Transubstantiation in Anglicanism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Polak
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
When asked about Christ’s presence in the Sacrament, Queen Elizabeth supposedly responded, “Twas God the word that spake it, He took the bread and brake it, And what the word did make it, That I believe and take it.”
 
This is going to turn on the issue of valid orders, primus, and then the other sacramental factors secondarily. Valid sacramental intent, to do what the Church does in the sacramental action, is not sufficient.

Anglicans (selected) would agree.
 
Sursumcorda1 said:
40.png
Dovekin:
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.
Click to expand...
How can it be legitimate if disconnected from the Church?
Click to expand...
Would you ask that about the Patriarch of Constantinople or Moscow?

The line of succession is supposed to be the sign of connection with the Church. The question you are asking is probably better asked of those who chose to adopt a different standard, ie Leo XIII. Apostolicae Curae is largely a justification for ignoring the unbroken line of archbishops at Canterbury that goes back to St Augustine.

IOW, Anglicans believe in a historical unbroken line of succession. Catholics believe in a theological unbroken line of succession. The latter is the more difficult one to understand.
George Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne, was one of the great philosophers of the early modern period.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Click to expand...
English philosophy tends to differ from the Continental philosophy, but that can also be expressed as Anglican philosophers differ from Catholic philosophers. Many trends among Anglicans mirror English philosophy…
 
That’s ok.

“The command, after all, was Take, eat: not Take, understand.”

C. S. Lewis/ LETTERS TO MALCOLM: CHIEFLY ON PRAYER, chap. XIX, p. 104, 1st American ed.

It is likely Lewis’ position, but it isn’t Lewis own voice. The LETTERS are fictional, epistolary exercises in theological exposition.
 
Without quoting C. S. Lewis or any other named author, the same point has been made many times by commenters in earlier threads, over the years. Jesus said “Take it, eat it”; he didn’t say “Take it, analyze it,” or “Take it, quarrel about it.”
 
Last edited:
Apostolicae Curae is a long sad tale, mixing theology, history, personalities and politics. But what it tells RCs, faithful RCs should affirm.
 
Last edited:
GKMotley said:
Apostolicae Curae is a long sad tale, mixing of theology, history, personalities and politics. But what it tells RCs, faithful RCs should affirm.
Click to expand...
I agree. I am just saying its theological argument is harder to understand than the Anglican historical episcopate argument. AC is where you will find an explanation that answers the question I was asked.
 
Oh, I agree. Been contemplating the tale, from the first meeting of Halifax and Portal to the closing of the Malines Conversations, for 20 years and more.

Sad.
 
Last edited:
GKMotley said:
Add some Anglicans have Eucharistic Adoration, for a completer picture.
Click to expand...
Yes, I am aware of this. They have tabernacles, the reserved sacrament, sanctuary lamps, etc. They will often receive kneeling and as I tried to hint in my post may often show more respect to the sacrament than can sometimes be found in Catholic churches.

I also have no doubt as to the depth and sincerity of their belief. However, as a Catholic I am bound to accept Apostolicæ Curæ. I do believe it would be rather strange if as a Catholic, on a Catholic forum I were proposing anything other than Catholic doctrine. It is not done to be offensive but simply to state the facts.

I would hope that any non-Catholic who posts on CAF to expect to see Catholicism defended. I would anticipate, if I were to visit an Anglican, Orthodox, Jewish or Muslim forum to see their faiths defended thereon. I am sure you do understand this but I think it worth saying for those who may not.
 
We be of one blood, ye and I. In this, at least.

NB: At my parish, all receive the Body and Blood kneeling at the rail, save those physically unable to do so.
 
My impression is that all Catholics would agree on a single answer (namely the one in my post, except for a possible special case*), while there is no single answer that all Anglicans would agree on. I’ve never attempted to understand in any depth the differences between High Church, Low Church, and Broad Church, but I imagine you would have at least three irreconcilable answers there, for a start.

*The special case is the one @Tis_Bearself mentioned: an ordained Catholic priest who had left the Church and was now an Anglican minister. In this exceptional case, I can easily imagine that some Catholics would answer Yes and others No.
 
Last edited:
Again, that answer would be directed at the validity of the minister of the sacrament. All other factors then would have to be assumed to be valid, in addition.

The opinions amongst the Low/reformed/evangelical and the high church/Anglo-Catholic minds would be more distinct, but not necessarily totally uniform. IMO.
 
Inquiry said:
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.
Click to expand...
Your post is mostly dead-on, but I thought I’d clarify that it’s not as heterodox as individual Anglicans doing a pick-and-choose on personal Eucharistic beliefs. Like the Protestant churches, Anglicans divided into different sub-groups ranging from the Anglican Catholic Church to the Episcopal Church USA. Each of these churches defines what the Eucharist is and means. Example: http://www.anglicancatholic.org/believe?class=greenlink I will grant that Episcopal Church USA isn’t nearly as dogmatic; you’ll find a lot of individual beliefs under one roof.
 
Off topic, but arising from your last post: Edwin Hatch is conventionally classified as Broad Church, according to the terminology in use at the time. Where he would fit in, in terms of the present-day C of E? Are there still Anglicans who describe themselves as Broad Church?
 
I’m a great fan of Hatch’s books. Naturally that doesn’t mean I agree with every single word he wrote, but his whole approach to his subject is the right one, as I see it
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top