Episcopalians and Real Presence?

[marimagi]

Well, I can’t take credit for it.

GKC

Hehe.

 

[RyanBlack]

Did you study theology from a protestant perspective, Catholic, or both? Also, I noticed that you are Ruthenian Catholic. Is that an EC Church?

Both. I earned both the M.Div. and the Th.M. at Duke University Divinity School, which is Protestant. I also completed about 30 hours at St. Mary’s Seminary in Houston. Yes, the Ruthenian Catholic Church is an EC Church.

 

[marimagi]

Both. I earned both the M.Div. and the Th.M. at Duke University Divinity School, which is Protestant. I also completed about 30 hours at St. Mary’s Seminary in Houston. Yes, the Ruthenian Catholic Church is an EC Church.

Well, your knowledge is much appreciated.

 

[andrewstx]

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.

Actually most Anglicans/Episcopalians pay little or no regard to the 39 articles at all, and they have no authority at all. The latest BCP revision in the US placed the 39 articles in a historic document section. When I was Episcopalian I certainly held to Transubstantiation. I have never been to an Episcopal church that did not elevate the Host while the altar chimes rang.

Do you belong to the reformed Episcopal Church? The are the only ones that focus on the 39 articles AFAIK.

 

[marimagi]

Actually most Anglicans/Episcopalians pay little or no regard to the 39 articles at all, and they have no authority at all. The latest BCP revision in the US placed the 39 articles in a historic document section. When I was Episcopalian I certainly held to Transubstantiation. I have never been to an Episcopal church that did not elevate the Host while the altar chimes rang.

Do you belong to the reformed Episcopal Church? The are the only ones that focus on the 39 articles AFAIK.

Really? So as far as you know, do the Episcopals teach Transubstantiation?

 

[andrewstx]

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.

Cardinal Newman when still Anglican wrote tract 90, and in it he said that only the Roman Catholic idea of transubstanitation was rejected in the39 articles, and not transubstantiation it’self.

 

[ltwin]

Actually most Anglicans/Episcopalians pay little or no regard to the 39 articles at all, and they have no authority at all. The latest BCP revision in the US placed the 39 articles in a historic document section. When I was Episcopalian I certainly held to Transubstantiation. I have never been to an Episcopal church that did not elevate the Host while the altar chimes rang.

Do you belong to the reformed Episcopal Church? The are the only ones that focus on the 39 articles AFAIK.

The Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans/GAFCON, which represents conservative provinces within the Anglican Communion, “uphold the Thirty-nine Articles as containing the true doctrine of the Church agreeing with God’s Word and as authoritative for Anglicans today.” (Jerusalem Declaration)

 

[ltwin]

Cardinal Newman when still Anglican wrote tract 90, and in it he said that only the Roman Catholic idea of transubstanitation was rejected in the39 articles, and not transubstantiation it’self.

Interesting. I can’t really comment on whether Newman was correct or not, but I didn’t know there were different types of transubstantiation.

 

[andrewstx]

The Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans/GAFCON, which represents conservative provinces within the Anglican Communion, “uphold the Thirty-nine Articles as containing the true doctrine of the Church agreeing with God’s Word and as authoritative for Anglicans today.” (Jerusalem Declaration)

Sorry I’m just not familiar with that body in constantly changing (near daily) Anglicanism.

I left before all the splintering and at the time there were TEC, Reformed Episcopal church and the tiny Southern Episcopal church based I think on segregation.

 

[andrewstx]

I really wish that Newman had stayed in the CofE. And the Episcopal Church had not gone way off in LEFT field and the schisms never happened.

 

[ltwin]

Sorry I’m just not familiar with that body in constantly changing (near daily) Anglicanism.

I left before all the splintering and at the time there were TEC, Reformed Episcopal church and the tiny Southern Episcopal church based I think on segregation.

FCA/GAFCON is mostly African provinces (there is also Sydney diocese in Australia and some Asian provinces). They are still in the Anglican Communion, though they are angry at the American and Canadian churches over their liberal policies.

The provinces in FCA/GAFCON are the provinces supporting the Anglican Church in North America as an alternative to the US Episcopal Church and Anglican Church in Canada.

 

[GKC]

The Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans/GAFCON, which represents conservative provinces within the Anglican Communion, “uphold the Thirty-nine Articles as containing the true doctrine of the Church agreeing with God’s Word and as authoritative for Anglicans today.” (Jerusalem Declaration)

Any Anglican individual or jurisdiction can adopt any particular attitude toward the Articles. The distinction is the legal requirement for CoE clergy not to dissent from them, per the 1571 Act of Subscription. A similar thread was around near the first of the year, when I did a lot of expounding on the subject. The point is that folks who stumble upon them and assume they function as an Anglican Book of Concord, or Westminster Confession are in error.

GAFCON is primarily evangelical in its doctrines and are more oriented toward the Articles for that reason.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Actually most Anglicans/Episcopalians pay little or no regard to the 39 articles at all, and they have no authority at all. The latest BCP revision in the US placed the 39 articles in a historic document section. When I was Episcopalian I certainly held to Transubstantiation. I have never been to an Episcopal church that did not elevate the Host while the altar chimes rang.

Do you belong to the reformed Episcopal Church? The are the only ones that focus on the 39 articles AFAIK.

