Episcopalians and Real Presence?

[marimagi]

I’d really like to know, as well.
My impression was that Christ is invoked to enter the Host…
But then, this is how someone left it with me re: the RCC… I know THAT’S not right!

You mean you know that’s not what the RCC teaches?

 

[cheezey]

I’d really like to know, as well.
My impression was that Christ is invoked to enter the Host…
But then, this is how someone left it with me re: the RCC… I know THAT’S not right!

You mean you know that’s not what the RCC teaches?

I know that this is not what the RCC teaches. Christ is not invoked to to enter.
If I wasn’t clear, I apologise.
Still much learning to do and my teacher is not terrific at his job…

 

[EvangelCatholic]

While there is significant diversity between individual Episcopalians/Anglicans, historically they do have some core teaching regarding the Mass in general and the Eucharistic elements in particular. These are three Articles from the Anglican/Episcopal Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion which is the foundational theological statement for these churches:

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.

XXIX. Of the Wicked, which eat not the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord’s Supper.
The Wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as Saint Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ; yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ: but rather, to their condemnation, do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing.

XXX. Of both Kinds.
The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people: for both the parts of the Lord’s Sacrament, by Christ’s ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike.

Thanks for posting the 39 Articles. I think for many Episcopalians it is a shock to read what is not practiced. Why do Anglicans genuflect, incense and reserve the sacrament if they don’t believe in the Real Presence?

 

[GKC]

While there is significant diversity between individual Episcopalians/Anglicans, historically they do have some core teaching regarding the Mass in general and the Eucharistic elements in particular. These are three Articles from the Anglican/Episcopal Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion which is the foundational theological statement for these churches:

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.

XXIX. Of the Wicked, which eat not the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord’s Supper.
The Wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as Saint Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ; yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ: but rather, to their condemnation, do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing.

XXX. Of both Kinds.
The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people: for both the parts of the Lord’s Sacrament, by Christ’s ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike.

The Articles are not normative for Anglicans, generally, except for clergy of the Church of England, IAW the Subscription Act of 1571.

GKC

 

[GKC]

So, I’m a little confused. It sounds like the Episcopal Church does consider their Eucharist to be the Body and Blood of Christ, but do not believe in transubstantiation per se.

I would like those who really know the Episcopal faith to respond. This is not a trap! I really do want to understand. Is the Eucharist considered the Body and Blood of Christ as implied above, but not literally transformed? Is the understanding more like Christ’s spirit enters the Host, rather than the Host becoming flesh?

It depends on which Anglican you ask.

For many, it is as you say. The Real Presence is affirmed, but the concept of transubstantiation is not. For others, it may be. For others. it is a symbolic presence.

Anglicans are a motley crew.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Thanks for posting the 39 Articles. I think for many Episcopalians it is a shock to read what is not practiced. Why do Anglicans genuflect, incense and reserved the sacrament if they don’t believe in the Real Presence?

Many do. But it is not necessarily because of the Articles. They are not a form of Anglican confession, but how Elizabeth I chose to govern her fractious Church (the CoE). While many Anglicans to affirm the content (as would any Trinitarian Christian) they are historical in nature.

 

[cheezey]

I admit it. (Easy to do anonymously)
I am so

Motley, then?

 

[marimagi]

I know that this is not what the RCC teaches. Christ is not invoked to to enter.
If I wasn’t clear, I apologise.
Still much learning to do and my teacher is not terrific at his job…

No problem.

Good luck with your spiritual journey.

 

[cheezey]

No problem.

Good luck with your spiritual journey.

Thank you, I need it. It all started with this subject…and I am just as confused. It’s a shame.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I noticed you are Lutheran. Do Lutherans have a similar understanding to the Episcopals?

And thank you for your insight by the way.

Here’s the irony. Anglican dogma no longer applies. For confessional folk, it would be great if updated/ amended. On the other hand, Lutherans instinctively believe in the Real Presence yet some parishes use shot glasses over fear of disease!

 

[marimagi]

It depends on which Anglican you ask.

For many, it is as you say. The Real Presence is affirmed, but the concept of transubstantiation is not. For others, it may be. For others. it is a symbolic presence.

Anglicans are a motley crew.

