Anglicans and the eucharist

  • Thread starter Thread starter bill_karweik
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bill_karweik

Guest
What is the differance between the Catholic believe of transubstantiation and the Episcopal real presence in the eucharist? I would think they where the same
 
Their personal belief varies from one Anglican to another, but simply put their eucharist is a spiritual presence not a change in substance.
 
Della said:
Their personal belief varies from one Anglican to another, but simply put their eucharist is a spiritual presence not a change in substance.
Click to expand...
Except for those who affirm precisely the body, blood, soul and divinity in the consecrated elements; that is, real presence.

GKC
 
bill_karweik said:
What is the differance between the Catholic believe of transubstantiation and the Episcopal real presence in the eucharist? I would think they where the same
Click to expand...
As a former Anglican going entirely on my own experience in that communion, I would say the main difference exists between how words are defined rather than how one really understands the effects of the consecration. Consider this. In transubstantiation we believe, or rather the Church teaches, that the entire substance of the bread becomes the Body of Christ. Therefore, no substance of bread remains. However, physically it is identical. The atoms are all there, molecules, cell walls, amino acids, etc. Looked at under a microscope one will see bread. Eaten, it will taste of bread. Left out and, generally, it will mold like bread. However, it isn’t really bread any more as it’s substance has changed.

Now, the Anglican (even the high ones usually) will use other terminology and deny this above. They will say that the bread is still there but that Christ is spiritually there too. When received one receives Christ along with the bread. Spiritually, they will say, it is the Lord, and physically it is bread. However, they will reverence the tabernacle with a genuflexion and receive the “bread” on their knees at the altar rail. Outwardly, their faith usually leaves the impression that the Real Presence is seen as something, well, real.

In my opinion the real difference is in the understanding of the words spiritual, physical, accidents and substance. We speak of a change of substance and that change does not affect the accidents, i.e. the physical properties. Therefore, Christ is not present physically, but substantially. (There are many Catholics who do not understand this, btw, but that is another thing.) Anglicans will speak of spiritual and physical, and scoff at substantial this or that. However, there is probably little difference in reality. If the bread’s physical properties all remain, but it is Christ’s body in some other way invisible to the eyes or senses (or even electron microscopes) it is hardly a leap to think of the presence as being a spiritual one. Our usage of substance and accidents are in many ways very much like the application of spiritual and physical (or just by calling it bread) by Anglicans.

I think it is like two peoples speaking of something with slightly different languages that share many words with nuanced and overlapping, but not identical, meanings. Confusion is bound to occur. Ultimately, I think there are small effective differences in the faith of the thing, and a lot of misunderstandings from semantics and jargon.
 
cothrige said:
As a former Anglican going entirely on my own experience in that communion, I would say the main difference exists between how words are defined rather than how one really understands the effects of the consecration. Consider this. In transubstantiation we believe, or rather the Church teaches, that the entire substance of the bread becomes the Body of Christ. Therefore, no substance of bread remains. However, physically it is identical. The atoms are all there, molecules, cell walls, amino acids, etc. Looked at under a microscope one will see bread. Eaten, it will taste of bread. Left out and, generally, it will mold like bread. However, it isn’t really bread any more as it’s substance has changed.

Now, the Anglican (even the high ones usually) will use other terminology and deny this above. They will say that the bread is still there but that Christ is spiritually there too. When received one receives Christ along with the bread. Spiritually, they will say, it is the Lord, and physically it is bread. However, they will reverence the tabernacle with a genuflexion and receive the “bread” on their knees at the altar rail. Outwardly, their faith usually leaves the impression that the Real Presence is seen as something, well, real.

In my opinion the real difference is in the understanding of the words spiritual, physical, accidents and substance. We speak of a change of substance and that change does not affect the accidents, i.e. the physical properties. Therefore, Christ is not present physically, but substantially. (There are many Catholics who do not understand this, btw, but that is another thing.) Anglicans will speak of spiritual and physical, and scoff at substantial this or that. However, there is probably little difference in reality. If the bread’s physical properties all remain, but it is Christ’s body in some other way invisible to the eyes or senses (or even electron microscopes) it is hardly a leap to think of the presence as being a spiritual one. Our usage of substance and accidents are in many ways very much like the application of spiritual and physical (or just by calling it bread) by Anglicans.

