Transubstantiation in Anglicanism

[Polak]

So another topic on Anglicanism.My previous one was on Anglican rosaries. People might be wondering why I am making topics on the Anglican church in a Catholic forum. Well I can assure you, it isn’t because I am thinking of converting or anything like that, but I do work with Anglicans on weekends and am learning things from them I did not realise. If any Catholics or Anglicans on here have more insight on this question, that would be great.

It is about transubstantiation. My assumption in the past, was that Anglicans, being protestants, do not believe in it. I thought they only really see communion as a symbol of the body and blood of Christ. I later learned that they actually believe in a spiritual presence, so more than just a symbolic wafer and wine, but still not in transubstantiation.

Then (it was even mentioned on this forum) I find out that some are basically Anglican Catholics, and do believe in transubstantiation, and many of the things Catholic believe (hence why they also have rosaries and pray to Mary for example). There are obviously still some difference between ‘them’ and ‘us’, with acceptance of the Pope as head of the church being the main (although not only) difference.

Anyway, I got talking to an Anglican and asked what they believe about holy communion. I got an interesting answer that I wasn’t expecting. Apparently, at least in the Anglican church I work on weekends, different people have different beliefs on communion. Some of the clergy (at this church) supposedly believe in transubstantiation, while others don’t. The same, I was told, goes for parishioners, with some believing they are receiving the actual body and blood of Christ during communion, and others who do not.

This led me to think, does the priest doing the mass and communion have to believe in transubstantiation for it to occur on the altar? Say an Anglican parishioner goes to communion believing it has occured, but the Anglican priest doesn’t. Would transubstantiation still occur without the priests’ belief in it? I remember in a different topic, people said it still occurs and is valid, even if the priest is living in sin. The priest living in sin would still however believe in what has happened at the altar though.

My assumption would be that it still occurs. For instance, even if a Catholic priest lost his faith in transubstantiation at some stage, but still led the mass, it would still occur, because him not believing in something doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. Would this therefore also be the case in an Anglican setting?

 

[Bithynian]

Yes, there’s a large diversity of Anglican (I was formerly an Anglo-Catholic and still have many fond memories) theology regarding the Eucharist.

Most Anglicans (whether Reformed or Anglo-Catholic) believe in the real presence to some extent or another. Some Reformed Anglicans do not, especially those in the Anglican Diocese of Sydney which tends to expound a symbolic presence closer to the teachings to the Swiss Reformer Huldrych Zwingli.

Transubstantiation was condemned in the Thirty-Nine Articles, the statement of faith at the time of the Reformation. But the Catholic Revival in the 19th century led to a reappraisal of the doctrine and so some (I think it’s a very small minority) Anglicans hold to it.

I think it’s important to note that the Catholic Church does not reocgnise as valid the orders of the Anglican communion, so their eucharists are not valid (hence no transubstantiation exists).

That being said, most (but not all) Anglican churches teach that the real presence abides in the eucharist wherever it is celebrated, regardless of doctrinal differences held by the minister of the sacrament or the local church to whom the minister belongs.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

This led me to think, does the priest doing the mass and communion have to believe in transubstantiation for it to occur on the altar? Say an Anglican parishioner goes to communion believing it has occured, but the Anglican priest doesn’t.

From a Catholic perspective, it’s a moot point. Anglican priests in general cannot transubstantiate a host, because they do not have apostolic succession. There may be some very rare exceptions, such as a priest who was ordained by a bishop with apostolic succession, but the vast majority of Anglican priests do not have this.

Therefore, it makes no difference what the Anglican priest believes or what the Anglican congregation believes. Believing in transubstantiation doesn’t make it happen.

I’m sure one of our Anglican posters can give you the Anglican position on this, or the several Anglican positions if there are several as it seems there often are.

For instance, even if a Catholic priest lost his faith in transubstantiation at some stage, but still led the mass, it would still occur, because him not believing in something doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.

Yes, but that only works for priests with valid apostolic succession (Catholic and Orthodox).

You may know this already but I’m just clarifying for anybody reading who doesn’t.

 

[Polak]

Ah okay. Interesting. Thanks for the reply Bithynian.

This led me to think, does the priest doing the mass and communion have to believe in transubstantiation for it to occur on the altar? Say an Anglican parishioner goes to communion believing it has occured, but the Anglican priest doesn’t.

Right, and that is what I was getting at. Bithynian touched on this too, saying the Catholic Church doesn’t recognise the Anglican communion as a valid order.

I suppose I already knew that, but did not realise that some Anglican priests believe in transubstantiation, that’s why it got me thinking about it again.

One way or another, as far as we (Catholics) are concerned, no transubstantiation occurs during an Anglican service, even if the priest and/or parishioners believe in it.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

One way or another, as far as we (Catholics) are concerned, no transubstantiation occurs during an Anglican service, even if the priest and/or parishioners believe in it.

