Anglicans & transubstantiation by desire

  • Thread starter Thread starter walter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

walter

Guest
It seems to me that Catholic apologists (or maybe I should say the Church) have an escape clause whenever a question can’t be answered definitively. ie. baptism is necessary for salvation - baptism by desire for those unable to be baptized - eg. the thief on the cross. Escape: God can do whatever He wants.
Many Anglicans and possibly others truly believe that the real presence is in the sacrament of the eucharist.
The Catholic church teaches that Anglican priests are not validly ordained and therefore can not confer a change to the elements.
My question then is: Can an Anglican who truly believes in the real presence receive the body and blood of Christ by desire.
Or - does God honor what the Anglican priest and the communicant believe is happening.

walter :confused:
 
I’m not sure, but my guess is that Anglicans are making a spiritual communion. I would imagine that the graces would be similar to Catholics who make a spiritual communion.

Again, this is just a guess. Good question!
 
40.png
JimG:
There is no transubstantiation of desire!

JimG
Click to expand...
Right … but the question is, what do you think is happening spiritually with the Anglican who sincerely believes he is receiving the Body and Blood of our Lord? Obviously he isn’t really – but he thinks he is. Does God grant that person special graces in a way at all analagous to this granted in baptism of desire?
 
Karisue
Yes that was my question although for most Anglicans they believe that it is only done in remembrance and would be no problem for them. I am just concerned about those who believe in transubstantiation when in fact it isn’t happening for them.
 
Perhaps we should first look into what baptism of desire is.

Baptism of desire is when someone intends to be baptized, i.e. a catechumen, and then dies before the sacrament occurs. God has already bestowed the grace for the person to turn himself to God, and the person has responded to God’s call.

No similar situation could occur with the Eucharist. For, merely wanting to be baptized does not confer the baptism of desire. The person must also die. I cannot see how an analogous situation could occur with the Eucharist.
 
We all seem to agree that transubstantiation would NOT occur.

I am sure that God would confer some grace on an individual who receives a host fully believing that he is receiving the Body and Blood of Christ. Obviously, such an act would be pleasing to God. As to what degree such grace would be conferred, only God can know.
 
Let’s put this into perspective, shall we?
One cannot transform bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Our Lord, Jesus Christ, unless one has the proper faculties to do it.
A woman has been given the faculty to carry children. This is a gift from God.
A man has been given the faculty to make an ovulating woman pregnant. This is also a gift from God.
It takes these two elements to make a baby.
An ordained priest is given a gift to transform bread and wine into Jesus.
In this analogy, the priest would be the man, and the bread and wine would be the woman. The baby would be the Eucharist, which cannot be present if the priest and the bread and wine aren’t there.
So…an Anglican priest does not have the faculties to change bread and wine into Jesus, so it can’t be so. It’s like marrying a woman and a woman: they can’t make babies.
God Bless,

Justin
 
Thanks all for your comments
I am inclined to agree with mikworld
😃
 
I probably should be able to answer this, but I can’t. My son, who is not Catholic, went to a Catholic highschool. So he knows enough to know what he disagrees with. iIsuspect that his question is more a result of general denial than philosophical argument, but it is this: Jesus said “This is my body”, etc. My son says why could that not mean that it is eternally so. Why do we need priests, and where does it say that we need priests? The gospels say "Do this in remembrance of me- perhaps it was already accomplished, and each new consecration is just in remembrance, not the actual act of transubstantiation.? I follow the teachings of the Church on this, but don’t know how to back it up.

Thanks.
 
40.png
Forgetful:
My son says why could that not mean that it is eternally so. Why do we need priests, and where does it say that we need priests? The gospels say "Do this in remembrance of me- perhaps it was already accomplished, and each new consecration is just in remembrance, not the actual act of transubstantiation.? I follow the teachings of the Church on this, but don’t know how to back it up.
Thanks.
Click to expand...
Actually, it is already accomplished, and eternally so. By following Jesus command to “Do this in remembrance of me,” we become present at the events of our salvation. The sacrifice of the Mass is not a new sacrifice; it is the same one Jesus offered.

Jesus was pretty specific when he says in John 6 that we must eat his body and drink his blood. Essentially, without transubstantiation, that would not be possible.

JimG
 
The only graces I think God would give the Anglican would be the graces to see the truth. All are called to be Catholic and to the truth.

Just because someone wants something to happen, doesn’t make it so. If they really wanted the Eucharist, they could just go to the Catholic Church. I could desire that God will make me invisible and I could truly believe it will happen, but that won’t make it so.
 
