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

[Roman_Catholic_1]

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:

XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper.
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ…

Lutheran Book of Concord:

What is the Sacrament of the Altar?

It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself.

From Luther’s collected works:

Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.

Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”

–Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391

From the Augsburg Confession:

The Tenth Article has been approved, in which we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ.

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:

It is enough for me that Christ’s blood is present; let it be with the wine as God wills. Before I would drink mere wine with the Enthusiasts, I would rather have pure blood with the Pope.(Luther’s Works, 37, 317)

The glory of our God is precisely that for our sakes he comes down to the very depths, into human flesh, into the bread, into our mouth, our heart, our body.( Luther’s Works , 37, 71 ff.)

For this is . . . how it was accepted in the true, ancient Christian church of fifteen hundred years ago . . . When you receive the bread from the altar, . . . you are receiving the entire body of the Lord; . . .(Brief Confession Concerning the Holy Sacrament, September 1544; Luther’s Works, 38, 291-292)

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

 

[1edyson]

Most mainline Protestants, from my understanding believe in the Real Presence. It is the symbolic understanding which is newer into the scene of Non-Catholic Christianity.

 

[GKC]

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 impossible to get a single definitive statement on anything in Anglicanism, and that includes Eucharistic theology. The Articles, which ever position they might support, on whatever subject, are not normative for Anglicans.

But if you ask what the majority of Anglicans would affirm, re: the Eucharist, it would probably be some form of Real Presence. And, for some, also an affirmation that the best explanation of this would lie in transubstantiation.

But Anglicans are a motley crew. Me, I attended Benediction and Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, on *Corpus Christi *, at my parish. Not all Anglicans would do so.

As to your last question, certainly. It’s why we treat the consecrated elements as we do.

GKC

 

[JonNC]

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:

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

R_C,

All Lutherans believe, teach and confess…

… that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ **are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. **This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh. And there is a long exposition of Cyril on John 15, in which he teaches that Christ is corporeally offered us in the Supper.

There is no question. It is our final answer, and we do not need a life-line.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Most mainline Protestants, from my understanding believe in the Real Presence. It is the symbolic understanding which is newer into the scene of Non-Catholic Christianity.

Actually, as Zwingli’s was more of a symbolic presence, that view is is old as his portion of the reformation, as well as the anabaptists.

Jon

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

R_C,

All Lutherans believe, teach and confess…

There is no question. It is our final answer, and we do not need a life-line.

Jon

Hello JonNC,

I have been “assured” that despite what, “it appears the Lutheran Church and Luther are teaching” no “real” Lutheran believes that he eats the flesh and drinks the blood of the Lord. Because they know and have talked to “real” Lutherans

Here is the basic argument presented (remember these are their arguments):

1. there are two positions on the Lord’s Supper. The “Catholic position” and the “Protestant position”.
2. Since Lutherans reject the “Catholic position” (ie. does the bread remain or not?) then they must affirm the “Protestant position” (ie the symbolic presence of our Lord)

So the argument is thus; denial of transubstantiation equates to denial of the Real Presence as a whole and the affirming of a symbolic presence…

Try wrapping your head around those implications.

By the way thanks for answering my PM.

God bless you

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

It is impossible to get a single definitive statement on anything in Anglicanism, and that includes Eucharistic theology. The Articles, which ever position they might support, on whatever subject, are not normative for Anglicans.

But if you ask what the majority of Anglicans would affirm, re: the Eucharist, it would probably be some form of Real Presence. And, for some, also an affirmation that the best explanation of this would lie in transubstantiation.

But Anglicans are a motley crew. Me, I attended Benediction and Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, on *Corpus Christi *, at my parish. Not all Anglicans would do so.

As to your last question, certainly. It’s why we treat the consecrated elements as we do.