Yes, that’s correct. Unless like I said it is one of the rare exceptions where a priest might somehow have received the faculties to effect this. For example, maybe he was ordained a Catholic priest and left the Church to join the Anglicans.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Just to add to what has already been said…Anglicans don’t always hold to the 39 articles. I mean in my Anglican Church years ago, they took the Eucharist very seriously and you better genuflect before it or somebody is going to tell you something. And you receive kneeling at the altar rail…only exception being if you are physically incapable. Like us in the RCC before Vat II.

So I think some actually do believe in Transubstantiation and I’ll bet some of them even practice Eucharistic adoration, even though the articles prohibit that as well.

 

[MarkRome]

Anglicans reject transubstantiation. What some of them believe is consubstantiation. That Christ is truly present in the bread and wine, but that the bread and wine remain the same. In other words, Christ is along with (“con”) the elements of bread and wine.
When I was Episcopalian, I was a Eucharist minister and one time referred to the wine as wine and was corrected by the priest who said it was His blood. You’d have to press to understand that he wasn’t saying transubstantiation.

 

[Inquiry]

Calling Anglicans protestant is almost always going to steer you wrong. They didn’t break away for doctrinal reasons, they broke away for political ones. Reformists didn’t cause it, they were just in position to start pushing their agenda once it happened. That means the differences between Anglicans and Catholics are due to slow drift and historical influence rather than a staunch philosophical stance.

The Anglican Church does not have an official stance on what happens during the Eucharist and the reason is the back and forth conversions between the thrones of Edward VI and Mary I. He kept pushing his father’s Anglican Church, persecuted the Catholics, and pushed reformers into positions of power within the Anglican Church. Mary then took over and forced everyone back to Catholicism and persecuted the Anglicans. When Elizabeth came to power she was dealing with a potential civil war so she pushed a sort of compromise where people left each other alone. She obviously couldn’t set the policy for the Catholic Church, but she could set policy for the kingdom of England and she could influence the Anglican Church. Arguments of “thou art doing it wrong,” were discouraged. That set the stage for a lot of drift.

So nowadays you get Anglicans who believe in consubstantiation, Anglicans who believe in transubstantiation, Anglicans who believe the Eucharist is purely symbolic, and a dozen ways in-between.

 

[tafan2]

Apparently, at least in the Anglican church I work on weekends, different people have different beliefs on communion. Some of the clergy (at this church) supposedly believe in transubstantiation, while others don’t. The same, I was told, goes for parishioners, with some believing they are receiving the actual body and blood of Christ during communion, and others who do not.

The Church of England has been ambiguous in it’s beliefs since the beginning. This goes back to the 39 articles, which are written such that they might be Calvanist and they might be Lutheran, and they can deny being protestant at all. Don’t expect clarity of doctrine from the Anglicans.

 

[Bithynian]

Anglicans don’t always hold to the 39 articles.

This is important. In most cases it’s held as a normative statement of tradition, rather than an explicitly prescriptive confession of faith. As an example where the Thirty-Nine Articles is discontinuous with modern Anglican teaching is in regard to the 37th article which is pro-death penalty.

’ll bet some of them even practice Eucharistic adoration

Some of them do, yes. My Anglo-Catholic parish had Adoration once a month.

Anglicans reject transubstantiation.

Some of them hold to it.

Calling Anglicans protestant is almost always going to steer you wrong.

“Almost always” is a bit of an exaggeration. It’s a local thing, depending on diocese (e.g. Sydney is very Protestant and very Reformed) and local parishes vary within their diocese.

They didn’t break away for doctrinal reasons, they broke away for political ones. Reformists didn’t cause it, they were just in position to start pushing their agenda once it happened. That means the differences between Anglicans and Catholics are due to slow drift and historical influence rather than a staunch philosophical stance.

That’s a very peculiar analysis of the Reformation in England. The vast majority of Anglican theologians and historians would reject the thesis that the break between the Church of England and the Bishop of Rome as being a purely political event (although politics did play its part).

 

[MarkRome]

Can you point me to a source where an Anglican holds transubstantiation as true as the Catholic Church teaches it? I’d be interested to read it. I think that the language they use about the real presence sounds very close if not identical to transubstantiation but when you ask clarifying questions you find that it isn’t.

 

[1ke]

Apparently, at least in the Anglican church I work on weekends, different people have different beliefs on communion.

Surprise, that is what you will find through the entire Anglican Communion. Low church, high church, Anglo-Catholic, they all have different beliefs. Yet all are part of the Anglican Communion. And these different beliefs can all be held simultaneously even when mutually exclusive

Confused yet?

This is why I am no longer Anglican.

 

[1ke]

Say an Anglican parishioner goes to communion believing it has occured, but the Anglican priest doesn’t. Would transubstantiation still occur without the priests’ belief in it?

Anglicans do not possess valid orders, so no transubstantiation takes place regardless of what the priest or communicant believes about it.

