.

Are there any other books on Anglo-Catholicism that you can recommend or is Staley’s the best and all that is needed for me to properly grasp this portion of Anglicanism?

God bless you GKC and thanks

 

[GKC]

Thanks GKC I have saved Staley’s book onto my Amazon wish list. Coincidentally it is there with the last book you recommended Chesterton and the Romance of Orthodoxy. I assure you that it is a matter of funds and nothing personal Both books sound extremely interesting.

I make no promises but I will try to remember that.

Are there any other books on Anglo-Catholicism that you can recommend or is Staley’s the best and all that is needed for me to properly grasp this portion of Anglicanism?

God bless you GKC and thanks

 

[GKC]

Thanks GKC I have saved Staley’s book onto my Amazon wish list. Coincidentally it is there with the last book you recommended Chesterton and the Romance of Orthodoxy. I assure you that it is a matter of funds and nothing personal Both books sound extremely interesting.

I make no promises but I will try to remember that.

Are there any other books on Anglo-Catholicism that you can recommend or is Staley’s the best and all that is needed for me to properly grasp this portion of Anglicanism?

God bless you GKC and thanks

You are very welcome.

Try Clutterbuck’s MARGINAL CATHOLICS.

And Oddie, when you can.

And remember, there is no such thing as an Anglican. Just particular Anglicans.

GKC

 

[GKC]

“Can you imagine what Staley would have done if you teleported him to the present day and had him sit in at the “Indaba” encounters of Archbishop Rowan Williams at that last Lambeth Conference? lol or if he sat at the new ACNA convocation and listened to Pastor Rick Warren, the megachurch evangelical preacher accompanied by a female ‘priest’ from Pittsburgh? Staley would think he died and went straight to hell! LOL”

It’s bad enough for a contemporary AC.

GKC