GKC

So when you say that Anglicans have different ways of defining the Real Presence or subscribing to a belief in a symbolic presence only, are you saying that different branches of the Anglican Church as a whole, have different beliefs/definitions? Or, is it something that varies congregation to congregation? Or, is it something that varies person to person (as is happening among Catholics?)

 

[marimagi]

Here’s the irony. Anglican dogma no longer applies. For confessional folk, it would be great if updated/ amended. On the other hand, Lutherans instinctively believe in the Real Presence yet some parishes use shot glasses over fear of disease!

So, by instinctively, do you mean that Lutherans believe in the Real Presence but it isn’t a formalized dogma?

By confessional folk, are you saying those who confess the Anglican faith?

 

[GKC]

So when you say that Anglicans have different ways of defining the Real Presence or subscribing to a belief in a symbolic presence only, are you saying that different branches of the Anglican Church as a whole, have different beliefs/definitions? Or, is it something that varies congregation to congregation? Or, is it something that varies person to person (as is happening among Catholics?)

In the Churches that left the Anglican Communion and form what is loosely called the Anglican Continuum, there is likely more uniformity in belief; they tend to be on the Anglo-Catholic side of the Anglican spectrum. But, generally, the answer is more congregation to congregation and person to person. There is no definitive de fide definition, generally, in Anglicanism as a whole.

Ask me and I’ll tell you that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ.

The words may be familiar.

GKC

 

[marimagi]

P.S. That sounds unfortunate about the shot glasses.

I remember an Orthodox priest telling me that a parishoner told him once that he was concerned about taking Communion because he had a serious communicable disease. The priest told him to just make sure he was last in line; knowing that he himself (the priest,) would be the last communicant. The priest said that he never got sick and was never even worried.

 

[marimagi]

In the Churches that left the Anglican Communion and form what is loosely called the Anglican Continuum, there is likely more uniformity in belief; they tend to be on the Anglo-Catholic side of the Anglican spectrum. But, generally, the answer is more congregation to congregation and person to person. There is no definitive de fide definition, generally, in Anglicanism as a whole.

Ask me and I’ll tell you that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ.

The words may be familiar.

GKC

Helpful. Thank you. And yes, I understand our own definition quite well.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

So, by instinctively, do you mean that Lutherans believe in the Real Presence but it isn’t a formalized dogma?

By confessional folk, are you saying those who confess the Anglican faith?

Lutheran kids are saturated in the catechism. We had to memorize Creed, 10 Commandments, Our Father, and all the Luther’s lessons on the sacraments. That’s my point, the Real Presence is professed yet some Lutherans treat the sacramental elements as if Christ was only present during the actual Mass.

Is there a declarative and binding Anglican dogma on the Real Presence?

 

[GKC]

Lutheran kids are saturated in the catechism. We had to memorize Creed, 10 Commandments, Our Father, and all the Luther’s lessons on the sacraments. That’s my point, the Real Presence is professed yet some Lutherans treat the sacramental elements as if Christ was only present during the actual Mass.

Is there a declarative and binding Anglican dogma on the Real Presence?

No,

GKC

 

[ltwin]

Help me to understand this please…in simpler language. I am not good at translation sometimes and defer to those that are. I like to learn!!

Maybe GKC or another Anglican can correct me if I’m wrong?

It sounds like the articles essentially say:

*If it is taken rightly, worthily, and with faith, the Sacrament is the Body of Christ and the Blood of Christ.
*Transubstantiation (the Catholic teaching) is wrong. Presumably, this means that the bread does not actually change and the wine does not actually change;
*But the Body of Christ is taken and eaten by faith after a “spiritual manner.” Therefore, they spiritually, but not physically, become the body and blood of Christ.

It seems similar to Calvin’s position.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

In the Churches that left the Anglican Communion and form what is loosely called the Anglican Continuum, there is likely more uniformity in belief; they tend to be on the Anglo-Catholic side of the Anglican spectrum. But, generally, the answer is more congregation to congregation and person to person. There is no definitive de fide definition, generally, in Anglicanism as a whole.

Ask me and I’ll tell you that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ.

GKC

Beautiful bro!

 

[GKC]

Beautiful bro!

Well, I can’t take credit for it.

GKC