Transubstantiation...Your Take?

[GKC]

I’ll add Moorman to my reading list.

You’re right about my lack of knowledge of Anglicanism, other than the Anglican church I joined just a few short years ago; we were then part of the Anglican Province of America, but my congregation split from that and joined a different group.

I do now have several books on CD about the 39 Articles, of varying length and purpose, some being introductions, others history, others expositions and commentaries. It takes a while for books to come in on interlibrary loan, so if there is anything on the list below you recognize and think might be helpful, I’ll start with it.

E. J. Bicknell–A Theological Introduction to the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England

T. P. Boultbee–An Introduction to the Theology of the Church of England in an Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion

E. H. Browne–An Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Aricles, Historical and Doctrinal

G. Burnet–An Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England

A. P. Forbes–An Explanation of the Thirty-Nine Articles

E. C. S. Gibson–The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England

E. T. Green–The Thirty-Nine Articles and the Age of the Reformation

C. Hardwick–A History of the Articles of Religion

E. A. Litton–Introduction to Dogmatic Theology on the Basis of the Thirty-Nine Articles

G. F. Maclear and W. W. Williams–An Introduction to the Articles of the Church of England

Thomas Rogers–The Catholic Doctrine of the Church of England; an Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles

W. H. G. Thomas–The Principles of Theology; an Introduction to the Thirty-Nine Articles

W. G. Wilson and J. H. Templeton–Anglican Teaching; an Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles

Not a one, other than Bicknell, though I predict they will date from the middle to late 19th century, with a few older, will reflect a general acceptance of them, and I congratulate you on your research. I’d take any of these for my library in a flash. Absorb these, and you will know more of the Articles’ history than I do.

But to discover the attitude of given Anglicans to them today, you’ll still have to ask.

I would add Aidan Nichols, THE PANTHER AND THE HIND, written by an erudite RC, on the CoE, and the felicitously named R. W. Church, THE OXFORD MOVEMENT, for more reading of use. If you can find Geoffrey Rowell’s THE VISION GLORIOUS, I’ve read it is of use, also, though I do not own it.

Good luck.

GKC

 

[Indifferently]

Transubstantiation simply cannot be proved by Scripture and directly overthrows the very nature of a sacrament by taking the sign for the thing signified. This is no means denying the Real Presence. It is simply to discount the scholastic, medievalist view which Rome has adopted. This is my Body, says the Lord. And so it is. And that is that. You may as well try to explain the incarnation.

 

[dshix]

Transubstantiation simply cannot be proved by Scripture and directly overthrows the very nature of a sacrament by taking the sign for the thing signified. This is no means denying the Real Presence. It is simply to discount the scholastic, medievalist view which Rome has adopted. This is my Body, says the Lord. And so it is. And that is that. You may as well try to explain the incarnation.

Jesus directly instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist at the Last Supper, saying “This is my Body,” and “do this in memory of Me.” How, may I ask, is that NOT implying transubstantiation?

 

[Indifferently]

Jesus directly instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist at the Last Supper, saying “This is my Body,” and “do this in memory of Me.” How, may I ask, is that NOT implying transubstantiation?

It does no such thing. Transubstantiation is a dogma developed entirely out of Greek pagan philosophy. The fact that elements are, elsewhere, referred to as Bread, not least by Paul, rather makes a nonsense of the amusing RC proclivity to refer to ‘the Host’ at great pains to suggest the Bread is in fact not Bread. Also funny that the Lord refers to what (again rather amusingly) RCs find themselves at great pains to call the ‘Precious Blood’ as ‘this fruit of the vine’.

 

[benjohnson]

Jesus directly instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist at the Last Supper, saying “This is my Body,” and “do this in memory of Me.” How, may I ask, is that NOT implying transubstantiation?

From a Lutheran standpoint, we have the Eucharist even if we don’t understand it.

For me, this is goes against my will, for I sometimes think that I’m clever enough to understand it - but thankfully I can’t. The fact that I can’t understand it fully bolsters the truth of it.

 

[JonNC]

It does no such thing. Transubstantiation is a dogma developed entirely out of Greek pagan philosophy. The fact that elements are, elsewhere, referred to as Bread, not least by Paul, rather makes a nonsense of the amusing RC proclivity to refer to ‘the Host’ at great pains to suggest the Bread is in fact not Bread. Also funny that the Lord refers to what (again rather amusingly) RCs find themselves at great pains to call the ‘Precious Blood’ as ‘this fruit of the vine’.