GKC

Yes the Anglican communion has been a thorn in my side during this discussion since you really can’t say, “Anglicans believe such and such…”

GKC perhaps you can help in this regard. I brought up Anglican Eucharistic adoration as proof that there are some Anglicans who believe Christ is truly present (other wise why would there be Eucharist adoration?) and was told that Eucharistic adoration is not supported by the 39 articles and therefore would never be practiced within the Anglican Communion… The only time that the bread would ever be held over from service would be so it could be used for the next service, not so Anglicans could attend Eucharistic adoration. Do you have any writings from within the Anglican Communion on Eucharistic adoration that I could read?

God bless you

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Most mainline Protestants, from my understanding believe in the Real Presence.

This had been my understanding after reading the Reformers and what the mainline churches taught on the matter ( and also with conversing with Protestants here).

God bless you

 

[GKC]

Yes the Anglican communion has been a thorn in my side during this discussion since you really can’t say, “Anglicans believe such and such…”

GKC perhaps you can help in this regard. I brought up Anglican Eucharistic adoration as proof that there are some Anglicans who believe Christ is truly present (other wise why would there be Eucharist adoration?) and was told that Eucharistic adoration is not supported by the 39 articles and therefore would never be practiced within the Anglican Communion… The only time that the bread would ever be held over from service would be so it could be used for the next service, not so Anglicans could attend Eucharistic adoration. Do you have any writings from within the Anglican Communion on Eucharistic adoration that I could read?

God bless you

No, save as personal pious opinion. But what I spoke of is common, within Anglicanism

Apparently you are dealing with someone who knows nothing of Anglicanism. Or with one of the extreme sectarian mini-factions of the breed, if it’s an Anglican you are speaking with.

Let me know if you want more details of what Anglicans may do. We’ll discuss it, in front of our Tabernacle, under the Sanctuary lamp.

GKC

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

No, save as personal pious opinion. But what I spoke of is common, within Anglicanism

Apparently you are dealing with someone who knows nothing of Anglicanism. Or with one of the extreme sectarian mini-factions of the breed, if it’s an Anglican you are speaking with.

Let me know if you want more details of what Anglicans may do. We’ll discuss it, in front of our Tabernacle, under the Sanctuary lamp.

GKC

I was afraid it was going to have to be my word against theirs. Unfortunately my word, since I am Catholic, is highly dubious to them and as such they have adopted a distrustful disposition towards it. This next Tylenol I will be taking is because of your Communion GKC

God bless you and thanks

 

[JonNC]

=Roman_Catholic;5374234]Hello JonNC,

I have been “assured” that despite what, “it appears the Lutheran Church and Luther are teaching” no “real” Lutheran believes that he eats the flesh and drinks the blood of the Lord. Because they know and have talked to “real” Lutherans

I love being told what I believe by others. :nope:

Here is the basic argument presented (remember these are their arguments):

1. there are two positions on the Lord’s Supper. The “Catholic position” and the “Protestant position”.

Well, as you know, this disregards the Orthodox, and the fact that there is no “Protestant position” as there are variations amongst Protestant groups - symbolic, spiritual presence, etc.

1. Since Lutherans reject the “Catholic position” (ie. does the bread remain or not?) then they must affirm the “Protestant position” (ie the symbolic presence of our Lord)
   So the argument is thus; denial of transubstantiation equates to denial of the Real Presence as a whole and the affirming of a symbolic presence…

Once again, the Orthodox will be alarmed to hear this. And it just reveals a lack of understanding of what Lutherans, and many Anglicans believe. As for Transub, (and I don’t mean this as a debating point in your thread) I think it is safe to say that our biggest objection is we view it as presumptuous on our part as humans to attempt to explain what Christ chose not to explain. I just love the quote from John of Damascus “… if you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord took on Himself flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit”. All that said, if I had to choose, I’d choose Transub over symbolic without batting an eyelash.

By the way thanks for answering my PM.