Lambeth 1968 passed a resolution stating

"The Conference accepts the main conclusion of the Report of the Archbishops’ Commission on Christian Doctrine entitled “Subscription and Assent to the Thirty-nine Articles” (1968) and in furtherance of its recommendation:

(a) suggests that each Church of our Communion consider whether the Articles need be bound up with its Prayer Book;
(b) suggests to the Churches of the Anglican Communion that assent to the Thirty-nine Articles be no longer required of ordinands;
(c) suggests that, when subscription is required to the Articles or other elements in the Anglican tradition, it should be required, and given, only in the context of a statement which gives the full range of our inheritance of faith and sets the Articles in their historical context."

I have no idea to what extent this recommendation was followed but it accurately reflects the position of the Articles in Anglicanism in general. Not everywhere, but generally.

GKC

 

[JonNC]

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

One difference between Anglicans and Lutherans is we tend to be more doctrinal. For us, our understanding of the real presence, is not expressed in terms of Transubstantiation or other metaphysical ways. We just confess what Christ says, “this [bread] is my body.” etc.

In the Apology of the Augsburg Confession:

he 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. **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. **For he says thus: Nevertheless, we do not deny that we are joined spiritually to Christ by true faith and sincere love. But that we have no mode of connection with Him, according to the flesh, this indeed we entirely deny. And this, we say, is altogether foreign to the divine Scriptures. For who has doubted that Christ is in this manner a vine, and we the branches, deriving thence life for ourselves? Hear Paul saying 1 Cor. 10:17; Rom. 12:5; Gal. 3:28: We are all one body in Christ; although we are many, we are, nevertheless, one in Him; for we are, all partakers of that one bread. Does he perhaps think that the virtue of the mystical benediction is unknown to us? Since this is in us, does it not also, by the communication of Christ’s flesh, cause Christ to dwell in us bodily? And a little after: Whence we must consider that Christ is in us not only according to the habit, which we call love, 57] but also by natural participation, etc. We have cited these testimonies, not to undertake a discussion here concerning this subject, for His Imperial Majesty does not disapprove of this article, but in order that all who may read them may the more clearly perceive that we defend the doctrine received in the entire Church, 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. And we speak of the presence of the living Christ [living body]; for we know that death hath no more dominion over Him, Rom. 6:9.

Jon

 

[marimagi]

One difference between Anglicans and Lutherans is we tend to be more doctrinal. For us, our understanding of the real presence, is not expressed in terms of Transubstantiation or other metaphysical ways. We just confess what Christ says, “this [bread] is my body.” etc.

In the Apology of the Augsburg Confession:

Jon

Thank you for posting this! I had no idea that the Lutheran Church held this doctrine.

 

[Peter_J]

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?

I don’t want to speak for Anglicans, but I can see how that might seem like a trap. The wording of the question makes it sound like, if someone considers the Eucharist to be the Body and Blood of Christ, but does not believe in transubstantiation, then they must only believe that “Christ’s spirit enters the Host” (i.e. they really don’t consider the Eucharist to be the Body and Blood of Christ after all).

 

[masuwerte]

I think a couple of points need to be made. The op asked about what the Episcopal Church teaches, not what the C of E taught 500 years ago, not what any continuing anglican body or any other autocephalous Church within the Anglican Communion teaches. So the 39 Articles aren’t particularly relevant to his question. Secondly, even within Roman Catholicism, many don’t believe in the Real Presence. That don’t mean it ain’t so. Likewise, individual Episcopalians might not believe, but that doesn’t change the official teaching of the Episcopal Church on the matter.

From An Outline of the Faith, Commonly Called the Catechism (found in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer):

Q. What is the outward and visible sign in the Eucharist?
A. The outward and visible sign in the Eucharist is bread and wine, given 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 given to his people, and received by faith.

To me, this sounds like the Catholic teaching, that the substance of the matter changes, but the accidents are retained. What do y’all think?

 

[Peter_J]

On a side note, marimagi, I noticed that you style yourself as “Catholic and Orthodox”. Not that I have a problem with that – I’m a pretty stronger supporter of creativity in the “Religion” field of the profile – but may I ask you: are you *officially *Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, or none of the above? Just wondering.

 

[ltwin]

From An Outline of the Faith, Commonly Called the Catechism (found in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer):

Q. What is the outward and visible sign in the Eucharist?
A. The outward and visible sign in the Eucharist is bread and wine, given 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 given to his people, and received by faith.

To me, this sounds like the Catholic teaching, that the substance of the matter changes, but the accidents are retained. What do y’all think?

It’s not really specific. It talks about an “inward and spiritual grace” which could be taken to mean a “dynamic” presence or a “pneumatic” presence. The details seem to be missing from the catechism.

I’m not Episcopalian, so I can’t speak to how Episcopalians read this. If this as specific as official pronouncements get, I can see why there are several different views on this topic among Anglicans.

 

[GKC]

I think a couple of points need to be made. The op asked about what the Episcopal Church teaches, not what the C of E taught 500 years ago, not what any continuing anglican body or any other autocephalous Church within the Anglican Communion teaches. So the 39 Articles aren’t particularly relevant to his question. Secondly, even within Roman Catholicism, many don’t believe in the Real Presence. That don’t mean it ain’t so. Likewise, individual Episcopalians might not believe, but that doesn’t change the official teaching of the Episcopal Church on the matter.

From An Outline of the Faith, Commonly Called the Catechism (found in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer):

Q. What is the outward and visible sign in the Eucharist?
A. The outward and visible sign in the Eucharist is bread and wine, given 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 given to his people, and received by faith.

To me, this sounds like the Catholic teaching, that the substance of the matter changes, but the accidents are retained. What do y’all think?

I agree.

GKC