Transubstantiation in Anglicanism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Polak
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
And don’t expect all Anglicans to affirm the Articles, merely from the fact that they exist.
 
Thanks for some references. I’ll take a look. The word transubstantiation is a technical word that has a specific meaning. As far as I know, there aren’t variations of it. If one believes in transubstantiation, one believes what the Catholic Church teaches. If you have variations, then you don’t believe in transubstantiation.
 
It all depends on your Anglican. If you were taken into a church blindfolded so you could see or know nothing about it until you were inside and then asked to guess which denomination the church belonged your guess would vary on the Anglican church. In some you would guess that you were in an Evangelical Protestant church. In another you may guess you are in a Catholic church that perhaps has EF Masses. Anglicanism welcomes, and has always welcomed, a broad range of theological views within it.

As a consequence of this you get Anglicans who believe it is simply a memorial and that they are simply consuming bread and wine. At the other end of the spectrum you have those who truly believe the bread and wine have changed in substance but not accidents to be the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ and will genuflect to the Eucharist and would not dream of receiving it unless they were kneeling.

You get the same variation among the clergy. Some may only celebrate the Eucharist a few times in a month and believe nothing happens to the bread and wine. Others will celebrate the Eucharist daily and believe they have confected the Eucharist.

Despite what any Anglican believes we Catholics believe that their orders are invalid. Some have always hoped the Catholic Church would change her position but since Anglicans decided that they can ordain women the probability of that is now zero. Because Anglicans do not have valid orders they cannot celebrate a Mass and validly confect the Eucharist. Therefore, what Anglicans receive is bread and wine.
 
Couldn’t have said it better myself, for the RC position. Add some Anglicans have Eucharistic Adoration, for a completer picture. And not all Anglicans assume that they are can ordain invalid subjects.
 
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.
I’m not sure I agree with this. speaking from the RCC view. When the Anglican turned Catholic offers Mass is he at consecration doing what the RCC intends?
 
I’m not sure I agree with this. speaking from the RCC view. When the Anglican turned Catholic offers Mass is he at consecration doing what the RCC intends?
First of all, when a Catholic priest is ordained, he “is a priest forever” and never loses the faculties he’s given, even if he leaves the Church or is laicized.

Second, Canon Law Made Easy has addressed this situation. The Church doesn’t say much about it, but it appears that a Catholic priest who converted to Anglican (or Episcopal) could validly consecrate the Eucharist. I think him doing this would still be illicit and also, the article notes he would then be distributing the Body and Blood of Christ to non-Catholics who, under the Church rules, aren’t permitted to receive it. So it’s not a good situation.


Similarly, if a Catholic bishop were to convert to Anglican and then start ordaining Anglican priests, they might somehow be validly ordained as they’d have apostolic succession, and then they’d all be able to perform valid sacraments.
 
Last edited:
I’ve always wondered this. Because the priests aren’t of apostolic succession, does nothing happen when they do the consecration but everyone who believes in transubstantiation, thinks it does ? That makes me uncomfortable to think about
 
Yes. In that case, valid/illicit, from the RCC perspective. Assuming all other sacramental factors are valid.
 
Last edited:
Despite what any Anglican believes we Catholics believe that their orders are invalid. … Because Anglicans do not have valid orders they cannot celebrate a Mass and validly confect the Eucharist. Therefore, what Anglicans receive is bread and wine.
just to be clear, you are stating what Roman Catholics believe.

Anglicans otoh believe their orders are valid, and have a legitimate line of succession back to the Apostles. They believe they can celebrate a Mass and validly confect the Eucharist. What they receive is, in their eyes, the Body and Blood of Christ.

I think it is important that we remember this in our Discussions. Our differences
 
Couldn’t have said it better myself. And I’ve had lots of practice.
 