God bless you

My pleasure, and may He bless you, as well.
Jon

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Once again, the Orthodox will be alarmed to hear this. And it just reveals a lack of understanding of what Lutherans, and many Anglicans believe. As for Transub, (and I don’t mean this as a debating point in your thread) I think it is safe to say that our biggest objection is we view it as presumptuous on our part as humans to attempt to explain what Christ chose not to explain. I just love the quote from John of Damascus “… if you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord took on Himself flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit”. All that said, if I had to choose, I’d choose Transub over symbolic without batting an eyelash.

My point in the discussion that I am having has been that to a Lutheran or an Anglican, denial of transubstantiation does not equate to a denial of the real presence. Lutherans and Anglicans believe in the Real Presence regardless of what the Catholic Church teaches on it. Therefore disproving the Catholic Church or Transubstantiation does not disprove the Real Presence for a Lutheran and an Anglican… Disproving the Real Presence disproves the Real Presence. Nothing else.

What they want to do is attack the Catholic point of view without taking into consideration what Lutherans and Anglicans actually believe about the real presence.

“Well Lutherans and Anglicans reject Transubstantiation so they must affirm what I believe…”

Again consider the implications in this. I don’t believe 2+2= 6 so it must equal 8. The earth is not square so it must be rectangle… My head hurts just thinking about it. I need another Tylenol.

God bless you

 

[JonNC]

My point in the discussion that I am having has been that to a Lutheran or an Anglican, denial of transubstantiation does not equate to a denial of the real presence. Lutherans and Anglicans believe in the Real Presence regardless of what the Catholic Church teaches on it. Therefore disproving the Catholic Church or Transubstantiation does not disprove the Real Presence for a Lutheran and an Anglican… Disproving the Real Presence disproves the Real Presence. Nothing else.

What they want to do is attack the Catholic point of view without taking into consideration what Lutherans and Anglicans actually believe about the real presence.

“Well Lutherans and Anglicans reject Transubstantiation so they must affirm what I believe…”

Again consider the implications in this. I don’t believe 2+2= 6 so it must equal 8. The earth is not square so it must be rectangle… My head hurts just thinking about it. I need another Tylenol.

How about a beer, instead.

It is kind of strange because many times the folks you are chatting with usuually are rather dismissive of Lutherans as being too Catholic anyway, perhaps the Anglicans too, but I don’t know. I bet, after all, they really do see it as black and white - transub. or symbolic. For them, denying transub serves two purposes; it denies the real presence altogether, and it denies the Catholic Church, as well (we’ll save those poor Lutherans later).

Originally Posted by Roman_Catholic
Yes the Anglican communion has been a thorn in my side during this discussion since you really can’t say, “Anglicans believe such and such…”

GKC perhaps you can help in this regard. I brought up Anglican Eucharistic adoration as proof that there are some Anglicans who believe Christ is truly present (other wise why would there be Eucharist adoration?) and was told that Eucharistic adoration is not supported by the 39 articles and therefore would never be practiced within the Anglican Communion… The only time that the bread would ever be held over from service would be so it could be used for the next service, not so Anglicans could attend Eucharistic adoration. Do you have any writings from within the Anglican Communion on Eucharistic adoration that I could read?

For what its worth, there is a Traditional Anglican Church (not a part of the Anglican Communion, from what I know) nearby, and they have a tabernacle near the altar. Whether or not they practice adoration in the CC manner, I don’t know.

Jon

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

But if you ask what the majority of Anglicans would affirm, re: the Eucharist, it would probably be some form of Real Presence. And, for some, also an affirmation that the best explanation of this would lie in transubstantiation.

But Anglicans are a motley crew. Me, I attended Benediction and Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, on *Corpus Christi *, at my parish. Not all Anglicans would do so.

I did the same at my Anglican parish–I believe unreservedly in the Real Presence.

As for transubstantiation, it’s an interesting guess. When it comes to explaining mysteries, though, I think even a best guess is merely a guess.