I think we can disagree with our Catholic siblings regarding Transubstantiation without referring to their belief as “nonsense” and “amusing”. The belief makes for more sense than that of those who reject the real presence.

Jon

 

[Indifferently]

I think we can disagree with our Catholic siblings regarding Transubstantiation without referring to their belief as “nonsense” and “amusing”. The belief makes for more sense than that of those who reject the real presence.

Jon

True, I apologize if my comments seem intemperate. I doubt spiritual harm could be occasioned by this error anyway, because if the believer worships the piece of bread truly believing it is in fact no longer bread but the substance of the thing is Christ himself, then he is not committing idolatry or another grave offence.

 

[dshix]

Indifferently,

Here is a clip from one of the CA resources:
Catholic Answers:

They say that in John 6 Jesus was not talking about physical food and drink, but about spiritual food and drink. They quote John 6:35: “Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.’” They claim that coming to him is bread, having faith in him is drink. Thus, eating his flesh and blood merely means believing in Christ.

But there is a problem with that interpretation. As Fr. John A. O’Brien explains, “The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense” (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3.

Fundamentalist writers who comment on John 6 also assert that one can show Christ was speaking only metaphorically by comparing verses like John 10:9 (“I am the door”) and John 15:1 (“I am the true vine”). The problem is that there is not a connection to John 6:35, “I am the bread of life.” “I am the door” and “I am the vine” make sense as metaphors because Christ is like a door—we go to heaven through him—and he is also like a vine—we get our spiritual sap through him. But Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, “For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (John 6:55).

He continues: “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me” (John 6:57). The Greek word used for “eats” (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of “chewing” or “gnawing.” This is not the language of metaphor.

 

[SteveVH]

It does no such thing. Transubstantiation is a dogma developed entirely out of Greek pagan philosophy. The fact that elements are, elsewhere, referred to as Bread, not least by Paul, rather makes a nonsense of the amusing RC proclivity to refer to ‘the Host’ at great pains to suggest the Bread is in fact not Bread. Also funny that the Lord refers to what (again rather amusingly) RCs find themselves at great pains to call the ‘Precious Blood’ as ‘this fruit of the vine’.

It is kind of funny isn’t it? Are you aware that before Henry decided to so his thing that you were all Catholic and believed exactly what you now mock? I would imagine that even Henry VIII believed in the real presence. You should remember that you are on a Catholic forum and the Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith. I don’t mind if people disagree but when you start mocking the Eucharist you are going too far.

 

[SteveVH]

True, I apologize if my comments seem intemperate. I doubt spiritual harm could be occasioned by this error anyway, because if the believer worships the piece of bread truly believing it is in fact no longer bread but the substance of the thing is Christ himself, then he is not committing idolatry or another grave offence.

You sound more like a Baptist than anything else. I would imagine your Anglican brothers and sisters squirm a bit when they read your posts.

 

[Indifferently]

It is kind of funny isn’t it? Are you aware that before Henry decided to so his thing that you were all Catholic and believed exactly what you now mock? I would imagine that even Henry VIII believed in the real presence. You should remember that you are on a Catholic forum and the Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith. I don’t mind if people disagree but when you start mocking the Eucharist you are going too far.

I am not mocking the Eucharist or the Real Presence. King Henry was in no ways a reformer and the Church of England’s doctrine owes nothing to him. I am pointing out that transubstantiation is wrong. It would not have been held by the Church Fathers. Christ is indeed present. But St Augustine of Canterbury said that taking signs for what is signified is an indicator of weakness and bondage. And he was right.

 

[Indifferently]

You sound more like a Baptist than anything else. I would imagine your Anglican brothers and sisters squirm a bit when they read your posts.

The Anglican view is this:

• That Christ is present in the Eucharist
• That those receiving in faith receive the Body and Blood of Christ
• That those receiving in unbelief or grave unrepentant sin are guilty of the body and Blood, discern not his body, and eat and drink damnation to themselves
• That the Eucharist is not merely a memorial but an active participation in Christ’s one perfect sacrifice on the Cross, uniting us with Christ and he with us

Baptist? I think not.

 

[Nicea325]

I am not mocking the Eucharist or the Real Presence. King Henry was in no ways a reformer and the Church of England’s doctrine owes nothing to him. I am pointing out that transubstantiation is wrong. It would not have been held by the Church Fathers. Christ is indeed present. But St Augustine of Canterbury said that taking signs for what is signified is an indicator of weakness and bondage. And he was right.