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.
Elizabeth’s concern wasn’t really about appeasing convinced Catholics. They were never going to be satisfied with anything less than what they had before. Her concern was the different Protestants in England. During Henry’s time, the prevailing Protestant views were Lutheran, but in Edward’s reign English Protestants were favoring an early form of Calvinism. Elizabeth was more conservative and was more attuned to Lutheranism. Her Settlement was an attempt to move the Church of England in a Protestant direction in a way that could keep both Reformed and Lutherans all in the same church. And if some church papists were mollified as well that was just a plus.
 
Last edited:
From the Episcopal Church’s Book of Common Prayer:
The Holy Eucharist

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, 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.

Q. What are the benefits which we receive in the Lord’s
Supper?
A. The benefits we receive are the forgiveness of our sins,

Catechism 859

the strengthening of our union with Christ and one
another, and the foretaste of the heavenly banquet which
is our nourishment in eternal life.
 
Also:
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.
 
The thing I have learned about Anglicans, especially having met lots of different kinds of Anglicans when I lived in England, is that it’s generally impossible to say what Anglicans believe. At one end of the scale, there are those who say that the Lord’s Supper is no more than a memorial, and this is why they celebrate it on a plain wooden table, the priest wears a scarf rather than a stole, etc. (In some extreme cases, the priest may just wear a suit and tie or the Lord’s Supper may even be celebrated by a layman, although this is technically forbidden.) At the other end of the scale, there are those who believe exactly what the Catholic Church says, which is why they have a stone altar with six candles, the priest wears vestments, they use incense, they genuflect, ring a bell, etc. And in between there will be all kinds of positions, but the main one is probably that Jesus is present in the Eucharist in some spiritual sense. Some will say that this spiritual presence of Jesus is real, whereas others will say that that is is merely symbolic. Some will say that the Eucharist in some way recalls the sacrifice on the cross, but few would say that it actually is the sacrifice on the cross.

I think one very important thing to understand is that Anglicanism and Catholicism often use very different kinds of language and very different philosophical concepts. (I think it would be fair to say that philosophy is not a big part of Anglican theology.) As you will know, the ways in which Catholicism explains transubstantiation are based on Aristotelian concepts of substance and accidents. Anglican theologians in general simply do not have these concepts available to them. I am sure that they understand them, but they don’t use them, they are not part of their vocabulary so to speak. It is therefore quite possible that a lot of Anglicans and a lot of Catholics may actually believe essentially the same things about the Eucharist, but the ways in which they conceptualize those beliefs and express them in language are not easily comparable.
 
I think it would be fair to say that philosophy is not a big part of Anglican theology.
That’s like saying the Bible isn’t a big part of Catholic theology: philosophy is immensely important to Anglican theology. The systematic enquiry into ontology and epistemology is a fundamental component of any cogent theological system, whether Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox.

Notable Anglican philosophers that are immediately apparent include John Milbank (a contributor to radical orthodoxy which uses postmodern philosophy to critique liberalism and modernity), CS Lewis (who doesn’t need an introduction), John Milton (author of Paradise Lost and noted for his political philosophy), Roger Scruton (aestheticist) amongst dozens of others.
 
Would this therefore also be the case in an Anglican setting?
You will get different answers from different people. The standard Catholic answer, I think, will be that transubstantiation doesn’t happen in any Anglican communion service, even when the celebrant is one of those Anglicans who think it does happen.
 
Last edited:
ust to be clear, you are stating what Roman Catholics believe.

Anglicans otoh believe their orders are valid, and have a legitimate line of succession back to the Apostles.
How can it be legitimate if disconnected from the Church?
 
That’s like saying the Bible isn’t a big part of Catholic theology: philosophy is immensely important to Anglican theology
I think it’s fair to say philosophy isn’t a big part of Protestant Theology. Luther described Reason as “The Devil’s Whore”. Protestant universities are not known for Philosophy, as many Catholic ones are.

To the extent Anglicanism is influenced by protestantism, it likely doesn’t emphasize Philosophy. Even C. S. Lewis cautioned against over analyzing things, including Eucharist

He wrote something to the effect that Christ’s instruction was “Take and eat”, not take and understand, or something. (Too lazy to get the specific citation).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top