Happily, though, I don’t need to guess how it works in order to know *that *it works.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is grace & mercy! Deo gratias!

 

[GKC]

How about a beer, instead.

It is kind of strange because many times the folks you are chatting with usuually are rather dismissive of Lutherans as being too Catholic anyway, perhaps the Anglicans too, but I don’t know. I bet, after all, they really do see it as black and white - transub. or symbolic. For them, denying transub serves two purposes; it denies the real presence altogether, and it denies the Catholic Church, as well (we’ll save those poor Lutherans later).

For what its worth, there is a Traditional Anglican Church (not a part of the Anglican Communion, from what I know) nearby, and they have a tabernacle near the altar. Whether or not they practice adoration in the CC manner, I don’t know.

Jon

Calling itself a Traditional Anglican Church means it probably isn’t part of the official Communion.

Tabernacles, and the reservation of the Blessed Body, are more common in Anglicanism in general than is Adoration. But it happens. As does a lot of other stuff that tends to startle folks who know little of Anglo-Catholicism.

GKC

 

[GKC]

I was afraid it was going to have to be my word against theirs. Unfortunately my word, since I am Catholic, is highly dubious to them and as such they have adopted a distrustful disposition towards it. This next Tylenol I will be taking is because of your Communion GKC

God bless you and thanks

You are very welcome. Staley’s THE CATHOLIC RELIGION is an oldie but goody; a simple exposition of Anglo-Catholicism (" The opposite of ‘Catholic’ is not ‘protestant’. but ‘heretic’ ").

Tell your interlocutors that they are ninnyhammers, and I said so. Then mention our Mary Shrine (OL of Walsingham).

I usually add a dose of industrial strength antacid, to my analgesic, when musing on my brethren.

GKC

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Okay just so I am clear as mud on this. Lutherans believe that when they partake in communion they believe they are really and truly feasting on the blood and body of our Lord? Anglicans believe anywhere ranging from the actual body and blood of Christ bordering on Transubstantiation all the way to skittles and rock candy depending on how high or low they are in the Church… That was humor (even bad humor is humor) and of course I was just kidding GKC

God bless and thanks for the help.

 

[JonNC]

Okay just so I am clear as mud on this. Lutherans believe that when they partake in communion they believe they are really and truly feasting on the blood and body of our Lord?
God bless and thanks for the help.

believe = know

This we believe, teach and confess.

Jon

 

[GKC]

Okay just so I am clear as mud on this. Lutherans believe that when they partake in communion they believe they are really and truly feasting on the blood and body of our Lord? Anglicans believe anywhere ranging from the actual body and blood of Christ bordering on Transubstantiation all the way to skittles and rock candy depending on how high or low they are in the Church… That was humor (even bad humor is humor) and of course I was just kidding GKC

God bless and thanks for the help.

Humor is fine. Anglicans are humorous.

Extend the range to include Transubstantiation, Real Presence as per Trent, Session XIII, and you will have a not uncommon Anglo-Catholic position. I will refrain from mentioning the Anglo-Papalists; Tylenol is only so effective.

It is fair to say “high or low” but I usually try to get that spectrum to cover Churchmanship (how many candles, how much smoke) and use “Anglo-Catholic-Evangelical” for the range of doctrine (Real Prescence-memorial). It is a fine point, turning on some recondite history, and you aren’t wrong if you ignore me. Many do.

Let me know if you need help.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus, posterus traditus Anglicanus

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You are very welcome. Staley’s THE CATHOLIC RELIGION is an oldie but goody; a simple exposition of Anglo-Catholicism (" The opposite of ‘Catholic’ is not ‘protestant’. but ‘heretic’ ").

Tell your interlocutors that they are ninnyhammers, and I said so. Then mention our Mary Shrine (OL of Walsingham).

I usually add a dose of industrial strength antacid, to my analgesic, when musing on my brethren.

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.