 

[PickyPicky]

Can you point me to a source where an Anglican holds transubstantiation as true as the Catholic Church teaches it? I’d be interested to read it. I think that the language they use about the real presence sounds very close if not identical to transubstantiation but when you ask clarifying questions you find that it isn’t

This sound very like a paging for @GKMotley

 

[Bithynian]

Can you point me to a source where an Anglican holds transubstantiation as true as the Catholic Church teaches it?

To clarify, I didn’t assert that some Anglicans hold to a doctrine of transubstantiation “as true as the Catholic Church teaches it”. Some Anglicans have a theology of transubstantiation that is closely co-terminous with the Catholic Church but varying on the philosophical nuances, and some Anglicans might subscribe wholly to transubstantiation as the Catholic Church teaches it (keeping in mind that there exists diversity amongst Catholic theologians on the subtleties of transubstantiation).

That being said, some of the Tractarians taught a theology of transubstantiation that was considered at their time to be synonymous with what the Catholic Church teaches: Edward Pusey is one and a good examination of Pusey’s eucharistic theology is Brian Douglas’ book. Likewise, Catherine Pickstock’s After Writing: On the Liturgical Consummation of Philosophy explores the same theme.

 

[Inquiry]

Inquiry:

Calling Anglicans protestant is almost always going to steer you wrong.

“Almost always” is a bit of an exaggeration. It’s a local thing, depending on diocese (e.g. Sydney is very Protestant and very Reformed) and local parishes vary within their diocese.

Individual parishes, sure, but the OP was talking about Anglicans as whole. Calling them protestant isn’t going to make them easier to figure out.

 

[Bithynian]

Individual parishes, sure, but the OP was talking about Anglicans as whole. Calling them protestant isn’t going to make them easier to figure out.

My apologies, you’re right, I didn’t flick back to the OP for context!

 

[GKMotley]

It would depend on which Anglican you are speaking to, as to the reply. Real presence is a what, transubstantiation is the attempt at grasping the how. And Anglicans vary across their spectrum, as to their attitude. That is, there is no single, authoritative answer across Anglicanism - motley, that can be called. Imagine a position that might be held, likely an Anglican can be found espousing it. Right up to Trent, Session XIII, Canon 1.

If I’m looking for an explanation of how the real presence is made manifest, I consider transubstantiation as noble an effort at elucidation as might be found, if one is grasping at how the wheels go around.

But however it might be, it is the Body and it is the Blood, present among us at the consecration.

And since I’m currently blocked from new posts in the thread, I’ll modify this one to comment on the RC position, (via Apostolicae Curae - a hobby of mine for 20 years+) on Anglican orders. As with any subject on which the RCC has made a doctrinal teaching, all RCs should identify the content of the teaching and affirm it, at the appropriate level of theological certainty.

Anglicans, as you will understand, have a different take on the matter (and intent and form).

Good posts in here.

 

[Dovekin]

The Holy See’s Response gladly recognises our agreement with regard to the real presence of Christ: “Before the eucharistic prayer, to the question �What is that?’, the believer answers: �It is bread’. After the eucharistic prayer to the same question he answers: �It is truly the body of Christ, the Bread of Life”. it also acknowledges that, “The affirmations that the Eucharist is �the Lord’s real gift of himself to his Church’ (Eucharistic Doctrine, 8), and that bread and wine �become’ the body and blood of Christ (Eucharistic Doctrine, Elucidation, 6) can certainly be interpreted in conformity with catholic faith”. It only asks for some clarification to remove any ambiguity regarding the mode of the real presence. …
The Response speaks of a �substantial’ presence of Christ, maintaining that this is the result of a substantial change in the elements. By its footnote on transubstantiation the Commission made clear that it was in no way dismissing the belief that “God, acting in the eucharist, effects a change in the inner reality of the elements”… and that a mysterious and radical change takes place. Paul VI in Mysterium Fidei (AAS 57, 1965) did not deny, the legitimacy of fresh ways of expressing this change even by using new words, provided that they kept and reflected what transubstantiation was intended to express. This has been our method of approach. In several places the Final Report indicates its belief in the presence of the living Christ truly and really in the elements. Even if the word “transubstantiation” only occurs in a footnote, the Final Report wished to express what the Council of Trent, as evident from its discussions, clearly intended by the use of the term.
ARCIC-II. Clarifications

This is from the Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission, the official dialogue partners between the two communities. These comments paved the way for John Paul II and the Archbishop of Canterbury to confirm and celebrate the agreement reached.

The comments need to be read in the context of the ARCIC-I documents, but they show an agreement on a theological level and among bishops on the substance of the teaching on Transubstantiation.

 

[GKMotley]

The Articles are not normative for Anglicans, generally. Save, theoretically, for clergy of the Church of England, IAW the 1571 Parliamentary Act of Subscription. In my parish, in 20 years, I’ve never heard them mentioned. It’s a point I’ve oft posted on here. But I think I’ll skip on in the thread and see what else merits comment.