40.png
spetreopn:
Baptism of desire is when someone intends to be baptized, i.e. a catechumen, and then dies before the sacrament occurs. God has already bestowed the grace for the person to turn himself to God, and the person has responded to God’s call.
Click to expand...
This is one example of Baptism of Desire. It is somewhat broader than this, however. See the CCC #1260:

“…Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.”

I agree with the general consensus that transubstantiation cannot occur by desire. But I think we need to be careful about making rules and placing limits on how much grace a person (Catholic or Protestant) can receive as a result of a spiritual communion. God is totally, madly in love with each person He has created, and there are no bounds to the graces He can bestow on someone who approaches Him with love.

Betsy
 
This post reminds me of one I made earlier about what would happen if I was adoring our Lord at Eucharistic Adoration, but the host was not consecrated – either through some mix-up, neglect, or evil intent.

I imagined how I would feel if I was walking around a department store and saw my toddler squeezing the leg of a mannequin (thinking it was me) and saying “love you Daddy”. I might be a little disappointed that he made the mistake and wasn’t doing that to me, but I would still love him as if he really did do it to me.

He wanted to show me affection and I felt it and returned it. Not nearly as good as the real thing and I would hope he doesn’t keep making that mistake (or worse yet do it while knowing full well that it wasn’t me). But I felt his love and returned it.

For the Anglicans and others who believe in the real presence (even if it really isn’t) we want them to hug Jesus directly, but I don’t think such people with such upright intentions are denied all benefit or grace.
 
I am actually in agreement with the last couple posts on here, but the questions wasn’t about how many graces an Anglican recieves by piously approaching the communion rail, it is about actual presence of the Eucharist. Deciding someones salvation is for God alone.
God bless,

Justin
 
I’ve heard that some Anglican priests (the more Catholic ones - there are some variations in Anglicanism) actually request Catholic or Orthodox bishops so that they will be validly ordained.
 
It is extremely important for Roman Catholics to be sensitive to remarks made regarding Anglican orders and the validity or non validity of their priesthood. In the more than one hundred years since the papal bull Apostolicae Curae wherein Pope Leo XIII declared Anglican ordinations insufficient and null and void, much has happened. In 1931 The Anglican communion entered into communion with the Old Catholic churches of Europe and the Polish National Catholic Church of the USA. Since that time all Episcopal bishops have received ordination and Consecration to the Episcopate with Old Catholic participation. One must be extremely careful in stating that there is no longer a valid priesthood among Anglican men. In fact it is most surely true that the host in the Anglican monstrance being incenses is truly Our Lord Jesus Christ.😃
 
On similar lines as this I want to ask about a hypothetical situation. What if someone accidentally or intentionally puts unconsecrated hosts into the tabernacle, and someone else takes it for a communion service or for the home-ridden not realizing it is not consecrated? Will it be invalid to a person who truly thinks it’s the real Body/
 
zjl56 said:
On similar lines as this I want to ask about a hypothetical situation. What if someone accidentally or intentionally puts unconsecrated hosts into the tabernacle, and someone else takes it for a communion service or for the home-ridden not realizing it is not consecrated? Will it be invalid to a person who truly thinks it’s the real Body/
Click to expand...
The unconsecrated hosts will of course remain unconsecrated. They cannot be consecrated by proximity. What the communicant thinks he is receiving has not the slightest effect on the validity of a consecration which as already occurred–or not occurred.

(With respected to the precious blood, however, there is a different consideration. Let’s say some plain water is inadvertently added after consecration. Since the accidents of wine are liquid, it would not be possible to receive any drop of the ‘diluted’ chalice without receiving at least some of the consecrated wine, since they are intimately mixed. This is not the case with the hosts.)
 
walter said:
It seems to me that Catholic apologists (or maybe I should say the Church) have an escape clause whenever a question can’t be answered definitively. ie. baptism is necessary for salvation - baptism by desire for those unable to be baptized - eg. the thief on the cross. Escape: God can do whatever He wants.
Many Anglicans and possibly others truly believe that the real presence is in the sacrament of the eucharist.
The Catholic church teaches that Anglican priests are not validly ordained and therefore can not confer a change to the elements.
My question then is: Can an Anglican who truly believes in the real presence receive the body and blood of Christ by desire.
Or - does God honor what the Anglican priest and the communicant believe is happening.

walter :confused:
Click to expand...
First lets understand that Baptism of Desire is sometimes misused. Baptism of Desire is when an adult publicly states that they desire Baptism but they die before being able to receive the Sacrament. It is not a equivalent substitute for Sacramental Baptism. It is God supplying the Grace of the Sacrament without the Sacrament.

Yes, the same can happen with Holy Communion. Any validly Baptized Christian can make a Spiritual Communion and receive the graces without the Sacrament, if they are in a state of Grace, they will receive more. It is NOT however “transubstantiation by desire”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top