Your opinions have no bearing whatsoever on doctrine. Arianist also said Jesus divinity was wrong…did the church cater to their bogus beliefs? Nope!

Second, because the church fathers do not use the term does not mean it is false,which is your first error. Show me one verse where any of the Apostles uses the term Trinity and explain the Trinitarian doctrine in its full complexity?

 

[joe370]

Indifferently;10380152]I am not mocking the Eucharist or the Real Presence. King Henry was in no ways a reformer and the Church of England’s doctrine owes nothing to him. I am pointing out that transubstantiation is wrong. It would not have been held by the Church Fathers. Christ is indeed present.

You and I were not given the authority to say: the transubstantiation is wrong. Correct? Who was given the authority to make that judgement call? Name, and proof…

 

[Indifferently]

Your opinions have no bearing whatsoever on doctrine. Arianist also said Jesus divinity was wrong…did the church cater to their bogus beliefs? Nope!

Second, because the church fathers do not use the term does not mean it is false,which is your first error. Show me one verse where any Apostles uses the term Trinity?

Augustine of Hippo. And anyway, transubstantiation is interesting, only insofar as it is a relic of the kind of thinking which was at one time fashionable. Reducing the magnificent mystery of the Eucharist to an earthly philosophical construct is risky and unedifying business.

 

[SteveVH]

I am not mocking the Eucharist or the Real Presence. King Henry was in no ways a reformer and the Church of England’s doctrine owes nothing to him. I am pointing out that transubstantiation is wrong. It would not have been held by the Church Fathers. Christ is indeed present. But St Augustine of Canterbury said that taking signs for what is signified is an indicator of weakness and bondage. And he was right.

You’re not mocking us, you just find our beliefs about the Eucharist “amusing”. Well isn’t that cute.

Have you ever read the early Church Fathers?

St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 A.D.)
I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, WHICH IS THE FLESH OF JESUS CHRIST, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I DESIRE HIS BLOOD, which is love incorruptible. (Letter to the Romans 7:3)

Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: FOR THERE IS ONE FLESH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and one cup IN THE UNION OF HIS BLOOD; one ALTAR, as there is one bishop with the presbytery… (Letter to the Philadelphians 4:1)

They * abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. (Letter to Smyrnians 7:1)

St. Justin the Martyr (c. 100 - 165 A.D.)
We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [Baptism], and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined.

For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, AND BY THE CHANGE OF WHICH our blood and flesh is nourished, IS BOTH THE FLESH AND THE BLOOD OF THAT INCARNATED JESUS. (First Apology, 66)

Moreover, as I said before, concerning the sacrifices which you at that time offered, God speaks through Malachi [1:10-12]…It is of the SACRIFICES OFFERED TO HIM IN EVERY PLACE BY US, the Gentiles, that is, OF THE BREAD OF THE EUCHARIST AND LIKEWISE OF THE CUP OF THE EUCHARIST, that He speaks at that time; and He says that we glorify His name, while you profane it. (Dialogue with Trypho, 41)

St. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 140 - 202 A.D.)
…He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, “THIS IS MY BODY.” The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, HE CONFESSED TO BE HIS BLOOD.

He taught THE NEW SACRIFICE OF THE NEW COVENANT, of which Malachi, one of the twelve prophets, had signified beforehand: [quotes Mal 1:10-11]
. By these words He makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; BUT THAT IN EVERY PLACE SACRIFICE WILL BE OFFERED TO HIM, and indeed, a pure one; for His name is glorified among the Gentiles. (Against Heresies 4:17:5)

But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given IS THE BODY OF THEIR LORD, and the cup HIS BLOOD, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator… How can they say that the flesh which has been nourished BY THE BODY OF THE LORD AND BY HIS BLOOD gives way to corruption and does not partake of life? …For as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, IS NO LONGER COMMON BREAD BUT THE EUCHARIST, consisting of two elements, earthly and heavenly… (Against Heresies 4:18:4-5)

If the BODY be not saved, then, in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His BLOOD; and neither is the cup of the EUCHARIST THE PARTAKING OF HIS BLOOD nor is the bread which we break THE PARTAKING OF HIS BODY…He has declared the cup, a part of creation, TO BE HIS OWN BLOOD, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, HE HAS ESTABLISHED AS HIS OWN BODY, from which He gives increase to our bodies.

