Do Episcopalians believe in transubstantiation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Langdell
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Some do. Within the Anglican tradition, there is a wide variety of beliefs concerning the Eucharist.
 
Thanks. Do you know if there’s an “official” position, or is it left up to the individual believer?
 
Langdell said:
Just wondering. TIA.
Click to expand...
Sometimes 😃

The official doctrine (at least, when I was there) is that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood. The means by which that happens are open to interpretation. Probably 90% of the Episcopalians that I knew believed in transubstantiation, whether they realized it or not. The rest saw some kind of spiritual presence, or else they believed that it was both bread and Body, etc.

Some Episcopalians/Anglicans latch on to Lutheran theology regarding the Eucharist, others EO, and others Calvin. But somewhere between Luther and Thomas Aquinas is where a lot of them settle.
 
Episcopalians are all over the board on what they believe about the Eucharist - just like catholics. Unlike catholics, Episcopalians don’t have particularly firm guidance about what is or is not true on the matter.

I’m not convinced that the average TEC (or is it ECUSA, I get foncused?) is going to be any wackier than the average self - identified catholic if you go out and ask, Jay-walking style. But at least catholics have an authoritative place to go to look it up if they care… :o
 
The following is quoted from the Catechism section of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, according to the use of The Episcopal Church.

Q. What is the Holy Eucharist?
A. The Holy Eucharist is the sacrament commanded by
Christ for the continual remembrance of his life, death,
and resurrection, until his coming again.

Q. Why is the Eucharist called a sacrifice?
A. Because the Eucharist, the Church’s sacrifice of praise and
thanksgiving, is the way by which the sacrifice of Christ is
made present, and in which he unites us to his one offering
of himself.

Q. By what other names is this service known?
A. The Holy Eucharist is called the Lord’s Supper, and
Holy Communion; it is also known as the Divine
Liturgy, the Mass, and the Great Offering.

Q. What is the outward and visible sign in the Eucharist?
A. The outward and visible sign in the Eucharist is bread
and wine, give and received according to Christ’s
command.

Q. What is the inward and spiritual grace given in the
Eucharist?
A. The inward and spiritual grace in the Holy Communion
is the Body and Blood of Christ give to his people, and
received by faith.

Q. What are the benefits which we receive in the Lord’s
Supper?
A. The benefits we receive are the forgiveness of our sins,
the strengthening of our union with Christ and one
another, and the foretaste of the heavenly banquet which
is our nourishment in eternal life.

Q. What is required of us when we come to the Eucharist?
A. It is required that we should examine our lives, repent
of our sins, and be in love and charity with all people.
 
manualman said:
Episcopalians are all over the board on what they believe about the Eucharist - just like catholics. Unlike catholics, Episcopalians don’t have particularly firm guidance about what is or is not true on the matter.

I’m not convinced that the average TEC (or is it ECUSA, I get foncused?) is going to be any wackier than the average self - identified catholic if you go out and ask, Jay-walking style. But at least catholics have an authoritative place to go to look it up if they care… :o
Click to expand...
It’s TEC now, for political reasons.

GKC
 
But Cindy, if a particular Episcopalian opines that the Book of Common Prayer’s description of the subject is influenced by a pre-scientific hermeneutic that reflects a false dichotomy between matter and spirit (or insert some other long winded phooey here) and goes on to explain that Transubstantiation REALLY means a symbolic elevation of a person into an experience of the Cosmic inner self and convinces several hundred of his friends to agree, who can correct them and how?

In fairness, we had a guy like that named Teilhard de Chardin in the catholic church too, but he got spanked. Thank goodness.
 
manualman said:
But Cindy, if a particular Episcopalian opines that the Book of Common Prayer’s description of the subject is influenced by a pre-scientific hermeneutic that reflects a false dichotomy between matter and spirit (or insert some other long winded phooey here) and goes on to explain that Transubstantiation REALLY means a symbolic elevation of a person into an experience of the Cosmic inner self and convinces several hundred of his friends to agree, who can correct them and how?
Click to expand...
The authority question is one of several reasons why I’m now in RCIA 👍
 
manualman said:
But Cindy, if a particular Episcopalian opines that the Book of Common Prayer’s description of the subject is influenced by a pre-scientific hermeneutic that reflects a false dichotomy between matter and spirit (or insert some other long winded phooey here) and goes on to explain that Transubstantiation REALLY means a symbolic elevation of a person into an experience of the Cosmic inner self and convinces several hundred of his friends to agree, who can correct them and how?
Click to expand...
:rotfl:
 
I probably sound kind of snarky. I hope mentioning that catholics are every bit as bad at wandering out of the fold as anybody else helps reduce that. It just really helps to have Divine protection on doctrine (if certainly not practice).
 
Yes, I am sure there is a diversity of opinion on the matter within that denomination’s circles. That’s why I simply quoted from the Episcopal Catechism to provide a somewhat “official” declaration of their beliefs. I can’t speak for the entire Anglican Communion or TEC in the US, but I was a member for over 20 years in one parish where the pastor and his successors subscribed to the orthodox teachings of Anglicanism and when I asked them, and in my inquirer’s class they taught that the Holy Eucharist was the “real presence” of the Body and Blood of Christ and when they distribute the Holy Eucharist, the communicant is kneeling, and the priest says “Body of Christ” and “Blood of Christ” and the communicant responds “Amen”. And the altar server rings the bells at the exact moment of the consecration of the bread and wine, just as they used to do in most Roman Catholic Churches.
 