I think it is like two peoples speaking of something with slightly different languages that share many words with nuanced and overlapping, but not identical, meanings. Confusion is bound to occur. Ultimately, I think there are small effective differences in the faith of the thing, and a lot of misunderstandings from semantics and jargon.
Click to expand...
Except for those Anglicans who refer to the consecrated elements as the Blessed Body and Holy Blood. Without making any attempt to understand what has transpired after the consecration, save that it is not bread and wine now, but wholly the Body and Blood, spirit and soul, of the Lord. Yes. Real Presence. Even so. Reverence the Tabernacle where the Body is reserved, use the piscina, no one not ordained to touch or administer the sacrament, etc.

GKC
 
bill_karweik said:
What is the differance between the Catholic believe of transubstantiation and the Episcopal real presence in the eucharist? I would think they where the same
Click to expand...
I believe it’s the difference between consubstantiation and transubstantiation.

Anglican:
Con - with - the Body, Blood Soul and Divinity of Christ exists WITH the substance of the bread and wine. The bread and wine reamains bread and wine.

Catholic:
Trans - the the Body, Blood Soul and Divinity of Christ supplants the substance of bread and wine, and so only the accidents of the bread and wine remain. Only the appearance remains.
 
triumphguy said:
I believe it’s the difference between consubstantiation and transubstantiation.

Anglican:
Con - with - the Body, Blood Soul and Divinity of Christ exists WITH the substance of the bread and wine. The bread and wine reamains bread and wine.

Catholic:
Trans - the the Body, Blood Soul and Divinity of Christ supplants the substance of bread and wine, and so only the accidents of the bread and wine remain. Only the appearance remains.
Click to expand...
I’ve never met an Anglican who supported consubstantiation, nor have I read any espousal of that belief. Not that I would be surprised to discover one such.

GKC
 
GKC said:
I’ve never met an Anglican who supported consubstantiation, nor have I read any espousal of that belief. Not that I would be surprised to discover one such.

GKC
Click to expand...
I am curious, how would you characterise the general Anglican viewpoint on this matter? My memories are a bit vague, and I have to say formed mostly from practice and witness of practice, and less on actual definitions. I don’t actually remember anything by way of real pointed definition at all to be honest, at least not in a church. But, I do feel that the emphasis on reverence precludes any notion of anything other than at least a general belief in a Real Presence of Christ.
 
GKC said:
I’ve never met an Anglican who supported consubstantiation, nor have I read any espousal of that belief. Not that I would be surprised to discover one such.

GKC
Click to expand...
Well, when I lived in England for 20 years I met quite a few.👍
 
bill_karweik said:
What is the differance between the Catholic believe of transubstantiation and the Episcopal real presence in the eucharist? I would think they where the same
Click to expand...
GKC already mentioned that there can be wide variety of opinion as to just what “real presence” means to Episcopalians, not only because there are several different organized forms of them, but also because wide latitude is given for individual differences of belief. One way of looking at it is from the perspective of the 39 Articles, a few quotes from which are below.

Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God’s good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him. (from Article XXV)

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.

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

An article written by a priest in the Reformed Episcopal Church is linked to below, and might be more than you want to know about the subject, but one interesting thing he said was:

. . . some have misunderstood the words “only after an heavenly and spiritual manner” (Article XXVIII) regarding how the Body and Blood of Christ are received in Communion. “Spiritual” does not mean symbolic or representative; but rather not in a materialistic, carnal, corporeal way. . . The spiritual is anything but figurative. Spiritual things are as real, or more so, than physical or material things. virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=11186
 