When, therefore, the mixed cup and the baked bread receives the Word of God and BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, THE BODY OF CHRIST, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, WHICH IS ETERNAL LIFE – flesh which is nourished BY THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD…receiving the Word of God, BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, WHICH IS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST… (Against Heresies 5:2:2-3)*

 

[GKC]

It is kind of funny isn’t it? Are you aware that before Henry decided to so his thing that you were all Catholic and believed exactly what you now mock? I would imagine that even Henry VIII believed in the real presence. You should remember that you are on a Catholic forum and the Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith. I don’t mind if people disagree but when you start mocking the Eucharist you are going too far.

Henry did. Are you familiar with the Six Articles?

GKC

 

[Nicea325]

Augustine of Hippo. And anyway, transubstantiation is interesting, only insofar as it is a relic of the kind of thinking which was at one time fashionable. Reducing the magnificent mystery of the Eucharist to an earthly philosophical construct is risky and unedifying business.

The kind of THINKING? Seriously? So at what point in time was the Trinity “thought” as fashionable? Augustine of Hippo uses the term Trinity? How centuries later after Jesus and the 12? How many church fathers before Augustine?

So you got a verse where one of the 12 uses the term Trinity?

 

[SteveVH]

Henry did. Are you familiar with the Six Articles?

GKC

I thought he did and no I am not familiar with the Six Articles.

 

[Indifferently]

You’re not mocking us, you just find our beliefs about the Eucharist “amusing”. Well isn’t that cute.

Have you ever read the early Church Fathers?

St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 A.D.)
I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, WHICH IS THE FLESH OF JESUS CHRIST, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I DESIRE HIS BLOOD, which is love incorruptible. (Letter to the Romans 7:3)

Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: FOR THERE IS ONE FLESH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and one cup IN THE UNION OF HIS BLOOD; one ALTAR, as there is one bishop with the presbytery… (Letter to the Philadelphians 4:1)

They * abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. (Letter to Smyrnians 7:1)

St. Justin the Martyr (c. 100 - 165 A.D.)*
We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [Baptism], and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined.

For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, AND BY THE CHANGE OF WHICH our blood and flesh is nourished, IS BOTH THE FLESH AND THE BLOOD OF THAT INCARNATED JESUS. (First Apology, 66)

Moreover, as I said before, concerning the sacrifices which you at that time offered, God speaks through Malachi [1:10-12]…It is of the SACRIFICES OFFERED TO HIM IN EVERY PLACE BY US, the Gentiles, that is, OF THE BREAD OF THE EUCHARIST AND LIKEWISE OF THE CUP OF THE EUCHARIST, that He speaks at that time; and He says that we glorify His name, while you profane it. (Dialogue with Trypho, 41)

St. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 140 - 202 A.D.)
…He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, “THIS IS MY BODY.” The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, HE CONFESSED TO BE HIS BLOOD.

He taught THE NEW SACRIFICE OF THE NEW COVENANT, of which Malachi, one of the twelve prophets, had signified beforehand: [quotes Mal 1:10-11]
. By these words He makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; BUT THAT IN EVERY PLACE SACRIFICE WILL BE OFFERED TO HIM, and indeed, a pure one; for His name is glorified among the Gentiles. (Against Heresies 4:17:5)

But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given IS THE BODY OF THEIR LORD, and the cup HIS BLOOD, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator… How can they say that the flesh which has been nourished BY THE BODY OF THE LORD AND BY HIS BLOOD gives way to corruption and does not partake of life? …For as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, IS NO LONGER COMMON BREAD BUT THE EUCHARIST, consisting of two elements, earthly and heavenly… (Against Heresies 4:18:4-5)

If the BODY be not saved, then, in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His BLOOD; and neither is the cup of the EUCHARIST THE PARTAKING OF HIS BLOOD nor is the bread which we break THE PARTAKING OF HIS BODY…He has declared the cup, a part of creation, TO BE HIS OWN BLOOD, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, HE HAS ESTABLISHED AS HIS OWN BODY, from which He gives increase to our bodies.

When, therefore, the mixed cup and the baked bread receives the Word of God and BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, THE BODY OF CHRIST, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, WHICH IS ETERNAL LIFE – flesh which is nourished BY THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD…receiving the Word of God, BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, WHICH IS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST… (Against Heresies 5:2:2-3)

Transubstantiation requires that the Bread and Wine be absent and the consecration having physically transformed the elements into the Body and Blood in substance. None of the Fathers you quote say that. You are conflating the Real Presence with Transubstantiation as if they are one and the same thing.