Yes. The Orthodox Anglican position on this is quite clear, see Article XXV, Of the Sacraments (1801) reprinted in the Book of Common Prayer 1979 edition.

“Sacraments ordained of Christ be NOT only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession, but rather they are to 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.” [emphasis added]

(Please note that the word “sign” is used in the theological sense. A “sign” is a part of whole substance which has the same attributes, powers and properties as the whole substance from whence it originated. This is to be contrasted with “symbol” which merely represents an object or idea).

This clear expression concerning the Eucharist has been unchanged since the original 39 Articles were first promulgated in 1549 in response to heresies in the communion.

I understand the confusion. It is had to get a firm grasp on Orthodox Anglican beliefs when our own bishops meeting Dar, Africa in 1980 (?), voted overwhelmingly to excommunicate the entire Episcopal Church in America for its “progressive” (to be polite) changes.
 
However, the 39 Articles are not binding on the Episcopal Church in the US. That’s why they’re in the “historical documents” section of the BCP.
 
masuwerte said:
However, the 39 Articles are not binding on the Episcopal Church in the US. That’s why they’re in the “historical documents” section of the BCP.
Click to expand...
The Articles are not binding on any Anglicans, in themselves, except, technically, on ordinands of the Church of England, IAW the Subscription Act of 1571. Basically, they are job requirements to be hired by the Erastian CoE.

Anglicans in general may affirm, deny, partially affirm, or cut them from the Book of Common Prayer and use them to kindle the new fire at Easter.

GKC
 
GKC said:
The Articles are not binding on any Anglicans, in themselves, except, technically, on ordinands of the Church of England, IAW the Subscription Act of 1571. Basically, they are job requirements to be hired by the Erastian CoE.

Anglicans in general may affirm, deny, partially affirm, or cut them from the Book of Common Prayer and use them to kindle the new fire at Easter.

GKC
Click to expand...
GKC,
True. You have a way of getting right down to the bone of the issue. :rotfl:

Anna
 
Regarding the Articles not being binding because they are listed in the BCP under the section entitled Historical Documents of the Church please note that the BCP was ratified in 1789.

“This Convention having in their present session, set forth A Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, do hereby establish the said Book: And they declare it to be the Liturgy of this Church: And REQUIRE that it be received as such by ALL MEMBERS of the same: And this Book shall be in use from and AFTER the First Day of October, in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety.”

The invalidity argument due to the placement of the articles under the Historic Documents heading is totally without merit. By the same token, the Constitution of the United States would be a document without legal effect merely because of its age. In point of fact, the BCP of the ECA was necessitated to omit the requirement of allegiance to the Crown because of the success of the American Revolution, an historic little war.

As to the contention that it was/is only binding on Bishops, and/or some kind of entrance exam for that job position, is similarly without merit, unless one is contending that ALL members of the Episcopal Church USA 1790 were Bishops.

The ECA never was, and never was intended to be, a venue for what has lately been termed “cafeteria style Christianity”. Further, I respectfully posit that such thinking and actions by its members has brought the ECA to its present state of near extinction.

Frequently, when one cuts to the bone too rapidly, one damages the the meat.
 
Tucson said:
Regarding the Articles not being binding because they are listed in the BCP under the section entitled Historical Documents of the Church please note that the BCP was ratified in 1789.

“This Convention having in their present session, set forth A Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, do hereby establish the said Book: And they declare it to be the Liturgy of this Church: And REQUIRE that it be received as such by ALL MEMBERS of the same: And this Book shall be in use from and AFTER the First Day of October, in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety.”

The invalidity argument due to the placement of the articles under the Historic Documents heading is totally without merit. By the same token, the Constitution of the United States would be a document without legal effect merely because of its age. In point of fact, the BCP of the ECA was necessitated to omit the requirement of allegiance to the Crown because of the success of the American Revolution, an historic little war.

As to the contention that it was/is only binding on Bishops, and/or some kind of entrance exam for that job position, is similarly without merit, unless one is contending that ALL members of the Episcopal Church USA 1790 were Bishops.

The ECA never was, and never was intended to be, a venue for what has lately been termed “cafeteria style Christianity”. Further, I respectfully posit that such thinking and actions by its members has brought the ECA to its present state of near extinction.

Frequently, when one cuts to the bone too rapidly, one damages the the meat.
Click to expand...
No, that’s not what I said. The Articles, technically, are binding on the ordinands, that is, the clergy in general, not the episcopate, of the Church of England, by virtue of the 1571 Act of Subscription passed by Parliament. Since the CoE is an erastian church, Parliament gets to do things like that. By binding on the ordinands (and ordinands only) it was meant that it established a legal requirement to hold a living in the Church of England.

There is no such requirement in the Episcopal Church, nor could there be, legally. TEC, cannot require and enforce adherence to the Nicene Creed, let alone the Articles. As can be noted from the current state of TEC.

Any given Anglican jurisdiction theoretically could make adherence to the Articles a requirement for membership to their Church, but with one exception I heard of in Africa, none does. And that not in the sense the Act of Subscription does, technically, in the Church of England.

GKC
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top