Anglican Eucharistic doctrine is identical to the Roman Catholic, except on the Lou n t of transubstantiation. Though the Church of England affirms the catholic, patriotic doctrine of the Real Presence, it does not accept Aquinas’s application of Greek pagan philosopher Aristotle’s difference between the ‘substance’ of a thing and its ‘accident’, preferring to rely simply on Jesus’s word.
 
cothrige said:
I am curious, how would you characterise the general Anglican viewpoint on this matter? My memories are a bit vague, and I have to say formed mostly from practice and witness of practice, and less on actual definitions. I don’t actually remember anything by way of real pointed definition at all to be honest, at least not in a church. But, I do feel that the emphasis on reverence precludes any notion of anything other than at least a general belief in a Real Presence of Christ.
Click to expand...
Anytime I see the word “general” and the word “Anglican” in a sentence like this, I advocate prudent caution in making definitions. Generally, I’d say, if one wants to discover what an Anglican affirms on such matters, one must ask him/her. If one is curious about a group of Anglicans, ask all. If one speaks of all Anglicans, ask a whole lot of them.

That said, I agree with this post.

GKC
 
jrtrent said:
GKC already mentioned that there can be wide variety of opinion as to just what “real presence” means to Episcopalians, not only because there are several different organized forms of them, but also because wide latitude is given for individual differences of belief. One way of looking at it is from the perspective of the 39 Articles, a few quotes from which are below.

Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God’s good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him. (from Article XXV)

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.

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

An article written by a priest in the Reformed Episcopal Church is linked to below, and might be more than you want to know about the subject, but one interesting thing he said was:

. . . some have misunderstood the words “only after an heavenly and spiritual manner” (Article XXVIII) regarding how the Body and Blood of Christ are received in Communion. “Spiritual” does not mean symbolic or representative; but rather not in a materialistic, carnal, corporeal way. . . The spiritual is anything but figurative. Spiritual things are as real, or more so, than physical or material things. virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=11186
Click to expand...
This I have certainly met with. On the reformed side of the Anglican spectrum but not unusual at all.

GKC
 
I could never understand all the arguments about how Christ is present in the eucharist. What is more important how he is or that he is just that we believe. if God would come and tell us we wouldnt under stand it.
 
bill_karweik said:
I could never understand all the arguments about how Christ is present in the eucharist. What is more important how he is or that he is just that we believe. if God would come and tell us we wouldnt under stand it.
Click to expand...
Well, transubstantiation is only a description of a mystery. Jesus simply said, “Take, eat, this is my body…” and “take, drink, this is my blood…” He didn’t go into specifics, but considering that God named himself, “I Am” or “I exist”. IOW, I simply am who I am we can see that he wants us to take some things on faith. With the Eucharist he just says, “it is”. So, it is what he says it is–his body and his blood. How that’s possible is what human beings try to discern. That involves theology and philosophy in which most of us have little to no background. So, I just accept what the Church says because Christ gave the Church the authority to decide matters of faith and morals. 🙂
 
Della said:
Well, transubstantiation is only a description of a mystery. Jesus simply said, “Take, eat, this is my body…” and “take, drink, this is my blood…” He didn’t go into specifics, but considering that God named himself, “I Am” or “I exist”. IOW, I simply am who I am we can see that he wants us to take some things on faith. With the Eucharist he just says, “it is”. So, it is what he says it is–his body and his blood. How that’s possible is what human beings try to discern. That involves theology and philosophy in which most of us have little to no background. So, I just accept what the Church says because Christ gave the Church the authority to decide matters of faith and morals. 🙂
Click to expand...
I reason on the matter similarly.

GKC
 
bill_karweik said:
I could never understand all the arguments about how Christ is present in the eucharist. What is more important how he is or that he is just that we believe. if God would come and tell us we wouldnt under stand it.
Click to expand...
I think you will notice that most conversations concerning “transubstantiation” are initiated by non-Catholics. I certainly don’t go through philosophical questions of what I am about to receive when standing in the communion line. I am going to receive my Lord and Savior and he will become part of me and I part of him. I don’t know why everyone gets so hung up on the Catholic explanation of how this happens. You are absolutely correct. It is about a Person, not a process.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top